Who Owns CACI Company?

CACI Bundle

Get Bundle
Get Full Bundle:
$15 $10
$15 $10
$15 $10
$15 $10
$15 $10
$15 $10

TOTAL:

Who owns CACI today?

Founded in 1962 and public since 1968, CACI evolved from the California Analysis Center into a Fortune 1000 federal IT and national security contractor headquartered in Reston, Virginia. Its shareholder base is largely U.S. institutional investors, with insiders and board members holding smaller stakes that influence governance.

Who Owns CACI Company?

As of FY2024 CACI reported roughly $7.0–7.5 billion in revenue and a market cap near $8–10 billion, with ownership concentrated in mutual funds, pensions, and ETFs; see the company’s strategic position in CACI Porter's Five Forces Analysis.

Who Founded CACI?

Founders and Early Ownership of CACI trace to 1962, when technical pioneers and entrepreneurs formed California Analysis Center, Inc., with ownership concentrated among the founding team and early employees and modest personal-network backing.

Icon

Founding team

Co-founded in 1962 with Herbert F. (’Harry’) Markowitz as an early advisor/technical founder and entrepreneurs such as Thomas A. Gilb among principal originators.

Icon

Early leadership

Operations shifted toward Washington, D.C., in the late 1960s and early 1970s under leaders including Jack London, who joined later and served as CEO and Executive Chairman.

Icon

Equity structure

Precise 1962 equity splits are not publicly disclosed; early cap table reflected concentrated founder and employee stakes with modest angel-style funding typical of the era.

Icon

Dilution and public listing

By the late 1960s listing, founder stakes had begun to dilute to enable growth and public float, increasing public ownership and institutional investor interest.

Icon

Governance norms

Early governance used conventional vesting and buy-sell provisions of the period; no public founder litigation materially altered the initial cap table.

Icon

Strategic control

Control stayed with operators and technologists focused on commercializing computer-aided analysis for government decision support, setting the stage for later professional management and broader public shareholder bases.

Early ownership patterns—concentrated founders transitioning to broader public and institutional holders—inform current discussions about CACI ownership and the CACI board of directors; see Revenue Streams & Business Model of CACI for related context.

Icon

Key points for investors

Founders’ initial concentration and subsequent dilution affect modern ownership metrics and institutional holdings.

  • Founders and early employees held concentrated stakes at formation in 1962.
  • Dilution began by the late 1960s to facilitate public listing and growth.
  • Jack London joined in the early 1970s and later led the company; he was not an original founder.
  • No public records indicate founder litigation that reshaped the early cap table.

CACI SWOT Analysis

  • Complete SWOT Breakdown
  • Fully Customizable
  • Editable in Excel & Word
  • Professional Formatting
  • Investor-Ready Format
Get Related Template

How Has CACI’s Ownership Changed Over Time?

Key events shaping CACI ownership include the 1968 IPO that broadened the public float, aggressive acquisition roll-ups in the 1990s–2000s that shifted equity toward institutional investors, and continued M&A in the 2010s–2020s that reinforced institutional dominance and disciplined capital allocation.

Period Ownership Change Impact
1968 IPO Founders’ stakes diluted as shares listed publicly Access to capital for federal contracting; began institutional coverage and index inclusion
1990s–2000s Acquisition roll-up funded by cash and equity Institutions accumulated shares; ownership shifted from founders to mutual funds and pensions
2010s–2020s Targeted M&A (examples: LGS assets 2019; Mastodon Design 2019; SA Photonics-related buys) Scale-up reinforced institutional investor concentration; top holders grew to mid/high single digits each

As of 2024–2025, CACI shareholder composition is primarily institutional, with top passive and active managers collectively owning a majority of shares while insider stakes remain low single digits; no single reported holder exceeds 10%.

Icon

Ownership Snapshot and Strategic Effects

Institutional concentration shapes governance, capital allocation, and M&A strategy while keeping ownership dispersed without a controlling shareholder.

  • Top institutional holders often include Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, Fidelity, Capital Group
  • Top 10 institutions commonly hold over 50% of outstanding shares
  • Insider ownership typically remains in the low single digits; executives hold RSUs/options
  • Board stewardship is central given no corporate parent or government ownership

For context on the company’s guiding principles linked to stakeholder expectations see Mission, Vision & Core Values of CACI

CACI PESTLE Analysis

  • Covers All 6 PESTLE Categories
  • No Research Needed – Save Hours of Work
  • Built by Experts, Trusted by Consultants
  • Instant Download, Ready to Use
  • 100% Editable, Fully Customizable
Get Related Template

Who Sits on CACI’s Board?

As of 2025 the CACI board is led by President & CEO John Mengucci and a majority of independent directors with deep defense, intelligence, cyber, and federal acquisition experience; committee chairs cover Audit, Compensation, Nominating/Governance and Security/Compliance, and directors are elected annually by shareholders.

