Why Active Over Passive for Small-Cap Investing

Equity Insights offers research and perspectives from Putnam’s equity team on market trends and opportunities.

Many of the features that make small-cap stocks compelling also point to the value of an active manager. A wide range of possible outcomes, a multitude of negative earners, and significantly less Wall Street coverage are just a few of the reasons investors in the small-cap universe should consider active managers who could steer them toward better results.

Small-cap indexes are less subject to concentration

The small-cap space is more egalitarian than a large-cap alternative. As we’ve witnessed this year with the “magnificent seven,” large-cap index performance is often dominated by a small number of companies. Concentration is considerably lower for the small-cap index. Over the past 30 years, on average, the Russell 1000 Index had nearly half of its weight in the 50 largest companies. By contrast, the Russell 2000 Index had only 11% of its weight in the equivalent top 50. When a few large names dominate an investment space, a portfolio manager will need to spend time trying to find an edge in that small set. A less concentrated investment space gives an active manager more range to prospect for better opportunities.

Small-cap index is much less concentrated

Small-cap stocks offer a higher dispersion of returns

One person’s risk is another’s opportunity. While it can bring more risk, a wider range of potential outcomes can also mean greater reward for being right. Managers with skill in selecting individual companies are likely to prefer a stock universe with greater dispersion. Just like index concentration, dispersion is an important measure for active managers. In each of the past 30 years, the small-cap Russell 2000 Index offered higher return dispersion than its large-cap Russell 1000 counterpart.

Small-cap index dispersion is twice as high