Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Size Effect in Indian Equity Market: Myth or Reality?

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Asia-Pacific Financial Markets Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study revisits size effect and its associated issues, in the Indian market, as recent studies question the persistence of size premium in the global context. We use data from NIFTY 200 stocks for the period 2005 to 2018 and find size effect to be significant for both market-based and accounting-based measures of size. It is not impacted by any definitional issues as highlighted by Berk (Financ Anal J 53(5):12–18, 1997). Size effect also remains significant despite alternative portfolio constructions i.e. forming quintiles, deciles, scores of portfolios even though the premiums vary. Existing literature on size anomaly does not focus on size drift and survivorship bias. We specifically address these dimensions relating to size effect which have received less attention in prior work. In this study, size effect is found to be sensitive to drift in market capitalization. Historical market capitalization used to categorize medium (large) firms may now be a basis for classifying small (medium) firms in recent time periods. Small sized portfolio adjusted for drift provides substantially higher return compared to unadjusted small sized portfolio. Further, to evaluate survivorship bias, size-based portfolios are redesigned using changing components of NIFTY 200 for each formation period. This leads to considerable weakening of size effect. Investors must take this fact into consideration while creating size based portfolios. However, upon using another stable universe of F&O traded stocks, size effect is found to be significant. The study contributes to size anomaly literature for Indian market and shall be useful for portfolio managers, investors, academia and regulators.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alquist, R., Israel, R., & Moskowitz, T. (2018). Fact, fiction, and the size effect. The Journal of Portfolio Management. http://jpm.iijournals.com/content/early/2018/10/05/jpm.2018.1.082.

  • Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets, 5(1), 31–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amihud, Y., & Mendelson, H. (1986). Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread. Journal of Financial Economics, 17, 223–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banz, R. W. (1981). The relationship between return and market value of common stock. Journal of Financial Economics, 9, 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, C. B., Goldreyer, E., Lockwood, L., & Rodriguez, M. (2001). Robustness of size and value effects in emerging equity markets, 1985–2000. SSRN working paper.

  • Berk, J. B. (1995). A critique of size-related anomalies. The Review of Financial Studies, 8(2), 275–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk, J. B. (1997). Does size really matter? Financial Analysts Journal, 53(5), 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, F. (1993). Beta and return. Journal of Portfolio Management, 20(1), 8–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. J., Goetzmann, W. N., & Ross, S. A. (1995). Survival. Journal of Finance, 50, 853–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carhart, M. M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. The Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cederburg, S., & O’Doherty, M. S. (2015). Asset-pricing anomalies at the firm level. Journal of Econometrics, 186(1), 113–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. C., & Chen, N. F. (1991). Structural and return characteristics of small and large firms. The Journal of Finance, 46(4), 1467–1484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C., Chen, N., & Hseih, (1985). An exploratory investigation of the firm size effect. Journal of Financial Economics, 14, 451–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, T. C., & Chien, C. C. (2011). Size effect in January and cultural influences in an emerging stock market: The perspective of behavioral finance. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 19(2), 208–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, L. K. C., Karceski, J., & Lakonishok, J. (2000). New paradigm or same old hype in equity investing? Financial Analysts Journal, 56, 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M. J., Gulen, H., & Schill, M. J. (2008). Asset growth and the cross-section of stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 63(4), 1609–1651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, M. A. (2011). A literature review of the size effect. Working paper, Florida Atlantic University.

