← Grizzly Bulls Research

Research source kit

A fast source desk for journalists, researchers, educators, analysts, and data publishers who need to verify, cite, or reuse published Grizzly Bulls research.

Every record below points to a published Grizzly Bulls study. The source kit brings each research question, reviewed universe, key result, primary evidence, dates, preferred citation, canonical URL, available CSV/JSON downloads, and a public version where that research family uses one into one place.

34 published studies6 research collectionsPublished September 12, 2026Last changed October 4, 2026
Saved research

Save studies below to build a browser-local research list. When a saved study's reviewed version, data snapshot, or update date changes, this page will flag it on your next visit.

Saving does not subscribe you to email or alerts, create an account record, or change the published research.

How to use this source desk

Cite the stable study

Use the preferred citation and canonical study URL. Preserve the data snapshot date when a measured statistic depends on a dated observation window.

Verify the finding

Open the full study for methodology, limitations, source notes, and unsupported-inference boundaries. The one-line result here is not a substitute for those qualifications.

Reuse public aggregate data

Use the study CSV/JSON to verify figures or build a new chart with attribution. Public reuse does not automatically extend to the third-party source records used to conduct the research.

Ask on a deadline

Methodology, corrections, data reuse, and reporting questions use the public research contact path. A citation or backlink is never required as a condition of factual reuse.

Ownership & Holdings

What reviewed filings can establish about public-equity ownership, how the evidence reaches the broader billionaire universe, and where ownership form or source coverage changes the answer.

Cross-company ownership dataset · Data through September 6, 2026 · v1.0

Billionaire Public-Equity Positions Dataset

Research question

What reviewed billionaire public-equity relationships can be published without flattening unlike securities and filing scopes?

Key result

13 reviewed relationships preserve legal security classes, ownership form, exclusions, evidence scope, and observation dates.

Reviewed universe
13 relationships · 12 profiles · 12 companies
Primary evidence
SEC Forms 3/4, Schedule 13, and reviewed ownership evidence
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Billionaire Public-Equity Positions Dataset: 13 Reviewed SEC Ownership Relationships Across 12 Billionaire Profiles and 12 Companies.” Grizzly Bulls, September 10, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 6, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/billionaire-public-equity-positions
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Dated ownership snapshot · Data through September 4, 2026 · v1.0

Jensen Huang NVIDIA Ownership Snapshot

Research question

What did Jensen Huang's June 17 NVIDIA filing report, and what changes when that dated position is valued later?

Key result

812,004,746 NVIDIA shares were reported in the June 17 relationship; 91.4% were held indirectly.

Reviewed universe
1 person-company ownership relationship
Primary evidence
SEC Form 4 plus dated market-price evidence
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Jensen Huang NVIDIA Ownership Snapshot: What the June 17 Form 4 Reported, and What $187 Billion at a September Price Does Not Mean.” Grizzly Bulls, September 9, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 4, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/jensen-huang-nvidia-ownership
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Evidence coverage census · Data through September 6, 2026 · v1.0

Billionaire Public-Equity Ownership Census

Research question

How much of the billionaire universe can reviewed SEC ownership evidence actually support?

Key result

19.3% had reviewed SEC position evidence; source reach was the first blocker for 77.5%.

Reviewed universe
2,549 billionaire profiles
Primary evidence
SEC Forms 3/4/5 and Schedule 13 evidence
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Billionaire Public-Equity Ownership Census: What SEC Filings Can Actually Prove About Billionaire Stock Ownership.” Grizzly Bulls, September 8, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 6, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/billionaire-public-equity-ownership-census
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →

Voting Power & Governance

Companywide voting power, how that power changes through time, the legal mechanics behind enhanced-vote structures, and the difference between voting authority and share-count ownership.

Matched-denominator study · Data through August 26, 2026 · v1.0

Founder Voting Power vs Share Ownership at 9 Public Companies

Research question

How does founder total voting power compare with issuer-disclosed share-count ownership when the same disclosure supports both?

Key result

9 of 9 matched founders had voting power above disclosed share-count ownership; Alphabet remains explicitly unmatched.

