Stationarity of NSE indices: a Bayesian approach.
Kumar, Jitendra
Abstract
National Stock Exchange (NSE) is the largest exchange market in
India in terms of turnover and declaring sixteen indices in reference of
different sectors and company profile. Time series approach is most
popular way of analyzing the economic series. Stationarity of time
series is an important issue before estimating the parameters of data
generating process. In this paper, stationarity under Bayesian framework
is tested for NSE closing index. While modeling the indices and applying
Bayesian unit root tests, the possibility of presence of
linear/nonlinear trend and structural break is also explored.
1. INTRODUCTION
National Stock Exchange (NSE) is the largest Indian exchange in
terms of turnover and declaring sixteen indices in reference of
different sectors and company profile like S & P CNX Nifty, CNX
Nifty Junior, S & P 500 Nifty Midcap 50, S & P CNX dirty etc.
The NSE index a stochastic process and changing in regular manner as the
market policy, international market and companies profile changes. Data
generating processes which are time dependent and NSE indices were
regularly analyzed by market researchers to know the market conditions
as the time passed with a particular exchange. The growth of indices is
much impressive as it become old and time series is a better way for the
analysis of indices values because of its popularity.
For modeling data generating process of various economic time
series, the box-Jenkins approach (see Box and Jenkins, 1970) uses
various stochastic processes like autoregressive (AR), moving average
(MA), mixed ARMA or autoregressive integrated moving (ARIMA). A number
of researches' are analyzing these in different ways and stationary
or non-stationary under consideration of with or without seasonality is
an important issue because of its use, applicability and popularity.
The time series may be non-stationary because of time trend or due
to unit root. The presence of unit root in economic time series has
profound implication for both statistical analysis and economic
theorizing. The use of data characterized by unit root may be a cause of
misleading conclusion see Dickey and Fuller (1997, 1981), Perron (1989,
1990, 1992), Sims (1988), Sims and Uhling (1991), Madala and Kim (1998)
Hassegawa et al. (2000) and Chaturvedi and Jitendra (2005, 2007),
Jitendra and Shukla (2009), Jitendra at el (2010), Rishi at el (2010)
etc. If an economic time series contains a unit root, the shocks to it
will not dissipate but instead will have permanent effect and lead to
far reaching implications in policy making.
A long economic time series showing shift in trend is called
structural changes in the intercept and/or slope parameter of the trend
component or error variance. Such structural changes may occur due to
the changes in national and international economic policies, due to the
behavior of market players, integration of two or more economies like
European Union etc. However, the inferences are taken if such models as
structural changes in the parameters are not taken into account may be
misleading. For detailed discussion about the unit root hypothesis one
can refer Christiano (1988), Zivot and Andrews (1992), Andrews (1993),
Bai (1996), and Lin and Yang (1999). Chaturvedi and Jitendra (2005).
The present paper considers Bayesian analysis of NSE closing
indices for the period April 2004 to March 2009. The data is taken from
the online data source of National Stock Exchange. Since classical unit
root tests like Dickey-Fuller test are often more biased towards the
acceptance of unit root hypothesis and suffer from size distortion,
Bayesian approach is used for testing the difference stationarity
against trend stationarity.
2. STATIONARY PROCESSES AND UNIT ROOT
Let the index values starting from April 2004 in month t follows
with AR(1) process with disturbances [u.sub.t]:
[Index.sub.t] = Trend + [Index.sub.t-1] + [u.sub.t] (t = 1, 2,
......, T) (1)
Where [u.sub.t] = [[rho].sub.ut-1] + [[epsilon].sub.t] and is the
autoregressive parameter and is the disturbances term. In the above
model, if the autoregressive parameter, model is said to possess a unit
root. If an Index series has a unit root, the past shocks will have
permanent effect and the usual estimation and testing procedure cannot
be applied. Further, the variance of the series explodes to infinity.
If the trend is free from time, it is called intercept trend. The
time trend may be linear or non-linear; the non-linearity of time trend
is incorporated by partial time trend, which is a combination of linear
and non-linear functions of time.
