Faculty of Business and Law School of Accounting, Economics and Finance
Financial Econometrics Series
SWP 2014/14
How Profitable is the Indian Stock Market?
P.K. Narayan, H.A. Ahmed, S.S. Sharma,
K.P. Prabheesh
The working papers are a series of manuscripts in their draft form. Please do not quote without obtaining the author’s consent as these works are in their draft form. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not necessarily endorsed by the School or IBISWorld Pty Ltd.
1
How Profitable is the Indian Stock Market?
Paresh Kumar Narayan1, Huson Ali Ahmed2, Susan Sunila Sharma3, K P Prabheesh4
ABSTRACT
In this paper, using a range of technical trading and momentum trading strategies, we show
that the Indian stock market is profitable. We find robust evidence that investing in some
sectors is relatively more profitable than investing in others. We show that sectoral
heterogeneity with respect to profitability is a result of the gradual diffusion of information
from the market to the sectors. Specifically, we show that while the market predicts returns of
sectors, the magnitude of predictability varies with sector. Our results are robust to a range of
trading strategies.
Keywords: Momentum; Technical Trading; Profits; Sectors; Stock Market; India;
Predictability.
1 Alfred Deakin Professor, Research Professor, Financial Econometrics Group, School of Accounting, Economics and
Finance, Deakin University. Email: [email protected] 2 Lecturer in Finance, Financial Econometrics Group, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Deakin University.
Email: [email protected] 3 Lecturer in Financial Econometrics, Financial Econometrics Group, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance,
Deakin University. Email: [email protected] 4 Assistant Professor of Economics, Department of Liberal Arts, Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad. Email:
2
1. Introduction
The growth of the Indian stock market over the last decade has been impressive, particularly
in terms of market capitalization, number of listed companies, and turnover rate. Market
capitalization as a percentage of GDP of the National Stock Exchange (NSE), for instance,
increased from 35% in 2001 to 85% in 2011. Similarly, the number of companies listed on the
NSE more than doubled over the corresponding period, from 720 to 1552. Likewise, the
turnover on the Indian stock market increased from US$621 billion in 2010 to US$1056 billion
in 2011. For all its impressive growth, India achieved a global rank of 7th in terms of market
capitalization, 10th in terms of total value traded, and 22nd in terms of turnover ratio, as of
December 2010 (NSE, 2011).
The impressive growth of the Indian stock market has attracted research on the
efficiency (or otherwise) of the market. There are a number of studies that examine the
efficiency of the Indian stock market (see, inter alia, Dicle et al., 2010; Kumar et al., 2011;
Majumder, 2013; Mishra et al., 2011; Narayan et al., 2014; and Narayan and Ahmed, 2014).
There are two ways in which this literature can be taken forward. First, these studies do not
provide an economic significance analysis with respect to market efficiency or inefficiency.
Therefore, it is unclear how profitable the Indian stock market is. Second, if an investor wants
to invest in the Indian stock market, which sectors should she invest in? This question remains
unanswered in these studies.1
Therefore, from this growing literature on the Indian stock market, there are clearly four
things which are relatively less understood. These are:
1. The Indian stock market may be profitable but do profits vary from sector-to-sector?
1 There is another branch of this literature (Chang et al., 2004), which typically employs simple technical trading rules,
such as the moving average and the trading range break rules. These studies generally find some evidence of
profitability. Similarly, Gunasekarage and Power (2001) and Narayan et al. (2014) find evidence that the Indian stock
market is profitable, although these studies use different approaches compared to what we do in this paper.
3
2. Can investors use different trading strategies to make profits from the Indian stock
market? If yes, how much do the profits vary from sector-to-sector as trading strategies
change?
3. Short-selling is a feature of the Indian market; therefore, what effect does short-selling
has on sectoral profits?
4. The most recent global financial crisis has affected stock markets globally; therefore,
has the crisis affected sectoral profits on the Indian stock market?
To the best of our knowledge, none of these questions has been answered in the literature.
Our study provides the first attempt at addressing each of these questions. Our approach is as
follows. We utilise a range of technical trading rules and momentum trading rules to identify
winners and losers and form returns for momentum and zero-cost portfolios. We also consider
ranking stocks based on moving average rules and then undertaking long and short positions.
Taking long and short positions based on a ranking of sectors allows an investor to diversify
risk and consider a portfolio of sectors in her trading strategy. More details on our approach is
provided in the next section.
2. Approach
2.1. Moving average ranking-based trading strategy
In this section, we consider trading strategies based on moving average rules. The moving
average technical trading rules are popular trading strategies, particularly in the foreign
exchange market (see, for instance, Lee and Mathur, 1996a,b, and Szakmary and Mathur, 1997)
and commodity markets (see Narayan, Narayan, and Sharma, 2013; Narayan, Ahmed, and
Narayan, 2014). We begin as follows:
1. We compute the monthly long-run (LR) and short-run (SR) moving averages (MA)
using identified intervals for LR and SR.
4
2. Using (SR-LR) moving average for respective intervals, we rank each of the six sectors,
from best (rank 1) to worst (rank 6). The highest positive difference between SRMA
and LRMA is assigned a rank of 1, and the lowest difference between SRMA and
LRMA is ranked last.
3. We initiate long positions in high ranked sector(s) and short the sector with the lowest
rank. In this way, we are able to devise three trading strategies (excluding the naïve
investor strategy), as will be discussed soon.
4. When we do not allow for short-selling, we simply do not short but allow for cash
positions.
Following the Lee and Mathur (1996a,b) and the Okunev and White (2003) studies, we
define the short-run moving average (𝑀𝐴𝑆𝑅) and the long-run moving average (𝑀𝐴𝐿𝑅) at time
𝑡 as:
𝑀𝐴𝑗,𝑡𝑆𝑅 =
𝑅𝑡 + (𝑗 − 1)𝑀𝐴𝑗,𝑡−1𝑆𝑅
𝑗 (1)
𝑀𝐴𝑖,𝑡𝐿𝑅 =
𝑅𝑡 + (𝑖 − 1)𝑀𝐴𝑖,𝑡−1𝐿𝑅
𝑖 (2)
where 𝑗 and 𝑖 are prior months of sectoral returns. The SRMA values range from 1 to 12
months, while the LRMA values range from 2 to 36 months. In all combinations of short-run
and long-run moving average trading rules, 𝑗 < 𝑖. Just to demonstrate how these trading rule
combinations are implemented, consider the sectoral position based on a SRMA of 1 month.
We compute this as 𝑀𝐴1𝑡𝑆𝑅 − 𝑀𝐴2,𝑡
𝐿𝑅 , 𝑀𝐴1,𝑡𝑆𝑅 − 𝑀𝐴3,𝑡
𝐿𝑅 , … , 𝑀𝐴1,𝑡𝑆𝑅 − 𝑀𝐴36,𝑡
𝐿𝑅 . Similarly, using a 2-
month short-term moving average 𝑀𝐴2,𝑡𝑆𝑅 , 𝑀𝐴2,𝑡
𝑆𝑅 − 𝑀𝐴3,𝑡𝐿𝑅 , … , 𝑀𝐴2,𝑡
𝑆𝑅 − 𝑀𝐴36,𝑡𝐿𝑅 , we determine
the investment positions. At the end of each month, for each individual moving average
combination, the six sectors are ranked on a scale of 1 (best-performing) to 6 (worst-
5
performing). This ranking is based on the return-based momentum indicator, which is simply
the difference in return between the SR and LR moving averages. The sector that has the largest
return difference (𝑀𝐴𝑆𝑅 − 𝑀𝐴𝐿𝑅), earns a rank of 1, the sector with the second largest return
difference earns a rank of 2, while the sector with the least return difference is the worst-
performing and, thus, earns a rank of 6. We place weights on each of the short-run/long-run
combinations and positions are taken and held for a month, based on the respective strategy.
The rankings are revised each month and new positions are taken if rankings do indeed change.
We propose four different strategies to examine the efficiency and profitability of the
sectors in the Indian market. A summary of the trading strategies is provided in Table 1.
INSERT TABLE 1
Strategy I: This strategy assumes a naïve investor who invests equally in all six sectors,
irrespective of the sectors’ rankings.
Strategy II: This strategy invests 100% in the highest ranked sector and shorts the lowest ranked
sector in the case of short-selling, but takes cash positions in the case of no short-selling. This
strategy, thus, provides opportunities to make arbitrage profits from taking two opposite
positions.
