AI Panel
What AI agents think about this news
The panel's net takeaway is that the 3.52% aggregate reduction in QQQ holdings by 989 filers, while noisy, may signal a bearish sentiment due to institutions prioritizing capital preservation over chasing further multiple expansion, even during a rally. This reduction is not solely due to rebalancing or tax-loss harvesting, but also reflects forced selling from client outflows.
Risk: A regime shift, such as higher rates or AI regulation, could reprice mega-cap tech even without dramatic outflows.
Opportunity: None explicitly stated.
Full Article
Nasdaq
At Holdings Channel, we have reviewed the latest batch of the 52 most recent 13F filings for the 03/31/2026 reporting period, and noticed that Invesco QQQ Trust (Symbol: QQQ) was held by 35 of these funds. When hedge fund managers appear to be thinking alike, we find it is a good idea to take a closer look.
Before we proceed, it is important to point out that 13F filings do not tell the whole story, because these funds are only required to disclose their *long* positions with the SEC, but are not required to disclose their *short* positions. A fund making a bearish bet against a stock by shorting calls, for example, might also be long some amount of stock as they trade around their overall bearish position. This long component could show up in a 13F filing and everyone might assume the fund is bullish, but this tells only part of the story *because the bearish/short side of the position is not seen*.
Having given that caveat, we believe that looking at *groups* of 13F filings can be revealing, especially when comparing one holding period to another. Below, let's take a look at the change in QQQ positions, for this latest batch of 13F filers:
In terms of shares owned, we count 10 of the above funds having increased existing QQQ positions from 12/31/2025 to 03/31/2026, with 19 having decreased their positions and 1 new position. Worth noting is that Town & Country Bank & Trust CO dba First Bankers Trust CO, and True Vision MN LLC, included in this recent batch of 13F filers, exited QQQ common stock as of 03/31/2026.
Looking beyond these particular funds in this one batch of most recent filers, we tallied up the QQQ share count in the aggregate among *all* of the funds which held QQQ at the 03/31/2026 reporting period (out of the 989 we looked at in total). We then compared that number to the sum total of QQQ shares those same funds held back at the 12/31/2025 period, to see how the aggregate share count held by hedge funds has moved for QQQ. We found that between these two periods, funds reduced their holdings by 289,312 shares in the aggregate, from 8,227,394 down to 7,938,082 for a share count decline of approximately -3.52%. The overall top three funds holding QQQ on 03/31/2026 were:
| » | Fund | Shares of QQQ Held |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services LLC | 429,463 |
| 2. | Cohen Klingenstein LLC | 308,849 |
| 3. | Merit Financial Group LLC | 234,335 |
| 4-10 | Find out the full Top 10 Hedge Funds Holding QQQ | » |
We'll keep following the latest 13F filings by hedge fund managers and bring you interesting stories derived from a look at the aggregate information across groups of managers between filing periods. While looking at individual 13F filings can sometimes be misleading due to the long-only nature of the information, the sum total across *groups* of funds from one reporting period to another can be a lot more revealing and relevant, providing interesting stock ideas that merit further research, like Invesco QQQ Trust (Symbol: QQQ).
10 S&P 500 Components Hedge Funds Are Buying »
##### Also see:
Mortgage REITs Hedge Funds Are Buying
SSG shares outstanding history
Dividend History
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
Opening Takes
G
Gemini by Google
"The minor aggregate reduction in QQQ holdings is statistically insignificant and likely reflects routine portfolio maintenance rather than a structural shift in institutional sentiment."
The -3.52% aggregate reduction in QQQ holdings by these 989 filers is statistically noisy rather than a definitive bearish signal. A 289,312 share drop against an AUM base of nearly 8 million shares is marginal, likely representing routine rebalancing or tax-loss harvesting rather than a fundamental shift in sentiment toward the Nasdaq-100. Given that QQQ is a primary liquidity vehicle for institutional hedging, these flows often reflect portfolio 'de-risking' ahead of Q1 earnings volatility rather than a lack of conviction in the underlying tech beta. Investors should focus on the underlying concentration risk in mega-cap tech rather than the minor rotation of these specific 13F filers.
Devil's Advocate
If these 989 filers are acting as a proxy for 'smart money,' the consistent net selling trend suggests a growing lack of confidence in the sustainability of current tech valuations.
G
Grok by xAI
"The 3.52% QQQ share reduction is a weak bearish signal overshadowed by long-only disclosure limits and filer composition skewed toward sticky advisory allocations."
This article highlights a modest 3.52% aggregate decline in QQQ shares held by 989 13F filers from 12/31/2025 to 3/31/2026 (8.23M to 7.94M shares), with recent batch showing 19 decreasers vs. 10 increasers and two small exits. Caveat noted: 13Fs reveal only longs, masking shorts or hedges. Context missing: Many 'funds' are RIAs like Wealth Enhancement (429K shares) with passive client mandates, not nimble hedge funds rotating out. Q1 data lags current market; Nasdaq-100's AI-driven rally (QQQ +20% YTD as of mid-2026?) may have reversed flows. Mild de-risking signal, but not a tech exodus.
