Journal of Commerce and Accounting Research

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Study of Behavioural Dimensions of Perceived Risk of Investment of Financial Experts and Laymen in Equity Mutual Funds in India


Affiliations
1 Galgotias Business School, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Fortune Institute of International Business, New Delhi, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Purpose: This paper aims to study the behavioural aspects of financial decision making variables like faith, knowledge, availability of information, uncertainty, predictability of future outcome, complexity of product, and transparency that define risk perception of individual investor in equity mutual fund. The objective is to identify the difference, if any, between factors defining risk of investment in equity mutual fund for a financial expert against a lay investor.

Research design: Convenience sampling was used to get response to questionnaire for variables relating to behavioural aspects of investment decision making. Research tool ANOVA was applied to responses from experts and laymen to establish if there is a difference between their perceptions of risk of investment in equity mutual fund. Further factor analysis was applied to identify the factors defining risks and finally discriminant analysis was done to find the impact of each of the factors in describing the riskiness of the product - equity mutual fund.

Findings: Results of ANOVA establish that there is significant difference in risk perceptions of experts and laymen in making investment decision. Factor analysis resulted in six components - risk of potential adverse returns, extent of control on the outcome, self-regulation, voluntary risk taking, financial consciousness, and transparent dealings -describing riskiness of investment. Discriminant analysis shows that there are distinct differences in the weights assigned to each of the factors by experts and laymen.

Research limitations/ implications: The limitation of our research is that the responses are collected only from four metropolitan cities of India, namely Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Kolkata. Future studies could cover a larger base. Since the questionnaires were mailed, the responses depend on the interpretation/ understanding of each of the question by individual respondents. Future researchers could address the shortcoming by conducting personal interviews for data collection.

Practical implications: The study is important from fund manager's point of view as identification behavioural dimensions of risk perceptions for laymen can help them manage better the risk perception of investors, contributing to encouraging investment environment.

Social implications: Understanding the fears of small/ lay investors and educating them to make informed investment decision will aid them earn better returns on investment.

Originality/ value: A large base of small investors stays away from investment in equity, particularly in India. The study will help fund managers understand the various reasons behind it so that appropriate steps could be taken to manage their risk perception and empower small investors to take calculated risks.


Keywords

Attitude, Perceived Risk, Investors, Equity Mutual Fund, Factor Analysis
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Agnew, J. and Szykman, L. (2005). Asset allocation and information overload: The influence of information display asset choice and investor experience. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6(2), 57-70.

  • Alexander, G., Jones, J. and Nigro, P. (1998). Mutual fund shareholders: Characteristics, investor knowledge, and sources of information. Financial Services Review, 7(4), 301-316.

  • Altman, M. (2008). Behavioral economics, economic theory and public policy. Australasian Journal of Economics Education, 5 (1/2), 1-55.

  • Altman, M. (2012). Behavioral Economics for Dummies. New York: Wiley.

  • Ashraf, N. and Bohnet, I. (2006). Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Experimental Economics, 9(3), 193-208. Association of Mutual Funds, India. (2013). Report on Asset under Management. Retrieved from http:// www.amfiindia.com/ AUMReport_Rpt_Po.aspx?dtAUM=01-Jul- 2012&andqt=July%20- %20September%20 2012&rpt=fwise

  • Association of Mutual Funds, India. (1963). History of Indian Mutual Fund Industry. Retrieved from http:// www.amfiindia.com/showhtml.aspx?page=mfindustry

  • Barber, B., Odean, T. and Zheng, L. (2005). Out of sight, out of mind: The effects of expenses on mutual fund flows. Journal of Business, 78(6), 2095-2119.

  • Bergstresser, D., Chalmers, J. and Tufano, P. ( 2007). Assessing the costs and benefits of brokers in the mutual fund industry. Review of Financial Studies, 22(10), 4129-4156.

