Cap-weighted vs. equal-weighted ETFs: Which is best for Canadian investors? – MoneySense

The CAPE Ratio assesses a stock’s price compared to its average earnings over the past 10 years, adjusted for inflation. A high CAPE Ratio suggests that stocks might be overvalued relative to historical earnings, indicating potential downside risks.

The picture isn’t as clear-cut as it seems, however. One of the primary drawbacks of equal weighting, as critics point out, is the additional drag on performance from its methodology. 

Take the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP) as an example. It has a 21% turnover and a 0.20% expense ratio. The Canadian-listed version is the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Index ETF (EQL, EQL.F). In contrast, SPY maintains a mere 2% turnover and a lower expense ratio of 0.0945%.

While it’s true that RSP outperformed SPY in total returns since its inception in April 2003, the victory isn’t as clear-cut as it might seem. The risk-adjusted return of RSP, indicated by a Sharpe ratio of 0.45, is slightly lower than SPY’s 0.48. What does that mean? It could suggest that RSP took on higher volatility for only marginally better returns. Moreover, RSP experienced a deeper maximum drawdown than SPY. A maximum drawdown measures the largest single drop from peak to trough during a specified period, indicating a higher historical risk of losses for investors.

Further analysis via factor regression reveals that most of RSP’s outperformance can be attributed to the size. Essentially, RSP’s equal-weighted methodology has inadvertently skewed its exposure towards smaller and more undervalued companies, which historically have contributed to outperformance.

This raises a critical point: If the goal is to invest in these kinds of companies, wouldn’t it be more straightforward and efficient to target them directly based on fundamental metrics rather than adopting a blanket equal-weighting approach to the entire S&P 500?

I find myself siding with cap weighting now. The primary appeal is simplicity. Market-cap strategies require fewer decisions regarding rebalancing or reconstitution, which in turn keeps sources of friction like turnover and fees considerably lower—resulting in fewer headwinds to performance.

In an ideal frictionless world, the appeal of equal weighting is clear. However, the reality of quarterly rebalancing and higher fees associated with equal-weight ETFs has not historically yielded better risk-adjusted returns over the last two decades.