Indexology^® Blog

Review a resurgent S&P 500, check in on the performance of trend-following equities, dig into two factor indices—the S&P 500 High Beta Index and S&P 500 Low Volatility Index—that took a very different route to the same destination, make a detour for a look at the performance of select international equities and find out what VIX is telling us about the coming summer.

To make sure you never miss an episode, sign up for content alerts.

How are indices using new risk-control techniques to help enhance stability and responsiveness to evolving market conditions? Look inside the S&P 500 Advantage Index and explore how this innovative tool observes intraday volatility and uses estimations of future market movements to dynamically adjust its weights between equity and cash to navigate potential market declines and recoveries while targeting a consistent volatility level. 

International equities have been gaining attention in 2025. As discussed in a previous blog post, international stocks have been outperforming U.S. stocks so far this year. The S&P ADR Index Series is one of the S&P Dow Jones Indices offerings that focuses on international markets through U.S.-listed securities.

American depositary receipts (ADRs) are securities that represent shares of non-U.S. companies that are held by a U.S. depositary bank and are listed on U.S. stock exchanges. They provide U.S. market participants access to foreign stocks, but incur fees different from those of their local listings. ADRs are suitable for direct indexing and could be of interest to those who don’t have easy access to foreign stock markets.¹

One might wonder if indices that measure these type of securities perform similarly to those that measure stocks listed on foreign exchanges. Compared to the S&P Global BMI Series, the S&P ADR Indices differ in their performance (see Exhibit 1). As not every international stock has an ADR, the number of constituents and the market capitalization of their indices has tended to be less, as illustrated by Exhibit 2. ADR indices have tended to include fewer small-cap companies, as evidenced by a higher mean and median float-adjusted market cap.

Additionally, due to the lower number of constituents, the S&P ADR Composite Index presented a higher concentration in its top 10 constituents than the S&P Global Ex-U.S. BMI. Notably, as shown by Exhibit 3, both indices share some companies as their top constituents.

Sector-wise, the weight in Information Technology stocks in the S&P ADR Composite Index was almost twice that of the S&P Global Ex-U.S. BMI (24.1% versus 12.3%) as of May 31, 2025, making the former more concetrated in growth stocks, which might tend to perform better in bull markets, but may underperform in lower growth macroeconomic environments. On the other hand, Exhibit 4 also shows that the S&P Global Ex-U.S. BMI had a higher weight in the Industrials sector.

Due to variations in their country classification, the country composition of these indices differs. For instance, the S&P ADR Composite Index had more weight in the U.K. and Taiwan, while the S&P Global Ex-U.S. BMI had a bigger proportion of Japanese companies.

However, despite the differences in their composition and performance, historically S&P ADR Indices have shown a high correlation with their foreign-listed equities index counterparts, particularly over the long term, as Exhibit 6 shows.

In conclusion, while S&P ADR Indices differ from international indices in composition, over the the long run they have compared closely in their performance and moved in a similar trend. Based on that, and after weighting the costs and benefits of ADRs, these indices can be used to gain insight into foreign equities.

¹ For further information about these securities, please see the investor bulletin published by the Securities and Exchange Commision.

How are multi-asset indices combining diversification and tactical signals to meet the challenges of today’s unpredictable markets? Meet the S&P U.S. Tactical Multi-Asset 4.5% TCA 0.65% Decrement Index, a rules-based solution that uses signals to dynamically adjust long and short exposures to its U.S. equity and fixed income components, all while targeting a 4.5% volatility level. 

Rebalance Review of the S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index – H1 2025

Launched in 2007, the S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index has been a headline benchmark for measuring clean energy-related companies’ performance over the past 17 years. In April 2021, we launched the S&P Global Clean Energy Select Index to measure the performance of the 30 largest companies in global clean energy businesses listed on developed market exchanges.

S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index Rebalance in April 2025

The index methodology calculates exposure scores for each company to assess their clean energy business purity, utilizing the GICS^® classification system, FactSet’s Revere Business Industry Classification System (RBICS) and S&P Global Trucost’s power generation data. Companies are categorized into four exposure score buckets, ranging from 0 to 1 in increments of 0.25, reflecting increasing levels of clean energy business relevance. Both indices had their semiannual rebalances on April 24, 2025. Exhibits 1 and 2 show the change in exposures before and after the April rebalance for both indices.

For the S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index, the weighted average exposure score increased slightly from 0.92 to 0.93 (see Exhibit 1). The S&P Global Clean Energy Select Index consists of 30 companies with an exposure score of 1 listed on the developed market exchanges (see Exhibit 2).

In the geographical exposure breakdown, prominent changes in the S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index following the rebalance include a 3.67% weight increase for the U.S. and a 0.96% increase for China, alongside a 1.25% decrease for Spain. Meanwhile, in the S&P Global Clean Energy Select Index, China’s weight rose by 4.37% and New Zealand’s weight rose by 3.46%, while the weight of Canada declined by 2.05%.

In the energy category, companies are classified into Clean Technology and Clean Power Generation based on RBICS subindustries. Clean Technology encompasses subindustries that focus on clean energy systems and manufacturing, while Clean Power Generation includes various wholesale power and electric utilities subindustries.

During the recent rebalance, the weights for clean technology increased in both indices (see Exhibit 3), primarily driven by significant gains in the weights of the Photovoltaic and Solar Cells and Systems Providers subindustries, as well as Fuel Cell Equipment and Technology Providers. Conversely, the index weight for clean power generation declined, largely due to a 1.22% decrease in the Europe Mixed Wholesale Power RBICS subindustry for the S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index and a 1.74% decrease in the same subindustry for the S&P Global Clean Energy Select Index.

S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index Performance YTD in 2025

As of May 30, 2025, the S&P Global Clean Energy Select Index achieved an 8.84% total return YTD in USD terms, while the S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index gained 11.54%. Both indices outperformed the S&P Global BMI, which stood at 5.5% for the same period.

Regarding regional performance, companies domiciled in Germany within the S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index were up 71.63% YTD. South Korea followed with an increase of 53.77%, while Brazil gained 37.61%.¹

The S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index tracks the dynamic changes in the clean energy transition and reflects the performance of clean energy-related companies, serving as a key benchmark for the global clean energy sector.

¹ Source: S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and FactSet. Data as of May 30, 2025.