Market cap indexing acts like a basic trend-following system by buying more of what's rising. However, its Achilles' heel is the lack of a valuation anchor, causing investors to over-concentrate in expensive assets at market peaks. In high-valuation environments, almost any other weighting method, like equal-weight or value, is likely to outperform over the long term.
Related Insights
Counter to conventional value investing wisdom, a low Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratio is often a "value trap" that exists for a valid, negative reason. A high P/E, conversely, is a more reliable indicator that a stock may be overvalued and worth selling. This suggests avoiding cheap stocks is more important than simply finding them.
Market-cap-weighted indexes create a perverse momentum loop. As a stock's price rises, its weight in the index increases, forcing new passive capital to buy more of it at inflated prices. This mechanism is the structural opposite of a value-oriented 'buy low, sell high' discipline.
Owning a broad, cap-weighted index fund eliminates the need to predict market winners. As dominant companies like Sears fade, they are replaced by innovators like Amazon. The index automatically adjusts, selling off losers and increasing holdings in rising stars, ensuring you always own the future.
The performance gap between market-cap and equal-weight strategies is not random; it's cyclical and can last for over a decade. While market-cap has dominated recently (winning 8 of the last 11 years), this was preceded by a period where equal-weight won for 13 of the prior 15 years. Recognizing these long cycles is crucial for strategic allocation.
Instead of using current market-cap weightings, a "forward cap" strategy allocates capital based on extrapolated macroeconomic trends. This means overweighting a sector like tech based on its projected future dominance, essentially "skating to where the puck is going."
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.
Rather than using today's market capitalization, this novel approach builds a portfolio weighted by the expected future market cap of sectors and economies. It's an attempt to "skate to where the puck is going" based on long-term macro trends.
Beyond its primary role of reducing drawdowns, trend following acts as a premier diversifier that can solve several portfolio construction flaws at once. It can dynamically allocate to foreign markets (solving home bias), value stocks (when they're trending), and real assets like gold and silver, providing exposure that traditional portfolios often neglect.
Terry Smith contends that passive investing is mislabeled. It's a momentum strategy that forces capital into the largest companies regardless of valuation. With over 50% of AUM in passive funds (up from <10% in 2000), this creates a powerful feedback loop that distorts markets more than the dot-com bubble ever did.
TradFi investors, who often lack specific crypto knowledge, will favor broad index-based ETFs. This will channel passive capital disproportionately into the largest market-cap assets, creating a reflexive loop that concentrates value at the top, much like the 'Magnificent Seven' phenomenon in US equities.
