| Literature DB >> 36254141 |
Ha Che-Ngoc1, Nga Do-Thi2, Thao Nguyen-Trang3,4.
Abstract
Ichimoku Kinkohyo or Ichimoku Cloud Chart is one of the most popular technical indicators used by traders all over the world. However, its profitability is heavily influenced by the market environment, to which it is applied. Furthermore, the COVID-19 outbreak may have an impact on the market environment as well as the performance of all technical indicators. This study is the first to look into the profitability of Ichimoku-based trading rules in the Vietnamese stock market in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak. More particularly, the COVID-19 outbreak has a positive influence on the performance of this strategy when considering the entire market as well as a variety of industries including real estate industry, food and beverage industry, resource industry, and automotive and electronic components industry. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, the return on investment obtained per each transaction using the Ichimoku-based strategy increased by roughly 8 - 9 % in the pandemic period. Compared to the Buy-and-hold method, the Ichimoku-based strategy could slightly increase Accumulated return while posing a lower risk. The findings indicate that the Ichimoku-based strategy is applicable to the Vietnam stock market, regardless of the adverse effects of the pandemic on the industries.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Ichimoku cloud; Non-parametric statistics; Return on Investment; Vietnamese stock market
Year: 2022 PMID: 36254141 PMCID: PMC9558011 DOI: 10.1007/s10614-022-10319-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Econ ISSN: 0927-7099 Impact factor: 1.741
The distinction between this paper and certain existing studies
| Research | Ichimoku | Vietnam stocks | COVID-19 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anh and Gan ( | No | Yes | Yes |
| Bogdan et al. ( | No | No | Yes |
| Danylchuk et al. ( | No | No | Yes |
| Deng et al. ( | Yes | No | No |
| Gurrib et al. ( | Yes | No | No |
| Lee et al. ( | No | No | Yes |
| Nandini and Samal ( | No | No | Yes |
| Ryandono et al. ( | No | No | Yes |
| Valle-Cruz et al. ( | No | No | Yes |
| Yee et al. ( | Yes | No | No |
| This paper | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Fig. 1An illustration of the components of Ichimoku system and the Ichimoku chart based trading strategy
Fig. 2Histogram of obtained ROI
Statistics of obtained ROI on the two periods
| Periods | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 360 | 0.0175 | 0.6579 | 0.0347 | – |
| 2 | 333 | 0.1036 | 0.6504 | 0.0356 | – |
| U test | – | – | – | – | 0.000028 |
p-values of Mann-Whitney Tests when comparing ROI obtained from sub-periods
| p-values | Period 1 | Sub-period 2.1 | Sub-period 2.2 | Sub-period 2.3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period 1 | – | 0.986 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Sub-period 2.1 | 0.986 | – | 0.038 | 0.000 |
| Sub-period 2.2 | 0.001 | 0.038 | – | 0.067 |
| Sub-period 2.3 | 0.000 | 0 | 0.067 | – |
p-values of Mann-Whitney Tests when comparing ROI obtained in the two periods by industry
| ID | Sectors | Period 1 | Period 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Real estate | −0.023 | 0.109 | 0.042 |
| 2 | Bank | −0.063 | 0.049 | 0.508 |
| 3 | Covenient service | −0.05 | 0.038 | 0.165 |
| 4 | Retail services | 0.363 | −0.063 | 0.856 |
| 5 | Medical | −0.012 | −0.009 | 0.719 |
| 6 | Personal and household goods | −0.047 | 0.012 | 0.178 |
| 7 | Food and beverages | −0.055 | 0.119 | 0.003 |
| 8 | Industrial goods and services | −0.019 | 0.071 | 0.122 |
| 9 | Building services | 0.134 | 0.103 | 0.318 |
| 10 | Resources | −0.026 | 0.553 | 0.039 |
| 11 | Chemistry | −0.025 | 0.05 | 0.426 |
| 12 | Technology | 0.006 | −0.018 | 0.806 |
| 13 | Financial services | −0.012 | 0.274 | 0.289 |
| 14 | Insurance | −0.018 | 0.001 | 0.564 |
| 15 | Travel and leisure | 0.002 | 0.104 | 1.000 |
| 16 | Automotive and electronic components | −0.053 | 0.085 | 0.042 |
The cumulative returns, Sharpe Ratio, and Jensen alpha of the Ichimoku-based trading rule
| Industries | Accumulated return | Sharpe Ratio | Jensen alpha | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period 1 | Period 2 | Period 1 | Period 2 | Period 1 | Period 2 | |
| Entire market | −0.07 | −2.02 | −0.14 | |||
| Real estate | −0.16 | −0.82 | −0.15 | |||
| Bank | 0.00 | −0.24 | −0.12 | |||
| Covenient service | −0.15 | −1.81 | −0.21 | |||
| Medical | −0.09 | −1.07 | −0.19 | |||
| Household goods | −0.16 | −2.17 | −0.16 | |||
| Food and beverages | −0.09 | −3.43 | −0.08 | |||
| Industrial services | −0.13 | −0.32 | −0.17 | |||
| Building services | 0.12 | 0.78 | 0.15 | |||
| Resources | −0.19 | −2.12 | −0.18 | |||
| Chemistry | −0.16 | −1.44 | −0.16 | |||
| Technology | −0.12 | −2.38 | −0.13 | |||
| Financial services | −0.03 | −0.62 | −0.04 | |||
| Insurance | −0.08 | −2.07 | −0.26 | |||
| Travel and leisure | −0.05 | −1.69 | −0.07 | |||
| Automotive industry | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | |||
Fig. 3AR of the two methods
Fig. 4The distribution of using Bootstrap sampling
Fig. 5The traceplot of 10000 generated samples
Fig. 6The effects of prior distribution on the posterior confidence interval