Methodology
Managers amend their 13Fs — to fix mistakes, to disclose a position after its confidential-treatment window expires, or to correct one holding out of hundreds. Two amendments that look similar can mean opposite things for the numbers.
Treating a partial restatement as a full one would wipe out every other holding that quarter; treating it as additive would double-count the corrected position. A real example: Berkshire Hathaway amended its 2000 Q2 filing with the restatement box checked but only two rows refiled — one Shaw Communications stake unchanged at 13,288,100 shares, the other corrected from 500,000 to 1,000,000. Every other Berkshire position that quarter stood as originally reported.
When an original plus amendments exist for the same period, the holdings we show are built from whichever filing is currently effective for each position: a full restatement supersedes everything before it, new-holdings amendments layer on top, and a partial restatement supersedes only the positions it refiles. This is why a quarter's total can shift long after the quarter ended — the underlying filing changed, not our math.
Some filings don't add up — the listed holdings don't reconcile with the totals the filer itself declared. We still show the position, but mark it UNVERIFIED: the buy or sell may be real, or it may be a parsing artifact of a messy filing. Unverified activity is excluded from cross-manager consensus and trending, so an artifact in one filing can't get counted as a market signal.
Stock consensus shows which stocks tracked managers agree on buying or selling — built only from filings that reconciled, quarter by quarter.