
Bank of Japan Is an Estimated Top 10 Holder in 90% of the Nikkei 225 - randomname2
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-24/the-tokyo-whale-is-quietly-buying-up-huge-stakes-in-japan-inc
======
poof131
This is ridiculous. It illustrates that most central banks’ primary mission
has become asset price inflation (primarily the stock market) more than
anything else. Pension funds, retirement savings, the top 1%’s majority of
assets, and so on are all in the market so governments of the world have
decided that the market shouldn’t go down, at least not very much.

So we are stuck at zero percent interest rates going negative. Give out the
money to keep the party going. Any hiccup in the markets and banks cut rates.
Our economies will continue to struggle with malinvestments until interest
rates are in a more reasonable long-term range and all the zombie businesses
can die and free up resources for stronger players. Amazing how supposed
proponents of ‘free markets’ try to micromanage entire economies.

~~~
KKKKkkkk1
Tangential question: One of HN's frequent subjects is the rapid rise in Bay
Area housing prices. Since real estate is an asset like any other, how does
the Fed's policy of inflating asset prices contribute to this phenomenon?

~~~
nickles
Real estate prices, as with all other assets, are a function of supply and
demand. In the case of San Francisco, supply has remained relatively constant
(due to stability in the housing stock) and demand has increased.

Without looking at the data, I'd imagine the recent explosion of the
technology industry in the Bay Area has been the largest driver of demand for
houses. An increased number of people moving to the area for employment will
naturally increase the demand for houses.

However, Fed policies also contribute to the demand for housing. As the Fed
has kept interest rates close to 0%, it is much easier to finance mortgages
for houses, so the housing becomes more affordable (when considering
amortization). Additionally, these policies have also driven investment into
higher yielding assets, such as equities, in search for greater return. This
has had the effect of increasing many individuals' wealth, making them more
capable of purchasing houses.

With increases in the ability to pay for housing (assuming housing is a normal
good), there will be an increase in demand for housing.

~~~
afiedler
The zero interest rate definitely does contribute, but a bigger deal for
mortgage rates is that the Fed continues to buy $24-26 billion a month in
mortgage-backed securities. It is keeping its total holdings of MBS constant,
but since total holdings are still over $1.7 trillion, that results in a lot
of purchases each month to cover the reduction in principal from people paying
off mortgages in existing MBS.

This article has a good explaination: [http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/16/why-the-
fed-move-doesnt-matte...](http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/16/why-the-fed-move-
doesnt-matter-to-mortgage-rates.html)

~~~
nickles
>The zero interest rate definitely does contribute, but a bigger deal for
mortgage rates is that the Fed continues to buy $24-26 billion a month in
mortgage-backed securities

I think you've got the right idea, but you are misinterpreting things
slightly. Purchasing MBS contributes to ZIRP (as opposed to serving a separate
policy objective). MBS are interest rate products based on mortgages instead
of US Government credit (although you can view MBS as a US Treasury + some
spread). In sustaining purchases of MBS (supporting their price), the Fed
drives down their yields (note that yields necessarily move inversely with
price). In effect, these purchases result in lower interest rates and go hand
in hand with ZIRP.

> that results in a lot of purchases each month to cover the reduction in
> principal from people paying off mortgages in existing MBS.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. A person's principal is only changed when
she makes a payment on the principal. Fed's purchases will affect the yield on
the MBS.

------
justsaysmthng
Meta comment / rant about the bloomberg website.

What's the matter with these web sites these days ?

When did everyone decide that good old _scrolling_ is too old fashioned, so
now the simple act of swiping the mouse to scroll down, results in totally
surprising and confusing consequences - such as resizing and moving the video,
pausing it if I scroll too much and then restarting it if I scroll back up..

Scrollbar position ? Ignore that - it tells you absolutely nothing - because
there is the mega cool "infinite scrolling" feature ! Which by the way
replaces current video with another one, which starts buffering and playback
starts only later, when I've scrolled away or switched tabs..

And of course there's the unscrollable, unremovable top header - a sort of
screen real estate tax you have to pay for the "bloomberg" logo and ..
Surprise ! A horizontal scrollbar showing the vertical position in current
article !

What a mess ...

Sorry for the rant, but I'm sure I'm not alone in my 'suffering' and this is a
trend I've noticed on many websites, since they copy each other anyway...

