Research A Tale of Two Small-Cap Benchmarks: 10 Years Later Contributors INTRODUCTION Phillip Brzenk, CFA Indices play a multifaceted role in investment management. Passive Senior Director investors use indexed-linked investment products to gain exposure to Global Research & Design
[email protected] particular investment universes, market segments, or strategies. Active investors use indices as benchmarks to compare actively managed funds Bill Hao to indices representing the active portfolio. Indices can also serve as Director proxies for asset class returns in formulating policy portfolios. Global Research & Design
[email protected] If indices can represent passively implemented returns in a given universe, Aye M. Soe, CFA then the risk/return profiles among various indices in the same universe Managing Director should be similar. In large-cap U.S. equities, the S&P 500® and Russell Global Head of Product 1000 have had similar risk/return profiles (9.65% versus 9.73% per year, Management respectively, since Dec. 31, 1993).1 However, in the small-cap universe,
[email protected] the returns of the Russell 2000 and the S&P SmallCap 600® have been notably different historically. Since year-end 1993, the S&P SmallCap 600 has returned 10.44% per year, while the Russell 2000 has returned 8.78%. In addition, the S&P SmallCap 600 has also exhibited lower volatility (see Exhibit 1). A study performed by S&P Dow Jones Indices (S&P DJI) in 2009 (Dash and Soe) showed that return differences were primarily due to the inclusion of a profitability factor embedded in the S&P SmallCap 600.