It is a usual phenomenon to observe structural break in trend
component for a long time series, the model is as follows:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (2)
While applying unit root tests, if structure breaks are not taken
into account, it is possible that even a stationary time series may show
presence of unit root. Perron (1989, 1990) developed the classical test
for testing the unit root hypothesis against structural break with one
known break point and tabulated the percentage points of augmented
Dickey-Fuller test. Silvapulle and Maddock (1992) tabulated the
percentage points of Lagrange multiplier test proposed by Kwaitkowski et
al. (1992). Silapulle (1995) considers the ADF and LM unit root test for
the time series having two break points and applied the results to
extended Nelson-Plosser macroeconomic time series. Chaturvedi and Kumar
(2007) derived the posterior odds ratio for a AR(1) time series having
break in trend component and studied the impact of misspecification of
break as linear time trend by simulated data.
Sometimes break occurs due to the variance in error and if break in
variance is taken into account the model is as follows:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (3)
The classical tests are largely based on asymptotic justification
that parameters are constant and often lead to low power of the test,
particularly in finite samples. On the other hand, Bayesian approach is
free from such problem. Therefore, it provides a more convenient and
formal framework. In Bayesian framework, the decision of difference
stationarity against the alternative of trend stationarity taken by the
use of posterior odds ratio, which is the prior odds ratio of two
hypotheses multiplied by the ratio of predictive densities under null
hypothesis of difference stationarity and predictive density under the
alternative of trend stationarity. If the posterior odd's ratio is
less than one, we reject the null hypothesis of unit root, otherwise
accept it.
For testing the unit root hypothesis, the posterior odds ratio is
used as reported by Jitendra et al. (2010) and Rishi et al. (2010),
using following notations.
c([lambda],[rho]) = [T.sub.B] [(1 - [rho]).sup.2] + T -
[T.sub.B]/[lambda] [(1 - [rho]).sup.2] + (1 - [[rho].sup.2])
M([rho]) = [T.sub.B] [(1 - [rho]).sup.2] + (1 - [[rho].sup.2]),
N([rho]) = (T - [T.sub.B] [(1 - [rho]).sup.2] + (1 -
[[rho].sup.2]),
R([rho]) = (1 - [rho]) [[T.sub.B].summation over (t=1)] ([y.sub.t]
- [[rho]y.sub.t-1]) + [y.sub.0](1 - [[rho].sup.2]),
P([rho]) = (1 - [rho]) [T.summation over (t=[T.sub.B]+1)]
([y.sub.t] - [[rho]y.sub.t-1]) + [y.sub.0](1 - [[rho].sup.2]),
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (4)
The following theorem was reported
Theorem 1: The posterior odds ratio, denoted by [[beta].sub.1], for
testing the unit root hypothesis in which break occur at known break
point [T.sub.B] with prior odds ratio [theta]/(1-[theta), is given by
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (5)
Theorem 2: The posterior odds ratio, denoted by [[beta].sub.2], for
testing the unit root hypothesis [H.sub.0] : [rho] = 1 against [H.sub.2]
: [rho] < 1, for the model with single known break point in intercept
and prior odds ratio [[theta].sub.0]/(1-[[theta].sub.0]), is given by
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (6)
Theorem 3: The posterior odds ratio, denoted by [[beta].sub.3], for
testing the unit root hypothesis [H.sub.0]: [rho] = 1, [lambda] = 1
against [H.sub.3] : [rho] < 1, [lambda] = 1 for the model without
break and prior odds ratio [[theta].sub.0]/(1-[[theta].sub.0]), is given
by
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (7)
Theorem 4: The posterior odds ratio for testing the unit root
hypothesis for a time series model involving partial linear time trend
with prior odds ration [p.sub.0]/(1-[P.sub.0]) is given by
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (8)
3. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INDICES
The NSE declares fourteen Indices based on different sectors and
funds as S & P Nifty, S & P Defty, CNX Nifty Junior, CNX IT, S
& CNX 500, Bank Nifty, CNX Midcap, CNX 100, CNX Infrastructure,
Nifty Midcap 50, S & P ESG India Index, CNX Reality, S & P CNX
500 Shariah and S & P CNX Nifty Shariah. The average closing price
of declared indices for the period April 2004 to March 2009 from the
online data source of National Stock Exchange is considered. Monthly
closing values are shown in figure I and summary statistics of different
indices are given in table 1.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The Indices values are assumed to follow the following model
[Index.sub.t] = Intercept(1-[rho]) + [rho] [Index.sub.t-1] +
[[epsilon].sub.t] (9)
and stationarity of closing index value is concluded on the basis
of autoregressive coefficient. If [rho] = 1, series is difference
stationary and if [rho] [member of] = {(a,1);a >-1}, series is
non-trend stationary. When only intercept is considered in trend, we
found that indices series are difference stationary, whereas estimated
value of [rho] is less than 1.
