Indexology^® Blog

How do global investors use the S&P 500 to better understand the performance and potential opportunity set in U.S. equity markets? S&P DJI’s Tim Edwards joins GCMA’s Michael Grifferty for a closer look at the role of the S&P 500 ecosystem in the global economy and how market participants are using the index icon to make more informed decisions.

Despite emerging geopolitical tensions, U.S. equities have staged a dramatic comeback over the past quarter, with the S&P 500^® up 9% QTD through June 25, 2025, fueled by robust corporate earnings from Big Tech. Meanwhile, with the impending Russell reconstitution,¹ the market’s mind has shifted toward smaller caps, which have had a more challenging time, with the S&P SmallCap 600^® down 6% YTD, underperforming The 500™ by 10%. Headwinds including ongoing tariff-related uncertainty, higher Treasury yields and a weaker dollar have weighed on smaller-cap companies, which tend to be more domestically sensitive.

With the Russell reconstitution approaching, it could be an opportune time to examine the historical performance of smaller companies, which generally face different challenges than their large-cap peers. Numerous studies, most prominently by Fama and French,² have documented the small-cap premium, or the long-term outperformance of small stocks. But not all small-cap indices are created equal. The S&P SmallCap 600 has outperformed versus the broader U.S. small-cap universe, with a cumulative excess return of over 90% versus the S&P United States SmallCap Index since December 1994 (see Exhibit 1).

A key catalyst for this outperformance has been the S&P 600’s quality bias. The index is a part of the broader S&P Composite 1500^®, which requires companies to have a history of positive earnings at the point of first inclusion (among other criteria) in order to be eligible. This earnings screen helps to filter out persistently unprofitable companies. Quality has been a particularly relevant factor so far this year; although The 500 and the S&P 600 have had widely differing fortunes, one trait that they have shared is the outperformance of quality stocks. Exhibit 2 illustrates that while their relative performance has narrowed, the S&P 500 Quality Index and the S&P SmallCap 600 Quality Index have both outperformed their respective benchmarks YTD.

In addition to the outperformance of quality stocks within the S&P 600, which as noted already has a tilt toward this factor, the potential rewards for selecting quality small-cap stocks have increased. Exhibit 3 shows a nearly 5% YTD performance spread between the S&P SmallCap 600 Quality Index and the S&P SmallCap 600 Quality – Lowest Quintile Index.

Looking ahead, while smaller-cap companies might face numerous obstacles, the importance of the quality factor within small caps is clear. The long-term outperformance of the S&P SmallCap 600 coupled with the outperformance of higher quality stocks within the index may be a potential silver lining for market participants looking across the capitalization spectrum to consider.

¹ Ziafati, Noushin. “Here’s what you need to know about FTSE Russell’s reconstitution.” Investment Executive. May 30, 2025.

² Fama, Eugene F., Kenneth R. French. “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns.” The Journal of Finance. Volume 47, Issue 2. June 1992. Pp 427-465.

Gold Producers in a Shifting Macro Landscape

Gold’s break above USD 3,000 per ounce in Q1 2025—a roughly 40% increase since year-end 2023—is a reflection of the revived interest in mining companies amid economic uncertainty and geopolitical risks.¹ The S&P Commodity Producers Gold Index has responded with a 64% total return over the past 12 months,² outpacing the spot price of gold (44%) and silver (23%) bullion and confirming mining companies’ relatively higher sensitivity to metal prices. However, the lift has been uneven with high beta mid caps seeing the highest returns, while large caps delivered only modest gains.

Composition and Methodology Overview for the S&P Commodity Producers Gold Index

The S&P Commodity Producers Gold Index serves as a snapshot of the listed gold universe, and as of June 18, 2025, drew 59 of the largest, most liquid producers and royalty firms from the S&P Global BMI. To be included, constituents must trade on developed market exchanges, have a float-adjusted market capitalization of at least USD 500 million (USD 250 million for current constituents) and a minimum three-month ADVT of USD 1 million (USD 500,000 for current constituents). The index is float-market-cap weighted with a single company cap of 10% and rebalanced every June and December.

