Chapter 5

Data Analysis
5.1 Demographic Analysis (A)

This chapter deals with the demographic details of the respondents based on the surveyed
parameters. The observed specification measured the relationship with the investment
objectives and awareness of the capital markets in India. The four major cities were selected to
represent the best suitable samples for the identical representations.

Table: 5-1 Statistics for Qualification, Family, Dependents and House

Statistics
Highest No. of
Qualifications kind of Family Dependants type of house No.of Children
N Valid 852 852 852 852 852
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 1.521 1.613 2.285 1.460 1.937
Median 1.000 2.000 2.000 1.000 1.000
Mode 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0
Std. Deviation .5681 .4874 .7318 .4987 1.3332
Variance .323 .238 .535 .249 1.777
Skewness .553 -.463 -.194 .160 .620
Std. Error of Skewness .084 .084 .084 .084 .084
Kurtosis -.462 -1.789 -.639 -1.979 -1.156
Std. Error of Kurtosis .167 .167 .167 .167 .167
Minimum 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .0

Table: 5-2 Statistics for Age, Profession, Income & Job

Statistics
Annual income
Age of the Profession of of the investor in
City Investor the investor Lacs Type of job
N Valid 852 852 852 852 843
Missing 0 0 0 0 9
Mean 2.415 1.777 1.764 2.668 1.168
Median 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 1.000
Mode 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0
Std. Deviation 1.1426 .5172 .6409 .9543 .3745
Variance 1.305 .267 .411 .911 .140
Skewness .095 -.241 .258 .161 1.775
Std. Error of Skewness .084 .084 .084 .084 .084
Kurtosis -1.409 -.120 -.682 -1.146 1.153
Std. Error of Kurtosis .167 .167 .167 .167 .168
Minimum 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

115
 Table: 5-3 Statistics for Car Ownership, Medical & Life Insurance

Do you have family

medical insurance Do you have Life
Do you Own a Car coverage insurance

N Valid 852 852 852

Missing 0 0 0
Mean 1.117 1.147 1.276
Median 1.000 1.000 1.000
Mode 1.0 1.0 1.0
Std. Deviation .3221 .3540 .4472
Variance .104 .125 .200
Skewness 2.382 2.001 1.005
Std. Error of Skewness .084 .084 .084
Kurtosis 3.682 2.007 -.992
Std. Error of Kurtosis .167 .167 .167
Minimum 1.0 1.0 1.0

Table: 5-4 Statistics for Location

City
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Mumbai 250 29.3 29.3 29.3

Bangalore 200 23.5 23.5 52.8

Chennai 200 23.5 23.5 76.3

Delhi 202 23.7 23.7 100.0

Total 852 100.0 100.0

Interpretation:
There are 852 respondents were surveyed in four cities, and the highest frequency was obtained
in Mumbai 29.3 % followed by Delhi 23.7%. The respondents have answered the survey
questions and indicated that Capital market investment is based on their own perception as well
as suggestions by family friends and their own understanding.

Table: 5-5 Statistics for Age of Respondents

Age of the Investor

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid 18-30 Year 230 27.0 27.0 27.0

30-50 Year 582 68.3 68.3 95.3

50+year 40 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 852 100.0 100.0

116
Interpretation:

The highest frequency was obtained for the age group of 30-50 years old at 68.2 %
followed by 27%. That shows that the young age group has been growing in the
numbers for capital market investment and opting in young age for investments.

Table: 5-6 Statistics for Profession of Respondents

Profession of the investor

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Self Employed 299 35.1 35.1 35.1

Pvt Salaried 455 53.4 53.4 88.5

Govt Salaried 98 11.5 11.5 100.0

Total 852 100.0 100.0

Interpretation:

The highest frequency was obtained for salaried employee in private category at 53.4%
followed by self-employed category at 35.1%. The private employees show higher enthusiasm
for capital markets and indicated that the capital markets investment is a feasible option to
manage their wealth with a little time consumption and liquidity reasons
Table: 5-7 Statistics for Income of Respondents

Annual income of the investor in Lacs

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0-5 lakhs 67 7.9 7.9 7.9

5-15 lakhs 375 44.0 44.0 51.9

15-50 lakhs 184 21.6 21.6 73.5

50+lakhs 226 26.5 26.5 100.0

Total 852 100.0 100.0

Interpretations:

The highest category in the income group was obtained for 5-15 lakhs at 44% followed
by more than 50 lakhs income group at 26.5%. That shows the young investor as well
as mature investors both are highly active in capital markets.

117
 Table: 5-8 Statistics for Type of Jobs

Type of job
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Permanent 701 82.3 83.2 83.2
Contractual 142 16.7 16.8 100.0
Total 843 98.9 100.0
Missing System 9 1.1
Total 852 100.0

Interpretation:
The job type for investors include permanent category at 82.3% and contractual at 16.7%, That
shows that permanent employees feel more secure to invest in the capital markets. That
indicated that permanent employee’s category feels safer to invest in the capital markets with
regular income and investment capacity.

