The Thirty-First of July, Printed 166 Times on One Route

One hundred and sixty-six documents in EDINET's lists for the first week of August carry the same value in the same field. The field is 【報告義務発生日】, the date on which the reporting obligation arose. The value is 31 July 2026, a Friday. Nine of the 166 were opened and read field by field for this piece; on the submitter names EDINET's index carries, the nine come from seven filers and concern nine issuers, and all nine were filed on 7 August. Whatever those nine positions have in common, on the face of the paperwork it may be nothing except that Friday.

The shelf they sit on is defined by a string. Across those five daily lists, 359 distinct documents are described 大量保有報告書 or 変更報告書 in one of five exact forms. Two of the five carry a phrase: 特例対象株券等, securities subject to the special provisions. One hundred and seventy carry it and 189 do not, splitting on that phrase alone. The filings with the phrase are therefore 170 ÷ 359 = 47.4 per cent of the week's large-shareholding paperwork — close enough to half that anyone treating a weekly filing count as a measure of how many holders crossed a line last week is, in this week, adding together counts the index keeps under different names.

Four facts about that denominator, since everything below rests on it. First, the week's lists carry 366 entries in those five forms, not 359: seven documents appear on two of the five days, and on the two days the description is not the same one — in one case 大量保有報告書 on the Thursday list and 変更報告書 on the Friday, with the same document ID and the same submission timestamp. Each of the seven is counted once here, and none of them carries the phrase. Second, a further 32 entries are described 訂正報告書（大量保有報告書・変更報告書）, corrections to earlier filings of both kinds; on the rule used here their description is a different string, so they sit outside the 359. Third, three of the 189 carry a submission timestamp from July — the 22nd, the 27th and the 31st — and appear in the week's lists anyway. The window in this piece is the list, not the timestamp; all 170 of the filings carrying the phrase are timestamped inside it. Fourth, the 189 are not one form. Twenty-three of them are described 変更報告書（短期大量譲渡）, the fifth of the five strings, which has a name of its own and is not simply the absence of the phrase.

The filings that carry the phrase print their authority as Article 27-26. What that article requires, of whom, and what starts the clock on filings without the phrase are questions the statute answers, and the statute was not read for this piece. The reading below — that the phrase marks a route with a calendar of its own — is an inference from one column of dates, and it is offered as one. Route, from here on, means the 170.

Within the 170, the concentration on one date is 166 ÷ 170 = 97.6 per cent. The other four agree with each other. All four print 2026年07月27日, Monday 27 July; all four were filed on 3 August; and all four are indexed to 株式会社三菱ＵＦＪフィナンシャル・グループ, a submitter name that appears nowhere else in the 170. One of the four is a 大量保有報告書 on Okuma (6103), an issuer that turns up among the 166 as well, on a change report numbered 33 and filed four days later. The residual belongs to one name.

The 166 do not print the date the same way. One hundred and thirteen print 令和8年7月31日, in the era calendar; fifty-three print 2026年7月31日, in the Western one. 113 + 53 = 166, and 113 ÷ 166 = 68.1 per cent. The 166 come from 42 submitter names, and not one of the 42 prints it both ways: 21 use the era calendar throughout, 21 the Western. The spelling sits with the filer rather than with the day, which is the sort of thing that turns a two-line script into a three-line script and an afternoon.

The provision line splits without a remainder. 法第27条の26第2項第2号 appears on 86; 第2項第1号 on 35; 第1項 on 28; a longer form reading 法第27条の26第2項に基づく報告書 on 19; the same longer form for paragraph 1 on 2. That is 86 + 35 + 28 + 19 + 2 = 170, and every one of the 170 returned a provision string to the machine reading. Regrouped by paragraph rather than by print format: paragraph 2 in all its spellings is 140, or 82.4 per cent, and paragraph 1 is 30, or 17.6 per cent.

