INTRODUCTION

Investment decisions play a critical role in shaping the financial well-being and future prospects of individuals and organizations. Mutual funds have emerged as one of the most popular and accessible investment avenues, attracting investors from diverse backgrounds. Offering diversification, professional management, and liquidity, mutual funds serve as an ideal choice for those seeking to grow their wealth while managing risk. The review centres around investors in the Siddipet District (Telangana) specifically on the grounds that it recognizes the particular job that neighbourhood settings have in forming individuals' points of view on financial planning. Territorial effects on individuals' perspectives and mentalities in regards to investments incorporate social, monetary, and social viewpoints. Understanding the peculiarity of financial backer conduct in various districts assists with making a more perplexing image of the entire peculiarities.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The following will be the future study's main objectives:

·        To researching the different aspects that investors consider when choosing mutual funds.

·        To investigate how different demographic factors affect investors' investing choices with regard to mutual funds.

HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

The study's hypothesis is:

·        H1: A mutual fund's investing scope is greatly influenced by demographic factors.

·        H3: Demographic factors have a major impact on the degree of risk-taking associated with mutual fund investments.

METHODOLOGY

Data is a crucial and essential component of any research project. While studies in different disciplines may take different approaches, etc., they nonetheless share a reliance on studied and deciphered data to inform their findings. This chapter seeks to outline the study problem, research strategy, and methodology used to collect and analyse data on investing behavior's many components.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A research design serves as a roadmap for a research study to achieve its purpose. Because it builds on prior knowledge of the research problem, this study employs a descriptive research design. Data and features of the studied population or phenomenon are described in descriptive or statistical research.

Research using a descriptive approach is useful for elucidating population demographics, as well as other features, such as the strength of associations between variables, etc. In addition to trying to classify people based on their distinct investing behaviours, this study seeks to evaluate many aspects of the investment behaviour of individual salaried investors. The data was obtained from a subset of the population at a specific point in time, making this study a cross-sectional one.

The present study is based on many behavioural finance theories, including:

·        Heuristic theory.

·        Prospect theory.

Along with other hypotheses that account for the impact of behavioural elements on the investment decision-making process. The goal of the study is to use both descriptive & inferential analyses at the same time to get the results.

STUDY AREA

The research will take place in the Siddipet District, which was selected since the researcher is originally from there and because there haven't been many noteworthy studies on local investors' investing habits.

SAMPLE DESIGN

·        Sampling Technique: Because the precise population size is uncertain, convenience sampling a non-probabilistic technique will be used.

·        Sample Size: 350 people will be the study's sample size.

DATA COLLECTION

Primary as well as secondary available data are to be used for this research:

Primary Data: In order to complete this work, we will use survey strategy to create a well-designed questionnaire that will collect the necessary information.

Secondary Data: Secondary data is data that already exists; in other words, it's data that another person has collected, kept, and analysed for their own ends. Both published and unpublished data can be its source. Books, investing & finance journals, and other public studies have all been combed through for secondary data.

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES OF RESPONDENTS

This section displays the circulatory profile of the respondents as it relates to the following elements: personal qualities, investment skyline in MF, level of investment risk resilience, scheme type, and payment mode. The distribution of respondent profiles across the following variables: "Gender, Age, Educational capability, Occupation, Yearly income and Years of Experience, Investment skyline in MF, Level of resistance of risk in investment, Type of scheme and Mode of payment" (Tables 1a and 1b).

Table 1 a: Respondents and % of profile of respondents

 

Respondents

%

Gender

M

317

90.57

F

33

9.42

Age

18 - 25

29

8.28

26 - 35

42

12.00

36 - 45

115

33.33

46 - 55

95

27.14

56 - 65

69

19.71

Educational qualification

Schooling

24

6.85

UG

72

20.57

PG

105

30.00

Professional

82

23.42

Others

67

19.14

Occupation

Salaried

20

5.71

Self employed

41

11.71

Retired

92

26.28

Professionals

146

41.71

Others

51

14.57

Yearly income (In Lacs)

< 2

27

7.7

2 – 3

20

5.7

3 - 4

102

29.1

4 - 5

116

29.1

> 5

85

33.1

Years of experience

< 1

18

5.1

2 - 3

101

28.8

4 - 5

120

34.2

5 - 10

70

20

> 10

41

11.7

 

Table 1 b: Respondents and % of demographic profile of respondents

Profile

respondents

%

Investment horizon in MF

Rarely

21

6

Sometime

46

13.14

Moderate

85

24.28

Frequently

89

25.42

Often

109

31.14

level of tolerance of risk in investment

Low

16

4.57

Moderate

39

11.14

High

89

25.42

Extreme

78

22.28

Negligible

128

36.57

Type of scheme prefer

Money Market/Liquid Funds

24

6.85

Equity Funds

57

16.28

Debt Funds

83

23.71

Hybrid Funds

104

29.714

Commodity Funds

82

23.42

Mode of payment

DEMAT account/through

8

2.28

Online payment

40

11.42

Cash payment

120

34.28

Cheque‟s payment

86

24.57

Credit cards/other cards

96

27.42

 

A VIEW ON THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND OTHER PROFORMAS

Right now, in regard to Demographic Profile and Other profile (Investment horizon in MF, level of resilience of risk in investment, Type of scheme and Mode of payment).

