107

CHAPTER - 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Investment behaviour is the process of an individual investor predict, analyze, judge and
review the procedures for making a decision for investment, information gathering,
defining and understanding well about the investment avenues. The investment behaviour
of the investors is analyzed using the data collected from the respondents. The data
collected has been processed prudently, classified methodically and tabulated
systematically. This chapter deals with the analysis of the data collected for the research
study. The data were analyzed with suitable statistical tools and the results and analysis
of the study are presented with discussion under the following heads

4.1 Analysis of Profile of the respondents

4.2 Analysis of Investment Behaviour of Respondents
4.3 Analysis of Investor’s Awareness
4.4 Factors considered for Investment
4.5 Motivational Factors
4.6 Investment behaviour on Decision Making
4.7 Structural Equation Model

4.1 Analysis of Profile of the Respondents

The survey was conducted with a structured questionnaire. The respondents were
working in banking sector both public sector and private sector banks in Chennai and the
respondents were working in the following banks.

Public Sector Banks

Name of the Bank Name of the Bank
Andhra Bank Bank of India
Canara Bank George Town Co-op Bank
 108

Name of the Bank Name of the Bank

Dena Bank IDBI Bank
Indian Bank Indian Overseas Bank
Punjab National Bank REPCO
Reserve Bank of India SIDBI
State Bank Of India Syndicate Bank
TNSC Bank UCO Bank

Private Sector Banks

Name of the Bank Name of the Bank
Axis Bank BNP Paribas Bank
Citi Bank City Union Bank
DBS Bank Ltd DCB Bank
Deutsche Bank Dhanalaxmi Bank
Equitas Bank Federal Bank
HDFC Bank ICICI Bank
Indusind Bank Karnataka Bank
Karur Vysya Bank Kotak Mahindra Bank
Lakshmi Vilas Bank RBL Bank
South Indian Bank Tamilnadu Merchantile Bank
YES Bank Standard Chartered Bank
World Bank

4.1.1 Details of number of respondents

The respondents were working in banking sector comprises of both public sector banks
and private sector banks. Total samples selected for the study is 750.
 109

Table 4.1.1 showing the details of number of respondents

Factor Public Sector Bank Private Sector Bank
375 375
Number of respondent
(50.0%) (50.0%)
Source: Primary data

From the above table 4.1.1, it evident that the numbers of respondent are evenly
distributed (50.0%) each among the public sector and private sector banks.

4.1.2 Classification based on Age

Respondents are classified into 4 groups based on their age. Table 4.1.2 shows the age
wise distribution of the Banking professionals. Out of the 750 respondents 23.5% of the
respondents are less than 30 years, 36.0% of the respondents are between 31 years and 40
years. 21.6% of the respondents are between 41 and 50 years of age, 18.9% of the
respondents are above 50 years of age.
Among the public sector employees 33.1% of the respondents are from the age group of
above 50 years followed by 26.9% representing the age group of 41-50 years. 22.4 %
represents the age group of 21-30 years and the balance represents the age group of less
than 30 years. Among the private sector bank employees, 49.6% constitutes the age group
of 31-40 years followed by 29.3% of the respondents in the age group of less than 30
years, 16.3% of the respondents are in the age groups of 41-50 years.

Table 4.1.2 – Age of the respondents

Type of Bank
Age Public Percentage Private Percentage Total Percentage
Sector Sector
Less than
66 17.6% 110 29.3% 176 23.5%
30 Years
31years – 84 22.4% 186 49.6% 270 36.0%
 110

Type of Bank
Age Public Percentage Private Percentage Total Percentage
Sector Sector
40 years
41years -
101 26.9% 61 16.3% 162 21.6%
50 years
Above 50
124 33.1% 18 4.8% 142 19.5%
Years
Total 375 100.0% 375 100.0% 750 100.0%
Source: Primary data

From the above table it can be ascertained that the highest % of respondents belongs to
the age groups of above 50 years in public sector bank employees and the age group of
31-40 years in the case of private sector bank employees.

4.1.3 Classification on Gender

Respondents are classified based on the gender. Out of the 750 respondents, 500
respondents are male and the balance 250 respondents are female. Out of 500 male
respondents, 219 are working in public sector bank and 281 employees are working in
private sector banks. Out of 250 women respondents, 156 respondents were working in
public sector banks and 94 were working in private sector banks.

Table 4.1.3 showing the gender of the respondents

Type of Bank
Gender Public Percentage Private Percentage Total Percentage
Sector Sector
Male 219 58.4% 281 74.9% 500 66.7%
Female 156 41.6% 94 25.1% 250 33.3%
Total 375 100.0% 375 100.0% 750 100.0%
Source: Primary data
 111

From the above Table 4.1.3 classification based on the gender can be seen. Out of the
total respondents 66.7% are male and the balance constitutes female employees. Among
the public sector banks 58.4% of the respondents are male and 41.6% represents female
employees. In the case of private sectors bank employee, male constitutes 74.9% and the
balance was female respondents.

4.1.4 Classification on Marital Status

The marital status of the respondents is given in Table 4.1.4. Out of the 750 respondents
82.7% of them are married and the balance are found to be is unmarried. Among the
public sector and private sector 89.9% and 75.5% of the respondents fall under the
category of married and the balance are unmarried.

Table 4.1.4 showing the marital status of the respondents

Type of Bank
Marital
Public Percentage Private Percentage Total Percentage
Status
Sector Sector
Single 38 10.1% 92 24.5% 130 17.3%
Married 337 89.9% 283 75.5% 620 82.7%
Total 375 100.0% 375 100.0% 750 100.0%
Source: Primary Data

4.1.5 Classification based on Family type

The respondents are grouped based on the family type comprising of Nuclear family and
Joint family. Out of the total respondents, 490 respondents are from Nuclear family and
the balance 260 from Joint family. Among the public sector and private sector banks, the
classification is evenly poised.
 112

Table 4.1.5 showing the Family type of the respondents

Type of Bank
Family
Public Private Total Percentage
Type Percentage Percentage
Sector Sector
Nuclear 255 68.0% 235 62.7% 490 65.3%
Joint 120 32.0% 140 37.3% 260 34.7%
Total 375 100.0% 375 100.0% 750 100.0%
Source: Primary Data

Table 4.1.5 shows the details based on the classification of family type of the
respondents. Out of the total respondents 65.3% are from Nuclear family and the balance
constitutes Joint families.
Among the public sector banks 68.0% of the respondents are from Nuclear family and
32.0% are from Joint family. In the case of private sectors bank employee, 62.7% of the
respondents have Nuclear family and the balance 37.3% is from the joint family.

4.1.6 Educational Qualification

The respondents are classified based on their educational qualification into 4 categories
comprising of undergraduate, graduate, post graduate and professionals. Among the
respondents, 271 were graduates, 346 were post graduate and 126 were professionally
qualified. Among the public sector and private sector bank employees, majority of the
respondents were post graduates, followed by the number of graduates.

Table 4.1.6 showing the educational qualification of the respondents

Type of Bank
Educational
Public Private Total Percentage
Qualification Percentage Percentage
Sector Sector
SSLC/HSC 7 1.9% 0 0.0% 7 0.9%
Graduate 159 42.4% 112 29.9% 271 36.1%
 113

Type of Bank
Educational
Public Private Total Percentage
Qualification Percentage Percentage
Sector Sector
Post
161 42.9% 185 49.3% 346 46.1%
Graduate
Professional 48 12.8% 78 20.8% 126 16.8%
Total 375 100.0% 375 100.0% 750 100.0%
Source: Primary Data

Table 4.1.6 above shows the status of the respondents based on the educational
qualification. Out of the 750 respondents, 46.1% of the respondents are post graduate,
36.1% are graduates and 16.8 % of the total respondents are professionally qualified.
Among the public sector bank respondents, Graduates and post graduates are evenly
distributed around 42%, whereas in case of private sector bank employees post graduate
comprises of 49.3% and graduates 29.9%. Among the public sector employees 12.8% of
the respondents possess professional qualifications whereas it is 20.8% of the respondents
are professionally qualified in case of private sector banks.

4.1.7 Classification on Designation

The respondents are classified according to the designation in both the public sector and
private sector banks. The designations starts from entry level officer to the highest level
of General Manager in the in public sector banks and Senior Vice President in Private
sector banks.
Table 4.1.7 showing the distribution based on Designation in employment
Type of Bank
Designation Public Private Total Percentage
Percentage Percentage
Sector Sector
Officer /
Assistant 167 44.5% 77 20.5% 244 32.5%
Manager
 114

Type of Bank
Designation Public Private Total Percentage
Percentage Percentage
Sector Sector
Deputy
Manager / 103 27.5% 148 39.5% 251 33.5%
Manager
Senior 44 11.7% 51 13.6% 95 12.7%
Manager
Chief
Manager/
Assistant 50 13.3% 70 18.7% 120 16.0%
Vice
President
Assistant
General
Manager / 11 2.9% 18 4.8% 29 3.9%
Deputy Vice
President
Deputy
General
Manager / 0 0.0% 7 1.9% 7 0.9%
Vice
President
General
Manager / 0 0.0% 4 1.1% 4 0.5%
Senior Vice
President
Total 375 100.0% 375 100.0% 750 100.0%
Source: Primary Data

Table 4.1.7 indicates the classification based on the designation of the respondents. Out
of 750 respondents, 32.5% of the respondents are in the designation of Officer / Assistant
Manager, 33.5% of them are in the designation of Deputy Manager / Manager, 12.7% of
the respondents are in the designation of Senior Manager, 16% of the respondents are in
the designation of the Chief Manager / Assistant Vice President, 3.9% of the respondents
are in the designation of Assistant General Manager / Deputy Vice President, 0.9% of
respondents are in the designation of Deputy General Manager / Vice president and 0.5%
 115

of the respondents are in the designation of General Manager / Senior Vice President.
Among the public sector bank respondents, 44.5% of them belong to the Officer /
Assistant Manager designation and 27.5% of the respondents were in the designation of
Deputy Manager / Manager designation. In case of the private sector bank employees,
20.5% of them were in the designation Officer / Assistant Manager and 39.5% of the
respondents were in the designation Deputy Manager / Manager. 13.6% represents Senior
Manager Designation and 18.7% belong to Chief Manager /Assistant Vice President
designation.

4.1.8 Income of the respondents

The incomes of the respondent are classified into 5 categories of Rs.5 Lakhs each. 360
respondents were earning between Rs.5 Lakhs and Rs.10 Lakhs. 234 respondents were
earning less than Rs.5 Lakhs per annum. 108 respondents were earning between Rs.10
Lakhs and Rs.15 Lakhs. Among the public sector and private sector banks majority of the
respondents fall under the category of Rs.5 Lakhs and Rs.10 Lakhs.
Table 4.1.8 below illustrates the classification based on the income level of the
respondents. 31.2% of the respondents earn less than Rs.5 Lakhs per annum, 48% of the
respondents earning are between Rs.5 Lakhs and Rs.10 Lakhs per annum, 14.4% of the
respondents earn between Rs.10 Lakhs and Rs.15 Lakhs per annum, 4.7% of the
respondents earn between Rs.15 Lakhs and Rs.20 Lakhs and the remaining respondents
are earning above Rs.20 Lakhs. Majority of the respondents of public sector banks falls
under the category of income with Rs.5 to Rs.10 Lakhs amounting to 54.1% followed by
27.2% falling under less than Rs.5 Lakhs category. 16% of the respondent’s earning fall
in Rs.10 to Rs.15 Lakhs category. Similarly in case of private sector banks, majority of
the respondents constituting 41.9% falls under Rs.5 to Rs.10 Lakhs category and 35.2%
of the respondents fall under the category of less than Rs.5 Lakhs.
 116

Figure – 10 Income Details of the respondents

Table 4.1.8 showing the distribution based on Income level of the respondents

Type of Bank
Income Total Percentage
Public Private
Percentage Percentage
Sector Sector
Less than
Rs.5 102 27.2% 132 35.2% 234 31.2%
Lakhs
Rs.5
Lakhs to 203 54.1% 157 41.9% 360 48.0%
Rs.10
Lakhs
Rs.10
Lakhs to 60 16.0% 48 12.8% 108 14.4%
Rs.15
Lakhs
 117

Type of Bank
Income Total Percentage
Public Private
Percentage Percentage
Sector Sector
Rs.15
Lakhs to 10 2.7% 25 6.7% 35 4.7%
Rs.20
Lakhs
Above
Rs.20 0 0.0% 13 3.5% 13 1.7%
Lakhs
Total 375 100.0% 375 100.0% 750 100.0%
Source: Primary Data

4.1.9 Percentage of Saving

The savings percentage differs among the respondents. Out of the 750 respondents, 265
respondents constituting 35.3% were savings up to 10 % of their income per annum. 213
(28.4%) respondents were saving between 10% and 15 % of their savings and 160
respondents (21.3%) were saving between 15% and 20% of their annual income.

