The company swung to a GAAP net income of $86.9 million or $1.18 per share from a net income of $75 million or $1.04 in the year-ago period. Results came in 3 cents ahead of the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.15.

The quarterly results benefited from position limitations on speculators, sweeping regulatory reforms, lower expenses and record futures trading. The upside was also attributable to growth in the company’s core businesses, significant progress from new initiatives and stronger margins.

The company could benefit as more over-the-counter contracts are exchange-traded and cleared, but could suffer if U.S. regulators impose new commodity-market position limits.

Net revenues increased 27.2% year over year to $256.3 million. The growth was primarily attributable to 34% increase in consolidated transaction and clearing fee revenues in the quarter driven primarily by new products, strong trading volumes in ICE's futures and OTC energy segments, continued growth since the launch of ICE Clear Europe in November 2008 and the addition of OTC credit derivatives execution, processing and clearing services.

Average daily futures volume increased 24% whereas, average daily commissions in ICE's OTC energy business jumped 12% in the quarter boosting total transaction and clearing fees by 34%.

Total operating expenses increased 41.3% year over year to $116.3 million mainly due to a $27 million rise in expenses relating to ICE's credit derivatives execution, processing and clearing initiatives, including compensation expenses and amortization of intangibles. Expenses included amortization expense for Russell license agreement totaling $6.5 million, compared to $0.7 million in the prior-year quarter.

At the end of Sept 30, 2009, ICE had 821 employees and expects to increase its headcount by 1% to 2%.

The transatlantic exchange, which operates across over 50 countries, is headquartered in Atlanta, with offices in New York, London, Chicago, Winnipeg, Calgary, Houston and Singapore. The company operates leading regulated exchanges, trading platforms and clearing houses serving the global markets for agricultural, credit, currency, emissions, energy and equity index markets.

ICE’s rival CME Group Inc. (CME) reported third-quarter earnings of $3.35 per share earlier last week, beating the consensus forecast by 5 cents.

A quick search of the ETF database will show you something quite telling—71 ETFs are dedicated to a slice of the market self-defined as either “growth” or “value.” That’s nearly 10 percent of the U.S. ETF market.

But honestly, why?

First, there’s a definitional issue. Russell (just to pick one index provider) defines their growth and value universe based on two characteristics: price-to-book and “projected growth” based on IBES (Institutional Brokers’ Estimate System) consensus estimates. This very distinction makes the indexer in me cringe. By taking the market and slicing it into buckets, and then picking one, investors are fundamentally picking stocks, and I still believe that rarely makes sense.

Let’s take a look under the hood at one family of growth and value: the iShares Russell 3000 series.

This brutal chart looks at the Russell 3000 ETF, IWW, and compares it with the growth and value ETFs, IWZ and IWW, respectively. It’s a pretty compelling story for value investors, and indeed, it’s been a bad 10 years to be chasing earnings estimates—the value investor has made over 30 percent. The growth investor has lost nearly 40 percent, and was down over 50 percent earlier this year. Self-proclaimed value investors will undoubtedly say “duh” at this and note that the whole point of investing is to buy cheap and sell expensive, and that’s just what a value index is designed to do—select the cheaper stocks from a pool.

The problem, of course, is that Warren Buffett doesn’t run the index. The determination of what goes into which buckets is only made once a year in June (in the case of Russell), and stocks ping-pong between the two buckets based on where they happened to be trading at reconstitution. The top performers list for both the growth and value indexes over the past calendar year includes AIG, Citi and Martha Stewart. The decision to sell in one index and buy in the other was simply formulaic, and the timing entirely planned.

In short, it replaces the fallacy of picking the winner based on research, or a hunch, with picking the winner based on the calendar.

Further, there’s increasing evidence that the distinction between growth and value is far less relevant than it has been in years past. Consider the same chart over the last year:

In this time period, the growth investor has ruled the day, losing just about 6 percent vs. the value investor’s 14.25 percent decline.

But perhaps more important for investors focused on actual portfolio construction instead of just stock picking, there’s evidence that the growth and value buckets could just as well be a random distribution.

This chart plots the correlation between IWZ and IWW since inception, looking at rolling 30-day periods and daily returns.

