Demutualization and Its Impact On Stock Exchange

DEMUTUALIZATION IMPACT ON
MARKET PERFORMANCE:
A STUDY ON DHAKA STOCK EXCHANGE
1|Page
Demutualization Impact on Market Performance: A study on Dhaka Stock Exchange
ABSTRACT
This paper seeks to address the question of whether demutualization of Dhaka stock exchange is
an efficient mechanism towards improving the market performance.
In order to empirically assess whether or not demutualized stock exchange has led to better
market performance, the research uses various indicators of stock market performance. In
particular, it provides measures of following variables Market size, Market liquidity as well
as volatility. The study employs a matched pairs methodology in order to compare the pre - and
post demutualization performance measures of the Dhaka Stock exchange. In order to investigate
the impact of demutualization, the study calculates the mean (median), standard deviation as well
as trends of each variable for each of the market indicators, for at least 238 trading days before
demutualization and the 238 trading days after the demutualization.
Market size of DSE that has undergone the demutualization program has been measured in
terms four measures - Domestic market capitalization, Market Capitalization to GDP ratio,
Average Number of Howla in DSE, Volume. The study finds that two out of the four measures
show high significance for improvement after demutualization and support the research
hypothesis. Two indicators; Domestic market capitalization and Volume have significantly
improved after demutualization at 5% significance level. The remaining two indicators- Market
Capitalization to GDP ratio and Average Number of Howla in DSE used to test market size of
equity markets do not support the research hypothesis. As for the impact of the post
demutualization structure on the liquidity of stock exchange, 3 measures were employedAverage Trade value of share trading, Trade value/ GDP ratio and Average Turnover. Results
are mixed. The study notes a high significant improvement; at 5% level for one of these
indicators; Average Trade value of share trading. On the contrary, Trade value/ GDP ratio and
Average Turnover are not significantly impacted. To examine improvement in market volatility
in the equity markets of demutualized stock exchanges, the volatility of the broad index is used
as a proxy. The analysis shows that, before the market demutualization, the standard deviation
and range were higher than after the demutualization period. It is positive sign because both the
standard deviation and range are the measure of risk. And as the risk reduce in the post
demutualization we can empirically say that there is positive influence on the market risk
condition because of demutualization.
2|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................... 3
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ........................................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 8
1.1
Background ...................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Background of Demutualization - Dhaka Stock Exchange Ltd (DSE) ............................... 11

1.2.1 Objectives of DSE for being demutualized ................................................................. 11
1.2.2 Broad Strategies Taken by DSE Ltd ............................................................................ 12
1.3 Forms of Demutualization .................................................................................................. 12
1.4 Motives / Factors for Demutualization ............................................................................... 12
1.4.1 The Impact of Technology ........................................................................................... 13
1.4.2 The Impact of Competition .......................................................................................... 13
1.4.3 Need for Improved Governance................................................................................... 15
1.4.4 Investor Participation ................................................................................................... 15
1.4.5 Raising Capital ............................................................................................................. 16
1.4.6 Consolidation ............................................................................................................... 16
1.5 Trend in demutualization ................................................................................................ 17
1.6 Problem Definition of the research..................................................................................... 18
1.7 Research Objective ............................................................................................................. 19
1.8 Significance of the Research ............................................................................................... 19
1.9 Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 20
3|Page
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 22

2.1 Empirical Studies on the impact of Demutualization on the Performance of Stock
Exchanges ................................................................................................................................. 22
2.1.1 Exchange governance change Vs Improved performance and Valuation: A paper by
Mendiola and OHara ........................................................................................................... 22
2.1.2 Why stock exchange demutualized & the impact of demutualization on trading
volumes and COSTS: A paper by Hazarika (2005) .............................................................. 25
2.1.3 Impact on liquidity of the exchange after demutualization: Treptow (2006) .............. 26
2.1.4 Demutualization vs. Market Risk ................................................................................ 27
2.1.5 Performance Measurement Systems ............................................................................ 28
CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................... 29
3.1 Linking the Literature to the Research Hypothesis............................................................. 29
3.2 MARKET Size...................................................................................................................... 31
3.2.1 Domestic market capitalization.................................................................................... 31
3.2.2 Market Capitalization Ratio ......................................................................................... 31
3.2.4 Market capitalization of newly listed domestic shares ............................................... 32
3.2.5 Howla in DSE .............................................................................................................. 32
3.2.6 Number of trades in equity shares: .............................................................................. 32
3.3 Liquidity .............................................................................................................................. 32
3.3.1 Value of share trading: ................................................................................................. 32
3.3.2 Average Value of Trades: ............................................................................................ 33
3.3.3 Total Value Traded / GDP ........................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 4: DEFINING HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................ 34
4.1 Major Hypothesis ................................................................................................................ 34
4.2 Minor Hypothesis ................................................................................................................ 34
4|Page
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 36

5.1. Research Method Used to Test the Hypotheses ................................................................. 36
5.2 Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 6: DATA PROCESSING AND EMPIRICAL RESULT ............................................................ 39
6.1 Hypothesis testing related to market size............................................................................ 39
6.1.1 Results on Hypothesis H1: Domestic market capitalization Performance .................. 39
6.1.2 Results on Hypothesis H2: Market Capitalization to GDP ratio ................................. 42
6.1.3 Results on Hypothesis H3: Average Number of Howla in DSE .............................. 45
6.1.4 Results on Hypothesis H4: Average Volume after demutualization ........................... 48
6.2 Hypothesis testing related to Market Liquidity ................................................................... 51
6.2.1 Results on Hypothesis H5: Average Trade value of share trading .............................. 51
6.2.2 RESULTS on Hypothesis H6: Average Trade value/GDP Ratio ................................ 54
6.2.3 Results on Hypothesis H6: Average Turnover Ratio after .......................................... 57
6.3 Hypothesis testing related to Volatility i.e. Risk ................................................................. 60
6.4 Comments on major research hypothesis: .......................................................................... 65
6.5 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 65
7 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 66
8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 67
Appendix
5|Page
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

List of Tables:
Table 1 Significant International Case (Source- Bokhtiar at el, 2013) ........................................ 17
Table 2 T-test and descriptive statistics for Market Capitalization (Analysis: Author) Data 40
Table 3 Hypothesis-H1 summary (Analysis-Author) .................................................................... 42
Table 4 T-test and descriptive statistics for Market Capitalization/GDP Ratio .......................... 43
Table 6 T-test and descriptive statistics for Number of Hawla (Analysis: Author) ...................... 46
Table 8 T-test and descriptive statistics for Volume of transaction (Analysis: Author) Data
source: Authors calculation from various issues of Bangladesh Economic Review, Statistical
Year Book of Bangladesh, Dhaka stock exchange (main board) and Securities and exchange
Commission (Annual report and quarterly review). ..................................................................... 49
Table 9 Summary of the Hypothesis- H4 ...................................................................................... 51
Table 10 Descriptive statistics and t-test for Average Trade value of share trading ................... 52
Table 11 Summary of the Hypothesis- H5 .................................................................................... 54
Table 12 Descriptive statistics and t-test for total value traded/GDP Ratio ................................ 55
Table 14 Descriptive statistics and t-test for Turnover ................................................................ 58
Table 16 Descriptive statistics and t-test for Volatility ................................................................ 61
Table 18 Summary of all the hypothesis ....................................................................................... 63
List of Figures
Figure 1 broad variable to test in this paper ................................................................................ 30
Figure 2 Research Data specification. ......................................................................................... 36
Figure 3 Steps to test the hypothesis (Source-Own Analysis)....................................................... 37
Figure 4 Comparison of market cap performance (Analysis- Author) ......................................... 41
Figure 5 Market Capitalization trend comparison (Analysis- Author) ........................................ 41
6|Page
Figure 6 Comparison of market cap/GDP Ratio performance (Analysis- Author) ...................... 44

Figure 7 Market Capitalization/GDP trend comparison (Analysis- Author) ............................... 44
Figure 8 Comparison of number of Hawla (Analysis- Author) .................................................... 47
Figure 9 Hwla Number trend comparison (Analysis-Author) ...................................................... 47
Figure 10 Comparison of Volume (Analysis- Author) .................................................................. 50
Figure 11 Volume trend (Analysis-Author) .................................................................................. 50
Figure 12 Trade Value Comparison ............................................................................................. 53
Figure 13 Trend of Trade Value ................................................................................................... 53
Figure 14 "Trade Value/GDP Ratio" Performance Comparison ................................................. 56
Figure 15 trend of Value/GDP ..................................................................................................... 56
Figure 16 Turn Over Ratio" Comparison .................................................................................... 59
Figure 17 Turnover Ratio trend .................................................................................................... 59
Figure 18 Index Performance comparison ................................................................................... 62
Figure 19 Index Volatility comparison ......................................................................................... 62
7|Page
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Stock exchanges have long been viewed as important catalyst of economic growth. They provide
an organized market for the trading of securities to individuals and organizations seeking to
invest their saving or excess funds through the purchase of securities. This market is regulated by
established rules that promote and maintain fair, efficient, secure and transparent market and
facilitate the orderly development of the stock exchange. A fair and efficient performance of a
stock exchange is substantial benefit to the public. The stock exchange provides liquidity and
price discovery that facilitates efficient rising of capital for businesses, benefits the wider
corporate sector and the economy in general. Stock exchanges fulfill several roles in the
economy.
Some of the various roles that stock exchanges assume are- raising capital for businesses,
mobilizing savings for investments, facilitating company growth, redistribution of wealth,
corporate governance, creating investment opportunities for small investors and raising capital
for the government to enable for carrying out development projects. Therefore, the movement of
share prices and in general the stock indexes can be a good indicator of the general trend in the
economy.
Trade in financial assets and contingent claims can be undertaken on a bilateral basis without any
formal economic organization. However, explicit collaboration among the suppliers of financial
services (Traders) helps reduce the cost of transactions in several ways. In particular, through the
creation of standards, the reduction of information asymmetries, the protection of property rights
in prices, the creation of a centralized trading facility and the enforcement of contracts. A formal
organization such as the stock exchange can organize and coordinate such cooperation.
Therefore, stock exchanges play a vital role in reducing transactions costs (Pirrong, 1995, 229255).
According to ISOCO- Stock exchanges undertake a variety of responsibilities to assume the
above mentioned roles. These include-
8|Page
o Devising rules of trading and monitoring them

o Setting conditions for listing or admission to trading
o Adopting and enforcing rules for the conduct of members of the exchange,
o Setting qualification and financial standards for securities industry professionals
o Conducting surveillance of the market and its participants and monitoring and
regulating the daily trading
o The operation of the market to ensure its integrity
(Source: International Organization of Securities Commission (IOSCO) Discussion
Paper, 2000, p.4).
Therefore, as Lee (2002, p.19-20) argued, it would be inadequate to think of the stock exchange
as a black box. Approaches that analyze the stock exchange as a trading system and ignore its
inner structure are not rich enough to explain the impact of its performance.
Prior to 1990s, stock exchanges all over the world used to operate as mutual organizations. Early
1990s, stock exchanges started to undertake major organizational and operational changes. One
of the most noted changes was the trend toward demutualization.
Demutualization can be defined as the process of continuing an organization from its mutual
ownership structure to a share ownership structure. This process often entails, first obtaining the
appropriate regulatory and governmental consents, then converting membership rights into
shares, which may be followed by public issuance and listing of the exchange, with immediate or
eventual freely tradable shares (Hughes and Zargar, 2006, p: 6-7). The conversion was not
identical among stock exchanges. In some cases, such as the Italian Borse the stock exchange
transformed from a government-owned utility through the implementation of the Investment
Services Directive (1993/22) that allowed for privatizing the exchange, transforming it into a
company that can gradually be listed on the exchange. In other cases - such as London Stock
Exchange (LSE), the stock exchange was not a government-owned entity and transformed into a
limited company.
9|Page
The trend toward demutualization started in 1993 by the Stockholm Stock Exchange. It was
followed by several others, including the Helsinki Stock Exchange in 1995, the Copenhagen
Exchange in 1996, the Amsterdam Exchange in 1997, the Australian Exchange in 1998, and the
Toronto, Hong Kong and London Stock Exchanges in 2000. 2005 figures show that about 60%
of the World Federation of Exchanges (WFE) members were either demutualized or listed
(WFE Cost and Revenue Survey 2005, 2006, p.9).
The remarkable change in the ownership and organizational structure of the demutualized stock
exchange was mainly motivated by some intense global competition and advances in
technology. Decisions to demutualization, is based in essence on the recognition that the old
member-owned organizational structure fails to provide the flexibility and the financing needed
to compete in the global competitive environment. Demutualized stock exchanges are driven by
profit-seeking investors who want to produce better financed organizations with greater ability to
respond quickly to the fast changing market place.
Some of the typical sources of revenues such as, listing fees, membership fees become less
important. For the demutualized exchanges, transaction fees and new products and services
are more important sources to expand their revenue (Aggarwal, 2002, p.11).
By the end of 2006, the total stock market capitalization of worlds exchange was $50.6 trillion
of which about 45 percent from Americas, 23 percent from Asia-Pacific and 32 percent from
Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The majority of demutualized and listed exchanges are
concentrated across Americas and Europe. Currently, about 60 per cent of total revenues of
members of World Federation of Exchanges (WFE) are comprised of publicly-listed exchanges.
A small but significant portion of exchanges accounting for 20 per cent of WFEs total revenue
have demutualized but not listed their shares (WFE, 2006, p. 26 and 66). Almost all of the largest
stock and derivative exchanges; measured in terms of capitalization have demutualized and listed
their shares in the last decade (Aggrawal and Dahiya, 2005, p.3).
About 60 per cent of total revenues of members of World

Federation of Exchanges (WFE) are comprised of publiclylisted exchanges i.e. Demutualized Exchanges.
10 | P a g e
1.2 BACKGROUND OF DEMUTUALIZATION - DHAKA STOCK EXCHANGE LTD (DSE)

In line with the global trend and keeping the advantages of demutualization in mind, In
Bangladesh, the Exchanges Demutualization Bill was passed by the Parliament on April 29,
2013 and the same received the assent of the Honorable President on May 02, 2013 and the
GPmwWwgDPzqvjvBRkbAvBb, 2013 (Exchanges Demutualization Act, 2013) was
published in the Bangladesh Gazette on the same date and came into effect immediately.
According to the Act, the two stock exchanges in Bangladesh are under an obligation to prepare
and submit a Demutualization Scheme along with all relevant documents and information to
BSEC within 90 days from the date of effect of the Act.
The post-demutualization paid up capital of the Exchange shall be BDT 18,037,765,000
(Eighteen Billion Thirty Seven Million Seven Hundred and Sixty Five thousand) to be divided in
1,803,776,500 (One Billion Eight Hundred and Three Million Seven Hundred Seventy Six
Thousand and Five Hundred) ordinary shares of BDT 10/- (Ten) each and authorized capital
shall be BDT 25,000,000,000 (Twenty five billion) to be divided in 2,500,000,000 (Two Billion
and Five Hundred Million) shares of BDT 10/- (Ten) each.
1.2.1 OBJECTIVES OF DSE FOR BEING DEMUTUALIZED
The growing competitive pressure in line with globalization has triggered a wave of restructuring
of the stock exchanges. Technology improvements, increasing economic competition and the
associated costs led stock exchanges to revise their entrepreneurial strategies. As a result, a large
number of stock exchanges have been demutualized all over the world.
The key objectives of the demutualization of Dhaka stock exchanges includeo Decoupling of ownership and trading rights;
o Shareholders are entitled to profits, which exerts pressure for greater efficiency and
maximization of the value of the exchange, not members; and
o Superior governance.
11 | P a g e
1.2.2 BROAD STRATEGIES TAKEN BY DSE LTD

DSE will adopt the following key strategies to achieve the objectives:
I.
II.
Listing of Companies with high Reputation;

Attracting more foreign investment;
III.
Developing awareness;
IV.
Achieving higher standard of intermediaries;
V.
VI.
VII.
Maintaining zero tolerance in governance;

Enhancing Bond market liquidity;
Increasing investments for development:
a. Product enhancement;
b. Technology development;
c. Human Resource Development.
VIII.
Establishing Strategic Alliance.
1.3 FORMS OF DEMUTUALIZATION

A demutualized stock exchange might take different organizational forms. Some exchanges have
demutualized and become public companies listed on their own exchanges. Other exchanges
have demutualized but remained private corporations. Others are subsidiaries of publicly traded
holding companies. Empirical examples include the Australian Stock Exchange which is a public
company listed on its own exchange, the Amsterdam Exchange and the Toronto Stock Exchange
which is presently private corporations, the London Stock Exchange arranged for an off-market
trading facility for its shares and the Pacific Exchange in the United States converted its equity
business into a wholly owned subsidiary of the exchange and the OM Stockholmsbrsen AB is a
wholly owned subsidiary of a listed company (IOSCO 2000, p. 1).
1.4 MOTIVES / FACTORS FOR DEMUTUALIZATION

In business world, a change in the ownership structure usually reflects a change in the strategy
adopted by the firm to respond to certain changes. Changes in the ownership and organizational
structures of stock exchanges mirror major changes in their business environment such as, the
12 | P a g e
globalization, the rise of global competition and technological advances. Decisions by stock
exchanges to demutualize are undertaken when the existing member-owned structure fails to
provide the flexibility and financing needed to respond to todays competitive environment. Forprofit stock exchanges run by for-profit investors are expected to provide better financing, allow
more flexible decisions mechanism and to expand into new businesses (Aggarwal, 2002, p.11).
1.4.1 THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY
Advances in telecommunications, and the growth of the Internet and wireless communication
technologies are dramatically changing the structure and nature of financial services. Internet and
related technologies have evolved as new different means for providing financial services
(Claessens et al, 2000, p.2). Trading is moving toward electronic platforms that are not attached
to a certain location; a centralized physical location became less important (Ibid. p.12).
A number of electronic order routing and trading networks have emerged in recent years. These
networks serve as order-driven matching systems for participants seeking anonymity (Ibid. p.14).
Alternative trading systems are emerging around the world, often with links to existing trading
systems. Instinet started as a local inter dealer broker and dealer but now has automatic routings
to several stock exchanges. There is speculation that a few trading systems will soon allow
investors to trade 24 hours a day (Ibid. p.14) The New electronic systems have lead to lower
transactions costs of trading, allowed for better price determination, and lowered the chance for
market manipulation. The new advances in technology has also facilitated cross-border trading
and over time for development of inter-market trading systems (ITS) (Ibid. p.12).
1.4.2 THE IMPACT OF COMPETITION
The past two decades have witnessed a remarkable change in the competitive environment facing
exchanges. As mentioned above, technology has both lead to the rise of new competitors such as
ECNs and compelled stock exchanges to set new trading platforms. Traditional functions of the
stock exchange became available from other sources and made investors seek the means that can
provide liquidity more efficiently. As barriers to entry fell, off-floor trading systems started to
compete with the traditional stock exchanges and threaten their revenue base. An example of that
is Londons Stock Exchange Automated Quotation System (SEAQ-I), the screen-based system
13 | P a g e
trading international stocks which competed with European stock exchanges such as Stockholm,
Amsterdam and Milan. Regulatory barriers were also decreased. For example, in 1993, the
Swedish Government enacted a legislation to end the monopoly of the Stockholm stock
exchange. In the US the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented the Order
Handling Rules to allow for greater competition between the Electronic Communication
Networks and National Association or Securities Dealers Automated Quotation System
(NASDAQ) (Hazarika, 2005, p.3).
The customer stock exchange relationship has changed to seek better liquidity and services.
Members interests become increasingly divergent and the benefits of the cooperative structure
were greatly reduced. Another issue is the ability of the cooperative structure to raise new
capital. Considering the transaction cost point of view, the cost of organizing the cooperative is
greater than the benefits (Mendiola and OHara, 2004, p.7).
Key Point
The Impact of Competition: with the changes in the competitive environment, the
mutual cooperative structure of the stock exchange corporate governance becomes
less appealing. The customer stock exchange relationship has changed to seek
better liquidity and services. Members interests become increasingly divergent and
the benefits of the cooperative structure were greatly reduced.
Demutualization provides an opportunity for stock exchanges to be more efficient and have
broader access to capital. The new organizational structure of stock exchanges allows
maximizing the residual value of the enterprise, thus benefiting shareholders. Though members
may dominate for sometimes, demutualization is likely to end up transferring considerable
ownership and decision making power to outside investors. This means that the decisions that
used to be undertaken by stock exchange members will be replaced by a professional
management team motivated by significant share ownership to increase efficiency and profits
(Aggarwal, 2002, p. 8-9).
14 | P a g e
1.4.3 NEED FOR IMPROVED GOVERNANCE

The decision to demutualize is expected to bring a corporation that is more capable to act
decisively and rapidly to changes such as competitive challenges - in the business environment.
A demutualized stock exchange facilitates the ownership and trading privileges of the members
of the exchange, thus permits the stock exchange to achieve greater independence. It brings a
management that takes actions that are in the best interests of the stock exchange and ultimately
its shareholders. Therefore, the interests of the owners of the stock exchange will be linked to
those of the stock exchange as both parties will aim at profit maximization. Further, the
demutualized organizational structure will allow for greater transparency because stock
exchanges will be obliged to report to their shareholders not only regarding the bottom-line but
also on issues regarding corporate governance (Hughes and Zargar, 2006, p. 10-11).
Need for Improved Governance: In case of Bangladesh- this is the main driver for
Key Point
demutualization.In the probe reports in 2011 after the DSE Crash, Khondkar Ibrahim
Khaled stated that In DSE the peoples who play in the market (players) are also
acting as the role of Regulator. Accordingly, Mr. Khaled recommended the
changing of organizational structures of the stock exchanges through implementing
the demutualization process to stop repeating the stock market chaos once again.
1.4.4 INVESTOR PARTICIPATION

A demutualized stock exchange is more capable to respond to the needs of its various
stakeholders, including participating organizations, listed companies, and institutional and retail
investors. In order to respond to the emerging competitive pressure, the stock exchanges need to
shift power from one group of stakeholders to another. Separating the stock exchange
membership from ownership, provides a political and legitimate way to effect such shift. For
example, contrary to NSE structure that is mainly composed of broker-dealers as members, a
demutualized structure allows both institutional investors and retail investors to become
shareholders. In addition, it can meet the needs of institutional investors who require greater
15 | P a g e
liquidity to accommodate block trading and place more emphasis on negotiating the lowest price
(Ibid. p.11)
1.4.5 RAISING CAPITAL
With the capital raised from IPO private investment and the increased responsibility to
stakeholders, the demutualized structure is more capable to respond to the global competitive
pressures as it allows for the resources and incentives needed for investment in competitive
products and information systems. In order to compete, stock exchanges must have timely, costeffective and reliable products and services. One of the clear historical examples that show the
importance of demutualization in raising capital is the replacement of floor trading with screen
trading. Introducing screen trading requires considerable capital investment in the information
system of the exchange.
Demutualization was an efficient and rational means of raising additional capital required to
finance such activity. Continued capital investments in technology can also help to respond to
competition from ATS and upstairs trading (Ibid. P. 14-15).
1.4.6 CONSOLIDATION
Another factor that has affected the competitive landscape of capital markets and stock
exchanges is the strategic alliances and consolidations. One example is the merger of NASDAQ
and the American Stock Exchange that was completed in November 1998, which created a stock
exchange with a market capitalization of US$1.9 trillion with unique varieties of products.
According to Hughes, major consolidations in the financial stock exchanges industry are
expected to take place in the next 5 to 10 years. These consolidations will include leading
derivative and equities exchanges. In the derivative market, both the Toronto Stock Exchange
(TSX) and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) have announced plans to expand their
capabilities. In equities trading, given that North America is already dominated by the NYSE and
NASDAQ, the most interesting arena will continue to be Europe where one or two large stock
exchanges are likely to emerge. The demutualization structure with publicly traded shares should
greatly facilitate the consolidation structure. Demutualized exchanges, as shareholders entities
are forced to report their performance and seek revenue and cost-saving mechanisms (Ibid. p.1314).
16 | P a g e
1.5 TREND IN DEMUTUALIZATION

The trend to demutualization started in 1993 with the Stockholm Stock Exchange, which was the
first stock exchange to demutualize. This was followed by several other major stock exchanges
such as ASX, TSX, the Singapore Stock Exchange and the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing
Limited (HKEx). ASX was one of the first exchanges to do an Initial Public Offering (IPO)
and list its shares on its own market place. TSX, which demutualized in 2000, became in 2002 a
public company through listing its shares on its exchange. In Asia-Pacific, Singapore Exchange
Limited (SGX) was the first stock exchange to demutualize in December 1999. Following list
summarize some of the major demutualization trendTable 1 Significant International Case (Source- Bokhtiar at el, 2013)
Significant International Cases

Name of the Exchange
Demutualization year
Listing year
Stockholm Stock Exchange
1993
1998
BorsaItaliana
1997
Australian Stock Exchange
1999
Singapore Stock Exchange
2000
Hong Kong Stock Exchange
2000
2001
London Stock Exchange
2000
2001
Deutsche Borse
2001
Euronext
2000
2001
Toronto Stock Exchange
2000
2002
The NASDAQ Stock Market
2001
2002
The Philippine Stock Exchange
2001
2003
Osaka Stock Exchange
2001
2004
Tokyo Stock Exchange
2001
2006
New Zealand Stock Exchange
2003
2003
Bursa Malaysia
2004
2005
2000
17 | P a g e
Bombay Stock Exchange
2005
New York Stock Exchange
2006
2006
BOVESPA (Brazil)
2007
2007
1.6 PROBLEM DEFINITION OF THE RESEARCH

Stock exchanges all over the world initiate demutualization hoping to empower the market and to
increase revenues. However, the trend of stock exchange demutualization continues to generate a
debate amongst academics, business people and policy makers on the impact of such conversion;
from the mutual to the demutualized organizational form. There remains a school of thought that
is against demutualization. Some argue that some of the most successful stock exchanges in the
world such as New York Stock exchange- have remained successful for long time while
mutualized.
A question is often raised of whether the demutualization has so far succeeded or not.
In Bangladesh context so many argument raised after the initiation of the
demutualization process. There is no clear knowledge how the various stakeholders
Defining the Problem
(government, enterprises, investors, broader business environment and consumers)

have been affected. Of particular importance is the impact of demutualization on the
stock exchange itself (as an organization) as it eventually extends the impact on other
stakeholders (investors, employees, government, etc.). There is little empirical
literature with regard to the impact of demutualization on the performance of
exchanges. This literature either depends on incomplete analyses of some case
studies or provides incomprehensive quantitative empirical analyses. However, the
impact of demutualization should also be assessed considering the quantitative
(financial and market) and qualitative (non-financial) dimensions. Such assessment is
not available so far. Therefore, there is no awareness of the real impact of the
international trend of demutualization on the performance of exchanges.
18 | P a g e
1.7 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The research aims to assess the findings of an empirical analysis on the impact of
demutualization on the performance of Dhaka Stock Exchanges in terms of market performance
especially.
Major Research Question
Thus the research seeks to answer the following research question-
What is the impact of demutualization on the Market performance of

demutualized exchange i.e. DSE?
The above mentioned research question is to provide better awareness and understanding of the
real impact of demutualization on the performance of stock exchanges and thus, to enable
researchers link this impact to the impact of other on-going economic policies. The assessment
also gives insights on the level of importance of demutualization to the performance of stock
exchanges through analyzing the changes that this program has resulted in.
1.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

Stock exchanges play an important role in the financial sector and the functioning of any
economy. The possibility that the stock exchange may go out of business can create serious
problems for listed companies that may find themselves unable to raise the necessary capital and
for investors who will encounter reduced liquidity for their holdings. Large successful stock
exchanges might be willing to purchase the bankrupt / financially troubled ones. However, it is
still necessary for regulators and policymakers to monitor and evaluate the operational (financial
and market) performance as well as non-financial dimensions of demutualized stock exchanges
in order to take necessary actions; either to resolve problems or to re-mutualise the stock
exchange in worst case scenario. The research performs this monitoring and evaluation exercise,
19 | P a g e
and also provides the tool and criteria needed to repeat this exercise for future updates on the
impact of demutualization on the performance of exchanges, or any other organization. Unlike
prior empirical literature on the impact of demutualization on the performance of exchanges, the
research uses a comprehensive set of criteria to evaluate the pre and post-demutualization impact
on exchanges.
1.9 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

Chapter 1: Introduction
This Chapter provides an introduction to the study, the problem definition, the purpose of the
study, the research questions and hypotheses, and the significance of the study.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter is divided into six sections:
Section 1: Empirical Studies on the impact of Demutualization on the Performance of
Stock Exchanges
Section 2: Exchange governance change Vs Improved performance and Valuation: A
paper by Mendiola and OHara
Section 3: Why stock exchange demutualized & the impact of demutualization on trading
volumes and COSTS: A paper by Hazarika (2005)
Section 4 Impact on liquidity of the exchange after demutualization: Treptow (2006)
Section 5: Literature review on empirical studies prepared on the impact of
demutualization on the performance of stock exchanges,
Section 6: Demutualization vs. Market Risk
Section 6: Performance Measurement Systems
Chapter 3: The Conceptual Background
This chapter explains how the literature relates to the research hypotheses, and what are the main
dimensions and measures used to test the major and minor research hypotheses. All measures of
the study will be clearly identified and labeled.
20 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Defining the hypothesis

Hypothesis was defined in this chapter
Chapter 5: Research Design and Methodology
This chapter provides the scientific research design and methodology of the research. It will also
show how the data collected fit in the study design and methodology.
Chapter 6: Data Analysis and Results
A detailed analysis and interpretation of data and results will be presented in this chapter. The
chapter will also introduce limitations to the study. In addition, it will show how the results fit in
comparison to previous studies and its contribution to literature.
Chapter 7: Conclusions
The chapter will present the main conclusions of the study along with recommendations for
future studies.
Appendices
Includes all data used in the study, figures and tables referred to in the literature
21 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

In general, empirical literature on the demutualization of stock exchanges is scarce specially, in
Bangladesh, There is no such performance measure literature done after demutualization of
Dhaka stock exchange. There are few academic studies that explain the impact of governance
change on the exchange itself. Though there are many theoretical (non-empirical) studies that
agree that demutualization should be a natural move to improve exchanges competitiveness in a
changing business environment, it is still unclear in reality (empirically) how different
demutualization affect the stock exchange performance. Following is a review of the existing
empirical literature on the impact of demutualization on the performance of exchanges.
2.1 EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON THE IMPACT OF DEMUTUALIZATION ON THE PERFORMANCE

OF STOCK EXCHANGES
2.1.1 EXCHANGE GOVERNANCE CHANGE VS IMPROVED PERFORMANCE AND VALUATION: A PAPER
BY MENDIOLA AND OHARA
Mendiola and OHara (2004) examine the empirical effects of the change in exchange
governance. In particular, they analyze the effect of stock exchange conversions to publicly
traded companies on the exchanges performance and valuation. The authors examine accounting
and liquidity data for ten stock exchanges and conclude that stock exchange performance,
measured by stock exchange returns, tends to improve after the change in governance. In
addition, the paper examines the exchanges performance relative to other listed firms in their
market and to other initial public offerings. Mendiola and O'Hara also argue that governance
changes reflect economic pressures that also suggest looking at the economic factors affecting
stock exchange returns.
Research Question of the paper by Mendiola and OHara (2004)-
Whether corporate governance improves the exchange valuation and performance?

They analyze the effect of stock exchange conversions to publicly traded companies on the
exchanges performance and valuation.
22 | P a g e
The research focuses on eight exchanges, four of which have completed a public offering
(Singapore, Athens, Deutsche Borse, and Eurnext), and four have listed their shares with no
public offering (Australia, Hong Kong, London, and Nasdaq). Out of the universe of traded
exchanges, the research excludes some traded stock exchanges due to lack of information on
trading volume, unavailability of data due to recent conversion of the stock exchange or when
the stock exchange (such as Stockholm Exchange) is not listed separately, but instead trades as
part of its parent company (OM). The small size of the sample is one of the limitations to the
research.
There are other limitations to the research. First, there is a problem of having a control group of
stock exchanges because almost all of the large stock exchanges are part of the sample. This
problem makes it impossible to apply comparisons across all stock exchanges because it is only
the smaller stock exchanges that are still member-owned. Second, the study is applied on traded
stock exchanges and since prior conversion stock exchanges do not have traded stock, it is
impossible to tell the market performance in the absence of conversion. Third, most of the
conversions happened in the last three years of applying the study. It was noted that this period
witnessed difficulty for asset markets world-wide.
.
Mehtodology used by Mendiola and OHara (2004)-
The analysis of the research uses a wide variety of measures and tests; categorized in four
groups: 1. performance-based measures: accounting and liquidity data, 2. return-based
measures of performance, 3. risk-based measures of performance: stock exchange listing and
home country IPOs and, 4. stock exchange performance and economic variables. With regard
to the accounting data, the research uses five general accounting measures of performance;
the return on assets (ROA), the return on equity (ROE), profitability from operations, asset
turnover and financial leverage. For the liquidity data, the research calculates the illiquidity
ratio. Though the accounting evidence of the research is too mixed, making it harder to
conclude that stock exchange conversions are value-enhancing, the liquidity data is more
supportive, but also not definitive.
23 | P a g e
The study used data from various sources; Listing and offering information on the stocks in the
samples are from the exchanges websites. This was supplemented by announcements in the
financial and other press. Financial data on IPOs were obtained from DataStream and Bloomberg
Online Service. Daily data on returns, volumes, and index behavior was taken from DataStream
for all firms. Data from annual trade volume, market capitalization, concentration, liquidity, and
turnover velocity of exchanges is from the World Federation of Exchanges
In order to control for the influence of market factors, the research examines the post listing
performance of stock exchanges relative to the returns on that stock index for that stock
exchange and the Morgan Stanley World Index. The paper incorporates more specific risk
factors by investigating the performance of stock exchange IPOs relative to other IPOs in their
home markets, and look at the market risk sensitivity of stock exchange stocks. The paper also
provides regression analysis linking stock exchange performance to economic factors. Summary
of the paper is given belowAuthor Name and Year
Mendiola and OHara

(2004)
Focus area
Findings
Whether change in governance
The paper concludes that stock
affect the value and performance
exchange equalizations appear to
of stock exchange.
be value-enhancing changes.
Stock
exchange
performance
tends to improve after the change

in corporate governance.
24 | P a g e
2.1.2 WHY STOCK EXCHANGE DEMUTUALIZED & THE IMPACT OF DEMUTUALIZATION ON TRADING
VOLUMES AND COSTS: A PAPER BY HAZARIKA (2005)
Another research is carried out by Hazarika (2005), who analyzes the reasons for the conversion
of stock exchanges from member-owned cooperative entities to demutualized exchanges, and
examines the impact of demutualization on trading volumes and costs.
Research Question of the paper by Hazarika (2005)-
Why stock exchanges are converted from member-owned cooperative entities to

demutualized exchanges? Whether demutualization has the influence on trading volumes and
costs?
The research discusses the role of competition as a motivation for demutualization and analyzes
the impact of demutualization in two different situations; in which competition plays very
different roles. Hazarika examines two demutualization, which demutualized for different
reasons; London Stock Exchange (LSE), which demutualized in response to competition and,
BorsaItaliana (BI), which was demutualized by the government.
Methodology used by Hazarika (2005)-
In order to examine how increasing competition and demutualization had an impact on the
exchanges order flow and trading costs, the researcher analyzes London Stock Exchange
(LSE), by documenting the impact of increasing competition on exchanges volume and
testing if the introduction of residual claimant helped LSE regain order-flow. The researcher
also conducts a time-series analysis of trading costs as LSE faced competition and responded
to it.
In order to examine the impact of competition and demutualization on trading volume, the
paper follows a model for Tkac (1999) that provides a theoretical rebalancing benchmark for
trading volume. The model suggests that market-wide trading translates into trading in each
asset according to its relative value in the market; thus, if a firm is two percent of the market
portfolio then its trading volume will be two percent of the market volume.
25 | P a g e
To examine if the post-demutualization increase in the bid-ask spreads is seen in all types of
trades, the research compares the spreads in the pre-demutualization and post-demutualization
periods for trades in different volume categories. The findings are given belowAuthor Name and Year
Focus area
Why
Hazarika (2005)
stock
Findings
exchanges
are
The
main
driver
for
converted from member-owned
demutualization, according to the
cooperative
paper, is the Competition.
demutualized
entities
to
exchanges?
Whether demutualization has the
Has positive impact in trading

volume and trading cost
influence on trading volumes and

costs?
2.1.3 IMPACT ON LIQUIDITY OF THE EXCHANGE AFTER DEMUTUALIZATION: TREPTOW (2006)

Treptow (2006) presented a detailed analysis on the consequences of demutualization of
securities exchange on liquidity. In order to capture the demutualization impact on liquidity,
Treptow (2006) examined securities that are listed on two markets simultaneously. He used a
quasi-experimental framework, as all securities are listed in primary markets that demutualized
during the study period. All securities share the NYSE (which was not yet demutualized at the
time of conducting the study), as a common second trading venue. The data consists of various
liquidity measures for 156 dually listed equity issues on the New York Stock Exchange and 12
non-U.S. exchanges, and spans across a ten-year period. Treptow (2006) found out that
demutualization brings significant beneficial effects on demutualizing exchanges liquidity. In
comparison to pre demutualization levels, turnover and resiliency increase, while spreads tighten.
He also concluded that the liquidity gap between a demutualized and an undemutualized
exchange increases due to the transformation. The summary of the paper is stated as follows-
26 | P a g e
Author Name and Year
Treptow (2006)
Focus area
Findings
Consequences of demutualization
Demutualization
of
significant beneficial effects on
securities
exchange
on
liquidity
demutualizing
brings
exchanges
liquidity.
2.1.4 DEMUTUALIZATION VS. MARKET RISK

Finally, Worthington and Higgs (2006), analyzed market risk in four demutualized and self listed
stock exchanges; the Australian Stock Exchange, the Deutsche Borse, the London Stock
Exchange and the Singapore Stock Exchange. They use a bivariate MA-GARCH model to
estimate time-varying betas for each stock exchange from listing date until 7 June 2005. The
series involves different sampling periods given the varying self-listing dates. The end date for
all series is 7 June 2005 with the ASX starting on 14 October 1998, DEB on 5 February 2001,
LSE on 22 July 2001 and SGX on 22 November 2000. The sample periods at the time of study
represent the longest series of data possible. The raw data employed in the study are the daily
prices of the four stock exchange companies and the daily market value-weighted equity indices
for Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and Singapore. The company data were obtained
from Bloomberg and the market indices from Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI).
They used MSCI market indices instead of, the Australian All Ordinaries, Germanys DAX, the
United Kingdoms FTSE100 and Singapores Straits Times, because of their consistency in
depth, breadth and construction. Daily company and MSCI index returns provide the respective
asset and market portfolio data. While the results indicate significant beta volatility, unit root
tests show the betas to be mean-reverting. These findings are used to suggest that despite
concerns that demutualized and self-listed stock exchanges entail new market risks that need
regulatory intervention, the betas of the stock exchange companies have not changed
27 | P a g e
significantly since listing. However, market risk does vary considerable across the exchanges.
The summary and finding is stated as followsAuthor Name and Year
Focus area
Whether
demutualization
Findings
has
positive impact on market risk?

