Independent investment research

AHNIM STUDIO

AI · Semiconductors · Space · Fintech · Real Estate

,

Q2 2026 13F Weights vs Shares: 244 Positions Moved in Opposite Directions

Across 1,266 clean continuous Q1-to-Q2 2026 13F positions with changed share counts, 244 moved in the opposite direction by manager-relative portfolio weight.

AHNIM STUDIO

Black-and-white AHNIM Studio editorial illustration of an uneven balance holding stock certificates and portfolio filing folders, representing divergent share-count and portfolio-weight directions.

Reviewed November 13, 2026. This study compares public Form 13F positions for the quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2026.

When disclosed share counts changed, did the position’s weight in the same manager’s eligible 13F equity book move the same way? Not always. Across AHNIM Studio’s fixed 17-manager panel, 244 of 1,266 clean continuous manager–issuer observations with a share-count change—19.27%—moved in the opposite direction by portfolio weight. Those mismatches carried $68.63 billion, or 27.82% of Q2 value within the share-changing continuous set.

There were 120 cases where shares rose but manager-relative weight fell, and 124 where shares fell but weight rose. This is not a contradiction in the filing. Share count is a quantity; reported value also reflects the quarter-end price, while portfolio weight divides that value by the manager’s entire eligible reported-equity denominator. The result is a direct warning against reading “more shares” as “more portfolio importance,” or “fewer shares” as “less portfolio importance.”

One in five share-count changes opposed the weight move

Q1→Q2 share-count directionWeight fellWeight roseTotal
Fewer shares533 / $87.55bn124 / $38.11bn657 / $125.66bn
More shares120 / $30.52bn489 / $90.54bn609 / $121.06bn
Unchanged shares94 / $156.63bn31 / $72.08bn125 / $228.70bn
Cells show manager–issuer observations / Q2 reported value. Bold cells are the two opposite-direction groups. Unchanged-share positions are shown for context but are not counted as “opposite.” Source: 35 SEC information tables; AHNIM Studio calculations.

The comparison set contains 1,397 continuous manager–issuer observations. Six class-transition or conflicting-class cases remain in a mixed bucket, leaving 1,391 clean observations: 1,266 with a share-count change and 125 with an unchanged count. Within the 1,266 share-changing observations, 1,022 moved in the same direction by weight and 244 moved in the opposite direction. The opposite group was 13.46% of the full panel’s $509.93 billion Q2 eligible reported-equity denominator, but the more relevant comparison is 27.82% of value within clean, continuous positions whose shares actually changed.

Dumbbell chart comparing, for each of 17 institutional reporting groups, the share of clean continuous share-changing observations and Q2 reported value whose share-count direction opposed the portfolio-weight direction.
The filled point is the observation share; the outlined point is the Q2 value share. Both denominators use only clean continuous positions whose share counts changed. Q2 value is quarter-end reported fair value, not purchase value.

The mismatch varied sharply by manager

ManagerShare-changing observationsOpposite directionObservation shareQ2 value share
Dalal Street3266.7%73.9%
Altimeter8562.5%68.9%
Pershing Square7457.1%65.2%
Situational Awareness14750.0%10.8%
ARK1656438.8%46.2%
Tiger Global26934.6%53.6%
Bridgewater7649212.0%22.8%
Fundsmith25312.0%6.5%
Soros Fund Management1151311.3%21.9%
Selected observations from the full 17-manager chart. Dalal Street, Altimeter and Pershing Square have small denominators, so their percentages should not be compared with Bridgewater’s 764 observations as if precision were equal.

The two views can also disagree within a manager. Situational Awareness had opposite directions in half of its changed observations, but those rows were only 10.8% of Q2 value in the same set. Tiger Global’s nine mismatches were 34.6% by count but 53.6% by value. The difference is concentration: one large position can matter far more to the value-weighted result than several small positions.

Micron, NVIDIA and Sandisk show three routes to divergence

Manager / issuerReported sharesReported valueManager weightWhy it qualifies
Appaloosa / Micron (MU)1.665m → 0.975m
−41.4%		$562.5m → $1.125bn10.03% → 16.12%
+6.09 pp		Shares fell; weight rose
Altimeter / NVIDIA (NVDA)9.336m → 9.414m
+0.8%		$1.628bn → $1.884bn28.57% → 19.16%
−9.41 pp		Shares rose; weight fell
Whale Rock / Sandisk (SNDK)0.800m → 0.597m
−25.4%		$508.0m → $1.356bn6.56% → 10.89%
+4.33 pp		Shares fell; weight rose
Values and weights use the quarter-end disclosures and AHNIM’s eligible operating-company equity denominator. The filing does not reveal transaction timing, cost or motive.

Appaloosa’s Micron share count fell 41.4%, yet reported value doubled and weight rose 6.09 percentage points. Altimeter’s NVIDIA shares increased slightly and value rose 15.7%, but weight fell 9.41 points because Altimeter’s eligible reported-equity denominator grew from $5.70 billion to $9.83 billion. Whale Rock disclosed fewer Sandisk shares while value and weight both rose sharply. None of these observations proves when a trade occurred or why the manager changed a position.