Reviewed universe
9 matched companies · 1 source-coverage exclusion
Primary evidence
Issuer proxy and principal-holder ownership disclosures
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Founder Voting Power vs Share Ownership at 9 Public Companies: All Nine Matched Founders Had More Voting Power Than Their Disclosed Share-Count Ownership.” Grizzly Bulls, September 11, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot August 26, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/founder-voting-vs-ownership
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Governance mechanics study · Data through August 26, 2026 · v1.0

When Founder Supervoting Rights End at 10 Public Companies

Research question

When do enhanced founder voting rights convert or end across the selected 10-company cohort?

Key result

2 of 10 reviewed companies have a hard time-based companywide sunset; other mechanisms depend on events, thresholds, transfers, or holder votes.

Reviewed universe
10 founder-control structures
Primary evidence
SEC-hosted charters and issuer governance disclosures
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “When Founder Supervoting Rights End at 10 Public Companies: Only Two Reviewed Companies Have a Hard Time-Based Companywide Sunset; the Rest Depend on Founder Events, Thresholds, Transfers or Holder Votes.” Grizzly Bulls, September 11, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot August 26, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/founder-supervoting-sunsets
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Voting-power comparison · Data through July 14, 2026 · v1.0

Billionaire Voting Power: Meta, Alphabet and Berkshire Compared

Research question

How much total company voting power did three prominent billionaires hold at their reviewed SEC observation dates?

Key result

The highest reviewed observation was 60.8% of total company voting power; 1 observation exceeded 50%.

Reviewed universe
3 person-company voting observations
Primary evidence
Issuer proxy and SEC ownership disclosures
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Billionaire Voting Power: Meta, Alphabet and Berkshire Compared: A 2026 SEC Comparison of Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin and Warren Buffett.” Grizzly Bulls, September 10, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot July 14, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/billionaire-voting-power
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Founder-control cohort · Data through July 31, 2026 · v1.0

Founder Voting Control at 10 Public Companies

Research question

How much total company voting power did founders hold across 10 selected public companies, and which mechanisms created it?

Key result

4 of 10 reviewed founders exceeded 50% of total voting power; the highest observation was 82.4%.

Reviewed universe
10 selected public companies
Primary evidence
Issuer proxy, voting, and governance disclosures
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Founder Voting Control at 10 Public Companies: How SEC Disclosures Show 27.4% to 82.4% Founder Voting Power, and Why the Mechanism Matters.” Grizzly Bulls, September 10, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot July 31, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/founder-voting-control
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Longitudinal disclosure comparison · Data through July 31, 2026 · v1.0

How Founder Voting Control Changed at 10 Public Companies

Research question

How did founder voting power change between two comparable issuer disclosures for the same 10-company cohort?

Key result

5 increased, 4 decreased, and 1 was unchanged; the study does not assign transaction causes.

Reviewed universe
10 founder-company pairs with two reviewed endpoints
Primary evidence
Paired issuer voting-power disclosures
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “How Founder Voting Control Changed at 10 Public Companies: Five Founders Gained Voting Power, Four Lost It, and One Was Unchanged Across Reviewed SEC Disclosures.” Grizzly Bulls, September 10, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot July 31, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/founder-voting-control-change
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →

SEC Evidence & Methodology

Research about what SEC source families can support, what they cannot support, and why filing presence alone does not make a broader ownership or transaction claim ready to publish.

SEC ownership-extraction methodology study · Data through September 10, 2026 · v1.0

SEC Ownership Evidence Funnel Across 20,834 Form 3/4/5 Candidates

Research question

What survives when exact SEC identity review and conservative Forms 3/4/5 extraction are applied to a selected group of billionaire profiles?

Key result

1,503 of 20,834 candidates (7.2%) were simple direct non-zero positions; footnote review accounted for 50.6% of candidates.

