Indexology^® Blog

The S&P Kensho Moonshots Index (the Moonshots index) is an innovative strategy that aims to gain exposure to the most innovative companies in their early stages of growth.¹ Our earlier publication² showcased the ability of the Moonshots index to harvest the premium of early-stage innovation companies versus their more established counterparts. Innovation as a theme continues to grow, as both companies and consumers navigate the economic and behavioral impacts from COVID-19.

Recent Moonshots index performance has been volatile, with December 2021 and January 2022 witnessing significant negative monthly returns compared with the index’s history (see Exhibit 1). The index’s performance versus the S&P SmallCap 600^® benchmark was analogous, with the Moonshots index posting significantly negative returns (see Exhibit 2). Despite this latest bout of volatility, the Moonshots index value as of Feb. 16, 2022 remains above (about 15%) its pre-pandemic level.

Given the novel focus of the Moonshots index, an ideal comparative performance benchmark is difficult to come by. Nonetheless, a popular and similar-themed ETF product from ARK Invest (ARKK) has also been buffeted by market volatility, retracing most of its 2021 gains. The performance of the Moonshots index and ARKK have closely tracked each other since the pandemic started (see Exhibit 3), in addition to having similar volatility profiles (see Exhibit 4). However, we should note that ETF performance and index performance may be materially different in that index performance does not reflect management fees, trading costs, or other expenses.

Despite recent performance headwinds, Moonshots as an investment theme could be an appealing proposition for the following reasons.

• A Unique Set of Holdings: The constituents of the Moonshots index are a unique set of stocks that offer potential diversification benefits. There is minimal overlap between this set of index constituents and some of the popular benchmarks and thematically comparable ETFs (see Exhibit 5).

• Diversification: The Moonshots index’s rules-based construction reduces concentration, mitigating the likelihood of overall index performance driven by a select few stocks. The top 5/10 stocks in the 50-stock Moonshots index account for 14%/27% of the index weight. In contrast, the ARKK actively managed 44-stock portfolio allocates 33%/55% of its total weight to the top 5/10 stocks.
• Capturing Growth: The Moonshots index’s emphasis on innovation guides its natural overweight to the growth factor. The index is heavily tilted toward Information Technology and Industrials, the more growth-exposed sectors of the economy. This is also apparent from the index’s close correlation with a proxy for growth performance (see Exhibit 6).

• Harvesting Size Premium: The Moonshots index’s methodology focuses on smaller capitalization securities that are in their early stages of expansion. The weighted average market cap of the Moonshots index is USD 2.6 billion compared with USD 644 billion for the S&P 500. Size bias is a concept that has been well documented³ as a systematic strategy that can reap benefits over the long term.

¹ https://www.indexologyblog.com/2020/11/12/measuring-innovation-essential-insights-in-an-era-of-disruption-to-the-global-economy/

² https://www.indexologyblog.com/2020/11/30/moonshots-catching-lightning-in-a-bottle/

³ A five-factor asset pricing model, Eugene F. Fama, Kenneth R. French, 2015

On Feb. 21, 2022, S&P Dow Jones Indices (S&P DJI) launched a series of S&P GSCI European Power Indices, the first indices of their kind in the market and an expansion of the single-commodity offering of indices based on the S&P GSCI. The S&P GSCI European Power Indices are designed to provide reliable and publicly available performance benchmarks for the largest European power markets. The indices are based on European Energy Exchange (EEX) quarterly and annual French, German, Italian, and Spanish power futures.

As the green energy transition takes hold globally, liquidity of financial instruments is crucial to ensure the shift from fossil fuels to renewables is as seamless and efficient as possible. The power markets will likely play an important role in that regard. Record natural gas and electricity prices in Europe, record coal prices in China, multi-year-high natural gas prices in the U.S., and Brent crude prices topping USD 90 per barrel are all manifestations of a global energy shortage that has come into sharp focus over recent months. Until now, the power segment has been an inaccessible commodity for many market participants. As illustrated in Exhibit 1, price discovery in the European power markets in the fall of 2021 was rapid and efficient.

Market participants can track electricity in Europe via the futures market, and the EEX contracts provide a clear benchmark for the price of baseload electricity at any point in time. Their highly liquid futures contracts were a perfect match for S&P DJI when it came to creating benchmark indices for European power.

Power markets will play a crucial role in the green energy transition as the need to measure renewable power generation is becoming the main focus of many global corporations and governments. Germany is a great place to start as it is the largest power market in Europe, with volumes over 250 million MWh a month, more than 6x larger than the second biggest in Europe, France. In Germany, renewables’ share of gross power consumption is currently over 40% and is expected to rise to 80% by 2030.¹ Most of renewables’ power comes from wind.

S&P DJI continues to be the index leader when it comes to bringing innovative, thematic, climate-focused offerings to market. The S&P GSCI European Power Indices are another example of how we look to drive transparency in new and exciting markets as they develop. To learn more, please visit our commodities investment theme page.

¹ Source: BDEW Energy Supply 2021 – Annual Report

Commodities crushed it in 2021, with stretched supply chains a driving factor. The strong performance didn’t stop as we entered 2022. In this blog, we specifically look at crude oil and natural gas, which have outperformed the European equity market by some distance since the start of 2021 (see Exhibit 1), and what this can mean for European ESG strategies.

