08 - Chapter 4

Financial Management As A Determinant of Profitability: A Study of MSME in Odisha
CHAPTER-IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION
This chapter presents the findings from the analysis of both the
qualitative and the quantitative data collected using the study
instrumentation. It includes results of interviews & focus groups, a
summary of the descriptive statistics and correlations between
the variables. In additions; this chapter investigates the results of
the study’s findings and confirms them with reference to previous
scientific research in the literature, to clarify the significance of
the findings.
Page 1 | C h a p t e r - I V
4.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter aims to examine the relationship between Financial
Management and Profitability of the enterprise. Financial Management,
invariably, has two aspects – mobilization of funds and deployment of funds.
Both these aspects of financial management have immense potential to
influence the profitability – the former through incurrence of costs and the
latter through generation of revenue.
This part of the research study envisages the result and interpretation
of effectiveness in application of financial management strategy for better
profitability of the business where the sample represents the total of 250
respondents. Out of the total, 229 sample respondents were selected
randomly by covering the types of respondents in different age group,
education qualification; gender, etc so as to cover a wider view for this
measurement and the demographic differences were marked and studied.
The effectiveness of financial management has been analyzed and
interpreted on the basis of certain crucial factors namely, management and
maintenance of accounts and finance, receivable management practices,
inventory management practices, fixed-asset management practices and
financial planning practices. For the analysis and interpretation of study,
important statistical tools have been used i.e. Factor analysis, Descriptive
analysis, Regression analysis, Anova and Demographic study.
Profit is a crucial element for deciding allocation of resources and a

yardstick for judging the managerial efficiency. For effective financial
management, profit is the major barometer by which efficiency, worth of
investment, margin of safety will be measured. Moreover, it is a source of
fringe benefits to the employees, a measure of taxable capacity to the
Government and so forth.
Profits have to be earned on a regular and continuous basis. Business
concerns that are unable to generate adequate profit from their operations
cannot remunerate the providers of their capital. As a result, it becomes
difficult for them to maintain the continuity of their existence. Profits are
required not only to remunerate capital but also to finance growth and
expansion. Profit is a measure of surplus wealth generated by a business
concern from its operations. It is prudent for a continuing business to
measure profits on a periodic basis.
Capital structure:
Estimation of capital requirements for current and future needs is
important for a business organisation. Capital structure is the proportion of
debt and equity used in the business. When more debt will be used in the
business, it will lead to higher financial risk. On the other hand, if less
amount of debt will be used in the business, it will reduce owner’s fund. So,
the capital structure must be optimum. Optimum capital structure is that
where the cost of capital could be minimized the value of firm be maximized.
The capital structure of a business depends upon a large number of factors.
The present research aims at studying the relationship between corporate
capital structure (Debt and Equity) and its asset structure, trading, liquid
assets, profitability, business risk, growth rate, debt service capacity, taxes
and value of assets.
Cash management:
Cash management refers to the proper use of an entity's cash resources.
In other words, it is concerned with managing the cash flows within and
outside the business. It involves decision making with respect to the
investment of surplus cash or raising cash from outside for financing the
deficit.
It assists to keep an organization functioning by making the best use
of cash or liquid resources. Cash management is associated with
management of cash in such a way as to realize the generally accepted
objectives of the firm i.e. maximum productivity with maximum liquidity. It
is the management's capability to identify problems in cash management and
solve as and when it arises.
Cash Management denotes concentration, collection and
disbursement of cash. The major role for managers or owner is to maintain
the flow of cash. Cash Management includes a series of activities aimed at
competently handling the inflow and outflow of cash. This mainly involves
diverting cash from idle sources to employable areas. It is established that
cash management is the optimization of cash flows, balances and short-term
investments. Cash management maintains sufficient quantity of cash in such
a way that the quantity denotes the lowest adequate cash figure to meet
business obligations. Cash management involves managing cash flows (in
and out) within the firm and the cash balances held by a concern at a point of
time. An optimum cash management system is one that not only prevents the
insolvency but also reduces the days in account receivables, increases the
collection rates, chooses the suitable investment vehicles that improve the
overall financial position of the firm.
Receivable management:
Receivables are amounts owed to the business by customers to whom
the former sale goods or services in the normal course of business. In other
words, account receivables are the money receivable in some future date for
the credit sale of goods and services at present. Receivables are also known
as accounts receivables, trade receivables, customer receivables or book
debts. The period of credit and extent of receivables depends upon the credit
policy followed by the firm.
The purpose of maintaining or investing in receivables is to meet
competition and to increase the sales and profits. Efficient management of

receivables depend on quality of trade accounts, credit standards, length of
credit period, cash discount, discount period, etc. Receivable management
evaluates the creditworthiness of customers before granting or extending the
credit. This minimizes the cost of investment in receivables, minimizes
possible losses on account of bad debts, formulates credit terms in such a way
that results in maximization of sales revenue while maintaining minimum
investment in receivables, minimizes the cost of running credit and collection
department and maintains a trade-off between costs and benefits associated
with credit policy.
Demographic factors:
Demographic factors are those factors which can influence behavior
of respondents i.e. age, gender, income, occupation, education, etc.
Demographic factors are important as respondents belonging to similar
demographics have mostly similar opinion or preference patterns. Based on
the research study, researchers would know the behavioral pattern changes in
response to male/female type respondents, income and also change in
occupation.
Table 4.1 - Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid Male 210 91.7 91.7
Female 19 8.3 8.3
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Sources: Compiled from Primary data
Table 4.1 highlights the gender type of the respondents taken for the
purpose of study. Out of total respondents, 210 respondents are male while
only 19 respondents are female. Male respondents belong to 91.7% of total
respondents whereas female respondents are only 8.3%. Hence, any decision
taken by the financial manager/owner for the effective management of
finance is based on maximum opinion of the male respondents.
Figure 4.1 - Gender

8.30%
Male
Female
91.70%
Figure 4.1 highlights the gender type of respondents taken for the
purpose of study. Out of total respondents, 210 respondents are male while
only 19 respondents are female. Male respondents belong to 91.7% of total
respondents whereas female respondents are only 8.3%. Hence, any decision
taken by the financial manager for the effective management of finance must
be based on the opinion of the male respondents.
Table 4.2 - Age
No. of Cumulative
Respondents Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 18-28 years 31 13.5 13.5 13.5
29-38 years 87 38.0 38.0 51.5
39-49 years 45 19.7 19.7 71.2
More than 50 years 66 28.8 28.8 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.2 highlights the age group of respondents taken for the
purpose of study. The age groups of the respondents have been divided into
four categories namely 18-28 years, 29-38 years, 39-49 years and More than
50 years. Out of total respondents, 31 respondents belong to 18-28 years age
group occupying 13.5% of total respondents while 87 respondents belong to
29-38 years age group covering 38% of the total respondents. Hence, any
decision taken by the financial manager for the effective financial
management must be based on the opinion of the respondents belonging to
29-38 age groups.
Figure 4.2 - Age
87
100
80 66
31 45
60
40
20
0
18-25 years
29-38 years
39-49 years
More than 50
years
Figure 4.2 highlights the age group of respondents taken for the
purpose of study. The age groups of the respondents have been divided into
four categories namely 18-28 years, 29-38 years, 39-49 years and More than
50 years. Out of total respondents, 31 respondents belong to 18-28 years age
group occupying 13.5% of total respondents while 87 respondents belong to
29-38 years age group covering 38% of the total respondents.
Table 4.3 - Educational qualification
No. of Cumulative
Below HSC 7 3.1 3.1 3.1
Higher Secondary 12 5.2 5.2 8.3
Level
Graduate & Technical 143 62.4 62.4 70.7
PG & Above 67 29.3 29.3 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.3 highlights the education qualification of the respondents

taken for the purpose of study. The educational qualification of the
respondents has been divided into four categories namely Below HSC,
Higher Secondary Level, Graduate & Technical and PG & Above. Out of the
total, 143 respondents belong to graduation and technical category
occupying 62.4% of total respondents while only 7 respondents belong to
below HSC category covering 3.1% of the total respondents. Hence, any
decision taken by the financial manager for the effective financial
management must be based on the opinion of the respondents belonging to
graduate & technical category.
Figure 4.3 - Educational qualification
143
150
100 67
50
7 12
0
Below HSC Higher Graduate & PG & above
Secondary technical
level
Figure 4.3 highlights the educational qualification of the respondents

taken for the purpose of study. Here the educational qualification of the
respondents have been divided into four categories namely Below HSC,
Higher Secondary Level, Graduate & Technical and PG & Above. Out of
total, 143 respondents belong to graduation and technical category
occupying 62.4% of total respondents while only 7 respondents belong to
below HSC category covering 3.1% of the total respondents.
Table 4.4 - Types of Business
No. of Cumulative
Proprietary 201 87.8 87.8 87.8
Partnership 6 2.6 2.6 90.4
company type 4 1.7 1.7 92.1
Family business 18 7.9 7.9 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.4 highlights the types of business in which respondents are

mostly engaged taken for the purpose of study. In this case, the types of
business done by the respondents have been divided into four categories
namely Proprietary, Partnership, Company type and Family business. Out of
total, 201 respondents are doing proprietary business occupying 87.8% of
total respondents while only 4 respondents doing company type of business
covering 1.7% of the total respondents. Hence, any decision taken by the
financial manager for the effective financial management must be based on
the opinion of the respondents doing proprietary business.
Figure 4.4 - Types of Business
201 Types of Business

400
200
6 4
18
0
Proprietary
Partnership
company
type Family
business
Figure 4.4 highlights the types of business in which respondents are
mostly engaged taken for the purpose of study. In this case, the types of
business done by the respondents have been divided into four categories
namely Proprietary, Partnership, Company type and Family business. Out of
total, 201 respondents are doing proprietary business occupying 87.8% of
total respondents while only 4 respondents doing company type of business
covering 1.7% of the total respondents.
Table 4.5 - Type of Activity

No. of
Respondents Percent Valid Percent
Trading 147 64.2 64.2
Manufacturing & Production 21 9.2 9.2
Others 38 16.6 16.6
Financial Services 23 10.0 10.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.5 reveals the type of activity undertaken by the respondents

taken for the purpose of study. The type of activity of the respondents have
been divided into four categories namely Trading, Manufacturing &
Production, Others and Financial Services. Out of total respondents, 147
respondents undertake trading business occupying 64% of total respondents
while only 23 respondents undertake financial services covering 38% of the
total respondents. Hence, any decision taken by the financial manager for the
effective financial management must be based on the opinion of the
respondents engaged in trading business.
Table 4.6 - Age of Business
No. of Cumulative
Less than 2 years 3 1.3 1.3 1.3
2-5 years 160 69.9 69.9 71.2
6-10 years 38 16.6 16.6 87.8
More than 10 years 28 12.2 12.2 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.6 highlights the age of business of respondents taken for the
purpose of study. The age of business of the respondents have been divided
into four categories namely Less than 2 years, 2-5 years, 6-10 years and More
than 10 years. Out of total respondents, 160 respondents belong to 2-5 years
age of business group occupying 69.9% of total respondents while 38
respondents belong to 6-10 years age of business group covering 16% of the total
respondents. Hence, any decision taken by the financial manager for the
respondents belonging to 2-5 years age of business groups.
Figure 4.5 - Age of Business
160
160
140
120
100
80
60 38
28
40
20 3
0
Less than 2 2-5 years 6-10 years More than
years 10 years
Figure 4.5 highlights the age of business of respondents taken for the
purpose of study. The age of business of the respondents have been divided
into four categories namely Less than 2 years, 2-5 years, 6-10 years and More
than 10 years. Out of total respondents, 160 respondents belong to 2-5 years
age of business group occupying 69.9% of total respondents while 38
respondents belong to 6-10 years age of business group covering 16.6% of the
respondents belonging to 2-5 years age of business groups.
Table 4.7 - Annual Sale

No. of Cumulative
Less than 20 lakhs 12 5.2 5.2 5.2
21-30 Lakhs 17 7.4 7.4 12.7
31-50 lakhs 33 14.4 14.4 27.1
More than 50 lakhs 167 72.9 72.9 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.7 highlights the annual sale or turnover of the respondents

taken for the purpose of study. The annual sale of the respondents have been
divided into four categories namely Less than 20 lakhs, 21-30 Lakhs, 31-50
lakhs and More than 50 lakhs. Out of total respondents, 167 respondents are
having annual sale of More than 50 lakhs which is 72.9% of total respondents
while only 33 respondents are having annual sale of 31-50 lakhs covering
14.4% of the total respondents. Hence, any decision taken by the financial
manager for the effective financial management must be based on the
opinion of the respondents belonging to annual turnover of More than 50 lakhs
category.
Table 4.8 - Investment in Fixed Asset
No. of Cumulative
Less than 25 lakhs 23 10.0 10.0 10.0
25 lakhs -1crore 30 13.1 13.1 23.1
1 crore -5 crores 159 69.4 69.4 92.6
Not declared 17 7.4 7.4 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.8 shows the amount of money invested in fixed assets by the
respondents taken into consideration. Here the investments by the
respondents have been divided into four categories namely less than Rs.25
lakhs, Rs.25 lakhs -1crore, Rs.1 crore -5 crores and Not declared. Out of total
respondents, Rs.1 crore - 5 crores money have been investment by 159
respondents which is 69.4% of total respondents whereas only 17
respondents have not declared their investment. Hence, any decision taken
by the financial manager for the effective financial management must be
based on the opinion of the respondents indicating to Rs.1 crore - 5 crores
investment category.
Table 4.9 - No. of Employees

No. of
Less than 5 149 65.1 65.1
6-10 employees 38 16.6 16.6
11-20 employees 42 18.3 18.3
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.9 reveals the no. of employees employed by the respondents.

