This article was originally published as part of the exame.com “Future of Money” series.
There is little controversy about the importance of a company’s size in explaining differences between returns in a given time window. This has been demonstrated in academic literature, including cross-section analyses such as Fama and French (1993) and Carhart (1997). Where there is controversy is the question around the existence of the so-called "size premium," an expected return in excess of the shares of small companies in relation to those of large companies. In the specialized literature, there are several pieces of evidence corroborating and refuting the existence of a size premium. And there are even cases in which a negative size premium was reported.
Crypto assets make up an emerging class of assets, with just over a decade of existence. According to data from Google Scholar, the number of academic papers on crypto multiplied more than 18 times between 2016 and 2022, but it is still relatively small compared to traditional asset classes. Naturally, part of the crypto literature aims to investigate to what extent digital assets reproduce phenomena observed in traditional ones. For example: in crypto assets, does size matter?
Using the Nasdaq Crypto Index (NCI) and its constituents, we look for some clues about this question. The NCI replicates the performance of the largest crypto assets by using a robust methodology that includes liquidity requirements and other factors. A key factor is market capitalization weighting, which makes Bitcoin and Ethereum more than 90% of the total weight.
For comparison purposes, we have created an alternative version of the index, which we call NCI - Equal Weighted (NCI-EW), which has the same assets, but weighted equally. As a result, we give greater weight to lower capitalization assets.
Having in hand the original (blue) and this alternative (red) series from the launch of the NCI, in March 2021, to June 1, 2023 (nine quarters), we can unravel the results, represented in the graph below.
The first result that draws attention is the difference in returns over that period. NCI's substantial drop of 35.6% seems small compared to NCI-EW's 76.8%. Part of this performance discrepancy could be explained by the difference in risk, given that it is known that, in general, smaller crypto assets are riskier.
In fact, when we compare the annualized volatilities, we observe a difference of 15%: 69% for the portfolio weighted by market capitalization and 84% for the equally weighted portfolio. However, this difference is small for the observed disparity in returns. A period that also draws attention is the year 2023. The NCI had a strong appreciation of 59.7%, while the version with equal weights rose only 8.6%.
The crypto market has certain peculiarities, including that Bitcoin and Ethereum are much larger in market capitalization, liquidity, and accessibility for institutional investors. Therefore, we repeated the previous experiment excluding them. In the chart above we have both market cap weighted (ALT, yellow) and equally (ALT-EW, green) weighted versions.
The series show the same results, but with a smaller disparity. The market capitalization-weighted version showed higher returns (-80.1% versus -85.4%) and lower volatility (88.7% versus 90.3%).
Despite these indications, it is still early for a verdict on whether or not a size premium exists among crypto assets. To make reaching a conclusion even more difficult, the period of analysis is short and marked by a strong crisis.
Furthermore, any size premium in crypto does not have to be stable over time. This year, a phenomenon similar to what has been observed in the crypto market was also seen in the stock market: the vast majority of the strong appreciation in the S&P 500 was due to a small number of giant companies.
So does size matter in crypto?
What we can confirm is that, in recent years, the two giants of crypto assets have had a measurable advantage over the smaller ones. However, it’s important to keep in mind that the crypto market remains incredibly dynamic and a turnaround in this advantage within a short period of time would not be surprising.
Thanks to my Hashdex colleagues Pedro Nacif and Lucas Afonso for their collaboration with this analysis.
This material expresses Hashdex Asset Management Ltd. and its subsidiaries and affiliates (“Hashdex”)'s opinion for informational purposes only and does not consider the investment objectives, financial situation or individual needs of one or a particular group of investors. We recommend consulting specialized professionals for investment decisions. Investors are advised to carefully read the prospectus or regulations before investing their funds. The information and conclusions contained in this material may be changed at any time, without prior notice. Nothing contained herein constitutes an offer, solicitation or recommendation regarding any investment management product or service. This information is not directed at or intended for distribution to or use by any person or entity located in any jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to applicable law or regulation or which would subject Hashdex to any registration or licensing requirements within such jurisdiction. No part of this material may be (i) copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means or (ii) redistributed without the prior written consent of Hashdex. By receiving or reviewing this material, you agree that this material is confidential intellectual property of Hashdex and that you will not directly or indirectly copy, modify, recast, publish or redistribute this material and the information therein, in whole or in part, or otherwise make any commercial use of this material without Hashdex’s prior written consent.
Investment in any investment vehicle and cryptoassets is highly speculative and is not intended as a complete investment program. It is designed only for sophisticated persons who can bear the economic risk of the loss of their entire investment and who have limited need for liquidity in their investment. There can be no assurance that the investment vehicles will achieve its investment objective or return any capital. No guarantee or representation is made that Hashdex’s investment strategy, including, without limitation, its business and investment objectives, diversification strategies or risk monitoring goals, will be successful, and investment results may vary substantially over time. Nothing herein is intended to imply that the Hashdex s investment methodology or that investing any of the protocols or tokens listed in the Information may be considered “conservative,” “safe,” “risk free,” or “risk averse.”
Certain information contained herein (including financial information) has been obtained from published and non-published sources. Such information has not been independently verified by Hashdex, and Hashdex does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such information. Hashdex does not provide tax, accounting or legal advice. Certain information contained herein constitutes forward-looking statements, which can be identified by the use of terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “project,” “estimate,” “intend,” “continue” “believe” (or the negatives thereof) or other variations thereof. Due to various risks and uncertainties, including those discussed above, actual events or results, the ultimate business or activities of Hashdex and its investment vehicles or the actual performance of Hashdex, its investment vehicles, or digital tokens may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. As a result, investors should not rely on such forward- looking statements in making their investment decisions. None of the information contained herein has been filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or any other governmental or self-regulatory authority. No governmental authority has opined on the merits of Hashdex’s investment vehicles or the adequacy of the information contained herein.