Table 5-9 Statistics for Type of Qualifications

Highest Qualifications

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Post Graduate 438 51.4 51.4 51.4

Graduate 385 45.2 45.2 96.6

Under Graduate 28 3.3 3.3 99.9

Metric 1 .1 .1 100.0

Total 852 100.0 100.0

Interpretation:
The highest frequency was obtained in the post-graduate category with more than 50% followed
by graduate category at 45.2%. That has indicated the well-educated investors are making more
capital investments with the help of regular research by their own.

Table: 5- Family Structure

kind of Family
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Nucleus 330 38.7 38.7 38.7

Joint Family 522 61.3 61.3 100.0

Total 852 100.0 100.0

118
Interpretation:
Out of 852 respondents, 61.3% respondents said that they were part of joint family and only
31.7% said that they were nuclear family.

Table:5-11 Dependents

No. of Dependants

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid 0 124 14.6 14.6 14.6

1-2 378 44.4 44.4 58.9

3-4 333 39.1 39.1 98.0

4+Dependents 17 2.0 2.0 100.0

Total 852 100.0 100.0

Interpretation:
Out of 852 respondents, the highest frequency was obtained for 1-2 dependents group that was
44 % followed by 3-4 person dependents. That shows that dependent members were also a
primary reason to invest for future needs

Table: 5-12 Type of house

type of house

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Self Owned 460 54.0 54.0 54.0

Rented 392 46.0 46.0 100.0

Total 852 100.0 100.0

Interpretation:

The highest frequency was obtained for the category- Self owned house and rented house at
46%.
Table: 5-13 Car Ownership

Do you Own a Car

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Yes 752 88.3 88.3 88.3

No 100 11.7 11.7 100.0

Total 852 100.0 100.0

119
Interpretation:

Out of 852 respondents, the highest frequency was obtained at yes category where respondents
were owning the car and the percentage was 88%.
Table: 5-14 Medical Insurance

Do you have family medical insurance coverage

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Yes 727 85.3 85.3 85.3

No 125 14.7 14.7 100.0

Total 852 100.0 100.0

Interpretation:
The highest frequency was obtained for family medical insurance at 85% category and rest does
not have family medical insurance neither covered by them or the others.

Table: 5-15 Life Insurance

Do you have Life insurance

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Yes 617 72.4 72.4 72.4

No 235 27.6 27.6 100.0

Total 852 100.0 100.0

Interpretation:
The highest frequency was obtained at yes category were 72% people have life insurance.

Cross Tabulation to understand the objectives:

5.2 Descriptive Analysis –

Objective 1 – Identify the number of respondents level of importance on the following

different investment objectives with respect to location -
Location * Dividends

120
 Table: 5-16 Dividends by Location
Dividends Total
very not very
high high important low low very high
Location Mumbai Count 29 59 56 98 8 250
% of
3.4% 6.9% 6.6% 11.5% .9% 29.3%
Total
Bangalore Count 13 38 55 76 18 200
% of
1.5% 4.5% 6.5% 8.9% 2.1% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 10 47 57 62 25 201
% of
1.2% 5.5% 6.7% 7.3% 2.9% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 13 44 57 75 12 201
% of
1.5% 5.2% 6.7% 8.8% 1.4% 23.6%
Total
Total Count 65 188 225 311 63 852
% of
7.6% 22.1% 26.4% 36.5% 7.4% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai, out of 250 respondents the maximum 98 respondents gives low level of importance
to the dividends and minimum 8 respondent’s gives very low level of importance to the
dividends. In Bangalore, out of 200 respondents the maximum 76 respondents gives low level
of importance to the dividends and minimum 13 respondent’s gives very high level of
importance to the dividends. In Chennai, out of 201 respondents the maximum 62 respondents
gives low level of importance to the dividends and minimum 10 respondent’s gives very high
level of importance to the dividends. And, in Delhi, out of 201 respondents the maximum 62
respondents gives low level of importance to the dividends and minimum 12 respondent’s gives
very level of importance to the dividends. Finally, we can concluded that out of 852 respondents
the maximum 225 respondents across all the location gives a low level of importance to the
dividends and minimum 63 respondents gives a very low level of importance to the dividends.

121
 Location * Capital Appreciation
Table: 5-17 Appreciation by Location
Capital Appreciation Total
not
very high high important very high
Location Mumbai Count 200 42 8 250
% of Total 23.5% 4.9% .9% 29.3%
Bangalore Count 164 27 9 200
% of Total 19.2% 3.2% 1.1% 23.5%
Chennai Count 159 32 10 201
% of Total 18.7% 3.8% 1.2% 23.6%
Delhi Count 166 29 6 201
% of Total 19.5% 3.4% .7% 23.6%
Total Count 689 130 33 852
% of Total 80.9% 15.3% 3.9% 100.0%

In Mumbai, out of 250 respondents the maximum 200 respondents gives very high level of
importance to the Capital Appreciation and minimum 8 respondent’s considered capital
appreciation is not important. In Bangalore, out of 200 respondents the maximum 164
respondents gives very high level of importance to the Capital Appreciation and minimum 9
respondent’s considered capital appreciation is not important. In Chennai, out of 201
respondents the maximum 159 respondents gives very high level of importance to the Capital
Appreciation and minimum 10 respondent’s considered capital appreciation is not important.
And, in Delhi, out of 201 respondents the maximum 166 respondents gives very high level of
importance to the Capital Appreciation and minimum 6 respondent’s considered capital
appreciation is not important. Finally, we can concluded that out of 852 respondents the
maximum 689 respondents across all the location gives a very high level of importance to the
Capital Appreciation and for minimum 33 respondents capital appreciation is not important.