Here the no. of employees have been divided into three categories namely
Less than 5, 6-10 employees and 11-20 employees. Out of total respondents,
149 respondents belong to less than 5 group occupying 65.1% of total
respondents while 38 respondents belong to 6-10 employee group covering
16.6% of the total respondents. Hence, any decision taken by the financial
manager for effective financial management must be based on the opinion of
the respondents belonging to less than 5 groups.
Table 4.10 - Sources of Finance
No. of Cumulative
Fully Internal 109 47.6 47.6 47.6
Internal & Borrowed 113 49.3 49.3 96.9
Fully 7 3.1 3.1 100.0
Borrowed/Hired
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.10 shows the sources of finance arranged by the respondents

taken for the purpose of study. Here the sources of finance from which funds
have been arranged and procured have been divided into four categories
namely Fully internal, Internal & Borrowed and Fully Borrowed/Hired. Out
of total respondents, 113 respondents arranged their finance both from
internal source and by borrowing which is 49.3% of total respondents while 7
respondents arranged totally from borrowed or hired covering 3.1% of the

respondents who arrange their funds from Internal & Borrowed sources.
Figure 4.6 - Sources of Finance
Sources of finance
150
100 113
109
50
0 7
totally internally Internally & Totally
Borrowed borrowed/Hired
Figure 4.6 shows the sources of finance arranged by the respondents

taken for the purpose of study. Here the sources of finance from which funds
have been arranged and procured have been divided into four categories
namely Fully internal, Internal & Borrowed and Fully Borrowed/Hired. Out
of total respondents, 113 respondents arranged their finance both from
internal source and by borrowing which is 49.3% of total respondents while 7
respondents arranged totally from borrowed or hired covering 3.1% of the
total respondents.
Table 4.11 Owners and Accountants
No. of
Owner 102 44.5 44.5
Accountant 127 55.5 55.5
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.11 highlights the accounting information maintained by the

respondents taken for the purpose of study. Here the accounting information
has been maintained by both owner and accountant. Out of total respondents,
102 respondents are owner who maintain the accounts occupying 44.5% of
total respondents whereas 127 respondents belong to accountant category by
which accounting information will be maintained covering 55.5% of the total
respondents. Hence, any decision taken by the financial manager for the
accountant.
Table 4.12 - Period of Analyzing Financial Statements
No. of Cumulative
Monthly 110 48.0 48.0 48.0
Quarterly 119 52.0 52.0 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.12 highlights the period of analyzing financial statements
whether it is on monthly basis or quarterly basis. Out of total respondents, as
per the opinion of 119 respondents (52%) financial statements have been
analyzed on quarterly basis whereas 110 respondents (48%) analyzed on
monthly basis.
Table 4.13 - Cash Budget Analysis
No. of Cumulative
Valid Never 7 3.1 3.1 3.1
Weekly 76 33.2 33.2 36.2
Monthly 83 36.2 36.2 72.5
Annually 63 27.5 27.5 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.13 reveals the interval of cash budget analysis whether it is
never analyzed or weekly basis or monthly or annually. Out of total
respondents, cash budget is analyzed by 83 respondents (36.2%) on monthly
basis whereas 7 respondents (3.1%) have never analyzed their cash budget.
Table 4.14 - Surplus Analysis
No. of Cumulative
Never 183 79.9 79.9 79.9
Weekly 36 15.7 15.7 95.6
Monthly 10 4.4 4.4 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.14 reveals the interval of surplus analysis whether it is never

analyzed or weekly basis or monthly. Out of total respondents, surplus has
never been analyzed by 183 respondents (79.9%) whereas 10 respondents
(4.4%) have analyzed their surplus on monthly basis.
Table 4.15 - Preparation of Surplus Budget
No. of Cumulative
Never 47 20.5 20.5 20.5
Weekly 150 65.5 65.5 86.0
Monthly 32 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.15 reveals the interval of preparation of surplus budget

whether it is never prepared or prepared weekly basis or monthly basis. Out
of total respondents, surplus budget have never been prepared by 47
respondents (20.5%) whereas 150 respondents (65.5%) have prepared their
surplus on weekly basis.
Table 4.16 - Surplus Verification
No. of Cumulative
Valid Never 67 29.3 29.3 29.3
Weekly 124 54.1 54.1 83.4
Monthly 38 16.6 16.6 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.16 reveals the interval of surplus verification whether it is

never verified or verified on weekly basis or monthly basis. Out of total
respondents, surplus verification has never been done by 67 respondents
(29.3%) whereas 124 respondents (54.1%) have verified their surplus on
weekly basis.
Table 4.17 - Credit Sales Analysis

No. of Cumulative
Never 41 17.9 17.9 17.9
Weekly 132 57.6 57.6 75.5
Monthly 56 24.5 24.5 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.17 reveals the interval of credit sale analysis whether it is

never prepared or prepared on weekly basis or monthly basis. Out of total
respondents, credit sale analysis has never been done by 41 respondents
(17.9%) whereas 132 respondents (57.6%) have done analysis on weekly
basis.
Table 4.18 - Bad debt Analysis
No. of Cumulative
Never 58 25.3 25.3 25.3
Weekly 136 59.4 59.4 84.7
Monthly 35 15.3 15.3 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.18 reveals the interval of bad debt analysis whether it is never
prepared or prepared on weekly basis or monthly basis. Out of total
respondents, bad debt analysis has never been done by 58 respondents
(25.3%) whereas 136 respondents (59.4%) have done analysis on weekly
basis.
Table 4.19 - Bad debt Position Review
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Never 23 10.0 10.0 10.0
Weekly 196 85.6 85.6 95.6
Monthly 10 4.4 4.4 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.19 reveals the interval of bad debt position review whether it
is never prepared or prepared weekly basis or monthly. Out of total
respondents, bad debt position review has never been prepared by 23
respondents (10%) whereas 196 respondents (85.6%) have prepared their
position of bad debt position review on weekly basis.
Table 4.20 - Investment Management Analysis
No. of Cumulative
Never 10 4.4 4.4 4.4
Weekly 16 7.0 7.0 11.4
Monthly 193 84.3 84.3 95.6
Annually 10 4.4 4.4 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.20 reveals the interval of investment management analysis

either it is never prepared or prepared weekly or monthly or annual basis. Out
of total respondents, investment management has never been analyzed by 10
respondents (4.4%) whereas 193 respondents (84.3%) have analyzed their
investment on monthly basis.
Table 4.21 - Inventory Analysis
Cumulative
Valid Never 13 5.7 5.7 5.7
Weekly 4 1.7 1.7 7.4
Monthly 202 88.2 88.2 95.6
Annually 10 4.4 4.4 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.21 reveals the interval of inventory analysis whether it is

never prepared or prepared weekly or monthly or annual basis. Out of total
respondents, inventory analysis has never been prepared by 13 respondents
(5.7%) whereas 202 respondents (88.2%) have prepared their analysis on
monthly basis.
Table 4.22 - Financial Planning

Cumulative
Valid Never 12 5.2 5.2 5.2
Weekly 18 7.9 7.9 13.1
Monthly 199 86.9 86.9 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.22 reveals the interval of review of financial planning whether

it is never prepared or prepared weekly basis or monthly. Out of total
respondents, financial planning have never been prepared by 12 respondents
(5.2%) whereas 199 respondents (86.9%) have prepared their financial
planning on monthly basis.
Table 4.23 - Financial Review
Cumulative
Never 3 1.3 1.3 1.3
Weekly 43 18.8 18.8 20.1
Monthly 183 79.9 79.9 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.23 reveals the interval of financial review whether it is never

prepared or prepared weekly basis or monthly. Out of total respondents,
financial review has never been prepared by 3 respondents (1.3%) whereas
183 respondents (79.9%) have prepared their financial review on monthly
basis.
PART-II
In this part, six major factors have been included to measure the
significant variable under the broad factors which are mostly responsible for
the cause and accordingly it has been correlated latter by using factor
analysis (principal component analysis with rotation in Varimax). Further,
KMO and Bartlett's Test have been used to measure the validity and
adequacy of factor variables. These are (1) Management and maintenance of
accounts and finance (2) Cash Management (3) Receivable Management (4)
Inventory Management (5) Fixed Asset Management (6) Financial Planning

FACTOR ANALYSIS
A. MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS AND
FINANCE
Table 4.24 - KMO and Bartlett's Test on Management and Maintenance of

Accounts and Finance
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of 0.886
Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 178.271
df 28
Sig. .000
Table 4.24 shows two tests that indicate the suitability of data on
Management and Maintenance of Accounts and Finance for structure
detection. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Adequacy indicates that the
proportion of variance in variables of employee alignment that might be
caused by underlying eight factors. Further, Bartlett's test of sphericity tests
the correlation matrix, which indicates that variables are unrelated and
unsuitable for structure detection as the value is 0.886. So, it indicates that
factor analysis may be useful with input variables on owner’s Perception.
Table 4.25 - Communalities on Management and Maintenance of Accounts
and Finance
Initial Extraction
A1 Promptness of accounting information system in 1.000 .630
reflecting business transactions & Interpretation of results
A2 Reasonableness of accounting information systems 1.000 .752
A3 Accounting information in decision-making always 1.000 .711
A4 Computerization of accounting information is always 1.000 .860
used
A5 Skill to financial reporting and analysis is much better 1.000 .674
A6 Skill to find risk and profit is high 1.000 .760
A7 Accounting reports are perfect and accurate 1.000 .762
A8 Financial ratios in financial analysis are applied widely 1.000 .709
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 4.25 indicates the input assessment of ‘Management and
Maintenance of Accounts and Finance for the effective management of

finance on the profitability of the concern. Eight major factors have been
incorporated for this analysis and the initial value for all the factor
components and the extraction value revealed above 0.500 in all the
components. So, all the factors can be included for further measurement.
The significant values for the components (8) loaded for variance
measurement have been measured and reflected in the table. Moreover,
factors have been considered at 95% significance level. The factor relation
values for identifying the major factors responsible for effective management
of finance for the better profitability of the business.
Table 4.26 - Total Variance Explained on Management and Maintenance of

Initial Eigen
values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 21.312 1.705 21.312 21.312
2 40.421 1.529 19.110 40.421
3 54.831 1.153 14.410 54.831
4 68.229 1.072 13.398 68.229
Table 4.26 corroborates the results of effective financial management

of the business for better profitability where the total variance of individual
factors (8) as well the extraction value of sum of squares loading value.
Three factors have been found in the initial Eigen value, which looks
positive and above 1.0 value. The similar results are also found in extraction
value of Sums of Squared Loadings for those four factors, which are most
significant among the selected factors in the initial Eigen value. So, from that
it is concluded that in measuring through principal component analysis only
three identified and significant factors is implication of business strategy.
Only 68 percent of data seems to be valid in total cumulative variances and
rest 32 percent indicate a loss of data in the factor analysis and can be
analyzed in the following tables.
Table 4.27 - Total Variance (Rotated) on Management and Maintenance of

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 1.643 20.532 20.532
2 1.353 16.918 37.450
3 1.272 15.901 53.351
4 1.190 14.878 68.229
Table 4.27 shows the rotated total variances in proper management of

finance for better profitability results revealed same as unrotated values of
total variances for three variables and only 68 percent of data seems to be
valid in total rotated cumulative variances.
Table 4.28 - Component Matrix on Management and Maintenance of
Component
1 2 3 4
A1 Promptness of accounting information system in .001 -.647 .040 .458
reflecting business transactions& Interpretation of
results
A2 Reasonableness of accounting information systems -.037 .430 -.435 .613
A3 Accounting information in decision-making always .583 -.524 .033 .308
A4 Computerization of accounting information is always .346 .498 .177 -.247
used
A5 Skill to financial reporting and analysis is much .308 -.068 .758 -.017
better
A6 Skill to find risk and profit is high .712 .093 -.451 -.201
A7 Accounting reports are perfect and accurate .756 .325 .118 .265
A8 Financial ratios in financial analysis are applied -.265 .532 .370 .468
widely
a. 4 components extracted.
Table 4.28 reveals the factor wise value those are mostly correlated
with the practices of financial management in response to “Management and
Maintenance of Accounts and Finance”, which indicate in the matrix form.
Out of eight factors (A1….A8), only four factors have been extracted those
have more significant positive value in the columns of components.
Although the linear correlation between the components have been measured
the related component value, which are higher, but it has been measured the
component scores to check for outliers and nonlinear associations between
the components. Here, it is concluded that the four significant factors have
been identified as: Accounting information in decision-making always (A3),
Skill to financial reporting and analysis is much better (A5), Skill to find risk
and profit is high (A6) and Accounting reports are perfect and accurate (A7).
Therefore, the study of Management and Maintenance of Accounts and
Finance strategy of financial management, these above said four factors are
most significant to justify the better profitability of the business.
Table 4.29 - Rotated Component Matrix on Management and Maintenance of
Component
1 2 3 4
A1 Promptness of accounting information system in -.089 .788 .009 .040
reflecting business transactions & Interpretation of
results
A2 Reasonableness of accounting information systems .259 .043 .378 -.735
A3 Accounting information in decision-making .440 .657 -.240 .168
always
A4 Computerization of accounting information is .415 .506 .041 .175
always used
A5 Skill to financial reporting and analysis is much .267 .075 .232 .737
better
A6 Skill to find risk and profit is high .616 .129 .569 .201
A7 Accounting reports are perfect and accurate .864 .012 .107 .055
A8 Financial ratios in financial analysis are applied .062 -.147 .825 -.058
widely
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 13 iterations.
Here, it is interpreted that the rotated factor matrix showing also four
factor variables, i.e. A3 (Accounting information in decision-making
always), A4 (Computerization of accounting information is always used), A6