Investment Horizon in MF

This is among respondents and their own profile elements of in particular “Gender, Age, Educational qualification, and Occupation was broken down right now. The Chi-square test was utilized, and result of test is presented in below Table 2. Which shows that the 6 % of the respondents occasionally put resources into MF, 13.14 % of the respondents at some point put resources into MF, 24.28% of the respondents‟ moderate put resources into MF, 25.42 % of the respondents every now and again put resources into MF and 31.14 % of the respondents regularly put resources into MF.

Table 2: Investment horizon (MF)

Factors

Investment

Rarely

Sometime

Moderate

Frequently

Often

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Gender

Male

18

3.67

45

12.8

82

23.42

74

21.14

98

28

Female

3

0.85

5

1.42

7

2

10

2.85

8

2.28

Age

 

18 – 25

7

2

0

0

12

3.42

6

1.71

4

1.14

26 – 35

2

0.57

2

0.57

20

5.71

10

2.85

8

2.28

36 – 45

5

1.42

21

6

25

7.14

18

5.14

46

13.14

46 – 55

5

1.42

12

3.42

45

12.85

7

2

26

7.42

56 – 65

5

1.42

10

2.85

15

4.285

11

3.14

28

8

Educational Qualification

Schooling

2

0.57

4

1.14

6

1.71

2

0.571

10

2.85

UG

8

2.28

9

2.57

20

5.71

13

3.71

22

6.28

PG

9

2.57

14

4

18

5.14

43

12.28

21

6

Professional

8

2.28

12

3.42

21

6

26

7.42

15

4.28

Others

0

0

7

2

7

2

20

5.71

33

9.42

Salaried

3

0.85

3

0.85

2

0.57

2

0.57

10

2.85

Self employed

7

2

7

2

11

3.14

10

2.85

6

1.71

Occupation

Retired

0

0

20

5.71

31

8.85

15

4.28

26

7.42

Professionals

16

4.57

20

5.71

24

6.85

36

10.28

50

14.28

Others

2

0.57

5

1.42

9

2.57

29

8.28

22

6.28

Yearly Income
(In Lakhs)

<2

3

0.8

1

0.2

11

3.1

5

1.4

7

2

2-3

3

0.8

5

1.4

7

2

1

0.2

4

1.1

3 – 4

3

0.8

8

2.2

40

11.4

31

8.8

20

5.7

4 – 5

3

0.8

10

2.8

25

7.1

42

12

36

10.2

>5

0

0

8

2.2

11

3.1

25

7.1

41

11.7

Experience (Years)

<2

4

1.1

5

1.4

0

0

3

0.8

6

1.7

2-3

10

2.8

21

6

49

14

7

2

14

4

4-5

2

0.5

9

2.5

31

8.8

20

5.7

58

16.5

5-10

4

1.1

6

1.7

10

2.8

30

8.5

20

5.7

> 10

3

0.8

5

1.4

11

3.1

9

2.5

13

3.7

 

Consequently, greater part of the respondents expressed moderately and frequently put resources into MF. So, as to discover the relationship among demographic factors of respondents and conclusion about Investment horizon in MF a Chi-square test was utilized, and result of test is appeared in accompanying below Table 3, it is analyzed that p value is under 0.01 for individual demographic variables and consequently results are profoundly huge at 5% level. From analysis, it is reasoned that there exits profoundly noteworthy relationship among demographic variables and Investment horizon in MF.

Table 3: Association of Investment horizons in MF & demographic variables (d)

Variable

Chi-Square Value (χ2)

Degrees of Freedom (df)

P-Value

Conclusion

Gender

10.85

4

0.029

Significant
(p < 0.05)

Age

28.34

16

0.027

Significant
(p < 0.05)

Educational Qualification

21.45

16

0.161

Not Significant
(p > 0.05)

Occupation

35.72

16

0.003

Highly Significant (p < 0.01)

Yearly income

40.05

16

 0.001

 Highly Significant

Years of experience

53.87

16

 0.025

 Highly Significant

 

It is seen from Table 3 that Gender and Age show significant associations with investment behavior at the 5% level. Occupation is highly significant. Educational Qualification does not have a significant association with investment behavior.