/Rant

~~~
Elessar
I caught this hint from HN comments, so I thought you might enjoy it. The
bookmarklet Kill Sticky Headers restores your ability to read using the space-
bar, removes annoying fixed objects etc. Once I started using the bookmarklet,
I couldnt stop:

[https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-
headers/](https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/)

~~~
ww520
This! Large sticky header is the worst design trend in web design. Google does
it too, Gmail, Groups. Google Groups is the worst with 3 levels of fixed large
headers, taking up 1/4 to 1/3 of the laptop screen.

Edit: Kill Sticky Headers doesn't work with them :(. Looks like they are
iframe. Is there a kill outer iframe?

------
chollida1
The biggest issue with this is that it distorts the market in a way that
normal quantitative easing doesn't. Normally the stock market prices are kept
in check with short sellers putting downward pressure on stocks that are
priced too high.

With the government buying so much, being long only, it makes it very hard for
a fund to short a stock. Its one thing to be right, but its another to try and
short a stock knowing that you've got the government taking the other side of
your trade. It doesn't matter what fund you are, they have more firepower than
you, which leads to decrease in short interest, which leads to an overall
inflation in market values that goes away the moment the markets get any hint
that the government will stop propping up prices.

Or put another way, the government is now in a position where they'll need to
keep on buying and holding the stock market forever.

Nothing about the Japanese stock market surprises me anymore.

Below is a good article illustrating how one leveraged ETF got so big that it
was literally moving the market at the end of ht day in its attempt to re
balance itself. Sort of a tail wagging the dog scenario.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-18/the-etf-
wh...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-18/the-etf-whale-blamed-
for-moving-japanese-markets-gets-reeled-in)

I guess the one good thing about Japan is that its essentially a petri dish
for maco economists and macro funds to experiment with to determine what the
US markets will look like if/when the US hits an end to its economic growth.

~~~
xiphias
QE and the banks buying stocks is the same thing: QE helps banks loan money
extremely cheap which they can use to long the stock market.

~~~
MichaelApproved
Aren't they free to do what they like with that cheap money? They can _short_
the stock market as well as many other things. There's no requirement to long
the market.

OP is saying the govt only buys which keeps underpinning the market higher.

On the other hand QE allows the market forces to do what it likes with the
cash which will more easily balance.

~~~
slv77
Shorting a stock would remove cash from the system which is essentially the
opposite of QE. To short a stock the short seller first "borrows" the stock
from another stock holder and then sells that stock on the open market. In
most cases the investor who the stock is borrowed from won't even be aware
that his stock has been loaned out to a short seller.

The effect is that there are now two individuals who believe that they own the
same share. From the perspective of the market the short seller has
effectively created shares out of thin air, sold the shares and is now sitting
on the cash.

When a central bank is the one shorting the market the effect is to pull cash
onto it's balance sheet which removes it from the economy which is
deflationary.

Interesting idea though! One that I hadn't considered as a tool for central
banks to constrain inflation.

------
mark_l_watson
I wonder if in the future we will look back on history and understand that
what is happening with Japan is just a natural result of transitioning to a
no-growth economy.

In the USA, everything is set up to require growth, or we get collapse. Except
for family owned businesses that tend to take a long term view and also modern
decentralized 'limited profit' companies (even better if their charters use
blockchain tech), all big business requires growth as does our government.

I know I am asking for a lot, but I would like to see a non-growth (or
cyclical growth) mindset become the new normal. This would require new ideas
about currency, the benefits of small local businesses over global businesses,
etc.

~~~
ihsw
Well, it's hard to argue that this is non-growth rather than negative-growth
masquerading as non-growth. There is a very strong argument that many corps in
Japan should've given way to market forces and died out, but they are instead
kept on life-support as a form of social welfare.

One has to wonder what the rationale for all of this is -- what are they
afraid of? If they are suddenly left to their own devices, are these people
going to starve to death? Has no-one ever been faced with the prospect of
having to find a new job?

Many nations on Earth are being confronted with the notion that larger and
larger sections of their society are now unemployable, and they are all
handling it differently. Japan seems to have been confronted with this sooner
than anybody else and they are choosing to keep their businesses afloat under
the assumption that they will not institute deep and painful budget cuts,
specifically slashing the employment workforce. And it looks like Japanese
corps are cooperating.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It's ironically Keynesian only without the potential benefits, because most of
the money is lost on play acting make-work and not on productive activity.

