Schedule 13G: JPMorgan Owns 9.49M Otis Shares (2.4%)
Rhea-AI Filing Summary
JPMorgan Chase & Co. reports beneficial ownership of 9,490,997 shares of Otis Worldwide common stock, representing 2.4% of the class. The filing breaks down voting and dispositive powers: sole voting power on 8,073,891 shares and shared voting power on 126,740 shares; sole dispositive power on 9,412,172 shares and shared dispositive power on 68,936 shares. The statement indicates these securities are held in the ordinary course of business and not for the purpose of changing control. Several J.P. Morgan affiliates and subsidiaries are identified as entities through which holdings are held, including trust, securities, banking and asset management entities.
Positive
- Transparent disclosure of aggregate holdings and a full breakdown of voting and dispositive powers
- Certification that shares are held in the ordinary course of business and not to influence control
- Identification of affiliates through which holdings are held, improving clarity about ownership structure
Negative
- None.
Insights
TL;DR: Routine institutional disclosure showing a modest 2.4% stake with clear voting/dispositive breakdowns.
The filing is a standard Schedule 13G amendment revealing JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s aggregate position in Otis at 9.49 million shares, or 2.4% of the class. The detailed split between sole and shared voting and dispositive powers helps clarify control exposure: most shares are held with sole dispositive authority, which implies internal portfolio management rather than coordinated group action. No information here indicates any intent to influence corporate control, consistent with the certification included.
TL;DR: Disclosure aligns with passive/investment-management ownership, not an activist posture.
The schedule identifies multiple J.P. Morgan entities as holders, which is typical where custody, advisory, and trust functions are involved. The certification that holdings are ordinary-course and not for control, together with the sub-5% position, suggests limited governance implications. The breakdown of sole versus shared powers is useful for boards assessing investor composition but does not signal imminent governance action.