QQQ
Invesco QQQ TrustEvidence as of 2026-09-10The desk's Snapshot
3 of 15 open to everyone · members see allRead the full desk report on QQQ
Seven analysts, the debate, the risk review, every claim cited. And the same for every name you hold.
7-day free trial. AI-written · every claim cites a source · Insight, not advice.
Overview · Invesco QQQ Trust
To maintain the correspondence between the composition and weights of the securities in the trust (the "securities") and the stocks in the NASDAQ-100 Index®, the adviser adjusts the securities from time to time to conform to periodic changes in the identity and/or relative weights of index securities. The composition and weighting of the securities portion of a portfolio deposit are also adjusted to conform to change…
Moneyta sentiment
Where the published evidence leans after the desk debated it — not a rating or a recommendation.
+0.0 on a −2 to +2 scale — was +0.1 before the debate changed the read.
What builds the score
Solid bars are analyst rubric scores; faded bars are computed directly from data. Claims dropped in debate count for nothing; weakened claims count at half weight.
Editor's note
Written after the debate settled — the rest of the page is the evidence behind it.
The evidence balance is Mixed ( + 0.0 of a possible + 2; was + 0.1 before debate) with confidence high. Momentum measures remain positive: 12‑1 momentum is + 27.1% and 6‑month momentum is + 18.0%, with rank_momentum_6m at the 74th percentile and rank_momentum_12_1 at the 65th percentile of the 548‑stock research universe. Trend indicators are constructive: golden_cross is true, price versus the 50‑day SMA is + 0.7%, and price versus the 200‑day SMA is + 8.8%.
Volatility is mixed: 30‑day annualized vol is + 19.5% and 90‑day vol is + 23.1%, with vol versus its own history at the 84th percentile while cross‑sectional rank_vol_90d sits at the 24th percentile. Drawdown history shows material past losses with a 3‑year max drawdown of − 22.8% (ranking at the 84th percentile of 548), while current drawdown from the 3‑year high is − 4.0%. Market sensitivity is elevated: beta versus the S&P 500 is 1.42 with a correlation of 0.92. Income metrics are modest: trailing dividend yield is + 0.31% (rank 33rd percentile) and 3‑year dividend growth is + 1.1%.
How this note was made
every stage ran before the note was writtenAnalyst desk
Mercer, Oakes, Nash, Ellis, Yates, Talbot and Archer. The desk: named AI agents, not people. Each reads one slice of the evidence and nothing else — no outside knowledge, no browsing — so every finding traces to a source you can open.
Reads the XBRL figures companies file with the SEC — revenue, margins, income, debt and share count, quarter by quarter — and reports which way the trend is running.
No XBRL facts on file with the SEC.
Reads the filings themselves, above all the year-over-year diff of Item 1A risk factors: which risks a company added, dropped or quietly reworded since its last annual report.
Nothing in this slice of the evidence rose to a claim — a quiet read, which itself is information.
Which filings the desk reads
The desk reads the annual 10-K in full — its risk factors, and how they changed since last year. Quarterly 10-Qs and event filings (8-Ks, insider Form 4s) are listed for context but not read line by line: the 10-K is where the material risk disclosures live. A brand-new company, or one we have only just begun tracking, may have no annual report on file yet — its risk analysis fills in once that lands.
Reads the signal panel above — momentum, volatility, drawdown, relative strength and beta — and ranks each against the whole research universe rather than judging it in isolation.
Momentum measures are positive: momentum_12_1 is +27.1% and momentum_6m is +18.0%, with rank_momentum_6m at the 74th percentile of the 548-stock research universe and rank_momentum_12_1 at the 65th percentile of 548.
Moneyta signal set · 2026-09-09weakened in debateTrend indicators show constructive signals: golden_cross is true, price_vs_sma50 is +0.7%, and price_vs_sma200 is +8.8%.
Moneyta signal set · 2026-09-09Reads which funds hold the name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings, to show the exposure you may already carry through index funds.
The 13F snapshot reports total institutional holdings of $420.47B for the Invesco QQQ Trust as of the quarter ended 31 March 2026.
13F holdings · 3888 filers · as of 2026-03-31The reported institutional holdings value declined by 6.0% quarter-over-quarter in the 13F for the period ended 31 March 2026 (value_qoq_pct: -6.0).
13F holdings · 3888 filers · as of 2026-03-31Reads recent headlines that are genuinely about this company, ignoring rating chatter and market-wide stories. Findings argue in the debate but never move the sentiment score.
Lotus Asset Management LLC reported a new holding of 1,363 shares of Invesco QQQ in its 13F filing for the 2nd quarter.
