Chapter – 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 INVESTORS’ PROFILE

4.1.1 GENDER

In this study, the respondents were the retail investors’ whose subscription to securities

were of value less than Rs. 2 lakh, who possessed different demographic characteristics

such as age, education, occupation and investors’ type and different socio-economic

characteristics like annual income and annual investment, which were categorized into

different groups. The profile of the 401 respondents has been discussed in this section.

Out of 401 respondents, 313 i.e. 78.05 % were male and 88 i.e. 21.95 % were female

(See Figure 4.1).

GENDER

78.05

21.95

Male Female
Figure 4.1: Gender category in percentage

4.1.2. AGE

In terms of age, the respondents have been classified into three groups – less

than 30 years, 31-40 years and 41 years and above. Out of 401 respondents, the highest

number of respondents fall in the second age group (200, 50%), followed by 136 (34%)

in the first age group, and 65 (16%) in the third age group (See Figure 4.2).
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

AGE
41 YEARS &
ABOVE
16% LESS THAN
30 YEARS
34%

31-40
YEARS
50%

Figure 4.2: Age distribution of the respondents

4.1.3 EDUCATION

The Education level has been classified into three categories – postgraduate and

above, graduate and non-graduate. Out of total 401 retail investors, the highest

percentage were of postgraduates 225 (56.11%), followed 162 (40.4%) graduates and

14 (3.49%) and non- graduates (See Figure 4.3).

EDUCATION
56.11

40.40

3.49

NON-GRADUATE GRADUATES POST-GRADUATES

Figure 4.3: Education level of the respondents

4.1.4 OCCUPATION

Investors from different occupation were included in the study and they were

self-employed persons, government job holders, private job holders and the

businessmen. Out of 401 respondents, the highest number of respondents were in

92
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

private jobs 129 (32%), followed by 96 (24%) in business, 92 (23%) in government

jobs and 84 (21%) in the self-employed person's category (See Figure 4.4).

OCUPATION
BUSINESS SELF-
PERSON EMPLOYED
24% 21%

GOVT. JOB
23%

PRIVATE
JOB
32%

Figure 4.4: Occupational Categories

4.1.5 ANNUAL INCOME

The study also differentiated the retail investors on the basis of socio-economic

characteristics, which includes annual income. The 401 respondents have been

classified into five income groups – annual income was less than 5 lakhs, 5 lakhs–7

lakhs, 7 lakhs–9 lakhs, 9 lakhs–11 lakhs and above 11 lakhs. The highest number of

respondents (212 persons, 52.9 %) fall in the first income group, followed by 111

(27.7%), 42 (10.5%), 27 (6.7%) and 9 (2.2%) respondents in the second, third, fifth and

fourth income groups respectively (See Figure 4.5).

93
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

ANNUAL INCOME
52.9

27.7

10.5
6.7
2.2

LESS THAN 5 5-7 LAKH 7-9 LAKH 9-11 LAKH 11 LAKH AND
LAKH MORE
Figure 4.5: Annual income of the respondent in percentage

4.1.6 ANNUAL INVESTMENT

The annual investment of individual investors was also categorized into five

categories- less than 50 thousand, 50 thousand-1 lakh, 1 lakh–1.5 lakh, 1.5 lakhs– 2

lakh and 2 lakh & above. Out of a total of 401 respondents, the highest number of

respondents were in the third category (223, 55.61%), followed by 96 (23.94%), 47

(11.72%), 21 (5.24%) and 14 (3.49%) respondents in the fourth, second, first and fifth

categories respectively (See Figure 4.6).

ANNUAL INVESTMENT
55.61

23.94

11.72
5.24 3.49

Upto-50 50 thousand - 1 Lakh -1.5 1.5 Lakh - 2 2 Lakh & More

Thousend 1 Lakh Lakh Lakh
Figure 4.6: Annual-investment of respondents in percentage

94
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

4.1.7 TYPE OF INVESTORS

On the basis of the risk-taking capacity of individuals, the respondents have

been categorized into five investor types- extremely conservative, conservative,

moderate risk-taker, high-risk taker and other types of investors which include the

ambiguous types. The highest percentage of investors was moderate risk-taker (55.4%).

Out of the remaining respondents, 24.3 % were high risk-takers, 11.4 % were

conservative, 5.2 % were extremely conservative and 3.7 % were in other types of

investors’ category (See figure 4.7).

TYPE OF INVESTORS

OTHER TYPE 3.70

HIGH RISK TAKER 24.30

MODERATELY RISK TAKER 55.40

CONSERVATIVE 11.40

EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE 5.20

Figure 4.7: Categories of investors type in percentage

4.1.8 PERIODIC REVIEW OF INVESTMENT

On the basis of the frequency of periodic review of investment in shares/ equity

by the individual investors the respondents were grouped into 5 categories – those who

review: more than once, every month, every 3-6 months, occasionally, never. The

highest percentage of respondents belonged to the second category (47.13%), followed

by 21.20 % respondents in the first category and 18.95%, 8.73 % and 3.99 %

respondents in the third, fourth and fifth category respectively (See Figure 4.8).

95
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

INVESTMENT REVIEW
47.13

21.20 18.95
8.73
3.99

More than Every Every 3-6 Occasionaly Never

once a month months
month
Figure 4.8: Periodic review of investment

4.1.9 INFLUENCING FACTORS

Based on the factors which the individual investor believed influenced his/her

investment choice in equity, respondents have been classified into five categories –

investors whose investment choice is influenced by performance records, the

recommendation of the adviser, level of brokerage charges and other costs, investment

offers/market information and other factors. The highest percentage of investors

believed that their investment choice in equity was influenced by performance records

(38.15 %). Out of the remaining respondents 28.68 %, 28.18%, 2.74% and 2.27%

belonged to the second, fourth third and fifth categories respectively (See figure 4.9).

FACTOR INFLUENCES THE INVESTMENT

CHOICE

Other facors 2.2 %

Investment offers / Market… 28.18 %
Level of brokerage charges and… 2.74 %
Recommendation of the adviser 28.86 %
Performance Records 38.15 %

Figure 4.9: Factor influencing the investment choice in percentage

96
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

4.2. TO EXPLORE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC

VARIABLES (GENDER, AGE, ANNUAL INCOME AND OCCUPATION) AND
INVESTMENT VARIABLES (ANNUAL INVESTMENT AND INVESTOR
TYPE)

4.2.1 GENDER AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT

The table 4.2.1 shows the results of the cross-classification of gender and annual

investment. It was analyzed that 63.38 % of the Male and 36.32 % of female investors’

annual investment came under rupees fifty thousand, as compared to other investment

categories. Further, it was clear from the chi-square value (55.345, df 4) that there was

a significant association between gender and an annual investment of investors. From

the table below it was also evident that male investors invest more while female

investors don’t invest above Rs 1.5 lakh.

