I'm probably preaching to the choir here but personally I find the act of downvoting a legitimate argument as opposed to providing a counter-argument distastefu

I'm probably preaching to the choir here but personally I find the act of downvoting a legitimate argument as opposed to providing a counter-argument distasteful. Downvoting ought to be limited to a particular subset of comments that does not include simply ones you disagree with. It honestly does smell like censorship. I read some of your other comments, and I don't even agree with all of them, but they didn't strike me as worthy of minimization. Back on topic, the institutional investors having a diversification default also occurred to me when I read your comments. It raised a lot of questions in my mind that I don't have the answers to. What percentage of the market is represented by institutional investment versus non-institutional investment where at least the investors have the option of selective investment over diversification? Can institutional investors break from the diversification strategy without being seen as picking winners, anti-competitive, or gambling with the money? More fundamentally, how do you take a system which operates on 0% information and transform it into something that has at least 1% or 2% information? Anyway, I don't expect you to answer those questions. Thanks for the food for thought.