| Index
Spotlight: Fortune 500
By IndexFunds.com Staff
April 29, 2002 |
|
As passive investing continues to catch on with mainstream investors,
understanding the differences between equity indexes is becoming
critical for many. Benchmarks that are highly correlated and similar
on the surface can oftentimes behave very differently in terms
of returns and volatility. Understanding why benchmarks react
differently to changes in the market requires a look into the
rules that govern them.
Some indexers have noticed that the Fortune 500 index
has posted higher returns than the S&P 500 index over the
last three years, and with less volatility. This is of course
a short-term phenomenon and doesn't mean one index is necessarily
better than the other. Indexes are simply designed to track market
segments, but how they go about that task can affect their behavior.
| Index |
Total return (4/30/99-3/28/02)
|
Standard deviation of
monthly returns (4/30/99-3/28/02) |
| S&P 500 |
-14.06% |
4.84% |
| Fortune 500 |
-10.65% |
4.55% |
Source: index closing
prices from Reuters, Fortune

Source: index closing prices from Reuters, Fortune (4/30/99-3/28/02)
The interesting thing about what's happening above is that the
Fortune 500 index has been able to outperform the S&P
500 with lower volatility and also fewer holdings. The
Fortune 500 currently holds 456 companies, compared to
S&P's 500. Fortune does begin with a list of 500 companies,
but this year 25 were excluded because they're private, and the
rest didn't meet liquidity requirements.
According to Matthew Wooldridge, general manager at Fortune
Indexes, the biggest reason for the outperformance is that the
Fortune 500 has held less technology stocks. As of 3/31/2002,
the streetTRACKS Fortune 500 (FFF)
held 15.9% of assets in tech, according to Morningstar. Meanwhile,
the SPDR 500 (SPY)
tied to the S&P 500 had 17.3% parked in technology companies.
"We pay close attention to revenues, these are companies
whose cash registers are ringing," said Wooldridge. "The
Fortune 500 is a barometer of U.S. companies that have
reached a state of revenues where they're making a substantial
impact on the domestic economy."
The Fortune 500 is a cap-weighted index of the largest
U.S. companies ranked by total operating revenues from the latest
fiscal year.
Wooldridge points out that the Fortune 500 lagged in
the last six months of 1999 when dot-coms were performing well.
Since then, of course, it's been a different story.
Because Fortune places such a high premium on revenues,
many of the growth companies that have since cratered didn't make
it into the Fortune 500. This is apparently the biggest
reason why the Fortune 500 has outperformed. Again, this
doesn't mean this index is superior. It all depends on the investor's
needs and goals.
The Fortune 500 methodology prevented some of the more
speculative tech companies from getting in, which looks great
with the benefit of hindsight. However, the decreased growth exposure
won't seem nearly as exciting in speculative markets. In investing
you can seldom if ever have it both ways, and the same applies
to indexes.