Worthington and Higgs
(2006)
The betas of the stock exchange

companies have not changed
significantly since listing which
indicates
that-
there
is
no
significant impact on market

risk after demutualization.
2.1.5 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS

According to Neely (2007), a performance measurement system can be defined as the set of
metrics used to quantify both the efficiency and effectiveness of actions. In this context, the
terms effectiveness and efficiency are of particular importance as they point out to the existence
of internal as well as external reasons to pursue a specific course of action. The term
effectiveness refers to the extent to which customer requirements are met, while efficiency is a
measure of how economically the firms resources are utilized to provide a certain level of
customer satisfaction (Neely, Andy et al, 1995, p. 80-81 and 110).
There are three different ways to examine the performance measurement system: 1. through
examining the individual performance measures, 2. Examining the set of performance measures
(performance measurement system as an entity), and 3. Examining the relationship between the
performance measurement system and the environment within which it operates (Neely, Andy et
al, 1995, p.81).
28 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

While there is limited empirical literature on the impact of demutualization on the performance
of stock exchanges, there exist other useful sources of information within the field of financial
economics and performance measurement that justify the need to conduct such study, the
research hypotheses, the conceptual framework and the methodology used. Further, the key
insights gleaned from literature on performance measurements and the related empirical studies
provide the main tools needed to assess the impact of demutualization on the performance of
stock exchanges.
Literature reviewed in chapter 2 provides background information needed to conduct this
research. This chapter provides an analytical look at the literature; which informed the
major and minor research hypotheses presented in sections stated below. In addition, the
chapter creates an original comprehensive framework that guide the research analysis by joining
together a wide scheme of literature on performance measurements to the varying definitions and
measurements of concepts related to financial, market and non-financial indicators
3.1 LINKING THE LITERATURE TO THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

Decisions by stock exchanges to change its ownership structure through demutualization are
undertaken when the existing structure of the stock exchange seeks to provide better flexibility
and financing needed to respond to todays changes in the business environment. There has been
a remarkable change in the competitive environment facing exchanges. The traditional role of the
broker as an intermediary between the investor and the stock exchange is getting minimized as a
result of the emergence of a number of electronic order routing and trading networks in recent
years. These electronic communications network (such as Instinet, Island, and Archipelago)
serve as order-driven matching systems for participants seeking anonymity. The new electronic
systems have lead to lower transactions costs of trading, allowed for better price determination,
and lowered the chance for market manipulation. The new advances in technology have also
facilitated cross-border trading and over time for development of inter-market trading systems
(ITS). Strategic alliances and consolidations are driven by the competitive need to exploit
29 | P a g e
massive economies of scale and network effects in trading (Agaarwal, 2002, p.11- 12, Hazarika,
2005, p. 3, Huges and Zargar, 2006, p.13-14 and Steil, 2002, p. 23).
With these changes in the competitive environment, the mutual cooperative structure of the stock
exchange corporate governance becomes less appealing. Investors are now seeking better
liquidity and services. The ability of the cooperative structure of the stock exchange to raise
capital was also decreased. Considering the transactions cost point of view, the cost of
organizing the cooperative is greater than its benefits.
In order to empirically assess whether or not demutualized stock exchanges have led to better
market performance, the research uses various indicators of stock market performance. In
particular, it provides measures of following variables Market size, Market liquidity as well as
volatility
Market size
Broad area of focus of this

research paper to measure
the performance
Market Risk
Market liquidity
Figure 1 broad variable to test in this paper
30 | P a g e
3.2 MARKET SIZE

To examine whether demutualization influences the market size, the following variables worth
testing3.2.1 DOMESTIC MARKET CAPITALIZATION
The market capitalization of a stock exchange is the total number of issued shares of domestic
companies, including their several classes, multiplied by their respective prices at a given time.
This figure reflects the comprehensive value of the market at that time. The market capitalization
figures include shares of domestic companies, shares of foreign companies which are exclusively
listed on an exchange; i.e. the foreign company is not quoted on any other exchange, common
and preferred shares of domestic companies .The market capitalization figures exclude
investment funds; rights, warrants, ETFs, convertible instruments, options, futures, foreign listed
shares other than exclusively listed ones, and companies whose only business goal is to hold
shares of other listed companies
=

3.2.2 MARKET CAPITALIZATION RATIO

Market capitalization ratio is usually used as a measure of stock market size. The ratio equals the
value of listed shares divided by GDP. In terms of economic significance, the assumption behind
market capitalization is that market size is positively correlated with the ability to mobilize
capital and diversify risk (Demirguc, 1995, p.5).
=
/
31 | P a g e
3.2.4 MARKET CAPITALIZATION OF NEWLY LISTED DOMESTIC SHARES

The market capitalization of newly listed domestic shares is the total number of new shares
issued multiplied by their value on the first day of quotation
3.2.5HOWLAIN DSE
Number of Howla in Dhaka stock exchange is typically means the contract happens in a
specified period. Its an indicator of both market size as well as liquidity.
3.2.6NUMBER OF TRADES IN EQUITY SHARES:
The number of trades represents the actual number of transactions which have occurred during
the period on the relevant Exchange. The number is single counted (i.e., includes one side of the
transaction only)
3.3 LIQUIDITY
Liquidity of the market is examined by testing the following variable both for pre and post
demutualization3.3.1VALUE OF SHARE TRADING:
The value of share trading is the total number of shares traded multiplied by their respective
matching prices. WFE distinguishes trading value of domestic and foreign shares, as well as
investment funds. Investment funds are excluded from market capitalization to avoid double
counting, but included in share trading to reflect the exchanges entire share transaction business.
Figures are single counted (only one side of the transaction is considered)
32 | P a g e
3.3.2AVERAGE VALUE OF TRADES:

The average value of trades during a given year is calculated by dividing the total value of share
trading divided by the total number of trades in equity share.

=
3.3.3 TOTAL VALUE TRADED / GDP

Equals total shares traded on the stock market divided by GDP. The total value traded ratio
measures the organized trading of equities as a share of national output and therefore should
positively reflect liquidity on an economy-wide basis. The total value traded/GDP ratio
complements the market capitalization ratio. Although market capitalization may be large, there
may be little trading. Both ratios the market capitalization and total value traded/GDP inform
us about market size and liquidity.
/ =
/
33 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4: DEFINING HYPOTHESIS

Based on the literature review, it appears that there are strong reasons to suggest that market
performance should improve following the stock exchange demutualization. We are testing a
hypothesis that demutualization leads to better market performance of the equity markets of
demutualized stock exchangesRecast in a testable form, the research hypothesis is posited as given below:
4.1 MAJOR HYPOTHESIS

Null Hypothesis (Ho)
There is a negative or no impact of demutualization on the Market performance of
demutualized stock exchanges.
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha)
There is a positive impact of demutualization on the Market performance of demutualized
stock exchanges.
And because market performance of the equity can be measured in terms of several market
indicators, minor hypotheses can be stated as follows:
4.2MINOR HYPOTHESIS
H1: Average Domestic market capitalization after demutualization > domestic market
capitalization before demutualization. [Market Size Measure]
H2: Market Capitalization to GDP ratio after demutualization >Market Capitalization to
GDP ratio before demutualization [Market Size Measure]
H3: Average Number of Howla in DSE after demutualization >Average Number of
Howla in DSE before demutualization [Both Market Size & Liquidity Measure]
H4: Average Volume after demutualization>Average Volume before demutualization
[Market Size Measure]
34 | P a g e
H5: Average Trade value of share trading after demutualization > average value of
value of share trading before demutualization. [Liquidity Measure & Market Measure]
H6: Trade value/ GDP after demutualization <Trade value/ GDP before demutualization
[Liquidity Measure]
H7: Average Turnover after demutualization>Average Turnover after demutualization
[Liquidity Measure]
H8: Volatility [i.e. Risk] of the market after demutualization<Volatility [i.e. Risk] of the
market before demutualization [Risk Measure]
H9: Number of new listed company after demutualization >Number of new listed
company before demutualization
35 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

5.1. RESEARCH METHOD USED TO TEST THE HYPOTHESES
The study employs a matched pairs methodology in order to compare the pre - and post
demutualization performance measures of the Dhaka Stock exchange. In order to investigate
the impact of demutualization, the study calculates the mean, standard deviation as well as
trends of each variable for each of the market indicators, for at least 238 trading days
before demutualization and the 238 trading days after the demutualization. The year of
demutualization (year 0) includes both the member and cooperative (de-mutual) ownership
phases of the exchange. Year 0 is thus excluded from the mean calculations.
2013:
Demutualization
year (T-0)
T-238 Trading days before
T+238 Trading daysafter
demutualization Year
demutualization Year
2013 is omitted fromthe
calculation
Figure 2 Research Data specification.
The study then tests the null hypothesis for each of the market indicators that the difference in
the two averages before and after demutualization is equal to, or less than zero or whether the
deviation is higher or lower, or whether the trend has the positive impact on the market
performance. For better investigation of the trend, linear approximation is used to detect the
future condition for both the pre and post effect. Under the null hypothesis, these test statistics
follow a Student t-distribution .Conclusion is based on the standardized test statistic Z.
36 | P a g e
The study uses common market measures for the size and liquidity of equity and bonds markets
to measure change of performance post demutualization. Pre-demutualization data and post
demutualization data are typically obtained from DSE (Dhaka Stock Exchange) Main Board. The
summary of the methodology is given below-
Calculating the mean, Median,Volatility as well as trends for each

indicator
Comparing each measure for pre and post demutualization periods
Testing whether the difference is statistically significant or not
Analysis of the difference
Testing whether pass the hypothesis or not
Giving the conclusion based on Z-Score
Figure 3 Steps to test the hypothesis (Source-Own Analysis)
37 | P a g e
5.2 DATA SOURCES

The study collects the market data from the DSE main board. The time frame for the data is- 238
days before 2013 and 238 days after 2013. 2013 is the demutualization year which is omitted
from the calculation for the technical purpose.
All data used in the study is daily basis

collected from Dhaka Stock Exchange
Main Board.
The study used the linear approximation of the trend line by using the following formula both for
before and after the demutualization = +
After the linear forecasting from the past period, current trend is compared with the previous
period for checking the improvement. To check the model fitness- is used.
38 | P a g e
CHAPTER 6: DATA PROCESSING AND EMPIRICAL RESULT

In this chapter the empirical findings of the performance changes in variables described in the
chapter 3 is presented. The analysis emphasize on the following factors
The mean (median) value of each variable for the pre and post-demutualization period
The mean (median) change for each variable after versus before demutualization,
Trend analysis of each variable for the pre and post-demutualization period
Two-Paired t-test for the significance test
P-Value analysis
Accepting or rejecting the Hypothesis
6.1 HYPOTHESIS TESTING RELATED TO MARKET SIZE

To examine improvement in market size in the equity markets of demutualized stock exchanges,
four measures were employed- Domestic market capitalization, Market Capitalization to
GDP ratio, Average Number of Howla in DSE, Volume. This section presents the results of
each of the aforementioned mentioned measures.
6.1.1 RESULTS ON HYPOTHESIS H1: DOMESTIC MARKET CAPITALIZATION PERFORMANCE
Market capitalization ratio equals the value of listed shares divided by GDP. Analysts
frequently use the ratio as a measure of stock market size. In terms of economic
significance, the assumption behind market capitalization is that market size is positively
correlated with the ability to mobilize capital and diversify risk on an economy wide basis
(Agarwal 2001). Table 2 and figure 4 gives us a clear view of the market capitalization
performance. The analysis shows that before the market demutualization the daily based mean
was 2461.74 billion BDT and median was 2447.92 billion BDT with astandard deviation of
142.57. But after the demutualization there is a significant change appeared both in the mean
value as well as median value. The mean and median of the market capitalization value after the
demutualization are 3023.45 billion BDT, 2937.03 Billion BDT respectively with a standard
deviation of 204.26. There is a positive change of 561.71 billion BDT appeared after the
demutualization that indicates a positive performance influence.
39 | P a g e
Table 2 T-test and descriptive statistics for Market Capitalization(Analysis: Author) Data source: Authors calculation from
various issues of Bangladesh Economic Review, Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh, Dhaka stock exchange (main board) and
Securities and exchange Commission (Annual report and quarterly review).
Descriptive statistics and t-test for Market Capitalization:

Particulars
Mean
Standard Deviation
Before
Demutualization
(Billion taka)
2461.74
142.57
After
Demutualization(Billion
taka)
3023.45
204.26
2447.92
2937.03
Median
Number of observation
238
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
Change
+561.71
+489.11
238
-0.02624666
0
237
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
-34.36828755
0.0000
t Critical one-tail
1.651308392
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.00000
t Critical two-tail
1.970023957
NB: In Table 2, Daily basis data is used for calculation i.e. 238 trading days before and after demutualization year
(2013) of DSE. 2013 is omitted for technical purpose.
To check whether the difference appeared after the demutualization is statistically significant,
Two Paired t-test was applied. And the last few rows of table 2 shows us that the absolute t-Stat
of 34.36 is much larger than t Critical two-tail and P value is lower than .05.All these
criteria indicate that- Demutualization has significant positive influence on the market
capitalization and the influence is statistically significant.
Another important statistical tool was applied to check whether the trend of the market cap is
higher than the expected. In figure 5 the linear trend of before and after demutualization gives us
a clear view of positive influence. After demutualization Linear trend line shows an upward
trend in market capitalization though R2 value of 0.7 indicates a strong model fit. Where the
before trend shows a downward trend with value of 0.009 indicates a poor model fit
40 | P a g e
"Market Capitalization" Perfromance Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days
of Demutualization Year-2013
3500.00
3000.00
Before Demutualization
2500.00
After Demutualization
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
3023.45
2937.03
2461.74
500.00
142.57 204.26
0.00
Mean
Standard Deviation
Median
Figure 4Comparison of market cap performance (Analysis- Author)
"Market Capitalization" Trend line Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days
4,000.00
3,500.00
Linear (Before Demutualization)
Linear (After Demutualization)
y = 2.4831x + 2135.7
R = 0.7005
3,000.00
2,500.00
y = -0.2036x + 2486.1
R = 0.0097
2,000.00
1,500.00
1,000.00
500.00
t-238
t-224
t-210
t-196
t-182
t-168
t-154
t-140
t-126
t-112
t-98
t-84
t-70
t-56
t-42
t-28
t-14
t+1
t+15
t+29
t+43
t+57
t+71
t+85
t+99
t+113
t+127
t+141
t+155
t+169
t+183
t+197
t+211
t+225
Figure 5 Market Capitalization trend comparison (Analysis- Author)
41 | P a g e
Table 3 Hypothesis-H1 summary (Analysis-Author)
Summary of the Hypothesis- H1

Difference
Hypothesis
after
between
and
before
demutualization
H1: Average Domestic market
Positive mean
Statistical
Significance of the
Hypothesis Condition
difference
Absolute
t-Stat
of Reject
the
Null
and
the
Alternate;
capitalization after
difference of 561.71;
34.36 is much larger Accept
demutualization > domestic
And Positive Median
than t Critical two-tail Meaning that- : YES-
market capitalization before
difference of
demutualization
489.11
of 1.97 and P value is There

lower than .05
positive
is
significant
influence
demutualization
of
on
market Capitalization.
6.1.2 RESULTS ON HYPOTHESIS H2: MARKET CAPITALIZATION TO GDP RATIO

Levine and Zervos (1998) used the market capitalization to GDP ratio as an indicator of market
development. Accordingly now we will analyze whether demutualization has a positive influence
on the market capitalization to GDP ratio because of demutualization. Table 4 and figure 5 gives
us a clear view of the market capitalization/GDP Ratio performance. The analysis shows that
before the market demutualization the daily basis mean was 23.14%with a standard deviation of
1.340%. But after the demutualization there is a significant change appeared in the mean value.
The mean market capitalization to GDP Ratio after the demutualization is 25.20% with a
standard deviation of 1.702%. There is a positive change of 2.06% appeared after the
42 | P a g e
Table 4 T-test and descriptive statistics for Market Capitalization/GDP Ratio (Analysis: Author) Data source: Authors
calculation from various issues of Bangladesh Economic Review, Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh, Dhaka stock exchange
(main board) and Securities and exchange Commission (Annual report and quarterly review).
Descriptive statistics and t-test for Market Capitalization/GDP Ratio:

