Podcast Episode 9: Are Index Funds Actually Riskier Than Active Management Right Now?

This is the full transcript of Fireweed Capital Episode 9. Listen on Spotify, Buzzsprout, or use the player above.

---

The Risk Reversal Nobody Saw Coming

Here's a question that's gonna make some people uncomfortable... What if I told you that right now, in March 2026, your boring S&P 500 index fund might actually be riskier than an actively managed portfolio?

I know, I know. That sounds backwards, right? For decades, we've been told that passive investing is the safe, boring choice. Low fees, broad diversification, don't try to beat the market. Just buy the index and hold forever. And active management? That's the risky stuff. Stock-picking. Market timing. Higher fees. Trying to be smarter than the market. The data seemed pretty clear.

But here's the thing about data... it changes. And right now, we're living through one of those rare moments where the conventional wisdom might be completely upside down.

Welcome to Fireweed Capital — wealth planning for tech professionals. I'm Dr. Adam Link, and today we're gonna dive deep into something that's been bothering me for months. The risk characteristics of passive and active investing have fundamentally shifted, and most investors haven't noticed.

So let me paint you a picture of what's happening right now. The S&P 500 has never been more concentrated. The top 10 holdings now represent over 35% of the entire index. And it's not just any 35%... it's heavily weighted toward mega-cap tech companies that all tend to move together. That's not diversification... that's a concentrated bet on a handful of stocks with 490 other companies along for the ride.

Meanwhile, we've got this everything rally going on. Stocks, bonds, real estate, crypto, commodities — everything's moving in the same direction, driven by the same macroeconomic forces. Remember when your portfolio was supposed to be diversified across asset classes that moved independently? Remember when bonds were supposed to zig when stocks zagged? Yeah, that's not working so well these days.

And here's where it gets really interesting... while everyone's piling into passive funds because they think it's the safe choice, some active managers are actually building more diversified, more defensive portfolios than the indices they're supposed to beat. They're spreading risk across more positions, avoiding the most overvalued segments, and actually behaving more conservatively than the benchmark.

It's like we're living in some kind of bizarro investment world where the thing everyone thinks is safe has become risky, and the thing everyone thinks is risky might actually be safer.

Now, before anyone gets their passive investing pitchforks out... I'm not saying passive investing is bad. The core principles that made index funds successful — low costs, broad market exposure, behavioral simplicity — those are still valid. What I am saying is that we need to think more nuancedly about risk right now.

Because here's what most people don't realize... risk isn't static. It changes based on market conditions, valuations, correlations, concentration levels, and a whole bunch of other factors. The passive strategy that was lower risk in 2015 might be higher risk in 2026. The market environment matters.

So today, we're gonna break this down into three parts. First, we'll look at how concentration risk in major indices has reached levels that would make any risk manager nervous. We'll talk about what happens when just 10 companies drive the majority of index returns. Second, we'll examine how the everything rally has broken traditional diversification models in ways that favor active approaches. And third, we'll talk about how to actually think about this as a practical investor... because the answer isn't to swing from one extreme to the other.

The goal here isn't to convince you that active is always better than passive. That would be just as wrong as saying passive is always better than active. The goal is to help you understand that intelligent portfolio construction means using the right tool for each job... and right now, the risk-reward characteristics of those tools have shifted in ways most people haven't recognized.

By the end of this episode, you're gonna have a framework for thinking about when passive might be riskier than active, when active might be worth the extra cost, and how to build a portfolio that actually makes sense in today's market environment.

This isn't about being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. This is about looking at the data, understanding what's changed, and adapting accordingly. Because the investors who thrive over the long term aren't the ones who stick religiously to one approach... they're the ones who stay flexible and adjust when the facts change.

Subscribe if you haven't already, and visit fireweedcapital.com for show notes and the full transcript. Alright, let's dig in...

When Diversification Becomes Concentration

Alright, so let's start with the elephant in the room... concentration risk. And I want you to think about this like a software engineer for a minute. If you were designing a system and 35% of your processing power was running on just 10 servers, would you call that system diversified? Or would you call it a single point of failure waiting to happen?

Because that's essentially what's happened to the S&P 500. What used to be a diversified index of American companies has become something more like a concentrated bet on mega-cap technology with 490 other companies providing... well, not much diversification when they all tend to move together.