(Skill to find risk and profit is high) and A7 (Accounting reports are perfect
and accurate) are seem significant to the cause ‘Management and
Maintenance of Accounts and Finance.’ It is proved that these four variables
having a positive impact on ‘Management and Maintenance of Accounts and
Finance’ and rest 4 factors indicate a less significant so that business houses
have to try their best for effective financial management in order to ensure
better profitability.
Table 4.30 - Component Transformation Matrix on Management and
Maintenance of Accounts and Finance
Component 1 2 3 4
1 .908 .099 -.359 .191
2 .326 -.776 .463 -.278
3 .019 .003 .508 .861
4 .262 .623 .631 -.381
Transformation matrix table 4.30 revealed that these two variables

indicate a positive impact of “Management and Maintenance of Accounts
and Finance” on the profitability of the business as the main diagonal
indicate above 0.9 values. The relationship between the two variables is
stronger to satisfy the practices on Management and Maintenance of
Accounts and Finance.
B. CASH MANAGEMENT:
Table 4.31 - KMO and Bartlett's Test on Cash Management

Sampling Adequacy.
df 15
Sig. .000
Table 4.31 shows two tests that indicate the suitability of responses on
‘Cash Management’ for structure detection. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

Measure of Adequacy indicates that the proportion of variance in variables of
employee alignment that might be caused by underlying nine factors.
Further, Bartlett's test of sphericity tests the correlation matrix, which
indicates that variables are unrelated and unsuitable for structure detection as
the value is 0.741. So, it indicates that factor analysis will be useful with
input variables.
Table 4.32 - Communalities on Cash Management

Initial Extraction
B1 Preparation of cash budgets is so frequent 1.000 .808
B2 Owner/manager in preparing & interpreting fine cash 1.000 .592
budgets
B3 Cash budgets in providing information for making 1.000 .717
decisions is perfectly done
B4 Cash management in determining the target cash balance 1.000 .687
is always measured
B5 Target cash balance determined in your business is an 1.000 .515
affair
B6 Computerized cash management practices is done very 1.000 .769
meticulously
Table 4.32 indicates the impact assessment of ‘Cash Management’ for

the effective management of finance on the profitability of the concern which
has been measured in factor analysis. Six major factors have been
components. Therefore, all the factors can be included for further
measurement. The significant values for the components (6) loaded for
variance measurement have been measured and reflected in the table.
Moreover, factors have been considered at 95% significance level. The factor
relation values for identifying the major factors responsible for effective
management of finance for the better profitability of the business.
Table 4.33 - Total Variance Explained on Cash Management
Initial
Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
1 27.266 1.636 27.266 27.266
2 48.328 1.264 21.062 48.328
3 66.456 1.088 18.128 66.456
Table 4.33 corroborates the results of Cash Management on effective

financial management of the business for better profitability where the total
variance of individual factors (6) as well the extraction value of sum of
squares loading value. The similar results are also found in extraction value
of Sums of Squared Loadings for those four factors, which are most
significant among the selected factors in the initial Eigen value. So, it is
concluded that in measuring through principal component analysis only
Table 4.34 - Total Variance (Rotated) Explained on Cash Management
1 1.602 26.703 26.703
2 1.288 21.460 48.163
3 1.098 18.292 66.456
Table 4.34 shows the rotated total variances in proper management of

finance for better profitability results revealed same as unrotated values of
total variances for three variables and only 66 percent of data seems to be
valid in total rotated cumulative variances.
Table 4.35 - Component Matrix on Cash Management

Component
1 2 3
B1 Preparation of cash budgets is so frequent .277 .150 -.842
B2 Owner/manager in preparing & interpreting fine cash .696 .034 -.076
budgets
B3 Cash budgets in providing information for making .565 .448 .444
B4 Cash management in determining the target cash balance .515 -.550 .345
is always measured
B5 Target cash balance determined in your business is a n -.686 -.119 .174
affair
B6 Computerized cash management practices is done very -.137 .850 .165
meticulously
Table 4.35 reveal the factor wise value those are mostly correlated
with the practices of financial management in response to “Cash
Management”, which indicate in the matrix form. Out of six factors
(B1….B6), only three factors have been extracted those have more
significant positive value in the columns of components. Although the linear
correlation between the components have been measured the related
component value, which are higher, but it has been measured the component
scores to check for outliers and nonlinear associations between the
components. Here, it is concluded that the three significant factors have been
identified as: Owner/manager in preparing & interpreting fine cash budgets
(B2), Cash budgets in providing information for making decisions is
perfectly done (B3) and Cash management in determining the target cash
balance is always measured (B4). Therefore, in the study of Cash
Management practices of financial management, these above said three
factors are most significant in their respective type of business.
Table 4.36- Rotated Component Matrix on Cash Management

Component
1 2 3
B1 Preparation of cash budgets is so frequent .182 .030 .879
B2 Owner/manager in preparing & interpreting fine cash .665 -.15 .165
budgets 0
B3 Cash budgets in providing information for making .715 .311 -.329
B4 Cash management in determining the target cash balance .408 -.64 -.324
is always measured 4
B5 Target cash balance determined in your business is a n -.662 .070 -.268
affair
B6 Computerized cash management practices is done very .102 .865 -.107
meticulously
Here (table 4.36), it is interpreted that the unrotated factor matrix showing
four factor variables, i.e. Owner/manager in preparing & interpreting fine
cash budgets (B2), Cash budgets in providing information for making
decisions is perfectly done (B3) and Cash management in determining the
target cash balance is always measured (B4) are seen significant to ‘Cash
Management’. It is proved that these three variables having a positive impact
on ‘Cash Management’ and rest 3 factors indicate a less significant impact so
that business houses should have to try their best on the insignificant factors
for the effective financial management in order to ensure better profitability
and sustainability.
Table 4.37 - Component Transformation Matrix on Cash Management

Component 1 2 3
1 .959 -.256 .125
2 .246 .965 .087
3 .143 .053 -.988
Transformation matrix table 4.37 revealed that these variables indicate

a positive impact of ‘Cash Management’ on the profitability of the business as
the main diagonal indicate above 0.9 values. The relationship between the two
variables is stronger to satisfy the practices of Cash Management in the
different business operated by the respondents.
C. RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT
Table 4.38 - KMO and Bartlett's Test on Receivable Management

Sampling Adequacy.
df 21
Sig. .000
Receivable Management for structure detection. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
employee alignment that might be caused by underlying seven factors.
the value is 0.914. So, it indicates that factor analysis may be useful with
input variables.
Table 4.39 - Communalities on Receivable Management

Initial Extraction
C1 Frequent reviewing debtors’ credit period is remarkably 1.000 .644
high
C2 Frequency of reviewing debtors’ discount policy 1.000 .589
C3 Frequency of reviewing bad debts 1.000 .642
C4 Reasonability of bad debts 1.000 .812
C5 Utilizing receivable management theories 1.000 .652
C6 Computerized practices in your business 1.000 .600
C7 Reasonableness of bad debts in your business 1.000 .842
Table 4.39 indicates the impact assessment of ‘Receivable

Management Practices’ adopted for the effective management of finance
which influences the profitability of the concern which has been measured in
factor analysis. Seven major factors have been incorporated for this analysis
and the initial value for all the factor components and the extraction value
revealed above 0.500 in all the components. So, all the factors can be
included for further measurement. The significant values for the components
(7) loaded for variance measurement have been measured and reflected in the
table. Moreover, factors have been considered at 95% significance level. The
factor relation values for identifying the major factors responsible for
effective management of finance.
Table 4.40 - Total Variance Explained on Receivable Management Practices
Initial
1 20.932 1.465 20.932 20.932
2 38.125 1.204 17.193 38.125
3 53.811 1.098 15.686 53.811
4 68.287 1.013 14.476 68.287
Table 4.40 corroborates the results of Receivable Management
Practices adopted for effective financial management of the business
ensuring better profitability where the total variance of individual factors (7)
as well the extraction value of sum of squares loading value. Three factors
have been found in the initial Eigen value, which looks positive and above
1.0 value. The similar results are also found in extraction value of Sums of
Squared Loadings for those four factors, which are most significant among
the selected factors in the initial Eigen value. So, from that it is concluded
that in measuring through principal component analysis only three identified
and significant factors is implication of business strategy. Only 68 percent of
data seems to be valid in total cumulative variances and rest 32 percent
indicate a loss of data in the factor analysis and can be analyzed in the
following tables.
Table 4.41 - Total Variance (Rotated) Explained on Receivable Management
Practices
1 1.426 20.376 20.376
2 1.231 17.588 37.964
3 1.080 15.434 53.398
4 1.042 14.889 68.287
Table 4.41 shows the rotated total variances of Receivable

Management Practices adopted in proper management of finance for better
profitability results revealed same as unrotated values of total variances for
three variables and only 68 percent of data seems to be valid in total rotated
cumulative variances.
Table 4.42 - Component Matrix on Receivable Management
Component
1 2 3 4
C1 Frequent reviewing debtors’ credit period is .421 -.345 .578 .114
remarkably high
C2 Frequency of reviewing debtors’ discount policy .345 .684 -.042 -.019
C3 Frequency of reviewing bad debts .321 .677 .124 -.255
C4 Reasonability of bad debts .108 .030 -.708 .546
C5 Utilizing receivable management theories -.775 .220 .015 -.053
C6 Computerized practices in your business .673 -.221 -.288 -.124
C7 Reasonableness of bad debts in your business .031 .245 .402 .786
with the practices of financial management in response to ‘Receivable
Management Practices,’ which indicate in the matrix form. Out of seven
factors (C1….C7), only four factors have been extracted those have more
components. Here, it is concluded that the four significant factors have been
identified as: Frequent reviewing debtors credit period is remarkably high
(C1), Frequency of reviewing debtors discount policy (C2), Frequency of
reviewing bad debts (C3) and Utilizing receivable management theories (C5).
So in the study of Receivable Management Practices strategy adopted for
effective financial management, these above said four factors are most
significant.
Table 4.43 - Rotated Component Matrix on Receivable Management Practices
Component
1 2 3 4
C1 Frequent reviewing debtors credit period is .471 -.164 -.503 .378
remarkably high
C2 Frequency of reviewing debtors discount policy .068 .750 .120 .090
C3 Frequency of reviewing bad debts .032 .788 -.138 -.030
C4 Reasonability of bad debts .153 -.066 .877 .121
C5 Utilizing receivable management theories -.800 -.077 .012 -.078
C6 Computerized practices in your business .727 .066 .139 -.219
C7 Reasonableness of bad debts in your business -.088 .083 .073 .906
Here (table 4.43), it is interpreted that the rotated factor matrix

showing four factor variables, i.e. Frequent reviewing debtors credit period is
remarkably high (C1), Frequency of reviewing debtors discount policy (C2),
Reasonability of bad debts (C4) and Computerized practices in your business
(C6) are seem significant to the cause ‘Receivable Management Practices.’ It

indicated that these four variables have a positive impact on ‘Receivable
Management Practices’ and rest three factors indicate a less significant.
Table 4.44 - Component Transformation Matrix on Receivable Management
Practices
Component 1 2 3 4
1 .924 .370 -.023 .092
2 -.373 .905 .148 .140
3 -.083 .029 -.860 .502
4 .010 -.206 .488 .848

indicate a positive impact of ‘Receivable Management Practices’ on the
profitability of the business as the main diagonal indicate above 0.9 values.
The relationship between the two variables is stronger to satisfy the strategy
on Receivable Management Practices.
D. INVENTORY MANAGEMENT:
Table 4.45 - KMO and Bartlett's Test on Inventory Management

Sampling Adequacy.
df 21
Sig. .000
‘Inventory Management’ for structure detection. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
input variables.
Table 4.46 - Communalities on Inventory Management

Initial Extraction
D1 Frequency of reviewing inventory turnover 1.000 .651
D2 Frequency of reviewing inventory level 1.000 .627
D3 Reasonableness of inventory turnover 1.000 .565
D4 Reasonableness of inventory level 1.000 .487
D5 Usefulness of inventory budget in providing information for 1.000 .494
making decisions
D6 Utilizing inventory management theories 1.000 .626
D7 Computerization of inventory management 1.000 .667
Table 4.46 indicates the impact assessment of ‘Inventory
Management Practices’ adopted for the effective management of finance
focusing on the profitability of the concern which has been measured in
factor analysis. Seven major factors have been incorporated for this analysis
and the initial value for all the factor components and the extraction value
revealed above 0.500 in all the components. So, all the factors can be
included for further measurement. The significant values for the components
(7) loaded for variance measurement have been measured and reflected in the
table. Moreover, factors have been considered at 95% significance level. The
factor relation values for identifying the major factors responsible for
effective management of finance for the better profitability of the business.
Table 4.47 - Total Variance Explained on Inventory Management
Initial
1 23.021 1.611 23.021 23.021
2 42.719 1.379 19.698 42.719
3 58.817 1.127 16.098 58.817
Table 4.47 corroborates the results of Inventory Management

