A Better Way to Buy the Russell 2000
Last updated on January 18th, 2017 at 11:46 am
Long-Term Impact of Russell 2000 Index Rebalancing
- Jie Cai and Todd Houge, CFA
- A version of the paper can be found here.
- Want a summary of academic papers with alpha? Check out our Academic Research Recap Category!
The study reported here examined the long-term impact of Russell 2000 Index rebalancing on portfolio evaluation. A buy-and-hold index portfolio outperformed the annually rebalanced index in the 1979-2004 period by an average of 2.22 percent over one year and 17.29 percent over five years. Although short-term momentum and the poor long-term returns of new issues partially explain these returns, index deletions were found to provide significantly higher factor-adjusted returns than index additions. Some small-capitalization fund managers appear to capture a portion of these benefits. The strongest performing funds enhanced their factor-adjusted returns by an average of 1.45 percent per year by holding index deletions and/or avoiding index additions. Among the weakest performing funds, higher returns from holding index deletions were offset by the poor returns of new issues added to the index. Thus, index methodology may provide a structural incentive for portfolio managers to drift from their benchmarks.
CRSP/Compustat 1979 to 2004.
Rebalance less, make more!
- For majority of sample, construction of the Russell 2000 is fairly simple. Using May 31 market capitalization, for all firms with stock price above $1, the largest 1000 firms are in the Russell 1000, while the firms ranked 1001-3000 on market capitalization are in the Russell 2000. The rebalance occurs on June 30th.
- Excludes preferred issues, convertible securities, closed-end mutual funds, limited partnerships, “royalty trusts,” “bulletin board” securities, “pink sheet” stocks, foreign securities, and American Depository Receipts.
- September 2004, began to include IPOs on a quarterly basis (if fall within market capitalization rank).
- R2K used quarterly rebalancing from 1979-1986, semi-annual rebalancing from 1987-1989, and annual rebalancing since June 30, 1989.
- Rebalancing has a major impact on turnover, as an average of 457 companies (23% of index holdings) are replaced each year.
- Table 1 compares a buy-and-hold strategy with no rebalancing with the annually rebalanced R2K for holding periods of up to five years after each reconstitution date.
- The buy-and-hold portfolio outperformed the R2K by a statistically significant average return of 2.22% (17.29%) during the first year (5 years) after portfolio reconstruction.
- $1 invested in the R2K index would have grown to $17.77, while $1 invested into to a buy-and-hold portfolio that waits one year to rebalance would have grown to $28.42.
- Figure 4 shows that this outperformance is driven by those deleted companies from the R2K index. A portfolio of deleted R2K firms outperforms a portfolio of new R2K firm by 40.1% over a five year period!
- Primarily driven by large companies that continued to do well (deleted because they became too large – now in the R1K).
- A deletions minus additions portfolio (DMA) generates a statistically significant 7.9% per year return.
- Significant alpha when controlling for market, size, value, and momentum. Large growth companies heavily influence the returns.
- Last, examine the returns of 865 small cap mutual funds.
- These funds hold on to firms after they have been deleted from the R2K index.
- Winning funds generate larger returns due to holding onto these deletions, while losing funds have lower returns due to exposures to new issues (IPOs) which had lower returns.
- Less rebalancing may be better?
- Less taxes, less complication!
- Simple way to beat the index
- Ride the momentum wave!
Who’s ready for a better R2K?
Note: This site provides no information on our value investing ETFs or our momentum investing ETFs. Please refer to this site.
Join thousands of other readers and subscribe to our blog.
Please remember that past performance is not an indicator of future results. Please read our full disclaimer. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Alpha Architect, its affiliates or its employees. This material has been provided to you solely for information and educational purposes and does not constitute an offer or solicitation of an offer or any advice or recommendation to purchase any securities or other financial instruments and may not be construed as such. The factual information set forth herein has been obtained or derived from sources believed by the author and Alpha Architect to be reliable but it is not necessarily all-inclusive and is not guaranteed as to its accuracy and is not to be regarded as a representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the information’s accuracy or completeness, nor should the attached information serve as the basis of any investment decision. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission from Alpha Architect.