Back during the end of the dot-com run-up and through the dismal 2001 period, there was a real difference between growth and value. It was possible to make the case that the two buckets had distinct performance characteristics: that splitting the universe based on IBES rank and price-to-book ratios created distinct portfolios where one zigged while the other zagged. Alas, what I see when I look at this chart is that the two buckets are now essentially identical, with correlations predictably in the 90s since the middle of the decade.

ETFs give us access to virtually every asset class in the world, from fine-grained equity sectors and themes to international bonds and currency. That the ETF industry has focused so much energy on the dinosaurs of growth and value seems unfortunate.

With that track record, we were very interested to learn the latest macroeconomic predictions stemming from Russell's Business Cycle Index, subject to the disclaimer that the content does not constitute investment advice or projections of the stock market or any specific investment.

Current business cycle estimates suggest the economy was out of recession by August 2009; an anemic recovery and a false threat of a double dip await

Michael Dueker

The latent variable behind the NBER recession indicator in a Qual VAR model of recessions provides a useful business cycle index, where the distance above zero indicates the strength of an expansion or the distance below zero indicates the depth of a recession. The Qual VAR model (or this link) is designed to identify and characterize recessions in real time, based on the incoming financial and macroeconomic data, and it provides a framework for forecasting future business cycle developments. The particular data used in the estimation of the model are personal consumption expenditures, CPI inflation, the slope of the yield curve, the spread between 3-month commercial paper and Treasury bills, the spread between Baa and Aaa corporate bond yields and nonfarm payroll employment.

Starting this month, Russell Investments has adopted this business cycle measure as the Russell Business Cycle Index (BCI) and will post updated estimates of the Russell BCI and forecasts on the Helping Advisors site at Russell Investments. A real-time history of the business cycle index and its forecasts will be available in a spreadsheet.

For now, we can evaluate past performance of the business cycle model by noting that December's forecast of a July or August 2009 trough on Econbrowser appears to have been correct and by examining last December's forecasts of payroll employment. The figure below shows the path of payroll employment changes predicted by the Qual VAR model in the forecast posted on Econbrowser in early December 2008 along with the actual data since then. To date the actual pattern of job losses matches the forecast from December 2008 quite closely. In particular, the forecast last December was that the economy would lose about 4.9 million jobs between December 2008 and August 2009, whereas the data to date show a loss of about 4.5 million jobs.

Source: St. Louis Fed's FRED database for actual employment data and author's calculations. These macroeconomic forecasts do not constitute a projection of the stock market or of any specific investment.

Nevertheless, the job losses projected last December for the period September 2009 to March 2010 might be smaller than anticipated earlier. We examine this question with a chart of a current employment forecast below.

One attribute of the Qual VAR approach is that, during periods when the NBER classification is well-established, one can use those classifications to determine the sign of the business cycle index. For recent observations that belong to a period where the eventual NBER classification is not yet clear, the model can be run without imposing a sign and the data can speak regarding the yes/no recession classification. Starting with the June 2009 data, we stopped imposing a negative sign on the business cycle index and let the data determine it. As of the August 2009 data, the first month where the probability that the business cycle index went below 50 percent was August. This result is the basis for our call that the economy was out of recession by August 2009.

One key point of discussion at present is whether the economy faces a danger of sliding back into recession for the second part of a double-dip recession. The business cycle index and its accompanying payroll employment forecasts can help assess the risk of a double-dip recession. The chart of the business cycle index below illustrates that some backsliding in business cycle conditions is projected early in 2010.

The distance from zero indicates the depth of a recession or the strength of an expansion. Source: author's calculations. These macroeconomic forecasts do not constitute a projection of the stock market or of any specific investment.

The history of the business cycle index illustrates the so-called Great Moderation in the U.S. economy after 1984. Until the current recession, the business cycle index stayed within a comparatively narrow range between -0.5 and 1.5 standard deviations from zero after 1984. The depth of the 2008-09 recession poses a strong counterargument to the Great Moderation hypothesis, however. The business cycle index also illustrates how some economic expansions were sufficiently strong and sustained to bring the unemployment rate down to low levels, such as 3.8 percent by April 2000 and 4.4 percent by October 2006.

To see if the projected backsliding in business cycle conditions in early 2010 represents a serious threat of a double-dip recession, we can look at the forecasted recession probabilities for future months. The chart below shows that the recession probabilities do not reach the threshold between 40 and 50 percent where we would call a double-dip recession.

