Commonwealth Equity Services 13F Portfolio

The most striking move is the surge into broad, U.S.-centric growth ETFs. Commonwealth is essentially swapping a handful of tech and internet champions for diversified exposure to the entire growth cohort.

Key adds show that shift clearly:

• VUG (Vanguard Growth) was ramped by +477.0%, adding about $651.4M and lifting it to 0.99% of the book. That is a direct, large-cap growth bet, but without single-name concentration risk.
• IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth) climbed +290.5%, a roughly $620.2M increase, cementing another core growth sleeve at 1.05% of the portfolio.
• VO (Vanguard Mid-Cap) jumped +290.7%, adding about $235.5M and signaling a deliberate push into mid-cap growth and quality, not just the mega-cap end of the spectrum.
• QQQM, a lower-cost Nasdaq 100 tracker, rose +21.0% (about $74.8M), keeping the AI/platform complex in the book but again via a basket.
• PVAL (Putnam ETF Trust) was lifted +19.7%, adding roughly $67.0M, consistent with using active or semi-active ETFs to express quality/value tilts alongside pure growth.
• Outside of style ETFs, Eli Lilly stands out: an extra +13.7% in shares (about $49.8M) shows they see more runway in weight-loss and oncology cash flows despite a massive 295.6% gain versus their average cost.

Collectively, these moves say they are not backing away from growth at all; they are upgrading the chassis from single-stock heroics to diversified, scalable exposures.

If the buys are about codifying the growth bet, the trims are about monetizing the names that got them here. Commonwealth is taking chips off the table in the exact places where gains versus cost are eye-watering.

The biggest reductions read like a who’s-who of the last cycle’s winners:

• Apple, still the largest single-name at 3.10% of the book, was cut by -4.8%, freeing about $123.7M despite a 482.2% gain versus their average buy.
• Nvidia, up an extraordinary 1112.2% versus cost, was trimmed -5.3% for roughly $96.5M in released capital.
• Microsoft and both Alphabet share classes were reduced around -4.8% to -5.8%, collectively pulling tens of millions of dollars out of richly profitable positions.
• Amazon saw a -6.2% share reduction (around $65.0M), while Tesla and Caterpillar were each nudged lower as well.
• On the ETF side, SPY (-8.3% and about $100.2M), QQQ (-6.5% and roughly $85.3M), and IJH (-11.2% and about $41.0M) were trimmed to free broad-market and mid-cap beta.

The pattern is consistent: harvest winners in mega-cap tech and generic beta, then redeploy into style-precise vehicles. This is not an abandonment of the themes; it is a risk-budget rebalance away from concentrated single-name volatility.

By GICS labels, technology slipped from an estimated 26.73% to 24.74% of the top-50, even as the portfolio doubled down on growth-factor exposure via ETFs. Label-based sector data underplays what is really happening: tech risk is being repackaged.

The big trims in Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, Alphabet and Meta cut direct tech concentration. But the surge in vehicles like VUG, IWF, IVW and QQQM effectively re-routes that risk into diversified growth baskets spanning tech, communication services and consumer names.

Consumer discretionary edges down slightly (4.70% to 4.31%) as Amazon and Costco are lightened, while industrials dip (2.39% to 2.19%) with trims to Tesla and Caterpillar. Health care actually ticks up from 2.34% to 2.42%, driven by the Eli Lilly add outweighing a modest Johnson & Johnson trim.

The catch-all "Unclassified" bucket – dominated by index, factor and dividend ETFs – rises from 62.27% to 64.90%. That tells the real story: this is now primarily an ETF-and-factor portfolio with sector risk embedded inside the wrappers, not managed name by name.

Taken together, the quarter looks less like a tactical trade and more like a structural reset. After a three-year stretch of strong weighted annualized returns around 20.0%, management is signaling that the easy alpha in picking the obvious AI and platform winners is behind them.

Going forward, expect them to keep expressing secular growth and quality via a lattice of ETFs — VUG, IWF, VO, QQQM, PVAL, SCHD, DGRO and others — while letting a concentrated but shrinking roster of mega-cap tech names ride as core holdings rather than active bets. The small but clear uptick in health care, anchored by Eli Lilly, suggests they still want idiosyncratic upside where they see durable moats and product cycles.

Investors reading this book should not expect violent sector swings; the sector bar chart barely budged. Instead, the edge they are trying to capture is in factor mix and implementation: more growth versus value at the margin, more mid-cap alongside large-cap, and more reliance on diversified vehicles to navigate what they likely see as a late-cycle, regime-shifting market.

In short, Commonwealth is betting that the next leg of returns will be earned by owning the right factors — not by guessing which mega-cap posts the next blowout quarter.