Table 4.1.9 below indicates the savings percentage of the bank employees. 35.3% of the
750 respondents have indicated that they would be saving up to 10 % of their annual
income. 28.4% of the respondents were saving between 10% and 15 % of the income,
21.3% of the respondents were saving between 20% and 25 % of their annual income,
8.5% of the respondents were saving between 20% and 25% of their income and the
remaining respondents were saving above 25% of their annual income.
Among the public sector bank employees 33.9% of the respondents save up to 10% of
their income followed by 28.3% capable of saving between 10% and 15%. Also 24% of
the respondents were able to save 15% to 20% of their income. Similarly majority of the
respondents in the private sector banks were saving up to 10% of their income and 28.5%
of the respondents were saving between 10% and 15 % of their income. 18.7% of the
respondents were able to save between 15% and 20% of their income.
 118

Table 4.1.9 showing the saving percentage of the respondents

Type of Bank
Savings
Public Private Total Percentage
Percentage Percentage Percentage
Sector Sector
Up to 10 % 127 33.9% 138 36.8% 265 35.3%
10 % to 15 % 106 28.3% 107 28.5% 213 28.4%
15 % to 20 % 90 24.0% 70 18.7% 160 21.3%
20 % to 25 % 34 9.1% 30 8.0% 64 8.5%
Above 25 % 18 4.8% 30 8.0% 48 6.4%
Total 375 100.0% 375 100.0% 750 100.0%
Source: Primary Data

Figure 11 – Savings percentage of the respondents

 119

4.1.10 Investment
The respondents were making investment from Rs. 1 Lakhs to above Rs.5 Lakhs per
annum. 323 respondents constituting 43.2% of the total respondents were investing up
Rs.1 Lakh per annum. 239 respondents were investing between Rs.1 Lakh and Rs.2
Lakhs per annum. Among the public sector and private sector banks 143 and 180
respondents were investing up to Rs.1 Lakh per annum. Investment was made between
Rs.1 Lakhs and Rs.2 Lakhs by 143 public sector employees and 96 private sector
employees.
Table 4.1.10 shows the annual investment level of the respondents. 43.1% of the
respondents were saving up to Rs.1 Lakh of their annual income, 31.9% of the
respondents were able to save between Rs.1 Lakh and Rs.2 Lakhs, 15.5% of the
respondents were saving between R.2 Lakhs and Rs.3 Lakhs, 4.7% of the respondents
were saving between Rs.3 Lakhs and Rs.4 Lakhs and the remaining respondents were
investing above Rs.4 Lakhs.
Table 4.1.10 showing the Investment of the respondents
Type of Bank
Investment Total Percentage
Public Private
Percentage Percentage
Sector Sector
Less than
143 38.1% 180 48.0% 323 43.1%
Rs.1 Lakhs
Rs.1 Lakhs
to 143 38.1% 96 25.6% 239 31.9%
Rs.2 Lakhs
Rs.2 Lakhs
to 66 17.6% 50 13.3% 116 15.5%
Rs.3 Lakhs
Rs.3 Lakhs
to 12 3.2% 23 6.1% 35 4.7%
Rs.4 Lakhs
Above
11 2.9% 26 6.9% 37 4.9%
Rs.4 Lakhs
Total 375 100.0% 375 100.0% 750 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
 120

Figure – 12 Investment details of the respondents

4.2 Analysis of Investment Preference

The economic environment has enabled the investors to diversify the risk by not
investing all their funds in one avenue but to explore more avenues to park their funds.
The respondents were asked to rank their preference in the order of their preference (1-
Most preferred, 8 – least preferred). Investment preferences were computed based on the
ranking given by the bank employees. Garrett ranking technique is used to ascertain the
ranking. Investment preferences were made based on the Investment Objectives,
Investment Avenues and Time Horizon.
 121

4.2.1 Investment Objective

Any activity without a target or a goal would be a futile exercise. So also savings and
investment should be done with a purpose. Every person who had invested money out of
the savings should have a clear investment objective which would be consciously
working in his mind either in a planned or unplanned manner. It is essential for the
investors to prioritize the objective as weightage has to be given to different objectives
and this highly depends on the attitude of the person. The comprehensive understanding
and clear demarcation regarding the multiple objectives helped them to select the
investment avenues and frame a best mix of assets in their portfolio. When the
investment objective is compared with the uncertainty involved with amount of return,
the fulfillment of the objectives through the selected investment avenue could become
ambiguous. The Table given below makes clear the priorities the investors had to fulfill
their objectives in investment pattern.
In this study Future requirement, Good return, Liquidity, Capital Appreciation, Regular
Income, Tax concession, Wealth creation, children career, Convenience, Affordability
and safety /security were considered and the respondents were requested to rank their
priorities.
 122

4.2.1 Table showing the overall preference of respondents for Investment objectives
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mean
Garrett Value 83 72 65 59 55 50 45 41 35 28 17 Total Value Rank
Future f 172 108 109 94 66 65 33 23 18 21 41
45906 61.208 I
Requirement fx 14276 7776 7085 5546 3630 3250 1485 943 630 588 697
f 116 131 112 92 87 54 48 33 21 34 22
Good Return 44827 59.769 II
fx 9628 9432 7280 5428 4785 2700 2160 1353 735 952 374
f 22 80 79 56 67 93 84 89 77 50 53
Liquidity 36785 49.047 VII
fx 1826 5760 5135 3304 3685 4650 3780 3649 2695 1400 901
Capital f 27 45 66 85 63 50 83 89 80 97 65
34756 46.341 VIII
Appreciation fx 2241 3240 4290 5015 3465 2500 3735 3649 2800 2716 1105
f 59 65 61 73 72 87 79 62 69 61 62
Regular Income 37433 49.911 V
fx 4897 4680 3965 4307 3960 4350 3555 2542 2415 1708 1054
f 125 81 76 56 93 86 58 51 44 38 42
Tax Concession 41885 55.847 III
fx 10375 5832 4940 3304 5115 4300 2610 2091 1540 1064 714
Wealth f 37 49 41 66 58 81 99 88 83 76 72
34718 46.291 IX
Creation fx 3071 3528 2665 3894 3190 4050 4455 3608 2905 2128 1224
f 56 60 79 69 65 72 78 68 68 56 79
Children career 36938 49.251 VI
fx 4648 4320 5135 4071 3575 3600 3510 2788 2380 1568 1343
f 9 19 36 47 63 48 77 106 121 122 102
Convenience 30289 40.385 X
fx 747 1368 2340 2773 3465 2400 3465 4346 4235 3416 1734
f 12 26 27 38 46 58 69 81 118 131 144
Affordability 28967 38.623 XI
fx 996 1872 1755 2242 2530 2900 3105 3321 4130 3668 2448
f 115 86 64 74 70 56 42 60 51 64 68
Safety/Security 39996 53.328 IV
fx 9545 6192 4160 4366 3850 2800 1890 2460 1785 1792 1156
Source: Computed Data
 123

4.2.2 Table showing the preference of public sector bank respondents for Investment objectives
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mean
Garrett Value 83 72 65 59 55 50 45 41 35 28 17 Total Value Rank
Future F 82 52 54 47 28 38 17 14 4 14 25
22569 60.184 I
Requirement Fx 6806 3744 3510 2773 1540 1900 765 574 140 392 425
F 59 57 65 37 49 29 24 14 14 16 11
Good Return 22333 59.555 II
Fx 4897 4104 4225 2183 2695 1450 1080 574 490 448 187
F 11 54 35 30 29 46 41 49 40 24 16
Liquidity 18939 50.504 VI
Fx 913 3888 2275 1770 1595 2300 1845 2009 1400 672 272
Capital F 16 21 34 37 27 16 42 43 36 58 45
16820 44.853 VIII
Appreciation Fx 1328 1512 2210 2183 1485 800 1890 1763 1260 1624 765
F 31 41 34 45 36 39 28 28 34 25 34
Regular Income 19196 51.189 V
Fx 2573 2952 2210 2655 1980 1950 1260 1148 1190 700 578
F 80 50 35 31 51 41 31 12 16 18 10
Tax Concession 22320 59.520 III
Fx 6640 3600 2275 1829 2805 2050 1395 492 560 504 170
Wealth F 9 19 21 29 29 37 55 49 40 44 43
16483 43.955 IX
Creation Fx 747 1368 1365 1711 1595 1850 2475 2009 1400 1232 731
F 22 16 39 36 31 49 49 34 36 24 39
Children career 17986 47.963 VII
Fx 1826 1152 2535 2124 1705 2450 2205 1394 1260 672 663
F 6 8 16 22 36 24 33 60 61 57 52
Convenience 15152 40.405 X
Fx 498 576 1040 1298 1980 1200 1485 2460 2135 1596 884
F 5 12 9 26 18 32 35 42 70 57 69
Affordability 14504 38.677 XI
Fx 415 864 585 1534 990 1600 1575 1722 2450 1596 1173
F 54 45 33 35 41 24 20 30 24 38 31
Safety/Security 19948 53.195 IV
Fx 4482 3240 2145 2065 2255 1200 900 1230 840 1064 527
Source: Computed Data
 124

4.2.3 Table showing the preference of private sector bank respondents for Investment Objectives
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mean
Garrett Value 83 72 65 59 55 50 45 41 35 28 17 Total Value Rank
Future F 90 56 55 47 38 27 16 9 14 7 16
23337 62.232 I
Requirement Fx 7470 4032 3575 2773 2090 1350 720 369 490 196 272
F 57 74 47 55 38 25 24 19 7 18 11
Good Return 22494 59.984 II
Fx 4731 5328 3055 3245 2090 1250 1080 779 245 504 187
F 11 26 44 26 38 47 43 40 37 26 37
Liquidity 17846 47.589 IX
Fx 913 1872 2860 1534 2090 2350 1935 1640 1295 728 629
Capital F 11 24 32 48 36 34 41 46 44 39 20
17936 47.829 VIII
Appreciation Fx 913 1728 2080 2832 1980 1700 1845 1886 1540 1092 340
F 28 24 27 28 36 48 51 34 35 36 28
Regular Income 18237 48.632 VI
Fx 2324 1728 1755 1652 1980 2400 2295 1394 1225 1008 476
F 45 31 41 25 42 45 27 39 28 20 32
Tax Concession 19565 52.173 IV
Fx 3735 2232 2665 1475 2310 2250 1215 1599 980 560 544
Wealth F 28 30 20 37 29 44 44 39 43 32 29
18235 48.627 VII
Creation Fx 2324 2160 1300 2183 1595 2200 1980 1599 1505 896 493
F 34 44 40 33 34 23 29 34 32 32 40
Children career 18952 50.539 V
Fx 2822 3168 2600 1947 1870 1150 1305 1394 1120 896 680
F 3 11 20 25 27 24 44 46 60 65 50
Convenience 15137 40.365 X
Fx 249 792 1300 1475 1485 1200 1980 1886 2100 1820 850
F 7 14 18 12 28 26 34 39 48 74 75
Affordability 14463 38.568 XI
Fx 581 1008 1170 708 1540 1300 1530 1599 1680 2072 1275
F 61 41 31 39 29 32 22 30 27 26 37
Safety/Security 20048 53.461 III
Fx 5063 2952 2015 2301 1595 1600 990 1230 945 728 629
Source: Computed Data
 125

4.2.4 Table showing the consolidated preference of respondents for Investment objectives
Overall Public Sector Bank Private Sector Bank
Total Mean Total Mean
Investment Objective Total Score Mean Score Rank Score Score Rank Score Score Rank
Future Requirement 45906 61.208 I 22569 60.184 I 23337 62.232 I
Good Return 44827 59.769 II 22333 59.555 II 22494 59.984 II
Liquidity 36785 49.047 VII 18939 50.504 VI 17846 47.589 IX
Capital Appreciation 34756 46.341 VIII 16820 44.853 VIII 17936 47.829 VIII
Regular Income 37433 49.911 V 19196 51.189 V 18237 48.632 VI
Tax Concession 41885 55.847 III 22320 59.520 III 19565 52.173 IV
Wealth Creation 34718 46.291 IX 16483 43.955 IX 18235 48.627 VII
Children Career 36938 49.251 VI 17986 47.963 VII 18952 50.539 V
Convenience 30289 40.385 X 15152 40.405 X 15137 40.365 X
Affordability 28967 38.623 XI 14504 38.677 XI 14463 38.568 XI
Safety 39996 53.328 IV 19948 53.195 IV 20048 53.461 III
Source: Primary Data
 126

The ranking analysis helped to comprehend the key objectives which had been borne in the
minds of the investors when they saved and formulated their investment pattern by allocating
funds to different investment alternatives.

Table 4.2.4 depicts the investment preference based on the objectives of the respondents.
Future requirement, Good return has obtained the first two ranks by the bank employees,
whereas Tax Concession and safety were preferred as the third and fourth rank by the overall
employees and the public sector bank employees, whereas private sector employees selected
Safety as the third position and tax concession as their fourth preference.
Regular income, Children career, Liquidity has taken the fifth, sixth and seventh position in
the overall preference. Public sector bank employees Regular Income, Liquidity and Children
career was their preference of objective taking fifth, sixth and seventh ranks, whereas in case
of private sector bank employees, Children career, Regular Income and Wealth Creation has
taken fifth, sixth and seventh position respectively.
Capital appreciation has taken the eighth rank in overall as well as by both sectors of the
employees. Wealth Creation has taken the overall ninth preference and also by the public
sector bank employees, whereas in case of private sector it is Liquidity. Convenience and
affordability were the last two choice of investment objective in overall ranking as well as by
both the sectors of the employees.
The above results are partially in agreement with the reports of Apparao et al (2015), Jasna
(2017) and partially disagree with Megha Goyal et al (2014), Suyam Prabha (2016)

4.2.2 Investment Avenues

Every investment avenues had been rated by the investors in their own opinion, accordingly
the eight investment avenues were ranked by the investors based on their rating. The
distribution of the respondents on the basis of their preference for investment options through
ranking order is shown in Table. Investment avenues such as Equity / Commodity Market,
Mutual Funds, Gold / Jewellery, Real Estate / House property, Life Insurance policies, Bank
deposit, Post Office savings and Government Bonds were considered in this study.
 127

4.2.5 Table showing overall the preference of respondents for Investment Avenues
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Garrett Value 80 67 60 53 47 40 32 20 Total Mean Value Rank
f 81 76 54 71 71 74 116 207
Equity / Commodity Market
fx 6480 5092 3240 3763 3337 2960 3712 4140 32724 43.632 VII
f 149 96 100 79 59 114 114 39
Mutual Fund
fx 11920 6432 6000 4187 2773 4560 3648 780 40300 53.733 IV
f 122 149 105 127 100 71 45 31
Gold / Jewellery
fx 9760 9983 6300 6731 4700 2840 1440 620 42374 56.499 II
f 70 87 90 105 102 103 82 111
Real Estate / House Property
fx 5600 5829 5400 5565 4794 4120 2624 2220 36152 48.203 V
f 96 104 148 97 135 81 53 36
Life Insurance Policies
fx 7680 6968 8880 5141 6345 3240 1696 720 40670 54.227 III
f 185 128 112 106 82 68 44 25
Bank Deposits
fx 14800 8576 6720 5618 3854 2720 1408 500 44196 58.928 I
f 28 86 104 88 120 117 167 40
Post Office Investment
fx 2240 5762 6240 4664 5640 4680 5344 800 35370 47.160 VI
f 19 24 37 77 81 122 129 261
Government Bonds
fx 1520 1608 2220 4081 3807 4880 4128 5220 27464 36.619 VIII
Source: Computed Data
 128

4.2.6 Table showing Investment Avenues preference by Public sector Bank employees
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Garrett Value 80 67 60 53 47 40 32 20 Total Mean Value Rank
f 28 35 26 29 33 39 64 121
Equity / Commodity Market
fx 2240 2345 1560 1537 1551 1560 2048 2420 15261 40.696 VII
f 70 37 47 38 28 63 71 21
Mutual Fund
fx 5600 2479 2820 2014 1316 2520 2272 420 19441 51.843 IV
f 60 74 50 57 53 42 18 21
Gold / Jewellery
fx 4800 4958 3000 3021 2491 1680 576 420 20946 55.856 II
f 23 41 40 60 55 53 51 52
Real Estate / House Property
fx 1840 2747 2400 3180 2585 2120 1632 1040 17544 46.784 VI
f 42 57 71 48 74 39 24 20
Life Insurance Policies
fx 3360 3819 4260 2544 3478 1560 768 400 20189 53.837 III
f 125 70 59 41 27 25 16 12
Bank Deposits
fx 10000 4690 3540 2173 1269 1000 512 240 23424 62.464 I
f 17 53 63 49 54 58 69 12
Post Office Investment
fx 1360 3551 3780 2597 2538 2320 2208 240 18594 49.584 V
f 10 8 19 53 51 56 62 116
Government Bonds
fx 800 536 1140 2809 2397 2240 1984 2320 14226 37.936 VIII
Source: Computed Data
 129