Source: author's calculations. These probabilities are derived from simulations of a Qual VAR model with the specific variables mentioned above.

The current employment forecast shows some promising job gains between October and December 2009 and then some backsliding, with a small negative forecast for March 2010. If this occurs, there will be discussion about the possibility of a double-dip recession, although that is not the scenario projected here. Instead of a double-dip recession, the forecast presented here is one where it takes a long time for the economy to achieve consistent triple-digit job gains, which are not expected until 2011.

Source: St. Louis Fed FRED database for actual data and author's calculations. These forecasts are derived from simulations of a Qual VAR model with the specific variables mentioned above.

The fund invests primarily in equity securities of US firms ranging from small capitalization to large companies. It may also invest in equities of foreign issuers, as well as equity-linked and fixed-income securities.

Google Inc. (GOOG), Travelers Co.s Inc. (TRV) and Juniper Networks Inc. (JNPR) are among the fund’s key holdings.

Legg Mason Partners Mid Cap Core A (SBMAX) was incepted in September 1998. The investment seeks long-term growth of capital.

The fund invests in equity securities of medium-sized companies within the range of components of the S&P MidCap 400 index or the Russell Midcap index at the time of purchase. It follows a disciplined core investment strategy, combining in-depth fundamental and quantitative analysis.

The fund has been managed by Brian M. Angerame since May 2005. Angerame has over 14 years of experience in the investment industry. The fund has outperformed its benchmark index in terms of total returns in the last 1-, 3- and 5-year periods.

Legg Mason Partners Corporate Bond A (SIGAX) seeks a high a level of current income as is consistent with prudent investment management and preservation of capital.

The fund primarily invests in investment-grade fixed-income securities and corporate debt securities. It emphasizes individual bond selection while diversifying investments across a range of issuers, industries and maturity dates.

The fund may also invest in U.S. Government securities and U.S. dollar denominated fixed income securities of foreign issuers. Unit holders have to make a minimum initial investment of $1,000 to enter this Zacks#1 Rank (“Strong Buy") fund.

The total-market Russell 3000 Index has seen some sizable changes in its sector weightings, although the top 10 remain very much the same. Figure 1 shows the new 2009 sector weightings according to the Russell sector classification system. Not surprisingly, financial services is no longer the largest sector: It now takes second place to technology, which is weighted at 16.19% versus financials at 15.27%. In 2008, those sectors were reversed, with financials at 17.24% and tech at 14.19%.

Health Care saw its weighting increase to 13.41% from 11.52%, popping it up to the third position from No. 5. It displaced energy, which fell from the third slot to the fourth, declining to 11.97% from 13.42%; presumably, declining oil prices had something to do with that. Consumer discretionary also fell: It was the fourth-largest sector after the 2008 rebalance, at 12.94%, but is now the fifth-largest, with a weighting of 11.86%. Producer durables, consumer staples, utilities and materials & processing maintained their same positions (six through 10, respectively).

The top 10 stocks in the Russell 3000 are by and large the same, except for one: ConocoPhillips was displaced by JPMorgan Chase & Co.—a financial company, of all things. Of course, JP Morgan did acquire two former giants in the field of finance last year: Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual. And it has been one of the least-scathed of the financial services companies.

While the other members of the top 10 remained largely the same, some of their positions did not. ExxonMobil is still at the top of the heap, like it was last year, but General Electric fell from the second-largest weighting in the Russell 3000 to the tenth-largest, with a weighting of 1.27%. Microsoft moved up from the third slot to the second, with a weighting of 1.87%. And Johnson & Johnson jumped to No. 3, befitting its strong performance.

Russell 2000

In the Russell 2000, financial services is still the top sector, increasing its weight to 21.10%. A surprising result, perhaps, but the sector was boosted by having hard-hit banks move out of the Russell 1000 and into the smaller index. Technology claims the second-largest slot, with a 16.75% weighting, displacing consumer discretionary, which falls to the No. 3 position, with a 14.68% weighting. That’s down from 17.65% in 2008. Energy only fell one spot, to No. 9, and saw its weighting nearly halved, falling from 8.60% to 4.52%, further emphasizing the differences between the large- and small-cap worlds.

