What market conditions favor small cap stocks over medium cap stocks?
Small cap companies are just smaller, so the risk for them to fail is higher but the potential for higher returns is also higher. Small companies are generally able to adapt quickly to take advantage of changing conditions to enter new markets when the economy is growing. This gives them a lot of growth potential under those circumstances. However, in times of crisis, there may not be a lot of new markets to enter, and financing to expand any operations may be impossible to get. Under these conditions, small-caps will suffer relative to large-caps. I think to answer this question it is best for you to learn more about why people diversify through asset allocation. Look at related questions involving Asset Allocation here.   I've asked a couple questions about asset allocation - I think you'll find the top rated answer on this post useful. "In general, small cap stocks are exposed to more downside during recessions and when credit is tight, because it is more difficult for small companies to raise capital, and minor variations in cash flow have a bigger impact. Coming out of recessions or when credit is cheap, small companies generally perform better than larger companies. In the depths of recession, small companies with good cash flow are often great value investments, as analysts and institutional investors ""punish"" the entire class of smallcap companies."
It is a general truism but the reasons are that the rules change dramatically when you simply have more capital. Here are some examples, limited to particular kinds of markets: Under $2,000 in capital Nobody is going to offer you a margin account, and if you do get one it isn't with the best broker on commissions and other capabilities. So this means cash only trading, enjoy your 3 business day settlement periods. This means no shorting, confining a trader to only buy and hold strategies, making them more dependent on luck than a more capable trader. This means it is more expensive to buy stock, since you have to put down 100% of the cash to hold a share, whereas someone with more money puts down less capital to hold the exact same number of shares. This means no covered options strategies or spreads, again limiting the market directions where a trader could earn Under $25,000 in capital In the stock market, the pattern day trader rule applies to retail margin accounts with a balance under $25,000 and this severally limits the kinds of trades you are able to take because of the limit in the number of trades you can take in a given time period. Forget managing a multi-leg option position when the market isn't moving your direction. Under $125,000 in capital Worse margin rules. You excluded portfolio margin from your post, but it is a key part of the answer Over $1,000,000 in capital Participate in private placements, regulation D offerings reserved for accredited investors. These days, as buy and hold investments, these generally have more growth potential than publicly traded offerings. Over $5,000,000 in capital You can easily get the compliance and risk manager to turn the other way on margin rules. This is not conjecture, leverage up to infinity, try not to bankrupt yourself and the trading firm. Volumes are used to predict momentum of movement, not the direction of it. Large trading volumes generally tend to create a price breakout in either positive or negative direction. Especially in relatively illiquid stocks (like small caps), sudden volume surges can create sharp price fluctuations. The value premium would state the opposite in fact if one looks at the work of Fama and French. The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) shows a graph with the rates on small-cap/large-cap and growth/value combinations that may be of interest as well for another article noting the same research. Index fund advisors in Figure 9-1 shows various historical returns up to 2012 that may also be useful here for those wanting more detailed data. How to Beat the Benchmark is from 1998 that could be interesting to read about index funds and beating the index in a simpler way. Smaller markets can actually be more volatile so it's not a good idea to lower Graham's criteria for them. The only real adjustment possible is inflation adjustment. $100 million in 1973 United States works out to $500 million today based on the difference in CPI/Inflation from 1973. This number will be different for other markets where the rate of inflation since 1973 has been different. So the real question to ask is - what is to $100 million in the United States in 1973 worth today in your market? Source: http://www.serenitystocks.com/how-build-complete-benjamin-graham-portfolio Something to consider is that in the case of the company you chose, on the OTC market, that stock is thinly traded and with such low volume, it can be easy for it to fluctuate greatly to have trades occur.  