International Research Journal of Commerce , Arts and Science

 ( Online- ISSN 2319 - 9202 )     New DOI : 10.32804/CASIRJ

Impact Factor* - 6.2311


**Need Help in Content editing, Data Analysis.

Research Gateway

Adv For Editing Content

   No of Download : 30    Submit Your Rating     Cite This   Download        Certificate

PREFERENCES OF INVESTORS FOR INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS IN INDIA

    1 Author(s):  MANISHA DUDEJA

Vol -  5, Issue- 2 ,         Page(s) : 9 - 20  (2014 ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/CASIRJ

Abstract

There has been growing importance of Mutual Fund Investment in India. When compared with other financial instruments, investments in Mutual funds are safer and also yields more returns on the portfolio investment. Indian mutual fund has gained a lot of popularity from the past few years. Earlier only UTI enjoyed the monopoly in this industry but with the passage of time many new players entered the market, due to which the UTI monopoly breaks down and the industry faces a severe competition. As the time passes this industry has become a buzz word in the Indian financial system. So it is very important to know the investors’ perception about this industry. This study is done to determine the preferences of investors for investment in mutual funds in India. The objectives of the study were to identify the factors that influence the preferences of investors for investment in mutual fund, to analyze investment options other than mutual funds and to plan the promotion of mutual fund investment in India. The sample were divided into two i.e. Prospective and Existing investors. The study reveals the most preferred factor for investment in mutual fund by the existing investors is high return and tax benefits. Bank is the main factor which influences their investment decision as the preferred distribution channel for investment.

  1. Bogle, J. C. 1992. Mutual Fund Performance: Does Fund Size Matter? Financial Analysts. Journal. 55(3):74-87.
  2. Croson, R. and Gneezy, U. 2004. Gender Difference in Preferences. Mimeo, The University of Chicago.
  3. Fama, E. and French, K. 1992. The Cross Section of Expected Returns. The Journal of Finance. 47(2):427-465.
  4. Fazzari, S. M. 1992. Keynesian Theories of Investment and Finance: Neo, Post, and New in S Fazzari and D B Papadimitriou (eds.). Financial Condition and Macroeconomic Performance: Essays in Honor of Hyman P Minsky, M. E. Sharpe. Inc. New York: 121- 132.
  5. Fazzari, S. M. and Athey, M. J. 1987. Asymmetric Information, Financing Constraints and Investment. Review of Economics and Statistics. XIX, (3): 481-87.
  6. Fazzari, S. M. and Variato, A. 1994. Asymmetric Information and Keynesian Theories of Investment’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics. 16(3):351-69.
  7. Gertler, M. 1988. Financial Structure and Aggregate Economic Activity: An Overview, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. 20(3):559-88.
  8. Grossman, S. J. and Stiglitz, J. E. 1980. On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets. American Economics Review. 70(3):393-408.
  9. Harlow, W. V. and Brown, K. 1990. The role of Risk Tolerance in the Asset Allocation Process: A New Perspective, AIMR, Charlottesville, Virginia.
  10. Ippolito, R. 1992. Consumer reaction to measures of poor quality: evidence from the mutual fund industry. Journal of Law and Economics. XXXV: (45-70).
  11. McDonald K. S. 1997. No Guts, No Glory. Working Women. 22(4):42-46.
  12. Modigliani, F. and Miller, M. H. 1958. The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and the Theory of Investment. American Economic Review. VIII (3):261-97.
  13. Riley, W. B. and Chow, V. K. 1992. Asset Allocation and Individual Risk Aversion, Financial Analyst Journal. 48(6):32-37.
  14. Shefrin, H. and Statman, M. 1995. Making Sense of Beta, Size and Book-to- Market. Journal of Portfolio Management. 21(2):26-34.
  15. Stiglitz, J. E. 1988. Why Financial Structure Matters. Journal of Economic Perspective. 2(4):121-26.

*Contents are provided by Authors of articles. Please contact us if you having any query.






Bank Details