122
 Location * Quick Gain
Table: 5-18 Appreciation by Location
Quick Gain Total
not
very high High important low very high
Location Mumbai Count 163 48 26 13 250
% of
19.1% 5.6% 3.1% 1.5% 29.3%
Total
Bangalore Count 117 47 23 13 200
% of
13.7% 5.5% 2.7% 1.5% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 104 53 33 11 201
% of
12.2% 6.2% 3.9% 1.3% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 122 46 23 10 201
% of
14.3% 5.4% 2.7% 1.2% 23.6%
Total
Total Count 506 194 105 47 852
% of
59.4% 22.8% 12.3% 5.5% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai, out of 250 respondents the maximum 163 respondent’s gives very high level of
importance to the quick gain and minimum 13 respondent’s considered gives low importance
to the quick gain. In Bangalore, out of 200 respondents the maximum 117 respondent’s gives
very high level of importance to the quick gain and minimum 13 respondent’s gives low
importance to the quick gain. In Chennai, out of 201 respondents the maximum 104 respondents
gives very high level of importance to the quick gain and minimum 11 respondent’s considered
quick gain as low importance. And, in Delhi, out of 201 respondents the maximum 122
respondents gives very high level of importance to the quick gain and minimum 10 respondent’s
considered quick gain as low importance. Finally, we can concluded that out of 852
respondents the maximum 506 respondents across all the location gives a very high level of
importance to the quick gain and for minimum 47 respondents considered quick gain as the
low importance.

123
 Location * Safety
Table: 5-19 Safety by Location
Safety Total
very high high low very high
Location Mumbai Count 189 50 11 250
% of Total 22.2% 5.9% 1.3% 29.3%
Bangalore Count 158 41 1 200
% of Total 18.5% 4.8% .1% 23.5%
Chennai Count 160 39 2 201
% of Total 18.8% 4.6% .2% 23.6%
Delhi Count 160 37 4 201
% of Total 18.8% 4.3% .5% 23.6%
Total Count 667 167 18 852
% of Total 78.3% 19.6% 2.1% 100.0%

In Mumbai, out of 250 respondents the maximum 189 respondent’s gives very high level of
importance to the safety and minimum 11 respondent’s considered gives low importance to the
safety. In Bangalore, out of 200 respondents the maximum 158 respondent’s gives very high
level of importance to the safety and minimum 1 respondent gives low importance to the safety.
In Chennai, out of 201 respondents the maximum 160 respondents gives very high level of
importance to the safety and minimum 2 respondent’s considered safety as low importance.
And, in Delhi, out of 201 respondents the maximum 160 respondents gives very high level of
importance to the safety and minimum 4 respondent’s considered safety as low importance.
Finally, we can concluded that out of 852 respondents the maximum 667 respondents across all
the location gives a very high level of importance to the safety and for minimum 18 respondents
considered safety as the low importance.

124
 Location * Liquidity
Table: 5-20 Liquidity by Location
Liquidity Total
very not very
high high important low low very high
Location Mumbai Count 141 73 6 24 6 250
% of
16.6% 8.6% .7% 2.8% .7% 29.4%
Total
Bangalore Count 103 55 28 10 4 200
% of
12.1% 6.5% 3.3% 1.2% .5% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 94 55 39 10 3 201
% of
11.1% 6.5% 4.6% 1.2% .4% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 107 55 23 10 6 201
% of
12.6% 6.5% 2.7% 1.2% .5% 23.4%
Total
Total Count 445 238 96 54 17 852
% of
52.4% 28.0% 11.3% 6.4% 2.0% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai, out of 250 respondents the maximum 141 respondent’s gives very high level of
importance to the liquidity and minimum 6 respondent’s considered gives low importance to
the liquidity. In Bangalore, out of 200 respondents the maximum 103 respondent’s gives very
high level of importance to the liquidity and minimum 4 respondent’s gives very low
importance to the liquidity. In Chennai, out of 201 respondents the maximum 94 respondents
gives very high level of importance to the liquidity and minimum 3 respondent’s considered
liquidity as very low importance. And, in Delhi, out of 201 respondents the maximum 107
respondents gives very high level of importance to the liquidity and minimum 6 respondent’s
considered liquidity as very low importance. Finally, we can concluded that out of 852
respondents the maximum 445 respondents across all the location gives a very high level of
importance to the liquidity and for minimum 17 respondents considered liquidity as very low
importance.