Even more ironically, it's practically nationalisation by the back door.

>Many nations on Earth are being confronted with the notion that larger and
larger sections of their society are now unemployable

 _People are not unemployable._ The problem is more that the current system
isn't smart enough to work out how they can be usefully employed.

Every country in the world has a huge amount of work that could be done -
infrastructure improvement, education, housing improvement, art and culture,
even software and startups.

But the current value system deems most of these activities "uneconomic"
because funding them would decrease the short-term net worth of a small number
of very wealthy individuals.

It's a nonsense reason, but it's going to be a problem until the value system
becomes intelligent enough to plan rationally for the medium and long term.

~~~
mjevans
Aside from 'benevolent dictatorships', maybe even questioning those as well,
has the 'value system' EVER been that intelligent?

------
wheaties
What bothers me more than anything outside of the conflation of "assets" such
as stocks and bonds as indicators of actual economic "growth" is that they are
placing an inter-generational bet:

They are using money today which must be paid back tomorrow. The people who
stand most to benefit are adults today. The people who stand most to lose are
their children's children.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Yes! You've hit the nail on the head! QE is indentured servitude of future
generations. Inflate assets younger members of society need (housing) or are
expected to purchase for retirement (equities), profit.

~~~
simonh
It's just the latest in a trend. Generous final salary pensions, inflationary
tax breaks and support for first time buyers, arguably even high spending on
geriatric health care. It all drives up prices and costs for the tax payers of
the future. Shame they don't have any votes to cast in today's elections.

~~~
poof131
I believe some of them do and that’s a major reason populist politicians are
becoming in favor. Would be interesting to see the average asset ownership
between supporters of the traditional candidates Clinton/Cruz and outside
candidates Sanders/Trump. My guess is that the bases for the latter candidates
(young/working-class) have a lot less ‘ownership’ and wouldn’t care too much
if the stock market and home prices where cut in half.

~~~
TorKlingberg
At least in the UK the populist UKIP gets a lot of votes from old people.

------
carsongross
We live in a world of extreme subjectiveness.

Cash flows are massaged and obfuscated. Dividends aren't paid, we are asked to
look, instead, at earnings yield, but not too closely. Non-GAAP earnings are
treated as first class citizens. Companies borrow money against themselves to
buy back their own stock, in a self-referential spiral. Meanwhile, governments
shamelessly intervene in the markets, to keep the (increasingly subjective)
prices high and the (objective) realized cash flow rate (dividends) low.

What is the value of any cash flow, with a 0% interest rate? With a negative
one? What is truth?

These are the crazy days.

~~~
chatmasta
We all die sometime, we just gotta keep kicking the can down the road until it
turns into a bucket!

~~~
toomuchtodo
Permission to steal this? :)

~~~
chatmasta
Haha, sure. Probably one of my proudest puns I've come up with. I posted it on
r/showerthoughts one time and got zero upvotes.... think it goes over a lot of
heads. :P

~~~
philovivero
What sort of epigenetic expression must there be for the can to suddenly turn
into a bucket?

And what does this mean to cancer research?

------
m52go
What's the end-game here?

Obviously their sovereign debt level is enormous too, but it's also mostly
purchased by the Bank of Japan. It's a ponzi scheme that's contained within
itself.

So it must mean Japan is heading toward a currency collapse, correct? They're
not going to default on their own debt since they own it all and can print
whatever they need to keep it serviced.

It seems to me that the markets will one day wake up and decide that the yen
is worthless...and that will cause ruckus.

~~~
cubano
Looking through the history of financial crisis, the end-game is pretty
obvious. Short-term, its a win for 401k holders and retirees so politically
its an easy sell.

However, sooner or later, all the dollars and yen that the government simply
prints to "buy" these securities will cause an inflationary spiral that will
lower the standard of living for the working classes, although the bankers and
politicians who created the programs will easily dodge those effects due to
their wealth and influence.

An interesting article on quantitative easing...
[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/031b49ec-c415-11e4-9019-00144feab7...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/031b49ec-c415-11e4-9019-00144feab7de.html)

~~~
runT1ME
I disagree that the correct term is 'dodge'. One argument against inflation
detractors is that Inflationary growth of the money supply helps those who
have debt the most. However, that doesn't end up being the working class, the
rich are much more heavily _leaveraged_ into assets that are protected against
inflation.