  • Daniel, K., & Titman, S. (1997). Evidence on the characteristics of cross-sectional variation in stock returns. Journal of Finance, 52, 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimson, E. (1979). Risk measurement when shares are subject to infrequent trading. Journal of Financial Economics, 7(2), 197–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimson, E., & Marsh, P. (1999). Murphy’s law and market anomalies. Journal of Portfolio Management, 25, 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimson, E., Marsh, P., & Staunton, M. (2017). Factor-based investing: The long-term evidence. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 43(5), 15–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eleswarapu, V. R., & Reinganum, M. R. (1993). The seasonal behavior of the liquidity premium in asset pricing. Journal of Financial Economics, 34(3), 373–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E., & French, K. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E., & French, K. (2008). Dissecting anomalies. The Journal of Finance, 63(4), 1653–1678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E., & French, K. (2012). Size, value, and momentum in international stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 105, 457–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (2015). A five-factor asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics, 116(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, L. (2003). Conditional performance, portfolio rebalancing, and momentum of small-cap mutual funds. Review of Financial Economics, 12(3), 287–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilliard, J., & Zhang, H. (2015). Size and price-to-book effects: Evidence from the Chinese stock markets. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 32, 40–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hou, K., & Moskowitz, T. J. (2005). Market frictions, price delay, and the cross-section of expected returns. Review of Financial Studies, 18, 981–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keim, D. B. (1999). An analysis of mutual fund design: The case of investing in small-cap stocks. Journal of Financial Economics, 51(2), 173–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kothari, S. P., Shanken, Jay, & Sloan, Richard G. (1995). Another look at the cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance, 50, 185–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leite, A. L., Klotzle, M. C., Pinto, A. C. F., & da Silva, A. F. (2018). Size, value, profitability, and investment: Evidence from emerging markets. Emerging Markets Review, 36, 45–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinlay, A. C. (1995). Multifactor models do not explain deviations from the CAPM. Journal of Financial Economics, 38, 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. C. (1987). On the current state of the stock market rationality hypothesis. In R. Dornbusch, S. Fischer, & J. Bossons (Eds.), Macroeconomics and finance: Essays in Honor of Franco Modigliani (pp. 93–124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, K. N., & Mishra, R. K. (2004). Lead-lag relationship between Equities and Stock Index futures markets and its variation around information release: Empirical evidence from India. https://www.nseindia.com/content/research/comppaper155.pdf.

  • Pandey, A., & Sehgal, S. (2016). Explaining size effect for Indian stock market. The Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, 23(1), 45–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, V. V., & Sebastin, A. (2008). Interaction between equity and derivatives market in India: Entropy approach. The ICFAI Journal of Derivatives Market, 5(1), 18–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roll, R. (1977). A critique of the asset pricing theory’s test. Part I: On past and potential testability of the theory. Journal of Financial Economics, 4, 129–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roll, R. (1981). A possible explanation of the small firm effect. Journal of Finance, 36, 879–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwenhorst, K. G. (1999). Local return factors and turnover in emerging stock markets. Journal of Finance, 54, 1439–1464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sehgal, S., & Balakrishnan, A. (2013). Robustness of Fama–French three factor model: Further evidence for Indian stock market. Vision The Journal of Business Perspective, 17(2), 119–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sehgal, S., & Kumar, M. (2002). The relationship between company size, relative distress and returns in Indian stock market. The ICFAI Journal of Applied Finance, 8(2), 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sehgal, S., Pandey, P., & Deisting, F. (2015). Information transmission between NSE50 spot and derivative platforms in India: An empirical study. Journal of Quantitative Economics, 13(2), 215–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sehgal, S., Subramaniam, S., & Deisting, F. (2014). Tests of equity market anomalies for select emerging markets. The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, 8(3), 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sehgal, S., & Tripathi, V. (2006). Sources of size effect: Evidence from the Indian stock market. The IUP Journal of Applied Finance, 12(1), 18–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, G., Subramaniam, S., & Sehgal, S. (2019). Are prominent equity market anomalies in India fading away? Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150918811248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, H. R., & Whaley, R. E. (1983). Transaction costs and the small firm effect. Journal of Financial Economics, 12(1), 57–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, M. A. (2011). Is size dead? A review of the size effect in equity returns. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(12), 3263–3274.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The infrastructural support provided by FORE School of Management, New Delhi, in completing this article is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kamala Nehru College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, 110021, India

    Vibhuti Vasishth

  2. Department of Financial Studies, University of Delhi, South Campus, New Delhi, 110021, India

    Sanjay Sehgal

  3. FORE School of Management, B-18, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi, 110016, India

    Gagan Sharma

Authors
  1. Vibhuti Vasishth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanjay Sehgal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gagan Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vibhuti Vasishth.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vasishth, V., Sehgal, S. & Sharma, G. Size Effect in Indian Equity Market: Myth or Reality?. Asia-Pac Financ Markets 28, 101–119 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-020-09318-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-020-09318-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation