SAMVAD: International Journal of Management

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Factors Accountable for Non-Participation in the Stock Market: Identification and Ranking


Affiliations
1 Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, India
2 Ph.D. Scholar, Symbiosis International (Deemed University) Pune, India
3 Professor, Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), India
 

Non-Participation in the Stock (NPS) market is a serious concern especially with the rising burden of debt in general and NPA in particular in the Indian economy. This paper is an attempt to address the problem of NPS. Identification of factors accountable for NPS is the first step to resolve the problem. Ranking is obviously the second step so that the problem can be resolved in the sequential manner. The current study identifies: willingness to invest, cash availability, knowledge of the equity market, expectation of returns, trust on the market and risk in the market. The factors are delineated in the order of the priority. Willingness to invest in the stock market come out to be more important reason for NPS and risk in the market happens to be the least important factor in the pecking order of factors for NPS. A multi-criteria decision making tool, Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) is applied to set the identified factors into the order of their relevance for NPS. The findings of the study have unique attributes in terms of newer set of factors and the method of ranking them. The relevant factors for NPS identified in the current study can be responded with the appropriate change or revision in the guidelines and policies to address the problem of NPS. Moreover, one of the major implications of the study is that the factors can be taken care of in the step wise manner as compared to taking up all at the same time.

Keywords

Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP), Equity Market, Factor Analysis, Investors, Mutual Funds.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Ahmad, S. (2017). Factors influencing Individual investors’s behaviour: An empirical study of Pakistan financial mar- kets, Journal of Business and Financial Affairs, 6(4), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0234.1000297.

  • Almenberg, J., & Dreber, A. (2015). Gender, stock market par- ticipation and financial literacy, Economics Letters, 137, 140-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2015.10.009.

  • Arrindell, W.A., & Van der Ende, J. (1985). An empiri- cal test of the utility of the observations-to-variables ratio in factor and components analysis, Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(2), 165-178. https://doi. org/10.1177/014662168500900205.

  • Barber, B.M., Huang, X., & Odean, T. (2016). Which factors matter to investors? Evidence from mutual fund flows, The Review of Financial Studies, 29(10), 2600-2642. https://doi. org/10.1093/rfs/hhw054.

  • Bashir, T., Azam, N., Butt, A.A., Javed, A., & Tanvir, A. (2013). Are behavioral biases influenced by demographic charac- teristics and personality traits? Evidence from Pakistan, European Scientific Journal (ESJ), 9(29), 37-44.

  • Bhimavarapu, V.M., & Rastogi, S. (2020), Valuation of Transparency-A Systematic Literature Review Paper, Test Engineering and Management, 83, 9092-9102.

  • Chawla, D. (2014). An empirical analysis of factors influencing investment in mutual funds in India, Global Business Review, 15(3), 493-503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150914535136.

  • Christelis, D., Georgarakos, D., & Haliassos, M. (2013). Differences in portfolios across countries: Economic environment versus household characteristics, Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 220-236. https://doi. org/10.1162/REST_a_00260.

  • Clark-murphy, M., & Soutar, G.N. (2004). What individual investors value: Some Australian evidence, Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 539-555. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0167-4870(03)00056-4.

  • Dimitrios, I.M. (2007). Investors’ behaviour in the Athens Stock Exchange (ASE), Journal of Accountancy, 120(6), 67-72. Engel, J.F., Kollat, D.T., & Blackwell, R.D. (1968). Consumer Behaviour. New York: Holl, Rienard and Winston.

  • Gardini, A., & Magi, A. (2007). Stock market participation: new empirical evidence from Italian households’ behaviour, Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 66,(1), 93.

  • Guiso, L., & Jappelli, T. (2005). Awareness and stock market participation, Review of Finance, 9(4), 537-567. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10679-005-5000-8.

  • Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Trusting the stock market, The Journal of Finance, 63(6), 2557-2600. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01408.x.

  • Guiso, L., & Sodini, P. (2013). Household finance: An emerging field, Handbook of the Economics of Finance, 2, 1397-1532. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-44-459406-8.00021-4.

