PurposeThe portfolio of low-risk stocks outperforms the portfolio of high-risk stocks and market portfolios on a risk-adjusted basis. This phenomenon is called the low-risk effect. There are several economic and behavioral explanations for the existence and persistence of such an effect. However, it is still unclear whether specific sector orientation drives the low-risk effect. The study seeks to answer the following important questions in Indian equity markets: (a) Whether sector bets or stock bets mainly drive the low-risk effect? (b) Is it a mere proxy for the well-known value effect? (c) Does the low-risk effect prevail in long-only portfolios?Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on all the listed stocks on the National Stock Exchange (NSE) of India from December 1994 to September 2018. It classifies them into 11 Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) sectors to construct stock-level and sector-level BAB (Betting Against Beta) and long-only low-risk portfolios. It follows the study of Asness et al. (2014) to construct various BAB portfolios. It applies Fama–French (FF) three-factor and Fama–French–Carhart (FFC) four-factor asset pricing models in addition to Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) to examine the strength of BAB, sector-level BAB, stock-level BAB and long-only low-beta portfolios.FindingsBoth sector- and stock-level bets contribute to the return of the low-risk investing strategy, but the stock-level effect is dominant. Only betting on safe sectors or industries will not earn economically significant alpha. The low-risk effect is unique and not a value effect in disguise. Both long-short and long-only portfolios within sectors and industry groups deliver positive excess returns. Consumer staples, financial, materials and healthcare sectors mainly contribute to the returns of the low-risk effect in India. This study offers empirical evidence against the Samuelson (1998) micro-efficient market given the strong performance of the stock-level low-risk effect.Practical implicationsThe superior performance of the low-risk investment strategies at both stock and sector levels offers investors an opportunity to strategically invest in stocks from the right sectors and earn high risk-adjusted returns with lower drawdowns over an entire market cycle. Besides, it paves the way for stock exchanges and index manufacturers to launch sector-specific low-volatility indices for relevant sectors. Passive funds can launch index funds and exchange-traded funds by tracking these indices. Active fund managers can espouse sector-specific low-risk investment strategies based on the results of this and similar other studies.Originality/valueThe study is the first of its kind. It offers insights into the portfolio characteristics and performance of the long-short and the long-only variant of low-risk portfolios within sectors and industry groups. It decomposes the low-risk effect into sector-level and stock-level effects.

The portfolio of low-volatility stocks earns high risk-adjusted returns over a full market cycle. The annual alpha spread of low versus high-volatility quintile portfolios is 25.53% in the Indian equity market for the period from January 2000 to September 2018. The low-volatility (LV) effect is not an overlap of other established factors such as size, value or momentum. The effect persists across various size buckets (market capitalization). The performance of the low-volatility effect within various size buckets is analyzed using three different portfolio formation methods. Irrespective of the method of portfolio construction, the low-volatility effect exists and it also generates economically and statistically significant risk-adjusted returns. The long-short portfolios across the study deliver exceptionally high and statistically significant returns accompanied by negative beta. The low-volatility effect is not restricted to small or illiquid stocks. The effect delivers the highest risk-adjusted returns for the portfolio consisting of largecap stocks. Though the returns of the portfolio comprising of large-cap LV stocks are lower than the returns of the portfolio comprising of small-cap LV stocks, its Sharpe ratio is higher because of less risky nature of large-cap stocks as compared to small-cap stocks. The LV portfolio majorly comprises of large-cap, growth and winner stocks. But within size buckets, large-cap and mid-cap low LV picks growth and winner stocks, while small-cap LV picks value stocks.

Abstract:The paper studies the low-risk anomaly in the Indian equity market represented by stocks listed on National Stock Exchange (NSE) for the period January 2001 to June 2016. The study provides evidence that lowrisk portfolio returns are robust across various risk measures as well as market cap buckets though the intensity of the returns differs. The returns from low-risk investment are not only economically but also statistically significant. They outperform the high-risk portfolio as well as the benchmark portfolio. They deliver higher returns even after controlling for the well-known size, value and momentum factors. The returns are highest for low-risk large cap stocks portfolio sorted for stock volatility as a risk measure. Most of the low-risk portfolios consist of growth and winner stocks. The study provides a framework for an implementable low risk investing strategy.

The study empirically investigates two theories that claim to explain the low-risk effect in Indian equity markets using a universe of stocks listed on the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) from January 2000 to September 2018. Leverage constraints and preference for lottery are two major competing theories that explain the presence and persistence of the low-risk effect. While the leverage constraints theory argues that systematic risk drives low-risk anomaly and therefore risk should be measured using beta, lottery demand theory claims that irrational investor’s preference towards stocks with lottery-like payoffs is responsible for the persistence of the low-risk effect, and risk should be measured by idiosyncratic volatility. However, given that most of the risk measures are highly correlated, it is not easy to precisely measure a specific theory’s contribution to explaining the low-risk effect. The study constructs the Betting against correlation (BAC) factor to measure the contribution of leverage constraints to the low-risk effect. It further constructs the SMAX factor to untangle the contribution of lottery preference theory. The results show that leverage constraints theory predominantly explains the low-risk effect in Indian markets. This study contributes significantly to the body of literature, as this is the first such study on the Indian market, one of the major emerging markets, especially when the debate on theories explaining the low-risk effect is yet to settle.

No abstract