Table: 4.2.1: Cross-Classification of Investors: Gender and Annual Investment

ANNUAL INVESTMENT

GENDER 1.5- 2LK & Total

50000 50000-1LK 1-1.5LK
2LK ABOVE

135(43.13)# 102(32.59)# 40(12.77)# 9(2.87)# 27(8.63)#

MALE 313#
(63.68)* (91.89)* (95.24)* (100)* (100)*

77 (87.5) 9(10.23) 2(2.27)

FEMALE 0 0 88
(36.32)* (8.11)* (4.76)*

Total 212* 111 42 9 27 401

Chi-square (4, 55.345), p=0.000, (*Column, # Row)

97
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

4.2.2 AGE AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT

The table 4.2.2 shows the results of cross-classification of the age of investors

and their annual investment. It was analyzed that investors of the age group 31-40 invest

more and their annual investment was under rupees fifty thousand. Further, it was clear

from the chi-square value (44.133, df 8) that there was a significant association between

age of investors and their annual investment.

Table: 4.2.2: Cross Classification of Investors: Age * Annual Investment

ANNUAL INVESTMENT

AGE 50000- 1.5- 2LK & Total

50000 1-1.5LK
1LK 2LK ABOVE

LESS 85(62.50)# 34(25.00) 11(8.08) 6(4.41)

0 136#
THAN 30 (40.09)* 30.63) (26.19) (22.22)

108(54) 57(28.50) 12(6.00) 8(4.00) 15(7.50)

31-40 200
(50.94) (51.35) (28.57) (88.88) (55.55)

41 & 19(29.23) 20(30.77) 19(29.23) 1(1.53) 6(9.23)

65
ABOVE (8.96) (18.01) (45.23) (11.11) (22.22)

Total 212* 111 42 9 27 401

Chi-square (8, 44.133), p=0.000, (*Column, # Row)

4.2.3 EDUCATION AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT

The table 4.2.3 shows the cross-classification of investors’ education and their

annual investments. It was analyzed that 50.00 % of investors who invested up to rupees

fifty thousand annually had PG & above qualification, followed by 45.75 % were

graduate and 4.2 % were undergraduate. Further, it was clear from the chi-square value

98
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

(19.228, df 8) that there was a significant association between the education level of

investors and their annual investment.

Table: 4.2.3: Cross-Classification of Investors: Education* Annual Investment

ANNUAL INVESTMENT

EDUCATION 50000- 1.5- 2LK & Total

50000 1-1.5LK
1LK 2LK ABOVE

9(64.28)# 3(21.43) 2(14.29)

UG 0 0 14#
(4.2)* (2.70) (7.41)

97(59.88) 46(28.39) 14(8.64) 5(3.09)

GRADUATE 0 162
(45.75) (41.44) (33.33) (18.31)

106(47.11) 62(27.56) 28(12.44) 9(4.00) 20(8.89)

PG &ABOVE 225
(50.00) (55.85) (66.66) (100) (74.07)

Total 212* 111 42 9 27 401

Chi-square (8, 19.228), p=0.013, (*Column, # Row)

4.2.4 OCCUPATION AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT

The table 4.2.4 shows the cross-classification of investors’ occupation and their

annual investments. It was analyzed that 24% were the self-employed person who

invests up to Rs 50,000 annually in stocks, whereas Government employees (44.44%)

invest up to Rs 2 lakh annually per year. Investors from a private sector job (40.54%)

invest up to Rs 1lakh annually 31.60 % were in private jobs and 16.03% were business

person. Further, it was clear from the chi-square value (43.106, df 12) that there was a

significant association between different occupation of investors with their annual

investment.

99
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table: 4.2.4: Cross Classification of Investors: Occupation* Annual Investment

ANNUAL INVESTMENT

OCCUPATION 50000- 1- 1.5- 2LK & Total

50000
1LK 1.5LK 2LK ABOVE

SELF- 51(62.96)# 17(20.99) 5(6.17) 2(2.47) 6(7.40)

81#
EMPLOYED (24.06)* (15.31) (11.90) (22.22) (22.22)*

60(65.93) 18(19.78) 7(7.69) 4(4.39) 2(2.20)

GOVT-JOB 91
(28.30) (16.22) (16.67) (44.44) (7.40)

67(51.15) 45(34.35) 10(7.63) 3(2.29) 6(4.58)

PVT-JOB 131
(31.60) (40.54) (23.80) (33.33) (22.22)

34(34.69) 31(31.63) 20(20.4) 13(13.26)

BUSINESS 0 98
(16.04) (27.93) (47.62) (48.15)

Total 212* 111 42 9 27 401

Chi square (12, 43.106), p=0.000, (*Column, # Row)

4.2.5 INCOME AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT

Table 4.2.5 shows the cross-classification of investors’ annual income and their

annual investments. It was evident from the table below that highest number of

investors fall under the category of investment up to Rs 50,000 and their annual income

was between 5-7 lakh. Further, it was clear from the Chi-square value (265.405, df 16)

that there was a significant association between the different annual income of

investors’ with their annual investment. It was also revealed from the table that as the

annual income increases the annual investment also increases but up to a certain limit.

100
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table: 4.2.5: Cross Classification of Investors: Income * Annual Investment

ANNUAL INVESTMENT

INCOME 50000- 1.5- 2LK & Total

50000 1-1.5LK
1LK 2LK ABOVE

Less than 5 66(81.48)# 15(18.52)

0 0 0 81#
Lakh (31.13)* (13.51)*

84(71.79) 17(14.52) 9(7.69) 3(2.56) 4(3.42)

5-7 Lakh 117
(39.62) (15.32) (21.42) (33.33) (14.81)

53(40.77) 56(43.07) 15(11.54) 3(2.30) 3(2.31)

7-9 Lakh 130
(25.00) (50.45) (35.41) (33.33) (11.11)

9(17.31) 22(42.30) 16(30.77) 5(9.62)

9-11 Lakh 0 52
(4.24) (19.82) (38.09) (18.51)

11 Lakh & 1(4.76) 2(9.52) 3(14.28) 15(71.43)

0 21
Above (0.90) (4.76) (33.33) (55.55)

Total 212* 111 42 9 27 401

Chi square (16, 265.405), p=0.000, (*Column, # Row)

4.2.6 GENDER AND INVESTOR TYPE

Table 4.2.6 shows the cross-classification of gender and investor types. It was

analyzed that 65.47% of male and 34.52 % of the female were moderate risk-takers.

