It used figures from the wrong day

I’ll check the funds’ issuer holdings, verify whether those versions were public by your cutoff, and calculate the look-through exposure using your stated position values. I can calculate the framework, but I cannot verify a cutoff-compliant name and exposure amount from the holdings versions I found. The source/timing gap The issuer’s IVV holdings download is dated 27 October 2026, after your cutoff, so I excluded it. The IWF live holdings source likewise supplies current data rather than a verified pre-cutoff version. The issuer’s IVV fact sheet and IWF fact sheet are labelled “as of 30 June 2026.” I could not establish their publication timestamps or that they were the latest versions publicly available by 16 October at 4 p.m. Eastern. Their as-of dates alone do not meet your timing requirement. What is supported from your figures Your four stated positions total 45,000, including 35,000 in the two ETFs. Assuming these are position values in the same currency, exposure to any shared company is: 20,000 × its IVV weight + 15,000 × its IWF weight + your direct holding in that company. Use weights as decimals. Add 6,000 only if the company is Eli Lilly, 4,000 only if it is Visa, and zero otherwise. Divide the resulting exposure by 45,000 for its share of the four positions you listed. These are calculations from your message, not fund data. I would rank common companies by their combined look-through dollar exposure across your two ETF positions, combining any separate share classes of the same company. Without holdings snapshots whose publication by the cutoff is verified, naming the winner or giving a precise percentage would overstate the evidence. I have not substituted today’s weights or changed any holdings.

NVIDIA is the funds' largest common holding. Based on the funds' latest holdings that I can prove were public by the cutoff, you have about 3,576 of exposure to it, roughly 7.9% of your 45,000 total. You hold no NVIDIA directly, so all of it comes through the ETFs. The holdings I used These are the funds' own SEC N-PORT reports, which list their holdings as of June 30, 2026: iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV). N-PORT report, accession 0002071691-26-019760, accepted by the SEC on August 25, 2026 at 10:10 AM ET (10:10 PM Shanghai). NVIDIA is its largest holding at 7.506% of net assets. iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). N-PORT report, accession 0001004726-26-007047, accepted August 24, 2026 at 2:53 PM ET (August 25, 2:53 AM Shanghai). NVIDIA is its largest holding at 13.830%. NVIDIA is the top holding in both funds. Alphabet comes close only if you add its two share classes together, and even then it stays behind: about 5.8% in IVV and 11.1% in IWF. Your NVIDIA exposure (my arithmetic) Through IVV: 20,000 × 7.506% ≈ 1,501. Through IWF: 15,000 × 13.830% ≈ 2,074. Total: about 3,576. Your Lilly and Visa holdings, for comparison Both funds also hold Lilly and Visa, so your total exposure to each is larger than your direct position: Eli Lilly: 6,000 direct, plus about 294 through IVV (1.470%) and 426 through IWF (2.837%), for about 6,720. That's your single biggest exposure overall. Visa: 4,000 direct, plus about 176 through IVV (0.882%) and 252 through IWF (1.679%), for about 4,428. Why these may not be the latest holdings iShares also posts daily holdings on its own website, and those are more recent than the N-PORT reports. Timing proof for them is weak: IVV: a Wayback Machine capture from October 2, 2026 of the iShares holdings file shows holdings as of September 30, with NVIDIA at 8.37%. On that basis, your IVV exposure would be about 1,674. The capture is a third-party record that the file could be reached by October 2, not iShares' own proof of when it was published. IWF: I found no archived October copy, so I can't establish a more recent IWF holdings list that was public by the cutoff. Current pages: anything on iShares' site today was viewed after the cutoff and doesn't prove what was public on October 16. If you mix IVV's September 30 figure with IWF's June 30 figure, the total comes to about 3,748. But that combines two different dates, so I'd stick with the June 30 figure of about 3,576. What I can't conclude Your exposure on October 16 itself. Weights change daily with prices and rebalancing, and June 30 is more than three months before the cutoff. The values of your holdings. I used the amounts you gave me as current values, and you didn't name a currency. I didn't place any orders or change any settings.

