Contrary to conventional wisdom, the massive flow of capital into passive indexes and short-term systematic strategies has reduced the number of actors focused on long-term fundamentals. This creates price dislocations and volatility, offering alpha for patient investors.

Daniel Gladys argues that as passive investing grows, fewer participants focus on fundamentals. This widens the gap between a stock's price and its intrinsic value, creating a favorable environment for disciplined value investors who can identify these overlooked opportunities.

Contrary to popular belief, the market may be getting less efficient. The dominance of indexing, quant funds, and multi-manager pods—all with short time horizons—creates dislocations. This leaves opportunities for long-term investors to buy valuable assets that are neglected because their path to value creation is uncertain.

The dominance of low-cost index funds means active managers cannot compete in liquid, efficient markets. Survival depends on creating strategies in areas Vanguard can't easily replicate, such as illiquid micro-caps, niche geographies, or complex sectors that require specialized data and analysis.

With passive investing dominating and market-wide flows unreliable, investors can no longer wait for multiple expansion. The best small-cap investments are companies actively closing their own valuation gaps through significant buybacks, strategic M&A, or other aggressive, shareholder-aligned capital allocation.

The underperformance of active managers in the last decade wasn't just due to the rise of indexing. The historic run of a few mega-cap tech stocks created a market-cap-weighted index that was statistically almost impossible to beat without owning those specific names, leading to lower active share and alpha dispersion.

Contrary to classic theory, markets may be growing less efficient. This is driven not only by passive indexing but also by a structural shift in active management towards short-term, quantitative strategies that prioritize immediate price movements over long-term fundamental value.

Contrary to the belief that indexing creates market inefficiencies, Michael Mauboussin argues the opposite. Indexing removes the weakest, 'closet indexing' players from the active pool, increasing the average skill level of the remaining competition and making it harder to find an edge.

Jack Bogle's indexing assumed efficient markets where passive funds accept prices. Now, with passive strategies dominating capital flows, they collectively set prices. This ironically creates the market inefficiencies and price distortions that the original theory assumed didn't exist on such a large scale.