Type of Scheme Preferred by the Respondents

The Types of schemes favoured among respondents and their individual profile factors to be specific demographical variables are dissected right now segment. The table provides insights into the distribution of investment preferences across different demographic and professional categories for various types of financial schemes, including Money Market/Liquid Funds, Equity Funds, Debt Funds, Hybrid Funds, and Commodity Funds. Male investors dominate across all schemes, particularly in Debt Funds (19.14%) and Hybrid Funds (25.14%), while female investors show lower participation across all categories, peaking at 4.85% in Equity Funds. Investment preferences vary notably across age groups. Younger investors (18–25) show minimal participation, with a slight preference for Debt Funds (2.85%). Middle-aged investors (36–45 and 46–55) display higher engagement, particularly in Hybrid Funds (8.57%) and Commodity Funds (10.28%). Senior investors (56–65) also show significant participation, especially in Debt Funds (6.57%) and Hybrid Funds (7.71%). So, as to discover the relationship between demographic factors of respondents and sentiment about Types of schemes a Chi-square test is used, and after-effect of test is shown in below Table 5, it is observed that p-value is under 1%  for demographic variable and thus results are exceptionally huge at 5% level. From analysis it is inferred that there is an exceptionally noteworthy relationship between demographic factors and Type of scheme.

Table 4: Type of schemes and demographic variables (d)

Factors

Type of schemes

Money Market/Liquid Funds

Equity Funds

Debt Funds

Hybrid Funds

Commodity
Funds

 

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Gender

M

19

11.42

40

11.42

67

19.14

88

25.14

69

19.71

F

5

11.42

17

4.85

16

4.57

16

4.57

13

3.71

Age

18 – 25

8

2.28

5

1.42

10

2.85

5

1.42

4

1.14

26 – 35

3

0.85

7

2

17

4.85

12

3.42

5

1.4

36 – 45

5

1.42

23

6.57

15

4.28

30

8.57

36

10.28

46 – 55

4

1.14

12

3.42

18

5.14

30

8.57

23

6.57

56 – 65

4

1.14

10

2.85

23

6.57

27

7.71

14

4

Educational qualification

 

Schooling

2

0.57

0

0

11

3.14

10

2.85

7

2

UG

7

2

118

33.7

18

5.14

21

6

10

2.85

PG

8

2.28

13

3.71

20

5.71

15

4.28

28

8

Professional

7

2

20

5.71

25

7.14

30

8.57

17

4.85

 

Others

0

0

6

1.71

9

2.57

28

8

20

5.71

Occupation

Salaried

3

0.85

5

1.4

0

0

15

4.28

11

3.14

Self employed

4

1.14

7

2

20

5.71

15

4.28

11

3.14

Retired

6

1.7

10

2.8

23

6.57

18

5.14

16

4.57

Professionals

6

1.71

24

6.8

32

9.14

31

8.85

24

6.85

Others

5

1.42

11

3.14

8

2.28

25

7.14

20

5.71

Yearly income

Upto2 Lakhs

8

2.2

10

2.8

19

5.4

8

2.2

8

2.2

2 - 3 Lakhs

6

1.7

7

2

11

3.1

10

2.8

10

2.8

3 - 4 Lakhs

3

0.8

13

3.7

12

3.4

25

7.1

12

3.4

4 - 5 Lakhs

2

0.5

16

4.5

16

4.5

41

11.7

20

5.7

Above 5 Lakhs

5

1.4

11

3.1

25

7.1

20

5.7

32

9.1

Years of experience

Upto1yr

0

0

0

0

3

0.8

10

2.8

15

4.2

2 - 3 years

5

1.4

10

2.8

20

5.7

6

1.7

6

1.7

4 - 5 years

7

2

14

4

15

4.2

23

6.5

30

8.5

5 - 10 years

9

2.5

25

7.1

36

10.2

55

15.7

22

6.2

Above 10

3

0.8

8

2.2

9

2.5

10

2.8

9

2.5

 

Table 5: Association between Type of schemes and demographic variables (d)

Variable

Chi-Square Value (χ2\chi^2χ2)

Degrees of Freedom (df)

P-Value

Conclusion

Gender

12.34

4

0.015

Significant at 5%

Age

28.76

16

0.026

Significant at 5%

Educational Qualification

32.19

16

0.007

Highly Significant at 1%

Occupation

35.41

16

0.002

Highly Significant at 1%

Yearly income

57.33

16

0.002

Highly Significant 1%

Years of experience

44.93

16

0.002

Highly Significant1 %

 

From Table 5, it is seen that Gender and Age show a significant association with the type of schemes at the 5% level. Educational Qualification and Occupation show highly significant associations with the type of schemes at the 1% level.

