Why Form 4 Table I and Table II Can Tell Two Different Ownership Stories
A Form 4 can show direct Class A sales in Table I while Table II still reveals millions of derivative or indirect shares. Here is how to read both tables without making a false “owns zero shares” claim.
One of the most common mistakes in insider analysis is reading only the non-derivative section of a Form 4. Table I can show a sale or even a directly held Class A balance dropping to zero, while Table II still shows millions of shares through derivative securities, trusts, or multi-class ownership structures. If you ignore Table II, you can turn a nuanced ownership filing into a materially false “the founder sold everything” headline.
What Table I usually tells you
Table I is the non-derivative section. In practice, this is often where you see ordinary common-stock transactions such as open-market purchases and sales. When readers see a post-transaction share count of zero here, they often assume the insider has fully exited.
What Table II adds
Table II covers derivative securities and other reportable indirect or structured holdings. In multi-class companies, this can include the more important control position. That is why an insider can sell Class A shares in Table I while still retaining a large economic or voting stake through Table II.
Why this matters so much
This distinction changes the whole story. A founder selling some public Class A stock while retaining a large Table II balance is not the same as a full exit. In practical terms, the right language is usually something like “sold directly held Class A shares” or “reduced the Table I balance” rather than “owns zero shares.”
How to read a Form 4 correctly
Always read both tables. Look at the transaction code, the security type, and the post-transaction share count in each section. Then ask whether the filing reflects direct ownership only or a broader beneficial ownership story. That simple checklist prevents some of the worst insider-analysis mistakes.
Q&A
Does a zero balance in Table I mean the insider fully exited?
No. Table II may still show derivative or indirect holdings.
Why does Table II matter so much in founder-led companies?
Because it can hold the shares that carry real economic or voting control.
What is the safest phrasing when Table I goes to zero?
Say the insider sold or no longer directly held the Table I shares, unless you have also confirmed the broader ownership picture.
Related Guides
Related Research
Explore all researchFisher’s Q4 2025 filing was still packed with mega-cap tech, but the bigger tell was a giant Treasury and investment-grade corporate bond sleeve built through IEF and VCIT. The next filing will show whether that duration bet was tactical or structural.
Apr 17, 2026
Nuveen’s Q4 2025 filing stayed large-cap and AI-heavy at the top, but the more revealing addition was a sizable fixed-income sleeve through NXUS and NHYB. The next filing will show whether those credit and bond ETFs remain central or fade back out.
Apr 17, 2026
CalPERS used Q4 2025 to keep broad-market exposure high through VOO while still adding to Nvidia, Microsoft, Alphabet and Broadcom. The next filing will show whether the pension giant keeps that simple beta-heavy structure or rotates again.
Apr 17, 2026
Raymond James used Q4 2025 to keep broad ETF exposure high through VOO, AGG, SPY and IEFA while also adding to sector sleeves such as XLK and XLE. The next filing will show whether that balanced ETF-heavy structure remains the preferred setup.
Apr 17, 2026
Dodge & Cox’s Q4 2025 filing barely moved on headline AUM, but the underlying changes were more interesting: fresh positions in Brookfield, TransUnion and PDD inside a still-diversified value book. The next filing will show whether those adds were conviction moves or just incremental reshuffling.
Apr 17, 2026