Reviewed universe
20,834 position candidates across 198 Forms-eligible profiles
Primary evidence
SEC Forms 3, 4 and 5 ownership filings and conservative position extraction
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “SEC Ownership Evidence Funnel Across 20,834 Form 3/4/5 Candidates: Only 1,503 of 20,834 Extracted Position Candidates Were Simple Direct Non-Zero Positions.” Grizzly Bulls, September 12, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 10, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sec-ownership-evidence-funnel
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
SEC transaction-evidence methodology study · Data through August 31, 2026 · v1.0

SEC Sale Footnotes Across 48,912 Form 4/5 Candidates

Research question

How often did Form 4/5 sale candidates require footnote review, and which recurring semantics dominated candidates blocked only by that gate?

Key result

45,879 of 48,912 sale candidates (93.8%) carried a footnote-review blocker; 6,808 of 7,573 footnote-only cases used weighted-average or price-range language.

Reviewed universe
48,912 non-derivative sale candidates across 513 billionaire profiles
Primary evidence
SEC Forms 4 and 5 non-derivative sale transactions and footnotes
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “SEC Sale Footnotes Across 48,912 Form 4/5 Candidates: 45,879 Sale Candidates Hit a Footnote Review Gate, and Price-Aggregation Language Dominated the Footnote-Only Cases.” Grizzly Bulls, September 12, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot August 31, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sec-sale-footnote-review
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Evidence methodology study · Data through September 6, 2026 · v1.0

SEC Filing Evidence for Billionaire Stock Ownership

Research question

What can the SEC source families behind the reviewed billionaire ownership dataset actually establish?

Key result

6 source patterns appear across 13 relationships; 4 relationships use multiple source families.

Reviewed universe
13 reviewed ownership relationships
Primary evidence
Forms 3/4, Schedule 13, proxy / Item 403, and filing-history metadata
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “SEC Filing Evidence for Billionaire Stock Ownership: 13 Reviewed Ownership Relationships Required Six Different Evidence Patterns; No Single Filing Type Meant the Same Thing.” Grizzly Bulls, September 11, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 6, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sec-ownership-evidence
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →

Valuation & Market Data

Research about point-in-time valuation inputs, market-data timing, financial-statement normalization, private-company unit economics, and the source and capital-structure boundaries required before a valuation output is complete.

Company valuation reverse-DCF case study · Data through October 2, 2026

SpaceX at $159: What the Valuation Has to Assume

Research question

What revenue and free-cash-flow path is already embedded in SPCX at $158.96?

Key result

At $158.96, the reverse DCF requires about 37.19% annual revenue growth and $769.1B of 2035 revenue; 86.1% of modeled enterprise value comes from terminal value.

Reviewed universe
SpaceX capital structure, Q2 2026 operating disclosures, current revenue consensus, and a 2026–2035 reverse-DCF path
Primary evidence
SpaceX and EchoStar SEC filings, SpaceX launch disclosures, and secondary consensus market data
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “SpaceX at $159: What the Valuation Has to Assume.” Grizzly Bulls, October 4, 2026. Data snapshot October 2, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/spacex-valuation-reverse-dcf
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Acquisition deleveraging and floating-rate debt sensitivity · Data through September 24, 2026 · v1.0

Belden RUCKUS Deleveraging Math: Debt, FCF, and the 2027 Hurdle

Research question

How much cash generation and EBITDA growth does Belden need for its stated post-RUCKUS leverage path to work?

Key result

At approximately $300M of 2027 FCF applied to net debt, the 2.9x target requires about $703M of adjusted EBITDA, 8.22% above the $650M transaction base.

Reviewed universe
$1.85B term loan · 2026-2029 management leverage path · audited RUCKUS 2025 cash flow
Primary evidence
Belden investor materials, SEC financing filings, and audited RUCKUS financials
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Belden RUCKUS Deleveraging Math: Debt, FCF, and the 2027 Hurdle: A $650M-Base Proxy Puts the 2027 EBITDA Hurdle Near $703M if About $300M of FCF Reduces Net Debt.” Grizzly Bulls, September 30, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 24, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/belden-ruckus-deleveraging-math
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Merger CVR valuation and operating-hurdle reconstruction · Data through September 30, 2026 · v1.0

SoundThinking CVR Math: Valuing the $3 Earnout From the Bottom Up

Research question

What does SoundThinking's market price imply about the CVR, and what ShotSpotter and SafePointe operating path would support that value?

