Returns to Low Risk Investment Strategy
Abstract
The paper studies the low risk anomaly in the Indian market using entire National Stock Exchange (NSE) as sample from January 2001 to June 2016. It provides evidence that low risk portfolio sorted for total risk, systematic risk as well as unsystematic risk individually for the large cap, mid cap, small cap and the entire NSE universe give higher returns to the investor as compared to high risk portfolio. The difference of returns from low risk portfolio versus high risk portfolio is positive as well as economically and statistically significant for all the risk measures. The results also prove that low risk portfolio investing strategy returns outperform the benchmark portfolio. Using either total volatility, idiosyncratic volatility or beta as a risk measure in stocks, the low risk portfolio gives higher returns even after controlling for the well-known size, value and momentum factors. The excess returns are the highest for low risk portfolio sorted for volatility of large cap stocks. Most of the low risk portfolios consists of growth and winner stocks. In conclusion, the low risk portfolio investment strategy is independent of size and gives positive excess returns as compared to high risk portfolio in the Indian stock market.
Downloads
References
• Aggarwalla, Sobhesh Kumar; Jacob, Joshy; Varma, Jayanth; Vasudevan Ellapulli. (2014). Betting against Beta in the Indian Market. No WP2014-07-01, IIMA Working Papers from Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
• Ang, A., Hodrick, R., Xing Y., Zhang, X. (2006). The Cross Section of Volatility and Expected Return. Journal of Finance, 61(1), 259-299.
• Ang, A., Hodrick, R., Xing Y., Zhang, X. (2009). High Idiosyncratic Volatility and Low Returns: International and Further U.S. Evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 91(1), 1-23.
• Asness, C. S., Frazzini, A., & Pedersen, L. H. (2014). Low-risk investing without industry bets. Financial Analysts Journal, 70 (4), 24-41.
• Baker, M., Bradley B. and Wurgler, J. (2011, January). Benchmarks as Limits to Arbitrage: Understanding the Low-Volatility Anomaly. Financial Analysts Journal, 67(1), 40-54.
• Baker, N., Haugen, R. (2012). “Low Risk Stocks Outperform within All Observable Markets of the World”, Journal of Portfolio Management, 17(3), 35-40.
• Bali, T.; Cakici, N. (2008). Idiosyncratic Volatility and the Cross Section of Expected Returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 43(1), 29-58.
• Bali, T.,Cakici, N., Whitelaw, R. (2011). Maxing out: Stocks as lotteries and the cross-section of expected returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 99, 427-446.
• Black, F. (1972). Capital Market Equilibrium with Restricted Borrowing. Journal of Business, 4(3), 444-455.
• Black, F. (1993). Beta and Return: Announcements of the 'Death of Beta' seem premature. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 20 (1), 11-18.
• Blitz, D. C., & Vliet, P. V. (2007). The Volatility Effect. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 34 (Fall), 102-113.
• Blitz, D., Pang, J., & Vliet, P. V. (2013). The Volatility Effect in Emerging Markets. Emerging Markets Review, 16, 31-45.
• Capitaline Database
• Carhart. (1997). On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance. The Journal of Finance, 52, 57–82.
• Clarke, R.; Silva De H.; Thorley, S. (2006). Minimum-Variance Portfolio in the U.S. Equity Market. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 33(Fall), 10-24.
• Clarke, R., De Silva, H., & Thorley, S. (2010).” Know your VMS exposure”. The Journal of Portfolio Management,36 (2), 52-59.
• Douglas, G. W. (1969), ‘Risk in the Equity Markets: An Empirical Appraisal of Market Efficiency,’ Yale Economic Essays, Vol. 9, pp. 3-45.
• Falkenstein. (1996), “Preferences for Stock Characteristics as Revealed by Mutual Fund Portfolio Holdings. Journal of Finance, 51(1), 111-135.
• Fama, E. and MacBeth J. (1973). "Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests." Journal of political economy 81.3: 607-636.
• Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The Cross-section of Expected Stock Returns. Journal of Finance, 47(2), 424-465.
• Frazzini, A., & Pedersen, L. H. (2010, October). Betting against Beta. Working paper, New York University.
• Frazzini, A., & Pedersen, L. H. (2014). Betting Against Beta. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), 1-25.