  • Jagannathan, R., & Kocherlakota, N. R. (1996). Why should older people invest less in stocks than younger people, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 20, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.21034/qr.2032.

  • Jain, S., & Gangopadhyay, A. (2012). Analysis of equity based mutual funds in India, OSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSRJBM), 2(1), 1-4. https://doi. org/10.9790/487X-0210104.

  • Kaur, I. (2018). Mutual fund investor’s behaviour towards information search and selection criteria: Do knowledge and perception about mutual funds matter? Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 10(4), 395-414. https://doi. org/10.1108/QRFM-09-2017-0084.

  • Kaur, I., & Kaushik, K.P. (2016). Determinants of investment behaviour of investors towards mutual funds, Journal of Indian Business Research, 8(1), 19-42. https://doi. org/10.1108/JIBR-04-2015-0051.

  • Kaustia, M., & Torstila, S. (2011). Stock market aver- sion? Political preferences and stock market participation, Journal of Financial Economics, 100(1), 98-112. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.10.017.

  • Kim, J.O., & Mueller, C.W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues (No. 14), Sage. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781412984256.

  • Lim, K.L., Soutar, G.N., & Lee, J.A. (2016). Factors Affecting Investment Intentions: A Consumer Behaviour Perspective. In: Financial Literacy and the Limits of Financial Decision Making, Harrison T, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; p. 201- 223. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30886-9_10. PMCid:PMC5104843.

  • Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection, The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952. tb01525.x, https://doi.org/10.2307/2975974.

  • Mohammed Kamil, N., Subramaniam, M., Ali, H.E., Musah, M.B., & Alex, A. (2018). Factors influencing the selection of unit trust funds among Malaysian retail investors, Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 9(2), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIABR-11-2015-0057.

  • Nunnally, Jum C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, 1st Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Obamuyi, T.M. (2013). Factors influencing investment decisions in capital market: A study of individual investors in Nigeria, Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 4(1), 141-161. https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2013.4.1.14263.

  • Patil, A.C., & Rastogi, S. (2019). Time-varying price-volume relationship and adaptive market efficiency: A survey of the empirical literature, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ jrfm12020105.

  • Patil, A.C., & Rastogi, S. (2020a). Multifractal analysis of mar- ket efficiency across structural breaks: Implications for the adaptive market hypothesis, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(10), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ jrfm13100248.

  • Patil, A.C., & Rastogi, S. (2020b). Multifractal analysis of time- varying market efficiency: Implications for adaptive market hypothesis, Test Engineering and Management, 83, 16646- 16660.

  • Perez-gladish, B., & M’Zali Bouchra. (2010). An AHP-based approach to mutual funds social performance measure- ment Bouchra M Zali, International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, 1(1), 103-127. https://doi.org/10.1504/ IJMCDM.2010.033689.

  • Pinto, G., & Rastogi, S. (2019). Sectoral analysis of factors influencing dividend policy: Case of an emerging financial market, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(3), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12030110.

  • Pinto, G., Rastogi, S., Kadam, S. & Sharma, A. (2019). Bibliometric study on dividend policy, Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 12(1), 72-95. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-11-2018-0118.

  • Ramasamy, B., & Yeung, M.C.H. (2003). Evaluating mutual funds in an emerging market: Factors that matter to finan- cial advisors, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21(3), 122-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320310469502.

  • Rastogi, S. (2014a). The financial crisis of 2008 and stock market volatility-analysis and impact on emerging econo- mies pre and post crisis, Afro-Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(4), 443-459. https://doi.org/10.1504/ AAJFA.2014.067017.

  • Rastogi, S. (2014b). Investor apathy to stock market: A study using discriminant analysis, Abhigyan, 32(2), 1-14.

  • Rastogi, S., & Ragabiruntha, E. (2018). Financial inclusion and socioeconomic development: Gaps and solution, International Journal of Social Economics, 45(7), 1122-1140. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-08-2017-0324.

  • RBI. (2017). Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy. Reserve Bank of India.

  • Ritter, J.R. (2003). Behavioral finance, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 11(4), 429-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927- 538X(03)00048-9.

  • Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw- Hill.

  • Saaty, T.L. (1994). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process, Interfaces, 24(6), 19-43. https://doi. org/10.1287/inte.24.6.19.

  • Saaty, T.L. (2004). Decision making - the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP / ANP), Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13(1), 1-35. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11518-006-0179-6, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11518-006-0151-5.

  • Saaty, T.L., & Peniwati, K. (2013). Group Decision Making: Drawing Out and Reconciling Differences. RWS publica- tions.

  • Sahi, S.K., & Arora, A.P. (2012). Individual inves- tor biases: A segmentation analysis, Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 4(1), 6-25. https://doi. org/10.1108/17554171211213522.

  • Sahi, S.K., Dhameja, N., & Arora, A.P. (2012). Predictors of preference for financial investment products using CART analysis, Journal of Indian Business Research, 4(1), 61-86. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554191211206807.

  • Saraoglu, H., & Detzler, M.L. (2002). A sensible mutual fund selection model, Financial Analysts Journal, 58(3), 60-72. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v58.n3.2538.

  • Shafi, M. (2014). Determinants influencing individual inves- tor behavior in stock market: A cross country research survey, Nigerian Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 2(1), 60-71. https://doi. org/10.12816/0003720.

  • Sharma, A., Rastogi, S. & Gupta, N. (2020). Financial efficiency of non-banking financial companies-microfinance institu- tions: A data envelopment analysis, Test Engineering and Management, 83, 9080-9091.

  • Shingade, S.S., & Rastogi, S. (2019). Shareholders’ activism and firm performance: A review of literature, Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, 10(2), 22-30. https:// doi.org/10.18843/ijcms/v10i2/04.

  • Solomon, M.R. (1999). Consumer Behavior: Buying, having and being, Fourth Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

  • Van Rooij, M., Lusardi, A., & Alessie, R. (2011). Financial lit- eracy and stock market participation, Journal of Financial Economics, 101(2), 449-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jfineco.2011.03.006.

  • Yu, V.F., & Ting, H.I. (2011). Identifying key factors affecting consumers’ choice of wealth management services: An AHP approach, Service Industries Journal, 31(6), 929-939. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060903078750.

  • Zopounidis, C. (1999). Multicriteria decision aid in finan- cial management, European Journal of Operational Research, 119(2), 404-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377- 2217(99)00142-3.


Abstract Views: 217

PDF Views: 93




  • Factors Accountable for Non-Participation in the Stock Market: Identification and Ranking

Abstract Views: 217  |  PDF Views: 93

Authors

Arpita Sharma
Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, India
Akanksha Goel
Ph.D. Scholar, Symbiosis International (Deemed University) Pune, India
Shailesh Rastogi
Professor, Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), India
Venkata Mrudula Bhimavarapu
Ph.D. Scholar, Symbiosis International (Deemed University) Pune, India

Abstract


Non-Participation in the Stock (NPS) market is a serious concern especially with the rising burden of debt in general and NPA in particular in the Indian economy. This paper is an attempt to address the problem of NPS. Identification of factors accountable for NPS is the first step to resolve the problem. Ranking is obviously the second step so that the problem can be resolved in the sequential manner. The current study identifies: willingness to invest, cash availability, knowledge of the equity market, expectation of returns, trust on the market and risk in the market. The factors are delineated in the order of the priority. Willingness to invest in the stock market come out to be more important reason for NPS and risk in the market happens to be the least important factor in the pecking order of factors for NPS. A multi-criteria decision making tool, Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) is applied to set the identified factors into the order of their relevance for NPS. The findings of the study have unique attributes in terms of newer set of factors and the method of ranking them. The relevant factors for NPS identified in the current study can be responded with the appropriate change or revision in the guidelines and policies to address the problem of NPS. Moreover, one of the major implications of the study is that the factors can be taken care of in the step wise manner as compared to taking up all at the same time.

Keywords


Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP), Equity Market, Factor Analysis, Investors, Mutual Funds.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.53739/samvad%2F2021%2Fv23%2F165130