I don’t think it’s as opinionated nor active as you’re making it out to be. Investing proportionally more in a huge company than you do in the 500th largest el

I don’t think it’s as opinionated nor active as you’re making it out to be. Investing proportionally more in a huge company than you do in the 500th largest eligible company seems much more passive than active to me. If two S&P companies were to merge and everything else remained the same, I’d think that having the combined amount invested in the combined company to be more sensible than cutting your investment proportion in half merely by a merger. Or if a company you’d invested in doubled in value, I’d rather hold the constant number of shares rather than sell half of them to bring my exposure to the winner down. I’d also view that as passive and un-opinionated. Selling half feels more active and opinionated than simply holding.