Market capitalization is often used as the weighting methodology for broad market indexes to reflect the performances of large established firms in the market. The market capitalization of a firm is a price-sensitive measure of firm size that self-adjusts to reflect the firms intrinsic value in an efficient capital market. In the presence of investor overreaction, the price-sensitive cap-weighted indexes cease to be mean-variance efficient in that they overweigh overvalued assets and under weigh undervalued assets. Fundamental indexation, proposed by Arnott, Hsu and Moore (2005), argue that fundamental values of a firm such as book value, revenues and earnings are price-insensitive, and hence are not subject to the systematic overshooting of asset prices through noise trading. The aim of this paper is to test whether fundamental-weighted indexes are more mean-variance efficient proxies for large established firms in the global equity market compared to cap-weighted indexes over an extensive 18-year period from 1991 to 2008. Test results show that fundamental-weighted indexes outperform cap-weighted indexes over two sub-periods as well as the overall examination period, during an expansionary market and in turbulent times. A strong negative relationship between the degree of index concentration and the index performance is detected for cap-weighted indexes while no such relationship is detected for the fundamental-weighted indexes. Our results suggest that price-insensitive fundamental-weighted indexes are more mean-variance efficient proxies for the performances of large firms for global equities relative to cap-weighted indexes. By removing the price-element in measuring firm size, the small firm anomaly is not present in fundamental-weighted indexes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hsieh et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: