Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Sales of Mutual Funds Companies in India Suyash Bhat
An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Sales of Mutual Funds Companies in India Suyash Bhat
Research Guide
Dr. PRADIP MANJREKAR
PROFESSOR
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY,
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT,
Sector 4, Plot No. 10,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614
June 2010
1
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF FACTORS
AFFECTING SALES OF MUTUAL FUNDS
COMPANIES IN INDIA
2
DECLARATION
Place:
Date:
3
CERTIFICATE
Place:
Date:
Signature of the
Head of the department Signature of the Guide
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the first place, I am indebted to the Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University’s
Department of Business Management, which has accepted me for Doctorate program
and provided me with an excellent opportunity to carry out the present research
project. I would like to sincerely thank to Dr. Pradip Manjrekar Professor & Head
Research, Consultancy & Extension Centre, Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University’s
Department of Business Management, my guide my mentor, without whose
cooperation and guidance it would not have been possible for me to pursue such goal
oriented research. Also for his time, advice and especially for constantly encouraging
me in my efforts. I thank Dr. R Gopal, Director – Department of Business
Management at Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University’s Department of Business
Management without whose cooperation it would not have been possible for me to
complete this research.
I am immensely thankful to Prof.(Dr) James Thomas, Vice Chancellor and Dr.
F.A. Fernandes, Registrar at Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University for providing me
this opportunity to persue the PhD at Department of Business Management. I also
express my gratitude to the administrative staff of Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil
University Department of Business Studies whose secretarial assistance helped me in
summiting the various evaluation documents in time.
I am grateful to Shri. Amarjit Singh Manhas [University of Mumbai Senate
Member and MHADA Chairman], who has immensely contributed in whatever I am
today. I would like to mention few individuals who have been a source of inspiration
for me throughtout, they are;
§ Shri . Y.K.Bhushan – Advisor – IBS
and Research.
Research.
5
Place:
6
SR.No PARTICULARS PAGE
NO.
§ LIST OF TABLES iv
§ LIST OF FIGURES viii
§ LIST OF ABBREVATIONS xiii
§ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xv
1 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 THE HISTORY OF MUTUAL FUNDS 1
1.2 BACKGROUND OF MUTUAL FUND 2
1.3 DEFINATION OF MUTUAL FUND 9
1.4 PURPOSE OF STUDY 11
1.5 ORGANISATION OF THESIS 12
7
2.7 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION W.R.T IT ENABLED 52
SERVICES [ONLINE] IN MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY
2.8 IT ENABLED SERVICES [ONLINE] IN MUTUAL 55
FUND INDUSTRY
2.9 CUSTOMER LOYALTY IN MUTUAL FUND 58
INDUSTRY
8
8 CHAPTER 7 : LIMITATION AND FUTURE SCOPE OF 187
RESEARCH
8.1 FUTURE SCOPE OF RESEARCH 190
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Phase II of Mutual Fund Industry. 6
and Sales
10
Table 5.1.4. Cross tabulation between NAV and Sales 111
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
and Sales
Sales
and Sales
Sales
11
Table 5.1.17. Cross tabulation between safety in agent / 150
Sales
12
Table 6.1Summary of Hypothesis Testing 185
13
LIST OF FIGURE
Finance
14
Services
Services
Fund
Mutual Fund
Services.
Enabled Services.
Enabled Services.
Enabled Services.
Enabled Services.
Enabled Services.
Enabled Services.
Figure 5.1.23Pie chart for catering to all need for using IT & IT 130
15
Enabled Services.
Figure 5.1.24Pie chart for catering to all need for using IT & IT 132
Enabled Services.
Services.
Services.
Enabled Services
Enabled Services
Services.
Services.
16
Services.
Enabled Services
brokerage firm
brokerage firm
brokerage firm.
brokerage firm.
brokerage firm.
brokerage firm.
brokerage firm.
17
brokerage firm.
Figure 5.1.46Pie chart for using agent / brokerage firm for cash 164
incentive.
Figure 5.1.47Pie chart for using agent / brokerage firm for cash 166
incentive.
company.
company.
company.
18
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
§ PR = Past Record
§ REFERRAL_IT = Referral of IT
19
§ REFERRAL = Referral of Agent / Brokerage Firm
20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the study is to determine whether mutual fund attributes affect mutual
fund performance. Attributes such as management tenure, expenses, NAV , and size
are examined and the different positions are quoted from the literature. Lastly, this
As the amount of assets invested in mutual funds has ballooned, mutual funds have
become more abundant and more attractive to study. The common thread connecting
performance. The initial goal of mutual funds was to make saving and diversification
more seamless for the lay investor, but as more and more mutual funds were developed
and as more investment companies marketed their mutual funds, it became increasingly
difficult and confusing for investors to select mutual funds. Moreover, as the popularity
of these mutual funds increased, evidenced by the sheer amount and growth of invested
assets from 1999 to 2010, finance scholars and practitioners began to examine the
attributes of mutual funds that affected sales of mutual funds. Also to investigate the
concepts to determine if the extra effort and cost of introducing IT Enabled Services
satisfaction rates and the intention to remain loyal. Another objective of this study is
to look at whether these concepts are further affected if other variables are introduced,
past performance could possibly predict immediate future returns. This is known as the
21
“hot hands” phenomenon. The topic of persistence is a subject for debate because there
are many conflicting views among researchers (Cahart, 1997; Grinblatt et al., 1992;
Hendricks et al., 1993). Also literature review deals with the predictive attributes of
mutual funds, excluding past performance. According to Peterson et al. (2001), this
segment of the literature is much more sparse than that which examine the persistence and
in loyalty rates (Jones and Sasser 1995; Reichheld, Markey and Hopton 2000; Bolton,
Kaniian and Bramlett 2000; Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Gwinner, Gremler and
Bitner 1998). And, an increase in loyalty can decrease administrative costs by 10-40%
(Vincent 2000). There is little published empirical research on the subject of IT and
IT Enabled Services aside from industry surveys evaluating company results after
differentiating between highly vs. moderately satisfied customers and what effect this
22
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study examines the role that information technology plays in supporting
traces the interrelationships among the different sectors of this industry -brokerage
houses, mutual funds, insurance companies, and others - and identifies roles that
information technology and electronic service delivery can play in creating and
identifies the opportunities for and threats to these relationships caused, in large part,
The origin of the concept of mutual fund dates back to the very dawn of commercial
history. It is said that Egyptians and Phoenicians sold their shares in vessels and
caravans with a view to spreading the risk attached with these risky ventures.
However, the real credit of introducing the modern concept of mutual fund goes to the
large number of close-ended mutual funds were formed in the U.S.A. in 1930’s
followed by many countries in Europe, the Far East and Latin America. In most of
the countries, both open and close-ended types were popular. In India, it gained
momentum only in 1980, though it began in the year 1964 with the Unit Trust of India
launching its first fund, the Unit scheme 1964. While the mutual funds had its origin
in Belgium, it did not take firm root in continental soil but flourished when
23
transplanted in UK and USA surroundings.
Although historians may differ on the exact genesis of mutual funds, the origin of
mutual funds can be traced back to a little more than one & half century ago. In 1822,
which appears to be the first mutual fund. It was intended to facilitate small
investments in foreign government loans, which, then, offered more security and
returns than the home industry. Later, another similar company was started with an
The genesis of the mutual fund industry in India can be traced back to 1964 with the
setting up of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) by the Government of India. Since then
UTI has grown to be a dominant player in the industry. UTI is governed by a special
The industry was opened up for wider participation in 1987 when public sector banks
and insurance companies were permitted to set up mutual funds. Since then, 6 public
sector banks have set up mutual funds. Also the two Insurance companies LIC and
GIC have established mutual funds. Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
formulated the Mutual Fund (Regulation) 1993, which for the first time established a
comprehensive regulatory framework for the mutual fund industry. Since then several
mutual funds have been set up by the private and joint sectors.
24
Indian Financial Services Sector (Mutual Fund) have been a significant source of
investment in both government and corporate securities. Decades it has been the
monopoly of the state with UTI being the key player, with invested funds exceeding
Rs.300 bn. The state-owned insurance companies also hold a portfolio of stocks.
Presently, numerous mutual funds exist, including private and foreign companies and
UTI, the government in 1964 set up the largest mutual fund in the country, to
encourage small investors in the equity market, presently having extensive marketing
network of over 35, 000 agents spread over the country. The UTI scrip’s have
performed relatively well in the market, as compared to the Sensex trend. However,
All MFs are allowed to apply for firm allotment in public issues. SEBI regulates the
functioning of mutual funds, and it requires that all MFs should be established as
trusts under the Indian Trusts Act. The actual fund management activity shall be
conducted from a separate asset management company (AMC). The minimum net
worth of an AMC or its affiliate must be Rs. 50 million to act as a manager in any
other fund. MFs can be penalized for defaults including non-registration and failure to
observe rules set by their AMCs. MFs dealing exclusively with money market
instruments have to be registered with RBI. All other schemes floated by MFs are
required to be registered with SEBI. In 1995, the RBI permitted private sector
institutions to set up Money Market Mutual Funds (MMMFs). They can invest in
25
treasury bills, call and notice money, commercial paper, commercial bills
securities having unexpired maturity up to one year. UTI pioneered the mutual fund
industry in India ( 1963) with slow & staidly growth , but it accelerated from the year
1987 when non-UTI players entered the industry. In the past decade, Indian mutual
fund industry had seen a dramatic improvement, both qualities wise as well as
quantity wise. Before, the monopoly of the market had seen an ending phase; the
Assets Under Management (AUM) was Rs.67 bn. The private sector entry to the fund
family raised the AUM to Rs. 470 bn in March 1993 and till April 2004; it reached the
height of Rs. 1,540 billion. Putting the AUM of the Indian Financial Services Sector
(Mutual Fund Industry) into comparison, the total of it is less than the deposits of SBI
alone, constitute less than 11% of the total deposits held by the Indian banking
industry. The main reason of its poor growth is that the mutual fund industry in India
is new in the country. Large sections of Indian investors are yet to be intellectuated
with the concept. Hence, it is the prime responsibility of all mutual fund companies,
The mutual fund industry can be broadly put into four phases according to the
Unit Trust of India enjoyed complete monopoly when it was established in the year
1963 by an act of Parliament. UTI was set up by the Reserve Bank of India and it
continued to operate under the regulatory control of the RBI until the two were de-
linked in 1978 and the entire control was transferred in the hands of Industrial
26
Development Bank of India (IDBI). UTI launched its first scheme in 1964, named as
Unit Scheme 1964 (US-64), which attracted the largest number of investors in any
UTI launched more innovative schemes in 1970s and 80s to suit the needs of different
investors. It launched ULIP in 1971, six more schemes between 1981-84, Children's
Gift Growth Fund and India Fund (India's first offshore fund) in 1986, Mastershare
(India’s first equity diversified scheme) in 1987 and Monthly Income Schemes
(offering assured returns) during 1990s. By the end of 1987, UTI's assets under
The Indian mutual fund industry witnessed a number of public sector players entering
the market in the year 1987. In November 1987, SBI Mutual Fund from the State
Bank of India became the first non-UTI mutual fund in India. SBI Mutual Fund was
later followed by Canbank Mutual Fund, LIC Mutual Fund, Indian Bank Mutual
Fund, Bank of India Mutual Fund, GIC Mutual Fund and PNB Mutual Fund. By
1993, the assets under management of the industry increased seven times to Rs.
47,004 crores. However, UTI remained to be the leader with about 80% market share.
27
Amount Assets Mobilisation as % of
1992-93
Mobilised Under Management Gross Domestic Savings
Public
1,964 8,757 0.9%
Sector
The permission given to private sector funds including foreign fund management
companies (most of them entering through joint ventures with Indian promoters) to
enter the mutual fund industry in 1993, provided a wide range of choice to investors
and more competition in the industry. Private funds introduced innovative products,
The mutual fund industry witnessed robust growth and stricter regulation from the
SEBI after the year 1996. The mobilisation of funds and the number of players
operating in the industry reached new heights as investors started showing more
Investors' interests were safeguarded by SEBI and the Government offered tax
28
Regulations, 1996 was introduced by SEBI that set uniform standards for all mutual
funds in India. The Union Budget in 1999 exempted all dividend incomes in the
hands of investors from income tax. Various Investor Awareness Programmes were
launched during this phase, both by SEBI and AMFI, with an objective to educate
investors and make them informed about the mutual fund industry.
In February 2003, the UTI Act was repealed and UTI was stripped of its Special legal
status as a trust formed by an Act of Parliament. The primary objective behind this
was to bring all mutual fund players on the same level. UTI was re-organised into
29
Presently Unit Trust of India operates under the name of UTI Mutual Fund and its
past schemes (like US-64, Assured Return Schemes) are being gradually wound up.
However, UTI Mutual Fund is still the largest player in the industry. In 1999, there
was a significant growth in mobilisation of funds from investors and assets under
PUBLIC PRIVATE
FROM TO UTI TOTAL
SECTOR SECTOR
The industry has also witnessed several mergers and acquisitions recently, examples
of which are acquisition of schemes of Alliance Mutual Fund by Birla Sun Life, Sun
30
F&C Mutual Fund and PNB Mutual Fund by Principal Mutual Fund. Simultaneously,
more international mutual fund players have entered India like Fidelity, Franklin
Templeton Mutual Fund etc. There were 29 funds as at the end of March 2006. This
This section deals with the various concepts and terms used in this study that may
carry different meanings in another context. This section defines those terms with the
help of the literature. The following terms are defined operationally, as they are used
in this study.
Asset Under Management (AUM): The net assets under the management of a mutual
Net Asset Value (NAV): The amount of buying and selling that happens within a
mutual fund during the year as a percentage of the total value of the mutual fund at
the beginning of the year. The NAV ratio is reported in percentages that represent the
Past performance (PP): This study uses the one-year return of the mutual fund from
January to December of that year that has been adjusted for their respective category
Do mutual fund attributes affect mutual fund performance. For example, a small cap
mutual fund that produces a return of 15% may be relatively lower than a more value
oriented mutual fund with the same nominal unadjusted performance. To adjust for
31
different investment objectives and understanding that there are multiple categories,
the average category performance is subtracted from the unadjusted one-year return.
Persistence: The nature of mutual funds to exhibit lasting performance over multiple
time periods. This behavior is also called the “hot hands” phenomenon in the
investment management companies collects money from the investors and invests
those money in different Stocks, Bonds and other financial securities in a diversified
manner. Before investing they carry out thorough research and detailed analysis on
the market conditions and market trends of stock and bond prices. These things help
the fund mangers to speculate properly in the right direction. The investors who invest
their money in the Mutual fund of any Investment Management Company, receive an
Equity Position in that particular mutual fund. When after certain period of time,
whether long term or short term, the investors sell the Shares of the Mutual Fund, they
receive the return according to the market conditions. The investment companies
receive profit by allocating people's money in different stocks and bonds according to
their Speculation about the Market Trend. Other than some specific mutual funds
which carry certain Maturity Term, Investors can generally sell the shares of their
mutual funds at any time they want. But, the return will vary according to market
value of the stocks and bonds in which that particular mutual fund made investment.
But, generally the share holders of mutual fund sell their share when the prices are up
32
1.9 PURPOSE OF STUDY
The initial goal of mutual funds was to make saving and diversification more seamless for
the lay investor, but as more and more mutual funds were developed and as more
investment companies marketed their mutual funds, it became increasingly difficult and
confusing for investors to select mutual funds. Moreover, as the popularity of these
mutual funds increased, evidenced by the sheer amount and growth of invested assets
from 1999 to 2010, finance scholars and practitioners began to examine the attributes of
mutual funds that affected sales of mutual funds. Also to investigate the relative effects
determine if the extra effort and cost of introducing IT Enabled Services protocols to
highly valued customers really does positively affect customer satisfaction rates and
the intention to remain loyal. Another objective of this study is to look at whether
these concepts are further affected if other variables are introduced, specifically in a
financial service industry context. This study is important for several reasons:
immediate future returns. This is known as the “hot hands” phenomenon. The topic of
persistence is a subject for debate because there are many conflicting views among
researchers (Cahart, 1997; Grinblatt et al., 1992; Hendricks et al., 1993). Also
literature review deals with the predictive attributes of mutual funds, excluding past
much more sparse than that which examine the persistence and market.
in loyalty rates (Jones and Sasser 1995; Reichheld, Markey and Hopton 2000;
33
Bolton, Kaniian and Bramlett 2000; Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Gwinner,
Gremler and Bitner 1998). And, an increase in loyalty can decrease administrative
Services aside from industry surveys evaluating company results after Information
differentiating between highly vs. moderately satisfied customers and what effect this
details about the Mutual Fund Industry in India and how it started. Then we moved on
to explaining the purpose of the study and why attributes like Financial Factors,
Funds in India. In Chapter 2 we talk about the literature review and how past
quality, IT Enabled services and other area’s like CRM. In Chapter 3 we have
identified what are the research gaps and how do we bridge those gaps through the
current research. We also have discussed the research methodology in which we have
discussed what the sampling method used, why it is used, what are biases in sample
and how do we deal with it. In Chapter 4 we have discussed the how data needs to be
analysed and whether the finding are in sink with what we aim to achieve. We have
displayed what are the different statistical tools used by us and its respective output of
34
SPSS version16. In Chapter 5 we have discussed the conclusion and findings of our
study. In Chapter 6 we have added the limitation and future scope of research. Finally
35
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of the study is to determine whether mutual fund attributes affect mutual
fund performance. The previous chapter discussed the various dilemmas in this field
and stated the hypotheses to be tested in this study. This chapter presents the literature
review and shows that further research is needed. In the literature review, the
management tenure, expenses, NAV , and size are examined and the different
positions are quoted from the literature. Lastly, this section summarizes why further
As the amount of assets invested in mutual funds has ballooned, mutual funds have
become more abundant and more attractive to study. The common thread connecting
performance.
Since the inception and use of mutual funds, financial academics and practitioners
have sought to describe their behavior. With billions of dollars invested for a short
period of time, mutual funds have come to play an integral role in an investor’s
portfolio. Countless studies have been conducted attempting to describe the behavior
of these mutual funds. This section introduces the various mutual fund attributes and
relationship, it is important to note the different topics within the mutual fund
36
literature. The literature can be split into three distinct categories. The first category
examines the characteristics of mutual fund managers themselves. This part of the
literature examines whether or not mutual fund managers have great skill in selecting
securities and timing markets successfully. Researchers such as Ferson and Schadt
(1996), Henricksson (1984), and Treynor and Mazuy (1966) have examined the
ability of mutual fund managers to select securities and time markets successfully, but
there is little evidence that supports the notion that they possess such skills. The
second segment of the literature deals with performance persistence, where past
also known as the “hot hands” phenomenon. The topic of persistence is a subject for
debate because there are many conflicting views among researchers (Cahart, 1997;
Grinblatt et al., 1992; Hendricks et al., 1993). The third segment of the literature deals
with the predictive attributes of mutual funds, excluding past performance. According
to Peterson et al. (2001), this segment of the literature is much more sparse than its
other two segments, which examine the persistence and market timing/securities
selection skills of the mutual fund manager. The relatively small number of studies
that examine mutual fund attributes and their effects on performance demonstrate this.
Although the two segments of the literature not dealing with mutual fund attributes
are noteworthy, this study agrees with the researchers examining the
relationships will give practical value to lay investors as well as contributing to the
literature and attracting more research into this field of study. This section presents a
37
2.1.1 Effects of Management Tenure (Past Record)
This section examines the varying perspectives on management tenure and its
influence over mutual fund performance. Management tenure is the number of years a
professional money manager has been working for a particular investment company.
In this study, management tenure stands as a proxy for experience. Although there is
mutual fund performance, only a minority of the literature concludes that management
Adrangi et al. (2002) examine portfolio returns between professional money managers
versus randomly chosen stocks selected by a process called the “dartboard” method
(as the name suggests, a dart is thrown at a board listing all of the stocks on the New
York Stock Exchange (NYSE)). They found that professional money managers
outperformed the “dartboard” portfolio method, which in the study represented lay
Therefore, their research suggests that professional money managers are beneficial
(Adrangi et al., 2002). They also asserted that lay investors did not have the expertise
to filter relevant data to make a worthy investment decision. In this case, the relevant
data consists of financial and econometric information that could influence portfolio
returns. They further suggest that the move towards professional money management
and away from managing one’s own portfolio is due to professional money managers
specializing in this field and historically outperforming lay investors (Adrangi et al.,
2002).
38
Although one can be convinced by the conclusions presented by Adrangi et al. (2002),
Fortin and Michelson (1999) suggest that management tenure has no effect on mutual
fund performance. Furthermore, they suggest that all investors should look past
management tenure and examine other variables such as the risk characteristics of
mutual funds, the type of mutual fund, size, and NAV . They caution against the easy
conclusion that management tenure and mutual fund performance need be positively
have a specialized knowledge of markets, they do not possess any significant skills in
selecting stocks or timing markets. Although their study concludes that longer-term
fund managers have lower risk in their portfolios than shorter-term or inexperienced
negative. Lemak and Satish (1996) side with Fortin and Michelson (1999) in their
study of 313 mutual funds; they also found that longer-term fund managers have more
stable returns than shorter-term fund managers because longer-term fund managers
Costa and Porter (2003) provide evidence that contradicts Adrangi et al. (2002). They
found that the experience or tenure of the mutual fund manager does not imply
expertise (Costa & Porter, 2003). The core argument between these articles concerns
whether professional money managers are needed. On the one hand, Adrangi et al.
(2002) suggest that they are needed because they are able to outperform the lay
investor. On the other hand, Costa and Porter (2003) suggest that professional money
39
Adrangi et al. (2002), professional money managers should be able to perform better
because they have specialized knowledge and expertise in this field. Unfortunately,
Costa and Porter (2003) found that management tenure does not contribute to above
average returns, nor is it a cause of consistent returns. However, Costa and Porter’s
(2003) research does not suggest a negative relationship between performance and
Peterson, Pietranico, Riepe and Xu (2001) agree with Fortin and Michelson (1999)
and Lemak and Satish (1996) in not finding a statistically significant relationship
data over a nine-year span from 1992 to 2000. In fact, this study amplifies the
findings of Fortin and Michelson (1999), concluding that if their confidence level
were lowered from 95% to 90%, it would illustrate that mutual funds management
could be explained by the conventional adage that as risk increases, the potential
return increases. Therefore, mutual fund managers who have longer tenures construct
less risky portfolios; this would explain why increases in management tenure translate
However, a study from Goetzmann and Ibbotson (1994) suggests that mutual fund
managers with longer tenures who have had a two- to three-year span of abnormal
returns would experience similarly high rates of return in the two subsequent years.
This study reinforces Adrangi et al. (2002), that management tenure is needed because
40
phenomenon. Other researchers such as Costa and Porter (2003) state that this “hot
mutual funds with managers having ten years or more of tenure versus 930 mutual
funds with managers having less than ten years tenure. They found that performance
persistence was not statistically different from one group of managers to the other. In
conclusion, Goetzmann and Ibbotson (1994), Adrangi et al. (2002), and other
researchers such as Grinblatt and Titman (1993) assert that mutual fund performance
Fortin and Michelson (1999), Lemak and Satish (1996), and Peterson et al. (2001)
explain mutual fund performance. Peterson et al. (2002) best stated the point that,
even though the literature on persistence is somewhat robust and conclusive, the
The fact that there are many researchers in this field with different perspectives
The debate does not end with management tenure. This section examines the effects
of mutual fund size on mutual fund performance. This excerpt from Gregoriou and
“Studies investigating this relationship among mutual funds have yielded mixed
41
continually injected into the fund” (Gregoriou & Fabrice, 2001). There are two points
to note from this statement: (1) The relationship between mutual fund size and
performance is mixed; and (2) One can infer from Gregoriou and Fabrice’s (2001)
statement above that larger mutual funds have a difficult time finding worthwhile
Although they do not examine the entire range of mutual funds (they specifically
examined only hedge funds in the study), they draw the conclusion that fund size has
no bearing on performance. However, Gregoriou and Fabrice (2001) believe that the
relationship between the two is not linear, and they introduce the concept of an
optimally sized portfolio. They suggest that small mutual funds cannot cover the costs
of acquiring and trading information, so the net returns to an investor on this small
mutual fund may only be minimal. On the other hand, extremely large mutual funds,
such as George Soros’ Quantum fund, also experience poor performance because of
scale, where management has a more difficult time organizing and implementing
investment strategy, is realized with larger funds (Gregoriou & Fabrice, 2001). The
results in their study state that mutual fund size does not influence performance.
However, they suggest that the relationship could be negative and statistically
significant if the confidence level were lowered (Gregoriou & Fabrice, 2001).
Moreover, if lowered, this would add to the literature suggesting that larger mutual
funds exhibit management problems such as not being able to sell out of or buy into
42
Likewise, Peterson et al. (2001) examined cross-sectional data through time and
found that mutual fund size measured by net assets has no effect on mutual fund
performance. Peterson et al. (2001), like Gregoriou and Fabrice (2001), admit that the
contradictory evidence presented by Indro, Jiang, Hu, and Lee (1999). They recount
that when the mutual fund Fidelity Magellan was getting too large, the fund manager,
Jeff Vinik, had to divest out of equities and into bonds because the management of
such a large fund was becoming too daunting. Saunders-Egodigwe and Franeki (1998)
also amplify the observation made by Indro et al. (1999). Their study reported that
many other mutual funds also closed off the inflow of investor money in the late
1990s because fund managers were suddenly burdened with moving large amounts of
money into and out of positions. Mutual fund managers found that the organization
and implementation of investment strategy was becoming more and more difficult.
However, Indro et al. (1999) do not suggest that as mutual funds gather more assets
performance declines. Their study pooled 683 domestic, actively managed mutual
funds from Morningstar’s Mutual Funds OnDisc database from the years 1993-1995
(Indro et al., 1999). The data used was cross-sectional. They found that mutual funds
must have a certain minimum amount of net assets before the costs of information
acquisition can be offset by gains from trading. They suggest that over a certain range
of mutual fund sizes, returns are poor for a small-sized fund, but as the fund becomes
when the fund becomes too large, performance declines. The relationship between
43
size and performance is curvilinear. Hence, there is the suggestion of optimal size and
The incremental contribution to return from the cost of acquiring and trading on
information when the size of net assets is taken into account. An interesting pattern
emerges…A minimum size of net assets apparently exists below which the return is
In addition, beyond the breakeven size, the net gain to active management increases
with the size of net assets. But as the size of net assets increases…the magnitude of
the net gain is proportionally less with each successive group. (Indro et al., 1999)
This explains why the literature is ambiguous as to the true relationship between size
and performance. Many researchers concur with Wagner and Edwards (1993) that the
relationship is negative because when a fund becomes too large it necessarily incurs
Mutual fund turnover is the complete cycle of replacing stocks within the portfolio.
Aside from the expense of commissions, there are other internal costs in owning a
mutual fund. This section examines NAV and their effect on performance.
Although the NAV changes then its effect on turnover ratio of a mutual fund adds to
the cost of investing in mutual funds, the literature exhibits mixed results in regard to
44
(implying active mutual fund management), the fund will perform better because fund
managers are able to see changes in financial market behavior. Also, when active
management is able to pull out of certain equity positions, high NAV could be a
signal of fund managers hedging to protect the growth of the mutual fund.
The study by Peterson et al. (2001) concluded that there was statistically significant
relationship between NAV and performance. They further mention that NAV was a
significant variable over the years tested (1992-2000); however, they claim that the
influence may be so subtle that the relationship cannot be detected due to the size of
the sample. Droms, William and Walker (1996) examined similar variables, but they
used 151 mutual funds over longer time intervals, spanning from 1971 to 1990. As
Droms, William and Walker (1996) regressed portfolio NAV against performance,
they further state that conventional finance literature suggests NAV is negatively
related to performance. However, they report that mutual fund managers are
performing efficiently, meaning as the mutual fund incurs costs for trading on
information such as turning over securities throughout the year, fund managers are
able to recoup those costs, even though performance stagnates. They conclude that
NAV ; however, this contradicts the findings presented by Ippolito (1989), which
because turnover does not occur evenly throughout the year at equal rates. Amplifying
what Ippolito (1989) asserts, Droms and Walker (2001) reexamined their previous
study from 1996. Droms and Walker (2001) regressed mutual fund attributes such as
NAV and other operating variables with respect to performance and found that the
45
results were statistically significant and that NAV rates of mutual funds were
influential over performance. The literature has shown mixed results regarding its
In recent years, there can be found as many definitions of CRM as there are clients.
process and technology that seeks to understand a firm's customers - who they are,
what they do, what they like - and convert them into returning customers. It is a
marketing is perceived and defined in different ways both from an academic and a
practical perspective. CRM is defined by one financial service firm as: "an approach
technology that creates positive experiences for a parry each time he or she interacts
with the bank. It is the capability for delivering each `valued experience' enabled by
the bank's knowledge about a party including their preferences, behaviours, goals, and
attitudes"
that seeks to develop close interactions with selected customers, suppliers, and
competitors for value creation through cooperative and collaborative efforts. Several
46
other views of relationship marketing are noted: "Relationship marketing is database
which a variety of after-marketing tactics are used for customer bonding or staying in
touch after the sale is made. A more popular approach is to focus on "individual or
long-term customer retention and growth strategy" (Peppers and Rogers 1999). And,
Shani and Chalasani (1992) define relationship marketing as `an integrated effort to
identify, maintain, and build a network with individual consumers and to continuously
strengthen the network for the mutual benefit of both sides through interactive,
individualized and value-added contacts over a long period of time.' Berry and
with customers and other parties at a profit by mutual exchange and fulfillment of
promises. The primary goal of relationship marketing is to build and maintain a base
of committed customers who are profitable for the organization (Zeithaml and Bitner
2000) and, at the same time, minimize the time and effort spent on customers who are
not profitable. The benefits to the organization of building and maintaining this base
bottom line. Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggest that relationship marketing is all
47
successful relational exchanges. And, Gummesson notes that relationship marketing is
the only one that includes the concepts of networks and interaction. From a
by expanding the depth of the relationship (by investing more money on more
products and services with the firm) and by concentrating on repeat business from the
marketing or sales departments but becoming part of the total management of the firm
(Gummesson 1999). And, most financial service firms use CRM systems as the basis
For the purpose of this study, the following definition is used: Customer
economic value over the long-term using technology, programs and protocols that
intentionally aim to enhance the depth of the relationship. Without these aspects of
interaction between the firm and the customer, the relationship could easily unravel.
INDUSTRY
financial institutions vary from one country to another. The financial institutions in
48
the developed countries are able to align new IT with financial management much
better than their counterparts do in both newly developed and other developing
outperform their counterparts in the newly and other developing countries in terms of
their operational performance as measured the cost and profit efficiencies and scope
economies. No legacy systems but the most updated IT systems are usually applied in
the newly developed countries; thus, the financial institutions in the newly developed
countries may leapfrog over their counterparts in the developed countries. Moreover,
the use of IT may spur the further integration of the international financial
institutional markets across nations; and this intrigues me to test the international
During the past decade, information technology (IT) has profoundly changed the
services have become the largest customer of IT in the economy. This phenomenon
also has taken place in many other countries. The use of IT has overwhelmingly and
institutions. This dramatic development, known as e-finance, has become a focal point
commerce forms a critical part of the management of IT. Allen et at. (2002) define it
49
as "the provision of financial services and markets using electronic communication
and computation." Hence, the term e-finance technology can be referred to as the
application of IT in the field of finance. The relationships among IT, e-commerce, and
The impacts of e-finance may be categorized into two types. First, the use of
electronic communications, such as electronic bill paying, home banking, and internet
the IT here refers to the information technology in a broad sense, which includes
50
telecommunications. Some others have called it ICT (informational and
computation, financial institutions can operate more efficiently than ever before.
On the other hand, after many countries have joined the European Economic Union
(EEU) and the World Trade Organizations (WTQ), goods, labor, and services are
different countries. Hence, the global financial markets could become more unified
than before due to the progress of e-finance (Claessens et al., 2002). Therefore, an
In the finance literature, many previous studies (e.g., Timme, 1991, among others)
have explored the `technological change' of commercial banks in the U.S. Only a few,
such as Lin and Lin (2004) and Lin et al. (2004), have discussed technological
51
changes under the framework of international finance. Furthermore, the concept of
the `technological change' is too broad to capture the contribution of IT. Therefore, it
Although IT investments are risky and costly in practice, they are seldom tied to
profit-making aspects (Lin and Shao, 2000; and Shao and Lin, 2002). In the
productivity paradox (Hitt and Brynjolfsson, 1996; Brynjolfsson and Yang, 1996;
Dewan and Kraemer, 2000 and Lin and Shao, 2000; among others). While financial
institutions are the major customers of IT, justifying substantial IT investment has
become necessary and important. Alpar and Kim (1991) have found that IT is cost
saving, labor saving, and capital using, but Prassad and Harker (1997) have stated that
Moreover, most previous research on e-finance has been confined to the case of the
U.S. And, an international comparison in this field is rare except the work of
Claessens et al. (2002), who have discussed e-finance all over the world by using
international finance, the impact of IT across nations has been discussed extensively.
For instance, Dewan and Kraemer (2000) have investigated the international
52
productivity paradax of IT. They have found that IT investment is negatively related
to the productivity across nations. However, they have found strong evidence to
support the conten'ien that IT improves productivity for developed countries, but
reduces productivity for newly developed and other developing countries. In other
The major businesses of commercial banks include loans (commercial and consumer
loans), deposits (term deposits and demand deposits) and financial investments (long-
health care insurance, and life insurance, and can also be categorized into life and
non-life insurances. Although the sources and uses of funds are different across these
two types of insurances, they have some basic common features: they receive
premiums from customers, pay them for accidents, and invest their reserves in
financial markets. Due mainly to the limit of data available, I do not separate
companies (over 60%) are engaged in both life and non-life insurances, but
during this deregulation era, the boundary between these two insurances
issues both life and non-life policies. This trend justifies our focus in this study
53
on a global comparison rather than comparing different types of insurance
companies.
Regarding the methodological issues, note that efficiency analysis has become
dominant in research on financial institutions (Allen and Rai, 1996; and Rai,
1996). I follow this convention but adopt a more generalized stochastic frontier
This section discusses the relevant findings and problems of the earlier studies that lead
to the development of goals for this research. The debate on IT's contribution to
far, apparently no study has found a significant relationship between lT investments and
the overall profitability of the firm, and only a few studies have found a significant
productivity but not profitability (as all the gains are passed on to the customers due to
heightened competition may be true in the case of few firms. However, it is not clear
why their argument should be true for all firms, cutting across different industrial
settings and competitive arenas. Also, if it is true that firms investing in IT see no
increase in profits due to heightened competition, then the firms not investing in IT
should probably see a decrease in profits and tend to go out of business in turn, the
presence of fewer firms should lessen competition and result in increased profits for the
54
Corporate Performance(especially Sales) are methodological in nature. The evaluation
on the methodology adopted, one may or may not be able to assess the contribution of
IT. For example, using the same data set, Loveman (1999) finds no contributions while
Barua (1995) do. Aside from a couple of novel approaches (e.g. Bresrtaha R, 1986;
Banker and Kauffman, 1988), two major methodologies have been utilized in
Sales). At least seven studies ( i.e., Cron and Sobol, 1983; Bender, 1986; Harris & Kat,
1988, 1989; Siege! and Griliches 1991; Baruu., 1995; Brynjolfsson 1996) employ a ratio
These seven studies use either correlation or regression analysis to establish the
none of these seven studies found a significant relationship between FT investments and
the fern’s bottom line, each one (except for Hitt & Bryryol~'sson, 1996) did find a
Corporate Performance(especially Sales). Thus, the findings of these seven studies are
generally consistent. On the other hand, studies by Mocrison & Berndt (1990),
Morrison & Bernd that the marginal contribution of IT to productivity is minus 20%;
Loveman finds it to be 0%; and Hitt & Brynjolfsson find it to be plus 95%. These three
55
widely different findings indicate that the researchers may not have selected an
Performance(especially Sales). Hence, the present study uses the ratio approach to
other reasons for using the ratio approach in the present study. Firsr, the ratio
approach appears to be most appropriate for this study's objectives and goals. Alpar
& Kim state that financial ratios "are excellent indicators of the state of a firm and an
industry" (1990: 67). IT-related ratios are used by industry associations, consulting
firms, and corporate management to compare one or more firms with competitors
(Snotty & Gruber, 1981). Similarly, Harris & Katz observe that "financial ratios have
been used extensively to predict firms performance" (1989). Studies by Beaver (1966),
Altman (1968), Pinches & Mingo (1973), McGowan (1985), and Buzzel & Gale (1987)
are all examples of studies using financial ratios to understand and predict Corporate
more meaningful and easier to interpret than the findings of the production-function
high- or low-gross marginal product means, or how an organization may apply this
knowledge. ln this regard, it is instructive to note that while Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1995)
found a surprising 95% gross marginal product for 1T (which implies that firms are
more IT consumption by firms. On the other hand, Barua et al. (1995) use the financial-
ratio approach, and their results inform us about the degree of relationship as well as the
56
ratio such as capacity utilization or inventory turnover. Similarly, Harris and Katz
(1989) use the financial-ratio approach to develop a model that discriminates, with high
assumption that firms are driven solely by the motive of obtaining higher profits or
lower costs. This assumption may not always be valid as organizations are run by
people, whose motivations are not necessarily aligned with those of the organization.
Sometimes, managers are less interested in increasing firm's profits or reducing firm's
costs but more interested in increasing their own job security or stability (Gordorr,
1961). These managers may engage in empire building or showing off{e.g. having
more secretaries, better parking spaces, bigger offices, fatter expense accounts ), and in
increasing their persona! status, power, or income (Williamson, 1966). Thus, managers
may make IT investments not for reasons of improving the firm's bottom line but for
other reasons, including possession of the latest technology to impress colleagues. The
sensitive to the nature of the specific measure employed as the independent or the
dependent variable. The use by Barua (1995) of several lower level financial ratios
(return on assets or return or equity) is a case in point. Also, it is important to note that
return on equity or return on assets may not always be the most relevant ratios for
evaluating the financial heath of all industries. For instance, cash-flow ratios are often
better predictors of the financial health of real-estate firms or REIT, like passenger-load
factors may better explain the profitability of airlines. Thus, it makes sense to examine
57
the changes in the different financial ratios in different contexts and over time in order
than the ratio of IT spending to the number of employees. Bender (1986) and Harris &
Katz (1988, 1989) use the ratio of IT spending to total operating expense as the
independent variable in their studies, and their findings are consistent. Each of these
three studies finds a significant positive association between IT investments and some
(1995) and Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1996) use the ratio of IT spending to number of
employees as the independent variable and their findings are inconsistent. Further, it
appears that the proportion of the total operating expense that a firm spends on IT is a
better indicator of that firm's commitment to IT than an absolute dollar amount per
employee that the firm spends on IT. The absolute dollar amount per employee that a
Firm spends on IT is not merely a function of that firm's commitment to IT' but also a
function of that firm's resource richness. A resource-rich firm is more likely than a
resource-scarce firm to purchase IT without necessarily making sure that the IT being
purchased is really needed by the firm. Thus, a resource-rich firm with little
resource-scarce firm with a high commitment to IT. On the other hand, the proportion
function of that firm's commitment to IT. Thus, it seems that using the ratio of IT
58
meaningful insights into the relationship between lT' investments and corporate
what specific IT spending ratio is used as the independent variable and what specific
financial ratio is used as the dependent variable. Hence, it makes sense to use different
1T spending ratios as independent variables, and examine the relationship between each
of them and the various financial ratios to capture IT's contributions to Corporate
Performance(especially Sales). Much research has been done to evaluate the average
Performance(especially Sales) vary across firms. Surely, some firms employ IT more
effectively and consequently obtain greater benefits from IT usage than other firms.
Also, much research seems to be based on the notion that as the amount of IT' used by a
firm increases, so do its profits. These studies tend to emphasize the quantity and tend
to ignore the quality of information that a firm processes or generates per unit time.
performance, then both the quantity and quality of information that a firm processes or
generates per unit time do matter. A firm's recent-past performance provides some
Thus, it would make sense to control for a firm's growth rate in the recent past while
59
ignore the factor of risk. It is very important to incorporate risk in the model for
performance. Also, a firm's risk-adjusted performance may be quite different from its
performance not adjusted for risk {this is most clearly evident in the case of mutual
may be quite different from the relationship between IT investments and performance
measures not adjusted for risks. Ironically, the employment of rapidly advancing IT'
not only facilitates risk management but also accentuates the kinds and levels of risks
marketplace poses challenges for the existing market leader and provides opportunities
for the current market follower to overtake the market leader. However, in the
information era, the challenges faced by the market leader in any given industry are
more frequent and come not only from within the industry but from all parts of the
regulation, short product-life cycles, and scarce resources (Piore & Sabel. 1984; Miles
& Snow, 1986; Handy, 1989; Ohmae, 1989). To cope with these new environmental
realities, organizational adaptations appear to include the strategies of "buy not make" and
1987; joint ventures (Harrigan, 1985); strategic alliances (Hamel., 1989); information
60
partnerships (Konsynski & McFarlan, 1990); inter-organizationaI collaboration (Astley
& Bruhm, 1989); new hybrid organizational structures or forms (Powell, I987; Borys
Jemison, 1989); and dynamic networks that form and reform with a lead firm acting as a
broker (Miles and Snow, 1988) or as a hub (Jarillo, 1988). Thus, the barriers and
boundaries between organizations and industries appear to be less distinct and more
diffuse. Accordingly, the challenge to a firm can come from any number of sources.
Hence, it is important to consider the factor of risk when exploring the relationship
computers to networked client-servers to stand alone desktops, etc. Why, then, should
the impacts of different ITs be the same? Additionally, nearly all studies are plagued
with technological determinism: use IT and a definite profitability outcome will ensue.
Barring studies done by Barua (1995) and Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1996), much of the
relevant research has tended to ignore all contextual variables. Most studies seem to
be based on the notion that a single characterization of the effect of IT usage on the
firm's profitability is possible, and would be true for all firms, irrespective of their
size, industry setting, competitive arena, or IT-management practices and tactics. Why
same as those of a large semiconductor firm or of a large airline? Again, why should
improve management control be the same as for a firm using IT to improve customer
61
firms operating in widely different settings and competitive situations. Further, IT's
variable or dimension. Should not then, our ability to understand, explain, and predict
tactical alternatives.
Most of what has been written about CRM is from the practitioner's point of
view (Plakoyiaunaki and Tzokas 2002) and relatively little is known about the CRM
businesses have an integrated view of customer data (Calhoun 2001) and most firms
still seem to strategize in silos (i.e., each department or division concentrates on the
strategy that will help achieve their goal rather than overall company goals).
has hindered the use of database technology. One of the top barriers stowing CRM
deployments are integration with legacy systems (65%) and pulling together scattered
legacy data sources (62%) (Sweat 2000). (Legacy systems are large computer systems
62
and application programs that capture large stores of information specific to a
and very difficult and cost prohibitive to modify) (Gold 1998). Although things are
changing and more dollars are being invested to merge and enhance these systems,
During the 1990s, technological advances bolstered the amount and quality
of customer data available to firms and firms began to spend millions of dollars on
order to better understand the reasons behind their loyalty (James 2002). CRM
information and privacy, earlier studies have shown that consumers and marketers
do not necessarily perceive ethical issues in the same way. Even though
necessarily provide the level of confidence that a customer has in the firm's privacy
practices. And, customers today are more aware of marketing databases and how
company and for the consumer. It could be argued that this technology shift is
causing more and more anxiety on the part of consumers who resent the amount of
information firms have accumulated on them and, at the same time, sense a
63
departure from the one-to-one personal relationship they previously knew. Yet,
degrees. 1999-2000 was the year of exposing "privacy laws" to consumers in the
hope that their fears would be allayed. Customers, however, still tend to view
erode the trust element in the relationship. In spite of all the confidence placed on
customer's perception (Sheth and Parvatiyar 2000). CRM does not necessarily
time human interaction is needed. Barefoot (2001) suggests that the best way to
within the organization so that employees can recognize privacy issues when they
encounter them and know how to react. This, of course, requires leadership that
builds and then sustains sensitivity to privacy throughout the company. Installing a
critical factor becomes the surrounding culture in which employees operate -- that
set of shared understandings and informal rules that groups use to guide behaviour.
cultures that guide employees toward building market share and earnings.
However, when privacy issues arise outside the scope of new rules (e.g., Gramm-
64
Leach-Bliley Act), they will struggle to compete for thoughtful attention with the
business values already entrenched there, including a drive to gather ever more
customer information and use it more creatively to improve performance. After all,
such use of customer information constitutes one of the major building blocks of
and services to consumers based on their buying patterns translated to their specific
build, strengthen and maintain relationships. This permits firms to segment in new
ways and retain customers via the design of products and services that meet the
needs of customer "clusters", communicate with them more effectively, and earn
their loyalty. It employs tools (neural networks, decision trees, rule induction, etc.)
that look for meaning, find patterns and infer rules that may be causal, predictive
final analysis, the financial institution must create a complete culture supporting
institution's own products and practices. Employee `ownership' of the privacy issue
going to get the sense that they are in secure hands. Customer information
customer value (to the firm), demographics (household size, age, income, gender),
65
consumption habits, psychographics, purchase and post-purchase behavior,
creditworthiness, etc. In the right hands, the company can learn about consumers
and add value to the relationship. In the wrong hands, this information can
customer differences and similarities and can help marketers know what customers
marketing helps the firm do this. Clearly, then, for CRM to be successful several
commitment at the top of the organization and alignment of activities around the
CRM strategy and goal; proper segmentation; appropriate protocols that add value
for the most highly-profitable customers; and a high level of training and
technology for customers' use so that information on them can be more easily
powerful and, used appropriately, provides the firm the capability to manage
applied, it can also serve to put the customer outside the firm's walls (Gordon
for the potential opportunities that long-term engagements with customers hold, it
is possible that we have forgotten that relationships take two sides to succeed
(Fournier, Dobscha and Mick 1998). We may have lost sight of the needs of the
66
relationship. In other words, to get loyalty a firm must give loyalty. To get trust, a
firm must give trust. Database marketing supports the CRM effort, but may be
with internal operational data that CRM systems provide. Firms also need to be able
to justify the enormous costs of their CRM systems and need to be able to measure the
effects of CRM on the bottom line. According to James (2002), the top three strategic
on customer service superiority. Linking CRM data with customer satisfaction survey
data let firms show that CRM systems have a larger, indirect effect by influencing
customers' intentions. Total spending by U.S. banks on CRM was close to $9 billion
by the end of 1999 and was expected to grow to $46 billion by the end of 2003
(Patton 2001). In the industry, it is thought that the Pareto rule still holds where a
small portion of elite customers account for the bulk of profits (Masters 2000)-
approximately 80% of bank profits come from 20% of customers. But, this may be
Wells Fargo (Kiesnoski 2000). Increased loyalty among high value customers, actual
67
(Masters 2000). Generally, this is precisely the reason that financial service industry
firms install CRM protocols for their most highly-valued and profitable customers.
CRM, however, is not for the weak-spirited. Although the technology is designed to
help companies keep track of their customers and boost revenues by developing long-
accomplish. Companies are investing up to $70 million in a CRM launch and millions
more during multi-year rollouts. Yet some companies still jump into CRM projects
without clear strategies or support from top management (Patton 2001). B2B
Analysts' President, David Dobrin, in visits to six Fortune 500 companies during 1999
and 2000, described CRM projects as `moribund' or used in a way that didn't match
implementations and results suggest that part of the problem with CRM is that, once
installed, associates are not trained properly to use it efficiently nor does top
management continue to give it the support it needs to produce the expected results.
from CRM consultants. Many firms have learned that CRM is more than a
executive (upper management) support and buy-in, user friendliness, and ongoing
report sponsored by IBM and Royal Mail, it was suggested that the most advanced
companies were at best only two-thirds of the way to implementing CRM by the end
of 2000 (Goflon 2001). Insight Technology reported in 2000 that 31% of companies
68
38% reported only minor gains; and 70% reported it was a failure or minor success
(Calhoun 2001). The Gartner Group reported that 45% of CRM projects fail to
improve customer interactions while 51% generate no positive returns within three
years and the Meta Group goes further to say that up to 75% of CRM initiatives fail
to meet their objectives (Anonymous 2001). Another study showed that 35% of
slight improvement; and 15% could not tell the difference (Sweat 2001). Although it
may be too early to tell, these numbers are discouraging at best. There are many
reasons why it is thought that CRM programs have failed. However, one study
suggests that to drive loyalty a firm must take an integrated approach that focuses on
improving the total customer experience (Calhoun 2001), a strategic and costly
approach that not all firms are willing to take. On the other hand, in an article
realize that customer satisfaction does not always translate to loyalty, She notes that
many customers may be dissatisfied with a service but remain loyal to a product and
continue to buy it. And, it is safe to say that the opposite is also true that as many
customers may be satisfied with a service but will switch if enticed with a better
offer. Most reported results of CRM implementations come from consulting firms or
from CRM firms themselves via in-house customer satisfaction surveys. If CRM
systems are so sophisticated, then, why is there so much dissatisfaction with them?
Why are measured results so poor compared with firm expectations? Why aren't
those companies that install such programs producing the expected increased
customer satisfaction and increased loyalty? And, why aren't there more studies
69
analyzing the roots and results of so important an investment? Many factors may
contribute but there is an obvious need for more empirical investigations into CRM
strategy.
INDUSTRY
Why should a financial service firm, then, invest so much money, time and effort to
mentioned earlier, historically, those firms that concentrate their efforts on retaining
customers and establishing long-term relationships produce higher profits than those
who concentrate their efforts on acquiring new customers (Reichheld and Sasser
1990; Anderson and Sullivan 1993). In the credit card industry, especially, where
competition is at the highest it has ever been and where the customer base is saturated
with offers from every other financial institution, it is important to understand the
customer's needs in order to grow the depth of the relationship and to achieve higher
profits. In every economic quarter since the American Customer Satisfaction Index
began (in 1994), banks trail the national satisfaction statistics by a significant
percentage each year. While overall national satisfaction scores have modestly
increased over the past five years, bank customer satisfaction scores have declined 5.1
efforts on improving customer satisfaction rates. And, one way to do this is through
70
what protocols not only satisfy customers but what protocols "delight" them so that
customers warn to maintain and grow a relationship with the firm. It is thought that
the more satisfied customers are, generally, the more loyal customers are. As was
mentioned earlier, several authors have identified a strong and positive link between
customer satisfaction and loyalty (Jones and Sasser 1995; Rust and Zahorik 1991);
Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Payne, Hoh and Frow 2000). Others have found a
distinct link between customer satisfaction, loyalty and customer retention (Reichheld
and Sasser 1990; Reichheld 1996). And, research suggests that customer loyalty
(rather than relative market share or any other factor) is the primary determinant of
to promote loyalty among customers is a major part of the CRM strategy of modern
financial service firms. One way to do this is to not only be customer-oriented, but to
support to the staff to obtain buy-in and understanding of the importance of treating
determining which protocols will result in higher customer satisfaction rates amongst
the most highly valued customers. Although some authors conclude that increased
customer satisfaction rates lead to increased loyalty, increased retention rates and
profitability, there is also discussion about what, exactly, customer satisfaction is.
affecting satisfaction rates (Churchill and Suprenant 1982). Others show that
71
expectations) is an important antecedent of satisfaction (Anderson and Sullivan 1993)
along with perceive quality. Others contend that providing customers with
outstanding value may be the only reliable way to achieve sustained customer
satisfaction and loyalty (Jones and Sasser 1495; Heskett, Jones, Loveman and Sasser
1994). And, one way to establish value in the financial services industry is to provide
banking, internet, banking centers). Others have investigated the importance of the
overall physical setting and a customer's familiarity with the players (associates) of a
firm that can influence a customer's ultimate satisfaction (Garbarino and Johnson
1999). Although there are many different ways to measure customer satisfaction,
experience rather than on a one-time transaction event (Homburg and Giering 2001).
verse. It is relatively clear that a lot depends on how you define customer satisfaction
and on whom you are trying to satisfy. Satisfaction is relative and because of the
Moutinho, Chien 1996). As there are indeed many elements of customer satisfaction,
hence, many definitions of a satisfied customer exist. They can be thought of as those
customers who indicate anything above a "5" on a scale of 1-10 or it can be thought of
as only those who are "highly" satisfied by choosing anything above an "8" on the
same scale. Some studies reveal that there is a sizeable difference in retention rates
between those who say (in a questionnaire) that they are very satisfied and those who
are just satisfied (Gummesson 1999). Some organizations do not even distinguish
72
between the satisfaction rates of their most and least valued customers (Gofton 2001).
and loyalty (defined by them as retained relationships). The more highly satisfied the
customer, the more loyal they are and the more likely they are to remain a customer.
On the other hand, many customers say they are satisfied but are not loyal and switch
for a variety of reasons - persuasion by another firm, the influence of friends, a desire
to try something new, etc. And, many dissatisfied customers remain despite the fact
that a firm is charging more or offers lower quality than a competitor (Gummesson
1999). Perhaps this is due to their fear of switching or the difficulties involved in
the customer base are more likely to stay or switch, whatever their reason may be. It is
important to note here the existence of the `service paradox' which states that the less
profitable customers are, the more satisfied they are; while the more profitable
customers are the less satisfied they are (e.g., the airline industry offers an off season
economy ticket for $250 and full business for $3000; the business traveller is
profitable but highly demanding and the economy traveller is less profitable but
gratefull for a low price and not as demanding. There is a likelihood that the business
traveller is less satisfied even though he/she is offered better service) (Gummesson
1999). This is important because CRM customers are the firm's `most profitable' and
possibly their least satisfied customers. For the purpose of this study, customer
satisfaction is defined as "those customers who are satisfied with the value of their
credit card". In this particular financial service firm, it is the installation and practice
of new CRM protocols that is expected to so enhance the customer experience and
73
provide increased value that those customers receiving these protocols will be more
highly satisfied than their non-CRM counterparts who receive only basic products and
services and no special treatment. It is thought that these protocols and special
treatment add value to the customer experience as they are intended to enhance the
interaction the customer has with the firm. The objective of CRM, generally, is to
enhance the customer experience so that the customer is delighted with the service
and is receiving the attributes that make this credit card service better for them than
the competition. In the case of this financial service firm, CRM customers receive
added protocols that include higher credit limits, waived fees (e.g., late payment fee,
check cashing fee, etc.), higher over-limit spending, more thoughtful scripting on the
part of employees who they may encounter, and other special treatments.
profit margins and has emphasized the strategic role of technology as a potential
source of differentiation and cost reduction (Moutinho and Smith 2000). In order to
increase profits and decrease expenses over the long-term, financial institutions have
shifted some of their services from branches to the virtual banking arena (ATMs,
the financial service market (Goode, Moutinho, Chien 1996). The expectation of
banks is that more customers will take advantage of the convenience and speed of
74
being able to deposit and withdraw money without having to wait in line for personal
assistance. (The firm in this present study has customer satisfaction survey data from
several years past indicating that customers expect faster, more convenient methods of
banking). On the other hand, some segments of the population do find the shift away
from personal service disconcerting (Thornton and White 2000). It is vitally important
to provide the most valuable customers the level of personal interaction they expect
and it is difficult, at best, to arrive at that level for the millions of customers serviced
each day. Some authors suggest that a reduction in branch visits could have a
(Thornton and White 2000). Although it is generally thought that service quality is
Mols (1999) found that many users of electronic (internet) banking have become even
more satisfied overall with their bank possibly due to the fact that a new service
delivery option is available. On the other hand, many customers still feel vulnerable
when exposing their finances to electronic media and are inclined to perceive `branch
banking' as more reliable and trustworthy (Tee 2000). It was found that a low level of
satisfaction was attached by some bank customers to the fact associated with their
experience of having to queue when using an ATM, and that breakdowns in ATMs is
another source of service dissatisfaction. And, it is suggested that the reasons for
being loyal to a bank are changing as a result of increased competition and the
Chien 1996). Virtual banking exists in many forms. The most common uses of
technology for financial services are ATMs to deposit and extract cash, telephone
75
banking to make payments and transfer money from one account to another, and,
more recently, home or online banking to pay bills on accounts outside the financial
institution, move investment money, and view account balances and activity. The
financial services industry is information intensive and is rapidly changing the way it
designs and delivers personal services. For the purposes of this study, the definition of
virtual banking from Liao et al. (1999) will be used: Virtual banking is the provision
of banking services through electronic media. The technology referred to, specifically
in this study, is ATM usage and Telephone Banking with a interactive voice response
unit (IVR). Because most consumers say they require more channels to do their
banking, ATM access is one channel in which financial institutions are investing great
amounts of money in order to satisfy that customer need. Telephone banking and
interactive voice response units (IVR in have also become important channels
customers use to perform the same functions that required one-on-one involvement
only a decade ago. However, providing these channels to customers does not imply
that all customers will use them. Some segments of the population are more likely to
shy away from any type of technology no matter how simple it may be to use.
`Innovators' and `early adopter' segments may be more likely to try technology first
innovations are usually young, well educated, and with higher incomes than `late
which segments are likely to be users of and satisfied with technology and which
segments simply are not. Another element that might differentiate the satisfied users
from the non-users or dissatisfied users might be whether they are CRM customers or
76
not. As CRM customers are more accustomed to special treatment and personal
interaction with their banker, they may not take advantage of technology as much as
non-CRM customers. Or, when they do, they may be less satisfied than their non-
CRM counterpart. And, as it is suggested that customers satisfied with technology are,
in turn, more satisfied with the overall Financial Service Product like mutual fund, it
is possible that these different segments would show different satisfaction rates, not
only with technology, but in their overall satisfaction of the service as well.
In the financial services arena, access over the phone is emerging as the access of
choice for customers who expect telephone access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365
days a year (Feinberg, Hokama, Kadun, Kim 2002). As competition for life-long
customers is fiercer than ever, financial institutions are searching for ways to leverage
their call centers and interactive voice response units (IVRs) to their advantage. PSI
Global reports that the number of monthly transactions among telephone banking
users has risen 55% over the past five years, with consumers conducting an average of
report from the Tower Group, the number of transactions with retail call center agents
was 1.2 billion in 1996 and is expected to rise to 2.4 billion by the end of 2001
(Jacobson 1999). The most common transactions conducted through a call center are
account inquiries, loan servicing, funds transfers, new account openings and
is clear that customers satisfied with their telephone contact are more likely to
77
repurchase, purchase more, and promote positive word of mouth (Feinberg, et al,
2002). Call centers clearly play a role in achieving overall customer satisfaction
(Allirnadi 1999; Anton 1997), but determining exactly what elements of the
capability to perform `intelligent routing' to serve the best customers better and to
help retain the most valued customers. By combining the advantages of customer
relationship management and call routing, firms can commit to providing tiered
service-with their most valuable customers receiving enhancements and less valuable
customers still receiving good service but no enhanced protocols. At the same time,
IVRs offer customers the advantage of receiving the information they need without
human interaction and, usually, with greater speed. Financial institutions favor virtual
response units because of the cost savings. According to a study by Booz, Allen and
Hamilton in 1999, the cost of a call center transaction involving an agent is $2 while
the same transaction using IVR technology costs only 35 cents (Floyd 2000).
IVR rather than opting out to speak with a human representative. And, to make this
What financial institutions fail to deeply investigate, though, is how customers really
react to IVR options and whether the IVR is being embraced by customers, as the firm
suspects, or simply is being tolerated. If convenience for the customer is at the heart
of technology development (Van Zyl 1999) and if the primary benefit for firms is cost
78
savings, then the quality of service element also needs to be addressed. IVR servicing
is often time-consuming and even complicated to use for the customer. Many
customers opt out of a IVR out of frustration causing firms to lose customers or to
have them call back and opt out to a representative, a practice that is twice as costly.
Telephone banking also relies on the elements of trust and commitment. In order for a
customer to fully trust that their issue is being resolved appropriately, they need to
have confidence in the representative on the phone or in the fact that the IVR has
captured their information properly and is going to pass that information on to the
appropriate party for resolution. If there is an absence of direct contact, such as with
telephone banking, it is assumed that there is less control perceived by the customer
(Joseph, McClure and Joseph 1999). Unless other attributes of the technology are
considered of high quality (e.g., reliability, user-friendliness), customers may not trust
the service. Also, as was mentioned in relation to ATM technology, new product
diffusion theory suggests that not all products and services are accepted by consumers
at the time of introduction. Some products are much slower than others in being
accepted by potential adopters (Mahajan, Muller and Bass 1990). Possibly, those
segments of this firm's customer base who are older and less educated would likely
counterparts. This implies that this technology might be more accepted by the early
adopter than later adopter or laggard segments. This also implies that CRM
customers, who are generally older customers, might not be as enthusiastic about
transactions on their own, many still want human interaction. And, demographics
79
(especially age, income level, gender and comfort level with the technology) may play
a part in how individuals respond to IVR technology. Some customers may give up if
the IVR instructions are not clear or are seemingly too lengthy. Firms who have
adopted this technology early, generally, see substantial cost reductions and increases
in revenue and profits. At the same time they, generally, see increases in the usage
volume. Clearly, customers are using the technology, especially when it comes to
seeking simple information like asking for "account balance" or "last payment"
customer experience, generally, and it is likely that some customers will be more
satisfied, overall, because they are satisfied with this technology service. And, it is
likely that these customers are the younger segment of this firm's customer base.
There are also different ways to perceive loyalty and many definitions of loyalty.
across all touch points in the exchange process (Calhoun 2001). Loyalty can be
continue using the service or product or as those customers who intend to recommend
the product or service to others. Customers will declare themselves loyal through
preferences (for the supplier) meaning that customers will be willing to repurchase
from this supplier (Hennig-Thurau and Hansen 2000; Peppers, Rogers and Dorf
1999). Most of the early literature conceptualizes loyalty as behavioral (Brown 1952;
80
Churchill 1942). This type of loyalty is characterized as a form of repeat passive
purchasing (Beckett, Hewer, Howcroft 2000). However, other studies indicate that it
negative attitudes towards a service provider (Beckett, Hewer, Howcroft 2000) and is
to another (Day 2000; Dick and Basu 1994; Homburg and Giering 2001; Peppers,
Rogers and Dorf 1999). A dual perspective of loyalty is adopted for this study.
authors suggest that unless customers are very "highly" satisfied (as opposed to
competitive markets as is the case with credit cards. Jones and Sasser (1995)
studied the satisfaction-loyalty link to test Xerox' discovery that a high level of
satisfaction will lead to greatly increased customer loyalty. They looked at the
industries, and found that customers who are `completely satisfied' are more loyal
than `merely' satisfied customers. And, John Larson (VP, Opinion Research
Corporation), found that `completely satisfied customers' were nearly 42% more
likely to be loyal than `merely' satisfied customers. In the Jones and Sasser article
(1995), they found that individuals can be classified into four categories
of satisfaction but high loyalty rates; and mercenaries had high levels of
satisfaction but low/medium loyalty rates. Perhaps some customers remain loyal
81
because they cannot move due to switching costs or the fear of risking a move to
another firm? One issue unearthed in the Reichheld, Markey and Hopton article
(2000) on the relationship between loyalty and profits suggests that satisfaction
surveys alone don't yield the information companies need to have about
pleaded with a customer to `fill out the satisfaction questionnaire with favorable
responses', explaining that `both my wife and I lost our jobs at a computer
company and I'll lose my job here if I don't get high satisfaction scores'. This kind
determining why customer satisfaction rates are high but loyalty rates are not as
high as expected. Other authors intimate that there are other moderating factors
that determine customer satisfaction and loyalty. For example, Zeitharcil, Berry
strong evidence of their being influenced by service quality and suggest that
those customers not reporting service problems have the strongest levels of
unless corporate executives gain employee loyalty via `principled leadership' and
a set of surveys that measure more than customer satisfaction and loyalty by
forcing people to think of whether the organization really does deserve that
82
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty, found that age, income, and variety
elusive even if customer satisfaction exists. And, there may be other barriers to
higher loyalty rates that firms need to investigate and overcome. Loyalty, on the
Thurau and Hansen 2000) that it makes sense to a customer to remain with the
firm. Yet, what a firm really strives for is loyalty with no strings attached. In
other words, if an error is made and the service is compromised, the firm hopes
that the customer will still be inclined to stay once the problem is fixed.
Generally, though, past evidence does suggest that the majority of highly satisfied
customers remain loyal. For the purpose of this study, then, loyalty is defined as
their credit card and by their intent to recommend this service to others. As
mentioned in the studies above, it is thought that the more highly satisfied a
customer is, the more likely they are to be loyal (Heskett et al 1994; Gummeson
1999)
83
CHAPTER III
Studies in this field limit themselves to topics such as investor behaviour, links
between mutual fund performance and stock price movements, and how money
moves from one mutual fund to another due to advertising expenditures made by the
investment company. This study examines sales mutual fund as a function of its own
variables affecting sales of mutual fund. For example, the variable of management
tenure(past record) has been shown in the literature to be an asset to the investment
company as well as to mutual fund asset under management; where the mutual fund
manager has more experience, the better the mutual fund performs (Adran et al.,
attribute that precludes mutual fund net asset value (Costa & Porter, 2003). This study
contributes to the literature in two main respects. First, this is the first study to present
evidence on the attributes relationship using data on all actively managed equity
mutual funds for the entire period spanning 1999 to 2009. Previous studies have only
analyzed selected years in this period, using subsets of managed mutual funds in each
year. By examining larger samples for a greater number of consecutive years that
includes periods of recession and economic growth, the empirical results from this
study are more robust and shed light on the existing contradictions in the previous
literature. In addition, since investors have been facing new mutual funds choices in
recent years, estimating the relationship between sales of mutual fund and its
attributes with more recent data gives investors general guidelines that are relevant for
84
selecting mutual funds in today’s environment. Second, the empirical results from this
study are based on a model that includes mutual funds’ attributes as predictors of sales
of mutual fund. With the exception of one other study, which used a different data set,
previous conclusions have been based on models that focused only on selected
attributes. By examining these attributes from a more comprehensive data set, this
study provides a more general set of conclusions that encompass those found in the
past literature.
investments and corporate performance. However, the findings of these studies are
One of the most widely cited research efforts on IT's contribution to productivity is
probably the work done by Roach on white-collar productivity (1987, 1989, 1991).
Roach's research is primarily based on data obtained from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Citing statistics from the
workers has fallen in some economic sectors and not kept up with the productivity of
production workers in other sectors. Roach (1991) finds that IT's performance has been
most dismal in the service sector. Similarly, other studies done at the economy-wide
Chakrabarti (1988) conclude that IT does not show any significant productivity gain,
possibly because of measurement problems and the failure of firms to value IT properly.
85
These difficulties, in turn, lead to wrong allocation of resources by organizations.
Also, Brooke (1991) finds that IT correlates negatively with productivity and
hypothesizes that the primary impact of IT is increased product variety rather than
performance in the manufacturing sector, but the findings of these studies are conflicting.
Morrison and Berndt (1990) obtain data from the BEA for 20 industry categories over the
period 1968 to 1990. They use structured production-function models and find that
the net marginal benefits from IT are a minus 20% (i.e., the marginal benefit accruing
from each dollar invested in IT is only 80 cents). However, using his structured models
though still drawing data from BEA and BLS, Berndt and Morrison (1991) find that IT is
not correlated with higher productivity in a majority of 20 industry categories that they
examine. Berndt and Morrison do, however, find that 1T is correlated with significantly
increased demand for skilled labor. On the other hand, Siegel and Gritiches (1991) use
industry-wide data and do find a positive correlation between IT usage and productivity
in most industry categories. They obtain their data from multiple government sources.
