TLDR: Would it make sense (for the purposes of more efficient rebalancing) to separate the total US stock market index or S&P 500 into two funds like VTV & SCHG, for instance? Or would just buying the large cap blended index achieve the same thing? To illustrate what I'm trying to ask, say LCV is kicking off for a while but LCG is underperforming. When I contribute to that account & rebalance, I'd be buying more of the underperforming asset. Does this achieve anything over just buying VTI or the S&P 500?
This all started when I was listening to the podcast "Risk Parity Radio", which is geared more towards retirees, but also touches on strategies for people in their accumulation phase. The host often suggests that the latter group aggressively split 100% equities into 50% LCG & 50% SCV. The best counterargument I heard to this is,
"What about when LCV is outperforming? You don't want to be uninvested what that happens."
So, I thought to invest in LCG & LCV separately, mainly because I thought it made more sense for efficient rebalancing. I also hold SCV, a little VO & ex-US in accordance with my preferences. So, what's the verdict on the large-cap stocks? Am I onto something with the rebalancing, or does the same thing automatically happen when buying something like VTI or the S&P 500, which are both primarily large-cap blend funds?
Thanks in advance for any insight or clarity you can provide!