A Study the investors of investment decision to Mutual Funds: A Case Study of Investors in the Siddipet District in Telangana
prabhakar.suddala@gmail.com ,
Abstract: This study investigates the investment decisions of mutual fund investors in the Siddipet district of Telangana, aiming to identify the factors influencing their preferences and behaviors. Mutual funds, known for their diversification and professional management, have gained significant popularity as an investment option. The research adopts a case study approach, focusing on investors within Siddipet to analyze their decision-making processes. Data was collected through questionnaires and interviews, capturing insights into the demographic profiles and investment objectives of participants. Findings reveal that factors such as 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. The role of financial advisors and the perceived performance of mutual funds also emerged as critical determinants.
Keywords: Investment Decisions, Mutual Fund, Investors, Demographic Profiles, Financial
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 |
<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 |
Age |
28.34 |
16 |
0.027 |
Significant |
Educational Qualification |
21.45 |
16 |
0.161 |
Not Significant |
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 |
|||||||
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 |
Occupation |
35.72 |
16 |
0.003 |
Highly Significant |
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.