Given the environmentally unfriendly nature of these fossil fuel-based energy sources, it would make sense for an ESG strategy to have less exposure to energy companies. This expectation would assume an active sensitivity to both crude oil and natural gas, causing a drag on performance during times of rising oil and gas prices. Is this assumption true? Not necessarily. Since the index’s first value date, we observe no statistically significant correlation¹ between the excess return of the S&P Europe 350 ESG Index (excess of its market cap-weighted benchmark) and either natural gas or crude oil (see Exhibit 2). Simply put, there has been no significant increase or decrease in exposure to natural gas or crude oil shown by the S&P Europe 350 ESG Index, relative to its market cap-weighted benchmark.

Why the lack of increased sensitivity? It’s all about index construction (see Exhibit 3). The S&P Europe 350 ESG Index targets sector neutrality (see Exhibit 4) by removing the companies with the lowest S&P DJI ESG Scores per GICS^® industry group, after making exclusions based on undesirable ESG exposures. This means we are making exclusions on a relative basis within each industry group, rather than removing entire industry groups.

The end result? By employing S&P DJI ESG Scores and the most common ESG exclusions, the S&P Europe 350 ESG Index may fulfil the most important requirements for market participants seeking a broad, large-cap European ESG benchmark. By incorporating sustainability principles, the index could help align investments with principles while providing benchmark-like risk/return characteristics, while providing access to the broader, liquid European market. This culminates in the possibility of the S&P Europe 350 ESG Index serving as a common starting point for the growing market focused on sustainability.²

For a more in-depth look at this index, see The S&P Europe 350 ESG Index: Defining Europe’s Sustainable Core.

¹ As measured by the p-values of the Pearson rank correlation.

² The S&P Europe 350^® ESG Index: A Broad, Sustainable Index Solution (Steadman, 2022). https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/education/education-sp-europe-350-esg-index-a-broad-sustainable-index-solution.pdf

Since the last rebalance for the S&P 500^® Low Volatility Index on Nov. 19, 2021, the market has experienced gyrations not seen since February 2021. The S&P 500 declined 6.44% since the November rebalance, with daily changes of greater than 1% almost half (44%) of the time. Low volatility strategies are designed to smooth out the path of the broader market at all times, but their work is most visible in times of stress, as shown in Exhibit 1. The S&P 500 Low Volatility Index is down just 1.28% as of Feb. 17, 2022.

Exhibit 2 shows that the volatility of the Information Technology and Consumer Discretionary sectors increased by 2% and 3%, respectively, while the volatility of the remaining sectors was either flat or down (in Energy’s case, by a whopping 9%). But the overall volatility of the S&P 500 rose from 12% to 14%. Information Technology is the largest sector in the S&P 500, as shown in Exhibit 3, and Consumer Discretionary isn’t far off, at #2; these two sectors together account for 42% of the S&P 500. So their small volatility increases, aided by a modest increase in correlations, were sufficient to raise the market’s overall volatility level.

It’s interesting to see that in the latest rebalance, effective after the market close Feb. 18, 2022, Low Volatility pared back its weight in Information Technology (unsurprisingly) but added weight (2%) in the Consumer Discretionary sector. That both sectors still have a presence in the index means that there are stocks within each sector that are still relatively stable. Energy made a reappearance for the first time in almost two years, holding a 3% weight currently. Health Care (3%) and Consumer Staples (2%) both added to their already significant presence in Low Volatility. The additions came at the expense of Industrials (-3%), Technology (-2%), Utilities (-1%), and Financials (-1%).

We’ve all heard it often—that volatility is a “feature” of Bitcoin and, by extension, the cryptocurrency market in general.

While not all of us would agree with calling it a feature, most would agree that there is a significant amount of volatility in the cryptocurrency market. And, depending on your role—trader, asset manager, advisor, observer—you may either want to capitalize on that volatility or try to reduce it.

The initial S&P Cryptocurrency Indices, as reported in our whitepaper and based on back-tested data, experienced high annualized returns for the period studied (see Exhibit 1), accompanied by significant volatility and downside risk. If we look at the S&P Bitcoin Index specifically, we can see the annualized back-tested returns are characterized by high volatility.

Using the S&P 500^® as a point of comparison, over the three-year period ending Dec. 31, 2021, the annualized return was 26%, annualized risk-adjusted return was 1.5, and annualized volatility was 17.4%.

For those looking to mitigate volatility in the cryptocurrency market, we are excited to provide a new potential index solution: the S&P Cryptocurrency Dynamic Rebalancing Risk Control 40% Indices. These indices are designed to measure a more controlled volatility and potentially smoother index returns. Risk control indices are now available for Bitcoin and Ethereum (S&P Risk Control Indices are also available for traditional asset classes—equities, commodities, and more). Exhibit 2 illustrates conceptually how risk control indices work.

For cryptocurrencies, these new indices seek to limit the volatility of the underlying S&P Cryptocurrency Indices to a target level of 40% by adjusting the exposure to the underlying index and allocating to U.S. dollars. The index is rebalanced on a dynamic basis; that is, when the 10% threshold based on exposure is crossed.

This sounds complicated, so it’s best to show the data. Exhibit 1 displays characteristics of the Bitcoin risk control index, while Exhibit 3 illustrates the performance. One can see that, while the annualized return was lower for the risk control index, the annualized volatility and drawdowns were significantly reduced. The average number of rebalances triggered per year in the back-test was 12, and the average turnover at rebalance was 13.7%. Notably, risk-adjusted return over time exceeded that of the underlying S&P Bitcoin Index.

For additional details, please refer to S&P Risk Control Indices Methodology & Parameters for current parameters and to the S&P Risk Control Indices section of the S&P DJI Index Mathematics Methodology.

For S&P DJI, this is another innovative way to bring tools and transparency to this emerging asset class.

Stay tuned for additional crypto indices launching soon!