Strategy III: This strategy invests in the top-3 ranked sectors. An investor with this strategy
invests 50% in the sector ranked one, and 25% each in the sectors ranked two and three. The
investor will short the worst-ranked sector in the case of short-selling and take cash positions
in the case of no short-selling. This strategy, therefore, allows an investor to build a portfolio
of sectors which also diversifies risks.
Strategy IV: This strategy allows an investor to invest 70% in the highest ranked sector and
30% in the second-highest ranked sector. The investor continues to short the weakest ranked
sector in the case of short-selling, and takes cash positions in the case of no short-selling.
6
In all these strategies, where we allow for short-selling, our approach proceeds as
follows. First, we allow for 100% short-selling. Then, in a robustness test of profitability, we
allow for a short-selling of 76% based on our estimate of the magnitude of short-selling in the
Indian market.
2.2. Technical trading based rules
In this section, we discuss three specific technical trading rules that we utilise to
generate buy and sell signals.1 These are the moving average rule, momentum trading rule, and
a filter-based trading rule. Essentially, we generate profits using these buy and sell signals from
each of these three trading rules and take the average of these profits to make a judgement on
the profitability of sectors.
The short-run (j) moving average values range from one to three months, while the
long-run (i) moving average values range from nine to 12 months. In all combinations of short-
run and long-run moving average trading rules, 𝑗 < 𝑖. These combinations are as follows:
(SRMA1-LRMA9), (SRMA1-LRMA12); (SRMA2-LRMA9), (SRMA2-LRMA12); and
(SRMA3-LRMA9), (SRMA3-LRMA12). From these rules, we generate a buy signal, denoted
by a value of 1 in a particular month t, if SRMA1>LRMA9, while a sell signal is generated if
SRMA1<LRMA9. These buy and sell signals are generated for all six combinations of SR and
LR moving averages. Based on these signals, each month, we simultaneously long in the
winner (that is, when SRMA> LRMA) and short in the loser.
We also use momentum trading rules to generate buy and sell signals. With momentum
trading rules, we use two periods (m = 9, 12). Trading signals are generated based on whether
or not the current stock price is higher than the price “m” months ago: if it is, a buy signal is
1 See Neely et al. (2013) for an example of using technical indicators to predict equity risk premium.
7
generated (with a value of 1); otherwise, a sell signal (with a value of 0) is generated. Based
on this rule, we simultaneously long in winner and short in losers within an industry/sector.
Finally, we use a filter of 10% price threshold as a trading rule. If current return is 10%
higher than average return a buy signal is generated or else the signal is to sell. Accordingly, a
long position in winner and short position in loser stocks are taken.
Every time we take positions, we keep the investment for 1-month, 3-month and 6-
month holding periods. Using these three trading rules, we form average time-series profits for
winner, loser, momentum (winner – loser) and zero-cost (winner + loser) portfolios. For each
of these portfolios, we compute mean monthly average returns and standard deviation, which
is what we report in Tables presented in the next section.
3. Data and results
3.1. Data
Our data set comes from the National Stock Exchange (NSE) of India. We use the monthly
S&P CNX Nifty, the index of the NSE, which is comprised of 50 stocks from 24 sectors of the
Indian economy; for a nice recent discussion on the Indian stock market, see Narayan et al.
(2014). We use only six sectors in our analysis. We choose these six sectors because they are
the only sectors for which data are available from January 2001 to December 2012. For the rest
of the sectors, data start much later, which is not helpful for our empirical design. This sample
size, constrained by the start date is noted in Narayan et al. (2014). The main implication here
is that at the sector-level there is no historical time-series data for India that goes beyond 2000;
therefore, we, like the empirical literature, utilise what is available. Because our approach
requires a common start date and needs to have as long a time-series as possible, we end up
with only six sectors. These sectors together constitute approximately 60% of total market
8
capitalization, led by the banking sector (15.3%), energy sector (11.1%), and the FMCG sector
(10.2%). The sectoral indices are as follows:
1. CNX Bank Index: this index is comprised of the 12 most liquid and biggest
capitalized Indian banking stocks.
2. CNX MNC Index: this index is comprised of 15 listed companies in which foreign
shareholding is over 50% and/or the management control is vested in the foreign
company.
3. CNX IT Index: this index is comprised of 20 Information Technology (IT) stocks,
such as IT-related activities, in particular, IT Infrastructure, IT Education and
Software Training, Telecommunication Services and Networking Infrastructure,
Software Development, Hardware Manufacturers, Vending, Support and
Maintenance.
4. CNX FMCG Index: this index is comprised of 15 stocks from the Fast Moving
Consumer Goods industry (FMCG).
5. CNX Pharmaceutical Index: this is the index of the Pharmaceuticals sector and is
comprised of 10 stocks.
6. CNX Energy Index: this is the index of Petroleum, Gas and Power and is comprised
of 10 stocks.
A brief discussion of the data is in order here. We report descriptive statistics on returns
in Table 2. This table reports descriptive statistics relating to market (CNX Nifty) and sectoral
returns. Returns are computed as (𝑃𝑡 𝑃𝑡−1⁄ − 1) ∗ 100, where 𝑃𝑡 is the price index. Mean
returns, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis statistics’ are reported. These statistics are
based on monthly data for the period January 2001 to December 2012. The descriptive statistics
of the data suggest that monthly market returns over the sample period were 1.26% and four
9
sectors (banking, pharmaceutical, FMCG, and energy) had average returns in excess of market
returns. The monthly sectoral returns are in the 0.16-2.07% range. The standard deviation
reveals that the IT sector is most volatile; it is almost twice as volatile as the market. The rest
of the sectors are less volatile. In fact, three of the six sectors (FMCG, pharmaceutical, and
MNC) are less volatile than the market. Like mean returns, volatility also varies sector-by-
sector. All sectors have a negative skewness except for the banking sector returns. The IT sector
returns are the most negatively skewed. A similar picture emerges when reading the kurtosis
statistics, suggesting that the return distributions are all leptokurtic and more so for the IT
sector. Clearly, then, sectoral return behaviour is different and the IT sector stands in sharp
contrast to others.
INSERT TABLE 2
3.2. Results from momentum-based trading strategies
3.2.1 Results without short-selling
The main findings on the performance of each of the trading strategies for each of the
six sectors are reported in Table 3. Results in panel A are based on a strategy whereby the
investor is assumed to be naïve and, therefore, invests equally in all six sectors, irrespective of
their ranking. We call this strategy I. In panel B, we have an investor who invests 100% in the
first-ranked sector and has no interest in investing in the other sectors. We call this strategy II.
Panel C contains results from a strategy which invests 50% in the first-ranked sector and 25%
each in the sectors ranked two and three, leaving the rest of the worst-performing sectors in
cash positions. We call this strategy III. The fourth panel consists of returns from a strategy
that invests 70% and 30% in sectors ranked one and two, respectively. Again, as in previous
strategies, the investor leaves the rest of the sectors in cash positions. We call this strategy IV.
Evidence obtained from strategy I, where a naïve investor invests equally across all six
sectors, suggests that economic profits are statistically insignificant in energy and IT sectors
10
only. Monthly profits for the remaining four sectors are in the [0.22, 0.30] percentage range.
When we look at the evidence from strategy II, in all sectors, except banking and
pharmaceutical, profits are statistically different from zero. In other words, profits are
statistically significant at the 10% level or better for energy, IT, MNC, and FMCG sectors.
However, the magnitude of profits varies from sector-to-sector. It is the IT sector which gives
investors the most profits with a monthly average return of 0.815%, while the pharmaceutical
sector gives investors the least profit with a monthly average loss of 0.215%. When we collect
evidence from strategies III and IV, we discover profitability results consistent with strategy II
in terms of the most profitable and least profitable sectors. The most profitable sector
consistently appears to be IT while the least profitable sector is pharmaceutical. When we
consider all sectors as one portfolio, the monthly returns from strategies I to IV fall in the
[1.4%, 2.5%] range.
The main implication of our findings here is that profits across the three strategies,
excluding a strategy that assumes a naïve investor, are generally consistent on two fronts: first,
profits are statistically significant at the 10% level or better for four of the six sectors, although
profits are clearly sector-dependent—that is, the magnitude of profits is different in different
sectors. Second, the IT sector consistently out-performs the other sectors, while the
pharmaceutical sector produces the lowest profits. On the whole, then, the profitable sectors
are IT, energy, FMCG, and MNC.
There are other interesting features of our results which are worth highlighting.
Generally, we notice that with higher profits comes higher risk. An interesting trend here is
that as investors move from a strategy where they take a long position in the most attractive
sector (strategy II) to taking long positions in more than one sector (strategies III and IV) as
part of investment diversification, a decline in risk is experienced. The standard deviation for
the IT sector, for instance, declines from 3.6 in the case of strategy II to 2.1 and 2.7,
11
respectively, in the case of strategies III and IV. When we consider the performance of the
other five sectors, we notice a similar trend in that there is a decline in the standard deviation
as an investor moves from strategy II to strategy IV. The implication here is that a strategy
(such as our strategy III), that allows an investor to take a long position in multiple sectors,
leads to diversification of risk although the profits are smaller from such a strategy compared
to strategies II and IV.
INSERT TABLE 3
For each of the strategies, we report some additional statistics to gauge the performance
of the strategies. In particular, we report the probability that mean returns are greater than zero
and greater than the market (Nifty) return. Ignoring the naïve investor (Strategy I), we notice
that in strategy III, where we allow an investor to diversify risk by taking long positions in the
top-3 sectors, the probability that returns are greater than zero is highest for all sectors. For
example, with strategy III, 34% of the time IT sector returns are greater than zero. Moreover,
when we compare sectoral returns with the market return, we find that all three strategies
(strategies II, III, and IV) reveal that for the IT, FMCG, and banking sectors, over 35% of the
time returns exceed the market return. Finally, the paired t-test reveals that for most sectors
returns from each strategy are statistically significant relative to the market, mostly at the 10%
level of significance.
3.2.2. Results with short-selling
Background
Short-selling is the practice of selling shares that the seller does not own at the time of trading.
In India, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the regulator of the Indian capital
market, defines a ‘short sale’ as “selling of the shares without having the physical possession
of the shares unless it is either for squaring-up of an earlier purchase in the same settlement of
12
the same stock exchange, or against the pending deliveries from the same stock exchange
pertaining to previous settlements” (SEBI, 1996). There are various phases associated with
short-selling activities in the Indian market. First, in the 1990s, only retail investors were
allowed to short-sell. The Badla system and the weekly settlement system were in place Weekly
settlement with T+5 days ensured that investors made payments and took delivery of securities
within five days after the day of the transaction. The Badla system, by comparison, was useful
when investors preferred to postpone the settlement of a transaction from one settlement period
to another. Both these systems governing short-selling activities were instrumental in
increasing the volume of trading, which was responsible for high stock price volatility. This
needed a response; the SEBI temporarily banned short-selling in 1998 and 2001. Second, a
more stringent measure was taken by SEBI, who abolished the Badla system on 2 July, 2001.
In fact, the Badla system was replaced by a rolling settlement system, with T+3 days settlement
system. Third, from 1 April, 2003, the Indian stock market moved to the T+2 rolling settlement
system. Therefore, the payment and delivery of securities had to be completed within two days
after the day of the transaction (Pathak, 2008).
Fourth, in 2007, the SEBI allowed all classes of investors, including institutional
investors, to short-sell in the Indian stock market. However, naked short-selling was not
permitted; all investors are required to mandatorily honour their obligation of delivering the
securities at the time of settlement. Similarly, in 2007, the SEBI introduced a fully-fledged
Securities Lending and Borrowing Scheme (SLBS) for the effective transaction of short-
selling. Through this scheme, investors can borrow and lend securities through approved
intermediaries (SEBI, 2010). The SLBS is applicable in the cash market.
Table 4 shows the details of settlement of trade in the cash segment of NSE, such as the
traded quantity, deliverable quantity, and the percentage of deliverable quantity to traded
quantity for the period 2001-2002 to 2010-2011. This table reveals that the total traded quantity
13
of shares is high during the stock market boom period (2003-2007). However, the delivered
quantity of shares is much low compared to the traded quantity. During 2000-2011, the average
delivered shares was around 24% of total traded quantity. This implies that the remaining 76%
of trading is for speculative purposes for day trading. The day trade can be either short-selling
of securities or long-buying of securities, those who buy (long) will square their long position
or those who sell (short) will cover their short sales before market close. Accordingly, for every
short sale there will be a corresponding long (buy). Since there is limited availability of data
on short- selling in the Indian stock market, we use the above non-delivered quantity of
shares—that is, 76%—as a proxy for the size of short selling.1
INSERT TABLE 4
Findings
In Table 5, we report the results of sectoral profitability by simply assuming a short-selling of
100%, which is close to what we estimate short-selling to be on the Indian stock market. The
results are reported for only those three strategies where an investor is able to take long and
short positions by forming an arbitrage portfolio with zero investment. The key findings from
the short-selling based trading across three different strategies can be summarised as follows:
The IT sector is the most profitable. The monthly average profits are in the 0.65-1.1%
range.
The pharmaceutical sector is the least profitable with profits/loss in the -0.37 to 0.02%
range.
In terms of sectoral profitability, all three strategies produce very consistent results.
However, in terms of risk, we notice a reduction when an investor moves from strategy II
1 While it is true that the magnitude of short-selling is unknown, the impact of short-selling on the India market
has been of interest. In a recent study, for instance, Giannikos and Gousgounis (2012) find that during the period
of short-sale ban (2001-2007) the equity market was overpriced compared to the futures market. They argue that
the main source of overpricing was opinion dispersion. They further document that overpricing declined when the
short-selling ban was lifted.
14
to a relatively more diversified strategy. Consider the IT sector, for example. The standard
deviation declines from 4.77% with strategy II to 2.56% with strategy III.
Profits in the four profitable sectors are much higher when short-selling is allowed
compared to profits obtained from strategies that do not allow for short-selling. Taking the
evidence from strategy III, IT profits are almost 172% higher under short-selling compared
to a case of no short-selling. The second largest gain in profits from short-selling is
achieved by the energy sector (80%), followed by the FMCG sector (40%). The smallest
increase in profits with short-selling is experienced by the MNC sector whose profits
increase only by 4.5%.
When all sectors are considered as a portfolio, the portfolio returns from Strategies II to IV
fall in the [1.98%, 3.69%] range.
INSERT TABLE 5
3.2.3. Results in the pre-crisis and crisis periods
Several studies (see, inter alia, Longstaff, 2010) have shown that the performance of stock
markets has been negatively affected by the 2007 global financial crisis. This literature has
analysed the stock markets from different perspectives. We re-estimate sectoral profits by
splitting the sample into a pre-crisis period (30 August 2002 to 31 March 2007) and a period
including the crisis (1 April 2007 to 31 December 2012). The results for the pre-crisis period
are reported in Table 6, while results from the crisis period are reported in Table 7.
INSERT TABLES 6 AND 7
These results are interesting and reveal the following. First, in the pre-crisis period, there is
mixed evidence on profitability. For example, while strategy III reveals profitability for five
out of six sectors (with the exception of the pharmaceutical sector), strategies II and IV reveal
profitability for only energy and FMCG, and MNC and FMCG sectors, respectively. Compare
15
this with the crisis period: strategies II, III and IV consistently suggest that energy and IT are
the only profitable sectors. Second, the FMCG and IT sectors remain the most profitable in
pre-crisis and crisis periods, respectively. Third, two sectors, namely, MNC and FMCG, which
were profitable in the pre-crisis period become unprofitable in the crisis period.
3.2.4. A robustness test
One aspect of our empirical analysis which remains unclear is that related to short-selling. The
amount of short-selling allowed on the Indian stock market is not made public. Therefore, in
this paper, we estimate it to be around 76%. This analysis on short-selling is, itself, a
contribution to the literature. We then allowed for short-selling of 100% in our empirical
analysis, as reported in the previous section. We want to test how profits will change if we
reduce the amount of short-selling to something like 76%, which is closest to what we believe
is allowed on the Indian stock market. We do this and report the results in Table 8.
INSERT TABLE 8
The main findings can be summarised as follows:
1. Like with 100% short-selling, four of the six sectoral profits are statistically significant.
2. Like with 100% short-selling, the ranking of sectors does not change much, except that in
two of the three strategies, the energy sector becomes more profitable than the IT sector.
3. Compared with 100% short-selling, there are only very marginal changes in the magnitude
of profits for some sectors, but not all. In three of the four profitable sectors, profits are
higher with 100% short-selling compared to when short-selling is restricted to 76%.
3.3. Results from technical trading rule-based strategies
The results from technical trading profits based on the moving average, momentum and filter
rules, averaged across strategies and over time, are presented in Table 9. Two results are of
particular relevance. First, we notice that unlike the rank-based trading strategy profits, here
16
returns from all six sectors are profitable; that is, they are statistically different from zero at the
1% level. This result holds regardless of the month of holding period. Over the six-month
holding period, for example, we notice that both momentum profits (that is, winner minus loser
profits) and the zero-cost portfolio profits (winner plus loser profits) are maximised for the
banking sector followed by the energy sector. Second, the magnitude of profits are higher in
all sectors compared to a rank-based momentum trading strategy as reported earlier.