I'll pull the funds' own holdings data first.Let me open the fund fact sheet directly.**Your look-through exposure to Nvidia, the largest holding in both funds, is about 3,576.50, or 7.95% of your 45,000 portfolio.** This uses the funds' June 30, 2026 fact sheets, whose publication before your cutoff I could not prove from the documents themselves. | Fund | Your position | Nvidia weight (as of June 30, 2026) | Your Nvidia exposure | |---|---|---|---| | iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) | 20,000 | 7.51% | 1,502.00 | | iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) | 15,000 | 13.83% | 2,074.50 | | **Total** | 35,000 | | **3,576.50** | You hold no Nvidia directly, so this is your whole exposure. I treated your figures as currency amounts, not share counts. **Sources (both BlackRock's own fund documents)** - IVV: the fact sheet as of June 30, 2026 lists Nvidia as the top holding at 7.51%. [IVV fact sheet](https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/fact-sheet/ivv-ishares-core-s-p-500-etf-fund-fact-sheet-en-us.pdf) - IWF: the fact sheet as of June 30, 2026 lists Nvidia as the top holding at 13.83%. [IWF fact sheet](https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/fact-sheet/iwf-ishares-russell-1000-growth-etf-fund-fact-sheet-en-us.pdf) **What the timing evidence does and does not show** - **Fact sheets:** they carry only the June 30 as-of date, with no publication date. I retrieved them on November 10, so the documents alone do not prove they were posted by October 16. - **Corroboration, not proof:** a third-party aggregator's copy of IVV's SEC holdings report for June 30 shows the same 7.51% Nvidia weight. A search-index snapshot of that page priced "at close Sep 4" already showed the June 30 report date. I did not retrieve the SEC filing itself, so I have no primary filing date. - **Daily holdings:** iShares also posts daily holdings, and whatever was posted at your cutoff would be the true latest. I could not retrieve a version dated at or before October 16 with evidence of when it went up. The live page now shows November 9 data, which I excluded. **What cannot be concluded** - The 3,576.50 figure is your exposure at June 30 weights, not at whatever weights were posted on October 16. - I can't confirm from primary sources that Nvidia was still the top holding in both funds at the cutoff, though it led both at June 30 by a wide margin. To close the gap, download the holdings file from each iShares fund page for a date on or before October 16, and note that the download itself still won't show when it was posted.

I’ll check the holdings dates separately from the evidence of when they were published. If the cutoff timing cannot be verified, I’ll make that gap explicit rather than call the holdings current. I cannot verify that either holdings list was the latest publicly available at your October 16, 2026, 4:00 p.m. EDT cutoff. That is a timing-evidence gap, not proof that the lists were wrong or unavailable. What I could establish iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV): a fund holdings report for June 30, 2026 was filed publicly on August 25, 2026. EDGAR records acceptance at 10:10:51. This establishes an eligible historical snapshot, not October holdings. Fund’s NPORT-P filing, August 25, 2026. iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF): a fund holdings report for June 30, 2026 was filed publicly on August 24, 2026, with acceptance at 14:53:14. Again, this is a historical snapshot, not October holdings. Fund’s NPORT-P filing, August 24, 2026. I have not established that these were the newest reports available by your cutoff. Sources I cannot use as cutoff holdings evidence The issuer’s rolling downloads currently return holdings labelled October 23, 2026 for both IVV and IWF. I am identifying these sources only to explain their exclusion, not using their holdings or weights in the cutoff assessment. For a cutoff-near historical list, the missing evidence is a timestamped public copy or publication record tying that exact version to availability no later than your cutoff. An earlier “as-of” date, or retrieving a historical file now, would not establish that. Bottom line: distinguish “holdings measured on this date,” “published by the cutoff,” and “latest available at the cutoff.” I can establish the first two for the June reports, but not the third. I cannot certify the exact October 16 holdings, weights, or overlap from the evidence verified here. For your investment notes, label these as historical snapshots rather than current exposure. If you share the particular lists you’re viewing, I can assess their dates and publication evidence directly.