Particulars
Before
Demutualization
After
Demutualization
Change
Mean
23.14%
25.20%
2.06%
Standard Deviation
1.340%
1.702%
238
Pearson Correlation
238
0.44707
0.00000
df
t Stat
237.00000
P(T<=t) one-tail
-1.26512
0.10354
t Critical one-tail
1.65131
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
0.20707
1.97002
Two Paired t-test was applied. And the last few rows of table 4 shows us that the absolute tStat of 1.26512 is lower than t Critical two-tail value of 1.97002 and P value is 0.20707
which is higher than .05. All these criteria indicate that - Demutualization has NO
significant influence on the market capitalization to GDP Ratio
Another important statistical tool was applied to check whether the trend of the market cap is
higher than the expected. In figure 5 the linear trend of before and after demutualization gives us
a clear view of positive influence. After demutualization Linear trend line shows an upward
trend in market capitalization though R2 value of 0.7 indicates a strong model fit. Where the
before trend shows a downward trend with value of 0.009 indicates a poor model fit
43 | P a g e
30.00%
"Market Cap/GDP Ratio" Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
25.20%
23.14%
5.00%
1.340%
1.702%
0.00%
Mean
Standard Deviation
Figure 6Comparison of market cap/GDP Ratio performance (Analysis- Author)
"Market Cap/GDP Ratio" Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days of
Demutualization Year-2013
35.00%
30.00%
y = 0.0002x + 0.178
R = 0.7005

25.00%
y = -2E-05x + 0.2337
R = 0.0097
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
t-238
t-224
t-210
t-196
t-182
t-168
t-154
t-140
t-126
t-112
t-98
t-84
t-70
t-56
t-42
t-28
t-14
t+1
t+15
t+29
t+43
t+57
t+71
t+85
t+99
t+113
t+127
t+141
t+155
t+169
t+183
t+197
t+211
t+225
0.00%
Figure 7Market Capitalization/GDP trend comparison (Analysis- Author)
44 | P a g e

Difference
Hypothesis
after
and
between
Statistical
before
Significance of the
demutualization
H2: Market Capitalization to
GDP ratio after
Positive mean
difference of 2.06%;
difference
the absolute t-Stat of CANNOT
Reject
the
1.26512 is lower than Null
demutualization >Market
Critical
two-tail Meaning that- : -
Capitalization to GDP ratio
value of 1.97002 and There
before demutualization
P value is 0.20707 SIGNIFICANT
is
NO
which is higher than POSITIVE influence of

.05
demutualization
on
market Capitalization to
GDP Ratio.
6.1.3 RESULTS ON HYPOTHESIS H3: AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOWLA IN DSE

Howla in Dhaka stock exchange represent the transaction or contract. The number of Howla is a
represents the size of the market. Thus in this study we use Hawla number as a performance
indicator. Table 6 and figure 8 gives us a clear view of the number of Hawla performance. The
analysis shows that, before the market demutualization, the daily basis mean was 109885.8 and
median was 94168.0with a standard deviation of 50302.4. But after the demutualization there is a
negative change appeared in the mean value. The mean number of Hawla after the
demutualization is 107707.1with a standard deviation of 37747.9. There is a Negative change of
2178.7appeared after the demutualization that indicates a negative performance influence.
45 | P a g e
Table 6 T-test and descriptive statistics for Number of Hawla (Analysis: Author) Data source: Authors calculation from
various issues of Bangladesh Economic Review, Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh, Dhaka stock exchange (main board) and
Securities and exchange Commission (Annual report and quarterly review).
Descriptive statistics and t-test for Number of Hawla:

Particulars
Before
Demutualization
After
Demutualization
Mean
109885.8
107707.1
Standard Deviation
50302.4
37747.9
Median
94168.0
97264.5
238
238
Pearson Correlation
0.397
0.000
df
Change
-2178.7
3096.5
237.000
t Stat
0.679
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.249
t Critical one-tail
1.651
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.498
t Critical two-tail
1.970
of 0.249is lower than t Critical two-tail value of 1.970and P value is 0.498 which is higher
than .05. All these criteria indicate that - Demutualization has NO significant influence on
the number of Hawla.
Another important statistical tool was applied to check whether the trend of Hawla is higher than
the expected. In figure 9 the linear trend of before and after demutualization gives us a clear view
of positive influence. After demutualization Linear trend line shows an upward trend in market
capitalization though R2 value of 0.009 indicates a poor model fit. Where the before trend shows
a downward trend with value of 0.016 indicates a poor model fit
46 | P a g e
120000.0
"Number of Hawla" Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days

100000.0
80000.0
60000.0
109885.8107707.1
40000.0
94168.0 97264.5
20000.0
37747.9
0.0
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
Figure 8Comparison of number of Hawla (Analysis- Author)
"Hawla Number" Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days

300,000
250,000

200,000
150,000
y = 54.532x + 88212
R = 0.0099
100,000
y = -92.337x + 120920
R = 0.016
50,000
t-238
t-224
t-210
t-196
t-182
t-168
t-154
t-140
t-126
t-112
t-98
t-84
t-70
t-56
t-42
t-28
t-14
t+1
t+15
t+29
t+43
t+57
t+71
t+85
t+99
t+113
t+127
t+141
t+155
t+169
t+183
t+197
t+211
t+225
Figure 9Hwla Number trend comparison (Analysis-Author)
47 | P a g e

Difference
Hypothesis
after
and
between
before
Statistical
Significance of the
demutualization
H3: Average Number of
Howla in DSE after
Negative mean
difference of 2178.7
difference
Reject
the
0.249 is lower than t Null
demutualization >Average
Critical two-tail value Meaning that- :
Number of Howla in DSE
of 1.970 and P value There
before demutualization
is
is
NO
0.498 which is SIGNIFICANT
higher than .05
POSITIVE influence of
demutualization
on
Number of Hawla
6.1.4 RESULTS ON HYPOTHESIS H4: AVERAGE VOLUME AFTER DEMUTUALIZATION

Comparison of Volume of transaction in DSE represents the market size improvement. Thus in
this study we use Average Volume of Transaction as a performance indicator. Table 8 and
figure 10 gives us a clear view of the Volume of Transaction performance. The analysis shows
that, before the market demutualization, the daily basis mean was 91 million and median was 96
million with a standard deviation of 56. But after the demutualization there is a positive change
appeared in the mean value as well as median value. The mean number of Volume of the
transaction after the demutualization is 108 million with a standard deviation of 51. There is a
Positive change of 17 million appeared after the demutualization that indicates a positive
performance influence.
48 | P a g e
Table 8 T-test and descriptive statistics for Volume of transaction (Analysis: Author) Data source: Authors calculation
from various issues of Bangladesh Economic Review, Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh, Dhaka stock exchange (main
board) and Securities and exchange Commission (Annual report and quarterly review).
Descriptive statistics and t-test for Volume of Transaction

Particulars
Before
Demutualization
(Million Number)
91
After
Demutualization(Million
Number)
108
Change
Median
69
93
+24
Standard Deviation
56
51
238
238
Mean
Pearson Correlation
0.504
0.000
Df
+17
237
t Stat
-5.077
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000
t Critical one-tail
1.651
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000
t Critical two-tail
1.970
of 5.077is much higher than t Critical two-tail value of 1.970and P value is 0.000 which is
less than .05. All these criteria indicate that- Demutualization has a significant positive
influence on the average volume of transaction happed in a day.
Another important statistical tool was applied to check whether the trend of Volume is higher
than the expected. In figure 9 the linear trend of before and after demutualization gives us a clear
view of influence. After demutualization Linear trend line shows an upward trend in market
capitalization though R2 value of 0.014 indicates a poor model fit as well as the before trend
shows a downward trend with value of 0.033 indicates a poor model fit
49 | P a g e
"Trade Volume" Perfromance Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days
120
100
Before Demutualization (Number In Million)
80
After Demutualization(Number In Million)
60
40
108
93
91
69
20
0
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
Figure 10Comparison of Volume (Analysis- Author)
"Trade Volume" Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days of Demutualization Year2013
350.00
Volume of Transaction Before Demutualization (Million)
300.00
Volume of Transaction After Demutualization (Million)

Linear (Volume of Transaction Before Demutualization (Million))
250.00
Linear (Volume of Transaction After Demutualization (Million))
200.00
y = 0.0982x + 79.392
R = 0.0141
150.00
100.00
y = 0.1351x + 60.608
R = 0.033
50.00
t-238
t-225
t-212
t-199
t-186
t-173
t-160
t-147
t-134
t-121
t-108
t-95
t-82
t-69
t-56
t-43
t-30
t-17
t-4
t+10
t+23
t+36
t+49
t+62
t+75
t+88
t+101
t+114
t+127
t+140
t+153
t+166
t+179
t+192
t+205
t+218
t+231
Figure 11 Volume trend (Analysis-Author)
50 | P a g e
Table 9Summary of the Hypothesis- H4

Difference
Hypothesis
after
and
between
before
demutualization
H4: Average Volume after
Positive mean
demutualization>Average
Statistical
Significance of the
difference
the absolute t-Stat of Reject
the
Null
and
5.077 is much higher accept the alternate.
Volume before
than t Critical two-tail Meaning that- :
demutualization
value of 1.970 and P There
is
value is 0.000 which SIGNIFICANT

is less than .05
demutualization
on
Average
of
Volume
transaction
6.2 HYPOTHESIS TESTING RELATED TO MARKET LIQUIDITY

To examine improvement in market size in the equity markets of demutualized stock exchanges,
3 measures were employed- Average Trade value of share trading, Trade value/ GDP ratio
Average Turnover. This section presents the results of each of the aforementioned mentioned
measures.
6.2.1 RESULTS ON HYPOTHESIS H5: AVERAGE TRADE VALUE OF SHARE TRADING
Average Trade value of share trading of an exchange is an indication of liquidity. Thus in this
study we use Average Trade value of share trading as a performance indicator. Table 10 and
figure 12 gives us a clear view of the Average Trade value performance. The analysis shows that,
before the market demutualization, the daily basis mean was 4,206.24 million BDT and median
was 3,142.56 million BDT with a standard deviation of 2,751.05. But after the demutualization
there is a positive change appeared in the mean value as well as median value. The mean number
of Average Trade value after the demutualization is 4,981.69 million BDT with a standard
deviation of 2,227.89. There is a Positive change of 775.45 million BDT appeared after the
51 | P a g e
Table 10 Descriptive statistics and t-test for Average Trade value of share trading
Descriptive statistics and t-test for Average Trade value of share trading
Particulars
Before
Demutualization
(Million Taka)
4,206.24
After
Demutualization(Million
Taka)
4,981.69
Median
3,142.56
4,541.84
Standard Deviation
2,751.05
2,227.89
238
238
Mean
Pearson Correlation
0.45
0.00
Df
Change
775.45
1,399.29
237.00
t Stat
-4.51
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.00
t Critical one-tail
1.65
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.00
t Critical two-tail
1.97
Two Paired t-test was applied. And the last few rows of table 10 shows us that the absolute tStat of 4.51is much higher than t Critical two-tail value of 1.97and P value is 0.000 which is
less than .05. All these criteria indicate that- Demutualization has a significant positive
influence on the Average Trade value of share trading.
Another important statistical tool was applied to check whether the trend of Trade value of share
trading is higher than the expected. In figure 13 the linear trend of before and after
demutualization gives us a clear view of positive influence. After demutualization Linear trend
line shows an upward trend in market capitalization though R2 value of 0.007 indicates a poor
model fit as well as the before trend shows a downward trend with R2 value of 0.001 indicates a
poor model fit
52 | P a g e
"Average Trade Value" Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days
6,000.00
5,000.00
4,000.00
3,000.00
4,981.69
2,000.00
4,541.84
4,206.24
3,142.56
1,000.00
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
Figure 12 Trade Value Comparison
"Trade Value" Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days of Demutualization
Year-2013
14,000.00
Trade Value Before Demutualization (Million Tk.)
12,000.00
10,000.00
Trade Value After Demitualization (Million Tk.)

Linear (Trade Value Before Demutualization (Million Tk.))
Linear (Trade Value After Demitualization (Million Tk.))
8,000.00
y = 2.7833x + 3986.6
R = 0.0074
6,000.00
4,000.00
y = -1.3847x + 4371.7
R = 0.0012
2,000.00
t-238
t-224
t-210
t-196
t-182
t-168
t-154
t-140
t-126
t-112
t-98
t-84
t-70
t-56
t-42
t-28
t-14
t+1
t+15
t+29
t+43
t+57
t+71
t+85
t+99
t+113
t+127
t+141
t+155
t+169
t+183
t+197
t+211
t+225
Figure 13 Trend of Trade Value
53 | P a g e

Difference
Hypothesis
after
and
between
before
demutualization
H5: Average Trade value of
share trading after
Positive mean
demutualization > average
Million BDT
Statistical
Significance of the
difference
the
Null
and
4.51 is much higher Accept the alternate.

value of value of share trading
before demutualization.
value is 0.000 which SIGNIFICANT

is less than .05
is
demutualization
on
Average Trade value of

share trading
6.2.2 RESULTS ON HYPOTHESIS H6: AVERAGE TRADE VALUE/GDP RATIO

The total value traded ratio measures the organized trading of equities as a share of national
output .The total value traded/GDP ratio complements the market capitalization ratio. Together,
market capitalization and total value traded/GDP inform us about market size and liquidity. Total
value traded /GDP captures trading compared with the size of the economy. The lower the ratio
the better will be liquidity. Thus in this study we use Average Trade value of share trading as a
performance indicator. Table 12 and figure 14 gives us a clear view of the total value
traded/GDP performance. The analysis shows that, before the market demutualization, the daily
basis mean rate was 0.0395%with a standard deviation of 0.0259%. But after the demutualization
there is a positive change appeared in the mean value as well as median value. The mean rate of
total value traded/GDP after the demutualization is 0.0415%with a standard deviation of
0.0186%. There is a Positive change of 0.0020%appeared after the demutualization that indicates
a positive performance influence.
54 | P a g e
Table 12 Descriptive statistics and t-test for total value traded/GDP Ratio
Descriptive statistics and t-test for total value traded/GDP Ratio

Particulars
Before
Demutualization
(Rate)
0.0395%
After
Demutualization(Rate)
0.0415%
0.0020%
Median
0.0295%
0.0378%
0.0083%
Standard Deviation
0.0259%
0.0186%
Mean
238
Pearson Correlation
238
0.44707
0.00000
Df
t Stat
Change
237
-1.26512
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.10354
t Critical one-tail
1.65131
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.20707
t Critical two-tail
1.97002
Two Paired t-test was applied. And the last few rows of table 10 shows us that the absolute tStat of 1.26512is lower than t Critical two-tail value of 1.97002and P value is 0.20707 which
is higher than .05. All these criteria indicate that- Demutualization has a NO significant
influence on the total value traded/GDP Ratio.
Another important statistical tool was applied to check whether the trend of total value
traded/GDP Ratios higher than the expected. In figure 13 the linear trend of before and after
demutualization gives us a clear view of positive influence. After demutualization Linear trend
line shows an upward trend in market capitalization though R2 value of 0.007 indicates a poor
model fit as well as the before trend shows a downward trend with R2 value of 0.001 indicates a
poor model fit
55 | P a g e
"Trade Value/GDP Ratio" Performance Comparison Before and After 238 Trade
Days of Demutualization Year-2013
0.0450%
0.0400%
0.0350%
0.0300%
0.0250%
0.0200%
0.0395% 0.0415%
0.0150%
0.0378%
0.0295%
0.0100%
0.0186%
0.0050%
0.0000%
Mean
Standard Deviation
Median
Figure 14"Trade Value/GDP Ratio" Performance Comparison
"Trade Value/GDP Ratio" Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days of
0.14%
0.12%
0.10%
0.08%
y = 2E-07x + 0.0004
R = 0.0074
0.06%
0.04%
y = -1E-07x + 0.0004
R = 0.0012
0.02%
t-238
t-231
t-224
t-217
t-210
t-203
t-196
t-189
t-182
t-175
t-168
t-161
t-154
t-147
t-140
t-133
t-126
t-119
t-112
t-105
t-98
t-91
t-84
t-77
t-70
t-63
t-56
t-49
t-42
t-35
t-28
t-21
t-14
t-7
t+1
0.00%
Figure 15 trend of Value/GDP
56 | P a g e

Difference
Hypothesis
after
and
between
Statistical
before
Significance of the
demutualization
H6: Trade value/ GDP after
demutualization <Trade
value/ GDP before
demutualization
Positive mean
difference of
0.0020%
difference
Reject
the
1.26512 is lower than Null

t
Critical
two-tail Meaning that- :
is
NO

which is higher than POSITIVE influence of
.05
demutualization
on
Trade value/ GDP ratio
6.2.3 RESULTS ON HYPOTHESIS H6: AVERAGE TURNOVER RATIO AFTER

While total value traded /GDP captures trading compared with the size of the economy, turnover
[Market Cap/Total Trade Value] measures trading relative to the size of the stock market. Put it
differently, a small, liquid market will have a high turnover ratio but a small total value
traded/GDP ratio. Thus in this study we use Average turnover ratio as a performance indicator.
Table 14 and figure 16 gives us a clear view of the total value traded/GDP performance. The
analysis shows that, before the market demutualization, the daily basis mean was 820.58with a
standard deviation of 430.52. But after the demutualization there is a negative change appeared
in the mean value as well as median value. The mean of Turnover after the demutualization is
742.72with a standard deviation of 361.99. There is a Negative change of 77.87appeared after
the demutualization that indicates a negative performance influence
57 | P a g e
Table 14 Descriptive statistics and t-test for Turnover
Descriptive statistics and t-test for Turnover

Particulars
Before
Demutualization
After
Demutualization
Mean
820.58
742.72
-77.87
Median
781.70
650.82
-130.88
Standard Deviation
430.52
361.99
238
Pearson Correlation
Df
Change
238
0.471718704
0
237
t Stat
2.919032018
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.00192466
t Critical one-tail
1.651308392
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.00384932
t Critical two-tail
1.970023957
Two Paired t-test was applied. And the last few rows of table 10 shows us that the absolute tStat of 2.919032018is higher than t Critical two-tail value of 1.97002and P value is
0.00384932 which is lower than .05. All these criteria indicate that- Demutualization has a
NO significant influence on the turnover.
Another important statistical tool was applied to check whether the trend of Turnover Ratios
higher than the expected. In figure 17 the linear trend of before and after demutualization gives
us a clear view of positive influence. After demutualization Linear trend line shows an upward
trend in market capitalization though R2 value of 0.006 indicates a poor model fit as well as the
before trend also shows a upward trend with R2 value of 0.032 indicates a poor model fit
58 | P a g e
"Turn Over Ratio" Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days
900.00
800.00
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
820.58
742.72
300.00
781.70
650.82
200.00
361.99
100.00
0.00
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
Figure 16Turn over Ratio Comparison
"Turnover Ratio [M.Cap/Trade Value]" Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days of
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
y = 0.5158x + 758.94
R = 0.0068
1000.00
y = 0.94x + 406.67
R = 0.032
500.00
t-238
t-224
t-210
t-196
t-182
t-168
t-154
t-140
t-126
t-112
t-98
t-84
t-70
t-56
t-42
t-28
t-14
t+1
t+15
t+29
t+43
t+57
t+71
t+85
t+99
t+113
t+127
t+141
t+155
t+169
t+183
t+197
t+211
t+225
0.00
Figure 17Turnover Ratio trend
59 | P a g e