TABLE 9
For each stock in a sector, winners and losers are identified from buy and sell signals generated
using the three technical trading rules explained earlier. As before, the buy and sell signals are
generated every month and profits are averaged (across the three technical trading strategies)
every month, generating a time-series of winner minus loser and zero-cost portfolios. This is
to say that portfolios are re-balanced every month. The momentum returns are computed as the
difference between returns of winners and losers whereas the portfolio return is computed as
the sum of returns of winners and losers. The figures reported in Panel A of Table 10 are these
time-series averages and their standard deviation. All profits are statistically different from zero
at (at least) the 10% level of significance.
Next we follow Jegadeesh and Titman (1993) and estimate profits based on buying
winners and selling losers. The idea is simple and proceeds as follows. Based on the geometric
mean of returns sectors are ranked from 1 to 6. Sectors ranked 1 and 2 are taken as winner
sectors while the loser sectors are those ranked 5 and 6. The strategy then is to invest equally
in winner sectors and short equally in loser sectors, holding the portfolios for 1-month, 3-
month, and 6-month horizons. Portfolios are rebalanced every month and momentum and zero-
cost portfolio returns are computed. These results are reported in panel B.
This is what we find. First, with respect to individual stock momentum, we find that:
(a) average returns from both winner minus losers and zero-cost portfolios offer positive and
17
statistically significant (at least at the 5% level of significance) returns in all sectors; and (b)
profits, in terms of magnitude, increase with the portfolio holding period. Second, when
portfolios are held for three and six months, zero-cost portfolio returns are maximised for the
IT sector, followed by banking and MNC sectors. Moreover, at the 6-month holding period
average returns from both winner minus loser and zero-cost portfolios are again maximised for
the IT sector, followed by the banking sector. Third, at the industry-level, average returns of
all winner minus loser portfolios are positive and statistically significant at the 1% level. By
comparison, the zero-cost portfolio only offers positive and significant monthly average returns
in 1-month and 6-month holding periods.
In addition, just to compare the performance over different holding periods, we plot in
Figure 1, average (across sectors) cumulative momentum profits for 1-month, 3-month, 6-
month, 12-month, and 24-month horizons. We observe a clear pattern; that is, momentum
profits for holding periods 1-month to 12-month are fairly consistent but profits at the 24-month
horizon are substantially different, and suggest a weaker momentum.
INSERT FIGURE 1
On the whole, there are two clear messages from these individual and industry-based
portfolio returns. The first point is about whether an investor should devise a trading strategy
based on stocks or sectors? There is mixed evidence on this. Consider the 1-month holding
period first. At the industry-level, the momentum portfolio and the zero-cost portfolio offer
investors an average return of 2.97% and 2.57%, respectively, which are in excess of the
corresponding sectoral average returns, except in the case of the banking sector. Therefore, at
a short holding period of 1-month it seems economically significant for an investor to trade on
winner and loser sectors/industry as opposed to winner and loser stocks unless of course the
investor is only keen in investing in the banking sector. At the 3-month horizon, by comparison,
the momentum portfolio of the industry beats the average returns from winner minus loser
18
stocks in each sector, but the average industry zero-cost portfolio makes a loss of 0.41% per
month whereas all zero-cost sectoral portfolios make a statistically significant profit. The
second point relates to the longest holding period—the 6-month portfolio; here, both winner
minus loser and zero-cost portfolios of the industry offer less profits than corresponding profits
from sectoral portfolios. Therefore, where short horizon portfolios favour sectors over the
industry as a whole, long horizon portfolios offer the complete opposite implication for
investors.
Following Barroso and Santa-Clara (2013), we also compute risk-adjusted momentum
returns (Mom*), which is simply a target volatility (which we take as the standard deviation
over the analysis period) multiplied by the actual momentum returns over time normalised by
a time-varying volatility, which we proxy using a rolling-window of six months. We generally
observe that profits from both momentum and zero-cost portfolios are less than the risk-
adjusted profits; however, the results are robust in the sense that average returns from both
portfolios are positive and statistically different from zero.
INSERT TABLE 10
In Table 11, we return to our average profits obtained from the three technical trading
rules. All stocks are collected and sorted on the basis of size (market capitalisation), book-to-
market, and liquidity (number of transactions). We do this in order to test the robustness of our
industry-based results reported in panel B of Table 10, motivated by empirical results presented
in Moskowitz and Grinblatt (1999), amongst others. Under each of these three control
measures, quartiles of stocks are created. For example, for size-based stocks, the first quantile
includes the largest 25% of stocks while quantile four includes the smallest 25% of stocks in
our sample. When performance is controlled by book-to-market ratio, the first quantile includes
19
the 25% of stocks which have the highest book-to-market ratio while the fourth quantile
includes the 25% of stocks with the lowest book-to-market ratio.
Finally, when performance is judged on the basis of liquidity, quantile one includes the
25% most liquid stocks while the 25% of stocks with the least liquidity (that is, the 25% most
illiquid stocks) are in quantile four. For each quantile under each control measure, we identify
winners and losers based on buy and sell signals, identified using technical trading rules. We
equally invest in winners in period “t” and short in losers. From this investment strategy, a
time-series of momentum returns is computed (returns of winners minus returns of losers) and
a time-series of portfolio returns is also computed (returns of winners plus returns of losers).
There are two main findings here. First, profits are positive and statistically significant
regardless of how stocks are sorted. Therefore, that the Indian stock market is profitable holds
across a range of widely used control measures. Second, the most highly liquid stocks (25% of
the most liquid stocks) on the Indian market offer the highest average returns from both the
winner minus loser portfolio and the zero-cost portfolio. This is true regardless of the holding
period.
INSERT TABLE 11
The final part of our analysis is with regard to the difference in profitability results we
obtain. Two aspects of the Indian stock market has become clear. First, the market is profitable.
A range of different strategies tend to offer investors statistically significant monthly returns.
Second, when we estimate profits by sector, we observe that while most strategies support
sectoral profitability to hold for all six sectors, profits tend to be sector-specific. This
heterogeneity in sectoral profits is not surprising but is rather expected. This type of sector-
specific results can best be explained by the “information diffusion” hypothesis, proposed by
Hong et al. (2007), and empirically tested by Westerlund and Narayan (2014a), who show that
different types of financial ratios predict returns of some sectors more successfully than others.
20
Moreover, Hong et al. (2007) test whether industry portfolios predict movements in stock
markets. They find that 14 out of 34 industries can predict movements in stock markets,
suggesting support for the information diffusion hypothesis. More specially, they claim, on the
evidence of this predictability, that the stock market reacts with a delay to information
contained in industry returns. Motivated by these findings, we test whether market returns
predict sectoral returns on the Indian stock market. Essentially, our time-series predictive
regression model has the following form:
𝑆𝑅𝑡 = 𝛼 + 𝛽𝑀𝑅𝑡−1 + 𝜀𝑡
Where 𝑆𝑅 is the sectoral stock return and 𝑀𝑅 is the market return lagged one period
over time 𝑡 which is monthly from January 2001 to December 2012. The returns are computed
as the natural log difference of market price and stock price indices. The null hypothesis is that
the market return does not predict sectoral stock returns. To test for the null hypothesis, we
estimate the model using the generalised least squares estimator proposed by Westerlund and
Narayan (2012, 2014b). The two main features relevant for our predictive regression model
are: (a) predictor endogeneity; and (b) heteroskedasticity. Both these issues characterise
predictive regression models where high frequency data are used and where returns appear on
both sides of the regression model. The results, reported in Table 12, are as follows. First, our
predictor variable—market returns—is endogenous. This endogeneity is present in all sectoral
predictive regression models. Second, the ARCH-LM test on filtered returns based on an
autoregressive model with 12 lags, suggests that the null hypothesis of no heteroskedasticity
can be strongly rejected at the 1% level for both the market returns and all the sectoral returns.
Third, the null hypothesis of no predictability is rejected strongly at the 1% level for all six
sectors and the coefficient on predictability is in the range of 0.264 (pharmaceutical sector) and
0.869 (IT sector). This finding suggests that the sectoral returns react to market returns with
different speeds. For example, a 1% increase in market returns predicts a 0.869% increase in
21
IT sector’s returns but the effect of the market is almost four times smaller on the returns of the
pharmaceutical sector. This is suggestive of a gradual diffusion of information from the market
to its sectors.