Further, the chi-square value (46.930, df 16) shows that there was a significant

association between gender and an annual investment of investors. It was also evident

that very less number of females was interested in taking high risk.

101
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table: 4.2.6: Cross-Classification of Investors: Gender * Investor Type

INVESTOR TYPE

GENDER Extremely Moderate High Total

Conservative Others
Conservative Risk-Takers Risk-Takers

20(6.38)# 43(13.74) 146(46.65) 90(28.75)

MALE 14(4.47) 313
(95.23)* (91.49) (65.47) (93.75)

1(1.11) 4(4.54) 77(87.50) 6(6.81)

FEMALE 0 88
(4.76) (8.51) (34.52) (6.25)

Total 21* 47 223 96 14 401

Chi-square (16, 46.930), p=0.000, (*Column, # Row)

4.2.7 AGE AND INVESTOR TYPE

Table 4.2.7 shows the cross-classification of investors’ age and investor types.

The results show that the investors’ age group of 31-40 was moderate risk-takers and

as the age increases their risk appetite also decreases. The number of extremely

conservative investors was very less in the sample studied but we also found that less

than 30 years of age investors were extremely conservative maybe because they are not

well aware of the stock market and they take conservative steps. Further, it was clear

from the Chi-square value (19.530, df 8) that there was an association between different

age groups and investors type categories of investors.

102
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table: 4.2.7: Cross-Classification of Investors: Age * Investor Type

INVESTOR TYPE
AGE (In
Extremely Moderate High Total
Years) Conservative Others
Conservative Risk-Takers Risk -Takers

LESS 11(8.09)# 17(12.50) 74(54.41) 31(22.7) 3(2.20)

136#
THAN 30 (52.38)* (36.17) (33.18) (32.29) (21.42)

7(3.5) 23(11.50) 120(60.00) 39(19.5) 11(5.5)

31-40 200
(33.33) (48.93) (53.81) (40.63) (78.57)

41& 3(4.62) 7(10.77) 29(44.62) 26(40.0)

0 65
ABOVE (14.28) (14.89) (13.00) (27.08)

Total 21* 47 223 96 14 401

Chi-square (8, 19.530), p=0.012, (*Column, # Row)

4.2.8 EDUCATION AND INVESTOR TYPE

Table 4.2.8 shows the cross-classification of investors’ education and investor

types categories. It was evident from the table that education and risk-taking capacity

were related. People having PG degree are well educated and their risk-taking capacity

was high. Further, the result of the Chi-square test (22.512, df 8) shows that there was

a significant association between the education level of investors’ and their investor

risk type category.

103
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table: 4.2.8: Cross-Classification of Investors: Education * Investor Type

INVESTOR TYPE

Education Somewhat Moderate High risk- Total

Conservative Others
Conservative Risk-taker taker

3(21.42) 8(57.14) 3(21.42)

UG 0 0 14
(6.38) (3.59) (3.13)

17(10.4)# 16(9.87) 92(56.79) 29(17.90) 8(4.93)

Graduate 162#
(80.95)* (34.04) (41.25) (30.20) (57.14)

PG & 4(1.77) 28(12.44) 123(54.67) 64(28.44) 6(2.67)

225
Above (19.04) (59.57) (55.16) (66.67) (42.86)

Total 21* 47 223 96 14 401

Chi square (8, 22.512), p=0.004, (*Column, # Row)

4.2.9 OCCUPATION AND INVESTOR TYPE

Table 4.2.9 shows the cross-classification of investors’ occupation and investor

types. There were mixed results in case of occupation and investors risk-taking

capacity. From the table, we can conclude that our sample consists of moderate risk-

takers who are working in private sector jobs. Further, the Chi-square value (29.00, df

12) shows that there was a significant association between different occupation of

investors and their investor type.

104
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table: 4.2.9: Cross-Classification of Investors: Occupation*Investor Type

INVESTOR TYPE

Occupation Extremely Moderate High Risk- Total

Conservative Others
Conservative Risk-Taker Taker

SELF- 6(7.40)# 5(6.17) 51(62.96) 18(22.22) 1(1.23)

81#
EMPLOYED (28.57)* (10.64) (22.87) (18.75) (7.14)

2(2.20) 11(12.09) 59(64.83) 18(19.78) 1(1.09)

GOVT. 91
(9.52) (23.40) (26.46) (18.75) (7.14)

10(7.63) 12(9.16) 73(55.72) 32(24.42) 4(3.08)

PVT. 131
(47.62) (25.53) (32.73) (33.33) (28.57)

3(3.06) 19(19.39) 40(40.82) 28(28.57) 8(8.16)

BUSINESS 98
(14.28) (40.42) (17.94) (29.16) (57.14)

Total 21* 47 223 96 14 401

Chi square (12, 29.00), p=0.004, (*Column, # Row)

4.2.10 ANNUAL INCOME AND INVESTOR TYPE

Table 4.2.10 shows the cross-classification of investors’ annual income and

investor types were presented. It was analyzed that 61.53 % of investors having an

annual income of 7-9 lakh were of moderate risk-taking capacity, 50.00 % of investor

having an annual income of 9-11 lakh were high risk-takers. Similarly, 61.90 % of

extremely conservative investors had an annual income less than 5 lakh. Further, the

chi-square value (95.783, df 16) shows a significant association between the different

annual income of investors’ with investor types.

