Wedgewood Partners, Inc. 13F holdings and portfolio analysis

Directly following the baseline exposes an investor to a very concentrated large-cap portfolio with benchmark-like market risk and meaningful lag risk. The baseline top5 weight is 43.16% and top10 is 69.39%, so portfolio outcomes are heavily driven by a small set of names including Alphabet at 10.83%, Meta at 9.63%, Apple at 8.21%, and Microsoft at 7.91%. Sector weights are concentrated in Information Technology at 26.28%, Communication Services at 20.46%, and Consumer Discretionary at 18.13%. The baseline metrics show annualizedReturn of 13.89%, beta of 1.01, and maxDrawdown of -32.77, which means the ride was still close to equity-market risk. The risk notes add a second exposure: filing-based implementation lag, with 1,205 trades over the backtest and only modest excess return consistency versus SPY.

Three recent baseline periods explain the trade-off well. The strongest example is 2024-06-30, when baseline returned 11.83% versus 9.83% for SPY, producing 2.0 points of excess return with 14.16 turnover and 18 trades. A second good period is 2024-09-30, where baseline returned 4.0% versus 2.76% for SPY, adding 1.24 points of excess. But weak periods show why the edge is not clean: at 2024-12-31 baseline fell -6.74% versus -3.63% for SPY, lagging by 3.11 points, and at 2025-06-30 it lost -4.29% while SPY gained 4.2%, an 8.49-point shortfall. These periods sum up the baseline case: there are real upside periods, but concentration and lag can create sharp benchmark-relative misses even when turnover is only moderate.

A user should inspect three things next: concentration, period dispersion, and implementation lag. On concentration, the baseline top10 is 69.39% and the top holdings are heavily clustered in Alphabet, Meta, Apple, Microsoft, Booking, and Visa. On period dispersion, recent periodPerformance shows both strong wins like 2024-06-30 (+2.0 excess return) and severe misses like 2025-06-30 (-8.49 excess return). On implementation, the risk notes say the backtest uses filing-based implementation and incurred 1,205 trades with totalEstimatedCost of 2.1307, so the strategy is not frictionless. If those three checks still look acceptable, then the baseline may be reasonable for someone who wants to mirror disclosed holdings without active reweighting.