Consensus itself is not the problem—the danger arises when consensus becomes action, and action becomes pricing. As more participants position around the same narrative, returns are pulled forward while hidden risks accumulate.

The priority is not to distinguish between “mainstream” and “non-mainstream” opinions, but to examine the expectations embedded in price and how sensitive those expectations are to change. When the market converges on a singular view, prices rely on increasingly stringent assumptions. Any deviation can trigger rapid adjustment.

The real vulnerability is not the narrative, but the fragility created by uniform expectations.

Institutional investors prefer to evaluate opportunities when disagreement still exists—when uncertainty leaves room for structural mispricing. This is not contrarianism for its own sake; it is a disciplined assessment of what is already discounted and what remains overlooked.

When price rests on uniform assumptions, margins of safety shrink. When uncertainty persists, structural opportunity expands. Over the long term, successful investment systems are not built on opposing consensus, but on researching before consensus forms, exercising restraint while consensus builds, and re-evaluating when expectation diverges from reality.