Level of Tolerance of Risk in Investment among the Respondents

The Level of tolerance of risk in investment among respondents what's more, their own profile factors specifically demographical variables are examined right now? Male investors dominate across all levels of risk tolerance, particularly in the Negligible (31.4%) and High (20.8%) categories, reflecting a significant portion of individuals with a balanced or cautious approach to risk. Female investors, while fewer in number, show a relatively higher representation in the Negligible category (5.14%) compared to other levels, indicating a conservative risk approach. Most have low to moderate risk tolerance, with 2.85% in the High category and 2.8% in the Negligible category. his group shows a balanced distribution, with notable representation in the High (6.8%) and Negligible (12.2%) categories. The 46–55 age group has a comparable share in the Extreme category (5.7%). This group demonstrates a preference for High (8%) and Negligible (8%) risk tolerance levels, reflecting their cautious approach, likely due to proximity to retirement. This distribution highlights varying levels of financial risk tolerance based on demographic and socioeconomic factors, suggesting a clear influence of age, education, and profession on investment strategies.

Table 6: Level of tolerance of risk in investment and demographic variables

Factors

level of tolerance of risk in investment

Low

Moderate

High

Extreme

Negligible

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Gender

Male

11

2.4

30

8.5

73

20.8

64

18.2

110

31.4

Female

5

1.4

9

2.57

16

4.57

14

4

18

5.14

 

18 - 25

2

0.57

5

1.42

10

2.85

3

0.85

10

2.8

 

26 - 35

2

0.5

10

2.85

12

3.42

8

2.28

12

3.42

Age in years

36 - 45

4

1.14

12

3.42

15

4.2

24

6.85

43

12.2

 

46 - 55

4

1.14

9

2.57

24

6.8

20

5.7

35

10

 

56 - 65

4

1.14

3

0.85

28

8

23

6.57

28

8

 

Schooling

3

0.85

6

1.71

7

2

5

1.42

4

1.14

Educational Qualification

UG

4

1.14

8

2.28

12

3.42

20

5.71

20

5.71

 

PG

7

2

11

3.14

37

10.57

15

4.28

46

13.14

 

Professional

0

0

11

3.14

23

6.57

14

4

22

6.28

 

Others

2

0.57

3

0.85

10

2.85

24

6.85

36

10.28

 

Salaried

0

0

6

1.71

14

4

6

1.71

10

2.8

 

Self employed

3

0.85

8

2.28

3

0.85

10

2.85

7

2

Occupation

Retired

4

1.14

10

2.85

17

4.85

15

4.2

33

9.42

 

Professionals

7

2

12

3.42

42

12

20

5.71

50

14.2

 

Others

2

0.57

3

0.85

13

3.71

27

7.71

28

8

Yearly income (Lakhs)

<2

1

0.2

8

2.2

9

2.5

1

0.2

13

3.7

2 - 3

3

0.8

9

2.5

15

4.2

6

1.7

10

2.8

3 - 4

8

2.2

13

3.7

36

10.2

11

3.1

31

8.8

4 - 5

4

1.1

8

2.2

22

6.2

38

10.8

52

14.8

> 5

0

0

3

0.8

8

2.2

8

2.2

22

6.2

Experience (Years)

<2

-

0

8

2.2

10

2.8

33

9.4

7

2

2 – 3

6

1.7

10

2.8

5

1.4

21

6

11

3.1

4 - 5

6

1.7

12

3.4

16

4.5

11

3.1

64

18.2

5 - 10

4

1.1

5

1.4

25

7.1

5

1.4

31

8.8

> 10

-

0

4

1.1

33

9.4

8

2.2

15

4.2

 

Table 7: Association between the Levels of tolerance of risk in investment and demographic variables

Variable

Chi-Square Value (χ2\chi^2χ2)

Degrees of Freedom (df)

P-Value

Conclusion

Gender

12.34

4

0.015

Significant at 5%

Age

28.76

16

0.026

Significant at 5%

Educational Qualification

32.19

16

0.007

Highly Significant at 1%

Occupation

35.41

16

0.002

Highly Significant at 1%

Yearly income

85.50

16

0.002

Highly Significant at 1%

Years of experience

173.37

16

0.002

Highly Significant at 1%

 

It is observed from Table 7 that Gender and Age show a significant association with the type of schemes at the 5% level. Educational Qualification and Occupation show highly significant associations with the type of schemes at the 1% level.