However, they do not perform highly structured analyses (like those done by Morrison &
Berndt, 1990) because of their concerns about the reliability of government data and
(1989) find that better information and communication capability reduce the need for
inventories. However, they do not relate IT usage to the firm's bottom-line performance.
sector, for the period 1979-1984 using the Management Productivity and IT (MPIT}
database. The MPIT database is a subset of the better known Profit impact of Marketing
86
Strategy (PIMS} database. Loveman uses a Douglas production function to evaluate
productivity impact from IT. Indeed, he finds that the marginal dollar would be best
spent on non-IT inputs. On the other hand, Barua et al. (199.5} use exactly the same
MPIT data that Loveman used and find a significant positive relationship between IT
and corporate performance. Instead of examining the direct relationship between IT and
final output variables, Barua et al. introduce an intermediate stage and do two different
analysis. In both analyses, they also control for contextual variables. First, they examine
relative inferior quality, relative price, and new products. Then, they examine the
relationship of these intermediate variables to final output variables (market share and
return on assets) They conclude that IT has a significant positive correlation with each
of the intermediate variables (except new products}, and that the intermediate variables
have significant positive correlations with the final output variables. Unlike Barua et al.,
Weiil (1990) obtains data by interviews and a survey conducted within valve-
contextual variables affect the relationship between IT and firm performance, and that
significant productivity gains exist with transactional type of IT (e.g., data processing}
but not with strategic IT (e.g., sales support) or informational IT (e.g., email).
One of the earliest studies on IT's contribution to corporate performance in the service
sector is by Cron and Soboi (1983). They separated medical wholesalers into four
87
the year l979. Then, they segregate the same 138 wholesalers into another set of four
groups depending on each wholesaler's profitability for the year 1979. Thereafter,
they calculate and analyze the two-way frequencies for computer utilization and
profitability. Basically, Cron and Sobol find that low IT use is associated with either
poor (i.e., weak) or average performance, while heavy IT users are either very
strong or very weak performers. On the other hand, Strassman (1985, 1990) finds
The most recent study on IT's contribution to corporate performance has been done by
Hitt and Brynoifsson (1991. They accumulate 370 firms (basically, the top half of
Fortune 500 manufacturing & service firms) over the period 1988 to t 992. They obtain
financial data on firms from Standard & Poor’s Compustat Database, and price indices
from a host of sources (primarily, BEA}. They perform three different analyses. Their
first analysis follows the approach taken by Loveman (199a) to evaluate IT's
Hitt and Brynjolfsson find that the gross marginal product of CT is a whopping 94.9%,
while that of Capital is 7.8% and Labor is 1.2%. Their second analysis evaluates IT's
ratios (return on assets, return on equity, & total shareholders' return) on the ratio of
IT spending to the number of employees while controlling for the following variables:
capital intensity, market share, debt to equity ratio, sales growth, R&D expense,
88
industry, and year. However, they find no significant impact of IT usage on firm's
investments, following the method used by Bresnahan (1986). Hitt and Brynjolfsson
by a firm may result in gains in the firm’s productivity and yet there may be no increase
in the profitability of the firm if all the gains made in productivity are not retained by
the firm or are "competed away" and hence, passed on to the consumers.
investments and profitability. Thus we explores the reasons for this IT profitability
impasse and proposes a different perspective to identify and evaluate IT's contribution
Treynor and Mazuy (1966) have examined the ability of mutual fund managers to select
securities and time markets successfully, but there is little evidence that supports the
notion that they possess such skills. The performance persistence, where past
performance could possibly predict immediate future returns. This phenomenon is also
known as the “hot hands” phenomenon. The topic of persistence is a subject for debate
because there are many conflicting views among researchers (Cahart, 1997; Grinblatt et
al., 1992; Hendricks et al., 1993). The relatively small number of studies that examine
mutual fund attributes and their effects on sales demonstrate this. Although the two
segments of the literature not dealing with mutual fund attributes are noteworthy, this
study agrees with the researchers examining the attribute relationship who claim that a
89
better understanding of these relationships will give practical value to lay investors as
The purpose of the study is to determine whether mutual fund attributes affect
sales of mutual fund. Attributes such as past record, net asset value, asset under
examined. In the age of technology and the Internet, several new factors have begun to
play an important role in the type and quality of experience the customer has. In an
products and services are purchased and consumed, Parasuraman and Grewal (2000)
emphasizes the need for effectively managing three new linkages - company-
effectiveness.
The primary question in this study is whether mutual fund attributes really affect sales of
mutual fund. Since there are many mutual fund attributes, it is difficult to make a general
statement that these mutual fund attributes unequivocally do or do not affect mutual fund
90
¡ To study relation between brand-name and sales of mutual fund.
fund.
By answering these questions through the use of the appropriate statistical tests, this study
constitutes a practical value to both the mutual fund attribute literature and lay Mutual
Fund companies by establishing certain framework to follow. The rationale for selecting
these attributes and their predicted impact on mutual fund sales is afforded by past
researchers recommending to the finance community that more research is needed in this
field. It was best stated by Peterson et al. (2001), that the results from these studies must
this study chose independent variables that were not too obscure for the asset managers to
understand and use in decision-making. Although past research has focused on these
attributes because they are the most closely examined, the findings in regard to these
Every hypothesis test requires the analyst to state a null hypothesis and an alternative
hypothesis. The hypotheses are stated in such a way that they are mutually exclusive.
That is, if one is true, the other must be false; and vice versa.
91
The analysis plan describes how to use sample data to accept or reject the null
§ Test method. Use the one-sample z-test to determine whether the hypothesized
proportion.
Using sample data, find the test statistic and its associated P-Value.
distribution.
σ = sqrt[ P * ( 1 - P ) / n ]
§ Test statistic. The test statistic is a z-score (z) defined by the following
equation.
z = (p - P) / σ
92
where P is the hypothesized value of population proportion in the null
sampling distribution.
extreme as the test statistic. Since the test statistic is a z-score, use the Normal
on Customer Satisfaction”
on Quality of Service”
Mutual Fund”
¡ Null Hypothesis (H06) :“Asset Under Management does not have an impact
¡ Null Hypothesis (H07) : “Net Present Value does not have an impact on
93
¡ Null Hypothesis (H08) : “Past Record does not have an impact on Sales of
Mutual Fund”
94
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research represents the first phase of a multi-phase effort to identify the
among customers of the Indian Mutual Fund Companies. Our approach was to
interview people in a wide range of Indian Mutual Fund Companies, at both at small
Each respondent presented, from the perspective of their own sector, a view
of their supplier and customer relationships and the opportunities for and barriers to
unified these views to create an industry-wide perspective. The data collected was
focused on establishing that, as a result of customer focus groups and other limited
survey results, it concluded its highly valued customers of the company and felt that
Past studies from Peterson et al. (2001), Apap and Griffith (1998), Costa and
Porter (2003), Dellva and Olson (1998), Droms and Walker (1996) and Indro et al.
(1999) used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis to examine the effects of
multiple mutual fund attributes to aid in explaining fund performance. With that in
mind, this study follows suit with past research by implementing a non-experimental
This study tests the hypotheses mentioned in Chapter 3 using Chi-square test. Mutual
fund attributes such as past record, NAV and AUM are regressed with respect to
mutual fund performance in their respective years. Through the results illustrate the
95
relationship between mutual fund performance and the independent variables.
Furthermore, the partial effects of one independent variable are easily examined with
Sampling method refers to the way that observations are selected from a population to
The reason for conducting a sample survey is to estimate the value of some attribute
of a population.
attribute.
population parameter.
strongly affected by the way that sample observations are chosen; that is., by the
sampling method.
96
Probability vs. Non-Probability Samples
element has a known (non-zero) chance of being chosen for the sample. We
know the probability that each population element will be chosen, and/or we
cannot be sure that each population element has a non-zero chance of being
cost. The main disadvantage is that non-probability sampling methods do not allow
you to estimate the extent to which sample statistics are likely to differ from
analysis.
Two of the main types of non-probability sampling methods are voluntary samples
97
§ Voluntary sample. A voluntary sample is made up of people who self-select
into the survey. Often, these folks have a strong interest in the main topic of
the survey.
easy to reach. We have used this method for sampling in our research.
The main types of probability sampling methods are simple random sampling,
sampling. The key benefit of probability sampling methods is that they guarantee that
the sample chosen is representative of the population. This ensures that the statistical
There are many ways to obtain a simple random sample. One way would be
98
number. The numbers are placed in a bowl and thoroughly mixed. Then, a
selected numbers are included in the sample. We have used this method for
population into groups or strata, based on geography - north, east, south, and
west in our case with respect to city.. Then, within each stratum, we might
assigned to one, and only one, group. Each group is called a cluster. A sample
Note the difference between cluster sampling and stratified sampling. With
stratified sampling, the sample includes elements from each stratum. With
cluster sampling, in contrast, the sample includes elements only from sampled
clusters.
99
§ Multistage sampling. With multistage sampling, we select a sample by using
select a subset of elements from each chosen cluster for the final sample.
list of every member of the population. From the list, we randomly select the
first sample element from the first k elements on the population list.
This method is different from simple random sampling since every possible
§ Estimator. The estimation process for calculating sample statistics is called the
example, the formula for computing a mean score with a simple random
100
sample is different from the formula for computing a mean score with a
stratified sample. Similarly, the formula for the standard error may vary from
The "best" sample design depends on survey objectives and on survey resources. For
example, a researcher might select the most economical design that provides a desired
level of precision. Or, if the budget is limited, a researcher might choose the design
that provides the greatest precision without going over budget. Or other factors might
guide the choice of sample design. In our case we have selected simple random
The larger your sample size, the more sure you can be that their answers truly reflect
the population. This indicates that for a given confidence level, the larger your sample
size, the smaller your confidence interval. However, the relationship is not linear (i.e.,
doubling the sample size does not halve the confidence interval). Our accuracy also
depends on the percentage of our sample that picks a particular answer. If 99% of our
sample said "Yes" and 1% said "No," the chances of error are remote, irrespective of
sample size. However, if the percentages are 51% and 49% the chances of error are
ones. When determining the sample size needed for a given level of accuracy we must
use the worst case percentage (50%). We should also use this percentage if we want to
determine a general level of accuracy for a sample we already have. To determine the
101
confidence interval for a specific answer our sample has given, we can use the
percentage picking that answer and get a smaller interval. How many people are there
in the group our sample represents? This may be the number of people in a city we are
studying, the number of people who buy new cars, etc. Often we may not know the
exact population size. This is not a problem. The mathematics of probability proves
the size of the population is irrelevant unless the size of the sample exceeds a few
percent of the total population we are examining. This means that a sample of 500
would a city of 1,00,000. For this reason, The Survey System ignores the population
size when it is "large" or unknown. Population size is only likely to be a factor when
we work with a relatively small and known group of people (e.g., the members of an
association). In this we have selected a sample of 700 across four tier 1 cities with
equal representation.
Sample Size
Z 2 * (p) * (1-p)
ss =
c2
= 600.25 round it to 700
Where:
102
4.3 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
To derive conclusions from data, we need to know how the data were collected; that
§ Sample survey. A sample survey is a study that obtains data from a subset of a
"controlled" in the sense that the researcher controls (1) how subjects are
about whether the treatment ( independent variable) had a causal effect on the
dependent variable.
103
§ Observational study. Like experiments, observational studies attempt to
researcher is not able to control (1) how subjects are assigned to groups and/or
In this research we have used sample survey technique. The data for this study was
collected from customers of Indian Mutual Fund Companies. A sample of 175 from
each of the four tier 1 city i.e. Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai and Delhi was collected. A
total of 1,000 responses were captured representing a response rate of over 100%.
Almost 30% of these respondents, however, were missing demographic and other
important data pertinent to the study and these cases were eliminated. The collection
Brandname, Asset under management, Net asset value etc. Customer satisfaction is
satisfaction on a 5-point Likert type scale. Then, they are asked to rate their overall
satisfaction for IT Enabled Services [online] usage and usage using a human
representative like Broker/Agent. They are also asked how often they use these
104
services and for what purposes. For the purpose of this study, customer satisfaction
ratings of 1 are considered `highly satisfied' ratings and those of 2 are considered
used to measure each construct in the model. Loyalty is measured by two questions
asking customers to rate their intention to use the service in the future and their
Parasuraman (1996) only one of these questions is used in a 1992 study by Cronin and
Taylor; and both questions are used in a 1993 study by Boulding. And, Sheth, Sisodia,
and Sharnia (2000) used a variation of these two questions in a 2000 study. Previous
component (Homburg, Giering 2001; Peppers, Rogers and Dorf 1998) so that a
highly correlated and were combined to form an "overall loyalty" variable to measure
The data for this study was collected from customers of Indian Mutual Fund
105
were created for and used in a field survey setting where representatives
pertinent to the study and these cases were eliminated. Additionally, any
the study were also eliminated, bringing the final total sample of available
responses to 700. The participants were at least 18 years of age and were the
were investors who had invested in the Mutual Fund Company through a
particular scheme six months preceding the interview. The investor belonged
to four major metro cities i.e. Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkatta and Chennai with
than half of the respondents (40%) are female and the remaining Male
(60%). A demographic analysis shows less than half again (28%) have
higher incomes (Rs.3,00,000 or above), with 20% are small investor with
low income (below Rs.2,00,000) and the remaining 50% in middle income
106
4.6 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
GENDER
MALE
FEMALE
30.9
69.1
107
Table 4.6.16 Descriptive Statistics for Martial status
N Valid 700
Missing 0
Mean 1.50
Median 1.50
Std. Deviation .500
MARTIAL STATUS
MARRIED
UNMARRIED
50 50
108
Table 4.6.18 Descriptive Statistics for Occupation
N Valid 700
Missing 0
Mean 1.38
Median 1.00
Std. Deviation .487
OCCUPATION
SALARIED
SELF EMPLOYED
38.4
61.6
109
Table 4.6.20 Descriptive Statistics for Age Group
N Valid 700
Missing 0
Mean 2.27
Median 2.00
Std. Deviation 1.095
AGE GROUP
20 TO 25
25 TO 30
30 TO 35
35 TO 40
19.29
30.71
19.29
30.71
110
Table 4.6.22 Descriptive Statistics for Annual Income
N Valid 700
Missing 0
Mean 2.96
Median 3.00
Std. Deviation 1.315
ANNUAL INCOME
1.5 TO 2 LAKH
2 TO 2.5 LAKH
2.5 TO 3 LAKH
3 TO 4 LAKH
4 LAKH & ABOVE
11.43
19.29
30.71
19.29
19.29
111
Table 4.6.24 Descriptive Statistics for Amount of Purchase
N Valid 700
Missing 0
Mean 2.73
Median 2.00
Std. Deviation 1.228
AMOUNT OF PURCHASE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
7.7
11.6
23
57.7
112
4.7 PILOT STUDY
In phase I we conducted a pilot study in Mumbai and Delhi with a sample size of 100.
the same before starting the phase II of the study. In phase II of study which was a full
fledge study of sample of 1000 was collected both using personal interview and
administered interview.
was first named alpha by Lee Cronbach in 1951, as he had intended to continue with
items. Alpha is not robust against missing data. Several other Greek letters have been
N %
Cases Valid 700 100.0
Excluded
0 .0
(a)
Total 700 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.881 21
113
Alpha can take on any value less than or equal to 1, including negative values,
although only positive values make sense. Higher values of alpha are more desirable.
(obtained on a substantial sample) before they will use an instrument. Obviously, this
rule should be applied with caution when α has been computed from items that
A good sample is representative. This means that each sample point represents the
Bias often occurs when the survey sample does not accurately represent the
population. The bias that results from an unrepresentative sample is called selection
114
§ Nonresponse bias. Sometimes, individuals chosen for the sample are unwilling
or unable to participate in the survey. Nonresponse bias is the bias that results
Random sampling is a procedure for sampling from a population in which (a) the
selection of a sample unit is based on chance and (b) every element of the population
has a known, non-zero probability of being selected. Random sampling helps produce
In this research the only biases that could occur is from the administrator, since it was
fixed time interval with same respondents and the data was cross examined and it was
parameter. If you repeated a survey many times, using different samples each time,
you would get a different sample statistic with each replication. And each of the
different sample statistics would be an estimate for the same population parameter. If
the statistic is unbiased, the average of all the statistics from all possible samples will
equal the true population parameter; even though any individual statistic may differ
from the population parameter. The variability among statistics from different
115
samples is called sampling error. Increasing the sample size tends to reduce the
sampling error; that is, it makes the sample statistic less variable. However, increasing
sample size does not affect survey bias. A large sample size cannot correct for the
bias. However in our case this was not a major problem as nonresponse bias did not
variables called factors. In other words, it is possible, for example, that variations in
three or four observed variables mainly reflect the variations in a single unobserved
variables are modeled as linear combinations of the potential factors, plus "error"
variables can be used later to reduce the set of variables in a dataset. Factor analysis
marketing, product management, operations research, and other applied sciences that
deal with large quantities of data. Factor analysis is related to principal component
rotation of the variable space, it takes into account all variability in the variables. In
contrast, factor analysis estimates how much of the variability is due to common
116
factors ("communality"). The two methods become essentially equivalent if the error
terms in the factor analysis model (the variability not explained by common factors,
Pearson's chi-square (χ2): Pearson's chi-square test is the best-known of several chi-
square tests – statistical procedures whose results are evaluated by reference to the
contexts where it is important to make a distinction between the test statistic and its
distribution, names similar to Pearson Χ-squared test or statistic are used. It tests a
null hypothesis stating that the frequency distribution of certain events observed in a
must be mutually exclusive and have total probability 1. A common case for this is
where the events each cover an outcome of a categorical variable. A simple example
is the hypothesis that an ordinary six-sided dice is "fair", i.e., all six outcomes are
between each observed and theoretical frequency for each possible outcome, squaring
them, dividing each by the theoretical frequency, and taking the sum of the results. A
second important part of determining the test statistic is to define the degrees of
freedom of the test: this is essentially the number of observed frequencies adjusted for
the effect of using some of those observations to define the "theoretical frequencies".
117
Correlation : In statistics, correlation and dependence are any of a broad class of
the physical statures of parents and their offspring, and the correlation between the
demand for a product and its price. Correlations are useful because they can indicate a
utility may produce less power on a mild day based on the correlation between
electricity demand and weather. Correlations can also suggest possible causal, or
refer to any departure of two or more random variables from independence, but most
There are several correlation coefficients, often denoted ρ or r, measuring the degree
correlation coefficients have been developed to be more robust than the Pearson
modeling and analyzing several variables, when the focus is on the relationship
118
specifically, regression analysis helps us understand how the typical value of the
dependent variable changes when any one of the independent variables is varied,
while the other independent variables are held fixed. Most commonly, regression
analysis estimates the conditional expectation of the dependent variable given the
independent variables — that is, the average value of the dependent variable when the
independent variables are held fixed. Less commonly, the focus is on a quantile, or
given the independent variables. In all cases, the estimation target is a function of the
analysis is widely used for prediction and forecasting, where its use has substantial
overlap with the field of machine learning. Regression analysis is also used to
understand which among the independent variables are related to the dependent
regression analysis can be used to infer causal relationships between the independent
and dependent variables. A large body of techniques for carrying out regression
analysis has been developed. Familiar methods such as linear regression and ordinary
least squares regression are parametric, in that the regression function is defined in
terms of a finite number of unknown parameters that are estimated from the data.
Nonparametric regression refers to techniques that allow the regression function to lie
119
CHAPTER V
This study used a standard statistical software package, SPSS, to provide descriptive
statistics for all years under examination. Specifically, this study provides the mean and
results is provided. Aside from the descriptive statistics, this study presents the specified
forms of the regression equations for all nine years. This study also performs chi-square
test necessary to conclude statistical significance in the parameters and examine the R-
squared and adjusted-R-squared in all of the regression equations. The data are presented
in a tabular format. Since the population of mutual funds is finite, this study elects to use
the population of mutual funds in the database. All attempts have been made to use the
120
CURRENTINV 700 4 1668 2.38 1.570
REPEATPURCHASE 700 4 1776 2.54 1.309
S_IT 700 4 1506 2.15 1.379
REFERRAL_IT 700 4 1830 2.61 1.305
SAFE 700 4 2664 3.81 1.179
ST 700 4 2987 4.27 1.164
EU 700 4 2613 3.73 1.285
N 700 3 2612 3.73 1.093
ES 700 4 2720 3.89 1.281
CURRENT 700 4 2693 3.85 1.292
REPEAT 700 4 2507 3.58 1.305
S 700 4 2181 3.12 1.087
CASHINV 700 4 2776 3.97 1.222
REFERRAL 700 4 2855 4.08 1.299
CS_REFFERAL 700 4 1530 2.19 1.356
CS_COMP 700 3 1238 1.77 .933
SALE 700 4 1911 2.73 1.228
Valid N (listwise) 700
We have sample of over 26 mutual funds out of the total mutual funds of 36 as on 31st
March 2010. However the selected mutual funds have a AUM of 89% of the total
market. Thus the findings of this research could be generalized for entire mutual fund
sector as a whole. Our study has captured data for mutual fund investors from all four
tier 1 cities. It is interesting to find that there is a very little significance of location
We have tried to all segments right from retail investor upto an HNI investor.
121
Figure 5.1.57Pie chart for Investment Company
WHICH MUTUAL
FUND DO YOU
INVEST IN
RELIANCE MF
HDFC MF
ICICI PRUMF
UTI MF
2 2 7 BIRLA SUNLIFE MF
11
2
2 SBI MF
2 7
LIC MF
2
KOTAK MF
2
FRANKLIN MF
2 7
TATA MF
2
IDFC MF
2
DSP BLACKROCK MF
3 DEUTCHE MF
7
SUNDARAM BNP MF
3
HSBC MF
2 TAURUS MF
2 7 BENCHMARK MF
RELIGARE F
6 FIDELITY MF
7 PRINCIPAL MF
6 CANARA ROBECO MF
7 7 JM FINANCIAL MF
JPMORGAN MF
BARODA PIONEER MF
DBS CHOLA MF
MORGAN STANLEY
MF
122
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
Mutual Fund Company. All major mutual funds are covered under this which have
AUM of more than 98% of market. We have ensured the representation of sample is
Bar Chart
30 SALE
<50000
<100000
25
<50000000
5
20
Count
15
10
0
TATA M F
TAURUS M F
J M F IN A N C IA L M F
JP M O R G A N M F
SBI M F
SUNDARAM BNP M F
CANARA ROBECO M F
R E L IA N C E M F
HDFC M F
UTI M F
B IR L A S U N L IF E M F
L IC M F
KOTAK MF
F R A N K L IN M F
D SP BLA C KR O CK M F
DEUTCHE M F
HSBC M F
BENCHM ARK
R E L IG A R E F
P R IN C IP A L M F
B A R O D A P IO N E E R M F
D BS CH O LA M F
M O RG A N S TAN LE Y M F
IC IC I P R U M F
ID F C M F
F ID E L IT Y M F
MFNAME
123
Figure 5.1.59 Pie chart for Mode of Investment
WHAT IS THE
MODE OF
INVESTMENT
ONLINE
OFFLINE
40
60
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on mode
of investment. There are 60% respondents belonging to online group. There are 40%
sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any age group.
Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help
124
Table 5.1.1. Cross tabulation between Mode of Investment and Sales
investment with respect to amount of purchase. There are 46.3% of investors with
investment in the range of 1 lakh prefer online medium along with other two
categories having 11.6% each, with investments in range of 1 lakh to 5crore and
investment less than 50 thousand, less than 1 lakh and less than 5 crore prefer offline
mode of investment with percentage of 7.7%, 11.4% and 11.4% respectively. This
clearly indicates than online medium is one of the most preferred medium for
investment.
125
Figure 5.1.60 Pie chart for Investment Based on Brandname
I INVEST IN MF
BASED ON
BRANDNAME?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEUTRAL
8 DISAGREE
STRONGLY
8 DISAGREE
31
12
42
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
Brandname. There are 31% respondents strongly disagree that they invest on the basis
of brandname. There are 42% respondents disagree that they invest on the basis of
brandname. There are 12% respondents who are neutral on investing based on
brandname. However are 8% respondents strongly agree and the balance 8% also
agree that they invest on the basis of brandname. This is an interesting fact and we
found that this is because most of the Brandname oriented Mutual Funds like SBI,
LIC, UTI and CanaraRobecco were owned by PSU and probably there could be a
126
perception of non performance amongst investor. However it is a observed from past
return that PSU owned Mutual Funds have given lower return as compared to other.
with respect to amount of purchase. There are 30.7% of investors with investment in
127
the range of 1 lakh strongly disagree with the fact that they consider brandname as a
parameter for investment along with other two categories having 19.3%, 11.4% and
11.6% with investments in range of 1 lakh, 1 lakh to 5crore and above 5 crore
than 50 thousand and less than 1 lakh consider brandname as a parameter for
Bar Chart
250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
BRANDNAME
128
Figure 5.1.62 Pie chart for Investment Based on AUM
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEUTRAL
DISAGREE
11.6
15.4
11.4
61.6
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on Asset
Under Management(AUM). There are 11.6% respondents strongly disagree that they
invest on the basis of AUM. There are 11.4% respondents disagree that they invest on
the basis of AUM. However are 61.4% respondents strongly agree and the balance
15.4% also agree that they invest on the basis of AUM. We have ensured the
129
Table 5.1.3. Cross tabulation between AUM and Sales
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents shown above based on AUM with
respect to amount of purchase. There are 15.4% of investors with investment in the
range of 1 lakh strongly agree with the fact that they consider AUM as a parameter for
investment along with other three categories having 7.7%, 42.3% and 11.6% with
investments in range of less than 50 thousand, less than 1 lakh and 1 lakh to 5crore
than 5crore do not consider AUM as a parameter for investment with percentage of
130
11.6%. This clearly indicates that AUM is considered as a parameter before making
Bar Chart
300 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
250
5
200
Count
150
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE
AGREE
AUM
131
Figure 5.1.64 Pie chart for Investment Based on NAV
NAV
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEUTRAL
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
11
19
31
19
19
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
NAV. There are 11% respondents strongly disagree that they invest on the basis of
NAV. There are 31% respondents disagree that they invest on the basis of NAV.
There are 19% respondents who are neutral on investing based on NAV. However are
19% respondents strongly agree and the balance 19% also agree that they invest on
the basis of NAV. This is an interesting fact and we found that this is because most of
132
the investor who ignore NAV as a parameter for investments were salaried and high
investment amount indicating that the emphasise more on other parameter. When this
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents shown above based on NAV with
respect to amount of purchase. There are 19.3% of investors with investment in the
133
range of 1 lakh strongly agree with the fact that they consider NAV as a parameter for
investment along with one other category having 19.3% with investments in range of
less than 1 lakh. A similar type of investor in various category are neutral on this with
investment less than 50 thousand and in the range of 1lakh to 5 crore do not consider
NAV as a parameter for investment with percentage of 7.7% and 23% respectively. In
addition investors with investment in the range of 1 lakh strongly disagree with the
fact that they consider NAV as a parameter for investment with percentage of 11.4%
This clearly indicates that NAV is not considered as a parameter before making an
Bar Chart
200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
NAV
134
Figure 5.1.66 Pie chart for Investment Based on PR
PR
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
12
23
31
35
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on past
record. There are 12% respondents strongly disagree that they invest on the basis of
past record. There are 31% respondents disagree that they invest on the basis of past
record. However are 35% respondents strongly agree and the balance 23% also agree
that they invest on the basis of past record. We have ensured the representation of
sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any age group.
135
Table 5.1.5. Cross tabulation between PR and Sales
with respect to amount of purchase. There are 11.6% of investors each with
investment in the range of 1 lakh and 1lakh to 5crore who strongly agree with the fact
that they consider past record as a parameter for investment along with other two
categories having 7.7% and 27% with investments in range of less than 50 thousand
with investment more than 5crore do not consider past record as a parameter for
investment with percentage of 11.6%. This clearly indicates that past record is
136
eighth null hypothesis is rejected.
Bar Chart
200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
PR
137
Figure 5.1.68 Pie chart for Investment Based on Quality of Services
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
11.4 DISAGREE
11.6
50
27
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
Quality of Service. There are 11.4% respondents strongly disagree that they invest on
the basis of past record. There are 11.6% respondents disagree that they invest on the
basis of past record. However are 27% respondents strongly agree and the balance
50% also agree that they invest on the basis of past record. We have ensured the
138
Table 5.1.6. Cross tabulation between Quality of Service and Sales
service with respect to amount of purchase. There are 27% of investors with
parameter for investment along with other three categories which strongly agrees,
having 7.7%, 30.7% and 11.6% each, with investments less than 50 thousand, less
percentage of investor with investment in the range of 1lakh to 5crore and less than
5crore disagree with the fact that quality of service is a parameter for investment
11.4% and 11.6% respectively. This clearly indicates that quality of service is
139
considered as a parameter for investment. There by it is inferred that third null
hypothesis is rejected.
Bar Chart
250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
QOS
140
Figure 5.1.70 Pie chart for source of Information for Mutual Fund
HOW DO YOU
KNOW ABOUT
MUTUAL FUND OR
ITS
ONLINE
TELE CALL
20 20 SMS
THROUGH A
FRIEND
PRINT MEDIA
AGENT
10
20
20
10
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
source of information for knowing about mutual fund. There are 20% respondents
belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund through online medium.
There are 10% respondents belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund
through Tele-Call. There are 20% respondents belonging to group which gets to know
about mutual fund through SMS. There are 10% respondents belonging to group
which gets to know about mutual fund through friend. There are 20% respondents
belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund through print media. There
are 10% respondents belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund
141
there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random sampling is used for
collecting data from different cities with the help of administered sampling technique
used.
Figure 5.1.71 Pie chart for source of more information for Mutual Fund
WHERE DO YOU
FIND MORE
INFORMATION ON
MUTUAL FUND
WEBSITE
BROUCHRE
20 CALL CENTER
AGENT
40
30
10
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
source of information for knowing about mutual fund. There are 40% respondents
belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund through website. There are
10% respondents belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund through
brochure. There are 30% respondents belonging to group which gets to know about
mutual fund through call-centre. There are 10% respondents belonging to group
which gets to know about mutual fund through agent. We have ensured the
142
representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards
any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities
Figure 5.1.72 Pie chart for Perception of safety in IT & IT Enabled Services.
40
50
10
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
belonging to group which strongly feels safe to use IT & IT Enabled services. There
are 10% respondents belonging to group which feels safe to use IT & IT Enabled
services. There are 40% respondents belonging to group which does not feels safe to
homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random
143
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered
of safety in IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of purchase. There are
23.1% of investors with investment in the range of 1 lakh strongly agree with
perception of safety in IT & IT Enabled Services along with other three categories
144
which strongly agrees, having 19.1%, 11.6% and 11.6% each, with investments less
than less than 1 lakh, in range of 1 lakh to 5crore and less than 5 crore respectively.
than 50 thousand and less than 1 lakh disagree with the perception of safety in IT &
IT Enabled Services 7.7% and 7.7% respectively. This clearly indicates that
Figure 5.1.73 Bar chart for Perception of safety in IT & IT Enabled Services.
Bar Chart
200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
SAFE_IT
145
Figure 5.1.74 Pie chart for Perception of service time in IT & IT Enabled
Services.
Service-time is
comparitively low in
services offered IT
Enabled Services
[online]?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
40
50
10
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception of service time in using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50%
respondents belonging to group having perception of having low service time in using
IT & IT Enabled services. There are 10% respondents belonging to group having
perception of having low service time in using IT & IT Enabled services. There are
40% respondents belonging to group having perception of not having low service time
homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random
146
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered
of low service time in using IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of
purchase. There are 80% of investors in various categories agree with perception of
percentage of investor with investment in the range of less than 1 lakh disagree with
the perception of low service time in using IT & IT Enabled Services with a
percentage of 7.7%. This clearly indicates that perception of low service time in using
147
parameter which indicates influence of IT on service quality as per Parsuraman’s
SERVQUAL Model.
Figure 5.1.75 Bar chart for Perception of service time in IT & IT Enabled
Services.
Bar Chart
SALE
400
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
300
Count
200
100
0
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE
ST_IT
148
Figure 5.1.76 Pie chart for Perception of ease of use in IT & IT Enabled
Services.
40
50
10
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception ease of use with IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50% respondents
belonging to group having perception of easy use of IT & IT Enabled services. There
are 10% respondents belonging to group having perception of easy use of IT & IT
Enabled services. There are 40% respondents belonging to group disagree with
any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities
149
Table 5.1.9. Cross tabulation between ease of use of IT and Sales
ease of use with IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of purchase. There
are 42.4% and 38.4% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and agree
respectively with perception that IT & IT Enabled Services are ease to use. However
thousand disagree with the perception that IT & IT Enabled Services are ease to use,
with a percentage of 7.7%. This clearly indicates that perception that IT & IT Enabled
Services are ease to use is high. This is an important inference as it is one of the
150
SERVQUAL Model.
Figure 5.1.77 Bar chart for Perception of ease of use in IT & IT Enabled
Services.
Bar Chart
250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
EU_IT
Figure 5.1.78 Bar chart for Perception of ease of use in IT & IT Enabled
Services.
N
AGREE
1
NEUTRAL
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
2
Cluster
Overall
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent within Cluster
151
Figure 5.1.79 Pie chart for catering to all need for using IT & IT Enabled
Services.
40
50
10
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception that IT & IT Enabled Services are catering to all needs. There are 50%
respondents belonging to group having perception that IT & IT Enabled services are
catering to all needs. There are 10% respondents belonging to group having
perception that IT & IT Enabled services are catering to all needs. There are 40%
services are catering to all needs. We have ensured the representation of sample is
homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random
152
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered
Table 5.1.10. Cross tabulation between catering to all need using IT and
Sales
that IT & IT Enabled Services are catering to all needs with respect to amount of
purchase. There are 38.4% and 42.4% of investors in various categories who strongly
agree and agree respectively with perception that IT & IT Enabled Services are
in the range of less than 50 thousand strongly disagree with the perception that IT &
153
IT Enabled Services are catering to all needs, with a percentage of 7.7%. This clearly
indicates that perception that IT & IT Enabled Services are catering to all needs is
Figure 5.1.80 Pie chart for catering to all need for using IT & IT Enabled
Services.
Bar Chart
250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count
150
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
N_IT
154
Figure 5.1.81 Pie chart for Perception of quality of service in IT & IT
Enabled Services.
40
50
10
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception of quality of services in using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50%
perception of quality of services in using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 40%
homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random
155
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered
amount of purchase. There are 19.1% and 50.1% of investors in various categories
who strongly agree and agree respectively with perception of excellent quality of
156
investor with investment in the range of less than 50 thousand strongly disagree with
the perception of excellent quality of services in using IT & IT Enabled Services, with
a percentage of 7.7%. This clearly indicates that the perception of excellent quality of
Enabled Services.
Bar Chart
200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
ES_IT
157
Figure 5.1.83 Bar chart for Perception of quality of service in IT & IT
Enabled Services.
N
AGREE
1
NEUTRAL
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
2
C lu s te r
Overall
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent within Cluster
158
Figure 5.1.84 Pie chart for investment using IT & IT Enabled Services.
I invest in existing
scheme through IT
& IT Enabled
Services ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
40
50
10
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception of investment using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50% respondents
There are 10% respondents belonging to group having perception investment using IT
& IT Enabled Services. There are 40% respondents belonging to group disagree with
any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities
159
Table 5.1.12. Cross tabulation between current investment and Sales
SALE
<10000 <500000
χ2=931.534;
df=9; p=0.000; λ=.423 <50000 0 00 5 Total
CURRENTINV STRONGLY Count 0 215 0 81 296
AGREE % within
.0% 72.6% .0% 27.4% 100.0%
CURRENTINV
% within SALE .0% 53.2% .0% 100.0% 42.3%
% of Total .0% 30.7% .0% 11.6% 42.3%
AGREE Count 0 189 0 0 189
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENTINV
% within SALE .0% 46.8% .0% .0% 27.0%
% of Total .0% 27.0% .0% .0% 27.0%
DISAGREE Count 0 0 81 0 81
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENTINV
% within SALE .0% .0% 50.3% .0% 11.6%
% of Total .0% .0% 11.6% .0% 11.6%
STRONGLY Count 54 0 80 0 134
DISAGREE % within
40.3% .0% 59.7% .0% 100.0%
CURRENTINV
% within SALE 100.0% .0% 49.7% .0% 19.1%
% of Total 7.7% .0% 11.4% .0% 19.1%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
CURRENTINV
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on perception
investment using IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of purchase. There
are 42.3% and 27% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and agree
investment from various categories disagree and strongly disagree with the using IT &
investors have made current investments using IT & IT Enabled Services. This is an
160
investment and rechecks it with the earlier question asked to remove any error or bias.
Figure 5.1.85 Bar chart for investment using IT & IT Enabled Services.
Bar Chart
250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count
150
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
CURRENTINV
161
Figure 5.1.86 Pie chart for additional investment using IT & IT Enabled
Services
I would like to
purchase similar
products IT & IT
Enabled Services ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
40
50
10
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception of additional investment using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50%
perception additional investment using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 40%
homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random
162
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered
SALE
<10000 <500000
χ2=1163.384;
df=9; p=0.000; λ=.458 <50000 0 00 5 Total
REPEATPURCH STRONGLY Count 0 135 0 0 135
ASE AGREE % within
REPEATPURCH .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
ASE
% within SALE .0% 33.4% .0% .0% 19.3%
% of Total .0% 19.3% .0% .0% 19.3%
AGREE Count 0 269 81 0 350
% within
REPEATPURCH .0% 76.9% 23.1% .0% 100.0%
ASE
% within SALE .0% 66.6% 50.3% .0% 50.0%
% of Total .0% 38.4% 11.6% .0% 50.0%
DISAGREE Count 54 0 80 0 134
% within
REPEATPURCH 40.3% .0% 59.7% .0% 100.0%
ASE
% within SALE 100.0% .0% 49.7% .0% 19.1%
% of Total 7.7% .0% 11.4% .0% 19.1%
STRONGLY Count 0 0 0 81 81
DISAGREE % within
REPEATPURCH .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%
ASE
% within SALE .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 11.6%
% of Total .0% .0% .0% 11.6% 11.6%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
REPEATPURCH 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
ASE
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
purchase. There are 19.3% and 50% of investors in various categories who strongly
agree and agree respectively indicating their additional investment would be done
163
using IT & IT Enabled Services. However an insignificant percentage of investor with
19.1% and 11.6% investment from various categories disagree and strongly disagree
with the using IT & IT Enabled Services as a mode of investment for additional
purchase. This clearly indicates that majority of investors would make additional
one of the parameter which indicates additional investment mode. This also reaffirms
that satisfied customers are loyal and IT plays an important role in this.
Figure 5.1.87 Bar chart for additional investment using IT & IT Enabled
Services
Bar Chart
300 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
250
5
200
Count
150
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
REPEATPURCHASE
164
Figure 5.1.88 Pie chart for satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services.
I am satisfied with
the IT & IT Enabled
Services ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
41
49
0
10
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 49% respondents belonging to
group having satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 10% respondents
belonging to group agree with perception satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services.
There are 41% respondents belonging to group strongly disagree with satisfaction
homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered
165
Table 5.1.14. Cross tabulation between satisfaction with IT and Sales
satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of purchase. There
are 42.4% and 36.6% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and agree
respectively that they are satisfied with IT & IT Enabled Services. However 11.4 and
strongly disagree with the fact that IT & IT Enabled Services provided by mutual fund
company are satisfactory. This clearly indicates that majority of investors are satisfied
166
parameter which indicates influence of IT on customer satisfaction. There by it is
Figure 5.1.89 Bar chart for satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services.
Bar Chart
250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count
150
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
S_IT
167
Figure 5.1.90 Pie chart for recommendation of IT & IT Enabled Services.
I recommend my
friends to use IT &
IT Enabled Services
?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
40
51
10
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered
168
Table 5.1.15. Cross tabulation between referral for IT and Sales
SALE
χ2=1546.229; df=12; p=0.000; <10000 <500000
λ=.423 <50000 0 00 5 Total
REFERRAL_IT STRONGLY Count 0 135 0 0 135
AGREE
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE .0% 33.4% .0% .0% 19.3%
% of Total .0% 19.3% .0% .0% 19.3%
AGREE Count 0 215 81 0 296
% within
.0% 72.6% 27.4% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE .0% 53.2% 50.3% .0% 42.3%
% of Total .0% 30.7% 11.6% .0% 42.3%
NEUTRAL Count 54 0 0 0 54
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
DISAGREE Count 0 54 80 0 134
% within
.0% 40.3% 59.7% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE .0% 13.4% 49.7% .0% 19.1%
% of Total .0% 7.7% 11.4% .0% 19.1%
STRONGLY Count 0 0 0 81 81
DISAGREE
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 11.6%
% of Total .0% .0% .0% 11.6% 11.6%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on
There are 19.3% and 42.3% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and
agree respectively that they would recommend using IT & IT Enabled Services.
categories disagree and strongly disagree with the fact that IT & IT Enabled Services
169
provided by mutual fund company are recommendable. This clearly indicates that
majority of investors would like to recommend use of IT & IT Enabled Services. This
satisfaction.
Bar Chart
250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count
150
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
REFERRAL_IT
170
Figure 5.1.92 Pie chart for Perception of safety in agent / brokerage firm
30
60
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception of safety in agent / brokerage firm. There are 10% respondents belonging
to group for perception of safety in agent / brokerage firm. There are 30% respondents
belonging to group for perception of safety in agent / brokerage firm. There are 60%
there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random sampling is used for
collecting data from different cities with the help of administered sampling technique
used.
171
Table 5.1.16. Cross tabulation between safety in agent / brokerage firm
and Sales
who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that services provided by agent /
172
brokerage firm (Non-IT) are safe. However 7.7 and 11.6% an insignificant percentage
of investors in various categories strongly agree and agree with the fact that services
provided by agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) are safe. This clearly indicates that
majority of investors do not find safety in agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). This is an
important inference as it supports the fact that non – IT services are not preferred by
investors.
Figure 5.1.93 Bar chart for Perception of safety in agent / brokerage firm
Bar Chart
250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count
150
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
SAFE
173
Figure 5.1.94 Pie chart for Perception of service time in agent / brokerage
firm.
Service-time is
comparitively is not
high in services
offered on agent /
brokerage firm ?
10
STRONGLY
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
30
60
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception of high service time in agent / brokerage firm. There are 10% respondents
belonging to group for perception of high service time in agent / brokerage firm.
There are 30% respondents belonging to group for perception of high service time in
agent / brokerage firm. There are 60% respondents belonging to group disagree with
perception of high service time in agent / brokerage firm. We have ensured the
any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities
174
Table 5.1.17. Cross tabulation between service time in agent / brokerage
SALE
χ2=1011.442; df=9; p=0.000; <5000000
λ=.382 <50000 <100000 0 5 Total
ST STRONGLY Count 0 54 0 0 54
AGREE % within ST .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
NEUTRAL Count 0 0 0 81 81
% within ST .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 11.6%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% .0% 11.6% 11.6%
DISAGREE Count 54 81 0 0 135
% within ST 40.0% 60.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 20.0% .0% .0% 19.3%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 11.6% .0% .0% 19.3%
STRONGLY Count 0 269 161 0 430
DISAGREE % within ST .0% 62.6% 37.4% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 66.6% 100.0% .0% 61.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% 38.4% 23.0% .0% 61.4%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within ST 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on perception
of service time in agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) with respect to amount of purchase.
who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that service time in agent / brokerage
categories strongly agree with the fact that service time in agent / brokerage firm
(Non-IT) is less. This clearly indicates that majority of investors do not find service
175
supports the fact that non – IT services do not lead to better service quality.
Figure 5.1.95 Bar chart for Perception of service time in agent / brokerage
firm.
Bar Chart
300 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
250
5
200
Count
150
100
50
0
STRONGLY NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
ST
176
Figure 5.1.96 Pie chart for current mode of investment using agent /
brokerage firm.
I invest in existing
scheme through
agent / brokerage
firm ?
STRONGLY
10 AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
30
60
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception current mode of investment using agent / brokerage firm. There are 10%
brokerage firm. There are 30% respondents belonging to group for current mode of
investment using agent / brokerage firm. There are 60% respondents belonging to
group disagree with current mode of investment using agent / brokerage firm. We
177
inclination towards any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data
from different cities with the help of administered sampling technique used.
SALE
χ2=1210.506; df=12; p=0.000; <10000 <500000
λ=.386 <50000 0 00 5 Total
CURRENT STRONGLY Count 54 0 0 0 54
AGREE % within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
AGREE Count 0 80 0 0 80
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
NEUTRAL Count 0 0 81 0 81
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE .0% .0% 50.3% .0% 11.6%
% of Total .0% .0% 11.6% .0% 11.6%
DISAGREE Count 0 189 0 0 189
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE .0% 46.8% .0% .0% 27.0%
% of Total .0% 27.0% .0% .0% 27.0%
STRONGLY Count 0 135 80 81 296
DISAGREE % within
.0% 45.6% 27.0% 27.4% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE .0% 33.4% 49.7% 100.0% 42.3%
% of Total .0% 19.3% 11.4% 11.6% 42.3%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
mode of investment using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) with respect to amount of
178
categories who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that their current mode of
investment is using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). However 7.7 and 11.6% an
insignificant percentage of investors in various categories strongly agree with the fact
that their current mode of investment is using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). This
clearly indicates that majority of investors do not invest currently using agent /
brokerage firm (Non-IT). This is an important inference as it supports the fact that
Figure 5.1.97 Bar chart for current mode of investment using agent /
brokerage firm.
Bar Chart
200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
CURRENT
179
Figure 5.1.98 Pie chart for additional investment using agent / brokerage
firm.
I would like to
purchase similar
products agent /
brokerage firm ?
STRONGLY
10 AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
30
60
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception for additional investment using agent / brokerage firm. There are 10%
firm. There are 30% respondents belonging to group for additional investment using
agent / brokerage firm. There are 60% respondents belonging to group disagree with
any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities
180
Table 5.1.19. Cross tabulation between additional investment using agent
SALE
Χ2=1619.802; df=12; <10000 <500000
p=0.000; λ=.665 <50000 0 00 5 Total
REPEAT STRONGLY Count 0 80 0 0 80
AGREE % within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
.0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
AGREE Count 54 0 0 0 54
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
NEUTRAL Count 0 0 161 0 161
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 23.0%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% 23.0% .0% 23.0%
DISAGREE Count 0 108 0 81 189
% within
.0% 57.1% .0% 42.9% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
.0% 26.7% .0% 100.0% 27.0%
SALE
% of Total .0% 15.4% .0% 11.6% 27.0%
STRONGLY Count 0 216 0 0 216
DISAGREE % within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
.0% 53.5% .0% .0% 30.9%
SALE
% of Total .0% 30.9% .0% .0% 30.9%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on additional
investment using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) with respect to amount of purchase.
There is a majority of investors 27% and 30.9% of investors in various categories who
strongly disagree and disagree respectively that they would undergo additional
181
investment using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). However 11.4 and 7.7% an
insignificant percentage of investors in various categories strongly agree with the fact
they would undergo additional investment using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT).
This clearly indicates that majority of investors do not want to make additional
supports the fact that non – IT services are not preferred by investors.
Figure 5.1.99 Bar chart for additional investment using agent / brokerage
firm.
Bar Chart
250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count
150
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
REPEAT
182
Figure 5.1.100 Pie chart for satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage
firm.
I am satisfied with
the agent /
brokerage firm ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
10 DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
30
60
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception for satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage firm. There are 10%
firm. There are 30% respondents belonging to group for satisfaction with services of
agent / brokerage firm. There are 60% respondents belonging to group disagree with
183
any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities
SALE
χ2=787.936; df=12; p=0.000; <5000000
λ=.358 <50000 <100000 0 5 Total
S STRONGLY Count 0 54 0 0 54
AGREE % within S .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
AGREE Count 0 80 0 81 161
% within S .0% 49.7% .0% 50.3% 100.0%
% within
.0% 19.8% .0% 100.0% 23.0%
SALE
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% 11.6% 23.0%
NEUTRAL Count 54 135 0 0 189
% within S 28.6% 71.4% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 33.4% .0% .0% 27.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 19.3% .0% .0% 27.0%
DISAGREE Count 0 81 161 0 242
% within S .0% 33.5% 66.5% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 20.0% 100.0% .0% 34.6%
SALE
% of Total .0% 11.6% 23.0% .0% 34.6%
STRONGLY Count 0 54 0 0 54
DISAGREE % within S .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within S 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on
satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) with respect to amount
184
categories who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that they are satisfaction
with services of agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). However 7.7% and 23% an
insignificant percentage of investors in various categories strongly agree with the fact
that they are satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). This
clearly indicates that majority of investors are not satisfied with services of agent /
brokerage firm (Non-IT). This is an important inference as it supports the fact that
customers using non – IT services are not satisfied. Also it help us in indirectly in
Figure 5.1.101 Bar chart for satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage
firm.
Bar Chart
200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
S
185
Figure 5.1.102 Pie chart for using agent / brokerage firm for cash incentive.
I invest through
agent / brokerage
firm to get cash
incentives ?
STRONGLY
10 AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
30
60
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
perception for using agent / brokerage firm for cash incentive. There are 10%
respondents belonging to group for using agent / brokerage firm for cash incentive.
There are 30% respondents belonging to group for using agent / brokerage firm for
cash incentive. There are 60% respondents belonging to group disagree with using
agent / brokerage firm for cash incentive. We have ensured the representation of
sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since
random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of
186
Table 5.1.21. Cross tabulation between agent / brokerage firm for cash
SALE
χ2=865.742; df=9; p=0.000; <5000000
λ=.233 <50000 <100000 0 5 Total
CASHINV STRONGLY Count 0 80 0 0 80
AGREE % within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CASHINV
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
NEUTRAL Count 54 0 0 0 54
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CASHINV
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
DISAGREE Count 0 135 80 81 296
% within
.0% 45.6% 27.0% 27.4% 100.0%
CASHINV
% within SALE .0% 33.4% 49.7% 100.0% 42.3%
% of Total .0% 19.3% 11.4% 11.6% 42.3%
STRONGLY Count 0 189 81 0 270
DISAGREE % within
.0% 70.0% 30.0% .0% 100.0%
CASHINV
% within SALE .0% 46.8% 50.3% .0% 38.6%
% of Total .0% 27.0% 11.6% .0% 38.6%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
CASHINV
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on using
agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) for cash incentive with respect to amount of
categories who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that they use agent /
brokerage firm (Non-IT) for cash incentive. However 11.4% and 7.7% an
insignificant percentage of investors in various categories strongly agree with the fact
that they use agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) for cash incentive. This proves that the
only motive for investors to invest using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) is to get
187
cash incentive. This is very interesting as we were not able to understand as to why do
some investors prefer using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) inspite of so many
adverse perception. This explain the gap that even dissatisfied investor with service of
agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) use their service purely with intention of getting cash
incentive.
Figure 5.1.103 Pie chart for using agent / brokerage firm for cash incentive.
Bar Chart
200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
CASHINV
188
Figure 5.1.104 Pie chart for recommendation of services provided by agent /
brokerage firm.
I recommend my
friends to use the
agent / brokerage
firm ?
STRONGLY
10 AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
30
60
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
agent / brokerage firm. There are 30% respondents belonging to group for
homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random
189
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered
SALE
χ2=1058.912; df=9; p=0.000; <10000 <500000
λ=.305 <50000 0 00 5 Total
REFERRAL STRONGLY Count 54 0 0 0 54
AGREE
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
AGREE Count 0 80 0 0 80
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
DISAGREE Count 0 108 0 81 189
% within
.0% 57.1% .0% 42.9% 100.0%
REFERRAL
% within SALE .0% 26.7% .0% 100.0% 27.0%
% of Total .0% 15.4% .0% 11.6% 27.0%
STRONGLY Count 0 216 161 0 377
DISAGREE
% within
.0% 57.3% 42.7% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL
% within SALE .0% 53.5% 100.0% .0% 53.9%
% of Total .0% 30.9% 23.0% .0% 53.9%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
REFERRAL
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on
various categories who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that they would
190
recommend other to use services provided by agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT).
categories strongly agree with the fact that they would recommend other to use
services provided by agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). This clearly indicates that
majority of investors are would not recommend other to use services provided by
agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). This is an important inference as it supports the fact
that customers using non – IT services are not satisfied and a dissatisfied customer do
brokerage firm.
Bar Chart
250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
REFERRAL
191
Figure 5.1.106 Histogram for recommendation of services provided by agent /
brokerage firm.
400
300
F re q u e n c y
200
100
Mean = 4.08
Std. Dev. = 1.299
0 N = 700
1 2 3 4 5
I RECOMMEND MY FRIENDS TO USE THE
AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM ?
192
Figure 5.1.107 Pie chart for recommendation of company.
I recommend this
company to my
friends ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
20 DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
10
70
0
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
inclination towards any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data
from different cities with the help of administered sampling technique used.
193
Table 5.1.23. Cross tabulation between recommendation of company and
Sales
SALE
χ2=588.280; df=9; p=0.000; <5000 <1000 <50000
λ=.296 0 00 000 5 Total
CS_REFFERAL STRONGLY Count 0 189 81 0 270
AGREE
% within 100.0
.0% 70.0% 30.0% .0%
CS_REFFERAL %
% within SALE .0% 46.8% 50.3% .0% 38.6%
% of Total .0% 27.0% 11.6% .0% 38.6%
AGREE Count 54 135 0 81 270
% within 100.0
20.0% 50.0% .0% 30.0%
CS_REFFERAL %
% within SALE 100.0 100.0
33.4% .0% 38.6%
% %
% of Total 7.7% 19.3% .0% 11.6% 38.6%
DISAGREE Count 0 80 0 0 80
% within 100.0 100.0
.0% .0% .0%
CS_REFFERAL % %
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
STRONGLY Count 0 0 80 0 80
DISAGREE
% within 100.0
.0% .0% 100.0% .0%
CS_REFFERAL %
% within SALE .0% .0% 49.7% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% .0% 11.4% .0% 11.4%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within 100.0
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6%
CS_REFFERAL %
% within SALE 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0%
% % % %
% of Total 100.0
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6%
%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on
38.6% and 38.6% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and agree
respectively that they would recommend company to others. However 11.4% and
strongly disagree with the fact that they would recommend company to others. This
194
clearly indicates that majority of investors would like to recommend the company to
customer would recommend to others. This is one of the parameter which indicates
Bar Chart
200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count
100
50
0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
CS_REFFERAL
195
Figure 5.1.109 Bar chart for recommendation of company.
CS_REFFERAL
STRONGLY
1
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
2 DISAGREE
C lu s te r
Overall
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent within Cluster
196
Figure 5.1.110 Pie chart for satisfaction services provided by company.
I am satisfied with
the services
provided by
company ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
20 AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
10
70
0
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on
belonging to group for satisfaction services provided by company. There are 10%
company. There are 20% respondents belonging to group strongly disagree with
sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since
random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of
197
Table 5.1.24. Cross tabulation between satisfaction services provided by
SALE
Χ2=469.04; df=9; p=0.019; <5000000
λ=.002 <50000 <100000 0 5 Total
CS_COMP STRONGLY Count 54 135 80 81 350
AGREE % within
15.4% 38.6% 22.9% 23.1% 100.0%
CS_COMP
% within SALE 100.0% 33.4% 49.7% 100.0% 50.0%
% of Total 7.7% 19.3% 11.4% 11.6% 50.0%
AGREE Count 0 135 81 0 216
% within
.0% 62.5% 37.5% .0% 100.0%
CS_COMP
% within SALE .0% 33.4% 50.3% .0% 30.9%
% of Total .0% 19.3% 11.6% .0% 30.9%
NEUTRAL Count 0 80 0 0 80
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CS_COMP
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
DISAGREE Count 0 54 0 0 54
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CS_COMP
% within SALE .0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
CS_COMP
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on
are 50% and 30.9% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and agree
respectively that they are satisfied with services provided by company. However 11.4
strongly disagree with the fact that services provided by company are satisfactory.
This clearly indicates that majority of investors are satisfied with services provided by
198
company. This is an important inference as it is one of the parameter which indicates
hypothesis is rejected.
Bar Chart
140 SALE
<50000
<100000
120 <50000000
5
100
Count
80
60
40
20
0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE
AGREE
CS_COMP
199
Figure 5.1.112 Bar chart for satisfaction services provided by company.
CS_COMP
STRONGLY
1
AGREE
AGREE
NEUTRAL
DISAGREE
2
C lu s te r
Overall
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent within Cluster
200
5.2 Multiple Regression Model for Sales of Mutual Funds
Regression analysis is widely used for prediction and forecasting, where its use has
substantial overlap with the field of machine learning. Regression analysis is also
Service Quality, AUM, NAV, Past Record, Brandname and IT are related to the
dependent variable i.e. Sales, and to explore the forms of these relationships. In
between the independent and dependent variables. A large body of techniques for
carrying out regression analysis has been developed. Familiar methods such as linear
regression and ordinary least squares regression are parametric, in that the regression
estimated from the data. Nonparametric regression refers to techniques that allow the
dimensional.
Std.
Error of F P Value
Adjusted R the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
.887(a) .787 .785 .570 365.263 .001
1
201
Table 5.2.4. Multiple Regression Model Coefficients for Sales
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
Std.
B Error Beta
1 (Constant) 4.15
1.410 .53 .000
7
CS_REFFERA
2.19 1.228 .320 12.49 .001
L
CS_COMP 1.77 1.315 .820 7.03 .003
S_IT 2.15 1.179 .596 15.59 .002
REFERRAL_IT 2.61 .834 .613 7.21 .002
BRANDNAME 0.81 1.315 .012 13.89 .003
AUM 2.19 1.403 .454 4.391 .000
NAV 2.96 .395 .011 3.803 .000
PR 0.73 1.10 .320 .439 .000
QOS 2.07 .233 .820 11.42 .001
The multiple regression analysis indicates that parameters like customer satisfaction,
quality of service, AUM, Past Record and others affect sales of a mutual fund.
Parameters like referral, repeat purchase indicate loyalty of customer and there by
202
CHAPTER 6 : CONCULSION
importance of the impact of three basic factors namely Financial Factors, Brand name
Services on customer satisfaction and service quality in the financial service industry
in India. It confirms previous studies that indicate that highly satisfied customers are,
indeed, more loyal customers and help in increased sales of mutual fund company, by
suggests that services provided by agents / brokerage firm may not have much
Satisfaction and sales of Mutual Fund company. The Goodness of Fit is 0.9 which
indicates that model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 469.04 for sample
of 700. The p - value of 0.019 indicates that there exist relationship between Customer
Satisfaction and sales of Mutual Fund company as the significance level of 0.05 is
used. Customer Satisfaction shows a positive correlation with sales of Mutual Fund
company. Also based on statistical results the first null hypothesis is rejected. Thus it
is inferred that Customer Satisfaction does have an impact on sales of Mutual Fund
company.
of Fit is 0.89 which indicates that model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of
203
189 for sample of 700. The p - value of 0.039 indicates that there exist relationship
customer satisfaction. Also based on statistical results the second null hypothesis is
rejected. Thus it is inferred that Information Technology Enabled Services does have
Quality and Sales of Mutual Funds. The Goodness of Fit is 0.88 which indicates that
model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 266 for sample of 700. The p -
value of 0.028 indicates that there exist relationship between Service Quality and
Sales as the significance level of 0.05 is used. Service Quality shows a positive
correlation with Sales. Also based on statistical results the third null hypothesis is
rejected. Thus it is inferred that Service Quality does have an impact on Sales of
Mutual Funds.
Information Technology Enabled Services and Service Quality. The Goodness of Fit
is 0.89 which indicates that model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of
304.12 for sample of 700. The p - value of 0.029 indicates that there exist relationship
between IT Services and Service Quality as the significance level of 0.05 is used.
Service Quality shows a positive correlation with Sales. Also based on statistical
results the fourth null hypothesis is rejected. Thus it is inferred that Information
204
It is observed statistically that there exist a significant relation between
Brandname and Sales of Mutual Funds. The Goodness of Fit is 0.88 which indicates
that model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 279.18 for sample of 700.
The p - value of 0.44 indicates that there is no relationship between Brandname and
Sales of Mutual Funds as the significance level of 0.05 is used. Brandname shows no
correlation with Sales of Mutual Funds. Also based on statistical results the fifth null
hypothesis is accepted. Thus it is inferred that Brandname does not have an impact
Under Management and Sales of Mutual Funds. The Goodness of Fit is 0.88 which
indicates that model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 468.64 for sample
of 700. The p - value of 0.047 indicates that there exist relationship between Asset
Under Management and Sales of Mutual Funds as the significance level of 0.05 is
used. Asset Under Management shows a positive correlation with Sales of Mutual
Funds. Also based on statistical results the sixth null hypothesis is rejected. Thus it is
inferred that Asset Under Management does have an impact on Sales of Mutual
Funds
It is observed statistically that there exist a significant relation between Net Asset
Value and Sales of Mutual Funds. The Goodness of Fit is 0.88 which indicates that
model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 295.206 for sample of 700. The p
- value of 0.31 indicates that there no relationship between NAV and sales of mutual
fund company as the significance level of 0.05 is used. Net Asset Value shows a no
significant correlation with sales. Also based on statistical results the seventh null
205
hypothesis is accepted. Thus it is inferred that Net Asset Value does not have an
Return and Sales of Mutual Funds. The Goodness of Fit is 0.88 which indicates that
model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 368.54 for sample of 700. The p
- value of 0.027 indicates that there exist relationship between Past Return and Sales
of Mutual Funds as the significance level of 0.05 is used. Past Return shows a positive
correlation with Sales of Mutual Funds. Also based on statistical results the eighth
null hypothesis is rejected. Thus it is inferred that Past Return does have an impact
206
Table 6.2 Summary of Hypothesis Testing
p- Null
χ2 Df value hypothesis
evaluate where increased spending of the marketing effort should occur (or not occur)
to maximize profitability. It also suggests that more empirical study needs to be done
to understand the true relationship between customer satisfaction, service quality and
loyalty and what each segment of a customer base expects from its financial services
207
firms and its partners. Although many of the pitfalls of installing a IT strategy have
been identified, the route to effective IT and IT Enabled management needs more
expensive strategy to employ, this research needs to dig more deeply into what
consumers really want and why consumers think the way they do. Clarity around
consumer needs can only help managers to determine where they should spend their
limited resources.
208
CHAPTER 7 : LIMITATION AND FUTURE SCOPE OF RESEARCH
7.1 LIMITATION
understanding IT & IT Enabled Services, its impact on satisfaction levels and the
First, the data used in this study was obtained from a 26 financial service firm
obtain large sample data from various firms in the industry to test whether this model
can be generalized throughout the industry worldwide and to test whether it can be
useful for measuring customer satisfaction, service quality and loyalty levels and
here could have impacts on customer satisfaction, on loyalty and on the relationship
between the two concepts. And, as women in our society become increasingly more
responsible for their family's financial status, it is possible that females will become
more objective in their evaluation of services than has traditionally been the case.
these IT systems is their inability to address the "why" question of buyer behavior
because of their association with the internal states and motives of customers. Until
209
it can incorporate insight into the minds of consumers into the information
technology, it is unlikely that it will be able to capture and measure the true
Possibly, the fact that this was a administered survey put a constraint on the
necessitate the use of relatively simple measurement scales (Urban and Pratt 2000).
Future studies might incorporate other survey methods that provide for more
Although it is clear that more highly satisfied customers are, generally, more
loyal, there is no substantial support for the idea that customer relationship
financial service firm. There could be several reasons for this result. Often IT
programs are either not properly installed, people are not properly trained, or firms
are not appropriately measuring the needs of their customers. Some researchers
think that the things being measured in call centers, for example, are thought
important simply because they are automated and are simple to measure (rather than
being important enough to measure) (Feinberg, et al. 2002). Often, this leads to
installing protocols that are not addressing the needs of the customer but might be
to consumer needs.
210
It is also possible that the database information from this firm is not of the
highest quality or that customer tiers are not appropriately segmented, which might
indicate that the wrong protocols are in place, customer were inaccurately coded, or
that, in the final analysis, these protocols simply do not matter to these customer
segments.
And, it is possible that this IT program does not receive the appropriate level
Managers can make some assumptions from this study regarding the impact of
demographics as they relate to technology usage and customer satisfaction and loyalty
levels. These results can help managers understand what protocols and channels of
service are more highly appreciated by which segments of their customer base and
tailor their services to better meet customer needs. And, it may be a fair warning to
managers that the adoption of technology without considering customer needs and
segment and demographic are needed to help guide managers to the proper strategy.
211
7.2 FUTURE SCOPE OF RESEARCH
Financial Institutions and especially fund house could carry out more
expectations and which segments of the customer base are particularly fond of
using these technologies, while understanding which segments are truly committed
to the idea of more personal banking services and its impact on top line. Other
demographics of interest to study might include zip code or some other regional
delineator for tier 2, tier 3 cities. It is possible that individuals in different regions
in particular. However, as the number of females in the workplace and who are
gender, income and age as they relate to technology usage in the financial service
arena.
Although the sample is reasonably large with 700 cases, it would be preferable
to obtain larger samples to provide a higher the level of reliability of the study. And,
larger samples of each tiered segment might support stronger comparisons between IT
& IT Enabled Services and agents / brokerage firm customers. Also, it is likely that
due to the newness of the protocols intended for IT & IT Enabled services customers,
a survey conducted in the second or third year after protocols have been in place will
212
Clearly more research needs to be done in understanding the needs of
customers and whether differentiated protocols are something that customers desire.
Surveys that truly capture customer expectations will guide the firm to the proper
based on managerial assumptions -- all too often why certain products and services
are developed.
understand when to (or not to) use IT as it is such a costly and multi-dimensional
undertaking: With more empirical studies, managers can make more cost effective
213
SAMPLE QUESTIONARE
LOCATION : _______________________________
1. NAME :_____________________________________________________
EMPLOYED
YES / NO
allocation investment)
o COMPANY1:_____________________________________________
OFFLINE ONLINE
214
11. HOW DO YOU KNOW ABOUT MUTUAL FUND / ULIP COMPANY ?
□ - AGENT □ - SMS
FUND/ULIP PRODUCT ?
□ WEBSITE □ BROUCHURE
215
APPENDIX - A
216
I WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE SIMILAR PRODUCTS IT
12 ENABLED SERVICES [ONLINE] ? 1 2 3 4 5
I AM SATISFIED WITH THE IT ENABLED SERVICES
13 [ONLINE] ? 1 2 3 4 5
I RECOMMEND MY FRIENDS TO USE THE IT
14 ENABLED SERVICES [ONLINE] ? 1 2 3 4 5
I FEEL SAFE INVESTING THROUGH AGENT /
15 BROKERAGE FIRM? 1 2 3 4 5
SERVICE-TIME IS COMPARITIVELY HIGH IN
16 SERVICES OFFERED ON AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM ? 1 2 3 4 5
THE AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM PROVIDED ARE
17 EASY TO USE ? 1 2 3 4 5
THE AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM ARE CATERING TO
18 ALL MY NEEDS ? 1 2 3 4 5
THE AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM PROVIDED ARE
19 EXCELLENT ? 1 2 3 4 5
I INVEST IN EXISTING SCHEME THROUGH AGENT /
20 BROKERAGE FIRM ? 1 2 3 4 5
I WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE SIMILAR PRODUCTS
21 AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM ? 1 2 3 4 5
I AM SATISFIED WITH THE AGENT / BROKERAGE
22 FIRM ? 1 2 3 4 5
I INVEST THROUGH AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM TO
23 GET CASH INCENTIVES ? 1 2 3 4 5
I RECOMMEND MY FRIENDS TO USE THE AGENT /
24 BROKERAGE FIRM ? 1 2 3 4 5
25 I RECOMMEND THIS COMPANY TO MY FRIENDS ? 1 2 3 4 5
I AM SATISFIED WITH THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY
26 COMPANY ? 1 2 3 4 5
217
I AM SATISFIED WITH THE IT ENABLED SERVICES
27 [ONLINE] ? 1 2 3 4 5
I INVEST IN MUTUAL FUND BASED ON ABOVE
28 PARAMETERS DISCUSSED ? 1 2 3 4 5
218
ANNEXURE 1
INCOME
2 TO 4 LAKH
1.5 TO 2.5 2.5 TO 3 TO 4 &
2 LAKH LAKH 3 LAKH LAKH ABOVE Total
LOCATION MUMBAI Count 26 42 69 38 0 175
% within
14.9% 24.0% 39.4% 21.7% .0% 100.0%
LOCATION
% within
19.3% 31.1% 51.1% 17.7% .0% 25.0%
INCOME
% of Total 3.7% 6.0% 9.9% 5.4% .0% 25.0%
DELHI Count 42 26 0 69 38 175
% within
24.0% 14.9% .0% 39.4% 21.7% 100.0%
LOCATION
% within
31.1% 19.3% .0% 32.1% 47.5% 25.0%
INCOME
% of Total 6.0% 3.7% .0% 9.9% 5.4% 25.0%
KOLKATTA Count 28 39 66 42 0 175
% within
16.0% 22.3% 37.7% 24.0% .0% 100.0%
LOCATION
% within
20.7% 28.9% 48.9% 19.5% .0% 25.0%
INCOME
% of Total 4.0% 5.6% 9.4% 6.0% .0% 25.0%
CHENNAI Count 39 28 0 66 42 175
% within
22.3% 16.0% .0% 37.7% 24.0% 100.0%
LOCATION
% within
28.9% 20.7% .0% 30.7% 52.5% 25.0%
INCOME
% of Total 5.6% 4.0% .0% 9.4% 6.0% 25.0%
Total Count 135 135 135 215 80 700
% within
19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 30.7% 11.4% 100.0%
LOCATION
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
INCOME
% of Total 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 30.7% 11.4% 100.0%
219
ANNEXURE 1I
95% Confidence
Std. Interval for Mean
Deviatio Std. Lower Upper Minim Maxi
N Mean n Error Bound Bound um mum
GENDER <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 1.40 .491 .024 1.35 1.45 1 2
<5000000
161 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
Total 700 1.31 .462 .017 1.27 1.34 1 2
LOCATIO <50000 54 2.96 1.009 .137 2.69 3.24 2 4
N
<100000 404 2.53 1.126 .056 2.42 2.64 1 4
<5000000
161 2.52 1.107 .087 2.35 2.69 1 4
0
5 81 1.99 1.006 .112 1.77 2.21 1 3
Total 700 2.50 1.119 .042 2.42 2.58 1 4
MARTIAL <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
STATUS
<100000 404 1.33 .471 .023 1.29 1.38 1 2
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 1.50 .500 .019 1.46 1.54 1 2
OCCUPAT <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ION
<100000 404 1.13 .341 .017 1.10 1.17 1 2
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.42 1.57 1 2
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 1.38 .487 .018 1.35 1.42 1 2
AGE <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 2.07 1.000 .050 1.97 2.16 1 4
<5000000
161 2.51 1.505 .119 2.28 2.74 1 4
0
5 81 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
Total 700 2.27 1.095 .041 2.19 2.35 1 4
INCOME <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 2.39 1.449 .072 2.25 2.54 1 5
<5000000
161 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
0
5 81 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
Total 700 2.96 1.315 .050 2.86 3.05 1 5
MF_TAX <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
<100000 404 1.13 .341 .017 1.10 1.17 1 2
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
220
Total 700 1.19 .395 .015 1.16 1.22 1 2
MFNAME <50000 54 14.81 5.043 .686 13.44 16.19 10 20
<100000 404 12.77 7.298 .363 12.06 13.48 1 26
<5000000
161 14.25 8.227 .648 12.97 15.53 4 25
0
5 81 12.75 8.212 .912 10.94 14.57 3 23
Total 700 13.27 7.512 .284 12.71 13.82 1 26
MODEOFI <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
NV
<100000 404 1.20 .399 .020 1.16 1.24 1 2
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.42 1.57 1 2
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
Total 700 1.31 .461 .017 1.27 1.34 1 2
BRANDNA <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ME
<100000 404 4.13 1.312 .065 4.00 4.26 1 5
<5000000
161 3.50 .502 .040 3.42 3.57 3 4
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 3.81 1.179 .045 3.72 3.89 1 5
AUM <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 1.73 .443 .022 1.69 1.78 1 2
<5000000
161 2.50 .502 .040 2.42 2.57 2 3
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 2.19 .834 .032 2.13 2.25 1 4
NAV <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 2.39 1.449 .072 2.25 2.54 1 5
<5000000
161 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
0
5 81 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
Total 700 2.96 1.315 .050 2.86 3.05 1 5
PR <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 2.46 1.147 .057 2.35 2.58 1 4
<5000000
161 2.49 1.505 .119 2.26 2.72 1 4
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 2.73 1.403 .053 2.62 2.83 1 5
QOS <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
<100000 404 1.47 .500 .025 1.42 1.52 1 2
<5000000
161 2.99 2.006 .158 2.68 3.30 1 5
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 2.07 1.410 .053 1.97 2.18 1 5
SAFE_IT <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 2.13 1.313 .065 2.01 2.26 1 5
<5000000 161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2
221
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 2.12 1.189 .045 2.03 2.21 1 5
ST_IT <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
<100000 404 2.27 .681 .034 2.20 2.33 2 4
<5000000
161 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 2.08 .617 .023 2.03 2.12 1 4
EU_IT <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 2.06 1.523 .076 1.91 2.21 1 5
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.42 1.57 1 2
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 2.07 1.326 .050 1.97 2.17 1 5
N_IT <50000 54 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
<100000 404 2.13 1.022 .051 2.03 2.23 1 4
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
Total 700 2.08 1.238 .047 1.98 2.17 1 5
ES_IT <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 2.66 1.298 .065 2.53 2.79 1 5
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 2.42 1.212 .046 2.33 2.51 1 5
CURRENT <50000 54 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
INV
<100000 404 1.47 .500 .025 1.42 1.52 1 2
<5000000
161 4.50 .502 .040 4.42 4.57 4 5
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
Total 700 2.38 1.570 .059 2.27 2.50 1 5
REPEATP <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
URCHASE
<100000 404 1.67 .472 .023 1.62 1.71 1 2
<5000000
161 2.99 1.003 .079 2.84 3.15 2 4
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 2.54 1.309 .049 2.44 2.63 1 5
S_IT <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 1.47 .499 .025 1.42 1.51 1 2
<5000000
161 2.49 1.505 .119 2.26 2.72 1 4
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 2.15 1.379 .052 2.05 2.25 1 5
REFERRA <50000 54 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
222
L_IT <100000 404 1.93 .931 .046 1.84 2.02 1 4
<5000000
161 2.99 1.003 .079 2.84 3.15 2 4
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 2.61 1.305 .049 2.52 2.71 1 5
SAFE <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 4.13 1.312 .065 4.00 4.26 1 5
<5000000
161 3.50 .502 .040 3.42 3.57 3 4
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 3.81 1.179 .045 3.72 3.89 1 5
ST <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 4.26 1.343 .067 4.13 4.40 1 5
<5000000
161 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
0
5 81 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
Total 700 4.27 1.164 .044 4.18 4.35 1 5
EU <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 3.61 1.449 .072 3.46 3.75 1 5
<5000000
161 4.50 .502 .040 4.42 4.57 4 5
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 3.73 1.285 .049 3.64 3.83 1 5
N <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 3.80 1.107 .055 3.70 3.91 2 5
<5000000
161 4.50 .502 .040 4.42 4.57 4 5
0
5 81 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
Total 700 3.73 1.093 .041 3.65 3.81 2 5
ES <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
<100000 404 3.80 1.107 .055 3.70 3.91 2 5
<5000000
161 4.50 .502 .040 4.42 4.57 4 5
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 3.89 1.281 .048 3.79 3.98 1 5
CURRENT <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
<100000 404 3.94 1.061 .053 3.83 4.04 2 5
<5000000
161 3.99 1.003 .079 3.84 4.15 3 5
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 3.85 1.292 .049 3.75 3.94 1 5
REPEAT <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 3.94 1.523 .076 3.79 4.09 1 5
<5000000
161 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
223
Total 700 3.58 1.305 .049 3.48 3.68 1 5
S <50000 54 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
<100000 404 3.00 1.213 .060 2.88 3.12 1 5
<5000000
161 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 3.12 1.087 .041 3.04 3.20 1 5
CASHINV <50000 54 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
<100000 404 3.87 1.497 .074 3.73 4.02 1 5
<5000000
161 4.50 .502 .040 4.43 4.58 4 5
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 3.97 1.222 .046 3.88 4.06 1 5
REFERRA <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
L
<100000 404 4.14 1.145 .057 4.03 4.25 2 5
<5000000
161 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 4.08 1.299 .049 3.98 4.17 1 5
CS_REFF <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ERAL
<100000 404 1.93 1.122 .056 1.82 2.04 1 4
<5000000
161 2.99 2.006 .158 2.68 3.30 1 5
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 2.19 1.356 .051 2.09 2.29 1 5
CS_COM <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
P
<100000 404 2.13 1.026 .051 2.03 2.23 1 4
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
Total 700 1.77 .933 .035 1.70 1.84 1 4
224
ANNEXURE III
95% Confidence
Std. Interval for Mean
Deviatio Std. Lower Upper Minim Maxim
N Mean n Error Bound Bound um um
GENDER 1.5 TO 2
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.25 .435 .030 1.19 1.31 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 1.31 .462 .017 1.27 1.34 1 2
LOCATION 1.5 TO 2
135 2.59 1.102 .095 2.41 2.78 1 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.39 1.134 .098 2.20 2.59 1 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.98 1.003 .086 1.81 2.15 1 3
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.63 1.098 .075 2.48 2.78 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 3.05 1.005 .112 2.83 3.27 2 4
ABOVE
Total 700 2.50 1.119 .042 2.42 2.58 1 4
MARTIALST 1.5 TO 2
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ATUS LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.63 .484 .033 1.56 1.69 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 1.50 .500 .019 1.46 1.54 1 2
OCCUPATI 1.5 TO 2
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ON LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.62 .486 .033 1.56 1.69 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 1.38 .487 .018 1.35 1.42 1 2
AGE 1.5 TO 2
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.80 .983 .085 1.63 1.97 1 3
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.40 .492 .042 3.32 3.48 3 4
LAKH
3 TO 4 215 2.38 1.320 .090 2.20 2.56 1 4
225
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.27 1.095 .041 2.19 2.35 1 4
MF_TAX 1.5 TO 2
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.38 .486 .033 1.31 1.44 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 1.19 .395 .015 1.16 1.22 1 2
MFNAME 1.5 TO 2
135 11.97 7.246 .624 10.74 13.20 2 22
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 11.39 7.001 .603 10.19 12.58 1 21
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 13.18 7.113 .612 11.97 14.39 3 23
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 14.39 7.548 .515 13.38 15.41 4 25
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 15.75 8.264 .924 13.91 17.59 6 26
ABOVE
Total 700 13.27 7.512 .284 12.71 13.82 1 26
MODEOFIN 1.5 TO 2
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
V LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.62 .486 .033 1.56 1.69 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 1.31 .461 .017 1.27 1.34 1 2
BRANDNAM 1.5 TO 2
135 3.40 1.967 .169 3.07 3.73 1 5
E LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.12 .782 .053 3.02 3.23 2 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 3.81 1.179 .045 3.72 3.89 1 5
AUM 1.5 TO 2
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 2.80 1.475 .127 2.55 3.05 1 4
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.37 .484 .033 2.31 2.44 2 3
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
226
Total 700 2.19 .834 .032 2.13 2.25 1 4
NAV 1.5 TO 2
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 2.96 1.315 .050 2.86 3.05 1 5
PR 1.5 TO 2
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.20 1.475 .127 1.95 2.45 1 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.80 1.475 .127 3.55 4.05 2 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.37 1.318 .090 2.19 2.54 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
ABOVE
Total 700 2.73 1.403 .053 2.62 2.83 1 5
QOS 1.5 TO 2
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.20 .983 .085 3.03 3.37 2 4
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.49 1.938 .132 2.23 2.75 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 2.07 1.410 .053 1.97 2.18 1 5
SAFE_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 2.60 1.967 .169 2.27 2.93 1 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 2.40 .492 .042 2.32 2.48 2 3
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.13 1.169 .080 1.97 2.29 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.12 1.189 .045 2.03 2.21 1 5
ST_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 2.80 .983 .085 2.63 2.97 2 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.75 .435 .030 1.69 1.81 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.08 .617 .023 2.03 2.12 1 4
EU_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
227
2 TO 2.5
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.13 1.171 .080 1.97 2.28 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 2.07 1.326 .050 1.97 2.17 1 5
N_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.38 1.581 .108 2.17 2.59 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
ABOVE
Total 700 2.08 1.238 .047 1.98 2.17 1 5
ES_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 2.60 .492 .042 2.52 2.68 2 3
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.13 1.169 .080 1.97 2.29 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 2.42 1.212 .046 2.33 2.51 1 5
CURRENTI 1.5 TO 2
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
NV LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 4.62 .486 .033 4.56 4.69 4 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 2.38 1.570 .059 2.27 2.50 1 5
REPEATPU 1.5 TO 2
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
RCHASE LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.80 1.475 .127 3.55 4.05 2 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.25 .971 .066 3.12 3.38 2 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.54 1.309 .049 2.44 2.63 1 5
S_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2.5 TO 3 135 3.80 1.475 .127 3.55 4.05 2 5
228
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.37 1.318 .090 2.19 2.54 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.15 1.379 .052 2.05 2.25 1 5
REFERRAL 1.5 TO 2
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
_IT LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.20 1.475 .127 1.95 2.45 1 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.80 1.475 .127 3.55 4.05 2 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.00 .867 .059 2.88 3.11 2 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.61 1.305 .049 2.52 2.71 1 5
SAFE 1.5 TO 2
135 3.40 1.967 .169 3.07 3.73 1 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.12 .782 .053 3.02 3.23 2 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 3.81 1.179 .045 3.72 3.89 1 5
ST 1.5 TO 2
135 3.40 1.967 .169 3.07 3.73 1 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.80 .983 .085 3.63 3.97 3 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 4.75 .435 .030 4.69 4.81 4 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 4.27 1.164 .044 4.18 4.35 1 5
EU 1.5 TO 2
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.60 .492 .042 3.52 3.68 3 4
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.87 1.169 .080 3.71 4.03 2 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 3.73 1.285 .049 3.64 3.83 1 5
N 1.5 TO 2
135 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.87 1.169 .080 3.71 4.03 2 5
LAKH
229
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 3.73 1.093 .041 3.65 3.81 2 5
ES 1.5 TO 2
135 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.20 .983 .085 4.03 4.37 3 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.62 1.581 .108 3.41 3.83 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 3.89 1.281 .048 3.79 3.98 1 5
CURRENT 1.5 TO 2
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.24 1.564 .107 3.03 3.45 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 3.85 1.292 .049 3.75 3.94 1 5
REPEAT 1.5 TO 2
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.75 .435 .030 2.69 2.81 2 3
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 3.58 1.305 .049 3.48 3.68 1 5
S 1.5 TO 2
135 2.80 1.475 .127 2.55 3.05 1 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.20 1.475 .127 2.95 3.45 2 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.75 .435 .030 3.69 3.81 3 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 3.12 1.087 .041 3.04 3.20 1 5
CASHINV 1.5 TO 2
135 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 4.13 .784 .053 4.02 4.23 3 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 3.97 1.222 .046 3.88 4.06 1 5
230
REFERRAL 1.5 TO 2
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 4.00 1.739 .119 3.76 4.23 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 4.08 1.299 .049 3.98 4.17 1 5
CS_REFFE 1.5 TO 2
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
RAL LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.74 1.787 .122 2.50 2.98 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
ABOVE
Total 700 2.19 1.356 .051 2.09 2.29 1 5
CS_COMP 1.5 TO 2
135 2.80 .983 .085 2.63 2.97 2 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.38 .486 .033 1.31 1.44 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
ABOVE
Total 700 1.77 .933 .035 1.70 1.84 1 4
SALE 1.5 TO 2
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.80 1.475 .127 3.55 4.05 2 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.25 1.304 .089 3.07 3.42 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.73 1.228 .046 2.64 2.82 1 5
231
ANNEXURE 1V
Communalities
Initial Extraction
GENDER 1.000 .981
MARTIAL STATUS 1.000 .875
OCCUPATION 1.000 .825
AGE GROUP 1.000 .629
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON 1.000 .882
BRANDNAME
I CONSIDER ASSET
UNDER MANAGEMENT
OF MUTUAL FUND
COMPANY BEFORE 1.000 .929
TAKING AND
INVESTMENT CALL ?
I CONSIDER CURRENT
NAV OF MF BEFORE 1.000 .936
INVESTING
I CONSIDER PAST
RECORD OF MUTUAL
FUND COMPANY 1.000 .757
BEFORE TAKING AND
INVESTING CALL ?
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON ITS 1.000 .909
QUALITY OF SERVICE
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
232
Total Variance Explained
Scree Plot
4
E ig e n v a lu e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Component Number
Component Matrix(a)
233
Component
1 2 3
GENDER -.331 .262 .896
MARTIAL STATUS .167 .903 -.179
OCCUPATION .759 .247 .434
AGE GROUP -.077 .774 -.156
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON .925 -.130 .097
BRANDNAME
I CONSIDER ASSET
UNDER MANAGEMENT
OF MUTUAL FUND
COMPANY BEFORE .910 .100 -.301
TAKING AND
INVESTMENT CALL ?
I CONSIDER CURRENT
NAV OF MF BEFORE .966 -.009 -.039
INVESTING
I CONSIDER PAST
RECORD OF MUTUAL
FUND COMPANY .827 .238 .130
BEFORE TAKING AND
INVESTING CALL ?
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON ITS .852 -.411 .117
QUALITY OF SERVICE
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 3 components extracted.
234
Rotated Component Matrix(a)
Component
1 2 3
GENDER -.119 .052 .982
MARTIAL STATUS .161 .921 -.008
OCCUPATION .843 .151 .301
AGE GROUP -.078 .788 .039
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON .918 -.140 -.139
BRANDNAME
I CONSIDER ASSET
UNDER MANAGEMENT
OF MUTUAL FUND
COMPANY BEFORE .827 .173 -.464
TAKING AND
INVESTMENT CALL ?
I CONSIDER CURRENT
NAV OF MF BEFORE .934 .009 -.250
INVESTING
I CONSIDER PAST
RECORD OF MUTUAL
FUND COMPANY .844 .210 -.005
BEFORE TAKING AND
INVESTING CALL ?
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON ITS .840 -.418 -.166
QUALITY OF SERVICE
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 4 iterations.
Component 1 2 3
1 .976 .010 -.219
2 .040 .975 .221
3 .215 -.224 .951
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
235
Component Score Coefficient Matrix
Component
1 2 3
GENDER .101 -.028 .769
MARTIAL STATUS .022 .524 -.041
OCCUPATION .241 .053 .345
AGE GROUP -.027 .450 -.027
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON .205 -.087 .019
BRANDNAME
I CONSIDER ASSET
UNDER MANAGEMENT
OF MUTUAL FUND
COMPANY BEFORE .134 .113 -.273
TAKING AND
INVESTMENT CALL ?
I CONSIDER CURRENT
NAV OF MF BEFORE .191 .005 -.077
INVESTING
I CONSIDER PAST
RECORD OF MUTUAL
FUND COMPANY .199 .106 .096
BEFORE TAKING AND
INVESTING CALL ?
