Advertisement

The Index cohesive effect on stock market correlations

  • Y. Shapira
  • D. Y. Kenett
  • E. Ben-JacobEmail author
Interdisciplinary Physics

Abstract

We present empirical examination and reassessment of the functional role of the market Index, using datasets of stock returns for eight years, by analyzing and comparing the results for two very different markets: 1) the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), representing a large, mature market, and 2) the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE), representing a small, young market. Our method includes special collective (holographic) analysis of stock-Index correlations, of nested stock correlations (including the Index as an additional ghost stock) and of bare stock correlations (after subtraction of the Index return from the stocks returns). Our findings verify and strongly substantiate the assumed functional role of the index in the financial system as a cohesive force between stocks, i.e., the correlations between stocks are largely due to the strong correlation between each stock and the Index (the adhesive effect), rather than inter-stock dependencies. The Index adhesive and cohesive effects on the market correlations in the two markets are presented and compared in a reduced 3-D principal component space of the correlation matrices (holographic presentation). The results provide new insights into the interplay between an index and its constituent stocks in TASE-like versus NYSE-like markets.

Keywords

Stock Market Random Matrix Theory Trading Period National Stock Exchange Daily Closing Price 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    R.N. Mantegna, H.E. Stanley, An Introduction to Econophysics: Correlations and Complexity in Finance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Kodba, M. Perc, M. Marhl, Eur. J. Phys. 26, 205 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.D. Noh, Phys. Rev. E 61, 5981 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Utsugi, K. Ino, M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. E 70, 026110 (2004)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.N. Mantegna, Eur. Phys. J. B 11, 193 (1999)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Garas, P. Argyrakis, Physica A 380, 399 (2007)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    W.S. Jung, S. Chae, J.S. Yang, H.T. Moon, Physica A 361, 263 (2006)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Laloux, P. Cizeau, J.P. Bouchaud, M. Potters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1467 (1999)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Coronnello, M. Tumminello, F. Lillo, S. Micciche, R.N. Mantegna, Acta Physica Polonica B 36, 2653 (2005)MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Plerou, P. Gopikrishnan, B. Rosenow, L.A.N. Amaral, T. Guhr, H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. E 65, 066126 (2002)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Gopikrishnan, V. Plerou, Y. Liu, L.A.N. Amaral, X. Gabaix, H.E. Stanley, Physica A 287, 362 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Pafka, I. Kondor, Physica A 343, 623 (2004)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Perc, Phys. Rev. E 75, 022101 (2007)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M.R. Reinganum, The Journal of Finance 36, 313 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Black, M.C. Jensen, M. Scholes, Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets, edited by M. Jensen (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972), pp. 79–121Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Lintner, Rev. Econ. Stat. 47, 13 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.P. Bouchaud, Nature 455, 1181 (2008)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    I. Baruchi, V.L. Towle, E. Ben-Jacob, Complexity 10, 38 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    I. Baruchi, E. Ben-Jacob, Neuroinformatics 2, 333 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    I. Baruchi, D. Grossman, V. Volman, M. Shein, J. Hunter, V.L. Towle, E. Ben-Jacob, CHAOS 16, ISSN015112 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Madi, I. Hecht, S. Bransburg-Zabary, Y. Merbl, M. Zucker-Toledano, F.J. Quintana, A.J. Tauber, I.R. Cohen, E. Ben-Jacob, PNAS 34, 14484 (2009)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Madi, Y. Friedman, D. Roth, T. Regev, S. Bransburg-Zabary, E. Ben-Jacob, PLoS ONE 3, e2708 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Y. Chou, Statistical Analysis (Holt International, ISBN 0030894220, Sect. 17.9, 1975)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    E.P. Wigner, P.A.M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 47, 790 (1951)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    F.J. Dyson, J. Math. Phys. 3, 140 (1962)CrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    M.L. Mehta, Random matrices (Academic press, 2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    www.finance.yahoo.comGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    www.tase.co.ilGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Looking at the TA dataset more specifically, combining knowledge from other sources, we encounter a problem processing the data. For example, we observe a very strong correlation between two companies ?? IDB Holding Corporation?, and ?Discount Investment Corporation? (IDC). Using public records about these two companies, we find that IDB owns 74.06% of the shares of IDC, and that the market value of these two companies is roughly the same (9 and 10 billions NIS, respectively). Due to the fact that the trade in the market is continuous, the traders are aware, at each moment, of the price of both companies and the relationship between them, so they see to it that these two prices match each other at all time. It is important to distinguish between a business similarity, which is the result of similar objectives or areas of interest, and between financial dependencies, which are the result of control and ownership of assets. We expect that if the majority of the assets of one company are the shares of a second company, any change in the second company will be immediately reflected in the first. Thus, we decided to exclude from our TA dataset five holding companies with more than 50% of their assets listed as stocks of a second company. For such companies, the observed high correlation between the two companies is trivial and does not produce any new meaningful information. These holding companies were excluded from our analysis, while the daughter companies were left in the dataset. The whole issue of the correlations between a holding company and its subsidiaries demands further research. Due to technical reasons, this screening of holding companies was not performed for the NYSE data, for the S&P 500 and DJIA datasets.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. Dubes, A. Jain, Adva. Comput. 19, 113 (1980)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    B. Chor, T. Tuller, J. Computat. Biology 14, 817 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    I. Baruchi, V. Volman, N. Raichman, M. Shein, E. Ben-Jacob, European Journal of Neuroscience 28, 1825 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. Varshavsky, A. Gottlieb, D. Horn, M. Linial, Bioinformatics 23, 3343 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    R. Varshavsky, A. Gottlieb, M. Linial, D. Horn, Bioinformatics 22, e507 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    K. Baba, R. Shibata, M. Sibuya, Australia and New Zealand J. Stat. 46, 657 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    O. Kwon, J.S. Yang, Physica A 387, 2851 (2008)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    F. Lilo, R.N. Mangegna, Eur. Phys. J. B 15, 603 (2000)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    C. Borghesi, M. Marsili, S. Micciche, Phys. Rev. E 76, 026104 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    P. Gopikrishnan, B. Rosenow, V. Plerou, H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. E 64, 035106 (2001)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    R.K. Pan, S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. E 76, 046116 (2007)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    M.J. Mauboussin, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 14, 47 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EDP Sciences, SIF, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Physics and Astronomy, The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations