In short: Talkington's broadening half (7:20). Asked top-10 or "the other 490," she answers "since I own the Qs and RSP, I would say yes and yes" — to be added to on a drawdown, since "the breadth of earnings is also strengthening."
In short: Cited as evidence, not a stance — Lebenthal (2:41) uses the equal-weight RSP and small caps as proof of rotation under a flat S&P; later (41:46) suggests 401(k) savers look for an equal-weight option "as the rally broadens."
In short: "I've recommended the equal weighted S&P and it's outperformed in recent periods… I like the equal weighted S&P even better than I did before because it completely eliminates the overconcentration in this one sector" (AI at ~40%, the level where past mania cycles topped).
A normal S&P 500 fund puts most of your money in the biggest companies, and today AI-linked giants are about 40% of it. An equal-weight fund owns all 500 in the same amount, so AI is only a small slice. Gundlach notes that AI stocks and AI bonds are now lagging the rest of the market, and that 40% concentration in one theme is where past manias peaked — so he likes equal weight "even better" than before.
17:12So I think that this is really, it's not surprising that AI bonds are underperforming non-AI bonds and that frankly AI stocks are underperforming non-AI stocks. I've recommended the equal weighted S&P and it's outperformed in recent periods and I think that it's a great, I like the equal weighted S&P even better than I did before because it completely eliminates the overconcentration in this one sector which is at about 40% which as we talked about last time is the type of level over the past sort of seven mania cycles where it
In short: Improving: equal weight has been outperforming cap weight for "about a year, maybe a year and a quarter," echoing the 2020 set-up before a big equal-weight leg — "not terribly convincing that it's the start of a big trend, but it's certainly not underperforming any longer." The AI complex and the rest of the S&P are now negatively correlated (0.5 → 0.14).
The normal S&P 500 gives the biggest companies the biggest weight, so a handful of AI giants dominate it. An equal-weight version puts the same amount in each of the 500 companies. It has beaten the normal index for about a year, and the AI stocks and "everything else" have started moving in opposite directions. Gundlach calls it a change worth watching rather than a proven trend — but clearly better than the concentrated version he refuses to recommend.
26:42It's got a lot of momentum going. So I wouldn't expect this to reverse anytime soon. But what's interesting is that the equal weighted S&P 500 has been outperforming. Now this goes back to 2017 but it's been outperforming for about a year, maybe a year and a quarter, and once something starts to potentially reverse, look back in 2020, an interesting comparison point, we see that we started to go sideways on the relative of cap weight versus equal weight and then we saw a big correction where equal weight outperformed. Equal weight has
In short: Talkington notes "we own RSP" in passing while making the broadening argument — the equal-weight expression of a market where, per Link, "the equal weight is actually outperforming the market weight. We've been talking about that all year long."
In short: Closing question — RSP vs SPY: "RSP should outperform SPY simply because Max7 is underperforming right now." The index expression of the whole call: capex-burning mega-caps de-rating (32× → 22×) while the other 493 don't carry that FCF headwind.
SPY, the usual S&P 500 fund, weights companies by size — so a handful of giant tech names drive most of it. RSP holds the same 500 companies in equal amounts, so the giants matter no more than the smallest member.
His closing call is that RSP beats SPY "simply because Max7 is underperforming right now." That's the index version of the entire call: the mega-caps are burning cash on AI data centres and their valuations are compressing (from 32× earnings to 22×), while the other 490-odd companies don't carry that burden. If you want the market without the capex problem, buy it equally weighted.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: The equal-weighted S&P 500 made fresh all-time highs on Friday — another broadening-bull sign on top of the bullish breadth divergence. Confirms participation beyond the mega-cap leaders.
For a long time the market's gains have come from a handful of giant tech stocks ("Mag-7"). The healthy alternative is for the rest of the market to start participating too — what Thomas calls "broadening." Two simple signals say that's happening: RSP (an S&P 500 fund that weights all 500 companies equally, so it ignores the giants' dominance) just hit a record high, and so did IWM (small-company stocks). When the average stock and the little guys are also making new highs — not just the megacaps — the rally rests on a broader base, which is sturdier.
He adds a rotation case: the biggest stocks are expensive (lots of good news already priced in, so easy to disappoint), while smaller stocks are cheap (low expectations, room to surprise). With small caps now also outperforming the megacaps, "valuations and technicals align" — meaning both the fundamentals (cheapness) and the price action (new highs, turning up versus Mag-7) point the same way. That's the setup for money rotating out of crowded megacaps and into overlooked smaller names.
In short: Held, not transacted. 17.1% of the American ETF portfolio, and the structural answer to this issue's own complaint about the cap-weighted index — the same 500 companies without the 38.5% top-ten weight. Three purchases (October 2023, May 2024, July 2025) now +44.98%, +24.06% and +10.10%.
In short: Disclosed holding, not re-rated. 18.4% of the American book and its oldest line. Three purchases: October 2023 at $140.3 (+34.46%, the single best transaction in the sheet), May 2024 at $164.0 (+15.06%) and July 2025 at $184.75 (+2.11%), all marked at $188.65. The structural answer to the same index-concentration argument made in the Buy-Hold-Sell issue ten days earlier.
In short: Disclosed holding, not re-rated. The American book's oldest and best position: bought October 2023 at $140.3 (+44.16%), May 2024 at $164.0 (+23.36%) and July 2025 at $184.75 (+9.48%), marked at $202.26. Three of seventeen transactions in the book.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.