AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF FACTORS

AFFECTING SALES OF MUTUAL FUNDS COMPANIES IN INDIA

Thesis Submitted to the Padmashree Dr. D. Y .Patil University,
Department of Business Management
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree
of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Submitted by
Mr.SUYASH BHATT
(Enrollment No. DYP-PhD-066100006)

Research Guide
Dr. PRADIP MANJREKAR
PROFESSOR
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY,
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT,
Sector 4, Plot No. 10,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614

June 2010

1
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF FACTORS
AFFECTING SALES OF MUTUAL FUNDS
COMPANIES IN INDIA

2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the thesis entitled “ AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF

FACTORS
AFFECTING SALES OF MUTUAL FUNDS COMPANIES IN INDIA”
submitted for the
Award of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Management at the
Padmashree Dr.D.Y.
Patil University Department of Business Management is my original work and
the thesis
has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, associate ship,
fellowship or any
other similar titles.

Place:

Date:

Signature of the Guide Signature of the Head of the dept. Signature of

the student

3
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF FACTORS

AFFECTING
SALES OF MUTUAL FUNDS COMPANIES IN INDIA and submitted by Mr.
SUYASH N
BHATT is a bonafide research work for the award of the Doctor of Philosophy in
Business
Management at the Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil University Department of Business
Management
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in
Business Management and that the thesis has not formed the basis for the award
previously of
any degree, diploma, associate ship, fellowship or any other similar title of any
University or
Institution. Also certified that the thesis represents an independent work on the
part of the
candidate.

Place:

Date:

Signature of the
Head of the department Signature of the Guide

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the first place, I am indebted to the Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University’s
Department of Business Management, which has accepted me for Doctorate program
and provided me with an excellent opportunity to carry out the present research
project. I would like to sincerely thank to Dr. Pradip Manjrekar Professor & Head
Research, Consultancy & Extension Centre, Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University’s
Department of Business Management, my guide my mentor, without whose
cooperation and guidance it would not have been possible for me to pursue such goal
oriented research. Also for his time, advice and especially for constantly encouraging
me in my efforts. I thank Dr. R Gopal, Director – Department of Business
Management at Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University’s Department of Business
Management without whose cooperation it would not have been possible for me to
complete this research.
I am immensely thankful to Prof.(Dr) James Thomas, Vice Chancellor and Dr.
F.A. Fernandes, Registrar at Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University for providing me
this opportunity to persue the PhD at Department of Business Management. I also
express my gratitude to the administrative staff of Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil
University Department of Business Studies whose secretarial assistance helped me in
summiting the various evaluation documents in time.
I am grateful to Shri. Amarjit Singh Manhas [University of Mumbai Senate
Member and MHADA Chairman], who has immensely contributed in whatever I am
today. I would like to mention few individuals who have been a source of inspiration
for me throughtout, they are;
§ Shri . Y.K.Bhushan – Advisor – IBS

§ Prof.P.V.Narasimham – Director General – K.J.Somaiya Institute of

Management Studies and Research.

§ Dr.Suresh Ghai – Director – K.J.Somaiya Institute of Management Studies

and Research.

§ Dr. R. Gopal – Director – Dr. D.Y.Patil Institute of Management Studies and

Research.

I would like to thank and acknowledge the support of Kotak Securities

Limited making this project possible. Most of all my gratitude is extended to my
family, without whose support, I could not have undertaken this endeavour.

5
Place:

Date: Signature of the student

6
SR.No PARTICULARS PAGE

NO.

§ LIST OF TABLES iv
§ LIST OF FIGURES viii
§ LIST OF ABBREVATIONS xiii
§ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xv

1 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 THE HISTORY OF MUTUAL FUNDS 1
1.2 BACKGROUND OF MUTUAL FUND 2
1.3 DEFINATION OF MUTUAL FUND 9
1.4 PURPOSE OF STUDY 11
1.5 ORGANISATION OF THESIS 12

2 CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW 14

2.1 Introduction and Structure 14
2.1.1 Effects of Management Tenure (Past Record) 16

2.1.2 Effects of Size (Asset Under Management) 19

22
2.1.3 Effects of Turnover (NAV)
2.2 MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY MANAGEMENT OF 24
CUSTOMER.
2.3 IMPACT OF IT AND IT ENABLED SERVICES IN 26
MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY
2.4 ROLE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & 40
CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT IN
MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY
2.5 HOW TO MEASURE CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP 45
MANAGEMENT – IN MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY
2.6 OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN MUTUAL 48
FUND INDUSTRY

7
 2.7 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION W.R.T IT ENABLED 52
SERVICES [ONLINE] IN MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY
2.8 IT ENABLED SERVICES [ONLINE] IN MUTUAL 55
FUND INDUSTRY
2.9 CUSTOMER LOYALTY IN MUTUAL FUND 58
INDUSTRY

3 CHAPTER 3 : RESEARCH FRAMEWORK FOR MUTUAL 62

FUND CUSTOMER
3.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 68
3.2 FORMULATE AN ANALYSIS PLAN 69
3.3 NULL HYPOTHESIS FORMATION 71

4 CHAPTER 4 : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 73

4.1 SURVEY SAMPLING METHODS 74
4.2 SAMPLE DESIGN 78
4.2.1 SAMPLE SIZE 79
4.3 DATA COLLECTION METHOD 81
4.4 THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 82
4.5 THE SAMPLE 83
4.6 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 85
4.7 PILOT STUDY 91
4.8 SCALE RELIABILITY 91
4.9 BIAS IN SURVEY SAMPLING 92
4.10 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 94

5 CHAPTER 5 : DATA ANALYSIS & FINDINGS 98

5.1 FINDINGS IN DETAIL 99
5.2 MULTIPLE REGRESSION MODEL FOR SALES 179
OF MUTUAL FUNDS

7 CHAPTER 6 : CONCULSION 181

8
8 CHAPTER 7 : LIMITATION AND FUTURE SCOPE OF 187
RESEARCH
8.1 FUTURE SCOPE OF RESEARCH 190

v SAMPLE QUESTIONAIRE 192

v ANNEXURE I 197
v ANNEXURE II 198
v ANNEXURE III 203
v ANNEXURE IV 210
v ANNEXURE V 216
v ANNEXURE VI 219
v BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE 240

9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Phase II of Mutual Fund Industry. 6

Table 1.2 Growth of Fund Mobilisation 8

Table 4.6.2 Descriptive Statistics for Gender [Mean[ 85

Table 4.6.3 Descriptive Frequency for Gender 85

Table 4.6.4 Descriptive Statistics for Martial status 86

Table 4.6.5 Descriptive Frequency for Martial Status 86

Table 4.6.6 Descriptive Statistics for Occupation 87

Table 4.6.7 Descriptive Frequency for Occupation 87

Table 4.6.8 Descriptive Statistics for Age Group 88

Table 4.6.9 Descriptive Frequency for Age Group 88

Table 4.6.10 Descriptive Statistics for Annual Income 89

Table 4.6.11 Descriptive Frequency for Annual Income 89

Table 4.6.12 Descriptive Statistics for Amount of Purchase 90

Table 4.6.13 Descriptive Frequency for Amount of Purchase 90

Table 4.8.1 Case Processing Summary 91

Table 4.8.2 Reliability Statistics 91

Table 5 Descriptive Statistics 98

Table 5.1.1. Cross tabulation between Mode of Investment 103

and Sales

Table 5.1.2. Cross tabulation between Brandname and Sales 105

Table 5.1.3. Cross tabulation between AUM and Sales 108

10
Table 5.1.4. Cross tabulation between NAV and Sales 111

Table 5.1.5. Cross tabulation between PR and Sales 114

Table 5.1.6. 117

Table 5.1.7. Cross tabulation between Quality of Service and

Sales

Table 5.1.8. Cross tabulation between SAFE_IT and Sales 122

Table 5.1.9. Cross tabulation between Service Time_IT and 125

Sales

Table 5.1.10. Cross tabulation between ease of use of IT and 127

Sales

Table 5.1.11. Cross tabulation between catering to all need 131

using IT and Sales

Table 5.1.12. Cross tabulation between excellent IT QoS and 134

Sales

Table 5.1.13. Cross tabulation between current investment 138

and Sales

Table 5.1.14. Cross tabulation between repeat purchase and 141

Sales

Table 5.1.15. Cross tabulation between satisfaction with IT 144

and Sales

Table 5.1.16. Cross tabulation between referral for IT and 147

Sales

11
Table 5.1.17. Cross tabulation between safety in agent / 150

brokerage firm and Sales

Table 5.1.18. Cross tabulation between service time in agent / 153

brokerage firm and Sales

Table 5.1.19. Cross tabulation between current mode of 156

investment using agent / brokerage firm and Sales

Table 5.1.20. Cross tabulation between additional investment 159

using agent / brokerage firm and Sales

Table 5.1.21. Cross tabulation between satisfaction with 162

services of agent / brokerage firm and Sales

Table 5.1.22. Cross tabulation between agent / brokerage 165

firm for cash incentive and Sales

Table 5.1.23. Cross tabulation between services provided by 168

agent / brokerage firm and Sales

Table 5.1.24. Cross tabulation between recommendation of 172

company and Sales

Table 5.1.25. Cross tabulation between satisfaction services 176

provided by company and Sales

Table 5.2.1. Multiple Regression Model Summary for Sales 179

Table 5.2.2. Multiple Regression Model Coefficients for 180

Sales

12
Table 6.1Summary of Hypothesis Testing 185

13
LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1.1 Growth in Asset Under Management. 7

Figure 2.3.1 The Relationships Among IT, E-Commerce, and E- 28

Finance

Figure 4.6.1 Pie Chart for Gender 85

Figure 4.6.2 Pie Chart for Martial Status 86

Figure 4.6.3 Pie Chart for Occupation 87

Figure 4.6.4 Pie Chart for Age Group 88

Figure 4.6.5 Pie Chart for Annual Income 89

Figure 4.6.6 Pie Chart for Amount of Purchase 90

Figure 5.1.1Pie chart for Investment Company 100

Figure 5.1.2Bar chart for Investment Company 101

Figure 5.1.3Pie chart for Mode of Investment 102

Figure 5.1.4Pie chart for Investment Based on Brandname 104

Figure 5.1.5Bar chart for Investment Based on Brandname 106

Figure 5.1.6Pie chart for Investment Based on AUM 107

Figure 5.1.7Bar chart for Investment Based on AUM 109

Figure 5.1.8Pie chart for Investment Based on NAV 110

Figure 5.1.9Bar chart for Investment Based on NAV 112

Figure 5.1.10Pie chart for Investment Based on PR 113

Figure 5.1.11Bar chart for Investment Based on PR 115

Figure 5.1.12Pie chart for Investment Based on Quality of 116

14
 Services

Figure 5.1.13Bar chart for Investment Based on Quality of 118

Services

Figure 5.1.14Pie chart for source of Information for Mutual 119

Fund

Figure 5.1.15Pie chart for source of more information for 120

Mutual Fund

Figure 5.1.16Pie chart for Perception of safety in IT & IT Enabled 121

Services.

Figure 5.1.17Bar chart for Perception of safety in IT & IT 123

Enabled Services.

Figure 5.1.18Pie chart for Perception of service time in IT & IT 124

Enabled Services.

Figure 5.1.19Bar chart for Perception of service time in IT & IT 126

Enabled Services.

Figure 5.1.20Pie chart for Perception of ease of use in IT & IT 127

Enabled Services.

Figure 5.1.21Bar chart for Perception of ease of use in IT & IT 129

Enabled Services.

Figure 5.1.22Bar chart for Perception of ease of use in IT & IT 129

Enabled Services.

Figure 5.1.23Pie chart for catering to all need for using IT & IT 130

15
 Enabled Services.

Figure 5.1.24Pie chart for catering to all need for using IT & IT 132

Enabled Services.

Figure 5.1.25Pie chart for Perception of quality of service in IT 133

& IT Enabled Services.

Figure 5.1.26 Bar chart for Perception of quality of service in IT 135

& IT Enabled Services.

Figure 5.1.27Bar chart for Perception of quality of service in IT 136

& IT Enabled Services.

Figure 5.1.28Pie chart for investment using IT & IT Enabled 137

Services.

Figure 5.1.29Bar chart for investment using IT & IT Enabled 139

Services.

Figure 5.1.30Pie chart for additional investment using IT & IT 140

Enabled Services

Figure 5.1.31Bar chart for additional investment using IT & IT 142

Enabled Services

Figure 5.1.32Pie chart for satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled 143

Services.

Figure 5.1.33Bar chart for satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled 145

Services.

Figure 5.1.34Pie chart for recommendation of IT & IT Enabled 146

16
 Services.

Figure 5.1.35 Bar chart for recommendation of IT & IT 148

Enabled Services

Figure 5.1.36Pie chart for Perception of safety in agent / 149

brokerage firm

Figure 5.1.37Bar chart for Perception of safety in agent / 151

brokerage firm

Figure 5.1.38Pie chart for Perception of service time in agent / 152

brokerage firm.

Figure 5.1.39Bar chart for Perception of service time in agent / 154

brokerage firm.

Figure 5.1.40Pie chart for current mode of investment using 155

agent / brokerage firm.

Figure 5.1.41Bar chart for current mode of investment using 157

agent / brokerage firm.

Figure 5.1.42Pie chart for additional investment using agent / 158

brokerage firm.

Figure 5.1.43Bar chart for additional investment using agent / 160

brokerage firm.

Figure 5.1.44Pie chart for satisfaction with services of agent / 161

brokerage firm.

Figure 5.1.45Bar chart for satisfaction with services of agent / 163

17
 brokerage firm.

Figure 5.1.46Pie chart for using agent / brokerage firm for cash 164

incentive.

Figure 5.1.47Pie chart for using agent / brokerage firm for cash 166

incentive.

Figure 5.1.48Pie chart for recommendation of services provided 167

by agent / brokerage firm.

Figure 5.1.49Bar chart for recommendation of services provided 169

by agent / brokerage firm.

Figure 5.1.50Histogram for recommendation of services 170

provided by agent / brokerage firm.

Figure 5.1.51Pie chart for recommendation of company. 171

Figure 5.1.52Bar chart for recommendation of company. 173

Figure 5.1.53Bar chart for recommendation of company. 174

Figure 5.1.54Pie chart for satisfaction services provided by 175

company.

Figure 5.1.55Pie chart for satisfaction services provided by 177

company.

Figure 5.1.56Bar chart for satisfaction services provided by 178

company.

18
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

§ MF_TAX = Tax Saving Mutual Fund.

§ MFNAME = Mutual Fund Name

§ MODEOFINV = Mode of Investment

§ AUM = Asset Under Management

§ NAV = Net asset Value

§ PR = Past Record

§ QOS = Quality of Service

§ IT = Information Technology & IT Enabled Services

§ SAFE_IT = Safety w.r.t Inofrmation Tachnology

§ ST_IT = Service Time w.r.t. IT

§ EU_IT = Easy of Use of IT

§ N_IT = All Needs catered to with IT

§ ES_IT = Excellent Service w.r.t IT

§ CURRENTINV = Current Investment.

§ REPEATPURCHASE = Repeat Purchase

§ S_IT = Satisfaction w.r.t. IT

§ REFERRAL_IT = Referral of IT

§ SAFE = Safety of Agent / Brokerage Firm,

§ ST = Service Time via Agent / Brokerage Firm

§ EU = Ease of Use via Agent / Brokerage Firm

§ N = All needs catered to with Agent / Brokerage Firm

§ ES = Excellent Service w.r.t Agent / Brokerage Firm

§ CURRENT = Current Investment via Agent / Brokerage Firm

§ REPEAT = Repeat Purchase via Agent / Brokerage Firm

§ S = Satisfaction w.r.t. Agent / Brokerage Firm

§ CASHINV = Cash Incentive Agent / Brokerage Firm

19
§ REFERRAL = Referral of Agent / Brokerage Firm

§ CS_REFFERAL = Company Referral

§ CS_COMP = Satisfied with Company

20
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the study is to determine whether mutual fund attributes affect mutual

fund performance. Attributes such as management tenure, expenses, NAV , and size

are examined and the different positions are quoted from the literature. Lastly, this

section summarizes why further research is warranted in this field.

As the amount of assets invested in mutual funds has ballooned, mutual funds have

become more abundant and more attractive to study. The common thread connecting

the overwhelming majority of studies in this field is an explanation of mutual fund

performance. The initial goal of mutual funds was to make saving and diversification

more seamless for the lay investor, but as more and more mutual funds were developed

and as more investment companies marketed their mutual funds, it became increasingly

difficult and confusing for investors to select mutual funds. Moreover, as the popularity

of these mutual funds increased, evidenced by the sheer amount and growth of invested

assets from 1999 to 2010, finance scholars and practitioners began to examine the

attributes of mutual funds that affected sales of mutual funds. Also to investigate the

relative effects of IT Enabled Services on the Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty

concepts to determine if the extra effort and cost of introducing IT Enabled Services

protocols to highly valued customers really does positively affect customer

satisfaction rates and the intention to remain loyal. Another objective of this study is

to look at whether these concepts are further affected if other variables are introduced,

specifically in a financial service industry context. The performance persistence, where

past performance could possibly predict immediate future returns. This is known as the

21
“hot hands” phenomenon. The topic of persistence is a subject for debate because there

are many conflicting views among researchers (Cahart, 1997; Grinblatt et al., 1992;

Hendricks et al., 1993). Also literature review deals with the predictive attributes of

mutual funds, excluding past performance. According to Peterson et al. (2001), this

segment of the literature is much more sparse than that which examine the persistence and

market. An increase in customer satisfaction rates generally translates into an increase

in loyalty rates (Jones and Sasser 1995; Reichheld, Markey and Hopton 2000; Bolton,

Kaniian and Bramlett 2000; Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Gwinner, Gremler and

Bitner 1998). And, an increase in loyalty can decrease administrative costs by 10-40%

(Vincent 2000). There is little published empirical research on the subject of IT and

IT Enabled Services aside from industry surveys evaluating company results after

Information Technology programs are installed. As important, little research exists on

differentiating between highly vs. moderately satisfied customers and what effect this

has on customer satisfaction and loyalty rates.

22
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This study examines the role that information technology plays in supporting

relationships between customers and suppliers in the financial service industry. It

traces the interrelationships among the different sectors of this industry -brokerage

houses, mutual funds, insurance companies, and others - and identifies roles that

information technology and electronic service delivery can play in creating and

supporting inter-organizational integration across sector boundaries. It further

identifies the opportunities for and threats to these relationships caused, in large part,

by the continuing evolution of information technology.

1.6 THE HISTORY OF MUTUAL FUNDS

The origin of the concept of mutual fund dates back to the very dawn of commercial

history. It is said that Egyptians and Phoenicians sold their shares in vessels and

caravans with a view to spreading the risk attached with these risky ventures.

However, the real credit of introducing the modern concept of mutual fund goes to the

foreign and colonial Government Trust of London established in 1868, thereafter, a

large number of close-ended mutual funds were formed in the U.S.A. in 1930’s

followed by many countries in Europe, the Far East and Latin America. In most of

the countries, both open and close-ended types were popular. In India, it gained

momentum only in 1980, though it began in the year 1964 with the Unit Trust of India

launching its first fund, the Unit scheme 1964. While the mutual funds had its origin

in Belgium, it did not take firm root in continental soil but flourished when

23
transplanted in UK and USA surroundings.

1.7 BACKGROUND OF MUTUAL FUND

Although historians may differ on the exact genesis of mutual funds, the origin of

mutual funds can be traced back to a little more than one & half century ago. In 1822,

king William of the Netherlands formed “societe generale de belique”, at Brussells,

which appears to be the first mutual fund. It was intended to facilitate small

investments in foreign government loans, which, then, offered more security and

returns than the home industry. Later, another similar company was started with an

objective to make cooperative investments, to protect investors against loss by wide

undertakings, and to secure larger returns through investing in industries.

The genesis of the mutual fund industry in India can be traced back to 1964 with the

setting up of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) by the Government of India. Since then

UTI has grown to be a dominant player in the industry. UTI is governed by a special

legislation, the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963.

The industry was opened up for wider participation in 1987 when public sector banks

and insurance companies were permitted to set up mutual funds. Since then, 6 public

sector banks have set up mutual funds. Also the two Insurance companies LIC and

GIC have established mutual funds. Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI)

formulated the Mutual Fund (Regulation) 1993, which for the first time established a

comprehensive regulatory framework for the mutual fund industry. Since then several

mutual funds have been set up by the private and joint sectors.

24
Indian Financial Services Sector (Mutual Fund) have been a significant source of

investment in both government and corporate securities. Decades it has been the

monopoly of the state with UTI being the key player, with invested funds exceeding

Rs.300 bn. The state-owned insurance companies also hold a portfolio of stocks.

Presently, numerous mutual funds exist, including private and foreign companies and

mainly state-owned Banks. Foreign participation in mutual funds and asset

management companies (AUM) is permitted on a case-by-case basis.

UTI, the government in 1964 set up the largest mutual fund in the country, to

encourage small investors in the equity market, presently having extensive marketing

network of over 35, 000 agents spread over the country. The UTI scrip’s have

performed relatively well in the market, as compared to the Sensex trend. However,

the same cannot be said of all mutual funds.

All MFs are allowed to apply for firm allotment in public issues. SEBI regulates the

functioning of mutual funds, and it requires that all MFs should be established as

trusts under the Indian Trusts Act. The actual fund management activity shall be

conducted from a separate asset management company (AMC). The minimum net

worth of an AMC or its affiliate must be Rs. 50 million to act as a manager in any

other fund. MFs can be penalized for defaults including non-registration and failure to

observe rules set by their AMCs. MFs dealing exclusively with money market

instruments have to be registered with RBI. All other schemes floated by MFs are

required to be registered with SEBI. In 1995, the RBI permitted private sector

institutions to set up Money Market Mutual Funds (MMMFs). They can invest in

25
treasury bills, call and notice money, commercial paper, commercial bills

accepted/co-accepted by banks, certificates of deposit and dated government

securities having unexpired maturity up to one year. UTI pioneered the mutual fund

industry in India ( 1963) with slow & staidly growth , but it accelerated from the year

1987 when non-UTI players entered the industry. In the past decade, Indian mutual

fund industry had seen a dramatic improvement, both qualities wise as well as

quantity wise. Before, the monopoly of the market had seen an ending phase; the

Assets Under Management (AUM) was Rs.67 bn. The private sector entry to the fund

family raised the AUM to Rs. 470 bn in March 1993 and till April 2004; it reached the

height of Rs. 1,540 billion. Putting the AUM of the Indian Financial Services Sector

(Mutual Fund Industry) into comparison, the total of it is less than the deposits of SBI

alone, constitute less than 11% of the total deposits held by the Indian banking

industry. The main reason of its poor growth is that the mutual fund industry in India

is new in the country. Large sections of Indian investors are yet to be intellectuated

with the concept. Hence, it is the prime responsibility of all mutual fund companies,

to market the product correctly abreast of selling.

The mutual fund industry can be broadly put into four phases according to the

development of the sector. Each phase is briefly described as under.

Phase 1. Establishment and Growth of Unit Trust of India - 1964-87

Unit Trust of India enjoyed complete monopoly when it was established in the year

1963 by an act of Parliament. UTI was set up by the Reserve Bank of India and it

continued to operate under the regulatory control of the RBI until the two were de-

linked in 1978 and the entire control was transferred in the hands of Industrial

26
Development Bank of India (IDBI). UTI launched its first scheme in 1964, named as

Unit Scheme 1964 (US-64), which attracted the largest number of investors in any

single investment scheme over the years.

UTI launched more innovative schemes in 1970s and 80s to suit the needs of different

investors. It launched ULIP in 1971, six more schemes between 1981-84, Children's

Gift Growth Fund and India Fund (India's first offshore fund) in 1986, Mastershare

(India’s first equity diversified scheme) in 1987 and Monthly Income Schemes

(offering assured returns) during 1990s. By the end of 1987, UTI's assets under

management grew ten times to Rs 6700 crores.

Phase II. Entry of Public Sector Funds - 1987-1993

The Indian mutual fund industry witnessed a number of public sector players entering

the market in the year 1987. In November 1987, SBI Mutual Fund from the State

Bank of India became the first non-UTI mutual fund in India. SBI Mutual Fund was

later followed by Canbank Mutual Fund, LIC Mutual Fund, Indian Bank Mutual

Fund, Bank of India Mutual Fund, GIC Mutual Fund and PNB Mutual Fund. By

1993, the assets under management of the industry increased seven times to Rs.

47,004 crores. However, UTI remained to be the leader with about 80% market share.

27
 Amount Assets Mobilisation as % of
1992-93
Mobilised Under Management Gross Domestic Savings

UTI 11,057 38,247 5.2%

Public
1,964 8,757 0.9%
Sector

Total 13,021 47,004 6.1%

Table 1.3Phase II of Mutual Fund Industry.

Phase III. Emergence of Private Sector Funds - 1993-96

The permission given to private sector funds including foreign fund management

companies (most of them entering through joint ventures with Indian promoters) to

enter the mutual fund industry in 1993, provided a wide range of choice to investors

and more competition in the industry. Private funds introduced innovative products,

investment techniques and investor-servicing technology. By 1994-95, about 11

private sector funds had launched their schemes.

Phase IV. Growth and SEBI Regulation - 1996-2004

The mutual fund industry witnessed robust growth and stricter regulation from the

SEBI after the year 1996. The mobilisation of funds and the number of players

operating in the industry reached new heights as investors started showing more

interest in mutual funds.

Investors' interests were safeguarded by SEBI and the Government offered tax

benefits to the investors in order to encourage them. SEBI (Mutual Funds)

28
Regulations, 1996 was introduced by SEBI that set uniform standards for all mutual

funds in India. The Union Budget in 1999 exempted all dividend incomes in the

hands of investors from income tax. Various Investor Awareness Programmes were

launched during this phase, both by SEBI and AMFI, with an objective to educate

investors and make them informed about the mutual fund industry.

In February 2003, the UTI Act was repealed and UTI was stripped of its Special legal

status as a trust formed by an Act of Parliament. The primary objective behind this

was to bring all mutual fund players on the same level. UTI was re-organised into

two parts: 1. The Specified Undertaking, 2. The UTI Mutual Fund

GROWTH IN ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT

Figure 1.2 Growth in Asset Under Management.

29
 Presently Unit Trust of India operates under the name of UTI Mutual Fund and its

past schemes (like US-64, Assured Return Schemes) are being gradually wound up.

However, UTI Mutual Fund is still the largest player in the industry. In 1999, there

was a significant growth in mobilisation of funds from investors and assets under

management which is supported by the following data:

GROSS FUND MOBILISATION (RS. CRORES)

PUBLIC PRIVATE
FROM TO UTI TOTAL
SECTOR SECTOR

01-April-98 31-March-99 11,679 1,732 7,966 21,377

01-April-99 31-March-00 13,536 4,039 42,173 59,748

01-April-00 31-March-01 12,413 6,192 74,352 92,957

01-April-01 31-March-02 4,643 13,613 1,46,267 1,64,523

01-April-02 31-Jan-03 5,505 22,923 2,20,551 2,48,979

01-Feb-03 31-March-03 - 7,259 58,435 65,694

01-April-03 31-March-04 - 68,558 5,21,632 5,90,190

01-April-04 31-March-05 - 1,03,246 7,36,416 8,39,662

01-April-05 31-March-06 - 1,83,446 9,14,712 10,98,158

Table 1.4 Growth of Fund Mobilisation

Phase V. Growth and Consolidation - 2004 Onwards

The industry has also witnessed several mergers and acquisitions recently, examples

of which are acquisition of schemes of Alliance Mutual Fund by Birla Sun Life, Sun

30
F&C Mutual Fund and PNB Mutual Fund by Principal Mutual Fund. Simultaneously,

more international mutual fund players have entered India like Fidelity, Franklin

Templeton Mutual Fund etc. There were 29 funds as at the end of March 2006. This

is a continuing phase of growth of the industry through consolidation and entry of

new international and private sector players.

1.8 DEFINATION OF MUTUAL FUND

This section deals with the various concepts and terms used in this study that may

carry different meanings in another context. This section defines those terms with the

help of the literature. The following terms are defined operationally, as they are used

in this study.

Asset Under Management (AUM): The net assets under the management of a mutual

fund as of the close of the calendar year.

Net Asset Value (NAV): The amount of buying and selling that happens within a

mutual fund during the year as a percentage of the total value of the mutual fund at

the beginning of the year. The NAV ratio is reported in percentages that represent the

replacement of stocks in the portfolio divided by its net assets.

Past performance (PP): This study uses the one-year return of the mutual fund from

January to December of that year that has been adjusted for their respective category

Do mutual fund attributes affect mutual fund performance. For example, a small cap

mutual fund that produces a return of 15% may be relatively lower than a more value

oriented mutual fund with the same nominal unadjusted performance. To adjust for

31
different investment objectives and understanding that there are multiple categories,

the average category performance is subtracted from the unadjusted one-year return.

Persistence: The nature of mutual funds to exhibit lasting performance over multiple

time periods. This behavior is also called the “hot hands” phenomenon in the

literature. Mutual Fund is a fund, managed by an investment company with the

financial objective of generating high Rate of Returns. These asset management or

investment management companies collects money from the investors and invests

those money in different Stocks, Bonds and other financial securities in a diversified

manner. Before investing they carry out thorough research and detailed analysis on

the market conditions and market trends of stock and bond prices. These things help

the fund mangers to speculate properly in the right direction. The investors who invest

their money in the Mutual fund of any Investment Management Company, receive an

Equity Position in that particular mutual fund. When after certain period of time,

whether long term or short term, the investors sell the Shares of the Mutual Fund, they

receive the return according to the market conditions. The investment companies

receive profit by allocating people's money in different stocks and bonds according to

their Speculation about the Market Trend. Other than some specific mutual funds

which carry certain Maturity Term, Investors can generally sell the shares of their

mutual funds at any time they want. But, the return will vary according to market

value of the stocks and bonds in which that particular mutual fund made investment.

But, generally the share holders of mutual fund sell their share when the prices are up

and Capital Gain is sure to happen.

32
 1.9 PURPOSE OF STUDY

The initial goal of mutual funds was to make saving and diversification more seamless for

the lay investor, but as more and more mutual funds were developed and as more

investment companies marketed their mutual funds, it became increasingly difficult and

confusing for investors to select mutual funds. Moreover, as the popularity of these

mutual funds increased, evidenced by the sheer amount and growth of invested assets

from 1999 to 2010, finance scholars and practitioners began to examine the attributes of

mutual funds that affected sales of mutual funds. Also to investigate the relative effects

of IT Enabled Services on the Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty concepts to

determine if the extra effort and cost of introducing IT Enabled Services protocols to

highly valued customers really does positively affect customer satisfaction rates and

the intention to remain loyal. Another objective of this study is to look at whether

these concepts are further affected if other variables are introduced, specifically in a

financial service industry context. This study is important for several reasons:

1) The performance persistence, where past performance could possibly predict

immediate future returns. This is known as the “hot hands” phenomenon. The topic of

persistence is a subject for debate because there are many conflicting views among

researchers (Cahart, 1997; Grinblatt et al., 1992; Hendricks et al., 1993). Also

literature review deals with the predictive attributes of mutual funds, excluding past

performance. According to Peterson et al. (2001), this segment of the literature is

much more sparse than that which examine the persistence and market.

2) An increase in customer satisfaction rates generally translates into an increase

in loyalty rates (Jones and Sasser 1995; Reichheld, Markey and Hopton 2000;

33
Bolton, Kaniian and Bramlett 2000; Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Gwinner,

Gremler and Bitner 1998). And, an increase in loyalty can decrease administrative

costs by 10-40% (Vincent 2000).

3) There is little published empirical research on the subject of IT and IT Enabled

Services aside from industry surveys evaluating company results after Information

Technology programs are installed. As important, little research exists on

differentiating between highly vs. moderately satisfied customers and what effect this

has on customer satisfaction and loyalty rates.

1.10 ORGANISATION OF THESIS

This thesis is organised in a structured format. Initially in Chapter 1 we introduced the

details about the Mutual Fund Industry in India and how it started. Then we moved on

to explaining the purpose of the study and why attributes like Financial Factors,

Brandname, Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction affects sales of a Mutual

Funds in India. In Chapter 2 we talk about the literature review and how past

researchers has tried to measure financial factors, customer satisfaction, service

quality, IT Enabled services and other area’s like CRM. In Chapter 3 we have

identified what are the research gaps and how do we bridge those gaps through the

current research. We also have discussed the research methodology in which we have

discussed what the sampling method used, why it is used, what are biases in sample

and how do we deal with it. In Chapter 4 we have discussed the how data needs to be

analysed and whether the finding are in sink with what we aim to achieve. We have

displayed what are the different statistical tools used by us and its respective output of

34
SPSS version16. In Chapter 5 we have discussed the conclusion and findings of our

study. In Chapter 6 we have added the limitation and future scope of research. Finally

we have questionnaire followed by annexure and bibliography.

35
CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction and Structure

The purpose of the study is to determine whether mutual fund attributes affect mutual

fund performance. The previous chapter discussed the various dilemmas in this field

and stated the hypotheses to be tested in this study. This chapter presents the literature

review and shows that further research is needed. In the literature review, the

contradictory findings of various researchers are presented. Attributes such as

management tenure, expenses, NAV , and size are examined and the different

positions are quoted from the literature. Lastly, this section summarizes why further

research is warranted in this field.

