Exploring the Herd Behavior of Investors:

A Comparative Study of the Indian

and US Stock Markets
Shilpa Lodha* and G Soral**

Recent research has witnessed a major shift in financial studies—from traditional finance to behavioral finance. The
rejection of Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), several times, has led to a new era of financial studies. Herd
behavior is one of the major areas of behavioral finance. Herding, basically, implies trading by a large group of investors
in the same direction over a period of time. The present paper attempts to explore the existence of herd behavior in the
Indian and the US stock markets. Daily prices of Nifty, its 50 constituent stocks, Dow Jones Industrial Average
(DJIA) and its 30 constituent stocks are collected for five financial years from 2013-14 to 2017-18. Using Cross-
Sectional Absolute Deviation (CSAD), as proposed by Chiang and Zheng (2010), the paper attempts to explore the
existence of herd behavior in the Indian and the US stock markets and the impact of US markets on the herd behavior
of the Indian stock markets. The results reveal that investors did not exhibit herd behavior both in the Indian and US
stock markets during the study period. Even after accounting for asymmetric returns, herding is indicated by both the
markets. Further, inclusion of CSAD of DJIA as an explanatory variable shows that Indian investors do not herd with
US stock markets.

Introduction
Stock market returns and their driving forces have been the key area of research in finance.
When one splits these studies on the basis of behavior of market participants, broadly there
are two different schools of thought. One is the traditional finance which is largely based on
the seminal work of Fama (1970), i.e., Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). It is based on the
rational behavior assumption to be demonstrated by investors. In other words, the EMH
assumes that investors are rational and behave accordingly. Recently, there were numerous
research studies challenging the EMH directly and here comes into picture various anomalies
of stock markets. Various anomalies are attributed to calendar, i.e., calendar-based anomalies
like day-of-the-week effect, month-of-the-year effect, holiday effects, etc. Another stream
of anomalies is related with investors’ behavior. Thus behavioral finance is another pole of
research in finance.
Behavioral finance encompasses four major areas of bias investment decisions—mental
accounting, herd behavior, anchoring and high self-rating. Mental accounting was first
introduced by Thaler (1984), “All organizations from General Motors down to single person
households, have explicit and/or implicit accounting systems. The accounting systems often
* Assistant Professor, Department of Accountancy and Business Statistics, Mohanlal Sukhadia University,
Udaipur, Rajasthan, India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: lodhashilpa80@gmail.com
** Former Professor and Head, Department of Accountancy and Business Statistics, Mohanlal Sukhadia University,
Udaipur, Rajasthan, India. E-mail: drgsoral@gmail.com

© 2020 IUP
Exploring . All
the HerdRights Reserved.
Behavior of Investors: A Comparative Study of the Indian 49
and US Stock Markets
influence decisions in unexpected ways”. Mental accounting is the propensity to allocate
money through a process, based on several subjective criteria. It asserts that people classify
their personal funds into various choices differently and therefore often make irrational
investment decisions. Herd behavior is often characterized by doing what others are doing
without using their own information or reasoning. It simply refers to how individual
investment decisions are affected by group investment decisions. Anchoring occurs when, in
the course of decision process, a person uses a reference value (an anchor) to choose a given
course of action (Luppe and Favero, 2012). Self-rating means to put oneself on a higher rank
than others. In this bias, the person considers himself/herself to be an expert on investment
decisions and attributes favorable results to his/her expertise and unfavorable results to bad
luck or an external factor.
The present paper mainly focuses on herd behavior. Herding is the irrational behavior of
investors in a stock market where they simply follow the crowd. It is the condition of stock
market where a large number of investors trade in the same direction over a period of time. In
his decisive work, Banerjee (1992) defines herding as “…everyone doing what everyone else
is doing, even when their private information suggests doing something quite different.”
The present paper attempts to explore the herd behavior in the Indian and US stock
markets. The next section presents a review of literature, followed by methodology. The
subsequent section presents discussion of results, followed by a conclusion.