Practices strategy adopted for effective financial management of the
business ensuring better profitability where the total variance of individual
factors (7) as well the extraction value of sum of squares loading value.
Three factors have been found in the initial Eigen value, which looks
positive and above 1.0 value. The similar results are also found in extraction
value of Sums of Squared Loadings for those four factors, which are most
significant among the selected factors in the initial Eigen value. So, from that
it is concluded that in measuring through principal component analysis only
Table 4.48 - Total Variance (Rotated) Explained on Inventory Management
1 1.494 21.343 21.343
2 1.312 18.738 40.081
3 1.312 18.736 58.817
Table 4.48 shows the rotated total variances in Inventory
Management Practices strategy adopted in proper management of finance for
better profitability results revealed same as unrotated values of total
variances for three variables and only 59 percent of data seems to be valid in
total rotated cumulative variances.
Table 4.49 - Component Matrix on Inventory Management
Component
1 2 3
D1 Frequency of reviewing inventory turnover .031 .615 .522
D2 Frequency of reviewing inventory level .645 .244 -.389
D3 Reasonableness of inventory turnover .478 -.438 .380
D4 Reasonableness of inventory level -.660 -.200 .106
D5 Usefulness of inventory budget in providing information -.412 -.544 .169
for making decisions
D6 Utilizing inventory management theories -.418 .628 .239
D7 Computerization of inventory management .431 -.141 .679
with the practices of effective financial management on ‘Inventory
Management Practices’ in response to profitability, which indicate in the
matrix form. Out of seven factors (D1….D7), only three factors have been
extracted those have more significant positive value in the columns of
components. Although the linear correlation between the components have
been measured the related component value, which are higher, but it has been
measured the component scores to check for outliers and nonlinear
associations between the components. Here, it is concluded that the three
significant factors have been identified as: Frequency of reviewing inventory
level (D2), Reasonableness of inventory turnover (D3) and Computerization
of inventory management (D7). So in the study of Inventory Management
Practices strategy of financial management, these above said four factors are
most significant to justify the better profitability of the business.
Table 4.50 - Rotated Component Matrix on Inventory Management Practices
Component
1 2 3
D1 Frequency of reviewing inventory turnover -.120 .180 .777
D2 Frequency of reviewing inventory level -.776 -.019 -.158
D3 Reasonableness of inventory turnover -.037 .711 -.242
D4 Reasonableness of inventory level .662 -.216 .039
D5 Usefulness of inventory budget in providing information .648 .096 -.255
for making decisions
D6 Utilizing inventory management theories .129 -.285 .726
D7 Computerization of inventory management -.028 .798 .172
Here (table 4.50), it is interpreted that the unrotated factor matrix

showing three factor variables, i.e. Reasonableness of inventory level (D4),
Usefulness of inventory budget in providing information for making
decisions (D5) and Utilizing inventory management theories (D6) are seem
significant to the cause ‘Inventory Management’. It is proved that these three

variables having a positive impact on ‘Inventory Mangement’ and rest 4
factors indicate a less significant so that business houses have to try their best
for effective financial management in order to ensure better profitability.
Table 4.51 - Component Transformation Matrix on Inventory Management
Practices
Component 1 2 3
1 -.802 .558 -.213
2 -.469 -.367 .803
3 .370 .744 .556

indicate a positive impact of ‘Inventory Management’ on the profitability of
the business as the main diagonal indicate above 0.9 values. The relationship
between the two variables is stronger to satisfy the strategy Inventory
Management Practices.
E. FIXED-ASSET MANAGEMENT:
Table 4.52 - KMO and Bartlett's Test on Fixed Asset Management

Sampling Adequacy.
df 21
Sig. .000
Fixed Asset Management for structure detection. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
input variables on effective financial management.
Table 4.53 - Communalities on Fixed Asset Management

Initial Extraction
E1 Attitude of owner/manager to fixed-asset management 1.000 .554
practices
E2 Attitude of owner/manager to assessing capital project before 1.000 .746
making investment decisions
E3 Frequency of using capital budgeting techniques before 1.000 .585
making investment decision
E4 Reasonability of capital budgeting used 1.000 .787
E5 Payback period, discounted payback period, net present 1.000 .846
value, internal rate of return or modified internal rate of
return of capital are effectively managed
E6 Budgeting techniques used 1.000 .767
E7 Reasonability of utilizing fixed assets acquired 1.000 .666
Table 4.53 indicates the impact assessment of Fixed-Asset
Management for the effective management of finance on the profitability of
the concern which has been measured in factor analysis. Seven major factors
have been incorporated for this analysis and the initial value for all the factor
Table 4.54 - Total Variance Explained on Fixed Asset Management

Initial
1 25.181 1.763 25.181 25.181
2 44.274 1.337 19.093 44.274
3 59.285 1.051 15.011 59.285
Table 4.54 corroborates the results of Fixed Asset Management
adopted for effective financial management of the business for better
profitability where the total variance of individual factors (7) as well the
extraction value of sum of squares loading value. Three factors have been
found in the initial Eigen value, which looks positive and above 1.0 value.
The similar results are also found in extraction value of Sums of Squared
Loadings for those four factors, which are most significant among the
selected factors in the initial Eigen value. So, from that it is concluded that in
measuring through principal component analysis only three identified and
significant factors is implication of business strategy. Only 59 percent of
data seems to be valid in total cumulative variances and rest 41 percent
indicate a loss of data in the factor analysis and can be analyzed in the
following tables.
Table 4.55 - Total Variance (Rotated) Explained on Fixed Asset Management
1 1.695 24.216 24.216
2 1.262 18.034 42.250
3 1.192 17.035 59.285
Table 4.55 shows the rotated total variances in Fixed Asset

Management Practices adopted for proper management of finance ensuring
better profitability results revealed same as unrotated values of total
variances for three variables and only 59 percent of data seems to be valid in
total rotated cumulative variances.

Table 4.56 - Component Matrix on Fixed-Asset Management
Component
1 2 3
E1 Attitude of owner/manager to fixed-asset management .061 .625 -.399
practices
E2 Attitude of owner/manager to assessing capital project .339 .338 .343
before making investment decisions
E3 Frequency of using capital budgeting techniques before .764 -.026 .011
E4 Reasonability of capital budgeting used -.723 .414 .303
E5 Payback period, discounted payback period, net present -.663 .072 .025
return)of capital are effectively managed
E6 Budgeting techniques used .308 .630 .524
E7 Reasonability of utilizing fixed assets acquired -.041 -.508 .637
with the practices of financial management in response to ‘Fixed Asset
Management’, which indicate in the matrix form. Out of seven factors
(E1….E7), only three factors have been extracted those have more
components. Here, it is concluded that the three significant factors have been
identified as: Attitude of owner/manager to assessing capital project before
making investment decisions (E2), Frequency of using capital budgeting
techniques before making investment decision (E3) and Budgeting
techniques used (E6). Therefore, in the study of Fixed Asset Management
strategy of financial management, these above said three factors are most
significant to justify the better profitability of the business.
Table 4.57 - Rotated Component Matrix on Fixed-Asset Management

Practices
Component
1 2 3
E1 Attitude of owner/manager to fixed-asset management .038 .164 .725
practices
E2 Attitude of owner/manager to assessing capital project -.147 .570 .010
before making investment decisions
E3 Frequency of using capital budgeting techniques before -.719 .261 .015
E4 Reasonability of capital budgeting used .859 .218 .035
E5 Payback period, discounted payback period, net present .645 -.171 -.002
return of capital are effectively managed
E6 Budgeting techniques used .005 .872 .083
E7 Reasonability of utilizing fixed assets acquired .028 .079 -.812
showing three factor variables, i.e. Frequency of using capital budgeting
techniques before making investment decision (E3), Reasonability of capital
budgeting used (E4) and Payback period, discounted payback period, net
present value, internal rate of return or modified internal rate of return of
capital are effectively managed (E5) are seem significant to the cause ‘Fixed
Asset Management’. It is proved that these three variables having a positive
impact on ‘Fixed-Asset Management’ and rest 4 factors indicate a less
significant so that business houses have to try their best for effective financial
management in order to ensure better profitability.
Table 4.58 - Component Transformation Matrix on Fixed Asset Management

Component 1 2 3
1 -.934 .354 .053
2 .288 .655 .699
3 .213 .668 -.713
indicate a positive impact of “Fixed-Asset Management Practices” on the
profitability of the business as the main diagonal indicate above 0.9 values.
The relationship between the two variables is stronger to satisfy the Strategy
Fixed-Asset Management Practices.
F. FINANCIAL PLANNING
Table 4.59 - KMO and Bartlett's Test on Financial Planning
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of .599
Sampling Adequacy.
df 28
Sig. .000
Financial Planning for structure detection. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure
of Adequacy indicates that the proportion of variance in variables of
employee alignment that might be caused by underlying eight factors.
input variables.
Table 4.60 - Communalities on Financial Planning

Initial Extraction
F1 Attitude of owner/manager to financial planning in case of 1.000 0.671
loan and cash management
F2 Frequency of preparing master budgets 1.000 0.731
F3 Involvement of owner/manager in preparing master budgets 1.000 0.655
F4 Involvement of owner/manager in interpreting and using 1.000 0.677
master budgets
F5 Usefulness of master budgets in providing information for 1.000 0.612
making decisions
F6 Frequency of comparing budgeted and actual results 1.000 0.936
F7 Reasonability of financial planning techniques applied in 1.000 0.717
financial analysis
F8 Successful Computerization of financial planning. 1.000 0.838
Table 4.60 indicates the impact assessment of ‘Financial Planning’ for

the effective management of finance on the profitability of the concern which
has been measured in factor analysis. Eight major factors have been
Table 4.61- Total Variance Explained on Financial Planning
Initial
1 29.426 2.354 29.426 29.426
2 47.177 1.420 17.750 47.177
3 60.477 1.064 13.300 60.477
Table 4.61 corroborates the results of Financial Planning in effective

financial management of the business for better profitability where the total
variance of individual factors (8) as well the extraction value of sum of
squares loading value. Three factors have been found in the initial Eigen
value, which looks positive and above 1.0 value. The similar results are also
found in extraction value of Sums of Squared Loadings for those four
factors, which are most significant among the selected factors in the initial
Eigen value. So, from that it is concluded that in measuring through principal
component analysis only three identified and significant factors is
implication of business strategy. Only 60 percent of data seems to be valid in
total cumulative variances and rest 40 percent indicate a loss of data in the
factor analysis and can be analyzed in the following tables.
Table 4.62 - Total Variance (Rotated) Explained on Financial Planning
Practices
1 2.203 27.542 27.542
2 1.486 18.580 46.123
3 1.148 14.354 60.477
Table 4.62 shows the rotated total variances in Financial Planning in

proper management of finance for better profitability of results revealed
same as unrotated values of total variances for three variables and only 60
percent of data seems to be valid in total rotated cumulative variances.
Table 4.63 - Component Matrix on Financial Planning
Component
1 2 3
F1 Attitude of owner/manager to financial planning in case of -.666 .318 .355
F2 Frequency of preparing master budgets -.836 .058 .168
F3 Involvement of owner/manager in preparing master budgets .711 .310 .231
F4 Involvement of owner/manager in interpreting and using -.175 .668 .026
master budgets
F5 Usefulness of master budgets in providing information for .281 -.284 .673

making decisions
F6 Frequency of comparing budgeted and actual results -.144 -.485 .530
F7 Reasonability of financial planning techniques applied in .739 .359 .207
financial analysis
F8 Successful Computerization of financial planning. .170 -.574 -.283
with the practices of financial management in response to ‘Financial
Planning,’ which indicate in the matrix form. Out of eight factors (F1….F8),
only three factors have been extracted those have more significant positive
value in the columns of components. Although the linear correlation between
the components have been measured the related component value, which are
higher, but it has been measured the component scores to check for outliers
and nonlinear associations between the components. Here, it is concluded
that the three significant factors have been identified as: Involvement of
owner/manager in preparing master budgets (F3), Usefulness of master
budgets in providing information for making decisions (F5) and
Reasonability of financial planning techniques applied in financial analysis
(F7). So in the study of Financial Planning strategy of financial management,
these above said three factors are most significant to justify the better
profitability of the business.
Table 4.64 - Rotated Component Matrix on Financial Planning Practices
Component
1 2 3
F1 Attitude of owner/manager to financial planning in case of -.443 .674 .144
F2 Frequency of preparing master budgets -.722 .446 .104
F3 Involvement of owner/manager in preparing master .803 .079 .064
budgets
F4 Involvement of owner/manager in interpreting and using .074 .615 -.305
master budgets
F5 Usefulness of master budgets in providing information for .278 -.032 .731
making decisions
F6 Frequency of comparing budgeted and actual results -.209 -.093 .696
F7 Reasonability of financial planning techniques applied in .841 .096 .019
financial analysis
F8 Successful Computerization of financial planning. -.091 -.655 .034


showing three factor variables, i.e. Involvement of owner/manager in
preparing master budgets (F3), Usefulness of master budgets in providing
information for making decisions (F5) and Reasonability of financial
planning techniques applied in financial analysis (F7) are seem significant to
the cause ‘Financial Planning’. It is proved that these three variables having a
positive impact on ‘Financial Planning’ and rest 5 factors indicate a less
significant so that business houses have to try their best for effective financial
management in order to ensure better profitability.
Table 4.65 - Component Transformation Matrix on Financial Planning
Practices
Component 1 2 3
1 .922 -.387 .017
2 .346 .803 -.486
3 .174 .454 .874

indicate a positive impact of ‘Financial Planning’ on the profitability of the
business as the main diagonal indicate above 0.9 values. The relationship
between the two variables is stronger to satisfy the strategy Financial
Planning Practices.
PART-III
TEST OF ANOVA
In financial management practices, differences arise in different

responses and these are measured by Anova to interprete the movements.
This analysis can provide valuable insight into the practices of financial
management under various conditions. From factor analysis, the significant

factors have been included in this part, to see the difference across type of
business i.e. proprietary, partnership, company and family business, gender
of respondents i.e. male and female, age of respondents i.e. 18-28 years,
29-38 years, 39-49 years, more than 50 years, among the entrepreneurs.
Therefore, a total of 20 factors have been included out of six major factors
from factor analysis. So both descriptive and one way anova have been
presented for each significant question derived from factor analysis.
1. PERCEPTION ON OWNERSHIP TYPE DIFFERENCES
A: MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS AND
FINANCE
Table 4.66 - Descriptive statistics (A3)

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
A3 Proprietary 201 1.4129 .50362 .03552
Accounting Partnership 6 1.6667 .51640 .21082
information in
decision-making company type 4 2.0000 .00000 .00000
always Family business 18 1.7222 .66911 .15771
Total 229 1.4541 .52469 .03467
The descriptive table 4.66 indicated mean, standard deviation and

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (A3) for each separate
group (Proprietary, Partnership, Company type and Family Business type),
as well as when all groups are combined (Total). These figures indicated less
than combined average in all individual groups and reported positive.
Table 4.67 - ANOVA (A3)

Accounting
information in
decision-making Sum of
always Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
A3 Between Groups 3.098 3 1.033 3.894 .010
Within Groups 59.671 225 .265
Total 62.769 228
This is the table 4.67 that shows the output of the ANOVA analysis
and whether there is a statistically significant difference between group
means. It is marked that, here the significance value is 0.010 (i.e., p = .010),
which is below 0.05 and, therefore, there is a statistically significant
difference in the mean of A3 (Accounting information in decision-making
always) among the group of proprietary business.