Key result

At the 76.75M middle hurdle, 65.5M of ShotSpotter revenue requires about 563 SafePointe lane-years and roughly 760 year-end live lanes under the generous 365-lane starting assumption.

Reviewed universe
$8 cash consideration · $0-$3 CVR · 9 re-verified ShotSpotter contract streams · 48 operating scenarios
Primary evidence
SoundThinking SEC filings and merger agreement, company disclosures, and municipal procurement records
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “SoundThinking CVR Math: Valuing the $3 Earnout From the Bottom Up: The First $0.50 Looks Plausible; the September 30 Price Needs Roughly $0.90-$1.05 of CVR Value Under the Reviewed Sensitivity.” Grizzly Bulls, September 30, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 30, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/soundthinking-cvr-math
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Private-company unit-economics analysis · Data through September 16, 2026 · v1.0

Anthropic's Economic Gross Margin Is Probably 50–60% — Not the 80%+ Headline

Research question

What gross margin should an investor underwrite for Anthropic when the 80%+ headline excludes partner revenue sharing and model training?

Key result

Grizzly Bulls uses 50–60% as a normalized economic underwriting range, not a claimed audited GAAP margin.

Reviewed universe
4 Anthropic margin observations / forecasts · 6 public-company margin references
Primary evidence
Financial Times, Reuters, The Information, and audited SEC annual filings
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Anthropic's Economic Gross Margin Is Probably 50–60% — Not the 80%+ Headline: The 80%+ figure excludes partner revenue sharing and model training; a normalized 50–60% economic range is a more conservative underwriting base.” Grizzly Bulls, September 16, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 16, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/anthropic-gross-margin
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Financial-statement source coverage study · Data through September 3, 2026 · v1.0

SEC Companyfacts Annual Financial Coverage Across 61 Companies

Research question

How much of a 61-company market universe could strict SEC Companyfacts annual normalization cover without generic IFRS mapping, implicit FX conversion, or inferred issuer identity?

Key result

59 of 61 companies (96.7%) normalized under the reviewed 13-metric annual-financials schema; the two remaining cases stopped at a CAD currency-unit boundary and an unresolved issuer-identity boundary.

Reviewed universe
61 configured market companies in the September 3, 2026 measurement
Primary evidence
SEC Companyfacts annual US-GAAP facts and reviewed issuer identity
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “SEC Companyfacts Annual Financial Coverage Across 61 Companies: 59 of 61 Normalized Under Strict Reviewed Rules; the Remaining Gaps Were Currency and Identity.” Grizzly Bulls, September 12, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 3, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sec-companyfacts-normalization-coverage
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Capital-structure methodology study · Data through September 2, 2026 · v1.0

Enterprise Value Financing Scope Across 9 Reviewed Companies

Research question

How often is complete reviewed net-debt evidence still insufficient for the bounded enterprise-value calculation?

Key result

3 of 9 reviewed companies had EV withheld despite complete net-debt review: 2 for noncontrolling interests and 1 for preferred equity; 6 were compatible.

Reviewed universe
9 reviewed companies with complete current net-debt evidence
Primary evidence
Issuer Forms 10-Q and 10-K financing and balance-sheet disclosures
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Enterprise Value Financing Scope Across 9 Reviewed Companies: 3 of 9 Had Enterprise Value Withheld Even After Complete Net-Debt Review.” Grizzly Bulls, September 11, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 2, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/enterprise-value-financing-scope
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Point-in-time valuation-methodology study · Data through September 2, 2026 · v1.0

Historical Market Cap: SEC Share-Count Disclosure Lag Across 21 Companies

Research question

How long after a share count's stated as-of date did the SEC filing make that count public across 21 reviewed companies?

Key result

The median disclosure lag was 6 calendar days; 5 of 21 observations (23.8%) were at least 10 days, with a 17-day maximum.

Reviewed universe
21 reviewed U.S. public-company share-count observations
Primary evidence
SEC Forms 10-Q and 10-K
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Historical Market Cap: SEC Share-Count Disclosure Lag Across 21 Companies: A Median 6-Day Gap Separated the Share Date From the Filing Date, a Point-in-Time Trap for Backtests.” Grizzly Bulls, September 11, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 2, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/historical-market-cap-share-count-lag
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Longitudinal point-in-time methodology study · Data through May 20, 2026 · v1.0

SEC Share-Count Disclosure Cadence Across 16 Filings

Research question

Do share-count disclosure lags persist within the same issuer across repeated SEC filings?

Key result

Four of five reviewed issuers stayed within a one-day lag band; 13 of 16 observations (81.3%) were disclosed in 5–7 days, while Netflix ranged from 17 to 23 days.

Reviewed universe
16 reviewed observations across 5 issuers
Primary evidence
Repeated SEC Forms 10-Q and 10-K
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “SEC Share-Count Disclosure Cadence Across 16 Filings: Four of Five Reviewed Issuers Stayed Within a 1-Day Lag Band, While Netflix Repeatedly Took 17–23 Days.” Grizzly Bulls, September 11, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot May 20, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/share-count-disclosure-cadence
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →

Systematic Markets

Measured market and macro studies that test concentration, forecasting signals, and market structure outside a clean textbook story.

Five-company capital-intensity comparison · Data through August 31, 2026 · v1.0

AI Infrastructure Capital Intensity: Capex vs. Operating Cash Flow

Research question

How much operating cash flow are five large U.S. cloud and AI infrastructure companies reinvesting in total-company cash capital expenditures?

Key result

Cohort cash capex rose to 81.81% of operating cash flow from 60.80%, a +21.01 point change.

Reviewed universe
5 reviewed companies · latest TTM periods ending May or June 2026
Primary evidence
SEC Company Facts plus issuer Forms 10-Q and 10-K
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “AI Infrastructure Capital Intensity: Capex vs. Operating Cash Flow: Cash Capex Reached 81.81% of Operating Cash Flow Across Five Large AI Infrastructure Companies, Up From 60.80%.” Grizzly Bulls, September 25, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot August 31, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/ai-infrastructure-capital-intensity
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Campus-level project economics and capital-stack analysis · Data through September 25, 2026 · v1.0

Applied Digital AI Data Center Economics: Campus Yields and Capital Stack

Research question

What do Applied Digital's disclosed lease, site-margin, development-cost, secured-debt, and preferred-equity terms imply about its AI data center economics?

Key result

The three disclosed campuses imply a 12.56% aggregate midpoint site-NOI yield on development cost; Macquarie preferred capital compounds at 12.75%.

Reviewed universe
900 MW with detailed economics · 1410 MW contracted portfolio
Primary evidence
Applied Digital SEC filings and SEC-filed investor presentation
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Applied Digital AI Data Center Economics: Campus Yields and Capital Stack: Three Disclosed Campuses Imply 11.8%-13.4% Midpoint Site-NOI Yields, but Macquarie's 12.75% Preferred Changes the Equity Math.” Grizzly Bulls, September 25, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 25, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/applied-digital-ai-data-center-economics
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Megacap repurchase and diluted-share comparison · Data through September 21, 2026 · v1.0

Megacap Buybacks and Diluted Share Count: Are Repurchases Shrinking Shares?

Research question

How much are the largest S&P 500 companies spending on stock repurchases, and are diluted weighted-average share counts falling at the same time?

Key result

$227.475B of repurchases were observed across seven covered issuers; 5 of 6 positive-buyback issuers also reduced diluted shares.