As the amount of assets invested in mutual funds has ballooned, mutual funds have

become more abundant and more attractive to study. The common thread connecting

the overwhelming majority of studies in this field is an explanation of mutual fund

performance.

Since the inception and use of mutual funds, financial academics and practitioners

have sought to describe their behavior. With billions of dollars invested for a short

period of time, mutual funds have come to play an integral role in an investor’s

portfolio. Countless studies have been conducted attempting to describe the behavior

of these mutual funds. This section introduces the various mutual fund attributes and

their roles in influencing mutual fund performance.

Before examining the literature specific to the mutual fund attribute/performance

relationship, it is important to note the different topics within the mutual fund

36
literature. The literature can be split into three distinct categories. The first category

examines the characteristics of mutual fund managers themselves. This part of the

literature examines whether or not mutual fund managers have great skill in selecting

securities and timing markets successfully. Researchers such as Ferson and Schadt

(1996), Henricksson (1984), and Treynor and Mazuy (1966) have examined the

ability of mutual fund managers to select securities and time markets successfully, but

there is little evidence that supports the notion that they possess such skills. The

second segment of the literature deals with performance persistence, where past

performance could possibly predict immediate future returns. This phenomenon is

also known as the “hot hands” phenomenon. The topic of persistence is a subject for

debate because there are many conflicting views among researchers (Cahart, 1997;

Grinblatt et al., 1992; Hendricks et al., 1993). The third segment of the literature deals

with the predictive attributes of mutual funds, excluding past performance. According

to Peterson et al. (2001), this segment of the literature is much more sparse than its

other two segments, which examine the persistence and market timing/securities

selection skills of the mutual fund manager. The relatively small number of studies

that examine mutual fund attributes and their effects on performance demonstrate this.

Although the two segments of the literature not dealing with mutual fund attributes

are noteworthy, this study agrees with the researchers examining the

attribute/performance relationship who claim that a better understanding of these

relationships will give practical value to lay investors as well as contributing to the

literature and attracting more research into this field of study. This section presents a

summary of the literature dealing with mutual fund attributes.

37
 2.1.1 Effects of Management Tenure (Past Record)

This section examines the varying perspectives on management tenure and its

influence over mutual fund performance. Management tenure is the number of years a

professional money manager has been working for a particular investment company.

In this study, management tenure stands as a proxy for experience. Although there is

an overwhelming consensus on the role of management tenure and its effect on

mutual fund performance, only a minority of the literature concludes that management

tenure is an attribute positively related to mutual fund performance. For example,

Adrangi et al. (2002) examine portfolio returns between professional money managers

versus randomly chosen stocks selected by a process called the “dartboard” method

(as the name suggests, a dart is thrown at a board listing all of the stocks on the New

York Stock Exchange (NYSE)). They found that professional money managers

outperformed the “dartboard” portfolio method, which in the study represented lay

investors managing their own portfolios without specialized financial knowledge.

Therefore, their research suggests that professional money managers are beneficial

(Adrangi et al., 2002). They also asserted that lay investors did not have the expertise

to filter relevant data to make a worthy investment decision. In this case, the relevant

data consists of financial and econometric information that could influence portfolio

returns. They further suggest that the move towards professional money management

and away from managing one’s own portfolio is due to professional money managers

specializing in this field and historically outperforming lay investors (Adrangi et al.,

2002).

38
Although one can be convinced by the conclusions presented by Adrangi et al. (2002),

Fortin and Michelson (1999) suggest that management tenure has no effect on mutual

fund performance. Furthermore, they suggest that all investors should look past

management tenure and examine other variables such as the risk characteristics of

mutual funds, the type of mutual fund, size, and NAV . They caution against the easy

conclusion that management tenure and mutual fund performance need be positively

related. Although professional money managers (mutual fund managers included)

have a specialized knowledge of markets, they do not possess any significant skills in

selecting stocks or timing markets. Although their study concludes that longer-term

fund managers have lower risk in their portfolios than shorter-term or inexperienced

fund managers, the relationship between management tenure and performance is

negative. Lemak and Satish (1996) side with Fortin and Michelson (1999) in their

study of 313 mutual funds; they also found that longer-term fund managers have more

stable returns than shorter-term fund managers because longer-term fund managers

construct less volatile portfolios.

Costa and Porter (2003) provide evidence that contradicts Adrangi et al. (2002). They

found that the experience or tenure of the mutual fund manager does not imply

expertise (Costa & Porter, 2003). The core argument between these articles concerns

whether professional money managers are needed. On the one hand, Adrangi et al.

(2002) suggest that they are needed because they are able to outperform the lay

investor. On the other hand, Costa and Porter (2003) suggest that professional money

managers are not needed because as experience or management tenure increases, it is

unclear whether experience contributes to mutual fund performance. According to

39
Adrangi et al. (2002), professional money managers should be able to perform better

because they have specialized knowledge and expertise in this field. Unfortunately,

Costa and Porter (2003) found that management tenure does not contribute to above

average returns, nor is it a cause of consistent returns. However, Costa and Porter’s

(2003) research does not suggest a negative relationship between performance and

management tenure, as in Fortin and Michelson’s study (1999).

Peterson, Pietranico, Riepe and Xu (2001) agree with Fortin and Michelson (1999)

and Lemak and Satish (1996) in not finding a statistically significant relationship

between management tenure and mutual fund performance in their cross-sectional

data over a nine-year span from 1992 to 2000. In fact, this study amplifies the

findings of Fortin and Michelson (1999), concluding that if their confidence level

were lowered from 95% to 90%, it would illustrate that mutual funds management

would be statistically significant, but the relationship between mutual fund

performance and management tenure would be negative. The negative relationship

could be explained by the conventional adage that as risk increases, the potential

return increases. Therefore, mutual fund managers who have longer tenures construct

less risky portfolios; this would explain why increases in management tenure translate

into lower, albeit consistent, performance.

However, a study from Goetzmann and Ibbotson (1994) suggests that mutual fund

managers with longer tenures who have had a two- to three-year span of abnormal

returns would experience similarly high rates of return in the two subsequent years.

This study reinforces Adrangi et al. (2002), that management tenure is needed because

of its attributable influence on mutual fund performance – the “hot hands”

40
phenomenon. Other researchers such as Costa and Porter (2003) state that this “hot

hands” phenomenon is not attributable to management tenure. They examined 112

mutual funds with managers having ten years or more of tenure versus 930 mutual

funds with managers having less than ten years tenure. They found that performance

persistence was not statistically different from one group of managers to the other. In

conclusion, Goetzmann and Ibbotson (1994), Adrangi et al. (2002), and other

researchers such as Grinblatt and Titman (1993) assert that mutual fund performance

is a function of longer management tenure. However, the literature presented by

Fortin and Michelson (1999), Lemak and Satish (1996), and Peterson et al. (2001)

suggest that management tenure is not a variable statistically significant enough to

explain mutual fund performance. Peterson et al. (2002) best stated the point that,

even though the literature on persistence is somewhat robust and conclusive, the

literature on management tenure exhibits mixed results.

The fact that there are many researchers in this field with different perspectives

regarding management tenure is evidence for the inconclusiveness identified by

Peterson et al. (2001).

2.1.2 Effects of Size (Asset Under Management)

The debate does not end with management tenure. This section examines the effects

of mutual fund size on mutual fund performance. This excerpt from Gregoriou and

Fabrice’s (2001) study encapsulates the rationale of size affecting performance:

“Studies investigating this relationship among mutual funds have yielded mixed

conclusions. Among academics, fund size is frequently quoted as a deterrent to

performance enhancement, especially when a substantial amount of cash is

41
continually injected into the fund” (Gregoriou & Fabrice, 2001). There are two points

to note from this statement: (1) The relationship between mutual fund size and

performance is mixed; and (2) One can infer from Gregoriou and Fabrice’s (2001)

statement above that larger mutual funds have a difficult time finding worthwhile

investment opportunities as the inflow of assets increases.

Although they do not examine the entire range of mutual funds (they specifically

examined only hedge funds in the study), they draw the conclusion that fund size has

no bearing on performance. However, Gregoriou and Fabrice (2001) believe that the

relationship between the two is not linear, and they introduce the concept of an

optimally sized portfolio. They suggest that small mutual funds cannot cover the costs

of acquiring and trading information, so the net returns to an investor on this small

mutual fund may only be minimal. On the other hand, extremely large mutual funds,

such as George Soros’ Quantum fund, also experience poor performance because of

management problems due to size. Furthermore, the argument for diseconomies of

scale, where management has a more difficult time organizing and implementing

investment strategy, is realized with larger funds (Gregoriou & Fabrice, 2001). The

results in their study state that mutual fund size does not influence performance.

However, they suggest that the relationship could be negative and statistically

significant if the confidence level were lowered (Gregoriou & Fabrice, 2001).

Moreover, if lowered, this would add to the literature suggesting that larger mutual

funds exhibit management problems such as not being able to sell out of or buy into

different positions quickly.

42
Likewise, Peterson et al. (2001) examined cross-sectional data through time and

found that mutual fund size measured by net assets has no effect on mutual fund

performance. Peterson et al. (2001), like Gregoriou and Fabrice (2001), admit that the

literature is sparse in regard to the size/performance relationship. Of course, there is

contradictory evidence presented by Indro, Jiang, Hu, and Lee (1999). They recount

that when the mutual fund Fidelity Magellan was getting too large, the fund manager,

Jeff Vinik, had to divest out of equities and into bonds because the management of

such a large fund was becoming too daunting. Saunders-Egodigwe and Franeki (1998)

also amplify the observation made by Indro et al. (1999). Their study reported that

many other mutual funds also closed off the inflow of investor money in the late

1990s because fund managers were suddenly burdened with moving large amounts of

money into and out of positions. Mutual fund managers found that the organization

and implementation of investment strategy was becoming more and more difficult.

However, Indro et al. (1999) do not suggest that as mutual funds gather more assets

performance declines. Their study pooled 683 domestic, actively managed mutual

funds from Morningstar’s Mutual Funds OnDisc database from the years 1993-1995

(Indro et al., 1999). The data used was cross-sectional. They found that mutual funds

must have a certain minimum amount of net assets before the costs of information

acquisition can be offset by gains from trading. They suggest that over a certain range

of mutual fund sizes, returns are poor for a small-sized fund, but as the fund becomes

larger, performance increases to exceed the cost of trading on information; however,

when the fund becomes too large, performance declines. The relationship between

43
size and performance is curvilinear. Hence, there is the suggestion of optimal size and

diminishing returns to scale as mutual funds become larger:

The incremental contribution to return from the cost of acquiring and trading on

information when the size of net assets is taken into account. An interesting pattern

emerges…A minimum size of net assets apparently exists below which the return is

insufficient to justify the cost of an active investment strategy.

In addition, beyond the breakeven size, the net gain to active management increases

with the size of net assets. But as the size of net assets increases…the magnitude of

the net gain is proportionally less with each successive group. (Indro et al., 1999)

This explains why the literature is ambiguous as to the true relationship between size

and performance. Many researchers concur with Wagner and Edwards (1993) that the

relationship is negative because when a fund becomes too large it necessarily incurs

certain cost disadvantages.

2.1.3 Effects of Turnover (NAV)

Mutual fund turnover is the complete cycle of replacing stocks within the portfolio.

Aside from the expense of commissions, there are other internal costs in owning a

mutual fund. This section examines NAV and their effect on performance.

Although the NAV changes then its effect on turnover ratio of a mutual fund adds to

the cost of investing in mutual funds, the literature exhibits mixed results in regard to

this variable’s relationship to performance; this is similar to the management tenure

and size/performance relationships discussed previously. Some researchers assert that

NAV is positively related to performance. They argue that as NAV increases

44
(implying active mutual fund management), the fund will perform better because fund

managers are able to see changes in financial market behavior. Also, when active

management is able to pull out of certain equity positions, high NAV could be a

signal of fund managers hedging to protect the growth of the mutual fund.

The study by Peterson et al. (2001) concluded that there was statistically significant

relationship between NAV and performance. They further mention that NAV was a

significant variable over the years tested (1992-2000); however, they claim that the

influence may be so subtle that the relationship cannot be detected due to the size of

the sample. Droms, William and Walker (1996) examined similar variables, but they

used 151 mutual funds over longer time intervals, spanning from 1971 to 1990. As

Droms, William and Walker (1996) regressed portfolio NAV against performance,

they further state that conventional finance literature suggests NAV is negatively

related to performance. However, they report that mutual fund managers are

performing efficiently, meaning as the mutual fund incurs costs for trading on

information such as turning over securities throughout the year, fund managers are

able to recoup those costs, even though performance stagnates. They conclude that

there is a positive and statistically significant relationship between performance and

NAV ; however, this contradicts the findings presented by Ippolito (1989), which

state there is no statistical relationship between NAV and performance, mainly

because turnover does not occur evenly throughout the year at equal rates. Amplifying

what Ippolito (1989) asserts, Droms and Walker (2001) reexamined their previous

study from 1996. Droms and Walker (2001) regressed mutual fund attributes such as

NAV and other operating variables with respect to performance and found that the

45
results were statistically significant and that NAV rates of mutual funds were

influential over performance. The literature has shown mixed results regarding its

relationship to mutual fund performance.

2.2 MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY MANAGEMENT CUSTOMER

In recent years, there can be found as many definitions of CRM as there are clients.

Now, there is widespread acceptance that it is a philosophy or culture that should

penetrate the whole organization (Gofton 2001). It is a combination of business

process and technology that seeks to understand a firm's customers - who they are,

what they do, what they like - and convert them into returning customers. It is a

systematic approach to managing the relationship between a business and its

customers for mutual benefit (Couldwell 1999).

Defining customer relationship marketing is not an easy task. Relationship

marketing is perceived and defined in different ways both from an academic and a

practical perspective. CRM is defined by one financial service firm as: "an approach

to providing seamless coordination among process, people, information and

technology that creates positive experiences for a parry each time he or she interacts

with the bank. It is the capability for delivering each `valued experience' enabled by

the bank's knowledge about a party including their preferences, behaviours, goals, and

attitudes"

Parvartiyar and Sheth (1994) view relationship marketing as an orientation

that seeks to develop close interactions with selected customers, suppliers, and

competitors for value creation through cooperative and collaborative efforts. Several

46
other views of relationship marketing are noted: "Relationship marketing is database

marketing that emphasizes the promotional aspects of marketing linked to database

efforts" (Bickert 1992). Or, as Vavra (1995) suggests, it is customer retention in

which a variety of after-marketing tactics are used for customer bonding or staying in

touch after the sale is made. A more popular approach is to focus on "individual or

one-to-one relationships with customers that integrate database knowledge with a

long-term customer retention and growth strategy" (Peppers and Rogers 1999). And,

Shani and Chalasani (1992) define relationship marketing as `an integrated effort to

identify, maintain, and build a network with individual consumers and to continuously

strengthen the network for the mutual benefit of both sides through interactive,

individualized and value-added contacts over a long period of time.' Berry and

Parasuraman (1991) define relationship marketing more strategically as attracting,

maintaining, and in multi-service organizations, enhancing customer relationships.

And, Gronroos (1995) proposed relationship marketing is establishing relationships

with customers and other parties at a profit by mutual exchange and fulfillment of

promises. The primary goal of relationship marketing is to build and maintain a base

of committed customers who are profitable for the organization (Zeithaml and Bitner

2000) and, at the same time, minimize the time and effort spent on customers who are

not profitable. The benefits to the organization of building and maintaining this base

of committed customers are numerous and can be linked directly to an organization's

bottom line. Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggest that relationship marketing is all

marketing activities directed toward establishing, developing, and maintaining

47
successful relational exchanges. And, Gummesson notes that relationship marketing is

seen as relationships, networks and interaction (Gummesson 1999). This definition is

the only one that includes the concepts of networks and interaction. From a

practitioner's perspective, it is considered a strategy to enhance existing relationships

by expanding the depth of the relationship (by investing more money on more

products and services with the firm) and by concentrating on repeat business from the

firm's most valuable customers. It is marketing-oriented management, not limited to

marketing or sales departments but becoming part of the total management of the firm

(Gummesson 1999). And, most financial service firms use CRM systems as the basis

and driver of their relationship marketing and management strategy.

For the purpose of this study, the following definition is used: Customer

relationship marketing is the ongoing process of engaging in cooperative and

collaborative activities and programs with the purpose of enhancing mutual

economic value over the long-term using technology, programs and protocols that

intentionally aim to enhance the depth of the relationship. Without these aspects of

interaction between the firm and the customer, the relationship could easily unravel.

It is important to recognize the value of each customer segment and to concentrate

relationship marketing programs on those segments of customers who have a higher

potential to return profits to the company.

2.3 IMPACT OF IT AND IT ENABLED SERVICES IN MUTUAL FUND

INDUSTRY

The impacts of 1T and IT Enabled Services (e-finance technologies) on

financial institutions vary from one country to another. The financial institutions in

48
the developed countries are able to align new IT with financial management much

better than their counterparts do in both newly developed and other developing

countries. Therefore, the financial institutions in the developed countries may

outperform their counterparts in the newly and other developing countries in terms of

their operational performance as measured the cost and profit efficiencies and scope

economies. No legacy systems but the most updated IT systems are usually applied in

the newly developed countries; thus, the financial institutions in the newly developed

countries may leapfrog over their counterparts in the developed countries. Moreover,

the use of IT may spur the further integration of the international financial

institutional markets across nations; and this intrigues me to test the international

market integration hypothesis in the context of IT and IT Enabled Services.

During the past decade, information technology (IT) has profoundly changed the

landscape of international financial markets. For instance, in the U.S., financial

services have become the largest customer of IT in the economy. This phenomenon

also has taken place in many other countries. The use of IT has overwhelmingly and

fundamentally improved the quality of financial services and operations of financial

institutions. This dramatic development, known as e-finance, has become a focal point

of practice in multinational financial institutions.

What is e-finance? Hartmann (2002) defines e-finance as "transactions in which

funding for an economic activity is provided through an electronic communication

medium." Therefore, by definition, e-finance is a branch of e-commerce, while e

commerce forms a critical part of the management of IT. Allen et at. (2002) define it

49
as "the provision of financial services and markets using electronic communication

and computation." Hence, the term e-finance technology can be referred to as the

application of IT in the field of finance. The relationships among IT, e-commerce, and

e-finance are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 2.3.1 The Relationships Among IT, E-Commerce, and E-Finance

The impacts of e-finance may be categorized into two types. First, the use of

electronic communications, such as electronic bill paying, home banking, and internet

transaction; has been altering business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-customer

(B2C} in the financial markets. The marketing accessibility of financial institutions is

extended and increased to remote areas or countries via new telecommunications

technology. Second, the applications of electronic computation and databases shorten

the IT here refers to the information technology in a broad sense, which includes

50
telecommunications. Some others have called it ICT (informational and

communications technology). Reproduced with permission of the copyright

owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Management of

IT (including electronic computation and electronic telecommunications) E-

Commerce or E-Business (Distribution channels, promotions, and technical

execution of transactions of business) E-Finance (Internet banking, paperless

processing, stored-value cards, e-payment, on-line stock trading, etc.) processing

time of each financial transaction. Thus, via electronic communication and

computation, financial institutions can operate more efficiently than ever before.

Here, e-finance is defined as the application of 1T (including electronic computation

and electronic telecommunications) in financial management.

On the other hand, after many countries have joined the European Economic Union

(EEU) and the World Trade Organizations (WTQ), goods, labor, and services are

allowed to move easily across national boundaries. International harmonization of

regulation in financial markets is expected (White, 2000). The diffusion of e-finance

technology across nations further speeds up the transmission of information in

different countries. Hence, the global financial markets could become more unified

than before due to the progress of e-finance (Claessens et al., 2002). Therefore, an

investigation of the international market's integration of financial intermediaries along

with the development of IT is important.

In the finance literature, many previous studies (e.g., Timme, 1991, among others)

have explored the `technological change' of commercial banks in the U.S. Only a few,

such as Lin and Lin (2004) and Lin et al. (2004), have discussed technological

51
changes under the framework of international finance. Furthermore, the concept of

the `technological change' is too broad to capture the contribution of IT. Therefore, it

is critical to evaluate the impact of IT on the international financial industry.

Although IT investments are risky and costly in practice, they are seldom tied to

profit-making aspects (Lin and Shao, 2000; and Shao and Lin, 2002). In the

information systems literature, this problem is well-known and called the IT

productivity paradox (Hitt and Brynjolfsson, 1996; Brynjolfsson and Yang, 1996;

Dewan and Kraemer, 2000 and Lin and Shao, 2000; among others). While financial

institutions are the major customers of IT, justifying substantial IT investment has

become necessary and important. Alpar and Kim (1991) have found that IT is cost

saving, labor saving, and capital using, but Prassad and Harker (1997) have stated that

IT investments have little significance on the productivity of commercial banks.

Therefore, there is no conclusion on whether or not IT significantly contributes to the

profit or cost performance of financial institutions.

Moreover, most previous research on e-finance has been confined to the case of the

U.S. And, an international comparison in this field is rare except the work of

Claessens et al. (2002), who have discussed e-finance all over the world by using

conceptual reasoning rather than providing strong empirical evidence. Therefore, it is

important to investigate the impact of IT on financial services across nations, given

that the world economy is increasingly globalizing.

Although the literature essentially remains silent on the effect of e-finance on

international finance, the impact of IT across nations has been discussed extensively.

For instance, Dewan and Kraemer (2000) have investigated the international

52
productivity paradax of IT. They have found that IT investment is negatively related

to the productivity across nations. However, they have found strong evidence to

support the conten'ien that IT improves productivity for developed countries, but

reduces productivity for newly developed and other developing countries. In other

words, the negative relationship between IT and productivity is supported by the

observations from the developing countries subsample and there is no "productivity

paradox" in the developed countries at all.

The major businesses of commercial banks include loans (commercial and consumer

loans), deposits (term deposits and demand deposits) and financial investments (long-

term and short-term). The insurance industry consists of property/casualty insurance,

health care insurance, and life insurance, and can also be categorized into life and

non-life insurances. Although the sources and uses of funds are different across these

· The definition of globalization according to Czinkota et al. (2000) is that

the discrepancy among different will decrease and eventually disappear.

two types of insurances, they have some basic common features: they receive

premiums from customers, pay them for accidents, and invest their reserves in

financial markets. Due mainly to the limit of data available, I do not separate

them in this study. According to Rai (1996), most international insurance

companies (over 60%) are engaged in both life and non-life insurances, but

during this deregulation era, the boundary between these two insurances

becomes less important because in many countries an insurance company

issues both life and non-life policies. This trend justifies our focus in this study

53
 on a global comparison rather than comparing different types of insurance

companies.

Regarding the methodological issues, note that efficiency analysis has become

dominant in research on financial institutions (Allen and Rai, 1996; and Rai,

1996). I follow this convention but adopt a more generalized stochastic frontier

approach to estimate cost and profit efficiencies. This approach is shown

empirically and theoretically to be superior to previous approaches.

This section discusses the relevant findings and problems of the earlier studies that lead

to the development of goals for this research. The debate on IT's contribution to

Corporate Performance(especially Sales) has contributed for at least three decades. So

far, apparently no study has found a significant relationship between lT investments and

the overall profitability of the firm, and only a few studies have found a significant

positive relationship between IT and some aspect of Corporate Performance(especially

Sales). The argument of Hitt and Brynjolfsson (1996) that IT contributes to

productivity but not profitability (as all the gains are passed on to the customers due to

heightened competition may be true in the case of few firms. However, it is not clear

why their argument should be true for all firms, cutting across different industrial

settings and competitive arenas. Also, if it is true that firms investing in IT see no

increase in profits due to heightened competition, then the firms not investing in IT

should probably see a decrease in profits and tend to go out of business in turn, the

presence of fewer firms should lessen competition and result in increased profits for the

surviving firms. Many problems associated with evaluating IT's contribution to

54
Corporate Performance(especially Sales) are methodological in nature. The evaluation

of IT's contribution to Corporate Performance(especially Sales) appears to be sensitive

to the research methodology adopted by a given researcher (Noyelle, 1990). Depending

on the methodology adopted, one may or may not be able to assess the contribution of

IT. For example, using the same data set, Loveman (1999) finds no contributions while

Barua (1995) do. Aside from a couple of novel approaches (e.g. Bresrtaha R, 1986;

Banker and Kauffman, 1988), two major methodologies have been utilized in

previous studies to evaluate 1T's contribution to Corporate Performance(especially

Sales). At least seven studies ( i.e., Cron and Sobol, 1983; Bender, 1986; Harris & Kat,

1988, 1989; Siege! and Griliches 1991; Baruu., 1995; Brynjolfsson 1996) employ a ratio

approach to evaluating IT's contribution to Corporate Performance(especially Sales).

These seven studies use either correlation or regression analysis to establish the

relationship between a particular CT ratio and a particular profitability ratio. Although

none of these seven studies found a significant relationship between FT investments and

the fern’s bottom line, each one (except for Hitt & Bryryol~'sson, 1996) did find a

significant positive relationship between 1T investments and some important aspects of

Corporate Performance(especially Sales). Thus, the findings of these seven studies are

generally consistent. On the other hand, studies by Mocrison & Berndt (1990),

Loveman (1999), and Hitt 8c Brynjolfsson (1996} employ a production function

(drawn from microeconomics theory} to evaluate IT's contribution to Corporate

Performance(especially Sales). The findings of these three studies are inconsistent.

Morrison & Bernd that the marginal contribution of IT to productivity is minus 20%;

Loveman finds it to be 0%; and Hitt & Brynjolfsson find it to be plus 95%. These three

55
widely different findings indicate that the researchers may not have selected an

appropriate production function to evaluate IT's contribution to Corporate

Performance(especially Sales). Hence, the present study uses the ratio approach to

evaluate IT's contribution to Corporate Performance(especially Sales). There are also

other reasons for using the ratio approach in the present study. Firsr, the ratio

approach appears to be most appropriate for this study's objectives and goals. Alpar

& Kim state that financial ratios "are excellent indicators of the state of a firm and an

industry" (1990: 67). IT-related ratios are used by industry associations, consulting

firms, and corporate management to compare one or more firms with competitors

(Snotty & Gruber, 1981). Similarly, Harris & Katz observe that "financial ratios have

been used extensively to predict firms performance" (1989). Studies by Beaver (1966),

Altman (1968), Pinches & Mingo (1973), McGowan (1985), and Buzzel & Gale (1987)

are all examples of studies using financial ratios to understand and predict Corporate

Performance(especially Sales). Second, the findings of the financial-ratio approach are

more meaningful and easier to interpret than the findings of the production-function

approach. For instance, in the production-function approach it is not clear as to what a

high- or low-gross marginal product means, or how an organization may apply this

knowledge. ln this regard, it is instructive to note that while Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1995)

found a surprising 95% gross marginal product for 1T (which implies that firms are

considerably under-invested in IT), they are quite ambivalent about recommending

more IT consumption by firms. On the other hand, Barua et al. (1995) use the financial-

ratio approach, and their results inform us about the degree of relationship as well as the

detection of association between a particular IT-spending ratio and a particular financial

56
ratio such as capacity utilization or inventory turnover. Similarly, Harris and Katz

(1989) use the financial-ratio approach to develop a model that discriminates, with high

reliability, between high-performing and low-performing insurance companies based on

their IT spending levels. Third, the production-function approach is based on the

assumption that firms are driven solely by the motive of obtaining higher profits or

lower costs. This assumption may not always be valid as organizations are run by

people, whose motivations are not necessarily aligned with those of the organization.

Sometimes, managers are less interested in increasing firm's profits or reducing firm's

costs but more interested in increasing their own job security or stability (Gordorr,

1961). These managers may engage in empire building or showing off{e.g. having

more secretaries, better parking spaces, bigger offices, fatter expense accounts ), and in

increasing their persona! status, power, or income (Williamson, 1966). Thus, managers

may make IT investments not for reasons of improving the firm's bottom line but for

other reasons, including possession of the latest technology to impress colleagues. The

evaluation of IT's contribution to Corporate Performance(especially Sales) is also

sensitive to the nature of the specific measure employed as the independent or the

dependent variable. The use by Barua (1995) of several lower level financial ratios

(capacity utilization or inventory turnover) rather than higher-level financial ratios

(return on assets or return or equity) is a case in point. Also, it is important to note that

return on equity or return on assets may not always be the most relevant ratios for

evaluating the financial heath of all industries. For instance, cash-flow ratios are often

better predictors of the financial health of real-estate firms or REIT, like passenger-load

factors may better explain the profitability of airlines. Thus, it makes sense to examine

57
the changes in the different financial ratios in different contexts and over time in order

to capture meaningfull the impact of IT investments on Corporate

Performance(especially Sales). Similarly, it seems that the ratio of IT spending to total

operating expense is a better predictor of Corporate Performance(especially Sales)

than the ratio of IT spending to the number of employees. Bender (1986) and Harris &

Katz (1988, 1989) use the ratio of IT spending to total operating expense as the

independent variable in their studies, and their findings are consistent. Each of these

three studies finds a significant positive association between IT investments and some

key aspect of Corporate Performance(especially Sales). On the other hand, Barua

(1995) and Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1996) use the ratio of IT spending to number of

employees as the independent variable and their findings are inconsistent. Further, it

appears that the proportion of the total operating expense that a firm spends on IT is a

better indicator of that firm's commitment to IT than an absolute dollar amount per

employee that the firm spends on IT. The absolute dollar amount per employee that a

Firm spends on IT is not merely a function of that firm's commitment to IT' but also a

function of that firm's resource richness. A resource-rich firm is more likely than a

resource-scarce firm to purchase IT without necessarily making sure that the IT being

purchased is really needed by the firm. Thus, a resource-rich firm with little

commitment to IT may spend on IT a higher dollar amount per employee than a

resource-scarce firm with a high commitment to IT. On the other hand, the proportion

of the total operating expense that a firm is ready to spend on IT is essentially a

function of that firm's commitment to IT. Thus, it seems that using the ratio of IT

spending to total operating expense as the independent variable may provide

58
meaningful insights into the relationship between lT' investments and corporate

performance. lt also seems that the identification of the relationship between IT

spending and Corporate Performance(especially Sales) is significantly dependent on

what specific IT spending ratio is used as the independent variable and what specific

financial ratio is used as the dependent variable. Hence, it makes sense to use different

1T spending ratios as independent variables, and examine the relationship between each

of them and the various financial ratios to capture IT's contributions to Corporate

Performance(especially Sales). Much research has been done to evaluate the average

contribution of IT to Corporate Performance(especially Sales) atoning forms using IT.

Earlier studies do not examine how IT's contributions to Corporate

Performance(especially Sales) vary across firms. Surely, some firms employ IT more

effectively and consequently obtain greater benefits from IT usage than other firms.

Also, much research seems to be based on the notion that as the amount of IT' used by a

firm increases, so do its profits. These studies tend to emphasize the quantity and tend

to ignore the quality of information that a firm processes or generates per unit time.

Clearly, if good information management is important for a firm's operations and

performance, then both the quantity and quality of information that a firm processes or

generates per unit time do matter. A firm's recent-past performance provides some

insight into the effectiveness of that firm's existing information-management system.

Thus, it would make sense to control for a firm's growth rate in the recent past while

exploring the relationship between IT investments and Corporate

Performance(especially Sales). Earlier studies exploring the relationship between IT

investments and Corporate Performance(especially Sales) have tended to neglect or

59
ignore the factor of risk. It is very important to incorporate risk in the model for

evaluation of IT impacts. Clearly, the management of risk is a key aspect of

performance. Also, a firm's risk-adjusted performance may be quite different from its

performance not adjusted for risk {this is most clearly evident in the case of mutual

fund companies or investment advisory firms). Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect

that the relationship between IT investments and risk-adjusted performance measures

may be quite different from the relationship between IT investments and performance

measures not adjusted for risks. Ironically, the employment of rapidly advancing IT'

not only facilitates risk management but also accentuates the kinds and levels of risks

faced by a firm. It is conventional wisdom that introduction of new technology in the

marketplace poses challenges for the existing market leader and provides opportunities

for the current market follower to overtake the market leader. However, in the

information era, the challenges faced by the market leader in any given industry are

more frequent and come not only from within the industry but from all parts of the

economy. The information ere is characterized by more and increasing levels of

knowledge, complexity, and turbulence (Huber, 1984). It is also characterized by

constantly shifting demographics, ruthlessly competitive global markets, severe

regulation, short product-life cycles, and scarce resources (Piore & Sabel. 1984; Miles

& Snow, 1986; Handy, 1989; Ohmae, 1989). To cope with these new environmental

realities, organizational adaptations appear to include the strategies of "buy not make" and

"collaborate to compete," both characteristics of the Virtual Corporation (VC).

Increasingly, organizations are adopting numerous strategies: outsourcing (Malone.,

1987; joint ventures (Harrigan, 1985); strategic alliances (Hamel., 1989); information

60
partnerships (Konsynski & McFarlan, 1990); inter-organizationaI collaboration (Astley

& Bruhm, 1989); new hybrid organizational structures or forms (Powell, I987; Borys

Jemison, 1989); and dynamic networks that form and reform with a lead firm acting as a

broker (Miles and Snow, 1988) or as a hub (Jarillo, 1988). Thus, the barriers and

boundaries between organizations and industries appear to be less distinct and more

diffuse. Accordingly, the challenge to a firm can come from any number of sources.

Hence, it is important to consider the factor of risk when exploring the relationship

between IT investments and Corporate Performance(especially Sales). Further, all

studies except Weill (1990) conceive of IT as one monolithic, homogeneous entity.

Clearly, there are different types of ITs: from telecommunications to mainframe

computers to networked client-servers to stand alone desktops, etc. Why, then, should

the impacts of different ITs be the same? Additionally, nearly all studies are plagued

with technological determinism: use IT and a definite profitability outcome will ensue.

Barring studies done by Barua (1995) and Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1996), much of the

relevant research has tended to ignore all contextual variables. Most studies seem to

be based on the notion that a single characterization of the effect of IT usage on the

firm's profitability is possible, and would be true for all firms, irrespective of their

size, industry setting, competitive arena, or IT-management practices and tactics. Why

should the information needs and IT requirements of a small semiconductor firm be

same as those of a large semiconductor firm or of a large airline? Again, why should

the impact of IT investments on profitability for a firm using 1T to control costs or

improve management control be the same as for a firm using IT to improve customer

service or operational flexibility? To conclude, there are clearly a large variety of

61
firms operating in widely different settings and competitive situations. Further, IT's

contributions are not limited to just one Corporate Performance(especially Sales)

variable or dimension. Should not then, our ability to understand, explain, and predict

IT's contribution to Corporate Performance(especially Sales) be dependent on how

well we simultaneously address sets of contingencies, performance criteria, and

tactical alternatives.

2.4 ROLE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & CUSTOMER

RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT IN MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY

Most of what has been written about CRM is from the practitioner's point of

view (Plakoyiaunaki and Tzokas 2002) and relatively little is known about the CRM

process as there is no field-based empirical research to provide a clear picture of the

system's process complexity. Yet, Forrester Research reports that only 2% of

businesses have an integrated view of customer data (Calhoun 2001) and most firms

still seem to strategize in silos (i.e., each department or division concentrates on the

strategy that will help achieve their goal rather than overall company goals).

Customer databases in different departments of a firm are rarely linked together

especially Sales in financial service companies where investment in legacy systems

has hindered the use of database technology. One of the top barriers stowing CRM

deployments are integration with legacy systems (65%) and pulling together scattered

legacy data sources (62%) (Sweat 2000). (Legacy systems are large computer systems

62
and application programs that capture large stores of information specific to a

corporation's needs (customer or otherwise) and are usually very organization-specific

and very difficult and cost prohibitive to modify) (Gold 1998). Although things are

changing and more dollars are being invested to merge and enhance these systems,

financial institutions are still a long way from achieving this.

During the 1990s, technological advances bolstered the amount and quality

of customer data available to firms and firms began to spend millions of dollars on

CRM systems. Companies began to look at their customers more holistically in

order to better understand the reasons behind their loyalty (James 2002). CRM

systems may, justifiably, pose other concerns for marketers. Do consumers

understand what database technology is? Do consumers view database marketing

as an invasion of their privacy or do they, as marketers believe, see it as a method

of enhancing a marketer's knowledge in order to better understand the customer's

needs? Although most corporations have strict policies around customer

information and privacy, earlier studies have shown that consumers and marketers

do not necessarily perceive ethical issues in the same way. Even though

corporations distribute a `privacy policy' to their customers, it alone does not

necessarily provide the level of confidence that a customer has in the firm's privacy

practices. And, customers today are more aware of marketing databases and how

that information is used. Information technology equates to knowledge for the

company and for the consumer. It could be argued that this technology shift is

causing more and more anxiety on the part of consumers who resent the amount of

information firms have accumulated on them and, at the same time, sense a

63
departure from the one-to-one personal relationship they previously knew. Yet,

having a customer database is no longer a competitive advantage. Not having one,

however, is a competitive disadvantage (Newell 1997). Database marketing allows

the firm to combine the best of customization and personalization in varying

degrees. 1999-2000 was the year of exposing "privacy laws" to consumers in the

hope that their fears would be allayed. Customers, however, still tend to view

information technology as an invasion to their privacy. This reaction also tends to

erode the trust element in the relationship. In spite of all the confidence placed on

database marketing systems, emotionally satisfying relationships require periodic

human presence. Absent human involvement, authenticity is compromised in a

customer's perception (Sheth and Parvatiyar 2000). CRM does not necessarily

espouse elimination of personal contact, but it certainly is designed to minimize the

time human interaction is needed. Barefoot (2001) suggests that the best way to

avoid problems with customer privacy is to build a pervasive privacy culture

within the organization so that employees can recognize privacy issues when they

encounter them and know how to react. This, of course, requires leadership that

builds and then sustains sensitivity to privacy throughout the company. Installing a

privacy culture in a financial institution requires a supportive environment. The

critical factor becomes the surrounding culture in which employees operate -- that

set of shared understandings and informal rules that groups use to guide behaviour.

Generally speaking, financial service institutions today possess deeply rooted

cultures that guide employees toward building market share and earnings.

However, when privacy issues arise outside the scope of new rules (e.g., Gramm-

64
Leach-Bliley Act), they will struggle to compete for thoughtful attention with the

business values already entrenched there, including a drive to gather ever more

customer information and use it more creatively to improve performance. After all,

such use of customer information constitutes one of the major building blocks of

the customer relationship management strategy (Barefoot, 2001). Using database

marketing is considered by the firm as an innovative way to present new products

and services to consumers based on their buying patterns translated to their specific

needs - products and services intended to enhance the relationship. It helps to

build, strengthen and maintain relationships. This permits firms to segment in new

ways and retain customers via the design of products and services that meet the

needs of customer "clusters", communicate with them more effectively, and earn

their loyalty. It employs tools (neural networks, decision trees, rule induction, etc.)

that look for meaning, find patterns and infer rules that may be causal, predictive

or descriptive to make better management decisions (Gordon 1998). At the same

time, however, customers often perceive it as an invasion of their privacy. In the

final analysis, the financial institution must create a complete culture supporting

infrastructure with written policies and procedures, ongoing privacy training,

creating privacy `champions' who monitor customer interactions and the

institution's own products and practices. Employee `ownership' of the privacy issue

is a must if sensitivity to it is to permeate the corporation and if customers are

going to get the sense that they are in secure hands. Customer information

generally captured in databases includes things like: name, phone number,

customer value (to the firm), demographics (household size, age, income, gender),

65
consumption habits, psychographics, purchase and post-purchase behavior,

creditworthiness, etc. In the right hands, the company can learn about consumers

and add value to the relationship. In the wrong hands, this information can

compromise the customer (Gordon 1998). Database marketing can identify

customer differences and similarities and can help marketers know what customers

want. It is also important to characterize segments into identifiable and measurable

groups via demographic and psychographic variables (Zeithaml 2000). Database

marketing helps the firm do this. Clearly, then, for CRM to be successful several

elements must be in place: a database of the highest quality; a high level of

commitment at the top of the organization and alignment of activities around the

CRM strategy and goal; proper segmentation; appropriate protocols that add value

for the most highly-profitable customers; and a high level of training and

indoctrination of all employees. It also is important to created easily accessible

technology for customers' use so that information on them can be more easily

gathered. Managed appropriately and consistently, this should increase customer

satisfaction and, in turn, customer loyalty rates. Today's database technology is

powerful and, used appropriately, provides the firm the capability to manage

proper products and services to customer segments. However, if not appropriately

applied, it can also serve to put the customer outside the firm's walls (Gordon

1998). Caught up in our enthusiasm for our information-gathering capabilities and

for the potential opportunities that long-term engagements with customers hold, it

is possible that we have forgotten that relationships take two sides to succeed

(Fournier, Dobscha and Mick 1998). We may have lost sight of the needs of the

66
relationship. In other words, to get loyalty a firm must give loyalty. To get trust, a

firm must give trust. Database marketing supports the CRM effort, but may be

precisely the element that turns customers away.

2.5 HOW TO MEASURE CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT –

IN MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY

Increasingly, customer satisfaction and loyalty measurements are being integrated

with internal operational data that CRM systems provide. Firms also need to be able

to justify the enormous costs of their CRM systems and need to be able to measure the

effects of CRM on the bottom line. According to James (2002), the top three strategic

rationales for implementing CRM have been to increase customer retention/loyalty, to

respond effectively to competitive pressure, and to differentiate competitively based

on customer service superiority. Linking CRM data with customer satisfaction survey

data let firms show that CRM systems have a larger, indirect effect by influencing

customers' intentions. Total spending by U.S. banks on CRM was close to $9 billion

by the end of 1999 and was expected to grow to $46 billion by the end of 2003

(Patton 2001). In the industry, it is thought that the Pareto rule still holds where a

small portion of elite customers account for the bulk of profits (Masters 2000)-

approximately 80% of bank profits come from 20% of customers. But, this may be

over stated. Deloitte Consulting suggests that a mere 3% of customers provide up

to 44% of profits at Norwest, a Minneapolis-based regional bank now merged with

Wells Fargo (Kiesnoski 2000). Increased loyalty among high value customers, actual

or potential, has a major effect on profitability according to a Gale Group study

67
(Masters 2000). Generally, this is precisely the reason that financial service industry

firms install CRM protocols for their most highly-valued and profitable customers.

CRM, however, is not for the weak-spirited. Although the technology is designed to

help companies keep track of their customers and boost revenues by developing long-

term relationships and increasing customer loyalty, it is proving difficult to

accomplish. Companies are investing up to $70 million in a CRM launch and millions

more during multi-year rollouts. Yet some companies still jump into CRM projects

without clear strategies or support from top management (Patton 2001). B2B

Analysts' President, David Dobrin, in visits to six Fortune 500 companies during 1999

and 2000, described CRM projects as `moribund' or used in a way that didn't match

initial expectations (Patton 2001). The collective opinion about CRM

implementations and results suggest that part of the problem with CRM is that, once

installed, associates are not trained properly to use it efficiently nor does top

management continue to give it the support it needs to produce the expected results.

Companies are beginning to demand more practical and long-term support

from CRM consultants. Many firms have learned that CRM is more than a

technology or software solution. Other factors involving organizational changes,

executive (upper management) support and buy-in, user friendliness, and ongoing

CRM consultant support are important in the success of CRM implementations. In a

report sponsored by IBM and Royal Mail, it was suggested that the most advanced

companies were at best only two-thirds of the way to implementing CRM by the end

of 2000 (Goflon 2001). Insight Technology reported in 2000 that 31% of companies

implementing CRM solutions believed they received no return on the investment;

68
38% reported only minor gains; and 70% reported it was a failure or minor success

(Calhoun 2001). The Gartner Group reported that 45% of CRM projects fail to

improve customer interactions while 51% generate no positive returns within three

years and the Meta Group goes further to say that up to 75% of CRM initiatives fail

to meet their objectives (Anonymous 2001). Another study showed that 35% of

CRM users reported significant improvement in customer satisfaction; 46% showed

slight improvement; and 15% could not tell the difference (Sweat 2001). Although it

may be too early to tell, these numbers are discouraging at best. There are many

reasons why it is thought that CRM programs have failed. However, one study

suggests that to drive loyalty a firm must take an integrated approach that focuses on

improving the total customer experience (Calhoun 2001), a strategic and costly

approach that not all firms are willing to take. On the other hand, in an article

predicting future trends in CM Yorgey (2002) emphasizes that companies will

realize that customer satisfaction does not always translate to loyalty, She notes that

many customers may be dissatisfied with a service but remain loyal to a product and

continue to buy it. And, it is safe to say that the opposite is also true that as many

customers may be satisfied with a service but will switch if enticed with a better

offer. Most reported results of CRM implementations come from consulting firms or

from CRM firms themselves via in-house customer satisfaction surveys. If CRM

systems are so sophisticated, then, why is there so much dissatisfaction with them?

Why are measured results so poor compared with firm expectations? Why aren't

those companies that install such programs producing the expected increased

customer satisfaction and increased loyalty? And, why aren't there more studies

69
 analyzing the roots and results of so important an investment? Many factors may

contribute but there is an obvious need for more empirical investigations into CRM

strategy.

2.6 OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN MUTUAL FUND

INDUSTRY

Why should a financial service firm, then, invest so much money, time and effort to

pursue a systemic customer relationship marketing strategy? One reason is that as

mentioned earlier, historically, those firms that concentrate their efforts on retaining

customers and establishing long-term relationships produce higher profits than those

who concentrate their efforts on acquiring new customers (Reichheld and Sasser

1990; Anderson and Sullivan 1993). In the credit card industry, especially, where

competition is at the highest it has ever been and where the customer base is saturated

with offers from every other financial institution, it is important to understand the

customer's needs in order to grow the depth of the relationship and to achieve higher

profits. In every economic quarter since the American Customer Satisfaction Index

began (in 1994), banks trail the national satisfaction statistics by a significant

percentage each year. While overall national satisfaction scores have modestly

increased over the past five years, bank customer satisfaction scores have declined 5.1

% (Feinberg, Hokama, Kadam, Kim 2002). Hence, it is important to concentrate

efforts on improving customer satisfaction rates. And, one way to do this is through

implementation of a CRM strategy. One of the major goals of CRM is to identify

70
what protocols not only satisfy customers but what protocols "delight" them so that

customers warn to maintain and grow a relationship with the firm. It is thought that

the more satisfied customers are, generally, the more loyal customers are. As was

mentioned earlier, several authors have identified a strong and positive link between

customer satisfaction and loyalty (Jones and Sasser 1995; Rust and Zahorik 1991);

Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Payne, Hoh and Frow 2000). Others have found a

distinct link between customer satisfaction, loyalty and customer retention (Reichheld

and Sasser 1990; Reichheld 1996). And, research suggests that customer loyalty

(rather than relative market share or any other factor) is the primary determinant of

profitability. Needless to say, concentrating efforts on customer satisfaction in order

to promote loyalty among customers is a major part of the CRM strategy of modern

financial service firms. One way to do this is to not only be customer-oriented, but to

be involved in educating, training and providing the most sophisticated technical

support to the staff to obtain buy-in and understanding of the importance of treating

customers with a `long-term relationship' in mind. To accomplish this, every

department that directly or indirectly touches a customer must be involved in

determining which protocols will result in higher customer satisfaction rates amongst

the most highly valued customers. Although some authors conclude that increased

customer satisfaction rates lead to increased loyalty, increased retention rates and

profitability, there is also discussion about what, exactly, customer satisfaction is.

Some authors suggest it is perceived quality (as opposed to expectations) directly

affecting satisfaction rates (Churchill and Suprenant 1982). Others show that

disconfirniation (the extent to which perceived quality fails to match pre-purchase

71
expectations) is an important antecedent of satisfaction (Anderson and Sullivan 1993)

along with perceive quality. Others contend that providing customers with

outstanding value may be the only reliable way to achieve sustained customer

satisfaction and loyalty (Jones and Sasser 1495; Heskett, Jones, Loveman and Sasser

1994). And, one way to establish value in the financial services industry is to provide

customers with choices in their method or channel of banking (e.g., , telephone/IVR

banking, internet, banking centers). Others have investigated the importance of the

overall physical setting and a customer's familiarity with the players (associates) of a

firm that can influence a customer's ultimate satisfaction (Garbarino and Johnson

1999). Although there are many different ways to measure customer satisfaction,

there is consensus that it should be viewed as a judgment based on a cumulative

experience rather than on a one-time transaction event (Homburg and Giering 2001).

A single transaction producing satisfaction is unlikely to produce loyalty and vice

verse. It is relatively clear that a lot depends on how you define customer satisfaction

and on whom you are trying to satisfy. Satisfaction is relative and because of the

relationship to various norms, it should not be taken in an absolute sense (Goode,

Moutinho, Chien 1996). As there are indeed many elements of customer satisfaction,

hence, many definitions of a satisfied customer exist. They can be thought of as those

customers who indicate anything above a "5" on a scale of 1-10 or it can be thought of

as only those who are "highly" satisfied by choosing anything above an "8" on the

same scale. Some studies reveal that there is a sizeable difference in retention rates

between those who say (in a questionnaire) that they are very satisfied and those who

are just satisfied (Gummesson 1999). Some organizations do not even distinguish

72
between the satisfaction rates of their most and least valued customers (Gofton 2001).

According to Heskett, et al. (1994), there is a distinct relationship between satisfaction

and loyalty (defined by them as retained relationships). The more highly satisfied the

customer, the more loyal they are and the more likely they are to remain a customer.

On the other hand, many customers say they are satisfied but are not loyal and switch

for a variety of reasons - persuasion by another firm, the influence of friends, a desire

to try something new, etc. And, many dissatisfied customers remain despite the fact

that a firm is charging more or offers lower quality than a competitor (Gummesson

1999). Perhaps this is due to their fear of switching or the difficulties involved in

establishing new relationships. And, it is important to understand which segments of

the customer base are more likely to stay or switch, whatever their reason may be. It is

important to note here the existence of the `service paradox' which states that the less

profitable customers are, the more satisfied they are; while the more profitable

customers are the less satisfied they are (e.g., the airline industry offers an off season

economy ticket for $250 and full business for $3000; the business traveller is

profitable but highly demanding and the economy traveller is less profitable but

gratefull for a low price and not as demanding. There is a likelihood that the business

traveller is less satisfied even though he/she is offered better service) (Gummesson

1999). This is important because CRM customers are the firm's `most profitable' and

possibly their least satisfied customers. For the purpose of this study, customer

satisfaction is defined as "those customers who are satisfied with the value of their

credit card". In this particular financial service firm, it is the installation and practice

of new CRM protocols that is expected to so enhance the customer experience and

73
provide increased value that those customers receiving these protocols will be more

highly satisfied than their non-CRM counterparts who receive only basic products and

services and no special treatment. It is thought that these protocols and special

treatment add value to the customer experience as they are intended to enhance the

interaction the customer has with the firm. The objective of CRM, generally, is to

enhance the customer experience so that the customer is delighted with the service

and is receiving the attributes that make this credit card service better for them than

the competition. In the case of this financial service firm, CRM customers receive

added protocols that include higher credit limits, waived fees (e.g., late payment fee,

check cashing fee, etc.), higher over-limit spending, more thoughtful scripting on the

part of employees who they may encounter, and other special treatments.

2.7 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION W.R.T IT ENABLED SERVICES

[ONLINE] IN MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY

Intensifying competition among financial service providers has increased pressure on

profit margins and has emphasized the strategic role of technology as a potential

source of differentiation and cost reduction (Moutinho and Smith 2000). In order to

increase profits and decrease expenses over the long-term, financial institutions have

shifted some of their services from branches to the virtual banking arena (ATMs,

telephone banking, internet banking). Bank service automation is a critical factor in

the process of trying to attain cost-effectiveness - a strategic competitive weapon in

the financial service market (Goode, Moutinho, Chien 1996). The expectation of

banks is that more customers will take advantage of the convenience and speed of

74
being able to deposit and withdraw money without having to wait in line for personal

assistance. (The firm in this present study has customer satisfaction survey data from

several years past indicating that customers expect faster, more convenient methods of

banking). On the other hand, some segments of the population do find the shift away

from personal service disconcerting (Thornton and White 2000). It is vitally important

to provide the most valuable customers the level of personal interaction they expect

and it is difficult, at best, to arrive at that level for the millions of customers serviced

each day. Some authors suggest that a reduction in branch visits could have a

detrimental effect on the relationship between customers and service providers

(Thornton and White 2000). Although it is generally thought that service quality is

compromised by a reduction in the employee-customer interface (Reazha, et al, 2003),

Mols (1999) found that many users of electronic (internet) banking have become even

more satisfied overall with their bank possibly due to the fact that a new service

delivery option is available. On the other hand, many customers still feel vulnerable

when exposing their finances to electronic media and are inclined to perceive `branch

banking' as more reliable and trustworthy (Tee 2000). It was found that a low level of

satisfaction was attached by some bank customers to the fact associated with their

experience of having to queue when using an ATM, and that breakdowns in ATMs is

another source of service dissatisfaction. And, it is suggested that the reasons for

being loyal to a bank are changing as a result of increased competition and the

application of technology in the provision of bank services (Goode, Moutinho and

Chien 1996). Virtual banking exists in many forms. The most common uses of

technology for financial services are ATMs to deposit and extract cash, telephone

75
banking to make payments and transfer money from one account to another, and,

more recently, home or online banking to pay bills on accounts outside the financial

institution, move investment money, and view account balances and activity. The

financial services industry is information intensive and is rapidly changing the way it

designs and delivers personal services. For the purposes of this study, the definition of

virtual banking from Liao et al. (1999) will be used: Virtual banking is the provision

of banking services through electronic media. The technology referred to, specifically

in this study, is ATM usage and Telephone Banking with a interactive voice response

unit (IVR). Because most consumers say they require more channels to do their

banking, ATM access is one channel in which financial institutions are investing great

amounts of money in order to satisfy that customer need. Telephone banking and

interactive voice response units (IVR in have also become important channels

customers use to perform the same functions that required one-on-one involvement

only a decade ago. However, providing these channels to customers does not imply

that all customers will use them. Some segments of the population are more likely to

shy away from any type of technology no matter how simple it may be to use.

`Innovators' and `early adopter' segments may be more likely to try technology first

(Rogers 1983). According to Rogers (1483), `innovators' and `early adopters' of

innovations are usually young, well educated, and with higher incomes than `late

adopters' and `laggards'. Demographics, then, should be one means of differentiating

which segments are likely to be users of and satisfied with technology and which

segments simply are not. Another element that might differentiate the satisfied users

from the non-users or dissatisfied users might be whether they are CRM customers or

76
not. As CRM customers are more accustomed to special treatment and personal

interaction with their banker, they may not take advantage of technology as much as

non-CRM customers. Or, when they do, they may be less satisfied than their non-

CRM counterpart. And, as it is suggested that customers satisfied with technology are,

in turn, more satisfied with the overall Financial Service Product like mutual fund, it

is possible that these different segments would show different satisfaction rates, not

only with technology, but in their overall satisfaction of the service as well.

2.6 IT ENABLED SERVICES [ONLINE] IN MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY

In the financial services arena, access over the phone is emerging as the access of

choice for customers who expect telephone access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365

days a year (Feinberg, Hokama, Kadun, Kim 2002). As competition for life-long

customers is fiercer than ever, financial institutions are searching for ways to leverage

their call centers and interactive voice response units (IVRs) to their advantage. PSI

Global reports that the number of monthly transactions among telephone banking

users has risen 55% over the past five years, with consumers conducting an average of

13 financial transactions by phone each month (Floyd 2000). According to a 1997

report from the Tower Group, the number of transactions with retail call center agents

was 1.2 billion in 1996 and is expected to rise to 2.4 billion by the end of 2001

(Jacobson 1999). The most common transactions conducted through a call center are

account inquiries, loan servicing, funds transfers, new account openings and

investment transactions. Telephone banking is undergoing its own metamorphosis, It

is clear that customers satisfied with their telephone contact are more likely to

77
repurchase, purchase more, and promote positive word of mouth (Feinberg, et al,

2002). Call centers clearly play a role in achieving overall customer satisfaction

(Allirnadi 1999; Anton 1997), but determining exactly what elements of the

telephone/IVR call experience directly influence customer satisfaction is key to a

more accurate measurement. An important part of telephone banking is a firm's

capability to perform `intelligent routing' to serve the best customers better and to

help retain the most valued customers. By combining the advantages of customer

relationship management and call routing, firms can commit to providing tiered

service-with their most valuable customers receiving enhancements and less valuable

customers still receiving good service but no enhanced protocols. At the same time,

IVRs offer customers the advantage of receiving the information they need without

human interaction and, usually, with greater speed. Financial institutions favor virtual

response units because of the cost savings. According to a study by Booz, Allen and

Hamilton in 1999, the cost of a call center transaction involving an agent is $2 while

the same transaction using IVR technology costs only 35 cents (Floyd 2000).

Financial institutions typically encourage their customers to use telephone banking

IVR rather than opting out to speak with a human representative. And, to make this

happen more conveniently, a firm creates as many options on their IVR to

accommodate that which it seems customers consistently and frequently perform.

What financial institutions fail to deeply investigate, though, is how customers really

react to IVR options and whether the IVR is being embraced by customers, as the firm

suspects, or simply is being tolerated. If convenience for the customer is at the heart

of technology development (Van Zyl 1999) and if the primary benefit for firms is cost

78
savings, then the quality of service element also needs to be addressed. IVR servicing

is often time-consuming and even complicated to use for the customer. Many

customers opt out of a IVR out of frustration causing firms to lose customers or to

have them call back and opt out to a representative, a practice that is twice as costly.

Telephone banking also relies on the elements of trust and commitment. In order for a

customer to fully trust that their issue is being resolved appropriately, they need to

have confidence in the representative on the phone or in the fact that the IVR has

captured their information properly and is going to pass that information on to the

appropriate party for resolution. If there is an absence of direct contact, such as with

telephone banking, it is assumed that there is less control perceived by the customer

(Joseph, McClure and Joseph 1999). Unless other attributes of the technology are

considered of high quality (e.g., reliability, user-friendliness), customers may not trust

the service. Also, as was mentioned in relation to ATM technology, new product

diffusion theory suggests that not all products and services are accepted by consumers

at the time of introduction. Some products are much slower than others in being

accepted by potential adopters (Mahajan, Muller and Bass 1990). Possibly, those

segments of this firm's customer base who are older and less educated would likely

not be as accepting of telephone technology as their younger and more educated

counterparts. This implies that this technology might be more accepted by the early

adopter than later adopter or laggard segments. This also implies that CRM

customers, who are generally older customers, might not be as enthusiastic about

using IVR technology. Although a growing number of customers prefer to conduct

transactions on their own, many still want human interaction. And, demographics

79
(especially age, income level, gender and comfort level with the technology) may play

a part in how individuals respond to IVR technology. Some customers may give up if

the IVR instructions are not clear or are seemingly too lengthy. Firms who have

adopted this technology early, generally, see substantial cost reductions and increases

in revenue and profits. At the same time they, generally, see increases in the usage

volume. Clearly, customers are using the technology, especially when it comes to

seeking simple information like asking for "account balance" or "last payment"

information. The convenience of IVR/telephone banking services enhances the

customer experience, generally, and it is likely that some customers will be more

satisfied, overall, because they are satisfied with this technology service. And, it is

likely that these customers are the younger segment of this firm's customer base.

2.7 CUSTOMER LOYALTY IN MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY

There are also different ways to perceive loyalty and many definitions of loyalty.

Customers define loyalty to an organization according to their total experience with it

across all touch points in the exchange process (Calhoun 2001). Loyalty can be

thought of as a percentage of retained customers, as those customers intending to

continue using the service or product or as those customers who intend to recommend

the product or service to others. Customers will declare themselves loyal through

feelings and perceptions of high satisfaction, through positive attitudes and

preferences (for the supplier) meaning that customers will be willing to repurchase

from this supplier (Hennig-Thurau and Hansen 2000; Peppers, Rogers and Dorf

1999). Most of the early literature conceptualizes loyalty as behavioral (Brown 1952;

80
Churchill 1942). This type of loyalty is characterized as a form of repeat passive

purchasing (Beckett, Hewer, Howcroft 2000). However, other studies indicate that it

is both behavioral and attitudinal. Attitudinal loyalty involves holding positive or

negative attitudes towards a service provider (Beckett, Hewer, Howcroft 2000) and is

characterized by a likelihood that a customer will recommend the product or service

to another (Day 2000; Dick and Basu 1994; Homburg and Giering 2001; Peppers,

Rogers and Dorf 1999). A dual perspective of loyalty is adopted for this study.

It is thought that CRM impacts loyalty through customer satisfaction. Some

authors suggest that unless customers are very "highly" satisfied (as opposed to

"moderately" satisfied), loyalty rates do not significantly increase (Jones and

Sasser 1995; Reichheld, Markey and Hopton 2000), especially in highly

competitive markets as is the case with credit cards. Jones and Sasser (1995)

studied the satisfaction-loyalty link to test Xerox' discovery that a high level of

satisfaction will lead to greatly increased customer loyalty. They looked at the

automobile, personal computer, hospital, airline, and telephone services

industries, and found that customers who are `completely satisfied' are more loyal

than `merely' satisfied customers. And, John Larson (VP, Opinion Research

Corporation), found that `completely satisfied customers' were nearly 42% more

likely to be loyal than `merely' satisfied customers. In the Jones and Sasser article

(1995), they found that individuals can be classified into four categories

(loyalists, defectors, mercenaries, hostages). Hostages had low to medium levels

of satisfaction but high loyalty rates; and mercenaries had high levels of

satisfaction but low/medium loyalty rates. Perhaps some customers remain loyal

81
because they cannot move due to switching costs or the fear of risking a move to

another firm? One issue unearthed in the Reichheld, Markey and Hopton article

(2000) on the relationship between loyalty and profits suggests that satisfaction

surveys alone don't yield the information companies need to have about

delivering value to customers. For example, at one Toyota dealership a salesman

pleaded with a customer to `fill out the satisfaction questionnaire with favorable

responses', explaining that `both my wife and I lost our jobs at a computer

company and I'll lose my job here if I don't get high satisfaction scores'. This kind

of pressure on customers to tweak their responses on customer satisfaction

surveys is not uncommon in today's market. This may be one factor in

determining why customer satisfaction rates are high but loyalty rates are not as

high as expected. Other authors intimate that there are other moderating factors

that determine customer satisfaction and loyalty. For example, Zeitharcil, Berry

and Parasuraman (1996), in a multi-company empirical study examining

relationships from the model concerning customers' behavioral intentions, show

strong evidence of their being influenced by service quality and suggest that

those customers not reporting service problems have the strongest levels of

loyalty. Reichheld (2001) suggests that customer loyalty cannot he achieved

unless corporate executives gain employee loyalty via `principled leadership' and

a set of surveys that measure more than customer satisfaction and loyalty by

forcing people to think of whether the organization really does deserve that

customer's loyalty. And, Homburg and Giering (2001), in a consumer-durables

context analyzing the moderating effect of selected personal characteristics on the

82
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty, found that age, income, and variety

seeking are important moderators of the satisfaction-loyalty link. Loyalty can be

elusive even if customer satisfaction exists. And, there may be other barriers to

higher loyalty rates that firms need to investigate and overcome. Loyalty, on the

other hand, may be involuntary. Possibly there is no alternative to the product or

service or maybe the bonus or reward for participating is so great (Hennig-

Thurau and Hansen 2000) that it makes sense to a customer to remain with the

firm. Yet, what a firm really strives for is loyalty with no strings attached. In

other words, if an error is made and the service is compromised, the firm hopes

that the customer will still be inclined to stay once the problem is fixed.

Generally, though, past evidence does suggest that the majority of highly satisfied

customers remain loyal. For the purpose of this study, then, loyalty is defined as

customers who indicate intent to repurchase this service by continuing to use

their credit card and by their intent to recommend this service to others. As

mentioned in the studies above, it is thought that the more highly satisfied a

customer is, the more likely they are to be loyal (Heskett et al 1994; Gummeson

1999)

83
CHAPTER III

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK FOR MUTUAL FUND CUSTOMER

Studies in this field limit themselves to topics such as investor behaviour, links

between mutual fund performance and stock price movements, and how money

moves from one mutual fund to another due to advertising expenditures made by the

investment company. This study examines sales mutual fund as a function of its own

attributes. There is contradictory evidence documented in the literature concerning the

variables affecting sales of mutual fund. For example, the variable of management

tenure(past record) has been shown in the literature to be an asset to the investment

company as well as to mutual fund asset under management; where the mutual fund

manager has more experience, the better the mutual fund performs (Adran et al.,

2002). Other researchers, however, have scrutinized management tenure as being an

attribute that precludes mutual fund net asset value (Costa & Porter, 2003). This study

contributes to the literature in two main respects. First, this is the first study to present

evidence on the attributes relationship using data on all actively managed equity

mutual funds for the entire period spanning 1999 to 2009. Previous studies have only

analyzed selected years in this period, using subsets of managed mutual funds in each

year. By examining larger samples for a greater number of consecutive years that

includes periods of recession and economic growth, the empirical results from this

study are more robust and shed light on the existing contradictions in the previous

literature. In addition, since investors have been facing new mutual funds choices in

recent years, estimating the relationship between sales of mutual fund and its

attributes with more recent data gives investors general guidelines that are relevant for

84
selecting mutual funds in today’s environment. Second, the empirical results from this

study are based on a model that includes mutual funds’ attributes as predictors of sales

of mutual fund. With the exception of one other study, which used a different data set,

previous conclusions have been based on models that focused only on selected

attributes. By examining these attributes from a more comprehensive data set, this

study provides a more general set of conclusions that encompass those found in the

past literature.

Many studies have been conducted to evaluate the relationship between IT

investments and corporate performance. However, the findings of these studies are

confusing or conflicting (Brynjolfsson, 1993). Most of these studies have employed

only two financial measures of corporate performance: productivity and profitability.

One of the most widely cited research efforts on IT's contribution to productivity is

probably the work done by Roach on white-collar productivity (1987, 1989, 1991).

Roach's research is primarily based on data obtained from the Bureau of Economic

Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Citing statistics from the

mid-seventies to mid-eighties, Roach (1987) compares the productivity of information

workers to that of production workers, and concludes that the productivity of on

workers has fallen in some economic sectors and not kept up with the productivity of

production workers in other sectors. Roach (1991) finds that IT's performance has been

most dismal in the service sector. Similarly, other studies done at the economy-wide

level find either no impact or a negative impact of IT on productivity. Baily and

Chakrabarti (1988) conclude that IT does not show any significant productivity gain,

possibly because of measurement problems and the failure of firms to value IT properly.

85
 These difficulties, in turn, lead to wrong allocation of resources by organizations.

Also, Brooke (1991) finds that IT correlates negatively with productivity and

hypothesizes that the primary impact of IT is increased product variety rather than

profitability. At least seven studies have examined IT's contribution to corporate

performance in the manufacturing sector, but the findings of these studies are conflicting.

Morrison and Berndt (1990) obtain data from the BEA for 20 industry categories over the

period 1968 to 1990. They use structured production-function models and find that

the net marginal benefits from IT are a minus 20% (i.e., the marginal benefit accruing

from each dollar invested in IT is only 80 cents). However, using his structured models

though still drawing data from BEA and BLS, Berndt and Morrison (1991) find that IT is

not correlated with higher productivity in a majority of 20 industry categories that they

examine. Berndt and Morrison do, however, find that 1T is correlated with significantly

increased demand for skilled labor. On the other hand, Siegel and Gritiches (1991) use

industry-wide data and do find a positive correlation between IT usage and productivity

in most industry categories. They obtain their data from multiple government sources.

However, they do not perform highly structured analyses (like those done by Morrison &

Berndt, 1990) because of their concerns about the reliability of government data and

measurement techniques employed by government. Similarly, Dudley and Lassere

(1989) find that better information and communication capability reduce the need for

inventories. However, they do not relate IT usage to the firm's bottom-line performance.

Loveman (1994) examines about 60 business units, primarily in the manufacturing

sector, for the period 1979-1984 using the Management Productivity and IT (MPIT}

database. The MPIT database is a subset of the better known Profit impact of Marketing

86
Strategy (PIMS} database. Loveman uses a Douglas production function to evaluate

IT's contribution to productivity. He finds no evidence of a significant positive

productivity impact from IT. Indeed, he finds that the marginal dollar would be best

spent on non-IT inputs. On the other hand, Barua et al. (199.5} use exactly the same

MPIT data that Loveman used and find a significant positive relationship between IT

and corporate performance. Instead of examining the direct relationship between IT and

final output variables, Barua et al. introduce an intermediate stage and do two different

analysis. In both analyses, they also control for contextual variables. First, they examine

the relationship of the input variable (ratio of IT spending to the number o. f `

employees) to a set of intermediate variables (capacity utilization, inventory turnover,

relative inferior quality, relative price, and new products. Then, they examine the

relationship of these intermediate variables to final output variables (market share and

return on assets) They conclude that IT has a significant positive correlation with each

of the intermediate variables (except new products}, and that the intermediate variables

have significant positive correlations with the final output variables. Unlike Barua et al.,

Weiil (1990) obtains data by interviews and a survey conducted within valve-

manufacturing firms. in his study, Weill desegregates IT by use. He concludes that

contextual variables affect the relationship between IT and firm performance, and that

significant productivity gains exist with transactional type of IT (e.g., data processing}

but not with strategic IT (e.g., sales support) or informational IT (e.g., email).

One of the earliest studies on IT's contribution to corporate performance in the service

sector is by Cron and Soboi (1983). They separated medical wholesalers into four

groups depending on the number of computer applications, wholesaler had in use in

87
the year l979. Then, they segregate the same 138 wholesalers into another set of four

groups depending on each wholesaler's profitability for the year 1979. Thereafter,

they calculate and analyze the two-way frequencies for computer utilization and

profitability. Basically, Cron and Sobol find that low IT use is associated with either

poor (i.e., weak) or average performance, while heavy IT users are either very

strong or very weak performers. On the other hand, Strassman (1985, 1990) finds

no correlation between IT investments and a group of I38 profitability. Strassman

examines many different sets of firms, including a set of 38 service firms

identified in a Computerworld survey as the most effective users of IT'.

The most recent study on IT's contribution to corporate performance has been done by

Hitt and Brynoifsson (1991. They accumulate 370 firms (basically, the top half of

Fortune 500 manufacturing & service firms) over the period 1988 to t 992. They obtain

figures on IT spending by firms from International Data Group's Annual Surveys,

financial data on firms from Standard & Poor’s Compustat Database, and price indices

from a host of sources (primarily, BEA}. They perform three different analyses. Their

first analysis follows the approach taken by Loveman (199a) to evaluate IT's

contribution to organizational productivity. Using a Cobb-Douglas production function,

Hitt and Brynjolfsson find that the gross marginal product of CT is a whopping 94.9%,

while that of Capital is 7.8% and Labor is 1.2%. Their second analysis evaluates IT's

contribution to organizational profitability by separately regressing three profitability

ratios (return on assets, return on equity, & total shareholders' return) on the ratio of

IT spending to the number of employees while controlling for the following variables:

capital intensity, market share, debt to equity ratio, sales growth, R&D expense,

88
industry, and year. However, they find no significant impact of IT usage on firm's

profitability. Their third analysis evaluates consumer surplus resulting from IT

investments, following the method used by Bresnahan (1986). Hitt and Brynjolfsson

find a substantial increase in consumer surplus primarily because of declining prices of

IT. They attempt to reconcile their results by arguing as follows: Investments in IT

by a firm may result in gains in the firm’s productivity and yet there may be no increase

in the profitability of the firm if all the gains made in productivity are not retained by

the firm or are "competed away" and hence, passed on to the consumers.

In summary, most of these studies demonstrate little or no correlation between IT

investments and profitability. Thus we explores the reasons for this IT profitability

impasse and proposes a different perspective to identify and evaluate IT's contribution

to corporate sales which results in Profitability for Financial Services Firm.

Researchers such as Ferson and Schadt (1996), Henricksson (1984), and

Treynor and Mazuy (1966) have examined the ability of mutual fund managers to select

securities and time markets successfully, but there is little evidence that supports the

notion that they possess such skills. The performance persistence, where past

performance could possibly predict immediate future returns. This phenomenon is also

known as the “hot hands” phenomenon. The topic of persistence is a subject for debate

because there are many conflicting views among researchers (Cahart, 1997; Grinblatt et

al., 1992; Hendricks et al., 1993). The relatively small number of studies that examine

mutual fund attributes and their effects on sales demonstrate this. Although the two

segments of the literature not dealing with mutual fund attributes are noteworthy, this

study agrees with the researchers examining the attribute relationship who claim that a

89
better understanding of these relationships will give practical value to lay investors as

well as contributing to the literature and attracting.

3.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study is to determine whether mutual fund attributes affect

sales of mutual fund. Attributes such as past record, net asset value, asset under

management, brandname, customer satisfaction, service quality, service time are

examined. In the age of technology and the Internet, several new factors have begun to

play an important role in the type and quality of experience the customer has. In an

effort to respond to the proliferation of technology in the process through which

products and services are purchased and consumed, Parasuraman and Grewal (2000)

created the `pyramid model' by adding technology as a third dimension to Kotler's

two-dimensional triangle model suggested earlier (1994). The pyramid model

emphasizes the need for effectively managing three new linkages - company-

technolgy, employee-technology, and customer-technology to maximize marketing

effectiveness.

The primary question in this study is whether mutual fund attributes really affect sales of

mutual fund. Since there are many mutual fund attributes, it is difficult to make a general

statement that these mutual fund attributes unequivocally do or do not affect mutual fund

performance. In short we could summarize the objective of research as;

¡ To examine relation between customer satisfaction on sales of mutual fund.

¡ To study relation between Information Technology and customer satisfaction.

¡ To examine relation between quality of service on sales of mutual fund.

¡ To study relation between Information Technology on quality of service.

90
 ¡ To study relation between brand-name and sales of mutual fund.

¡ To examine relation between asset under management and sales of mutual

fund.

¡ To study relation between net asset value on sales of mutual fund.

¡ To examine relation between past record and sales of mutual fund.

¡ To examine relation between tax rebate and sales of mutual fund.

By answering these questions through the use of the appropriate statistical tests, this study

constitutes a practical value to both the mutual fund attribute literature and lay Mutual

Fund companies by establishing certain framework to follow. The rationale for selecting

these attributes and their predicted impact on mutual fund sales is afforded by past

researchers recommending to the finance community that more research is needed in this

field. It was best stated by Peterson et al. (2001), that the results from these studies must

be useful to the mutual fund companies. On these recommendations of past researchers,

this study chose independent variables that were not too obscure for the asset managers to

understand and use in decision-making. Although past research has focused on these

attributes because they are the most closely examined, the findings in regard to these

attributes are mixed.

3.2 Formulate an Analysis Plan

Every hypothesis test requires the analyst to state a null hypothesis and an alternative

hypothesis. The hypotheses are stated in such a way that they are mutually exclusive.

That is, if one is true, the other must be false; and vice versa.

91
The analysis plan describes how to use sample data to accept or reject the null

hypothesis. It should specify the following elements.

§ Significance level. Often, researchers choose significance levels equal to 0.01,

0.05, or 0.10; but any value between 0 and 1 can be used.

§ Test method. Use the one-sample z-test to determine whether the hypothesized

population proportion differs significantly from the observed sample

proportion.

Analyze Sample Data

Using sample data, find the test statistic and its associated P-Value.

§ Standard deviation. Compute the standard deviation (σ) of the sampling

distribution.

σ = sqrt[ P * ( 1 - P ) / n ]

where P is the hypothesized value of population proportion in the null

hypothesis, and n is the sample size.

§ Test statistic. The test statistic is a z-score (z) defined by the following

equation.

z = (p - P) / σ

92
 where P is the hypothesized value of population proportion in the null

hypothesis, p is the sample proportion, and σ is the standard deviation of the

sampling distribution.

§ P-value. The P-value is the probability of observing a sample statistic as

extreme as the test statistic. Since the test statistic is a z-score, use the Normal

Distribution Calculator to assess the probability associated with the z-score.

3.3 HYPOTHESIS FORMATION

¡ Null Hypothesis (H01) : “Customer Satisfaction does not have an impact on

Sales of Mutual Fund”

¡ Null Hypothesis (H02) : “Information Technology does not have an impact

on Customer Satisfaction”

¡ Null Hypothesis (H03) : “Quality of Service does not have an impact on

Sales of Mutual Fund”

¡ Null Hypothesis (H04) : “Information Technology does not have an impact

on Quality of Service”

¡ Null Hypothesis (H05) : “Brand-name does not have an impact on Sales of

Mutual Fund”

¡ Null Hypothesis (H06) :“Asset Under Management does not have an impact

on Sales of Mutual Fund”

¡ Null Hypothesis (H07) : “Net Present Value does not have an impact on

Sales of Mutual Fund”

93
¡ Null Hypothesis (H08) : “Past Record does not have an impact on Sales of

Mutual Fund”

94
CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research represents the first phase of a multi-phase effort to identify the

current and potential role of information technology in supporting relationships

among customers of the Indian Mutual Fund Companies. Our approach was to

interview people in a wide range of Indian Mutual Fund Companies, at both at small

retail and HNI retail customers.

Each respondent presented, from the perspective of their own sector, a view

of their supplier and customer relationships and the opportunities for and barriers to

expanding these relationships through electronic commerce. We then combined and

unified these views to create an industry-wide perspective. The data collected was

focused on establishing that, as a result of customer focus groups and other limited

survey results, it concluded its highly valued customers of the company and felt that

the company would improve customer satisfaction and loyalty rates.

Past studies from Peterson et al. (2001), Apap and Griffith (1998), Costa and

Porter (2003), Dellva and Olson (1998), Droms and Walker (1996) and Indro et al.

(1999) used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis to examine the effects of

multiple mutual fund attributes to aid in explaining fund performance. With that in

mind, this study follows suit with past research by implementing a non-experimental

quantitative design to determine whether the attribute/performance relationship exists.

This study tests the hypotheses mentioned in Chapter 3 using Chi-square test. Mutual

fund attributes such as past record, NAV and AUM are regressed with respect to

mutual fund performance in their respective years. Through the results illustrate the

95
relationship between mutual fund performance and the independent variables.

Furthermore, the partial effects of one independent variable are easily examined with

respect to mutual fund performance.

4.1 SURVEY SAMPLING METHODS

Sampling method refers to the way that observations are selected from a population to

be in the sample for a sample survey.

Population Parameter vs. Sample Statistic

The reason for conducting a sample survey is to estimate the value of some attribute

of a population.

§ Population parameter. A population parameter is the true value of a population

attribute.

§ Sample statistic. A sample statistic is an estimate, based on sample data, of a

population parameter.

The quality of a sample statistic (i.e., accuracy, precision, representativeness) is

strongly affected by the way that sample observations are chosen; that is., by the

sampling method.

96
Probability vs. Non-Probability Samples

As a group, sampling methods fall into one of two categories.

§ Probability samples. With probability sampling methods, each population

element has a known (non-zero) chance of being chosen for the sample. We

have used this method for sampling in our research.

§ Non-probability samples. With non-probability sampling methods, we do not

know the probability that each population element will be chosen, and/or we

cannot be sure that each population element has a non-zero chance of being

chosen. We have used this method for sampling in our research.

Non-probability sampling methods offer two potential advantages - convenience and

cost. The main disadvantage is that non-probability sampling methods do not allow

you to estimate the extent to which sample statistics are likely to differ from

population parameters. Only probability sampling methods permit that kind of

analysis.

Non-Probability Sampling Methods

Two of the main types of non-probability sampling methods are voluntary samples

and convenience samples.

97
 § Voluntary sample. A voluntary sample is made up of people who self-select

into the survey. Often, these folks have a strong interest in the main topic of

the survey.

§ Convenience sample. A convenience sample is made up of people who are

easy to reach. We have used this method for sampling in our research.

Probability Sampling Methods

The main types of probability sampling methods are simple random sampling,

stratified sampling, cluster sampling, multistage sampling, and systematic random

sampling. The key benefit of probability sampling methods is that they guarantee that

the sample chosen is representative of the population. This ensures that the statistical

conclusions will be valid.

§ Simple random sampling. Simple random sampling refers to any sampling

method that has the following properties.

· The population consists of N objects.

· The sample consists of n objects.

· If all possible samples of n objects are equally likely to occur, the

sampling method is called simple random sampling.

There are many ways to obtain a simple random sample. One way would be

the lottery method. Each of the N population members is assigned a unique

98
 number. The numbers are placed in a bowl and thoroughly mixed. Then, a

blind-folded researcher selects n numbers. Population members having the

selected numbers are included in the sample. We have used this method for

sampling in our research.

§ Stratified sampling. With stratified sampling, the population is divided into

groups, based on some characteristic. Then, within each group, a probability

sample (often a simple random sample) is selected. In stratified sampling, the

groups are called strata.

As a example, suppose we conduct a national survey. We might divide the

population into groups or strata, based on geography - north, east, south, and

west in our case with respect to city.. Then, within each stratum, we might

randomly select survey respondents.

§ Cluster sampling. With cluster sampling, every member of the population is

assigned to one, and only one, group. Each group is called a cluster. A sample

of clusters is chosen, using a probability method (often simple random

sampling). Only individuals within sampled clusters are surveyed.

Note the difference between cluster sampling and stratified sampling. With

stratified sampling, the sample includes elements from each stratum. With

cluster sampling, in contrast, the sample includes elements only from sampled

clusters.

99
 § Multistage sampling. With multistage sampling, we select a sample by using

combinations of different sampling methods.

For example, in Stage 1, we might use cluster sampling to choose clusters

from a population. Then, in Stage 2, we might use simple random sampling to

select a subset of elements from each chosen cluster for the final sample.

§ Systematic random sampling. With systematic random sampling, we create a

list of every member of the population. From the list, we randomly select the

first sample element from the first k elements on the population list.

Thereafter, we select every kth element on the list.

This method is different from simple random sampling since every possible

sample of n elements is not equally likely.

4.2 SAMPLE DESIGN

A sample design can be described by two factors.

§ Sampling method. Sampling method refers to the rules and procedures by

which some elements of the population are included in the sample.

§ Estimator. The estimation process for calculating sample statistics is called the

estimator. Different sampling methods may use different estimators. For

example, the formula for computing a mean score with a simple random

100
 sample is different from the formula for computing a mean score with a

stratified sample. Similarly, the formula for the standard error may vary from

one sampling method to the next.

The "best" sample design depends on survey objectives and on survey resources. For

example, a researcher might select the most economical design that provides a desired

level of precision. Or, if the budget is limited, a researcher might choose the design

that provides the greatest precision without going over budget. Or other factors might

guide the choice of sample design. In our case we have selected simple random

sampling due to budgetary constraints.

4.2.1 SAMPLE SIZE

The larger your sample size, the more sure you can be that their answers truly reflect

the population. This indicates that for a given confidence level, the larger your sample

size, the smaller your confidence interval. However, the relationship is not linear (i.e.,

doubling the sample size does not halve the confidence interval). Our accuracy also

depends on the percentage of our sample that picks a particular answer. If 99% of our

sample said "Yes" and 1% said "No," the chances of error are remote, irrespective of

sample size. However, if the percentages are 51% and 49% the chances of error are

much greater. It is easier to be sure of extreme answers than of middle-of-the-road

ones. When determining the sample size needed for a given level of accuracy we must

use the worst case percentage (50%). We should also use this percentage if we want to

determine a general level of accuracy for a sample we already have. To determine the

101
confidence interval for a specific answer our sample has given, we can use the

percentage picking that answer and get a smaller interval. How many people are there

in the group our sample represents? This may be the number of people in a city we are

studying, the number of people who buy new cars, etc. Often we may not know the

exact population size. This is not a problem. The mathematics of probability proves

the size of the population is irrelevant unless the size of the sample exceeds a few

percent of the total population we are examining. This means that a sample of 500

people is equally useful in examining the opinions of a state of 1,50,00,000 as it

would a city of 1,00,000. For this reason, The Survey System ignores the population

size when it is "large" or unknown. Population size is only likely to be a factor when

we work with a relatively small and known group of people (e.g., the members of an

association). In this we have selected a sample of 700 across four tier 1 cities with

equal representation.

Sample Size
Z 2 * (p) * (1-p)
ss =
c2
= 600.25 round it to 700

Where:

Z = Z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level)

p = percentage picking a choice, expressed as decimal
(.5 used for sample size needed)
c = confidence interval, expressed as decimal
(e.g., .04 = ±4)

102
4.3 DATA COLLECTION METHODS

To derive conclusions from data, we need to know how the data were collected; that

is, we need to know the method(s) of data collection.

Methods of Data Collection

There are four main methods of data collection.

§ Census. A census is a study that obtains data from every member of a

population. In most studies, a census is not practical, because of the cost

and/or time required.

§ Sample survey. A sample survey is a study that obtains data from a subset of a

population, in order to estimate population attributes. We have used this

method for collection of data. It is an administered sample survey.

§ Experiment. An experiment is a controlled study in which the researcher

attempts to understand cause-and-effect relationships. The study is

"controlled" in the sense that the researcher controls (1) how subjects are

assigned to groups and (2) which treatments each group receives.

In the analysis phase, the researcher compares group scores on some

dependent variable. Based on the analysis, the researcher draws a conclusion

about whether the treatment ( independent variable) had a causal effect on the

dependent variable.

103
 § Observational study. Like experiments, observational studies attempt to

understand cause-and-effect relationships. However, unlike experiments, the

researcher is not able to control (1) how subjects are assigned to groups and/or

(2) which treatments each group receives.

In this research we have used sample survey technique. The data for this study was

collected from customers of Indian Mutual Fund Companies. A sample of 175 from

each of the four tier 1 city i.e. Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai and Delhi was collected. A

total of 1,000 responses were captured representing a response rate of over 100%.

Almost 30% of these respondents, however, were missing demographic and other

important data pertinent to the study and these cases were eliminated. The collection

was done through personal interview and questionnaire method personally.

4.4 THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The questionnaire is prepared in such a manner than it cam capture certain

parameters to measured upfront like demographic details [age, income etc],

Brandname, Asset under management, Net asset value etc. Customer satisfaction is

measured by asking number of questions asking customers to rate their overall

satisfaction on a 5-point Likert type scale. Then, they are asked to rate their overall

satisfaction for IT Enabled Services [online] usage and usage using a human

representative like Broker/Agent. They are also asked how often they use these

104
services and for what purposes. For the purpose of this study, customer satisfaction

ratings of 1 are considered `highly satisfied' ratings and those of 2 are considered

`moderately satisfied'. Any rating 4 or 5 is thought to represent a dissatisfied

customer. Any rating of 3 is considered neutral Appendix A documents the questions

used to measure each construct in the model. Loyalty is measured by two questions

asking customers to rate their intention to use the service in the future and their

intention to recommend the service to others. According to Zeithaml, Berry,

Parasuraman (1996) only one of these questions is used in a 1992 study by Cronin and

Taylor; and both questions are used in a 1993 study by Boulding. And, Sheth, Sisodia,

and Sharnia (2000) used a variation of these two questions in a 2000 study. Previous

research suggests that customer loyalty consists of a behavioral and an attitudinal

component (Homburg, Giering 2001; Peppers, Rogers and Dorf 1998) so that a

customer's willingness to recommend a product or service and intentions to

repurchase a product or service implies his/her intention to be loyal to the company.

The variables representing "likelihood to use" and "likelihood to recommend" were

highly correlated and were combined to form an "overall loyalty" variable to measure

the loyalty concept.

4.5 THE SAMPLE

The data for this study was collected from customers of Indian Mutual Fund

Companies. Out of the total of 33 Mutual Fund Companies 26 were observed

and taken as their market capitalisation is greater than Rs.50,000 crores.

Questionnaires to measure the customer satisfaction and loyalty constructs

105
were created for and used in a field survey setting where representatives

contacted 700 randomly selected customers. A total of 1,000 responses were

captured representing a response rate of over 100%. Almost 30% of these

respondents, however, were missing demographic and other important data

pertinent to the study and these cases were eliminated. Additionally, any

other cases missing the respondent's answers to other questions pertinent to

the study were also eliminated, bringing the final total sample of available

responses to 700. The participants were at least 18 years of age and were the

primary or joint financial decision makers regarding their accounts. They

were investors who had invested in the Mutual Fund Company through a

particular scheme six months preceding the interview. The investor belonged

to four major metro cities i.e. Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkatta and Chennai with

equal representation of 175 sample. A demographic analysis shows that less

than half of the respondents (40%) are female and the remaining Male

(60%). A demographic analysis shows less than half again (28%) have

higher incomes (Rs.3,00,000 or above), with 20% are small investor with

low income (below Rs.2,00,000) and the remaining 50% in middle income

group (between 2 lakh and 3 lakh). A profile of demographic information on

respondents can be found in Tables below;

106
4.6 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Table 4.6.14 Descriptive Statistics for Gender [Mean[

N Valid 700
Missing 0
Mean 1.31
Median 1.00
Std. Deviation .462

Table 4.6.15 Descriptive Frequency for Gender

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid MALE 484 69.1 69.1 69.1
FEMAL
216 30.9 30.9 100.0
E
Total 700 100.0 100.0

Figure 4.6.1 Pie Chart for Gender

GENDER

MALE
FEMALE

30.9

69.1

107
Table 4.6.16 Descriptive Statistics for Martial status

N Valid 700
Missing 0
Mean 1.50
Median 1.50
Std. Deviation .500

Table 4.6.17 Descriptive Frequency for Martial Status

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid MARRIED 350 50.0 50.0 50.0
UNMARRI
350 50.0 50.0 100.0
ED
Total 700 100.0 100.0

Figure 4.6.2 Pie Chart for Martial Status

MARTIAL STATUS

MARRIED
UNMARRIED

50 50

108
Table 4.6.18 Descriptive Statistics for Occupation
N Valid 700
Missing 0
Mean 1.38
Median 1.00
Std. Deviation .487

Table 4.6.19 Descriptive Frequency for Occupation

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SALARIED 431 61.6 61.6 61.6
SELF
269 38.4 38.4 100.0
EMPLOYED
Total 700 100.0 100.0

Figure 4.6.3 Pie Chart for Occupation

OCCUPATION

SALARIED
SELF EMPLOYED

38.4

61.6

109
Table 4.6.20 Descriptive Statistics for Age Group
N Valid 700
Missing 0
Mean 2.27
Median 2.00
Std. Deviation 1.095

Table 4.6.21 Descriptive Frequency for Age Group

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 20 TO 25 215 30.7 30.7 30.7
25 TO 30 215 30.7 30.7 61.4
30 TO 35 135 19.3 19.3 80.7
35 TO 40 135 19.3 19.3 100.0
Total 700 100.0 100.0

Figure 4.6.4 Pie Chart for Age Group

AGE GROUP

20 TO 25
25 TO 30
30 TO 35
35 TO 40

19.29

30.71

19.29

30.71

110
Table 4.6.22 Descriptive Statistics for Annual Income
N Valid 700
Missing 0
Mean 2.96
Median 3.00
Std. Deviation 1.315

Table 4.6.23 Descriptive Frequency for Annual Income

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1.5 TO 2 LAKH 135 19.3 19.3 19.3
2 TO 2.5 LAKH 135 19.3 19.3 38.6
2.5 TO 3 LAKH 135 19.3 19.3 57.9
3 TO 4 LAKH 215 30.7 30.7 88.6
4 LAKH &
80 11.4 11.4 100.0
ABOVE
Total 700 100.0 100.0

Figure 4.6.5 Pie Chart for Annual Income

ANNUAL INCOME

1.5 TO 2 LAKH
2 TO 2.5 LAKH
2.5 TO 3 LAKH
3 TO 4 LAKH
4 LAKH & ABOVE
11.43
19.29

30.71
19.29

19.29

111
Table 4.6.24 Descriptive Statistics for Amount of Purchase
N Valid 700
Missing 0
Mean 2.73
Median 2.00
Std. Deviation 1.228

Table 4.6.25 Descriptive Frequency for Amount of Purchase

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid <50000 54 7.7 7.7 7.7
<100000 404 57.7 57.7 65.4
<5000000
161 23.0 23.0 88.4
0
5 81 11.6 11.6 100.0
Total 700 100.0 100.0

Figure 4.6.6 Pie Chart for Amount of Purchase

AMOUNT OF PURCHASE

<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
7.7
11.6

23

57.7

112
4.7 PILOT STUDY

In phase I we conducted a pilot study in Mumbai and Delhi with a sample size of 100.

We got insight related to minor modifications related to questionnaire and modified

the same before starting the phase II of the study. In phase II of study which was a full

fledge study of sample of 1000 was collected both using personal interview and

administered interview.

4.8 SCALE RELIABILITY

Cronbach's α (alpha) is a statistic. It is commonly used as a measure of the internal

consistency or reliability of a psychometric test score for a sample of examinees. It

was first named alpha by Lee Cronbach in 1951, as he had intended to continue with

further coefficients. The measure can be viewed as an extension of the Kuder-

Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20), which is an equivalent measure for dichotomous

items. Alpha is not robust against missing data. Several other Greek letters have been

used by later researchers to designate other measures used in a similar context.

Table 4.8.1 Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 700 100.0
Excluded
0 .0
(a)
Total 700 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Table 4.8.2 Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.881 21

113
Alpha can take on any value less than or equal to 1, including negative values,

although only positive values make sense. Higher values of alpha are more desirable.

Some professionals, as a rule of thumb, require a reliability of 0.70 or higher

(obtained on a substantial sample) before they will use an instrument. Obviously, this

rule should be applied with caution when α has been computed from items that

systematically violate its assumptions. Furthermore, the appropriate degree of

reliability depends upon the use of the instrument.

4.9 BIAS IN SURVEY SAMPLING

In survey sampling, bias refers to the tendency of a sample statistic to systematically

over- or under-estimate a population parameter.

Bias Due to Unrepresentative Samples

A good sample is representative. This means that each sample point represents the

attributes of a known number of population elements.

Bias often occurs when the survey sample does not accurately represent the

population. The bias that results from an unrepresentative sample is called selection

bias. Some common examples of selection bias are described below.

§ Undercoverage occurs when some members of the population are

inadequately represented in the sample.

114
 § Nonresponse bias. Sometimes, individuals chosen for the sample are unwilling

or unable to participate in the survey. Nonresponse bias is the bias that results

when respondents differ in meaningful ways from nonrespondents.

§ Voluntary response bias. Voluntary response bias occurs when sample

members are self-selected volunteers, as in voluntary samples.

Random sampling is a procedure for sampling from a population in which (a) the

selection of a sample unit is based on chance and (b) every element of the population

has a known, non-zero probability of being selected. Random sampling helps produce

representative samples by eliminating voluntary response bias and guarding against

undercoverage bias. All probability sampling methods rely on random sampling.

In this research the only biases that could occur is from the administrator, since it was

an administered survey. This was removed by a repeat exercise conducted after a

fixed time interval with same respondents and the data was cross examined and it was

found that there was no bias from administrator’s end.

A survey produces a sample statistic, which is used to estimate a population

parameter. If you repeated a survey many times, using different samples each time,

you would get a different sample statistic with each replication. And each of the

different sample statistics would be an estimate for the same population parameter. If

the statistic is unbiased, the average of all the statistics from all possible samples will

equal the true population parameter; even though any individual statistic may differ

from the population parameter. The variability among statistics from different

115
samples is called sampling error. Increasing the sample size tends to reduce the

sampling error; that is, it makes the sample statistic less variable. However, increasing

sample size does not affect survey bias. A large sample size cannot correct for the

methodological problems (undercoverage, nonresponse bias, etc.) that produce survey

bias. However in our case this was not a major problem as nonresponse bias did not

exceed 1% of the total sample.

4.10 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Factor Analysis : Factor analysis is a statistical method used to describe variability

among observed variables in terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved

variables called factors. In other words, it is possible, for example, that variations in

three or four observed variables mainly reflect the variations in a single unobserved

variable, or in a reduced number of unobserved variables. Factor analysis searches for

such joint variations in response to unobserved latent variables. The observed

variables are modeled as linear combinations of the potential factors, plus "error"

terms. The information gained about the interdependencies between observed

variables can be used later to reduce the set of variables in a dataset. Factor analysis

originated in psychometrics, and is used in behavioral sciences, social sciences,

marketing, product management, operations research, and other applied sciences that

deal with large quantities of data. Factor analysis is related to principal component

analysis (PCA) but not identical. Because PCA performs a variance-maximizing

rotation of the variable space, it takes into account all variability in the variables. In

contrast, factor analysis estimates how much of the variability is due to common

116
factors ("communality"). The two methods become essentially equivalent if the error

terms in the factor analysis model (the variability not explained by common factors,

see below) can be assumed to all have the same variance.

Pearson's chi-square (χ2): Pearson's chi-square test is the best-known of several chi-

square tests – statistical procedures whose results are evaluated by reference to the

chi-square distribution. Its properties were first investigated by Karl Pearson. In

contexts where it is important to make a distinction between the test statistic and its

distribution, names similar to Pearson Χ-squared test or statistic are used. It tests a

null hypothesis stating that the frequency distribution of certain events observed in a

sample is consistent with a particular theoretical distribution. The events considered

must be mutually exclusive and have total probability 1. A common case for this is

where the events each cover an outcome of a categorical variable. A simple example

is the hypothesis that an ordinary six-sided dice is "fair", i.e., all six outcomes are

equally likely to occur. Pearson's chi-square is used to assess two types of

comparison: tests of goodness of fit and tests of independence. A test of goodness of

fit establishes whether or not an observed frequency distribution differs from a

theoretical distribution. The chi-square statistic is calculated by finding the difference

between each observed and theoretical frequency for each possible outcome, squaring

them, dividing each by the theoretical frequency, and taking the sum of the results. A

second important part of determining the test statistic is to define the degrees of

freedom of the test: this is essentially the number of observed frequencies adjusted for

the effect of using some of those observations to define the "theoretical frequencies".

117
Correlation : In statistics, correlation and dependence are any of a broad class of

statistical relationships between two or more random variables or observed data

values. Familiar examples of dependent phenomena include the correlation between

the physical statures of parents and their offspring, and the correlation between the

demand for a product and its price. Correlations are useful because they can indicate a

predictive relationship that can be exploited in practice. For example, an electrical

utility may produce less power on a mild day based on the correlation between

electricity demand and weather. Correlations can also suggest possible causal, or

mechanistic relationships; however, statistical dependence is not sufficient to

demonstrate the presence of such a relationship. Formally, dependence refers to any

situation in which random variables do not satisfy a mathematical condition of

probabilistic independence. In general statistical usage, correlation or co-relation can

refer to any departure of two or more random variables from independence, but most

commonly refers to a more specialized type of relationship between mean values.

There are several correlation coefficients, often denoted ρ or r, measuring the degree

of correlation. The most common of these is the Pearson correlation coefficient,

which is mainly sensitive to a linear relationship between two variables. Other

correlation coefficients have been developed to be more robust than the Pearson

correlation, or more sensitive to nonlinear relationships.

Regression Analysis : In statistics, regression analysis includes any techniques for

modeling and analyzing several variables, when the focus is on the relationship

between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables. More

118
specifically, regression analysis helps us understand how the typical value of the

dependent variable changes when any one of the independent variables is varied,

while the other independent variables are held fixed. Most commonly, regression

analysis estimates the conditional expectation of the dependent variable given the

independent variables — that is, the average value of the dependent variable when the

independent variables are held fixed. Less commonly, the focus is on a quantile, or

other location parameter of the conditional distribution of the dependent variable

given the independent variables. In all cases, the estimation target is a function of the

independent variables called the regression function. In regression analysis, it is also

of interest to characterize the variation of the dependent variable around the

regression function, which can be described by a probability distribution. Regression

analysis is widely used for prediction and forecasting, where its use has substantial

overlap with the field of machine learning. Regression analysis is also used to

understand which among the independent variables are related to the dependent

variable, and to explore the forms of these relationships. In restricted circumstances,

regression analysis can be used to infer causal relationships between the independent

and dependent variables. A large body of techniques for carrying out regression

analysis has been developed. Familiar methods such as linear regression and ordinary

least squares regression are parametric, in that the regression function is defined in

terms of a finite number of unknown parameters that are estimated from the data.

Nonparametric regression refers to techniques that allow the regression function to lie

in a specified set of functions, which may be infinite-dimensional.

119
CHAPTER V

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

This study used a standard statistical software package, SPSS, to provide descriptive

statistics for all years under examination. Specifically, this study provides the mean and

standard deviations of the independent variables. A summary of the descriptive statistical

results is provided. Aside from the descriptive statistics, this study presents the specified

forms of the regression equations for all nine years. This study also performs chi-square

test necessary to conclude statistical significance in the parameters and examine the R-

squared and adjusted-R-squared in all of the regression equations. The data are presented

in a tabular format. Since the population of mutual funds is finite, this study elects to use

the population of mutual funds in the database. All attempts have been made to use the

entire population of mutual funds.

Table 5 Descriptive Statistics

N Range Sum Mean Std. Deviation

GENDER 700 1 916 1.31 .462
LOCATION 700 3 1750 2.50 1.119
MARTIALSTATUS 700 1 1050 1.50 .500
OCCUPATION 700 1 969 1.38 .487
AGE 700 3 1590 2.27 1.095
INCOME 700 4 2070 2.96 1.315
MF_TAX 700 1 835 1.19 .395
MFNAME 700 25 9286 13.27 7.512
MODEOFINV 700 1 914 1.31 .461
BRANDNAME 700 4 2664 3.81 1.179
AUM 700 3 1534 2.19 .834
NAV 700 4 2070 2.96 1.315
PR 700 4 1909 2.73 1.403
QOS 700 4 1452 2.07 1.410
SAFE_IT 700 4 1482 2.12 1.189
ST_IT 700 3 1454 2.08 .617
EU_IT 700 4 1451 2.07 1.326
N_IT 700 4 1453 2.08 1.238
ES_IT 700 4 1695 2.42 1.212

120
 CURRENTINV 700 4 1668 2.38 1.570
REPEATPURCHASE 700 4 1776 2.54 1.309
S_IT 700 4 1506 2.15 1.379
REFERRAL_IT 700 4 1830 2.61 1.305
SAFE 700 4 2664 3.81 1.179
ST 700 4 2987 4.27 1.164
EU 700 4 2613 3.73 1.285
N 700 3 2612 3.73 1.093
ES 700 4 2720 3.89 1.281
CURRENT 700 4 2693 3.85 1.292
REPEAT 700 4 2507 3.58 1.305
S 700 4 2181 3.12 1.087
CASHINV 700 4 2776 3.97 1.222
REFERRAL 700 4 2855 4.08 1.299
CS_REFFERAL 700 4 1530 2.19 1.356
CS_COMP 700 3 1238 1.77 .933
SALE 700 4 1911 2.73 1.228
Valid N (listwise) 700

5.1 FINDINGS IN DETAIL

We have sample of over 26 mutual funds out of the total mutual funds of 36 as on 31st

March 2010. However the selected mutual funds have a AUM of 89% of the total

market. Thus the findings of this research could be generalized for entire mutual fund

sector as a whole. Our study has captured data for mutual fund investors from all four

tier 1 cities. It is interesting to find that there is a very little significance of location

and a homogeneity is observed in the pattern, behavior and expectation of investors.

We have tried to all segments right from retail investor upto an HNI investor.

However institutional investors are not a part of this study.

121
Figure 5.1.57Pie chart for Investment Company

WHICH MUTUAL
FUND DO YOU
INVEST IN
RELIANCE MF
HDFC MF
ICICI PRUMF
UTI MF
2 2 7 BIRLA SUNLIFE MF
11
2
2 SBI MF
2 7
LIC MF
2
KOTAK MF
2
FRANKLIN MF
2 7
TATA MF
2
IDFC MF
2
DSP BLACKROCK MF
3 DEUTCHE MF
7
SUNDARAM BNP MF
3
HSBC MF
2 TAURUS MF
2 7 BENCHMARK MF
RELIGARE F
6 FIDELITY MF
7 PRINCIPAL MF
6 CANARA ROBECO MF

7 7 JM FINANCIAL MF
JPMORGAN MF
BARODA PIONEER MF
DBS CHOLA MF
MORGAN STANLEY
MF

122
As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

Mutual Fund Company. All major mutual funds are covered under this which have

AUM of more than 98% of market. We have ensured the representation of sample is

homogeneous and there is no intentional inclination towards any fund house.

Figure 5.1.58 Bar chart for Investment Company

Bar Chart

30 SALE
<50000
<100000
25
<50000000
5
20
Count

15

10

0
TATA M F

TAURUS M F

J M F IN A N C IA L M F
JP M O R G A N M F
SBI M F

SUNDARAM BNP M F

CANARA ROBECO M F
R E L IA N C E M F
HDFC M F

UTI M F
B IR L A S U N L IF E M F

L IC M F
KOTAK MF
F R A N K L IN M F

D SP BLA C KR O CK M F
DEUTCHE M F

HSBC M F

BENCHM ARK
R E L IG A R E F

P R IN C IP A L M F

B A R O D A P IO N E E R M F
D BS CH O LA M F
M O RG A N S TAN LE Y M F
IC IC I P R U M F

ID F C M F

F ID E L IT Y M F

MFNAME

123
 Figure 5.1.59 Pie chart for Mode of Investment

WHAT IS THE
MODE OF
INVESTMENT
ONLINE
OFFLINE

40

60

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on mode

of investment. There are 60% respondents belonging to online group. There are 40%

respondents belonging to offline group. We have ensured the representation of

sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any age group.

Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help

of administered sampling technique used.

124
 Table 5.1.1. Cross tabulation between Mode of Investment and Sales

χ2=208.102; df=3; p=0.04; SALE

λ=.252 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
MODEOFINV ONLINE Count 0 324 81 81 486
% within
.0% 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0%
MODEOFINV
% within SALE .0% 80.2% 50.3% 100.0% 69.4%
% of Total .0% 46.3% 11.6% 11.6% 69.4%
OFFLINE Count 54 80 80 0 214
% within
25.2% 37.4% 37.4% .0% 100.0%
MODEOFINV
% within SALE 100.0% 19.8% 49.7% .0% 30.6%
% of Total 7.7% 11.4% 11.4% .0% 30.6%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
MODEOFINV
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%

As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents is shown above based on mode of

investment with respect to amount of purchase. There are 46.3% of investors with

investment in the range of 1 lakh prefer online medium along with other two

categories having 11.6% each, with investments in range of 1 lakh to 5crore and

above 5 crore respectively. However an insignificant percentage of investor with

investment less than 50 thousand, less than 1 lakh and less than 5 crore prefer offline

mode of investment with percentage of 7.7%, 11.4% and 11.4% respectively. This

clearly indicates than online medium is one of the most preferred medium for

investment.

125
 Figure 5.1.60 Pie chart for Investment Based on Brandname

I INVEST IN MF
BASED ON
BRANDNAME?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEUTRAL
8 DISAGREE
STRONGLY
8 DISAGREE

31

12

42

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

Brandname. There are 31% respondents strongly disagree that they invest on the basis

of brandname. There are 42% respondents disagree that they invest on the basis of

brandname. There are 12% respondents who are neutral on investing based on

brandname. However are 8% respondents strongly agree and the balance 8% also

agree that they invest on the basis of brandname. This is an interesting fact and we

found that this is because most of the Brandname oriented Mutual Funds like SBI,

LIC, UTI and CanaraRobecco were owned by PSU and probably there could be a

126
perception of non performance amongst investor. However it is a observed from past

return that PSU owned Mutual Funds have given lower return as compared to other.

We have ensured the representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional

inclination towards any age group.

Table 5.1.2. Cross tabulation between Brandname and Sales

χ2=279.18; df=12; p=0.044;

λ=.386 SALE Total
<50000 <100000 <50000000 >50000000
BRANDNAME STRONGLY Count
0 54 0 0 54
AGREE
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
BRANDNAME
% within SALE .0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
AGREE Count 54 0 0 0 54
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
BRANDNAME
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
NEUTRAL Count 0 0 81 0 81
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
BRANDNAME
% within SALE .0% .0% 50.3% .0% 11.6%
% of Total .0% .0% 11.6% .0% 11.6%
DISAGREE Count 0 135 80 81 296
% within
.0% 45.6% 27.0% 27.4% 100.0%
BRANDNAME
% within SALE .0% 33.4% 49.7% 100.0% 42.3%
% of Total .0% 19.3% 11.4% 11.6% 42.3%
STRONGLY Count
0 215 0 0 215
DISAGREE
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
BRANDNAME
% within SALE .0% 53.2% .0% .0% 30.7%
% of Total .0% 30.7% .0% .0% 30.7%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
BRANDNAME
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%

As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents shown above based on brandname

with respect to amount of purchase. There are 30.7% of investors with investment in

127
the range of 1 lakh strongly disagree with the fact that they consider brandname as a

parameter for investment along with other two categories having 19.3%, 11.4% and

11.6% with investments in range of 1 lakh, 1 lakh to 5crore and above 5 crore

respectively. However an insignificant percentage of investor with investment less

than 50 thousand and less than 1 lakh consider brandname as a parameter for

investment with percentage of 7.7%, respectively. This clearly indicates that

brandname is not considered as a parameter before making an investment. There by it

is inferred that fifth null hypothesis is accepted.

Figure 5.1.61 Bar chart for Investment Based on Brandname

Bar Chart

250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5

150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
BRANDNAME

128
 Figure 5.1.62 Pie chart for Investment Based on AUM

I CONSIDER ASSET UNDER MANAGEMENT OF MUTUAL

FUND COMPANY BEFORE TAKING AND INVESTMENT CALL ?

STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEUTRAL
DISAGREE
11.6
15.4

11.4

61.6

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on Asset

Under Management(AUM). There are 11.6% respondents strongly disagree that they

invest on the basis of AUM. There are 11.4% respondents disagree that they invest on

the basis of AUM. However are 61.4% respondents strongly agree and the balance

15.4% also agree that they invest on the basis of AUM. We have ensured the

representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards

any age group.

129
 Table 5.1.3. Cross tabulation between AUM and Sales

χ2=468.64; df=9; p=0.047; SALE

λ=.428 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
AUM STRONGLY Count 0 108 0 0 108
AGREE % within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
AUM
% within
.0% 26.7% .0% .0% 15.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% 15.4% .0% .0% 15.4%
AGREE Count 54 296 81 0 431
% within
12.5% 68.7% 18.8% .0% 100.0%
AUM
% within
100.0% 73.3% 50.3% .0% 61.6%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 42.3% 11.6% .0% 61.6%
NEUTRAL Count 0 0 80 0 80
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
AUM
% within
.0% .0% 49.7% .0% 11.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% 11.4% .0% 11.4%
DISAGREE Count 0 0 0 81 81
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%
AUM
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 11.6%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% .0% 11.6% 11.6%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
AUM
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%

As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents shown above based on AUM with

respect to amount of purchase. There are 15.4% of investors with investment in the

range of 1 lakh strongly agree with the fact that they consider AUM as a parameter for

investment along with other three categories having 7.7%, 42.3% and 11.6% with

investments in range of less than 50 thousand, less than 1 lakh and 1 lakh to 5crore

respectively. However an insignificant percentage of investor with investment more

than 5crore do not consider AUM as a parameter for investment with percentage of

130
11.6%. This clearly indicates that AUM is considered as a parameter before making

an investment. There by it is inferred that sixth null hypothesis is rejected.

Figure 5.1.63 Bar chart for Investment Based on AUM

Bar Chart

300 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
250
5

200
Count

150

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE
AGREE
AUM

131
 Figure 5.1.64 Pie chart for Investment Based on NAV

NAV
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEUTRAL
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
11
19

31
19

19

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

NAV. There are 11% respondents strongly disagree that they invest on the basis of

NAV. There are 31% respondents disagree that they invest on the basis of NAV.

There are 19% respondents who are neutral on investing based on NAV. However are

19% respondents strongly agree and the balance 19% also agree that they invest on

the basis of NAV. This is an interesting fact and we found that this is because most of

132
the investor who ignore NAV as a parameter for investments were salaried and high

investment amount indicating that the emphasise more on other parameter. When this

is probed further we identified that past performance was a parameter which

influenced them in taking a decision of investment. We have ensured the

representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards

any age group.

Table 5.1.4. Cross tabulation between NAV and Sales

χ2=295.206; df=12; p=0.031; SALE

λ=.512 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
NAV STRONGLY Count 0 135 0 0 135
AGREE % within NAV .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within SALE .0% 33.4% .0% .0% 19.3%
% of Total .0% 19.3% .0% .0% 19.3%
AGREE Count 0 135 0 0 135
% within NAV .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within SALE .0% 33.4% .0% .0% 19.3%
% of Total .0% 19.3% .0% .0% 19.3%
NEUTRAL Count 0 54 0 81 135
% within NAV .0% 40.0% .0% 60.0% 100.0%
% within SALE .0% 13.4% .0% 100.0% 19.3%
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% 11.6% 19.3%
DISAGREE Count 54 0 161 0 215
% within NAV 25.1% .0% 74.9% .0% 100.0%
% within SALE 100.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 30.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% 23.0% .0% 30.7%
STRONGLY Count 0 80 0 0 80
DISAGREE % within NAV .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within NAV 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%

As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents shown above based on NAV with

respect to amount of purchase. There are 19.3% of investors with investment in the

133
range of 1 lakh strongly agree with the fact that they consider NAV as a parameter for

investment along with one other category having 19.3% with investments in range of

less than 1 lakh. A similar type of investor in various category are neutral on this with

total percentage of 19.3% However a significant percentage of investor with

investment less than 50 thousand and in the range of 1lakh to 5 crore do not consider

NAV as a parameter for investment with percentage of 7.7% and 23% respectively. In

addition investors with investment in the range of 1 lakh strongly disagree with the

fact that they consider NAV as a parameter for investment with percentage of 11.4%

This clearly indicates that NAV is not considered as a parameter before making an

investment. There by it is inferred that seventh null hypothesis is accepted.

Figure 5.1.65 Bar chart for Investment Based on NAV

Bar Chart

200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
NAV

134
 Figure 5.1.66 Pie chart for Investment Based on PR

PR
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

12

23

31

35

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on past

record. There are 12% respondents strongly disagree that they invest on the basis of

past record. There are 31% respondents disagree that they invest on the basis of past

record. However are 35% respondents strongly agree and the balance 23% also agree

that they invest on the basis of past record. We have ensured the representation of

sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any age group.

135
 Table 5.1.5. Cross tabulation between PR and Sales

χ2=368.54; df=9; p=0.027; SALE

λ=.323 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
PR STRONGLY Count 0 81 81 0 162
AGREE
% within PR .0% 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 20.0% 50.3% .0% 23.1%
SALE
% of Total .0% 11.6% 11.6% .0% 23.1%
AGREE Count 54 189 0 0 243
% within PR 22.2% 77.8% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 46.8% .0% .0% 34.7%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 27.0% .0% .0% 34.7%
DISAGREE Count 0 134 80 0 214
% within PR .0% 62.6% 37.4% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 33.2% 49.7% .0% 30.6%
SALE
% of Total .0% 19.1% 11.4% .0% 30.6%
STRONGLY Count 0 0 0 81 81
DISAGREE
% within PR .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 11.6%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% .0% 11.6% 11.6%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within PR 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents shown above based on past record

with respect to amount of purchase. There are 11.6% of investors each with

investment in the range of 1 lakh and 1lakh to 5crore who strongly agree with the fact

that they consider past record as a parameter for investment along with other two

categories having 7.7% and 27% with investments in range of less than 50 thousand

and less than 1 lakh respectively. However an insignificant percentage of investor

with investment more than 5crore do not consider past record as a parameter for

investment with percentage of 11.6%. This clearly indicates that past record is

considered as a parameter before making an investment. There by it is inferred that

136
eighth null hypothesis is rejected.

Figure 5.1.67Bar chart for Investment Based on PR

Bar Chart

200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
PR

137
 Figure 5.1.68 Pie chart for Investment Based on Quality of Services

I INVEST IN MUTUAL FUND BASED ON ITS QUALITY OF

SERVICE

STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
11.4 DISAGREE

11.6

50

27

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

Quality of Service. There are 11.4% respondents strongly disagree that they invest on

the basis of past record. There are 11.6% respondents disagree that they invest on the

basis of past record. However are 27% respondents strongly agree and the balance

50% also agree that they invest on the basis of past record. We have ensured the

representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards

any age group.

138
 Table 5.1.6. Cross tabulation between Quality of Service and Sales

χ2=266; df=9; p=0.028; SALE

λ=.375 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
QOS STRONGLY Count 54 215 81 0 350
AGREE % within QOS 15.4% 61.4% 23.1% .0% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 53.2% 50.3% .0% 50.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 30.7% 11.6% .0% 50.0%
AGREE Count 0 189 0 0 189
% within QOS .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 46.8% .0% .0% 27.0%
SALE
% of Total .0% 27.0% .0% .0% 27.0%
DISAGREE Count 0 0 0 81 81
% within QOS .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 11.6%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% .0% 11.6% 11.6%
STRONGLY Count 0 0 80 0 80
DISAGREE % within QOS .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% .0% 49.7% .0% 11.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% 11.4% .0% 11.4%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within QOS 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%

As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on quality of

service with respect to amount of purchase. There are 27% of investors with

investment in the range of 1 lakh agree with considering quality of service as a

parameter for investment along with other three categories which strongly agrees,

having 7.7%, 30.7% and 11.6% each, with investments less than 50 thousand, less

than 1 lakh and in range of 1 lakh to 5crore respectively. However an insignificant

percentage of investor with investment in the range of 1lakh to 5crore and less than

5crore disagree with the fact that quality of service is a parameter for investment

11.4% and 11.6% respectively. This clearly indicates that quality of service is

139
considered as a parameter for investment. There by it is inferred that third null

hypothesis is rejected.

Figure 5.1.69 Bar chart for Investment Based on Quality of Services

Bar Chart

250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5

150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
QOS

140
 Figure 5.1.70 Pie chart for source of Information for Mutual Fund

HOW DO YOU
KNOW ABOUT
MUTUAL FUND OR
ITS
ONLINE
TELE CALL
20 20 SMS
THROUGH A
FRIEND
PRINT MEDIA
AGENT

10

20

20

10

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

source of information for knowing about mutual fund. There are 20% respondents

belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund through online medium.

There are 10% respondents belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund

through Tele-Call. There are 20% respondents belonging to group which gets to know

about mutual fund through SMS. There are 10% respondents belonging to group

which gets to know about mutual fund through friend. There are 20% respondents

belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund through print media. There

are 10% respondents belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund

through agent. We have ensured the representation of sample is homogeneous and

141
there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random sampling is used for

collecting data from different cities with the help of administered sampling technique

used.

Figure 5.1.71 Pie chart for source of more information for Mutual Fund

WHERE DO YOU
FIND MORE
INFORMATION ON
MUTUAL FUND
WEBSITE
BROUCHRE
20 CALL CENTER
AGENT

40

30

10

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

source of information for knowing about mutual fund. There are 40% respondents

belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund through website. There are

10% respondents belonging to group which gets to know about mutual fund through

brochure. There are 30% respondents belonging to group which gets to know about

mutual fund through call-centre. There are 10% respondents belonging to group

which gets to know about mutual fund through agent. We have ensured the

142
representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards

any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities

with the help of administered sampling technique used.

Figure 5.1.72 Pie chart for Perception of safety in IT & IT Enabled Services.

I feel safe investing

through IT & IT
Enabled Services
[online]?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

40

50

10

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception of safety in IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50% respondents

belonging to group which strongly feels safe to use IT & IT Enabled services. There

are 10% respondents belonging to group which feels safe to use IT & IT Enabled

services. There are 40% respondents belonging to group which does not feels safe to

use IT & IT Enabled services. We have ensured the representation of sample is

homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random

143
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered

sampling technique used.

Table 5.1.7. Cross tabulation between SAFE_IT and Sales

Χ2=883.048; df=12; p=0.000; SALE

λ=.194 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
SAFE_IT STRONGLY Count 0 162 80 0 242
AGREE
% within
.0% 66.9% 33.1% .0% 100.0%
SAFE_IT
% within SALE .0% 40.1% 49.7% .0% 34.6%
% of Total .0% 23.1% 11.4% .0% 34.6%
AGREE Count 0 134 81 81 296
% within
.0% 45.3% 27.4% 27.4% 100.0%
SAFE_IT
% within SALE .0% 33.2% 50.3% 100.0% 42.3%
% of Total .0% 19.1% 11.6% 11.6% 42.3%
NEUTRAL Count 0 54 0 0 54
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
SAFE_IT
% within SALE .0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
DISAGREE Count 54 0 0 0 54
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
SAFE_IT
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
STRONGLY Count 0 54 0 0 54
DISAGREE
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
SAFE_IT
% within SALE .0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
SAFE_IT
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%

As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on Perception

of safety in IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of purchase. There are

23.1% of investors with investment in the range of 1 lakh strongly agree with

perception of safety in IT & IT Enabled Services along with other three categories

144
which strongly agrees, having 19.1%, 11.6% and 11.6% each, with investments less

than less than 1 lakh, in range of 1 lakh to 5crore and less than 5 crore respectively.

However an insignificant percentage of investor with investment in the range of less

than 50 thousand and less than 1 lakh disagree with the perception of safety in IT &

IT Enabled Services 7.7% and 7.7% respectively. This clearly indicates that

perception of safety in IT & IT Enabled Services is high.

Figure 5.1.73 Bar chart for Perception of safety in IT & IT Enabled Services.

Bar Chart

200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
SAFE_IT

145
 Figure 5.1.74 Pie chart for Perception of service time in IT & IT Enabled

Services.

Service-time is
comparitively low in
services offered IT
Enabled Services
[online]?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

40

50

10

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception of service time in using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50%

respondents belonging to group having perception of having low service time in using

IT & IT Enabled services. There are 10% respondents belonging to group having

perception of having low service time in using IT & IT Enabled services. There are

40% respondents belonging to group having perception of not having low service time

in using IT & IT Enabled services. We have ensured the representation of sample is

homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random

146
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered

sampling technique used.

Table 5.1.8. Cross tabulation between Service Time_IT and Sales

χ2=738.248; df=6; p=0.000; SALE

λ=.267 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
ST_IT STRONGLY Count 54 0 0 0 54
AGREE % within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
ST_IT
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
AGREE Count 0 350 161 81 592
% within
.0% 59.1% 27.2% 13.7% 100.0%
ST_IT
% within
.0% 86.6% 100.0% 100.0% 84.6%
SALE
% of Total .0% 50.0% 23.0% 11.6% 84.6%
DISAGREE Count 0 54 0 0 54
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
ST_IT
% within
.0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
ST_IT
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%

As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on perception

of low service time in using IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of

purchase. There are 80% of investors in various categories agree with perception of

low service time in using IT & IT Enabled Services. However an insignificant

percentage of investor with investment in the range of less than 1 lakh disagree with

the perception of low service time in using IT & IT Enabled Services with a

percentage of 7.7%. This clearly indicates that perception of low service time in using

IT & IT Enabled Services is high. This is an important inference as it is one of the

147
parameter which indicates influence of IT on service quality as per Parsuraman’s

SERVQUAL Model.

Figure 5.1.75 Bar chart for Perception of service time in IT & IT Enabled

Services.

Bar Chart

SALE
400
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5

300
Count

200

100

0
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE
ST_IT

148
 Figure 5.1.76 Pie chart for Perception of ease of use in IT & IT Enabled

Services.

The IT & IT Enabled

Services provided
are easy to use ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

40

50

10

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception ease of use with IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50% respondents

belonging to group having perception of easy use of IT & IT Enabled services. There

are 10% respondents belonging to group having perception of easy use of IT & IT

Enabled services. There are 40% respondents belonging to group disagree with

perception of easy use of IT & IT Enabled services. We have ensured the

representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards

any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities

with the help of administered sampling technique used.

149
 Table 5.1.9. Cross tabulation between ease of use of IT and Sales

χ2=896.202; df=9; p=0.001; SALE

λ=.277 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
EU_IT STRONGLY Count 0 216 81 0 297
AGREE % within
.0% 72.7% 27.3% .0% 100.0%
EU_IT
% within SALE .0% 53.5% 50.3% .0% 42.4%
% of Total .0% 30.9% 11.6% .0% 42.4%
AGREE Count 0 108 80 81 269
% within
.0% 40.1% 29.7% 30.1% 100.0%
EU_IT
% within SALE .0% 26.7% 49.7% 100.0% 38.4%
% of Total .0% 15.4% 11.4% 11.6% 38.4%
DISAGREE Count 54 0 0 0 54
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
EU_IT
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
STRONGLY Count 0 80 0 0 80
DISAGREE % within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
EU_IT
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
EU_IT
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on perception

ease of use with IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of purchase. There

are 42.4% and 38.4% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and agree

respectively with perception that IT & IT Enabled Services are ease to use. However

an insignificant percentage of investor with investment in the range of less than 50

thousand disagree with the perception that IT & IT Enabled Services are ease to use,

with a percentage of 7.7%. This clearly indicates that perception that IT & IT Enabled

Services are ease to use is high. This is an important inference as it is one of the

parameter which indicates influence of IT on service quality as per Parsuraman’s

150
SERVQUAL Model.

Figure 5.1.77 Bar chart for Perception of ease of use in IT & IT Enabled

Services.

Bar Chart

250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5

150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
EU_IT

Figure 5.1.78 Bar chart for Perception of ease of use in IT & IT Enabled

Services.

Within Cluster Percentage of N

N
AGREE
1
NEUTRAL
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
2
Cluster

Overall

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent within Cluster

151
 Figure 5.1.79 Pie chart for catering to all need for using IT & IT Enabled

Services.

The IT & IT Enabled

Services are
catering to all my
needs ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

40

50

10

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception that IT & IT Enabled Services are catering to all needs. There are 50%

respondents belonging to group having perception that IT & IT Enabled services are

catering to all needs. There are 10% respondents belonging to group having

perception that IT & IT Enabled services are catering to all needs. There are 40%

respondents belonging to group disagree with perception that IT & IT Enabled

services are catering to all needs. We have ensured the representation of sample is

homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random

152
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered

sampling technique used.

Table 5.1.10. Cross tabulation between catering to all need using IT and

Sales

χ2=896.202; df=9; p=0.000; SALE

λ=.27 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
N_IT STRONGLY Count 0 108 80 81 269
AGREE % within N_IT .0% 40.1% 29.7% 30.1% 100.0%
% within
.0% 26.7% 49.7% 100.0% 38.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% 15.4% 11.4% 11.6% 38.4%
AGREE Count 0 216 81 0 297
% within N_IT .0% 72.7% 27.3% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 53.5% 50.3% .0% 42.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% 30.9% 11.6% .0% 42.4%
DISAGREE Count 0 80 0 0 80
% within N_IT .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
STRONGLY Count 54 0 0 0 54
DISAGREE % within N_IT 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within N_IT 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on perception

that IT & IT Enabled Services are catering to all needs with respect to amount of

purchase. There are 38.4% and 42.4% of investors in various categories who strongly

agree and agree respectively with perception that IT & IT Enabled Services are

catering to all needs. However an insignificant percentage of investor with investment

in the range of less than 50 thousand strongly disagree with the perception that IT &

153
IT Enabled Services are catering to all needs, with a percentage of 7.7%. This clearly

indicates that perception that IT & IT Enabled Services are catering to all needs is

high. This is an important inference as it is one of the parameter which indicates

influence of IT on service quality as per Parsuraman’s SERVQUAL Model.

Figure 5.1.80 Pie chart for catering to all need for using IT & IT Enabled

Services.

Bar Chart

250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count

150

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
N_IT

154
 Figure 5.1.81 Pie chart for Perception of quality of service in IT & IT

Enabled Services.

The IT & IT Enabled

Service Quality
provided are
excellent ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

40

50

10

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception of quality of services in using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50%

respondents belonging to group having perception of quality of services in using IT &

IT Enabled Services. There are 10% respondents belonging to group having

perception of quality of services in using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 40%

respondents belonging to group disagree with perception of quality of services in

using IT & IT Enabled Services. We have ensured the representation of sample is

homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random

155
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered

sampling technique used.

Table 5.1.11. Cross tabulation between excellent IT QoS and Sales

χ2= 304.12; df=12; p=0.029; SALE

λ=.208 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
ES_IT STRONGLY Count 0 54 80 0 134
AGREE % within
.0% 40.3% 59.7% .0% 100.0%
ES_IT
% within SALE .0% 13.4% 49.7% .0% 19.1%
% of Total .0% 7.7% 11.4% .0% 19.1%
AGREE Count 0 189 81 81 351
% within
.0% 53.8% 23.1% 23.1% 100.0%
ES_IT
% within SALE .0% 46.8% 50.3% 100.0% 50.1%
% of Total .0% 27.0% 11.6% 11.6% 50.1%
NEUTRAL Count 0 81 0 0 81
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
ES_IT
% within SALE .0% 20.0% .0% .0% 11.6%
% of Total .0% 11.6% .0% .0% 11.6%
DISAGREE Count 54 0 0 0 54
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
ES_IT
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
STRONGLY Count 0 80 0 0 80
DISAGREE % within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
ES_IT
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
ES_IT
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on perception

of excellent quality of services in using IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to

amount of purchase. There are 19.1% and 50.1% of investors in various categories

who strongly agree and agree respectively with perception of excellent quality of

services in using IT & IT Enabled Services. However an insignificant percentage of

156
investor with investment in the range of less than 50 thousand strongly disagree with

the perception of excellent quality of services in using IT & IT Enabled Services, with

a percentage of 7.7%. This clearly indicates that the perception of excellent quality of

services in using IT & IT Enabled Services is high. This is an important inference as it

is one of the parameter which indicates influence of IT on service quality as per

Parsuraman’s SERVQUAL Model.

Figure 5.1.82 Bar chart for Perception of quality of service in IT & IT

Enabled Services.

Bar Chart

200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
ES_IT

157
 Figure 5.1.83 Bar chart for Perception of quality of service in IT & IT

Enabled Services.

Within Cluster Percentage of N

N
AGREE
1
NEUTRAL
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
2
C lu s te r

Overall

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent within Cluster

158
 Figure 5.1.84 Pie chart for investment using IT & IT Enabled Services.

I invest in existing
scheme through IT
& IT Enabled
Services ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

40

50

10

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception of investment using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50% respondents

belonging to group having perception investment using IT & IT Enabled Services.

There are 10% respondents belonging to group having perception investment using IT

& IT Enabled Services. There are 40% respondents belonging to group disagree with

perception investment using IT & IT Enabled Services. We have ensured the

representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards

any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities

with the help of administered sampling technique used.

159
 Table 5.1.12. Cross tabulation between current investment and Sales

SALE
<10000 <500000
χ2=931.534;
df=9; p=0.000; λ=.423 <50000 0 00 5 Total
CURRENTINV STRONGLY Count 0 215 0 81 296
AGREE % within
.0% 72.6% .0% 27.4% 100.0%
CURRENTINV
% within SALE .0% 53.2% .0% 100.0% 42.3%
% of Total .0% 30.7% .0% 11.6% 42.3%
AGREE Count 0 189 0 0 189
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENTINV
% within SALE .0% 46.8% .0% .0% 27.0%
% of Total .0% 27.0% .0% .0% 27.0%
DISAGREE Count 0 0 81 0 81
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENTINV
% within SALE .0% .0% 50.3% .0% 11.6%
% of Total .0% .0% 11.6% .0% 11.6%
STRONGLY Count 54 0 80 0 134
DISAGREE % within
40.3% .0% 59.7% .0% 100.0%
CURRENTINV
% within SALE 100.0% .0% 49.7% .0% 19.1%
% of Total 7.7% .0% 11.4% .0% 19.1%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
CURRENTINV
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on perception

investment using IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of purchase. There

are 42.3% and 27% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and agree

respectively indicating their current mode of investment is using IT & IT Enabled

Services. However an insignificant percentage of investor with 11.6 and 19.1%

investment from various categories disagree and strongly disagree with the using IT &

IT Enabled Services as a mode of investment. This clearly indicates that majority of

investors have made current investments using IT & IT Enabled Services. This is an

important inference as it is one of the parameter which indicates current mode of

160
investment and rechecks it with the earlier question asked to remove any error or bias.

Figure 5.1.85 Bar chart for investment using IT & IT Enabled Services.

Bar Chart

250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count

150

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
CURRENTINV

161
 Figure 5.1.86 Pie chart for additional investment using IT & IT Enabled

Services

I would like to
purchase similar
products IT & IT
Enabled Services ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

40

50

10

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception of additional investment using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50%

respondents belonging to group having perception additional investment using IT &

IT Enabled Services. There are 10% respondents belonging to group having

perception additional investment using IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 40%

respondents belonging to group disagree with perception additional investment using

IT & IT Enabled Services. We have ensured the representation of sample is

homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random

162
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered

sampling technique used.

Table 5.1.13. Cross tabulation between repeat purchase and Sales

SALE
<10000 <500000
χ2=1163.384;
df=9; p=0.000; λ=.458 <50000 0 00 5 Total
REPEATPURCH STRONGLY Count 0 135 0 0 135
ASE AGREE % within
REPEATPURCH .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
ASE
% within SALE .0% 33.4% .0% .0% 19.3%
% of Total .0% 19.3% .0% .0% 19.3%
AGREE Count 0 269 81 0 350
% within
REPEATPURCH .0% 76.9% 23.1% .0% 100.0%
ASE
% within SALE .0% 66.6% 50.3% .0% 50.0%
% of Total .0% 38.4% 11.6% .0% 50.0%
DISAGREE Count 54 0 80 0 134
% within
REPEATPURCH 40.3% .0% 59.7% .0% 100.0%
ASE
% within SALE 100.0% .0% 49.7% .0% 19.1%
% of Total 7.7% .0% 11.4% .0% 19.1%
STRONGLY Count 0 0 0 81 81
DISAGREE % within
REPEATPURCH .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%
ASE
% within SALE .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 11.6%
% of Total .0% .0% .0% 11.6% 11.6%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
REPEATPURCH 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
ASE
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%

As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on perception

additional investment using IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of

purchase. There are 19.3% and 50% of investors in various categories who strongly

agree and agree respectively indicating their additional investment would be done

163
using IT & IT Enabled Services. However an insignificant percentage of investor with

19.1% and 11.6% investment from various categories disagree and strongly disagree

with the using IT & IT Enabled Services as a mode of investment for additional

purchase. This clearly indicates that majority of investors would make additional

investments using IT & IT Enabled Services. This is an important inference as it is

one of the parameter which indicates additional investment mode. This also reaffirms

that satisfied customers are loyal and IT plays an important role in this.

Figure 5.1.87 Bar chart for additional investment using IT & IT Enabled

Services

Bar Chart

300 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
250
5

200
Count

150

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
REPEATPURCHASE

164
 Figure 5.1.88 Pie chart for satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services.

I am satisfied with
the IT & IT Enabled
Services ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

41

49

0
10

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 49% respondents belonging to

group having satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 10% respondents

belonging to group agree with perception satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services.

There are 41% respondents belonging to group strongly disagree with satisfaction

with IT & IT Enabled Services. We have ensured the representation of sample is

homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random

sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered

sampling technique used.

165
 Table 5.1.14. Cross tabulation between satisfaction with IT and Sales

χ2=189; df=9; p=0.039; SALE

λ=.423 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
S_IT STRONGLY Count 0 216 81 0 297
AGREE % within S_IT .0% 72.7% 27.3% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 53.5% 50.3% .0% 42.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% 30.9% 11.6% .0% 42.4%
AGREE Count 54 188 0 0 242
% within S_IT 22.3% 77.7% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 46.5% .0% .0% 34.6%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 26.9% .0% .0% 34.6%
DISAGREE Count 0 0 80 0 80
% within S_IT .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% .0% 49.7% .0% 11.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% 11.4% .0% 11.4%
STRONGLY Count 0 0 0 81 81
DISAGREE % within S_IT .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 11.6%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% .0% 11.6% 11.6%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within S_IT 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%

As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on

satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of purchase. There

are 42.4% and 36.6% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and agree

respectively that they are satisfied with IT & IT Enabled Services. However 11.4 and

11.6% an insignificant percentage of investors in various categories disagree and

strongly disagree with the fact that IT & IT Enabled Services provided by mutual fund

company are satisfactory. This clearly indicates that majority of investors are satisfied

with IT & IT Enabled Services. This is an important inference as it is one of the

166
parameter which indicates influence of IT on customer satisfaction. There by it is

inferred that second null hypothesis is rejected.

Figure 5.1.89 Bar chart for satisfaction with IT & IT Enabled Services.

Bar Chart

250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count

150

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
S_IT

167
 Figure 5.1.90 Pie chart for recommendation of IT & IT Enabled Services.

I recommend my
friends to use IT &
IT Enabled Services
?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

40

51

10

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

recommendation of IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 50% respondents belonging

to group for recommendation of IT & IT Enabled Services. There are 10%

respondents belonging to group for recommendation of IT & IT Enabled Services.

There are 40% respondents belonging to group disagree with recommendation of IT

& IT Enabled Services. We have ensured the representation of sample is

homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random

sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered

sampling technique used.

168
 Table 5.1.15. Cross tabulation between referral for IT and Sales

SALE
χ2=1546.229; df=12; p=0.000; <10000 <500000
λ=.423 <50000 0 00 5 Total
REFERRAL_IT STRONGLY Count 0 135 0 0 135
AGREE
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE .0% 33.4% .0% .0% 19.3%
% of Total .0% 19.3% .0% .0% 19.3%
AGREE Count 0 215 81 0 296
% within
.0% 72.6% 27.4% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE .0% 53.2% 50.3% .0% 42.3%
% of Total .0% 30.7% 11.6% .0% 42.3%
NEUTRAL Count 54 0 0 0 54
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
DISAGREE Count 0 54 80 0 134
% within
.0% 40.3% 59.7% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE .0% 13.4% 49.7% .0% 19.1%
% of Total .0% 7.7% 11.4% .0% 19.1%
STRONGLY Count 0 0 0 81 81
DISAGREE
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 11.6%
% of Total .0% .0% .0% 11.6% 11.6%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on

recommendation of IT & IT Enabled Services with respect to amount of purchase.

There are 19.3% and 42.3% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and

agree respectively that they would recommend using IT & IT Enabled Services.

However 19.1 and 11.6% an insignificant percentage of investors in various

categories disagree and strongly disagree with the fact that IT & IT Enabled Services

169
provided by mutual fund company are recommendable. This clearly indicates that

majority of investors would like to recommend use of IT & IT Enabled Services. This

is an important inference as it is seen from literature only satisfied customer would

recommend. This is one of the parameter which indicates influence of IT on customer

satisfaction.

Figure 5.1.91 Bar chart for recommendation of IT & IT Enabled Services.

Bar Chart

250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count

150

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
REFERRAL_IT

170
 Figure 5.1.92 Pie chart for Perception of safety in agent / brokerage firm

I feel safe investing

through agent /
brokerage firm?
STRONGLY
AGREE
10 DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

30

60

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception of safety in agent / brokerage firm. There are 10% respondents belonging

to group for perception of safety in agent / brokerage firm. There are 30% respondents

belonging to group for perception of safety in agent / brokerage firm. There are 60%

respondents belonging to group disagree with perception of safety in agent /

brokerage firm. We have ensured the representation of sample is homogeneous and

there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random sampling is used for

collecting data from different cities with the help of administered sampling technique

used.

171
 Table 5.1.16. Cross tabulation between safety in agent / brokerage firm

and Sales

χ2=1210.506; df=12; SALE

p=0.000; λ=.386 <50000 <100000 <50000000 5 Total
SAFE STRONGLY Count 0 54 0 0 54
AGREE % within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
SAFE
% within
.0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
AGREE Count 54 0 0 0 54
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
SAFE
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
NEUTRAL Count 0 0 81 0 81
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
SAFE
% within
.0% .0% 50.3% .0% 11.6%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% 11.6% .0% 11.6%
DISAGREE Count 0 135 80 81 296
% within
.0% 45.6% 27.0% 27.4% 100.0%
SAFE
% within
.0% 33.4% 49.7% 100.0% 42.3%
SALE
% of Total .0% 19.3% 11.4% 11.6% 42.3%
STRONGLY Count 0 215 0 0 215
DISAGREE % within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
SAFE
% within
.0% 53.2% .0% .0% 30.7%
SALE
% of Total .0% 30.7% .0% .0% 30.7%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
SAFE
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on perception

of safety in agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) with respect to amount of purchase.

There is a majority of investors 42.3% and 30.7% of investors in various categories

who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that services provided by agent /

172
brokerage firm (Non-IT) are safe. However 7.7 and 11.6% an insignificant percentage

of investors in various categories strongly agree and agree with the fact that services

provided by agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) are safe. This clearly indicates that

majority of investors do not find safety in agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). This is an

important inference as it supports the fact that non – IT services are not preferred by

investors.

Figure 5.1.93 Bar chart for Perception of safety in agent / brokerage firm

Bar Chart

250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count

150

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
SAFE

173
 Figure 5.1.94 Pie chart for Perception of service time in agent / brokerage

firm.

Service-time is
comparitively is not
high in services
offered on agent /
brokerage firm ?
10
STRONGLY
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

30

60

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception of high service time in agent / brokerage firm. There are 10% respondents

belonging to group for perception of high service time in agent / brokerage firm.

There are 30% respondents belonging to group for perception of high service time in

agent / brokerage firm. There are 60% respondents belonging to group disagree with

perception of high service time in agent / brokerage firm. We have ensured the

representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards

any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities

with the help of administered sampling technique used.

174
 Table 5.1.17. Cross tabulation between service time in agent / brokerage

firm and Sales

SALE
χ2=1011.442; df=9; p=0.000; <5000000
λ=.382 <50000 <100000 0 5 Total
ST STRONGLY Count 0 54 0 0 54
AGREE % within ST .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
NEUTRAL Count 0 0 0 81 81
% within ST .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 11.6%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% .0% 11.6% 11.6%
DISAGREE Count 54 81 0 0 135
% within ST 40.0% 60.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 20.0% .0% .0% 19.3%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 11.6% .0% .0% 19.3%
STRONGLY Count 0 269 161 0 430
DISAGREE % within ST .0% 62.6% 37.4% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 66.6% 100.0% .0% 61.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% 38.4% 23.0% .0% 61.4%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within ST 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on perception

of service time in agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) with respect to amount of purchase.

There is a majority of investors 19.3% and 61.4% of investors in various categories

who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that service time in agent / brokerage

firm (Non-IT) is less. However 7.7 an insignificant percentage of investors in various

categories strongly agree with the fact that service time in agent / brokerage firm

(Non-IT) is less. This clearly indicates that majority of investors do not find service

time in agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) is less. This is an important inference as it

175
supports the fact that non – IT services do not lead to better service quality.

Figure 5.1.95 Bar chart for Perception of service time in agent / brokerage

firm.

Bar Chart

300 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
250
5

200
Count

150

100

50

0
STRONGLY NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
ST

176
 Figure 5.1.96 Pie chart for current mode of investment using agent /

brokerage firm.

I invest in existing
scheme through
agent / brokerage
firm ?
STRONGLY
10 AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

30

60

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception current mode of investment using agent / brokerage firm. There are 10%

respondents belonging to group for current mode of investment using agent /

brokerage firm. There are 30% respondents belonging to group for current mode of

investment using agent / brokerage firm. There are 60% respondents belonging to

group disagree with current mode of investment using agent / brokerage firm. We

have ensured the representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional

177
inclination towards any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data

from different cities with the help of administered sampling technique used.

Table 5.1.18. Cross tabulation between current mode of investment using

agent / brokerage firm and Sales

SALE
χ2=1210.506; df=12; p=0.000; <10000 <500000
λ=.386 <50000 0 00 5 Total
CURRENT STRONGLY Count 54 0 0 0 54
AGREE % within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
AGREE Count 0 80 0 0 80
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
NEUTRAL Count 0 0 81 0 81
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE .0% .0% 50.3% .0% 11.6%
% of Total .0% .0% 11.6% .0% 11.6%
DISAGREE Count 0 189 0 0 189
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE .0% 46.8% .0% .0% 27.0%
% of Total .0% 27.0% .0% .0% 27.0%
STRONGLY Count 0 135 80 81 296
DISAGREE % within
.0% 45.6% 27.0% 27.4% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE .0% 33.4% 49.7% 100.0% 42.3%
% of Total .0% 19.3% 11.4% 11.6% 42.3%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
CURRENT
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%

As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on current

mode of investment using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) with respect to amount of

purchase. There is a majority of investors 27% and 42.3% of investors in various

178
categories who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that their current mode of

investment is using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). However 7.7 and 11.6% an

insignificant percentage of investors in various categories strongly agree with the fact

that their current mode of investment is using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). This

clearly indicates that majority of investors do not invest currently using agent /

brokerage firm (Non-IT). This is an important inference as it supports the fact that

non – IT services are not preferred by investors.

Figure 5.1.97 Bar chart for current mode of investment using agent /

brokerage firm.

Bar Chart

200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
CURRENT

179
 Figure 5.1.98 Pie chart for additional investment using agent / brokerage

firm.

I would like to
purchase similar
products agent /
brokerage firm ?
STRONGLY
10 AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

30

60

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception for additional investment using agent / brokerage firm. There are 10%

respondents belonging to group for additional investment using agent / brokerage

firm. There are 30% respondents belonging to group for additional investment using

agent / brokerage firm. There are 60% respondents belonging to group disagree with

additional investment using agent / brokerage firm. We have ensured the

representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards

any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities

with the help of administered sampling technique used.

180
 Table 5.1.19. Cross tabulation between additional investment using agent

/ brokerage firm and Sales

SALE
Χ2=1619.802; df=12; <10000 <500000
p=0.000; λ=.665 <50000 0 00 5 Total
REPEAT STRONGLY Count 0 80 0 0 80
AGREE % within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
.0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
SALE
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
AGREE Count 54 0 0 0 54
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
NEUTRAL Count 0 0 161 0 161
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% 23.0%
SALE
% of Total .0% .0% 23.0% .0% 23.0%
DISAGREE Count 0 108 0 81 189
% within
.0% 57.1% .0% 42.9% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
.0% 26.7% .0% 100.0% 27.0%
SALE
% of Total .0% 15.4% .0% 11.6% 27.0%
STRONGLY Count 0 216 0 0 216
DISAGREE % within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
.0% 53.5% .0% .0% 30.9%
SALE
% of Total .0% 30.9% .0% .0% 30.9%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
REPEAT
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on additional

investment using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) with respect to amount of purchase.

There is a majority of investors 27% and 30.9% of investors in various categories who

strongly disagree and disagree respectively that they would undergo additional

181
investment using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). However 11.4 and 7.7% an

insignificant percentage of investors in various categories strongly agree with the fact

they would undergo additional investment using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT).

This clearly indicates that majority of investors do not want to make additional

investment using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). This is an important inference as it

supports the fact that non – IT services are not preferred by investors.

Figure 5.1.99 Bar chart for additional investment using agent / brokerage

firm.

Bar Chart

250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5
Count

150

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
REPEAT

182
 Figure 5.1.100 Pie chart for satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage

firm.

I am satisfied with
the agent /
brokerage firm ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
10 DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

30

60

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception for satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage firm. There are 10%

respondents belonging to group for satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage

firm. There are 30% respondents belonging to group for satisfaction with services of

agent / brokerage firm. There are 60% respondents belonging to group disagree with

satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage firm. We have ensured the

representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards

183
any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities

with the help of administered sampling technique used.

Table 5.1.20. Cross tabulation between satisfaction with services of agent

/ brokerage firm and Sales

SALE
χ2=787.936; df=12; p=0.000; <5000000
λ=.358 <50000 <100000 0 5 Total
S STRONGLY Count 0 54 0 0 54
AGREE % within S .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
AGREE Count 0 80 0 81 161
% within S .0% 49.7% .0% 50.3% 100.0%
% within
.0% 19.8% .0% 100.0% 23.0%
SALE
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% 11.6% 23.0%
NEUTRAL Count 54 135 0 0 189
% within S 28.6% 71.4% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 33.4% .0% .0% 27.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 19.3% .0% .0% 27.0%
DISAGREE Count 0 81 161 0 242
% within S .0% 33.5% 66.5% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 20.0% 100.0% .0% 34.6%
SALE
% of Total .0% 11.6% 23.0% .0% 34.6%
STRONGLY Count 0 54 0 0 54
DISAGREE % within S .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within
.0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
SALE
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within S 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SALE
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on

satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) with respect to amount

of purchase. There is a majority of investors 34.6% and 7.7% of investors in various

184
categories who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that they are satisfaction

with services of agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). However 7.7% and 23% an

insignificant percentage of investors in various categories strongly agree with the fact

that they are satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). This

clearly indicates that majority of investors are not satisfied with services of agent /

brokerage firm (Non-IT). This is an important inference as it supports the fact that

customers using non – IT services are not satisfied. Also it help us in indirectly in

rejecting second null hypothesis.

Figure 5.1.101 Bar chart for satisfaction with services of agent / brokerage

firm.

Bar Chart

200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
S

185
 Figure 5.1.102 Pie chart for using agent / brokerage firm for cash incentive.

I invest through
agent / brokerage
firm to get cash
incentives ?
STRONGLY
10 AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

30

60

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception for using agent / brokerage firm for cash incentive. There are 10%

respondents belonging to group for using agent / brokerage firm for cash incentive.

There are 30% respondents belonging to group for using agent / brokerage firm for

cash incentive. There are 60% respondents belonging to group disagree with using

agent / brokerage firm for cash incentive. We have ensured the representation of

sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since

random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of

administered sampling technique used.

186
 Table 5.1.21. Cross tabulation between agent / brokerage firm for cash

incentive and Sales

SALE
χ2=865.742; df=9; p=0.000; <5000000
λ=.233 <50000 <100000 0 5 Total
CASHINV STRONGLY Count 0 80 0 0 80
AGREE % within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CASHINV
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
NEUTRAL Count 54 0 0 0 54
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CASHINV
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
DISAGREE Count 0 135 80 81 296
% within
.0% 45.6% 27.0% 27.4% 100.0%
CASHINV
% within SALE .0% 33.4% 49.7% 100.0% 42.3%
% of Total .0% 19.3% 11.4% 11.6% 42.3%
STRONGLY Count 0 189 81 0 270
DISAGREE % within
.0% 70.0% 30.0% .0% 100.0%
CASHINV
% within SALE .0% 46.8% 50.3% .0% 38.6%
% of Total .0% 27.0% 11.6% .0% 38.6%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
CASHINV
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on using

agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) for cash incentive with respect to amount of

purchase. There is a majority of investors 42.3% and 38.6% of investors in various

categories who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that they use agent /

brokerage firm (Non-IT) for cash incentive. However 11.4% and 7.7% an

insignificant percentage of investors in various categories strongly agree with the fact

that they use agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) for cash incentive. This proves that the

only motive for investors to invest using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) is to get

187
cash incentive. This is very interesting as we were not able to understand as to why do

some investors prefer using agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) inspite of so many

adverse perception. This explain the gap that even dissatisfied investor with service of

agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) use their service purely with intention of getting cash

incentive.

Figure 5.1.103 Pie chart for using agent / brokerage firm for cash incentive.

Bar Chart

200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
CASHINV

188
 Figure 5.1.104 Pie chart for recommendation of services provided by agent /

brokerage firm.

I recommend my
friends to use the
agent / brokerage
firm ?
STRONGLY
10 AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

30

60

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception for recommendation of services provided by agent / brokerage firm. There

are 10% respondents belonging to group for recommendation of services provided by

agent / brokerage firm. There are 30% respondents belonging to group for

recommendation of services provided by agent / brokerage firm. There are 60%

respondents belonging to group disagree with recommendation of services provided

by agent / brokerage firm. We have ensured the representation of sample is

homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since random

189
sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of administered

sampling technique used.

Table 5.1.22. Cross tabulation between services provided by agent /

brokerage firm and Sales

SALE
χ2=1058.912; df=9; p=0.000; <10000 <500000
λ=.305 <50000 0 00 5 Total
REFERRAL STRONGLY Count 54 0 0 0 54
AGREE
% within
100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL
% within SALE 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total 7.7% .0% .0% .0% 7.7%
AGREE Count 0 80 0 0 80
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
DISAGREE Count 0 108 0 81 189
% within
.0% 57.1% .0% 42.9% 100.0%
REFERRAL
% within SALE .0% 26.7% .0% 100.0% 27.0%
% of Total .0% 15.4% .0% 11.6% 27.0%
STRONGLY Count 0 216 161 0 377
DISAGREE
% within
.0% 57.3% 42.7% .0% 100.0%
REFERRAL
% within SALE .0% 53.5% 100.0% .0% 53.9%
% of Total .0% 30.9% 23.0% .0% 53.9%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
REFERRAL
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on

recommendation of services provided by agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT) with respect

to amount of purchase. There is a majority of investors 27% and 53.9% of investors in

various categories who strongly disagree and disagree respectively that they would

190
recommend other to use services provided by agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT).

However 7.7% and 11.4% an insignificant percentage of investors in various

categories strongly agree with the fact that they would recommend other to use

services provided by agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). This clearly indicates that

majority of investors are would not recommend other to use services provided by

agent / brokerage firm (Non-IT). This is an important inference as it supports the fact

that customers using non – IT services are not satisfied and a dissatisfied customer do

not recommend. Also it helps in indirectly in rejecting second null hypothesis.

Figure 5.1.105 Bar chart for recommendation of services provided by agent /

brokerage firm.

Bar Chart

250 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
200 5

150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
REFERRAL

191
 Figure 5.1.106 Histogram for recommendation of services provided by agent /

brokerage firm.

400

300
F re q u e n c y

200

100

Mean = 4.08
Std. Dev. = 1.299
0 N = 700
1 2 3 4 5
I RECOMMEND MY FRIENDS TO USE THE
AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM ?

192
 Figure 5.1.107 Pie chart for recommendation of company.

I recommend this
company to my
friends ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
20 DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

10

70
0

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception for recommendation of company. There are 70% respondents belonging to

group for recommendation of company. There are 10% respondents belonging to

group disagree with recommendation of company. There are 20% respondents

belonging to group strongly disagree with recommendation of company. We have

ensured the representation of sample is homogeneous and there is intentional

inclination towards any group. Since random sampling is used for collecting data

from different cities with the help of administered sampling technique used.

193
 Table 5.1.23. Cross tabulation between recommendation of company and

Sales

SALE
χ2=588.280; df=9; p=0.000; <5000 <1000 <50000
λ=.296 0 00 000 5 Total
CS_REFFERAL STRONGLY Count 0 189 81 0 270
AGREE
% within 100.0
.0% 70.0% 30.0% .0%
CS_REFFERAL %
% within SALE .0% 46.8% 50.3% .0% 38.6%
% of Total .0% 27.0% 11.6% .0% 38.6%
AGREE Count 54 135 0 81 270
% within 100.0
20.0% 50.0% .0% 30.0%
CS_REFFERAL %
% within SALE 100.0 100.0
33.4% .0% 38.6%
% %
% of Total 7.7% 19.3% .0% 11.6% 38.6%
DISAGREE Count 0 80 0 0 80
% within 100.0 100.0
.0% .0% .0%
CS_REFFERAL % %
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
STRONGLY Count 0 0 80 0 80
DISAGREE
% within 100.0
.0% .0% 100.0% .0%
CS_REFFERAL %
% within SALE .0% .0% 49.7% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% .0% 11.4% .0% 11.4%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within 100.0
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6%
CS_REFFERAL %
% within SALE 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0%
% % % %
% of Total 100.0
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6%
%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on

recommendation of company to others with respect to amount of purchase. There are

38.6% and 38.6% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and agree

respectively that they would recommend company to others. However 11.4% and

11.4% an insignificant percentage of investors in various categories disagree and

strongly disagree with the fact that they would recommend company to others. This

194
clearly indicates that majority of investors would like to recommend the company to

others. This is an important inference as it is seen from literature only satisfied

customer would recommend to others. This is one of the parameter which indicates

influence of IT on customer satisfaction.

Figure 5.1.108 Bar chart for recommendation of company.

Bar Chart

200 SALE
<50000
<100000
<50000000
5
150
Count

100

50

0
STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
CS_REFFERAL

195
 Figure 5.1.109 Bar chart for recommendation of company.

Within Cluster Percentage of CS_REFFERAL

CS_REFFERAL
STRONGLY
1
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
2 DISAGREE
C lu s te r

Overall

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent within Cluster

196
 Figure 5.1.110 Pie chart for satisfaction services provided by company.

I am satisfied with
the services
provided by
company ?
STRONGLY
AGREE
20 AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

10

70
0

As seen in the pie chart the distribution of respondents is shown above based on

perception satisfaction services provided by company. There are 70% respondents

belonging to group for satisfaction services provided by company. There are 10%

respondents belonging to group disagree with satisfaction services provided by

company. There are 20% respondents belonging to group strongly disagree with

satisfaction services provided by company. We have ensured the representation of

sample is homogeneous and there is intentional inclination towards any group. Since

random sampling is used for collecting data from different cities with the help of

administered sampling technique used.

197
 Table 5.1.24. Cross tabulation between satisfaction services provided by

company and Sales

SALE
Χ2=469.04; df=9; p=0.019; <5000000
λ=.002 <50000 <100000 0 5 Total
CS_COMP STRONGLY Count 54 135 80 81 350
AGREE % within
15.4% 38.6% 22.9% 23.1% 100.0%
CS_COMP
% within SALE 100.0% 33.4% 49.7% 100.0% 50.0%
% of Total 7.7% 19.3% 11.4% 11.6% 50.0%
AGREE Count 0 135 81 0 216
% within
.0% 62.5% 37.5% .0% 100.0%
CS_COMP
% within SALE .0% 33.4% 50.3% .0% 30.9%
% of Total .0% 19.3% 11.6% .0% 30.9%
NEUTRAL Count 0 80 0 0 80
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CS_COMP
% within SALE .0% 19.8% .0% .0% 11.4%
% of Total .0% 11.4% .0% .0% 11.4%
DISAGREE Count 0 54 0 0 54
% within
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
CS_COMP
% within SALE .0% 13.4% .0% .0% 7.7%
% of Total .0% 7.7% .0% .0% 7.7%
Total Count 54 404 161 81 700
% within
7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
CS_COMP
% within SALE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 7.7% 57.7% 23.0% 11.6% 100.0%
As seen from the cross-tabulation of respondents, is shown above based on

satisfaction services provided by company with respect to amount of purchase. There

are 50% and 30.9% of investors in various categories who strongly agree and agree

respectively that they are satisfied with services provided by company. However 11.4

and 7.7% an insignificant percentage of investors in various categories disagree and

strongly disagree with the fact that services provided by company are satisfactory.

This clearly indicates that majority of investors are satisfied with services provided by

198
company. This is an important inference as it is one of the parameter which indicates

influence of customer satisfaction on sales. There by it is inferred that first null

hypothesis is rejected.

Figure 5.1.111 Pie chart for satisfaction services provided by company.

Bar Chart

140 SALE
<50000
<100000
120 <50000000
5

100
Count

80

60

40

20

0
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE
AGREE
CS_COMP

199
 Figure 5.1.112 Bar chart for satisfaction services provided by company.

Within Cluster Percentage of CS_COMP

CS_COMP
STRONGLY
1
AGREE
AGREE
NEUTRAL
DISAGREE
2
C lu s te r

Overall

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent within Cluster

200
5.2 Multiple Regression Model for Sales of Mutual Funds

Regression analysis is widely used for prediction and forecasting, where its use has

substantial overlap with the field of machine learning. Regression analysis is also

used to understand which among the independent variables Customer Satisfaction,

Service Quality, AUM, NAV, Past Record, Brandname and IT are related to the

dependent variable i.e. Sales, and to explore the forms of these relationships. In

restricted circumstances, regression analysis can be used to infer causal relationships

between the independent and dependent variables. A large body of techniques for

carrying out regression analysis has been developed. Familiar methods such as linear

regression and ordinary least squares regression are parametric, in that the regression

function is defined in terms of a finite number of unknown parameters that are

estimated from the data. Nonparametric regression refers to techniques that allow the

regression function to lie in a specified set of functions, which may be infinite-

dimensional.

Table 5.2.3. Multiple Regression Model Summary for Sales

Std.
Error of F P Value
Adjusted R the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
.887(a) .787 .785 .570 365.263 .001
1

201
 Table 5.2.4. Multiple Regression Model Coefficients for Sales

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
Std.
B Error Beta
1 (Constant) 4.15
1.410 .53 .000
7
CS_REFFERA
2.19 1.228 .320 12.49 .001
L
CS_COMP 1.77 1.315 .820 7.03 .003
S_IT 2.15 1.179 .596 15.59 .002
REFERRAL_IT 2.61 .834 .613 7.21 .002
BRANDNAME 0.81 1.315 .012 13.89 .003
AUM 2.19 1.403 .454 4.391 .000
NAV 2.96 .395 .011 3.803 .000
PR 0.73 1.10 .320 .439 .000
QOS 2.07 .233 .820 11.42 .001

The multiple regression analysis indicates that parameters like customer satisfaction,

quality of service, AUM, Past Record and others affect sales of a mutual fund.

Parameters like referral, repeat purchase indicate loyalty of customer and there by

indicating customer satisfaction.

202
CHAPTER 6 : CONCULSION

This study adds to the existing literature by bringing an awareness of the

importance of the impact of three basic factors namely Financial Factors, Brand name

and most importantly Information Technology and Information Technology Enabled

Services on customer satisfaction and service quality in the financial service industry

in India. It confirms previous studies that indicate that highly satisfied customers are,

indeed, more loyal customers and help in increased sales of mutual fund company, by

either in the form of additional purchase or by referring to a friend. And, it also

suggests that services provided by agents / brokerage firm may not have much

influence over customer satisfaction or loyalty levels.

It is observed statistically that there exist a significant relation between Customer

Satisfaction and sales of Mutual Fund company. The Goodness of Fit is 0.9 which

indicates that model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 469.04 for sample

of 700. The p - value of 0.019 indicates that there exist relationship between Customer

Satisfaction and sales of Mutual Fund company as the significance level of 0.05 is

used. Customer Satisfaction shows a positive correlation with sales of Mutual Fund

company. Also based on statistical results the first null hypothesis is rejected. Thus it

is inferred that Customer Satisfaction does have an impact on sales of Mutual Fund

company.

It is observed statistically that there exist a significant relation between

Information Technology Enabled Services and customer satisfaction. The Goodness

of Fit is 0.89 which indicates that model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of

203
189 for sample of 700. The p - value of 0.039 indicates that there exist relationship

between Information Technology Enabled Services and customer satisfaction as the

significance level of 0.05 is used. IT Services shows a positive correlation with

customer satisfaction. Also based on statistical results the second null hypothesis is

rejected. Thus it is inferred that Information Technology Enabled Services does have

an impact on customer satisfaction

It is observed statistically that there exist a significant relation between Service

Quality and Sales of Mutual Funds. The Goodness of Fit is 0.88 which indicates that

model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 266 for sample of 700. The p -

value of 0.028 indicates that there exist relationship between Service Quality and

Sales as the significance level of 0.05 is used. Service Quality shows a positive

correlation with Sales. Also based on statistical results the third null hypothesis is

rejected. Thus it is inferred that Service Quality does have an impact on Sales of

Mutual Funds.

It is observed statistically that there exist a significant relation between

Information Technology Enabled Services and Service Quality. The Goodness of Fit

is 0.89 which indicates that model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of

304.12 for sample of 700. The p - value of 0.029 indicates that there exist relationship

between IT Services and Service Quality as the significance level of 0.05 is used.

Service Quality shows a positive correlation with Sales. Also based on statistical

results the fourth null hypothesis is rejected. Thus it is inferred that Information

Technology Enabled Services does have an impact on Service Quality.

204
 It is observed statistically that there exist a significant relation between

Brandname and Sales of Mutual Funds. The Goodness of Fit is 0.88 which indicates

that model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 279.18 for sample of 700.

The p - value of 0.44 indicates that there is no relationship between Brandname and

Sales of Mutual Funds as the significance level of 0.05 is used. Brandname shows no

correlation with Sales of Mutual Funds. Also based on statistical results the fifth null

hypothesis is accepted. Thus it is inferred that Brandname does not have an impact

on Sales of Mutual Funds.

It is observed statistically that there exist a significant relation between Asset

Under Management and Sales of Mutual Funds. The Goodness of Fit is 0.88 which

indicates that model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 468.64 for sample

of 700. The p - value of 0.047 indicates that there exist relationship between Asset

Under Management and Sales of Mutual Funds as the significance level of 0.05 is

used. Asset Under Management shows a positive correlation with Sales of Mutual

Funds. Also based on statistical results the sixth null hypothesis is rejected. Thus it is

inferred that Asset Under Management does have an impact on Sales of Mutual

Funds

It is observed statistically that there exist a significant relation between Net Asset

Value and Sales of Mutual Funds. The Goodness of Fit is 0.88 which indicates that

model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 295.206 for sample of 700. The p

- value of 0.31 indicates that there no relationship between NAV and sales of mutual

fund company as the significance level of 0.05 is used. Net Asset Value shows a no

significant correlation with sales. Also based on statistical results the seventh null

205
hypothesis is accepted. Thus it is inferred that Net Asset Value does not have an

impact on sales of Mutual Funds company.

It is observed statistically that there exist a significant relation between Past

Return and Sales of Mutual Funds. The Goodness of Fit is 0.88 which indicates that

model fit was acceptable. The χ2-test has a value of 368.54 for sample of 700. The p

- value of 0.027 indicates that there exist relationship between Past Return and Sales

of Mutual Funds as the significance level of 0.05 is used. Past Return shows a positive

correlation with Sales of Mutual Funds. Also based on statistical results the eighth

null hypothesis is rejected. Thus it is inferred that Past Return does have an impact

on Sales of Mutual Funds.

206
 Table 6.2 Summary of Hypothesis Testing

p- Null
χ2 Df value hypothesis

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION HAS IMPACT ON

SALES OF MUTUAL FUNDS. 469.04 3 0.019 NA

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HAS AN IMPACT ON 182 3 0.039 NA

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION.

SERVICE QUALITY HAS AN IMPACT ON SALES OF

MUTUAL FUNDS. 266 2 0.028 NA

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED

SERVICES HAS AN IMPACT ON SERVICE QUALITY. 304.12 3 0.029 NA

BRANDNAME HAS AN IMPACT ON SALES OF

279.18 2 0.44 A
MUTUAL FUNDS.

ASSET UNDER MANAGEMENT HAS AN IMPACT

ON SALES OF MUTUAL FUNDS. 478.64 3 0.047 NA

NET ASSET VALUE HAS AN IMPACT ON SALES OF

395.206 2 0.31 A
MUTUAL FUNDS.

PAST RECORD HAS AN IMPACT ON SALES OF

MUTUAL FUNDS. 368.54 3 0.027 NA

A - Null Hypothesis is accepted at significance level of 0.05

NA - Null Hypothesis is not accepted at significance level of 0.05

As a result of this study, managers have additional information to help them

evaluate where increased spending of the marketing effort should occur (or not occur)

to maximize profitability. It also suggests that more empirical study needs to be done

to understand the true relationship between customer satisfaction, service quality and

loyalty and what each segment of a customer base expects from its financial services

207
firms and its partners. Although many of the pitfalls of installing a IT strategy have

been identified, the route to effective IT and IT Enabled management needs more

marketing research And, because IT and IT Enabled is such an important and

expensive strategy to employ, this research needs to dig more deeply into what

consumers really want and why consumers think the way they do. Clarity around

consumer needs can only help managers to determine where they should spend their

limited resources.

208
CHAPTER 7 : LIMITATION AND FUTURE SCOPE OF RESEARCH

7.1 LIMITATION

Although this research project provided some interesting insights to

understanding IT & IT Enabled Services, its impact on satisfaction levels and the

impact that demographics and technology might have on customer satisfaction or

loyalty, it is important to recognize the limitations associated with this study.

First, the data used in this study was obtained from a 26 financial service firm

with an average of 30 customer from each company. It might be more beneficial to

obtain large sample data from various firms in the industry to test whether this model

can be generalized throughout the industry worldwide and to test whether it can be

useful for measuring customer satisfaction, service quality and loyalty levels and

show moderating effects in other industries.

This study concentrated on selected demographic characteristics of

individual customers. A number of other personality traits (e.g., uncertainty

orientation of a customer, purchase decision involvement) that were not considered

here could have impacts on customer satisfaction, on loyalty and on the relationship

between the two concepts. And, as women in our society become increasingly more

responsible for their family's financial status, it is possible that females will become

more objective in their evaluation of services than has traditionally been the case.

It is noted by Crosby, Johnson and Quinn (2002) that a key deficiency of

these IT systems is their inability to address the "why" question of buyer behavior

and that demographics predict behavior in reaction to marketing stimuli only

because of their association with the internal states and motives of customers. Until

209
 it can incorporate insight into the minds of consumers into the information

technology, it is unlikely that it will be able to capture and measure the true

effectiveness of this strategy.

Possibly, the fact that this was a administered survey put a constraint on the

accuracy of the information captured. The time constraints of interviews

necessitate the use of relatively simple measurement scales (Urban and Pratt 2000).

Future studies might incorporate other survey methods that provide for more

complex measurement scales.

Although it is clear that more highly satisfied customers are, generally, more

loyal, there is no substantial support for the idea that customer relationship

marketing boosts customer satisfaction levels significantly for IT customers in this

financial service firm. There could be several reasons for this result. Often IT

programs are either not properly installed, people are not properly trained, or firms

are not appropriately measuring the needs of their customers. Some researchers

think that the things being measured in call centers, for example, are thought

important simply because they are automated and are simple to measure (rather than

being important enough to measure) (Feinberg, et al. 2002). Often, this leads to

installing protocols that are not addressing the needs of the customer but might be

addressing the needs of the firm.

In the marketing arena, it is not uncommon for changes to be made to

processes, products and services as a direct result of a company's need to boost

revenue and profitability. However, these changes do not necessarily respond

to consumer needs.

210
 It is also possible that the database information from this firm is not of the

highest quality or that customer tiers are not appropriately segmented, which might

indicate that the wrong protocols are in place, customer were inaccurately coded, or

that, in the final analysis, these protocols simply do not matter to these customer

segments.

And, it is possible that this IT program does not receive the appropriate level

of executive management support. If this is true, the IT tools may be inappropriately

used by employees or not used at all, leaving IT a strategy in name only.

Managers can make some assumptions from this study regarding the impact of

demographics as they relate to technology usage and customer satisfaction and loyalty

levels. These results can help managers understand what protocols and channels of

service are more highly appreciated by which segments of their customer base and

tailor their services to better meet customer needs. And, it may be a fair warning to

managers that the adoption of technology without considering customer needs and

preferences is short-sighted and dangerous. More studies on customer preference by

segment and demographic are needed to help guide managers to the proper strategy.

211
7.2 FUTURE SCOPE OF RESEARCH

Financial Institutions and especially fund house could carry out more

studies related to IT & IT Enabled Services, focusing primarily on customer

expectations and which segments of the customer base are particularly fond of

using these technologies, while understanding which segments are truly committed

to the idea of more personal banking services and its impact on top line. Other

demographics of interest to study might include zip code or some other regional

delineator for tier 2, tier 3 cities. It is possible that individuals in different regions

have different expectations of financial services, in general, and technology usage,

in particular. However, as the number of females in the workplace and who are

heads of households increases and, as technology usage becomes an even more

important part of every day business acumen, it is important to continue to study

gender, income and age as they relate to technology usage in the financial service

arena.

Although the sample is reasonably large with 700 cases, it would be preferable

to obtain larger samples to provide a higher the level of reliability of the study. And,

larger samples of each tiered segment might support stronger comparisons between IT

& IT Enabled Services and agents / brokerage firm customers. Also, it is likely that

due to the newness of the protocols intended for IT & IT Enabled services customers,

a survey conducted in the second or third year after protocols have been in place will

possibly show different and more realistic and reliable results.

212
 Clearly more research needs to be done in understanding the needs of

customers and whether differentiated protocols are something that customers desire.

Surveys that truly capture customer expectations will guide the firm to the proper

protocols rather than managers imposing protocols and technologies on customers

based on managerial assumptions -- all too often why certain products and services

are developed.

Institutions employing a IT strategy need further study to help companies

understand when to (or not to) use IT as it is such a costly and multi-dimensional

undertaking: With more empirical studies, managers can make more cost effective

decisions for the firm and for the customer base.

213
 SAMPLE QUESTIONARE

QUESTIONARE CODE NO:

LOCATION : _______________________________

1. NAME :_____________________________________________________

2. GENDER : □ MALE □ FEMALE

3. MARTIAL STATUS : □ MARRIED □ UNMARRIED

4. OCCUPATION : □ SALARIED □ SELF-

EMPLOYED

5. AGE GROUP □ 20-25 □ 25-30 □ 30-35 □ 35-40 □ 40 & above

6. ANNUAL INCOME :□ 1.5 to □ 2 to □ 3 to □ 4 lakh and

2 lakh 2.5 lakh 4 lakh above.

7. DO YOU INVEST IN MUTUAL FUNDS ? YES / NO

8. DO YOU INVEST IN MUTUAL FUND FOR TAX-SAVINGS ?

YES / NO

9. WHICH MUTUAL FUND / ULIP DO YOU INVEST IN(in order of asset

allocation investment)

o COMPANY1:_____________________________________________

10. WHAT IS THE MODE OF INVESTMENT ?

OFFLINE ONLINE

□ - AGENT □-COMPANY WEBSITE

□ - CHEQUE/DROP BOX □-FINANCIAL PORTAL

□ - Other(please specify)________________ □-TELE-BANKING

214
11. HOW DO YOU KNOW ABOUT MUTUAL FUND / ULIP COMPANY ?

□ - THROUGH A FRIEND □-ONLINE MAIL / ADDS

□ - ADVERSTISEMENT IN PRINT □ - TELE-CALL

□ - AGENT □ - SMS

12. WHERE DO YOU FIND MORE INFORMATION ON MUTUAL

FUND/ULIP PRODUCT ?

□ WEBSITE □ BROUCHURE

□ CALL CENTER □ AGENT

13. AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT ANNUALLY IN MUTUAL FUND?

□ <50000 □ 50,000 TO 1LAKH

□ 1LAKH TO 5 CRORE □ > 5CRORE

215
 APPENDIX - A

PLEASE TICK ONE OPTION OUT OF FIVE AS YOUR ANSWER PER

QUESTION AS THE LIKERT SCALE IS BEING USED WITH ;
1- Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree, 3-Neutral
4- Agree, 5- Strongly Agree
No Questions LIKERT SCALE
1 I INVEST IN MUTUAL FUND BASED ON BRANDNAME 1 2 3 4 5
I CONSIDER ASSET UNDER MANAGEMENT OF
MUTUAL FUND COMPANY BEFORE TAKING AND
2 INVESTMENT CALL ? 1 2 3 4 5
I CONSIDER CURRENT NAV OF MF BEFORE
3 INVESTING 1 2 3 4 5
I CONSIDER PAST RECORD OF MUTUAL FUND
4 COMPANY BEFORE TAKING AND INVESTING CALL ? 1 2 3 4 5
I INVEST IN MUTUAL FUND BASED ON ITS QUALITY
5 OF SERVICE 1 2 3 4 5
I FEEL SAFE INVESTING IT ENABLED SERVICES
6 [ONLINE]? 1 2 3 4 5
SERVICE-TIME IS COMPARITIVELY LOW IN
SERVICES OFFERED IT ENABLED SERVICES
7 [ONLINE]? 1 2 3 4 5
THE IT ENABLED SERVICES [ONLINE] PROVIDED
8 ARE EASY TO USE ? 1 2 3 4 5
THE IT ENABLED SERVICES [ONLINE] ARE
9 CATERING TO ALL MY NEEDS ? 1 2 3 4 5
THE IT ENABLED SERVICES [ONLINE] PROVIDED
10 ARE EXCELLENT ? 1 2 3 4 5
I INVEST IN EXISTING SCHEME THROUGH IT
11 ENABLED SERVICES [ONLINE] ? 1 2 3 4 5

216
 I WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE SIMILAR PRODUCTS IT
12 ENABLED SERVICES [ONLINE] ? 1 2 3 4 5
I AM SATISFIED WITH THE IT ENABLED SERVICES
13 [ONLINE] ? 1 2 3 4 5
I RECOMMEND MY FRIENDS TO USE THE IT
14 ENABLED SERVICES [ONLINE] ? 1 2 3 4 5
I FEEL SAFE INVESTING THROUGH AGENT /
15 BROKERAGE FIRM? 1 2 3 4 5
SERVICE-TIME IS COMPARITIVELY HIGH IN
16 SERVICES OFFERED ON AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM ? 1 2 3 4 5
THE AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM PROVIDED ARE
17 EASY TO USE ? 1 2 3 4 5
THE AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM ARE CATERING TO
18 ALL MY NEEDS ? 1 2 3 4 5
THE AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM PROVIDED ARE
19 EXCELLENT ? 1 2 3 4 5
I INVEST IN EXISTING SCHEME THROUGH AGENT /
20 BROKERAGE FIRM ? 1 2 3 4 5
I WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE SIMILAR PRODUCTS
21 AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM ? 1 2 3 4 5
I AM SATISFIED WITH THE AGENT / BROKERAGE
22 FIRM ? 1 2 3 4 5
I INVEST THROUGH AGENT / BROKERAGE FIRM TO
23 GET CASH INCENTIVES ? 1 2 3 4 5
I RECOMMEND MY FRIENDS TO USE THE AGENT /
24 BROKERAGE FIRM ? 1 2 3 4 5
25 I RECOMMEND THIS COMPANY TO MY FRIENDS ? 1 2 3 4 5
I AM SATISFIED WITH THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY
26 COMPANY ? 1 2 3 4 5

217
 I AM SATISFIED WITH THE IT ENABLED SERVICES
27 [ONLINE] ? 1 2 3 4 5
I INVEST IN MUTUAL FUND BASED ON ABOVE
28 PARAMETERS DISCUSSED ? 1 2 3 4 5

218
ANNEXURE 1

INCOME
2 TO 4 LAKH
1.5 TO 2.5 2.5 TO 3 TO 4 &
2 LAKH LAKH 3 LAKH LAKH ABOVE Total
LOCATION MUMBAI Count 26 42 69 38 0 175
% within
14.9% 24.0% 39.4% 21.7% .0% 100.0%
LOCATION
% within
19.3% 31.1% 51.1% 17.7% .0% 25.0%
INCOME
% of Total 3.7% 6.0% 9.9% 5.4% .0% 25.0%
DELHI Count 42 26 0 69 38 175
% within
24.0% 14.9% .0% 39.4% 21.7% 100.0%
LOCATION
% within
31.1% 19.3% .0% 32.1% 47.5% 25.0%
INCOME
% of Total 6.0% 3.7% .0% 9.9% 5.4% 25.0%
KOLKATTA Count 28 39 66 42 0 175
% within
16.0% 22.3% 37.7% 24.0% .0% 100.0%
LOCATION
% within
20.7% 28.9% 48.9% 19.5% .0% 25.0%
INCOME
% of Total 4.0% 5.6% 9.4% 6.0% .0% 25.0%
CHENNAI Count 39 28 0 66 42 175
% within
22.3% 16.0% .0% 37.7% 24.0% 100.0%
LOCATION
% within
28.9% 20.7% .0% 30.7% 52.5% 25.0%
INCOME
% of Total 5.6% 4.0% .0% 9.4% 6.0% 25.0%
Total Count 135 135 135 215 80 700
% within
19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 30.7% 11.4% 100.0%
LOCATION
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
INCOME
% of Total 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 30.7% 11.4% 100.0%

219
ANNEXURE 1I

95% Confidence
Std. Interval for Mean
Deviatio Std. Lower Upper Minim Maxi
N Mean n Error Bound Bound um mum
GENDER <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 1.40 .491 .024 1.35 1.45 1 2
<5000000
161 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
Total 700 1.31 .462 .017 1.27 1.34 1 2
LOCATIO <50000 54 2.96 1.009 .137 2.69 3.24 2 4
N
<100000 404 2.53 1.126 .056 2.42 2.64 1 4
<5000000
161 2.52 1.107 .087 2.35 2.69 1 4
0
5 81 1.99 1.006 .112 1.77 2.21 1 3
Total 700 2.50 1.119 .042 2.42 2.58 1 4
MARTIAL <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
STATUS
<100000 404 1.33 .471 .023 1.29 1.38 1 2
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 1.50 .500 .019 1.46 1.54 1 2
OCCUPAT <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ION
<100000 404 1.13 .341 .017 1.10 1.17 1 2
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.42 1.57 1 2
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 1.38 .487 .018 1.35 1.42 1 2
AGE <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 2.07 1.000 .050 1.97 2.16 1 4
<5000000
161 2.51 1.505 .119 2.28 2.74 1 4
0
5 81 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
Total 700 2.27 1.095 .041 2.19 2.35 1 4
INCOME <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 2.39 1.449 .072 2.25 2.54 1 5
<5000000
161 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
0
5 81 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
Total 700 2.96 1.315 .050 2.86 3.05 1 5
MF_TAX <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
<100000 404 1.13 .341 .017 1.10 1.17 1 2
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1

220
 Total 700 1.19 .395 .015 1.16 1.22 1 2
MFNAME <50000 54 14.81 5.043 .686 13.44 16.19 10 20
<100000 404 12.77 7.298 .363 12.06 13.48 1 26
<5000000
161 14.25 8.227 .648 12.97 15.53 4 25
0
5 81 12.75 8.212 .912 10.94 14.57 3 23
Total 700 13.27 7.512 .284 12.71 13.82 1 26
MODEOFI <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
NV
<100000 404 1.20 .399 .020 1.16 1.24 1 2
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.42 1.57 1 2
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
Total 700 1.31 .461 .017 1.27 1.34 1 2
BRANDNA <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ME
<100000 404 4.13 1.312 .065 4.00 4.26 1 5
<5000000
161 3.50 .502 .040 3.42 3.57 3 4
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 3.81 1.179 .045 3.72 3.89 1 5
AUM <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 1.73 .443 .022 1.69 1.78 1 2
<5000000
161 2.50 .502 .040 2.42 2.57 2 3
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 2.19 .834 .032 2.13 2.25 1 4
NAV <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 2.39 1.449 .072 2.25 2.54 1 5
<5000000
161 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
0
5 81 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
Total 700 2.96 1.315 .050 2.86 3.05 1 5
PR <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 2.46 1.147 .057 2.35 2.58 1 4
<5000000
161 2.49 1.505 .119 2.26 2.72 1 4
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 2.73 1.403 .053 2.62 2.83 1 5
QOS <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
<100000 404 1.47 .500 .025 1.42 1.52 1 2
<5000000
161 2.99 2.006 .158 2.68 3.30 1 5
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 2.07 1.410 .053 1.97 2.18 1 5
SAFE_IT <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 2.13 1.313 .065 2.01 2.26 1 5
<5000000 161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2

221
 0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 2.12 1.189 .045 2.03 2.21 1 5
ST_IT <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
<100000 404 2.27 .681 .034 2.20 2.33 2 4
<5000000
161 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 2.08 .617 .023 2.03 2.12 1 4
EU_IT <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 2.06 1.523 .076 1.91 2.21 1 5
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.42 1.57 1 2
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 2.07 1.326 .050 1.97 2.17 1 5
N_IT <50000 54 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
<100000 404 2.13 1.022 .051 2.03 2.23 1 4
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
Total 700 2.08 1.238 .047 1.98 2.17 1 5
ES_IT <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 2.66 1.298 .065 2.53 2.79 1 5
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 2.42 1.212 .046 2.33 2.51 1 5
CURRENT <50000 54 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
INV
<100000 404 1.47 .500 .025 1.42 1.52 1 2
<5000000
161 4.50 .502 .040 4.42 4.57 4 5
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
Total 700 2.38 1.570 .059 2.27 2.50 1 5
REPEATP <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
URCHASE
<100000 404 1.67 .472 .023 1.62 1.71 1 2
<5000000
161 2.99 1.003 .079 2.84 3.15 2 4
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 2.54 1.309 .049 2.44 2.63 1 5
S_IT <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 1.47 .499 .025 1.42 1.51 1 2
<5000000
161 2.49 1.505 .119 2.26 2.72 1 4
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 2.15 1.379 .052 2.05 2.25 1 5
REFERRA <50000 54 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3

222
L_IT <100000 404 1.93 .931 .046 1.84 2.02 1 4
<5000000
161 2.99 1.003 .079 2.84 3.15 2 4
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 2.61 1.305 .049 2.52 2.71 1 5
SAFE <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 4.13 1.312 .065 4.00 4.26 1 5
<5000000
161 3.50 .502 .040 3.42 3.57 3 4
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 3.81 1.179 .045 3.72 3.89 1 5
ST <50000 54 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
<100000 404 4.26 1.343 .067 4.13 4.40 1 5
<5000000
161 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
0
5 81 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
Total 700 4.27 1.164 .044 4.18 4.35 1 5
EU <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 3.61 1.449 .072 3.46 3.75 1 5
<5000000
161 4.50 .502 .040 4.42 4.57 4 5
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 3.73 1.285 .049 3.64 3.83 1 5
N <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 3.80 1.107 .055 3.70 3.91 2 5
<5000000
161 4.50 .502 .040 4.42 4.57 4 5
0
5 81 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
Total 700 3.73 1.093 .041 3.65 3.81 2 5
ES <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
<100000 404 3.80 1.107 .055 3.70 3.91 2 5
<5000000
161 4.50 .502 .040 4.42 4.57 4 5
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 3.89 1.281 .048 3.79 3.98 1 5
CURRENT <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
<100000 404 3.94 1.061 .053 3.83 4.04 2 5
<5000000
161 3.99 1.003 .079 3.84 4.15 3 5
0
5 81 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
Total 700 3.85 1.292 .049 3.75 3.94 1 5
REPEAT <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
<100000 404 3.94 1.523 .076 3.79 4.09 1 5
<5000000
161 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4

223
 Total 700 3.58 1.305 .049 3.48 3.68 1 5
S <50000 54 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
<100000 404 3.00 1.213 .060 2.88 3.12 1 5
<5000000
161 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 3.12 1.087 .041 3.04 3.20 1 5
CASHINV <50000 54 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
<100000 404 3.87 1.497 .074 3.73 4.02 1 5
<5000000
161 4.50 .502 .040 4.43 4.58 4 5
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 3.97 1.222 .046 3.88 4.06 1 5
REFERRA <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
L
<100000 404 4.14 1.145 .057 4.03 4.25 2 5
<5000000
161 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
0
5 81 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
Total 700 4.08 1.299 .049 3.98 4.17 1 5
CS_REFF <50000 54 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ERAL
<100000 404 1.93 1.122 .056 1.82 2.04 1 4
<5000000
161 2.99 2.006 .158 2.68 3.30 1 5
0
5 81 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
Total 700 2.19 1.356 .051 2.09 2.29 1 5
CS_COM <50000 54 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
P
<100000 404 2.13 1.026 .051 2.03 2.23 1 4
<5000000
161 1.50 .502 .040 1.43 1.58 1 2
0
5 81 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
Total 700 1.77 .933 .035 1.70 1.84 1 4

224
ANNEXURE III

95% Confidence
Std. Interval for Mean
Deviatio Std. Lower Upper Minim Maxim
N Mean n Error Bound Bound um um
GENDER 1.5 TO 2
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.25 .435 .030 1.19 1.31 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 1.31 .462 .017 1.27 1.34 1 2
LOCATION 1.5 TO 2
135 2.59 1.102 .095 2.41 2.78 1 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.39 1.134 .098 2.20 2.59 1 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.98 1.003 .086 1.81 2.15 1 3
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.63 1.098 .075 2.48 2.78 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 3.05 1.005 .112 2.83 3.27 2 4
ABOVE
Total 700 2.50 1.119 .042 2.42 2.58 1 4
MARTIALST 1.5 TO 2
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ATUS LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.63 .484 .033 1.56 1.69 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 1.50 .500 .019 1.46 1.54 1 2
OCCUPATI 1.5 TO 2
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ON LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.62 .486 .033 1.56 1.69 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 1.38 .487 .018 1.35 1.42 1 2
AGE 1.5 TO 2
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.80 .983 .085 1.63 1.97 1 3
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.40 .492 .042 3.32 3.48 3 4
LAKH
3 TO 4 215 2.38 1.320 .090 2.20 2.56 1 4

225
 LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.27 1.095 .041 2.19 2.35 1 4
MF_TAX 1.5 TO 2
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.38 .486 .033 1.31 1.44 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 1.19 .395 .015 1.16 1.22 1 2
MFNAME 1.5 TO 2
135 11.97 7.246 .624 10.74 13.20 2 22
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 11.39 7.001 .603 10.19 12.58 1 21
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 13.18 7.113 .612 11.97 14.39 3 23
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 14.39 7.548 .515 13.38 15.41 4 25
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 15.75 8.264 .924 13.91 17.59 6 26
ABOVE
Total 700 13.27 7.512 .284 12.71 13.82 1 26
MODEOFIN 1.5 TO 2
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
V LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.62 .486 .033 1.56 1.69 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 1.31 .461 .017 1.27 1.34 1 2
BRANDNAM 1.5 TO 2
135 3.40 1.967 .169 3.07 3.73 1 5
E LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.12 .782 .053 3.02 3.23 2 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 3.81 1.179 .045 3.72 3.89 1 5
AUM 1.5 TO 2
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 2.80 1.475 .127 2.55 3.05 1 4
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.37 .484 .033 2.31 2.44 2 3
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE

226
 Total 700 2.19 .834 .032 2.13 2.25 1 4
NAV 1.5 TO 2
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 2.96 1.315 .050 2.86 3.05 1 5
PR 1.5 TO 2
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.20 1.475 .127 1.95 2.45 1 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.80 1.475 .127 3.55 4.05 2 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.37 1.318 .090 2.19 2.54 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
ABOVE
Total 700 2.73 1.403 .053 2.62 2.83 1 5
QOS 1.5 TO 2
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.20 .983 .085 3.03 3.37 2 4
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.49 1.938 .132 2.23 2.75 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 2.07 1.410 .053 1.97 2.18 1 5
SAFE_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 2.60 1.967 .169 2.27 2.93 1 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 2.40 .492 .042 2.32 2.48 2 3
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.13 1.169 .080 1.97 2.29 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.12 1.189 .045 2.03 2.21 1 5
ST_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 2.80 .983 .085 2.63 2.97 2 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.75 .435 .030 1.69 1.81 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.08 .617 .023 2.03 2.12 1 4
EU_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH

227
 2 TO 2.5
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.13 1.171 .080 1.97 2.28 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 2.07 1.326 .050 1.97 2.17 1 5
N_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.38 1.581 .108 2.17 2.59 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
ABOVE
Total 700 2.08 1.238 .047 1.98 2.17 1 5
ES_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 2.60 .492 .042 2.52 2.68 2 3
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.13 1.169 .080 1.97 2.29 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 2.42 1.212 .046 2.33 2.51 1 5
CURRENTI 1.5 TO 2
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
NV LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 4.62 .486 .033 4.56 4.69 4 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 2.38 1.570 .059 2.27 2.50 1 5
REPEATPU 1.5 TO 2
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
RCHASE LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.80 1.475 .127 3.55 4.05 2 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.25 .971 .066 3.12 3.38 2 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.54 1.309 .049 2.44 2.63 1 5
S_IT 1.5 TO 2
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
2.5 TO 3 135 3.80 1.475 .127 3.55 4.05 2 5

228
 LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.37 1.318 .090 2.19 2.54 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.15 1.379 .052 2.05 2.25 1 5
REFERRAL 1.5 TO 2
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
_IT LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.20 1.475 .127 1.95 2.45 1 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.80 1.475 .127 3.55 4.05 2 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.00 .867 .059 2.88 3.11 2 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.61 1.305 .049 2.52 2.71 1 5
SAFE 1.5 TO 2
135 3.40 1.967 .169 3.07 3.73 1 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.12 .782 .053 3.02 3.23 2 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 3.81 1.179 .045 3.72 3.89 1 5
ST 1.5 TO 2
135 3.40 1.967 .169 3.07 3.73 1 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.80 .983 .085 3.63 3.97 3 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 4.75 .435 .030 4.69 4.81 4 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
ABOVE
Total 700 4.27 1.164 .044 4.18 4.35 1 5
EU 1.5 TO 2
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.60 .492 .042 3.52 3.68 3 4
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.87 1.169 .080 3.71 4.03 2 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 3.73 1.285 .049 3.64 3.83 1 5
N 1.5 TO 2
135 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.87 1.169 .080 3.71 4.03 2 5
LAKH

229
 4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 3.73 1.093 .041 3.65 3.81 2 5
ES 1.5 TO 2
135 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.20 .983 .085 4.03 4.37 3 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.62 1.581 .108 3.41 3.83 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 3.89 1.281 .048 3.79 3.98 1 5
CURRENT 1.5 TO 2
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.24 1.564 .107 3.03 3.45 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 3.85 1.292 .049 3.75 3.94 1 5
REPEAT 1.5 TO 2
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.75 .435 .030 2.69 2.81 2 3
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 3.58 1.305 .049 3.48 3.68 1 5
S 1.5 TO 2
135 2.80 1.475 .127 2.55 3.05 1 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.20 1.475 .127 2.95 3.45 2 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.75 .435 .030 3.69 3.81 3 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 3.12 1.087 .041 3.04 3.20 1 5
CASHINV 1.5 TO 2
135 5.00 .000 .000 5.00 5.00 5 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 4.13 .784 .053 4.02 4.23 3 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
ABOVE
Total 700 3.97 1.222 .046 3.88 4.06 1 5

230
REFERRAL 1.5 TO 2
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 4.60 .492 .042 4.52 4.68 4 5
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 4.40 .492 .042 4.32 4.48 4 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 4.00 1.739 .119 3.76 4.23 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 4.08 1.299 .049 3.98 4.17 1 5
CS_REFFE 1.5 TO 2
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
RAL LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.60 .492 .042 1.52 1.68 1 2
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 2.74 1.787 .122 2.50 2.98 1 5
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 4.00 .000 .000 4.00 4.00 4 4
ABOVE
Total 700 2.19 1.356 .051 2.09 2.29 1 5
CS_COMP 1.5 TO 2
135 2.80 .983 .085 2.63 2.97 2 4
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 1.40 .492 .042 1.32 1.48 1 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 1.00 .000 .000 1.00 1.00 1 1
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 1.38 .486 .033 1.31 1.44 1 2
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 3.00 .000 .000 3.00 3.00 3 3
ABOVE
Total 700 1.77 .933 .035 1.70 1.84 1 4
SALE 1.5 TO 2
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 3.80 1.475 .127 3.55 4.05 2 5
LAKH
3 TO 4
215 3.25 1.304 .089 3.07 3.42 1 4
LAKH
4 LAKH &
80 2.00 .000 .000 2.00 2.00 2 2
ABOVE
Total 700 2.73 1.228 .046 2.64 2.82 1 5

231
ANNEXURE 1V

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling

Adequacy. .338

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 11008.966

Sphericity df 36
Sig. .000

Communalities

Initial Extraction
GENDER 1.000 .981
MARTIAL STATUS 1.000 .875
OCCUPATION 1.000 .825
AGE GROUP 1.000 .629
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON 1.000 .882
BRANDNAME
I CONSIDER ASSET
UNDER MANAGEMENT
OF MUTUAL FUND
COMPANY BEFORE 1.000 .929
TAKING AND
INVESTMENT CALL ?

I CONSIDER CURRENT
NAV OF MF BEFORE 1.000 .936
INVESTING
I CONSIDER PAST
RECORD OF MUTUAL
FUND COMPANY 1.000 .757
BEFORE TAKING AND
INVESTING CALL ?

I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON ITS 1.000 .909
QUALITY OF SERVICE
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

232
Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared

Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
Compo % of Cumulati % of Cumulati % of Cumulati
nent Total Variance ve % Total Variance ve % Total Variance ve %
1 4.746 52.735 52.735 4.746 52.735 52.735 4.576 50.845 50.845
2 1.795 19.947 72.682 1.795 19.947 72.682 1.765 19.607 70.451
3 1.180 13.106 85.788 1.180 13.106 85.788 1.380 15.337 85.788
4 .697 7.747 93.535
5 .373 4.142 97.677
6 .143 1.584 99.261
7 .060 .668 99.928
8 .005 .060 99.988
9 .001 .012 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Scree Plot

4
E ig e n v a lu e

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Component Number
Component Matrix(a)

233
 Component
1 2 3
GENDER -.331 .262 .896
MARTIAL STATUS .167 .903 -.179
OCCUPATION .759 .247 .434
AGE GROUP -.077 .774 -.156
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON .925 -.130 .097
BRANDNAME
I CONSIDER ASSET
UNDER MANAGEMENT
OF MUTUAL FUND
COMPANY BEFORE .910 .100 -.301
TAKING AND
INVESTMENT CALL ?

I CONSIDER CURRENT
NAV OF MF BEFORE .966 -.009 -.039
INVESTING
I CONSIDER PAST
RECORD OF MUTUAL
FUND COMPANY .827 .238 .130
BEFORE TAKING AND
INVESTING CALL ?

I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON ITS .852 -.411 .117
QUALITY OF SERVICE
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 3 components extracted.

234
 Rotated Component Matrix(a)

Component
1 2 3
GENDER -.119 .052 .982
MARTIAL STATUS .161 .921 -.008
OCCUPATION .843 .151 .301
AGE GROUP -.078 .788 .039
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON .918 -.140 -.139
BRANDNAME
I CONSIDER ASSET
UNDER MANAGEMENT
OF MUTUAL FUND
COMPANY BEFORE .827 .173 -.464
TAKING AND
INVESTMENT CALL ?