Literature Review
Recently, herd behavior has emerged as an area of interest to several researchers. The collected
studies were classified on the basis of their findings as follows:

Confirmation of Existence of Herd Behavior

Lakonishok et al. (1992), in their pioneering work on herding, present evidence of herding
and trend chasing behavior of institutional money managers. Chang et al. (2000) confirm the
presence of herding behavior in the stock markets of South Korea and Taiwan.
Chiang and Zheng (2010) provide evidence of herding in advanced stock markets (except
USA) and in Asian markets, whereas Latin American markets did not show any herding
behavior. They also show that stock return dispersions in the US play a significant role in
explaining the non-US market’s herding activity. With the exceptions of the US and Latin
American markets, herding is present in both up and down markets. Further, they show that
any financial crisis in a country triggers herding behavior in that country and then through
contagion effect, spreads to neighboring countries also.
Lao and Singh (2011) confirm the prevalence of herding in both Indian and Chinese
stock markets. They find that the level of herding is dependent on market conditions. In the
Indian markets, the herding is apparent in upward movements, whereas in China, herding
occurs when the market falls and trading volume is high. Poshakwale and Mandal (2014) find
that the investors in Indian market show significant herding behavior. Even after controlling
for market volatility and market direction, the results remain significant.

50 The IUP Journal of Applied Finance, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2020

 Filip et al. (2015) analyze Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) stock markets for existence
of herding and confirm its existence for all CEE markets, except Poland. Investors’ herding
behavior is manifested both in upward and downward market. Fang et al. (2017) confirm the
herding behavior of the US equity fund managers in the stock market. They further reveal
that the US fund managers exhibit strong positive herding behavior when the market is
decreasing.

Rejection of Existence of Herd Behavior

Vieira et al. (2014) assert that using Cross-Sectional Absolute Deviation (CSAD) methodology,
no herding behavior is confirmed for Portuguese stock market. Ganesh et al. (2016) divide
Nifty 50 index into 14 industrial sectors and study the herding behavior. They find that there
is no significant level of herding in any of the industrial sectors. Kumar and Bharti (2017)
show no conclusive evidence of herding in the IT sector stocks of the Indian stock market. A
deeper analysis aimed at measuring herding patterns in bullish and bearish phases too indicates
absence of herding in the Indian stock market. Jose et al. (2018) report that herding behavior
is not present in the Indian stock markets and the investors are rational in their investment
decisions. The findings of Satish and Padmasree (2018) also indicate non-existence of herding
behavior in the Indian stock market. Even on further examination of Indian market before
crisis, during crisis and after crisis, no evidence of herding behavior is detected.

Objectives
The main objectives of the study are as follows:
• To find whether herd behavior exists in the Indian and the US stock markets;
• To explore the existence of herd behavior in the Indian and the US markets under
asymmetric returns; and
• To explore the impact of the US stock markets on the herd behavior of the Indian
stock markets.

Hypotheses
In order to attain the above-mentioned objectives, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H01: There is no evidence of existence of herd behavior in the Indian and US stock markets.
H02: There is no evidence of herd behavior under asymmetric market conditions.
H03: There is no evidence of herding by Indian investors with US stock market.

Data and Methodology

Data Collection
The scope of the present paper is limited to the Indian and US stock markets. For the Indian
stock market, S&P CNX Nifty 50 has been considered as the representative index. The
index, started in 1995, uses free-float market capitalization method for calculating index
value. The constituents stocks of Nifty 50 are 50 in number covering 22 sectors of the Indian

Exploring the Herd Behavior of Investors: A Comparative Study of the Indian 51

and US Stock Markets
economy. As far as the US stock market is concerned, Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA)
has been taken as representative stock index. It includes 30 large publicly-owned companies.
It is one of the oldest stock indices of the world.
Daily closing prices, for these two indices and their constituent stocks, were collected for a
period of five years from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2018. All the data was collected from the
official website of Yahoo Finance. As there were continuous revisions in the constituent stocks,
the daily closing prices of stocks as on March 31, 2018 were collected. For this period, there were
62,985 observations for Nifty and 38,285 observations for DJIA. For time series data, it is
necessary to make the series stationary in order to avoid non-sense regression. Therefore, the
closing prices of Nifty, DJIA and their constituent stocks were converted into returns.

Tools and Techniques

The returns for individual stocks were calculated using the following formula:

Ri, t = 100 * [log(Pt) – log(Pt – 1)] ...(1)

Here, Ri, t is the return of stock i at time t, Pt is the closing price of stock i at time t and
Pt – 1 is the closing price of stock i at time t – 1.