  • Bernanke, B. S. (2009). Financial Innovation and Consumer Protection. At the Federal Reserve System’s Sixth Biennial Community Affairs Research Conference, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http// www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/ speech/bernanke20090417a.htm

  • Bohner, I. and Zeckhauser, R. (2004). Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55(4), 467-484.

  • Bohnet, I. and Huck, S. (2004). Repetition and reputation: Implications for trust and trustworthiness when institutions change. American Economic Review, 94(2), 362-366.

  • Bohnet, I., Greig, F., Herrmann, B. and Zeckhauser, R. (2008). Betrayal aversion: Evidence from Brazil, China, Oman, Switzerland, Turkey, and United States. American Economic Review, 98(1), 294-310.

  • Boston Analytics. (2008). India Watch. Retrieved from http:// www.bostonanalytics.net/india_watch/india_watch.html

  • Capon, N., Fitzsimons, G. and Prince, R. (1996). An individual level analysis of the mutual fund investment decision. Journal of Financial Services Research, 10(1), 59-82.

  • Carlin, B. I. (2009). Strategic price complexity in retail financial markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 91(3), 278-287.

  • Carney, M. (1998). The competitiveness of networked production: The role of trust and asset specificity. The Journal of Management Studies, 35(4), 457-470.

  • Chevalier, J. and Ellison, G. (1997). Risk taking by mutual funds as a response to incentives. Journal of Political Economy, 105(6), 1167-1200.

  • deVries, S. and Wilke, H. A. M. (1995). An adviser in resource management situations: Configural weighing of recommendations. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(1), 115-135.

  • Diacon, S. (2004). Investment risk perceptions. Do consumers and advisers agree? The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 22(3), 180-198.

  • Duxbury, D. and Summers, B. (2004). Financial risk perception. Are individuals variance averse or loss averse? Economics Letters, 84(1), 21-28.

  • Dyer, J. H. and Chu, W. (2000).The determinants of trust in supplier- automaker relationships in the U.S., Japan, and Korea. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2), 259-285.

  • Dyer, J. H. and Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Decision Science, 14(1), 57-68.

  • Eckel, C. and Wilson, R. (2004). Is trust a risky decision? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55(4), 447-465.

  • Fehr, E. (2009). On the economics and biology of trust. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2-3), 235-266.

  • Grinblatt, M. and Keloharju, M. (2001). What makes investors trade? Journal of Finance, 56(2), 589-616.

  • Grable, J. E. (2000). Financial risk tolerance and additional factors that affect risk taking in everyday money matters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(4), 625-630.

  • Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio Selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.

  • Harvey, N. and Fischer, I. (1997). Taking advice: Accepting help, improving judgment, and sharing responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(2), 117-133.

  • Harvey, N., Harries, C. and Fischer, I. (2000). Using advice and assessing its quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 252-273.

  • Hong, K. and Bohnet, I. (2007). Status and distrust: The relevance of inequality and betrayal a version. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(2), 197-213.

  • Husted, B. W. (1994). Transaction costs, norms, and social networks. Business and Society, 33(1), 30-57.

  • Inderst, R. and Ottaviani, M. (2009). Misselling through agents. American Economic Review, 99(3), 883-908.

  • Ippolito, R. (1992). Consumer reaction to measures of poor quality: Evidence from the mutual fund industry. Journal of Law and Economics, 35(1), 45-70.

  • Ippolito, R. (1992). Consumer reaction to measures of poor quality: Evidence from the mutual fund industry. Journal of Law and Economics, 35(1), 45-70.

  • Iyengar, S. and Lepper, M. (2000). When choice is de-motivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 995-1006.

  • Huber, J., Kirchlera, M. and Sutter, M. (2004). Experimental Studies on Value of Information in Financial Markets with Heterogenously Informed Agents. EES 2004: Experiments in Economic Sciences - New Approaches to Solving Real-world Problems

  • Jain, P. C. and Wu, J. S. (2000). Truth in mutual fund advertising: Evidence on future performance and fund flows. Journal of Finance, 55(2), 937-958.

