Portfolio Management: Stock Ranking by Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods

Haresh V. Dedania¹, Vipul R. Shah^2*, Rajesh C. Sanghvi²

¹Department of Mathematics, Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, India.
²G H Patel College of Engineering & Technology, Vallabh Vidyanagar, India.

DOI: 10.4236/ti.2015.64016                

Abstract

An investor would like to build a balanced portfolio with stocks representing different sectors. Several researchers have attempted the portfolio selection problem by different methods. Many of these methods consider companies of different sectors together. However, it can be argued that the attributes affecting the company’s growth vary for different sectors. Therefore, it is advisable to compare a company with the companies of the same sector. There are many options for the selection of a stock from a particular sector. A stock ranking method is proposed by using MADM methods based on overall performance under a stochastic environment. Of many MADM methods, SAW, AHP, TOPSIS, and VIKOR are applied. Usually, Euclidean distances (2-norm) are considered in the implementation of TOPSIS and VIKOR methods. In this work, this norm is generalized to p-norm, where p > 1. The model is tested for 13 companies in the field of Information Technology sector (IT) listed on National Stock Exchange in India and 13 criteria as performance indicators of a company. A MATLAB GUI system is developed and the results are obtained for several values of p in case of TOPSIS and VIKOR methods besides other methods. As the result indicates, the ordering is not much affected by different values of p in certain range. Moreover, higher values of p have adverse effect on the ordering. The proposed model is able to provide better information on the overall performance of a particular stock in comparison with its peers. The results obtained by various methods clearly separate good companies from inferior companies though the exact ordering slightly differs.

Keywords

Ranking of Stocks, MADM Methods, Financial Ratios, p-TOPSIS Method, p-VIKOR Method

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Quah, T.-S. (2008) DJIA Stock Selection Assisted by Neutral Network. Expert Systems with Applications, 35, 50-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.06.039 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417407002096
[2]	Tiryaki, F. and Ahlatcioglu, B. (2009) Fuzzy Portfolio Selection Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Information Sciences, 179, 53-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2008.07.023 http://www.cse.ust.hk/~leichen/courses/comp630p/collection/reference-7-6.pdf
[3]	Jamshidi, N. and Ramshini, M. (2014) The Survey on Combined Approaches FAHP-TOPSIS and FAHP-DEA in Ranking and Efficiency Survey Accepted Companies in Tehran Stock Exchange. International Journal of Social Science and Management, 1, 27-36. http://oaji.net/articles/2014/1022-1405876046.pdf
[4]	Dincer, H. (2015) Profit-Based Selection Approach in Banking Sector Using Fuzzy AHP and MOORA Method. Global Business and Economics Research Journal, 4, 1-26. journal.globejournal.org/index.php/GBERJ/article/download/173/116
[5]	Moradi, M., and Janatifar, H. (2014) Performance Evaluation of Automobile Companies Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques. Global Journal of Management Studies and Researches, 1, 77-84. academicjournalscenter.org/index.php/GJMSR/article/download/.../pdf_8
[6]	Sevastjanov, P. and Dymova, L. (2009) Stock Screening with Use of Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Optimization. Omega, 37, 659-671. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048308000467
[7]	Shen, K.-Y., Yan, M.-R. and Tzeng, G.-H. (2014) Combining VIKOR-DANP Model for Glamor Stock Selection and Stock Performance Improvement. Knowledge-Based Systems, 58, 86-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2013.07.023 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260315003_Combining_VIKOR- DANP_model_for_glamor_stock_selection_and_stock_performance_improvement
[8]	Giglio, R. and Da Silva, S. (2009) Ranking the Stocks Listed on Bovespa According to Their Relative Efficiency. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 43, 2133-2142. http://www.m-hikari.com/ams/ams-password-2009/ams-password41-44-2009/dasilvaAMS41-44-2009.pdf
[9]	Maikaew, P. and Yanpirat, P. (2012) Stochastic TOPSIS Employment in Stock Ranking for the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Proceedings of International Conference on Business and Management, Phuket, 6-7 September 2012, 57-72.
[10]	Tzeng, G. and Huang, J. (2011) Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, A Chapman & Hall Book, Boca Raton.
[11]	Churchman, C., Ackoff, R. and Arnoff, E. (1957) Introduction to Operations Research. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.
[12]	Saaty, T. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
[13]	Saaty, T. (1990) How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I https://www.ida.liu.se/~TDDD06/literature/saaty.pdf
[14]	Alonso, J. and Lamata, M. (2006) Consistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A New Approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 14, 445-459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218488506004114 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/220354940_Consistency _in_the_Analytic_Hierarchy_Process_a_New_Approach
[15]	Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
[16]	Yoon, K. (1987) A Reconciliation among Discrete Compromise Situations. Journal of Operational Research Society, 38, 277-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jors.1987.44
[17]	Deng, H., Yeh, C. and Willis, R. (2000) Inter-Company Comparison Using Modified TOPSIS with Objective Weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27, 963-973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00069-6 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305054899000696
[18]	Opricovic, S. (1998) Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 302 p.
[19]	Yu, P. (1973) A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems. Management Science, 19, 936-946. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.19.8.936
[20]	Zeleny, M. (1982) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw Hill, New York.
[21]	Gao, S., Zhang, Z. and Cao, C. (2009) New Methods of Estimating Weights in AHP. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Information Processing (ISIP 09), Jiaxing, 21-23 August 2009, 201-204. http://academypublisher.com/proc/isip09/papers/isip09p201.pdf
[22]	Kazan, H. and Ozdemir, O. (2014) Financial Performance Assessment of Large Scale Conglomerates via Topsis and Critic Methods. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 3, 203-224. http://www.pakinsight.com/pdf-files/ijms-3(4)-203-224.pdf