Inflation ends up being a wealth transfer from the working class to the rich.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
Deflation ( or low inflation ) works for the rich moreso because who do you
think holds all that debt? Mild inflation "ages out" the stock of debt.

We think 4% is a good rate of inflation for a recovery ( if a bit low ) but
we're unable to maintain even 2%. This is incredibly strongly correlated with
wealth inequality.

~~~
runT1ME
>Deflation ( or low inflation ) works for the rich moreso because who do you
think holds all that debt?

The...US Government. I do not agree at all 'deflation' works better for the
rich. I think you missed the part about being _leveraged_ into assets. That's
huge.

>but we're unable to maintain even 2%

Going by CPI? Take a look at the Dow and RE and tell me inflation is less than
2%.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
No, you're right - the principal benefactor is the government, but that's
pretty weird and unsustainable. Not to mention a massive conflict of interest.

Yes, by CPI. I think the rise in real estate is caused by the deflationary
nature of the rest of the economy. The Dow? That's just our standard
bellwether now.

------
josephlord
This is the way Europe and the US are going too with quantitive easing it is
just that Japan is a couple of decades ahead.

We need proper helicopter money (or a Modern Jubilee) going to the public to
spend not to purchase assets at the benefit of existing asset holders.

[http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/manifesto/](http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/manifesto/)
See - "A Modern Jubilee" (I'm not sure about the Jubilee Shares part though).

------
hudibras
_At an estimated 8.6 trillion yen as of March, the BOJ’s holdings amount to
about 1.6 percent of the total capitalization of all companies listed in
Japan. That compares with about 5 percent held by the nation’s Government
Pension Investment Fund. The central bank’s use of large-cap ETFs means its
positions are concentrated, with less impact on the thousands of Japanese
companies outside benchmark indexes._

Some additional context, from the article. This is not really a big deal.
Unusual, but not crazy.

------
calebgilbert
If nations want to nationalize their stock market it's good monetary policy.

If nations want to nationalize healthcare it's an improper manipulation of
free markets.

Simplification of above statements: $good = "logical monetary policy"; $bad =
"pinkie commie manipulation of free markets";

if ($policy leads to higher prices for my portfolio) { $good } else { $bad }

~~~
cloudjacker
No thats only a valid criticism of the US debates

~~~
dmix
Indeed, almost every other western country has socialized healthcare. The US
is only 300 million of them with particularly loud voices... and despite all
of the rhetoric, they have even deeper pockets to pay for healthcare than most
states with comparable tax regimes.

~~~
WildUtah
France, Japan, Germany, Spain, Canada, and Mexico don't have socialized health
care. Of the western countries, it's mostly just Britain that has socialized
health care.

Now a lot of those countries have universal access to health care. In fact,
all of them do. Every developed nation except the USA does.

But only one major western nation does to health care what the Bank of Japan
is doing to its stock market.

~~~
cloudjacker
I'm going to go on a limb and say that entirely depends on your definition of
socialized health care.

------
tim333
Seems pretty sensible policy to me. The expected return on the stocks if
probably something like 7%. The government can borrow at about 0%. Why not
borrow and buy stocks? I would if I could borrow in that way. Also it helps
the economy - win all round.

------
mc32
It's almost working out as a very slow nationalization process -which is not
what the Boj is looking for, so what's the endgame if they do end up
controlling sizable shares in companies? More or less of the concrete-
industrial-retirement complex?

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Japan has a lot of leading industries and a social contract that depends on
conglomerate careers for life. Nationalistic mercantilism makes enormous sense
in Japan.

~~~
mc32
It sort of does, if it worked more disinterestedly, however the way it works
grossly mismanages resources and is rife with corruption and you end up with
the concretization and tetrapodization of the shorelines and community centers
in the middle of nowhere. They could use these monies much more smartly.

~~~
yourapostasy
_> the concretization and tetrapodization of the shorelines and community
centers in the middle of nowhere_

I couldn't find a definition for "tetrapodization" in an economic or urban
planning context (one of the top Google hits is your post), can you please
offer a link that describes this effect upon the shorelines and community
centers you speak of?

