Get Indexology® Blog updates via email.

In This List

Increasing Diversification of the Australian Equity Market

Global Islamic Indices Advanced 20% YTD, Outperforming Conventional Benchmarks in 2021

S&P 500 Twitter Sentiment Indices: Factor Analysis

A Stellar 2021 for Indian Equities

No Safe Harbor for Stockpickers

Increasing Diversification of the Australian Equity Market

Contributor Image
Eduardo Olazabal

Senior Analyst, Global Equity Indices

S&P Dow Jones Indices

Equity markets have changed considerably over the past 10 years, reflecting the growth of stocks and sectors in each market. While this growth has led to increased concentration in most of the world’s largest equity markets, Australia is a notable exception, as diversification has improved both in terms of stock concentration and along sector lines.

We can analyze stock concentration at a high level by using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). This index is a widely used measure of market concentration that can also be applied to stock market indices. It is calculated by squaring the market share (weight) of each stock in an index and then summing the resulting numbers. A greater HHI indicates a higher level of market concentration, while a lower value indicates less concentration.

Exhibit 1 shows that market concentration declined significantly for the S&P/ASX 200 over the past decade, while it increased in benchmarks measuring four of the world’s five largest equity markets. The S&P 500 and Canada’s S&P/TSX Composite experienced the largest increases, while the U.K. was the only top five market to see a decrease.

Examining the S&P/ASX 200 and S&P 500, we can see how the sector dynamic played out during this period. The weight of Materials and Financials declined for both indices, while Information Technology increased. However, the Information Technology sector had barely any participation in the S&P/ASX 200 10 years ago, which perhaps makes this change even more significant in Australia, given the small initial base.

In Exhibit 3, we can see how much each sector’s weight has changed over the past 10 years. While some sectors declined across all markets, such as Energy and Materials, others like Information Technology have increased—this was most notable in the U.S., with its share in the S&P 500 going up by 13%.

For the S&P/ASX 200, Materials and Financials each declined 6%, while Health Care and Information Technology increased by 7% and 4%, respectively. This is quite notable, as the sectors that have traditionally dominated the index (Financials, Materials, and Energy) accounted for 67% of the index 10 years ago, and now with the growth of Health Care, Real Estate, and Information Technology, this has lowered to 53%.

In conclusion, changes in the level of diversification varied across markets over the past decade. While the S&P/ASX 200 has become more diversified as a result of growth within newly emerging companies and sectors, growth in other markets was centered on previously large companies and sectors, which led to more concentration in the market overall.

The posts on this blog are opinions, not advice. Please read our Disclaimers.

Global Islamic Indices Advanced 20% YTD, Outperforming Conventional Benchmarks in 2021

Contributor Image
John Welling

Director, Equity Indices

S&P Dow Jones Indices

Global equities gained in the last quarter of the year, climbing 5.8% as measured by the S&P Global BMI. Shariah-compliant benchmarks, including the S&P Global BMI Shariah and Dow Jones Islamic Market (DJIM) World Index, outperformed their conventional counterparts by approximately 2.5% in the quarter due largely to their overweight in the U.S. Information Technology sector, which gained nearly 14% during Q4. Global Islamic indices finished the year with a near 2% advantage, while the performance differential varied across regions, as Asia Pacific developed and emerging markets underperformed their conventional benchmarks.

Drivers of 2021 Shariah Index Performance

While global equities enjoyed broad gains throughout 2021, the greatest contributors of Shariah index performance were at the sector and country level (see Exhibits 2 and 3).

Energy—which enjoyed a substantial rebound in 2021 after poor performance in 2020—was the best-performing sector. Due to its low weight in indices, however, performance impact was muted. Meanwhile, Information Technology—which tends to hold an overweight position in global Islamic indices—gained nearly 30%, contributing one-half of annual gains.

On a regional basis, high average weight toward the U.S. favored the S&P Global BMI Shariah during 2021, as the country enjoyed the best regional performance. The underperformance of the Asia Pacific developed and emerging markets regions limited overall gains, as Shariah-compliant stocks in Japan, South Korea, and China suffered during the period.

MENA Equities Continued to Gain in 2021

MENA regional equities gained considerably in 2021, as the S&P Pan Arab Composite advanced 32.7%. All MENA country indices finished the year in positive territory, led by the S&P United Arab Emirates BMI, which gained an impressive 50.8%, followed by the S&P Saudi Arabia BMI, up 34.8%. The S&P Egypt BMI led performance during Q4, rallying 16.3% and sending the country index into positive territory at year end.

 

For more information on how Shariah-compliant benchmarks performed in Q4 2021, read our latest Shariah Scorecard.