Reviewed universe
9 unique issuers · 10 top S&P 500 security lines · 7/9 with observed repurchase facts
Primary evidence
SEC Company Facts plus the retained September 9, 2026 S&P 500 top-holdings cohort
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Megacap Buybacks and Diluted Share Count: Are Repurchases Shrinking Shares?: Seven of Nine Megacaps Had $227.475B of Observed Repurchases; Five of Six Positive-Buyback Issuers Reduced Diluted Shares.” Grizzly Bulls, September 25, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 21, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/megacap-buybacks-and-share-count
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Same-cohort fundamental vs. market-weight comparison · Data through September 21, 2026 · v1.0

S&P 500 Fundamental vs. Market-Cap Concentration

Research question

Do the companies that dominate S&P 500 fundamentals carry a similar share of S&P 500 market value?

Key result

Overall top-10 issuer market weight is 40.45%. The top-10 net-income cohort gap is -0.53 percentage points, while the top-10 capex cohort gap is -30.79 points.

Reviewed universe
500 matched issuers · 6 reviewed fundamental comparisons
Primary evidence
Reviewed Grizzly Bulls Fundamental Concentration Atlas plus dated iShares IVV holdings
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “S&P 500 Fundamental vs. Market-Cap Concentration: The Top 10 Issuers Carry 40.45% of Market Weight, but the Top 10 Capex Contributors Carry Only 19.89%.” Grizzly Bulls, September 22, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 21, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sp500-fundamental-vs-market-cap-concentration
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Cross-study concentration synthesis · Data through June 30, 2026 · v1.0

S&P 500 Concentration Research Series: Weight, Earnings, Valuation, and Forward Returns

Research question

What do the historical weight, earnings, valuation, and forward-return concentration studies say when read together?

Key result

June 2025 top-10 weight was 38.15%, the March 2026 cap-minus-earnings gap was 4.7 points, the June 2026 forward-P/E spread was 2.0x, and the forward-return correlation fell to -0.04 when 1965 was excluded.

Reviewed universe
4 published concentration studies · 16 normalized metrics
Primary evidence
Published Grizzly Bulls concentration studies backed by S&P Dow Jones Indices and J.P. Morgan Asset Management
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “S&P 500 Concentration Research Series: Weight, Earnings, Valuation, and Forward Returns: Four studies separate historical top-10 weight, earnings support, valuation premium, and forward-return sensitivity instead of reducing concentration to one score.” Grizzly Bulls, September 21, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot June 30, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sp500-concentration-series
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Issuer-level fundamental concentration atlas · Data through September 21, 2026 · v1.0

S&P 500 Fundamental Concentration Atlas: Revenue, Profits, Cash Flow, and Balance Sheets

Research question

How concentrated are the operating fundamentals of the companies represented in the S&P 500?

Key result

The top 10 account for 26.32% of covered revenue and 50.68% of covered capital spending; Financials account for 74.79% of covered liabilities.

Reviewed universe
500 issuer CIKs · 15 reviewed accounting metrics
Primary evidence
SEC XBRL Company Facts with a frozen S&P 500 issuer roster and reviewed issuer continuity
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “S&P 500 Fundamental Concentration Atlas: Revenue, Profits, Cash Flow, and Balance Sheets: The Top 10 Generate 26.32% of Covered Revenue but 50.68% of Capital Spending; Financials Hold 74.79% of Covered Liabilities.” Grizzly Bulls, September 21, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 21, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sp500-fundamental-concentration-atlas
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Forward-return sensitivity study · Data through June 30, 2025 · v1.0

S&P 500 Concentration and Forward Returns: Does a Top-Heavy Market Predict the Next Decade?

Research question

What 10-year S&P 500 price returns followed historically high and low top-10 concentration starting points?

Key result

Starting concentration and subsequent decade return had a -0.72 sample correlation; excluding June 1965 reduced it to -0.04.

Reviewed universe
6 non-overlapping 10-year observations
Primary evidence
S&P Dow Jones Indices historical concentration and price-return research
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “S&P 500 Concentration and Forward Returns: Does a Top-Heavy Market Predict the Next Decade?: Across six decade starts, the sample correlation between starting top-10 concentration and the next 10-year S&P 500 price return was -0.72; excluding 1965 reduced it to -0.04.” Grizzly Bulls, September 20, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot June 30, 2025. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sp500-concentration-forward-returns
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Historical concentration reconstruction · Data through June 30, 2025 · v1.0

S&P 500 Concentration History: How the Top 10 Changed From 1965 to 2025

Research question

How did the weight of the S&P 500 top 10 change from 1965 to 2025, and what do the matched decade returns say about concentration as a market signal?