The titles the documents give themselves line up with that exactly. All 140 citing paragraph 2 title themselves 変更報告書 on their own covers, ahead of whatever number the cover adds; all 30 citing paragraph 1 title themselves 大量保有報告書, one of the 30 carrying （特例対象株券等） in the title as well. No exceptions in 170. Where the two sources part company is on one filing: EDINET's index describes it 大量保有報告書（特例対象株券等）, its cover reads 変更報告書ＮＯ．2, and it cites paragraph 2. The index and the cover are not printing the same string: the description sits in one, the title on the other, and on this one filing they do not match.

Within paragraph 2 the item number splits 35 under item 1 and 86 under item 2, with a further 19 printing 法第27条の26第2項に基づく報告書, which names the paragraph; on those 19 the item number is outside the string that field prints. What puts a filing under one item rather than the other is not decided by any field read here.

Names next. Counted by the submitter name in EDINET's index rather than from inside the documents, the 170 come from 43 names, 24 of which appear once. 野村證券株式会社, Nomura Securities, filed 48; 三井住友トラスト・アセットマネジメント株式会社 14; 株式会社みずほ銀行 10; and three further names eight apiece. 48 + 14 + 10 = 72, or 42.4 per cent of the route, from three names out of 43. 野村アセットマネジメント株式会社, Nomura Asset Management, is a separate index name and filed five.

Which name to count is a decision, and the nine opened here show why. The report on Rasa Industries (4022) is indexed under ゴールドマン・サックス・インターナショナル; the cover field headed 【氏名又は名称】 prints ゴールドマン・サックス証券株式会社; and the holder set out inside is ゴールドマン・サックス・インターナショナル, of Plumtree Court, London. Three fields, two names. The report on Tatsumo (6266) is indexed under 野村アセットマネジメント株式会社, prints 野村證券株式会社 in the same cover field, and sets out two holders, the first of them ノムラ　インターナショナル　ピーエルシー, of Angel Lane, London. Three fields, three names. On three of the nine that cover field carries a lawyer and a law firm rather than a manager, and the manager appears as the index name and again as the holder inside. On the index basis used above, Nomura Securities is the submitter on three of the nine and Nomura Asset Management on a fourth.

The purpose field is where the route stops looking uniform. 【保有目的】 is printed once for each holder a filing sets out, not once for the filing, so a count of it has to say which field it took. Taking the first holder's field on each of the 170, three exact sentences account for 33, 24 and 14 — 71 in all, or 41.8 per cent. In order: 「証券業務に係る商品在庫、及び累積投資業務の運営目的として保有している。」 on 33, 「証券業務に係る商品在庫として保有している。」 on 24, and 「投資信託契約、投資一任契約に基づく運用を目的として保有するもの。」 on 14. Rendered literally: held as merchandise inventory relating to the securities business and for the operation of the accumulation-investment business; held as merchandise inventory relating to the securities business; held for the purpose of management under investment trust contracts and discretionary investment contracts. The English is a literal rendering, not a paraphrase. On that same basis the field returned 40 distinct strings to the machine reading, 19 of them appearing once.

Read across every holder instead, a pass over the 170 takes 488 of the field, and the ranking changes hands. The sentence appearing in the most documents is one the first-holder count barely registers: 「信託財産の運用として保有している。」, held for the management of trust property, in 51 of the 170 and first on one of them. The report on Tatsumo has it under its second holder, in a block that opens two pages after the inventory sentence printed under its first. Same 170 documents, same field, two orders of merit.

The count is character-exact, which matters more than it sounds. On the first-holder basis 「証券業務に係わる商品在庫として保有している。」, 係わる with the extra kana, appears on two of the 170 — the reports on Tatsumo (6266) and B-map (4316) — against the 24 that print 係る without it. Read across every holder's field, the same 係わる sentence turns up in 50 of the 170, and 17 documents print both spellings inside themselves: the report on J.S.B. (3480) has 係る under its first holder, 係わる under its second and the trust-property sentence under its third. To a string counter those are two sentences. To a reader they are one. The document is not making the grouping; the grouping is a decision the person counting makes, and it is the sort of decision that moves a tally by a per cent or two in whichever direction it is made.