This is why volume can matter for some people when it comes to buying shares. Some OTC stocks may have really low volume and thus may have bigger swings than other stocks that have higher volume. The banks see small apartments as a higher risk because usually very small apartments are harder to sell, especially during a falling market when there is an oversupply of these apartments. The price of small apartments will also fall a lot quicker in a falling market. Regarding yield vs capital growth - the emphasis here is manly on high yielding properties in small country towns with small populations. How many properties can you buy with cash? Properties with good growth will enable you to build equity quicker and enable you to build a larger portfolio. In my opinion you need a combination of good yield and reasonable growth, because without yield you cannot replace your earned income with passive income, but without growth you can't expand your portfolio. So a combination of good yield with reasonable growth will give the best outcome. In less than two decades, more than half of all publicly traded companies have disappeared. There were 7,355 U.S. stocks in November 1997, according to the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. Nowadays, there are fewer than 3,600.  A close look at the data helps explain why stock pickers have been underperforming. And the shrinking number of companies should make all investors more skeptical about the market-beating claims of recently trendy strategies.  Back in November 1997, there were more than 2,500 small stocks and nearly 4,000 tiny “microcap” stocks, according to CRSP. At the end of 2016, fewer than 1,200 small and just under 1,900 microcap stocks were left.  Most of those companies melted away between 2000 and 2012, but the numbers so far show no signs of recovering.  Several factors explain the shrinking number of stocks, analysts say, including the regulatory red tape that discourages smaller companies from going and staying public; the flood of venture-capital funding that enables young companies to stay private longer; and the rise of private-equity funds, whose buyouts take shares off the public market.  For stock pickers, differentiating among the remaining choices is “an even harder game” than it was when the market consisted of twice as many companies, says Michael Mauboussin, an investment strategist at Credit Suisse in New York who wrote a report this spring titled “The Incredible Shrinking Universe of Stocks.”  That’s because the surviving companies tend to be “fewer, bigger, older, more profitable and easier to analyze,” he says — making stock picking much more competitive.  Consider small-stock funds. Often, they compare themselves to the Russell 2000, an index of the U.S. stocks ranked 1,001 through 3,000 by total market value. “Twenty years ago, there were over 4,000 stocks smaller” than the inclusion cutoff for the Russell 2000, says Lubos Pastor, a finance professor at the University of Chicago. “That number is down to less than 1,000 today.”  So fund managers have far fewer stocks to choose from if they venture outside the index — the very area where the best bargains might be found. More money chasing fewer stocks could lead some fund managers to buy indiscriminately, regardless of value.  Eric Cinnamond is a veteran portfolio manager with a solid record of investing in small stocks. Last year, he took the drastic step of shutting down his roughly $400 million mutual fund, Aston/River Road Independent Value, and giving his investors their money back.  “Prices got so crazy in small caps, I fired myself,” he says. “My portfolio was 90% in cash at the end, because I couldn’t find anything to buy. If I’d kept investing, I was sure I’d lose people their money.”  He adds, “It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done professionally, but I didn’t feel I had a choice. I knew my companies were overvalued.”  Mr. Cinnamond hopes to return to the market when, in his view, values become attractive again. He doesn’t expect recent conditions to be permanent.  The evaporation of thousands of companies may have one enduring result, however — and it could catch many investors by surprise.  Most research on historical returns, points out Mr. Mauboussin, is based on the days when the stock market had twice as many companies as it does today. “Was the population of companies so different then,” he asks, “that the inferences we draw from it might no longer be valid?”  So-called factor investing, also known as systematic or smart-beta investing, picks hundreds or thousands of stocks at a time based on common sources of risk and return. Among them: how big companies are, how much their shares fluctuate, how expensive their shares are relative to asset value and so on.  But the historical outperformance of many such factors may have been driven largely by the tiniest companies — exactly those that have disappeared from the market in droves.  Before concluding that small stocks or cheap “value” stocks will outrace the market as impressively as they did in the past, you should pause to consider how they will perform without the tailwinds from thousands of tiny stocks that no longer exist.  