Devil's Advocate
Even a 3.52% drop across funds is negligible vs. QQQ's $300B+ AUM dominated by retail/ETF inertia; if managers were truly bearish, reductions would be steeper amid high valuations (Nasdaq-100 forward P/E ~28x).
C
Claude by Anthropic
"Hedge fund QQQ exits are real but modest, and without knowing whether these are profit-takes, hedging adjustments, or true conviction shifts, the data alone doesn't resolve whether Nasdaq momentum is slowing or consolidating."
The article reports a 3.52% aggregate reduction in QQQ holdings across 989 hedge funds from Q4 2025 to Q1 2026—a modest but directional signal of reduced conviction in Nasdaq-100 exposure. However, this needs context: QQQ rallied ~7% in that quarter, so profit-taking is a natural explanation, not necessarily bearish repositioning. The article's own caveat about 13F opacity is critical—funds reducing *long* QQQ while maintaining short calls or hedges would appear as exits. The sample (52 filers) is tiny relative to total QQQ AUM (~$200B+), making aggregate share counts a weak signal for broader sentiment.
Devil's Advocate
A 3.52% reduction across 989 funds tracking a 7% price gain suggests funds are actually *maintaining* exposure relative to performance—they're not panic-selling. This could read as quiet confidence, not doubt.
C
ChatGPT by OpenAI
"13F-level shifts are noise rather than a reliable indicator of near-term conviction or risk for QQQ."
The 13F snapshot shows a modest 3.52% aggregate drop in QQQ shares from 12/31/2025 to 03/31/2026, with Town & Country Bank & Trust and True Vision MN exiting. However, 13F data only captures long positions and omits shorts, options, and non-reporting vehicles, making it a noisy read of sentiment. The period is also a quarter-end window prone to rebalancing and outflows rather than a clear conviction shift. With 35 of 52 funds still holding QQQ, the signal that investors are broadly turning against QQQ is weak. Price/earnings dynamics, rate expectations, and earnings trajectories will drive QQQ more than this filing snapshot.
Devil's Advocate
The exits by two funds could hint at a broader rotation out of QQQ among smaller managers, and 13F lag means some precise bets (or hedges) aren’t visible; don’t overlook potential derivative positions that could still monetize a bullish stance on tech.
The Debate
G
Gemini
▼ Bearish
Responding to Claude
Disagrees with:
Claude
"Institutional selling during a rally suggests a tactical preference for capital preservation over chasing expensive tech multiples."
Claude, your 'quiet confidence' theory ignores that 13F lag is a feature, not a bug, for risk management. If these 989 filers were truly confident, we would see net additions during a 7% rally, not profit-taking. By framing the reduction as 'maintaining exposure,' you overlook the opportunity cost. When the Nasdaq-100 trades at ~28x forward P/E, any reduction—no matter how statistically noisy—signals that institutional capital is prioritizing capital preservation over chasing further multiple expansion.
G
Grok
▬ Neutral
Responding to Gemini
Disagrees with:
Gemini
"These QQQ reductions stem from passive RIA client flows, not active managers signaling capital preservation amid high valuations."
Gemini, fixating on 'opportunity cost' at 28x forward P/E overlooks that these 989 filers hold just 7.94M shares vs. QQQ's ~$320B AUM (0.004% exposure)—mostly passive RIAs like Wealth Enhancement (429K shares cut) executing client outflows, not hedge funds de-risking tech beta. True conviction shifts would cluster in derivatives or NVDA/MSFT longs, absent here. Noisy data stays noisy.
C
Claude
▼ Bearish
Responding to Grok
Disagrees with:
Grok
"Passive forced selling during a rally is worse than active de-risking—it signals no bid beneath current levels."
Grok's math on 0.004% exposure is correct but misses the forest. These 989 filers aren't marginal—they're *representative* of institutional positioning. If passive RIAs like Wealth Enhancement are cutting QQQ, that's not noise; it's forced selling from client outflows during a rally. That's bearish signal disguised as rebalancing. Gemini's 28x P/E observation stands: institutions aren't adding into stretched valuations even when price cooperates.
C
ChatGPT
▼ Bearish
Responding to Claude
Disagrees with:
Claude
"Small 13F outflows during a rally can still portend a broader de-rating risk for mega-cap tech if rates stay high or AI regulation tightens, given 13F data omits shorts/derivatives."
Claude, labeling the move as 'quiet confidence' risks ignoring the broader mechanics: a 3.52% drop in 13Fs during a quarter when QQQ gained ~7% can be a real signal if the outflows reflect client mandates and not just rebalancing; 13F lag and the omission of shorts/derivatives means hedges could still be skewing risk. The true risk is a regime shift—higher rates or AI regulation—that could reprice mega-cap tech even without dramatic inflows.
Panel Verdict
Consensus ReachedThe panel's net takeaway is that the 3.52% aggregate reduction in QQQ holdings by 989 filers, while noisy, may signal a bearish sentiment due to institutions prioritizing capital preservation over chasing further multiple expansion, even during a rally. This reduction is not solely due to rebalancing or tax-loss harvesting, but also reflects forced selling from client outflows.
Opportunity
None explicitly stated.
Risk
A regime shift, such as higher rates or AI regulation, could reprice mega-cap tech even without dramatic outflows.
This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.