At the other end of the same field the route carries wording of a different kind. 「純投資」, pure investment, on the report on Suntory Beverage & Food (2587); 「投資一任契約による純投資」, pure investment under a discretionary investment contract, on the report on Digital Arts (2326); 「顧客である日本国外の投資信託のための純投資」, pure investment for client investment trusts outside Japan, on the report on Maruchiyo Yamaokaya (3399). A fourth puts a custody note inside the same box: the report on MIRARTH (3492) says the securities are held to manage client assets under investment trust deeds and discretionary investment contracts, and that the registered holder is not the filing company but a bank the client selected, a custodian bank or trust bank. All four cite Article 27-26, paragraph 2 — item 1 on the Digital Arts and MIRARTH filings, item 2 on the other two.

Two of the nine print 0.00 in a holding-ratio field, and the two are not the same object. The report on Digital Arts (2326) sets out one holder: under （３）②【株券等保有割合】 the filer prints 0 shares and 0.00 per cent, with 5.02 in the next row of the same block as the ratio in the previous report, and the cover gives 「株券等保有割合が１％以上減少したこと」 as the reason for filing. The report on Okuma (6103) prints 0.00 twice inside one four-party breakdown: once beside a share count of −2,190 and once beside 0, on the way to a 合計 of 4,833,092 and 7.16 per cent. A field carried to two decimals prints what it prints.

The 総括表 at the back of the Nomura filings makes the point again in a different item. The report on Comforia Residential (3282) prints 1.36 per cent on the line headed 野村證券株式会社 in its （３）【共同保有における株券等保有割合の内訳】 and 5.73 on the 合計 line of that table, beneath two further holders; the report on J.S.B. (3480) prints 0.02 and 1.33 in the same two places. Both numbers are printed, in the same table, under different headings.

So the filings on this route do not describe one kind of holder. Among those opened here are a filer whose printed purpose is inventory; one whose printed purpose is trading and the borrowing of securities as part of its securities-related business; one whose printed purpose is pure investment for client investment trusts outside Japan; and one whose printed purpose runs to two sentences, management of client assets under investment trust deeds and discretionary investment contracts, then the note about who the registered holder is. What they have in common is the date: 166 of the 170 print 31 July.

Which is the practical point for anyone reading the weekly filings as a signal. At least 166 of the week's 359 large-shareholding documents — 46.2 per cent — carry the same obligation date, and all 166 of them carry the phrase. A document count for this week is, to that extent, counting one date. Whether the start of another month does the same was not measured here. Within the 170, a count of obligation dates rather than of documents records 166 events on 31 July and four on 27 July; the obligation dates on the 189 without the phrase were not read for this piece, and nothing above counts them. Neither count is wrong.

Scope, since the arithmetic depends on it. The split was made on the presence of 特例対象株券等 in the EDINET index description, not by opening 359 documents. The provision, title and obligation-date tallies come from a machine reading of the 170 filings that carry the phrase; each of those three is printed once on a cover, and every one of the 170 returned a value, so the tallies count values read from all of them rather than from a subset. The purpose tallies read all 170 as well, but the field is printed once per holder, and each tally above says whether it took the first holder's field or every holder's. The filer tallies are the submitter names in the index, not the names inside the documents. The 189 without the phrase were counted, and beyond the count of 変更報告書（短期大量譲渡） among them they were not decomposed. Nine documents were opened and read field by field — the reports on Rasa Industries, Tatsumo, Suntory Beverage & Food, Digital Arts, Maruchiyo Yamaokaya, Comforia Residential, J.S.B., MIRARTH and Okuma — and one more, the report on B-map, is named on the strength of the machine reading alone. Where a figure is not attributable to one of those readings, it is not asserted here.

Of the 170, 166 carry the same obligation date: 31 July 2026, in two calendars, filed the following week. The other four print 27 July, and one name filed all four.

A note on currency: this piece contains no yen amounts, so nothing in it has been converted. Where Japan Stock Files does convert, the single rate applied across all periods is ¥163.8 = US$1 (the rate retrieved on 24 July 2026; that dated series returns 163.82 for it), taken from the fixed-date endpoint api.frankfurter.app/2026-07-24?from=USD&to=JPY, which returns the same value for that date on every call. Significant figures follow the original yen disclosure, and ratios, percentages, multiples and counts are never converted.