Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the evolution of the China Securities Dividend Index and the CSI 300 Index from 2005 to the present, highlighting three distinct phases of their performance and the underlying reasons for their divergence [5][24]. Group 1: 2005-2013: Same Rise and Fall - During this period, both the China Securities Dividend Index and the CSI 300 Index exhibited high correlation, moving in tandem with minimal differences in returns [7][12]. - The similarity in performance was attributed to the close composition and industry structure of both indices, primarily dominated by traditional sectors such as finance and real estate [8][10]. - The weighted methodology of the China Securities Dividend Index was market capitalization-based, leading to a concentration in large-cap stocks from these sectors, which mirrored the CSI 300's composition [8][10]. Group 2: 2014-2018: Beginning of Divergence - The performance of the two indices began to diverge, with the China Securities Dividend Index's returns starting to differ significantly from those of the CSI 300 [14][18]. - This change was primarily due to a modification in the weighting methodology of the China Securities Dividend Index from market capitalization to dividend yield, resulting in a shift towards a more balanced representation of both large and small-cap stocks [16][18]. - The industry composition remained similar, but the focus on dividend yield allowed for a more diversified approach, leading to noticeable differences in performance [18][23]. Group 3: 2019-Present: Diverging Trends - Since 2019, the performance of the two indices has shown significant divergence, with annual return differences exceeding 15% in most years [21][24]. - The CSI 300 Index has incorporated more "new economy" sectors, leading to a transformation from a traditional large-cap value index to one that reflects a broader industry balance [23][24]. - In contrast, the China Securities Dividend Index has maintained its traditional value-oriented approach, resulting in distinct risk-return profiles for the two indices [23][24].