Biggest stock price gain vs. biggest mkt cap gain
"When you look at those results you'll see that it lists the actual market cap for the stocks.  The ones on the biggest price move are usually close the the $1B capitalization cut-off that they use. (The don't report anything with less than $1B in capitalization on these lists.)  The ones on the biggest market cap are much larger companies. So, the answer is that a 40% change in price on a company that has $1B capitalization will be a $400M change in market cap.  A 4% change on a company with $100B capitalization will be a $4B change in market cap.  The one that moved 40% will make the ""price"" list but not the market cap list and vice versa."
Passive implies following an index. Your question seems to ask about a hypothetical fund that starts, say, as an S&P fund, but as the index is adjusted, the old stocks stay in the fund. Sounds simple enough, but over time, the fund's performance will diverge from the index. The slight potential gain from lack of cap gains will be offset by the fund being unable to market itself.  Keep in mind, the gains distributed each year are almost exclusively long term, taxed at a favorable rate. The simple truth is, that the one that had to the most to gain is the one responsible and all else is misdirection.   So who gained the most and who actually had the ability and motivation to pull it off?  Lets see . .Zukerberg runs face books . . . he is a jew  Donald Trump's bankrupt son in law, kushner, is now in the White house call he shots in the middle east deal and his family making money from the influence . .they are jews  Israel is happy with their new F-35s, a promise to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem, a hard line against Iran, that Nathanyahu keeps grinning like a jack ass . .they are jews  The Jews long lost calf worshiping Indian cousins are now the darling of America.  So getting this imbecile Donald trump in the White house has benefited the Jews the most and he has been bankrupt a number of times so he is surely their bitch on a long term basis.  They have control of the media as well as the Fed and the Treasury.  So the had the means, the motivation, benefited from it and put the blame of putting the biggest monkey that America could find in the White house on Russia, which never had the means to rig the election.  In reality, Facebook is a fucking blog page that has been over marketed to the extent that web pages are worth billions . .its a fucking dot.com scam I would be a fan of non-cooperative game theory for life if the end result was a society entertains would enjoy and love.  But that is never the case.  There is always a stronger, luckier, better positioned player who attempts and hasvthe power structure to gain all the resources of the other players (or at least his biggest opposition).  We aren’t on an even playing field, and the factors of influence are more numerous and varied than our simulations describe.  And when one player wins, everyone else loses.  I love competition, but only if it is limited to strengthening the players.  I love cooperation, but only if it is strong, and able to defend itself while recognizing the usefulness and utility of expansion and achievement.  The best games are the ones where even if you lose, you win. "The stock market is not a zero-sum game.  Some parts are (forex, some option trading), but plain old stock trading is not zero sum. That is to say, if you were to invest ""at random"", you would on average make money.  That's because the market as a whole makes money - it goes up over time (6-10% annually, averaged over time).  That's because you're not just gambling when you buy a stock; you're actually contributing money to a company (directly or indirectly), which it uses to fund activities that (on average) make money.  When you buy Caterpillar stock, you're indirectly funding Caterpillar building tractors, which they then sell for a profit, and thus your stock appreciates in value.  While not every company makes a profit, and thus not every stock appreciates in true value, the average one does. To some extent, buying index funds is pretty close to ""investing at random"".  It has a far lower risk quotient, of course, since you're not buying a few stocks at random but instead are buying all stocks in an index; but buying stocks from the S&P 500 at random would on average give the same return as VOO (with way more volatility). So for one, you definitely could do worse than 50/50; if you simply sold the market short (sold random stocks short), you would lose money over time on average, above and beyond the transaction cost, since the market will go up over time on average. Secondly, there is the consideration of limited and unlimited gains or losses. Some trades, specifically some option trades, have limited potential gains, and unlimited potential losses. Take for example, a simple call option.  If you sell a naked call option - meaning you sell a call option but don't own the stock - for $100, at a strike price of $20, for 100 shares, you make money as long as the price of that stock is under $21.  You have a potential to make $100, because that's what you sold it for; if the price is under $20, it's not exercised, and you just get that $100, free.   But, on the other hand, if the stock goes up, you could potentially be out any amount of money.  If the stock trades at $24, you're out $400-100 = $300, right?  (Plus transaction costs.)   But what if it trades at $60?  Or $100?  Or $10000?  You're still out 100 * that amount, so in the latter case, $1 million.  It's not likely to trade at that point, but it could. If you were to trade ""at random"", you'd probably run into one of those types of situations.  That's because there are lots of potential trades out there that nobody expects anyone to take - but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be happy to take your money if you offered it to them.   That's the reason your 16.66 vs 83.33 argument is faulty:  you're absolutely right that if there were a consistently losing line, that the consistently winning line would exist, but that requires someone that is willing to take the losing line.  Trades require two actors, one on each side; if you're willing to be the patsy, there's always someone happy to take advantage of you, but you might not get a patsy." "All else being equal, you should look for more volatile (riskier) stocks. Technically, it was all time value - the entire value of an ""out of the money"" option is time value.   What's confusing is that time value is affected by numerous variables, only one of which is time. The reason volatility is the one to look at is that all the rest are likely already intuitive to you, or are too minor an influence to worry about: Current risk-free interest rates and a stock's dividend payout during the life of the option affect the value of the call, but are usually minor infulences.   (Higher interest rates makes call values higher, and higher dividend yield makes call values lower.) Longer time to expiration will increase the value of the call, but you're pretty likely already focused on that. The strike price's proximity to the current price affects the call's value - agreeing to sell a stock 5% above current levels will pay more than agreeing to sell it 10% above current levels - but again, this is likely obvious to you. Volatility, or the percent by which the stock is likely to move up or down on a given day, is almost certainly the variable that's not already obvious. Stocks that jump all over the place have higher volatility than those that move more predictably.     The reason that options (calls and puts) cost more on higher volatility names is that options' payout is asymmetrical.  In the case of calls, the option holder gets all the upside, but none of the downside, other than what they paid for the opotion.     If one stock goes up or down $5 every day, and another goes up or down $20 every day and you could pay some fixed amount to get that stock's upside, but not have any exposure to its downside, other than that fixed amount, you'd pay more for the one that pays you $20 or $0 than you would for the one that pays you $5 or $0.    That's why higher volatility (meaning larger daily moves) makes optimum prices higher." It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you! "The goal is to understand the movements of the market as a whole and understand the fortunes of every investor in the S&amp;P.  As for why it isn't price-weighted, it is because price is a complely arbitrary notion, whereas market cap is at least ""real"" in some sense.  Imagine Berkshire Hathaway vs Apple. In the S&amp;P, Apple takes up about 75% more of the index because it's market cap is 796B, compared to 452B for Berkshire. This makes intuitive sense. Apple is ""worth"" 75% more, so it takes up that much more of the index.  Now lets look at price. In a price weighted index of only those two stocks, Apple, with a stock price of 154.12 would take up .06% compared to Berkshire Hathaway at 99.94% due to its 274,740 stock price. The only difference is Apple has WAY more shares outstanding. Nothing of economic value (other than a bit of liquidity) is captured in a price-weighted index." Companies do both quite often.  They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders.  Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock).  To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share.