4.2.7 Table showing Investment Avenues preference by Private sector Bank employees
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Garrett Value 80 67 60 53 47 40 32 20 Total Mean Value Rank

f 53 41 28 42 38 35 52 86
Equity / Commodity Market
fx 4240 2747 1680 2226 1786 1400 1664 1720 17463 46.568 VI
f 79 59 53 41 31 51 43 18
Mutual Fund
fx 6320 3953 3180 2173 1457 2040 1376 360 20859 55.624 II
f 62 75 55 70 47 29 27 10
Gold / Jewellery
fx 4960 5025 3300 3710 2209 1160 864 200 21428 57.141 I
f 47 46 50 45 47 50 31 59
Real Estate / House Property
fx 3760 3082 3000 2385 2209 2000 992 1180 18608 49.621 V
f 54 47 77 49 61 42 29 16
Life Insurance Policies
fx 4320 3149 4620 2597 2867 1680 928 320 20481 54.616 IV
f 60 58 53 65 55 43 28 13
Bank Deposits
fx 4800 3886 3180 3445 2585 1720 896 260 20772 55.392 III
f 11 33 41 39 66 59 98 28
Post Office Investment
fx 880 2211 2460 2067 3102 2360 3136 560 16776 44.736 VII
f 9 16 18 24 30 66 67 145
Government Bonds
fx 720 1072 1080 1272 1410 2640 2144 2900 13238 35.301 VIII
Source: Computed Data
 130

4.2.8 Table showing the preference of respondents for Investment Avenues

Overall Public Sector Bank Private Sector Bank

Investment Total Mean Total Mean Total Mean
Avenues Score Score Rank Score Score Rank Score Score Rank
Equity /
Commodity 32724 43.632 VII 15261 40.696 VII 17463 46.568 VI
Market
Mutual Fund 40300 53.733 IV 19441 51.843 IV 20859 55.624 II
Gold /
42374 56.499 II 20946 55.856 II 21428 57.141 I
Jewellery
Real Estate /
House 36152 48.203 V 17544 46.784 VI 18608 49.621 V
Property
Life
Insurance 40670 54.227 III 20189 53.837 III 20481 54.616 IV
Policies
Bank
44196 58.928 I 23424 62.464 I 20772 55.392 III
Deposits
Post Office
35370 47.160 VI 18594 49.584 V 16776 44.736 VII
Savings
Government
27464 36.619 VIII 14226 37.936 VIII 13238 35.301 VIII
Bonds
Source: Computed Data

Table 4.2.8 indicates the preference on investment avenues available to the respondents.
Overall first preference was given to bank deposits followed by Gold / Jewellery, Life
Insurance policies, Mutual Fund as second, third and fourth position preferences. Investment
in Real Estate / House property was considered fifth ranked investment avenue followed by
Equity / Commodity market and Government Bonds as seventh and eighth ranked avenues.
 131

However it is not in the same order among the public sector and private sector bank
employees.
As far as the public sector bank employees are concerned Bank deposit, Gold / Jewellery,
Life insurance policies and Mutual Fund have taken the first four preferences in line with the
overall preference. Post Office savings has taken the fifth rank and investment in real
estate/house property has taken the 6th position. Equity / Commodity Market and Government
bonds had taken the last two positions in line with the overall preference.
In case of private sector bank employees, Gold / Jewellery, Mutual Fund, Bank deposits and
Life Insurance policies has taken the first four preferred investment avenues. Investment in
Real Estate / House Property has taken the 5th position in line with the overall preference.
Equity / commodity Market investment and Post Office saving has taken the 6th and 7th
position. Investment in Government Bonds has taken the last position in line with the overall
preference.
The results of this study partially in agreement with the results of Apparao et al (2015),
Ashly Lynn Joseph et al (2014), Sonali patel et al (2014) and partially contradict the results
of Balamurugan et al (2017), Jasna (2017), Megha Goyal et al (2014) & Parimalakanthi et al
(2015).

4.2.3 Time Horizon

Investments are made by the investors for a specific purpose with a specified time horizon.
The time limits are set by the investors according to the investment objectives. Time Horizon
plays an important role in getting the return from the investment. Investment can be made
either for short term or for long term period. In this study the time period was classified into
five categories. The investors were requested to rank their priorities of time horizon and the
same was considered with Garrett ranking technique. The following tables would show the
preferences of the respondents based on the timelines.

Following tables 4.2.9 and table 4.2.10 will show the preference of time horizon by the
public sector bank employees and private sector bank employees. Table 4.2.11 will provide
the details of overall preference of the respondents based on the time horizon.
 132

4.2.9 Table showing the preference of Time Horizon by public sector bank employees
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Mean
Garrett Value 75 60 50 40 25 Total Value Rank

Less than 1 f 56 67 63 41 148

Year fx 4200 4020 3150 1640 3700 16710 44.560 V
1 Year to 2 f 95 93 54 115 18
Years fx 7125 5580 2700 4600 450 20455 54.547 I
2 Years to 3 f 68 75 175 35 22
Years fx 5100 4500 8750 1400 550 20300 54.133 II
3 Years to 5 f 68 99 55 124 29
Years fx 5100 5940 2750 4960 725 19475 51.933 III
5 Years and f 88 41 28 60 158
above fx 6600 2460 1400 2400 3950 16810 44.827 IV
Source: Computed Data

4.2.10 Table showing the preference of Time Horizon by private sector bank employees
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Mean
Garrett Value 75 60 50 40 25 Total Value Rank
Less than 1 f 60 57 45 44 169
Year fx 4500 3420 2250 1760 4225 16155 43.080 V
1 Year to 2 f 65 85 56 151 18
Years fx 4875 5100 2800 6040 450 19265 51.373 III
2 Years to 3 f 75 72 177 32 19
Years fx 5625 4320 8850 1280 475 20550 54.800 I
3 Years to 5 f 67 125 53 109 21
Years fx 5025 7500 2650 4360 525 20060 53.493 II
5 Years and f 108 36 44 39 148
above fx 8100 2160 2200 1560 3700 17720 47.253 IV
Source: Computed Data
 133

4.2.11 Table showing the Overall preference of Time Horizon by the respondents
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Mean
Garrett Value 75 60 50 40 25 Total Value Rank
f 116 124 108 85 317
Less than 1 Year
fx 8700 7440 5400 3400 7925 32865 43.820 V
f 160 178 110 266 36
1 Year to 2 Years
fx 12000 10680 5500 10640 900 39720 52.960 II
2 Years to 3 f 143 147 352 67 41
Years fx 10725 8820 17600 2680 1025 40850 54.467 I
3 Years to 5 f 135 224 108 233 50
Years fx 10125 13440 5400 9320 1250 39535 52.713 III
5 Years and f 196 77 72 99 306
above fx 14700 4620 3600 3960 7650 34530 46.040 IV
Source: Computed Data

4.2.12 Table showing the preference of respondents on Time Horizon

Overall Public Sector Bank Private Sector Bank

Time Total Mean Total Mean Total Mean
Horizon Score Score Rank Score Score Rank Score Score Rank
Less than 1
32865 43.82 V 16710 44.56 V 16155 43.08 V
Year
1 Year to
39720 52.96 II 20455 54.55 I 19265 51.37 III
2 Year
2 Years to
40850 54.47 I 20300 54.13 II 20550 54.80 I
3 Years
3 Years to
39535 52.71 III 19475 51.93 III 20060 53.49 II
5 Years
Above 5
34530 46.04 IV 16810 44.83 IV 17720 47.25 IV
Years
Source: Computed Data
 134

Table 4.2.12 shows the investment horizon preferred by the investors. Time Horizon
indicates the tenure preferred for investing in any of the select investment avenues.
Overall investors and private sector bank employees preferred 2 years to 3 years of tenure as
optimal time period for investment, whereas public sector employees preferred 1 year to 2
years as their best choice for the time period. Above 5 years tenure and less than 1 year were
the last preferred tenure. This clearly indicates that less than 1 year is too short a period for
investment and above 5 years is too long a period for assessment of the investment
performance. The above findings are partially in agreement with Parimalakanthi et al (2015)
and Swati Narula (2015).

4.2.4 Influence of demographic factors on Investment Amount

Association of select demographic variable such as Age, marital status, Family type, Annual
Income with Annual Investment is studied with the help of chi-square test and the results are
given below.

4.2.4.1 Association between Age and Investment amount

Following table shows the cross tabulation and the association between age of the investors
and the investment amount.
4.2.13 Table showing Age and Investment Amount
Annual Investment
Less than Rs.1 Lakh Rs.2 Lakh Rs.3 Lakh Above Total
Rs.1 to Rs.2 to Rs.3 to Rs.4 Rs.4
Lakh Lakhs Lakhs Lakhs Lakhs
Less than 30
116 42 14 3 1 176
years
31 years –
121 90 33 15 11 270
40 years
41 years –
46 62 36 6 12 162
50 years
Above 50 40 45 33 11 13 142
years
Total 323 239 116 35 37 750
Source: Computed Data
 135

H0: There is no significant association between age and the investment amount.
H1: There is significant association between age and the investment amount.
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 82.639a 12 .000
Likelihood Ratio 85.755 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 62.6963 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 750

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 6.63.

Above table indicates, chi-square value as 82.639 and the significant value is 0.000, which is
lesser than p value 0.05 and hence the null hypothesis is rejected and concluded that there is
significant association between age of the respondents and investment amount made by the
respondents.

4.2.4.2 Association between marital status and Investment amount

Following table shows the cross tabulation of marital status of the investors and the
investment amount.

4.2.14 Table showing Marital Status and Investment Amount

Annual Investment
Less than Rs.1 Lakh Rs.2 Lakh Rs.3 Lakh Above Total
Rs.1 to Rs.2 to Rs.3 to Rs.4 Rs.4
Lakh Lakhs Lakhs Lakhs Lakhs
Single 84 33 10 2 1 130
Married 239 206 106 33 36 620
Total 323 239 116 35 37 750
Source: Computed Data
Ho: There is no significant association between marital status and the investment amount.
H1: There is significant association between marital status and the investment amount.
 136

Chi-Square Test Result

Value Df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 33.999a 4 .000
Likelihood Ratio 36.908 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 29.875 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 750

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 6.07.

From the above table, chi-square value is 33.999 and the significant value is 0.000 which is
lesser than p value 0.05 and hence the null hypothesis is rejected and concluded that there is
significant association between marital status and investment amount made by the
respondents.

4.2.4.3 Association between Family type and Investment amount

Following table shows the cross tabulation and the association between family type of the
investors and the investment amount.

4.2.15 Table showing Family type and Investment Amount

Annual Investment
Less than Rs.1 Lakh Rs.2 Lakh Rs.3 Lakh Above
Total
Rs.1 to Rs.2 to Rs.3 to Rs.4 Rs.4
Lakh Lakhs Lakhs Lakhs Lakhs
Nuclear
207 174 68 21 20 490
Family
Joint
116 65 48 14 17 260
Family
Total 323 239 116 35 37 750
Source: Computed Data
H0: There is no significant association between family type and the investment amount.
H1: There is significant association between family type and the investment amount.
 137

Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.936a 4 .027
Likelihood Ratio 11.020 4 .026
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.938 1 .164
N of Valid Cases 750

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 12.13.

Above table indicates, chi-square value as 10.936 and the significant value is 0.027, which is
lesser than p value 0.05 and hence the null hypothesis is rejected and concluded that there is
significant association between family type of the respondents and investment amount made
by the respondents.

4.2.4.6 Variance between savings percentage and Investment Amount

ANOVA has been carried out to ascertain the variance of two groups. Following table shows
the result of the variance between savings percentage and investment amount.

H0: There is no significant difference between the variables of saving percentage and
Investment amount.
H1: There is significant difference between the variables of saving percentage and Investment
amount.
4.2.16 Table showing the value of ANOVA – Savings percentage and Investment
amount
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 242.869 4 60.717 56.583 .000
Within Groups 799.436 745 1.073
Total 1042.305 749
 138

Based on the above results, the significant value is 0.000 and it is lower than 0.05 so null
hypothesis is rejected. Hence there is a significant difference in the saving percentage of the
respondents with respect to their annual investment amount.

4.2.4.4 Variance between Expected return and Investment Amount

ANOVA has been carried out to ascertain the variance of two groups. Following table shows
the result of the variance between expected return and investment amount.

H0: There is no significant difference between the variables of expected return and
Investment amount.
H1: There is significant difference between the variables of expected return and Investment
amount.

4.2.17 Table showing the value of ANOVA – Expected return and Investment Amount
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 56.367 4 14.092 10.648 .000
Within Groups 985.938 745 1.323
Total 1042.305 749

Based on the above results, F score is 10.648 and the significant value is 0.000 and it is lower
than 0.05 so null hypothesis is rejected. Hence there is a significant difference in the
expected return with respect to their annual investment amount of the respondents.

4.2.4.5 Variance between select demographic variable - Educational qualification and

Investment Amount
ANOVA has been carried out to ascertain the variance of two groups. Following table shows
the result of the variance between Educational qualification and investment amount.

H0: There is no significant difference between the variables of educational qualification and
Investment amount.
 139

H1: There is significant difference between the variables of educational qualification and
Investment amount.

4.2.18 Table showing the value of ANOVA – Educational qualification and Investment
Amount
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 27.581 3 9.194 6.759 .000
Within Groups 1014.724 746 1.360
Total 1042.305 749

Based on the above results, F score is 6.759 and the significant value is 0.000 and it is lower
than 0.05 so null hypothesis is rejected. Hence there is a significant difference in the
educational qualification of the respondents with respect to their annual investment amount.

4.2.4.6 Variance between select demographic variable – Designation and Investment

Amount
ANOVA has been carried out to ascertain the variance of two groups. Following table shows
the result of the variance between Designation and investment amount.

H0: There is no significant difference between the variables of Designation and Investment
amount.
H1: There is significant difference between the variables of Designation and Investment
amount.

4.2.19 Table showing the value of ANOVA – Designation and Investment Amount
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 401.713 6 66.952 77.655 .000
Within Groups 640.592 743 .862
Total 1042.305 749
 140

Based on the above results, F score is 77.655 and the significant value is 0.000 and it is lower
than 0.05 so null hypothesis is rejected. Hence there is a significant difference in the
Designation of the respondents with respect to their annual investment amount.

4.2.6.7 Variance between Age, Income and Investment Amount

Two-way ANOVA has been carried out to ascertain the variance of two groups. Following
table shows the result of the variance between Designation and investment amount.

H0: There is no significant difference between the mean variables of Age, Income and
Investment amount.
H1: There is significant difference between the mean variables of Age, Income and
Investment amount.

4.2.20 Table showing the value of Two-way ANOVA – Age, Income and Investment
Amount
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Investment Amount
Source Type III Sum Df Mean Square F Sig.
of Squares
Corrected Model 602.012a 17 35.412 58.874 .000
Intercept 951.853 1 951.853 1582.484 .000
Age Band 18.798 3 6.266 10.417 .000
Annual Income 306.389 4 76.597 127.345 .000
Age Band * Annual
18.115 10 1.811 3.012 .001
Income
Error 440.293 732 .601
Total 2842.011 750
Corrected Total 1042.305 749
a. R Squared = .578 (Adjusted R Squared = .568)
 141

Based on the above results, the significant value is 0.000 and it is lower than 0.05 so null
hypothesis is rejected. Hence there is a significant difference in the Age and Income of the
respondents with respect to their annual investment amount.

4.2.5 Annual Income and Annual Investment

In order to ascertain the significance correlation and association between annual income and
annual investment correlation and ANOVA has been used.

4.2.5.1 Correlation between Annual Income and Annual Investment

Following table shows the correlation between the annual income and annual investment.
Ho: There is no significant relationship between the annual income and annual investment.
H1: There is significant relationship between the annual income and annual investment.

In the table 4.10.1 below, the correlation between Z score is r = 0.776 and significant value is
0.000. This indicates Z score and H score are not independent to each other. Here the value
of r is 0.776 so it is considered to be a strong correlation.

4.2.21 Table showing the correlation

Income Investment
Amount Amount
Pearson Correlation 1 .776**
Income Amount Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 750 750
Pearson Correlation .776** 1
Investment Amount Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 750 750
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4.2.5.2 Mean value between Annual Income and Annual Investment

Following table shows the mean value between the annual income and annual investment.
 142

Ho: There is no significant difference between mean value of annual income and annual
investment.
H1: There is significant difference between mean value of annual income and annual
investment.

4.2.22 Table showing ANOVA – Annual Income and Annual Investment

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 833.010 273 3.051 6.940 .000
Within Groups 209.295 476 .440
Total 1042.305 749

Based on the results generated by SPSS, the significant value is 0.000 and it is lower than
0.05 and hence null hypothesis is rejected. Hence there is significant difference in the annual
income and annual investment of bank employees with respect to the income level.

4.3 Analysis of Investor’s Awareness

The awareness level of the investor’s on various investment avenues are studied with chi-
square test.

4.3.1 Association of Gender with awareness of Investment Avenues

Following table would reveal the association between gender and the awareness of various
investment avenues.

Ho: There is no significant association between the variables. Gender is not significantly
associated with Investment avenues.
H1: There is significant association between the variables. Gender is significantly associated
with Investment avenues.

It is evident from the table below that the null hypothesis is rejected in four avenues namely
Equity / Commodity, Mutual Fund, Real Estate /House property and Life Insurance policies
 143

and it is concluded that gender has significant association with these four investment
avenues.

It is also evident from the table below that null hypothesis is accepted in three avenues
namely gold / jewellery, Bank Deposit and Post office savings. In all other avenues the
hypothesis is accepted. It is concluded the gender has no significant influence on the avenues
Gold / Jewellery, Bank Deposits and Post Office savings.

Table 4.3.1 showing chi-square values - Gender with awareness of investment avenues.
S No Investment Avenue Chi-square P - Values Significance
Values
1 Equity / Commodity Market 18.244 0.000 Significant
2 Mutual Fund 9.786 0.002 Significant
3 Gold / Jewellery 0.769 0.465 Not Significant
4 Real Estate / House Property 9.497 0.002 Significant
5 Life Insurance Policies 10.296 0.001 Significant
6 Bank Deposit 0.041 0.839 Not Significant
7 Post Office savings 1.585 0.208 Not Significant
8 Government Bonds 3.770 0.050 Significant
Source: Computed Data

The findings derive partial support with the results of Ganga Bavani et al (2017).

4.3.2 Association of Age with awareness of Investment Avenues

Following table would reveal the association between age and the awareness of various
investment avenues.
Ho: There is no significant association between the variables. Age is not significantly
associated with Investment avenues
H1: There is significant association between the variables. Age is significantly associated
with Investment avenues
 144

Table 4.3.2 showing chi-square values – Age with awareness of investment avenues

S No Investment Avenue Chi-square P - Values Significance

Values
1 Equity / Commodity Market 18.064 0.000 Significant
2 Mutual Fund 16.131 0.001 Significant
3 Gold / Jewellery 13.174 0.004 Significant
4 Real Estate / House Property 10.119 0.018 Significant
5 Life Insurance Policies 3.348 0.341 Not Significant
6 Bank Deposit 3.678 0.298 Not Significant
7 Post Office savings 18.259 0.000 Significant
8 Government Bonds 7.718 0.052 Not significant
Source: Computed Data

It can be seen from the above table, that null hypothesis is rejected in the case of four
investment avenues namely Equity /Commodity, Mutual Fund, Gold /Jewellery, Real Estate /
House Property and Post Office savings. It can be concluded that Age has significant
influence on these investment avenues.
It is evident from the above table that the null hypothesis is accepted in three avenues namely
Life Insurance policies Bank Deposits and Government Bonds. In all other avenues the
hypothesis is accepted. It is concluded the Age has no significant influence on the avenues
Life Insurance policies, Bank Deposits and Government Bonds.
The findings are partially in agreement with the results of Ganga Bavani et al (2017).

4.3.3 Association of Educational Qualification with awareness of Investment Avenues

Following table would reveal the association between educational qualification and the
awareness of various investment avenues.
Ho: Educational qualification is not significantly associated with Investment avenues
H1: Educational qualification is significantly associated with Investment avenues
 145

Table 4.3.3 showing chi-square values - Educational qualification with awareness of

investment avenues
S No Investment Avenue Chi-square P - Values Significance
Values
1 Equity / Commodity Market 53.400 0.000 Significant
2 Mutual Fund 51.917 0.000 Significant
3 Gold / Jewellery 24.598 0.000 Significant
4 Real Estate / House Property 22.913 0.000 Significant
5 Life Insurance Policies 10.035 0.018 Significant
6 Bank Deposit 40.216 0.000 Significant
7 Post Office savings 34.036 0.000 Significant
8 Government Bonds 28.327 0.000 Significant
Source: Computed Data

It is evident from the above table that for all Investment avenues the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded the Educational qualification has significant influence on the
avenues.

4.3.4 Association of Designation with awareness of Investment Avenues

Following table would reveal the association between Designation and the awareness of
various investment avenues.
Ho: Designation is not significantly associated with Investment avenues
H1: Designation is significantly associated with Investment avenues

Table 4.3.4 showing chi-square values - Designation with awareness of investment

avenues
S No Investment Avenue Chi-square P - Values Significance
Values
1 Equity / Commodity Market 32.287 0.000 Significant
2 Mutual Fund 29.338 0.000 Significant
3 Gold / Jewellery 5.960 0.428 Not Significant
 146

S No Investment Avenue Chi-square P - Values Significance

Values
4 Real Estate / House Property 15.542 0.016 Significant
5 Life Insurance Policies 7.693 0.261 Not Significant
6 Bank Deposit 2.990 0.810 Not Significant
7 Post Office savings 11.094 0.086 Not Significant
8 Government Bonds 16.930 0.010 Significant
Source: Computed Data

It could be seen from the above table that the null hypothesis is rejected in four investment
avenues namely, Equity / Commodity Market, Mutual Fund, Real Estate / House property
and Government bonds. It can be concluded that there is significant association between
designation and awareness of investment avenues.
It is evident from the above table that the null hypothesis is accepted in four avenues namely
Gold / jewellery, Life Insurance policies, Bank Deposit and Post Office savings. It is
concluded the designation has no significant influence on the avenues Gold / Jewellery, Life
Insurance policies, Post Office savings and Bank Deposits.

4.3.5 Association of Annual Investment with awareness of Investment Avenues

Following table would reveal the association between annual Investment and the awareness
of various investment avenues.

Ho: Annual Investment is not significantly associated with Investment avenues.

H1: Annual Investment is significantly associated with Investment avenues.

Table 4.3.5 showing chi-square values – Annual Investment with awareness of

investment avenues
S No Investment Avenue Chi-square P - Values Significance
Values
1 Equity / Commodity Market 19.914 0.001 Significant
2 Mutual Fund 12.327 0.015 Significant
3 Gold / Jewellery 5.896 0.207 Not Significant
 147

S No Investment Avenue Chi-square P - Values Significance

Values
4 Real Estate / House Property 16.746 0.002 Significant
5 Life Insurance Policies 7.293 0.121 Not Significant
6 Bank Deposit 11.548 0.021 Significant
7 Post Office savings 7.652 0.105 Not Significant
8 Government Bonds 17.627 0.001 Significant
Source: Computed Data

It is concluded from the above table that the null hypothesis is rejected in five investment
avenues namely, Equity /Commodity market, Mutual Fund, Real Estate /House property and
Government Bonds. It is concluded that there is significant association between annual
investment and the mentioned investment avenues.
It is evident from the above table that the null hypothesis is accepted in three avenues
namely, Gold/ Jewellery, Life Insurance policies and Post Office savings. It is concluded the
Annual Investment has no significant influence on the avenues Gold / Jewellery, Life
Insurance policies and Post Office savings.

4.4 Factors considered for Investment - Investor’s perception towards risk, safety
returns, satisfaction and potential growth
Investments are made with an objective for a specified purpose and for a specific period.
Investors would be expecting to earn reasonable return from their investment. Fulfillment of
their objective with the expected return would lead to satisfaction of the investor.

4.4.1 Association between Demographic factors and expected returns

Expected return from the investment differs according to the investment avenues and the
perception towards investment objectives of the respondents. Following table would reveal
the association between various demographic factors and the expected returns of the
investors.

Ho: There is no significant association between demographic variables and expected rate of
return from the investment.
 148

4.4.1 Table showing association of Demographic factors and expected return

S No Demographic variable Chi-square P - Values Significance
Values
1 Age 50.818 0.000 Significant
2 Gender 4.042 0.400 Not Significant
3 Marital Status 17.964 0.001 Significant
4 Educational Qualification 37.620 0.000 Significant
5 Designation 56.475 0.000 Significant
6 Family type 2.607 0.626 Not significant
Source: Computed Data

It is evident from the above table that the null hypothesis is accepted in the case of Gender
and family type. In all other demographic variables it is rejected. It is concluded the gender
and family type has no significant influence on the expected returns from the investments.
Age, Marital status, educational qualification and designation has significant influence on the
expected returns from the investment.

4.4.2 Association between Demographic factors and Satisfaction

Satisfaction depends on the return on investment by the investors. Following table would
reveal the association between the demographic factors and the satisfaction of the investors.
Ho: There is no significant association between demographic variables and expected rate of
return from the investment.

Table 4.4.2 showing association of demographic factors and satisfaction

S No Demographic variable Chi-square P - Values Significance
Values
1 Age 27.698 0.006 Significant
2 Gender 0.245 0.993 Not Significant
3 Marital Status 17.741 0.001 Significant
4 Educational Qualification 59.785 0.000 Significant
5 Designation 48.527 0.002 Significant
 149

S No Demographic variable Chi-square P - Values Significance

Values
6 Family type 5.199 0.267 Not significant
Source: Computed Data

It is evident from the above table that the null hypothesis is accepted in the case of Gender
and family type. It is concluded the gender and Family type has no significant influence on
the satisfaction from the investments. In all other demographic variables null hypothesis it is
rejected. It is concluded that Age, marital status, educational qualification and designation
has significant influence on the satisfaction from the investments.

4.4.3 Analysis of Risk and Return

The meaning of risk can vary. For some it may mean the probability of losing a portion of
their investment due to market actions or a poor decision. Generally risk can be viewed as the
chance of failure in achieving goals or objectives. Risk and return are closely associated. In
general, the higher the degree of risk associated with an investment, the higher the return
required by the investors to accept this risk. Lower risk investments offer relatively low
returns as a reflection of their greater security. This is called the risk/ return trade off. Risk
and return is the correlation between the amount of return gained on an investment and the
amount of risk involved in that investment. Generally higher the risk higher will be the
return. The investors have rated the risk and return perception on a 5 points scale ranging
from Very High to Very Low against all the investment avenues. Weighted Average analysis
has been carried out based on the rating given by the investors.

4.4.3.1 Risk associated with various investment avenues

Investment avenues have inherent risk involved in them. Generally investors prefer to invest
in those avenues where the risk is less. They do not prefer for high risk instruments.
Following tables will reveal the investors perception towards risk and return on various
investment avenues.

From the table below, it is evident that Investment in equity and commodity has the highest
risk followed by Mutual Funds. The third position has been taken by Real Estate / House
 150

Property and fourth position by Gold / Jewellery. Investors have preferred lesser risk in the
order for Life Insurance policies, Bank Deposits, Government Bonds and lastly Post Office
savings / investments.

Table 4.4.3 showing the Weighted Average Risk for various Investment Avenues
Risk Weight 5 4 3 2 1 Risk
Mean
Investment weighted Rank
Score
Avenues Score
Equity /
Commodity 515 181 47 5 2 3452 230.13 1
Mutual Fund 230 308 188 23 1 2993 199.53 2
Gold /Jewellery 26 227 260 173 64 2228 148.53 4
Real Estate / House
Property 80 248 282 89 51 2467 164.47 3
Life Insurance
Policies 11 40 256 286 157 1712 114.13 5
Bank Deposits 3 14 126 281 326 1337 89.13 6
Post Office
Investment 2 6 67 265 410 1175 78.33 8
Government Bonds 3 11 73 242 421 1183 78.87 7
Source: Computed Data

4.4.3.2 Perception of Investors on return on various investment avenues

Investors expect good return from various investment avenues in which they have invested.
Their perception towards the return on investment is calculated based on the weighted
average method. Following tables would provide the return on various investment avenues.

From the table below, it is evident that Investment in equity and commodity has the highest
risk followed by Mutual Funds. The third position has been taken by Real Estate / House
Property and fourth position by Gold / Jewellery. Investors had preferred lesser risk in the
 151

order for Life Insurance policies, Bank Deposits, Post Office savings /investments and lastly
Government Bonds.