RUSSELL INDEXES ARE CHANGING

1. S&P 500 BREAKS OUT: SO DO WE THROW A PARTY FOR THE REBELLIOUS TEENAGER?

The fund invests primarily in investment-grade bonds, including U.S. government, mortgage- and asset-backed securities. It generally maintains an average weighted maturity between four and 12 years, although it may shorten its average weighted maturity if deemed appropriate for temporary defensive purposes.

Unit holders need to make a minimum initial investment of $1,000 to enter the Zacks#1 Rank ("Strong Buy") fund. It has an expense ratio of 0.77%.

JP Morgan Diversified Mid Cap Growth A (OSGIX) seeks growth of capital and, secondarily, current income by investing primarily in equity securities of companies that have a history of or the potential to achieve above-average growth.

The fund invests primarily in common stocks of mid-cap companies with market capitalizations similar to those within the universe of the Russell Midcap Growth Index. It may use derivatives to hedge various investments.

Amdocs Ltd. (DOX), Waste Connections Inc. (WCN) and Ecolab Inc. (ECL) are among the top holdings at the fund.

JP Morgan Capital Growth A (VCAGX) was incepted in September 1987 and seeks capital growth over the long term through investment in a broad portfolio of common stocks of mid-cap companies.

The fund may invest any portion of assets in cash and cash equivalents, including affiliated money-market funds, high-quality money-market instruments or repurchase agreements. Its total returns have topped that of its benchmark index in the last 1-, 3- and 5-year periods.

Christopher Jones is the lead manager at the fund that offers dividends and capital gains, if any, annually.

The fund primarily invests in the stocks of companies with market capitalizations within the range of those consisted in the Russell 2000 Value Index at the time of purchase. It may invest in equity securities of both U.S. and foreign issuers, including those purchased in initial public offerings.

Macrovision Solutions Corp. (MVSN), First Cash Financial Services Inc. (FCFS) and Advance Auto Parts Inc. (AAP) are among the fund's top holdings.

Dreyfus Midcap Value A (DMCVX) seeks to surpass the performance of the Russell Midcap Value Index. The fund normally invests at least 80% of its assets in mid-cap stocks with market capitalizations between $1 billion and $25 billion at the time of purchase.

The fund may, but is not required to, use derivatives, such as, options, futures and options on futures, forward contracts and swaps, as a substitute for investing directly in an underlying asset, to increase returns, or as part of a hedging strategy. It may also engage in short-selling.

Unit holders have to make a minimum initial investment of $1,000 to enter the fund. It distributes dividends and capital gains annually.

Dreyfus U.S. Treasury Intermediate Term (DRGIX) seeks to maximize total return, consisting of capital appreciation and current income, by investing at least 80% of its assets in U.S. Treasury securities.

The fund also may invest in other securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or its agencies or instrumentalities (including inflation-indexed bonds), and may enter into repurchase agreements. Under normal market conditions, it maintains an effective duration between 2.5 and 6 years, and a dollar-weighted average portfolio maturity between 3 and 10 years.

Robert M. Bayston has been the fund's manager since May 2008. The fund has outperformed the total annual returns of its benchmark index in the last 1-, 3- and 5-year periods.

Investors can find such funds by checking out the entire list of the Zacks #1 Rank Small-Cap Equity Funds list.

3 Strong Samples

Pioneer Small and Mid Cap Growth A (PAPPX) seeks long-term capital growth by investing primarily in the equity securities of small- and mid-sized U.S. companies that exhibit strong growth characteristics.

The fund primarily invests in equity securities of companies, which at the time of investment do not exceed the market capitalization of the largest company within the Russell MidCap Growth index. It diversifies by investing across a wide spectrum of industries.

O'Reilly Automotive Inc. (ORLY), Informatica Corp. (INFA) and DeVry Inc. (DV) are some of the largest holdings at the fund.

JPMorgan Small Cap Equity A (VSEAX) seeks capital growth over the long term. The fund invests in undervalued companies with leading competitive positions, predictable and durable business models and management that can achieve sustained growth.

The fund has outperformed its benchmark index in the 1-, 3- and 5-year periods in turns of total returns. As of December 2008, its portfolio turnover was 52%.

The fund's top holdings include Proassurance Corp. (PRA), Silgan Holdings Inc. (SLGN) and eHealth Inc. (EHTH).

