Can Anyone Point Me Toward Russell Market Caps?

[lifeisgood]

It is common to see asset allocations that spread money across all the boxes in a conventional style/market cap grid. I often wonder if the end result allocation turns out to be close to what the market naturally offers. In which case, one could just buy a total market fund and save a lot of bother.

So does anyone know what the default distribution of, say, the Russell 3000 is? Or where to find the answer? I cruised around the Russell website and did not see it.

Thanks.

 

[LOL!]

I would just use the Morningstar Instant X-ray tool since you mentioned style/market-cap grid. There are plenty of Russell-based ETFs that you can plug in separately to see the grid and the Average Market cap.

 

[Midpack]

I'm not certain what you're asking, but is this what you're looking for? FWIW, I Googled "Russell 3000 Style Box" and when I didn't find what I thought you wanted, I switched to Google Images and this was right there.

https://news.fidelity.com/news/arti...ty-etf-fix-for-portfolio&topic=investing-etfs

 

[Midpack]

Thought this was might be of interest too...

 

[Htown Harry]

Thought this was might be of interest too...

Thanks, Midpack.

This second one was surprising to me as it related to small caps. The four indexing methods' small cap size maximum ranges from #700 to #1000.

I would have guessed lower. (Guessed being the key work. I haven't researched indexes in much detail.)

But the bigger surprise was that each of the indices titled "small cap" cuts off at a minimum size that excludes a pretty large percentage of the universe of exchange-listed stocks.

Any ideas on why this is? How does it relate to the style box? To past studies showing somewhat higher historical returns (and more volatility) for small caps?

There's a significant difference between a minimum size cut at #1500 vs. #3000, at least in a numerical sense. But is it relevant for investing strategy or small cap fund selection?

 

[rayvt]

each of the indices titled "small cap" cuts off at a minimum size that excludes a pretty large percentage of the universe of exchange-listed stocks.

Any ideas on why this is?

Because a large fund can't really buy low-low-low cap stocks without effectively buying the entire company.

 

[lifeisgood]

Thanks, Midpack. The Fidelity site has just what I was looking for. In particular, the Russell 1000 comprises about 93% of the US market. The other 2000 are about 7%

 

[lifeisgood]

And they divide the market 50/50 between value and growth, which is just their definition. So if you put 93% of your money into large caps, 7% into small, and you split it between growth and value equally, you have simply recreated the Russell 3000.

Sorry to be so late replying. Taking advantage of ER to travel. Hello from Crete.