That .8% institutional ownership, if correct and all things being equal... is a red flag. A BIG red flag at that level. Maybe a misprint huh? If not.... I wouldn't touch it. Its got fleas.
Long stort short, I don't touch any shares where they have large operations in foreign countries (ESPECIALLY 3rd world....) I don't touch any shares where 1 or more related shareholders are approaching or exceed the 50% level. I have further criteria but not going to explain as this is a short story version.
Isn't this just because the majority (92.20%) of shareholders are insiders, which doesn't leave much for the institutions?
Well, see if 92% of a company is owned by insiders, there is no reason to take it public in the first place right? That said, I do not know any of the details of this company so I could be way off here, I don't know how things are done in China, but lack of institutional ownership where a few parties own all the stock is typical of a shell corporation. Now mind you, while that term invokes a negative connotation, there are plenty of legit shells out there. They exist for a multitude of reasons.
On the ASX I've noticed companies which have a heavy Asian influence (directors or shareholdings) they underperform. Carry low PE's and stock prices appear to languish for the most part.