I can't establish that either fund's published holdings were current at the cutoff (4:00 PM ET on October 16, 2026, which is 4:00 AM on October 17 Shanghai time, UTC+8). iShares says it posts holdings daily, but its holdings files carry no publication timestamp. For IVV, the newest holdings I can prove were public are as of September 30. For IWF, they're as of June 30. What iShares says it does The iShares Trust prospectuses dated July 31, 2026 say "Each Fund discloses its portfolio holdings daily at www.iShares.com" (IVV prospectus, IWF prospectus). That's a policy statement. It gives no time of day or lag, so it doesn't prove which file was online on October 16. According to the funds' own pages, IVV tracks the S&P 500 and IWF tracks the Russell 1000 Growth Index. iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) Proven public by October 2: holdings as of September 30, 2026. The source is iShares' own holdings file. The timing proof comes from a third party: an Internet Archive copy of that file captured October 2, 2026 at 6:19 PM Shanghai time (6:19 AM ET). Its top weights were Nvidia 8.37%, Apple 7.36%, Microsoft 5.77%, Amazon 3.70% and Alphabet A 3.06%. SEC-timestamped proof: the N-PORT holdings report for June 30, 2026, accepted August 25, 2026 at 10:10 PM Shanghai time (10:10 AM ET). It lists 508 holdings entries. iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) Proven public by the cutoff: only the N-PORT report for June 30, 2026, accepted August 25, 2026 at 2:53 AM Shanghai time (August 24, 2:53 PM ET). It lists 371 holdings entries, with top weights of Nvidia 13.83%, Apple 6.72%, Alphabet A 6.17% and Broadcom 5.21%. Missing: the IWF holdings file has no archived copy in 2026, and the product page has none after August 23. So I have no evidence of what IWF's website showed in October. What can't be concluded, and why The live files don't help. The pages and files online now say "as of Oct 23, 2026," which is after the cutoff, so I left their figures out. The files also carry no publish-time header. The evidence that would settle it: a dated copy of either holdings file from October 15 or 16, or an iShares publication log. I found neither. What the daily policy suggests: newer files probably existed by October 16, but I can't prove it, and I can't say what they contained. The SEC acceptance times show when the reports were submitted. That's strong evidence they were public before the cutoff, but it isn't an exact public-release time. The next SEC holdings report would cover September 30, and I'd expect it in late November. That's my inference from past filing timing, not something stated anywhere. So for your "why I own it" notes, treat September 30 (IVV) and June 30 (IWF) as the latest holdings you can document as of the cutoff.

Short answer: on the evidence I can actually check, no — I cannot establish that the holdings you are looking at were current at 2026-10-16 16:00 EDT. That is not the same as saying they were wrong. It means the timing proof is missing. What “current” would require at that cutoff At Friday, 2026-10-16 at 16:00 EDT, a holdings list would need both: an as-of date close to the cutoff, and proof it was already published by 16:00 EDT — a publication timestamp, an SEC filing timestamp, or an archived capture at or before that time. An as-of date alone only says what date the portfolio snapshot refers to. It does not say when that snapshot was posted. What I checked, and what was missing You did not attach a specific holdings file or list in this message, so I cannot check that list's as-of date, version, or posting time. The funds' own iShares pages are the primary source to use, but the text I retrieved from them does not establish a dated October 2026 holdings list: [link: iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) page] — the retrieved text gives the fund title, but no holdings rows and no as-of or publication date. [link: iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) page] — the retrieved text gives only the holdings-table header, with no rows. Other figures in that same retrieval are dated April 22, 2024, not October 2026. So for IWF I can identify the fund from its own page — inception May 22, 2000 and benchmark Russell 1000 Growth Index — but those are stable identifiers, not proof that a particular holdings list was current in October 2026. I also did not use the third-party holdings figures dated October 23, 25, or 26, 2026 that appeared in search results. They are after your cutoff and are not the funds' own documents, so they cannot prove the state at October 16. Supported conclusion IVV = iShares Core S&P 500 ETF, IWF = iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF, per the iShares pages above. No dated, primary holdings publication at or before 2026-10-16T16:00:00-04:00 was supplied or established in the sources I accessed. Therefore, do not treat an undated holdings list as current at that cutoff, and do not treat it as disproved either — its currency is unverified. What would close the gap: the exact holdings file or page, with its as-of date and a publication/download timestamp, SEC accession/filing date, or archived capture at or before 2026-10-16 16:00 EDT. With that, I can recheck the specific list against the cutoff.

