Equal sector-weight investing is nothing new, and there are plenty of ETFs and mutual funds which offer this. For example, if you wanted to take an equal weight approach to investing in the S&P 500, you could buy RSP, with an expense ratio of just 0.20%.
Equal weight investing is a poor-mans version of value investing and small cap investing. Over long periods of time (say 10+ years) you will have historically outperformed due to the fact that equal weight investing is naturally allocating more dollars to beaten down industries while allocating fewer dollars to popular and potentially over-valued industries. Since the inception of the S&P 500 equal weight index in January of 1999, the equal-weight index has outperformed the S&P 500 by 2.21% annually.
An example of how out-performance happens: When oil collapsed in late 2014 and 2015, the energy industry saw most of it's stocks fall a significant amount. As such, the value of the energy industry relative to the market declined. A market weight index fund would have done nothing, and allowed energy to now be a smaller percentage of the portfolio. An equal weight index fund would have been holding their allocation steady by purchasing more energy stocks. In effect, the equal-weight index is becoming more overweight energy, and buying more energy stocks, the more those stocks go down. As energy stocks recovered some of their losses, an equal weight index fund would have benefited from having a larger allocation to the sector than a market weight index.
That is an example of when equal weight can outperform. The opposite would be to look at what healthcare has done as a sector for the past 15 years. Equal weight indexes would have been consistently selling these stocks as they continue to appreciate, whereas a market index would have allowed those positions to continue to appreciate.
Getting back to my point, this is a poor man's version of value investing. You are completely blind to individual stock valuations, and simply rely on sector weightings to capture the value premium. You are also allocating more dollars to smaller companies, and less to larger companies. Smaller companies are inherently riskier, and therefore offer investors higher long term returns in exchange for higher company specific risk and higher volatility. For someone that has the risk tolerance and time horizon for allocating more heavily to value and small companies, there are more efficient ways to do this than an equal weight etf or index fund (or PC). As mentioned earlier, there is lots of trading involved in an equal weight fund, and trading generates costs which lower returns. You would be much better off allocating more heavily to a value and a small cap index fund to achieve this portfolio dynamic.
This approach that PC is using, over long periods of time, may provide a slightly higher rate of return than the market as a whole, but likely won't justify paying them 0.89% a year to do so when you can easily access the underlying strategy for less than that through mutual funds and etfs. I would feel more safe in mutual funds and etfs than I would in some companies online proprietary trading system. Now, if you're in need of tax planning, estate planning, financial planning...if you know that you're prone to the many emotional biases that plague investors...if you're getting into your golden years and are worried about making mistakes or how your SO will manage if you pass away... and if PC can offer you these things, then perhaps the 0.89% fee is justified.