A Comparative Analysis of the S&P Bse Sensex and Global Stock Indices: Implications for Portfolio Diversification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an era of increasing financial globalization, the degree of co-movement between international stock markets has become a critical factor for portfolio managers and individual investors. This study investigates the correlation between India’s S&P BSE SENSEX and five prominent global indices: NASDAQ (USA), Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE - Pakistan), Philippine Stock Exchange Index (PSEI), Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX - Canada), and the MSC Thailand Index. Utilizing historical daily closing prices from January to March 2024, the research employs Pearson’s correlation coefficient to determine the strength and direction of these relationships. The findings reveal a moderate positive correlation (0.493) with the NASDAQ, suggesting that while Indian markets are influenced by global tech trends, they still offer significant diversification benefits. Conversely, relationships with other regional indices like MSC Thailand were found to be weaker, highlighting the importance of geographical diversification. The paper concludes with strategic recommendations for risk management in volatile global environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it