This article was first published in IFN Volume 19 Issue 02 dated the 12th January 2022.

The posts on this blog are opinions, not advice. Please read our Disclaimers.

S&P 500 Twitter Sentiment Indices: Factor Analysis

Contributor Image
Lalit Ponnala

Director, Global Research & Design

S&P Dow Jones Indices

We previously introduced the S&P 500 Twitter Sentiment Indices and analyzed their performance characteristics. We noted how the indices seek to capture the Tweet-based sentiment premium, with their differentiated performance being driven by differences in index construction and sector weighting. In this blog, we will examine their exposure to standard risk factors and analyze their correlation to other factor indices.

Significant Exposure to the Growth and Quality Factors

We start with a returns-based regression using the five-factor Fama-French model, including momentum as a sixth factor. Exhibit 1 displays the factor loadings, while the complete output of the regression model is shown in Exhibit 2.

Here are some of the key observations.

  • A significant negative loading on the value factor indicates that the S&P 500 Twitter Sentiment Indices have had a growth bias.
  • Both indices have had a positive loading on quality factors (profitability and investment), well in excess of the benchmark.
  • Both indices have exhibited weak and insignificant exposure to the momentum factor, possibly due to the mean reversion that follows highly abnormal social media sentiment.
  • For the S&P 500 Twitter Sentiment Select Equal Weight (EW) Index, exposure to small size has been in line with other equal-weight indices.

Variation in Exposure to Momentum and Volatility

Next, we evaluate factor exposures using a holdings-based approach. Following S&P DJI factor definitions, we calculate standardized z-scores for S&P 500 constituents on a monthly basis. Then, we use the constituent weights to evaluate the factor exposure for each index (and the benchmark). As expected, the S&P 500 Twitter Sentiment Select EW Index had the strongest exposure to the sentiment factor (see Exhibit 3). For the remaining factors, the broader S&P 500 Twitter Sentiment Index had a relatively stronger exposure.

Over time, different factors have exhibited different levels of variation in their active exposures (see Exhibit 4). Quality and value exposures appear relatively stable, while momentum and low volatility exposures show a fair amount of variation relative to the benchmark. The active exposure to momentum, in particular, seems to alternate between strongly positive and near zero, supporting the insignificant factor loading seen from the regression analysis (see Exhibit 2).

Active Return Correlations

To round out the characterization of the S&P 500 Twitter Sentiment Indices, we evaluate the correlation between their active returns (relative to the S&P 500) and those of the S&P 500 Factor Indices.

We see that both indices have exhibited low or negative active return correlation to many well-known factors (see Exhibit 5), pointing to potential diversification benefits when targeting multi-factor exposure.

 

1 Back-tested information reflects the application of the index methodology and selection of index constituents in hindsight. No hypothetical record can completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading. For example, there are numerous factors related to the equities, fixed income, or commodities markets in general which cannot be, and have not been accounted for in the preparation of the index information set forth, all of which can affect actual performance. The back-test calculations are based on the same methodology that was in effect on the index launch date. However, when creating back-tested history for periods of market anomalies or other periods that do not reflect the general current market environment, index methodology rules may be relaxed to capture a large enough universe of securities to simulate the target market the index is designed to measure or strategy the index is designed to capture. The back-test for the S&P Twitter Sentiment Indices is calculated for the period January 2018 to October 2021. S&P Dow Jones Indices designed the sentiment scoring model using data from approximately the same time range. The sentiment scoring model is a natural language processing tool based on linguistic classification of the degree to which a Tweet is likely to be positive or negative. Complete index methodology details are available at www.spdji.com. Past performance of the Index is not an indication of future results. Prospective application of the methodology used to construct the Index may not result in performance commensurate with the back-test returns shown.

S&P® and S&P 500® are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. Twitter® is a registered trademark of Twitter, Inc. These marks have been licensed for use by S&P Dow Jones Indices for use with the S&P Twitter Sentiment Index Series. The Indices are meant for informational purposes only and are not recommendations to buy or sell any securities. Any investment entails a risk of loss. Please consult your financial advisor before investing.

The posts on this blog are opinions, not advice. Please read our Disclaimers.

A Stellar 2021 for Indian Equities

Contributor Image
Benedek Vörös

Director, Index Investment Strategy

S&P Dow Jones Indices

Indian equities had a stellar 2021—the S&P BSE SENSEX rose over 23%, outpacing most major emerging markets, though slightly lagging the S&P 500®, which gained 29%. Information Technology and Financials were the top contributors, adding 9% and 6%, respectively, to the performance of the Indian bellwether. Smaller Indian companies did even better than blue chips; the S&P BSE SmallCap returned over twice as much as the S&P BSE SENSEX, with a thumping 64% total return, while mid caps also provided a bright spot, rising 41% in 2021.

