The Globe and Mail reports in its Monday edition that the big-tech-dominated S&P 500 and the U.S. small-cap Russell 2000 operate in wildly different investment environments. The Globe's Scott Barlow writes that as a result, changes in the ratio of the S&P 500 to the Russell 2000 can indicate evolutions in market leadership. The relative value of S&P 500 and Russell 2000 imply future underperformance for U.S. large-cap stocks. The recent weakness in Apple stock -- down 13 per cent since Dec. 15, and Tesla, down 30 per cent -- might be a sign of things to come. From late September, 1990, to late January, 1991, the S&P 500 was more than one standard deviation expensive. For the two years after that, the Russell 2000 returned 64 per cent on average and the S&P 500 returned 33.5 per cent on average. Mr. Barlow uses the 1990s tech bubble as an example. Initially, the S&P 500 was one standard deviation expensive from May to August, 1998. The S&P 500 became two standard deviations expensive relative to small caps in August, 1998, and this remained the case until December, 2001. Two-year subsequent returns for the Russell 2000 averaged 2 per cent while the S&P 500 averaged a 13-per-cent loss.