|
|
|
|
|
by perl4ever
3100 days ago
|
|
Every cap weighted fund has a cutoff where it omits companies that are too small. But even the stocks that are barely large enough to include don't contribute much to returns. I don't think the small cap stock is "mispriced". Rather, it has a different value for different investors, and the market price is a compromise. That means different investors should probably have a different amount of it in a portfolio. It's an abuse of theory to claim that since the market is efficient, you should ignore the things that make you different from the total market. For example, suppose you invest in tax-exempt investments when you are in a low tax bracket, or even when you are investing in a tax free account. Is that optimal because markets are efficient? Of course not. Because the value set by the market does not take into account the way in which you differ. The reason to believe in index investing is because you understand your own lack of knowledge and are honest about it. That's a good thing, but it doesn't justify pretending you don't know things that you do know. People seem to have the same issue with probability, I find. |
|
Of course it's just fine to have an index fund that's weighted towards certain types of stock, e.g. there's the S&P 500, then various "woldwide" funds, EU-weighted funds etc. The risks & benefits of those are well understood. Nobody argues that different types of index funds shouldn't exist.
Similarly, there's funds that cater to specific regulations, e.g. investing heavily in "green" stocks which may be subsidized by the government, or avoiding certain taxes (e.g. lower turnover for lower capital gains).
Both of those are categorically different from supposing that you know better than other people that tech stock in 2017 is overvalued, and trying to move away from that in favor of something else. Now you're making an active investment move which history shows you're more likely to lose on as gain anything on.