After exhibiting outsized moves in 2020, equities settled back into a more benign volatility regime; the annualized volatility of daily S&P BSE SENSEX returns dropped by more than half, to below 16% in 2021, and the S&P BSE MidCap and S&P BSE SmallCap volatility also subsided, dropping to 18% and 17%, respectively, from over 28% in 2020.

All S&P BSE sectors and industries were up for the year, with Power leading the way, soaring by 74%.

Despite the well-publicized setback for the Paytm IPO, the S&P BSE IPO surged 56% in 2021, the second-best-performing Indian equity strategy we regularly report on, lagging just 1% behind 2021’s winner, the S&P BSE Enhanced Value Index.

Majority state-owned firms have also had an outstanding year following a dismal 2019 and 2020, as the S&P BSE PSU and the S&P BSE CPSE climbed 48% and 43%, respectively.

Unlike equities, fixed income performance was much more muted. The S&P BSE India 10 Year Sovereign Bond Index edged up 2%, while the S&P India Sovereign Inflation-Linked Bond Index was essentially flat, as demand for inflation protection waned in parallel with a deceleration of inflation pressures in the Indian economy.

Consistent with global trends, indices incorporating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors are increasingly gaining in popularity with Indian investors. Their interest might have been raised further by the recent strong run of the S&P BSE 100 ESG Index, which outperformed its parent index for the third year running, returning 29% in 2021 against 27% for the S&P BSE 100.

One group that is having difficulty outperforming the S&P BSE 100 is that of active managers. According to our S&P Index Versus Active (SPIVA) India Mid-Year 2021 Scorecard, over 86% of active Indian equity large-cap managers were beaten by the S&P BSE 100 over the previous 12-month period, and the numbers don’t look much different on a three-  or five-year horizon either, with underperformance rates of 87% and 83%, respectively. Offering an indication of the breadth of opportunity available to “stock pickers,” annualized dispersion (a measure of the spread of stock returns) in the S&P BSE SENSEX declined to a monthly average of 20% this year, having averaged 21% over the 2010-2019 period. Among other consequences, declining dispersion lowers the magnitude of rewards for active managers seeking to beat their benchmarks by over- or underweighting individual names.

The posts on this blog are opinions, not advice. Please read our Disclaimers.

No Safe Harbor for Stockpickers

Contributor Image
Anu Ganti

Senior Director, Index Investment Strategy

S&P Dow Jones Indices

We can use volatility and its components dispersion and correlation to analyze stock selection conditions globally. Most active managers run less diversified, more volatile portfolios than their index counterparts. Active managers should prefer above-average dispersion because stock selection skill is worth more when dispersion is high. The role of correlation is more subtle. While counterintuitive, the benefit of diversification is less when correlations are high. Therefore, they should prefer above-average correlations because it will reduce the opportunity cost of a concentrated portfolio. We observe in the U.S. that while 12-month average dispersion declined slightly, we saw a dramatic decline in correlations in 2021 compared to 2020.

Two years ago, we conceptualized the cost of concentration, defined as the ratio of the average volatility of the component assets to the volatility of a portfolio. A higher cost of concentration implies a larger foregone diversification benefit, translating into a higher hurdle for active managers to overcome.

How much higher do returns have to be to justify the additional volatility active managers take on? By multiplying the cost of concentration by a rate of return consistent with the market’s historical performance (e.g., 10% for the S&P 500), we arrive at the required incremental return shown in Exhibit 2 for the S&P 500. Driven by the lower correlations seen in Exhibit 1, this measure almost doubled last year, indicating that active managers gave up a larger diversification benefit in 2021 than in 2020.

Finally, to understand how difficult it is to earn this incremental return, we divide the required incremental return by dispersion to translate the measure into dispersion units. We can interpret a higher number of dispersion units to mean more challenging conditions for active management.

The bars in Exhibit 3 indicate the average value of the required incremental return in dispersion units for several indices across regions. As dispersion and correlations were generally lower, we observe a relatively more difficult environment for active management across most markets.

The challenging environment for stock selection is not unique to the U.S. 2021 stands in stark contrast to 2020, when both dispersion and correlations rose globally. Despite those relatively favorable conditions for stock selection, most active managers still underperformed, proving that true stock selection skill is rare. When SPIVA® results for 2021 become available, it would not be surprising if we saw dreary global active management performance once again.

The posts on this blog are opinions, not advice. Please read our Disclaimers.