Regression Of Financial Techniques Example For Free - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 14 Words: 4234 Downloads: 9 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? The Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) or correlation coefficient for short is a measure of the degree of linear relationship between two variables. While in regression the emphasis is on predicting one variable from the other, in correlation the emphasis is on the degree to which a linear model may describe the relationship between two variables. In regression the interest is directional, one variable is predicted and the other is the predictor; in correlation the interest is non-directional, the relationship is the critical aspect. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Regression Of Financial Techniques Example For Free" essay for you Create order The coefficient of correlation can vary from positive one (indicating a perfect positive relationship), through zero (indicating the absence of a relationship), to negative one (indicating a perfect negative relationship). As a rule of thumb, correlation coefficients between .00 and .30 are considered weak, those between .30 and .70 are moderate and coefficients between .70 and 1.00 are considered high. Correlation between NSE and FII Correlations FII NSE FII Pearson Correlation 1 .313** Sig. (2-tailed) .002 N 96 96 NSE Pearson Correlation .313** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 N 96 96 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The above table is showing the relationship among the NSE and FII which is taken from year Jan 2003 to Dec 2010. The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the linear association between two scale variables. The correlation reported in the table is 0.313. This suggests that NSE and FII are showing a weak positive relationship i.e. with the increase in FII, NSE indices increases and vice versa. Correlation between Sensex and FII Correlations FII SENSEX FII Pearson Correlation 1 .306** Sig. (2-tailed) .002 N 96 96 SENSEX Pearson Correlation .306** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 N 96 96 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The above table is showing the relationship among the Sensex and FII which is taken from year Jan 2003 to Dec 2010. The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the linear association between two scale variables. The correlation reported in the table is 0.306. This suggests that Sensex and FII are showing a weak positive relationship i.e. with the increase in FII, Sensex indices increases and vice versa. Correlation between Consumer Durables and FII Correlations FII CONSUMER DURABLES FII Pearson Correlation 1 .310** Sig. (2-tailed) .002 N 96 96 CONSUMER DURABLES Pearson Correlation .310** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 N 96 96 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The above table is showing the relationship among the Consumer Durables and FII which is taken from year Jan 2003 to Dec 2010. The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the linear association between two scale variables. The correlation reported in the table is 0.310. This suggests that Consumer Durables and FII are showing a weak positive relationship i.e. with the increase in FII, Consumer Durables indices increases and vice versa. Correlation between Capital Goods and FII Correlations FII Capital Goods FII Pearson Correlation 1 .265** Sig. (2-tailed) .009 N 96 96 Capital Goods Pearson Correlation .265** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .009 N 96 96 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The above table is showing the relationship among the Capital Goods and FII which is taken from year Jan 2003 to Dec 2010. The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the linear association between two scale variables. The correlation reported in the table is 0.265. This suggests that Capital Goods and FII are showing a weak positive relationship i.e. with the increase in FII, Capital Goods indices increases and vice versa. Correlation between FMCG and FII Correlations FII FMCG FII Pearson Correlation 1 .340** Sig. (2-tailed) .001 N 96 96 FMCG Pearson Correlation .340** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 N 96 96 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The above table is showing the relationship among the FMCG and FII which is taken from year Jan 2003 to Dec 2010. The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the linear association between two scale variables. The correlation reported in the table is 0.340. This suggests that FMCG and FII are showing a moderate positive relationship i.e. with the increase in FII, FMCG indices increases and vice versa. Correlation between Health Care and FII Correlations FII Health_Care FII Pearson Correlation 1 .375** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 96 96 Health_Care Pearson