>Yes but optimally there would be at least some proliferation in index funds, and they would index differently. Is there not? I rolled over a 401k a few weeks a

>Yes but optimally there would be at least some proliferation in index funds, and they would index differently. Is there not? I rolled over a 401k a few weeks ago and had several indexes to choose from, each represented by multiple funds. The S&P 500 was included in some of those indexes. But there were plenty of options that did not touch the S&P at all. > It's far too much mindless capital concentration. Maybe it is. Maybe there is a systemic risk there. I have long thought this myself but cannot articulate the risk beyond "big money in small place". And I cannot rule out that there isn't a systemic risk and that the top 500 US companies are near-optimal allocators of capital. Therefore being the best place to send your money. About the "mindless" bit. Index funds are mindless. That's their job. You put money in, it grows (or shrinks) with the market, all while keeping your guaranteed losses, aka management fees to an absolute minimum (I'm sure you know all this). Is that really a mindless choice? I do not to think so. I think of it like choosing Python over C when I just need to bang out a few calculations. > When everyone blindly accepts a truth in investing, it's worth keeping an careful eye on it to make sure it stays true. I think what you see as everyone accepting a blind truth is really a large number of people making rational individual decisions. If its truly mindless dogma everyone is following, and you are not, then congratulations - you are well positioned to "win" the investing game.