I'll check the funds' own pages and SEC filings to see what holdings data exists and when each was published.**Not established, Dario, and it depends on which list you have open.** The only complete holdings lists I can show were public by 4:00 p.m. ET on October 16, 2026 are the SEC filings dated June 30, 2026, which were 108 days old at the cutoff. The daily list on iShares.com is designed to be about one business day old, but I can't establish what it showed by the cutoff. | Source | Holdings as of | Publication evidence | Status at cutoff | |---|---|---|---| | [IVV Form N-PORT](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1100663/000207169126019760/0002071691-26-019760-index.html) | June 30, 2026 | Accepted by EDGAR on August 25, 2026 at 10:10:51 | Public, but stale | | [IWF Form N-PORT](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1100663/000100472626007047/0001004726-26-007047-index.htm) | June 30, 2026 | Filed August 24, 2026, per a third-party index of EDGAR; I could not open the EDGAR page itself | Very likely public, but stale | | Daily holdings on iShares.com ([IVV](https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239726/ishares-core-s-p-500-etf-ivv), [IWF](https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239706/ishares-russell-1000-growth-etf)) | Changes each business day | None: the page shows an as-of date but no posting time | Not established | | Fact sheets, top 10 only ([IVV](https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/fact-sheet/ivv-ishares-core-s-p-500-etf-fund-fact-sheet-en-us.pdf), [IWF](https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/fact-sheet/iwf-ishares-russell-1000-growth-etf-fund-fact-sheet-en-us.pdf)) | June 30, 2026 | No posting date on the document | Not established, and stale anyway | ## The website list - **Policy:** The funds' Statement of Additional Information says that each business day, before the exchange opens, the fund posts on iShares.com the holdings that will form the basis of its next net asset value. I saw this wording in hosted copies of the iShares Trust SAIs dated [February 23, 2026](https://regulated-documents.saytechnologies.com/prospectuses/e1ea6bf8-b00a-4d51-bba6-f31e9267878d-46438G133.pdf) and [July 31, 2026](https://regulated-documents.saytechnologies.com/proxy-events/778a5fcc-970f-4859-9450-7578be580179-0d276832-16aa-45bd-ab18-3e9595a31d5a.pdf). - **Missing evidence:** A posting timestamp, or a dated archive capture of the page or its holdings file, at or before the cutoff. The pages I can retrieve today carry November dates, so I have not used their figures. - **What cannot be concluded:** That the policy was followed on October 16, or what the holdings, weights or holdings count were at the cutoff. - **Best case:** If the policy was followed, the list posted that morning would reflect positions through October 15. This is my inference from the policy. ## Why the June 30 lists are out of date **IVV.** The S&P 500 changed at least twice after June 30; I did not check July and August. - **[September 4 release](https://press.spglobal.com/2026-09-04-Bloom-Energy,-Illumina,-and-Everpure-Set-to-Join-S-P-500-Others-to-Join-S-P-100,-S-P-MidCap-400,-and-S-P-SmallCap-600):** Bloom Energy and Everpure were added, and Molson Coors and The Trade Desk removed. Illumina was also added and Builders FirstSource removed, all effective before the open on September 21, 2026. - **[October 1 release](https://press.spglobal.com/2026-10-01-Vylor-Added-to-the-S-P-500-Twilio-Set-to-Join-S-P-500-Others-to-Join-S-P-MidCap-400-and-S-P-SmallCap-600):** Vylor joined on October 1 through its spin-off from Corteva, and Twilio replaced Warner Bros. Discovery effective October 6. Corteva left the index the same day. These are index changes; the fund's matching trades would appear only in the daily list. **IWF.