105
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table: 4.2.10: Cross-Classification of Investors: Income * Investor Type

INVESTOR TYPE

INCOME Extremely Moderate High Risk- Total

Conservative Others
Conservative Risk-taker taker

Less than 5 13(16.04) 7(8.64) 43(53.08) 7(8.64) 11(13.58)

81#
Lakh (61.90)* (14.89) (19.28) (7.29) (78.57)

7(5.98) 17(14.53) 70(59.82) 21(17.95) 2(1.71)

5-7 Lakh 117
(33.33) (36.17) (31.39) (21.87) (14.28)

14(10.77) 80(61.54) 35(26.92) 1(0.76)

7-9 Lakh 0 130
(29.79) (35.87) (36.46) (7.14)

1(1.92) 9(17.30) 16(30.77) 26(50.00)

9-11 Lakh 0 52
(4.76) (19.14) (7.17) (27.08)

11 Lakh & 14(66.66) 7(33.33)

0 0 0 21
Above (6.27) (7.29)

Total 21* 47 223 96 14 401

Chi-square (16, 95.783), p=0.000, (*Column, # Row)

4.2.11 SUMMARY OF THE CHI-SQUARE TEST OF INDEPENDENCE

The results of the Chi-square test of independence were summarized and shown

in table 4.2.11 below. The association was basically checked between the relevant

variables which showed some relationship in past literature. From the results of the chi-

square test of independence, it was evident that there was a significant association

between each pair of demographic characteristics and investment variables and each

pair of socio-economic characteristics and investment variables.

106
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table 4.2.11: Results of Chi-square statistic

Categorical variable pair Chi-square statistic p-value Remarks

Gender-annual investment 55.345 0.000 Association

Age-annual investment 44.133 0.000 Association

Education-annual investment 19.228 0.013 Association

Occupation- annual investment 43.106 0.000 Association

Income-annual investment 265.405 0.000 Association

Gender-investor type 46.930 0.000 Association

Age-investor type 19.530 0.012 Association

Education-investor type 22.512 0.004 Association

Occupation- investor type 29.00 0.004 Association

Income- investor type 95.783 0.000 Association

4.3 TO COMPARE THE DIFFERENCE IN RISK PERCEPTION, RISK

TOLERANCE AND INVESTMENT DECISIONS AMONG DIFFERENT
DEMOGRAPHIC (GENDER AND AGE) AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC
(EDUCATION, ANNUAL INCOME AND OCCUPATION) AND INVESTMENT
VARIABLES (TYPE OF INVESTOR)

4.3.1 GENDER

In behavioural finance study investors’ gender is the most important

explanatory factor that affects the investment decision. Therefore, it is important to

measure the effect of gender difference on risk perception, risk tolerance and

investment decisions. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare scores

for males and females for risk perception, risk tolerance and investment decisions. The

results (see table 4.3.1) shows that there was no significant difference in scores of risk

107
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

perception for males (M=32.23, SD=5.052) and females [M=32.14, SD=5.75;

t(399)=0.154, p=0.878]; risk tolerance for males (M=20.63, SD=2.12) and females

[M=20.25, SD=2.35; t(399)=1.460, p=0.145]; and investment decisions for males

(M=26.58, SD=4.022) and females [M=26.26, SD=4.21; t(399)=0.646, p=0.518] as the

p-value was more than 0.05 in all the cases. Thus, we can conclude that there was no

significant difference in the mean scores of males and females regarding risk

perception, risk tolerance and investment decisions. Thus, the null hypothesis was not

rejected for all the continuous variables and we found no gender effect.

Table 4.3.1: Testing of Equality of Means for all the study variables based on Gender
Gender t-test Remarks

Variables Male ( 313) Female (88) (H0)

Mean S.D Mean S.D t-value P-value

Risk Perception 32.2332 5.05165 32.1364 5.75392 0.154 0.878 Not rejected

Risk Tolerance 20.6326 2.11886 20.2500 2.35499 1.460 0. 145 Not rejected

Investment Dec. 26.5783 4.02251 26.2614 4.20862 0.646 0.518 Not rejected

4.3.2 AGE

The results presented in table 4.3.2 shows that there was a statistically

insignificant difference at p<0.05 in risk perception, risk tolerance, and investment

decisions for the three age groups (less than 30, 31-40, 41 & above). The actual

difference in mean scores between the groups was quite small. Post-hoc comparisons

using the Tukey HSD test (see Annexure table 5) also indicated that the mean score for

the risk perception, risk tolerance, and investment decisions was insignificant and thus

there was no difference between the age groups. Thus, we cannot reject the null

108
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

hypothesis and hence conclude that there is an insignificant difference in risk

perception, risk tolerance and investment decisions for the three age groups.

Table 4.3.2: Results of One-way ANOVA

Test of
Remarks
Variables Descriptives ANOVA Homogeneity of
(H0)
variance
Group 1=(M=32.4044,
S.D.=5.41928)
[F(4,
Group 2=(M=31.9650, .400* Not
RP 396)=0.470,
S.D.=5.18248) (0.671)** Rejected
p=.626]
Group 3=(M=32.5692,
S.D.=4.85402)
Group
1=(M=20.8015,S.D.=
2.05776) [F(4,
1.050* Not
RT Group 2=(M=20.5150, 396)=2.199,
(0.351)** Rejected
S.D.=2.23939) p=.112]
Group 3=(M=20.1231,
S.D.=2.17592)
Group 1=(M=26.6029,
S.D.=4.28136)
[F(4,
Group 2=(M=26.4400, 1.235* Not
ID 396)=0.065,
S.D.=3.92728) (0.292)** Rejected
p=.937]
Group 3=(M=26.5087,
S.D.=4.06086)
Note: Significance level p<0.05, *Levene Statistic, **Significance level p>0.05

4.3.3 EDUCATION

The results presented in table 4.3.3 shows that there was a statistically

insignificant difference at p<0.05 in risk perception, risk tolerance and investment

decisions for the three education groups (UG, Graduate, PG & above). The actual

difference in mean scores between the groups was quite small. Post-hoc comparisons
109
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

using the Tukey HSD test (see Annexure table 9) also indicated that the mean score for

all the variables was insignificant and thus there is no difference between the

educational groups. Thus, we cannot reject the null hypothesis and hence conclude that

there was an insignificant difference in risk perception, risk tolerance, and investment

decisions for the three education groups.