Correlation .375** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 96 96 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The above table is showing the relationship among the Health Care and FII which is taken from year Jan 2003 to Dec 2010. The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the linear association between two scale variables. The correlation reported in the table is 0.375. This suggests that Health Care and FII are showing a moderate positive relationship i.e. with the increase in FII, Health Care indices increases and vice versa. Correlation between IT and FII Correlations FII IT FII Pearson Correlation 1 .337** Sig. (2-tailed) .001 N 96 96 IT Pearson Correlation .337** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 N 96 96 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The above table is showing the relationship among the IT and FII which is taken from year Jan 2003 to Dec 2010. The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the linear association between two scale variables. The correlation reported in the table is 0.337. This suggests that IT and FII are showing a moderate positive relationship i.e. with the increase in FII, IT indices increases and vice versa. Linear Regression Regression between NSE FII Variables Entered/Removedb Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 FIIa . Enter a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: NSE Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .313a .098 .088 1449.98694 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 2.146E7 1 2.146E7 10.205 .002a Residual 1.976E8 94 2102462.122 Total 2.191E8 95 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII b. Dependent Variable: NSE Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 3157.700 167.700 18.829 .000 FII .062 .019 .313 3.195 .002 a. Dependent Variable: NSE The above Regression is between NSE and FII the above tables are showing R, the multiple correlation coefficient, is the linear correlation between the observed and model-predicted values of the dependent variable. Its large value indicates a strong relationship. R is 0.313 that is showing strong correlation between NSE and FII and also R Square, the coefficient of determination, is the squared value of the multiple correlation coefficient. R ² which is 0.098 that is 10% of the variations are showing by this model. The significance value of the F statistic is less than 0.05, which means that the variation explained by the model is not due to chance. The ANOVA table is a useful test of the models ability to explain any variation in t he dependent variable; it does not directly address the strength of that relationship. Regression between Sensex FII Variables Entered/Removedb Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 FIIa . Enter a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: SENSEX Model Summaryb Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .306a .094 .084 4976.73956 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII b. Dependent Variable: SENSEX ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 2.409E8 1 2.409E8 9.727 .002a Residual 2.328E9 94 2.477E7 Total 2.569E9 95 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII b. Dependent Variable: SENSEX Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 10493.779 575.591 18.231 .000 FII .208 .067 .306 3.119 .002 a. Dependent Variable: SENSEX The above Regression is between Sensex FII the above tables are showing R, the multiple correlation coefficient, is the linear correlation between the observed and model-predicted values of the dependent variable. Its large value indicates a strong relationship. R is 0.306 that is showing strong correlation between Sensex FII and also R Square, the coefficient of determination, is the squared value of the multiple correlation coefficient. R ² which is 0.094 that is 10% of the variations are showing by this model. The significance value of the F statistic is less than 0.05, which means that the variation explained by the model is not due to chance. The ANOVA table is a useful test of the models ability to explain any variation in the dependent variable; it does not directly address the strength of that relationship. Regression between Consumer Durables FII Variables Entered/Removedb Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 FIIa . Enter a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: CONSUMER_DURABLES Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .310a .096 .086 1535.08070 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 2.351E7 1 2.351E7 9.976 .002a Residual 2.215E8 94 2356472.743 Total 2.450E8 95 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII b. Dependent Variable: CONSUMER_DURABLES Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 2636.743 177.542 14.851 .000 FII .065 .021 .310 3.159 .002 a. Dependent Variable: CONSUMER_DURABLES The above Regression is between Consumer Durables FII the above tables are showing