Key result

Top-10 concentration fell from 38.24% in 1965 to 17.81% in 2015, then rose 20.34 percentage points to 38.15% in 2025.

Reviewed universe
7 reconstructed decade endpoints · 6 matched 10-year return periods
Primary evidence
S&P Dow Jones Indices historical concentration and index methodology research
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “S&P 500 Concentration History: How the Top 10 Changed From 1965 to 2025: Top-10 concentration fell from 38.24% in 1965 to 17.81% in 2015, then rose 20.34 percentage points in one decade to 38.15% in 2025.” Grizzly Bulls, September 20, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot June 30, 2025. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/historical-sp500-concentration
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Matched earnings-concentration snapshots · Data through March 31, 2026 · v1.0

S&P 500 Earnings Concentration: Are the Top 10 Backed by Profits?

Research question

How much of the S&P 500 top 10's market-cap concentration was accompanied by trailing earnings concentration in matched March 2024 and March 2026 snapshots?

Key result

Top-10 trailing-earnings share rose from 25.5% to 33.2%, an increase of 7.7 percentage points, while the cap-minus-earnings gap narrowed to 4.7 points.

Reviewed universe
2 same-method Guide to the Markets snapshots
Primary evidence
J.P. Morgan Asset Management Guide to the Markets, citing FactSet and Standard & Poor's
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “S&P 500 Earnings Concentration: Are the Top 10 Backed by Profits?: From March 2024 to March 2026, the top 10's trailing-earnings share rose from 25.5% to 33.2% while market-cap share rose from 33.5% to 37.9%.” Grizzly Bulls, September 20, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot March 31, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sp500-earnings-concentration
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Matched valuation-concentration snapshots · Data through June 30, 2026 · v1.0

S&P 500 Valuation Concentration: What Does the Index Cost Without the Top 10?

Research question

How much higher was the S&P 500 top 10 forward P/E than the remaining companies in March 2024 and June 2026, and how did that valuation split change?

Key result

The top-10 minus remaining-company forward-P/E spread narrowed from 10.1x to 2.0x, while remaining-company P/E rose 1.3x.

Reviewed universe
2 exact Guide to the Markets valuation tables · top 10, remaining companies, and full S&P 500
Primary evidence
J.P. Morgan Asset Management Guide to the Markets, citing FactSet and Standard & Poor's
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “S&P 500 Valuation Concentration: What Does the Index Cost Without the Top 10?: The top-10 forward-P/E premium over the remaining companies narrowed from 10.1x in March 2024 to 2.0x in June 2026.” Grizzly Bulls, September 20, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot June 30, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sp500-valuation-concentration
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Index concentration snapshot · Data through September 9, 2026 · v1.0

S&P 500 AI Concentration: How Much of the Index Is AI-Linked?

Research question

How concentrated was the S&P 500 in September 2026, and how much of its weight sat in a conservative company cohort directly tied to AI infrastructure and cloud-platform investment?

Key result

The top 10 security lines were 38.09% of index weight; the conservative AI-linked cohort was 29.46%, or 77.3% of top-10 weight.

Reviewed universe
10 top security lines · 9 companies · 7-company conservative AI-linked cohort
Primary evidence
S&P Dow Jones Indices, State Street index holdings, SEC filings, and issuer financial disclosures
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “S&P 500 AI Concentration: How Much of the Index Is AI-Linked?: The Top 10 Security Lines Were 38.09% of the Index; a Conservative Seven-Company AI-Linked Cohort Was 29.46%.” Grizzly Bulls, September 14, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 9, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sp500-ai-concentration
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Forecast reconstruction · Data through September 12, 2026 · v1.0

Yield Curve Recession Signal: Reconstructing the May 2023 Warning

Research question

What did the 10-year minus 3-month Treasury spread imply in May 2023 under the maintained New York Fed model, and what was the realized NBER classification twelve months later?