For a long time series, occurrence of break in trend component is
common behavior, which happens due to the performance of companies
listed in index, change in government market policy, shifting of
international market strategy. Let us assume that there is structural
break in intercept. As the current recession starts in late year 2007,
we can assume the time this structural break in the series as December
2007.
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (10)
Indices series CNX Realty, S&P CNX 500 Shariah and S&S CNX
Nifty Shariah are non-trend stationary and rest are difference
stationary.
When, the analysis of indices is carried out under consideration of
break in variance (using model 3) at same break point, the series are
found to be non-trend stationary. The value of posterior odds ratio also
decreases for all index series. The values of posterior odds ratio are
reported in table given below. The main disadvantage by the use of these
models is that the estimated value of autoregressive coefficient is less
than one, but unit root hypothesis is accepted.
In all the above three models, time trend are not taken and for a
time series, time is an important variable which influences the change
on the index value. Let Index follows the AR(1) time series model with
linear time trend
[Index.sub.t] = Intercept + slope t + [rho] [Index.sub.t-1] +
[u.sub.t] (11)
Using this model the analysis is worked out and posterior odds
ratio is evaluated. The value of which is more than one in most of
closing series and less than one in the series as Bank Nifty, Nifty
Midcap 50 and S&P ESG India index. These series are trend stationary
and rests are difference stationary. The estimated value of coefficient
of determination is also good.
In the figure shows the closing series, see that trend is not
simply linear therefore the analysis is continued under consideration of
quadratic time trend. The series follows the model
[Index.sub.t] = [Intercept.sup.[rho]] + [Linear.sup.[rho]] t +
[quadratic.sup.[rho]] [t.sup.2] + [rho] [Indext.sub.t-1] +
[[epsilon].sub.t] (12)
Table 3 showed the posterior odds ratio, coefficient of
determination, least square estimate of autoregressive parameter and
coefficient of quadratic time trend and their standard error. The
coefficient of determination is reduced for all the cases as compared to
linear time trend. The unit root hypothesis is rejected for all the
cases and we can conclude that closing series are trend stationary. The
estimated value of autoregressive parameter being less than one followed
the testing conclusion.
The posterior odds ratio is less than one in all cases so all the
series are trend stationary. In modeling the closing index, the
non-linear trend component is incorporated in terms of partial time
trend g(t). Different forms of g(t) are taken into consideration. Some
popular exponential and logarithmic combinations of t have also been
taken. Let index follows the time series model
[Index.sub.t] = [Intercept.sup.[rho]] + [Linear.sup.[rho]] t +
[Partial.sup.[rho]] g(t)+[rho] [Index.sub.t-1] + [[epsilon].sub.t] (13)
Table 5-8 provides posterior odds ratio, estimated value of
coefficient of autoregressive parameter and coefficient under
consideration of non-linear time trend (i) g(t) = t*log(t), (ii) g(t) =
log(t), (iii) g(t) = t*exp(t) and (iv) g(t) = exp(t). On the basis of
posterior odds ratio, it is concluded that S&P CNX Defty, Bank Nifty
and CNX Infrastructure are trend stationary and rest are difference
stationary when g(t) = t*g(t). The coefficient of determination
increases for the index series CNX Realty, S&P CNX 500 Shariah and
S&P CNX Nifty Shariah in comparison to quadratic trend. When
non-linear time trend is g(t) = log(t), all index are concluded as trend
stationary but [R.sup.2] decreases except CNX Realty, S&P CNX 500
Shariah and S&P CNX Nifty Shariah. The non-linearity is also taken
into account in the form of g(t) = t*exp(t) and g(t) = exp(t). S&P
CNX Defty is difference stationary and rest are trend stationary but
coefficient of determination decreases.