Table 4.4.4 showing the Weighted Average Return for various Investment Avenues
Risk Weight 5 4 3 2 1 Risk
Mean
Investment weighted Rank
Score
Avenues Score
Equity /
360 239 111 36 4 3165 211.00 1
Commodity
Mutual Fund 180 328 203 36 3 2896 193.07 2
Gold /Jewellery 74 296 339 37 4 2649 176.60 4
Real Estate /
139 315 257 31 8 2796 186.40 3
House property
Life Insurance
19 77 402 194 58 2055 137.00 5
Policies
Bank Deposits 23 53 320 300 54 1941 129.40 6
Post Office
16 61 249 325 99 1820 121.33 7
Investment
Government
12 51 259 253 175 1722 114.80 8
Bonds
Source: Computed Data

4.4.3.3 Correlation between Risk and Return between Investment Avenues

Generally risk and return are related. Higher the risk, higher would be the return is the
accepted statement. Following table provides the correlation between risk and return and its
significance.
H0: There is no significant correlation between risk and return among the investment
avenues.
H1: There is significant correlation between risk and return among the investment avenues.
 152

From the below table it is evident that correlation is positive in all the investment avenues
and significant except for Real Estate / House Property where the risk and return are
negatively correlated and insignificant.

Table 4.4.5 showing the correlation between risk and return among the Investment
avenues
N Correlation Sig.
Equity / Commodity Risk & Equity /
Pair 1 750 .344** .000
Commodity Return
Mutual Fund Risk &
Pair 2 750 .378** .000
Mutual Fund Return
Gold / Jewellery Risk &
Pair 3 750 .169** .000
Gold / Jewellery Return
Real Estate / House Property Risk &
Pair 4 750 -.050 .168
Real Estate / House Property Return
Life Insurance policies Risk &
Pair 5 750 .225** .000
Life Insurance Policies Return
Bank Deposits Risk &
Pair 6 750 .141** .000
Bank Deposits Return
Post Office Investment Risk &
Pair 7 750 .109** .003
Post Office Investment Return
Government Bonds Risk &
Pair 8 750 .317** .000
Government Bonds Return
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

4.4.4 Perception of Investors on safety of various investment avenues

Investors prefer safety of the instrument and at the same time expect good return from
various investment avenues in which they have invested. Their perception towards safety of
investment is calculated based on the weighted average method. Following tables would
provide the perception on safety of the instrument on various investment avenues.
 153

From the table below, it is evident that Post office deposits are the safest investment avenue
as their first choice followed by Government Bonds. The third and fourth ranks on safety
were taken by Bank Deposits and Life Insurance policies. Gold /Jewellery and Real Estate /
House property has taken the fifth and sixth rank respectively. The last two positions were
taken by Mutual Fund and Equity / Commodity Market based on the safety of the
instruments.
Table 4.4.6 showing the Weighted Average Safety of various Investment Avenues
Risk Weight Risk
Mean
Investment 5 4 3 2 1 weighted Rank
Score
Avenues Score
Equity /
Commodity 20 20 114 203 393 1321 88.07 8

Mutual Fund 10 39 234 282 185 1657 110.47 7

Gold /Jewellery 79 173 258 212 28 2313 154.20 5

Real Estate /
House property 63 121 353 167 46 2238 149.20 6

Life Insurance
Policies 165 292 245 35 13 2811 187.40 4

Bank Deposits 322 313 86 16 13 3165 211.00 3

Post Office
Investment 422 258 44 9 17 3309 220.60 1

Government
Bonds 437 212 78 9 14 3299 219.93 2

Source: Computed Data

4.4.5 Investors Perception on Potential Growth of Investment
Investors have ranked the investment based on their perception towards potential growth of
the investments. In this study, eight investment avenues have been ranked by them
accordingly to their preference on growth potential. Following analysis would reveal the
results based on the Garrett Ranking Techniques.
 154

Table 4.4.7 showing investors perception on potential growth of various Investment Avenues
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean
Total Rank
Garrett Value 80 67 60 53 47 40 32 20 Value
F 258 135 65 61 34 45 42 110
Equity /
43760 58.347 II
Commodity fx 20640 9045 3900 3233 1598 1800 1344 2200
F 137 246 117 71 39 32 89 19
Mutual Fund 44566 59.421 I
fx 10960 16482 7020 3763 1833 1280 2848 380
F 108 140 183 130 49 67 44 29
Gold / Jewellery 42861 57.148 III
fx 8640 9380 10980 6890 2303 2680 1408 580
F 150 90 145 151 68 48 46 52
Real Estate /
42361 56.481 IV
House Property fx 12000 6030 8700 8003 3196 1920 1472 1040
F 31 46 67 116 181 130 65 114
Life Insurance
33797 45.063 VI
Policies fx 2480 3082 4020 6148 8507 5200 2080 2280
F 41 44 95 106 174 177 83 30
Bank
36060 48.080 V
Deposits fx 3280 2948 5700 5618 8178 7080 2656 600
F 14 35 46 67 124 155 258 51
Post Office
31080 41.440 VII
Investment fx 1120 2345 2760 3551 5828 6200 8256 1020
F 11 14 32 48 81 96 123 345
Government
24765 33.020 VIII
Bonds fx 880 938 1920 2544 3807 3840 3936 6900
Source: Computed Data
 155

From the above table 4.4.7, it could be seen that the investors are of the opinion that Mutual
Funds has the highest potential growth on the first position followed by Equity / Commodity
Market. Gold / Jewellery and Real Estate / House Property has obtained the third and fourth
rank on the potential growth opinion of the investors. As far as growth potential is concerned
Bank Deposits and Life Insurance policies has taken fifth and sixth position. Post Office
savings and Government Bonds have taken the last two position with lowest growth potential
investment avenues.

4.4.6 Investors perception towards current and proposed Investment

Investors have ranked the investment avenues based on their investment amount and
proposed investments. In this study, eight investment avenues have been ranked by them
accordingly to their investments made and proposed to be invested in future. Following
analysis would reveal the results based on the Garrett Ranking Techniques.
 156

Table 4.4.8 showing current investment made and proposed investment on various Investment Avenues
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean
Total Rank
Garrett Value 80 67 60 53 47 40 32 20 Value
F 49 43 39 70 73 76 107 293
Equity / 28606 38.141 VII
Commodity fx 3920 2881 2340 3710 3431 3040 3424 5860

F 88 72 101 94 95 101 158 41

Mutual Fund 37287 49.716 V
fx 7040 4824 6060 4982 4465 4040 5056 820

F 116 153 139 108 107 76 35 16

Gold / Jewellery 43104 57.472 II
fx 9280 10251 8340 5724 5029 3040 1120 320

F 100 78 80 95 97 126 103 71

Real Estate / 37376 49.835 IV
House Property fx 8000 5226 4800 5035 4559 5040 3296 1420

F 133 147 125 112 96 64 41 32

Life Insurance 42949 57.265 III
Policies fx 10640 9849 7500 5936 4512 2560 1312 640

F 227 157 98 106 68 68 11 15

Bank 46745 62.327 I
Deposits fx 18160 10519 5880 5618 3196 2720 352 300

F 20 90 123 82 130 113 166 26

Post Office 35818 47.757 VI
Investment fx 1600 6030 7380 4346 6110 4520 5312 520

F 17 10 45 83 84 126 129 256

Government 27365 36.487 VIII
Bonds fx 1360 670 2700 4399 3948 5040 4128 5120
Source: Computed Data
 157

From the above table 4.4.8, it could be seen that the bank employees making their investment
in Bank deposits and followed by Gold and jewellery. Life Insurance policies and Real
Estate has taken third and fourth position in investment. Fifth and sixth positions were taken
by Mutual funds and post office investment. Equity / Commodity market and Government
bonds has taken the last two position in their investment.

4.5 Motivational Factors – Friedman Rank Analysis

Friedman rank analysis has been carried out to access the perception on source of
information among the public sector and private sector bank employees. Table 4.5.1 below
shows the information about the perception on the source of information along with the mean
ranking.

4.5.1 Table showing the mean rank of Source of Information considered by the
respondents for making investment

Source of Information Mean Score Rank

Friends / Colleagues 3.63 I
Internet/Websites / What’s app 5.07 VII
Financial News / Annual Reports 4.24 III
Market Reference 4.86 V
Financial Advisors 4.76 IV
Family Members 3.85 II
Newspaper /Magazines 5.06 VI
Radio /TV Advertisement 6.33 VIII
Leaflet / Phone calls / Sign Boards 7.20 IX
Source: Computed Data
 158

4.5.2 Table showing the significant difference of Source of information considered by

the respondents for selecting the investment Avenues

Friedman Test Statisticsa

N 750
Chi-Square 1043.922
Df 8
Asymp. Sig. .000
Source: Computed Data

From the Table 4.6.1, it could be ascertained that source of information towards investment
avenues is prioritized as Friends / Colleagues (3.63), Family members (3.85) has taken the
second rank, Financial News / Annual reports (4.24) and Market Reference (4.86) has
obtained the third and fourth ranks, Market reference (4.86), Newspaper / Magazines (5.06),
Internet / Websites / what’s app (5.07), Radio / TV Advertisement (6.33) and Leaflet / Phone
calls / Sign boards (7.20) has taken the next ranks by the respondents as source of
information.

Table shows the significant difference of various source of information considered by the
respondents for selecting the investment avenues. The table shows that there is significant
difference between various sources of information considered by the respondents at 1 %
level.

Table 4.5.3 above reveals the Garrett ranking results for the source of motivational factors of
the respondents. It is evident that Friends / Colleagues have been ranked as first motivational
factor followed by family members taking the second position. Third and fourth positions
were taken by Financial News / Annual reports and financial advisors respectively. Market
reference and Newspapers /Magazines have taken the fifth and sixth ranks chosen by the
investors. Internet/Websites / what’s app has taken the seventh position and the last two
 159

positions were taken by Radio /TV Advertisement and Leaflet / Phone calls / Sign Boards
respectively.
The above results are partially in agreement with the reports of Balamurugan et al (2017),
Apparao et al (2015) Shanthi et al (2016) and contradict the results of Parimakalanthi et al
(2015).
 160

4.5.3 Table showing the preference on Source of Information by the respondents for making investment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean
Total Rank
Garrett Value 81 69 62 56 50 44 38 31 19 Value

Friends / F 239 110 67 75 66 64 35 39 55

45003 60.004 I
Colleagues fx 19359 7590 4154 4200 3300 2816 1330 1209 1045
Internet/Websites F 32 68 108 120 116 89 83 73 61
36992 49.323 VII
/ What’s app fx 2592 4692 6696 6720 5800 3916 3154 2263 1159
Financial News / F 92 101 136 110 83 73 80 47 28
41404 55.205 III
Annual Reports fx 7452 6969 8432 6160 4150 3212 3040 1457 532
Market F 54 110 100 80 101 84 81 86 54
38160 50.880 V
Reference fx 4374 7590 6200 4480 5050 3696 3078 2666 1026
Financial F 78 128 93 61 80 91 70 65 84
38607 51.476 IV
Advisors fx 6318 8832 5766 3416 4000 4004 2660 2015 1596
Family F 172 130 102 87 48 66 42 56 47
43627 58.169 II
Members fx 13932 8970 6324 4872 2400 2904 1596 1736 893
Newspaper / F 59 58 91 89 98 114 143 65 33
37399 49.865 VI
Magazines fx 4779 4002 5642 4984 4900 5016 5434 2015 627
Radio /TV F 10 33 32 82 94 97 111 200 91
30778 41.037 VIII
Advertisement fx 810 2277 1984 4592 4700 4268 4218 6200 1729
Leaflet / Phone F 14 12 21 46 64 72 105 119 297
calls / Sign 25530 34.040 IX
Boards Fx 1134 828 1302 2576 3200 3168 3990 3689 5643
Source: Computed Data
 161

4.6 Decision making for satisfaction

The demographic variables of the respondents along with their investment preferences,
investment objectives and time horizon have been analyzed in the previous section. The need
of the study now is to determine the important factors influencing the investor’s behaviour
towards their investment, since these factors play a vital role in determining the behaviour of
the investors. In this study, investment factors such as Investment Belief, Attitude, Investor’s
behaviour, Risk attitude are considered independent factors and the impact on these factors
on decision making has been analysed.

In order to determine the influence of the above mentioned factors, the proposed research
model has been tested for its goodness of fit to the data and consequently the model will
enable the investors to understand the investment psychology. The determinants of
investment behaviour were extracted using Factor Analysis.

Measurement Model
4.6.1 Investment Belief
Factor Analysis technique is used to reduce the more number of variables into lesser numbers
of factors. In this instance, all the 15 factors given in the questionnaire relating to Investment
belief were considered for factor analysis.

Table 4.6.1.1 showing KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .835
Approx. Chi-Square 2673.005
Bartlett's Test of
Df 105
Sphericity
Sig. .000
Source: Computed Data

Above table indicates the KMO measures of sampling adequacy as 0.835 which is greater
than 0.5 indicating the factor analysis can be used for the set of data given. Bartlett’s test of
sphericity for testing the significance of the correlation of the variables indicates that the co-
 162

efficient matrix is significant as p value is 0.000 and is less than 0.05, which indicates that
there exist significant relationships among the set of variables considered for factor analysis.

Table 4.6.1.2 showing Communalities

Initial Extraction
B1. I am responsible for my Investment 1.000 .561
B2. I plan for my future. 1.000 .708
B3. I have control over my financial requirement. 1.000 .594
B4. A long time investment horizon is a responsibility and an 1.000 .579
advantage.
B5. Long term value creation requires effective management of 1.000 .673
capital / savings.
B6. I will take risk only where I have a strong belief that I will
1.000 .512
be rewarded for it.
B7. It is important to set clear financial goals with timelines and
1.000 .422
amounts
B8. I get irritated with people who don’t plan ahead and save or
1.000 .649
invest for their own future.
B9. I am satisfied with my current financial position 1.000 .453
B10. I am confident of my ability to select financial instruments
1.000 .513
for investment
B11. I am responsible for the results of my investment decisions 1.000 .540
B12. I am confident to manage my investment. 1.000 .541
B13. I have complete knowledge of available financial 1.000 .595
instruments.
B14. I feel secured and confident because of my investments. 1.000 .539
B15.I work on my own ideas without depending on others in
1.000 .430
investment planning.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Source: Computed Data
Communalities mean the proportion of variance due to common factors and shared by
several items. Communalities indicate the amount of variance in each variable that is
accounted for. Initial communalities help estimates of the variance in each variable
 163

accounted for by all components or factors that is unique to each variables, this uniqueness is
calculated by total variance explained by that variable minus the communality of that
variable.