• Fu, F. (2009). Idiosyncratic Risk and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 91(1), 24-37.
• Garcia-Feijoo, Kochard, Sullivan & Wang (2015). Low-volatility cycles: The influence of valuation and momentum on low-volatility portfolios. Financial Analysts Journal, 71 (3), 47-60.
• Haugen, R. A., & Heins, A. J. (1975). Risk and the Rate of Return on Financial Assets: Some Old Wine in New Bottles. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 10 (5), 775-784.
• Hong, H., & Sraer, D. A. (2012). Speculative Betas. NBER working paper.
• Jones, C. and Rhodes-Kropf, M. (2003), “The Price of Diversifiable Risk in Venture Capital and Private Equity”, Working Paper, Columbia University, New York.
• Joshipura M., Joshipura N., (2016), “The Low Volatility Effect: Evidence from India”, Applied Finance Letters, Vol 5, Issue 1, 2016.
• Joshipura N., Joshipura M. (2017) “Beta Anomaly and Comparative Analysis of Beta Arbitrage Strategies”, NMIMS Management Review
• Karceski, J. (2002). Returns-Chasing Behaviour, Mutual Funds, and Beta's Death. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 37 (4), 559-594.
• Lehmann, Bruce N. (1990), ‘Residual Risk Revisited”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 45, pp. 71-97.
• Brennan, M. J., ‘Agency and asset pricing,’ Working Paper (University of California, Los Angeles, 1993).
• Levy, H. (1978) "Equilibrium in an Imperfect Market: A Constraint on the Number of Securities in the Portfolio." The American Economic Review 68.4: 643-658.
• Lintner, John (1965), ‘The Valuation of Risky Assets and the Selection of Risky Investment in Stock Portfolio and Capital Budgets,’Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 47, pp. 13-37.
• Malkiel B. and Xu, Y. “Risk and Return Revisited”, The Journal of Portfolio Management Spring 1997, Vol. 23, No. 3: pp. 9-14.
• Malkiel B. and Xu, Y. “Idiosyncratic Risk and Security Returns”, University of Texas at Dallas (November 2002).
• Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio Selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.
• Martellini. (2008), Toward the Design of Better Equity Benchmarks: Rehabilitating the Tangency Portfolio from Modern Portfolio Theory. Journal of Portfolio Management, 34(4), 34-41.
• Merton, R. C. (1987), ‘A Simple Model of Capital Market Equilibrium with In-complete Information,’Journal of Finance, Vol. 42, pp. 483-510.
• Miller, M. H. and M. Scholes (1972), ‘Rates and Return in Relation to Risk: A Re-examination of Some Recent Findings,’ in Michael C. Jensen, ed.: Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets, Praeger: New York, pp. 47-78.
• Sharpe, W. (1964). Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk. The Journal of Finance, 19(3), 425-442.
• Scherer, B. (2011). A Note on the Returns from Minimum Variance Investing. Journal of Empirical Finance, 18(4), 652-660.
• Soe, A. M. (2012, August 1). The Low Volatility Effect: A Comprehensive Look. S&P DOW JONES Indices Paper.
• Spiegel, M., Wang, X., (2006). Cross-sectional variation in stock returns: liquidity and idiosyncratic risk. Unpublished working paper. Yale University.
• Tinic S. and West R. (1986), “Risk, Return and Equilibrium: a Revisit”, Journal of Political Economy 1986 94:1, 126-147.
Copyright (c) 2017 Applied Finance Letters
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors submitting articles for publication warrant that the work is not an infringement of any existing copyright and will indemnify the publisher against any breach of such warranty. By publishing in Applied Finance Letters, the author(s) retain copyright but agree to the dissemination of their work through Applied Finance Letters.
By publishing in Applied Finance Letters, the authors grant the Journal a Creative Commons nonexclusive worldwide license (CC-BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License) for electronic dissemination of the article via the Internet, and, a nonexclusive right to license others to reproduce, republish, transmit, and distribute the content of the journal. The authors grant the Journal the right to transfer content (without changing it), to any medium or format necessary for the purpose of preservation.
Authors agree that the Journal will not be liable for any damages, costs, or losses whatsoever arising in any circumstances from its services, including damages arising from the breakdown of technology and difficulties with access.