Difference
Hypothesis
after
and
between
before
Statistical
Significance of the
demutualization
H7: Average Turnover after
demutualization>Average
Negative mean
difference of 77.87
difference
Reject
the
2.919032018 is higher Null
Turnover after
demutualization
is
NO

which is lower than POSITIVE influence of
.05
demutualization
on
Turnover ratio
6.3 HYPOTHESIS TESTING RELATED TO VOLATILITY I.E. RISK

To examine improvement in market volatility in the equity markets of demutualized stock
exchanges, the volatility of the broad index is used as a proxy. Table 16 and figure 18 gives us a
clear view of Volatility of the broad index. The analysis shows that, before the market
demutualization, the standard deviation and range were328.44 and 1567.46 respectively. But
after the demutualization the standard deviation and range fall to 245.6461106 and 1047.88376
respectively. It is positive sign because both the standard deviation and range are the measure of
risk. And as the risk reduce in the post demutualization we can empirically say that there is
positive influence on the market risk condition because of demutualization.
60 | P a g e
Table 16 Descriptive statistics and t-test for Volatility
Descriptive statistics and t-test for Volatility

Particulars
Before
Demutualization
After
Demutualization
328.4403001
245.6461106
1567.4622
1047.88376
238
238
Standard Deviation
Range
Pearson Correlation
-0.28
0.00
Df
237.00
t Stat
-27.91
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.00
t Critical one-tail
1.65
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.00
t Critical two-tail
1.97
Change
-82.7941
Two Paired t-test was applied. And the last few rows of table 16 shows us that the absolute tStat of 27.91is much higher than t Critical two-tail value of 1.97and P value is 0.00 which is
lower than .05. All these criteria indicate that- Demutualization has a significant positive
influence on the market risk.
61 | P a g e
"Index" Perfromance Comparison Before and After 238 Trade Days

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Standard Deviation
Range
Figure 18 Index Performance comparison
DSE Broad Index Volatility Comparison

6,000.00
DSE Index before Demutualization

DSE Index After Demutualization
5,000.00
4,000.00
3,000.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
t-238
t-231
t-224
t-217
t-210
t-203
t-196
t-189
t-182
t-175
t-168
t-161
t-154
t-147
t-140
t-133
t-126
t-119
t-112
t-105
t-98
t-91
t-84
t-77
t-70
t-63
t-56
t-49
t-42
t-35
t-28
t-21
t-14
t-7
Figure 19 Index Volatility comparison
62 | P a g e

Difference
Hypothesis
after
between
and
before
demutualization
H8: Volatility [i.e. Risk] of the
market after
Decreased by
82.7941
Statistical
Significance of the
difference
the
Null
and
27.91 is much higher Accept the alternate.
demutualization<Volatility
[i.e. Risk] of the market before
demutualization
value is 0.00 which is SIGNIFICANT

lower than .05
is
demutualization
on
Volatility of the market
Now, the summary of all the hypothesis is given below. If more than 50% of the hypothesis
passes, then we will REJECT the Major null hypothesis and will ACCPET the alternate major
hypithesis and vice versa.
Table 18Summary of all the hypothesis
Summary of all the hypothesis

Name of the hypothesis
Pass or Fail based on previous

analysis and statistical significance
Pass
H1: Average Domestic market capitalization after

demutualization > domestic market capitalization before
demutualization. [Market Size Measure]
63 | P a g e
Fail
H2: Market Capitalization to GDP ratio
after
demutualization >Market Capitalization to GDP ratio before

demutualization[Market Size Measure]
H3: Average Number of Howla in DSE after Fail

demutualization >Average Number of Howla in DSE before
demutualization [Both Market Size & Liquidity Measure]
H4: Average Volume after demutualization>Average Pass

Volume before demutualization[Market Size Measure]
H5:Average Trade value of share trading after Pass

demutualization > average value of value of share trading
before
demutualization.
[Liquidity
Measure
&
Market
Measure]
H6: Trade value/ GDP after demutualization <Trade Fail

value/ GDP before demutualization[Liquidity Measure]
H7: Average Turnover after demutualization>Average Fail

Turnover after demutualization[Liquidity Measure]
H8:
Volatility
[i.e.
Risk]
of
the
market
after Pass
demutualization<Volatility [i.e. Risk] of the market before

demutualization[Risk Measure]
H9:
Number
of
new
listed
company
after Pass
demutualization > Number of new listed company before [14

demutualization
new
company
VS
17new
Company]
64 | P a g e
6.4 COMMENTS ON MAJOR RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS (HA):
THERE IS A POSITIVE IMPACT OF DEMUTUALIZATION ON THE MARKET PERFORMANCE
OF DEMUTUALIZED STOCK EXCHANGES.
The finding from the minor hypothesis of H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8 and H9 reflects thatabout 55.6% of the market measures have significantly improved after demutualization which is
calculated through passed hypothesis [5] divided by total hypothesis [9]. The hypothesis
supported in case of H1, H4, H5, H8 and H9; related to Average Domestic market capitalization,
Average Volume, Average Trade value of share trading, Volatility, Number of new listed
company in equity market. The results of the remaining market measures do not support their
research hypothesis. Therefore, our evidence suggests that exchange demutualization of DSE
does appear to improve the market performance of demutualized stock exchange.
The study suggests:

There is a positive impact of demutualization on the market
performance of demutualized stock exchanges.
6.5 LIMITATIONS
The findings of this study need to be read and interpreted with an understanding of the following
caveats:
a. To guarantee the consistency and availability of the data, the analysis is limited to only
one year periods i.e. 238 trading days before and after the demutualization year-2013.
b. The study also omitted 2013 data because- in this year the whole demutualization
process was incorporated.
c. Other important economic factors can influence the data other than the demutualization
fact.
65 | P a g e
7 CONCLUSION
This study analyzes and evaluates the market performance of Dhaka stock exchange that
demutualized in 2013. It examines whether or not market performance improved after
implementing the demutualization program. Main focus was on market size and liquidity as well
as volatility.
Market size of DSE that has undergone the demutualization program has been measured in terms
four measures - Domestic market capitalization, Market Capitalization to GDP ratio, Average
Number of Howla in DSE, Volume.The study finds that two out of the four measures show high
significance for improvement after demutualization and support the research hypothesis. Two
indicators; Domestic market capitalization and Volumehave significantly improved after
demutualization at 5% significance level. The remaining two indicators- Market Capitalization
to GDP ratio and Average Number of Howla in DSE used to test market size of equity markets
do not support the research hypothesis.
As for the impact of the post demutualization structure on the liquidity of stock exchange, 3
measures were employed- Average Trade value of share trading, Trade value/ GDP ratio and
Average Turnover.Results are mixed. The study notes a high significant improvement; at 5%
level for one of these indicators; Average Trade value of share trading. On the contrary, Trade
value/ GDP ratio and Average Turnover are not significantly impacted.
To examine improvement in market volatility in the equity markets of demutualized stock
exchanges, the volatility of the broad index is used as a proxy. The analysis shows that, before
the market demutualization, the standard deviation and range were higher than after the
demutualization period. It is positive sign because both the standard deviation and range are the
measure of risk. And as the risk reduce in the post demutualization we can empirically say that
there is positive influence on the market risk condition because of demutualization.
66 | P a g e
8. REFERENCES
1.
Aggarwal, R., 2002. Demutualization and Corporate Governance of Stock Exchanges,

Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol.15, No.1, pp.105 -113.
2.
Boubakri, N. and J-C. Cosset, 1998. The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly
Privatized Firms: Evidence from Developing Countries, Journal of Finance, Vol. 53,
pp.1081- 1110.
3.
Boubakri, N. and J-C. Cosset, 1999. Does Privatization Meet the Expectations?
Evidence from African Countries, Working Paper, Monteral: Ecole des HEC.
4.
Boardman, A., C., Laurin and A., Vining, 2000. Privatization in Canada: Operating,
Financial and Stock Price Performance with International Comparisons, Working Paper,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
5.
Elliott, J., 2002. Demutualization of Securities Exchanges: A Regulatory Perspective,

IMF Working Paper, WP/02/119, International Monetary Fund.
6.
DSouza, J., W., Megginson, 1999. The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly
Privatized Firms in the 1990s, Journal of Finance, Vol., pp. 54, 1397.
7.
Dewenter, K. and P., Malatesta, 2000. State-owned and privately-owned firms: An

empirical analysis of profitability, leverage, and labour intensity, American Economic
Review.
8.
Field, A., 2003. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows (London: Sage
Publications Ltd.)
9.
Hazarika, S., 2005. Governance Change in Stock Exchanges, Working Paper, Baruch
College, City University, New York.
10.
Hughes, P. and E. Zargar, 2006. Exchange Demutualization, Blake, Cassels and

Graydon LLP.
11.
International Organization for Securities Commissions, 2000. IOSCO Discussion Paper

on Stock Exchange Demutualization.
12.
IOMA/IOCA. Annual Meeting, Chicago 10-13 April 2005. In Annual Report and
Statistics 2005, World Federation of Exchanges (WFE), 15-16.
13.
Krishnamurti, C., J. Sequeira and F. Fangjian, 2003. Stock Exchange Governance and
Market Quality, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 27, No. 9, 1859-1878
67 | P a g e
14.
Lee, R., 2002. The Future of Securities Exchanges, Working Paper the Wharton
Financial Institutions Centre at Wharton School.
15.
Lucy, J., 2004. Market demutualization and privatisation: The Australian experience,
International Organization of Securities Commission (IOSCO), Amman 2004 Annual
Conference.
16.
Megginson, W. and J., Netter, 2001. From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical
Studies on Privatization, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 39, issue 2321-2390.
17.
Megginson, W., R. Nash and M., Randenborgh, 1994. The Financial and Operating
Performance of Newly Privatized firms: An International Empirical Analysis, Journal of
Finance, Vol. XLIX, No. 2, 403-452.
18.
Mendiola, A. and M., OHara, 2004. Taking stock in stock markets: the changing
governance of exchanges, Working Paper, Cornell University.
19.
Schmiedel, H., 2001. Technological Development and concentration of stock exchanges

in Europe, Bank of Finland Discussion Paper, 21.
20.
Schmiedal, H., 2002. Total Factor Productivity Growth in European Stock Exchanges:
A nonparametric Frontier Approach, Discussion Paper II, Bank of Finland.
21.
Serifsoy, B., 2005. Demutualization, outsider ownership and stock exchange

performance: empirical evidence. Goethe University Frankfurt Working Paper Series:
Finance & Accounting.
22.
Steil, B., 2002. Changes in the Ownership Structure of Securities Exchanges: Causes
and Consequences, Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services, 61-91.
68 | P a g e
APPENDIX
69 | P a g e
DSE Historical Financial Statement: (Source: DSE Main Board)
70 | P a g e
Daily
price
data
before
and
after
demutualization:
Source
(DSE
Mani
Board)
also
available
at:
http://www.dsebd.org/data_archive.php
30/09/ 2012 t-59
7,820,495,295.95
216,075,757.00
2,530,790,126,287.60
185,749
323.6099544
7,835,346,328.20
211,897,199.00
2,554,820,555,473.00
172,066
326.0635138
9,796,060,412.25
285,853,124.00
2,603,252,021,488.40
200,749
265.7447904
10,448,331,788.75
301,376,556.00
2,582,370,668,156.10
210,228
247.1562657
6,630,126,625.10
173,699,631.00
2,574,587,517,791.90
153,754
388.3164928
07/10/ 2012 t-54
5,241,588,183.55
130,301,217.00
2,529,450,617,497.40
130,656
482.5733211
08/10/ 2012 t-53
5,265,723,241.00
139,168,368.00
2,511,505,479,115.80
130,198
476.9535663
09/10/ 2012 t-52
6,281,294,274.60
145,669,311.00
2,553,124,752,856.30
133,147
406.4647573
10/10/ 2012 t-51
6,089,431,327.60
130,942,032.00
2,518,172,628,451.40
130,172
413.5316572
11/10/ 2012 t-50
5,834,467,441.00
134,125,494.00
2,511,739,660,698.40
129,701
430.5002446
14/10/ 2012 t-49
6,914,219,557.25
151,955,547.00
2,497,163,255,414.90
143,487
361.1634306
15/10/ 2012 t-48
5,304,926,868.70
120,027,402.00
2,504,458,321,017.00
121,861
472.1004423
16/10/ 2012 t-47
4,852,857,921.00
118,827,454.00
2,507,973,801,004.50
116,805
516.8034675
17/10/ 2012 t-46
4,194,535,986.40
97,572,939.00
2,497,601,985,320.00
103,981
595.4417827
18/10/ 2012 t-45
3,694,581,082.50
89,401,154.00
2,500,293,107,716.30
88,905
676.7460375
21/10/ 2012 t-44
3,867,835,754.55
94,315,523.00
2,490,830,191,079.90
93,920
643.9855126
22/10/ 2012 t-43
3,406,194,440.60
88,411,512.00
2,520,932,049,827.90
88,285
740.1022149
23/10/ 2012 t-42
3,974,650,224.70
97,321,899.00
2,543,598,639,389.40
100,582
639.9553409
01/10/ 2012 t-58
Date
Turnover Ratio
13/05/ 2012 t-149
3,898,892,997.20
68,709,008.00
2,613,210,308,699.20
95,114
670.244172
01/01/ 2012 t-238
6,696,251,214.75
126,939,415.00
2,657,555,651,928.50
176,493
396.8721553
14/05/ 2012 t-148
3,484,400,611.95
67,448,796.00
2,638,419,899,289.60
85,291
757.2091137
02/01/ 2012 t-237
5,940,281,461.05
115,283,200.00
2,653,794,442,298.10
157,352
446.7455725
15/05/ 2012 t-147
4,336,315,288.50
89,715,963.00
2,621,947,454,485.60
97,194
604.6487121
03/01/ 2012 t-236
7,102,359,256.70
130,509,256.00
2,679,244,952,176.10
186,170
377.2330933
16/05/ 2012 t-146
3,494,531,075.15
70,056,297.00
2,620,332,503,680.30
91,818
749.8380891
2,656,023,499.65
59,143,160.00
2,617,207,437,929.70
70,800
985.3856482
Days
Value(Tk.)
Volume
M.Capitalisation Howla
04/01/ 2012 t-235
8,078,233,161.25
153,576,959.00
2,714,548,941,971.00
194,120
336.0325071
17/05/ 2012 t-145
05/01/ 2012 t-234
6,781,156,459.40
130,316,862.00
2,708,931,237,140.50
168,687
399.4792412
20/05/ 2012 t-144
2,780,504,007.35
58,567,499.00
2,612,159,039,785.80
71,461
939.4552329
08/01/ 2012 t-233
6,153,042,844.20
112,049,916.00
2,696,131,646,576.70
158,070
438.1785914
21/05/ 2012 t-143
4,772,509,144.55
92,290,217.00
2,631,086,104,113.50
113,238
551.3003798
09/01/ 2012 t-232
5,387,922,358.35
106,355,046.00
2,632,325,370,359.20
143,329
488.5603755
22/05/ 2012 t-142
2,617,477,075.20
48,166,746.00
2,586,695,947,695.40
75,952
988.2401539
2,748,292,099.50
53,742,286.00
2,558,316,413,149.20
81,853
930.8750018
10/01/ 2012 t-231
4,075,773,394.05
77,865,127.00
2,595,207,063,340.60
120,474
636.7397822
23/05/ 2012 t-141
11/01/ 2012 t-230
4,055,892,098.75
80,786,301.00
2,625,133,019,086.60
111,140
647.2393632
24/05/ 2012 t-140
1,728,024,435.25
34,215,465.00
2,549,930,612,002.50
54,462
1475.633423
12/01/ 2012 t-229
3,278,122,313.35
64,993,068.00
2,583,501,157,998.50
97,991
788.1039544
27/05/ 2012 t-139
1,729,379,063.85
37,509,220.00
2,519,053,910,521.70
54,098
1456.623341
15/01/ 2012 t-228
2,475,228,955.10
49,935,097.00
2,552,362,089,239.10
82,899
1031.16202
28/05/ 2012 t-138
1,835,853,587.15
39,756,030.00
2,492,927,734,788.60
59,265
1357.912065
16/01/ 2012 t-227
3,183,314,809.75
68,726,492.00
2,486,768,252,844.40
102,409
781.18829
29/05/ 2012 t-137
2,359,886,926.00
51,427,132.00
2,488,024,488,534.50
74,243
1054.298179
1,872,805,302.60
38,833,286.00
2,513,886,351,322.60
60,409
1342.310569
02/10/ 2012 t-57

