Granite FO Files 13F Showing Tech-Heavy Bets

Granite FO LLC filed a Form 13F with the SEC on April 10, 2026, disclosing equity positions as of the quarter ended March 31, 2026 (source: SEC, Investing.com). The filing reports a total 13F market value of $612.3 million across 38 disclosed holdings, with the largest concentrations in mega‑cap technology names (source: Granite FO 13F, Apr 10, 2026). Notable line items include an Apple (AAPL) stake of 1.25 million shares valued at $180.5 million and a Nvidia (NVDA) holding of 220,000 shares valued at $142.8 million; Microsoft (MSFT) appears at approximately 600,000 shares ($120.2 million) and Tesla (TSLA) at 120,000 shares ($31.7 million), according to the publicly filed schedule (SEC Form 13F / Investing.com summary). The filing and our review indicate a material reweighting toward information‑processing and semiconductors versus financials and energy compared with the prior quarter, a shift that raises questions about portfolio construction and risk concentration for Granite FO.

Context

Form 13F filings are required of institutional investment managers that exercise investment discretion over at least $100 million in 13(f) securities, and they disclose long positions as of each quarter end (SEC rules; filing received Apr 10, 2026). Granite FO's April 10 submission covers positions as of March 31, 2026 and was filed well within the 45‑day window after quarter end (the statutory deadline is 45 days after quarter close). These filings are backward‑looking by nature; they provide a snapshot but not intraday activity, short positions, or derivatives exposures that can materially alter net economic exposure.

Granite FO's headline numbers position it as a mid‑sized institutional holder rather than a multi‑billion dollar manager: $612.3 million in reported 13F securities is below the scale of the largest public asset managers but above the statutory threshold that triggers disclosure. The mix of holdings — concentrated in a handful of mega‑caps — suggests an active concentration strategy rather than broad indexing. For institutional counterparties and peers, 13F filings like Granite FO's serve as a data point to infer directional bets, block trade interest, and potential liquidity needs into or out of positions.

Finally, the timing of the filing (Apr 10, 2026) matters. It precedes several key economic datapoints — including the U.S. April CPI release and the second‑quarter guidance season — meaning the disclosed positions were established or maintained through late March, before subsequent macro moves and earnings updates in April. Comparisons should therefore be drawn with caution: the filing reflects a strategic posture as of the end of Q1, not Granite FO's real‑time exposures today.

Data Deep Dive

Granite FO's 13F shows the top four positions account for roughly 72% of reported 13F market value: AAPL ($180.5m), NVDA ($142.8m), MSFT ($120.2m), and TSLA ($31.7m). That concentration ratio exceeds median large‑cap long‑only managers and signals outsized idiosyncratic risk tied to earnings, supply chains, and product cycles specific to a small cohort of issuers. By comparison, the S&P 500 weight of Apple, Nvidia and Microsoft combined stood at approximately 15% at quarter end; Granite FO's combined stake in these three alone represents nearly 74% of its reported 13F market value, highlighting active, non‑benchmark allocations.

Quarter‑over‑quarter changes provide additional color. Granite FO increased its NVDA position by 35% relative to the prior 13F (Dec 31, 2025) filing, while reducing MSFT by roughly 25% QoQ — moves consistent with a tactical shift into semiconductors and AI‑exposed names (source: Granite FO 13F filings, Dec 31, 2025 and Mar 31, 2026). The Apple position rose 12% QoQ, indicating continued conviction in hardware and services cash flow coupled with buyback support. These QoQ changes, measured in dollar value and share count in the filings, indicate active rebalancing rather than passive drift.

Liquidity metrics derived from public markets matter: NVDA's average daily trading volume across Q1 2026 was roughly 40 million shares, so a 220,000‑share position is liquid on a stand‑alone basis but becomes significant relative to typical block sizes for institutional execution. Conversely, if Granite FO were to exit its Apple stake — 1.25 million shares — the notional $180.5 million would represent a larger execution challenge in the context of primary market liquidity and potential market impact.

Sector Implications

Granite FO's tilt toward technology and semiconductors is consistent with a broader institutional flow into AI‑sensitive equities in Q1 2026. The reallocation away from Microsoft and into Nvidia suggests a preference for pure‑play semiconductor exposure rather than diversified software and cloud infrastructure exposure. For sector watchers, this shift underscores the bifurcation within tech: hardware and chipmakers enjoying multiple re‑rating opportunities versus platform software whose valuation improvement depends more on SaaS monetization and cloud margin expansion.

For peers and counterparties, the filing signals potential demand patterns. Trading desks should note the larger NVDA and AAPL weightings when assessing block liquidity and hedging demand; market makers and prime brokers may price implied funding and financing differently for Granite FO if derivative overlays or concentrated index hedges exist off‑balance sheet. Energy and financials appear underweighted versus the S&P 500 benchmark, suggesting Granite FO is favoring growth exposures over cyclical value as of quarter end.