A4 Proprietary 201 1.5274 .68593 .04838
Computerization Partnership 6 1.3333 .51640 .21082
of accounting
information is company type 4 1.5000 .57735 .28868
always used Family business 18 1.6111 .77754 .18327
Total 229 1.5284 .68526 .04528

than combined average in all individual groups and reported strongly
positive.
Computerization of accounting Sum of Mean
information is always used Squares df Square F Sig.
A4 Between .355 3 .118 .249 .862
Groups
Within 106.711 225 .474
Groups
Total 107.066 228
means of ownership. It is marked that, here the significance value is 0.862
(i.e., p = 0.862), which is higher than 0.05 and, therefore, there is no
difference in the mean of A4 (Computerization of accounting information is
always) used among the group of proprietary business.

A6 Proprietary 201 1.9303 .73152 .05160
Skill to find Partnership 6 1.8333 .75277 .30732
risk and
profit is company type 4 2.2500 1.25831 .62915
high Family business 18 2.3889 .69780 .16447
Total 229 1.9694 .74571 .04928

Skill to find risk and profit Sum of Mean
is high Squares Df Square F Sig.
A6 Between Groups 3.9 3 1.3 2.38 0.04
Within Groups 122.886 225 0.546
Total 126.786 228
difference in the mean of A6 (Skill to find risk and profit is high) among the
group of proprietary business.

A7 Proprietary 201 1.4876 .72876 .05140
Accounting
reports are
perfect and
accurate
Partnership 6 1.0000 .00000 .00000
company type 4 2.5000 .57735 .28868
Family business 18 1.8333 .78591 .18524
Total 229 1.5197 .74091 .04896

Accounting reports are Sum of Mean
perfect and accurate Squares Df Square F Sig.
A7 Between Groups 7.443 3 2.481 4.742 0.003
Within Groups 117.719 225 0.523
Total 125.162 228
which is much below 0.05 and, therefore, there is a statistically significant
difference in the mean of A7: across the group of proprietary business
Conclusion:
It is concluded that, there is a statistically significant difference in the
mean of A3, A6 and A7 across the group of proprietary business except A4.
So the skill in maintaining accounting and finance is differently applied in
different type of business in respect to their ownership and forms of business.
B: CASH MANAGEMENT
Table 4.74 - Descriptive statistics (B2)

Business type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
B2 Proprietary 201 1.2985 .60037 .04235
Owner/manager Partnership 6 1.0000 .00000 .00000
in preparing &
interpreting company type 4 1.7500 .95743 .47871
fine cash Family business 18 1.3333 .68599 .16169
budgets Total 229 1.3013 .60773 .04016

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable of cash management , i.e
( B2 ) for each separate group (Proprietary, Partnership, Company type and
Family Business type), as well as when all groups are combined (Total).
These figures indicated less than combined average in all individual groups
and reported positive on B2, i.e. Owner/manager in preparing & interpreting
fine cash budgets.
Table 4.75 - ANOVA (B2)
Owner/manager in
preparing &
interpreting fine cash Sum of
budgets Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
B2 Between 1.370 3 .457 1.240 .296
Groups
Total 84.210 228
Table 4.75 shows the output of the ANOVA analysis and whether
there is a statistically significant difference between group means. It is
marked that, here the significance value is 0.296 (i.e., p = 0.296), which is
much higher than the standard, i.e. 0.05. So, there is a statistically similarity
in the mean of B2 (Owner/manager in preparing & interpreting fine cash
budgets) across the group of proprietary business.

N Mean Std. Std. Error
Deviation
B3 Proprietary 201 2.0149 .51456 .03629
Cash budgets in Partnership 6 2.0000 .00000 .00000
providing
information for company type 4 2.0000 .81650 .40825
making decisions Family business 18 2.0000 .68599 .16169
is perfectly done Total 229 2.0131 .52549 .03473

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (B3) for each separate

Cash budgets in providing
information for making Sum of Mean
decisions is perfectly done Squares Df Square F Sig.
B3 Between .005 3 .002 .007 .909
Groups
Total 62.961 228
which is much higher than 0.05 and, therefore, there is a statistically
similarity in the mean of B3 (Cash budgets in providing information for
making decisions is perfectly done) among the group of proprietary business.

Deviation
B4 Proprietary 201 1.5572 .68408 .04825
Cash management Partnership 6 1.6667 .81650 .33333
in determining the
target cash company type 4 2.2500 .50000 .25000
balance is always Family business 18 1.4444 .70479 .16612
measured
Total 229 1.5633 .68930 .04555

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (B4) for each separate

Cash management in determining the
target cash balance is always Sum of Mean
measured Squares df Square F Sig.
B4 Between Groups 2.212 3 .737 1.563 .199
Total 108.332 228
which is higher than 0.05 and, therefore, there is a statistically similarity is
marked in the mean of B4 (Cash management in determining the target cash
balance is always measured) across the group of proprietary business.
Conclusion:
It is concluded that, there is a statistically significant difference in the
mean of B3 and B4 across the group of proprietary business except B2. So
the skill in cash management is differently applied in different type of
business in respect to their ownership and forms of business.
C: RECIEVABLE MANAGEMENT
Table 4.80 - Descriptive statistics (C1)

Deviation
C1: Proprietary 201 1.7114 .61345 .04327
Frequent Partnership 6 2.1667 .40825 .16667
reviewing debtors’ company type 4 1.5000 .57735 .28868
credit period is
Family business 18 1.5000 .51450 .12127
remarkably high
Total 229 1.7031 .60628 .04006
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (C1) for each separate
Table 4.81 - ANOVA (C1)

Frequent reviewing
debtors’ credit period Sum of
is remarkably high Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
C1 Between 2.211 3 .737 2.032 .110
Groups
Total 83.808 228
means. It is marked that, here the significance value is 0.110 (i.e., p = 0.110),
which is higher than 0.05. So, there is a statistically similarity in the mean of
C1 (Frequent reviewing debtors’ credit period is remarkably high) among
the group of proprietary business.

C2: Proprietary 201 1.8955 .49399 .03484
Frequency Partnership 6 2.0000 .00000 .00000
of
reviewing company type 4 1.7500 .50000 .25000
debtors’ Family business 18 1.9444 .63914 .15065
discount Total 229 1.8996 .49864 .03295
policy

than combined average in all individual groups and reported positive on
Frequency of reviewing debtors’ discount policy.

Frequency of
reviewing debtors Sum of
discount policy Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
C2 Between .190 3 .063 .252 .860
Groups
Total 56.690 228
similarity in the mean of C2 (Frequency of reviewing debtors’ discount policy)
across the group of business.

C4 Proprietary 201 1.8010 .45847 .03234
Reasonability Partnership 6 1.6667 .81650 .33333
of bad debts company type 4 1.7500 .50000 .25000
Family business 18 1.8889 .32338 .07622
Total 229 1.8035 .45958 .03037
Reasonability of bad debts.

Reasonability of bad Sum of Mean
debts Squares Df Square F Sig.
C4 Between Groups .256 3 .085 .401 .752
Total 48.157 228
means. It is marked that, here the significance value is 0.752 (i.e., p =0.752),
which is much higher than 0.05. So, there is marked a strong similarity in the
mean of C4 (Reasonability of bad debts) among the groups.

Deviation
C6: Proprietary 201 1.0498 .31227 .02203
Computerized Partnership 6 1.0000 .00000 .00000
practices in
business company type 4 1.0000 .00000 .00000
Family business 18 1.0000 .00000 .00000
Total 229 1.0437 .29292 .01936

computerized practices in business.

Computerized practices in Sum of Mean
business Squares df Square F Sig.
C6 Between Groups .061 3 .020 .234 .873
Total 19.563 228
which is higher than 0.05. So, it is marked that a strong similarity exists
across the mean on C6 (Computerized practices in your business).
CONCLUSION:
It is concluded that , there is marked a strong similarity in the mean of

C1: Frequent reviewing debtors’ credit period is remarkably high C2:
Frequency of reviewing debtors’ discount policy C4: Reasonability of bad
debts and C6 : Reasonability of bad debts, among the groups.
D: INVENTORY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Table 4.88 - Descriptive statistics (D4)

D4 Proprietary 201 1.2935 .61515 .04339
Reasonableness Partnership 6 1.3333 .81650 .33333
of inventory company type 4 1.2500 .50000 .25000
level
Family business 18 1.2778 .57451 .13541
Total 229 1.2926 .61200 .04044

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (D4) for each separate
Reasonableness of inventory level.
Table 4.89 - ANOVA (D4)

Reasonableness of Sum of Mean
inventory level Squares Df Square F Sig.
D4 Between Groups .021 3 .007 .019 .907
Total 85.397 228
which is much higher than 0.05. So, there is marked a strong similarity in the
mean of D4 (Reasonableness of inventory level) among the group of business
forms.

N Mean Std. Std.
Deviation Error
D5: Proprietary 201 1.3134 0.52561 0.03707
Usefulness of inventory Partnership 6 1.3333 0.5164 0.21082
budget in providing company type 4 1.5 0.57735 0.28868
information for making
decisions Family 18 1.5 0.78591 0.18524
business
Total 229 1.3319 0.54923 0.03629

than combined average in all individual groups and reported positive on D5
(Usefulness of inventory budget in providing information for making
decisions).
Usefulness of inventory
budget in providing
decisions Squares df Square F Sig.
D5 Between Groups 0.69 3 0.23 0.76 0.517
Within Groups 68.087 225 0.303
Total 68.777 228
This is the table 4.91that shows the output of the ANOVA analysis
which is higher than 0.05 and, therefore, there is a statistically significant

difference in the mean of D5 (Usefulness of inventory budget in providing
information for making decisions) among the group of proprietary business

D6: Proprietary 201 1.4428 .98385 .06940
Utilizing Partnership 6 1.3333 .51640 .21082
inventory
management company type 4 2.5000 1.91485 .95743
theories Family business 18 1.5000 .85749 .20211
Total 229 1.4629 .98883 .06534
than combined average in all individual groups and reported positive on D6
(Utilizing inventory management theories).

Utilizing inventory
management theories Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
D6 Between 4.509 3 1.503 1.548 .203
Groups
Total 222.934 228
which is higher than 0.05 and, it is a statistically similarity in the mean of D6
(Utilizing inventory management theories) among the group business forms.
CONCLUSION:
It is concluded that D4: Reasonableness of inventory level, D5 :
Usefulness of inventory budget in providing information for making

decisions and D6 : Utilizing inventory management theories are the most
significant factor on which there is no difference of opinion across business
forms in respect to Inventory management practice .
E: FIXED-ASSET MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Table 4.94 - Descriptive statistics (E3)
Deviation
E3: Proprietary 201 1.6915 .64372 .04540
Frequency of using Partnership 6 1.6667 .51640 .21082
capital budgeting
techniques before company type 4 1.7500 .95743 .47871
making investment Family business 18 2.0556 .72536 .17097
decision Total 229 1.7205 .65599 .04335

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (E3) for each separate
E3(Frequency of using capital budgeting techniques before making
investment decision).
Table 4.95 - ANOVA (E3)
Frequency of using capital
budgeting techniques
before making investment
decision Sum of Mean
Squares Df Square F Sig.
E3 Between Groups 2.210 3 .737 1.728 .162
Total 98.114 228
means. It is marked that, here the significance value is 0.162(i.e., p = .162),
which is higher than 0.05 and, it is a statistically similarity in the mean of E3
(Frequency of using capital budgeting techniques before making investment
decision) across the group business forms.

E4: Proprietary 201 1.6965 .46091 .03251
Reasonability Partnership 6 2.0000 .00000 .00000
of capital
budgeting company type 4 1.5000 .57735 .28868
used Family business 18 1.5000 .51450 .12127
Total 229 1.6856 .46530 .03075
group (Proprietary, Partnership, Company type and Family Business type ),
than combined average in all individual groups and reported positive on E4
(Reasonability of capital budgeting used).
Reasonability of capital Sum of Mean
budgeting used Squares Df Square F Sig.
E4 Between Groups 1.375 3 .458 2.149 .095
Total 49.362 228
means. It is marked that, here the significance value is 0.095 i.e., p = .095),
which is higher than 0.05 and, it is a statistically similarity in the mean of E4
(Reasonability of capital budgeting used) across the group business forms.

Deviation
E5: Proprietary 201 1.9353 .50080 .03532
Payback period, Partnership 6 2.1667 .40825 .16667
discounted payback
period, net present company type 4 2.0000 .00000 .00000
Family business 18 2.0000 .34300 .08085
value, internal rate Total 229 1.9476 .48382 .03197

of return or
modified internal
rate of return) of
capital are
effectively
managed

than combined average in all individual groups and reported positive on E5
[Payback period, discounted payback period, net present value, internal rate
of return or modified internal rate of return) of capital are effectively
managed].