First Eagle U.S. Value A (FEVAX) seeks long-term growth of capital by investing primarily in equities issued by U.S. corporations. It invests in domestic securities regardless of market capitalization, sector or asset class.

The fund seeks to preserve capital and consistently generate positive absolute returns independent of broad market conditions. It has topped the benchmark index in the last 1-, 3- and 5-year periods.

Unit holders have to make a minimum initial investment of $2,500 to enter the Zacks#1 Rank ("Strong Buy") fund. FEVAX distributes dividends and capital gains, if any, annually.

Discover Many More Funds

Learn more about the new Zacks Mutual Fund Rank and discover some of the best market-beating mutual funds by browsing our new mutual funds section. This part of Zacks.com offers a variety of tools, including mutual fund research, a new mutual fund screener, helpful answers to frequently asked questions and quick access to prospectuses and other information.

By applying the Zacks Rank to mutual funds, investors can find funds that not only outpaced the market in the past but are also expected to outperform going forward.

Since first jumping into the exchange-traded funds market two-plus years ago with 20 dividend-weighted exchange-traded funds, WisdomTree Investments has firmly been cast as a value-styled management shop.

That focus on weighting index-based ETF portfolios on business fundamentals -- rather than traditional  market-cap size figures -- hasn't changed. But the New York-based firm launched Thursday an ETF focused squarely on large-cap growth stocks.  

But two items stand to separate the WisdomTree LargeCap Growth ETF (NYSEArca: ROI) from the pack.

For one, the new fund focuses on corporate earnings, otherwise known as net income or profit, to weight stocks in its portfolio. That's different from rivals such as the $9.2 billion iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index (NYSEArca: IWF) and the $4.6 billion iShares S&P 500 Growth Index (NYSEArca: IVW). Both use straight market capitalization sizes to determine portfolio weights.

"The only pure competitors for ROI on the large growth side are traditional market-cap-sized indexes," said Luciano Siracusano, WisdomTree's chief investment strategist.

The lowest-priced large-cap growth ETF on the market is the Vanguard Growth ETF (NYSEArca: VUG). It has an expense ratio of 0.10% and tracks the MSCI U.S. Prime Market Growth Index. WisdomTree's ROI is expected to be 0.38% per year.

That leads to the second big point of departure for the new ETF. As an early advocate of using fundamental data rather than market-cap size metrics to weight portfolios, WisdomTree is a pioneering nontraditional ETF provider. Besides dividend streams, its portfolios are branching into another key measure to value businesses -- net earnings.

Assessing The Field

WisdomTree isn't alone in offering nontraditional index-based ETFs. PowerShares has a series of funds based on the FTSE RAFI indexes created by Research Affiliates and FTSE. Those use a broad set of fundamental valuations to design portfolios. The closest in terms of style to ROI is probably the PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio (NYSEArca: PRF). But that's categorized as a large-cap value fund by Morningstar.

Another nontraditional ETF provider using different fundamental valuations is RevenueShares. Its closest rival to ROI would be the RevenueShares Large Cap ETF (NYSE: RWL).  It takes the blue-chip universe and weights those names by annual sales. And again, Morningstar categorizes RWL as a large value fund.

The closest competitor is probably SPA ETF's MarketGrader Large Cap ETF (NYSEArca: SZG), which uses a quantitative strategy to select 100 large-cap stocks. It is classified as a large-cap growth fund by Morningstar, although it is not explicitly screened to capture growth stocks alone.

ROI is the only non-traditional ETF with an explicit growth focus.

ROI's index starts with around 300 stocks based on four growth factors: earnings-per-share growth; sales-per-share growth; book-value-per-share growth and stock-price-per-share growth.

By contrast, the Russell 1000 Growth Index uses a combination of price-to-book values and projected earnings estimates. Other benchmarks throw in a few other factors to create a different valuation mix.

"All of the pure growth indexes use multiple factors to select components," said Siracusano. "But they determine weightings in the same way -- by market capitalization sizes."

Even though the benchmark underlying WisdomTree's new fund uses a different methodology to rank stocks, ROI's list of constituents looks much the same as its market cap weighted rivals. For example, some 17 of the top 20 companies listed in the WisdomTree LargeCap Growth Index are also in the Russell 1000 Growth Index as well as the S&P 500 Growth Index.

"But since we weight our index by [net] earnings, the characteristics are different from the other growth indexes," said Siracusano.