Let me give you some numbers that should make you uncomfortable. The top 10 holdings in the S&P 500 now represent over 35% of the index's total weight. That's higher than it's been at any point in the index's history, including the dot-com bubble. And seven of those top 10 are technology companies that are highly correlated with each other.

But it's not just about the top 10. When you look at the top 50 holdings, you're talking about nearly 65% of the entire index. That means 50 companies out of 500 drive almost two-thirds of your returns. Does that sound diversified to you?

Now, when most of those companies are growing and their stock prices are rising, this concentration looks like genius. Your S&P 500 fund is crushing it, right? But here's what risk management teaches us... concentration works great until it doesn't. And when it stops working, it stops working all at once.

Think about what happened in 2022. Meta dropped 64%. Netflix fell 51%. Amazon declined 38%. Apple fell 27%. Microsoft dropped 29%. These weren't small positions in the index... these were some of the biggest holdings. And because they were so heavily weighted, their declines dragged down the entire index more than you'd expect from a "diversified" fund.

Here's a thought experiment... imagine you're a portfolio manager and a client comes to you with 35% of their money in just 10 stocks. What would you tell them? You'd probably say that's way too concentrated, right? You'd recommend spreading that risk across more positions, more sectors, more geographies. But somehow, when those same 10 stocks are packaged up in an index fund, we call it "diversified."

The mathematical reality is that when you have high concentration and high correlation, you don't have diversification. You have the illusion of diversification. It's like having redundant systems that all fail the same way... they're only redundant until they're not.

But here's where it gets interesting from an active vs passive perspective. While passive index funds have become more concentrated, many active managers have actually become more diversified. They're not bound by the market-cap weighting that forces index funds to put more money into stocks just because they've gotten more expensive.

Consider someone who's a senior software engineer at Google. Their RSUs have done really well over the past few years, so they've got significant concentrated exposure to Alphabet already. They're smart about diversification, so they put their 401k money into an S&P 500 fund. But guess what? Alphabet is probably the largest or second-largest holding in that fund too. They think they're diversifying, but they're actually doubling down on the same risk.

This isn't theoretical. I see this pattern all the time with tech professionals. They have concentrated stock positions from their employers, then they "diversify" into index funds that are heavily weighted toward... their employers or their employers' competitors. It's concentration disguised as diversification.

An active manager, on the other hand, might look at that situation and say, "You know what? Given this person's existing tech exposure, I'm gonna underweight the mega-caps and overweight mid-caps, small-caps, international stocks, and maybe some defensive sectors." From a risk management perspective, that active approach is actually more diversified than the passive approach.

And here's something most people don't realize... when you buy an index fund, you're not just buying the current composition. You're buying whatever that index will hold in the future. If the concentration gets worse, your "diversified" index fund automatically gets more concentrated. You have no control over that.

The index construction rules are mechanical. As companies get bigger, they automatically get higher weights in the index. As they get smaller, they get lower weights. There's no consideration of valuation, no consideration of risk, no consideration of whether the resulting portfolio actually makes sense from a diversification standpoint.

Active managers, by contrast, can recognize when concentration is getting dangerous and adjust accordingly. They can reduce position sizes, trim overvalued holdings, and rebalance toward less correlated assets. That's not market timing... that's risk management.

Now, I'm not saying this is always how it plays out. There are plenty of active managers who chase momentum and end up just as concentrated as the index, or even more concentrated. But the point is that active management gives you the flexibility to address concentration risk in ways that passive management simply can't.

Let me give you another way to think about this. In the tech world, we have this concept of graceful degradation. When part of your system fails, the rest should keep working. The system should degrade gracefully rather than failing catastrophically. Well-designed active strategies can provide graceful degradation... if one sector or group of stocks underperforms, the manager can pivot to other opportunities.

Passive strategies, by definition, can't provide graceful degradation. They're stuck holding whatever the index holds, in whatever weights the index dictates. If the top holdings crater, the fund craters with them. There's no flexibility, no adaptation, no risk management beyond what's baked into the index construction.

And here's the kicker... we're not just talking about concentration within the S&P 500. The same thing is happening across asset classes. International developed markets are dominated by a handful of mega-caps. Emerging markets have become increasingly concentrated in Chinese tech companies. Even bond indices are showing concentration effects as the largest issuers take up bigger and bigger portions of the indices.

The correlation patterns are getting worse too. When everything is driven by the same macro forces... central bank policy, inflation expectations, currency movements... diversification across asset classes breaks down. Having a concentrated US stock portfolio, a concentrated international stock portfolio, and a concentrated bond portfolio doesn't actually give you diversification if they're all moving together.

So when someone tells you that passive investing is automatically less risky than active investing, ask them this: "Less risky based on what? Historical data from when indices were actually diversified? Or less risky in today's environment where passive funds are carrying concentration risk that would make most risk managers nervous?"

The truth is, risk profiles change. The passive approach that was lower risk 20 years ago might be higher risk today because the underlying market structure has changed. And investors who don't adapt to that reality are setting themselves up for unpleasant surprises.

Now, this doesn't mean every active fund is automatically better than every index fund. Far from it. But it does mean that in today's concentrated market environment, there are active approaches that offer genuine risk reduction compared to market-cap weighted index funds.

The key is knowing how to identify them... which brings us to our next point about correlations and the everything rally.

When Everything Moves Together: The Correlation Crisis

So now let's talk about the second big shift that's making passive investing riskier than it used to be... the breakdown of diversification across asset classes. And this is where the everything rally really becomes a problem for passive investors.

Here's the traditional diversification story that we've all been taught... You put some money in US stocks, some in international stocks, some in bonds, maybe some in real estate or commodities. The idea is that these different asset classes move independently, so when one goes down, others might go up or at least stay stable. Your portfolio is diversified across different sources of risk and return.

But here's what's actually happening in 2026... everything's moving together. Stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, crypto... they're all responding to the same macro forces. Interest rate expectations, inflation fears, central bank policy, currency movements, geopolitical risks. When these big macro themes shift, everything moves in the same direction.

This isn't just anecdotal. If you look at the correlation between different asset classes over the past 24 months, you'll see numbers that should make any portfolio manager nervous. The correlation between US stocks and international stocks has been running above 0.8 for most of this period. To put that in perspective, a correlation of 1.0 means two things move in perfect lockstep. So we're talking about near-perfect correlation between what are supposed to be diversifying asset classes.

The correlation between stocks and bonds, which used to be negative or near zero, has been positive and rising. Historically, when stocks went down, bonds often went up, providing that crucial portfolio protection. But in recent years, we've seen stocks and bonds fall together during market stress periods. That traditional 60/40 portfolio diversification? It's not working the way it used to.

Even more concerning... the correlation between different sectors within the stock market has increased dramatically. Technology, healthcare, financials, industrials... they're all moving more in sync than they used to. That means your "diversified" index fund isn't actually giving you much diversification when it matters most... during market stress.

Now, why is this happening? Well, think about how markets work these days. We've got massive ETF flows, algorithmic trading, and institutional investors who are increasingly using similar strategies. When macro conditions change, these systems all respond in similar ways, creating massive flows in and out of entire asset classes.

It's like having a highway system where all the cars are following the same GPS algorithm. When traffic conditions change, every car gets the same rerouting instructions at the same time, creating new traffic jams exactly where you're trying to avoid them.

Plus, we've got this everything rally dynamic where loose monetary policy and fiscal stimulus have inflated asset prices across the board. When everything's going up together because of the same underlying drivers... cheap money, liquidity injections, fiscal stimulus... you're not getting the diversification benefits you think you're getting.

Here's where active management can actually add value... Active managers can recognize when correlations are high and adjust their strategies accordingly. They can shift toward assets or strategies that are less correlated with the broader market. They can hedge specific risks. They can go to cash when valuations get extreme across all asset classes.

Think of it like dynamic load balancing in a server environment. When certain servers are getting overwhelmed, a good system redirects traffic to less congested servers. Active managers can do the same thing with capital allocation, moving away from crowded trades and toward less correlated opportunities.

Passive strategies can't do any of that. If you're investing in a total stock market index, you're getting whatever correlation structure the market is currently exhibiting. If correlations are high, your diversification disappears. If correlations are low, you get more diversification. But you have no control over it. You're just along for whatever ride the market takes you on.

Let me give you a concrete example. Right now, we're seeing this phenomenon where growth stocks and value stocks are moving more in sync than they historically have. In normal markets, when growth gets expensive, value provides some protection because they respond to different factors. Growth companies are sensitive to interest rates and future earnings expectations, while value companies are more tied to current economic conditions and asset values.

But in today's environment, both styles are getting hit by the same macro forces. Rising interest rates hurt both growth and value. Recession fears affect both. Supply chain disruptions impact both. Currency movements affect both. So the traditional growth/value diversification isn't working as well as it used to.

A passive investor who thinks they're diversified by holding both a growth index fund and a value index fund isn't actually getting much diversification right now. But an active manager might recognize this and pivot toward strategies that are genuinely uncorrelated... maybe focusing on quality companies with strong balance sheets regardless of their growth or value classification, or defensive sectors that can perform well in different macro environments.

Or think about international diversification. The traditional advice is to hold both US and international stocks for diversification. But when global central banks are all following similar policies, when multinational companies dominate both indices, and when macro risks affect all global markets simultaneously, how much diversification are you really getting?

An active international manager might respond by focusing on more domestic-oriented companies in specific countries, or by hedging currency risks, or by avoiding the multinational mega-caps that dominate the indices. These are tools that passive international funds simply don't have.

The bond market is another great example. Traditional bond index funds are weighted by the amount of debt outstanding. So countries and companies that borrow the most get the highest weights in your "diversified" bond index. Does that sound like smart risk management to you? You're essentially giving the biggest allocation to the entities that need to borrow the most money.

Right now, with government debt levels at historic highs and corporate debt quality deteriorating in many sectors, market-cap weighted bond indices are giving you maximum exposure to the highest-risk borrowers. An active bond manager can avoid those risks, focus on higher-quality issuers, and adjust duration and credit exposure based on market conditions.

Here's another angle that most people don't think about... the behavioral aspects of the everything rally. When all asset classes are moving together, it creates this false sense of confidence. Everything's going up, so investors think they're smart and they take on more risk. They leverage up, they chase performance, they abandon diversification because it seems unnecessary.

But this is exactly when diversification matters most. When correlations are high and valuations are stretched across asset classes, that's when you need strategies that can zig when everything else zags. And passive strategies, by definition, can't zig. They're designed to match the market, not to provide protection when the market gets risky.

Active strategies, when done well, can provide what economists call "crisis alpha." They can deliver positive returns or at least limit losses during periods when traditional diversification breaks down. This might come from going to cash, from hedging, from focusing on defensive assets, or from tactical asset allocation adjustments.

The key insight here is that correlation is not a constant. It changes based on market conditions, policy environments, and investor behavior. During calm periods, correlations tend to be lower and passive diversification works well. During crisis periods or when macro forces dominate, correlations spike and passive diversification fails exactly when you need it most.

This is why some of the smartest institutional investors... endowments, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds... don't just buy index funds and call it a day. They understand that true diversification requires active management of correlation risk.

So here's the question for individual investors... In an environment where traditional diversification is breaking down, where correlations are high, and where passive strategies are increasingly concentrated in the same assets, doesn't it make sense to consider strategies that can adapt to these conditions?

That brings us to the practical question... how do you actually implement this insight as a real-world investor?

Building a Portfolio for Today's Market Reality

Alright, so we've established that concentration risk and correlation breakdown are making passive investing riskier than it used to be. But here's the practical question... what do you actually do about it? Because the answer isn't to dump all your index funds tomorrow and go chase the latest hot active manager.

The answer is what I call intelligent portfolio construction. It's about using the right tool for each job based on current market conditions. And right now, that means being more selective about where you use passive strategies and where you consider active approaches.

Let's start with the areas where passive investing still makes sense. If you're getting exposure to broad market segments where concentration isn't a major issue and where costs matter a lot, passive can still be the right choice. Think total international small-cap, emerging markets small-cap, or broad commodity exposure. These are areas where active managers haven't consistently added value, and where the index construction doesn't create dangerous concentration.

But for core equity exposure... your large-cap US allocation, your developed international allocation... this is where you need to think more carefully. Is a market-cap weighted index really the best way to get this exposure when the top 10 holdings represent such a huge chunk of the index?

One approach is to consider equal-weighted indices instead of market-cap weighted ones. An equal-weighted S&P 500 fund gives the same weight to all 500 companies instead of overweighting the largest ones. You still get broad market exposure, but without the concentration risk. The downside? You give up some of the momentum that comes from riding the biggest winners. The upside? You get actual diversification.

Another approach is to use fundamental indices that weight companies based on metrics like revenue, earnings, or book value instead of market cap. These indices naturally reduce concentration because they don't automatically give bigger weights to companies just because their stock prices have gone up.

But here's where active management can really add value... in areas where index construction creates obvious problems. Small-cap is a perfect example. About 30-35% of Russell 2000 companies are currently unprofitable. When you buy a small-cap index fund, you're forced to own all of those unprofitable companies in proportion to their market caps.

An active small-cap manager can simply avoid the unprofitable companies and focus on quality businesses with sustainable competitive advantages. That's not market timing... that's just basic quality control. And the data backs this up. According to recent research, 53% of US small-cap managers exceeded the Russell 2000 over long time periods. That's not random luck... that's systematic value creation from avoiding the index's structural problems.

Emerging markets is another area where active management makes a lot of sense. The major emerging market indices are heavily concentrated in Chinese technology companies and a handful of other mega-caps. If you're buying an emerging markets index fund, you're making a massive bet on Chinese regulatory policy and tech sector dynamics.

An active emerging markets manager can diversify away from that concentration, focus on other countries and sectors, and avoid the political and regulatory risks that come with heavy China exposure. Again, this isn't about being smarter than the market... it's about avoiding the structural problems created by index construction.

Fixed income is probably the most obvious area where active management adds value. Bond indices weight holdings by the amount of debt outstanding, which means the biggest borrowers get the biggest weights. That's backwards from a risk perspective. An active bond manager can focus on credit quality, adjust duration based on interest rate expectations, and avoid the sectors and issuers that represent the highest risk.

Now, let's talk about costs, because that's always the objection to active management. Yes, active funds typically charge higher fees than index funds. But you need to think about that in context. If an active manager can reduce your portfolio's risk, avoid major drawdowns, or generate better risk-adjusted returns, isn't that worth paying for?

Think about it this way... if you're a tech professional making $200,000 or $300,000 a year, is an extra 50 basis points in fees really going to matter if it helps you avoid a 20% portfolio decline during the next market correction? The obsession with low fees sometimes causes people to miss the forest for the trees.

That said, you do need to be selective about active managers. The data shows that most active managers don't beat their benchmarks after fees over long time periods. But that doesn't mean all active managers are the same. The key is to identify the ones who can add value through genuine skill rather than just taking on more risk.

Look for managers who have a consistent investment process, who can explain their edge in simple terms, and who have demonstrated the ability to protect capital during market downturns. Avoid managers who are just closet indexers charging active fees, or who chase momentum and take on excessive risk.

Here's a practical framework for thinking about this... Use passive strategies where markets are reasonably efficient and where index construction doesn't create major problems. Use active strategies where markets are less efficient or where index construction creates concentration risk or other structural issues.

For most tech professionals, this might mean keeping some core passive exposure for simplicity and cost efficiency, but adding targeted active exposure in areas like small-cap, emerging markets, and fixed income where the benefits are clearest.

Another approach is to use what I call "passive-plus" strategies. These are systematic approaches that start with index-like exposure but add rules-based tilts or screens. For example, a low-volatility strategy that systematically underweights the most volatile stocks, or a quality strategy that overweights companies with strong balance sheets and profitability.

These strategies give you some of the benefits of active management... reduced concentration, better risk management, quality screening... but with lower fees and more systematic implementation. They're not as flexible as truly active management, but they're a step up from pure passive indexing.

You could also consider a barbell approach... keep your core holdings simple and low-cost with broad index funds, but add smaller allocations to specialized active strategies that address specific risks or opportunities. This way you get the simplicity and low costs of passive investing for your core portfolio, while addressing concentration and correlation risks with targeted active strategies.

The key insight is that portfolio construction isn't a binary choice between passive and active. It's about building a portfolio that makes sense for current market conditions while managing costs, taxes, and complexity.

And right now, in an environment where passive strategies are carrying more concentration risk and correlation risk than they used to, it makes sense to consider approaches that can address those risks. Whether that's through equal-weighted indices, active management, or passive-plus strategies... the important thing is to recognize that the risk-reward characteristics of different approaches have changed.

This doesn't mean abandoning all the principles that made index investing successful. Diversification is still important. Keeping costs reasonable is still important. Staying disciplined and avoiding emotional decisions is still important. But it does mean being more thoughtful about how you implement those principles in today's market environment.