Key result

The May 2023 spread averaged -1.73 percentage points and reconstructs to 71.4% recession probability for May 2024; NBER did not classify that target month as recession as of the study cutoff.

Reviewed universe
22 May 2023 daily T10Y3M observations plus one 12-month target month
Primary evidence
FRED T10Y3M, New York Fed yield-curve model, and NBER business-cycle chronology
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Yield Curve Recession Signal: Reconstructing the May 2023 Warning: A -1.73 Percentage-Point Monthly Average Implied 71.4% Recession Probability Twelve Months Ahead; May 2024 Was Not an NBER Recession.” Grizzly Bulls, September 13, 2026. Version 1.0. Data snapshot September 12, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/yield-curve-recession-signal
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →

Quantitative Methods

Statistical benchmarks for backtesting, Sharpe-ratio interpretation, strategy selection, and the noisy paths that can occur even when a long-run edge exists.

Backtest selection-bias benchmark · Data through September 17, 2026

How Long Should You Backtest a Trading Strategy?

Research question

How do backtest length and research search breadth jointly change the Sharpe ratio that pure luck can produce?

Key result

With 100 independent zero-edge trials, the median winning Sharpe falls from 2.48 after one year to 0.78 after ten years; 1,000 ten-year trials push the median winner back to 1.01.

Reviewed universe
24 exact null-model scenarios across six sample lengths and four independent search sizes
Primary evidence
Exact Student-t null benchmark and published Sharpe-ratio selection literature
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “How Long Should You Backtest a Trading Strategy?” Grizzly Bulls, September 17, 2026. Data snapshot September 17, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/how-long-should-you-backtest
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Strategy path-probability benchmark · Data through September 17, 2026

How Many Losing Months Are Normal for a Trading Strategy?

Research question

How often should an investor expect consecutive losing months for strategies with different true Sharpe ratios and track-record lengths?

Key result

A true Sharpe of 1 has a 90.8% chance of at least one three-month losing streak over five years and a 56.8% chance of at least one four-month streak.

Reviewed universe
64 exact streak scenarios across Sharpe, horizon, and streak-length combinations
Primary evidence
Exact finite-state Normal-return benchmark and published Sharpe-ratio literature
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “How Many Losing Months Are Normal for a Trading Strategy?” Grizzly Bulls, September 17, 2026. Data snapshot September 17, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sharpe-ratio-losing-streaks
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →
Sharpe loss-probability benchmark · Data through September 17, 2026

Sharpe Ratio and Probability of Loss

Research question

What does a true annualized Sharpe ratio imply about the modeled chance of negative aggregate excess return over different horizons?

Key result

A true Sharpe of 1 implies a 38.64% modeled chance of negative one-month excess return and 15.87% over one year under the stated assumptions.

Reviewed universe
36 Sharpe-by-horizon probabilities · 24 inverse probability thresholds
Primary evidence
Exact Normal-return benchmark and published Sharpe-ratio inference literature
Public data
CSV · JSON
Lee Bailey. “Sharpe Ratio and Probability of Loss.” Grizzly Bulls, September 17, 2026. Data snapshot September 17, 2026. https://grizzlybulls.com/research/sharpe-ratio-loss-probability
Saved research stays on this browser.
Open methodology, limitations, and full evidence →

Source and reuse boundary

  • Public Grizzly Bulls research pages and factual findings may be cited without permission.
  • When reusing a measured statistic, preserve the study data snapshot date and any material limitation that changes interpretation.
  • Public CSV and JSON downloads may be used for verification, analysis, and new charts with attribution to Grizzly Bulls and the canonical study.
  • Some studies publish a numbered research version and some do not. Preserve a version in citations only when the study publishes one.
  • The full study remains the reference for source scope, dates, methodology, limitations, and third-party reuse restrictions.

This source kit is an index for discovery and reuse. The full study remains the reference for each finding's dates, methodology, limitations, and source context.