INSERT TABLE 12
4. Concluding remarks
In this paper we examine whether, using a range of trading strategies, investors can make
profits from the Indian stock market. Our contributions are three-fold. First, unlike the extant
literature, we examine profitability at the sector-level; yet, we do not ignore the market. We
employ a range of trading strategies, allowing an investor to take long and short positions, and
consistently find that the IT sector is the most profitable. Second, a controversial issue about
which not much public information is available relates to the magnitude of short-selling. We
provide an analysis and estimate the magnitude of short- selling on the Indian market.
We undertake a range of robustness tests, including identifying winners and losers from
technical trading rules and past performance, controlling for industry size, book-to-market, and
liquidity factors, and generating risk-adjusted momentum and zero-cost portfolio profits. All
results point to the profitability of the Indian stock market. Importantly, we discover that some
sectors are relatively more profitable than others. We show that this sector-specific profitability
is due to information diffusion—that is, the market returns, while they do predict all six sectoral
returns, the magnitude of predictability varies from sector-to-sector. So, in our analysis, the
source of information diffusion is not only the evidence that market returns predict stock
returns but also that the speed of predictability is different for different sectors.
There are two main implications emerging from our study. Both relate to prospects for
future studies. First, we believe that future studies, not only on the Indian stock market but on
stock markets in general, should show respect to sectoral heterogeneity in any hypothesis
22
testing that involves sectors of a market. Second, in light of lack of concrete information on
short-selling in the Indian stock exchange, our estimate of the degree of short-selling is merely
a prediction. We emphasise on this point strongly, for we hope future studies will improve
upon our prediction error (if any), and, in doing so, our study sets the motivation for future
research on this subject. We are most excited about these future research outcomes.
23
REFERENCES
Barroso, P., and Santa-Clara, P., (2013) Momentum has its moments, Unpublished Manuscript.
Bizjak, J.M., Brickley, J.A., and Coles, J.L., (1993) Stock-based incentive compensation and
investment behaviour, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 16, 349-372.
Chakrabarty,K.C (2009), Banking and finance in India: developments, issues and prospects,
BIS Review, 101, Bank for International Settlement.
Chang, E.J., Lima, E.J.A., and Tabak, B.M., (2004) Testing for predictability in emerging
equity markets, Emerging Markets Review, 5, 295-316.
Dicle, M.F., Beyhan, A., and Yao, L.J., (2010) Market efficiency and international
diversification: Evidence from India, International Review of Economics and Finance, 19, 313-
339.
Giannikos, C.I., and Gousgounis, E., (2012) Short sale constraints and dispersion of opinion:
Evidence from the Indian equity market, Financial Review, 47, 115-143.
Gunasekarage, A., and Power, D.M., (2001) The profitability of moving average trading rules
in South Asian stock markets, Emerging Markets Review, 2, 17-33.
Hong, H., Torous, W., and Valkanov, R., (2007) Do industries lead stock market? Journal of
Financial Economics, 83, 367-396.
24
ICRA (2011) The Indian pharmaceutical sector, ICRA Limited—An Associate of Moody’s
Investors Services, www.icra.in.
Jegadeesh, N., and Titman, S., (1993) Returns to buying winners and selling losers:
Implications for stock market efficiency, Journal of Finance, 48, 65-91.
Jegadeesh, N., and Titman, S., (2001) Profitability of momentum strategies: An evaluation of
alternative explanations, Journal of Finance, 56, 699-720.
Joglekar, P., and Paterson, M.L., (1986) A closer look at the returns and risks of pharmaceutical
R&D, Journal of Health Economics, 5, 153-177.
Kadapakkam, P-R., and Misra, L., (2003) Return linkages between dual listings under arbitrage
restrictions: A study of Indian stocks and their London global depositary receipts, Financial
Review, 38, 611-633.
Kumar, K., Mamidi, V., and Marisetty, V., (2011) Global markets exposure and price
efficiency: An empirical analysis of order flow dynamics of NYSE-listed Indian firms, Journal
of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 21, 686-706.
Lee, C.I., and I. Mathur (1996a) Trading rule profits in European currency spot cross-rates,
Journal of Banking and Finance, 20, 949–962.
Lee, C.I., and I. Mathur (1996b) A comprehensive look at the efficacy of technical trading rules
applied to cross-rates, European Journal of Finance, 2, 389–411.
25
Longstaff, F.A., (2010) The subprime credit crisis and contagion in financial markets, Journal
of Financial Economics, 97, 436-450.
Majumder, D., (2013) Towards an efficient stock market: Empirical evidence from the Indian
market, Journal of Policy Modeling, 35, 572-587.
Mishra, K.R., Sehgal, S., and Bhanumurthy, N.R., (2011) A search for long-range dependence
and chaotic structure in Indian stock market, Review of Financial Economics, 20, 96-104.
Moskowitz, T.J., and Grinblatt, M., (1999) Do industries explain momentum? Journal of
Finance, 54, 1249-1290.
Narayan, P.K., Narayan, S., and Sharma, S., (2013) An analysis of commodity markets: What
gain for investors? Journal of Banking and Finance, 37, 3878-3889.
Narayan, P.K., Narayan, S., KP, P., (2014) Stock returns, mutual fund flows and spillover
shocks, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 29, 146-162.
Narayan, P.K., Ahmed, H.A., and Narayan, S, (2014) Do momentum-based trading strategies
work in the commodity futures markets? Journal of Futures Markets, DOI: 10.1002/fut.21685.
Narayan, P.K., and Ahmed, H.A., (2014) Importance of skewness in decision making:
Evidence from the Indian stock exchange, Global Finance Journal (In Press).
26
Neely, C.J., Rapach, D.E., Tu, J., and Zhou, G., (2013) Forecasting the equity risk premium:
The role of technical indicators, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Loius Working Paper Series,
Working Paper 2010-008H.
NSE (2011) Indian Securities Market: A Review, Chapter 1, Securities Market in India - An
Overview, page: 5-7.
Okunev, J., and White, D., (2003) Do momentum-based strategies still work in foreign
currency markets? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 38, 425-447.
Pathak, B., (2008) The Indian financial system –markets, institutions, and services, Pearson
Publication, 215-217. incomplete
PWC (2011) 2012 Outlook for the retail and consumer products sector in Asia, PWC,
www.pwc.com
Reserve Bank of India, (2009) Annual Report, Reserve Bank of India, www.rbi.org.in.
Reserve Bank of India, (2012) Part One: The Economy: review and prospects, The Annual
Report on the Working of the Reserve Bank of India, RBI, www.rbi.org.in.
SEBI (1996) Report of the B.D. Shah committee on short-sales, Securities and Exchange
Board of India, Mumbai.
SEBI (2010), Master circular for stock exchanges on Trading, Securities and Exchange Board
of India, Mumbai.
27
Sampath, P G (2008). India’s Pharmaceutical Sector in 2008: Emerging Strategies and Global
and Local Implications for Access to Medicines. Report Commissioned by Department for
International Development (DFID), London.
Szakmary, A.C., and I. Mathur (1997) Central bank intervention and trading rule profits in
foreign exchange markets, Journal of International Money and Finance, 16, 513–535.
Vora, B.R., (2012) FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) sector,
www.iseindia.com/ResearchPDF/FMCG_Update1.pdf.
Westerlund, J., and Narayan, P., (2014b) Testing for predictability in conditionally
heteroskedastic stock returns, Journal of Financial Econometrics, doi:10.1093/jjfinec/nbu001.
Westerlund, J., and Narayan, P., (2014a) A random coefficient approach to the predictability
of stock returns in panels, Journal of Financial Econometrics, doi:10.1093/jjfinec/nbu003.
Westerlund, J., and Narayan, P.K., (2012) Does the choice of estimator matter when forecasting
returns? Journal of Banking and Finance, 36(9), 2632-2640.
28
-40
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
12 M 1 M 24 M3 M 6 M
%
Year
Fig. 1. A time-series plot of average cumulative momentum profits. This figure plots the cumulative average
momentum profits. These profits are average over time (December 2003 to December 2012) for the six sectors
for 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, 2-month, and 24-month horizons.
29
Table 1
A summary of trading rules and trading strategies.
