Investment Management Corp 13F Discloses Q1 Stakes

Investment Management Corp /VA/ /ADV filed a Form 13F on April 28, 2026, reporting holdings as of March 31, 2026, according to an Investing.com notice dated Apr 28, 2026 (source: Investing.com). The filing falls within the SEC’s 45-day window for quarter-end disclosures and thus provides the standard snapshot of the firm’s public equity positions and derivatives in Section 13(f) securities. Under SEC rules, managers with at least $100 million in qualifying assets must file Form 13F; the document is therefore a required transparency mechanism for large asset managers and a common input to investor analysis. For market participants tracking institutional flows and positioning, the timing and composition of these disclosures can signal allocation shifts made across Q1 2026, though they reflect quarter-end marks rather than real‑time trading.

Context

Form 13F filings remain a cornerstone of institutional transparency in U.S. public equity markets. The SEC requires a reporting threshold of $100 million in Section 13(f) securities; filings are due within 45 days after quarter end, which for Q1 2026 set the deadline in mid-May, making April 28 an on-time but relatively early submission (SEC rules). Investment Management Corp’s Apr 28 filing is therefore part of a staggered wave of Q1 disclosures that analysts and competitors parse for position sizing, rotation and thematic bets. These filings do not include cash, most bonds, or non-13(f) derivatives, so while they illuminate equity exposure, they do not present a full balance-sheet picture.

From a market-structure perspective, 13F data are used in back-testing and crowding analytics because they are standardized and machine-readable. However, their utility is constrained by timing and scope: positions are as of the quarter-end (Mar 31, 2026) and can be stale within days for active managers. This latency creates both an opportunity and a hazard for market watchers — the opportunity to observe declared positions in a regulatory filing, and the hazard of over-interpreting stale positions as current trade signals. Institutional investors and quant teams typically combine 13F snapshots with intraday transaction-level datasets to build more timely models.

The April 28 filing date, and its public dissemination via outlets such as Investing.com, also enables cross-sectional comparisons with peers and benchmarks. Analysts commonly compare reported holdings to benchmark weights (for example, S&P 500 constituents) to infer active share and factor tilts. The 13F universe covers widely traded equities and certain ADRs; therefore, it is most informative when assessing large-cap U.S.-listed exposure versus small-cap or private allocations that fall outside the reporting regime. For investors monitoring thematic rotations — e.g., AI, energy, healthcare — 13Fs can validate whether major managers have meaningful exposure at quarter-end.

Data Deep Dive

The filing date (Apr 28, 2026) and reporting date (Mar 31, 2026) are the first concrete numeric anchors in this record. The 45-day filing window is another fixed parameter: per SEC guidance, Q1 13Fs are due by May 15 at the latest, meaning April 28 is well within compliance timing. These dates are important because they determine the snapshot used to assess positioning during a quarter that for many investors was driven by macro surprises, central bank positioning and sector leadership changes. Investment Management Corp’s disclosure therefore captures the end‑March allocations after a quarter that included multiple Fed comments and evolving growth outlooks.

Beyond timing, the 13F itself typically enumerates positions by ticker, share count and market value; those line items are the raw data that firms and aggregators ingest. While this article does not reproduce every line item from the filing, institutional analysts will extract the following standard fields for any meaningful analysis: ticker symbol, security description, CUSIP, share count, and market value as of reporting date. These fields permit calculation of percentage weight within the reported 13F portfolio, and comparisons to benchmark indices. Where available, year-on-year (YoY) or quarter-on-quarter (QoQ) comparisons of position size are used to infer tactical increases or cuts — for example, a 40% QoQ increase in a single name’s reported position would be interpreted as an intentional concentration move.

Comparisons to peers and benchmarks are a core output from a 13F read. Analysts typically compute active share and factor exposures versus the S&P 500 (SPX) or other relevant indices. For example, if Investment Management Corp reports a 10% portfolio weight to large-cap technology names versus a 25% sector weight in the S&P 500, that would indicate an underweight stance to tech; conversely, a higher weight would imply overweight. Historical context is also relevant: comparing the current 13F to the same quarter a year earlier (Mar 31, 2025) reveals whether the manager is shifting into cyclicals, defensives, or growth names. Those YoY comparisons can be particularly salient when macro regimes change.

Sector Implications

13F disclosures from single managers rarely move broad indexes on their own, but they do contribute to a mosaic of institutional behavior that can shift sector narratives. If Investment Management Corp’s filing shows increased weight toward energy and materials at quarter-end, for example, that would align with a broader Q1 2026 rotation hypothesis away from mega-cap growth into cyclicals — a shift that some institutional surveys flagged in March. Conversely, a larger position in digital infrastructure or software would support the case that active managers are maintaining growth exposure despite rising rates. Sector-level weights derived from 13Fs are therefore used by allocators to validate or question prevailing market narratives.

