Do daily price extremes influence short-term investment decisions? Evidence from the Indian equity market

The authors offer evidence for low-risk effect from the Indian stock market using the top-500 liquid stocks listed on the National Stock Exchange (NSE) of India for the period from January 2004 to December 2018. Finance theory predicts a positive risk-return relationship. However, empirical studies show that low-risk stocks outperform high-risk stocks on a risk-adjusted basis, and it is called low-risk anomaly or low-risk effect. Persistence of such an anomaly is one of the biggest mysteries in modern finance. The authors find strong evidence in favor of a low-risk effect with a flat (negative) risk-return relationship based on the simple average (compounded) returns. It is documented that low-risk effect is independent of size, value, and momentum effects, and it is robust after controlling for variables like liquidity and ticket-size of stocks. It is further documented that low-risk effect is a combination of stock and sector level effects, and it cannot be captured fully by concentrated sector exposure. By integrating the momentum effect with the low-volatility effect, the performance of a low-risk investment strategy can be improved both in absolute and risk-adjusted terms. The paper contributed to the body of knowledge by offering evidence for: a) robustness of low-risk effect for liquidity and ticket-size of stocks and sector exposure, b) how one can benefit from combining momentum and low-volatility effects to create a long-only investment strategy that offers higher risk-adjusted and absolute returns than plain vanilla, long-only, low-risk investment strategy.

This paper sheds light on the relationship between the Nasdaq Composite Index and a newly proposed Energy Futures Conditions Index (EFCI). While various financial conditions indices provide information about the financial stability of a country, the existence of an energy condition index, using futures markets, is scarce. Using weekly data over the period 1992–2017, this paper introduces an energy futures index using principal component analysis and test its predictability over the Nasdaq Composite Index. The EFCI captures 95% of the variability inherent in crude oil, heating oil and natural gas futures’ total reportable positions. Stability in forecast errors over different lags suggests a one week lag is sufficient to forecast weekly Nasdaq Composite Index. 95% prediction levels support that the estimated model captures actual equity market index values, except for the 2000 technology bubble. Distributions of level data were non-normal, not serially correlated and homoscedastic under the whole sample period, with diagnostics on pre and post technology bubble crisis showing mixed results. While differencing ensured homoscedastic errors in the forecasting model, Granger causality supported non-causality from both energy futures and equity markets, suggesting no evidence of cross market information flows.

The investment decisions are subjected to risk and return of the financial asset. Options strategies help employ a suitable strategy to balance the risk-return trade-off. The study analyzes the risk-return trade-off of the long straddle, long strangle, long call butterfly (LCB), short straddle, short strangle, and short call butterfly (SCB) strategies. Moreover, it measures the impact of strategy risk and options premiums on strategy return using panel data analysis. Additionally, the study evaluates the performance of options strategies using the excess returns to risk approach under neutral and volatile market conditions. This paper considered companies of top-six sector indices of the National Stock Exchange from 2009 to 2020 and collected data of 18,720 option contracts and 3,744 observations for each strategy (22,464 observations). The study revealed that risks of long straddle and long strangle strategies have a positive impact, and options premiums negatively influence their payoff. ATM call premiums positively affect LCB payoff, while OTM and ITM call premiums positively influence SCB payoff. However, the risks of butterfly strategy did not influence its payoff. The risk of short straddle and short strangle strategies negatively influenced the payoff and were considered riskier strategies. Moreover, short straddle and short strangle strategies enhanced excess returns under both market conditions. The results would help the investors in choosing the appropriate strategy by analyzing the impact of risk on the payoff and the ability to enhance excess returns to the risk of various options strategies to incorporate in their investment.