Bearish vibes
For the purposes of analyzing changes in leadership, I use the Relative Rotation Graphs, or RRG charts, as the primary tool for the analysis of sector and style leadership. As an explanation, RRG charts are a way of depicting the changes in leadership in different groups, such as sectors, countries or regions, or market factors. The charts are organized into four quadrants. The typical group rotation pattern occurs in a clockwise fashion. Leading groups (top right) deteriorate to weakening groups (bottom right), which then rotates to lagging groups (bottom left), which changes to improving groups (top left), and finally completes the cycle by improving to leading groups (top right) again.
The RRG chart of small-cap stocks tell a similar story. Defensive sectors and financials are in the top half of the chart, while technology and cyclicals are in the bottom.
A benign interpretation
A more detailed review of factor and style rotation reveals a more benign explanation. The bottom half consists of the high-octane factors of price momentum, IPOs and high beta, with high quality the only exception to this theme. While speculative growth is in the improving quadrant, it’s rolling over quickly and likely to be destined to fall into the lagging quadrant in the near future. The top half of the RRG chart is made of low volatility, dividend growth, buybacks and small caps, which are value-oriented themes. Even though the Russell 2000 is normally not thought of as a value play, its forward P/E is far more attractive when compared to the S&P 500.
The RRG chart of large- and small-cap growth and value styles tells a similar story. Large-cap growth is in the bottom half of the chart and speculative growth is rolling over. By contrast, all the other groups are in the leading quadrant, namely large-cap value, small-cap value and growth.
Using the NASDAQ 100 as a proxy for large-cap growth, we can see that the index topped out in early July. It’s now testing a relative support zone as relative breadth deteriorates (bottom two panels).
In fact, the rotation from growth to value is broadly based and it can be seen across all market cap bands and internationally (red dotted line, top panel). More importantly, the rotation can be seen in the relative dominance of small-cap value over large-cap growth (bottom panel).
A similar theme of a rotation from large-cap to small-cap leadership is evident not only in the Russell 2000, but also within the technology dominated QQQs.
In conclusion, a preliminary review of sector leadership is flashing bearish vibes and defensive sectors are dominant while technology and cyclicals lag. However, a more nuanced review of factor and style leadership argues for a benign explanation of a broad-based rotation from growth to value and from large caps to small caps.
Cam
Whilst I understand the logic behind small caps, as being cheap, they appear to parallel performance of S&P 500 only on the downside. They participate in all the downside of S&P 500 and then some and only seem to rally when S&P 500 rallies. Even this week, small caps appear to follow their large cap peers. On a 5 day, 1,3,6 month, year to date, 1 year, 2 year and 5 year basis small caps (SPSM) has massively underperformed the S&P 500. Isn’t the reason of poor performance of small caps because of bad businesses (40% of small caps have no earnings or losses). Why should one buy stocks that have no earnings? The entire small cap index is smaller than market cap of some of the Mag 7 stocks. Many professional investors have started to ignore small caps as well. Why bother?
I have difficulty understanding the rationale for small cap outperformance. If the economy is slowing, it’s a big headwind. Lower rates effect is with a lag.
I
Agree completely. Historically, value, especially small cap value has added alpha, however it appears small caps have been in the dumpster with a deck that is stacked against them.