Similarly, returns for market index were also calculated using the following formula:

Rm, t = 100 * [log(Ct) – log(Ct – 1)] ...(2)

Here, Rm, t is the return of market index at time t, Ct is the closing value of index at time t
and Ct – 1 is the closing value of index at time t – 1.
For investigating herd behavior in stock markets, the approach of Chiang and Zheng
(2010) has been followed, which is a modification over the approach of Chang et al. (2000).
However, they both were of the view that there exists a nonlinear relationship between
dispersions of market portfolio returns and individual asset returns for herding to be true in
a market. They used CSAD for measuring the dispersion between these two returns. Chiang
and Zheng (2010) calculated CSAD, improving the methodology proposed by Christie and
Huang (1995) which does not require estimating beta as is in Capital Asset Pricing Model
(CAPM). But Christie and Huang (1995) used Cross-Sectional Standard Deviation (CSSD)
which may get affected by outliers. For herding to be true, the CSAD will decrease or at least
increase at a less than proportional rate with the market return.
Consistent with the above discussion, CSAD has been calculated as follows:


N
Ri , t  Rm, t
CSADi ,t  t ...(3)
N
where CSADi,t is the Cross-Sectional Absolute Deviation for stock i at time t, Ri, t is the return
of stock i at time t, Rm, t is the return on market index at time t and N is the number of stocks
included in the index.

52 The IUP Journal of Applied Finance, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2020

 Then the following regression model is used to estimate the coefficients of the equation:
CSADt = 0 + 1Rm, t + 2|Rm, t| + 3R 2m, t + t ...(4)
Here, CSADt is the Cross-Sectional Absolute Deviation at time t, 0 is the intercept or
constant term, Rm, t is the return on market index, |Rm, t| is the absolute value of return on
market index, R2m,t is the squared return on market index (to include the nonlinear
relationship) and 1, 2 and 3 are the coefficients to be estimated. For herding behavior to be
true the coefficient 3 should be negative and statistically significant.
To facilitate the inclusion of asymmetry in stock returns, instead of dividing the sample
into two sub-samples, one for up market or bull conditions and another for down market or
bear conditions, Chiang and Zheng (2010) approach was used. This approach accounts for
asymmetric returns by including a dummy variable in the equation as follows:
CSADt = 0 + 1(1 – DUM)Rm,t + 2(DUM)Rm, t + 3(1 – DUM)R 2m, t
+ 4(DUM)R 2m, t + t ...(5)
Here, DUM is the dummy variable included to capture the effect of asymmetry, which
takes the value of 1 if market returns are less than 0 (Bear Condition) and 0 otherwise (Bull
Condition).
In order to capture the effect of other stock markets in this era of globalization, CSAD of
DJIA and squared returns of DJIA have been included on the right hand side of the Equation
(5) as follows:
CSADt = 0 + 1 Rm,t + 2|Rm, t| + 3 R 2m, t + 4 CSADus, t – 1 + 5 R 2us, t – 1 + t ...(6)
Here, the CSADus, t – 1 is the Cross-Sectional Absolute Deviation of DJIA at time t – 1 and
R 2us, t is the squared return of DJIA at time t – 1. Here, due to time gap between Indian and US
market opening, lag variables have been included for CSAD and squared returns of DJIA.
The remaining arguments are same as in Equation (4).

Results and Discussion

This section presents descriptive statistics and estimation results of the above equations for
both the Indian and US stock markets.

Descriptive Statistics
At the outset, returns for both Nifty and DJIA along with their constituent stocks (50 and
30, respectively) were calculated using Equations (1) and (2). After calculating the returns,
CSAD for each of the constituent stocks of both Nifty and DJIA was calculated using Equation
(3) for each of the sample day.
Table 1 presents the results of descriptive statistics for returns and CSAD of Nifty and
DJIA for the study period. Mean returns of Nifty are 0.0466%, whereas those of DJIA are
0.0447%. Nifty provided maximum returns on September 10, 2013 and minimum returns on
August 24, 2015. In the case of DJIA, maximum returns were on September 10, 2015 and

Exploring the Herd Behavior of Investors: A Comparative Study of the Indian 53

and US Stock Markets
 Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Returns and CSAD of Nifty and DJIA