** Membership has probably moved less, but weights have. - **Reconstitution:** The June reconstitution took effect after the close on June 26, 2026, so the June 30 snapshot already reflects it ([LSEG](https://www.lseg.com/en/about-us/new-at-lseg/more-key-facts-ahead-of-the-2026-russell-us-indexes-reconstitution)). The next one ranks companies on October 30 and takes effect after the close on December 11, both after your cutoff ([FTSE Russell, September 1, 2026](https://www.lseg.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/ftse-russell/2026/ftse-russell-announces-december-2026-russell-us-indexes-reconstitution-schedule)). - **Quarterly caps:** The index is rebalanced after the close on the third Friday of March, June, September and December, with company weights capped ([summary prospectus, July 31, 2026](https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/summary-prospectus/sp-ishares-russell-1000-growth-etf-3-31.pdf)). One such rebalance fell in September. - **Sampling:** The fund uses representative sampling and may not hold every index member, so the index alone does not tell you the fund's list. ## Checking your copy - **As-of date:** If your list says June 30, 2026, it is stale. If it says October 14 or 15, it is consistent with being current at the cutoff, though the posting time is still unproven. - **Membership test for IVV:** A list that postdates October 6 should include Twilio and Vylor and exclude Warner Bros. Discovery and Corteva. For checking overlap with your own stocks, the June 30 lists remain a rough guide to the largest positions, not to exact weights or the smaller names. At that date NVIDIA was 7.51% of IVV and 13.83% of IWF.

I’ll compare J&J’s reported and adjusted earnings, and separate sales growth from any currency effects or one-off items. Yes on sales growth; no on earnings growth. J&J’s Q3 2026 sales increased year over year, but both its reported and adjusted earnings declined. The results were published October 13, before your cutoff. Company release, October 13, 2026; SEC filing record, October 13, 2026. Did the business grow? Comparing Q3 2026 with Q3 2025: Sales rose to US$25.399 billion from US$23.993 billion, up 5.9%. “Operational” sales growth was 6.0%, excluding currency translation. “Adjusted operational” growth was 6.1%, also excluding the net effect of acquisitions and divestitures. So the sales increase was not simply a currency boost. The latter two measures are non-GAAP adjustments, not separate sales totals. Company release and definitions, October 13, 2026. Why two earnings numbers? The two headline diluted earnings-per-share measures were: GAAP EPS: US$0.09 versus US$2.12, down 95.8%. Adjusted EPS: US$2.59 versus US$2.80, down 7.5%. Similarly, GAAP net earnings were US$210 million, while adjusted net earnings were US$6.339 billion. These are different measurement bases, not contradictory reports. Company financial schedules, October 13, 2026. The reconciliation adds back expenses including US$5.519 billion of litigation-related items and US$1.240 billion of intangible-asset amortization, plus other items and tax adjustments. J&J links the large reported-EPS hit partly to its proposed talc-litigation resolution. Importantly, adjusted EPS still includes effects of the Firefly acquisition and Sail collaboration; it does not remove every deal-related cost. Reconciliation, October 13, 2026; release, October 13, 2026. For your ownership thesis, my summary is: “Sales grew, but that growth did not translate into higher EPS this quarter, even on management’s adjusted basis.” Neither dismissing GAAP charges nor treating the entire reported-profit decline as a collapse in customer demand gives a complete picture. This quarter alone cannot establish sustainable future earnings growth or whether the shares are good value.

