Back to the Corporate Site
Corporate Profile
Home
Overview
Corporate Profile
Officers & Directors
Committee Charting
FAQs
Mergers & Acquisitions
Contact Us
Corporate Responsibility
Corporate Responsibility Report
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Index
Anti-Money Laundering
Corporate Governance
News & Events
Press Releases
Event Calendar
Presentations
Stress Test Results
Meeting of Shareholders
Stock Info
Stock Quote
Historical Prices
Covering Analysts
Market Makers
Dividends for Common & Preferred
Dividend Reinvestment Program
Transfer Agent For Common and Preferreds
Capital & Credit Ratings
Capital Offerings
Credit Ratings
Financial Info
Financial Highlights
As Reported Financial Statements
Loan and Deposit Composition
Peer Analysis
Basel III Regulatory Capital Disclosures
Filings
Annual Reports
Quarterly Reports
Insider Ownership
Institutional Ownership
Documents
Section 16
Resources
Information Request
Email Notifications
IR Site Map
Home
News
Our Companies
More About Us
Careers
Institutional Ownership
Investor Toolkit
Investor Search
Entire IR Site
Documents
Press Releases
Ownership > 100%
Ownership > 100%
List of possible reasons behind the infrequent cases where we have total institutional ownership that exceeds 100% of the common shares outstanding for a specific company:
Double-counting
- On the 13-F filing, each institutional holder must report all securities over which they exercise sole or shared investment discretion. In cases where investment discretion is shared by more than one institution, care is generally taken to prevent double-counting, but there is always the exception. Another cause of double-counting is a company name change for the 13F filer where the holdings are accounted for under both filer names.
Short Interest
- A large short interest amount affects the institutional ownership amount considerably because all shares that have been sold short appear as holdings in two separate portfolios. One institution has lent its shares to a short seller, while the same shares have been purchased by another reporting institution. Consequently, the institutional ownership percentage reflected in the 13-F filings is overstated as a percentage of total shares outstanding.
A gap between 'as of' dates
- In the case where gaps between the 'as of' dates of the holdings and the shares outstanding arise, the percentage owned could be skewed due to a sharp increase/decrease in shares out. Again, this case doesn’t come up very often but the results are unavoidable.
Other possible reasons:
a) An overlap occurs amongst reporting institutions;
b) The 13F filing includes holdings other than common stock issues;
c) Mutual fund money is co-advised and incorrectly reported by multiple institutions.
Copyright
,
© Supported By Q4 Inc.