Comparing the Returns of Holding Stocks in the Dow Jones Index Constant vs. Investing in the Actively Updated Dow Index
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the performance of a frozen Static portfolio of Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) constituents with the actively rebalanced Dynamic Dow across three decades: 1990–1999, 2000–2009, and 2010–2019. The objective is to evaluate whether a passive buy-and-hold strategy can match or exceed the returns of the updated index, and to analyze differences in risk, volatility, drawdowns, and sectoral shifts. Performance was assessed using compound annual growth rate (CAGR), volatility, Sharpe ratios, maximum drawdowns, and maximum runups, supplemented by t-tests and regressions for statistical significance. Results show that while average returns were not statistically different, the Dynamic Dow consistently achieved higher Sharpe ratios and lower volatility. It materially reduced losses during the downturn of 2000–2009 and captured stronger runups in bull markets, reflecting the benefits of constituent replacement. Overall, findings suggest that index reconstitution enhances efficiency, reduces downside risk, and better aligns portfolios with structural economic change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it