In other words, it's bait-and-switch.

It is not, in fact, equal weighted at all. Not even close.

And whatever rationale someone might have for equal weighting does not apply.

It smooth-talks its way past the problem in the disarming phrase "Rather than simply assigning an equal weight to each constituent of the index..." The obvious response is "Stop right there. Why not do just that?"

In an equal-weighted S&P 500 fund, all constituents receive 0.2% weight. In this one,

according to the factsheet, every one of the top ten constituents is weighted more than twice as much as they are in the equal-weighted S&P. And the largest constituent, at 0.53%, is weighted eight times as much as the smallest, at 0.06%

You can't find any rationale for that beyond "it's our

*methodology*" and "this is what the past performance has been."

Even if it

*were* equal weighted, it still wouldn't make sense. Because it means you would be putting a weight of 0.1% on 1,000 stocks, and a weight of exactly zero on the other 3,000. That's not "equal," and it also isn't a good representative coverage of the equal-weighted stock market.

Unlike the situation with cap-weighting, in which the Russell 1000 covers 93% of the stock market by cap weight and is thus a

*decent* approximation of the market as a whole, a truly equal-weighted Russell 1000 holding would only cover 25% of the

*equal-weighted* stock market and would

*not* be a good approximation to the equal-weighted stock market as a whole.

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.