Statistics Nifty Returns DJIA Returns CSAD Nifty CSAD DJIA

Mean 0.046679 0.044700 1.563301 0.655850

Maximum 3.737970 3.875487 7.966182 2.027406

Minimum –6.097258 –4.714282 0.304263 0.215104

SD 0.922777 0.760679 0.685150 0.223449

Skewness –0.406464 –0.634221 2.791868 1.327830

Kurtosis 5.883058 6.959321 17.46038 6.089882

Jarque-Bera 461.7293 889.4658 12,364.44 854.2033

Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

minimum were on March 9, 2018. The standard deviation, during the period, of Nifty is
0.922% and for DJIA it is 0.761%. The values of skewness and kurtosis show that the returns
of both DJIA and Nifty are negatively skewed and leptokurtic, respectively.
Significant values of Jarque-Bera test show that returns of both markets are not normally
distributed. But as the sample is very large, the normality is not a big concern here.
As far as CSAD of both the markets is concerned, the mean dispersion of Nifty is 1.563% and
for DJIA it is 0.656%. The skewness and kurtosis values of CSAD show that CSADs for both the
markets are positively skewed and leptokurtic. Jarque-Bera test results confirm the non-normality
of returns of both markets, but being the large sample size, it is not a matter of concern.
Figure 1 displays the line graph of CSAD of both Nifty and US. It is quite obvious that
Nifty has larger deviation as compared to DJIA. It reveals that absolute dispersion of individual
Figure 1: CSAD of Nifty and DJIA
9
8
7 CSAD Nifty
6
CSAD US
5
4
3
2
1
0
5/27/2013

8/27/2014
10/29/2014
7/19/2013

10/8/2015
9/17/2013

3/6/2014

2/23/2015

8/11/2015
12/7/2015

5/30/2016
7/25/2016
9/21/2016
1/12/2017
Date

11/13/2013
1/9/2014

12/26/2014

3/31/2016

8/31/2017
12/21/2017
5/7/2014
7/1/2014

4/22/2015
6/17/2015

11/18/2016

3/10/2017
5/10/2017

10/27/2017
2/2/2016

2/19/2018
7/5/2017

54 The IUP Journal of Applied Finance, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2020

stock returns of Nifty from that of market index (Nifty) is larger. On the other hand, the
returns of constituent stocks of DJIA have smaller deviation from those of DJIA.

Existence of Herding Behavior

After describing the return and CSAD series, Equation (4) is estimated separately for Nifty
and DJIA. The estimation results for Nifty have been presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Estimation Results of Regression Equation (4) for Nifty

Dependent Variable: CSAD Nifty

Method: Least Squares

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 1.267265 0.027749 45.66807 0.00

Nifty –0.073182 0.017451 –4.193608 0.00

ABSNifty 0.294575 0.051584 5.710614 0.00

SQNifty 0.117830 0.017566 6.707733 0.00

R2 0.349136

Adjusted R2 0.347550

SE of Regression 0.553426

F-Statistic 220.1107

Prob. (F-Statistic) 0.00

The results reveal that coefficients of Nifty returns, absolute Nifty returns and squared
Nifty returns are –0.073, 0.29 and 0.11, respectively, all with significant p-values. But the
positive sign of squared Nifty returns confirm the non-existence of herding behavior in the
investors of the Indian stock markets. In other words, statistically significant but positive value
of squared Nifty returns fails to reject the null hypothesis of no herding in Indian stock markets.
Then Equation (4) is estimated for CSAD of DJIA and the results have been presented in
Table 3.
It is revealed from the regression results that the coefficients of DJIA, absolute DJIA and
squared DJIA are 0.006, 0.156 and –0.013, respectively. The interesting fact is that the
coefficient of squared DJIA is negative but it is statistically insignificant (p-value 0.17),
validating the non-existence of herd behavior in the US stock markets. Thus the null
hypothesis of non-existence of herd behavior cannot be rejected for US stock market as well
at 5% level of significance.