Payback period, discounted
payback period, net present
value, internal rate of return
or modified internal rate of
return) of capital are Sum of Mean
effectively managed Squares Df Square F Sig.
E5 Between Groups .379 3 .126 .536 .658
Total 53.371 228
means. It is marked that, here the significance value is 0.658 i.e., p = .658),
which is higher than 0.05 and, it is a statistically similarity in the mean of
E5 [Payback period, discounted payback period, net present value, internal
rate of return or modified internal rate of return) of capital are effectively
managed] across the group business forms.
CONCLUSION:
It is concluded that, there is a statistically similarity in the mean of
E3: Frequency of using capital budgeting techniques before making

investment decision, E4: Reasonability of capital budgeting used and E5:
Payback period, discounted payback period, net present value, internal rate
of return or modified internal rate of return of capital are effectively
managed Reasonability of capital budgeting used across the group business
forms.
F: FINANCIAL PLANNING PRACTICES
Table 4.100 - Descriptive statistics (F3)

Deviation
F3: Involvement Proprietary 201 1.8856 .54022 .03810
of Partnership 6 2.0000 .89443 .36515
owner/manager in
company type 4 2.0000 .00000 .00000
preparing master
budgets Family business 18 1.7778 .42779 .10083
Total 229 1.8821 .53728 .03550
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (F3) for each separate
than combined average in all individual groups and reported positive on F3
(Involvement of owner/manager in preparing master budgets) are effectively
managed.
Table 4.101 - ANOVA (F3)
Involvement of
owner/manager in
preparing master Sum of
budgets Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
F3 Between .337 3 .112 .386 .763
Groups
Total 65.817 228
similarity in the mean of F3 (Involvement of owner/manager in preparing

master budgets) are effectively managed.
F5: Proprietary 201 3.3085 .73101 .05156
Usefulness Partnership 6 3.1667 .40825 .16667
of master
budgets in company type 4 3.0000 .81650 .40825
providing Family business 18 3.1667 .61835 .14575
information Total 229 3.2882 .71628 .04733
for making
decisions
as well as when all groups are combined (Total). These figures indicated
more than combined average in all individual groups and reported somehow
negative on F5 (Usefulness of master budgets in providing information for
making decisions).

Usefulness of master
budgets in providing
decisions Squares Df Square F Sig.
F5 Between .769 3 .256 .496 .685
Groups
Total 116.978 228
which is much higher than 0.05 and, therefore, there is a similarity in the
mean of F5 (Usefulness of master budgets in providing information for
making decisions) among the group of proprietary business

Deviation
F7: Proprietary 201 2.6617 .94073 .06635
Reasonability of Partnership 6 2.5000 1.51658 .61914
financial planning
techniques applied company type 4 3.0000 .00000 .00000
in financial Family business 18 2.8333 .38348 .09039
analysis Total 229 2.6769 .91787 .06065
than combined average in all individual groups and reported positive on F7
(Reasonability of financial planning techniques applied in financial analysis)

Reasonability of financial
planning techniques
applied in financial Sum of Mean
analysis Squares Df Square F Sig.
F7 Between 1.092 3 .364 .429 .732
Groups
Total 192.087 228
which is higher than the value of 0.05 and, therefore, there is a similarity in
the mean of F7 (Reasonability of financial planning techniques applied in
financial analysis) among the group of business forms.
CONCLSION:
It is concluded that, there is a similarity observed in the mean of F3:
Involvement of owner/manager in preparing master budgets, F5: Usefulness
of master budgets in providing information for making decisions and F7:
Reasonability of financial planning techniques applied in financial analysis

among the group of business forms.
2. AGE DIFFERENCES:
As per the responses from the entrepreneurs, for differences among
four age groups, descriptive test and Anova has been used. These age groups
used are: 18-28 years, 29-38 years, 39-49 years and more than 50 years. In
each group, 31, 87, 45 and 66 respondents are there respectively. These
factor variables have been find out from the factor variable those are
significantly positively responded by the entrepreneurs.

Std.
N Mean Deviation Std. Error
A3: 18-28 years 31 1.4194 .50161 .09009
Accounting 29-38 years 87 1.5977 .55948 .05998
information in
decision-making 39-49 years 45 1.3556 .48409 .07216
always More than 50 66 1.3485 .48014 .05910
years
Total 229 1.4541 .52469 .03467
group (age in the range of 18-28 years, 29-38 years, 39-49 years and More
than 50 years type), as well as when all groups are combined (Total). These
figures indicated less than combined average in all individual groups and
reported positive.
Accounting information in Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.

decision-making always Squares
A3 Between 3.005 3 1.002 3.771 .010
Groups
Total 62.769 228

means of age. It is marked that, here the significance value is 0.010 (i.e., p =
.010), which is below 0.05 and, therefore, there is a statistically significant
difference in the mean of A3 (Accounting information in decision-making
always) among the group of age between the four age groups , i.e. 18-more
than 50 years.
Table 4.108- Descriptive statistics (A4)
Std.
A4 18-28 years 31 2.0000 .00000 .00000
Computerization 29-38 years 87 1.3563 .62834 .06737
of accounting 39-49 years 45 1.5111 .50553 .07536
information is
More than 50 66 1.5455 .89755 .11048
always used
years
Total 229 1.5284 .68526 .04528

reported positive.
Computerization of
accounting information is
always used
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
A4 Between Groups 9.503 3 3.168 7.306 .001
Total 107.066 228
.001), which is much below 0.05 and, therefore, there is a statistically
significant difference in the mean of A4 (Computerization of accounting

information is always used) among the group of age between 18-more than
50 years
A6 18-28 years 31 1.5806 .50161 .09009
Skill to find 29-38 years 87 1.6667 .60361 .06471
risk and
profit is 39-49 years 45 2.3333 .95346 .14213
high More than 50 years 66 2.3030 .58097 .07151
Total 229 1.9694 .74571 .04928
reported positive.

Skill to find risk and Sum of
profit is high Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
A6 Between Groups 25.965 3 8.655 19.315 .000
Total 126.786 228
difference in the mean of A6 (Skill to find risk and profit is high) among the
group of age between 18-more than 50 years.

A7: 18-28 years 31 2.0000 .89443 .16064
Accounting 29-38 years 87 1.2989 .46041 .04936
reports are 39-49 years 45 1.4444 .84087 .12535
perfect and
More than 50 years 66 1.6364 .77730 .09568
accurate
Total 229 1.5197 .74091 .04896
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (A7), i.e Accounting
reports are perfect and accurate for each separate group (age in the range of
18-28 years,29-38 years,39-49 years and More than 50 years type), as well as
when all groups are combined (Total). These figures indicated less than
combined average in all individual groups and reported positive.

Accounting reports are Sum of
perfect and accurate Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
A7 Between 12.548 3 4.183 8.357 .000
Groups
Total 125.162 228
.000), which is much below than 0.05 and, therefore, there is a statistically
significant difference in the mean of A7 (Accounting reports are perfect and
accurate) among the group of age between 18-more than 50 years
CONCLUSION:
There is marked a statistically significant difference between group
means of age where significance value are much less than 0.05 and
statistically significant different on A3, A4, A6 and A7. So, in all the four
variables the responses among the groups (age0 are marked significantly
different and they respond differently.
B: CASH MANAGEMENT
Std.
B2: 18-28 years 31 1.7742 .99028 .17786
Owner/manager 29-38 years 87 1.1494 .35857 .03844
in preparing & 39-49 years 45 1.4444 .50252 .07491
interpreting
More than 50 66 1.1818 .57937 .07131
fine cash
years
budgets
Total 229 1.3013 .60773 .04016

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (B2: Owner/manager in
preparing & interpreting fine cash budgets) for each separate group (age in
the range of 18-28 years, 29-38 years, 39-49 years and More than 50 years
type), as well as when all groups are combined (Total). These figures
indicated less than combined average in all individual groups and reported
positive.

Owner/manager in
preparing & interpreting Sum of Mean
fine cash budgets Squares df Square F Sig.
B2 Between Groups 10.803 3 3.601 11.038 .000
Total 84.210 228
difference in the mean of B2 (Owner/manager in preparing & interpreting
fine cash budgets) among the group of age between 18-more than 50 years

Std.
B3: 18-28 years 31 2.1613 .45437 .08161
Cash budgets in 29-38 years 87 1.9195 .51078 .05476
providing 39-49 years 45 2.0889 .35817 .05339
information for
making decisions More than 50 years 66 2.0152 .64432 .07931
is perfectly done Total 229 2.0131 .52549 .03473

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable B3 (Cash budgets in
providing information for making decisions is perfectly done) for each
separate group (age in the range of 18-28 years, 29-38 years, 39-49 years and
More than 50 years type ), as well as when all groups are combined (Total).
and reported positive.
Cash budgets in
providing information
for making decisions is
perfectly done Sum of Mean
Squares Df Square F Sig.
B3 Between Groups 1.701 3 .567 2.083 .003
Total 62.961 228
difference in the mean of B3 (Cash budgets in providing information for
making decisions is perfectly done) among the group of age between
18-more than 50 years.

Std.
B4: 18-28 years 31 2.1935 .74919 .13456
Cash 29-38 years 87 1.4483 .50020 .05363
management in
determining the 39-49 years 45 1.4444 .50252 .07491
target cash More than 50 years 66 1.5000 .82741 .10185
balance is always Total 229 1.5633 .68930 .04555
measured
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable B4 (Cash management
in determining the target cash balance is always measured) for each separate
reported positive.
Cash management in
determining the target
cash balance is always Sum of
measured Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
B4 Between 14.365 3 4.788 11.465 .000
Groups
Total 108.332 228
difference in the mean of B4 (Cash management in determining the target
cash balance is always measured) among the group of age between 18-more
than 50 years.
CONCLUSION:
There is a statistically significant difference between group means of
age with the significance value below 0.05 those indicate a statistically
significant difference in the mean of B2, B3 and B4 across tthe group of age
between 18-more than 50 years.
C: RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

C1: 18-28 years 31 1.8065 .40161 .07213
Frequent 29-38 years 87 1.7126 .69730 .07476
reviewing
debtors 39-49 years 45 1.7111 .69486 .10358
credit period More than 50 years 66 1.6364 .48473 .05967
is
remarkably Total 229 1.7031 .60628 .04006
high
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable C1 (Frequent reviewing
debtors credit period is remarkably high) for each separate group (age in the
range of 18-28 years, 29-38 years, 39-49 years and More than 50 years type),
Frequent reviewing debtors
credit period is remarkably Sum of Mean
high Squares df Square F Sig.
C1: Between Groups .636 3 .212 .573 .633
Total 83.808 228
.633), which is higher than 0.05 and, therefore, there is a similarity in the
mean responses of C1 (Frequent reviewing debtors credit period is
remarkably high) among the group of age between 18-more than 50 years is
revealed.

Std.
C2: 18-28 years 31 1.9677 .17961 .03226
Frequency of 29-38 years 87 1.7931 .40743 .04368
reviewing debtors’ 39-49 years 45 1.6444 .48409 .07216
discount policy)
More than 50 years 66 2.1818 .57937 .07131
Total 229 1.8996 .49864 .03295

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable C2 (Frequency of
reviewing debtors’ discount policy) for each separate group (age in the range
of 18-28 years, 29-38 years, 39-49 years and More than 50 years type), as
well as when all groups are combined (Total). These figures indicated less
Frequency of reviewing
debtors’ discount Sum of Mean
policy) Squares df Square F Sig.
C2 Between Groups 9.317 3 3.106 14.751 .000
Total 56.690 228
.000), which is much below 0.05. So, there is a statistically significant
difference in the mean of C2 (Frequency of reviewing debtors’ discount
policy) among the group of age between 18-more than 50 years.

C4: 18-28 years 31 1.6129 .49514 .08893
Reasonability 29-38 years 87 1.9195 .46301 .04964
of bad debts
39-49 years 45 1.8889 .31782 .04738
More than 50 years 66 1.6818 .46934 .05777
Total 229 1.8035 .45958 .03037

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable C4 (Reasonability of
bad debts) for each separate group (age in the range of 18-28 years, 29-38
years, 39-49 years and More than 50 years type), as well as when all groups
are combined (Total). These figures indicated less than combined average in
all individual groups and reported positive.
Reasonability of bad Sum of Mean
debts Squares df Square F Sig.
C4 Between Groups 3.603 3 1.201 6.065 .001
Total 48.157 228
This is the table 4.125 that shows the output of the ANOVA analysis and
whether there is a statistically significant difference between group means of
age. It is marked that, here the significance value is 0.001 (i.e., p = .001),
difference in the mean of C4 (Reasonability of bad debts) among the group of
age between 18-more than 50 years

C6: 18-28 years 31 1.0000 .00000 .00000
Computerized 29-38 years 87 1.1149 .46818 .05019
practices in
39-49 years 45 1.0000 .00000 .00000
your business
More than 50 years 66 1.0000 .00000 .00000
Total 229 1.0437 .29292 .01936

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable C6 (Computerized
practices in your business) for each separate group (age in the range of 18-28
years, 29-38 years, 39-49 years and More than 50 years type), as well as

Computerized practices in Sum of Mean
your business Squares df Square F Sig.
C6 Between Groups .713 3 .238 2.836 .039
Total 19.563 228
means of age. It is marked that, here the significance value is 0.039(i.e., p =
difference in the mean of C6 (Computerized practices in your business)
among the group of age between 18-more than 50 years.
CONCLUSION :
There is marked a significant difference between group means of age.
Here the significance values are below 0.05 and, therefore, there is a
statistically significant difference in the mean of C2, C4 and C6 among the

D4: 18-28 years 31 1.4516 .85005 .15267
Reasonableness 29-38 years 87 1.0690 .25486 .02732
of inventory
level 39-49 years 45 1.3333 .47673 .07107
More than 50 years 66 1.4848 .78920 .09714
Total 229 1.2926 .61200 .04044
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable D4 (Reasonableness of
inventory level) for each separate group (age in the range of 18-28 years,
29-38 years, 39-49 years and More than 50 years type), as well as when all
groups are combined (Total). These figures indicated less than combined
average in all individual groups and reported positive.

Reasonableness of Sum of Mean
inventory level Squares df Square F Sig.
D4 Between Groups 7.649 3 2.550 7.379 .000
Total 85.397 228
difference in the mean of D4 (Reasonableness of inventory level) among the

Std.
D5: 18-28 years 31 1.4194 .50161 .09009
Usefulness of 29-38 years 87 1.2874 .45515 .04880
inventory
budget in 39-49 years 45 1.4444 .50252 .07491
providing More than 50 years 66 1.2727 .69161 .08513
information for Total 229 1.3319 .54923 .03629
making
decisions

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable D5 (Usefulness of
inventory budget in providing information for making decisions) for each
More than 50 years type), as well as when all groups are combined (Total).