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON ITS .187 -.243 .004
QUALITY OF SERVICE
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Component 1 2 3
1 1.000 .000 .000
2 .000 1.000 .000
3 .000 .000 1.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
236
Component Plot in Rotated Space
VAR00002
1.0
VAR00003
0.5
C om ponent 2
IT_CS1 IT_Responsive
0.0 VAR00001
IT_CL2 CS
VAR00005
CL
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0 -0.5
-0.5 0.0 0.0
0.5 0.5
Compone 1.0 1.0 nt 3
nt 1 pone
Com
237
ANNEXURE V
INCOME
2 TO 4 LAKH
1.5 TO 2.5 2.5 TO 3 TO 4 &
2 LAKH LAKH 3 LAKH LAKH ABOVE Total
SALE <50000 Count 0 0 0 54 0 54
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
SALE
% within
.0% .0% .0% 25.1% .0% 7.7%
INCOME
% of
.0% .0% .0% 7.7% .0% 7.7%
Total
<100000 Count 135 135 54 0 80 404
% within
33.4% 33.4% 13.4% .0% 19.8% 100.0%
SALE
% within
100.0% 100.0% 40.0% .0% 100.0% 57.7%
INCOME
% of
19.3% 19.3% 7.7% .0% 11.4% 57.7%
Total
<500000 Count 0 0 0 161 0 161
00
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
SALE
% within
.0% .0% .0% 74.9% .0% 23.0%
INCOME
% of
.0% .0% .0% 23.0% .0% 23.0%
Total
5 Count 0 0 81 0 0 81
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
SALE
% within
.0% .0% 60.0% .0% .0% 11.6%
INCOME
% of
.0% .0% 11.6% .0% .0% 11.6%
Total
Total Count 135 135 135 215 80 700
% within
19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 30.7% 11.4% 100.0%
SALE
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
INCOME
% of
19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 30.7% 11.4% 100.0%
Total
238
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
GENDER * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
LOCATION * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MARTIALSTATUS *
INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
OCCUPATION * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
AGE * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MF_TAX * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MFNAME * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MODEOFINV * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
BRANDNAME * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
AUM * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
NAV * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
PR * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
QOS * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
SAFE_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ST_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
EU_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
N_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ES_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CURRENTINV * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REPEATPURCHASE *
INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
S_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
SAFE * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ST * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
EU * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
N * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ES * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CURRENT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REPEAT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
S * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CASHINV * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REFERRAL * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CS_REFFERAL * INCOME
700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CS_COMP * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
SALE * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
239
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
GENDER * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
LOCATION * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MARTIALSTATUS * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
OCCUPATION * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
AGE * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MF_TAX * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MFNAME * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MODEOFINV * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
BRANDNAME * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
AUM * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
NAV * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
PR * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
QOS * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
SAFE_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ST_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
EU_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
N_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ES_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CURRENTINV * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REPEATPURCHASE *
SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
S_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
SAFE * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ST * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
EU * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
N * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ES * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CURRENT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REPEAT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
S * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CASHINV * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REFERRAL * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CS_REFFERAL * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CS_COMP * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
INCOME * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
240
ANNEXURE VI
1. GENDER
Statistics
GENDER
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.31
Std. Deviation .462
Sum 916
GENDER
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid MALE 484 67.7 69.1 69.1
FEMALE 216 30.2 30.9 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
2. LOCATION
Statistics
LOCATION
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.50
Std. Deviation 1.119
Sum 1750
LOCATION
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid MUMBAI 175 24.5 25.0 25.0
DELHI 175 24.5 25.0 50.0
KOLKATT
175 24.5 25.0 75.0
A
CHENNAI 175 24.5 25.0 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
241
Total 715 100.0
3. MARTIALSTATUS
Statistics
MARTIALSTATUS
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.50
Std. Deviation .500
Sum 1050
MARTIALSTATUS
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid MARRIED 350 49.0 50.0 50.0
UNMARRIE
350 49.0 50.0 100.0
D
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
4. OCCUPATION
Statistics
OCCUPATION
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.38
Std. Deviation .487
Sum 969
OCCUPATION
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SALARIED 431 60.3 61.6 61.6
SELF
269 37.6 38.4 100.0
EMPLOYED
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
242
5. AGE
Statistics
AGE
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.27
Std. Deviation 1.095
Sum 1590
AGE
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 20 TO 25 215 30.1 30.7 30.7
25 TO 30 215 30.1 30.7 61.4
30 TO 35 135 18.9 19.3 80.7
35 TO 40 135 18.9 19.3 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
6. INCOME
Statistics
INCOME
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.96
Std. Deviation 1.315
Sum 2070
INCOME
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1.5 TO 2
135 18.9 19.3 19.3
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 18.9 19.3 38.6
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 18.9 19.3 57.9
LAKH
3 TO 4 LAKH 215 30.1 30.7 88.6
243
4 LAKH &
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
ABOVE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
7. MF_TAX
Statistics
MF_TAX
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.19
Std. Deviation .395
Sum 835
MF_TAX
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
565 79.0 80.7 80.7
AGREE
AGREE 135 18.9 19.3 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
8. MFNAME
Statistics
MFNAME
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 13.27
Std. Deviation 7.512
Sum 9286
MFNAME
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid RELIANCE MF 28 3.9 4.0 4.0
HDFC MF 28 3.9 4.0 8.0
244
ICICI PRUMF 28 3.9 4.0 12.0
UTI MF 28 3.9 4.0 16.0
BIRLA SUNLIFE
28 3.9 4.0 20.0
MF
SBI MF 28 3.9 4.0 24.0
LIC MF 28 3.9 4.0 28.0
KOTAK MF 28 3.9 4.0 32.0
FRANKLIN MF 28 3.9 4.0 36.0
TATA MF 28 3.9 4.0 40.0
IDFC MF 27 3.8 3.9 43.9
DSP
BLACKROCK 27 3.8 3.9 47.7
MF
DEUTCHE MF 27 3.8 3.9 51.6
SUNDARAM
27 3.8 3.9 55.4
BNP MF
HSBC MF 26 3.6 3.7 59.1
TAURUS MF 26 3.6 3.7 62.9
BENCHMARK 26 3.6 3.7 66.6
RELIGARE F 26 3.6 3.7 70.3
FIDELITY MF 26 3.6 3.7 74.0
PRINCIPAL MF 26 3.6 3.7 77.7
CANARA
26 3.6 3.7 81.4
ROBECO MF
JM FINANCIAL
26 3.6 3.7 85.1
MF
JPMORGAN MF 26 3.6 3.7 88.9
BARODA
26 3.6 3.7 92.6
PIONEER MF
DBS CHOLA MF 26 3.6 3.7 96.3
MORGAN
26 3.6 3.7 100.0
STANLEY MF
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
9. MODEOFINV
Statistics
MODEOFINV
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.31
Std. Deviation .461
Sum 914
MODEOFINV
245
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid ONLINE 486 68.0 69.4 69.4
OFFLINE 214 29.9 30.6 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
10. BRANDNAME
Statistics
BRANDNAME
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.81
Std. Deviation 1.179
Sum 2664
BRANDNAME
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 54 7.6 7.7 15.4
NEUTRAL 81 11.3 11.6 27.0
DISAGREE 296 41.4 42.3 69.3
STRONGLY
215 30.1 30.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
11. AUM
Statistics
AUM
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.19
Std. Deviation .834
Sum 1534
246
AUM
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
108 15.1 15.4 15.4
AGREE
AGREE 431 60.3 61.6 77.0
NEUTRAL 80 11.2 11.4 88.4
DISAGREE 81 11.3 11.6 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
12. NAV
Statistics
NAV
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.96
Std. Deviation 1.315
Sum 2070
NAV
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
135 18.9 19.3 19.3
AGREE
AGREE 135 18.9 19.3 38.6
NEUTRAL 135 18.9 19.3 57.9
DISAGREE 215 30.1 30.7 88.6
STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
247
13. PR
Statistics
PR
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.73
Std. Deviation 1.403
Sum 1909
PR
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
162 22.7 23.1 23.1
AGREE
AGREE 243 34.0 34.7 57.9
DISAGREE 214 29.9 30.6 88.4
STRONGLY
81 11.3 11.6 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
14. QOS
Statistics
QOS
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.07
Std. Deviation 1.410
Sum 1452
QOS
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
350 49.0 50.0 50.0
AGREE
AGREE 189 26.4 27.0 77.0
DISAGREE 81 11.3 11.6 88.6
STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
248
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
15. SAFE_IT
Statistics
SAFE_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.12
Std. Deviation 1.189
Sum 1482
SAFE_IT
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
242 33.8 34.6 34.6
AGREE
AGREE 296 41.4 42.3 76.9
NEUTRAL 54 7.6 7.7 84.6
DISAGREE 54 7.6 7.7 92.3
STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
16. ST_IT
Statistics
ST_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.08
Std. Deviation .617
Sum 1454
ST_IT
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
249
AGREE 592 82.8 84.6 92.3
DISAGREE 54 7.6 7.7 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
17. EU_IT
Statistics
EU_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.07
Std. Deviation 1.326
Sum 1451
EU_IT
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
297 41.5 42.4 42.4
AGREE
AGREE 269 37.6 38.4 80.9
DISAGREE 54 7.6 7.7 88.6
STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
18. N_IT
Statistics
N_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.08
Std. Deviation 1.238
Sum 1453
N_IT
250
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
269 37.6 38.4 38.4
AGREE
AGREE 297 41.5 42.4 80.9
DISAGREE 80 11.2 11.4 92.3
STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
19. ES_IT
Statistics
ES_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.42
Std. Deviation 1.212
Sum 1695
ES_IT
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
134 18.7 19.1 19.1
AGREE
AGREE 351 49.1 50.1 69.3
NEUTRAL 81 11.3 11.6 80.9
DISAGREE 54 7.6 7.7 88.6
STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
20. CURRENTINV
Statistics
CURRENTINV
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.38
251
Std. Deviation 1.570
Sum 1668
CURRENTINV
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
296 41.4 42.3 42.3
AGREE
AGREE 189 26.4 27.0 69.3
DISAGREE 81 11.3 11.6 80.9
STRONGLY
134 18.7 19.1 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
21. REPEATPURCHASE
Statistics
REPEATPURCHASE
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.54
Std. Deviation 1.309
Sum 1776
REPEATPURCHASE
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
135 18.9 19.3 19.3
AGREE
AGREE 350 49.0 50.0 69.3
DISAGREE 134 18.7 19.1 88.4
STRONGLY
81 11.3 11.6 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
252
22. S_IT
Statistics
S_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.15
Std. Deviation 1.379
Sum 1506
S_IT
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
297 41.5 42.4 42.4
AGREE
AGREE 242 33.8 34.6 77.0
DISAGREE 80 11.2 11.4 88.4
STRONGLY
81 11.3 11.6 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
23. REFERRAL_IT
Statistics
REFERRAL_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.61
Std. Deviation 1.305
Sum 1830
REFERRAL_IT
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
135 18.9 19.3 19.3
AGREE
AGREE 296 41.4 42.3 61.6
NEUTRAL 54 7.6 7.7 69.3
DISAGREE 134 18.7 19.1 88.4
STRONGLY
81 11.3 11.6 100.0
DISAGREE
253
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
24. SAFE
Statistics
SAFE
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.81
Std. Deviation 1.179
Sum 2664
SAFE
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 54 7.6 7.7 15.4
NEUTRAL 81 11.3 11.6 27.0
DISAGREE 296 41.4 42.3 69.3
STRONGLY
215 30.1 30.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
25. ST
Statistics
ST
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 4.27
Std. Deviation 1.164
Sum 2987
254
ST
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
NEUTRAL 81 11.3 11.6 19.3
DISAGREE 135 18.9 19.3 38.6
STRONGLY
430 60.1 61.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
26. EU
Statistics
EU
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.73
Std. Deviation 1.285
Sum 2613
EU
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 11.4
AGREE
AGREE 54 7.6 7.7 19.1
NEUTRAL 54 7.6 7.7 26.9
DISAGREE 297 41.5 42.4 69.3
STRONGLY
215 30.1 30.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
27. N
Statistics
N
N Valid 700
Missing 15
255
Mean 3.73
Std. Deviation 1.093
Sum 2612
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid AGREE 134 18.7 19.1 19.1
NEUTRAL 135 18.9 19.3 38.4
DISAGREE 216 30.2 30.9 69.3
STRONGLY
215 30.1 30.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
28. ES
Statistics
ES
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.89
Std. Deviation 1.281
Sum 2720
ES
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 80 11.2 11.4 19.1
NEUTRAL 54 7.6 7.7 26.9
DISAGREE 216 30.2 30.9 57.7
STRONGLY
296 41.4 42.3 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
256
29. CURRENT
Statistics
CURRENT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.85
Std. Deviation 1.292
Sum 2693
CURRENT
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 80 11.2 11.4 19.1
NEUTRAL 81 11.3 11.6 30.7
DISAGREE 189 26.4 27.0 57.7
STRONGLY
296 41.4 42.3 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
30. REPEAT
Statistics
REPEAT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.58
Std. Deviation 1.305
Sum 2507
REPEAT
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 11.4
AGREE
AGREE 54 7.6 7.7 19.1
NEUTRAL 161 22.5 23.0 42.1
DISAGREE 189 26.4 27.0 69.1
257
STRONGLY
216 30.2 30.9 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
31. S
Statistics
S
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.12
Std. Deviation 1.087
Sum 2181
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 161 22.5 23.0 30.7
NEUTRAL 189 26.4 27.0 57.7
DISAGREE 242 33.8 34.6 92.3
STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
32. CASHINV
Statistics
CASHINV
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.97
Std. Deviation 1.222
Sum 2776
CASHINV
258
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 11.4
AGREE
NEUTRAL 54 7.6 7.7 19.1
DISAGREE 296 41.4 42.3 61.4
STRONGLY
270 37.8 38.6 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
33. REFERRAL
Statistics
REFERRAL
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 4.08
Std. Deviation 1.299
Sum 2855
REFERRAL
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 80 11.2 11.4 19.1
DISAGREE 189 26.4 27.0 46.1
STRONGLY
377 52.7 53.9 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
34. CS_REFFERAL
Statistics
CS_REFFERAL
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.19
Std. Deviation 1.356
259
Sum 1530
CS_REFFERAL
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
270 37.8 38.6 38.6
AGREE
AGREE 270 37.8 38.6 77.1
DISAGREE 80 11.2 11.4 88.6
STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
35. CS_COMP
Statistics
CS_COMP
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.77
Std. Deviation .933
Sum 1238
CS_COMP
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
350 49.0 50.0 50.0
AGREE
AGREE 216 30.2 30.9 80.9
NEUTRAL 80 11.2 11.4 92.3
DISAGREE 54 7.6 7.7 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
260
36. SALE
Statistics
SALE
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.73
Std. Deviation 1.228
Sum 1911
SALE
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid <50000 54 7.6 7.7 7.7
<100000 404 56.5 57.7 65.4
<50000000 161 22.5 23.0 88.4
>50000000 81 11.3 11.6 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0
261
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Press, West Lafayette, IN (2000), "The Past, Present and Future of Customer
130.
28-30.
Vol. 22 No.6, 3.
262
§ Anonymous (2001), "7-Eleven Tests New Financial Services and Kiosks in
§ Ahituv, N., and Giladi, R., (1994). "Business success and Information
§ Ahituv, N., Lipovetsky, S., and Tishier, A., (1999). "The Relationship Between
F., Mexico.
263
§ Alpar, P., and Kim, M., (1990}. "A Microeconomic Approach to the
§ Adkisson, J. A., & Fraser, D. R. (2003). Reading the stars: Age bias in
§ Adrangi, B., Chatrath, A., & Shank, T. M. (2002). A comparison of the risk-
§ Apap, A., & Griffith, J. M. (1998). The impact of expenses on equity mutual
§ Bogle, J. (1994). Bogle on mutual funds. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional
Publishing.
264
§ Brush, M. (1997). How fund costs drag down gains. Money, 26, 7A-9A.
§ Badgett, M.V. Lee, and Folbre, Nancy (1999), "Assigning Care: Gender
Norms and Economic Outcomes," International Labor Review, Vol. 138 No.
3, 311-326.
§ Bateson, JEG (1995), Managing Services Marketing. The Dryden Press, Fort
Worth, TX. Bawden, Tom (1999), "Cherry Pickers," Marketing Week, Vol.
265
§ Brown, G.N. (1952), "Brand Loyalty: Fact or Fiction?" AdvertisingAge, Vol.
23, 535.
§ Burton, Dawn (1995), "Women and Financial Services: Some Directions for
21-31.
15-30.
Technology," Communications of the ACM, Vol 36, No. 12, Dec, pp. 67.
§ Brynjoifsson, E., and Hitt, L., (1995). "The Productive Keep Producing --
§ Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L., (1996). "Paradox Lost? Firm-level Evidence on
266
§ Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt L., (1996). "The Customer Counts - Investing in
Computers Pays Off. But to Get the Most Value for Your IT Dollar, Focus on
§ Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L., (1997). "MIT Analysis: Breaking Boundaries,"
§ Brynjolfsson, E., Malone, T. W., Gurbaxani, V., and Kambil, A., (1994).
§ Brynjolfsson, E., Renshaw, A. A., and Van Alstyne, M., (1997). "The Matrix
of Change," Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, Winter, pp. 37-54.
§ Capote, A., (1999). Interview with Alfredo Capote, President and CEO of IBM
§ Chong, R., (1999). Interview with Roberto Chong, CIO of Atlantico Bank,
Technology," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No. 1, Jan, pp. 22-36.
267
Competitive Advantage of New Entrants," Journal of Management
§ Clemons, E. K., Reddi, S. P., and Row, M. C., (1993). "The Impact of
MUM of Structural Differences," MIS Quarterfy, Vol. 15, Iss. 3, Sep, pp. 275-
292.
§ Collofly, F., Adya, M., and Armstrong, J. S., (1994). "Principles for
268
§ Chase, Richard B. and Dasu, Sriram (2001), "Want to Perfect Your
79 No. 6, 79-84.
§ Churchill, Gilbert A. and Suprenant, Carol (1982), "An Investigation into the
3, 41-42.
§ Crosby, Lawrence A., Johnson, Sheree L. and Quinn, Richard (2002), "Is
269
§ Crutchfield Jr., Edward E. (1998), "The `High Touch' Solution: Use of
22, 99113.
§ Dienhart, John W. (Z000), "Just Caring, Caring Justice," Business and Society
270
§ Doocey, Paul (2001), "Just thinking", Bank Systems and Technology, Vol. 38
No. 7, 6.
§ Eagly, Alice and Johnson, Blair T. (1990), "Gender and Leadership Style:
§ Feinberg, Richard A., Hokaina, Leigh, I{adani, Rajesh, and IkSuk, Kim
§ Gatignon, Hubert G., Tushman, Michael L., Smith, Wendy and Anderson,
271
§ Gilbert, Faye W, and Warren, William E. (1995), "Psychographic
§ Gold, Nicolas (1998), "The Meaning of `Legacy Systems' ", SABA Project
§ Goode, Mark, and Moutinho, Luiz (1995), "The Effects of Free Banking on
Canada, LTD.
§ Greco, A.J. and Fields, D.M. (1991), "Profiling Early Triers of Service
272
§ Gruen, Thomas W. (1995), "The Outcome Set of Relationship Marketing in
26 No. 3, 242-249.
§ Garcia Vlacias, A., (1999). Interview with Alfonso Garcia Macias, CEO of
[Appendix Cj
§ Garcia Noriega, G., (1999). Interview with Gerardo Garcia IVoriega, CIO of
§ Grover, V., Teng, J., Segars, A. H., and Fiedler, K., (1998). "The Influence of
§ Harris, S. E., and Katz, J. L., (1988). "Profitability and Information Capital
273
§ Hulfbauer, G. C., and Schoh, J. J., (1992}. North American Free Trade: issues
101-114.
§ Hair, Joseph E. Jr., Anderson, Rolph E., Tatham, Ronald L., and Black,
Jersey.
133.
274
§ Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten and Hansen, Ursula (2000), Relationship
175.
§ lacovou, C. L., Benbasat, I., and Dexter, A. S., (1995). "Electronic Data
§ Ives, B., (1994). "Probing the Productivity Paradox," MIS Quarterly (editor's
§ Jurison, J., (1995). Defining and Measuring Productivity. In Paul Gray and
Jaak Jurison, Productivity in the Office and the Factory. Danvers, MA: Boyd
& Fraser.
§ Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P., (1992). "The Balanced Scorecard - Measures
That Drive Performance," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, No.1, JanlFeb,
pp. 71-80.
§ Kapian, R. S., and Norton, D. P., (1996). "Strategic Learning & the Balanced
Scorecard," Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 24, No. 5, SeplOct, pp. 18-24.
275
investmetns." Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on
§ Keen, P. G. W., and Woddman, L. A., (1984). "What to Do With all Those
276
"Customer Relationship Management," Bank Systems and Technology, Vol.
36 No. 2, 30-34.
Technologies and the Corporation of the 1990's. New York, N. Y.: Oxford
University Press.
Assessing the Value of Investing in IT. New York, Oxford: Oxford University
Press 1999.
277
§ Lucas, H. C., Jr., (1975). "The Use of an Accounting Information System,
735-746.
§ Mafone, T. W., "Is Empowerrnent Just a Fad? Control, Decision Making, and
IT", Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, Winter 1997, pp. 23-35.
§ Marin, E., (20 00). Interview with Erasmo Marrn, C10 of International Bank.
§ McKeen, J. E., Smith, H. A., and Parent, M., (1999). An Integrative Research
§ Malone, T. W., Yates, J., and Benjamin, R. I., (1994). Electronic Markets and
and the Corporation of the 1990's, pp.61-83. New York, NY: University Press.
278
§ Mukhopadhyay, T., Kekre, S., Kalathur, S., {1995}. "Business Value of
§ Masters, Tony (2000), "The Loyal Few," Marketing Week; Vol. 23 No.
17, 75-78.
265-77.
§ Milberg, Sandra J, Burke, Sandra J., Smith, H. Jeff and Kallman, Ernest A.
§ Mols, Niels P. (1999), "The Internet and the Banks' Strategic Distribution
6, 295-307.
279
§ Moreau, C. Page, Lehmann, Donald R. and Markman, Arthur B. (2001),
20-38.
§ Murdock, Gene W. and Franz, Lori (1983), "Habit and Perceived Risk as
No. 2, 20-30.
Transactions Via ATMs, Phone and Web," Bank Systems and Technology,
20/20 Vision,"
§ Newell, Frederick (1997). The New Rules of Marketing: How to Use One-
McGraw-Hill.
280
§ Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, Dhruv (2000), "The Impact of Technology
§ Patton, Susannah (2001), "The Truth About CRM," CIO, Vol. 14 No. 14, 76-
85.
§ Payne, Adrian, Christopher, Martin, Clark, Moira and Peck, Helen (1995),
Ltd., Oxford.
NY. and Dorf, Bob (1999), "Is Your Company Ready for Oneto-One
281
§ Panko, R. R., (1991). "Is the Office Productivity Stagnant?," MIS Quarterly,
Prentice-Hail, Inc.
§ Roach, S. S., (1989). The Case of the Missing Technology Payback. Tenth
No. 3, 33-42.
§ Sin, Leo Y.M., Tse, Alan C.B., Yau, Oliver H.M., Lee, Jenny S.Y. and
282
on Business Performance in a Service-oriented Economy, " Journal of
Mexico.
§ Schrage, M., (1997). "The real problem with computers," Harvard Business
1-23.
update," Business Economics, Vol. 34, No. 2, Apr 1999, pp. 18-24.
283
§ Skinner, IN., (198fi). "The Productivity Paradox," Management Review, Vol.
§ Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., and Coleman, N. J., Jr., (1992). "Managing 21st
168.
S.A.
284
§ Thor, C. G., (1998). Designing Fedback Performance Measures for Continous
122-158.
§ Vitell, Scott J., Rao, C.P. and Kurtz, David L. (1949), "Ethics Gap: Comparing
Group Publishing.
285
§ Weill, P., (1988). The Relationship between Investments in Inotormation
pp.5-23.
Sector," Information Systems Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, Dec 1992, pp. 307332.
§ Willcocks, L. P., and Lest r, S., (1996). "Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox,"
European Management Joumal, Vol. 14, No. 3 Jun 1996, pp. 279-291.
286
§ Yates, J., and Benjamin, R. I., (1991 ). "The Past and Present as a Window On
in East Asia”, Asian Economic Papers, CSIS-MIT (The Center for Strategic
287
§ Chow, Peter (1989). “Monetary Coordination in a Tripartite Word, An
benefits and policy concerns”, IMF Working Paper on Policy Analysis and
Assessment, WP/92/85.
§ Levy-Yeyati, Eduardo and Angel Ubide (1998). “Crises, Contagion, and the
288
§ Masson, Paul R. (1999). “Multiple Equilibria, Contagion, and the Emerging
1103 1993, Policy Research Department, World Bank Morgan Stanley Capital
§ Park, Yung Chul (1996). “East Asian Liberalization, Bubbles, and the
Forecast”, McGraw-Hill.
289