R, the multiple correlation coefficient, is the linear correlation between the observed and model-predicted values of the dependent variable. Its large value indicates a strong relationship. R is 0.310 that is showing strong correlation between Consumer Durables FII and also R Square, the coefficient of determination, is the squared value of the multiple correlation coefficient. R ² which is 0.096 that is 10% of the variations are showing by this model. The significance value of the F statistic is less than 0.05, which means that the variation explained by the model is not due to chance. The ANOVA table is a useful test of the models a bility to explain any variation in the dependent variable; it does not directly address the strength of that relationship. Regression between Capital Goods FII Variables Entered/Removedb Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 FIIa . Enter a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: Capital_Goods Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .265a .070 .060 5141.56855 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 1.877E8 1 1.877E8 7.101 .009a Residual 2.485E9 94 2.644E7 Total 2.673E9 95 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII b. Dependent Variable: Capital_Goods Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 7531.033 594.654 12.665 .000 FII .184 .069 .265 2.665 .009 a. Dependent Variable: Capital_Goods The above Regression is between Capital Goods FII the above tables are showing R, the multiple correlation coefficient, is the linear correlation between the observed and model-predicted values of the dependent variable. Its large value indicates a strong relationship. R is 0.265 that is showing strong correlation between Capital Goods FII and also R Square, the coefficient of determination, is the squared value of the multiple correlation coefficient. R ² which is 0.070 that is 7% of the variations are showing by this model. The significance value of the F statistic is less than 0.05, which means that the variation explained by the model is not due to chance. The ANOVA table is a useful test of the models ability to exp lain any variation in the dependent variable; it does not directly address the strength of that relationship. Regression between FMCG FII Variables Entered/Removedb Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 FIIa . Enter a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: FMCG Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .340a .116 .106 734.24192 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 6630011.310 1 6630011.310 12.298 .001a Residual 5.068E7 94 539111.190 Total 5.731E7 95 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII b. Dependent Variable: FMCG Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 1718.599 84.920 20.238 .000 FII .035 .010 .340 3.507 .001 a. Dependent Variable: FMCG The above Regression is between FMCG FII the above tables are showing R, the multiple correlation coefficient, is the linear correlation between the observed and model-predicted values of the dependent variable. Its large value indicates a strong relationship. R is 0.340 that is showing strong correlation between FMCG FII and also R Square, the coefficient of determination, is the squared value of the multiple correlation coefficient. R ² which is 0.116 that is 12% of the variations are showing by this model. The significance value of the F statistic is less than 0.05, which means that the variation explained by the model is not due to chance. The ANOVA table is a useful test of the models ability to explain any variation in the d ependent variable; it does not directly address the strength of that relationship. Regression between Health Care FII Variables Entered/Removedb Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 FIIa . Enter a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: Health_Care Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .375a .141 .132 1132.37039 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 1.976E7 1 1.976E7 15.409 .000a Residual 1.205E8 94 1282262.700 Total 1.403E8 95 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII b. Dependent Variable: Health_Care Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 3185.402 130.966 24.322 .000 FII .060 .015 .375 3.925 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Health_Care The above Regression is between Health Care FII the above tables are showing R, the multiple correlation coefficient, is the linear correlation between the observed and model-predicted values of the dependent variable. Its large value indicates a strong relationship. R is 0.375 that is showing strong correlation between Health Care FII and also R Square, the coefficient of determination, is the squared value of the multiple correlation coefficient. R ² which is 0.141 that is 14% of the variations are showing by this model. The significance value of the F statistic is less than 0.05, which means that the variation