The present paper explored the unit root test to know whether NSE
indices are stationary or not under Bayesian framework. While modeling
the NSE indices, inclusion of non-linear time trend coefficient of
determination is decreasing in comparison to linear time trend. The
maximum coefficients of determination is achieved with quadratic time
trend in comparison to trends g(t)= t*log(t), log(t), t*exp(t) and
exp(t) for the series S&P CNX Nifty, S&P CNX Defty, CNX Nifty
Junior, CNX IT, S&P CNX 500, Bank Nifty, CNX Midcap, CNX 100, CNX
Infrastructure, Nifty Midcap 50, S&P ESG India Index and CNX Realty
with g(t)=log(t), S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH and S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH
with g(t)=t*log(t) with compared to other non-linear time trend. When
linear time trend is taken into account, the estimated value of
autoregressive coefficient is found to be more than one except for Bank
Nifty, Nifty Midcap 50 and S&P ESG India Index, but indices are
concluded difference stationary. The non-linearity is taken into account
in the form of time function g(t) and it is concluded that the NSE
indices are trend stationary with significant observation of coefficient
of determination. As achieving the stationarity in modeling the time
series is an important issue therefore inclusion of non-linear time
trend is important for modeling National Stock Indices.
Acknowledgement
The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support from CST
to carry out the present work.
References
Andrews, D. W. K. (1993), Tests for Parametric Instability and
Structural Change with Unknown Change Point, Econometrica, 61, 821-856.
Bai, J. (1996), Testing for Parametric Constancy in Linear
Regression, An Empirical Distribution Approach, Econometrica, 64,
597-622.
Box. G. E. P and G. M. Jenkins (1970), Time Series Analysis
Forecasting and Control, Holden- Day, San Francisco.
Chaturvedi, A. and Jitendra Kumar (2005), Bayesian Unit Root Test
for Time Series Model with Maintained Trend, Statistics &
Probability, Letters, 74, 109-115.
Chaturvedi, A. and Jitendra Kumar (2007), Bayesian Unit Root Test
for Time Series Models with Structural Breaks, American Journal of
Mathematical and Management Sciences, Vol. 1& 2, 243-268.
Christiano, L. I. (1988), Searching for a Break in G.N.D, working
paper No. 2695, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, M.A.
Dickey, D. A. and W. A. Fuller (1979), Distribution of the
Estimators for Autoregressive Time
Series with a Unit Root, Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 74, 427-431.
Dickey, D. A. and W. A. Fuller (1981), Likelihood Ratio Tests for
Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root, Econometrica, 49,
1057-1072.
Hasegawa, H., A. Chaturvedi and Tran Van Hoa (2000), Bayesian Unit
root Test in Non-normal AR (1) Model, Journal of Time Series Analysis,
31, 261-280.
Jitendra Kumar and A. Shukla (2009), Unit Root Test of
Autoregressive Time Series Model with Partially Linear Time Trend: A
Bayesian Approach, Journal of International Academy of Physical
Sciences, Vol. 13 No. 4, 1-11.
Jitendra Kumar, A. Shukla and A. Chaturvedi (2010), Bayesian
Analysis of Exchange Rates with Partially Linear Time Trend,
International Journal of Statistics and Systems, Vol. 5, No. 3,439-453.
Kwaitkowski, D., P.C.B. Phillips, P. J. Schmidt and Y. Shin (1992),
Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity against the Alternative of a
Unit Root: How Sure are we that Economic Time Series have a Unit Root,
Journal of Econometrics, 54, 159-178.
Lin, S. and J. Yang (1999), Testing Shifts in Financial Market with
Conditional Heteroskedasticity: An Empirical Distribution Financial
Approach, Manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Western
Ontario.
Maddala, G. S. and, I. M. Kim (1999), Unit Roots, Co-integration,
and Structural Change, Cambridge University Press.
Perron, P. (1989), The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock and the
unit Root Hypothesis, Econometrica, 57, 1361-1401.
Perron, P. (1990), Testing for a Unit Root in a Time Series with a
Changing Mean, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 8(2),
153-162.
Perron P. (1992), Trend Unit Root Structural Change: A
Multi-country Study with Historical Data, Proceedings of the American
Statistical Association, Business and Economic Statistics Section,
144-149.
Rishi Kumar, Kumar Jitendra and A. Chaturvedi (2009),
"Bayesian Unit Root Test for Time Series Models with Structural
Break in Variance" IMST-FIM XVIII, Jaypee University of Information
Technology, Waknaghat, Distt. Solan, Himanchal Pradesh.
