How hard is it to
beat equal weighting in constructing a portfolio of attractive common stocks?
Not exact matches
I frequently see comparisons in which
equal weighting (
equal dollar amounts of stocks)
beats capitalization
weighting (
equal numbers of shares).
These are excess total returns measured against an
equal -
weighted benchmark, which means, for example, the +58 percent result for the Best Performing 10 % (Large) means that those stocks
beat the market by 58 percent in any given year.
In the
equal weight portfolios, value has slightly outperformed glamour since 1999,
beating it by a 3.9 percent compound, and 2.8 percent in the average year.
The indices are good measures of the market, but flawed investment strategies for the reasons outlined in a few places here on Greenbackd (for example, see my summary of Greenblatt's / Rob Arnott's fundamental indexation idea, «
Equal Weight and Fundamental Indexing
Beats The Market «-RRB-.
In the
equal weight portfolios, value has really outperformed glamour since 1999,
beating it by 11.1 percent compound, and 10.0 percent in the average year.
In the
equal weight portfolios, value also outperformed glamour since 1999,
beating it by 8.3 percent compound, and 7.1 percent in the average year.
In the
equal weight portfolios, value has really outperformed glamour since 1999,
beating it by an extraordinary 15.9 percent compound, and 16.1 percent in the average year.
This would imply that a few funds were able to
beat the index by a large margin thereby pulling the average
equal and asset
weighted returns higher.