explained by the model is not due to chance. The ANOVA table is a useful test of the models ability to explain any variation in the dependent variable; it does not directly address the strength of that relationship. Regression between IT FII Variables Entered/Removedb Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 FIIa . Enter a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: IT Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .337a .114 .104 1334.92982 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 2.150E7 1 2.150E7 12.065 .001a Residual 1.675E8 94 1782037.614 Total 1.890E8 95 a. Predictors: (Constant), FII b. Dependent Variable: IT Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 3256.374 154.393 21.091 .000 FII .062 .018 .337 3.473 .001 a. Dependent Variable: IT The above Regression is between IT FII the above tables are showing R, the multiple correlation coefficient, is the linear correlation between the observed and model-predicted values of the dependent variable. Its large value indicates a strong relationship. R is 0.337 that is showing strong correlation between IT FII and also R Square, the coefficient of determination, is the squared value of the multiple correlation coefficient. R ² which is 0.114 that is 11% of the variations are showing by this model. The significance value of the F statistic is less than 0.05, which means that the variation explained by the model is not due to chance. The ANOVA table is a useful test of the models ability to explain any variation in the depend ent variable; it does not directly address the strength of that relationship. Granger Causality Correlation does not necessarily imply causation in any meaningful sense of that word. The econometric graveyard is full of magnificent correlations, which are simply spurious or meaningless. Interesting examples include a positive correlation between teachers salaries and the accident rate in the city. Economists debate correlations which are less obviously meaningless. The Granger (1969) approach to the question of whether causes is to see how much of the current can be explained by past values of and then to see whether adding lagged values of can improve the explanation. is said to be Granger-caused by if helps in the prediction of , or equivalently if the coefficients on the lagged s are statistically significant. Note that two-way causation is frequently the case; Granger causes and Granger causes . It is important to note that the statement Granger causes does not imply that is the effect or the result of . Granger causality measures precedence and information conten t but does not by itself indicate causality in the more common use of the term. Granger Causality test between FII and Sensex Pairwise Granger Causality Tests Date: 03/06/11 Time: 17:53 Sample: 1 96 Lags: 2   Null Hypothesis: Obs F-Statistic Prob. Â  SENSEX_RETURN does not Granger Cause FII   94   0.17300 0.8414   FII does not Granger Cause SENSEX_RETURN   0.89225 0.4134 This shows influence of FII inflow on Indian Stock Market. The probability in all the above tests is more than 0.05 at which you can reject the null hypothesis. The above table shows that there is cause and effect relationship between Sensex and Net FII because the probability is greater than 0.05 thus FII investment patterns affects the Sensex. This relationship is also depicted when during Jan 08 to Feb 09 FII net sales were for Rs. 58.751.70 Crore and as a result Sensex fell from 17648.71 in Jan 08 to 8891.61 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 8757.10 which was approximately 49% in just over a year. Granger Causality test between FII and NSE Pairwise Granger Causality Tests Date: 03/06/11 Time: 21:11 Sample: 1 96 Lags: 2   Null Hypothesis: Obs F-Statistic Prob. Â  NSE_RETURN does not Granger Cause FII   94   0.05355 0.9479   FII does not Granger Cause NSE_RETURN   0.45150 0.6381 This shows influence of FII inflow on Indian Stock Market. The probability in all the above tests is more than 0.05 at which you can reject the null hypothesis. The above table shows that there is cause and effect relationship between NSE and Net FII because the probability is greater than 0.05. Thus, FII investment patterns affect the NSE. This relationship is also depicted when during Jan 08 to Feb 09 FII net sales were for Rs. 58.751.70 Crore and as a result NSE fell from 5137.45 in Jan 08 to 2763.65 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 2373.80 which was approximately 46% in just over a year. Granger Causality test between FII and BSE Consumer Durables Pairwise Granger Causality Tests Date: 03/06/11 Time: 17:54 Sample: 1 96 Lags: 2   Null Hypothesis: Obs F-Statistic Prob. Â  CONSUMER_DURABLES_RETURN does not Granger Cause FII   94   0.30374 0.7388   FII does not Granger Cause CONSUMER_DURABLES_RETURN   0.93166 0.3977 This shows influence of FII inflow on Indian Stock Market. The probability in all the above tests is more than 0.05 at which you can