Smaller caps have substantially underperformed their mega cap counterparts over the last decade. Remarkably, Apple alone is valued at over USD 3 trillion, exceeding the total market cap of the entire Russell 2000 Index.1 A long-term perspective, however, suggests that smaller caps have big potential.
Alternating index performance
Figure 1 compares the performance of the MSCI World Equal Weighted Index with the standard MSCI World Index. The former treats each stock equally, while the latter gives more weight to larger companies. This highlights the performance of the average stock relative to the value-weighted market, which has increasingly been dominated by mega caps in recent years.
Figure 1 | Relative performance of MSCI World Equal Weighted vs. MSCI World
Source: Robeco, LSEG, MSCI. The figure shows the relative performance MSCI World Equal Weighted Index vs. the MSCI World Index. Performance is measured via the total return index and the sample period is May 1973 to June 2024.
When the relative performance is blue, the equal-weighted index is outperforming; when red, the value-weighted index is outperforming. As you can see, historically speaking equal-weighting has generally outperformed value-weighting, supported by research indicating that benefits from size, value, and short-term reversal exposures outweigh the detractions from lower momentum exposure.2 While equal-weighting typically delivers positive results, value-weighting significantly outperformed during the dot-com bubble (1994-1999) and from 2011 onwards.
Periods of underperformance for the equal-weighted portfolio often align with challenging times for active managers, who tend to deviate from value-weighted portfolios and are more tilted towards equal-weighted ones.
Skyrocketing valuations versus neglect
So, is this time different? When comparing the two periods of equal-weighted underperformance, we see remarkable parallels. Both periods are characterized by the rise of narratives around disruptive technologies fueling the emergence of new business models, leading to skyrocketing valuations in some market segments while investors neglect others.
Similar to today, equal-weighted portfolios fell out of favor at the end of the 1990s, just before a 10-year run of outperformance. This serves as a potent reminder that investors would do well not to fall prey to recency bias and overemphasize the recent outperformance of value-weighted indices. Historical, long-term evidence suggests that if (or rather, when) this trend reverses, a longer period often sets it, and equal-weighting outperforming value-weighting is more often normal than exceptional.
クオンツに関する最新の「インサイト」を読む
ロベコのニュースレターにご登録いただくことで、いち早く最新のインサイトを入手し、環境に優しいポートフォリオの構築にお役立てください。
Small caps coming into their own again
In this context, it’s worth taking a closer look at the relative performance of small caps versus large caps. While we are skeptical about size as a standalone factor, as their higher returns also come with higher risk,3 we observe that the MSCI World Small Cap Index outperformed the MSCI World Index over the last 20+ years (see Figure 2). However, similar to the analysis above, the large-cap index has been difficult to beat in recent years, particularly after 2018.
Figure 2 | Relative performance and valuation of MSCI World Small Cap vs. MSCI World
Source: Robeco, LSEG, MSCI. The figure shows the relative performance and valuation spread of the MSCI World Small Cap Index vs. the MSCI World Index. Performance is measured via the total return index, and the valuation spread is based on four bottom-up-calculated multiples (price-to-book, forward price-to-earnings, price-to-cash EPS, and price-to-dividend). For each multiple, the valuation ratio of the MSCI World Small Cap Index is divided by the same valuation ratio for the MSCI World Index. The sample period is March 2003 to June 2024.
Is the recent underperformance of small caps due to weaker fundamentals or large caps becoming more expensive? Figure 2 illustrates that changes in relative valuations between these segments have significantly impacted their relative performance. Small caps tend to outperform when they become relatively more expensive than large caps, and underperform when they become cheaper.
Therefore, the underperformance of small caps over the last six years has been more a function of changes in relative valuation than of deteriorating fundamentals. In fact, annual valuation changes account for over 70% of the variation in relative performance. The widening gap between performance and valuation suggests that without this disparity, small-cap outperformance would have been much higher over the full period.
Value spread full of opportunities
As of the end of June 2024, the value spread between small and large caps is at levels not seen in over 20 years (see the red dashed line), offering a multi-decade opportunity for investors. Specifically, small caps are trading at a discount of over 20% compared to large caps, based on a composite of valuation ratios (P/B, Fwd P/E, P/C, and 1/DY), while they have traded at a premium of up to 30% in the past.
This large and significant discount is consistent across different valuation ratios and cannot be attributed to differences in sector distributions between small and large caps. Since the valuation ratios also consider the (expected) profitability of different market segments, the argument that a decline in small-cap profitability might explain their underperformance is not supported.
The two graphical insights above highlight that investors should not overemphasize the recent outperformance of mega caps, as history and valuations show that this is more the exception than the rule. It’s worth considering a deviation from market cap weighting and having a more balanced exposure to both small and large caps in your portfolios to capture higher long-term returns.
Footnotes
1 Apple market cap as of the end of June 2024. Cf., FTSE Russel, 2024 Russell US Indexes reconstitution: summary of preliminary changes, 2024.
2 Cf. Swade, Nolte, Shackleton, Lohre, Why Do Equally Weighted Portfolios Beat Value-Weighted Ones?, Journal of Portfolio Management, 2023, 49 (5).
3 Cf., Blitz and Hanauer, Settling the Size Matter, Journal of Portfolio Management, 2021, 47 (2).
Quant Charts
重要事項
当資料は情報提供を目的として、Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.が作成した英文資料、もしくはその英文資料をロベコ・ジャパン株式会社が翻訳したものです。資料中の個別の金融商品の売買の勧誘や推奨等を目的とするものではありません。記載された情報は十分信頼できるものであると考えておりますが、その正確性、完全性を保証するものではありません。意見や見通しはあくまで作成日における弊社の判断に基づくものであり、今後予告なしに変更されることがあります。運用状況、市場動向、意見等は、過去の一時点あるいは過去の一定期間についてのものであり、過去の実績は将来の運用成果を保証または示唆するものではありません。また、記載された投資方針・戦略等は全ての投資家の皆様に適合するとは限りません。当資料は法律、税務、会計面での助言の提供を意図するものではありません。 ご契約に際しては、必要に応じ専門家にご相談の上、最終的なご判断はお客様ご自身でなさるようお願い致します。 運用を行う資産の評価額は、組入有価証券等の価格、金融市場の相場や金利等の変動、及び組入有価証券の発行体の財務状況による信用力等の影響を受けて変動します。また、外貨建資産に投資する場合は為替変動の影響も受けます。運用によって生じた損益は、全て投資家の皆様に帰属します。したがって投資元本や一定の運用成果が保証されているものではなく、投資元本を上回る損失を被ることがあります。弊社が行う金融商品取引業に係る手数料または報酬は、締結される契約の種類や契約資産額により異なるため、当資料において記載せず別途ご提示させて頂く場合があります。具体的な手数料または報酬の金額・計算方法につきましては弊社担当者へお問合せください。 当資料及び記載されている情報、商品に関する権利は弊社に帰属します。したがって、弊社の書面による同意なくしてその全部もしくは一部を複製またはその他の方法で配布することはご遠慮ください。 商号等: ロベコ・ジャパン株式会社 金融商品取引業者 関東財務局長(金商)第2780号 加入協会: 一般社団法人 日本投資顧問業協会