The stock market has more than tripled in the past eight years, so the eclipse of so many companies hasn’t been a catastrophe. But it does imply that investing in some of the market’s trendiest strategies might be less profitable in the future than they looked in the past. "In some cases, when a company purchases a minor stake, they often intend to increase the size of the stake over time. As a reference, note that Coca Cola has increased their stake in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) over time. It also adds some ""support"" to the price because these investors may be willing to step in and purchase the stock if there is any distress or poor performance. Finally, its generally a good ""tell"" that the stock has good things going for it and may be subject to additional interest from large investors." I would recommend using growth/value/income/bond based asset allocation because your goal is to find asset classes that have different performance trends (when 1 is up, the other is down and vice-versa).    If you chose Domestic, US stocks and diversified between Med Cap and Large Cap stocks, they would not exactly mirror each other, but they would roughly rise and fall at the same time, preventing you from taking full advantage of diversification, increasing risk and lowering returns. Well lets see...  JP Morgan Chase, for example, has a market cap of $118 billion. The U.S. labor force is about 158 million people. So if every working american kicked in about 400 bucks, you'd have enough money to buy a a controlling stake in JPM. Goldman Sachs has a market cap of $44 billion. You could buy a controlling stake in Goldman if every working american threw in about 150 bucks. Of course you'd have to purchase the stock at a large premium if you're trying to gain a controlling stake. "The companies with the highest level of costumers that are able to stay under the limit for fuel will be able to draw the larger Revenue/Expense ratio (or what Obama calls it Profit to Earnings Ratio).  This will make it easy for medium size companies to make the most money.  Larger companies will still make money but will be ""pushed down"" because they have to pay that extra tax because they will reach the Cap of the Cap &amp; Trade policy.  This doesn't mean Companies with the lowest emissions will have to lowest prices. The larger companies will still have the decent prices. A company may have horrible engines but they don't fly so much they will not   hit the cap in the cap &amp; Trade so they wont have to pay that extra tax the larger companies do.  So a company may start and grow very fast but once they get big enough they will start slowing down because of the government.  Edit: last 2 paragraphs" It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you! "Market Capitalization is the value the market attributes to the company shares calculated by multiplying the current trading price of these shares by the total amount of shares outstanding. So a company with 100 shares trading at $10 has a market cap of $1000. It is technically not the same as the value of a company (in the sense of how much someone would need to pay to acquire the company), Enterprise value is what you want to determine the net value of a company which is calculated as the market capitalization + company debt (as the acquirer has to take on this debt) - company cash (as the acquirer can pocket this for itself). The exact boundary for when a company belongs to a certain ""cap"" is up for debate. For a ""large cap""  a market capitalization of $10 billion+ is usually considered the cutoff (with $100+ billion behemoths being called ""mega caps""). Anything between $10 billion and ~$1 billion is considered ""mid cap"", from ~$1billion to ~$200 million it's called a ""small cap"" and below $200 million is ""nano cap"".  Worth noting that these boundaries change quite dramatically over time as the overall average market capitalization increases as companies grow, for example in the 80s a company with a market cap of $1 billion would be considered ""large cap"". The market ""determines"" what the market cap of company should be based (usually but certainly not always!) on the historical and expected profit a company makes, for a simple example let's say that our $1000 market cap company makes $100 a year,  this means that this company's earnings per share is $1. If the company grows to make $200 a year you can reasonably expect the share price to rise from $10 to ~$20 with the corresponding increase in market cap. (this is all extremely simplified of course)." I was looking at NAT and NAO, NAT owns 20% of NAO.  They trade opposite each other on the price of oil, low is good for NAT, bad for NAO.  In bad times the other company's stock would probably rise, so they could trim excess shares to keep a stable monetary holding.  This would create cash in bad times, in good times they could buy more, creating a floor as well for the other. Market cap probably isn't as big of an issue as the bid/ask spread and the liquidity, although they tend to be related. The spread is likely to be wider on lesser traded ETF funds we are talking about pennies, likely not an issue unless you are trading in and out frequently. The expense ratios will also tend to be slightly higher again not a huge issue but it might be a consideration. You are unlikely to make up the cost of paying the commission to buy into a larger ETF any time soon though.