OAKMARK
8 known aliases resolved via the canonical alias map
Market position · 2024
Plans served16-3 YoYRank #909 of mapped providers
Assets under administration$4.0B0.0%Market share · rank #2183
Fees received$0Median $0/planSum across Schedule C direct + indirect
Net wins YoY-35 won · 8 lostPlan-level switch detection
Plans served · 5-year trajectory
Market-share plans percent annotated. Bar height is raw plan count.
Customer-base shape
What does a typical OAKMARK plan look like?
Service mix · median fees per plan
Count of plans where OAKMARK ships each service code, and the median compensation they report under it.
| Service | Plans | Median fees | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|
Shareholder servicing fees; Investment managementCode 28 | 10 | $0 | |
Sub-transfer agency feesCode 60 | 4 | $0 | |
Other fees; Other servicesCode 49 | 1 | $0 | |
Shareholder servicing feesCode 59 | 1 | $0 |
Competitor overlap
Percent of OAKMARK's plans that also list each competitor on Schedule C. High numbers = co-living partners; low numbers = direct displacement targets.
Plans won in 2024
Appeared this year; did not appear last year under OAKMARK.
| Sponsor | From | Assets |
|---|---|---|
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.NC · 560751714-002 | COWEN & COMPANY LLC | $2.4B |
Plans lost in 2024
Appeared last year under OAKMARK; not this year.
| Sponsor | To | Assets |
|---|---|---|
KLARNA, INC.OH · 990365994-001 | AMERICAN FUNDS | $27M |
DEAN, MEAD, EGERTON, BLOODWORTH, CAPOUANO & BOZARTH, P.A.FL · 592049716-001 | T ROWE PRICE RPS INC | $26M |
MONIN, INC.FL · 593160757-001 | T ROWE PRICE RPS INC | $25M |
HIGH COUNTRY BEVERAGE CORPORATIONCO · 841341843-001 | LPL FINANCIAL | $17M |
Top plans by assets
Searchable full list lands with the commercial layer.
| Plan | Assets | Participants | Fees | Tenure | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.NC · 560751714-002 | $2.4B | 25,253 | $0 | 1y | - |
PENTAIR INCMN · 410907434-002 | $910M | 6,954 | $0 | 9y | 2 |
CITRIN COOPERMAN ADVISORS LLCNY · 872525370-001 | $370M | 2,909 | $0 | 1y | 1 |
GUADALUPE VALLEY TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INC.TX · 741194662-001 | $79M | 140 | $0 | 7y | - |
G3 TECHNOLOGIES INCMD · 522296700-001 | $59M | 352 | $0 | 10y | - |
CHESAPEAKE SPRINKLER COMPANY INCMD · 521125115-002 | $22M | 158 | $0 | 10y | 1 |
ANNIN & CONJ · 221614662-002 | $19M | 391 | $0 | 9y | - |
PROCON CONSULTING, LLCVA · 541981434-001 | $18M | 238 | $0 | 2y | - |
SFB BUCK, LLCMD · 850897336-003 | $15M | 115 | $0 | 5y | - |
SFB BUCK, LLCMD · 921150076-003 | $15M | 115 | $0 | 1y | - |
Flag exposure
100.0%Market: 89.2%
This provider
Market baseline
Share of this provider's plans tripping any deterministic red flag this year. Lower than market baseline = better risk surface.
Aliases resolved (8)
Raw Schedule C names collapsed into OAKMARK.
- OAKMARK
- OAKMARK EQUITY & INCOME FUND
- OAKMARK FAMILY OF FUNDS
- OAKMARK FUND MANAGEMENT
- OAKMARK FUNDS
- OAKMARK INTERNATIONAL
- OAKMARK INTERNATIONAL CL I
- OAKMARK INTERNATIONAL FUND
Book composition by plan size
Bars stack to total plans served; segments use the same asset cutoffs as the /retirement size filter. Up-and-to-the-right on the bigger segments = moving up-market.
Under $5M$5-50M$50-250M$250M-1B$1B+
Compliance posture vs market
Per-flag share for OAKMARK's book against the same flag's overall prevalence across all filings. Negative delta = under-indexed (cleaner book); positive = elevated risk surface.
| Flag | Plans flagged | Provider % | Market % | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recently terminated | 1 | 6.25% | 7.76% | -1.51 pp |
| Fidelity bond gap | 0 | 0.00% | 26.94% | -26.94 pp |
| Late contributions | 3 | 18.75% | 1.71% | +17.04 pp |
| Failed to provide benefit | 0 | 0.00% | 0.14% | -0.14 pp |
| Corrective distributions | 2 | 12.50% | 1.76% | +10.74 pp |
| Loss discovered | 0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | -0.00 pp |
New-plan formation share
Share of plans filing for the first time each year that landed with OAKMARK. Compare to the incumbent market share (0.0%) - higher = winning new business, lower = coasting on existing relationships.
0.0%-0.0 pp vs incumbent