Table 4.3.3: Results of One-way ANOVA

Test of
Remarks
Variables Descriptives ANOVA Homogeneity of
(H0)
variance
Group 1=(M=32.0000,
S.D.= 4.42023)
[F(4,
Group 2=(M=32.3519, .209* Not
RP 396)=0.101,
S.D.= 5.23660) (0.812)** Rejected
p=.904]
Group 3=(M=32.1244,
S.D.= 5.24767)
Group 1=(M=20.5714,
S.D.= 2.24343)
[F(4,
Group 2=(M=20.6111, 0.096* Not
RT 396)=0.118,
S.D.= 2.13882) (0.908)** Rejected
p=.889]
Group 3=(M=20.5022,
S.D.= 2.20617)
Group 1=(M=26.9286,
S.D.= 3.31580)
[F(4,
Group 2=(M=26.5185, 1.070* Not
ID 396)=0.082,
S.D.= 3.98167) (0.344)** Rejected
p=.921]
Group 3=(M=26.4756,
S.D.= 4.17161)
Note: Significance level p<0.05, *Levene Statistic, **Significance level p>0.05

4.3.4 OCCUPATION

The results presented in table 4.3.4 shows that there was a statistically

insignificant difference at p<0.05 in risk perception, risk tolerance and investment

decisions for the four occupational groups (Self-employed, Private, Government and

Business). The actual difference in mean scores between the groups was quite small.

Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test (see Annexure table 13) also indicated

110
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

that the mean score for all variables was insignificant and thus there was no difference

between the occupational groups. Thus, we cannot reject the null hypothesis and hence

conclude that there was an insignificant difference in risk perception, risk tolerance and

investment decision-making for the four occupational groups.

Table 4.3.4: Results of One-way ANOVA

Test of
Remarks
Variables Descriptives ANOVA Homogeneity
(H0)
of variance
Group 1=(M=32.1358,
S.D.= 5.06644)
Group 2=(M=33.0879,
[F(4,
S.D.= 5.39475) .938* Not
RP 396)=1.303,
Group 3=(M=31.6947, (0.422)** Rejected
p=.273]
S.D.= 5.51905)
Group 4=(M=32.1531,
S.D.= 4.65811)
Group 1=(M=20.8642,
S.D.= 2.28994)
Group 2=(M=20.4176,
[F(4,
S.D.= 2.20134) 0.862* Not
RT 396)=0.778,
Group 3=(M=20.5344, (0.461)** Rejected
p=.507]
S.D.= 2.20941)
Group 4=(M=20.4286,
S.D.= 2.01028)
Group 1=(M=26.5926,
S.D.= 4.29470)
Group 2=(M=26.6923,
[F(4,
S.D.= 4.20764) 1.086* Not
ID 396)=0.122,
Group 3=(M=26.3969, (0.355)** Rejected
p=.947]
S.D.= 4.01474)
Group 4=(M=26.4184,
S.D.= 3.83399)
Note: Significance level p<0.05, *Levene Statistic, **Significance level p>0.05

4.3.5 INVESTOR TYPE

The results presented in table 4.3.5 shows that there was a statistically

significant difference at p<0.05 in risk perception and investment decisions for the five

investor groups (extremely conservative, conservative, moderate risk-takers, high risk-

takers and others). In case of risk tolerance, there was a statistically insignificant

difference between the groups. The actual difference in mean scores between the groups

111
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

was quite small. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test (see Annexure table

21) also indicated that the mean score for the risk tolerance and investment decisions

were insignificant. But in case of risk perception for the conservative and high risk-

taker groups (mean difference -2.82004, p=0.019) it was significant.

Table 4.3.5: Results of One-way ANOVA

Test of Remarks
Variables Descriptives ANOVA Homogeneity (H0)
of variance
Group 1=(M=33.5714,S.D.= 4.53400)
Group 2=(M=30.6383,S.D.= 5.68149) [F(4,
1.772* Not
RP Group 3=(M=31.9238,S.D.= 5.25121) 396)=3.107,
(0.134)** Rejected
Group 4=(M=33.4583,S.D.= 4.67449) p=.015#]
Group 5=(M=31.5000,S.D.= 5.68060)
Group 1=(M=21.0952,S.D.= 1.92106)
Group 2=(M=20.4681,S.D.= 2.23462) [F(4,
0.912* Not
RT Group 3=(M=20.3632,S.D.= 2.18675) 396)=1.408,
(0.457)** Rejected
Group 4=(M=20.9063,S.D.= 2.10302) p=.230]
Group 5=(M=20.5000,S.D.= 2.50384)
Group 1=(M=27.5238,S.D.= 4.70764)
Group 2=(M=25.7234,S.D.= 4.24111) [F(4,
.945* Not
ID Group 3=(M=26.1973,S.D.= 3.91309) 396)=2.485,
(0.438)** Rejected
Group 4=(M=27.4583,S.D.= 3.94946) p=.043#]
Group 5=(M=26.0714,S.D.= 4.66516)
Note: Significance level p<0.05#, *Levene Statistic, **Significance level p>0.05

4.3.6 INCOME

The results presented in table 4.3.6 shows that there was a statistically

insignificant difference at p <0.05 in risk perception, risk tolerance and investment

decisions for the five income groups (Less than 5 lakh, 5-7 lakh, 7-9 Lakh, 9-11 Lakh

& 11 & Above). In case of risk perception, we found that we have violated the

assumption of homogeneity of variance. In this case, we have to see the results of

112
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Robust Tests of Equality of Means as indicated by Welsh and Brown-Forsythe (0.297)

and we found it insignificant. The actual difference in mean scores between the groups

was quite small. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test (see Annexure table

26) also indicated that the mean score for all variables was insignificant and thus there

was no difference between the different income groups. Thus, we cannot reject the null

hypothesis and hence conclude that there was an insignificant difference in risk

perception, risk tolerance and investment decision-making for the five income groups.