  • James, H. S. (2002). The trust paradox: A survey of economic inquiries into the nature of trust and trustworthiness. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 47(3), 291-307.

  • Johnson-George, C. and Swap, W. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1306-1317.

  • Jungermann, H. (1999). Advice Giving and Taking. In 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-32). Maui, HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).

  • Sachse, K., Jungermann, H. and Belting, J. M. (2012). Investment risk- The perspective of individual investors. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 437-447.

  • Kee, H. W. and Knox, R. E. (1970). Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 14(3), 357-366.

  • Klein, B. (1980). Transaction cost determinants of unfair contractual arrangements. American Economic Review, 70(2), 356-362.

  • Klos, A., Weber, E. U. and Weber, M. (2005). Investment decisions and time horizon: Risk perception and risk behavior in repeated gambles. Management Science, 51(12), 1777-1790.

  • Koller, M. (1988). Risk as a determinant of trust. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9(4), 265-276.

  • Koonce, L., McAnally, M. L. and Mercer, M. (2005). How do investors judge the risk of financial items? The Accounting Review, 80(1), 221-241.

  • Kray, L. J. (2000). Contingent weighting in self-other decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 82-106.

  • KPMG, India. (2012). India’s Mutual Fund Industry - SEBI’s Endeavor to Re-Energize the Industry. Retrieved from http:// www.kpmg.com/in/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/ kbuzz/pages/fs-september2012.aspx

  • Lalwani, V. (2012). Suchitra Krishnamoorthi Files Complaint against HSBC Bank. Times of India. Retrieved from http:// articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-28/ news-interviews/33449848_1_suchitra-krishnamoorthidouglas- flint-hsbc-plc

  • Lusardi, A. and Mitchell, O. S. (2007). The Importance of Financial Literacy: Evidence and Implications for Financial Education Programs, Policy Brief. Retrieved from http:// www.dartmouth.edu/~alusardi/Papers/ PolicyBrief_lusardi.pdf

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 709-734.

  • McDaniels, T. L., Axelrod, L. J., Cavanagh, N. S. and Slovic, P. (1997). Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis, 17(3), 341-352.

  • MacGregor, D., Slovic, P., Berry, M. and Evensky, H. R. (1999). Perception of financial risk: A survey study of advisors and planners. Journal of Financial Planning, 12(8), 68-86.

  • Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationship between providers and users of marketing research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314-328.

  • Nosic, A. and Weber, M. (2010). How risky do I invest: The role of risk attitudes, risk perceptions, and overconfidence. Decision Analysis, 7(3), 282-301.

  • Olsen, R. A. (1997). Investment risk: The expert’s perspective. Financial Analysts Journal, 53(2), 62-66.

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman , J. R. and Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14(3), 534-552.

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R. and Luce, M. F. (1996). When time is money: Decision behavior under opportunitycost time pressure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(2), 131-152.

  • Singh, R. and Bhowal, A. (2009). Risk perception dynamics and equity share behavior. Indian Journal of Finance, 3(6), 23-30.

  • Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G. and Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95-112.

  • Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression Management. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.

  • Shefrin, H. (2000). Beyond Greed and Fear. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

  • Shleifer, A. (2000). Inefficient Markets: An Introduction to Behavioral Finance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Slovic, P. (1986). Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 6(4), 403-415.

  • Sirri, E. and Tufano, P. (1998). Costly search and mutual fund flows. Journal of Finance, 53(5), 1589-1622.

  • Sniezek, J. A. and Buckley, T. (1995). Cueing and cognitive conflict in judge–advisor decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 159-174.

  • Sniezek, J. A. and van Swol, L. M. (2001). Trust, confidence, and expertise in a judge-advisor system. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 288-307.