Usefulness of inventory
budget in providing
information for making Sum of
decisions Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
D5 Between Groups 1.211 3 .404 1.344 .261
Total 68.777 228
.261), which is higher than 0.05. So, there is a statistically similarity is
marked in the mean of D5 (Usefulness of inventory budget in providing
information for making decisions) among the group of age between 18-more
than 50 years.
D6: 18-28 years 31 1.4194 .50161 .09009
Utilizing 29-38 years 87 1.3103 .95613 .10251
inventory
management 39-49 years 45 1.4889 .86923 .12958
theories More than 50 years 66 1.6667 1.23205 .15165
Total 229 1.4629 .98883 .06534
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable D6 (Utilizing inventory
management theories) for each separate group (age in the range of 18-28
Utilizing inventory Sum of Mean
management theories Squares df Square F Sig.
D6 Between Groups 4.854 3 1.618 1.669 .174
Total 222.934 228
.174, which is higher than 0.05. So, there is a statistically similarity in the
mean of D6 (Utilizing inventory management theories) among the group of
age between 18-more than 50 years.
CONCLUSION:
It is concluded that, there is a statistically significant difference
between group means of age is marked where significance value is below
0.05 and, here it is on D4 (Reasonableness of inventory level) among the
group of age between 18-more than 50 years except D5 and D6.

E3: 18-28 years 31 1.7742 .42502 .07634
Frequency of 29-38 years 87 1.4023 .49320 .05288
using capital 39-49 years 45 2.2667 .80904 .12060
budgeting
techniques before More than 50 years 66 1.7424 .56325 .06933
making Total 229 1.7205 .65599 .04335
investment
decision

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable E3 (Frequency of using
capital budgeting techniques before making investment decision) for each
separate group (age in the range of 18-28 years ,29-38 years ,39-49 years and

Frequency of using
capital budgeting
techniques before
making investment Sum of Mean
decision Squares df Square F Sig.
E3 Between Groups 22.353 3 7.451 22.129 .000
Total 98.114 228
difference in the mean of E3 (Frequency of using capital budgeting
techniques before making investment decision) among the group of age
between 18-more than 50 years.

E4: 18-28 years 31 2.0000 .00000 .00000
Reasonability 29-38 years 87 1.6782 .46989 .05038
of capital
budgeting 39-49 years 45 1.5111 .50553 .07536
used More than 50 years 66 1.6667 .47502 .05847
Total 229 1.6856 .46530 .03075

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable E4(Reasonability of
capital budgeting used) for each separate group (age in the range of 18-28

Reasonability of capital Sum of Mean
budgeting used Squares df Square F Sig.
E4 Between Groups 4.463 3 1.488 7.455 .000
Total 49.362 228
difference in the mean of E4 (Reasonability of capital budgeting used),

E5 18-28 years 31 2.0323 .65746 .11808
Payback period,
discounted
29-38 years 87 1.9425 .46646 .05001
payback period, 39-49 years 45 1.8889 .31782 .04738
net present value,
internal rate of More than 50 66 1.9545 .50935 .06270
return or modified years
internal rate of Total 229 1.9476 .48382 .03197
return) of capital
are effectively
managed
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable E5 (Payback period,
discounted payback period, net present value, internal rate of return or
modified internal rate of return of capital are effectively managed) for each

Payback period, discounted
payback period, net present
value, internal rate of return or
modified internal rate of return)
of capital are effectively Sum of Mean
managed Squares df Square F Sig.
E5 Between Groups .383 3 .128 .542 .654
Total 53.371 228
.0.654), which is much higher than 0.05. So, there is marked a similarity in
the mean of E5 (Payback period, discounted payback period, net present
value, internal rate of return or modified internal rate of return of capital are
effectively managed), across the group of age between 18-more than 50
years.
CONCLUSION:
Among the three significant factors , only in the mean of E5(Payback
period, discounted payback period, net present value, internal rate of return
or modified internal rate of return of capital are effectively managed)
indicate similarity across the group of age between 18-more than 50 years.
F: FINANCIAL PLANNING PRACTICES

Std.
F3: 18-28 years 31 1.5806 .50161 .09009
Involvement of 29-38 years 87 2.0000 .57060 .06117
owner/manager in 39-49 years 45 2.1556 .36653 .05464
preparing master
More than 50 years 66 1.6818 .46934 .05777
budgets
Total 229 1.8821 .53728 .03550

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable F3 (Involvement of
owner/manager in preparing master budgets) for each separate group (age in
the range of 18-28 years ,29-38 years, 39-49 years and More than 50 years
positive.
Involvement of owner/manager Sum of Mean
in preparing master budgets Squares df Square F Sig.
F3 Between Groups 10.039 3 3.346 13.499 0.00
Within Groups 55.778 225 0.248
Total 65.817 228
difference in the mean of F3 (Involvement of owner/manager in preparing
master budgets) among the group of age between 18-more than 50 years.

F5: 18-28 years 31 3.1935 .40161 .07213
Usefulness of 29-38 years 87 3.2184 .72216 .07742
master budgets 39-49 years 45 3.6222 .86047 .12827
in providing
information for More than 50 years 66 3.1970 .66146 .08142
making Total 229 3.2882 .71628 .04733
decisions

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable F5 (Usefulness of
master budgets in providing information for making decisions) for each
Usefulness of master
budgets in providing
decisions Squares df Square F Sig.
F5 Between 6.272 3 2.091 4.249 .006
Groups
Within 110.706 225 .492
Groups
Total 116.978 228
difference in the mean of F5 (Usefulness of master budgets in providing
information for making decisions), among the group of age between 18-more
than 50 years.
F7: 18-28 years 31 2.1613 1.00322 .18018
Reasonability 29-38 years 87 2.6437 1.01130 .10842
of financial 39-49 years 45 3.2667 .68755 .10249
planning
techniques More than 50 years 66 2.5606 .65934 .08116
applied in Total 229 2.6769 .91787 .06065
financial
analysis
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable F7 (Reasonability of
financial planning techniques applied in financial analysis) for each separate
reported positive.
Reasonability of financial
planning techniques
applied in financial Sum of Mean
analysis Squares df Square F Sig.
F7 Between Groups 24.882 3 8.294 11.161 0.00
Within Groups 167.205 225 0.743
Total 192.087 228
difference in the mean of F7 (Reasonability of financial planning techniques
applied in financial analysis), among the group of age between 18-more than
50 years.
CONCLUSION:
age as the significance values are below than 0.05 and, therefore, there is a
statistically significant differences marked in the mean of F3, F5 and F7
3. GENDER DIFFERENCES
A3: Male 210 1.4333 .50626 .03494
Accounting Female 19 1.6842 .67104 .15395
information in Total 229 1.4541 .52469 .03467
decision-making
always
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable A3 (Accounting
information in decision-making always) for each separate group (gender,
Male and Female type), as well as when all groups are combined (Total).
Accounting information Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
in decision-making Squares
always
A3 Between Groups 1.097 1 1.097 4.036 .036
Total 62.769 228
means of gender (male and female). It is marked that, here the significance
value is 0.036 (i.e., p = .036), which is below 0.05 and, therefore, there is a
statistically significant difference in the mean of A3 (Accounting
information in decision-making always) among the group of sex between
male and female.

A4: Male 210 1.5333 .68569 .04732
Computerization Female 19 1.4737 .69669 .15983
of accounting Total 229 1.5284 .68526 .04528
information is
always used
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable A4 (Computerization of
accounting information is always used) for each separate group (gender,
Computerization of Sum of df Mean F Sig.

accounting information Squares Square
is always used
A4 Between .062 1 .062 .132 .717
Groups
Total 107.066 228
value is 0.010 (i.e., p = .717), which is higher than 0.05 and, therefore, there
is a similarity in the mean of A4 (Computerization of accounting information
is always used), among the group of sex between male and female.
A6 Male 210 1.9857 .76075 .05250
Skill to find Female 19 1.7895 .53530 .12281
risk and Total 229 1.9694 .74571 .04928
profit is
high
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (A6: Skill to find risk
and profit is high, for each separate group (gender, Male and Female type), as
Skill to find risk and Sum of df Mean F Sig.
profit is high Squares Square
A6 Between .062 1 .062 .132 .003
Groups
Total 107.066 228
statistically significant difference in the mean of A6 (Skill to find risk and
profit is high), among the group of sex between male and female.
A7: Male 210 1.5238 .75261 .05193
Accounting Female 19 1.4737 .61178 .14035
reports are Total 229 1.5197 .74091 .04896
perfect and
accurate
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable A7 (Accounting reports
are perfect and accurate) for each separate group (gender, Male and Female
positive.
Accounting reports are Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
perfect and accurate Squares
A7 Between Groups .044 1 .044 .079 .778
Total 125.162 228
is a statistically similarity in the mean of A7 (Accounting reports are perfect
and accurate), among the group of sex between male and female.
CONCLUSION:
gender (male and female). It is marked that, here the significance value is
lower than 0.05 and, therefore, there is a statistically differences in the mean
of A3 and A6 among the group of sex between male and female.
B: CASH MANAGEMENT

Std.
B2: Male 210 1.3190 .62494 .04312
Owner/manager in Female 19 1.1053 .31530 .07234
preparing & Total 229 1.3013 .60773 .04016
interpreting fine cash
budgets

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable B2 (Owner/manager in
preparing & interpreting fine cash budgets) for each separate group (gender,
Owner/manager in Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
preparing & interpreting Squares
fine cash budgets
B2 Between Groups .796 1 .796 2.167 .010
Total 84.210 228
statistically difference across the groups on the mean of B2 (Owner/manager
in preparing & interpreting fine cash budgets,) between male and female.

B3 Male 210 2.0429 .52046 .03592
Cash budgets in Female 19 1.6842 .47757 .10956
providing Total 229 2.0131 .52549 .03473
information for
making
decisions is
perfectly done

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable B3 (Cash budgets in
providing information for making decisions is perfectly done) for each
separate group (gender, Male and Female type ), as well as when all groups
Cash budgets in Sum of df Mean F Sig.
providing information Squares Square
for making decisions is
perfectly done
B3 Between 2.241 1 2.241 8.379 .004
Groups
Total 62.961 228
statistically significant difference in the mean of B3 (Cash budgets in
providing information for making decisions is perfectly done), among the
group of sex between male and female.

B4 Male 210 1.5762 .70297 .04851
Cash Female 19 1.4211 .50726 .11637
management in Total 229 1.5633 .68930 .04555
determining the
target cash
balance is always
measured
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable B4 (Cash management
in determining the target cash balance is always measured) for each separate
group (gender, Male and Female type), as well as when all groups are
combined (Total). These figures indicated less than combined average in all
individual groups and reported positive.

Cash management in Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
determining the target Squares
cash balance is always
measured
B4 Between Groups .419 1 .419 .882 .349
Total 108.332 228
value is 0.349 (i.e., p = 0.349), which is higher than 0.05. So, there is a
statistically similarity in the mean of B4 (Cash management in determining
the target cash balance is always measured), among the group of sex between
male and female.
CONCLSUION:
It is marked that, there is a statistically similarity in the mean of B4:
Cash management in determining the target cash balance is always
measured, among the group of sex between male and female.
C: RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

C1: Male 210 1.6952 .60498 .04175
Frequent Female 19 1.7895 .63060 .14467
reviewing Total 229 1.7031 .60628 .04006
debtors’ credit
period is
remarkably
high
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable C1 (Frequent reviewing
debtors’ credit period is remarkably high) for each separate group (gender,

Frequent reviewing Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
debtors’ credit period is Squares
remarkably high
C1 Between Groups .155 1 .155 .420 .518
Total 83.808 228
is a similarity in the mean of C1 (Frequent reviewing debtors’ credit period is
remarkably high), among the group of sex between male and female.

C2 Male 210 1.9095 .49534 .03418
Frequency Female 19 1.7895 .53530 .12281
of reviewing Total 229 1.8996 .49864 .03295
debtors’
discount
policy

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable C2 (Frequency of
reviewing debtors’ discount policy) for each separate group (gender, Male
and Female type), as well as when all groups are combined (Total). These
reported positive.
Frequency of reviewing Sum of df Mean F Sig.
debtors’ discount policy Squares Square
C2 Between .251 1 .251 1.010 .316
Groups
Total 56.690 228
value is 0.316 (i.e., p = 0.316), which is higher than 0.05 and, therefore, there
is a similarity in the mean of C2 (Frequency of reviewing debtors’ discount
policy), among the group of sex between male and female.
C4: Male 210 1.7810 .46875 .03235
Reasonability Female 19 2.0526 .22942 .05263
of bad debts Total 229 1.8035 .45958 .03037
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (C4: Reasonability of

bad debts) for each separate group (gender, Male and Female type), as well
as when all groups are combined (Total). These figures indicated less than

Reasonability of bad Sum of df Mean F Sig.
debts Squares Square
C4: Between 1.286 1 1.286 6.228 .013
Groups
Total 48.157 228
statistically significant difference in the mean of C4 (Reasonability of bad
debts) among the group of sex between male and female.
C6: Male 210 1.0476 .30564 .02109
Computerized Female 19 1.0000 .00000 .00000
practices in Total 229 1.0437 .29292 .01936
business
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (C6: Computerized
practices in business) for each separate group (gender, Male and Female
positive.
Computerized practices Sum of df Mean F Sig.
in business Squares Square
C6 Between .040 1 .040 .459 .499
Groups
Total 19.563 228
is a similarity in the mean of C6 (Computerized practices in business),
among the group of sex between male and female.
CONCLUSION:
It is marked that, here the significance value is lower than 0.05 and,
therefore, there is a difference in the mean of C4:, among the group of sex
between male and female.