Exploring the Herd Behavior of Investors: A Comparative Study of the Indian 55

and US Stock Markets
 Table 3: Estimation Results of Regression Equation (4) for DJIA
Dependent Variable: CSAD US

Method: Least Squares

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 0.579179 0.010225 56.64489 0.0000

DJIA 0.005728 0.008280 0.691785 0.4892

ABSDJIA 0.156378 0.023541 6.642700 0.0000

SQDJIA –0.012646 0.009305 –1.359032 0.1744

R2 0.097061

Adjusted R2 0.094860

SE of Regression 0.212587

F-Statistic 44.10849

Prob. (F-Statistic) 0.00

Herding Under Asymmetric Market Conditions

In order to capture the asymmetry in returns, Equation (5) is estimated both for Nifty and
DJIA and the results have been presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
Table 4 reveals that even after inclusion of asymmetry in returns with the help of dummy
variable DUM, no herding indication is apparent. Surprisingly, the coefficients of all arguments
are significant but at the same time they are positive except DUM * Nifty. Thus null hypothesis
of no herding under asymmetric returns is failed to be rejected at 5% level of significance.
There are no signs of herding in the Indian stock markets during up and down market
conditions.

Table 4: Estimation Results of Regression Equation (5) for Nifty

Dependent Variable: CSAD Nifty

Method: Least Squares

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 1.265727 0.028571 44.30120 0.0000

(1 – DUM) * Nifty 0.233422 0.074035 3.152845 0.0017

56 The IUP Journal of Applied Finance, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2020

 Table 4 (Cont.)

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

DUM * Nifty –0.365892 0.057564 –6.356216 0.0000

(1 – DUM) * SQNifty 0.111257 0.033799 3.291723 0.0010

DUM * SQNifty 0.119245 0.018641 6.396898 0.0000

R2 0.349163

Adjusted R2 0.347047

SE of Regression 0.553639

F-Statistic 164.9688

Prob. (F-Statistic) 0.000000

Table 5 for DJIA returns revealed the same results as in the case of Nifty.

Table 5: Estimation Results of Equation (5) for DJIA

Dependent Variable: CSAD US

Method: Least Squares

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 0.628437 0.006720 93.52293 0.0000

(1 – DUM) * DJIA 0.011265 0.011126 1.012539 0.3115

DUM * DJIA 0.014433 0.012244 1.178731 0.2387

(1 – DUM) * SQDJIA 0.062267 0.006771 9.195438 0.0000

DUM * SQDJIA 0.028626 0.005676 5.043101 0.0000

R2 0.077144

Adjusted R2 0.074143

SE of Regression 0.215006

F-Statistic 25.70492

Prob. (F-Statistic) 0.000000

Exploring the Herd Behavior of Investors: A Comparative Study of the Indian 57

and US Stock Markets
 Coefficients for all arguments in Equation (5) are positive; hence the null hypothesis is
rejected at 5% level of significance for DJIA as well. Investors do not herd during different
market conditions.

Herding and the Role of the US Stock Market

In order to capture the effect of herd behavior of US stock markets on that of Indian stock
market, Equation (6) is estimated and the results have been presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Estimation Results of Regression Equation (6) for Nifty

Dependent Variable: CSAD Nifty

Method: Least Squares

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

C 1.175382 0.052799 22.26160 0.0000

NIFTY –0.074145 0.017420 –4.256435 0.0000

ABSNIFTY 0.284216 0.051583 5.509895 0.0000

SQNIFTY 0.119546 0.017537 6.816935 0.0000

CSADUS(–1) 0.129663 0.072762 1.782011 0.0750

SQDJIA(–1) 0.021849 0.011648 1.875753 0.0609

R2 0.353690

Adjusted R2 0.351059

SE of Regression 0.552051

F-Statistic 134.4035

Prob. (F-Statistic) 0.000000

The results disclose that even the inclusion of CSAD of DJIA and its squared returns did
not in any way change the results. Still the herd behavior is not apparent in the Indian stock
market. Both of the above-mentioned coefficients are not significant at 5% level. Thus, the
null hypothesis of no herding spillover from the US stock market to the Indian stock market
cannot be rejected at 5% level of significance. Investors in the Indian stock market are not
found to herd around the US stock markets.