reject the null hypothesis. The above table shows that there is cause and effect relationship between BSE Consumer Durables and Net FII because the probability is greater than 0.05. Thus, FII investment patterns affect the BSE Consumer Durables. This relationship is also depicted when during Jan 08 to Feb 09 FII net sales were for Rs. 58.751.70 Crore and as a result BSE Consumer Durables fell from 5103.86 in Jan 08 to 1542.67 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 3561.19 which was approximately 70% in just ov er a year. Granger Causality test between FII and BSE Capital Goods Pairwise Granger Causality Tests Date: 03/06/11 Time: 17:55 Sample: 1 96 Lags: 2   Null Hypothesis: Obs F-Statistic Prob. Â  CAPITAL_GOODS_RETURN does not Granger Cause FII   94   0.24639 0.7821   FII does not Granger Cause CAPITAL_GOODS_RETURN   0.11010 0.8959 This shows influence of FII inflow on Indian Stock Market. The probability in all the above tests is more than 0.05 at which you can reject the null hypothesis. The above table shows that there is cause and effect relationship between BSE Capital Goods and Net FII because the probability is greater than 0.05. Thus, FII investment patterns affect the BSE Capital Goods. This relationship is also depicted when during Jan 08 to Feb 09 FII net sales were for Rs. 58.751.70 Crore and as a result BSE Capital Goods fell from 16387.70 in Jan 08 to 5897.92 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 10489.78 which is approximately 64% in just over a year. Granger Causality test between FII and BSE FMCG Pairwise Granger Causality Tests Date: 03/06/11 Time: 17:55 Sample: 1 96 Lags: 2   Null Hypothesis: Obs F-Statistic Prob. Â  FMCG_RETURN does not Granger Cause FII   94   0.08588 0.9178   FII does not Granger Cause FMCG_RETURN   2.04411 0.1355 This shows influence of FII inflow on Indian Stock Market. The probability in all the above tests is more than 0.05 at which you can reject the null hypothesis. The above table shows that there is cause and effect relationship between BSE FMCG and Net FII because the probability is greater than 0.05. Thus, FII investment patterns affect the BSE FMCG. This relationship is also depicted when during Jan 08 to Feb 09 FII net sales were for Rs. 58.751.70 Crore and as a result BSE FMCG fell from 2167.34 in Jan 08 to 2043.26 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of only 124.08 which is approximately 6% in over a year. Granger Causality test between FII and BSE Health Care Pairwise Granger Causality Tests Date: 03/06/11 Time: 17:56 Sample: 1 96 Lags: 2   Null Hypothesis: Obs F-Statistic Prob. Â  HEALTH_CARE_RETURN does not Granger Cause FII   94   0.40226 0.6700   FII does not Granger Cause HEALTH_CARE_RETURN   1.34690 0.2653 This shows influence of FII inflow on Indian Stock Market. The probability in all the above tests is more than 0.05 at which you can reject the null hypothesis. The above table shows that there is cause and effect relationship between BSE Health Care and Net FII because the probability is greater than 0.05. Thus, FII investment patterns affect the BSE Health Care. This relationship is also depicted when during Jan 08 to Feb 09 FII net sales were for Rs. 58.751.70 Crore and as a result BSE Health Care fell from 3603.52 in Jan 08 to 2597.00 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 1006.52 which is approximately 27% in just over a year. Granger Causality test between FII and BSE IT Pairwise Granger Causality Tests Date: 03/06/11 Time: 17:56 Sample: 1 96 Lags: 2   Null Hypothesis: Obs F-Statistic Prob. Â  IT_RETURN does not Granger Cause FII   94   0.15074 0.8603   FII does not Granger Cause IT_RETURN   2.36452 0.0999 This shows influence of FII inflow on Indian Stock Market. The probability in all the above tests is more than 0.05 at which you can reject the null hypothesis. The above table shows that there is cause and effect relationship between BSE IT and Net FII because the probability is greater than 0.05. Thus, FII investment patterns affect the BSE IT. This relationship is also depicted when during Jan 08 to Feb 09 FII net sales were for Rs. 58.751.70 Crore and as a result BSE IT fell from 2096.17 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 1613.94 which is approximately 43% in just over a year. FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION The findings Suggestions of the research are: All the dependent variables taken for the research i.e. Sensex, NSE, BSE capital goods, BSE consumer durables, BSE FMCG, BSE Health Care BSE IT have shown positive correlation with FII equity investment patterns i.e. with the increase in FII, Various Stock indices also increases and vice versa. From the data we can observe, worst bearish phase was from Jan 08 to Feb 09. During this phase FII net sales was for Rs. 58.751.70 Crore and as a result of such withdrawals: Sensex fell from 17648.71 in Jan 08 to 8891.61 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 8757.10 which was