1
$\begingroup$

Anyone know where to find a list of all the stocks on the Russell 2000 index?

I've Googled away on this one, but thus far, have only found a junk site (suredividend.com) that purports to have it, but actually doesn't. Can't find it on the FTSE website either. Any easy-to-access, reasonably-up-to-date sources out there?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do you need this just once or on a recurring basis? $\endgroup$ – amdopt Nov 12 at 14:11
2
$\begingroup$

If not available via a CSV or other download on the website, you're probably out of luck. Data licensing is obviously the main way they make money after all. You might try MSCI or other providers if you're not married to Russell.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you go here ishares.com/us/products/239710/ishares-russell-2000-etf click on holdings, all, show all you can see the 1994 current constituents (do a Copy, Paste). But they change from time to time and while close it may not be exact (due to rounding, etc.). It should be considered an approximation. $\endgroup$ – Alex C Nov 11 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ Good call...Russell benchmarks are reconstituted annually in June, should be good with that list barring corporate actions until then. $\endgroup$ – Chris Nov 12 at 1:05
  • $\begingroup$ @alex-c that's actually perfect. Wish I had found it sooner, but good to know for future reference. I ended up copying and pasting about 20 pages of data from some website. $\endgroup$ – Ragnar Lothbrok Nov 12 at 1:17
2
$\begingroup$

It's market cap based, so if you have market cap data, you should be able to get a pretty good estimate yourself.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The weights aren't the problem so much as the constituent list is. $\endgroup$ – Chris Nov 11 at 23:09
  • $\begingroup$ I mean, you can sort by market cap and take whatever slice you need.. For Russell it's even less discretionary than for S&P $\endgroup$ – LazyCat Nov 12 at 1:22
  • $\begingroup$ It is (less opaque than S&P) but it's not as simple as taking the bottom 2000 by MC $\endgroup$ – Chris Nov 12 at 1:30
  • $\begingroup$ It depends on the use case. If the goal is to create a time series of Russell 2000 returns as a benchmark, then bottom 2000 is definitely good enough. $\endgroup$ – LazyCat Nov 12 at 2:06
1
$\begingroup$

Nope, you pays your good money to Russell for that one.

Else you can find an ETF that does physical replication (eg IWM); and get ready for a LOT of copy-pasting... assuming they are 100% replicated name-by-name all of the time!

Your question harks back to something that has bothered me with the Russell for a while. I've told about what "consensus" thinks about its numbers. Except nobody knows who the companies actually are. None of the big banks that are the usual sources for the media aggregators of "consensus" cover much beyond the S&P500. Sure, there are small-cap boutiques; but they focus on a dozen or so "loved" special sits. Anyone who wants to cover 2000 names on a budget isn't "covering" anything at all. So who/where does this "consensus" come from??? Or more scarily, what is it actually measuring - the three dozen of 2000 names that are the focus names of the hour for small-cap boutiques who need to make some noise? Hmmm......

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Not sure I follow this: "I've told about what "consensus" thinks about its numbers. Except nobody knows who the companies actually are. " What's your issue with Russell? $\endgroup$ – Chris Nov 11 at 23:11
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, I used to be a macro stockbroker in a past life. My ex-clients used to frequently look at Russell-vs-S&P at an index level. Discussions of this spread would often invoke statements to the effect that "Russell earnings are expected to grow by x%" or "Russel's forward PE is Y". I've always wondered (and have wondered ever more looking into this further) exactly what sample of analysts are making these forecasts, on exactly what sample of companies. $\endgroup$ – demully Nov 11 at 23:29
  • $\begingroup$ ah, I see...would think it'd be easy enough to establish by cross referencing a DB of IBES estimates against existing (or historical) Russell 2000 constituents. To your point, obviously a lot fewer securities being covered (and coverage generally) among the R2 versus R1. $\endgroup$ – Chris Nov 11 at 23:34
  • $\begingroup$ Amen - so check out the depth of what IBES has on the MidCaps (ie the 500 not in the S&P before you hit the R1, before you hit the R2K). Then tell me it's possible to have a bottom-up (as opposed to a macro) view on R2 ;-) $\endgroup$ – demully Nov 11 at 23:37
  • $\begingroup$ ps I am a biased source, at least I freely admit it, and disclaim thus. From a macro perspective (the precise logistic-regression shift in odds of R2 outperformance of SPX the copyright of my ex-employer), the more you like REITs, HY credit and private equity, the more you like RTY>SPX. US ECONOMIC performance vs RoW, playing the foreign-vs-domestic theme has always been irrelevant to market outcomes. $\endgroup$ – demully Nov 11 at 23:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.