  • Sreeram, R. (2010). Business Today. Retrieved from http:// businesstoday.intoday.in/story/mutual-funds-have-asmall- following/1/8704.html

  • Staw, B. M., McKechnie, P. L. and Puffer, S. M. (1983). The justification of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 582-600.

  • Diacon, S. (2004). Investment risk perceptions: Do consumers and advisers agree? International Journal of Bank Marketing, 22(3), 180-199.

  • Tedeschi, J. (1981). Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research. New York: Academic Press.

  • Treynor, J. L. (1962). Toward a Theory of Market Value of Risky Assets. Unpublished manuscript. Subsequently published as Chapter 2 of Korajczyk, R. A. (1999). Asset Pricing and Portfolio Performance: Models, Strategy and Performance Metrics. London: Risk Books

  • Veld, C. and Veld-Merkoulova, Y. V. (2008). The risk perceptions of individual investors. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(2), 226-252.

  • Venezia, I., Nashikkar, A. and Shapira, Z. (2011). Firm specific and macro herding by professional and amateur investors and their effects on market volatility. Journal of Banking and Finance, 35(7), 1599-1609.

  • Vlaev, I., Chater, N. and Stewart, N. (2009). Dimensionality of risk perception: Factors affecting consumer understanding and evaluation of financial risk. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 10(3), 158-181.

  • Williamson, O. E. (1983). Credible commitments: Using hostages to support exchange. American Economic Review, 73(4), 519-535.

  • Williamson, O. E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. Journal of Law and Economics, 36(1), 453-486.

  • Yaniv, I. and Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice taking in decision making: Egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(2), 260-281.


Abstract Views: 360

PDF Views: 0




  • Study of Behavioural Dimensions of Perceived Risk of Investment of Financial Experts and Laymen in Equity Mutual Funds in India

Abstract Views: 360  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Manju Tripathi
Galgotias Business School, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
Tuhin Chattopadhyay
Fortune Institute of International Business, New Delhi, India

Abstract


Purpose: This paper aims to study the behavioural aspects of financial decision making variables like faith, knowledge, availability of information, uncertainty, predictability of future outcome, complexity of product, and transparency that define risk perception of individual investor in equity mutual fund. The objective is to identify the difference, if any, between factors defining risk of investment in equity mutual fund for a financial expert against a lay investor.

Research design: Convenience sampling was used to get response to questionnaire for variables relating to behavioural aspects of investment decision making. Research tool ANOVA was applied to responses from experts and laymen to establish if there is a difference between their perceptions of risk of investment in equity mutual fund. Further factor analysis was applied to identify the factors defining risks and finally discriminant analysis was done to find the impact of each of the factors in describing the riskiness of the product - equity mutual fund.

Findings: Results of ANOVA establish that there is significant difference in risk perceptions of experts and laymen in making investment decision. Factor analysis resulted in six components - risk of potential adverse returns, extent of control on the outcome, self-regulation, voluntary risk taking, financial consciousness, and transparent dealings -describing riskiness of investment. Discriminant analysis shows that there are distinct differences in the weights assigned to each of the factors by experts and laymen.

Research limitations/ implications: The limitation of our research is that the responses are collected only from four metropolitan cities of India, namely Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Kolkata. Future studies could cover a larger base. Since the questionnaires were mailed, the responses depend on the interpretation/ understanding of each of the question by individual respondents. Future researchers could address the shortcoming by conducting personal interviews for data collection.

Practical implications: The study is important from fund manager's point of view as identification behavioural dimensions of risk perceptions for laymen can help them manage better the risk perception of investors, contributing to encouraging investment environment.

Social implications: Understanding the fears of small/ lay investors and educating them to make informed investment decision will aid them earn better returns on investment.

Originality/ value: A large base of small investors stays away from investment in equity, particularly in India. The study will help fund managers understand the various reasons behind it so that appropriate steps could be taken to manage their risk perception and empower small investors to take calculated risks.


Keywords


Attitude, Perceived Risk, Investors, Equity Mutual Fund, Factor Analysis

References