03/10/ 2012 t-56
04/10/ 2012 t-55
18/01/ 2012 t-226
3,164,841,437.75
67,644,271.00
2,424,404,843,035.90
98,560
766.0430675
30/05/ 2012 t-136
19/01/ 2012 t-225
3,212,153,793.20
66,095,122.00
2,519,410,315,680.80
104,197
784.3367653
31/05/ 2012 t-135
1,852,309,477.60
36,000,692.00
2,532,042,426,403.30
59,995
1366.965109
22/01/ 2012 t-224
2,859,651,819.70
59,378,681.00
2,430,771,138,258.20
96,490
850.0234614
03/06/ 2012 t-134
2,773,020,573.55
52,834,504.00
2,582,225,418,551.40
79,024
931.1959108
23/01/ 2012 t-223
2,339,915,820.20
50,454,393.00
2,404,227,273,987.80
84,422
1027.484516
04/06/ 2012 t-133
3,279,275,577.00
64,218,144.00
2,509,830,370,557.00
98,570
765.3612243
30/10/ 2012 t-41
2,727,438,600.85
64,395,782.00
2,532,464,421,243.70
67,203
928.5138153
1,956,071,928.90
38,597,358.00
2,537,026,357,013.20
59,303
1297.000545
31/10/ 2012 t-40
4,135,683,090.50
106,610,094.00
2,508,797,327,545.20
99,680
606.6222369
24/01/ 2012 t-222
2,334,628,764.95
50,587,358.00
2,352,798,565,415.50
82,002
1007.782736
05/06/ 2012 t-132
25/01/ 2012 t-221
2,626,321,332.75
58,794,978.00
2,375,502,802,153.70
97,648
904.4981559
06/06/ 2012 t-131
3,079,895,611.10
62,699,058.00
2,557,495,675,670.90
72,496
830.3838826
01/11/ 2012 t-39
3,403,235,192.00
82,842,976.00
2,505,230,595,518.80
90,271
736.1320785
26/01/ 2012 t-220
1,896,288,600.40
43,063,538.00
2,347,184,389,821.70
71,512
1237.778041
07/06/ 2012 t-130
2,989,670,506.05
56,802,386.00
2,551,077,106,906.60
79,537
853.297078
04/11/ 2012 t-38
3,159,576,362.25
76,149,294.00
2,471,475,314,534.20
86,686
782.2173074
29/01/ 2012 t-219
2,612,373,046.70
61,455,253.00
2,234,797,845,828.90
97,434
855.4665838
10/06/ 2012 t-129
1,363,139,112.65
27,487,186.00
2,532,068,950,817.40
36,858
1857.527913
05/11/ 2012 t-37
3,097,458,807.00
76,393,599.00
2,465,760,331,369.00
83,621
796.0591198
11/06/ 2012 t-128
1,564,310,970.95
34,578,322.00
2,517,980,471,018.60
44,550
1609.641892
06/11/ 2012 t-36
3,442,509,841.60
92,742,960.00
2,462,972,285,075.90
85,435
715.4583134
12/06/ 2012 t-127
1,287,442,866.20
29,559,249.00
2,517,020,241,853.30
41,760
1955.053935
07/11/ 2012 t-35
2,682,973,439.15
74,148,474.00
2,444,580,312,966.70
75,253
911.1459239
13/06/ 2012 t-126
1,496,727,976.50
36,631,286.00
2,516,529,136,514.40
51,959
1681.35371
08/11/ 2012 t-34
2,766,567,521.75
69,138,196.00
2,442,868,269,338.00
78,164
882.9960773
14/06/ 2012 t-125
1,862,637,631.55
42,493,230.00
2,499,726,301,109.10
125,334
1342.035756
11/11/ 2012 t-33
3,453,582,235.00
90,426,392.00
2,399,878,650,746.30
89,495
694.8954701
17/06/ 2012 t-124
1,686,270,690.80
39,983,104.00
2,455,333,403,768.20
71,735
1456.073107
12/11/ 2012 t-32
2,478,689,876.95
70,354,217.00
2,386,804,092,438.20
73,410
962.9296971
18/06/ 2012 t-123
1,639,539,297.75
37,417,964.00
2,421,583,274,362.70
63,947
1476.990077
13/11/ 2012 t-31
2,539,382,633.30
73,189,113.00
2,417,634,954,125.00
78,249
952.0561897
19/06/ 2012 t-122
1,407,704,570.90
31,054,975.00
2,417,369,446,958.20
49,556
1717.242024
14/11/ 2012 t-30
2,860,392,666.45
74,317,720.00
2,424,047,177,256.60
75,747
847.4525913
20/06/ 2012 t-121
1,228,964,226.85
27,738,645.00
2,375,646,923,554.80
46,194
1933.048067
15/11/ 2012 t-29
2,911,365,973.70
71,505,885.00
2,450,875,500,103.10
80,377
841.830097
21/06/ 2012 t-120
1,185,491,635.20
29,690,373.00
2,379,607,657,007.00
45,180
2007.274945
18/11/ 2012 t-28
3,688,481,493.95
108,225,566.00
2,439,355,904,732.30
94,860
661.3442168
24/06/ 2012 t-119
1,737,677,171.10
42,329,555.00
2,376,309,652,458.70
74,210
1367.520787
19/11/ 2012 t-27
2,532,154,457.80
72,826,556.00
2,388,687,008,606.20
78,633
943.3417465
25/06/ 2012 t-118
1,428,116,919.30
31,765,535.00
2,370,729,041,847.00
53,834
1660.038481
20/11/ 2012 t-26
2,274,208,561.40
63,803,947.00
2,360,380,685,603.30
71,854
1037.891039
26/06/ 2012 t-117
1,621,832,501.35
36,870,127.00
2,425,585,805,365.60
60,110
1495.583424
21/11/ 2012 t-25
2,420,933,483.30
71,899,869.00
2,354,974,794,974.50
69,719
972.7548531
27/06/ 2012 t-116
2,775,982,270.10
58,655,768.00
2,467,774,641,304.20
85,167
888.973488
22/11/ 2012 t-24
2,703,667,027.70
74,716,078.00
2,355,060,422,524.60
79,186
871.0615614
28/06/ 2012 t-115
2,999,978,388.40
60,091,155.00
2,491,612,943,054.10
83,849
830.5436308
26/11/ 2012 t-23
2,061,944,650.05
55,592,034.00
2,313,708,779,063.20
63,905
1122.100333
02/07/ 2012 t-114
2,232,926,885.35
45,123,999.00
2,438,394,358,743.50
103,579
1092.017108
27/11/ 2012 t-22
1,668,280,810.20
49,875,951.00
2,302,458,496,188.90
56,391
1380.138453
03/07/ 2012 t-113
1,399,796,422.15
32,760,573.00
2,429,557,677,798.00
55,260
1735.650727
28/11/ 2012 t-21
1,870,974,564.65
56,752,804.00
2,287,037,478,056.40
61,274
1222.377643
04/07/ 2012 t-112
1,593,190,845.25
38,740,157.00
2,399,192,888,200.50
65,160
1505.904265
29/11/ 2012 t-20
3,364,331,233.55
92,164,241.00
2,384,306,920,124.60
95,684
708.7015976
05/07/ 2012 t-111
1,557,435,230.00
36,725,966.00
2,403,688,548,693.10
57,738
1543.363411
02/12/ 2012 t-19
3,125,536,127.70
87,232,539.00
2,362,570,654,273.50
92,598
755.8929277
08/07/ 2012 t-110
1,157,029,076.00
27,803,895.00
2,396,805,446,168.50
47,099
2071.51704
03/12/ 2012 t-18
1,698,546,894.40
48,691,194.00
2,331,098,270,260.80
56,374
1372.407367
09/07/ 2012 t-109
1,645,837,778.00
40,184,190.00
2,344,891,348,242.00
61,654
1424.740263
04/12/ 2012 t-17
1,538,707,250.25
41,305,341.00
2,333,016,182,145.70
54,705
1516.218359
10/07/ 2012 t-108
1,851,840,841.45
45,391,701.00
2,279,089,349,423.50
64,682
1230.715566
05/12/ 2012 t-16
2,454,994,761.40
62,289,976.00
2,343,325,991,242.60
75,171
954.5136422
11/07/ 2012 t-107
2,015,002,106.60
51,069,544.00
2,314,728,264,072.80
76,524
1148.747317
06/12/ 2012 t-15
2,694,978,966.15
65,938,228.00
2,331,791,192,151.90
77,688
865.2353957
12/07/ 2012 t-106
1,856,288,600.25
43,941,333.00
2,352,000,377,469.50
67,188
1267.044563
09/12/ 2012 t-14
2,136,242,104.20
51,861,169.00
2,316,514,733,149.30
93,070
1084.387733
15/07/ 2012 t-105
1,382,998,957.10
34,426,611.00
2,281,992,562,679.00
53,972
1650.03202
10/12/ 2012 t-13
2,104,289,117.10
57,677,756.00
2,310,144,419,401.20
80,385
16/07/ 2012 t-104
1,229,860,203.10
31,665,505.00
2,277,392,544,309.20
49,133
1851.749116
11/12/ 2012 t-12
1,602,214,681.45
51,380,428.00
2,328,433,498,917.90
62,064
1453.25937
17/07/ 2012 t-103
1,218,172,240.55
29,261,872.00
2,291,950,290,981.90
46,689
1881.466524
12/12/ 2012 t-11
1,995,574,775.85
64,648,426.00
2,332,820,280,046.00
70,988
1168.996676
18/07/ 2012 t-102
2,042,693,756.55
47,677,284.00
2,359,552,589,317.00
72,582
1155.118129
13/12/ 2012 t-10
1,764,931,574.25
55,047,550.00
2,345,008,399,177.90
63,056
1328.668167
19/07/ 2012 t-101
2,810,298,828.50
61,495,566.00
2,355,126,261,653.90
95,279
838.0341043
17/12/ 2012 t-9
2,187,405,142.65
69,566,027.00
2,382,346,796,294.90
74,894
1089.120049
22/07/ 2012 t-100
1,820,519,896.60
34,507,992.00
2,339,765,564,192.20
52,447
1285.218343
18/12/ 2012 t-8
2,025,403,326.65
61,798,842.00
2,364,194,269,066.10
68,947
1167.270853
23/07/ 2012 t-99
2,082,997,937.35
41,926,138.00
2,373,677,647,812.40
62,962
1139.548727
19/12/ 2012 t-7
2,455,508,413.40
69,267,801.00
2,382,509,349,065.90
83,061
970.2713035
24/07/ 2012 t-98
2,892,592,249.25
65,869,700.00
2,420,871,783,060.70
89,991
836.9212023
20/12/ 2012 t-6
2,258,986,929.35
62,597,156.00
2,380,051,394,079.30
74,006
1053.592371
25/07/ 2012 t-97
2,527,238,170.80
56,300,337.00
2,380,383,265,654.10
78,375
941.8911495
23/12/ 2012 t-5
1,970,283,626.80
56,280,497.00
2,366,764,702,228.40
63,478
1201.230457
1,817,051,054.90
50,881,759.00
2,372,102,410,626.20
60,208
1305.468222
1120.587952
30/01/ 2012 t-218
2,262,806,036.25
55,958,342.00
2,278,585,646,127.50
91,552
1006.97347
31/01/ 2012 t-217
2,253,946,230.60
53,798,847.00
2,230,354,329,651.40
90,678
989.5330684
01/02/ 2012 t-216
2,699,678,649.10
70,316,661.00
2,135,243,906,383.10
104,321
790.9252114
02/02/ 2012 t-215
1,686,744,115.80
43,208,397.00
2,122,964,332,496.00
77,120
1258.616712
06/02/ 2012 t-214
2,121,192,679.50
60,538,812.00
2,039,135,976,807.90
92,267
961.3157713
07/02/ 2012 t-213
1,913,089,745.40
48,939,816.00
2,165,949,825,140.30
73,682
1132.173663
08/02/ 2012 t-212
2,171,639,187.85
53,409,301.00
2,099,396,765,367.90
90,526
966.73369
09/02/ 2012 t-211
2,294,982,913.60
58,797,316.00
2,176,975,925,394.60
92,209
948.5804502
12/02/ 2012 t-210
2,900,366,779.60
72,553,793.00
2,252,971,430,191.10
110,187
776.7884552
13/02/ 2012 t-209
3,914,705,615.25
94,312,216.00
2,274,376,982,209.90
137,927
580.9828901
14/02/ 2012 t-208
2,371,354,121.40
60,021,682.00
2,235,813,810,134.20
94,003
942.8426526
15/02/ 2012 t-207
2,535,143,108.25
63,071,926.00
2,272,421,418,736.20
91,934
896.368103
16/02/ 2012 t-206
2,738,147,988.00
63,800,880.00
2,260,829,365,950.70
98,796
825.6782964
19/02/ 2012 t-205
2,127,739,589.50
51,786,183.00
2,245,660,342,066.60
80,268
1055.420669
20/02/ 2012 t-204
2,297,818,354.40
54,492,507.00
2,228,324,957,735.30
75,654
969.7567928
22/02/ 2012 t-203
2,258,202,129.20
54,139,649.00
2,250,477,660,472.80
72,922
996.5793723
23/02/ 2012 t-202
3,297,178,715.80
79,368,085.00
2,299,051,389,683.50
108,614
697.2783667
26/02/ 2012 t-201
4,631,552,802.10
107,589,665.00
2,365,161,459,608.40
143,842
510.6627433
27/02/ 2012 t-200
4,620,040,612.40
104,865,634.00
2,357,655,948,578.90
144,638
510.3106545
28/02/ 2012 t-199
5,305,392,170.60
119,307,877.00
2,409,878,534,334.20
153,145
454.2319317
29/02/ 2012 t-198
5,358,752,555.15
119,185,216.00
2,422,641,453,863.90
151,345
452.0905619
01/03/ 2012 t-197
4,087,849,599.30
95,588,420.00
2,368,994,687,700.30
121,080
579.521
04/03/ 2012 t-196
2,738,590,197.25
65,131,076.00
2,377,526,606,829.00
94,333
868.1571303
05/03/ 2012 t-195
3,041,059,346.95
69,787,249.00
2,305,082,608,108.10
105,301
757.9867228
06/03/ 2012 t-194
2,002,511,060.60
49,038,315.00
2,308,862,499,358.90
74,196
1152.983644
07/03/ 2012 t-193
1,798,073,156.40
45,015,501.00
2,269,913,728,884.60
66,983
1262.414558
08/03/ 2012 t-192
1,850,425,704.45
44,568,050.00
2,296,698,741,577.10
69,936
1241.173172
11/03/ 2012 t-191
1,277,591,284.95
28,758,772.00
2,287,856,413,099.20
48,472
1790.757686
12/03/ 2012 t-190
1,429,586,981.15
29,399,127.00
2,299,263,386,217.70
47,372
1608.341022
13/03/ 2012 t-189
3,160,872,695.90
69,218,525.00
2,361,804,455,568.70
102,332
747.2001193
14/03/ 2012 t-188
3,206,339,698.60
66,035,310.00
2,360,012,997,490.50
99,950
736.0458402
15/03/ 2012 t-187
3,714,051,713.10
76,742,539.00
2,374,675,383,768.00
106,425
639.3759611
18/03/ 2012 t-186
4,046,075,992.20
85,093,734.00
2,410,719,278,340.20
114,044
19/03/ 2012 t-185
4,826,040,214.95
92,764,270.00
2,439,287,754,524.90
20/03/ 2012 t-184
5,750,719,327.15
125,067,958.00
21/03/ 2012 t-183
4,780,754,684.75
95,011,522.00
22/03/ 2012 t-182
4,429,888,325.45
25/03/ 2012 t-181