~~~
krapp
"tetrapodization" probably refers to the large concrete "tetrapods" piled up
along Japan's shorelines as a preventative measure against erosion. Google
"japan tetrapod' and you can find a lot of references - here is a Pink
Tentacle article with a lot of pictures[0], and another article describing
them and their history.[1]

[0][http://pinktentacle.com/2008/08/photos-tetrapod-beaches-
of-j...](http://pinktentacle.com/2008/08/photos-tetrapod-beaches-of-japan/)

[1][http://www.mikesblender.com/tokyo_concretecoast.php](http://www.mikesblender.com/tokyo_concretecoast.php)

~~~
yourapostasy
Thank you much, that has got to be it. I found one 2011 estimate that the
shoreline tetrapods are $6K USD each, but I didn't find much in a cursory
search either for or against the evidence of tetrapods as useful erosion
control.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
Seems to me they're much the same as the riprap seawalls, jetties, and groynes
you'd find down the shore in parts of the US. They're pretty effective, and
USACE seems to approve of them being there.

------
ww520
This shows the need for basic income. Now the central banks are geared toward
giving money to the Have's, the people owning assets, by popping up the asset
price one way or the other.

Since the money need to be printed anyway, might as well give it directly to
ALL of the people. At least the money will be spent to drive the economy.
Printing money to pop up asset price just locks up the money in the asset and
won't be used.

------
randomname2
This news follows the recent disclosure that the BOJ is already an owner of
52%+ of all Japanese ETFs (and wants to own more). [1]

The BoJ is not the only central bank doing such purchases -- the Swiss
National Bank similarly owns over $100B in equities. [2]

In addition, central banks actively trade S&P 500 futures on Globex. [3]

[1] [http://asia.nikkei.com/Markets/Tokyo-Market/BOJs-stock-
portf...](http://asia.nikkei.com/Markets/Tokyo-Market/BOJs-stock-portfolio-
swells-to-10-trillion-yen)

[2]
[http://www.streetinsider.com/SEC+Filings/Form+13F-HR+Swiss+N...](http://www.streetinsider.com/SEC+Filings/Form+13F-HR+Swiss+National+Bank+For%3A+Dec+31/11274927.html)

[3]
[https://www.cmegroup.com/company/membership/files/CBIPFAQ.pd...](https://www.cmegroup.com/company/membership/files/CBIPFAQ.pdf)

~~~
spooz_trader
In regards to #3 & the central bank incentive structure.. I've seen this
behavior for quite sometime. Really since QE3 started.

I'm an S&P futures trader that trades many many thousands of contracts every
single year & hundreds per day based on real-time order flow. There is an algo
that was introduced around QE3 that I have made a tremendous amount of money
front running that I have called the "Fed bot". Obviously, this is anecdotal &
I have no proof but this bot only ever trades in one direction... long. It has
a clear & obvious fingerprint in the market when it is activated & absorbs a
huge amount of inventory followed by market order offer sweeps.

Often times on an intraday pattern with a "V" shape where a bottom was put in
is when I see this algo active. Admittedly, I've not seen it much in 2016 but
it has not gone extinct. Typically when volatility is lower is when I see it
in action & it's so obvious that I could show it to anybody watching in real-
time.

It never seems to desire a "best price" type of fill, rather its intentions
seem to be more like having a direct impact on the pricing mechanism of the
market. That is evident by the sweeping market orders clearing out the offers
resting in the order book & immediately moving up liquidity on the bid to
those new prices.

Could be conspiracy theory but I've been trading electronically for a long
time in a lot of markets & the S&P since QE3 has a new long only player that
has me suspicious.

------
zhte415
Central banks are very hesitant at being seen as a market maker, except in
money markets.

The article mentions these are being held as ETFs. In addition, the future
liabilities the central bank holds should be written-off against current
assets vs. future tax income required to fund these liabilities.

------
DonFromWyoming
It's called socialism folks. Government ownership of the means of production.
Full stop.

------
toomuchtodo
Let's not write off this extreme form of QE if Japan can keep its quality of
life high at the same time.

~~~
hashberry
Quality of life? Japan's poverty level is at record highs.[0]

 _" Bookshops advertise a slew of bestsellers on how to survive on an annual
income of under ¥2m ($16,700), a poverty line below which millions of Japanese
now live."_

[0][http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21647676-poverty-
worsens-...](http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21647676-poverty-worsens-more-
japanese-work-non-permanent-contracts-struggling)

~~~
HillaryBriss
The thing about this is that national poverty statistics don't tell the whole
story. They just offer a rough summary.