125
 Location * Tax Benefits
Table: 5-21 Tax Benefits by Location
Tax Benefits Total
very not very
high high important low low very high
Location Mumbai Count 80 48 40 76 6 250
% of
9.4% 5.6% 4.7% 8.9% .7% 29.3%
Total
Bangalore Count 68 52 24 52 4 200
% of
8.0% 6.1% 2.8% 6.1% .5% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 78 49 25 46 3 201
% of
9.2% 5.8% 2.9% 5.4% .4% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 77 43 21 56 4 201
% of
9.0% 5.0% 2.5% 6.6% .5% 23.6%
Total
Total Count 303 192 110 230 17 852
% of
35.6% 22.5% 12.9% 27.0% 2.0% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai, out of 250 respondents the maximum 80 respondent’s gives very high level of
importance to the tax benefits and minimum 6 respondent’s considered gives low importance
to the tax benefits. In Bangalore, out of 200 respondents the maximum 68 respondent’s gives
very high level of importance to the tax benefits and minimum 4 respondent’s gives very low
importance to the tax benefits. In Chennai, out of 201 respondents the maximum 78 respondents
gives very high level of importance to the tax benefits and minimum 3 respondent’s considered
tax benefits as very low importance. And, in Delhi, out of 201 respondents the maximum 77
respondents gives very high level of importance to the tax benefits and minimum 4 respondent’s
considered tax benefits as very low importance. Finally, we can concluded that out of 852
respondents the maximum 303 respondents across all the location gives a very high level of
importance to the tax benefits and for minimum 17 respondents considered tax benefits as very
low importance.

126
 Location * Diversification of Asset Holding
Diversification of Asset Holding Total
very not very
high high important Low low very high
Location Mumbai Count 107 56 50 29 8 250
% of
12.6% 6.6% 5.9% 3.4% .9% 29.3%
Total
Bangalore Count 74 52 42 21 11 200
% of
8.7% 6.1% 4.9% 2.5% 1.3% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 57 59 49 22 14 201
% of
6.7% 6.9% 5.8% 2.6% 1.6% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 84 49 38 23 7 201
% of
9.9% 5.8% 4.5% 2.7% .8% 23.6%
Total
Total Count 322 216 179 95 40 852
% of
37.8% 25.4% 21.0% 11.2% 4.7% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai, out of 250 respondents the maximum 107 respondent’s gives very high level of
importance to the diversification of assets holding and minimum 6 respondent’s considered
gives low importance to the diversification of assests holding. In Bangalore, out of 200
respondents the maximum 68 respondent’s gives very high level of importance to the
diversification of assests holding and minimum 4 respondent’s gives very low importance to
the diversification of assests holding. In Chennai, out of 201 respondents the maximum 78
respondents gives very high level of importance to the diversification of assets holding and
minimum 3 respondent’s considered diversification of assets holding as very low importance.
And, in Delhi, out of 201 respondents the maximum 77 respondents gives very high level of
importance to the diversification of assets holding and minimum 4 respondent’s considered
diversification of assets holding as very low importance. Finally, we can concluded that out of
852 respondents the maximum 303 respondents across all the location gives a very high level
of importance to the diversification of assets holding and for minimum 17 respondents
considered diversification of assets holding as very low importance.

127
 Location * Rights / Bonus issues & Stock splits
Table: 5-22 Rights/ Bonus Issues & Stock splits by Location
Rights / Bonus issues & Stock splits Total
very not very very
high high important low low high
Location Mumbai Count 87 64 45 25 29 250
% of
10.2% 7.5% 5.3% 2.9% 3.4% 29.4%
Total
Bangalore Count 61 51 38 18 32 200
% of
7.2% 6.0% 4.5% 2.1% 3.8% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 45 57 43 31 25 201
% of
5.3% 6.7% 5.1% 3.6% 2.9% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 61 50 40 23 27 201
% of
7.2% 5.9% 4.7% 2.7% 3.1% 23.5%
Total
Total Count 254 222 166 97 112 852
% of
29.8% 26.1% 19.5% 11.4% 13.2% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai, out of 250 respondents the maximum 87 respondent’s gives very high level of
importance to the rights/bonus issue & stock and minimum 29respondent’s considered gives
very low importance to the diversification of assests holding. In Bangalore, out of 200
respondents the maximum 61 respondent’s gives very high level of importance to the
diversification of assests holding and minimum 18 respondent’s gives low importance to the
diversification of assests holding. In Chennai, out of 201 respondents the maximum 57
respondents gives high level of importance to the rights/bonus issue & stock and minimum 25
respondent’s considered rights/bonus issue & stock as very low importance. And, in Delhi,
out of 201 respondents the maximum 61 respondents gives very high level of importance to the
rights/bonus issue & stock and minimum 23 respondent’s considered rights/bonus issue & stock
as low importance. Finally, we can concluded that out of 852 respondents the maximum 254
respondents across all the location gives a very high level of importance to the rights/bonus

128
issue & stock and for minimum 97 respondents considered rights/bonus issue & stock as low
importance.
Location * Hedge against Inflation
Table: 5-23 Hedge against inflation
Hedge against Inflation Total
very high high Very low
Location Mumbai Count 113 76 61 250
% of Total 13.3% 8.9% 7.2% 29.4%
Bangalore Count 93 64 43 200
% of Total 10.9% 7.5% 5.1% 23.5%
Chennai Count 91 65 45 201
% of Total 10.7% 7.6% 5.3% 23.6%
Delhi Count 95 65 41 201
% of Total 11.2% 7.6% 4.7% 23.5%
Total Count 392 270 190 852
% of Total 46.1% 31.7% 22.2% 100.0%

In Mumbai, out of 250 respondents the maximum 113 respondent’s gives very high level of
importance to the hedges against inflation and minimum 61 respondent’s considered gives very
low importance to the hedges against inflation. In Bangalore, out of 200 respondents the
maximum 93 respondent’s gives very high level of importance to the hedges against inflation
and minimum 43 respondent’s gives very low importance to the hedges against inflation. In
Chennai, out of 201 respondents the maximum 91 respondents gives high level of importance
to the hedges against inflation and minimum 45 respondent’s considered hedges against
inflation as very low importance. And, in Delhi, out of 201 respondents the maximum 95
respondents gives very high level of importance to the hedges against inflation and minimum
41 respondent’s considered hedges against inflation as low importance. Finally, we can
concluded that out of 852 respondents the maximum 392 respondents across all the location
gives a very high level of importance to the hedges against inflation and for minimum 190
respondents considered hedges against inflation as very low importance.

Objective 2 – Determining investor behaviour and style by the level of risk associated with
the different investments with respect to location -

129
 Location * Shares
Table: 5-24 Location * Shares
Shares Total
very high high neutral low very high
Location Mumbai Count 85 151 13 1 250
% of
10.0% 17.7% 1.5% .1% 29.4%
Total
Bangalore Count 90 97 11 2 200
% of
10.6% 11.4% 1.3% .2% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 104 86 11 0 201
% of
12.2% 10.1% 1.3% .0% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 88 97 14 2 201
% of
10.3% 11.4% 1.6% .1% 23.5%
Total
Total Count 367 431 49 4 851
% of
43.1% 50.6% 5.8% .5% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai location, out of 250 respondents the maximum 85 respondents thinks that there is
very high risk associated with the shares and minimum 1 respondent are in favour of low risk.
In Bangalore location, out of 200 respondents the maximum 97 respondents thinks that there is
high risk associated with the shares and minimum 2 respondents are in favour of low risk. In
Chennai location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 104 respondents thinks that there is
high risk associated with the shares. And, in Delhi location, out of 201 respondents the
maximum 97 respondents thinks that there is risk associated with the shares and minimum 2
respondents are in favour of low risk. Out of total 852 respondents, the maximum 367
respondents considered that there is very high risk associated while investing in shares and
minimum 4 respondents assume that there is low risk associated with the shares.

130
 Location * Debentures / Bonds
Table: 5-25 Location * Debentures
Debentures / Bonds Total
very very
high high neutral low low very high
Location Mumbai Count 26 59 6 151 8 250
% of
3.1% 6.9% .7% 17.7% .9% 29.4%
Total
Bangalore Count 13 71 8 103 5 200
% of
1.5% 8.3% .9% 12.1% .6% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 8 89 10 91 3 201
% of
.9% 10.5% 1.2% 10.7% .4% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 18 55 8 113 7 201
% of
2.1% 6.5% .9% 13.3% .7% 23.5%
Total
Total Count 65 274 32 458 23 852
% of
7.6% 32.2% 3.8% 53.8% 2.6% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai location, out of 250 respondents the maximum 151 respondents thinks that there is
low risk associated with the debentures/bonds and minimum 6 respondent’s does not have any
opinion. In Bangalore location, out of 200 respondents the maximum 103 respondents thinks
that there is low risk associated with the debentures/bonds and minimum 5 respondents are in
favour of very low risk. In Chennai location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 89
respondents thinks that there is risk associated with the debentures/bonds and minimum 3
respondents are in the favour of very low risk. And, in Delhi location, out of 201 respondents
the maximum 55 respondents thinks that there is high risk associated with the debentures/bonds
and minimum 7 respondents are in favour of very low risk. Out of total 852 respondents, the
maximum 458 respondents considered that there is low risk associated while investing in
debentures/bonds and minimum 23 respondents assume that there is low risk associated with
the debentures/bonds.

131
 Location * Stock Futures and Options
Table: 5-26 Location * Stock Futures & Options
Stock Futures and Options Total
very
high high neutral low very high
Location Mumbai Count 206 21 22 1 250
% of
24.2% 2.5% 2.6% .1% 29.4%
Total
Bangalore Count 171 11 16 2 200
% of
20.1% 1.3% 1.9% .2% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 175 12 13 1 201
% of
20.6% 1.4% 1.6% .0% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 170 9 20 2 201
% of
20.0% 1.1% 2.4% .1% 23.5%
Total
Total Count 722 53 72 6 852
% of
84.8% 6.2% 8.5% .5% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai location, out of 250 respondents the maximum 206 respondents thinks that there is
very high risk associated with the stock futures and options and minimum 1 respondent
considered low risk. In Bangalore location, out of 200 respondents the maximum 171
respondents thinks that there is very high risk associated with the stock futures and options and
minimum 2 respondents are in favour of low risk. In Chennai location, out of 201 respondents
the maximum 175 respondents thinks that there is very high risk associated with the stock
futures and options and minimum 1 respondent are in the favour of low risk. And, in Delhi
location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 170 respondents thinks that there is high risk
associated with the stock futures and options and minimum 2 respondents are in favour of very
low risk. Out of total 852 respondents, the maximum 722 respondents considered that there is
very high risk associated while investing in stock futures and options and minimum 6
respondents assume that there is low risk associated with the stock futures and options.

132
 Location * Mutual Funds
Table: 5-27 Location* Mutual Funds
Mutual Funds Total
very
high high neutral Low very high
Location Mumbai Count 13 177 17 43 250
% of
1.5% 20.8% 2.0% 5.1% 29.4%
Total
Bangalore Count 6 155 12 27 200
% of
.7% 18.2% 1.4% 3.2% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 5 154 11 31 201
% of
.6% 18.1% 1.3% 3.6% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 4 145 12 40 201
% of
.5% 17.0% 1.4% 4.6% 23.5%
Total
Total Count 28 631 52 141 851
% of
3.3% 74.1% 6.1% 16.5% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai location, out of 250 respondents the maximum 177 respondents thinks that there is
high risk associated with the mutual funds and minimum 13 respondent considered very high
risk. In Bangalore location, out of 200 respondents the maximum 155 respondents thinks that
there is high risk associated with the mutual funds and minimum 6 respondents are in favour of
very high risk. In Chennai location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 154 respondents
thinks that there is high risk associated with the mutual funds and minimum 5 respondents are
in the favour of very high risk. And, in Delhi location, out of 201 respondents the maximum
145 respondents thinks that there is high risk associated with the mutual funds and minimum 4
respondents are in favour of very high risk. Out of total 852 respondents, the maximum 631
respondents considered that there is high risk associated while investing in mutual funds and
minimum 28 respondents assume that there is very high risk associated with the mutual funds.

133
 Location * National Saving Certificate/Public Provident Fund/ Provident Fund
Table: 5-28 Location * NSC / PPF/ PF
National Saving Certificate/Public
Provident Fund/ Provident Fund Total
very high low very low very high
Locatio Mumbai Count
8 157 85 250
n
% of Total .9% 18.4% 10.0% 29.4%
Bangalor Count
5 114 81 200
e
% of Total .6% 13.4% 9.5% 23.5%
Chennai Count 4 112 85 201
% of Total .5% 13.2% 10.0% 23.6%
Delhi Count 7 122 72 201
% of Total .7% 14.3% 8.5% 23.5%
Total Count 24 505 323 852
% of Total 2.7% 59.3% 38.0% 100.0%

In Mumbai location, out of 250 respondents the maximum 157 respondents thinks that there is
low risk associated with the national saving certificate/public provident fund/provident fund
and minimum 8 respondent considered very high risk. In Bangalore location, out of 200
respondents the maximum 114 respondents thinks that there is low risk associated with the
national saving certificate/public provident fund/provident fund and minimum 5 respondents
are in favour of very high risk. In Chennai location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 112
respondents thinks that there is low risk associated with the national saving certificate/public
provident fund/provident fund and minimum 4 respondents are in the favour of very high risk.
And, in Delhi location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 122 respondents thinks that there
is low risk associated with the national saving certificate/public provident fund/provident fund
and minimum 7 respondents are in favour of very high risk. Out of total 852 respondents, the
maximum 505 respondents considered that there is low risk associated while investing in
national saving certificate/public provident fund/provident fund and minimum 24 respondents
assume that there is very high risk associated with the national saving certificate/public
provident fund/provident fund.

134
 Location * Fixed Deposits and Insurance Policies
Table: 5-29 Location * Fixed Deposit and Insurance Policies
Fixed Deposits Total
very high neutral low very low very high
Location Mumbai Count 0 8 165 77 250
% of
.0% .9% 19.4% 9.0% 29.4%
Total
Bangalore Count 0 5 130 65 200
% of
.0% .6% 15.3% 7.6% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 1 7 134 59 201
% of
.1% .8% 15.7% 6.9% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 1 7 137 56 201
% of
.1% .8% 16.1% 6.6% 23.5%
Total
Total Count 2 27 566 257 852
% of
.1% 3.2% 66.5% 30.2% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai location, out of 250 respondents the maximum 165 respondents thinks that there is
low risk associated with the fixed deposits. In Bangalore location, out of 200 respondents the
maximum 130 respondents thinks that there is low risk associated with the fixed deposits. In
Chennai location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 134 respondents thinks that there is low
risk associated with the fixed deposits and minimum 1 respondent are in the favour of very high
risk. And, in Delhi location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 137 respondents thinks that
there is low risk associated with the fixed deposits and minimum 1 respondent are in favour of
very high risk. Out of total 852 respondents, the maximum 566 respondents considered that
there is low risk associated while investing in fixed deposits and minimum 2 respondents
assume that there is very high risk associated with the fixed deposits.