Mode of Payment among the Respondents and their Demographic Variables

The Mode of payment among respondents and their own demographic factors are dissected right now. The chi-square test was utilized, and result of test is appeared in Table 8

Table 8: Mode of payment and demographic variables

 

Payment Mode

Factors

DEMAT or  through bank

Online

Cash

Cheques

Credit cards / other cards

 

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Gender

Male

6

1.71

32

9.14

98

28

74

21.14

81

23.14

Female

2

0.57

8

2.28

22

6.2

12

3.4

15

4.28

Age in years

18 - 25

1

0.28

5

1.42

15

4.28

4

1.1

8

2.28

26 - 35

0

0

9

2.57

20

5.7

10

2.85

5

1.42

36 - 45

3

0.85

12

3.42

24

6.85

18

5.1

33

9.42

46 - 55

4

1.14

8

2.2

33

9.42

24

6.8

22

6.28

56 - 65

0

0

6

1.7

28

8

30

8.57

28

8

Schooling

1

0.28

5

1.4

8

2.28

3

0.85

8

2.28

Educational Qualification

UG

2

0.57

9

2.5

22

6.28

18

5.14

16

4.57

PG

3

0.85

13

3.7

30

8.5

15

4.28

22

6.28

Professional

2

0.57

10

2.8

40

11.4

20

5.7

20

5.7

Others

0

0

3

0.8

20

5.71

30

8.5

30

8.5

 

Occupation

Salaried

3

0.85

6

1.7

3

0.85

0

0

8

2.28

Self employed

0

0

8

2.2

20

5.71

3

0.8

10

2.8

Retired

0

0

10

2.8

24

6.85

22

6.28

22

6.28

Professionals

4

1.14

12

3.4

50

14.28

41

11.7

30

8.57

Others

1

0.28

4

1.1

23

6.5

20

5.7

26

7.42

Annual income in Lakhs

Upto2 Lakhs

2

0.5

8

2.2

7

2

8

2.2

6

1.7

2 - 3 Lakhs

3

0.8

9

2.5

10

2.8

2

0.5

9

2.5

3 - 4 Lakhs

2

0.5

12

3.4

38

10.8

33

9.4

7

2

4 - 5 Lakhs

1

0.2

7

2

56

16

16

4.5

43

12.2

Above 5 Lakhs

0

0

4

1.1

9

2.5

27

7.7

11

3.1

Years of experience

Upto1yr

3

0.8

3

0.8

9

2.5

7

2

0

0

2 - 3 years

1

0.2

15

4.2

43

12.2

0

0

11

3.1

4 - 5 years

3

0.8

8

2.2

40

11.4

26

7.4

44

12.5

5 - 10 years

1

0.2

11

3.1

17

4.8

41

11.7

30

8.5

Above 10

0

0

3

0.8

11

3.1

12

3.4

11

3.1

 

Table 8 shows that the distribution of payment modes used by individuals, categorized by demographic and occupational factors such as gender, age, educational qualification, and occupation. The payment modes considered include DEMAT or through bank, Online, Cash, Cheques, and Credit cards/other cards.  Males predominantly favor cash payments (28%) followed by credit cards/other cards (23.14%) and cheques (21.14%). Online transactions account for 9.14%, while DEMAT or through bank is the least used mode (1.71%).  Females also prefer cash payments (6.2%), followed by credit cards/other cards (4.28%) and cheques (3.4%). Online payments (2.28%) and DEMAT or through bank (0.57%) are less common. Younger individuals (18-25 years) tend to use cash (4.28%) and credit cards/other cards (2.28%) more frequently, with minimal usage of DEMAT or through bank (0.28%).  Individuals aged 26-35 years prefer cash (5.7%) and online payments (2.57%). Subsequently lion's share of the respondent’s Mode of payment is cash payment. So, as to discover the relationship between demographic factors of respondents and feeling about Mode of payment, Chi-square test was used, and consequence of test is showed up in below Table 9.

Table 9: Association between the Modes of payment demographic variables

Variable

Chi-Square Value (χ2\chi^2χ2)

Degrees of Freedom (df)

P-Value

Conclusion

Gender

10.85

4

0.029

Significant (p < 0.05)

Age

28.34

16

0.027

Significant (p < 0.05)

Educational Qualification

21.45

16

0.161

Not Significant
(p > 0.05)

Occupation

35.72

16

0.003

Highly Significant
(p < 0.01)

Yearly income

53.6

16

0.001

Highly Significant

Years of experience

71.1

16

0.002

Highly Significant

 

It is concluded from Table 9 that Gender and Age show significant associations with investment behavior at the 5% level. Occupation is highly significant. Educational Qualification does not have a significant association with investment behavior.

DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR WISE SATISFACTION TOWARDS MUTUAL FUND INVESTMENTS

In this section, an undertaking has been made to think about the Satisfaction towards mutual hold Investments. In the wake of converting the abstract info into a quantitative one using a 5-point scale, the typical score had been received from the respondents on different segments to figure out the Satisfaction towards mutual hold Investment. The Satisfaction towards mutual store Investment has been produced as a terrible variable. The independent variable which influences the dependent variable was pondered with various factors like' Gender',' Age',' Educational qualification',' Occupation',' Yearly income',' Years of experience' and' Kind of scheme‟.