approximately 49% in just over a year. NSE fell from 5137.45 in Jan 08 to 2763.65 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 2373.80 which was approximately 46% in just over a year. BSE Consumer Durables fell from 5103.86 in Jan 08 to 1542.67 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 3561.19 which was approximately 70% in just over a year. BSE Capital Goods fell from 16387.70 in Jan 08 to 5897.92 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 10489.78 which is approximately 64% in just over a year. BSE FMCG fell from 2167.34 in Jan 08 to 2043.26 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of only 124.08 which is approximately 6% in over a year. BSE Health Care fell from 3603.52 in Jan 08 to 2597.00 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 1006.52 which is approximately 27% in just over a year. BSE IT fell from 3710.11 in Jan 08 to 2096.17 in Feb 09, i.e. a drop of 1613.94 which is approximately 43% in just over a year. BSE FMCG and BSE Health Care have shown the most resistance to FII withdrawals, this is due to the fact that both of these sectors are Defensive Sectors, they have a low Beta. Besides FII Other Macroeconomic variables like inflation, Govt. policies etc also affect the various stock market indices. CONCLUSION In developing countries like India foreign capital helps in increasing the productivity of labour and to build up foreign exchange reserves to meet the current account deficit. Foreign Investment provides a channel through which country can have access to foreign capital. This research helps to find out empirical relationship among FII equity investments and stock market indices. According to Data analysis and findings, it can be concluded that FII do have significant impact on the Indian Stock Market but there are other factors like government policies, budgets, inflation, economical and political condition, etc. do also have an impact on the Indian stock market. There is a positive correlation between various stock indices and FIIs i.e. with increase in FIIs investment, various stock indices also increases and vice versa. Retail investors can also keep a watch at FIIs investment data and derive benefit from it; since FIIs have better exposure to market informations than ret ail investors. FIIs also results in increased volatility in stock markets. FIIs have their advantages as well as disadvantages; Govt. needs to regulate FIIs so as to reduce their impact on stock markets and should try to develop domestic sources of funds to enhance growth. REFRENCES Bose Suchismita and Coondoo Dipaankar (2005): The Impact of FII Regulations in India, Journal: International Journal of financial market trends. Vol 30. Publisher: MCB UP Ltd Chakrabarti (2001), Journal: Journal of foreign institution investments Vol 27. Publisher: SSRN Group Publishing Limited Khan, Mohd. Amir; Goyal, Siddarth; Ranjan, Vinit; Agrawal, Gaurav; Investigation of Causality between FIIs Investment and Stock Market Returns, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Issue 40, 2010. Batra, Amita; The dynamics of foreign portfolio inflows equity returns in India, Indian council for research on international economic relations, wp109, September 2003. Bansal, Anand Pasricha, J.S.; Foreign institutional investors impact on stock prices in India, Journal of academic research in economics, Vol. 1 No. 2, October 2009 S.S.S Kumar, Role of Institutional Investors in Indian Stock Market, International Journal of Management Practices Contemporary Thoug hts. Rajkumar Gupta, Hariom; FIIs flows to India: Economic Indicators, SCMC journal of Indian management, January-March 2010. Trivedi Nair, and Agarwal, Chakrabarti (2003), Journal: International Journal of foreign money supply Management, Vol: 19. Publisher: MCB UP Ltd. Prasanna, P. Krishna; Foreign Institutional Investors: Investment Preferences in India, JOAAG, Vol. 3. No. 2, 2008 Saraogi, Ravi; Determinants of FII Inflows: India, Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA), February 2008. Bose, S. Coondoo, D.; The impact of FII regulations in India: A time series intervention analysis of equity flows, ICRA Bulletin, July-Dec 04. https://www.ibef.org/economy/foreigninvestors.aspx https://www.citeman.com/4005-fiis-and-their-impact-on-indian-stock-market/ https://www.sebi.gov.in/workingpaper/stock.pdf

The Obesity Of Childhood Obesity - 894 Words