135
 Location * Insurance Policies
Insurance Policies Total
very very
high high neutral low low very high
Location Mumbai Count 0 37 39 134 40 250
% of
.0% 4.3% 4.6% 15.7% 4.7% 29.4%
Total
Bangalore Count 0 15 40 111 34 200
% of
.0% 1.8% 4.7% 13.0% 4.0% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 1 14 54 107 25 201
% of
.1% 1.6% 6.3% 12.6% 2.9% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 1 14 37 118 31 201
% of
.0% 1.6% 4.3% 13.9% 3.6% 23.5%
Total
Total Count 2 80 170 470 130 852
% of
.1% 9.4% 20.0% 55.2% 15.3% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai location, out of 250 respondents the maximum 134 respondents thinks that there is
low risk associated with the insurance policies. In Bangalore location, out of 200 respondents
the maximum 111 respondents thinks that there is low risk associated with the insurance
policies. In Chennai location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 107 respondents thinks that
there is low risk associated with the insurance policies and minimum 1 respondent are in the
favour of very high risk. And, in Delhi location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 118
respondents thinks that there is low risk associated with the insurance policies and minimum 1
respondent are in favour of very high risk. Out of total 852 respondents, the maximum 470
respondents considered that there is low risk associated while investing in insurance policies
and minimum 2 respondents assume that there is very high risk associated with the insurance
policies.

136
 Location * Real Estate
Table: 5-30 Location Real estate
Real Estate Total
very very very
high high neutral low low high
Location Mumbai Count 20 118 4 79 29 250
% of
2.4% 13.9% .5% 9.3% 3.4% 29.4%
Total
Bangalore Count 10 76 3 87 24 200
% of
1.2% 8.9% .4% 10.2% 2.8% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 12 62 8 101 18 201
% of
1.4% 7.3% .9% 11.9% 2.1% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 10 87 4 83 17 201
% of
1.2% 10.2% .4% 9.8% 2.0% 23.5%
Total
Total Count 52 343 19 350 88 852
% of 100.0
6.1% 40.3% 2.1% 41.1% 10.3%
Total %

In Mumbai location, out of 250 respondents the maximum 118 respondents thinks that there is
high risk associated with the real estate. In Bangalore location, out of 200 respondents the
maximum 87 respondents thinks that there is low risk associated with the real estate. In Chennai
location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 101 respondents thinks that there is low risk
associated with the real estate. And, in Delhi location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 87
respondents thinks that there is low risk associated with the real. Out of total 852 respondents,
the maximum 343 respondents considered that there is high risk associated while investing in
real estate and minimum 19 respondents does not have any opinion on the real estate.

137
 Location * Gold / Silver
Table: 5-31 Location – Gold / Silver
Gold / Silver Total
very very very
high high neutral low low high
Location Mumbai Count 35 93 45 44 33 250
% of
4.1% 10.9% 5.3% 5.2% 3.9% 29.4%
Total
Bangalore Count 28 71 31 46 24 200
% of
3.3% 8.3% 3.6% 5.4% 2.8% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 31 61 39 52 18 201
% of
3.6% 7.2% 4.6% 6.1% 2.1% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 29 68 41 46 17 201
% of
3.3% 8.0% 4.8% 5.4% 2.0% 23.5%
Total
Total Count 123 293 156 188 92 852
% of
14.3% 34.4% 18.3% 22.1% 10.8% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai location, out of 250 respondents the maximum 93 respondents thinks that there is
high risk associated with the gold/silver. In Bangalore location, out of 200 respondents the
maximum 71 respondents thinks that there is high risk associated with the gold/silver. In
Chennai location, out of 201 respondents the maximum 61 respondents thinks that there is high
risk associated with the gold/silver. And, in Delhi location, out of 201 respondents the
maximum 68 respondents thinks that there is high risk associated with the real. Out of total 852
respondents, the maximum 293 respondents considered that there is high risk associated while
investing in gold/silver and minimum 92 respondents considered there is very low risk
associated with gold/silver.

138
 Location * Others
Table: 5-32 Location * Others
Others Total
high neutral low very low high
Location Mumbai Count 20 181 34 15 250
% of
2.4% 21.3% 4.0% 1.8% 29.4%
Total
Bangalore Count 10 123 49 18 200
% of
1.2% 14.5% 5.8% 2.1% 23.5%
Total
Chennai Count 12 124 54 11 201
% of
1.4% 14.6% 6.3% 1.3% 23.6%
Total
Delhi Count 10 127 52 12 201
% of
1.1% 14.9% 6.1% 1.4% 23.5%
Total
Total Count 52 555 189 56 852
% of
6.0% 65.2% 22.2% 6.6% 100.0%
Total

In Mumbai location, out of 250 respondents the maximum 181 respondents does not have any
opinion on others investment and minimum 15 respondents considered very low risk. In
Bangalore location, out of 200 respondents the maximum 123 respondents does not have any
opinion on others investment and minimum 10 respondents thinks that there is high risk
associated with the others investment. In Chennai location, out of 201 respondents the
maximum 124 respondents does not have any opinion on others investment and minimum 11
respondents thinks that there is high risk associated with the others. And, in Delhi location, out
of 201 respondents the maximum 127 respondents does not have any opinion on others
investment and minimum 10 thinks that there is high risk associated with the others
investments. Out of total 852 respondents, the maximum 855 respondents does not have any
opinion on others investment and minimum 52 considered that there is high risk associated
while investing in others.