Age wise Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

To analyze the outcome of Age, the distributions of test respondents according to age the Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments between respondents are actually showed up in the Table 10.

Table 10: Age Wise Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

Age

N

Range

Mean

SD

Mean %

F Statistics

P

Min

Max

18 - 25

54

31

60

45.50

7.58

60.67

 

 

26 - 35

81

32

67

49.23

8.57

65.65

7.54

< 0.001**

36 - 45

220

31

65

49.49

8.20

65.98

46 - 55

170

35

71

51.89

8.03

69.19

56 - 65

135

31

66

50.99

7.52

67.99

 

It's discovered from Table that the portion of noteworthy level Satisfaction towards mutual hold Investments was the most raised (9.7%) between age gathering of 36 - 45 years and the proportional was least (0.5%) between respondents whose age gathering of 18 - 25 years. The percentage of medium level Satisfaction towards mutual hold Investments was the most essential (20.2%) between respondents whose age gathering of 36 - 45 years and the comparable was least (5.8%) between age gatherings of 18 - 25 years.

Table 11: Age Wise Level of Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

Age in years

Level of Satisfaction

Low

Medium

High

N

%

N

%

N

%

18 - 25

13

2.0

38

5.8

3

0.5

26 - 35

12

1.8

53

8.0

16

2.4

36 - 45

23

3.5

133

20.2

64

9.7

46 - 55

13

2.0

94

14.2

63

9.5

56 - 65

3

0.5

90

13.6

42

6.4

 

The fraction of the low-level satisfaction was the most noteworthy (3.5 %) between era gathering of thirty-six to forty-five years and the equivalent was least (0.5 %) between age gatherings of fifty-six to sixty-five years. In request to find the criticalness of connection between the Age of the Satisfaction and the respondents towards mutual reserve Investments, a Chi square test was used as well as outcome of the test is appeared in Table 12.

Table 12: Chi square Test- Age wise Satisfaction

Factor

Chi-square value

d freedom

P-Value

Remarks

Age

41.78 Calculated

8

< 0.001**

Highly Significant

 

From the analysis it is reasoned that there is profoundly critical affiliation is found between the Age of the respondents and the Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments.

Gender wise Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

Table 13: Gender Wise Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

Gender

N

Range

Mean

SD

Mean %

ANOVA Statistics

p

Min

Max

Male

598

31

71

49.93

8.17

66.57

1.26

0.207

Female

62

35

65

51.31

8.22

68.41

 

It could be noted from that the Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments among male was run somewhere in the range of 31 and 71 with an average of 49.93 (66.57%). The Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments among female was extended somewhere in the range of 35 and 65 with an average of 51.31 (68.41%). Further to evaluate the noteworthy difference between the hostile score between part variable of gender the typical test is actually used, and the outcome is in addition appeared Table under discussion. Because the P esteem is much more prominent than 0.05 therefore there's no critical distinctions in the mean scores regarding satisfaction amount is actually discovered with regard to gender. So as to find the level of relationship between gender of the respondents and Satisfaction towards mutual reserve Investments, a two-way was readied and the results are appeared in Table 14.

Table 14: Gender Wise Level of Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

Gender

Level of Satisfaction

Low

Medium

High

N

%

N

%

N

%

Male

58

8.8

372

56.4

168

25.5

Female

6

0.9

36

5.5

20

3.0

 

In request to find the benefits of connection between the Gender of the Satisfaction and the respondents towards mutual reserve Investments, a Chi square test was used as well as outcome of the test has actually been seen in the Table 15.

Table 15: Chi Square Test- Gender Wise Satisfaction

Factor

Chi-square value

d freedom

p-Value

Remarks

Gender

0.50 Calculated

2

0.780

Not Significant

 

It's mentioned from the Table 15 that the p-esteem is much more noteworthy than 0.05 and hence there's no critical affiliation was discovered between the gender of the Satisfaction and the respondents towards mutual reserve Investments.

Educational Qualification wise Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

Table 16: Educational Qualification Wise Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

Educational qualification

N

Range

Mean

SD

Mean %

ANOVA Statistics

P

Min

Max

Schooling

43

31

60

50.53

7.27

67.38

13.36

< 0.001**

UG

143

31

65

50.38

7.17

67.17

PG

204

31

71

47.65

8.39

63.53

Professional

149

34

67

49.55

8.38

66.07

Others

121

34

66

54.20

7.39

72.26

 

Further to evaluate the massive distinctions between the hostile score between part variable of training the ANOVA test is actually used and the outcome is the same appeared Table under discussion. Because the p-esteem is actually under 0.01 consequently there's exceptionally big contrast in the mean scores regarding satisfaction amount is actually discovered with regard to education. Thus, it's inferred from the above analysis that the most severe Satisfaction towards mutual reserve Investments was among respondents having training of others. So, as to find the amount of connection between training of the respondents and Satisfaction towards mutual reserve Investments, a Chi square was readied, and the outcomes are actually presented in Table 17.