Conclusion
The study attempted to explore the existence of herd behavior in the Indian and US stock
markets and the impact of US markets on the herd behavior of the Indian stock markets

58 The IUP Journal of Applied Finance, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2020

using CSAD as proposed by Chiang and Zheng (2010). The results revealed that the investors
did not exhibit herd behavior both in the Indian and the US stock markets during the study
period. Even when the herd behavior was tested in different market conditions—bull and
bear—the results remained unchanged. These findings are consistent with the findings of
Vieira et al. (2014), Kumar and Bharti (2017), Jose et al. (2018), and Satish and Padmasree
(2018). At the same time these findings are against the findings of Lakonishok et al. (1992),
Chiang and Zheng (2010) and Poshakwale and Mandal (2014).
Further, inclusion of CSAD of DJIA as explanatory variable did not make any change in
the results. It concludes that Indian investors do not herd with US stock market. There is no
evidence of herding in Indian stock market; this fact may be attributed to several reasons. As
several studies argue that herding is one of the main determinants of irrational behavior of
investors, the findings lead to the conclusion that investors in Indian stock market are
rational and do not follow the crowd. Further, in India, participation of institutional investors
in stock market is very large as compared to the negligible influence of individual investors.
The institutional investors have greater access to and have more expertise and skills to
analyze the information relevant for investment decision making. Thus, for these large
institutional investors, there is very little greed to herd with other investors when they
already have better access to information. 

References
1. Banerjee A V (1992), “A Simple Model of Herd Behaviour”, The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 108, No. 3, p. 797.

2. Chang E C, Cheng J W and Khorana A (2000), “An Examination of Herd Behavior in

Equity Markets: An International Perspective”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 24,
No. 10, pp. 1651-1679.

3. Chiang T C and Zheng D (2010), “An Empirical Analysis of Herd Behavior in Global
Stock Markets”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1911-1921.

4. Christie W G and Huang R D (1995), “Following the Pied Piper: Do Individual Returns
Herd Around the Market?”, Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 31-37.

5. Fama E F (1970), “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work”,
The Journal of Finance, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 383-417.

6. Fang Hao, Shen Chung-Hua and Lee Yen-Hsien (2017), “The Dynamic and Asymmetric
Herding Behaviour of US Equity Fund Managers in the Stock Market”, International
Review of Economics and Finance, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 353-369.

7. Filip Angela, Pochea Miruna and Pece Andreea (2015), “The Herding Behaviour of
Investors in CEE Stock Markets”, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 307-315.

Exploring the Herd Behavior of Investors: A Comparative Study of the Indian 59

and US Stock Markets
 8. Ganesh R, Naresh G and Thiyagarajan S (2016), “Industry Herding Behaviour in Indian
Stock Market”, American Journal of Finance and Accounting, Vol. 4, Nos. 3&4,
pp. 284-308.
9. Jose Babu, Varghese James and Surendran Anooja (2018), “Investors’ Herding in Indian
Stock Market: An Empirical Analysis”, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 76-86.
10. Kumar Ashish and Bharti M (2017), “Herding in Indian Stock Markets: An Evidence
from Information Technology Sector”, pp. 1-7, available at http://www.iosrjournals.org/
iosr-jef/papers/(SIFICO)-2017/Volume-1/1.%2001-07.pdf
11. Lakonishok Josef, Shleifer Andrei and Vishny Robert W (1992), “The Impact of
Institutional Trading on Stock Prices”, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 23-43.
12. Lao Paulo and Singh Harminder (2011), “Herding Behaviour in the Chinese and Indian
Stock Markets”, Journal of Asian Economics, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 495-506.
13. Luppe Marcos Roberto and Favero Liuz Paulo Lopes (2012), “Anchoring Heuristic and
the Estimation of Accounting and Financial Indicators”, International Journal of Finance
and Accounting, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp. 120-130.
14. Poshakwale Sunil and Mandal Anandadeep (2014), “Investor Behaviour and Herding:
Evidence from the National Stock Exchange in India”, Journal of Emerging Market Finance,
Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 197-216.
15. Satish Batchu and Padmasree K (2018), “An Empirical Analysis of Herding Behaviour
in Indian Stock Market”, International Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3,
pp. 124-132.
16. Thaler Richard (1984), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice”, Marketing Science,
Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 199-214.
17. Vieira Elisabete Simoes F and Pereira Marcia S Valente (2014), “Herding Behaviour
and Sentiment: Evidence in a Small European Market”, Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish
Accounting Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Reference # 01J-2020-10-03-01

60 The IUP Journal of Applied Finance, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2020

Copyright of IUP Journal of Applied Finance is the property of IUP Publications and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.