For corporate strategists and investor-relations teams, 13Fs provide a second-order signal on shareholder composition and potential engagement pressure. Significant new positions by an institutional manager can raise the probability of stewardship activity, while cuts may presage reduced vote influence. For sector analysts, the concentration metrics that come from aggregating multiple 13Fs — for instance, the top 10 holders’ share of float — inform assessments of liquidity risk and potential trading impact during earnings windows.

Practically, proprietary desks and data vendors compile 13F filings (including Investment Management Corp’s Apr 28 submission) into databases that produce metrics like percent of float held and aggregated sector exposures. These are commonly presented as QoQ changes: a 5 percentage-point increase in aggregate holdings of semiconductor names across major 13F filers, for example, would be interpreted as material institutional interest. Such aggregated metrics are more actionable than any single filing because they reduce idiosyncratic noise.

Risk Assessment

Interpreting 13Fs requires careful attention to three principal risks: timing lag, scope limitations, and the potential for misattribution. Timing lag means the holdings reflect positions as of Mar 31, 2026 and may not account for large trades executed in April or early May. Scope limitations are structural: 13Fs exclude many private holdings, cash balances and most fixed-income exposure, so they do not represent total portfolio risk. Misattribution occurs when market participants infer strategy (e.g., long-term conviction vs. short-term tactical trade) from a single snapshot; robust inference requires a time series of filings.

Another practical risk is data cleanliness: filings can include securities that were transferred, wrapped, or exchange-traded instruments that obscure underlying exposures. For example, an allocation to a broad ETF registers as a single line item but represents exposure to hundreds of underlying positions. Analysts must therefore decompose complex instruments to avoid double-counting or misclassifying sector exposure. These nuances are why buy‑side quants and data vendors invest heavily in parsing algorithms and normalization frameworks.

Finally, market reaction risk — the possibility that public disclosure itself triggers moves — is asymmetric and context-dependent. Large-scale reported increases in a mid-cap name could attract liquidity-seeking flows, but the same increase in a mega-cap staple would likely be immaterial. For Investment Management Corp’s Q1 2026 filing, any market impact will depend on the absolute and relative size of disclosed positions versus float and the aggregated exposure among peers.

Fazen Markets Perspective

Fazen Markets assesses 13F filings as a necessary but incomplete input for institutional analysis. The contrarian view we offer is that market participants often overweight headline position changes and underweight the structural constraints that produce them. Managers facing large inflows or benchmark-relative mandates can show position changes that are operational rather than conviction-driven — for example, small rebalances to meet liquidity or cash‑management needs. Interpreting a quarter-end increase without context risks mistaking housekeeping for strategy.

From a data-science angle, we favor combining 13F snapshots with intraday transaction data, prime-brokerage balances and options flow to create a layered view of positioning. For Q1 2026, where macro volatility compressed holding periods, this blended approach will likely show that some apparent concentration moves in 13Fs were transient. Fazen Markets therefore advises parsing 13Fs as one layer among many; see our research hub for institutional disclosure trends and tools topic and for methodology notes on position estimation topic.

A non-obvious implication: 13F filings can understate active managers’ true risk appetite when they use synthetic overlay strategies or undisclosed derivatives. A stable long position in the filing might be synthetically hedged or levered off-balance-sheet. Consequently, we caution against using 13Fs in isolation to infer net market exposure — they are a directional but blunt instrument.

FAQ

Q1: Does a Form 13F show all of a manager’s assets?

A1: No. 13Fs report only Section 13(f) securities (primarily U.S.-listed equities and certain ADRs) and exclude cash, most fixed-income holdings, private equity, and many derivatives. Managers with less than $100 million in such securities are not required to file. This means institutional risk can be materially different from what a 13F suggests.

Q2: How quickly after a 13F filing does the market react?

A2: Reaction speed depends on the size of disclosed positions relative to float and whether the filing contradicts consensus expectations. Large, concentrated changes in small-cap names can trigger immediate price moves; mega-cap changes typically have muted effects. In practice, aggregated filings over successive quarters provide more informative signals about sustained strategy shifts.

Q3: Can investors use 13Fs to replicate institutional portfolios?

A3: Replication faces practical hurdles: timing lag, transaction costs, portfolio scale, and hidden exposures (e.g., derivatives) make direct replication imperfect. Nevertheless, 13Fs are commonly used as the starting point for factor and crowding models rather than as blueprints for direct copycat trading.

Bottom Line

Investment Management Corp’s Apr 28, 2026 Form 13F provides a standard quarter‑end snapshot (Mar 31, 2026) of its publicly reportable equity positions under the SEC’s 45-day rule and $100 million threshold; it is informative but must be combined with other datasets to infer current exposure and conviction. Fazen Markets views 13Fs as a high‑value but latency‑constrained input best used alongside transaction and derivatives data for robust institutional analysis.

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