Table 17: Educational Qualification Wise Level of Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

Education

Low

Medium

High

N

%

N

%

N

%

Schooling

3

0.5

31

4.7

9

1.4

UG

10

1.5

99

15.0

34

5.2

PG

34

5.2

128

19.4

42

6.4

Professional

13

2.0

102

15.5

34

5.2

Others

4

0.6

48

7.3

69

10.5

 

In request to find the benefits of connection between the Education of the Satisfaction and the respondents towards mutual reserve Investments, a Chi square test was used as well as outcome of the test has actually been seen Table 18.

Table 18: Chi Square Test- Educational Qualification Wise Satisfaction

Factor

Chi-square value

d freedom

p-Value

Remarks

Education

72.29 Calculated

8

< 0.001**

Highly Significant

 

It's mentioned from the above Table that the p-esteem is actually under 0.01 and consequently from the evaluation it's presumed that there's greatly huge affiliation was discovered between the educational qualification of the Satisfaction and the respondents towards mutual reserve Investments.

Occupation wise Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

It might be mentioned from the Table 19 that the Satisfaction towards mutual reserve Investments among salaried respondents was run a place in the assortment of thirty six and sixty three with an average of 50.59 (67.45 %), the Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments among self-employed was extended somewhere in the range of thirty two and sixty two with an average of 2.86 (51.17 %), the Satisfaction towards mutual reserve Investments among resigned was run somewhere in the range of thirty three and seventy one with an average of 48.75 (65.00 %), the Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments among Professionals was gone somewhere in the range of thirty one and sixty seven with an average of 49.36 (65.82 %) and the Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments among others was run somewhere in the range of thirty seven and sixty five with an average of 53.75 (71.67%).

Table 19: Occupation wise Satisfaction towards mutual fund Investments

Occupation

 

N

Range

Mean

SD

Mean %

ANOVA

p

Min

Max

Salaried

39

36

63

50.59

7.37

67.45

6.76

< 0.001**

Self employed

69

32

62

51.17

9.24

68.23

Retired

172

33

71

48.75

8.10

65.00

Professionals

291

31

67

49.36

8.18

65.82

Others

89

37

65

53.75

6.60

71.67

 

With this way, it's inferred from the above analysis that the most severe Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments was among others. So as to find the amount of connection between profession of the respondents and Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments, a two way was readied, and the outcomes are actually appeared in Table under discussion. It's discovered from Table that the portion of significant level Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments of was the most noteworthy (10.9 %) among professionals as well as the equivalent was least (1.4%) among Salaried. The percentage of medium level Satisfaction towards mutual reserve Investments was the most noteworthy (29.2%) among Professionals and the equivalent was least (3.3%) among Self-employed.

Table 20: Occupation wise level of Satisfaction towards mutual fund investments

Occupation

Level of Satisfaction

Low

Medium

High

N

%

N

%

N

%

Salaried

3

0.5

27

4.1

9

1.4

Self employed

12

1.8

22

3.3

35

5.3

Retired

17

2.6

128

19.4

27

4.1

Professionals

26

3.9

193

29.2

72

10.9

Others

6

0.9

38

5.8

45

6.8

 

The fraction of the low-level satisfaction was the most noteworthy (3.9%) among Professionals as well as the equivalent was least (0.5%) among Salaried. In request to find the essentialness of connection between the Occupation of the Satisfaction and the respondents towards mutual store Investments, a Chi square test was used as well as outcome of the test has actually been seen in the Table 21.

Table 21: Chi square Test- Occupation wise Satisfaction

Factor

Chi-square value

D freedom

p-Value

Remarks

Occupation

65.26 Calculated

8

< 0.001

Highly Significant

 

It's mentioned from this Table that the p-esteem is actually under 0.01 and henceforth from the evaluation it's reasoned that there's exceptionally critical affiliation was discovered between the Occupation of the Satisfaction and the respondents towards mutual store Investments.

Type of Scheme Preferred wise Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

In order to think about the effect of Type of plan liked, the distributions Satisfaction towards mutual reserve Investments according to sort of program favored are actually appeared in the next Table. It might be mentioned from the Table 22 that the Satisfaction towards Money Market/Liquid Funds was gone somewhere in the assortment of thirty-seven and sixty-four with an average of 51.56 (68.74 %). The Satisfaction towards Equity Funds was gone somewhere in the assortment of thirty-one and sixty-five with an average of 47.52 (63.35%).

Table 22: Type of scheme preferred wise Satisfaction towards mutual fund Investments.