This is a different question from value buckets or issuer consensus

Our earlier Q2 value-mix study measured where Q2 reported dollars sat across more-share, fewer-share, unchanged and first-reported filing states. This analysis asks whether the direction of a clean continuous position’s quantity agreed with the direction of its manager-relative weight.

The result also complements our cross-manager issuer-direction study, the semiconductor position-and-value bridge and the earlier finding that holder breadth did not always imply portfolio weight. Together they separate three questions that are often blended: how many managers held an issuer, how its disclosed share count changed and how much of each manager’s eligible reported value it represented.

Method: quantity direction versus manager-relative weight direction

  • Panel: Berkshire Hathaway; Pershing Square; Dalal Street; Appaloosa; Greenlight/DME; Fundsmith; Third Point; the Icahn reporting group; Soros Fund Management; Bridgewater; ARK; Tiger Global; Coatue; Altimeter; Whale Rock; Situational Awareness; and Light Street. Congressional filers are excluded.
  • Periods and source set: quarter ends March 31 and June 30, 2026; 35 official information tables because Pershing Square’s Q1 comparison uses two complementary reporting entities.
  • Eligible securities: operating-company common equity, ordinary shares, ADRs, REITs and operating-partnership equity. Funds, options, debt/principal positions, warrants, preferred/depositary equity, commodity trusts and dated equity units are excluded.
  • Manual corrections: Bridgewater’s Global X Uranium ETF and Soros Fund Management’s Oracle depositary preferred security are removed in both quarters.
  • Quantity direction: as-filed SH quantities are compared at the common-stock CUSIP/class level before rolling to an issuer. A continuous issuer is up, down or unchanged only when the class evidence is clean. Six identifier/class transitions or conflicting-class cases stay mixed and are excluded from the agreement rate.
  • Weight: issuer reported value divided by the same manager’s eligible operating-company equity value for the same quarter: wm,i,t = Vm,i,t / ΣjVm,j,t.
  • Direction threshold: any non-zero disclosed change determines direction; no economic-materiality threshold is imposed. Seventy-six of 244 opposite observations moved by less than 0.01 percentage point and represented 0.97% of the opposite group’s Q2 value.
  • Opposite: shares up with weight down, or shares down with weight up. Unchanged shares are described separately.

The SEC requires Form 13F to report the number of shares and quarter-end fair market value. Those fields answer different questions. The weight calculation adds a third moving part—the manager’s denominator. Therefore, the analysis does not isolate price return, cash flow or trading. It only reconciles two observable directions inside the same normalized disclosure set.

Why Q3 is not substituted for a complete panel

The SEC’s current filing calendar sets the Q3 2026 Form 13F deadline at November 16, 2026. As reviewed on November 13, a matched 17-manager Q3 panel was not yet available. A deadline is not a filed portfolio, and early submissions from part of the panel would not be a like-for-like comparison. We therefore preserve the Q1-to-Q2 baseline until the Q3 source set and any amendments can be verified.

What this analysis cannot show

Form 13F does not disclose transaction dates, purchase prices, manager intent, short positions, non-13F assets or complete portfolios. A higher share count does not prove a bullish decision, a lower count does not prove a bearish decision, and a larger weight does not equal a positive return. Quarter-end values combine price and quantity; manager-relative weights also move when other reported holdings change. Summed panel value is not unique AUM because the same issuer can appear across managers. This analysis is for information and education, not investment advice.

For the fixed-panel definition, manager histories and other statistical studies, see the AHNIM Studio Guru hub.

Three findings to retain

  • 244 of 1,266 clean continuous share-changing observations—19.27%—moved in the opposite direction by manager-relative portfolio weight.
  • The opposite group carried $68.63 billion, or 27.82% of Q2 value within the share-changing continuous set.
  • Altimeter’s NVIDIA shares rose while weight fell 9.41 percentage points; Appaloosa’s Micron shares fell while weight rose 6.09 points.

Sources and original documents

Accessed November 12–13, 2026. Primary links below are direct SEC EDGAR documents. AHNIM Studio owns the security eligibility, issuer reconciliation, class-transition quarantine, weight calculation and direction comparison.

For sources, valuation assumptions, and material revisions, see the notes within this analysis.

Investment disclaimer

AHNIM STUDIO’s articles provide general investment research for informational and educational purposes. They are not personalized investment, legal, or tax advice, and do not constitute an offer or solicitation to buy or sell securities. Our analysis does not consider your financial situation, objectives, or risk tolerance.

Information, opinions, and estimates reflect the stated analysis date and may change. We do not guarantee accuracy, completeness, future performance, or investment returns. Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of all invested capital.

Before investing, independently review original company filings and the latest information, assess the risks and suitability for your circumstances, and seek qualified professional advice when needed. You are responsible for your investment decisions.

To the extent permitted by applicable law, AHNIM STUDIO and its contributors disclaim liability for losses arising from reliance on this content. This notice does not exclude or limit any liability or rights that cannot legally be excluded or limited.