I Found a compelling argument that people managing smaller portfolios should focus their research on smaller cap companies < 5 billion, even < 1 billion market caps.
They usually only have 1 arm of business. Which makes it much easier to analyze.
It's much easier to find "5-10 baggers" at this level.
Larger institutions aren't allowed to enter some stocks that are below $5. Even then it might not be worth their time to analyze such companies, as they can't even invest too much of their capital without taking up a lot of the float. One example I found was a fund invested something like a measly $300,000 into a uranium mining company (Forsys Metals Corp i think?), which caused the shares to increase by 30%.
I heard 95% of micro-cap stocks are garbage, but 5% of them are actual diamonds in the rough and they do exist if you try to scout them out. Via looking at companies with double digit revenue growth, a lot of insider trading, an outstanding management team and so on.
Also historically, small cap companies have collectively outperformed the S&P 500.
Therefore does it not make more sense for someone to focus more on screening for small/micro cap stocks, and building a portfolio that consits of mostly small / micro cap companies? What are the downside of this approach?