Things really are different in Japan, even in the impoverished parts. From the
same Economist article: "The country has long prided itself on ensuring that
none of its citizens falls between the social cracks. Japan’s orderly, slum-
free neighbourhoods seem to confirm that. Street crime, even in Kotobuki, is
minuscule. Unemployment is below 4% ... "

Compare that to the "choice parts" of downtown Los Angeles or the Tenderloin
in SF. Despite many decades of fighting poverty, many many people still fall
through the holes in the US social safety nets.

Japan also builds better cars.

~~~
toomuchtodo
This hits the nail on the head. As a US citizen who has lived in the US for 32
years, I'd rather live in poverty in Japan than middle class in LA, SF, or
NYC.

------
fiatmoney
How is this economically distinct from broad ownership of passively-managed
stock index funds?

------
grillvogel
the economic system of Japan is very different than in the US/Europe, I find
the east asian capitalism style preferable to what we have here.

~~~
dmix
You prefer supporting zombie companies and forcing your young creative class
away from being able to create disruptive startups in favour of being a
corporate cog [1] in the machine?

That is the life in Japan. It's not just a fear of failure preventing a
thriving entrepreneurial class from existing there. It's their economic
policy.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otWl3Zu1Mr4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otWl3Zu1Mr4)

~~~
grillvogel
I like the way that Japan is. I don't care about disruptive startups, and if
you think japan needs or wants "disruption" you clearly don't get it at all. I
like green tea that is made by a 300 year old company. Have you actually been
there or just watched stupid videos on the internet?

~~~
dmix
Fair enough, if they can stay in business.

The question is sustainability. Old institutions often reach points where
failure, or nearing failure, is the only way forward. So it can be rebuilt
into something better.

I see issues with the hyper speed that SV businesses have taken this to the
extreme but it's the middle ground that is healthy. The other extreme creates
the situation where always having a safety-net no matter what negative
downward problems or risks a company is taking creates dangerous moral hazards
[1] which compound on each other over time to create unavoidable economic
crises, as Wall st generated in 2008.

If you think the Japanese are immune to these moral hazards then you are
denying some core principles in human behavioural science.

Japan's core industry seems to be suffering a chronic illness which it's
continually trying to medicate instead of moving on and confronting the
future. Kicking the can down the road, as others have mentioned. Zombie
companies are just the obvious symptom as this dysfunction bubbles to the
surface.

Reality will come to bare eventually, it has to, economies cannot remain
disconnected from their own tangible output forever. The apparent stubbornness
of Japanese culture to maintain the status quo will likely mean it will be the
children of the current generation that will be the ones left to pick up the
pieces, so you can keep drinking your tea no doubt.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard)

~~~
grillvogel
maybe Japan will hire you to come fix everything since you seem to be an
expert on their situation

~~~
dmix
I'd rather go to China, I much prefer the loose-leaf tea that the Fujian
province outputs than any green tea I've tried out of Japan.

Plus they're not held back by stubborn short-sightedness masked as cultural
prestige.

------
liquidise
Can we please update this wildly sensational title? BoJ is a top 10 holder in
90% of Nikkei 225 stocks. That is 90% of 226 stocks [1], or, 203 in total.

The article states this clearly before the opening paragraph.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkei_225#Components](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkei_225#Components)

------
TheLogothete
What's up with titles on HN? Are you guys doing this on purpose?

>the monetary authority’s exchange-traded fund purchases have made it a top 10
shareholder in about 90 percent of the Nikkei 225 Stock Average

~~~
spyspy
Not sure why you're being downvoted. BofJ does not hold 90% of Japanese
stocks, just 90% of stocks in the Nikkei 225 index. Still interesting but very
misleading title.

~~~
lotharbot
it's not even that they hold 90% of stocks in the Nikkei 225.

It's that among 90% of the stocks in the Nikkei 225 (about 203 stocks), the
BoJ is one of the top-10 stockholders. Typically with large US stocks, the top
10 stockholders hold about 1-6% [0] -- so that implies, if the countries are
substantially similar, that the BofJ holds 1-6% of 90% of Nikkei 225 stocks,
or about 0.9-5% of total stocks in the Nikkei 225.

[0]
[http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=CSCO&ql=1](http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=CSCO&ql=1)
\-- type in any large stock you can think of; you'll probably see Vanguard,
T.Rowe Price, State Street, and a couple of other investment firms in the 1-6%
range.

------
franze
SPOF