News · thelincolnianonline.com · 2026-09-10Bienville Capital Management LLC increased its Invesco QQQ position by 222.2% to 5,252 shares during the 2nd quarter, reported as a $3.87 million stake.
News · thelincolnianonline.com · 2026-09-10Reads parsed Forms 3/4/5 — who bought or sold, at what size, and whether a 10b5-1 plan was involved. Flags clustered open-market officer buying; treats plan sales as routine and never counts a fund or 10%-holder as an officer.
No insider transactions on file in the trailing 180 days.
Reads the implied-expectations math built from the company's own filings (the growth rate today's price would justify, and the multiples beside it) and argues whether the market's bar looks high or low for this business. Never turns the math into a target.
The filings on record don't carry four quarters of both operating cash flow and capital expenditure. IFRS filers report no common capex concept, so no FCF claim is made..
Debate and risk review
A bull and a bear contest the claims and the chair rules on each; the risk review stress-tests what survived.
A bull and a bear argue the analysts' claims across two rounds, then a chair rules on each one. Only what survives feeds the score — the argument is shown, not hidden, so you can judge the reasoning yourself.
The evidence set collectively supports a favorable read: momentum measures (momentum_12_1 +27.1%, momentum_6m +18.0%) sit in the upper percentiles of the 548-stock universe and trend indicators show a golden cross with price above both the 50- and 200-day SMAs, which are classical technical signals of constructive price behavior. Institutional scale remains large (13F reported institutional holdings $420.47B) and the 2nd-quarter 13F shows some new or increased stakes by named managers, which add incremental institutional interest. Points that are often raised as concerns—past maximum drawdowns and elevated beta—are historical descriptors (max_drawdown_3y = -22.8%) or measures of market sensitivity (beta_spy = 1.42) and do not contradict the current upside momentum and constructive trend signals; notably current drawdown from the 3y high is only -4.0%. Volatility metrics are mixed (30d vol 19.5%, 90d vol 23.1%) but rank_vol_90d low in the cross-section, indicating that, relative to peers, recent realized volatility is not unusually high. Taken together, the strongest evidence comes from momentum, trend confirmation, and sizable institutional footprint, while the bear case relies on historical drawdown and elevated market sensitivity that are contextual rather than dispositive.
Chair's verdict, claim by claim
Fragility · computed, not argued
balanced0.49
14 surviving claims rest on 4 distinct sources; the heaviest analyst carries 43% of them, and 96% of what the desk raised survived the debate.
The evidence base is moderately fragile: fourteen surviving claims draw on only four distinct sources and a single analyst supplies nearly half of the claims, so a change in that analyst’s inputs or in one dominant source would materially reduce confidence. High survival through debate means the desk preserved most assertions rather than filtering them aggressively; however, the presence of independent data types (computed market signals, 13F filings, and news) provides some cross-checks that limit total fragility.
Disconfirming evidence · base rates · falsifiers
Context
Outside consensus, and where this name already sits in your own portfolio.
Third-party consensus shown for context. It never enters Moneyta sentiment — when the two diverge, the debate above is where the why lives.
What this was built from
Every figure on this page traces to one of these. The desk reads only what is listed here — no outside knowledge, no browsing — and each card shows who read it and what it contributed to the score.
1 signal set
Moneyta signal set
Computed from our own end-of-day price history and ranked against the whole research universe. No AI involved.
Read by Nash+0.1 to the score
1 holdings record
Fund holdings
Which funds hold this name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings.
Read by Ellis+0.0 to the score
2 headlines
News coverage
Recent headlines about this company, rating chatter excluded and nothing published after the report date.
Read by Yatesnothing survived
1 record· 0 cited
Company profile
Sector, industry and company details.
Read means we pulled and handed it to an analyst; cited means a claim on this page points at it. Reading twelve quarters to state one trend is normal — the gap is shown rather than hidden.
Written by AI, checked against sources
The analysts, the bull–bear debate and the editor's note are AI agents reading only the evidence listed on this page. They can misread a filing or a headline, which is why every claim cites a source you can open and check yourself. The sentiment score is arithmetic over the claims that survived the debate, not a language model's opinion.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations. Past patterns do not indicate future results.
The full terminal on QQQ Gold
Who holds it, who's buying, what the Street thinks: live behind the lock, updated as filings land.
Institutional holders
Net institutional flow, Q/Q
Largest holder position
Insider buys, 90 days
Clustered insider value
Street target range
The real figures are for members. Educational analysis, not advice.
Get this for the names you actually hold
Every name in your portfolio, researched the same way, plus the one thing no sample can show: how each one sits inside what you already own.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations.