[SCHEDULE 13G/A] Dayforce, Inc. SEC Filing
Dayforce Inc.'s Schedule 13G/A shows Capital Research Global Investors (CRGI) is deemed the beneficial owner of 3,433,666 shares of Dayforce common stock, equal to 2.1% of 159,881,069 shares outstanding. CRGI reports sole voting power over 3,411,444 shares and sole dispositive power over 3,433,666 shares. The filing clarifies that CRGI is a division of Capital Research and Management Company and related investment management entities that collectively provide services under the CRGI name. The statement also certifies the holdings are held in the ordinary course of business and were not acquired to change or influence control of the issuer, and notes ownership is of 5 percent or less of the class.
- None.
- None.
Insights
TL;DR: Institutional stake is modest at 2.1% with sole voting and dispositive power, a neutral signal for control or immediate valuation impact.
CRGI's position of 3,433,666 shares (2.1%) is substantive as an identifiable institutional holding but remains below material thresholds that typically trigger control or activist concerns. Reported sole voting power of 3,411,444 shares indicates CRGI can direct votes for most of its shares, while dispositive power equals total beneficial ownership. There is no shared power or group affiliation reported. Overall, this is an informational disclosure of institutional ownership rather than a material change to corporate control or capital structure.
TL;DR: Filing affirms ordinary-course investment with no stated intent to influence control; governance impact appears limited.
The filing includes a certification that the securities are held in the ordinary course of business and were not acquired to influence control, reducing the likelihood of imminent governance action. Item disclosures show the position is classified under an investment-adviser framework and Item 5 indicates ownership of 5% or less of the class. No group formation, additional beneficial owners, or control-seeking arrangements are disclosed, which suggests routine passive institutional ownership from a governance perspective.