Backtested data from WisdomTree shows its index has a lower price-earnings ratio. Here's how it shaped up heading into November:

In the past 10 years through Sept. 30, WisdomTree says its large growth index outperformed the Russell 1000 Growth index by an average of about four percentage points per year. It lists the following average annualized returns for that period:

• 4.76% for the WisdomTree LargeCap Growth Index
• 3.06% for the S&P 500 Index
• 0.59% for the Russell 1000 Growth Index

"We created it to provide investors with an ability to own growth companies, but in a portfolio that has a lower PE ratio than other cap-weighted growth funds," said Jeremy Schwartz, WisdomTree's research director.

Looking Underneath The Hood

The WisdomTree LargeCap Growth benchmark is rebalanced once a year. After its last reconstitution, on March 31, several significant differences showed up compared with growth indexes that stuck to market-cap weighting methodologies.

One was that Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) was given a larger weighting than Occidental Petroleum (NYSE: OXY). In a traditionally weighted index, the computer maker could expect to receive more than twice the weighting than the oil producer since its market cap was about $127 billion and Occidental's was around $60 billion at the time.

But in the WisdomTree index, more weight was actually given to Occidental since it had greater net profits -- $5 billion compared to Apple's $4 billion.

Another example is Google (Nasdaq: GOOG). It wasn't as high in the WisdomTree index as in the other major growth indexes. Perhaps most notably, ROI had Berkshire Hathaway among its Top 10, whereas none of the other indexes did.

In terms of sectors, Schwartz says that the WisdomTree index has the highest weighting to Technology, just like the S&P and the Russell index. The Vanguard benchmark, the MSCI US Prime Market Growth Index, has 394 holdings and a similar sector breakdown as the Russell 1000 Growth Index and S&P 500 Growth Index.

"We're cutting out the PE multiples from our weightings system," said Schwartz. "We're looking at the bottom line for corporate profits to weight our index."

In other ways, the indexes are similar, even given their distinct methodologies. In terms of holdings, the WisdomTree index has 300 growth stocks, similar to the S&P 500 Growth, which has 315 holdings. The Russell 1000 Growth stands apart in terms of holdings, with 600 stocks. With the lowest number of holdings among the three, the WisdomTree index is the most large-cap-oriented.

ROI's expense ratio is expected to wind up slightly less than PowerShares' lineup of RAFI-based index funds. It  recently lowered costs on the domestic fundamentally weighted ETFs to 0.39%. (See story here.) Meanwhile, the RevenueShares large-cap ETF charges 0.49% a year.  

The annual rebalancing of the Russell/Nomura Japanese stock indexes just concluded, resulting in more than 30% turnover rates for each series in the benchmarking family.

The Russell/Nomura Total Value Index had 212 deletions and 176 additions, while the Russell/Nomura Total Growth Index had 270 deletions and 136 additions.

There are Japanese stock exchange-traded funds from Barclays Global Investors' iShares family, Northern Trust's NETS and from WisdomTree Investments.

JPP and JSC are relatively small ETFs in terms of assets. JSC had close to $73 million in assets through last month while JPP had only $13.5 million.

Among all single-country international ETFs this year, those focused on Japan have held up relatively well in terms of performance. JPP was down 32.15% heading into Monday, while JSC had dropped 23.99% so far in 2008, according to Morningstar data.

That may not seem like impressive performance on the surface, but consider that the broad-based iShares MSCI EAFE Index (NYSE: EFA) for developed international markets has slid more than 45% this year.

The Russell/Nomura Prime Index, which is JPP's index, measures the performance of Japan's top 1,000 float-adjusted stocks. This year, 26 companies came into the Prime Index for the first time and its total market capitalization decreased from 201 trillion yen to 200 trillion yen (as of Oct. 15).

The turnover ratio of the index was 1.6%, which is relatively low compared to previous years, the companies said in a statement.

The number of stocks in the Russell/Nomura Small Cap Index, JSC's underlying index, dropped by 76 companies to 1,100. The small-cap index represents the top 85% and bottom 15% of the Russell/Nomura Japan Equity Index, on a market capitalization basis.

The decrease in JSC's index reflected the larger decline in the capitalization of small-cap companies relative to the overall market decrease.

Here are 3 stocks that should continue to fall during the Bear Market:

read more