A Tale Of Two Benchmarks

By
Aye M. Soe, Srikant Dash
June 23, 2009
Share:

A study explaining the return differential between the S&P SmallCap 600 and the Russell 2000.

 

The role of a benchmark is to represent the return to an investment strategy in an investment universe. Active managers’ skills can be distinguished from random results by comparing their investment returns to a benchmark that represents their investment universe. In general, a benchmark represents a return to a passive strategy. If benchmarks are assumed to represent a passive strategy in a given investment universe, then returns among various benchmarks should be similar. This similarity appears to be the case in the U.S. large-cap equity universe, by looking at how the returns on the Russell 1000® and the S&P 500® Index closely track each other.

However, in the small-cap universe, returns between the Russell 2000 and the S&P SmallCap 600 are significantly different. Using monthly total returns from 1994¬2008, Exhibit 1 charts the growth of an investment of US$ 1 in the S&P 500 and Russell 1000, and in the S&P SmallCap 600 and Russell 2000.

 

Exhibit 1. Cumulative Return On Investments

IU_exhibit1_chart

Source: Standard & Poor’s, Frank Russell

 

In the U.S. large-cap universe, US$ 1 invested in the S&P 500 and the Russell 1000 from December 1993-December 2008 would have returned US$ 2.63 and US$ 2.67, respectively. Conversely, US$ 1 invested in the S&P SmallCap 600 and the Russell 2000 over the same investment horizon would have returned US$ 3.06 and US$ 2.38, respectively.

Since its launch in 1994, the S&P SmallCap 600 has outperformed the Russell 2000 in 11 out of the 15 years. From January 1994 through May 2009, the S&P SmallCap 600 returns exceeded those of the Russell 2000 by about 2% per year. Exhibit 2 highlights the risk/return profile of the two indices.

 

Exhibit 2. Risk/Return Profile

IU_exhibit2_chart

Source: Standard & Poor’s, Frank Russell. Data from January 1994 – May 2009.

 

The substantial divergence of returns between the two small-cap indices merits further study, and an understanding of the factors contributing to the divergence. In this paper, we examine the sources of the return differential.

 

ETF DAILY DATA

Investors plowed money into currency-hedged equity funds like ‘HEDJ’ and ‘DBEF’ on Wednesday, March 4, while yanking assets out of sundry bond funds, such as ‘HYG.’ Total U.S.-listed ETF assets dropped to $2.084 trillion as a market pullback offset net inflows.

Sizable outflows from various iShares bond funds paced that firm’s outflows on Wednesday, March 4. Total U.S.-listed ETF assets ended the day at $2.084 trillion.

ETF.COM ANALYST BLOGS

By Olivier Ludwig

At a time when ‘smart beta’ is taking off, it’s good for investors to have the right tools to decide what works.

By Olivier Ludwig

The world of ETFs is full of wonderful money-saving surprises.

By Howard Lee

An inside look at iShares’ new $75 million ‘smart beta’ bond ETF.

By Dave Nadig

With trillions of dollars of bonds yielding worse than nothing, should you be worried about your ETF?