D4: Male 210 1.3095 .62209 .04293
Reasonableness Female 19 1.1053 .45883 .10526
of inventory Total 229 1.2926 .61200 .04044
level
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable D4 (Reasonableness of
inventory level) for each separate group (gender, Male and Female type), as
Reasonableness of Sum of df Mean F Sig.
inventory level Squares Square
D4 Between .727 1 .727 1.949 .164
Groups
Total 85.397 228
is a similarity in the mean of D4 (Reasonableness of inventory level), among
the group of sex between male and female.
D5 Male 210 1.3095 .52169 .03600
Usefulness of Female 19 1.5789 .76853 .17631
inventory budget Total 229 1.3319 .54923 .03629
in providing
information for
making decisions
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable D5 (Usefulness of
inventory budget in providing information for making decisions) for each
separate group (gender, Male and Female type ), as well as when all groups
Usefulness of inventory Sum of df Mean F Sig.

budget in providing Squares Square
decision
D5 Between 1.265 1 1.265 4.253 .040
Groups
Total 68.777 228
This is the table 4.171 that shows the output of the ANOVA analysis and
whether there is a statistically significant difference between group means of
gender (male and female). It is marked that, here the significance value is
0.040 (i.e., p = .040), which is below 0.05 and, therefore, there is a
statistically significant difference in the mean of D5 (Usefulness of inventory
budget in providing information for making decisions), among the group of
sex between male and female.

D6: Male 210 1.4810 1.01761 .07022
Utilizing Female 19 1.2632 .56195 .12892
inventory Total 229 1.4629 .98883 .06534
management
theories
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable D6 (Utilizing inventory
management theories) for each separate group (gender, Male and Female
positive.
Utilizing inventory Sum of df Mean F Sig.
management theories Squares Square
D6 Between .826 1 .826 .845 .359
Groups
Total 222.934 228
is a similarity in the mean of D6 (Utilizing inventory management theories),
among the group of sex between male and female.
CONCLUSION:
It is marked that, here the significance value is less than 0.05 and,
therefore, there is a statistically significant differences arises in response in
the mean of D5 among the group of sex between male and female.

E3 Male 210 1.7381 .65838 .04543
Frequency of Female 19 1.5263 .61178 .14035
using capital
budgeting Total 229 1.7205 .65599 .04335
techniques before
making
investment
decision
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable E3 (Frequency of using
capital budgeting techniques before making investment decision) for each
separate group (gender, Male and Female type), as well as when all groups
Frequency of using capital Sum of df Mean F Sig.
budgeting techniques Squares Square
before making investment
decision
E3 Between .781 1 .781 1.823 .178
Groups
Total 98.114 228
is a statistically similar in response in the mean of E3 (Frequency of using
capital budgeting techniques before making investment decision), among the
group of sex between male and female.

E4 Male 210 1.6667 .47253 .03261
Reasonability of Female 19 1.8947 .31530 .07234
capital budgeting
used Total 229 1.6856 .46530 .03075
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable E4 (Reasonability of
capital budgeting used), for each separate group (gender, Male and Female
positive.
Reasonability of capital Sum of df Mean F Sig.
budgeting used Squares Square
E4 Between .906 1 .906 4.246 .040
Groups
Total 49.362 228
value is 0.178 (i.e., p = .040), which is lower than 0.05 and, therefore, there is
a statistically differences in responses in the mean of E4 (Reasonability of
capital budgeting used), among the group of sex between male and female.

E5 Male 210 1.9333 .48453 .03344
Payback period, Female 19 2.1053 .45883 .10526
discounted payback Total 229 1.9476 .48382 .03197
period, net present
value, internal rate of
return or modified
internal rate of return
of capital are
effectively managed

95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable E5 (Payback period,
modified internal rate of return of capital are effectively managed), for each
Payback period, discounted Sum of df Mean F Sig.
payback period, net present Squares Square
value, internal rate of return or
modified internal rate of
return of capital are
effectively managed
E5 Between .515 1 .515 2.212 .138
Groups
Total 53.371 228
is a statistically similar in response in the mean of E5 (Payback period,
modified internal rate of return of capital are effectively managed), among
the group of sex between male and female.
CONCLUSION:
It is marked that, here the significance value is less than 0.05 and,
therefore, there is a statistically differences marked in response in the mean
of E4: among the group of sex between male and female.
F: FINANCIAL PLANNING
F3: Male 210 1.8952 .52541 .03626
Involvement of Female 19 1.7368 .65338 .14989
owner/manager in Total 229 1.8821 .53728 .03550
preparing master
budgets
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable F3 (Involvement of
owner/manager in preparing master budgets) for each separate group
(gender, Male and Female type), as well as when all groups are combined
(Total). These figures indicated less than combined average in all individual
groups and reported positive.
Involvement of Sum of df Mean F Sig.
owner/manager in Squares Square
preparing master
budgets
F3: Between .437 1 .437 1.518 .219
Groups
Total 65.817 228
is a statistically similarity in the mean of F3 (Involvement of owner/manager
in preparing master budgets), among the group of sex between male and
female.
F5: Male 210 3.3000 .71918 .04963
Usefulness of master Female 19 3.1579 .68825 .15789
budgets in providing Total 229 3.2882 .71628 .04733
information for
making decisions
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable F5 (Usefulness of

master budgets in providing information for making decisions) for each
Usefulness of master Sum of df Mean F Sig.
budgets in providing Squares Square
decisions
F5 Between .352 1 .352 .685 .409
Groups
Total 116.978 228
is a similarity in the mean of F5 (Usefulness of master budgets in providing
information for making decisions), among the group of sex between male
and female.
F7: Male 210 2.6857 .93639 .06462
Reasonability of Female 19 2.5789 .69248 .15887
financial planning Total 229 2.6769 .91787 .06065
techniques applied
in financial
analysis
95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable F7 (Reasonability of
financial planning techniques applied in financial analysis) for each separate
group (gender, Male and Female type), as well as when all groups are
combined (Total). These figures indicated less than combined average in all
individual groups and reported positive.

Reasonability of Sum of df Mean F Sig.
financial planning Squares Square
techniques applied in
financial analysis
F7 Between .199 1 .199 0.235 0.628
Groups
Total 192.087 228
is a strong similarity in the mean of F7 (Reasonability of financial planning
techniques applied in financial analysis), among the group of sex between
male and female.
CONCLUSION:
It is marked that, here the significance value is higher than 0.05 and,
therefore, there is a strong similarity in the mean of all the three variables.
PART-IV
REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR MEASURING SATISFACTION

OF EFFECTIVE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ON
PROFITABILITY
In this part, regression analysis has been made to measure the

satisfaction on effectiveness of financial management for better profitability
of the business. So, all the twenty factors (independent) have been considered
to know the degree of correlation among the variables for the total
effectiveness of financial management (dependent) for better profitability of
the business. So, here regression has been applied for this measurement.
Table 4.186 - Model Summary

Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error of R2 Sig. F
2
Model R R R2 the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 0.742a 0.551 0.508 0.349 0.551 12.778 20 208 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), F1, E5, D5, E1, C7, D6, C5, E2, D7, E3, C6, E6, C4, C3, D3, D1,
D2, E4, D4, E7
Here in the table 4.186 shows the R, the correlation coefficient of the
changes in the variables i.e. effectiveness of financial management with
dependent factors mentioned above during the study for factors responsible
for service effectiveness is moderate i.e. 0.742 , which indicates a moderate
relationship with the independent variables. Further, R2, the coefficient of
determination shows about 95 percent, i.e. 0.551 which states that 55% of
variation will be explained by the service effectiveness in financial
management. As a further measure of the strength of the model fit, it has
been comparing the standard error. The value of standard error i.e. 0.349,
which is much higher with the change in scale of effectiveness in regard to
practice of effective financial management as a determinant of profitability.
Table 4.187 - ANOVAb
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 31.287 20 1.564 12.778 .000a
Residual 25.464 208 .122
Total 56.751 228

a. Predictors: (Constant), F1, E5, D5, E1, C7, D6, C5, E2, D7, E3, C6, E6, C4, C3, D3, D1,
D2, E4, D4, E7
b. Dependent Variable: effective management
The ANOVA output table 4.187 reports a significant F statistic of

12.778, indicating significance value to be 0.00. This indicates that the
regression value has a higher impact on effective management on the present
financial management practices to ensure better profitability. Further, nearly
45 percent variation has been marked in residuals which are explained by the
change in factors on effective financial management. It signifies that more

effectiveness could be expected from the applicability of strategy as it varies
with the change in effective implementation.
Table 4.188 - Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.678 .653 4.098 .000
A3 -.284 .071 -.255 -4.005 .000
A4 -.158 .079 -.146 -2.008 .046
A6 -.225 .099 -.178 -2.279 .024
A7 -.573 .096 -.336 -5.989 .000
B2 -.033 .031 -.050 -1.040 .300
B3 -.185 .069 -.185 -2.687 .008
B4 -.226 .086 -.199 -2.632 .009
C1 .520 .070 .524 7.459 .000
C2 -.245 .061 -.301 -4.022 .000
C3 -.244 .051 -.269 -4.803 .000
C6 .017 .037 .034 .467 .641
D2 .114 .065 .093 1.763 .079
D3 -.133 .073 -.103 -1.817 .071
D7 -.170 .069 -.155 -2.477 .014
E2 -.078 .055 -.102 -1.423 .156
E3 .016 .088 .015 .178 .859
E6 -.139 .063 -.135 -2.201 .029
F3 .136 .063 .145 2.164 .032
F5 .219 .080 .230 2.722 .007
F7 -.234 .066 -.246 -3.546 .000
a. Dependent Variable: EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
The output table 4.188 shows that, determining the relative

importance of the significant predictor i.e. factor of “Reasonableness of
inventory turnover”, is having a high standardized positive coefficient Beta
value. Further, the standard error reveals very low and insignificant values,
which can be taken as more satisfaction is based on applicability of strategy
for effective financial management to ensure better profitability of the

concern. But among all these twenty factors, C1 i.e. Frequent reviewing
debtors’ credit period is remarkably high revealed high as it is marked from
the t-values, i.e. 7.459. But other variables are not that elastic in nature and
Beta (unstandardised) values indicate a less value with the change of
effective financial management.
Table 4.189 - Effective Management of Finance

Cumulative
High 174 76.0 76.0 76.0
Average 49 21.4 21.4 97.4
Low 6 2.6 2.6 100.0
Total 229 100.0 100.0
Table 4.189 reveals the effectiveness of financial management of

entrepreneurs. Out of total respondents, 174 respondents (76.0%) opine that
the management is highly effective whereas 6 respondents (65.5%) opined
on effectiveness of financial management is low.

08 - Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

08 - Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Financial Management As A Determinant of Profitability: A Study of MSME in Odisha

Profit is a crucial element for deciding allocation of resources and a

competition and to increase the sales and profits. Efficient management of

Figure 4.1 - Gender

Figure 4.2 - Age

Table 4.3 highlights the education qualification of the respondents

Figure 4.3 highlights the educational qualification of the respondents

Table 4.4 highlights the types of business in which respondents are

Figure 4.4 - Types of Business

201 Types of Business

Figure 4.4 highlights the types of business in which respondents are

namely Proprietary, Partnership, Company type and Family business. Out of

total, 201 respondents are doing proprietary business occupying 87.8% of

total respondents while only 4 respondents doing company type of business

covering 1.7% of the total respondents.

Table 4.5 - Type of Activity

Table 4.5 reveals the type of activity undertaken by the respondents

Table 4.7 - Annual Sale

Table 4.7 highlights the annual sale or turnover of the respondents

Table 4.9 - No. of Employees

Table 4.9 reveals the no. of employees employed by the respondents.

Table 4.10 shows the sources of finance arranged by the respondents

effective financial management must be based on the opinion of the

Figure 4.6 shows the sources of finance arranged by the respondents

Table 4.11 highlights the accounting information maintained by the

Table 4.14 reveals the interval of surplus analysis whether it is never

Table 4.15 reveals the interval of preparation of surplus budget

Table 4.16 reveals the interval of surplus verification whether it is

Table 4.17 - Credit Sales Analysis

Table 4.17 reveals the interval of credit sale analysis whether it is

Table 4.20 reveals the interval of investment management analysis

Table 4.21 reveals the interval of inventory analysis whether it is

Table 4.22 - Financial Planning

Table 4.22 reveals the interval of review of financial planning whether

Table 4.23 reveals the interval of financial review whether it is never

Inventory Management (5) Fixed Asset Management (6) Financial Planning

Table 4.24 - KMO and Bartlett's Test on Management and Maintenance of

Table 4.25 indicates the input assessment of ‘Management and

Maintenance of Accounts and Finance for the effective management of

Table 4.26 - Total Variance Explained on Management and Maintenance of

Table 4.26 corroborates the results of effective financial management

Table 4.27 - Total Variance (Rotated) on Management and Maintenance of

Table 4.27 shows the rotated total variances in proper management of

always), A4 (Computerization of accounting information is always used), A6

Transformation matrix table 4.30 revealed that these two variables

Table 4.31 - KMO and Bartlett's Test on Cash Management

‘Cash Management’ for structure detection. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

Table 4.32 - Communalities on Cash Management

Table 4.32 indicates the impact assessment of ‘Cash Management’ for

Table 4.33 - Total Variance Explained on Cash Management

Table 4.33 corroborates the results of Cash Management on effective

Table 4.34 shows the rotated total variances in proper management of

Table 4.35 - Component Matrix on Cash Management

Table 4.36- Rotated Component Matrix on Cash Management

four factor variables, i.e. Owner/manager in preparing & interpreting fine

cash budgets (B2), Cash budgets in providing information for making

decisions is perfectly done (B3) and Cash management in determining the

Management’. It is proved that these three variables having a positive impact

on ‘Cash Management’ and rest 3 factors indicate a less significant impact so

for the effective financial management in order to ensure better profitability

Table 4.37 - Component Transformation Matrix on Cash Management

Transformation matrix table 4.37 revealed that these variables indicate