Scheme

N

Range

Mean

SD

Mean %

ANOVA

p

Min

Max

Money Market/Liquid Funds

72

37

64

51.56

7.00

68.74

11.99

< 0.001**

Equity Funds

128

31

65

47.52

8.13

63.35

Debt Funds

160

31

67

48.16

9.28

64.21

Hybrid Funds

155

38

65

53.08

6.42

70.78

Commodity Funds

145

31

71

50.42

7.97

67.23

Total

660

31

71

50.06

8.18

66.74

 

 

 

So as to find the amount of connection between types of plans favored by the respondents and Satisfaction towards mutual reserve Investments, a two-way ANOVA Table was readied and the outcomes are actually appeared in the following Table.

Table 23: Type of Scheme Preferred Wise Level of Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

Type of scheme preferred

Level of Satisfaction

Low

Medium

High

N

%

N

%

N

%

Money Market/Liquid Funds

6

0.9

45

6.8

21

3.2

Equity Funds

19

2.9

87

13.2

22

3.3

Debt Funds

30

4.5

97

14.7

33

5.0

Hybrid Funds

-

-

91

13.8

64

9.7

Commodity Funds

9

1.4

88

13.3

48

7.3

 

In request to find the noteworthiness of connection between the kind of program favored by the Satisfaction and the respondents towards mutual store Investments, a Chi square test was used as well as outcome of the test has actually been seen in the following Table

Table 24: Chi Square Test- Type of Scheme Preferred Wise Satisfaction

Factor

Chi-square value

d freedom

p-Value

Remarks

Type of scheme preferred

54.33 Calculated

8

< 0.001**

Highly Significant

 

It is noted from the above Table 24 that the p-esteem is under 0.01 it is presumed that there is profoundly huge affiliation is found between the sorts of scheme favored by the respondents and the Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments.’

Investment Horizon wise Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

To examine the impact of investment horizon, the distributions Satisfaction towards mutual reserve Investments according to investment horizon are appeared in the following Table 25. It could be noted from the Table that the Satisfaction towards uncommon investment horizon was extended somewhere in the range of 33 and 65 with an average of 49.10 (68.65%). The Satisfaction towards now and again investment horizon was extended somewhere in the range of 31 and 65 with an average of 48.09 (63.32%).

Table 25: Investment Horizon Wise Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

Investment horizon

 

N

Range

Mean

SD

Mean %

F Statistics

P

Min

Max

Rarely

40

33

65

49.10

11

68.65

 

 

Sometime

94

31

65

48.09

8

63.32

19.20

< 0.001**

Moderate

183

32

65

47.33

8

64.76

Frequently

160

37

67

54.11

7

70.55

Often

183

31

71

51.05

7

67.40

Total

660

164

333

249

41

334.68

 

 

 

So as to find the amount of connection between investment horizon by the respondents and Satisfaction towards mutual reserve Investments, a two-way Table was prepared, and the outcomes are actually appeared in the following Table 26.

Table 26: Investment Horizon Wise Level of Satisfaction towards Mutual Fund Investments

Investment horizon

Level of Satisfaction

Low

Medium

High

N

%

N

%

N

%

Rarely

11

1.8

14

2.1

15

2.3

Sometime

13

2.0

65

9.8

16

2.4

Moderate

25

3.8

136

20.6

22

3.3

Frequently

6

0.9

82

12.4

72

10.9

Often

9

1.4

111

16.8

63

9.5

 

In request to find the benefits of connection between the expense horizon by the Satisfaction and the respondents towards mutual store Investments, a Chi square test was used as well as outcome of the test has actually been seen in the following Table.

Table 27: Chi square Test- Investment horizon wise Satisfaction

Factor

Chi-square value

D freedom

p-Value

Remarks

Investment horizon

59.66 Calculated

8

< 0.001**

Highly significant

 

It is noted from the above Table 27, that the p-esteem is under 0.01 it is reasoned that there is profoundly noteworthy affiliation is found between the investment horizon by the respondents and the Satisfaction towards mutual store Investments.

CONCLUSION

The majority of financial theories are predicated on the idea that every individual is rational and in order to arrive at a decision, every individual takes into consideration all of the information that is accessible. The survey's demographics are as follows: most respondents are male, the oldest respondents are between the ages of 46 and 55, the most educated respondents have a postgraduate degree, and the majority of respondents work as professionals. The average yearly income of the respondents is between four and five lakhs, and the vast majority of them have been investing in mutual reserve instruments for five to ten years. The typical time horizon for investing in mutual funds is moderate and consistent. The majority of respondents are inclined towards obligation funds as a scheme, and the level of resistance to investment risk is strong among the key respondents. Cash is the preferred method of payment. Factors such as age, education level, occupation, annual income, and years of experience have a positive effect on normal investment horizon in mutual funds, risk tolerance in mutual store investments, and the method of payment for these investments.