IMCG holdings

Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing; what the measure does not tell you · every fund in one table · hold it with other funds? X-ray the mix. Pricing: 100% at a quoted market price (level 1), 9 issuer countries.

IMCG's largest investment is Sandisk Corp at 2.19% of net assets. Seagate Technology Holdings Plc and Marvell Technology Inc follow; the three together are 6.4%. Ten companies are 12% of the fund; the other 251 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, IMCG behaves like 168.8 holdings against a median of 42.4 — 4.0 times the median. Across 27 quarterly filings IMCG has held roughly steady since 2019-10-31 (139.5 then, 143 now).

Each sentence is read from the fund's own SEC filing; the class median is computed across the comparable equity funds on this site. Nothing here is a view on the fund.

Between 2019-10-31 and 2026-04-30, IMCG went from behaving like 139.5 equally weighted positions to 143 — 2% more, while its top ten went from 13.36% to 16.49% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.

One row per filed reporting period, newest first, read from EDGAR. Quarterly because that is the public filing cadence. Rows marked * are published but held out of the comparison above; the methodology page says when and why.

IMCG's filing lists 262 positions including 1.49% of net assets in securities-lending cash collateral. Counted as filed the fund reads 162.9 effective holdings with a top ten of 12.43%; on its own investments — the figure above — it reads 168.8 with a top ten of 12%. The collateral is matched by a liability and is not a holding the fund chose; since 2026-09-18 every figure on this site sets it aside (methodology). Both numbers are in the data.

The 15 largest of 261 positions in IMCG's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: IMCG.csv.gz.

Share of IMCG's own investments by the issuer country the filer reported (incorporation, not revenue). Each country links to every fund that holds it.

Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of IMCG's own filings, 81 months on record. Not computed here and not from a price feed.

Cross-checked against a series computed separately from prices: median difference 0.06 percentage points over 81 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: IMCG.json · all funds.

The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-07-31, $58m was out to 12 borrowers. The largest, JP MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, held 46.7% of it.

The filing reports no cash collateral position against this loan. Collateral taken in a form the fund does not hold as a position does not appear in N-PORT, so this is silence rather than absence. What the collateral figure can and cannot show. Every quarter IMCG has filed, with each borrower: IMCG.json · all funds.

271 positions became 271: 0 added (0.0% of the fund at the later date), 0 dropped (0.0% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 10.5%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of IMCG compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

98.38% equity, 1.62% short-term investment as filed; 100.0% carried at a quoted market price (fair-value level 1). Categories and levels are the filer's; what a low level-1 share does and does not mean is in the measure's page.

A position count cannot describe a fund that uses derivatives, because a swap is filed at its unrealised gain, not its exposure. These are the notionals the fund itself reported, against net assets of $3.48B. Notional of an interest-rate or currency swap is not equity exposure.

Full detail for every fund that files derivatives: leverage.json (CC BY 4.0).

Every measured equity fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of IMCG (168.8). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.