Insights from the Value Equities Investment Committee | PDF
Benchmarks are often treated as passive reference points and neutral yardsticks against which investment performance is measured. Yet beneath the surface lies a dynamic system that continuously adapts to changes in market prices, investor behavior, and prevailing risk appetites. Understanding how these benchmarks evolve is particularly important during periods when market leadership becomes narrow and valuations extend beyond historical norms.
Investor psychology is not static, and it evolves with the market cycle. During sustained bull markets, such as the one we are currently experiencing, optimism and fear of missing out tend to dominate. Capital flows toward stocks and sectors that are already performing well, leadership narrows, and momentum becomes increasingly concentrated. Over time, this behavior is often accompanied by a gradual loosening of risk tolerance. The opposite dynamic typically emerges in bear markets, when losses prompt investors to prioritize risk avoidance and capital preservation.
Benchmark indexes, while constructed using rules-based methodologies, inevitably translate these shifts in investor behavior into changes in index composition and valuation. During periods of exuberance, rising prices and expanding market capitalizations can push index weights toward companies whose valuations assume that favorable conditions will persist. During periods of stress, falling prices and contracting market caps can compress valuations to levels that imply little expectation of recovery. Because these indexes are market cap-weighted, the largest and most popular companies exert a disproportionate influence, amplifying the impact of these valuation extremes on overall index behavior.
What is often overlooked, however, is how these dynamics interact with index construction, specifically with respect to the Russell 1000 Growth and Value indexes. The two are not separate silos, but interconnected components of the same system. As market prices and investor preferences evolve, the mechanics of the index quietly reallocate exposure between Growth and Value, with important implications for index composition and performance over time.
We have broadly explored index construction and the applications and limitations when evaluating investment managers in an earlier report, “Shining a Light on Indexes.” The purpose of this follow-up piece is to pull back the curtain on the Russell 1000 Value Index, including how it is constructed, how it has evolved, and why its changing composition has amplified certain market trends. Our goal is to provide clarity, reaffirm our disciplined approach at Confluence, and underscore why we believe remaining true to our philosophy positions us well over the long term.