Sims, C. A. (1988), Bayesian Skepticism on Unit Root Econometrics,
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, 463-474.
Sims, C. A. and H. Uhling (1991), Understanding unit Rooters: A
Helicopter Tour, Econometrica, 59, 1591-1599.
Silvapulle, P. and R. Maddock (1992), Unit root and Structural
Break, Australian Economic Society Meeting, Monash University.
Silvapulle, P. (1995), Unit Root Tests are Structural Breaks,
Discussion paper, La Trode University Australia.
Zivot, E. and D. W. K. Andrews (1992), Further Evidence the Great
Crash, the Oil Price Shock and the Unit Root Hypothesis, Journal of
Business and Economics Statistics, 10, 251-270.
Zivot, E. and P.C.B. Phillips (1994), A Bayesian Analysis of Trend
Determination in Economic Time Series, Economica, 13, 291-336.
JITENDRA KUMAR, Institute for Development and Research in Banking
Technology Castle Hills Road #1, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500057, AP, India
Table 1
Summary Statistics
Mean SE Kurtosis Skewness
S&P CNX NIFTY 3676.55 150.82 -0.61 0.38
S&P CNX DEITY 2950.99 145.74 -0.51 0.64
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 6687.42 293.69 0.18 0.80
CNX IT 3978.75 140.33 -0.79 -0.29
S&P CNX 500 3052.43 124.60 -0.32 0.55
BANK NIFTY 5547.74 237.65 0.59 1.05
CNX MIDCAP 4938.99 207.22 0.06 0.75
CNX 100 3563.57 146.71 -0.52 0.46
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 3016.51 167.24 -0.08 0.74
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 2038.40 84.38 0.40 0.62
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 1749.67 68.59 -0.53 0.48
CNX REALTY 835.12 76.25 -0.63 -0.11
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 1057.85 48.80 -0.54 -0.17
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 1056.94 45.18 -0.57 -0.27
Minimum Maximum
S&P CNX NIFTY 1987.10 5963.57
S&P CNX DEITY 1573.89 5246.61
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 3962.72 12001.50
CNX IT 2141.84 5625.53
S&P CNX 500 1751.74 5123.76
BANK NIFTY 3389.29 9906.63
CNX MIDCAP 2951.33 8671.24
CNX 100 1971.33 5865.67
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 1346.16 5819.42
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 1076.11 3619.35
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 960.58 2839.49
CNX REALTY 175.74 1596.74
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 638.46 1528.40
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 664.43 1470.34
Table 2
Model with Intercept
[[rho].sub.Estimate] Stationarity
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.9372 2.2306
S&P CNX DEFTY 0.9520 2.2631
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.9423 1.5608
CNX IT 0.9726 1.6806
S&P CNX 500 0.9379 1.9513
BANK NIFTY 0.9330 1.4964
CNX MIDCAP 0.9348 1.5958
CNX 100 0.9382 2.1409
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.9462 2.7163
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.9338 1.3673
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.9248 2.0620
CNX REALTY 0.9881 1.9908
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.9805 1.2055
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.9811 1.1871
Break in mean Break in variance
S&P CNX NIFTY 2.9571 6.80E-09
S&P CNX DEFTY 2.7348 9.25E-06
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 1.8304 4.30E-01
CNX IT 1.6061 1.27E-28
S&P CNX 500 2.4765 1.62E-02
BANK NIFTY 1.8089 1.94E+02
CNX MIDCAP 1.9536 6.34E-08
CNX 100 2.8275 6.01E-09
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 3.4836 2.03E-05
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 1.5379 1.18E-05
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 2.8482 3.65E-20
CNX REALTY 0.4813 5.38E-11
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.4486 8.77E-12
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.5108 8.87E-11
Table 3
Model with Linear Time Trend
NSE Indices [POR.sub.Linear] [R.sup.2]
S&P CNX NIFTY 1.1582 0.9871
S&P CNX DEFTY 5.7770 0.9995
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 1.0402 0.9742
CNX IT 1.7774 0.9700
S&P CNX 500 1.0920 0.9820
BANK NIFTY 0.8497 0.9729
CNX MIDCAP 1.0225 0.9767
CNX 100 1.1645 0.9862
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 1.3947 0.9921
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.9093 0.9606
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.6940 0.9688
CNX REALTY 2.4007 0.9120
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 1.8871 0.9161
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 1.8665 0.9137
NSE Indices [[rho].sub.Linear] SE(r)
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.9875 1.74E-04
S&P CNX DEFTY 0.9999 1.71E-04
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.9744 7.84E-05
CNX IT 0.9703 1.56E-04
S&P CNX 500 0.9824 1.97E-04
BANK NIFTY 0.9731 1.06E-04
CNX MIDCAP 0.9770 1.17E-04
CNX 100 0.9866 1.74E-04
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.9925 1.60E-04
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.9612 2.67E-04
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.9697 3.91E-04
CNX REALTY 0.9134 6.06E-04
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.9181 8.52E-04
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.9158 9.25E-04
Table 4
Model with Quadratic Time Trend
[POR.sub.Partial] [R.sup.2]
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.8759 0.7785
S&P CNX DEFTY 0.8977 0.7552
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.6711 0.6629
CNX IT 0.6311 0.8913
S&P CNX 500 0.8333 0.7277
BANK NIFTY 0.6012 0.6328
CNX MIDCAP 0.7133 0.6514
CNX 100 0.8502 0.7632
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.8774 0.7565
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.7115 0.5883
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.8513 0.7030
CNX REALTY 0.6197 0.7823
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.8981 0.8236
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.9129 0.8338
[r.sub.Estimate] SE(r)
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.8665 2.59E-04
S&P CNX DEFTY 0.9044 2.35E-04
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.8730 1.08E-04
CNX IT 0.6706 4.32E-04
S&P CNX 500 0.8699 2.86E-04
BANK NIFTY 0.8900 1.29E-04
CNX MIDCAP 0.8790 1.55E-04
CNX 100 0.8690 2.57E-04
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.9030 2.12E-04
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.8556 3.66E-04
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.8686 5.25E-04
CNX REALTY 0.7341 1.02E-03
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.6868 1.74E-03
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.6702 1.94E-03
[C.sub.Quadratic] SE([C.sub.Quadratic])
S&P CNX NIFTY -0.8322 1.32E-03
S&P CNX DEFTY -0.7219 1.22E-03
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR -1.6761 1.22E-03
CNX IT -1.8277 2.46E-03
S&P CNX 500 -0.6978 1.29E-03
BANK NIFTY -1.2219 1.08E-03
CNX MIDCAP -1.1329 1.17E-03
CNX 100 -0.8145 1.31E-03
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE -0.7584 1.17E-03
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 -0.5129 1.22E-03
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX -0.3439 1.19E-03
CNX REALTY -1.3040 6.01E-03
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH -1.1058 7.26E-03
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH -1.0727 7.46E-03
Table 5
Model with Partial Time Trend g(t )= t*log(t)
[POR.sub.Partial] [R.sup.2]
S&P CNX NIFTY 1.1929 0.7346
S&P CNX DEFTY 0.8877 0.7086
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 1.0299 0.5987
CNX IT 3.3902 0.8675
S&P CNX 500 1.1613 0.6751
BANK NIFTY 0.8400 0.5654
CNX MIDCAP 1.0168 0.5847
CNX 100 1.1507 0.7166
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.8833 0.7153
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 1.2336 0.5133
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 1.2363 0.6446
CNX REALTY 1.0364 0.8309
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 1.7105 0.8476
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 1.8509 0.8535
[[rho].sub.Estimate] SE(r) Partial
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.9132 2.24E-04 -22.8820
S&P CNX DEFTY 0.9419 2.07E-04 -20.4600
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.9127 9.52E-05 -46.8160
CNX IT 0.7948 3.16E-04 -43.7060
S&P CNX 500 0.9131 2.50E-04 -19.3130
BANK NIFTY 0.9239 1.19E-04 -34.9410
CNX MIDCAP 0.9170 1.40E-04 -31.7870
CNX 100 0.9145 2.22E-04 -22.4380
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.9371 1.89E-04 -22.0470
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.8958 3.29E-04 -14.1320
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.9082 4.72E-04 -9.4759
CNX REALTY 0.7302 9.02E-04 -32.7150
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.7146 1.44E-03 -23.7580
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.7054 1.59E-03 -22.4240
SE
(Partial)
S&P CNX NIFTY 4.35E-02
S&P CNX DEFTY 4.07E-02
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 4.10E-02
CNX IT 6.84E-02
S&P CNX 500 4.28E-02
BANK NIFTY 3.78E-02
CNX MIDCAP 4.02E-02
CNX 100 4.32E-02
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 3.98E-02
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 4.17E-02
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 4.07E-02
CNX REALTY 1.19E-01
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 1.35E-01
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 1.37E-01
Table 6
Model with Partial Time Trend g(t)= log(t)
[POR.sub.Partial] [R.sup.2]
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.3778 0.6794
S&P CNX DEFTY 0.2632 0.6349
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.3812 0.5045
CNX IT 0.4631 0.8399
S&P CNX 500 0.3741 0.6062
BANK NIFTY 0.3838 0.4555
CNX MIDCAP 0.3804 0.4926
CNX 100 0.3670 0.6561
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.3272 0.6514
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.4288 0.4199
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.4390 0.5717
CNX REALTY 0.7082 0.8326
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.6457 0.8343
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.6477 0.8384
[[rho].sub.Estimate] SE(r) Partial
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.9519 1.96E-04 178.4800
S&P CNX DEFTY 0.9734 1.86E-04 161.7500
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.9460 8.57E-05 361.4100
CNX IT 0.8982 2.19E-04 265.0300
S&P CNX 500 0.9493 2.21E-04 150.1500
BANK NIFTY 0.9512 1.11E-04 277.6700
CNX MIDCAP 0.9484 1.27E-04 249.9800
CNX 100 0.9523 1.95E-04 174.7600
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.9668 1.71E-04 178.8700
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.9299 2.98E-04 106.4900
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.9406 4.30E-04 72.3280
CNX REALTY 0.8051 7.38E-04 189.8700
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.8102 1.11E-03 119.3200
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.8059 1.22E-03 110.5600
SE
(Partial)
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.4533
S&P CNX DEFTY 0.4358
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.4395
CNX IT 0.5650
S&P CNX 500 0.4502
BANK NIFTY 0.4215
CNX MIDCAP 0.4371
CNX 100 0.4513
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.4314
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.4487
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.4416
CNX REALTY 0.7395
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.7931
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.8007
Table 7
Model with Partial Time Trend g(t)= t exp(t)
[POR.sub.Partial] [R.sup.2]
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.1617 0.5680
S&P CNX DEFTY 14.8500 0.4934
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.2058 0.3049
CNX IT 0.1236 0.7898
S&P CNX 500 0.1560 0.4575
BANK NIFTY 0.3820 0.3515
CNX MIDCAP 0.2254 0.3103
CNX 100 0.1573 0.5277
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.1661 0.5018
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.2788 0.2733
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.2868 0.4433
CNX REALTY 0.3121 0.6365
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.2379 0.6934
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.2324 0.7080
[[rho].sub.Estimate] SE(r) Partial
S&P CNX NIFTY 1.0051 2.03E-04 1.66E-20
S&P CNX DEFTY 1.0129 1.98E-04 1.28E-20
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.9803 8.87E-05 1.35E-20
CNX IT 0.9908 1.74E-04 2.47E-20
S&P CNX 500 0.9959 2.28E-04 1.15E-20
BANK NIFTY 0.9523 1.19E-04 -3.70E-20
CNX MIDCAP 0.9792 1.36E-04 3.30E-21
CNX 100 1.0024 2.02E-04 1.51E-20
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.9999 1.82E-04 8.25E-21
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.9612 3.05E-04 -1.97E-23
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.9775 4.56E-04 3.29E-21
CNX REALTY 0.9279 6.41E-04 5.60E-12
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.9432 9.30E-04 5.64E-12
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.9433 1.01E-03 5.56E-12
SE
(Partial)
S&P CNX NIFTY 9.84E-23
S&P CNX DEFTY 9.74E-23
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 9.54E-23
CNX IT 9.44E-23
S&P CNX 500 9.74E-23
BANK NIFTY 9.43E-23
CNX MIDCAP 9.75E-23
CNX 100 9.79E-23
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 9.59E-23
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 9.63E-23
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 9.82E-23
CNX REALTY 8.10E-14
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 8.35E-14
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 8.38E-14
Table 8
Model with Partial Time Trend g(t)= exp(t)
[POR.sub.Partial] [R.sup.2]
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.1619 0.5683
S&P CNX DEFTY 17.6140 0.4945
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.2062 0.3047
CNX IT 0.1236 0.7901
S&P CNX 500 0.1555 0.4575
BANK NIFTY 0.3861 0.3538
CNX MIDCAP 0.2265 0.3103
CNX 100 0.1574 0.5279
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.1663 0.5016
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.2781 0.2734
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.2829 0.4428
CNX REALTY 0.3107 0.6367
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.2364 0.6938
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.2315 0.7084
[[rho].sub.Estimate] SE(r) Partial
S&P CNX NIFTY 1.0054 2.03E-04 7.85E-19
S&P CNX DEFTY 1.0132 1.99E-04 6.08E-19
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.9804 8.89E-05 6.40E-19
CNX IT 0.9911 1.75E-04 1.16E-18
S&P CNX 500 0.9961 2.29E-04 5.45E-19
BANK NIFTY 0.9519 1.19E-04 -1.75E-18
CNX MIDCAP 0.9792 1.36E-04 1.53E-19
CNX 100 1.0027 2.03E-04 7.14E-19
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 1.0001 1.82E-04 3.90E-19
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.9611 3.05E-04 -2.67E-21
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.9777 4.57E-04 1.56E-19
CNX REALTY 0.9283 6.43E-04 1.52E-10
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.9441 9.34E-04 1.54E-10
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.9443 1.02E-03 1.52E-10
SE
(Partial)
S&P CNX NIFTY 4.63E-21
S&P CNX DEFTY 4.58E-21
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 4.49E-21
CNX IT 4.44E-21
S&P CNX 500 4.58E-21
BANK NIFTY 4.44E-21
CNX MIDCAP 4.59E-21
CNX 100 4.61E-21
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 4.51E-21
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 4.53E-21
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 4.63E-21
CNX REALTY 2.19E-12
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 2.26E-12
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 2.27E-12
Table 9
Model with Partial Time Trend g(t)= 1/t
[POR.sub.Partial] [R.sup.2]
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.2925 0.6240
S&P CNX DEFTY 0.1664 0.5499
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.2708 0.4055
CNX IT 0.2847 0.8137
S&P CNX 500 0.2798 0.5364
BANK NIFTY 0.2944 0.3422
CNX MIDCAP 0.2808 0.4012
CNX 100 0.2820 0.5940
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.2383 0.5792
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.3159 0.3393
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.3933 0.5084
CNX REALTY 0.4412 0.7825
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.3875 0.7890
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.3848 0.7947
[[rho].sub.Estimate] SE(r) Partial
S&P CNX NIFTY 0.9734 1.81E-04 -3.23E+02
S&P CNX DEFTY 0.9904 1.76E-04 -2.82E+02
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 0.9637 8.08E-05 -6.28E+02
CNX IT 0.9427 1.76E-04 -4.29E+02
S&P CNX 500 0.9694 2.05E-04 -2.68E+02
BANK NIFTY 0.9648 1.08E-04 -5.14E+02
CNX MIDCAP 0.9656 1.21E-04 -4.48E+02
CNX 100 0.9731 1.81E-04 -3.14E+02
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 0.9833 1.63E-04 -3.17E+02
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 0.9487 2.79E-04 -1.81E+02
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 0.9581 4.06E-04 -1.26E+02
CNX REALTY 0.8689 6.49E-04 -2.67E+02
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 0.8737 9.49E-04 -1.54E+02
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 0.8704 1.04E-03 -1.43E+02
SE
(Partial)
S&P CNX NIFTY 1.1684
S&P CNX DEFTY 1.1496
CNX NIFTY JUNIOR 1.1558
CNX IT 1.2661
S&P CNX 500 1.1668
BANK NIFTY 1.1382
CNX MIDCAP 1.1555
CNX 100 1.1667
CNX INFRASTRUCTURE 1.1451
NIFTY MIDCAP 50 1.1713
S&P ESG INDIA INDEX 1.1623
CNX REALTY 1.3991
S&P CNX 500 SHARIAH 1.4538
S&P CNX NIFTY SHARIAH 1.4613