Director Role / Expertise Committee Leadership
John Mengucci President & CEO; defense & programs Executive
Independent Director A Intelligence community / national security Audit
Independent Director B Cybersecurity / technology Security / Compliance
Independent Director C Federal acquisition / contracts Compensation
Independent Director D Finance / risk management Nominating / Governance

Voting follows a one-share-one-vote common stock structure with no dual-class or super-voting shares disclosed; major institutional shareholders influence outcomes via aggregate voting and proxy advisers rather than designated board seats.

Icon

Board and Voting Snapshot

Key governance facts on CACI ownership and voting power, reflecting 2024–2025 patterns.

  • Board composition: majority independent directors with sector expertise
  • Voting: one-share-one-vote; no dual-class or golden shares
  • Institutional influence: top mutual funds and asset managers act via aggregated votes; no designated board seats
  • Recent governance focus: pay-for-performance, cybersecurity oversight, classified program risk, capital allocation

Institutional ownership of CACI typically exceeds 60% of float in filings through 2024–2025, with top beneficial owners including large mutual funds and asset managers (no government ownership or single controlling shareholder reported); routine SEC Forms 13F and proxy statements detail holdings, voting procedures and director elections—see related analysis at Competitors Landscape of CACI.

CACI Business Model Canvas

  • Complete 9-Block Business Model Canvas
  • Effortlessly Communicate Your Business Strategy
  • Investor-Ready BMC Format
  • 100% Editable and Customizable
  • Clear and Structured Layout
Get Related Template

What Recent Changes Have Shaped CACI’s Ownership Landscape?

Recent ownership trends at CACI show steady institutional dominance, opportunistic share repurchases and modest insider stakes; M&A activity and indexation have marginally shifted ownership mix while FY2024–2025 federal defense funding strengthened investor confidence.

Trend Impact Data / Notes
Share repurchases Reduced share count, increased remaining holders' proportional stakes Company authorized cumulative buybacks in the $100sM range 2023–2025; retirements offset dilution from equity grants
M&A-driven shifts Modest dilution when equity used; ownership remains institutional and dispersed Bolt-on buys in electronic warfare, SIGINT, space ISR and secure software; transactions largely accretive to backlog
Executive equity Small but meaningful insider alignment CEO and senior leaders hold low single-digit insider ownership via performance RSUs
Institutional concentration Passive funds increased stakes with indexation Vanguard and BlackRock marginally raised positions 2022–2024 alongside market-cap growth
Federal budget tailwinds Improved backlog and earnings visibility, reduced activist risk FY2024–2025 U.S. defense and IC appropriations supported contract awards and revenue visibility

Management signals continued disciplined M&A and buybacks; no signs of privatization or dual-class adoption, with expectations of steady institutional dominance and ongoing focus on ESG, cyber risk and capital returns.

Icon Share buyback program

Repurchases in 2023–2025 totaled authorizations in the $100sM, modestly increasing proportional stakes of remaining holders and offsetting dilution from equity grants.

Icon M&A and ownership mix

Bolt-on acquisitions in electronic warfare, signals intelligence and space ISR used some equity consideration but kept ownership largely institutional and dispersed.

Icon Insider alignment

CEO and senior leadership hold performance RSUs resulting in low single-digit insider ownership, sustaining management-shareholder alignment.

Icon Institutional holders

Indexation raised passive ownership; Vanguard and BlackRock increased stakes modestly 2022–2024, influencing governance via proxy advisors.

Further reading on corporate strategy and investor implications: Marketing Strategy of CACI

CACI Porter's Five Forces Analysis

  • Covers All 5 Competitive Forces in Detail
  • Structured for Consultants, Students, and Founders
  • 100% Editable in Microsoft Word & Excel
  • Instant Digital Download – Use Immediately
  • Compatible with Mac & PC – Fully Unlocked
Get Related Template

Disclaimer

All information, articles, and product details provided on this website are for general informational and educational purposes only. We do not claim any ownership over, nor do we intend to infringe upon, any trademarks, copyrights, logos, brand names, or other intellectual property mentioned or depicted on this site. Such intellectual property remains the property of its respective owners, and any references here are made solely for identification or informational purposes, without implying any affiliation, endorsement, or partnership.

We make no representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of any content or products presented. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal, tax, investment, financial, medical, or other professional advice. In addition, no part of this site—including articles or product references—constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, advertisement, or offer to buy or sell any securities, franchises, or other financial instruments, particularly in jurisdictions where such activity would be unlawful.

All content is of a general nature and may not address the specific circumstances of any individual or entity. It is not a substitute for professional advice or services. Any actions you take based on the information provided here are strictly at your own risk. You accept full responsibility for any decisions or outcomes arising from your use of this website and agree to release us from any liability in connection with your use of, or reliance upon, the content or products found herein.