Each month, from January 2001 through December 2012, each sector is ranked from one to six based on the
difference between the short-run MA and long-run MA of prior returns, using MA combinations for each strategy
under the respective scenarios. Using the differences between the short-run and long-run MA, we take a long
position in the most attractive sector (rank 1) and a short position in the least attractive sector (rank 6) in the case
of short-selling, or simply take a cash position in the case of no short-selling. The short-run MA parameter ranges
from 1 month to 12 months, while the long-run MA parameter runs from 2 months to 36 months.
Panel A: Scenario I: With 100% short-selling allowed
Strategy MA rules (in number of
months)
Long and short positions
Two [1,2] – [12,36] Long position: rank 1 (100%)
Cash position: rank 2,3,4,5 (0%)
Short position: rank 6 (-100%)
Three [1,2] – [12,36] Long position: rank 1 (50%)
Long position: rank 2,3 (25%)
Cash position: rank 4,5 (0%)
Short position: rank 6 (-100%)
Four [1,2] – [12,36] Long position: rank 1 (70%)
Long position: rank 2 (30%)
Cash position: rank 3 (0%)
Short position: rank 4 (-100%)
Panel B: Scenario II: Short-selling not allowed
Strategy MA rules (in number of
months)
Long and short positions
One: Naive strategy [1,2] – [12,36] Invest equally across 6 sectors
Two [1,2] – [12,36] Long position: rank 1 (100%)
Take no position: rank 2,3,4,5,6 (0%)
Three [1,2] – [12,36] Long position: rank 1 (50%)
Long position: rank 2,3 (25% each)
Take no position: rank 4,5,6 (0%)
Four [1,2] – [12,36] Long position: rank 1 (70%)
Long position: rank (30%)
Panel C: Scenario III: Trading strategies based on limited short-selling
Two [1,2] – [12,36] Long position: rank 1 (100%)
Long position: rank 2 (76%)
Take no position: rank 2,3,4,5, (0%)
Short position: rank 6(-76%)
Three [1,2] – [12,36] Long position: rank 1 (76%)
Long position: rank 2,3,4,5 (25% each)
Short position: rank 6 (-76%)
Four [1,2] – [12,36] Long position: rank 1 (70%)
Long position: rank 2 (30%)
Long position: rank 3,4 (38% each)
Short Position: rank 6 (-76%)
30
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics.
This table reports the descriptive statistics relating to market (CNX Nifty) and sectoral returns. Returns are
computed as (𝑃𝑡 𝑃𝑡−1⁄ − 1) ∗ 100 , where 𝑃 is the price index. Mean returns, standard deviation, skewness, and
kurtosis statistics are reported. We also report the coefficient from the AR(1) model of returns and it t-statistic in
the parenthesis (see Column III). Mean AR(1) JB_Q-stat
(24)
Std.Dev. Skewness Kurtosis
S&P CNX Nifty 1.2554 0.3516***
(4.4445)
36.183*
(0.053)
6.3394 -0.4282 4.4843
Banking 2.0732 0.3021***
(0.3753)
34.713*
(0.073)
8.3150 0.1257 4.0234
IT 0.1647 0.2221***
(2.6948)
34.2*
(0.081)
11.6485 -3.2839 26.2201
FMCG 1.3337 0.2343***
(2.8501)
20.47
(0.670)
5.0056 -0.4906 3.4735
Pharmaceutical 1.4228 0.3193***
(0.0001)
34.099*
(0.083)
5.4157 -0.5877 4.4917
Energy 1.6408 0.2972***
(3.7316)
31.494
(0.140)
7.0763 -0.0413 4.5763
MNC 1.1504 0.3333***
(0.0001)
34.32*
(0.079)
5.6119 -0.4685 4.3218
31
Table 3
Performance of long and short strategies with short-sell restriction (short-selling not allowed).
This table reports monthly mean returns without short-selling. The row with “Prob>0” denotes the percentage to
total months in which profits from a given strategy exceeds zero. The row with “Prob>market” represents the
percentage of total months in which profits from a given strategy exceeds the market return. Here, we use the S&P
CNX Nifty as a benchmark for the market. The paired t-test indicates whether or not the return from each of the
strategies is significantly greater than the market return. ***, ** and * represent statistical significance at the 1%,
5% and 10% levels, respectively.
Banking Energy IT MNC FMCG Pharmaceutical
Panel A: Strategy I
Mean Rets % 0.303** 0.164 0.175 0.225** 0.294*** 0.217**
Std. Dev. 1.459 1.107 1.150 0.971 0.852 0.904
Prob. > 0 (%) 57.273 61.818 58.182 61.818 68.182 60.000
Prob. > Market (%) 34.545 30.909 33.636 31.818 35.255 32.727
Paired t-test -1.931 -2.211 -2.187 -2.109 -1.989 -2.2128
Panel B: Strategy II
Mean Rets % 0.286 0.628** 0.815** 0.373** 0.587*** -0.215
Std. Dev. 2.871 2.873 3.617 1.929 2.168 2.536
Prob. > 0 (%) 9.091 8.182 20.000 3.636 20.000 6.364
Prob. > Market (%) 34.545 37.273 40.909 35.455 44.545 33.636
Paired t-test -1.903 -1.23 -0.85 -1.735 -1.342 -2.661
Panel C: Strategy III
Mean Rets % 0.297 0.379** 0.418** 0.377*** 0.447*** 0.010
Std. Dev. 1.971 1.701 2.095 1.291 1.447 1.408
Prob. > 0 (%) 27.27 21.82 33.64 35.45 46.36 26.36
Prob. > Market (%) 36.36 33.64 38.18 31.82 37.27 31.82
Paired t-test -1.942 -1.745 -1.640 -1.783 -1.633 -2.461
Panel D: Strategy IV
Mean Rets % 0.283 0.531*** 0.618** 0.390*** 0.556*** -0.129
Std. Dev. 2.225 2.192 2.696 1.481 1.730 1.845
Prob. > 0 (%) 20.00 14.55 30.00 16.36 34.55 12.73
Prob. > Market (%) 35.45 35.45 39.09 32.73 37.27 30.91
Paired t-test -1.887 -1.462 -1.27 -1.772 -1.456 -2.656
32
Table 4
Settlement in Cash Segment of NSE.
This table shows the details of settlement of trade in the cash segment of NSE, such as the traded quantity,
deliverable quantity, and the percentage of deliverable quantity to traded quantity for the period 2000-2001 to
2010-2011.
Year Traded quantity
(lakh)
Deliverable quantity
(lakh)
% of Delivered quantity
to traded quantity
2001-2002 274695 59299 21.59
2002-2003 365403 82353 16.5
2003-2004 704537 175546 24.92
2004-2005 787996 202276 25.67
2005-2006 818438 227239 27.76
2006-2007 850510 239070 28.11
2007-2008 148123 367970 24.84
2008-2009 141893 275270 21.59
2009-2010 220588 47481 21.86
2010-2011 181091 49737 27.47
Average 23.6
Source: SEBI Bullen (various months).
33
Table 5
Performance of long and short strategies with short-selling allowed (100%). This table reports monthly mean returns based on short-selling. The row with “Prob>0” denotes the percentage to
total months in which profits from a given strategy exceeds zero. The row with “Prob>market” represents the
percentage of total months in which profits from a given strategy exceeds the market return. Here, we use the S&P
CNX Nifty as a benchmark for the market. The paired t-test indicates whether or not the return from each of the
strategies is significantly greater than the market return. ***, ** and * represent statistical significance at the 1%,
5% and 10% levels, respectively.
Banking Energy IT MNC FMCG Pharmaceutical
Panel A: Strategy II
Mean Rets % 0.125 0.822** 0.889** 0.398* 0.433** -0.365
Std. Dev. 5.764 4.167 4.770 2.194 3.092 2.901
Prob. > 0 (%) 19.09 14.55 35.45 4.55 27.27 10.00
Prob. > Market (%) 35.45 35.45 41.82 34.55 44.55 32.73
Paired t-test -1.763 -0.824 -0.687 -1.692 -1.532 -2.868
Panel B: Strategy III
Mean Rets % 0.823*** 0.684*** 1.138*** 0.394*** 0.630*** 0.017
Std. Dev. 2.299 2.061 2.562 1.296 1.630 1.503
Prob. > 0 (%) 48.79 34.55 60.91 38.18 57.27 31.82
Prob. > Market (%) 37.27 33.64 41.82 30.91 39.09 32.73
Paired t-test -0.952 -1.208 -0.403 -1.779 -1.332 -2.868
Panel C: Strategy IV
Mean Rets % 0.165 0.686** 0.645* 0.326* 0.402** -0.240
Std. Dev. 5.527 3.710 4.144 1.572 2.793 2.355
Prob. > 0 (%) 30.00 20.00 45.45 16.36 41.82 17.27
Prob. > Market (%) 36.36 34.55 40.00 32.73 38.18 30.91
Paired t-test -1.786 -1.045 -1.69 -1.853 -1.594 -2.74
34
Table 6
Performance of long and short strategies with short-selling allowed (100%): Pre-crisis period. This table reports monthly mean returns from short-selling over the pre-crisis period. The row with “Prob>0”
denotes the percentage to total months in which profits from a given strategy exceeds zero. The row with
“Prob>market” represents the percentage of total months in which profits from a given strategy exceeds the market
return. Here, we use the S&P CNX Nifty as a benchmark for the market. The paired t-test indicates whether or
not the return from each of the strategies is significantly greater than the market return.
Banking Energy IT MNC FMCG Pharmaceutical
Panel A: Strategy II
Mean Rets % 0.125 0.970* 0.159 0.600 0.992* 0.017
Std. Dev. 5.286 3.585 4.358 2.627 3.691 1.785
Prob. > 0 (%) 19.149 12.766 31.915 6.383 31.915 8.511
Prob. > Market (%) 27.660 29.787 29.787 27.660 38.298 23.404
Paired t-test -1.871 -0.778 -1.489 -1.673 -1.151 -2.242
Panel B: Strategy III
Mean Rets % 0.644*** 0.850*** 1.146*** 0.594*** 1.321*** 0.272
Std. Dev. 2.093 1.692 2.858 1.557 1.758 0.923
Prob. > 0 (%) 19.149 12.766 31.915 6.383 31.915 8.511
Prob. > Market (%) 36.170 23.404 34.043 23.404 31.915 25.532
Paired t-test -1.154 -1.259 -0.857 -1.763 -0.926 -2.209
Panel C: Strategy IV
Mean Rets % -0.167 0.351 0.125 0.517** 0.939* 0.222
Std. Dev. 5.527 3.710 4.144 1.572 2.793 2.355
Prob. > 0 (%) 25.532 19.149 46.809 19.149 46.809 14.894
Prob. > Market (%) 34.043 27.660 27.660 25.532 27.660 23.404
Paired t-test -1.867 -1.194 -1.687 -1.869 -1.265 -2.209
35
Table 7
Performance of long and short strategies with short-selling allowed (100%): Crisis period.
This table reports mean monthly returns from short-selling over the crisis period. The row with “Prob>0” denotes
the percentage to total months in which profits from a given strategy exceeds zero. The row with “Prob>market”
represents the percentage of total months in which profits from a given strategy exceeds the market return. Here,
we use the S&P CNX Nifty as a benchmark for the market. The paired t-test indicates whether or not the return
from each of the strategies is significantly greater than the market return. ***, ** and * represent statistical
significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.
Banking Energy IT MNC FMCG Pharmaceutical
Panel A: Strategy II
Mean Rets % 0.017 1.070* 1.327** 0.250 0.036 -0.626
Std. Dev. 6.110 4.533 5.019 1.850 2.562 3.453
Prob. > 0 (%) 19.048 15.873 38.095 3.175 23.810 11.111
Prob. > Market (%) 41.270 39.683 50.794 39.683 49.206 39.683
Paired t-test -0.776 0.389 0.375 -0.781 -1.020 -1.776
Panel B: Strategy III
Mean Rets % 0.989*** 0.739** 1.145*** 0.248 0.144 -0.161
Std. Dev. 2.431 2.290 2.362 1.072 1.347 1.781
Prob. > 0 (%) 50.794 36.508 60.317 34.921 47.619 30.159
Prob. > Market (%) 38.095 41.270 47.619 36.508 44.444 38.095
Paired t-test 0.049 -0.502 0.213 -0.831 -0.717 -1.197
Panel C: Strategy IV
Mean Rets % 0.121 0.901*** 0.984*** 0.192 0.035 -0.547
Std. Dev. 5.986 4.062 4.454 1.420 2.357 2.677
Prob. > 0 (%) 34.921 22.222 46.032 14.286 38.095 19.048
Prob. > Market (%) 37.089 41.270 49.206 38.095 46.032 36.508
Paired t-test 0.034 0.551 0.465 0.157 -0.176 -0.291
36
Table 8
Performance of long and short strategies with limited short-selling allowed (maximum of 76% short-selling). This table reports mean monthly returns from limited short-selling. The row with “prob>0” denotes the percentage
to total months in which profits from a given strategy exceeds zero. The row with “Prob>market” represents the
percentage of total months in which profits from a given strategy exceeds the market return. Here, we use the S&P
CNX Nifty as a benchmark for the market. The paired t-test indicates whether or not the return from each of the
strategies is significantly greater than the market return. ***, ** and * represent statistical significance at the 1%,
5% and 10% levels, respectively.
Banking Energy IT MNC FMCG Pharmaceutical
Panel A: Strategy II
Mean Rets % 0.251 0.735** 0.852* 0.370* 0.579** -0.294
Std. Dev. 4.863 3.680 4.580 2.048 2.779 2.817
Prob. > 0 (%) 31.818 17.273 45.455 13.636 40.909 17.273
Prob. > Market (%) 35.455 37.273 42.727 34.545 45.455 34.545
Paired t-test -1.579 0.970 0.742 -1.729 -1.314 -2.740
Panel B: Strategy III
Mean Rets % 0.320 0.723** 0.705* 0.462** 0.586*** 0.104
Std. Dev. 4.711 3.379 3.836 2.032 2.542 2.525
Prob. > 0 (%) 53.240 56.364 58.256 60.000 67.273 58.182
Prob. > Market (%) 39.091 33.636 40.000 32.165 41.818 32.145
Paired t-test -1.558 -1.008 -1.058 -1.569 -1.329 -1.015
Panel C: Strategy IV
Mean Rets % 0.443 0.727** 0.677* 0.524** 0.645** 0.294
Std. Dev. 4.926 3.538 3.901 2.473 2.671 2.728
Prob. > 0 (%) 54.545 55.455 59.091 60.000 66.364 58.182
Prob. > Market (%) 38.182 32.727 40.909 32.727 40.000 31.818
Paired t-test -1.297 -1.095 -1.064 -1.448 -1.226 -1.805
37
Table 9
Average profits from technical trading rules.
This table reports average profits obtained from three different technical trading rules; namely, moving average
(MA), momentum, and filter rules. The MA rule is based on short-term MA and long-term MA of 1, 2, and 3
months, and 9 and 12 months, respectively. The momentum rule generates a buy signal whenever current stock
price is higher than or equal to “m” months ago, where we set m = 9 and 12, and a sell signal is generated whenever
the current price is less than price “m” months ago. Finally, the filter rule generates a buy signal whenever current
return is greater than or equal to 110% of the average return based on “t-m”, where we set “m” equals to 12.
Conversely, a sell signal is generated whenever current return is less than the 110% of average return based on “t-
m”. For individual stocks in each of the six sectors, we identify winners and losers based on these buy and sell
signals. We equally investment in winners in period “t” and short in losers. Therefore, the momentum (mom)
returns are simply returns of winners minus returns of losers and the portfolio return is simply the returns of
winners plus returns of losers. The corresponding standard deviation of momentum and portfolio returns for each
sector and for each holding period—that is, for 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month—are also reported. ***, ** and
* represent statistical significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.
1-month 3-month 6-month
Banking
Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio
Return 2.341*** 1.807*** 2.491*** 3.271* 2.569*** 3.613***
SD 8.433 7.405 5.991 5.003 4.433 3.529
Energy
Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio
Return 1.773** 1.691*** 1.979* 2.498*** 2.087*** 2.981***
SD 7.058 6.283 5.107 4.423 4.105 3.31
FMCG
Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio
Return 1.522*** 1.574*** 1.575*** 2.124*** 1.606*** 2.290***
SD 5.114 4.506 3.471 2.842 2.698 2.048
IT
Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio
Return 0.334 1.302* 0.863 2.404*** 1.045* 3.398***
SD 11.26 7.77 7.53 6.036 5.848 4.665
MNC
Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio
Return 1.303*** 1.331*** 1.409*** 2.172*** 1.498*** 2.434***
SD 5.792 5.112 4.181 3.42 3.349 2.638
Pharmaceutical
Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio Mom. Portfolio
Return 1.477*** 1.075*** 1.586*** 1.897*** 1.655*** 2.010***
SD 5.537 4.549 3.863 3.224 2.884 2.461
38
Table 10
Individual stock momentum by industry and industry momentum.
