Investment Strategy 1: A high- return, high- threat group The portfolio would correspond of the BSE Bank Index and BSE Consumer Durable indicator. Both the indicators earn above average returns. The BSE CD and Bank Index returns have been the alternate and fourth loftiest in the request. The portfolio would therefore earn below average return. The unique threat, still, for the individual indicators has been mainly high. For each indicator return, thecross-correlation and the correlation with the request have also been relatively high. The threat of the portfolio therefore would be veritably high. The threat- acclimated returns, still, are relatively high for the two indicators. This might indicate that an investor, not so risk- nut and interested in high threat- acclimated- return might also accept the portfolio.
Investment Strategy:2 A low- return, high- threat group The low- return-high( both unique and request)- threat portfolio will be accepted neither by the threat nut nor by the threat- antipathetic investor. This is simply for the reason that the threat- nut would noway accept below average return for taking below average pitfalls. The low Sharpe rates for the indicators concerned would make threat- antipathetic investors disinterested in the portfolio. The group, still, could be combined with other groups to make profitable portfolios.
Investment Strategy:3 A combination of( 1) high- return, high- threat and( 2) low- return, high- threat group This portfolio, by nature, is extremely parlous. The portfolio would correspond of the Bank, Consumer Durable, Essence, PSU, IT, and conceivably the request indicators. While the individual pitfalls are mainly high, thecross-correlation among the sectoral returns and the correlation of the individual sectoral returns with that of the request have been below normal. The portfolio might be preferred by extreme threat suckers. still, the low- return, high- threat group with veritably low Sharpe rates will always be dominated by the other group of high- threat and high- return indicators. For an investor, who isn't so risk loving, portfolio 3 will always be dominated by portfolio 1. The combination isn't at each respectable to a threat- antipathetic investor.
Investment Strategy 4: A high- return, low- threat group The portfolio would correspond of machine, capital goods, and FMCG indicators. In terms of return, the indicators rank third, fourth, and first independently. The unique pitfalls are mainly lower, the three sectors being the smallest tentative friction sectors. The crosscorrelations among sectors as well as correlations with the request have been the smallest possible. The FMCG, machine, and capital goods rank first, third, and sixth independently. This is the stylish place of investment for a threat- antipathetic person.
Investment Strategy 5: A combination of high- return, low- threat, and lowreturn, low- threat group This group consists of the capital goods, FMCG, machine, healthcare, oil painting and natural gas, and power sectors. The group is an extremely low- threat group. Thecross-correlations among the sectoral returns have been veritably low. The correlation with request return has been the smallest for capital goods, FMCG, machine, and the healthcare sectors. This correlation has been hardly advanced for the oil painting and natural gas and power sectors. The sectors collectively have been veritably low unique threat sectors. The portfolio could well be accepted by threat- antipathetic investors. still, the low request threat and the high riskadjusted return for the capital goods, FMCG, machine, and healthcare sectors suggest that a portfolio could be constructed with them that would dominate any other combination in the group. Investment Strategy 6 A low- return, low- threat group The group consists of the healthcare, power, and oil painting and natural gas sectors. The sectors retain veritably low unique threat. While thecross-correlations among sectoral returns have been nearly below average, the request pitfalls have been relatively high. The Sharpe rates, still, haven't been veritably high. The portfolio might be accepted by some riskaverse investors.