The investors who will do best over the next decade aren't the ones who stick religiously to one philosophy. They're the ones who stay flexible and adapt their strategies as market conditions evolve. And right now, those conditions are telling us that pure passive indexing might not be the low-risk approach it used to be.

Wrapping Up: Risk Is Not Static

So let me wrap this up with the key takeaways... because I know this challenges some deeply held beliefs about investing, and I want to make sure we're being clear about what this means for you as a practical investor.

First takeaway... risk is not static. The investment approach that was lower risk 10 years ago might be higher risk today because market structures, concentration levels, and correlations have changed. The passive indexing strategy that made perfect sense in the 1990s and 2000s carries different risks in today's concentrated, correlated market environment.

This doesn't mean passive investing is bad. It means we need to be more thoughtful about when and where we use it. In areas where indices are well-diversified and markets are reasonably efficient, passive still makes sense. But in areas where index construction creates concentration problems or where correlations have broken down traditional diversification, it's worth considering alternatives.

Second takeaway... intelligent portfolio construction means using the right tool for each job. You don't have to choose between being 100% passive or 100% active. You can be passive where it makes sense and active where it adds value. Maybe that's equal-weighted indices for your core equity exposure, active management for small-cap and emerging markets, and systematic strategies for fixed income.

The key is understanding what risks you're taking with each approach and making sure those risks are appropriate for your situation. If you're a tech professional with concentrated stock positions from your employer, adding more concentration through market-cap weighted index funds might not be the best diversification strategy.

Third takeaway... don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The fact that some active managers are mediocre doesn't mean all active approaches are worthless. The fact that passive indexing has some problems doesn't mean you should abandon it entirely. The goal is building a portfolio that manages risk effectively while keeping costs reasonable and complexity manageable.

This might mean starting with a simple passive foundation and gradually adding active components as your portfolio grows and your needs become more sophisticated. Or it might mean using systematic strategies that give you some of the benefits of active management without the full complexity and cost.

The important thing is recognizing that investment strategy needs to adapt to changing market conditions. What worked in the past might not work as well in the future, and staying flexible is more important than sticking rigidly to any single approach.

Now, I know some of you are thinking... "Adam, this sounds like you're trying to justify higher fees and more complexity." And look, I get it. The passive investing movement happened for good reasons. Too many investors were paying high fees for mediocre active management. Too many people were trying to time markets and pick individual stocks.

But the pendulum might have swung too far in the other direction. The assumption that passive is always better than active, regardless of market conditions or implementation details, is just as dangerous as the assumption that active is always better than passive.

The smart approach is being selective. Use passive where it works well, use active where it adds value, and adjust your mix as conditions change. That's not complexity for the sake of complexity... that's intelligent portfolio construction.

If you found this perspective helpful, here's what I'd encourage you to do... First, take a look at your current portfolio and think about concentration risk. How much of your total wealth is tied up in a handful of tech companies, either through your employer stock or through concentrated index funds?

Second, think about whether your diversification is actually working. When markets got volatile in 2022 or during other recent stress periods, did your supposedly diversified portfolio provide the protection you expected? Or did everything move down together?

Third, consider whether there are areas where a more active approach might make sense for your situation. Maybe that's adding some equal-weighted exposure to reduce concentration. Maybe that's using active management in small-cap or emerging markets. Maybe that's building a more sophisticated bond allocation.

The goal isn't to completely overhaul your investment approach overnight. The goal is to make sure your portfolio is actually doing what you think it's doing... providing diversification, managing risk, and positioning you for long-term success.

And remember, this isn't just about investment theory. This is about your financial future. The decisions you make about portfolio construction today will determine how well your wealth holds up during the next market correction, and how effectively you can compound returns over the next decade or two.

For more detailed analysis and resources on portfolio construction, visit fireweedcapital.com. And if you'd like to explore whether a more customized approach to wealth planning makes sense for your situation, you can schedule a conversation at fireweedcapital.com/meet.

Before we wrap up, I need to include the SEC disclaimer... The information in this podcast is for educational purposes only and does not constitute personalized financial advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. All investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. The views expressed are my own and may change as market conditions evolve. Please consult a qualified financial professional before making investment decisions.

Thanks for listening to The Fireweed Capital Podcast. If this episode challenged your thinking or gave you a new perspective on portfolio construction, share it with a colleague who might benefit from a different view on active versus passive investing.

Until next time... keep building wealth on your terms.