The total variance explained table displays the total variance, percentage variance and
cumulative percentage variance for both unrotated and rotated components. The total
variance accounted, for by all the four factors with Eigen value greater than 1 is 55.40
percent and the remaining variance is explained by other variables. Among the four factors,
the first factor accounts for around 19.90 % of variance which is the prime criteria considered
by any investor while evaluating an investment instrument. The second factor accounts for
15.20 %, third factor 12.92% and the fourth factor 7.55% of the variable which are to be
considered by the investors.
 164

Table 4.6.1.3 showing Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings Loadings
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance % Variance %
1 4.296 28.642 28.642 4.296 28.642 28.642 2.986 19.907 19.907
2 1.797 11.977 40.619 1.797 11.977 40.619 2.253 15.021 34.928
3 1.158 7.723 48.342 1.158 7.723 48.342 1.939 12.923 47.852
4 1.060 7.066 55.408 1.060 7.066 55.408 1.133 7.556 55.408
5 .885 5.899 61.307
6 .781 5.209 66.516
7 .738 4.922 71.438
8 .713 4.752 76.190
9 .643 4.286 80.476
10 .597 3.978 84.454
11 .577 3.847 88.301
12 .508 3.390 91.691
13 .475 3.170 94.861
14 .391 2.608 97.469
15 .380 2.531 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Source: Computed Data
 165

Table 4.6.1.4 showing Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4
B13. I have complete knowledge of available financial
.758
instruments.
B14. I feel secured and confident because of my
.693
investments.
B10. I am confident of my ability to select financial
.679
instruments for investment
B15. I work on my own ideas without depending on others
.643
in investment planning.
B9. I am satisfied with my current financial position .601
B12. I am confident to manage my investment. .587
B5. Long term value creation requires effective
.810
management of capital / savings.
B4. A long time investment horizon is a responsibility and
.717
an advantage.
B6. I will take risk only where I have a strong belief that I
.661
will be rewarded for it.
B7. It is important to set clear financial goals with timelines
.613
and amounts
B2. I plan for my future. .803
B3. I have control over my financial requirement. .718
B1. I am responsible for my Investment .686
B8. I get irritated with people who don’t plan ahead and .761
save or invest for their own future.
B11. I am responsible for the results of my investment -.530
decisions
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Source: Computed Data
 166

Table 4.6.1.4 shows the rotated component matrix, in which the extracted factors are
assigning a new naming related together. Factor one is the most important factor which
accounted for 19.907% of the variance where six items loaded on this factor. The variables
are (i) I have complete knowledge of available financial instruments. (B13 – 0.758) (ii) I feel
secured and confident because of my investments. (B14 – 0.693) (iii) I am confident of my
ability to select financial instruments for investment. (B12- 0.679) (iv) I work on my own
ideas without depending on others in investment planning.(B15 – 0.643) (v) I am satisfied
with my current financial position. (B9 – 0.601) and (vi) I am confident to manage my
investment. (B12 – 0.587) are highly correlated with each other.

From the above statements, it is clearly indicated that the investor has complete knowledge
on the financial instruments and confident on his ability to satisfy his financial requirements
on his own ideas without depending on others on planning. Hence this segment of investment
belief is named as Investors Confidence.

Factor two is the next important factor accounted for 15.021% of the variances where four
items loaded on this factor. The variables are (i) Long term value creation requires effective
management of capital / savings. (B5-0.810) (ii) A long time investment horizon is a
responsibility and an advantage. (B4 - 0.717) (iii) I will take risk only where I have a strong
belief that I will be rewarded for it. (B6 - 0.661) (iv) It is important to set clear financial
goals with timelines and amounts. (B7 – 0.613) and these items are highly correlated among
each other.

From these statements it is vivid that long term value creation, advantage of long term
investment horizon, risk taking ability with strong belief on reward and clear financial goals
would help the investor in achieving the objectives. Hence this segment of investment belief
is labeled as Investment foresight.

The third factor accounted for 12.923% of variances where three items are loaded on this
factor. The variables are (i) I plan for my future. (B2-0.803) (ii) I have control over my
 167

financial requirement. (B3 – 0.718) (iii) I am responsible for my investment (B1 - 0.686) and
these items are highly correlated among each other.

From these statements, it can be clearly understood that Investors himself is responsible for
planning, controlling over financial requirement. Hence this segment of investment belief can
be labeled as Investment planning.

The fourth factor accounted for 7.556% of variances where two items are loaded on this
factor. The variables are (i) I get irritated with people who don’t plan ahead and save or
invest for their own future. (B8 – 0.761) (ii) I am responsible for the results of my investment
decisions (B11 – (-0.530) and these items are highly correlated among each other.

From these statements, it is clear that Investor is responsible for the results on his investment
decision and would get irritated on person who does not plan for their future. Hence this
segment of investment belief can be labeled as irksome planning.

Table 4.6.1.5 showing Factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and
Cumulative percentage of variance
Cumulative
Factor Eigen Percentage
Factors Statements Percentage
Loading Value of Variance
of Variance
B13. I have complete knowledge of
.758
available financial instruments.
B14. I feel secured and confident
.693
because of my investments.
B10. I am confident of my ability to
I 4.296 19.907 19.907
select financial instruments for .679
investment
B15. I work on my own ideas
without depending on others in .643
investment planning.
 168

Cumulative
Factor Eigen Percentage
Factors Statements Percentage
Loading Value of Variance
of Variance
B9. I am satisfied with my current
.601
financial position
B12. I am confident to manage my
.587
investment.
B5. Long term value creation
requires effective management of .810
capital / savings.
B4. A long time investment horizon
.717
is a responsibility and an advantage.
II B6. I will take risk only where I 1.797 15.021 34.928
have a strong belief that I will be .661
rewarded for it.
B7. It is important to set clear
financial goals with timelines and .613
amounts
B2. I plan for my future. .803
B3. I have control over my financial
.718
III requirement. 1.158 12.923 47.852
B1. I am responsible for my
.686
Investment
B8. I get irritated with people who
IV don’t plan ahead and save or invest .761 1.060 7.556 55.408
for their own future.

The above analysis shows that the total composition of each factor that provides information
regarding the items that constituted these four factors with the factor loadings and eigen
values and their explained variance of each factor. The four factors accounts for 55.40% of
 169

the explained variance, which is higher than 50%. The four factor solution may also be
suggested as factors that influence the belief on investment by the investors.

4.6.2 Investment Decision making

Decision making is a cognitive process resulting in selection of a belief or a course of action

among several alternation solutions. Effective decision making is important in investment
planning. In this study, the investment decision making is done by the investors based on the
belief and selection of investment among various investment avenues available in the market.
This decision making can be done by considering various aspects such as cost-benefit
analysis, evaluate the alternate available, selection of best alternatives etc.

The table below indicates the KMO measures of sampling adequacy as 0.838 which is
greater than 0.5 indicating the factor analysis can be used for the set of data given. Bartlett’s
test of sphericity for testing the significance of the correlation of the variables indicates that
the co-efficient matrix is significant as p value is 0.000 and is less than 0.05, which indicates
that there exist significant relationships among the set of variables considered for factor
analysis.

Table 4.6.2.1 showing KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .838
Approx. Chi-Square 1546.603
Bartlett's Test of
Df 45
Sphericity
Sig. .000
Source: Computed Data

Table 4.6.2.2 showing Communalities

Initial Extraction
D1. I analyse and compare my investment 1.000 .633
D2. I make changes in my investments as needed 1.000 .630
 170

Initial Extraction
D3. My investment decisions are made based on my goals /
1.000 .417
objectives
D4. Most of my investment decisions yield positive results. 1.000 .368
D5. My Investment decisions are influenced by my family
1.000 .570
members.
D6. My Investment decisions are supported by documents,
1.000 .450
records and past performance.
D7. I have my vision and mission statements while making my
1.000 .382
investments.
D8. My Asset allocation is based on my age and goal. 1.000 .465
D9. I carry out portfolio rebalancing as and when required. 1.000 .440
D10. I consider tax component involved in investment before
1.000 .312
taking decision.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Source: Computed Data
 171

Table 4.6.2.3 showing Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Loadings
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance % Variance %
1 3.462 34.618 34.618 3.462 34.618 34.618 2.633 26.331 26.331
2 1.205 12.046 46.664 1.205 12.046 46.664 2.033 20.333 46.664
3 .893 8.933 55.596
4 .870 8.699 64.295
5 .781 7.813 72.108
6 .693 6.926 79.034
7 .602 6.023 85.058
8 .561 5.605 90.663
9 .545 5.455 96.117
10 .388 3.883 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Source: Computed Data
 172

The total variance explained table displays the total variance, percentage variance and
cumulative percentage variance for both un-rotated and rotated components. The total
variance accounted, for by all the four factors with Eigen value greater than 1 is 46.66
percent and the remaining variance is explained by other variables. Among the two factors,
the first factor accounts for around 26.33 percent and the second factor accounts for 20.33
percent of variance which is the prime criteria considered by any investor while evaluating an
investment instrument.

Table 4.6.2.4 showing Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2
D1. I analyse and compare my investment .793
D2. I make changes in my investments as needed .790
D3. My investment decisions are made based on my goals /
.604
objectives
D9. I carry out portfolio rebalancing as and when required. .588
D5. My Investment decisions are influenced by my family
.711
members.
D6. My Investment decisions are supported by documents,
.646
records and past performance.
D8. My Asset allocation is based on my age and goal. .450 .513
D4. Most of my investment decisions yield positive results. .501
D10. I consider tax component involved in investment before
.473
taking decision.
D7. I have my vision and mission statements while making my
.404 .468
investments.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Source: Computed Data

Table 4.6.2.4 shows the rotated component matrix, in which the extracted factors are new
names related together. Factor one is the most important factor which accounted for 26.33%
 173

of the variance where four items loaded on this factor. The variables are (i) I analyze and
compare my investment. (D1-0.793) (ii) I make changes in my investments as needed. (D2-
0.790) (iii) My investment decisions are made based on my goals / objectives. (D3 – 0.604)
(iv) I carry out portfolio rebalancing as and when required. (D9-0.588) and these items are
highly correlated among each other.

From the above statements, it can be ascertained that Investor need to analyze and compare
the advantages and disadvantages of the investment, to adjust the plan according to his need,
always move towards achievement of the objectives and goals and to rebalance the portfolio
as and when required. Hence this segment is named as Self Decision.

Factor two is the next important factor accounted for 20.33% of the variances where four
items loaded on this factor. The variables are (i) My Investment decisions are influenced by
my family members. (D5-0.711) (ii) My Investment decisions are supported by documents,
records and past performance. (D6-0.646) (iii) My Asset allocation is based on my age and
goal. (D8-0.513) (iv) Most of my investment decisions yield positive results. (D4 -0.501) and
these items are highly correlated among each other.

From the information above it can be decided that investors decision making are influenced
by family members, supporting documents such as past performance and records, it also
considers age and gold into account and in general the decision yield positive results. Hence
this set of statement can be named as Supportive Decision.

The table 4.6.2.5 below shows that the total composition of each factor that provides
information regarding the items that constituted these two factors with the factor loadings
and eigen values and their explained variance of each factor. The two factors accounts for
46.66% of the explained variance, which is higher than 45%. The two factor solution may
also be suggested as factors that influence the Decision making on investment by the
investors.
 174

Table 4.6.2.5 showing Factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and
Cumulative percentage of variance
Percentage Cumulative
Factor Eigen
Factors Statements of Percentage
Loading Value
Variance of Variance
D1. I analyse and compare my
.793
investment
D2. I make changes in my
.790
investments as needed
I 3.462 26.331 26.331
D3. My investment decisions are
made based on my goals / .604
objectives
D9. I carry out portfolio
.588
rebalancing as and when required.
D5. My Investment decisions are
influenced by my family .711
members.
D6. My Investment decisions are
supported by documents, records .646
II and past performance. 1.205 20.333 46.664
D8. My Asset allocation is based
.513
on my age and goal.
D4. Most of my investment
.501
decisions yield positive results.

4.6.3 Investment Behaviour

Investment behaviour is the ability of the investor’s to predict, judge analyze and review the
procedures for decision making and selecting the best alternative investment avenues.
 175

Table 4.6.3.1 showing KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .658
Approx. Chi-Square 659.929
Bartlett's Test of
Df 28
Sphericity
Sig. .000
Source: Computed Data
High value of KMO (0.658 > 0.05) of indicates that a factor analysis is useful for the present
data. The significant value for Bartlett’s test of sphericity is 0.000 and is less than 0.05 which
indicates that there exist significant relationships among the variables. The resultant value of
KMO test and Bartlett’s indicates that the present data is use for factor analysis.

Table 4.6.3.2 showing Communalities

Initial Extraction
IB1. I always use predictive skills to time and outperform the
1.000 .516
investment
IB2. I usually base on the purchase price of assets as a reference
1.000 .465
point in investment
IB3. My investment is usually determined by past experiences 1.000 .547
IB4. I usually consider public information / news when making
1.000 .517
decisions
IB5. I usually invest based on future expectations rather than past
1.000 .544
performance.
IB6. I often prefer to invest on a short term horizon than long term 1.000 .621
IB7. I often blindly imitate decisions of others when making
1.000 .752
investment decisions
IB8. I often consider the information that majority of investors
1.000 .646
focus on as a basis of investment
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Source: Computed Data
 176

Table 4.6.3.3 showing Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings Loadings
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance % Variance %
1 2.186 27.325 27.325 2.186 27.325 27.325 1.665 20.807 20.807
2 1.396 17.452 44.777 1.396 17.452 44.777 1.544 19.305 40.112
3 1.025 12.815 57.591 1.025 12.815 57.591 1.398 17.479 57.591
4 .816 10.199 67.790
5 .782 9.771 77.562
6 .700 8.750 86.312
7 .614 7.674 93.986
8 .481 6.014 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Source: Computed Data
 177

Table 4.6.3.4 showing Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3
IB3.My investment is usually determined by past
experiences .723

IB2.I usually base on the purchase price of assets as a

reference point in investment .665

IB1.I always use predictive skills to time and outperform

the investment .632

IB7.I often blindly imitate decisions of others when

making investment decisions .867

IB8.I often consider the information that majority of

investors focus on as a basis of investment .786

IB6.I often prefer to invest on a short term horizon than

long term .784

IB5.I usually invest based on future expectations rather

than past performance. .701

IB4.I usually consider public information / news when

making decisions .486 .520

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Source: Computed Data

Table 4.6.3.5 shows the rotated component matrix, in which the extracted factors are
assigning a new naming related together. Factor one is the most important factor which
accounted for 20.81% of the variance where three items loaded on this factor. The variables
are (i) My investment is usually determined by past experiences (IB3 – 0.723) (ii) I usually
base on the purchase price of assets as a reference point in investment. (IB2 – 0.665) (iii) I
always use predictive skills to time and outperform the investment. (IB1 – 0.632) and these
items are highly correlated among each other.
 178

From the above statements, it can be ascertained that investors consider their past experience
for the purchase of instruments and always use predictive skills to time and outperform the
investment. Hence this set of variables can be named as Investing Behaviour

The second factor accounts for 19.31% of the variance where two items are loaded on this
factor. The variables are (i) I often blindly imitate decisions of others when making
investment decisions. (IB7 – 0.867) (ii) I often consider the information that majority of
investors focus on as a basis of investment. (IB8 – 0.786) and these two items are highly
correlated among each other.