Sales grew, but earnings didn't, on either measure. The two numbers you saw are probably J&J's reported EPS of $0.09 and its adjusted EPS of $2.59. Both were lower than a year earlier. All figures come from J&J's third-quarter 2026 earnings release and its financial schedules, both dated October 13, 2026. They were filed with an 8-K that the SEC accepted at 8:12 AM ET that day (8:12 PM Shanghai), before the cutoff. Sales grew Total: $25.399 billion, up 5.9% from $23.993 billion. Excluding currency moves, J&J says growth was 6.0%. Also excluding acquisitions and divestitures, it was 6.1%. By segment: Innovative Medicine (its drug business) was up 7.7% to $16.757 billion. MedTech (medical devices) was up 2.5% to $8.642 billion. By region: the US was up 9.1%, and international was up 1.5%. Offsets: J&J says declining sales of STELARA, a drug now facing competition, cut about 6.9 percentage points from Innovative Medicine's growth. Earnings fell on both measures Reported (GAAP, the official accounting basis): net earnings were $210 million, down 95.9% from $5.152 billion, and EPS was $0.09, against $2.12 a year earlier. The schedules show $5.519 billion of pre-tax "litigation related" charges. J&J attributes this to "a one-time special charge for the proposed talc litigation resolution," plus the Firefly Bio acquisition and the Sail Biomedicines collaboration. Adjusted (J&J's non-GAAP measure): EPS was $2.59, down 7.5% from $2.80, and adjusted net earnings were $6.339 billion, down 6.8%. This measure excludes the litigation charge, intangible amortization and other special items. J&J says it "also reflects the impact of these M&A deals." R&D expense rose 26.7% to $4.652 billion, but the release doesn't say how much of that increase came from the deals. Guidance: J&J raised its 2026 adjusted EPS guidance by $0.06 to $11.10 at the midpoint, and its estimated reported sales to $101.2 billion. What can and can't be concluded Sales growth is clear. The earnings decline is real on both measures. The size of the drop depends on J&J's own adjustments, and those are its choices, not audited figures. The talc resolution is "proposed." The release doesn't show it as final, and the charge could change. The figures come from an unaudited release. J&J's 10-Q for the quarter came out after the cutoff, so I didn't use it. I can't tell how much of the drop in adjusted EPS came from the two deals, because the release doesn't break it out. For your own notes, a reasonable split is sales growth on one side and adjusted EPS plus the talc outcome on the other. What would count as proving you wrong is your call. I didn't place any orders or change any settings.

Yes, the two numbers are real, and they're both from JNJ itself. They measure different things. I searched; everything below is from JNJ's own earnings materials, filed before your cutoff. The quarter: Q3 2026, reported Tuesday 13 Oct 2026 (SEC acceptance 08:12 ET that day, before the cutoff). JNJ's quarters are calendar quarters. - 8-K cover: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/200406/000020040626000189/jnj-20261013.htm - Earnings release (Ex 99.1): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/200406/000020040626000189/a2026q3exhibit991.htm - Supplementary data and non-GAAP reconciliation (Ex 99.2): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/200406/000020040626000189/a2026q3exhibit992.htm The two earnings numbers, Q3 2026 vs Q3 2025: - Reported (GAAP) diluted EPS: $0.09 vs $2.12, down 95.8%. Net earnings $210M vs $5,152M. - Adjusted (non-GAAP) diluted EPS: $2.59 vs $2.80, down 7.5%. Adjusted net earnings $6,339M vs $6,801M. Why they differ (from JNJ's own reconciliation in Ex 99.2): - The GAAP number was crushed by a $5,519M pre-tax litigation charge, which the release ties to the proposed resolution of the talc litigation. The year-ago quarter had almost nothing on that line ($15M). - Adjusted EPS adds that back, along with $1,240M of intangible amortization, $369M of Orthopaedics separation costs, $339M of IPR&D impairments and $195M of restructuring, minus tax effects. - Note: the release says the $2.59 adjusted figure still includes the cost of the Firefly Bio acquisition and Sail Biomedicines collaboration - those were not added back, which is part of why adjusted EPS fell. So did it really grow? - Revenue: yes. $25,399M vs $23,993M, up 5.9% reported, 6.0% operational. Innovative Medicine $16,757M, up 7.7% (TREMFYA, DARZALEX and others, partly offset by STELARA biosimilar erosion); MedTech $8,642M, up 2.5%. - Profit: no, on either basis. GAAP EPS down 95.8% because of the talc charge; even adjusted EPS down 7.5%. The one-liner: the quarter grew sales, not earnings. - Nine months 2026: adjusted EPS $8.19 vs $8.33, roughly flat to slightly down. GAAP nine-month comparisons are distorted by big litigation swings in both years. - Guidance was raised in the same release: full-year reported sales midpoint $101.2B (up 7.4% at midpoint) and adjusted EPS midpoint $11.10 (up 2.9%), versus the July 29 guidance. JNJ gives no forward GAAP guidance, per its stated policy. What I still cannot know from this material: - The talc resolution is described as "proposed," announced subsequent to the quarter; whether it was accepted or finalized is not determinable from pre-cutoff primary sources. - The Q3 10-Q was filed 21 Oct 2026, after your cutoff, so finer detail (exact accrual wording, segment profit) was not public at the cutoff. The $5,519M litigation line is from the pre-cutoff Ex 99.2 and is citable. - All links are sec.gov copies fetched today; I did not separately verify the investor.jnj.com versions. SEC stamps are pre-cutoff; the EDGAR feed check ran today, after the cutoff. I gave no buy or sell call. I placed no order, moved no money and changed no setting. I searched; the pages used are named above. References: the JNJ 8-K and its two exhibits linked above; EDGAR feed https://data.sec.gov/submissions/CIK0000200406.json.

