While indexing made competition tougher, the true headwind for active managers was the unprecedented, concentrated performance of a few tech giants. Not owning them was statistically devastating, while owning them reduced active share, creating a no-win scenario for many funds.
Related Insights
Active managers are struggling against the S&P 500 not just from bad picks, but because the market is dominated by a few AI stocks they can't fully concentrate in. Many also became too defensive during April's volatility, causing them to miss the subsequent sharp market rebound.
Most of an index's returns come from a tiny fraction of its component stocks (e.g., 7% of the Russell 3000). The goal of indexing isn't just diversification; it's a strategy to ensure you own the unpredictable "tail-event" winners, like the next Amazon, that are nearly impossible to identify in advance.
The S&P 500's heavy concentration in a few tech giants is not unprecedented. Historically, stock market returns have always clustered around the dominant technology transformation of the time. Before 1980, leaders were spinoffs of Standard Oil, car companies like GM, and General Electric, reflecting the industrial and automotive revolutions.
Today's market is more fragile than during the dot-com bubble because value is even more concentrated in a few tech giants. Ten companies now represent 40% of the S&P 500. This hyper-concentration means the failure of a single company or trend (like AI) doesn't just impact a sector; it threatens the entire global economy, removing all robustness from the system.
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.
The S&P 500's high concentration in 10 stocks is historically rare, seen only during the 'Nifty Fifty' and dot-com bubbles. In both prior cases, investors who bought at the peak waited 15 years to break even, highlighting the significant 'dead capital' risk in today's market.
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.
The current market is not a simple large-cap story. Since 2015, the S&P 100 has massively outperformed the S&P 500. Within that, the Magnificent 7 have doubled the performance of the other 93 stocks, indicating extreme market concentration rather than a broad-based rally in large companies.
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.
After years of piling into a few dominant mega-cap tech stocks, large asset managers have reached a point of peak centralization. To generate future growth, they will be forced to allocate capital to different, smaller pockets of the market, potentially signaling a broad market rotation.