From the above, it can be inferred that investors consider the decision taken by other and the
information that majority decision prevails. Hence this segment of behaviour can be named
as Speculative Behaviour.

The third factor accounts for 17.48% of the variance where three items are loaded on this
factor. The variables are (i) I often prefer to invest on a short term horizon than long term.
(IB7 – 0.784) (ii) I usually invest based on future expectations rather than past performance.
(IB5 – 0.701) (iii) I usually consider public information / news when making decisions. (IB4
– 0.520) and these three items are highly correlated among each other.

From these statements, it can be ascertained that the investor who prefer for short term period
and investment are decided based on the future expectations and the news and public
information were considered for making decision. Such segment of investor’s behaviour can
named as Reference Behaviour.

The table 4.6.3.5 below shows that the total composition of each factor that provides
information regarding the items that constituted these three factors with the factor loadings
and eigen values and their explained variance of each factor. The three factors accounts for
57.59% of the explained variance, which is higher than 50%. The three factor solution may
also be suggested as factors that influence the investor’s behaviour towards investment.
 179

Table 4.6.3.5 showing Factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and
Cumulative percentage of variance
Cumulative
Factor Eigen Percentage
Factors Statements Percentage of
Loading Value of Variance
Variance
IB3.My investment is usually
determined by past experiences .723

IB2.I usually base on the

purchase price of assets as a .665
I 2.186 20.807 20.807
reference point in investment
IB1.I always use predictive
skills to time and outperform .632
the investment
IB7.I often blindly imitate
decisions of others when .867
making investment decisions
II IB8.I often consider the 1.396 19.305 40.112
information that majority of
investors focus on as a basis of .786

investment
IB6.I often prefer to invest on
a short term horizon than long .784
term
IB5.I usually invest based on
III future expectations rather than .701 1.025 17.479 57.591
past performance.
IB4.I usually consider public
information / news when .520
making decisions
 180

4.6.4 Risk Attitude perceived by the respondents

Risk is defined as an uncertainty that could have an optimistic or pessimistic effect on one or
more objectives and attitude is defined as a state of mind with regard to a fact. Combining the
two, risk attitude as a state of mind with regard to those uncertainties that could have an
optimistic or pessimistic effect on the objectives.

Table 4.6.4.1 showing KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .738
Approx. Chi-Square 1001.633
Bartlett's Test of
Df 36
Sphericity
Sig. .000
Source: Computed Data

Above table 4.6.5.2 indicates the KMO measures of sampling adequacy as 0.738 which is
greater than 0.5 indicating the factor analysis can be used for the set of data given. Bartlett’s
test of sphericity for testing the significance of the correlation of the variables indicates that
the co-efficient matrix is significant as p value is 0.000 and is less than 0.05, which indicates
that there exist significant relationships among the set of variables considered for factor
analysis.

Table 4.6.4.2 showing Communalities

Initial Extraction
R1.I usually have fear to invest that has a sure gain 1.000 .736
R2.I am cautious about investment for sudden change in
1.000 .589
value.
R3.I usually have a worry in investment that had a past
1.000 .571
negative performance
R4.I am always attracted to make investment 1.000 .442
R5.I can easily ascertain the expertise of the advisor
1.000 .490
offering services
 181

Initial Extraction
R6.It is always easy to determine the credibility of the 1.000 .655
investment
R7.I am usually at ease with the Investment 1.000 .598
R8.I have pre fixed % of loss tolerance level. 1.000 .400
R9.I always aim at increasing the probability of financial 1.000 .639
success.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Source: Computed Data

Communalities mean the proportion of variance due to common factors and shared by
several items. Communalities indicate the amount of variance in each variable that is
accounted for. Initial communalities help estimates of the variance in each variable
accounted for by all components or factors that is unique to each variables, this uniqueness is
calculated by total variance explained by that variable minus the communality of that
variable.
 182

Table 4.6.4.3 showing Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Loadings
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance % Variance %
1 2.653 29.483 29.483 2.653 29.483 29.483 2.316 25.734 25.734
2 1.433 15.925 45.407 1.433 15.925 45.407 1.742 19.359 45.093
3 1.032 11.472 56.879 1.032 11.472 56.879 1.061 11.786 56.879
4 .794 8.826 65.706
5 .756 8.394 74.100
6 .675 7.498 81.598
7 .638 7.089 88.687
8 .555 6.172 94.859
9 .463 5.141 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Source: Computed Data
 183

Table 4.6.4.4 showing Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3
R6.It is always easy to determine the credibility of the
.780
investment
R7.I am usually at ease with the Investment .768
R5.I can easily ascertain the expertise of the advisor
.650
offering services
R8.I have pre fixed % of loss tolerance level. .608
R3.I usually have a worry in investment that had a past
.752
negative performance
R2.I am cautious about investment for sudden change
.742
in value
R4.I am always attracted to make investment .487
R1.I usually have fear to invest that has a sure gain .403 -.727
R9.I always aim at increasing the probability of
.614
financial success.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.
Source: Computed Data

Table 4.6.4.4 shows the rotated component matrix, in which the extracted factors are
assigning a new naming related together. Factor one is the most important factor which
accounted for 25.74% of the variance where six items loaded on this factor. The variables are
(i) It is always easy to determine the credibility of the investment. (R6 - 0.780) (ii) I am
usually at ease with the Investment. (R7 – 0.768) (iii) I can easily ascertain the expertise of
the advisor offering services. (R5 – 0.650) (iv) I have pre fixed % of loss tolerance level. (R8
– 0.608) and these items are highly correlated among each other.
 184

From the above statements, the investors always determine the credibility of the investment,
ease with the investment, ascertain the expertise of the advisor services and also have
prefixed loss tolerance. Hence the segment is named as Risk Assume factors.

Factor two is the next important factor accounted for 19.36% of the variances where four
items loaded on this factor. The variables are (i) I usually have a worry in investment that had
a past negative performance. (R3 – 0.752) (ii) I am cautious about investment for sudden
change in value. (R2 – 0.742) (iii) I am always attracted to make investment. (R4 – 0.487)
(iv) I usually have fear to invest that has a sure gain. (R1 – 0.403) and these items are highly
correlated among each other.

From the statements above, it can be ascertained that investors do not invest in those
instruments with past negative performance, are cautious for any sudden changes in value.
They are attracted to make investment and have the fear also. This segment can be termed as
Cautious factors.

Factor three is the next important factor accounted for 11.79% of the variances where one
item loaded on this factor. The variable is (i) I always aim at increasing the probability of
financial success. (R9 – 0.614) and this can be termed as fear factor.

The table 4.6.4.5 below shows that the total composition of each factor that provides
information regarding the items that constituted these three factors with the factor loadings
and eigen values and their explained variance of each factor. The three factors accounts for
56.88% of the explained variance, which is higher than 50%. The three factor solution may
also be suggested as factors that influence the risk attitude of the investors.
 185

Table 4.6.4.5 showing Factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and
Cumulative percentage of variance
Cumulative
Factor Eigen Percentage
Factors Statements Percentage of
Loading Value of Variance
Variance
R6.It is always easy to determine
.780
the credibility of the investment
R7.I am usually at ease with the
.768
Investment
I R5.I can easily ascertain the 2.653 25.734 25.734
expertise of the advisor offering .650
services
R8.I have pre fixed % of loss
.608
tolerance level.
R3.I usually have a worry in
investment that had a past negative .752
performance
II R2.I am cautious about investment 1.433 19.359 45.093
.742
for sudden change in value
R4.I am always attracted to make
.487
investment
R9.I always aim at increasing the
III .614 1.032 11.786 56.879
probability of financial success.

4.6.5 Factors influencing investment

There are various factors which influence the investors in deciding their investment avenues.
In this study Liquidity, Safety, Regular Income, Appreciation, Regular Income, Tax Benefits,
Affordability, Security / Risk Coverage are considered.
 186

Table 4.6.5.1 showing the Percentage Analysis of item constructs for factor influencing
Investment
Particulars Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
F1 All my investment are 132 395 177 41 5
completely safe and expect a (17.6%) (52.6%) (23.6%) (5.6%) (0.6%)
fixed return
F2 All my investments can be 84 416 195 48 7
easily liquidated in the (11.2%) (55.5%) (26.0%) (6.4%) (0.9%)
market.
F3 My investments will provide 76 368 247 54 5
me regular income (10.1%) (49.1%) (32.9%) (7.2%) (0.7%)
F4 Investments are made as a 114 363 213 50 10
Tax planning measure. (15.2%) (48.4%) (28.4%) (6.7%) (1.3%)
F5 All my investments are risk 74 242 274 135 25
free (9.9%) (32.3%) (36.5%) (18.0%) (3.3%)
F6 My investments grow 98 396 231 24 1
substantially in value over a (13.1%) (52.8%) (30.8%) (3.2%) (0.1%)
period of time.
F7 I generally look for safer 98 414 194 33 11
investments, even if that (13.1%) (55.2%) (25.8%) (4.4%) (1.5%)
means lower returns.
F8 I always want my investments 122 383 211 31 3
to grow above the inflation (16.3%) (51.1%) (28.1%) (4.1%) (0.4%)
rate.
F9 I regularly allocate a portion 117 382 189 58 4
of my income towards (15.6%) (50.9%) (25.2%) (7.8%) (0.5%)
investment.
F10 I afford to take the risk of 50 198 221 201 80
losing my principal. (6.7%) (26.4%) (29.5%) (26.8%) (10.6%)
F11 I regularly watch my 80 409 221 33 7
 187

Particulars Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
investment for growth and (10.7%) (54.5%) (29.5%) (4.4%) (0.9%)
Return.
F12 I will withdraw my 68 297 248 112 25
investment immediately if I (9.1%) (39.6%) (33.1%) (14.9%) (3.3%)
incur a loss.
F13 I will invest at my 104 401 209 29 7
convenience (13.9%) (53.5%) (27.9%) (3.9%) (0.9%)
F14 I am willing to take 82 303 251 85 29
substantial investment risk (10.9%) (40.4%) (33.5%) (11.3%) (3.9%)
to earn substantial returns
F15 Security is considered as an 201 393 134 18 4
important aspect (26.8%) (52.4%) (17.9%) (2.4%) (0.5%)
F16 Investments help in 185 418 132 9 6
multiplying income (24.7%) (55.7%) (17.6%) (1.2%) (0.8%)

Table 4.6.5.2 showing KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .795
Approx. Chi-Square 2384.226
Bartlett's Test of
Df 120
Sphericity
Sig. .000
Source: Computed Data

High value of KMO (0.795 > 0.05) of indicates that a factor analysis is useful for the present
data. The significant value for Bartlett’s test of sphericity is 0.000 and is less than 0.05 which
indicates that there exist significant relationships among the variables. The resultant value of
KMO test and Bartlett’s indicates that the present data is use for factor analysis.
 188

Table 4.6.5.3 showing Communalities

Initial Extraction
F1. All my investment are completely safe and expect a fixed return 1.000 .581
F2. All my investments can be easily liquidated in the market. 1.000 .444
F3. My investments will provide me regular income 1.000 .487
F4. Investments are made as a Tax planning measure. 1.000 .431
F5. All my investments are risk free 1.000 .558
F6. My investments grow substantially in value over a period of
1.000 .570
time.
F7. I generally look for safer investments, even if that means lower
1.000 .499
returns.
F8. I always want my investments to grow above the inflation rate. 1.000 .462
F9. I regularly allocate a portion of my income towards investment. 1.000 .512
F10. I afford to take the risk of losing my principal. 1.000 .667
F11. I regularly watch my investment for growth and Return. 1.000 .431
F12. I will withdraw my investment immediately if I incur a loss. 1.000 .618
F13. I will invest at my convenience 1.000 .451
F14. I am willing to take substantial investment risk to earn
1.000 .503
substantial returns
F15. Security is considered as an important aspect 1.000 .601
F16. Investments help in multiplying income 1.000 .569
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Source: Computed Data

Communalities mean the proportion of variance due to common factors and shared by
several items. Communalities indicate the amount of variance in each variable that is
accounted for. Initial communalities help estimates of the variance in each variable
accounted for by all components or factors that is unique to each variables, this uniqueness is
calculated by total variance explained by that variable minus the communality of that
variable.
 189

Table 4.6.5.4 showing Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings Loadings
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance % Variance %
1 3.670 22.939 22.939 3.670 22.939 22.939 2.729 17.055 17.055
2 2.080 13.002 35.941 2.080 13.002 35.941 2.330 14.561 31.616
3 1.512 9.453 45.394 1.512 9.453 45.394 1.766 11.036 42.652
4 1.122 7.010 52.403 1.122 7.010 52.403 1.560 9.751 52.403
5 .903 5.644 58.048
6 .817 5.107 63.155
7 .805 5.032 68.186
8 .734 4.590 72.776
9 .679 4.243 77.019
10 .616 3.852 80.871
11 .596 3.725 84.596
12 .553 3.456 88.052
13 .519 3.241 91.293
14 .486 3.036 94.329
15 .464 2.903 97.232
16 .443 2.768 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
 190

Table 4.6.5.5 showing Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4
F5. All my investments are risk free .736
F1. All my investment are completely safe and expect a
.734
fixed return
F3. My investments will provide me regular income .654
F2. All my investments can be easily liquidated in the
.621
market.
F4. Investments are made as a Tax planning measure. .551
F16. Investments help in multiplying income .711
F9. I regularly allocate a portion of my income towards
.667
investment.
F6. My investments grow substantially in value over a
.632
period of time.
F8. I always want my investments to grow above the
.568
inflation rate.
F11. I regularly watch my investment for growth and
.457
Return.
F10. I afford to take the risk of losing my principal. .805
F14. I am willing to take substantial investment risk to earn
.627
substantial returns
F12. I will withdraw my investment immediately if I incur
.635
a loss.
F13. I will invest at my convenience .604
F15. Security is considered as an important aspect .425 -.415 .495
F7. I generally look for safer investments, even if that
.427 .468
means lower returns.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 19 iterations.
Source: Computed Data
 191

Table 4.6.5.5 shows the rotated component matrix, in which the extracted factors are
assigning a new naming related together. Factor one is the most important factor which
accounted for 17.06% of the variance where five items loaded on this factor. The variables
are (i) All my investments are risk free. (F5 -0.736) (ii) All my investment are completely
safe and expect a fixed return. (F1- 0.734) (iii) My investments will provide me regular
income. (F3 – 0.654) (iv) All my investments can be easily liquidated in the market. (F2 –
0.621) (v) Investments are made as a Tax planning measure. (F4 – 0.551) are highly
correlated with each other.

