Corporate Profile
Investor Overview
Corporate Profile
Officers & Directors
Corporate Governance
Committee Composition
Contact the Board
Presentations
Investor FAQs
Stock Information
Stock Quote
Historic Prices
Financial Calculators
SEC Filings
Documents
Insider Filings
Insider Ownership
Institutional Ownership
Financial Information
Financial Highlights
Balance Sheet
Income Statement
Peer Analysis
News & Market Data
News
Event Calendar
Mergers & Acquisitions
Analyst Coverage
Other Information
Information Request
Email Notification
Priority Engine Login
Languages
Français
Deutsch
Global Markets
Artboard 2
Why TechTarget
Overview
Audiences
Purchase Intent
Intent-driven Services
Solutions
Tech Marketing
Enhance Your Contact Database
Build Awareness
Generate Better Leads
Drive In-person Event Attendance
Deliver Virtual Events
Convert Website Visitors
Enable Sales/Channel
ABM
Enhance Target Account Lists
Prioritize Target Accounts
Engage Target Accounts
Uncover Buying Team Contacts
Measure Success
Partner Marketing
Technology Alliance Partner Marketing
Channel Strategy & Partner Go-to-Market
Channel Partner Sales Enablement
Channel Partner Recruitment
Tech Sales
Prioritize Outreach
Reach the Right Prospects
Improve Response Rates
Access Live Projects
Generate Meetings & Opps
Intent-driven Services
Marketing Enablement
Sales Acceleration
Market Intelligence
Products
Demand Gen & ABM
Priority Engine
Lead Generation
Contact Data Services
Brand Consideration
Data-Driven Display
Custom & Native Web Sites
Sales Enablement
Sales-Quality Leads
Priority Engine
Market Intelligence
Custom Research
Activity Matters: Identify and Engage the Most Active Buyers in B2B Tech
If you want to reach prospects who’ll actually respond, Activity Matters. That’s why TechTarget’s Active Prospects are 7X more likely to click on your emails, 75% more likely to accept a meeting, and 2X more likely to turn into pipeline. Watch this video to learn how TechTarget can help you identify and engage the most active buyers in B2B tech.
Watch Now
Customers
Case Studies
Reviews
Resources
Articles
Blog
Case Studies
E-books
Infographics
Knowledge Sharing
Presentations
Product Sheets
Research/Analysis
Videos
Webinars/Events
Company
Overview
Press Room
Careers
Editorial
Contact Us
Investor Relations
Languages
Français
Deutsch
Global Markets
Product Demo
Why TechTarget
Overview
Audiences
Purchase Intent
Intent-driven Services
Solutions
Overview
Tech Marketing
ABM
Partner Marketing
Tech Sales
Intent-driven Services
Products
Customers
Overview
Case Studies
Testimonials
Reviews
Resources
Resource Library
Blog
About
Overview
Events
Press Room
Careers
Editorial
Contact Us
Global
Français
Deutsch
Global Markets
Investor Relations
Product Demo
Institutional Ownership
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
,
© Powered By Q4 Inc.