CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION
4.1 Demographic Insights

4.1.1 Age and Awareness

 The majority of respondents were in the 20–40 years age group (55% of total), and

this group showed higher awareness of mutual fund schemes.

 Awareness was lower in respondents above 60 years, suggesting that older

individuals are less engaged with mutual fund products.

Table 1: Age Distribution of Respondents

Age Group (Years) Frequency Percentage

20-30 25 25%
31-40 30 30%
41-50 20 20%
51-60 15 15%
60+ 10 10%
Total 100 100%

Interpretation: Younger generations are more financially aware, possibly due to better

access to online financial education and mobile apps. Awareness campaigns targeting older

age groups could improve overall participation.

4.1.2 Gender Distribution

 A slight male dominance was observed (55% male vs. 45% female).

 No significant difference was found in awareness or investment behavior between

genders, though males tended to prefer equity funds slightly more than females.

Table 2: Gender Distribution

16
 Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 55 55%
Female 45 45%
Total 100 100%

Interpretation: Financial literacy initiatives should be gender-neutral but can consider

addressing risk aversion more commonly seen among female investors.

4.2 Mutual Fund Awareness and Preferences

4.2.1 Income and Investment Patterns

 Respondents with income between ₹5,00,000 – ₹7,00,000 formed the largest group

(35%).

 Higher-income individuals (>₹10,00,000) preferred hybrid and debt funds, while

middle- and lower-income groups leaned towards equity funds, possibly seeking

higher returns.

Table 3: Income Distribution

Income (INR) Frequency Percentage

< 5,00,000 25 25%
5,00,000 - 7,00,000 35 35%
7,00,000 - 10,00,000 20 20%
> 10,00,000 20 20%
Total 100 100%

Interpretation: Income significantly affects investment choices. Higher-income groups value

stability and lower risk, while mid- and low-income investors are return-driven.

17
4.2.2 Awareness of Mutual Funds

Awareness Levels

 85% of respondents reported being aware of mutual funds, with varying levels of

understanding.

 Those unaware were mostly from older age groups or had lower educational

qualifications.

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Aware Unaware

Chart 1 : The proportion of respondents aware and unaware of mutual funds.

Interpretation: Awareness levels are reasonably high, but there's a gap in deep

understanding, especially about fund types, risk-return profiles, and tax benefits.

4.3. Trust, Risk, and Use of Advisors

4.3.1 Perceived Risk

 The perception of risk was moderate to high for 75% of respondents, with only a few

perceiving mutual funds as low-risk.

18
  Those with higher financial literacy viewed mutual funds as calculated risks, while

others considered them volatile.

Interpretation: Risk aversion still exists, especially among less-educated and older investors.

Simplified communication about fund risk profiles and past performance could ease

concerns.

4.3.2 : Preferred Mutual Fund Type

Interpretation The majority of respondents prefer equity and hybrid mutual funds, indicating

a strong interest in growth and balanced investment options. Risk appetite, financial literacy,

and age influence fund choice. Debt funds appeal to conservative investors, while niche and

tax-saving funds remain underutilized, highlighting the need for better investor awareness.

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Equity Debt Funds Hybrid
Funds Funds

Chart 2 : The distribution of the types of mutual funds preferred by the respondents.

4.3.3 : Trust in Fund Managers

19
 45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Very High High Moderate Low

Chart 3 : Respondents trust mutual fund managers.

4.3.4 : Trust in Fund Managers

 Around 65% of respondents had moderate to high trust in fund managers.

 A small segment (5%) reported low trust, usually due to past market volatility or

mis-selling experiences.

Interpretation: The mutual fund industry is seen as credible, but more transparency and

consistent performance reporting can help win over skeptics.

4.3.5 : Investment Frequency

 Monthly investments (36%) were most common, especially via SIPs.

 Quarterly and annual investments followed, with bi-annual being the least preferred.

20
 Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
Bi-Annually

Chart 4 : Frequency of investment in mutual funds by the respondents invest.

Interpretation: Regular investing is becoming popular, reflecting increased financial

discipline and growing trust in SIPs as a tool for wealth accumulation.

4.3.6 : Use of Financial Advisor

 60% of respondents used financial advisors, showing a strong reliance on external

expertise.

 Those who didn't use advisors either relied on self-research or lacked trust in advisory

services.

21
 Yes
No

Chart 5 : Whether respondents use a financial advisor.

Interpretation: Advisors play a key role in shaping perceptions. Training and certifying

advisors can enhance trust and improve investor onboarding.

4.4 Cross-Tabulation Analysis

4.4.1 Cross-Tabulation Analysis of Age vs Awareness of Mutual Funds

Table 4: Age vs Awareness of Mutual Funds

Age Group Aware of Mutual Funds (Yes) Not Aware of Mutual Funds (No)
20-30 22 3
31-40 27 3
41-50 18 2
51-60 12 3
60+ 6 4
Total 85 15

Analysis:

 Observation: The majority of younger respondents (20-40 years) are aware of mutual

funds, while older groups (especially 60+) have lower awareness.

 Insight: Awareness campaigns should target older age groups to improve

participation.