From the above statements, it is clearly indicated that investment should be risk free and safe
with a fixed return, investment should be easily liquidated and provide regular income and
consider for tax planning also. Hence this segment of factors can be named as Stable factor.

Factor two accounted for 14.56% of the variance where five items loaded on this factor. The
variables are (i) Investments help in multiplying income. (F16 – 0.711) (ii) I regularly
allocate a portion of my income towards investment. (F9 – 0.667) (iii) My investments grow
substantially in value over a period of time. (F6 – 0.632) (iv) I always want my investments
to grow above the inflation rate. (F8 – 0.568) (v) I regularly watch my investment for growth
and Return. (F11 – 0.457) are highly correlated with each other.

From the statements above, we can ascertain that investment help in multiplying and grow
substantially and above the inflation rate, also the investment would always fetch good
return. Hence this segment of factors can be named as Growth factor.

Factor three accounted for 11.04% of the variance where two items loaded on this factor. The
variables are (i) I afford to take the risk of losing my principal. (F10 – 0.805) (ii) I am willing
to take substantial investment risk to earn substantial returns. (F14 – 0.627) are highly
correlated with each other.
 192

From the above two statements, it can be decided that risk is inevitable in the investments
and should be within tolerable limits and also higher the risk, higher will be the return. Hence
this segment can be labeled as Risk Factor.

Factor four accounted for 9.75% of the variance where four items loaded on this factor. The
variables are (i) I will withdraw my investment immediately if I incur a loss. (F12 – 0.635)
(ii) I will invest at my convenience. (F13 – 0.604) (iii) Security is considered as an important
aspect. (F15 – 0.495) (iv) I generally look for safer investments, even if that means lower
returns. (F7 – 0.468) are highly correlated with each other.

From the statements above, investments should be convenience for the investors, and should
be easily liquidated on the requirement, should be safe and secured. Hence this segment can
be labeled as Ease Factor.

Table 4.6.5.5 showing Factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and
Cumulative percentage of variance
Percentage Cumulative
Factor Eigen
Factors Statements of Percentage of
Loading Value
Variance Variance
F5. All my investments are risk free .736
F1. All my investment are
completely safe and expect a fixed .734
return
F3. My investments will provide
I .654 3.670 17.055 17.055
me regular income
F2. All my investments can be
.621
easily liquidated in the market.
F4. Investments are made as a Tax
.551
planning measure.
 193

Percentage Cumulative
Factor Eigen
Factors Statements of Percentage of
Loading Value
Variance Variance
F16. Investments help in
.711
multiplying income
F9. I regularly allocate a portion of
.667
my income towards investment.
F6. My investments grow
II substantially in value over a period .632 2.080 14.561 31.616
of time.
F8. I always want my investments
.568
to grow above the inflation rate.
F11. I regularly watch my
.457
investment for growth and Return.
F10. I afford to take the risk of
.805
losing my principal.
III F14. I am willing to take substantial 1.512 11.036 43.652
investment risk to earn substantial .627
returns
F12. I will withdraw my investment
.635
immediately if I incur a loss.
IV 1.122 9.751 52.403
F13. I will invest at my
.604
convenience

The table 4.6.5.5 below shows that the total composition of each factor that provides
information regarding the items that constituted these four factors with the factor loadings
and eigen values and their explained variance of each factor. The four factors accounts for
52.40% of the explained variance, which is higher than 50%. The three factor solution may
also be suggested as factors that influence the investor’s towards investment.
 194

4.7 Structural Equation Model

The proposed research model presents the influence of five (5) variables (Investment Belief,
Investment decision making, Subjective norms, Investment Behaviour, Risk attitude
perceived. For the path model following variables are considered where the factor loading is
more than 0.50 and more than 2 item constructs. The path model is given below.

4.7.1 Table showing factors for path diagram

Factors Statements Variable Name Label Name
B13. I have complete knowledge of
available financial instruments.
B14. I feel secured and confident
because of my investments.
B10. I am confident of my ability to
select financial instruments for
investment Investors
I Investment Belief
B15. I work on my own ideas Confidence
without depending on others in
investment planning.
B9. I am satisfied with my current
financial position
B12. I am confident to manage my
investment.
B5. Long term value creation
requires effective management of
capital / savings.
B4. A long time investment horizon Investment Investment
II
is a responsibility and an advantage. Belief Foresight
B6. I will take risk only where I
have a strong belief that I will be
rewarded for it.
 195

Factors Statements Variable Name Label Name

B7. It is important to set clear
financial goals with timelines and
amounts
B2. I plan for my future.
B3. I have control over my financial
Investment
III requirement. Investment Belief
Planning
B1. I am responsible for my
Investment
D1. I analyse and compare my
investment
D2. I make changes in my
investments as needed Self
IV Decision Making
D3. My investment decisions are Decision
made based on my goals / objectives
D9. I carry out portfolio rebalancing
as and when required.
IB3.My investment is usually
determined by past experiences
IB2.I usually base on the purchase
Investment
V price of assets as a reference point in Investing Behaviour
Behaviour
investment
IB1.I always use predictive skills to
time and outperform the investment
R6.It is always easy to determine the
credibility of the investment Risk Attitude Risk Assume
VI
R7.I am usually at ease with the Perceived Factors
Investment
 196

Factors Statements Variable Name Label Name

R5.I can easily ascertain the
expertise of the advisor offering
services
R8.I have pre fixed % of loss
tolerance level.
 197

Figure 13 - Path Diagram

 198

The standardized regression weights signifies the variation in the dependent variable, in
standard deviation units, that is attributable to a unit change in the predictor variable keeping
all other independent variables constant (Nathans, Oswald, & Nimon, 2012). The
standardization of the coefficients based on the standard deviations of the variables is the
approach typically used to make coefficients comparable (Ecological Society of America,
2005).

4.7.2 Table showing Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default

model)

Factor Factor Label Estimate

B13 <--- Confidence 0.834
B14 <--- Confidence 0.820
B10 <--- Confidence 0.762
B15 <--- Confidence 0.760
B9 <--- Confidence 0.732
B5 <--- Foresight 0.853
B4 <--- Foresight 0.834
B6 <--- Foresight 0.713
B7 <--- Foresight 0.704
B2 <--- Planning 0.869
B3 <--- Planning 0.787
B1 <--- Planning 0.771
D1 <--- Self_Decision 0.875
D2 <--- Self_Decision 0.855
D3 <--- Self_Decision 0.722
D9 <--- Self_Decision 0.738
A1 <--- Subjective Norms 0.592
A2 <--- Subjective Norms 0.577
A3 <--- Subjective Norms 0.827
 199

Factor Factor Label Estimate

IB3 <--- Investing_Beh 0.636
IB2 <--- Investing Behaviour 0.706
IB1 <--- Investing Behaviour 0.799
R6 <--- Risk Assume factor 0.817
R7 <--- Risk Assume Factor 0.806
R5 <--- Risk Assume Factor 0.766
R8 <--- Risk Assume Factor 0.703

Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Factor Label Factor Label Estimate

Confidence <--> Foresight 0.090
Confidence <--> Planning 0.299
Confidence <--> Self-Decision 0.296
Confidence <--> Subjective Norms 0.157
Confidence <--> Investing Behaviour 0.285
Confidence <--> Risk Assume Factor 0.204
Foresight <--> Planning 0.268
Foresight <--> Self-Decision 0.118
Foresight <--> Subjective Norms 0.045
Foresight <--> Investing Behaviour 0.048
Foresight <--> Risk Assume Factor 0.015
Planning <--> Self-Decision 0.258
Planning <--> Subjective Norms 0.070
Planning <--> Investing Behaviour 0.057
Planning <--> Risk Assume factor 0.045
Self- Decision <--> Subjective Norms 0.209
Self- Decision <--> Investing Behaviour 0.476
 200

Factor Label Factor Label Estimate

Self- Decision <--> Risk Assume factor 0.210
Subjective Norms <--> Investing Behaviour 0.424
Subjective Norms <--> Risk Assume factor 0.163
Investing Behaviour <--> Risk Assume factor 0.403

Table showing values of CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Default model 73 803.621 278 .000 2.891
Saturated model 351 .000 0
Independence model 26 4739.411 325 .000 14.583

Table showing the values of RMR, GFI

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model .032 .924 .904 .732
Saturated model .000 1.000
Independence model .120 .493 .452 .456

Table showing the value of RMSEA

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model .050 .046 .054 .454
Independence model .135 .131 .138 .000

Table showing the validity output- Part 1

CR AVE MSV
Investing Behaviour 0.759 0.514 0.227
Confidence 0.887 0.613 0.090
Foresight 0.860 0.607 0.072
Planning 0.851 0.657 0.090
 201

CR AVE MSV
Self-Decision 0.876 0.641 0.227
Subjective Norms 0.709 0.501 0.180
Risk Assume factor 0.856 0.600 0.163

Table showing the Validity Output- Part 2

Subjective
Investing Confi- Fore- Self- Risk
Norms
Behaviour dence sight Planning Decision Assume
Investing
0.717
Behaviour
Confidence 0.285 0.783
Foresight 0.048 0.090 0.779
Planning 0.057 0.299 0.268 0.810
Self-Decision 0.476 0.296 0.118 0.258 0.800
Subjective
0.424 0.157 0.045 0.070 0.209 0.675
Norms
Risk Assume
0.403 0.204 0.015 0.045 0.210 0.163 0.774
factor
 202

Figure 14 - Investment behaviour Model for Banking professionals

 203

Figure -15 Hypothesized Model

Model Hypothesis
1. There is significant impact of Investor’s Confidence on Investment Behaviour.
2. There is significant impact of Investment Foresight on Investment behaviour
3. There is significant impact of Investment Planning on Investment behaviour
4. There is significant impact of Risk on Investment behaviour
5. There is significant impact of Subjective Norms on Investment Behaviour
6. There is significant impact of Investment Behaviour on Decision Making
7. There is significant impact of Decision making on Satisfaction
 204

4.7.3 Table showing convergent validity

AVE
Investing Behaviour 0.514
Confidence 0.613
Foresight 0.607
Planning 0.657
Self-Decision 0.641
Subjective Norms 0.501
Risk Assume factor 0.600
Source: Computed Data

From the above table the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) has exceeded the recommended
value of 0.50. The AVE ranges between 0.501 and 0.657 and it proves the constructs to be
very much related.

Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity is the extent to which the measures are not a reflection of some other
variables and it is indicated by the low correlations between the measure of interest and the
measures of other constructs. The discriminant validity can be demonstrated in a correlation
matrix which includes the correlations between different constructs in the lower left off-
diagonal elements of the matrix, and the square roots of AVE calculated for each of the
constructs along the diagonal. It is assessed by comparing the squared correlation (R2) of the
paired constructs with the AVEs of each construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). For this,
Maximum of the two correlation coefficients is taken and squared. This is called Maximum
shared Variance (MSV). Discriminant validity can be said to be satisfactory if MSV of a pair
of constructs is less than the AVE for each corresponding construct (Hair et.al, 2010).
Discriminant Validity: MSV < AVE
 205

The below Table shows the details of this analysis:

4.7.4 Table showing Discriminant Validity
Investing Confi- Fore- Self- Subjective Risk
Behaviour dence sight Planning Decision Norms Assume
Investing
Behaviour 0.717
Confidence 0.285 0.783
Foresight 0.048 0.090 0.779
Planning 0.057 0.299 0.268 0.810
Self-
Decision 0.476 0.296 0.118 0.258 0.800
Subjective
Norms 0.424 0.157 0.045 0.070 0.209 0.675
Risk
Assume
factor 0.403 0.204 0.015 0.045 0.210 0.163 0.774

From the above table the measurements indicate that there is adequate discriminant validity,
since the diagonal elements are significantly greater than the off diagonal elements in the
corresponding rows and columns. For instance diagonal value of investing behaviour is 0.717
which is greater than off-diagonal values located in the corresponding rows with 0.285,
0.048, 0.057, 0.476, 0.424 and 0.403. This measurement model has demonstrated adequate
convergent validity and discriminant validity. The above table shows that there were no
validity concerns. After investigating the reliability and validity issues the overall model and
assessed for fitness. The following figures indicate the relationship between measured
variables and their underlying constructs.
 206

4.7.5 Table showing model fit summary – Investment Behaviour of Bank employees
No. Test Factor Bench Mark Actual
1 CMIN/DF < 5.00 2.891
2 GFI (Goodness-of-fit index) > 0.90 0.924
3 RMSEA (Root Mean Square error of
< 0.08 0.050
approximation)
4 AGFI (Adjusted Goodness-of-fit index) > 0.90 0.904
5 CFI (Comparative fit Index) > 0.90 0.878
6 Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index > 0.50 0.751
7 Parsimony Normed Fit Index > 0.50 0.709
Source: Computed Data

Structural equation modeling is used to analyze the appropriateness of the model based upon
the samples collected. Measurement model to test the reliability and validity of the surveyed
samples were first analyzed by using SPSS and the structural model was analysed. The
structural equation model (SEM) is most useful when assessing the casual relationship
between the variables as well as verifying the compatibility of the model used. Structural
equation modeling evaluates whether the data fit a theoretical model. In order to evaluate the
model, emphasis was given to Chi-square/degrees of freedom (x2/df), CFI, GFI, AGFI, NFI
and RMSEA (Table 1). Common model-fit measures like chi-square/degree of freedom
(x2/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
were used to estimate the measurement model fit.

The above Table shows the estimates of the model fit indices from AMOS structural
modeling. According to Gerbing and Anderson (1992), the criteria for an acceptable model
are as follows: RMSEA of 0.08 or lower; CFI of 0.90 or higher; and NFI of 0.90 or higher.
The fit between the data and the proposed measurement model can test with a chi-square
goodness-to-fit (GFI) test where the probability is greater than or equal to 0.9 indicates a
good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The above table shows the values of Chi square, Chi
square/degree of freedom (X2/d.f.), Comparative Fit index (CFI), Goodness of Fit index
 207

(GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit index (AGFI), Normated Fit index (NFI) and Root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA). Further it is identified from the above table that the
values of the above mentioned criteria are according to the suggested values. The table
depicts that investment belief, subjective norms, risk have an influence on investment
behaviour and influence behaviour influence the Decision making and the same have an
influence on satisfaction for banking professionals.