CalPERS increases investments in those companies. New Focus List companies are added to the portfolio each year, and the portfolio is rebalanced so that holdings remain equally weighted. The purpose of monetizing the Focus List is to replicate the Wilshire studies—using actual funds to demonstrate and measure the “CalPERS Effect.” Monetizing the Focus List also allows CalPERS to realize a return on the increased value that typically occurs following an engagement. In 2014, a study by Wilshire Associates showed the companies engaged by CalPERS significantly outperformed the Russell 1000. Analysis of performance of companies on the Focus List In 1994, Nesbitt published a study that found that companies on the Focus List trailed the S&P 500 prior to being put on the list, but outperformed the S&P 500 after being put on the list, and named this phenomenon the "CalPERS effect". The term has been used in the newsmedia. Whether a "CalPERS effect" actually exists has been studied in a number of subsequent papers, including: Michael P. Smith (1996) determined that shareholder wealth increased for companies that adopted changes proposed by CalPERS or made changes that resulting in reaching a settlement with CalPERS; however, shareholder wealth decreased for companies that resisted CalPERS' proposals. Wahal (1996) analyzed the efficacy of pension-fund activism for CalPERS and eight other funds such as TIAA-CREF. Of the firms targeted by the nine funds, "only firms targeted by Calpers experience[d] a positive stock price reaction". Crutchley et al. (1998) discovered that CalPERS' "less visible activism" in 1995-1997 corresponded with less returns on stocks than in 1992-1994 when CalPERS' activism was more aggressive. Two studies published by CalPERS staff (i.e., Anson et al.) in 2003-2004 found that stocks on the CalPERS Focus List experience "positive excess stock returns of about 12% over the three months following release of the list" and "an average one-year cumulative excess return of 59.4 per cent". English et al. (2004) concluded that CalPERS targeting produces a statistically significant improvement in short-term returns but not necessarily in long-term returns (depending on the specific methods used to calculate long-term returns). Nelson (2006) claimed that his study addressed problems in the methodologies of previous studies (e.g., by controlling for the "contaminating events" of The Wall Street Journal articles appearing just before or just after the dates that CalPERS released Focus List information). He found "no evidence to support the persistence of a 'CalPERS effect'" after