Rehmann Capital Advisory Group's Q4 2025 Filing Built a 25.7% Top-Five Ladder Around IVE and IVW

Rehmann Capital Advisory Group reported a broad Q4 2025 portfolio, but the book still resolved into a much narrower capital hierarchy than the raw line count suggests. IVE alone carried 7.6% of reported value, and the top five positions together reached 25.7%.

TL;DR

• AUM: $1.92T in reported Q4 2025 13F value.
• Holdings: 500 lines in the fetched book.
• Top position: IVE at 7.6% of the portfolio.
• Top-five concentration: 25.7%.
• Top-ten concentration: 35.8%.
• Interpretation: the portfolio still resolved into a narrower hierarchy led by IVE, IVW, IEFA, VOO, FBND.

Filing Snapshot

AUM	$1.92T
Holdings (fetched)	500
Top holding	IVE
Top-5 weight	25.7%
Top-10 weight	35.8%
WhaleScore	70.50
Q3 overlap	455 tickers
New vs Q3	45 / 45

The Top of Book Still Does the Real Talking

The easiest way to misread a filing like this is to focus on breadth first. Breadth matters, but capital weighting matters more. In Rehmann Capital Advisory Group, the market's largest liquid positions still controlled the tone of the portfolio. IVE, IVW, IEFA, VOO, FBND were not just present; they were the part of the filing that actually moved the risk budget.

That matters because it tells you this was not a hidden small-cap or thematic-expression book. It was a manager saying that even a wide lineup still wants the same liquid earnings engines at the center.

What Changed Under the Surface

The Q3-to-Q4 overlap still left room for churn. Among the fetched lines, 45 tickers were new and 45 disappeared. Names such as 34959E109, AKRE, ALB, ARMN, BCS, BPRE help show how the manager widened implementation without giving up the top-of-book hierarchy.

The more useful read is not that the fund owns many names. It is that the added complexity still resolves into a familiar hierarchy. That is how many institutional portfolios evolve when they want optionality without abandoning a core market view.

What Analysts Might Misread

A high line count can look like diversification in the abstract and a low line count can look like conviction in the abstract. Reality is messier. Rehmann Capital Advisory Group shows that you can own hundreds of positions and still let a handful of names define the outcome distribution. Investors who only scan holdings count will miss that asymmetry.

Questions Investors May Ask

Does the line count tell me how diversified this portfolio really is?

No. The more useful test is concentration at the top and whether the same tickers keep dominating the value column.

Why do the biggest weights matter more than the add count?

Because the biggest weights define what has to go right. Everything below that is often implementation detail rather than portfolio identity.

How should I use this filing on 13F Insight?

Start with the filer page at Rehmann Capital Advisory Group, then compare the top-of-book structure with other allocators in the research hub and the concentration guide in learn.

What is the main takeaway from this Q4 filing?

The hierarchy mattered more than the breadth. Even with a broad book, a familiar set of large-cap positions still carried the thesis.