Why There Are No Big Differences Between Large- and Small-Caps

By Howard Simons Jan 23, 2012 1:20 pm

The Russell 1000-Russell 2000 spread has converged over time.



Legend has it most gadgets sold in late-night infomercials were spinoffs from Wall Street.  The mindset that gave us the Veg-O-Matic, the Slap-Chop and knives capable of sawing through both your various plumbing fixtures and your salad fixings is the same one that gave us curiosities such as large-capitalization value managers, small-capitalization growth managers and middle-capitalization mediocrities.
 
The noble idea behind all of this is size matters; as a stock’s capitalization increases, it becomes harder and harder to hit the proverbial 10-bagger.  Sometimes even laying down a halfway decent sacrifice bunt can be a chore: The average annual total returns on Microsoft (MSFT) and Intel (INTC) over the past 10 years have been 0.815% and -2.04%, respectively.
 
Convergent Returns
If you throw a rock down Wall Street, you might hit someone, perhaps amongst the Occupiers themselves, issuing a forecast for the relative performance of large-capitalization versus small-capitalization stocks as measured by the Russell 1000 and Russell 2000 indices, respectively, and ETFs such as the iShares Russell 1000 (IWB) and iShares Russell 2000 (IWM), also respectively. 
 
This might be a very good use for a rock: If we compare the total return paths for the indices since May 1995, we find they had one period of divergence, the late-1990s bull market, and that is it.  Once that boom busted, returns converged for the next boom-bust-boom-semi-bust cycle.  At the end of more than 16.5 years, all you have to show before taxes, inflation and expenses is an incremental return of 2.88% in favor of the Russell 2000.  That is average annual outperformance of 0.175%...and did I mention the Russell 2000 has a higher standard deviation of returns?



Differential Implied Volatility
Not only does the Russell 2000 have a higher historic volatility, option traders give it a higher implied volatility as well.  If we map the implied volatilities of the IWB and IWM since October 2000, we find only one period, the dot-com bust, when IWB volatility was higher for any protracted period of time.  This period coincided with the large-capitalization large-scale decapitation, particularly in the tech sector.
 


Is this constancy of relative performance and volatility reason for despair?  No; first of all, if you have not despaired by now, you are not going to do so.  Second, take heart your selection of U.S. equities is unlikely to be a gamble based on capitalization.  It is simply one less source for error.
 
My own solution is to expose yourself to both capitalization classes at once, in a vehicle such as the IWV ETF based on the broad Russell 3000 index, the combination of the Russell 1000 and Russell 2000 indices. (Do these folks make the math easy, or what?) A long-term investor should have an allocation to U.S. equities, period, and if you want to despair over size not mattering, I will not stop you.

Follow the markets all day every day with a FREE 14 day trial to Buzz & Banter. Over 30 professional traders share their ideas in real-time. Learn more.
< Previous
  • 1
Next >
No positions in stocks mentioned.

The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • All the News and Insights You Need Right in Your Inbox | Sign Up for Our Free Newsletter

WHAT'S POPULAR IN THE VILLE

Recommendations

MARKETS