Subject: Re: Barron's ... oops. market not that overpriced
Bigger isn't (statistically speaking) better

Maybe bigger IS statistically better. For example, how often does the S&P500 remove the bigger stock when compared to the smaller stocks? Maybe the 100 smallest stocks in the S&P500 do better than the 100 largest ones, not because the 100 smallest ones are better, but rather because the 100 smallest ones are culled more often?