Index funds

Commodity markets are back in investors’ focus. After years in which equities and growth assets dominated portfolios, the recent rise in geopolitical tensions, inflation uncertainty, supply-chain fragmentation, and renewed resource nationalism has reminded allocators that commodities remain a critical macro asset class. That is why a newly released research paper, An Index of Commodity Futures Returns Since 1871, is particularly timely. Using a hand-collected database covering more than 150 years of U.S. commodity futures history, the authors provide one of the most comprehensive long-term perspectives yet on commodity investing — showing not only that diversified commodity futures historically delivered equity-like risk premia, but also that their return drivers were meaningfully different from stocks, offering valuable diversification across economic regimes.

The growing dominance of passive investing has fundamentally altered the dynamics of equity markets. A substantial share of trading volume is now driven by index-tracking strategies, which mechanically allocate capital based on index membership rather than company-specific fundamentals. This raises an important question: can predictable flows associated with index rebalancing be systematically exploited?

Market concentration has become one of the most discussed structural risks in today’s equity markets. A small group of mega-cap stocks—often the largest five to ten names—now accounts for an unusually large share of major market indices. This has led to widespread concerns that such concentration makes markets more fragile and that elevated index weights at the top may foreshadow weaker future returns. Many investors worry that history is repeating itself and that extreme concentration today implies disappointment tomorrow.

Over the past seven decades, U.S. equity-market volatility has roughly doubled—from about 10% to 20%—and this increase is concentrated at the market level and at high frequencies (daily volatility up by ~130%, weekly by ~75%, monthly by ~40%). A new paper by Lars Lochstoer and Tyler Muir argues that this structural change is not driven by macroeconomic fundamentals or firm-level shocks but by the dramatic growth of index-level trading (futures, ETFs, index mutual funds, and extended trading hours). Using statistical investigations—the 1997 introduction of E‑mini S&P 500 futures and historical NYSE trading‑hour changes—the authors provide causal evidence that easier and larger trading of the market portfolio has raised aggregate volatility through higher trading volume and a shift toward systematic demand shocks.