Brian Belski today called 2000-2010 the “dead decade.”
Brian should use a different yardstick. As I’ve mentioned before the market capitalization S&P 500 index is not a truly representative index of how stocks fared in the past decade.
One of many reasons is that the “big-foots” leave a larger footprint:
The beginning of 2000 found the 10 biggest stocks representing one-fourth of the S&P 500 Index. In the next 10 years these 10 stocks lost more than 50% of their market cap!
If ten stocks can have such a great impact on the performance of an index made up of 500 stocks…why not just use the Dow Jones Index instead? I believe the purpose for Brian referring to the S&P 500 index is to measure the performance of the 500 largest companies, not just 30 companies. So why is he still using the market-capitalization index and not the equally-weighted index?
I also don’t get why the market capitalization S&P 500 is still so widely used when the same company can have a greater impact as its market cap grows. i.e. Apple’s impact as of end of April, is 13 times what it was in April 2000. Same stock, much greater impact.
Lastly, when constructing a blended index of say large caps, mid caps, small caps, the industry standard is to rebalance on a frequent basis. If it’s useful for a hybrid benchmark index, shouldn’t it also be useful when constructing an index with market values ranging from $3 billion to $300 billion?!! The market capitalization index totally ignores this standard, whereas the equally-weighted index is rebalanced daily.
according to morningstar.com the 10-year cumulative total return ending April 2010 is 90+%...according to other sites it's 80+%. I believe the difference is due to rebalancing frequency (daily vs. quarterly)....