Gold Producers Delivered Two Times Bullion’s Return at Twice the Volatility

After a challenging 2021-2022 period, gold equities rebounded significantly. The S&P Commodity Producers Gold Index was up 53% YTD,³ nearly doubling gold’s rise of 28%. Similarly, volatility has remained roughly double. A 10-15% pullback in early April—sparked by new U.S. tariffs, higher real yields, profit-taking and jurisdictional uncertainties—demonstrated gold producer equities’ tendency to overshoot before recovering.

Small Caps Drove Return Dispersion as Large Caps Lagged

A closer look reveals significant return dispersion across index constituents. Over the past 12 months,⁴ the top-performing quintile of stocks (typically smaller operators) has more than doubled, while the bottom quintile, dominated by mega caps and royalty names, achieved only modest gains. Additionally, currency fluctuations and macro policy further contributed to the divergence. Producers with operational costs in ZAR or AUD enjoyed an added margin tailwind. Conversely, large, diversified miners could not match the positive momentum of mid-cap companies.⁵

Conclusion

Gold equities remain a leveraged, but often volatile, proxy for bullion, historically gaining roughly twice as much during upswings while suffering outsized losses during downturns. The sector has seen low-cost mining companies rewarded for leveraging FX advantages and disciplined capital allocation, with little regard for size. With free cash flow surging, dividends and buybacks have increased, and consolidation among mega caps is expected to continue. The S&P Commodity Producers Gold Index remains a key measurement of the gold equity story and highlights which trends are truly beyond the bullion in driving performance.

¹ https://econofact.org/why-has-the-price-of-gold-risen-so-sharply

² As of June 18, 2025

³ As of June 18, 2025

⁴ Ending June 18, 2025

⁵ https://www.globalxetfs.com.au/insights/post/gold-investors-its-time-to-let-go-of-gold-miners/

⁶ https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/mining-mna-in-2024-gold-dominates-mna-space-for-2nd-consecutive-year

⁷ https://www.blackrock.com/uk/literature/annual-report/blackrock-world-mining-trust-plc-annual-report.pdf

The S&P 500^®, commonly referred to as The 500™, underwent its latest quarterly update—commonly known as rebalances—at the end of last week. S&P 500 rebalances take place after the close of the third Friday of the quarter-ending month and can involve constituent changes (additions and deletions) as well as updates to company characteristics, such as changes to the number of shares outstanding to reflect the latest publicly available data.

Recently, many market participants were surprised to see, or rather not to see, any S&P 500 constituent changes coinciding with the June 2025 rebalance. A cursory glance at recent history suggests there is some justification for these reactions: each quarterly update between June 2022 and March 2025 coincided with announced additions and deletions for the S&P 500.

However, there is more than just historical precedent for a quarterly update without S&P 500 index additions and deletions—it has been a very common outcome! Around 90% of the nearly 800 S&P 500 constituent changes since 1995 did not take place on the third Friday of the quarter-ending month. Exhibit 1 shows that there were many years with zero constituent changes on these dates, demonstrating that S&P 500 rebalance turnover was typically driven by updates to company characteristics.

The timing of historical constituent changes reflects several important points. First, S&P 500 additions and deletions occur on an ongoing, as needed basis rather than on set reconstitution or rebalance dates. Second, around 70% of deletions since 1995 were caused by corporate events—such as mergers and acquisitions—that affected the index constituents’ eligibility. The index committee responsible for maintaining the S&P 500 has no control over the timing of these events, but any resulting index deletion necessitates a corresponding addition to maintain the index’s 500 company count.

Exhibit 2 further illustrates these points by comparing: a) the number of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) by S&P 500 companies (blue bars), and b) the proportion of S&P 500 constituent changes that took place between quarterly updates (orange line) since 2012. Given that M&A activity drove many constituent changes, it is perhaps unsurprising that years with higher (lower) M&A activity typically saw a greater (lower) proportion of changes take place between standard quarterly updates.

Additionally, it is important to recognize that index additions are not guaranteed when companies meet the eligibility criteria outlined in the S&P U.S. methodology document: the index committee is also mindful of sector balance and index turnover. Hence, existing constituents that may appear to violate one or more of the addition criteria are not automatically removed from the S&P 500, which helps to explain why we did not see elevated turnover in the S&P 500 in 2020. Indeed, Exhibit 3 shows that the one-way capitalization-weighted turnover for the S&P 500 in 2020 (4.17%) was in line with the long-term average since the early 1990s.

Although many market participants may have expected constituent changes at the June 2025 rebalance, relatively few constituent changes have taken place on the third Friday in March, June, September and December since 1995. This reflects the fact that the timing of many S&P 500 index changes was driven by corporate events, and that index changes are not guaranteed.

The author would like to thank Darius Nass for his contributions to this blog.

Global Champions in a Cross-Current Macro Landscape

In early 2025, global equity markets were marked by heightened volatility due to AI-driven earnings growth, monetary policy normalization and rising trade uncertainty. Despite these challenges and mixed market signals, the S&P Global 100, consisting of diversified multinational companies, showed resilience and seems to have effectively navigated the market YTD.

Index Composition and Methodology

The S&P Global 100 is a subset of the S&P Global 1200 and consists of 100 of the world’s leading publicly listed companies. Constituents are selected based on international revenue exposure, sector representation, liquidity and market capitalization. To qualify, companies must generate over 30% of their revenue and hold over 30% of their assets outside their home country, ensuring genuine global exposure. The index is weighted by float-adjusted market capitalization (FMC) and rebalanced quarterly in March, June, September and December.

Although the index has significant weight in U.S.-domiciled companies as a byproduct of its methodology, its real economic exposure is more nuanced.

The FMC-weighted foreign revenue share of the index is approximately 60%, with a mean of 67% among all constituents. On average, index constituents generate more than half of their revenue outside their economic region.^[1] Less than 15% of the index’s FMC is near the 30% threshold, and none of these constituents overlap in terms of GICS^® sector. As such, despite recent discussions on reshoring and global trade risks, significant turnover of the index appears unlikely.

Performance Review

Following a robust 27.28% rally in 2024—driven by Big Tech earnings and multiple expansion—2025 has seen increased volatility due to changing rates expectations, high valuations and trade uncertainty. As of May 31, 2025, the S&P Global 100 posted a YTD gain of 2.30%, reflecting noticeable return differences across sectors and regions. Financials led with a contribution of 1.73% on the back of the elevated interest rate environment, while Consumer Staples and Industrials added 0.90% and 0.67%, respectively. Conversely, Information Technology, Consumer Discretionary and Communication Services lagged, with declines of 0.84%, 0.40% and 0.30%, respectively, as investors shifted from growth-oriented sectors. Regionally, U.S. equities contributed to a 0.80% decline in the index performance, while Europe more than offset that loss with a 2.55% impact due to favorable policies and attractive valuations. Asia-Pacific also contributed with a 0.54% gain, amid trade disruptions and tariff issues.^[2]

Over the past decade, the index consistently outperformed broader global equity markets, demonstrating long-term resilience.

Concluding Insights

The S&P Global 100 continues to serve as a robust benchmark for tracking globally influential companies. Despite its focus on large float-adjusted market cap firms, the index’s thoughtful design helps mitigate sector concentration and enhances revenue diversification. These characteristics make it particularly well-suited for navigating today’s complex market environment, marked by macroeconomic uncertainty and shifting global dynamics.

^[1] Source: S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, FactSet. Data for constituent names and weights as of May 31, 2025. Revenue data as of Dec. 31, 2024.

^[2] Source: S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC. Data as of May 31, 2025. Calculations are based on gross total return index levels in USD. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.