Been running the same insider screen every morning for two weeks, and the concentration in consumer staples keeps growing. Every beaten up food name I pull has people inside the company writing personal checks. Three I can't stop looking at.
$LW (Lamb Weston): JANA Partners, one of the better known activist funds, bought 386,000 shares between April 7 and April 15 at prices from $40.89 to $43.19. Roughly $16.07M in nine trading days. Form 4 filings from an activist at this size mean they've crossed the 10% beneficial ownership threshold. Two individual execs bought alongside in the same window. LW has been beaten up since 2024 on weak restaurant traffic and an overbuilt capacity cycle after the post COVID fry boom.
$CAG (Conagra): Directors Richard Lenny and John Mulligan bought 42,500 shares combined on April 14 at around $14.30. $609K from two different directors on the same day. Lenny is chairman. CAG has traded like a no growth name for months on soft volume and heavy promo.
$GO (Grocery Outlet): This one is a few weeks older but the cluster is absurd. Between March 6 and March 27, six different insiders (CEO Jason Potter, director Erik Ragatz, former CEO Eric Lindberg, three others) filed 15 open market buys totaling $7.93M. All at $5.72 to $7.06 right after the stock crashed 28% on Q4. $4B annual revenue on a $572M market cap.
Across three different companies, smart money keeps showing up at the bottom of beaten down food names. The bear narrative on staples has been the trade for two years. If insiders and activists are stepping in coordinated at these levels, someone inside might be calling the turn early.
What would make any of these a pass for you?
Source for the filing data: SEC Form 4 filings aggregated through altindex
Every consumer staples name I screened this month has insider buying. Here are the 3 beaten-down food plays smart money keeps stacking.
byu/Reasonable-Hold-1079 ininvesting
Posted by Reasonable-Hold-1079
4 Comments
Don’t own those specific names but I like this sector as well.
You ever work for as boss who thought they were doing well and had a strong conviction they are doing well, but actually they just aren’t good at their jobs?
Just cause the execs are buying stock doesn’t mean it will win. They may just be bad with blinders on. Also probably realize showing a strong conviction is their best bet to show the board and save their job.
AI slop and I really applaud the false appeal to authority that calling the AI’s thesis “smart money” provides. Really helps us to know who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
> smart money keeps showing up at the bottom of beaten down food names.
That is just absurdly silly.
Maybe they are just down over 50% the past three years because the market believes they deserve to be.