This table reports two sets of results organised into Panels A and B. In panel A, we have individual stock
momentum return and portfolio return and their standard deviations for 1-month, 3-month and 6-month holding
periods. Using technical trading rules, buy and sell signals are generated and winner and loser stocks are identified.
Based on these winner and loser stocks, momentum (MP) and zero-cost portfolios (ZCP) are generated. Panel B
has the corresponding industry momentum and portfolio returns and their standard deviations. Instead of ranking
stocks, here we rank the six sectors. Sectors are ranked using the geometric average and those ranked 1 and 2 are
taken as winner sectors while the loser sectors are those ranked 5 and 6. The strategy then is investment equally
in winner sectors and shorting equally in loser sectors and holding the portfolios for 1-month, 3-month, and 6-
month horizons. Mom^ is risk-adjusted momentum returns following the proposal of Barroso and Santa-Clara
(2013), which is simply a target volatility (which is a constant and we set this to the sample standard deviation)
multiplied by the actual momentum returns over time normalised by a time-varying volatility, which we proxy
using a rolling-window of six months. ***, ** and * represent statistical significance at the 1%, 5% and 10%
levels, respectively.
Panel A: Individual stock momentum
1-month 3-month 6-month
Banking
MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ Portfolio
Return 3.392*** 3.7367*** 2.754*** 3.499*** 4.6709*** 4.381*** 3.668*** 6.7656*** 4.774***
SD 13.4150 11.1022 11.3650 8.7190 10.4182 7.2420 6.5610 10.0251 5.5300
Energy
MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ ZCP
Return 2.243*** 2.4928*** 1.684*** 2.259*** 2.5613*** 2.872*** 2.364*** 4.0199*** 3.280***
SD 11.8510 9.3465 9.9900 6.8630 6.9064 5.8580 5.2660 8.1776 4.4170
FMCG
MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ ZCP
Return 2.166*** 3.2973*** 2.107*** 2.209*** 3.2844*** 2.848*** 2.302*** 5.0557*** 3.076***
SD 8.5630 5.6463 7.6250 5.0160 5.5595 4.2460 3.8420 7.4907 3.1410
IT
MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ ZCP
Return 2.326*** 2.8890*** 2.668*** 2.968*** 4.1617*** 4.397*** 3.784*** 5.0551*** 5.744***
SD 15.2980 10.5348 12.7600 10.9770 11.9279 9.0150 10.7660 18.1241 9.3280
MNC
MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ ZCP
Return 2.472*** 3.9820*** 2.328*** 2.706*** 5.5097*** 3.523*** 3.020*** 6.4161*** 4.073***
SD 11.2170 8.9614 9.5780 7.3350 11.2295 6.1630 6.2610 9.4742 5.3640
Pharmaceutical
MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ ZCP MP Mom^ ZCP
Return 2.462*** 2.9173*** 2.094*** 2.596*** 3.6675*** 3.183*** 2.842*** 6.2759*** 3.662***
SD 10.7040 6.8730 9.1650 6.7720 6.5431 5.8570 5.5040 7.8865 4.8240
Panel B: Industry momentum
1-month 3-month 6-month
MP ZCP MP ZCP MP ZCP
Return 2.972*** 2.568*** 5.723*** -0.4100 1.615*** 2.055***
SD 12.3240 5.4860 11.4670 2.3580 0.4490 0.4490
39
Table 11
Profits sorted on size, book-to-market, and liquidity.
This table reports profits that are controlled for size (Panel A), book-to-market (Panel B) and liquidity (Panel C).
Using combinations of the three technical trading rules, the performance of portfolios were categorised by size
(market capitalisation), book-to-market, and liquidity (number of transactions). Quartiles are formed under each
of the three control variables. For example, for size, the first quantile includes the largest 25% of stocks while
quantile four includes the smallest 25% of stocks in our sample. When performance is controlled by book-to-
market ratio, the first quartile includes the 25% of stocks which have the highest book-to-market ratio while the
fourth quantile includes the 25% of stocks with the lowest book-to-market ratio. Finally, when performance is
judged on the basis of liquidity, quartile one includes the 25% of most liquid stocks while the 25% of stocks with
the least liquidity (that is, the 25% most illiquid stocks) are in quantile four. For each quantile under each control
measure, we identify winners and losers based on buy and sell signals identified using technical trading rules. We
equally invest in winners in period “t” and short in losers. From this investment strategy, a time-series of
momentum returns are computed (returns of winners minus returns of losers) and a time-series of portfolio return
is also computed (returns of winners plus returns of losers). This table reports the average of these returns. The
corresponding standard deviation of momentum and portfolio returns for each quartile for each holding period—
that is, for 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month—are also reported. ***, ** and * represent statistical significance at
the 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.
Panel A: Size-based
1-month 3-month 6-month
Quantile 1 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
Return 2.241*** 1.896*** 2.276*** 2.940*** 2.355*** 3.228***
SD 10.299 8.871 6.091 5.133 4.534 3.726
Quantile 2 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
Return 2.667*** 2.240*** 2.858*** 3.526*** 3.102** 4.022***
SD 11.781 9.885 6.949 5.889 1.803 5.820
Quantile 3 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
Return 3.169*** 2.882*** 3.471 4.193 3.898*** 4.884***
SD 12.410 10.844 8.569 7.540 7.409 6.574
Quantile 4 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
Return 2.616*** 2.550*** 2.917*** 3.941*** 3.399*** 4.795***
SD 13.582 11.525 9.078 7.561 8.373 7.174
Panel B: Book-to-market-based
1-month 3-month 6-month
Quantile 1 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
Return 1.885*** 1.927*** 2.051*** 2.944*** 2.258*** 3.445***
SD 10.378 8.691 6.485 5.198 5.267 4.286
Quantile 2 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
Return 2.922*** 2.634*** 3.094*** 3.905*** 3.354*** 4.387***
SD 11.856 10.211 7.747 6.572 6.270 5.420
Quantile 3 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
Return 2.655*** 2.271*** 2.885*** 3.551*** 3.172*** 4.158***
SD 11.867 10.184 7.389 6.496 6.580 5.694
Quantile 4 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
Return 3.015 2.965 3.303 4.336 3.776*** 5.054***
SD 13.802 11.860 8.893 7.661 7.841 6.776
Panel C: Liquidity-based
1-month 3-month 6-month
Quantile 1 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
Return 2.651*** 2.286*** 2.786*** 3.586*** 2.978*** 4.051***
SD 11.640 9.955 7.251 6.131 5.625 4.689
Quantile 2 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
Return 2.390*** 2.125*** 2.514*** 3.416*** 2.733*** 3.950***
SD 12.715 10.603 7.419 6.215 6.278 5.196
Quantile 3 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
40
Return 2.780*** 2.656*** 3.059*** 3.906*** 3.436*** 4.527***
SD 12.205 10.492 8.171 6.979 6.935 5.997
Quantile 4 Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio Momentum Portfolio
Return 2.768*** 2.641*** 3.052*** 3.850*** 3.513*** 4.564***
SD 11.430 10.006 7.780 6.730 7.289 6.476
41
Table 12
Results on sectoral return predictability.
This table reports three findings. Column 2 contains the FGLS test examining the null hypothesis that market
return predicts sectoral returns for India. Six sectors, namely, banking, energy, FMCG, IT, MNC, and
pharmaceutical, are considered. The coefficient on beta and the FGLS t-test statistic of Westerlund and Narayan
(2012, 2014) are reported in parenthesis. Column 3 is about whether market return for each of the six sectors is
endogenous in our proposed predictive regression model. To test for endogeneity, the residuals from the proposed
predictive regression model is regressed on residuals obtained from the first-order autoregressive model of market
returns. The slope coefficient is reported together in parenthesis with the t-test statistic examining the null
hypothesis that the slope coefficient is zero. The final column reports the null hypothesis of no ARCH effects in
market returns and in sectoral returns. *** denotes statistical significance at the 1% level.
Predictability test:
𝛽 = 0
Endogeneity test Heteroskedasticity test (p-value)
Sectors Market returns Sectoral returns
Banking 0.486***
(4.894)
1.166***
(20.115)
0.000 0.000
Energy 0.281***
(3.186)
0.920***
(20.928)
0.000 0.000
FMCG 0.126**
(1.941)
0.514***
(11.290)
0.000 0.000
IT 0.869***
(3.323)
1.714***
(5.825)
0.000 0.000
MNC 0.269***
(3.772)
0.779***
(22.364)
0.000 0.000
Pharmaceutical 0.264***
(3.880)
0.669***
(13.991)
0.000 0.000
Top Related