22
4.4.2 Cross-Tabulation Analysis of Income vs Preferred Mutual Fund Type

Table 5: Income vs Preferred Mutual Fund Type

Income Group (INR) Equity Funds Debt Funds Hybrid Funds

< 5,00,000 10 8 7
5,00,000 - 7,00,000 15 10 10
7,00,000 - 10,00,000 10 5 5
> 10,00,000 10 7 3
Total 45 30 25

Analysis:

 Observation: Respondents with lower income prefer equity funds, while higher-

income groups seem to diversify into debt and hybrid funds.

 Insight: Marketing strategies could emphasize equity funds for lower-income groups,

while targeting higher-income investors with diversified options.

4.5 Barriers and Motivations

4.5.1 Common Barriers Identified

 Lack of information, perceived high risk, complexity of options, and past market

scams were major deterrents.

 Some respondents also felt that mutual funds are not as tangible or secure as

traditional options like gold or FDs.

Interpretation: These barriers are psychological and informational. Simplified education,

better customer support, and proactive communication can counter these perceptions.

4.5.2 Reasons for Investment

 The top motivations included:

23
 o Wealth creation

o Retirement planning

o Tax benefits

o Capital appreciation

Interpretation: Mutual funds are seen as strategic tools for long-term goals. Highlighting

these benefits in marketing could improve adoption.

4.6 Statistical Analysis Insight

 A Chi-square test indicated a likely association between income and fund type

preference.

 Lower-income groups preferred equity funds for potentially higher returns.

 Higher-income groups preferred hybrid and debt funds due to perceived stability.

Interpretation: Fund companies should segment their products by income demographics.

Higher-risk, high-return funds can target young professionals, while low-risk options can be

marketed to senior citizens and conservative investors.

4.7 Perceptions and Influencing Factors

4.7.1 Perceived Benefits of Mutual Funds

Table 6 : Perceived Benefits of Mutual Funds

Perceived Benefit Frequency Percentage
Higher Returns 35 35%
Diversification 25 25%
Tax Benefits 15 15%
Professional Management 10 10%
Liquidity 15 15%
Total 100 100%

24
Interpretation:

Most respondents perceive mutual funds as high-return and diversified investments. Tax

benefits and professional management are also appreciated, but to a lesser extent. This

indicates that return potential is the biggest driver of positive perception.

4.7.2. Risk Perception Toward Mutual Funds

High Risk
Moderate Risk
Low Risk

Chart 6: Risk Perception Toward Mutual Funds

Interpretation:

A significant portion of respondents (40%) associate mutual funds with high risk, which may

deter risk-averse investors. There’s a need to educate investors on risk-mitigated options

like debt or hybrid funds.

4.7.3. Influencing Factors for Investment

Table 7 : Influencing Factors for Investment

Factor Influencing Decision Frequency Percentage
Financial Advisor 28 28%

25
 Media/Advertisements 20 20%
Friends/Family 25 25%
Personal Research 17 17%
Employer Guidance 10 10%
Total 100 100%

Interpretation:

Financial advisors and social influences (friends/family) are the top influencing factors.

Media and personal research also contribute significantly, indicating a mix of professional

and peer-driven decision-making.

4.7.3 Awareness Source of Mutual Funds

Social Media
Financial News
Bank/Advisor
Workplace Sessions
Government
Campaigns

Chart 7 : Awareness Source of Mutual Funds

Interpretation:

Social media and financial news are the most prominent sources of awareness. This implies

that digital platforms are becoming key tools in educating retail investors. Banks and

workplace programs can be better utilized to increase trust.

26
4.8. Cross-tabulation

4.8.1 Cross-tabulation of Financial Literacy vs Risk Perception

Table 8 : Cross-tabulation of Financial Literacy vs Risk Perception

Financial Literacy Level High Risk (%) Moderate Risk (%) Low Risk (%)
Low 25 (50%) 15 (30%) 10 (20%)
Medium 10 (20%) 20 (40%) 20 (40%)
High 5 (10%) 20 (40%) 25 (50%)

Interpretation:

 Lower financial literacy leads to higher perceived risk.

 High literacy investors see mutual funds as less risky, indicating that education and

awareness play a vital role in perception.

4.9. Barriers to Investment

Table 9: Barriers to Investment

Barrier Frequency Percentage

Lack of Knowledge 30 30%
Fear of Market Volatility 25 25%
Complexity of Products 20 20%
Lack of Trust 15 15%
Preference for Traditional Savings 10 10%
Total 100 100%

Interpretation:

Knowledge gaps and market fear are the top barriers. Addressing these through simplified

product communication and financial education could help reduce investor hesitation.

4.10 Likert Scale Analysis

27
 Table 10 : Likert Scale Analysis: Agreement with Statements on Mutual Funds

Statement Strongly Agree Neutra Disagree Strongly

Agree l Disagree
Mutual funds offer better returns 40 30 15 10 5
than FDs
Mutual funds are difficult to 20 25 20 25 10
understand
SIPs make mutual fund 50 30 10 5 5
investment affordable and regular
I would recommend mutual funds 35 35 15 10 5
to others

Interpretation:

 Most respondents agree that mutual funds outperform traditional instruments like

FDs.

 SIPs are widely accepted as an easy investment tool.

 A notable minority still finds mutual funds complex—this is where financial

education and simpler language can help.

28