Table 4.3.6: Results of One-way ANOVA

Test of
Variables Descriptives ANOVA Homogeneity Remarks
of variance
Group 1=(M=31.3580,
S.D.= 5.65975)
Group 2=(M=31.9231,
S.D.= 5.38061)
Group 3=(M=32.7154, [F(4, 396)=1.350, 2.636* Not
RP
S.D.= 4.73521) p=0.251] (0.034)** Rejected
Group 4=(M=33.0962,
S.D.= 4.59437)
Group 5=(M=31.8095,
S.D.= 6.35310)
Group 1=(M=20.5926,
S.D.= 2.06020)
Group 2=(M=20.5043,
S.D.= 2.19962)
Group 3=(M=2.19962, [F(4, 396)=0.074, 0.184* Not
RT
S.D.= 2.22020) p=0.990] (0.946)** Rejected
Group 4=(M=20.4615,
S.D.= 2.27054)
Group 5=(M=20.7143,
S.D.= 2.14809)

113
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Group 1=(M=26.0988,
S.D.= 4.10367)
Group 2=(M=4.10367,
S.D.= 4.04770)
Group 3=(M=4.04770, [F(4, 396)=0.922, 0.882* Not
ID
S.D.= 3.84388) p=.0.451] (0.475)** Rejected
Group 4=(M=26.7500,
S.D.= 4.58418)
Group 5=(M=27.2381,
S.D.= 3.93579)
Note: Significance level p<0.05, *Levene Statistic, **Significance level p>0.05

4.4 TO EXAMINE THE IMPACT OF AGE AND GENDER ON RISK

TOLERANCE

From the past literature, it is cleared that age and gender are the most important

demographic variables that have a significant impact on the financial risk tolerance

level of investors. The results of the study are as follows:

 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Table 4.4.1: Descriptive Statistics

GENDER AGE Mean Std. Deviation N
LESS THAN 30 21.1212 1.90741 99
31-40 20.5519 2.15128 154
MALE
40 & ABOVE 20.0333 2.21678 60
Total 20.6326 2.11886 313
LESS THAN 30 19.9459 2.22294 37
31-40 20.3913 2.53402 46
FEMALE
40 & ABOVE 21.2000 1.30384 5
Total 20.2500 2.35499 88
LESS THAN 30 20.8015 2.05776 136
31-40 20.5150 2.23939 200
Total
40 & ABOVE 20.1231 2.17592 65
Total 20.5486 2.17560 401

114
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

From the above table 4.4.1, it was clear that the mean value of male investors

of less than 30 years of age was 21.12 while the mean value of female investors was

19.94. The lowest S.D. was in case of females of the age group 40 & above thus it

shows that female investors of this age group take less risk.

 LEVENE'S TEST OF EQUALITY OF ERROR VARIANCES

Table 4.4.2: Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances

F df1 df2 Sig.

1.927 5 395 .089

This test provides a test of one of the assumptions underlying analysis of

variance. The significance level is greater than 0.05. Therefore, we have not violated

the homogeneity of variances assumption.

 RESULTS OF TWO-WAY ANOVA

A two-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the

impact of gender and age on risk tolerance. Subjects were divided into three groups

according to their age (Group 1: Less than 30 years; Group 2: 31–40 years; Group 3:

41 years and above). The interaction effect [F(1, 395)=3.149, p=.044] was statistically

significant. But there was a statistically insignificant main effect for age [F(2,

395)=0.051, p=.950] and gender [F(1, 395)=.022, p=.882]. Post-hoc comparisons using

the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score all the age groups do not differ

significantly from either of the other groups. Thus we can conclude that males and

females do not differ in terms of risk tolerance but there was a difference in the risk

tolerance level of three different age groups.

115
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table 4.4.3: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 5 13.018 2.813 .016

Intercept 1 53856.553 11636.147 .000

GENDER 1 .102 .022 .882

AGE 2 .238 .051 .950

GENDER * AGE 2 14.573 3.149 .044

Error 395 4.628

Total 401

4.5 TO EXAMINE THE IMPACT OF RISK TOLERANCE ON RISK

PERCEPTION

 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Table 4.5.1 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics for the risk tolerance and

risk perception. Risk perception (RP) is the dependent variable in the model which

ranges from 19 to 43 with mean value 32.21 and standard deviation of 5.21. Risk

tolerance ranges from 15 to 25 with mean value 20.55 and standard deviation of 2.18.

Table 4.5.1: Output of Descriptive Statistics

This table provides a summary of the descriptive statistics for the variables used
in the study. RP is the risk perception, which is a dependent variable. The independent
variable is RT is the risk tolerance, N is the number of observations.
Variables Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation N

RP 19.00 43.00 32.2120 5.20648 401

RT 15.00 25.00 20.5486 2.17560 401

116
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

 RESULTS OF CORRELATION ANALYSIS

The table 4.5.2 shows the correlation between risk perception and risk tolerance. It was

evident from the table that both the variables were positively correlated (r=0.299) but

have a weak relationship which is statistically significant at 5% level of significance.

Table 4.5.2: Simple correlation coefficients

Variables RP RT
0.299**
RP 1
(0.000)
RT 1
Values in parenthesis are p values **Significant at the 1% level

 RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS

The results of multiple linear regression analysis for the overall sample

observations are presented in table 4.5.3. This table shows the results of Ordinary Least

Square (OLS) regression model and explains the significance or insignificance of

individual variable included in the study.

Table 4.5.3: Regression results

This table shows regression results for the model as defined by the equation:
RP= α + 𝛽1 RT+uit. The regression analysis is based on 401 observations. The
dependent variable of the study is Risk Perception (RP). The explanatory variable or
independent variable is the Risk Tolerance (RT).
Standardized
Model
Coefficients T p-value
Dependent Variable: RP
Β
(Constant) - 7.405 .000
RT 0.299 6.267 .000
2
R-squared (𝑅 ) 0.090
Adjusted R-squared (𝑅̅ 2 ) 0.087
Std. error of estimate (SEE) 4.97394
F-statistic (3, 397 df) 39.277
p-value (F-statistic) 0.000

117
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

The table 4.5.3 depicts that risk tolerance (0.299) has a very low beta value. This

means that this variable makes a very slight contribution to explaining the dependent

variable. The coefficient of risk tolerance is also statistically significant at 5 per cent

level of significance. Thus we can conclude that risk tolerance is making a significant

unique contribution to the prediction of the dependent variable i.e. risk perception but

there are other variables also as predicted by the 𝑅̅ 2 value of 9 percent. 𝑅̅ 2 value

indicates that the explanatory variable (risk tolerance) explain on average 9 percent of

the variation in risk perception.

The regression model was overall significant as the [F (3,397) =39.277, p<0.05].

It indicates that the null hypothesis was rejected at 5% level of significance, which

means that there was a significant influence of risk tolerance on risk perception of the

investors. Although the individual role of risk tolerance is very minimal which indicates

that there are other factors also which frame the risk perception of an investor.

4.6 TO EXAMINE THE INFLUENCE OF RISK TOLERANCE ON

INVESTMENT DECISIONS

 RESULTS OF CORRELATION ANALYSIS

The table 4.6.1 shows the correlation between risk tolerance and investment

decision. It was evident from the table that both the variables were positively correlated

(r=0.496) and have a moderate relationship and statistically significant at 5% level of

significance.

Table 4.6.1: Simple correlation coefficients

Variables ID RT
0.496**
ID 1
(0.000)
RT 1
Values in parenthesis are p values **Significant at the 1% level

118
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

 RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS

The results of simple linear regression analysis for the overall sample

observations are presented in table 4.6.2. This table shows the results of Ordinary Least

Square (OLS) regression model and explains the significance or insignificance of

individual variables included in the study.

Table 4.6.2: Regression results

This table shows regression results for the model as defined by the equation:
ID= α + 𝛽1 RT+uit. The regression analysis is based on 401 observations. The
dependent variable of the study is Risk Perception (RP). The explanatory variable or
independent variable is the Risk Tolerance (RT).
Standardized
Model
Coefficients T p-value
Dependent Variable: RP
Β
(Constant) - 4.463 .000
RT 0.496 11.412 .000
R-squared (𝑅 2 ) 0.246
Adjusted R-squared (𝑅̅ 2 ) 0.244
Std. error of estimate (SEE) 3.08835
F-statistic (1, 399,130.239 df) 11.412
p-value (F-statistic) 0.000

The table 4.6.2 depicts that risk tolerance (.496) has moderate beta value. This

means that this variable makes a moderate contribution to explaining the dependent

variable. The coefficient of risk tolerance was also statistically significant at 5 per cent

level of significance. Thus we can conclude that risk tolerance was making a significant

unique contribution to the prediction of the dependent variable i.e. investment decision

but, there are other variables also as predicted by the 𝑅̅ 2 value of 24.4 per cent. 𝑅̅ 2 value

indicates that explanatory variable (risk tolerance) explain on average 24.4 per cent of

the variation in the investment decision.

119
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

The regression model was overall significant as the [F (1, 399) =130.239,

p<0.05]. It indicates that the null hypothesis was not rejected at 5% level of

significance, which means that there was a significant influence of risk tolerance on the

investment decision of the investors. Although the individual role of risk tolerance is

moderate which indicates that there are other factors also which frame the risk

perception of an investor.

4.7 TO EXAMINE THE INFLUENCE OF RISK PERCEPTION ON

INVESTMENT DECISIONS OF INVESTORS

 RESULTS OF CORRELATION ANALYSIS

The table 4.7.1 shows the correlation between risk perception and investment

decision. It was evident from the table that both the variables were positively correlated

(r=0.650) and have a strong relationship and statistically significant at 5% level of

significance.

Table 4.7.1: Simple correlation coefficients

Variables ID RP
0.650**
ID 1
(0.000)
RP 1
Values in parenthesis are p values **Significant at the 1% level

RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS

The results of simple linear regression analysis for the overall sample

observations are presented in table 4.7.2. This table shows the results of Ordinary Least

Square (OLS) regression model and explains the significance or insignificance of

individual variable included in the study.

120
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table 4.7.2: Regression results

This table shows regression results for the model as defined by the equation:
ID= α + 𝛽1 RP+uit. The regression analysis is based on 401 observations. The
dependent variable of the study is Risk Perception (RP). The explanatory variable or
independent variable is the Risk Tolerance (RT).
Standardized
Model
Coefficients T p-value
Dependent Variable: RP
Β
(Constant) - 10.506 .000
RP 0.650 17.105 .000
R-squared (𝑅 2 ) 0.423
Adjusted R-squared (𝑅̅ 2 ) 0.422
Std. error of estimate (SEE) 3.08835
F-statistic (1, 292.597 df) 292.579
p-value (F-statistic) 0.000

The table 4.7.2 depicts that risk tolerance (.650) has high beta value. This means

that this variable makes a high contribution to explaining the dependent variable. The

coefficient of risk perception was also statistically significant at 5 per cent level of

significance. Thus we can conclude that risk tolerance was making a significant unique

contribution to the prediction of the dependent variable i.e. investment decision but,

there are other variables also as predicted by the 𝑅̅ 2 value of 42.2 per cent. 𝑅̅ 2 value

indicates that the explanatory variable (risk perception) explain on average 42.2 per

cent of the variation in the investment decision.

The regression model was overall significant as the [F (1, 399) = 292.597,

p<0.05]. It indicates that the null hypothesis was not rejected at 5% level of

significance, which means that there was a significant influence of risk perception on

investment decision of the investors. Although the individual role of risk perception

121
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

was high which indicates that there were other factors also which frame the risk

perception of an investor.

4.8 TO EXAMINE THE IMPACT OF RISK TOLERANCE AND RISK

PERCEPTION ON INVESTMENT DECISIONS OF AN INVESTOR

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Table 4.8.1 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics for the variables

used in the study relating to investment decisions. Investment decisions (ID) was the

dependent variable in the model which ranges from 19 to 43 with mean value 26.51 and

standard deviation of 4.06. Risk tolerance was the first explanatory variable that ranges

from 15 to 25 with mean value 20.55 and standard deviation of 2.18. Risk perception

is the second explanatory variable that ranges from 19 to 43 with mean value 32.55 and

standard deviation of 5.21. With respect to standard deviation, the results show that risk

perception was the most important variable and risk tolerance was the least important

variable among variables used in the study.

Table 4.8.1: Descriptive Statistics

This table provides a summary of the descriptive statistics for the variables used
in the study. The ID is the investment decisions, which is a dependent variable. The
independent variables are defined as: RT is the risk tolerance and RP is the risk
perception. N is the number of observations.
Variables Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation N

RT 15.00 25.00 20.5486 2.17560 401

RP 19.00 43.00 32.5486 5.20648 401

ID 15.00 35.00 26.5087 4.06086 401

122
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

 RESULTS OF CORRELATION ANALYSIS

The matrix of simple correlation coefficients among the variables relating to the

effect of risk tolerance and risk perception on investment decisions have been shown in

table 4.8.2. Investment decisions were positively correlated with all the explanatory

variables and the correlation was found to be statistically significant at 5% level of

significance. Although the results were significant there was a moderate correlation

between risk tolerance and investment decisions (r=0.496) and a strong relationship

between risk perception and investment decisions (r=0.650). As revealed by the table

4.8.2, there was one relatively low inter-correlation of the independent variables, i.e.

between the risk perception and risk tolerance (r= 0.299).

Table 4.8.2: Matrix of simple correlation coefficients

Variables ID RT RP
0.496** 0.650**
ID 1
(0.000) (0.000)
0.299**
RT 1
(0.000)
RP 1
Values in parenthesis are p values **Significant at the 1% level

 RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS

The results of multiple linear regression analysis for the overall sample

observations are presented in table 4.8.3. This table shows the results of Ordinary Least

Square (OLS) regression model and explains the significance or insignificance of the

individual variable included in the study.

123
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table 4.8.3: Regression results

This table shows regression results for the model as defined by the equation:
ID= α + 𝛽1 RT+𝛽2 RP+uit. The regression analysis is based on 401 observations. The
dependent variable of the study is Investment Decisions (ID). The explanatory variables
or independent variables are defined as: RT is the Risk Tolerance and RP is the Risk
Perception.
Model Standardized Collinearity
Dependent Variable: Coefficients T p-value Statistics
ID Β Tolerance VIF
(Constant) -0.028 0.978
RT .331 9.122 0.000 0.910 1.098
RP .551 15.192 0.000 0.910 1.098
R-squared (𝑅 2 ) 0.523
Adjusted R-squared (𝑅̅ 2 ) 0.520
Std. error of estimate (SEE) 2.81222
F-statistic (3, 397 df) 218.030
p-value (F-statistic) 0.000

The table 4.8.3 depicts that risk perception (0.551) has the highest beta value.

This means that this variable makes the strongest unique contribution to explain the

dependent variable when the variance explained by all the other variables was

controlled for. The coefficient of risk perception was also statistically significant at 5

per cent level of significance. The beta value of risk tolerance (0.331) was low,

indicating that it makes a lesser but significant contribution (p=0.000). Thus we can

conclude that both the variables (risk perception and risk tolerance) were making a

significant contribution towards explaining the investment decisions of an investor. The

𝑅̅ 2 value of 52.3 percent indicates that the explanatory variables explain on average

52.3 percent of the variation in investment decisions.

124
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

The estimated Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) value was small (much less than

10, the rule of thumb) in all the cases indicating an absence of multicollinearity between

the explanatory variables. Hence, these results show that the explanatory variables

included in the model were not substantially correlated with each other. The regression

model was overall significant [F(3, 397)=218.030, p<0.05]. It indicates that the null

hypothesis was rejected at 5% level of significance, which means that there was a

significant influence of risk tolerance and risk perception on investment decisions of

the investors.

4.9 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

The results of the study have been able to bring out some significant findings:

 Firstly, the graphical representation of the data showed that 78 per cent of the

sample consists of male investors while 22 per cent were female. According to age,

the maximum number of investors belongs to 31-40 years of age group. The sample

consists of 56.11 per cent of post-graduate investors and 32 per cent of investors

were working in the private sector. Out of 401 investors, 52.9 per cent were having

an annual income of less than Rs 5 lakh and a maximum number of respondents

invest less than Rs 50,000 annually. The data representation also revealed that 55.4

per cent of our respondents were moderate risk-takers and 47.13 per cent of the

respondents review their investments monthly and the most influencing factor of

their investment was performance records of the companies. Thus this graphical

representation of the data revealed that the sample consists of well-educated and

who have good financial knowledge.

125
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

 The first objective of the study was analyzed all the dimensions that were measured

by the researcher regarding demographic and socioeconomic variables along with

investment variables with the help of Chi-square test and the results showed that all

dimensions have a significant association. The results of the study revealed that

gender and annual income were significantly associated and male investors

investment more than female counterparts. It was also revealed that females were

moderate risk-takers while males are high risk-takers. According to age, middle-

age group investors invest more than younger ones and they were moderate risk-

takers. The results also showed that as the age increases the risk-taking capacity

also decreases. Similarly, investors who were less than 30 years of age were

extremely conservative, there may be a possibility that their knowledge about the

stock market is less and they want to play safe. Education was also associated with

investment and it was revealed from the analysis that highly educated investors

invest more because of their awareness about the market and they are interested in

taking the risk. The results of our study also showed that investors in private sector

jobs invest more and they were also interested in taking the risk. Although our

sample consists of investors who annually earn less than Rs 5 lakh investors but

investors who belong to 7-9 lakh annual income categories invests more because of

the surplus money and they were high risk-takers.

 The third objective was to analyze the impact of demographic, socio-economic and

investment on risk perception, risk tolerance, and investment decisions and the

results depicted that there was no significant difference in risk tolerance for the

demographic, socio-economic and investment variables taken into consideration.

Except for the case of investor type where we found a significant difference in risk

126
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

perception and investment decisions. Thus we can say that risk tolerance as a

subjective judgement doesn’t vary with demographic, socio-economic and

investment variables but it is same for all the cases. We can further state that since

the data belongs to cosmopolitan city Delhi-NCR the investors are well educated

and financially literate so the risk tolerance doesn’t vary between the groups.

 The third objective of our study was to analyze the combined effect of age and

gender on risk tolerance and the results revealed that there was no individual or

main effect of age and gender on risk tolerance but the interaction effect was

prominent.

 The fourth objective was to analyze the influence of risk tolerance on risk

perception and the results of correlation show that both were related to each other

but the degree of influence was less. The results also revealed that there was a

significant influence of risk tolerance on risk perception.

 The fifth objective was to analyze the influence of risk tolerance on investment

decisions and the results of correlation show that both were related to each other

but the degree of influence was moderate. The results also revealed that there was

a significant influence of risk tolerance on investment decisions.

 The sixth objective was to analyze the influence of risk perception on investment

decisions and the results of correlation show that both were related to each other

but the degree of influence was high. The results also revealed that there was a

significant influence of risk perception on investment decisions.

 Lastly, we analyze the combined effect of risk tolerance, risk perception on

investment decisions and the results of the correlation showed that they were

127
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

related. The results also revealed that there was a positive and significant pair-wise

correlation between each of the independent and dependent variables and risk

tolerance and risk perception had a significant influence on the investment decisions

of investors. In addition to this, the regression result also showed that they only

have a positive but moderate relationship.

The above findings have some significant implications. However, the findings

have some limitations which can be improved through future research. Such limitations,

implication and scope for future research have been discussed in the subsequent

chapter.



128