Up until the late 1990s, seeing an obese child was extremely abnormal because children’s main form of entertainment was playing outside. The rate of childhood obesity drastically increased due to the fact that children’s main form of entertainment has shifted from outdoor activities, to vast outlets of easily accessible technology. Children are also being served a variety of unhealthy meals from fast food restaurants, such as McDonald’s or Taco Bell. Unfortunately, most parents do not know the underlying truth about what they are feeding their children and often choose the cheapest route for feeding their families. Research indicates that the corpulence of today’s youth is becoming severely problematic, and drastic steps are being taken to solve the obesity concern in adolescents. Michelle Obama, who is a known advocate of the fight against childhood obesity, is using her resources as the First Lady to help remedy this situation. Obesity is only a symptom of a worse disease, being a slave to food. (L. 2). Research used to write the journal â€Å"Pregnancy, Delivery, and Childhood Obesity† signifies that â€Å"†¦ over 12% of children age 2-5 are considered obese, more than double the percentage (5.0%) occurring from 1976 – 1980† (qtd. In Squibb 73). In 2010, the Lets Move campaign launched, helping to change the lives of many children in need (â€Å"Michelle Obama†¦Ã¢â‚¬  44). Michelle initiated the movement focusing on four pillars: â€Å"Spread the number of healthy schools in this country,Show MoreRelatedChildhood Obesity : Obesity And Obesity Essay1671 Words   |  7 PagesFight to End Obesity Childhood obesity has increased drastically over the past years and has become a health risk to children. In fact, childhood obesity has doubled in numbers in the past thirty years (Childhood Obesity Facts). Obesity occurs when an individual becomes overweight and can be diagnosed by using the body mass index or BMI scale. Obesity causes many diseases in children which cannot be cured without a doctor, in result, childhood obesity drives high health care costs. The existenceRead MoreObesity : Childhood Obesity And Obesity955 Words   |  4 Pageswhere the life expectancy of today’s generation is being threatened. Prevention of overweight and obesity is imperative. Parents, especially mothers play a major role in preventing overweight and obesity among the children. Their knowledge of nutrition, food selection and family meal structure has major impact on their children’s food habit. The preschool age is crucial for the children to learn and develop their lifelong h abits. Education starts from home, where parents are the primary sourceRead MoreChildhood Obesity : Obesity And Obesity1505 Words   |  7 PagesChildhood Obesity Introduction Childhood Obesity has become more critical public health issue worldwide. However, obesity ratio varies from country to country. In addition, up to a quarter of Australian children are suffering from childhood obesity and obese children are at higher risk to become obese adult. For this reason, child’s weight always matters because it can impact on their health in future. There may be many reasons which affect childhood obesity including sedentary life style, lack ofRead MoreChildhood Obesity : A Obesity1247 Words   |  5 PagesChildhood Obesity: A Review to Prevent the Risk Factors of Childhood Obesity in Our Community. The rates of childhood obesity Worldwide are alarmingly high! Obesity is a global nutritional concern and leads to horrible consequences on our children and becomes a worldwide pandemic. Worldwide estimates of obesity are as high as 43 million, and rates continue to increase each year. In this study, people will find healthy tips to prevent childhood overweight or obesity to help children in our communitiesRead MoreChildhood Obesity : Obesity And Obesity Essay1076 Words   |  5 PagesChildhood obesity affects between 16% and 25% of children according to Spence Rathus. Over the past 20 years’ childhood obesity has increased and become more dominant (CDC, 2011a). There are other factors besides heredity that play a role in childhood obesity. Sugary drinks are more readily available along with unhealthy meal options at schools. Another factor would be advertising of unhealthy and fattening foods. Just from personal experience, kids are less active than when I was growing up. Pa rentsRead MoreChildhood Obesity : Obesity And Obesity1515 Words   |  7 Pagesoverweight and obese children has been growing at an alarming rate. The cause of this increasing problem is due to lack of physical activity, poor eating habits, and genetics. Childhood obesity can also lead to conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and bone problems later on in life. The prevalence of obesity varies among ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and age. Hispanics (22.4%) and non-Hispanic black youths (20.2%) are more likely to be overweight and obese compared to the non-HispanicRead MoreChildhood Obesity : Obesity And Obesity3977 Words   |  16 Pages Childhood Obesity Tara Domino-Robinson GEN 499 General Education Capstone Instructor: Anna Beresnlova August 3, 2015 Childhood Obesity I have decided to research Childhood Obesity. I chose to research this topic because I am currently working with families that are not aware of the types of food that promote good health for their kids and the statistics of â€Å"Childhood Obesity†. I plan to effectively limit the topic to just stating the main causes of obesity in America, statistics and theRead MoreChildhood Obesity : Obesity And Obesity961 Words   |  4 PagesChildhood Obesity â€Å"From 1980 to 2004, the prevalence of overweight children ages 6 to 11 nearly tripled† author Tara Dea explains her position on the situation and presents possible reasons for the increase in child obesity. Dispute in America and all over the world and specifically concerning with youth, is a growing area of concentration. Is it the parents, socio-economic status, or television commercials that lead the child’s future into obesity and why is obesity such a scary thing? It is normalRead MoreObesity : Childhood Obesity Epidemic1418 Words   |  6 Pageshis article â€Å"There is no Childhood Obesity Epidemic† discussed the there is a â€Å"stunning† drop in childhood obesity rate. He claims that obesity rates among two to five year olds have plunged over the past decade, and that the so called â€Å"obesity epidemic† had ended. I strongly disagree with Campos view that there is no childhood obesity epidemic, this is due to the researches that was done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which shows that childhood obesity has more than doubled inRead MoreChildhood Obesity And Overweight And Obesity Essay1138 Words   |  5 PagesObesity has become one of the number one factors affecting today’s youth. Numerous factors contribute to childhood obesity such as, poor lifestyle choices and the lack of exercise. In the article Harrison et al. (2011) indicates in order to understand why childhood obesity and overwe ight are on the rise, we first need to establish the factors that contribute to this dilemma. There is no doubt that nature and nurture contribute to childhood overweight and obesity; that is why researchers developed

Effects of John Brown’s Raid On Northern-southern Relations Free Essays

John Brown’s raid of the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia involved only a few abolitionists, freed no slaves, and ended after only two short days. Brown’s initial idea was that after raiding the federal armory slaves would rise up and rebel against their owners, not only in the north but eventually in the south. This was a radical idea, and although his raid was primarily condemned in the north, Brown became a hero. We will write a custom essay sample on Effects of John Brown’s Raid On Northern-southern Relations or any similar topic only for you Order Now Southerners became offended when in the years following Brown’s raid northerners felt compassion and even regarded him as a hero. The southerners however felt that he wanted to cause upheaval in the south. The issue however united the north for the cause of abolishing slavery. †Congress can contribute much to avert [southern withdrawal from the Union] by proposing†¦ an explanatory amendment of the Constitution on the subject of slavery†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Doc G) The Northern view of John Brown had changed drastically in the years leading up to the civil war. Initially John Brown was viewed as an irrational for his actions in Pottawatomie, Kansas. It was in Pottawatomie where Brown and a few colleagues took violent measures of vengeance against five pro-slavery southerners in Response to the Bleeding Kansas crisis. The northern view of Brown changed however after his 1859 raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia. The northern people did not immediately view him as a hero however. Many northerners viewed his raid as â€Å"utterly mistaken and, in its direct consequences, pernicious†. (Doc A) Southern people viewed Brown’s raid as a commotion and an appeal to rebellion. The previous Bleeding Kansas crisis also pushed the south more towards succession. It was by delegates chosen by the several states†¦ that the Constitution of the United States was framed in 1787 and submitted to the several states for ratification†¦ that of a compact between independent states. † (Doc H) President Lincoln responded â€Å"Having never been States, either in substance, or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of ‘States Rights’, asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? † (Doc I). Both of these statements were made in 1861, and clearly represent the division that sent our nation to war. While the years progressed the northern view of John Brown became increasingly more positive, people began to view Brown as a hero, as well as a martyr. Many believed while what he did was irrational and fanatical at the time, he paved the way for many northerners to become decided on the topic of abolition. John Brown’s raid ultimately made the Northern-southern relations even more strained, but caused the north to band together and fight against slavery and succession. In conclusion, the raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia pushed the North and the south farther apart, but was a small step to becoming the free country that America is today. How to cite Effects of John Brown’s Raid On Northern-southern Relations, Essay examples