Impact of Derivatives Trading on Emerging Stock Markets: Some Evidence from India

Abstract

It is generally accepted that the introduction of financial derivatives that facilitate hedging is an important step in the development of stock markets. However, financial derivatives can potentially increase volatility in the underlying cash market, which might be detrimental to the development of the stock market itself. Using data from India, we examine one possible route through which derivatives trading can increase cash market volatility: expiration day effect. Our results indicate that expiration of equity derivatives contracts does not have any effect on the intra-day volatility of the market index, and it reduces the volatility of inter-day returns to the index.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    We thank John Hunter, Kyri Kyriacou and Menelaos Karanasos for useful discussions about expiration day effects, as well as GARCH models and their use in financial economics. We also thank an anonymous referee and editor Josef Brada for their helpful comments. We remain responsible for all remaining errors.

  2. 2.

    Critics argue that (G)ARCH models are often unreliable because while they have significant in-sample parameter estimates and can capture well inter-temporal persistence of volatility, their performance with respect to out-of-sample predictions are poor. However, Andersen and Bollerslev (1998) have convincingly refuted this argument.

  3. 3.

    An ‘expiration week’ in our sample corresponds to 5 days of trading ending on an expiration day. Hence, if there are n expiration days in the time period under consideration, the sample for expiration weeks would have 5n observations. Correspondingly, the sample for non-expiration weeks has 4n fewer observations than the sample for non-expiration days.

  4. 4.

    Jarque-Bera test statistics, not reported in the paper, indicate that the distributions of these growth rates are non-normal for expiration days and weeks, as well as for non-expiration days and weeks, and hence we use the t-test for testing equality of means and variances. The equality of medians was tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

  5. 5.

    The ADF test statistic was -14.3, thereby rejecting the null hypothesis of unit root at the 1% level.

  6. 6.

    The Ljung-Box test statistic for our AR(4) model was 24.41, and hence the null hypothesis of no serial correlation could not be rejected. Other specifications for the ARMA(p, q) model, for example, AR(2) and ARMA(2, 2) had larger Ljung-Box statistics that led to the rejection the aforementioned null hypothesis.

  7. 7.

    The coefficient estimates for this sub-period are not reported in the paper, but can be provided upon request.

References

  1. Alizadeh, S, Brandt, MW and Diebold, FX . 2002: Range-based estimator of stochastic volatility models. Journal of Finance 57 (3): 1047–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alkeback, P and Hagelin, N . 2004: Expiration day effects of index futures and options: Evidence from a market with a long settlement period. Applied Financial Economics 14 (6): 385–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andersen, TG and Bollerslev, T . 1998: Answering the sceptics: Yes, standard volatility models do provide accurate forecasts. International Economic Review 39 (4): 885–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bencivenga, VR, Smith, BD and Starr, RM . 1995: Transactions costs, technological choice, and endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Theory 67 (1): 53–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bencivenga, VR, Smith, BD and Starr, RM . 1996: Equity markets, transactions costs, and capital accumulation: An illustration. The World Bank Economic Review 10 (2): 241–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhide, A . 1993: The hidden costs of stock market liquidity. Journal of Financial Economics 34: 31–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bollen, NPB and Whaley, RE . 1999: Do expirations of Hang Seng index derivatives affect stock market volatility? Pacific Basin Finance Journal 7: 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bollerslev, T . 1986: Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 31: 307–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bollerslev, T . 1987: A conditionally heteroskedastic time series model for speculative prices and rates of return. Review of Economics and Statistics 69 (3): 542–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chamberlin, TW, Cheung, CS and Kwan, CCY . 1989: Expiration day effects of index futures and options: Some Canadian evidence. Financial Analysts Journal 45 (5): 67–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cho, YJ . 1986: Inefficiencies from financial liberalisation in the absence of well-functioning equity markets. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 18 (2): 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chow, Y-F, Yung, HHM and Zhang, H . 2003: Expiration day effects: The case of Hong Kong. The Journal of Futures Markets 23 (1): 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. de Gooijer, JG, Abraham, B, Gould, A and Robinson, L . 1985: Methods for determining the order of an autoregressive-moving average process: A survey. International Statistical Review 53 (3): 301–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Edwards, FR and Ma, CW . 1992: Futures and Options. McGraw-Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Engle, RF . (1982): Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity with estimates of the variance of UK inflation. Econometrica 50: 987–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Garman, MB and Klass, MJ . 1980: On the estimation of security price volatilities from historical data. Journal of Business 53: 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Glosten, LR, Jagannathan, R and Runkle, DE . 1992: On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of normal excess returns on stocks. Journal of Finance 46: 1179–1801.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Granger, CWJ, King, ML and White, H . 1995: Comments on testing economic theories and the use of model selection criteria. Journal of Econometrics 67 (1): 173–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Levine, R . 1991: Stock markets, growth and tax policy. Journal of Finance 46 (4): 1445–1465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Levine, R and Zevros, S . 1998: Stock markets, banks and economic growth. American Economic Review 88 (3): 537–558.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Levine, R and Zevros, S. . (2002): Stock market development and long-run growth. World Bank Economic Review 10 (2): 323–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mayer, C . 1988: New issues in corporate finance. European Economic Review 32: 1167–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Megginson, WL and Weiss, KA . 1991: Venture capitalist certification in initial public offerings. Journal of Finance, Papers and Proceedings of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting 46 (3): 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Morck, R, Shleifer, A and Vishny, RW . 1990a: Do managerial objectives drive bad acquisitions? Journal of Finance 45 (1): 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Morck, R, Shleifer, A and Vishny, RW . 1990b: The stock market and investment: Is the market a sideshow? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 157–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pagano, M . 1993: The floatation of companies in the stock market. European Economic Review 37: 1101–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Parkinson, M . 1980: The extreme value method for estimating the variance of the rate of return. Journal of Business 53: 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pope, PF and Yadav, PK . 1992: The impact of option expiration on underlying stocks: The UK evidence. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 19: 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rogers, LCG and Satchell, SE . 1991: Estimating variance from high, low, and closing prices. Annals of Applied Probability 1 (4): 504–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rogers, LCG, Satchell, SE and Yoon, Y . 1994: Estimating the volatility of stock prices: A comparison of the methods that use high and low prices. Applied Financial Economics 4: 241–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shleifer, A and Summers, LH . 1988: Breach of trust in hostile takeovers. In: Auerbach, A (ed) Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shleifer, A and Vishny, RW . 1986: Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy 94: 461–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Singh, A . 1997: Financial liberalisation, stock markets and economic development. Economic Journal 107: 771–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stoll, HR and Whaley, RE . 1987: Program trading and expiration day effects. Financial Analysts Journal 43: 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Stoll, HR and Whaley, RE . 1991: Expiration day effects: What has changed? Financial Analysts Journal 47: 58–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Stoll, HR and Whaley, RE . 1997: Expiration day effects of the all ordinaries share price index futures: Empirical evidence and alternative settlement procedures. Australian Journal of Management 22: 139–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vipul . 2005: Futures and options expiration-day effects: The Indian evidence. The Journal of Futures Markets 25 (11): 1045–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bhaumik, S., Bose, S. Impact of Derivatives Trading on Emerging Stock Markets: Some Evidence from India. Comp Econ Stud 51, 118–137 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/ces.2008.18

Download citation

Keywords

  • stock market development
  • derivatives contracts
  • expiration day effect
  • volatility
  • India

JEL Classifications

  • G13
  • O16