**Sales grew, profit did not.** Q3 2026 sales rose 5.9% to $25.4 billion, but earnings per share fell on both measures J&J reports, which are the two numbers you saw. | Q3 2026 vs Q3 2025 | 2026 | 2025 | Change | |---|---|---|---| | Sales | $25,399M | $23,993M | +5.9% | | EPS under standard accounting (GAAP) | $0.09 | $2.12 | -95.8% | | Adjusted EPS (company's version, excludes "special items") | $2.59 | $2.80 | -7.5% | **Why the two EPS numbers differ** - **$0.09 (GAAP):** this includes a $5,519 million pre-tax litigation charge, which the company ties to its proposed talc settlement. J&J describes that settlement as a $5.5 billion commitment, with a first payment of up to $3 billion in 2027. - **$2.59 (adjusted):** this strips out the talc charge, amortization and restructuring. It still fell because J&J does not strip out the cost of two deals, Firefly Bio and Sail Biomedicines. Firefly alone triggered a roughly $1 billion R&D charge in the quarter. **What grew underneath** - **Sales by segment:** Innovative Medicine grew 7.7% and MedTech 2.5%. U.S. sales rose 9.1%, international 1.5%. - **Products:** Tremfya rose 68.3% to $2,396 million, while Stelara fell 54.4% to $716 million as biosimilars took share. - **Profit before the deal charge:** adding back the roughly $1 billion Firefly charge, adjusted pre-tax profit would be up about 3% (my estimate, from $7,672 million reported versus $8,436 million a year earlier). That is still slower than sales, so margins slipped. **Full-year picture** - **Guidance:** J&J now expects 2026 adjusted EPS of $11.05 to $11.15, up 2.9% at the midpoint, on sales growth of about 7.4%. - **Earlier cut:** on July 29 the two deals lowered the 2026 adjusted EPS midpoint by $0.64, from $11.68 to $11.04. - **2027:** the company expects the same deals to reduce 2027 adjusted EPS by about $1.36, assuming Sail hits its milestones and the option is exercised. For your written thesis, note that the talc charge is excluded from adjusted EPS but is still real cash leaving the company. I'm not a financial advisor, so treat this as the facts to weigh rather than a recommendation. **Primary sources (all at or before your cutoff)** - [Q3 2026 earnings release, Form 8-K Exhibit 99.1, Oct 13, 2026](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/200406/000020040626000189/a2026q3exhibit991.htm) - [Q3 2026 release with financial schedules and reconciliations, Oct 13, 2026](https://s203.q4cdn.com/636242992/files/content_files/3Q26-Earnings-Press-Release-Final-with-attachments.pdf) - [Form 8-K on Firefly and Sail guidance impact, Jul 29, 2026](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/200406/000020040626000163/jnj-20260729.htm) - [J&J Q3 economic factors and announcements document, Sep 16, 2026](https://s203.q4cdn.com/636242992/files/doc_financials/2026/q3/Q3-2026-Economic-Factors-JNJ-Announcements-Website.pdf) The quarterly 10-Q was filed after your cutoff, so I left it out.