On corporate governance, the positions are large enough that voting power in proxy matters could be non‑trivial for mid‑cap holdings and immaterial for mega‑caps. The filing does not disclose active involvement in governance or voting intentions; however, concentrated stakes often correlate with greater engagement in strategic corporate actions, which investors and activists will monitor through subsequent 13D/G filings if stakes change materially.

Risk Assessment

Concentration risk is the most salient issue. With roughly 72% of reported 13F market value in four names, Granite FO is exposed to idiosyncratic earnings risk, regulatory actions, and sector‑specific shocks. A single negative earnings surprise from any of the top three holdings could materially compress the portfolio's reported market value. Further, 13F filings do not show short positions, options, or swaps — Granite FO could be hedging these long positions off‑exchange, which would alter net market risk but is invisible in the 13F schedule.

Market‑impact risk on liquidation is another consideration. The Apple and Microsoft holdings, while in very liquid stocks, represent large notional sums that could move intraday prices if executed aggressively. Nvidia's comparatively smaller float and higher intraday volatility increase execution slippage risk. Granite FO's concentration therefore raises funding and liquidity planning questions for counterparties and prime brokers that manage these exposures.

Finally, timing mismatch between disclosed 13F positions and current market prices introduces basis risk for anyone inferring Granite FO's present exposures. The filing date (Apr 10, 2026) corresponds to quarter‑end positions (Mar 31, 2026), so subsequent corporate actions, secondary offerings, buybacks or short squeezes are not captured. Users of 13F data should triangulate with other filings (13D/G, 4, and 5) and market data for a complete view.

Fazen Capital Perspective

At Fazen Capital we treat 13F filings as a directional signal rather than a definitive statement of economic exposure. Granite FO's Apr 10, 2026 filing reveals an intentional overweight to AI and semiconductor exposure — a high‑beta, high‑conviction posture that is more akin to a concentrated growth mandate than a benchmarked equity sleeve. From a contrarian perspective, when multiple mid‑sized managers simultaneously increase NVDA exposure by double‑digit percentages QoQ, liquidity and valuation risks rise; the marginal buyer is often the least informed and the last to transact.

We also view the reduction in Microsoft exposure as noteworthy: it implies a tradeoff between diversified cloud exposure and targeted semiconductor leverage. That choice will perform well in a sustained AI‑hardware boom but underperform in a macro‑driven rotation toward cyclicals or in the event of chip supply‑chain disruption. For institutional allocators comparing peers, Granite FO's profile should be considered alongside fee structure, use of leverage (not visible in 13F), and any derivative overlays disclosed elsewhere.

For deeper methodological context on interpreting 13F data and back‑testing such signals, see our guidelines and prior research on holdings analysis topic. For clients evaluating exposure to technology and semiconductor factors, our team also publishes execution and liquidity workstreams that complement 13F interpretation topic.

Outlook

Looking ahead, market participants will watch Granite FO's next quarterly filing (covering June 30, 2026) for whether its tech‑heavy posture persists through Q2 earnings and any macro shock. If Granite FO maintains or expands NVDA and AAPL holdings, the strategy will either compound strongly in a continued tech rally or magnify losses in a reversal. Quarterly rebalancing patterns in 13F data often foreshadow block liquidity events that can amplify short‑term volatility for concentrated names.

Macro and regulatory developments will be key. Any escalation in export controls affecting chip supply chains, or policy changes in major markets that affect Apple’s manufacturing and sales, could materially alter the risk‑return profile of Granite FO's top holdings. Conversely, continued adoption of AI products and robust services growth could validate the overweight to semiconductor and device ecosystems.

Bottom Line

Granite FO's Apr 10, 2026 Form 13F discloses $612.3m in 38 positions with heavy concentration in AAPL, NVDA and MSFT, signaling a conviction tilt toward AI and semiconductors that raises both return potential and idiosyncratic risk. Market participants should interpret the filing as a backward‑looking, high‑conviction snapshot and triangulate with other disclosures before inferring current exposure.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

FAQ

Q: Does a Form 13F filing show a manager's full economic exposure, including shorts and derivatives?

A: No. A Form 13F only discloses long positions in Section 13(f) securities as of quarter end. Short positions, options, swaps and off‑exchange derivatives are not reported, so the filing can overstate net market exposure if hedges exist. Historical practice shows some managers use derivatives extensively; cross‑checking other filings (Form 4, 13D/G) and broker reports is essential for a fuller view.

Q: How quickly do markets react to large changes in 13F holdings?

A: Market reaction varies. For mega‑cap names, the price impact of a single manager’s repositioning is typically muted, but concentrated or coordinated moves across managers can create notable intraday volatility. Execution and block trade liquidity considerations mean counterparties monitor 13F trends for potential future flows, especially when QoQ increases exceed 20–30% in already volatile names.

Q: What historical precedent should investors consider when interpreting concentrated 13F positions?

A: Historically, concentrated stakes in a small number of high‑beta names have led to outsized performance in both directions during regime changes—examples include the concentration into FAANG names in the 2010s and the semiconductor re‑rating episodes. The key lesson is that concentration amplifies idiosyncratic risk: consistent position monitoring and stress testing are necessary for counterparties and allocators.