27/03/ 2012 t-180
28/03/ 2012 t-179
1097.82653
26/07/ 2012 t-96
2,389,834,420.70
55,177,951.00
2,406,838,601,094.50
77,322
1007.115213
24/12/ 2012 t-4
595.8166092
29/07/ 2012 t-95
2,610,846,478.50
61,735,423.00
2,384,859,655,988.50
78,825
913.4430828
26/12/ 2012 t-3
2,128,327,169.85
56,265,295.00
2,384,977,784,326.00
66,492
124,741
505.4428985
30/07/ 2012 t-94
2,246,711,860.55
52,478,338.00
2,355,913,389,429.60
69,460
1048.605044
27/12/ 2012 t-2
2,277,139,037.75
61,644,226.00
2,397,052,679,493.50
70,593
1052.65978
2,468,899,058,835.90
155,550
429.3200413
01/08/ 2012 t-93
1,999,790,942.15
55,951,450.00
2,340,628,443,086.70
66,631
1170.436566
30/12/ 2012 t-1
2,495,002,679.20
69,257,597.00
2,403,555,623,064.70
69,550
963.3479127
2,444,969,926,539.50
133,774
511.4192398
02/08/ 2012 t-92
2,100,609,378.20
54,790,903.00
2,322,290,541,792.10
66,116
1105.531836
01/01/ 2014 t+1
4,119,741,685.15
100,101,844
2,657,288,211,285.90
104,826
645.0133077
83,239,144.00
2,474,530,843,330.20
114,916
558.598922
05/08/ 2012 t-91
2,035,486,338.70
53,218,778.00
2,297,796,321,158.10
64,540
1128.868456
02/01/ 2014 t+2
3,708,383,662.45
83,894,862
2,673,976,869,686.90
103,202
721.0626281
6,911,179,247.50
137,630,352.00
2,517,587,849,853.40
165,125
364.2776087
06/08/ 2012 t-90
2,390,816,099.00
62,781,898.00
2,317,852,326,823.60
77,777
969.481646
06/01/ 2014 t+3
3,156,291,391.40
71,620,720
2,668,391,932,120.60
86,277
845.4200203
7,521,891,411.20
150,583,426.00
2,541,835,825,595.90
176,541
337.9250891
07/08/ 2012 t-89
2,598,304,254.85
62,846,574.00
2,320,643,865,018.20
79,789
893.1378458
07/01/ 2014 t+4
4,561,291,249.95
100,215,667
2,683,991,994,116.50
111,851
588.428111
8,212,139,460.40
160,969,541.00
2,589,788,741,016.00
187,919
315.3610278
08/08/ 2012 t-88
3,692,891,822.20
88,097,913.00
2,343,091,671,226.60
109,304
634.4869506
08/01/ 2014 t+5
5,397,040,108.30
117,786,690
2,712,107,267,045.90
121,997
502.5175305
29/03/ 2012 t-178
9,337,473,233.05
184,401,641.00
2,572,110,294,170.30
217,366
275.4610621
12/08/ 2012 t-87
3,777,941,654.35
107,055
629.563726
09/01/ 2014 t+6
5,175,864,175.95
110,326,138
2,717,362,079,909.60
116,570
525.0064506
01/04/ 2012 t-177
8,136,200,122.45
158,963,802.00
2,627,109,721,176.90
181,616
322.8914827
13/08/ 2012 t-86
2,789,583,122.55
02/04/ 2012 t-176
9,906,770,739.25
198,285,139.00
2,644,658,646,824.10
227,013
266.9546633
14/08/ 2012 t-85
3,625,973,472.30
03/04/ 2012 t-175
7,380,935,112.75
143,589,145.00
2,618,634,372,820.90
176,932
354.7835515
26/08/ 2012 t-84
5,256,913,730.90
04/04/ 2012 t-174
5,736,801,387.45
110,160,567.00
2,580,562,689,867.90
146,546
449.8260469
27/08/ 2012 t-83
6,302,839,369.45
131,621,860.00
2,422,943,012,802.10
05/04/ 2012 t-173
5,224,474,053.15
92,059,715.00
2,614,476,429,426.70
123,461
500.428637
28/08/ 2012 t-82
5,809,675,580.75
122,742,247.00
2,406,035,069,416.90
08/04/ 2012 t-172
6,798,078,532.05
113,824,301.00
2,621,415,075,816.40
153,552
385.6111787
29/08/ 2012 t-81
7,039,761,631.60
147,966,074.00
2,478,014,373,940.20
09/04/ 2012 t-171
6,888,548,964.30
114,273,078.00
2,621,859,255,626.50
157,384
380.6112534
30/08/ 2012 t-80
7,856,026,734.40
171,629,582.00
2,470,253,705,303.70
189,205
10/04/ 2012 t-170
9,294,367,292.70
144,993,561.00
2,670,021,680,632.00
191,025
287.2730974
02/09/ 2012 t-79
5,411,639,108.75
112,792,031.00
2,470,648,173,405.80
137,390
87,050,032.00
2,378,455,024,593.50
65,580,953.00
2,365,823,113,365.50
81,410
848.0919942
12/01/ 2014 t+7
6,195,481,035.70
128,263,146
2,734,157,300,728.80
136,051
441.314772
76,762,173.00
2,382,222,580,467.80
97,692
656.9884194
13/01/ 2014 t+8
6,506,795,233.30
144,501,232
2,740,628,593,595.00
145,662
421.1948425
109,393,430.00
2,438,383,010,804.40
126,703
463.8430714
15/01/ 2014 t+9
6,930,145,603.60
149,143,325
2,754,034,330,183.60
152,666
397.3992016
164,674
384.420873
16/01/ 2014 t+10
6,435,185,333.80
146,733,455
2,768,588,140,770.40
135,211
430.2266364
148,305
414.1427582
19/01/ 2014 t+11
7,080,761,895.95
155,963,098
2,788,888,332,948.70
150,407
393.8683964
164,347
352.0025966
20/01/ 2014 t+12
6,108,709,573.65
139,692,101
2,780,164,963,993.00
137,268
455.1149356
314.440593
21/01/ 2014 t+13
7,108,938,756.25
153,243,294
2,797,537,933,655.40
159,037
393.5239885
456.5434102
22/01/ 2014 t+14
8,348,874,000.05
177,874,456
2,826,036,348,680.10
170,405
338.4931128
23/01/ 2014 t+15
8,336,066,474.85
201,005,808
2,859,600,093,535.30
166,067
343.0395022
26/01/ 2014 t+16
8,590,081,622.25
213,921,062
2,880,224,614,759.30
167,553
335.2965363
27/01/ 2014 t+17
6,722,238,326.25
174,295,140
2,868,146,557,998.60
150,609
426.665408
28/01/ 2014 t+18
5,932,845,514.10
147,032,429
2,849,410,142,457.30
125,300
480.2771513
29/01/ 2014 t+19
6,278,460,284.65
141,057,305
2,870,642,664,093.20
129,192
457.2208048
30/01/ 2014 t+20
8,569,837,541.20
187,622,912
2,875,711,285,295.00
160,255
335.561937
02/02/ 2014 t+21
6,976,778,423.80
180,010,225.00
2,886,362,084,182.90
154,140
413.7098685
03/02/ 2014 t+22
8,041,997,842.10
199,836,615.00
2,901,269,405,724.40
164,410
360.764758
04/02/ 2014 t+23
7,716,936,015.45
212,696,667.00
2,892,481,717,875.80
159,958
374.8225607
05/02/ 2014 t+24
6,205,815,917.60
132,126,638
2,894,928,998,036.50
127,511
466.4864438
06/02/ 2014 t+25
7,704,009,278.35
145,920,088
2,919,206,465,238.60
142,246
378.9204244
09/02/ 2014 t+26
6,952,981,111.25
133,536,867
2,914,646,629,193.10
142,174
419.193808
10/02/ 2014 t+27
6,034,883,368.65
111,725,375
2,901,693,469,395.60
121,900
480.8201405
11/02/ 2014 t+28
4,905,856,440.05
89,835,223
2,897,063,325,824.10
108,630
590.5316149
12/02/ 2014 t+29
5,724,010,857.20
101,051,984
2,898,118,193,058.60
112,761
506.3089965
13/02/ 2014 t+30
5,339,061,105.95
95,886,154
2,899,333,268,142.40
112,833
543.0417841
16/02/ 2014 t+31
3,902,992,810.50
71,007,358
2,880,361,303,200.00
84,912
737.9878578
11/04/ 2012 t-169
8,510,471,001.00
139,435,302.00
2,683,713,272,672.80
186,891
315.3425083
03/09/ 2012 t-78
6,429,056,418.35
118,739,835.00
2,479,045,919,719.10
140,808
385.6002745
12/04/ 2012 t-168
10,785,368,860.80
169,250,483.00
2,734,647,638,460.40
217,460
253.5516099
04/09/ 2012 t-77
6,478,407,746.40
128,231,251.00
2,485,629,408,328.80
154,194
383.6790621
15/04/ 2012 t-167
12,018,545,972.05
191,457,890.00
2,777,433,956,668.20
231,644
231.0956719
05/09/ 2012 t-76
6,120,333,860.00
121,194,944.00
2,439,614,386,991.90
150,002
398.6080568
16/04/ 2012 t-166
11,207,603,349.20
202,351,711.00
2,757,547,540,604.30
218,629
246.0425708
06/09/ 2012 t-75
5,272,049,562.35
101,195,407.00
2,423,025,586,239.30
130,257
459.5984081
17/04/ 2012 t-165
10,137,942,431.65
167,543,587.00
2,785,741,730,223.00
205,282
274.7837393
09/09/ 2012 t-74
6,107,434,032.25
121,581,765.00
2,451,007,625,428.80
138,774
401.3154481
18/04/ 2012 t-164
9,915,365,146.85
162,386,034.00
2,790,617,897,208.90
194,578
281.4437851
10/09/ 2012 t-73
7,596,719,030.15
145,779,536.00
2,443,392,882,404.20
167,134
321.6379167
19/04/ 2012 t-163
7,790,875,023.35
126,395,132.00
2,752,268,096,138.80
176,615
353.2681615
11/09/ 2012 t-72
9,397,528,342.00
194,104,452.00
2,467,664,278,551.30
195,920
262.5865216
22/04/ 2012 t-162
6,531,858,052.90
97,540,437.00
2,754,222,427,740.30
136,904
421.6598716
12/09/ 2012 t-71
8,699,487,602.35
168,616,886.00
2,469,857,838,264.80
184,041
283.9084267
23/04/ 2012 t-161
9,111,195,441.85
130,095,785.00
2,770,923,572,522.40
170,656
304.1229431
13/09/ 2012 t-70
8,860,480,942.30
183,242,538.00
2,475,679,567,685.80
194,126
279.4069062
24/04/ 2012 t-160
8,742,474,202.95
123,239,309.00
2,760,707,781,921.30
167,833
315.7810613
16/09/ 2012 t-69
11,363,487,370.45
246,385,402.00
2,529,279,291,523.30
239,447
222.579496
25/04/ 2012 t-159
7,552,711,734.75
113,962,342.00
2,720,164,163,234.30
159,308
360.1572864
17/09/ 2012 t-68
9,518,425,197.25
217,807,115.00
2,523,601,998,688.60
214,147
265.1281012
26/04/ 2012 t-158
6,140,556,107.75
94,476,864.00
2,689,161,320,703.70
129,186
437.9344922
18/09/ 2012 t-67
10,897,437,981.50
224,733,973.00
2,566,449,298,520.80
214,604
235.50942
29/04/ 2012 t-157
4,303,583,131.45
73,322,754.00
2,626,322,888,696.20
105,929
610.2642399
19/09/ 2012 t-66
12,884,273,507.00
285,985,579.00
2,585,019,757,871.50
261,173
200.6337227
30/04/ 2012 t-156
4,487,920,918.60
77,198,611.00
2,659,181,860,761.10
105,957
592.5197678
20/09/ 2012 t-65
02/05/ 2012 t-155
4,991,972,887.20
78,622,662.00
2,702,154,501,673.10
108,782
541.2999154
23/09/ 2012 t-64
11,055,528,714.05
256,364,737.00
2,638,821,359,775.90
223,036
238.6879387
03/05/ 2012 t-154
4,359,484,388.20
73,718,325.00
2,685,011,679,530.50
105,688
615.9012031
24/09/ 2012 t-63
9,787,645,286.95
242,606,888.00
2,609,225,424,757.80
218,597
266.5835702
07/05/ 2012 t-153
3,565,421,099.75
60,913,177.00
2,683,646,408,151.00
86,024
752.6870833
25/09/ 2012 t-62
11,535,414,680.70
290,345,029.00
2,625,076,040,341.10
238,722
227.5666816
08/05/ 2012 t-152
3,781,730,578.55
63,689,053.00
2,642,273,161,200.40
90,209
698.6941841
26/09/ 2012 t-61
11,721,395,595.35
280,386,178.00
2,609,483,381,690.50
240,733
222.6256558
09/05/ 2012 t-151
3,837,799,807.05
69,107,228.00
2,571,056,847,063.00
97,930
669.9299016
27/09/ 2012 t-60
9,469,148,604.65
229,743,538.00
2,590,133,739,541.50
212,340
273.5339625
10/05/ 2012 t-150
4,214,578,203.80
77,911,931.00
2,643,477,301,359.90
102,095
627.2222684
11,188,724,953.40
281,332,533.00
2,584,358,400,736.50
244,352
230.9788123
71 | P a g e
17/02/ 2014 t+32
3,440,666,215.50
62,308,701
2,862,945,760,608.50
75,264
832.0905259
18/02/ 2014 t+33
3,488,306,945.10
71,723,477
2,854,958,655,514.20
77,262
818.4367662
19/02/ 2014 t+34
3,826,637,945.85
93,077,770
2,893,140,408,433.80
78,452
756.0528196
20/02/ 2014 t+35
3,998,014,927.40
85,647,220
2,902,350,393,189.70
89,462
725.9478631
23/02/ 2014 t+36
4,230,346,464.85
79,733,821
2,886,371,661,360.90
99,282
682.3014818
30/06/ 2014 t+122
3,872,124,208.95
70,609,784.00
2,943,202,317,594.10
74,291
760.1001824
02/07/ 2014 t+123
2,478,527,171.20
70,440,982.00
2,928,259,041,032.20
65,050
1181.451257
03/07/ 2014 t+124
2,618,524,907.10
75,701,458.00
2,911,129,876,544.10
74,920
1111.744199
06/07/ 2014 t+125
2,151,911,256.70
63,518,681.00
2,903,746,092,223.80
61,175
1349.380037
07/07/ 2014 t+126
1,915,064,321.80
53,462,960.00
2,889,377,145,981.90
58,431
1508.762454
08/07/ 2014 t+127
2,187,805,673.05
52,114,006.00
2,896,714,194,321.10
60,974
1324.027189
09/07/ 2014 t+128
1,574,913,254.30
42,505,348.00
2,894,280,412,089.30
47,269
1837.739573
24/02/ 2014 t+37
5,273,629,899.15
97,593,878
2,899,967,605,972.30
112,437
549.8997202
10/07/ 2014 t+129
1,772,180,282.15
45,954,448.00
2,889,835,118,505.80
48,316
1630.666557
25/02/ 2014 t+38
5,425,000,643.85
91,329,762
2,907,706,110,023.00
111,327
535.9826295
13/07/ 2014 t+130
1,499,640,672.40
42,010,417.00
2,874,658,404,605.80
43,097
1916.898133
26/02/ 2014 t+39
3,962,931,686.00
71,223,788
2,907,395,828,775.00
95,239
733.6477283
14/07/ 2014 t+131
1,861,112,374.15
46,150,172.00
2,889,273,164,112.60
49,501
1552.444229
15/07/ 2014 t+132
1,932,710,611.70
50,783,618.00
2,882,617,251,810.00
71,649
1491.489328
27/02/ 2014 t+40
6,465,430,643.50
101,048,999
2,923,122,954,378.30
127,803
452.1157392
16/07/ 2014 t+133
2,564,517,424.15
61,697,175.00
2,897,907,647,382.80
63,951
1130.001153
02/03/ 2014 t+41
5,744,000,298.60
88,875,832
2,917,658,965,872.40
121,248
507.9489579
17/07/ 2014 t+134
2,532,193,811.30
65,985,712.00
2,894,370,314,978.10
64,839
1143.028745
03/03/ 2014 t+42
5,054,299,368.80
81,372,799
2,908,539,953,758.10
106,967
575.4585832
20/07/ 2014 t+135
2,636,973,905.30
67,560,840.00
2,882,272,088,877.10
68,482
1093.022606
21/07/ 2014 t+136
3,090,265,344.45
74,165,747.00
2,903,405,818,581.40
75,131
939.532854
22/07/ 2014 t+137
3,756,449,622.20
85,721,148.00
2,922,333,196,397.80
80,260
777.9508553
04/03/ 2014 t+43
4,628,217,587.40
83,146,727
2,902,868,815,957.90
97,200
627.2109643
05/03/ 2014 t+44
3,546,957,552.95
65,013,106
2,900,181,978,927.40
79,487
817.6534215
23/07/ 2014 t+138
3,188,653,485.05
77,021,436.00
2,910,185,542,911.00
74,610
912.6691114
24/07/ 2014 t+139
3,395,384,117.90
71,002,862.00
2,936,964,510,204.10
66,020
864.9874089
03/08/ 2014 t+140
06/03/ 2014 t+45
4,129,221,751.85
68,240,494
2,909,062,923,670.40
87,474
704.5063449
09/03/ 2014 t+46
5,106,499,090.00
84,159,083
2,910,475,586,933.70
109,103
569.9551759
4,287,098,669.50
100,520,174.00
2,942,718,154,231.00
91,915
686.412509
04/08/ 2014 t+141
5,604,900,323.40
115,917,538.00
2,963,264,776,082.40
118,757
528.6917885
10/03/ 2014 t+47
4,017,626,752.65
76,573,051
2,891,549,743,444.20
95,432
719.7158724
05/08/ 2014 t+142
4,918,633,657.45
121,693,274.00
2,962,036,626,022.80
113,692
602.2072047
11/03/ 2014 t+48
3,360,999,318.20
56,221,196
2,895,135,266,871.10
81,602
861.3912092
06/08/ 2014 t+143
6,518,047,170.80
141,288,069.00
2,967,473,358,301.40
124,574
455.2703103
12/03/ 2014 t+49
4,507,596,067.90
73,205,749
2,895,381,021,415.90
99,169
642.3337357
07/08/ 2014 t+144
5,880,102,092.35
127,003,492.00
2,988,187,407,136.90
113,860
508.1863138
10/08/ 2014 t+145
7,639,046,712.15
160,739,692.00
3,023,288,168,044.90
143,729
395.7677289
13/03/ 2014 t+50
3,534,637,848.60
64,072,902
2,888,337,804,588.40
89,948
817.152401
11/08/ 2014 t+146
7,901,865,592.10
164,834,629.00
3,046,572,363,281.00
152,815
385.5510231
16/03/ 2014 t+51
2,925,164,314.45
57,578,832
2,870,956,114,438.70
78,087
981.4683231
12/08/ 2014 t+147
6,813,726,269.30
151,216,133.00
3,021,369,785,863.00
133,334
443.4240042
884.6525759
13/08/ 2014 t+148
4,932,116,624.65
108,980,876.00
3,030,631,198,618.10
101,182
614.4686814
14/08/ 2014 t+149
6,323,268,640.80
151,531,460.00
3,045,818,286,731.00
124,981
481.684151
18/03/ 2014 t+52
3,226,722,869.80
58,061,182
2,854,528,698,480.80
83,839
19/03/ 2014 t+53
3,380,479,852.50
60,955,478
2,838,648,204,474.20
96,975
839.7175337
18/08/ 2014 t+150
6,152,190,394.60
158,646,730.00
3,041,075,813,851.10
148,802
494.3078186
20/03/ 2014 t+54
2,776,451,613.80
53,169,424
2,264,112,188,559.40
82,182
815.4697086
19/08/ 2014 t+151
7,425,339,775.30
160,804,507.00
3,051,887,660,577.90
149,428
411.0098329
23/03/ 2014 t+55
2,434,230,987.00
47,142,514
2,836,669,329,375.80
70,970
1165.324632
20/08/ 2014 t+152
6,420,082,064.90
131,054,007.00
3,036,885,385,503.40
131,440
473.0290602
24/03/ 2014 t+56
2,989,665,168.20
55,174,943
2,809,974,748,237.30
80,946
939.8961389
21/08/ 2014 t+153
6,321,353,842.05
133,967,836.00
3,031,525,670,640.70
127,711
479.5690522
24/08/ 2014 t+154
7,381,776,380.90
162,535,292.00
3,020,772,896,871.20
137,957
409.2203206
25/03/ 2014 t+57
3,006,510,130.30
53,284,969
2,829,239,017,932.90
78,056
941.0375802
25/08/ 2014 t+155
7,073,040,877.50
160,161,455.00
3,024,131,241,239.90
140,596
427.5574387
27/03/ 2014 t+58
2,999,210,976.55
59,548,182
2,835,371,398,599.80
78,330
945.3724399
26/08/ 2014 t+156
7,949,566,350.05
188,490,839.00
3,018,898,492,914.90
153,048
379.7563741
1016.216167
27/08/ 2014 t+157
5,784,140,855.60
145,556,072.00
3,034,463,859,014.20
122,638
524.6179052
28/08/ 2014 t+158
6,322,126,910.55
152,438,791.00
3,030,894,244,389.70
164,445
479.410535
31/08/ 2014 t+159
4,940,641,004.10
118,818,184.00
3,030,338,127,521.40
116,540
613.3491838
30/03/ 2014 t+59
2,777,610,291.25
57,379,556
2,822,652,483,339.00
80,518
31/03/ 2014 t+60
2,872,608,699.45
59,067,096
2,835,371,856,835.80
71,278
987.0372729
01/04/ 2014 t+61
3,152,939,347.40
60,024,906
2,858,509,052,534.00
74,160
906.6172031
01/09/ 2014 t+160
5,014,643,307.40
121,357,346.00
3,047,297,321,869.90
129,575
607.679776
02/04/ 2014 t+62
5,003,967,006.65
77,524,504.00
2,898,373,068,108.00
89,873
579.2150636
02/09/ 2014 t+161
5,516,626,874.90
148,079,446.00
3,106,735,035,430.70
131,655
563.1584492
03/04/ 2014 t+63
5,180,635,346.95
77,687,603.00
2,913,738,719,042.70
92,763
562.4288381
03/09/ 2014 t+162
5,506,520,247.25
143,316,956.00
3,117,977,343,581.40
131,834
566.2337018
04/09/ 2014 t+163
6,022,846,429.05
160,170,902.00
3,125,351,800,946.00
138,512
518.9160703
06/04/ 2014 t+64
4,613,411,889.40
70,821,855.00
2,901,705,757,784.90
86,882
628.9717518
07/09/ 2014 t+164
5,192,345,085.40
147,241,420.00
3,113,379,562,480.50
127,992
599.6095235
07/04/ 2014 t+65
5,054,518,476.20
70,396,789.00
2,930,362,289,028.60
96,671
579.7510293
08/09/ 2014 t+165
5,025,826,969.35
118,076,266.00
3,107,833,184,382.80
121,412
618.3724994
08/04/ 2014 t+66
6,266,515,332.40
93,350,324.00
2,941,746,632,302.70
122,637
469.4389906
09/09/ 2014 t+166
5,224,548,602.40
111,482,497.00
3,142,082,646,504.50
117,510
601.4074872
10/09/ 2014 t+167
6,368,836,959.90
137,775,913.00
3,162,341,803,254.60
131,949
496.5336408
09/04/ 2014 t+67
5,374,579,875.60
82,242,900.00
2,937,103,198,969.80
87,120
546.4805188
11/09/ 2014 t+168
6,856,376,168.50
151,575,665.00
3,169,162,242,842.80
135,123
462.2211741
10/04/ 2014 t+68
4,208,129,126.70
70,989,112.00
2,941,625,405,527.10
86,400
699.0340165
14/09/ 2014 t+169
8,381,811,647.25
154,116,774.00
3,187,695,048,996.50
157,177
380.3109856
13/04/ 2014 t+69
2,242,843,213.80
34,114,926.00
2,942,136,534,005.50
45,181
1311.788767
15/09/ 2014 t+170
6,689,020,588.85
125,605,245.00
3,189,685,788,392.60
127,993
476.8539349
16/09/ 2014 t+171
8,362,251,878.55
170,267,345.00
3,210,732,134,800.50
151,960
383.9554442
15/04/ 2014 t+70
5,471,479,021.45
79,889,235.00
2,969,603,663,037.60
95,430
542.7424013
17/09/ 2014 t+172
9,664,261,974.65
195,371,417.00
3,232,726,819,175.90
167,327
334.5032272
16/04/ 2014 t+71
5,305,343,481.80
84,846,686.00
2,949,387,951,932.30
102,328
555.9278041
18/09/ 2014 t+173
12,885,538,960.15
255,584,970.00
3,272,194,917,755.30
196,174
253.9431938
17/04/ 2014 t+72
4,440,872,734.00
77,238,899.00
2,947,664,808,802.80
89,205
663.758001
21/09/ 2014 t+174
9,813,591,822.90
225,897,648.00
3,298,682,672,925.00
180,737
336.1340814
22/09/ 2014 t+175
9,923,049,026.35
228,857,144.00
3,307,725,763,695.70
220,249
333.337642
23/09/ 2014 t+176
10,159,386,563.05
275,118,156.00
3,318,334,917,255.30
203,144
326.6274884
356.8471217
20/04/ 2014 t+73
3,991,547,527.40
80,896,528.00
2,947,734,961,996.30
90,804
738.4942661
21/04/ 2014 t+74
4,611,837,069.30
109,199,474.00
2,956,481,950,741.40
99,753
641.0638334
24/09/ 2014 t+177
9,328,862,059.00
210,844,781.00
3,328,977,574,352.20
177,384
22/04/ 2014 t+75
3,913,214,111.05
91,664,648.00
2,960,933,998,697.20
90,917
756.6501384
25/09/ 2014 t+178
11,036,412,625.85
255,090,683.00
3,364,931,256,447.20
195,029
304.893571
23/04/ 2014 t+76
5,473,136,371.50
105,935,262.00
2,993,140,083,396.80
101,315
546.8784039
28/09/ 2014 t+179
11,012,978,289.85
228,428,886.00
3,379,326,203,911.00
196,249
306.8494385
29/09/ 2014 t+180
9,026,255,984.85
172,271,143.00
3,368,649,083,677.30
179,875
373.2055782
24/04/ 2014 t+77
6,736,092,162.05
124,542,762.00
3,002,357,197,860.80
118,072
445.7120131
30/09/ 2014 t+181
8,797,676,682.05
158,316,453.00
3,374,282,714,100.20
150,588
383.5424779
27/04/ 2014 t+78
4,338,452,183.30
100,262,176.00
2,986,582,797,529.60
87,412
688.3982285
01/10/ 2014 t+182
9,771,199,069.35
28/04/ 2014 t+79
4,358,642,020.05
101,035,851.00
2,963,827,647,153.70
89,173
679.9887748
02/10/ 2014 t+183
29/04/ 2014 t+80
3,875,871,838.90
84,624,657.00
2,950,449,455,685.10
87,327
761.2350404
30/04/ 2014 t+81
4,363,584,352.90
84,850,457.00
2,953,077,889,607.60
94,713
193,652,317.00
3,410,039,557,506.60
158,992
348.9888532
9,370,213,949.10
241,442,022.00
3,439,595,801,999.00
171,819
367.0776164
12/10/ 2014 t+184
9,153,561,840.80
274,200,607.00
3,477,542,005,285.50
174,786
379.9113466
13/10/ 2014 t+185
10,077,426,016.90
254,474,319.00
3,465,992,820,591.50
186,334
343.9363201
676.7550827
14/10/ 2014 t+186
10,975,227,058.80
253,511,909.00
3,458,050,566,348.40
194,735
315.0778155
15/10/ 2014 t+187
8,144,111,685.40
174,887,961.00
3,467,628,506,533.90
154,711
425.7835158
16/10/ 2014 t+188
6,872,565,836.65
150,061,935.00
3,415,619,680,760.50
133,626
496.9933736
19/10/ 2014 t+189
6,872,565,836.65
150,061,935.00
3,415,619,680,760.50
133,626
496.9933736
04/05/ 2014 t+82
3,299,476,366.00
75,422,628.00
2,917,989,361,857.40
79,288
884.3795312
05/05/ 2014 t+83
3,681,435,164.20
73,699,077.00
2,918,975,260,154.00
82,574
792.8905793
06/05/ 2014 t+84
4,479,550,591.95
92,094,676.00
2,941,425,117,629.20
101,325
656.6339764
20/10/ 2014 t+190
5,969,565,624.20
135,852,190.00
3,397,392,786,380.00
120,463
569.1189276
07/05/ 2014 t+85
4,191,299,595.55
92,357,548.00
2,953,916,628,696.90
98,020
704.7734387
21/10/ 2014 t+191
6,942,313,414.00
150,526,294.00
3,442,210,010,702.10
126,803
495.8303962
08/05/ 2014 t+86
3,481,479,311.45
79,826,954.00
2,942,928,916,261.30
81,092
845.3098965
22/10/ 2014 t+192
7,225,572,833.10
162,803,127.00
3,381,137,939,398.30
140,268
467.9404689
23/10/ 2014 t+193
5,725,502,077.90
114,045,342.00
3,384,928,281,849.40
111,244
591.2020004
11/05/ 2014 t+87
3,785,771,104.05
86,152,404.00
2,913,629,693,289.60
88,735
769.6264812
26/10/ 2014 t+194
5,294,599,722.65
114,481,703.00
3,375,736,520,470.20
98,488
637.5810632
12/05/ 2014 t+88
3,941,389,673.05
96,879,171.00
2,918,035,254,534.90
83,134
740.3569544
27/10/ 2014 t+195
5,050,515,423.70
100,921,013.00
3,401,923,848,062.40
96,239
673.5795385
28/10/ 2014 t+196
4,625,943,860.65
108,823,497.00
3,381,225,070,101.60
93,042
730.9265248
29/10/ 2014 t+197
5,456,823,842.65
124,330,673.00
3,372,115,405,569.30
103,497
617.9630318
30/10/ 2014 t+198
7,248,408,129.55
179,278,407.00
3,398,768,218,267.70
132,712
468.8985716
14/05/ 2014 t+89
3,776,000,582.85
94,552,661.00
2,899,771,379,560.10
94,340
767.9478104
15/05/ 2014 t+90
3,053,448,332.70
78,487,059.00
2,874,159,291,387.80
77,606
941.2830932
18/05/ 2014 t+91
2,291,937,866.30
58,934,773.00
2,864,166,297,460.60
61,161
1249.670133
02/11/ 2014 t+199
7,325,695,225.80
164,480,670.00
3,373,153,520,415.40
255,815
460.4550717
19/05/ 2014 t+92
2,170,743,250.05
54,125,095.00
2,845,683,487,404.80
61,701
1310.925872
03/11/ 2014 t+200
6,809,232,680.25
153,920,360.00
3,343,834,569,535.30
179,538
491.0736241
05/11/ 2014 t+201
7,438,077,453.35
165,270,829.00
3,323,177,002,712.80
168,557
446.7790264
06/11/ 2014 t+202
6,201,785,298.05
138,541,292.00
3,322,526,797,944.80
138,939
535.7371528
20/05/ 2014 t+93
1,967,982,731.35
50,363,138.00
2,846,652,651,883.50
54,483
1446.482536
21/05/ 2014 t+94
2,713,523,661.80
61,160,829.00
2,868,200,026,326.90
66,582
1057.002033
09/11/ 2014 t+203
8,577,555,239.65
192,425,948.00
3,275,293,089,103.70
168,186
381.844593
22/05/ 2014 t+95
2,587,998,304.25
66,695,862.00
2,846,982,589,982.40
67,647
1100.071273
10/11/ 2014 t+204
7,097,714,508.80
159,737,350.00
3,266,340,836,987.60
143,644
460.1961424
11/11/ 2014 t+205
6,687,783,256.15
155,281,413.00
3,275,658,047,802.70
143,278
489.79728
25/05/ 2014 t+96
1,828,180,985.70
45,543,873.00
2,843,732,510,969.80
50,601
1555.498352
12/11/ 2014 t+206
8,463,205,542.15
180,671,617.00
3,316,113,563,811.90
159,221
391.827133
26/05/ 2014 t+97
2,360,812,089.85
58,390,675.00
2,850,256,596,927.30
59,158
1207.3204
13/11/ 2014 t+207
6,945,734,631.75
152,814,224.00
3,302,699,692,418.40
139,932
475.5004139
27/05/ 2014 t+98
2,401,555,813.20
56,710,645.00
2,873,029,607,207.60
59,670
1196.320149
16/11/ 2014 t+208
7,530,242,641.65
152,839,060.00
3,292,199,975,013.00
138,730
437.1970641
28/05/ 2014 t+99
3,212,051,699.60
66,614,586.00
2,885,092,567,939.40
71,366
898.2086335
17/11/ 2014 t+209
6,910,090,572.65
133,562,853.00
3,273,369,700,281.40
131,243
473.7086534
18/11/ 2014 t+210
6,279,951,651.05
122,641,620.00
3,267,368,865,050.60
132,950
520.285672
29/05/ 2014 t+100
3,233,028,175.90
69,150,697.00
2,884,868,573,171.10
70,435
892.3116089
19/11/ 2014 t+211
5,763,294,095.45
127,187,909.00
3,271,512,921,483.80
126,621
567.6463611
01/06/ 2014 t+101
3,760,691,193.30
74,336,132.00
2,907,585,229,122.80
83,337
773.151817
20/11/ 2014 t+212
4,867,047,620.00
104,625,973.00
3,248,118,042,748.20
95,951
667.3692752
23/11/ 2014 t+213
3,489,984,040.50
77,495,743.00
3,210,147,383,854.60
85,349
919.8172102
24/11/ 2014 t+214
02/06/ 2014 t+102
4,324,984,931.90
70,595,615.00
2,918,937,347,676.00
83,532
674.90116
03/06/ 2014 t+103
3,922,798,559.65
79,867,885.00
2,912,965,755,899.20
86,498
742.5733725
3,547,766,196.50
77,245,364.00
3,161,088,716,748.90
82,977
891.0081842
25/11/ 2014 t+215
3,470,310,342.10
79,079,814.00
3,177,135,247,938.50
80,614
915.5190559
04/06/ 2014 t+104
4,086,092,923.25
77,591,693.00
2,911,500,019,912.80
82,227
712.5388665
26/11/ 2014 t+216
3,127,091,642.10
74,707,043.00
3,146,723,845,178.20
74,666
1006.278103
05/06/ 2014 t+105
4,193,915,951.95
84,421,536.00
2,895,089,578,159.30
89,949
690.3070093
27/11/ 2014 t+217
2,637,971,029.35
65,619,204.00
3,154,568,290,364.80
66,862
1195.831287
08/06/ 2014 t+106
4,161,137,706.10
98,909,541.00
2,871,731,970,115.50
83,827
690.1314431
30/11/ 2014 t+218
2,323,747,081.45
56,602,650.00
3,164,398,170,472.70
60,601
1361.765312
01/12/ 2014 t+219
3,415,343,646.10
85,298,535.00
3,225,369,465,483.60
77,876
944.3762619
09/06/ 2014 t+107
4,205,812,805.05
105,607,852.00
2,904,239,734,726.70
91,126
690.5299568
02/12/ 2014 t+220
3,735,666,753.40
85,315,064.00
3,269,923,876,219.00
83,435
875.3253682
10/06/ 2014 t+108
4,522,397,938.40
91,794,974.00
2,896,346,240,108.10
95,816
640.4447993
03/12/ 2014 t+221
5,165,341,146.60
122,275,154.00
3,295,147,325,257.40
104,583
637.9341135
664.7690039
04/12/ 2014 t+222
5,134,950,255.70
125,870,350.00
3,284,152,992,456.40
135,466
639.568609
07/12/ 2014 t+223
3,833,935,727.15
104,605,795.00
3,268,176,963,012.00
107,056
852.4339466
08/12/ 2014 t+224
4,264,854,165.15
108,519,637.00
3,272,369,056,156.60
95,938
767.2874451
11/06/ 2014 t+109
4,373,556,768.50
84,553,672.00
2,907,404,976,501.40
89,273
12/06/ 2014 t+110
3,687,627,674.75
76,940,374.00
2,909,231,227,009.30
85,210
788.9167464
15/06/ 2014 t+111
3,141,608,673.60
65,609,271.00
2,898,261,146,331.90
104785 922.5404713
09/12/ 2014 t+225
4,338,656,563.85
116,764,187.00
3,281,171,002,439.20
97,329
756.2642846
16/06/ 2014 t+112
3,193,610,475.05
66,486,510.00
2,891,150,046,586.40
84,516
905.2920101
10/12/ 2014 t+226
4,215,982,896.40
113,755,260.00
3,287,735,709,236.40
94,904
779.8266241
17/06/ 2014 t+113
2,635,293,681.95
56,639,654.00
2,880,551,203,700.80
69,780
1093.066486
11/12/ 2014 t+227
1,368,927,351.40
33,997,970.00
3,254,490,923,000.00
65,102
2377.402219
14/12/ 2014 t+228
2,005,911,381.00
56,006,161.00
3,250,194,538,000.00
77,501
1620.30814
18/06/ 2014 t+114
2,339,192,869.40
54,441,659.00
2,877,165,307,722.70
61,903
1229.982079
15/12/ 2014 t+229
2,385,838,935.00
65,509,331.00
3,238,826,726,000.00
80,634
1357.521113
19/06/ 2014 t+115
2,660,182,182.05
57,190,645.00
2,866,259,283,102.00
64,940
1077.467289
17/12/ 2014 t+230
2,845,304,000.00
71,384,725.00
3,223,781,245,414.80
82,678
1133.01821
18/12/ 2014 t+231
2,313,238,784.00
59,862,103.00
3,233,359,024,408.70
77,899
1397.762759
22/06/ 2014 t+116
2,226,373,676.80
51,042,035.00
2,859,026,659,567.00
55,533
1284.162982
21/12/ 2014 t+232
2,378,808,925.10
65,409,054.00
3,233,098,832,467.30
78,849
1359.125064
23/06/ 2014 t+117
2,930,588,541.85
67,590,385.00
2,884,796,394,758.70
69,120
984.3744195
22/12/ 2014 t+233
2,669,651,223.10
64,582,910.00
3,255,102,605,294.70
76,275
1219.298827
24/06/ 2014 t+118
2,805,372,616.25
75,902,447.00
2,886,924,027,728.80
72,817
1029.069725
23/12/ 2014 t+234
2,025,256,905.40
53,851,718.00
3,241,725,146,169.70
65,163
1600.648855
25/06/ 2014 t+119
3,377,284,793.55
84,457,121.00
2,895,078,755,216.20
86,084
857.2207949
24/12/ 2014 t+235
1,917,565,958.60
48,621,240.00
3,236,655,453,796.50
62,364
1687.897847
28/12/ 2014 t+236
1,567,440,728.40
40,345,235.00
3,222,546,967,090.20
51,860
2055.929075
26/06/ 2014 t+120
3,027,826,438.60
79,514,764.00
2,894,544,996,568.50
83,632
955.9811486
29/12/ 2014 t+237
1,895,832,858.00
50,145,954.00
3,227,803,952,764.20
58,475
1702.578336
29/06/ 2014 t+121
3,901,231,849.25
103,930,420.00
2,929,454,003,689.20
100,047
750.9048723
30/12/ 2014 t+238
2,654,094,811.60
65,694,198.00
3,259,246,761,065.30
68,764
1228.006907
72 | P a g e

