Hey @edgescape,

I can’t add to your list but I can tell a little war story that has made me take notice of how much skin in the game a company CEO has, which hopefully some others may learn from or perhaps take more seriously:

I bought into Eastside Distilling (NASDAQ: EAST) which is a small, boutique alcohol and canning company in Portland, Oregon. From a n investment standpoint It’s basically a turnaround play that’s (hopefully) still playing out. I’ll keep it short, but the company has a long history of mismanagement. A new CEO was appointed who has a very impressive resume in the alcohol industry, including high level positions at Heineken among others very large multinationals, and he put together an equally impressive team around him. They put together a 3 year turnaround plan to get this beaten down little company into a dominant position in their niche in their part of America. Anyway, I bought in after the new management had sold a good story and the stock had been beaten down so hard I thought the risk v reward was favourable. The new CEO had no skin in the game and suddenly he leaves. No explanation, no nothing. The stock price takes another genuine hiding and market sentiment is still pretty bad. I still hold because I think the interim CEO is actually breathing life into the company and is carrying out the original 3 year plan. But The risk is very high. My point is that if a CEO doesn’t have financial/emotional/reputational skin in the game then I’m fairly likely to pass, despite how compelling the opportunity may sound. Ideally the company is founder-led in my opinion. You can get burnt like I and others have, with very little explanation or closure as to why. And clearly it does happen. So my emphasis on this is now much bigger than it previously was. We Live and learn. 

Thanks for the ideas

Another obvious one has to ASM. Although Gandel has spent loading up on the capital raising, Rowena continues to have no holding. Ex director Goodall still has a small holding.

Also M7T on the list. The CEO has a holding but quite small and has sold a few times once the rights are converted to shares.

It's one thing putting me off from putting money into Mach7 although I noticed AEF has averaged down their holding.

I remember someone (maybe Claude) said their service it is a cheap version of PME

Stocks with low ownership seem to be very hard to find.

Would be interesting to find out which initially had low ownership managed to do well in the end.

A few more I found

Vita Group - VTG

Adrad Holdings - AHL (profitable but not sure about the business selling aftermarket car radiators - trying to pivot into the hydrogen energy industry)

Also clarifying that M7T CEO has 300K shares. Not small, but not large either.

Found a few others when tracking some director buys

Humm Group - HUM

Ardent Leisure - ALG

However, both had some non exec director buys. Also 1851 Capital mentioned ALG as one of their holdings in Ausbiz.

Just found NXD (formerly icollege)

Glenn elith has no holding so he must be relying on performance rights. Did have a bumper quarter though...

Bulletin Resources ASX:BNR

Also noticed ASM has rallied quite hard from the lows. However Rowena still hasn't got any holding and did not participate in the capital raising.

After resignation of Biggins, the incoming CEO of CXO (Core Lithium) Gareth Manderson has no holding.

Peter Reid reappointed as CEO of Petratherm (PTR)

And have to add he has no shares

Could explain the share price weakness.

Worryingly i still hold

I have seen many companies I own and don't that have hardly or no insider holdings. I do find it frustrating and nonsensical when I see directors leaving and their appendix lodged show 0 shares held. It really shows or at least sends a statement in my opinion if executives or the board who have been there for so long haven't a single share to their name. I mean logically, if you believe the story on how you will 'deliver' growth or shareholder value, why would you have no shares

I can't think of a valid reason apart from not wanting to tie their wealth up with their day job for not holding any equity. Then again, this shouldn't be a worry if their interests and faith in the business are positive. So net-net, I find it a negative.

Edit: Those gifted shares regularly don't count. And if anything I find this jus tas frustrating seeing free shares dished out but never any equity purchases or 'wallet where their mouth is' purchases.

Correction: After checking another source, apparently Glenn does have a holding. However he did sell recently.

Seems that marketindex is not updated properly (asx nxd).