139
Objective 3 – Identify the highest and lowest preference by the investors as they select of
the purpose of investment –
Table: 5-33 Purpose of Investment
rank
purpose 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
order
Retirement
47 44 45 0 50 40 85 283 26 232 6173
Planning
Buying a
40 77 45 14 32 22 216 14 53 339 6168
House
Children's
Higher 97 76 39 35 53 202 14 211 66 59 4953
Education
Marriage 243 59 22 34 8 75 222 144 6 39 4203
Local or
Foreign 0 9 38 443 100 45 119 26 37 35 4398
Holidays
Change in
8 26 265 109 186 126 28 14 90 0 4095
Lifestyle
Buying a car 0 195 44 40 52 98 52 33 310 28 5228
Late stage
0 49 115 50 296 0 80 0 204 58 5099
Healthcare
Buying
257 140 159 83 0 32 10 92 41 38 3093
luxury items
Improve the
standard of 32 206 50 74 45 242 26 65 49 63 4340
living

From the above table it is observed, that lowest preference considered by the investors for the
purpose of investment is buying luxury items followed by change in lifestyle, marriage,
improve the standard of living, local or foreign holidays, children’s higher education, late stage
healthcare, buying a car, buying a house and retirement planning. So we can conclude than
highest preference for the investment considered by the respondents is the retirement planning.

140
Objective 4 – identify the highest/lowest preference considered by the investors as the
source of investment information –
Table: 5-34 Source of Investment Information
source of rank
information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 order
Abridged
Prospectus 189 34 123 129 58 35 240 4 39 1 3715
Newspaper
Journals &
Magazines 32 155 57 30 55 35 57 283 98 49 5153
TV Channels 127 106 27 1 52 216 42 41 96 143 4896
Investments
Related Websites 18 63 298 82 110 182 0 32 27 29 3797
Brokers / Analysts
Forecast 34 35 98 73 40 102 44 132 255 39 5551
Investor Forum 69 316 17 128 71 0 162 54 1 34 3534
Technical
Analysis 56 30 35 7 149 64 185 29 55 242 5820
Company
Announcements 34 30 69 1 231 95 35 191 127 39 5336
Stock Exchange
Announcements 49 83 74 252 64 83 84 39 1 123 4402
Others (Friends,
Relatives etc.) 243 1 54 105 21 38 33 93 121 143 4654

From the above table it is observed that, the highest source of information the investors
preferred is technical analysis followed by broker/Analysts forecast, company announcement,
newspaper journals and magazines, TV channels, others (friends, relatives etc.), stock exchange
announcement, investment related websites, abridged prospectus and investor forum. So the
highest source of the information considered for the information is technical analysis.

Objective 5 – Identify the highest/lowest importance considered by the investors as the

qualities in the schemes –

141
 Table: 5-35 Importance of qualities in the schemes
qualities rank
of orde
schemes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 r
10 19 14 647
Flexibility 7 78 19 84 9 2 18 27 70 20 29 1 52 0 45 7
Capital
Appreciati 25 23 13 265
on 7 6 0 27 35 1 27 1 30 40 4 1 1 0 21 9
37 15 10 495
Liquidity 61 25 4 8 18 27 35 4 1 10 2 0 7 51 55 5
Good 29 25 301
Return 8 4 54 96 10 30 0 27 68 44 1 1 1 8 1 3
Profession
al
Managem 20 14 558
ent 24 2 30 1 8 18 42 8 76 76 59 1 54 1 1 4
Diversific 13 21 19 573
ation 6 1 3 9 11 4 47 65 51 3 74 38 20 15 10 0
Fund
Performan 11 14 24 597
ce 7 6 62 40 78 25 1 66 9 34 4 0 10 20 20 5
Fund
Reputatio
n or Brand 21 10 31 10 844
name 6 2 1 0 40 2 92 30 7 1 29 1 10 1 2 7
Scheme 36 14 103
Portfolio 4 4 2 1 21 10 59 72 30 29 9 82 15 91 0 48
Rating 11 19 11 689
given 5 33 18 29 7 9 3 32 93 66 59 30 62 35 2 9
Tax 10 10 22 853
Benefits 21 4 2 59 35 29 30 6 0 29 69 9 30 6 63 4

142
 Sponsors 10 41 10 21 120
reputation 0 8 21 0 10 60 0 4 0 51 59 6 4 5 0 44
Investor 22 11 764
services 1 7 1 1 10 38 0 51 66 59 81 27 0 9 1 8
Fringe
benefits
like credit 20 10 567
card etc. 24 30 1 1 6 0 0 11 1 6 1 74 1 25 2 0

Disclosure
of Market 13 24 10 701
price 30 50 1 2 49 1 1 0 1 64 1 59 52 1 64 7

From the above table it is observed that, the investors liked the quality of the scheme i.e. capital
appreciation followed by good return, liquidity, professional management, fringe benefits like
credit cards, diversification, fund performance, flexibility, rating given, fund reputation and
brand name, tax benefits, schemes portfolio and sponsor reputations. So, we can conclude that
most liked quality in the scheme is capital appreciation.

143