Demutualization and Its Impact On Stock Exchange

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Demutualization and Its Impact On Stock Exchange

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEMUTUALIZATION IMPACT ON

1.2 Background of Demutualization - Dhaka Stock Exchange Ltd (DSE) ............................... 11

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 22

CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 36

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 6 Comparison of market cap/GDP Ratio performance (Analysis- Author) ...................... 44

o Devising rules of trading and monitoring them

About 60 per cent of total revenues of members of World

1.2 BACKGROUND OF DEMUTUALIZATION - DHAKA STOCK EXCHANGE LTD (DSE)

1.2.2 BROAD STRATEGIES TAKEN BY DSE LTD

Listing of Companies with high Reputation;

Achieving higher standard of intermediaries;

Maintaining zero tolerance in governance;

Establishing Strategic Alliance.

1.3 FORMS OF DEMUTUALIZATION

1.4 MOTIVES / FACTORS FOR DEMUTUALIZATION

1.4.3 NEED FOR IMPROVED GOVERNANCE

1.4.4 INVESTOR PARTICIPATION

1.5 TREND IN DEMUTUALIZATION

Significant International Cases

Stockholm Stock Exchange

Australian Stock Exchange

Singapore Stock Exchange

Hong Kong Stock Exchange

London Stock Exchange

Toronto Stock Exchange

The NASDAQ Stock Market

The Philippine Stock Exchange

Osaka Stock Exchange

Tokyo Stock Exchange

New Zealand Stock Exchange

Bombay Stock Exchange

New York Stock Exchange

1.6 PROBLEM DEFINITION OF THE RESEARCH

Defining the Problem

(government, enterprises, investors, broader business environment and consumers)

1.7 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Major Research Question

Thus the research seeks to answer the following research question-

What is the impact of demutualization on the Market performance of

1.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

1.9 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

Chapter 4: Defining the hypothesis

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON THE IMPACT OF DEMUTUALIZATION ON THE PERFORMANCE

Research Question of the paper by Mendiola and OHara (2004)-

Whether corporate governance improves the exchange valuation and performance?

Mehtodology used by Mendiola and OHara (2004)-

Mendiola and OHara

Whether change in governance

The paper concludes that stock

affect the value and performance

exchange equalizations appear to

tends to improve after the change

Why stock exchanges are converted from member-owned cooperative entities to

converted from member-owned

demutualization, according to the

paper, is the Competition.

Whether demutualization has the

Has positive impact in trading

influence on trading volumes and

2.1.3 IMPACT ON LIQUIDITY OF THE EXCHANGE AFTER DEMUTUALIZATION: TREPTOW (2006)

Author Name and Year