I CONSIDER CURRENT
NAV OF MF BEFORE .934 .009 -.250
INVESTING
I CONSIDER PAST
RECORD OF MUTUAL
FUND COMPANY .844 .210 -.005
BEFORE TAKING AND
INVESTING CALL ?

I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON ITS .840 -.418 -.166
QUALITY OF SERVICE
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 4 iterations.

Component Transformation Matrix

Component 1 2 3
1 .976 .010 -.219
2 .040 .975 .221
3 .215 -.224 .951
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.

235
 Component Score Coefficient Matrix

Component
1 2 3
GENDER .101 -.028 .769
MARTIAL STATUS .022 .524 -.041
OCCUPATION .241 .053 .345
AGE GROUP -.027 .450 -.027
I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON .205 -.087 .019
BRANDNAME
I CONSIDER ASSET
UNDER MANAGEMENT
OF MUTUAL FUND
COMPANY BEFORE .134 .113 -.273
TAKING AND
INVESTMENT CALL ?

I CONSIDER CURRENT
NAV OF MF BEFORE .191 .005 -.077
INVESTING
I CONSIDER PAST
RECORD OF MUTUAL
FUND COMPANY .199 .106 .096
BEFORE TAKING AND
INVESTING CALL ?

I INVEST IN MUTUAL
FUND BASED ON ITS .187 -.243 .004
QUALITY OF SERVICE
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Component Score Covariance Matrix

Component 1 2 3
1 1.000 .000 .000
2 .000 1.000 .000
3 .000 .000 1.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.

236
 Component Plot in Rotated Space

VAR00002
1.0

VAR00003
0.5
C om ponent 2

IT_CS1 IT_Responsive
0.0 VAR00001
IT_CL2 CS
VAR00005
CL
-0.5

-1.0
-1.0
-1.0 -0.5
-0.5 0.0 0.0
0.5 0.5
Compone 1.0 1.0 nt 3
nt 1 pone
Com

237
ANNEXURE V

INCOME
2 TO 4 LAKH
1.5 TO 2.5 2.5 TO 3 TO 4 &
2 LAKH LAKH 3 LAKH LAKH ABOVE Total
SALE <50000 Count 0 0 0 54 0 54
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
SALE
% within
.0% .0% .0% 25.1% .0% 7.7%
INCOME
% of
.0% .0% .0% 7.7% .0% 7.7%
Total
<100000 Count 135 135 54 0 80 404
% within
33.4% 33.4% 13.4% .0% 19.8% 100.0%
SALE
% within
100.0% 100.0% 40.0% .0% 100.0% 57.7%
INCOME
% of
19.3% 19.3% 7.7% .0% 11.4% 57.7%
Total
<500000 Count 0 0 0 161 0 161
00
% within
.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%
SALE
% within
.0% .0% .0% 74.9% .0% 23.0%
INCOME
% of
.0% .0% .0% 23.0% .0% 23.0%
Total
5 Count 0 0 81 0 0 81
% within
.0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
SALE
% within
.0% .0% 60.0% .0% .0% 11.6%
INCOME
% of
.0% .0% 11.6% .0% .0% 11.6%
Total
Total Count 135 135 135 215 80 700
% within
19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 30.7% 11.4% 100.0%
SALE
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
INCOME
% of
19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 30.7% 11.4% 100.0%
Total

238
 Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
GENDER * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
LOCATION * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MARTIALSTATUS *
INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
OCCUPATION * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
AGE * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MF_TAX * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MFNAME * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MODEOFINV * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
BRANDNAME * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
AUM * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
NAV * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
PR * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
QOS * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
SAFE_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ST_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
EU_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
N_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ES_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CURRENTINV * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REPEATPURCHASE *
INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
S_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
SAFE * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ST * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
EU * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
N * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ES * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CURRENT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REPEAT * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
S * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CASHINV * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REFERRAL * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CS_REFFERAL * INCOME
700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CS_COMP * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
SALE * INCOME 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%

239
 Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
GENDER * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
LOCATION * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MARTIALSTATUS * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
OCCUPATION * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
AGE * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MF_TAX * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MFNAME * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
MODEOFINV * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
BRANDNAME * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
AUM * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
NAV * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
PR * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
QOS * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
SAFE_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ST_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
EU_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
N_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ES_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CURRENTINV * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REPEATPURCHASE *
SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
S_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REFERRAL_IT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
SAFE * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ST * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
EU * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
N * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
ES * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CURRENT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REPEAT * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
S * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CASHINV * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
REFERRAL * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CS_REFFERAL * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
CS_COMP * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%
INCOME * SALE 700 97.9% 15 2.1% 715 100.0%

240
ANNEXURE VI

1. GENDER
Statistics

GENDER
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.31
Std. Deviation .462
Sum 916

GENDER

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid MALE 484 67.7 69.1 69.1
FEMALE 216 30.2 30.9 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

2. LOCATION
Statistics

LOCATION
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.50
Std. Deviation 1.119
Sum 1750

LOCATION

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid MUMBAI 175 24.5 25.0 25.0
DELHI 175 24.5 25.0 50.0
KOLKATT
175 24.5 25.0 75.0
A
CHENNAI 175 24.5 25.0 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1

241
Total 715 100.0

3. MARTIALSTATUS
Statistics

MARTIALSTATUS
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.50
Std. Deviation .500
Sum 1050

MARTIALSTATUS

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid MARRIED 350 49.0 50.0 50.0
UNMARRIE
350 49.0 50.0 100.0
D
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

4. OCCUPATION
Statistics

OCCUPATION
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.38
Std. Deviation .487
Sum 969

OCCUPATION

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid SALARIED 431 60.3 61.6 61.6
SELF
269 37.6 38.4 100.0
EMPLOYED
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

242
 5. AGE
Statistics

AGE
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.27
Std. Deviation 1.095
Sum 1590

AGE

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 20 TO 25 215 30.1 30.7 30.7
25 TO 30 215 30.1 30.7 61.4
30 TO 35 135 18.9 19.3 80.7
35 TO 40 135 18.9 19.3 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

6. INCOME
Statistics

INCOME
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.96
Std. Deviation 1.315
Sum 2070

INCOME

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1.5 TO 2
135 18.9 19.3 19.3
LAKH
2 TO 2.5
135 18.9 19.3 38.6
LAKH
2.5 TO 3
135 18.9 19.3 57.9
LAKH
3 TO 4 LAKH 215 30.1 30.7 88.6

243
 4 LAKH &
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
ABOVE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

7. MF_TAX
Statistics

MF_TAX
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.19
Std. Deviation .395
Sum 835

MF_TAX

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
565 79.0 80.7 80.7
AGREE
AGREE 135 18.9 19.3 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

8. MFNAME
Statistics

MFNAME
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 13.27
Std. Deviation 7.512
Sum 9286

MFNAME

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid RELIANCE MF 28 3.9 4.0 4.0
HDFC MF 28 3.9 4.0 8.0

244
 ICICI PRUMF 28 3.9 4.0 12.0
UTI MF 28 3.9 4.0 16.0
BIRLA SUNLIFE
28 3.9 4.0 20.0
MF
SBI MF 28 3.9 4.0 24.0
LIC MF 28 3.9 4.0 28.0
KOTAK MF 28 3.9 4.0 32.0
FRANKLIN MF 28 3.9 4.0 36.0
TATA MF 28 3.9 4.0 40.0
IDFC MF 27 3.8 3.9 43.9
DSP
BLACKROCK 27 3.8 3.9 47.7
MF
DEUTCHE MF 27 3.8 3.9 51.6
SUNDARAM
27 3.8 3.9 55.4
BNP MF
HSBC MF 26 3.6 3.7 59.1
TAURUS MF 26 3.6 3.7 62.9
BENCHMARK 26 3.6 3.7 66.6
RELIGARE F 26 3.6 3.7 70.3
FIDELITY MF 26 3.6 3.7 74.0
PRINCIPAL MF 26 3.6 3.7 77.7
CANARA
26 3.6 3.7 81.4
ROBECO MF
JM FINANCIAL
26 3.6 3.7 85.1
MF
JPMORGAN MF 26 3.6 3.7 88.9
BARODA
26 3.6 3.7 92.6
PIONEER MF
DBS CHOLA MF 26 3.6 3.7 96.3
MORGAN
26 3.6 3.7 100.0
STANLEY MF
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

9. MODEOFINV
Statistics

MODEOFINV
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.31
Std. Deviation .461
Sum 914

MODEOFINV

245
 Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid ONLINE 486 68.0 69.4 69.4
OFFLINE 214 29.9 30.6 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

10. BRANDNAME
Statistics

BRANDNAME
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.81
Std. Deviation 1.179
Sum 2664

BRANDNAME

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 54 7.6 7.7 15.4
NEUTRAL 81 11.3 11.6 27.0
DISAGREE 296 41.4 42.3 69.3
STRONGLY
215 30.1 30.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

11. AUM
Statistics

AUM
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.19
Std. Deviation .834
Sum 1534

246
 AUM

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
108 15.1 15.4 15.4
AGREE
AGREE 431 60.3 61.6 77.0
NEUTRAL 80 11.2 11.4 88.4
DISAGREE 81 11.3 11.6 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

12. NAV
Statistics

NAV
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.96
Std. Deviation 1.315
Sum 2070

NAV

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
135 18.9 19.3 19.3
AGREE
AGREE 135 18.9 19.3 38.6
NEUTRAL 135 18.9 19.3 57.9
DISAGREE 215 30.1 30.7 88.6
STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

247
 13. PR
Statistics

PR
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.73
Std. Deviation 1.403
Sum 1909

PR

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
162 22.7 23.1 23.1
AGREE
AGREE 243 34.0 34.7 57.9
DISAGREE 214 29.9 30.6 88.4
STRONGLY
81 11.3 11.6 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

14. QOS
Statistics

QOS
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.07
Std. Deviation 1.410
Sum 1452

QOS

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
350 49.0 50.0 50.0
AGREE
AGREE 189 26.4 27.0 77.0
DISAGREE 81 11.3 11.6 88.6
STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0

248
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

15. SAFE_IT
Statistics

SAFE_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.12
Std. Deviation 1.189
Sum 1482

SAFE_IT

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
242 33.8 34.6 34.6
AGREE
AGREE 296 41.4 42.3 76.9
NEUTRAL 54 7.6 7.7 84.6
DISAGREE 54 7.6 7.7 92.3
STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

16. ST_IT
Statistics

ST_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.08
Std. Deviation .617
Sum 1454

ST_IT

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE

249
 AGREE 592 82.8 84.6 92.3
DISAGREE 54 7.6 7.7 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

17. EU_IT
Statistics

EU_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.07
Std. Deviation 1.326
Sum 1451

EU_IT

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
297 41.5 42.4 42.4
AGREE
AGREE 269 37.6 38.4 80.9
DISAGREE 54 7.6 7.7 88.6
STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

18. N_IT
Statistics

N_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.08
Std. Deviation 1.238
Sum 1453

N_IT

250
 Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
269 37.6 38.4 38.4
AGREE
AGREE 297 41.5 42.4 80.9
DISAGREE 80 11.2 11.4 92.3
STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

19. ES_IT
Statistics

ES_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.42
Std. Deviation 1.212
Sum 1695

ES_IT

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
134 18.7 19.1 19.1
AGREE
AGREE 351 49.1 50.1 69.3
NEUTRAL 81 11.3 11.6 80.9
DISAGREE 54 7.6 7.7 88.6
STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

20. CURRENTINV
Statistics

CURRENTINV
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.38

251
Std. Deviation 1.570
Sum 1668

CURRENTINV

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
296 41.4 42.3 42.3
AGREE
AGREE 189 26.4 27.0 69.3
DISAGREE 81 11.3 11.6 80.9
STRONGLY
134 18.7 19.1 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

21. REPEATPURCHASE
Statistics

REPEATPURCHASE
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.54
Std. Deviation 1.309
Sum 1776

REPEATPURCHASE

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
135 18.9 19.3 19.3
AGREE
AGREE 350 49.0 50.0 69.3
DISAGREE 134 18.7 19.1 88.4
STRONGLY
81 11.3 11.6 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

252
 22. S_IT
Statistics

S_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.15
Std. Deviation 1.379
Sum 1506

S_IT

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
297 41.5 42.4 42.4
AGREE
AGREE 242 33.8 34.6 77.0
DISAGREE 80 11.2 11.4 88.4
STRONGLY
81 11.3 11.6 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

23. REFERRAL_IT
Statistics

REFERRAL_IT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.61
Std. Deviation 1.305
Sum 1830

REFERRAL_IT

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
135 18.9 19.3 19.3
AGREE
AGREE 296 41.4 42.3 61.6
NEUTRAL 54 7.6 7.7 69.3
DISAGREE 134 18.7 19.1 88.4
STRONGLY
81 11.3 11.6 100.0
DISAGREE

253
 Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

24. SAFE
Statistics

SAFE
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.81
Std. Deviation 1.179
Sum 2664

SAFE

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 54 7.6 7.7 15.4
NEUTRAL 81 11.3 11.6 27.0
DISAGREE 296 41.4 42.3 69.3
STRONGLY
215 30.1 30.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

25. ST
Statistics

ST
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 4.27
Std. Deviation 1.164
Sum 2987

254
 ST

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
NEUTRAL 81 11.3 11.6 19.3
DISAGREE 135 18.9 19.3 38.6
STRONGLY
430 60.1 61.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

26. EU
Statistics

EU
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.73
Std. Deviation 1.285
Sum 2613

EU

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 11.4
AGREE
AGREE 54 7.6 7.7 19.1
NEUTRAL 54 7.6 7.7 26.9
DISAGREE 297 41.5 42.4 69.3
STRONGLY
215 30.1 30.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

27. N
Statistics

N
N Valid 700
Missing 15

255
Mean 3.73
Std. Deviation 1.093
Sum 2612

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid AGREE 134 18.7 19.1 19.1
NEUTRAL 135 18.9 19.3 38.4
DISAGREE 216 30.2 30.9 69.3
STRONGLY
215 30.1 30.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

28. ES
Statistics

ES
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.89
Std. Deviation 1.281
Sum 2720

ES

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 80 11.2 11.4 19.1
NEUTRAL 54 7.6 7.7 26.9
DISAGREE 216 30.2 30.9 57.7
STRONGLY
296 41.4 42.3 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

256
 29. CURRENT
Statistics

CURRENT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.85
Std. Deviation 1.292
Sum 2693

CURRENT

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 80 11.2 11.4 19.1
NEUTRAL 81 11.3 11.6 30.7
DISAGREE 189 26.4 27.0 57.7
STRONGLY
296 41.4 42.3 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

30. REPEAT
Statistics

REPEAT
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.58
Std. Deviation 1.305
Sum 2507

REPEAT

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 11.4
AGREE
AGREE 54 7.6 7.7 19.1
NEUTRAL 161 22.5 23.0 42.1
DISAGREE 189 26.4 27.0 69.1

257
 STRONGLY
216 30.2 30.9 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

31. S
Statistics

S
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.12
Std. Deviation 1.087
Sum 2181

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 161 22.5 23.0 30.7
NEUTRAL 189 26.4 27.0 57.7
DISAGREE 242 33.8 34.6 92.3
STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

32. CASHINV
Statistics

CASHINV
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 3.97
Std. Deviation 1.222
Sum 2776

CASHINV

258
 Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 11.4
AGREE
NEUTRAL 54 7.6 7.7 19.1
DISAGREE 296 41.4 42.3 61.4
STRONGLY
270 37.8 38.6 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

33. REFERRAL
Statistics

REFERRAL
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 4.08
Std. Deviation 1.299
Sum 2855

REFERRAL

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
54 7.6 7.7 7.7
AGREE
AGREE 80 11.2 11.4 19.1
DISAGREE 189 26.4 27.0 46.1
STRONGLY
377 52.7 53.9 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

34. CS_REFFERAL
Statistics

CS_REFFERAL
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.19
Std. Deviation 1.356

259
Sum 1530

CS_REFFERAL

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
270 37.8 38.6 38.6
AGREE
AGREE 270 37.8 38.6 77.1
DISAGREE 80 11.2 11.4 88.6
STRONGLY
80 11.2 11.4 100.0
DISAGREE
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

35. CS_COMP
Statistics

CS_COMP
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 1.77
Std. Deviation .933
Sum 1238

CS_COMP

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid STRONGLY
350 49.0 50.0 50.0
AGREE
AGREE 216 30.2 30.9 80.9
NEUTRAL 80 11.2 11.4 92.3
DISAGREE 54 7.6 7.7 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

260
 36. SALE
Statistics

SALE
N Valid 700
Missing 15
Mean 2.73
Std. Deviation 1.228
Sum 1911

SALE

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid <50000 54 7.6 7.7 7.7
<100000 404 56.5 57.7 65.4
<50000000 161 22.5 23.0 88.4
>50000000 81 11.3 11.6 100.0
Total 700 97.9 100.0
Missing System 15 2.1
Total 715 100.0

261
BIBLIOGRAPHY

§ Abdul-Muhiivn, Alhassan G. (1998), "Demographic Differences in Usage

and Attitudes Toward the Saudi Arabian EFTPOS System," International

Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, 117-128.

§ Achrol, R. S. (1997), "Changes in the Theory of Interorganizational

Relations in Marketing: Toward a Network Paradigm," Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, 56-71.

§ ADuvadi, Milton (02/Ol/99), "Banking and Financial Institutions' Call Centers

Eye Big Bucks," Call Center Magazine, 3-5.

§ Anderson, Eugene W., and Sullivan, Mary W. (1993), "The Antecedents

and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms," The Marketing

Journal of TIMS/ORS'A, Vol. 12 No. 2,125-144.

§ Anton, J. (1997), Call Center Management by the Numbers, Purdue University

Press, West Lafayette, IN (2000), "The Past, Present and Future of Customer

Access Centers," International Journal of Service Management, Vol. 11, 120-

130.

§ Angel, Bob (2002), "Relationship Results," CA Magazine, Vol. 135 No. 1,

28-30.

§ Anonymous (2001), "Does CRM Pay?" The Journal of Business Strategy,

Vol. 22 No.6, 3.

262
§ Anonymous (2001), "7-Eleven Tests New Financial Services and Kiosks in

Florida," National Petroleum News, Vol. 93 No. 9, 9-10.

§ Aronson, Elliot (1972), The Social Animal, W.H. Freeman and

Company, San Francisco, CA.

§ Ahituv, N., (1989). "Assessing the Value of Information: Problems and

Approaches". Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information

Systems, Boston, MA, pp. 315-326.

§ Ahituv, N., and Giladi, R., (1994). "Business success and Information

Technolgy: Are They Really Related?" Proceedings of the Seventh Annual

Conference of Management IS, Tel Aviv University.

§ Ahituv, N., Lipovetsky, S., and Tishier, A., (1999). "The Relationship Between

Firm's Information Systems Policy and Business Performance: A Multivariate

Analysis". In Mo Adam Mahmood and Edwar J. Szewczak, Measuring

Information Technology Investment Payoff.- Contemporary Approaches.

Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, pp. 62-82.

§ Alarcon Olmos, K. P., (199O). La Globalizacion Financiera Mundial y sus

Efectos en la Banca Mexicana: Estrafegia de Crecimiento de Un Banco

Mexicano. [The World Financial Globalization: Devepment Strategy of a

Mexican Bank]. Unpublished Thesis. Universidad lberoamericana. Mexico D.

F., Mexico.

263
§ Alpar, P., and Kim, M., (1990}. "A Microeconomic Approach to the

Measurements of Information Technology Value," Journal of Management

Information Systems, Vol. 7, No 3, pp. 55-69.

§ Alvarez. J. M., (1990). Desarrollo Inisfituciona! del Sistema Bancario

MWxicano. (Institutional Development of the Mexican Banking System].

Unpublished Thesis. Universidad iberoamericana, Mexico, D. F., Mexico.

§ Aaye, P., (1993). Economic Transformation the Mexican Way. Cambridge,

Massachussets: The MIT Press.

§ Adkisson, J. A., & Fraser, D. R. (2003). Reading the stars: Age bias in

Morningstar ratings. Financial Analysts Journal, 24-27.

§ Adrangi, B., Chatrath, A., & Shank, T. M. (2002). A comparison of the risk-

adjusted portfolio performance: The dartboard versus professionals and major

indices. American Business Review, 82-90.

§ Apap, A., & Griffith, J. M. (1998). The impact of expenses on equity mutual

fund performance. Journal of Financial Planning, 11, 76-82.

§ Atkinson, S. M., & Sturm, R. R. (2003). All-star mutual funds? Journal of

Investing, 12(2), 87- 95.

§ Bogle, J. (1994). Bogle on mutual funds. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional

Publishing.

§ Brown, K., Harlow, U., and Starks, L. (1996). Of tournaments and

temptations: An analysis of managerial incentives in the mutual fund industry.

Journal of Finance, 51, 85-110.

264
§ Brush, M. (1997). How fund costs drag down gains. Money, 26, 7A-9A.

§ Badgett, M.V. Lee, and Folbre, Nancy (1999), "Assigning Care: Gender

Norms and Economic Outcomes," International Labor Review, Vol. 138 No.

3, 311-326.

§ Bagozzi, Richard P. (1995), "Reflections on Relationship Marketing in

Consumer Markets: Rebuttal," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

Vol. 23 No. 4, 272-277.

§ Barefoot, Jo Ann (2001), "Privacy's Human Shield." Banking Strategies,

July/August, 42-46. Barlow, Richard G. (1992), "Relationship Marketing: The

Ultimate in Customer Service," Retail Control, Vol. 60 No. 3, 29-38.

§ Bateson, JEG (1995), Managing Services Marketing. The Dryden Press, Fort

Worth, TX. Bawden, Tom (1999), "Cherry Pickers," Marketing Week, Vol.

22 No. 21, 38-40.

§ Berry, Leonard.L. (1995), "Relationship Marketing of Services - Growing

Interest, Emerging Perspectives," Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, Vol. 23 No. 4,236-245.

§ Bolton, Ruth N., Kannan, P.K. and Bramlett, Matthew D. (2000),

"Implications of Loyalty Program Membership and Service Experiences for

Customer Retention and Value." Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, 95-108.

265
§ Brown, G.N. (1952), "Brand Loyalty: Fact or Fiction?" AdvertisingAge, Vol.

23, 535.

§ Burton, Dawn (1995), "Women and Financial Services: Some Directions for

Future Research," International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 8,

21-31.

§ Butler, John E. (1988), "Theories of Technological Innovation as Useful

Tools for Corporate Strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9 No 1,

15-30.

§ Bakos, J. Y., and Brynloifsson, E., (1993}. "lnformation Technology,

Incentives, and the Optimal Number of Suppliers," Journal of Management

Information Systems, Vol. 10, No. 2, Fall, pp. 37-42.

§ Brynjolfsson, E., (1993). "The Productivity Paradox of Information

Technology," Communications of the ACM, Vol 36, No. 12, Dec, pp. 67.

§ Brynjoifsson, E., and Hitt, L., (1995). "The Productive Keep Producing --

Successful Companies Support Good Business Plans with the Right

Information Technologies," Informationweek, Sep 18, pp, 38.

§ Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L., (1996). "Paradox Lost? Firm-level Evidence on

the Returns to Information Systems Spending," Management Science, Vol. 42,

No. 4, Apr, pp. 54't-559.

266
§ Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt L., (1996). "The Customer Counts - Investing in

Computers Pays Off. But to Get the Most Value for Your IT Dollar, Focus on

Customers, " lnfonnationweek, Sep 9, pp. 48.

§ Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L., (1997). "MIT Analysis: Breaking Boundaries,"

lnformationweek, Sep 22, pp. 54-61.

§ Brynjolfsson, E., Malone, T. W., Gurbaxani, V., and Kambil, A., (1994).

"Does information Technology Lead to Smaller Firms?," Management Science

Vol. 40, No. 12, Dec, pp. 1628-1644.

§ Brynjolfsson, E., Renshaw, A. A., and Van Alstyne, M., (1997). "The Matrix

of Change," Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, Winter, pp. 37-54.

§ Canciola, C. (1999). "El Gerente de Sistemas como Promotor de lnversiones

Tecnoiogicas." [The Systems Manager as Technology Investments Promotor].

Empf+esa 400, No. 12, Abril-Mayo, pp. 20-26.

§ Capote, A., (1999). Interview with Alfredo Capote, President and CEO of IBM

de Mexico, Febrary 3, 1999. Mexico D.F. Mexico. {Appendix C]

§ Chong, R., (1999). Interview with Roberto Chong, CIO of Atlantico Bank,

March 13,1999, Mexico D.F. Mexico. [Appendix Cj

§ Ciemons, E. K., (1991). "Evaluation of Strategic Investments in Information

Technology," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No. 1, Jan, pp. 22-36.

§ Clemons, E. K., Croson, D. C., and Weber, B. W., (1996). "Market

Dominance as a Precursor of a Firm's Failure: Emerging Technologies and the

267
 Competitive Advantage of New Entrants," Journal of Management

Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 2, Fall, pp. 59-75.

§ Clemons, E. K., Reddi, S. P., and Row, M. C., (1993). "The Impact of

Information Technology on the Organization of Economic Activity: The

"Move to the Middle" Hypothesis," Journal of Management Information

Systems, Vol. 10, No. 2, Fall, pp. 9.

§ Clemons, E. K., and Row M. C., (1989). "Information Technofogy and

Economic Reorganization." Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference

on Information Systems. December 1989. Boston, MA., pp. 341-351.

§ Clemons, E. K., and Row, M. C., (1991). "Sustaining IT Advantage: The

MUM of Structural Differences," MIS Quarterfy, Vol. 15, Iss. 3, Sep, pp. 275-

292.

§ Clemons, E. K., and Weber, B. W., (1994). "Segmentation, Differentiation,

and Flexible Pricing: Experiences with Information Technology and Segment-

Tailored Strategies," Journal of Management Information Systems, Fall, Vol.

11, No. 2, pp. 9.

§ Collofly, F., Adya, M., and Armstrong, J. S., (1994). "Principles for

Examining Predictive Validity: The Case of Information Systems Spending,"

Information Systems Research, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, June, pp. 170-179.

§ Calhoun, John (2001), "Driving Loyalty by Managing the Total

Customer Experience," Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 65 No. 6, 69-80.

268
§ Chase, Richard B. and Dasu, Sriram (2001), "Want to Perfect Your

Company's Service? Use Behavioral Science," Harvard Business Review, Vol.

79 No. 6, 79-84.

§ Churchill, G.A. Jr. (1987), Marketing Research Methodological

Foundations (6`'' Edition), Dryden Press, Ft. Worth, TX.

§ Churchill, Gilbert A. and Suprenant, Carol (1982), "An Investigation into the

Determinants of Customer Satisfaction," Journal of Marketing Research,

Vol. 19 November, 491-504.

§ Churchill, H.L. (1942), "How to Measure Brand Loyalty," Advertising and

Selling, Vol. 35, 24.

§ Cleland, Kim (2001), "CRM's Role in the New Consumer Climate,"

Advertising Age, Vol. 71 No. 44, S2.

§ Coffey, Jeanne O. (2001), "The Road to CRM Nirvana," Bank

Systems and Technology, Vol. 38 No. 7, 34-38.

§ Couldwell, Clive (1999), "Loyalty Bonuses," Marketing Week, Vol. 22 No.

3, 41-42.

§ Coyne, William (2000), "Lead User: A Conversation with William Coyne,"

Health Forum Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, 28-24.

§ Crosby, Lawrence A., Johnson, Sheree L. and Quinn, Richard (2002), "Is

Survey Research Dead?" Marketing Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, 24-29.

269
§ Crutchfield Jr., Edward E. (1998), "The `High Touch' Solution: Use of

Sophisticated Technology to Provide Quality Service to Bank Customers,"

The Banker, Vol. 148 No. 14,14-16.

§ Darley, William K. and Smith, Robert E. (1995), "Gender Differences in

Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model

in Advertising," Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. l, 41-54.

§ Day, George S. (2000), "Managing Market Relationships" Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, 24-30.

§ Demarrais, Kevin (S112102), "Your Money's Worth: Over 50 Getting

Attention," The Record, Bergen County, NJ, B1.

§ Dhebar, Anirudh (2001), "Six Chasms in Need of Crossing," MIT Sloan

Management Review, Vol. 42 No.3, 95-99.

§ Dick, A.S., and Basu, K. (1994), "Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated

Conceptual Framework," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, VoL

22, 99113.

§ Dickson, Peter R. (2000), "Understanding the Trade Winds: The Global

Evolution of Production, Consumption, and the Internet, " Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, 115-122.

§ Dienhart, John W. (Z000), "Just Caring, Caring Justice," Business and Society

Review, Vol. 105 No. 2, 247-267.

270
§ Doocey, Paul (2001), "Just thinking", Bank Systems and Technology, Vol. 38

No. 7, 6.

§ Dver, Alyssa (2001), "Real-Time Customer Data That's Useful for

Retention," Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 2,32-35.

§ Eagly, Alice (1987), "Gender and Helping Behavior: A Meta-Analytic

Review of the Social Psychological Literature," Psychological Bulletin, Vol.

100 No. 3, 283-95.

§ Eagly, Alice and Johnson, Blair T. (1990), "Gender and Leadership Style:

A MetaAnalysis," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, 233-45.

§ Epstein, Chuck (1999), "Financial Services Firms Take Aim at

Customers," Wall Street and Technology, Vol. 17 No. 9, 32-36.

§ Feinberg, Richard A., Hokaina, Leigh, I{adani, Rajesh, and IkSuk, Kim

(2002), "Operational Determinants of Caller Satisfaction in the

Banking/Financial Services Call Center," The International Journal of Bank

Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, 174-180.

§ Gatignon, Hubert G., Tushman, Michael L., Smith, Wendy and Anderson,

Philip (2002), "A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct

Development of Innovation, Locus, Type, and Characteristics, " Management

Science, Vol. 48 No. 9, 1103-23.

271
§ Gilbert, Faye W, and Warren, William E. (1995), "Psychographic

Constructs and Demographic Segments," Psychology and Marketing,

Vol. 12 No. 3, 223-38.

§ Gold, Nicolas (1998), "The Meaning of `Legacy Systems' ", SABA Project

Report, January, Lincoln School of Management, University of Lincolnshire

and Humberside, UK.

§ Goode, Mark, and Moutinho, Luiz (1995), "The Effects of Free Banking on

Overall Satisfaction: The Use of ATMs", International Journal of Bank

Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, 33-40., and Chien, Charles (1996), "Structural

Equation Modelling of Overall Satisfaction and Full Use of Services for

ATMs," International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 7, 4-11.

§ Gordon, Ian H. (1998) Relationship Marketing. John Wiley and Sons,

Canada, LTD.

§ Greco, A.J. and Fields, D.M. (1991), "Profiling Early Triers of Service

Innovations: A Look at Interactive Home Video Ordering Services," Journal

of Services Marketing, Vol. 5 Summer, 19-26.

§ Grisaffe, Doug (1121l02), "See About Linking CRM and MR Systems,"

Marketing News, 13.

§ Gronroos, Christian (1995), "Relationship Marketing: Strategy Continuum."

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, 252-254.

272
§ Gruen, Thomas W. (1995), "The Outcome Set of Relationship Marketing in

Consumer Markets," International Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, 447-469.

§ Gamniesson, Evert (1998), "Implementation Requires a Relationship

Marketing Paradigm," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.

26 No. 3, 242-249.

§ Garcia Vlacias, A., (1999). Interview with Alfonso Garcia Macias, CEO of

International and BCH Banks, Febrary 5,1999, Mexico D. F., Mexico.

[Appendix Cj

§ Garcia Noriega, G., (1999). Interview with Gerardo Garcia IVoriega, CIO of

International Bank, April 21, 2000, Mexico D. F., Mexico. [Appendix C]

§ Grover, V., Teng, J., Segars, A. H., and Fiedler, K., (1998). "The Influence of

Information Technology Diffusion and Business Process Change on Perceived

Productivity: The IS Executive's Perspective," Information & Management,

Vol. 34, No. 3, Oct, pp. 141-159.

§ Harris, S. E., and Katz, J. L., (1991). "Organizational Performance and

Information Technology Investments Intensity in the Insurance Industry,"

Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp 263-295.

§ Harris, S. E., and Katz, J. L., (1988). "Profitability and Information Capital

Intensity in the Insurance Industry." Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual

Hawaii Conference on Systems Sciences, Applications Track, 4, pp. 124-130.

273
§ Hulfbauer, G. C., and Schoh, J. J., (1992}. North American Free Trade: issues

and Recommendations. Institute of International Economics. Washington, D.

C., pp. 306.

§ Oxford.(1999), Total Relationship Marketing, Butterworth,

Heinemann,Gwinner Kevin P., Gremler, Dwayne D. and Bitner, Mary Jo

(1998), "Relational Benefits in Services Industries: Customer's

Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2,

101-114.

§ Ha, Jung-Bok. (1998) "Conceptual and Empirical foundations for an

Integrated Model of Behavioral Factors Influencing Exporter-Importer

Relationships". PhD Dissertation, Old Dominion University.

§ Hair, Joseph E. Jr., Anderson, Rolph E., Tatham, Ronald L., and Black,

William C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, New

Jersey.

§ Hayes, Mary (2001), "An `RM' Market Grows," Information

Week, Hayhoe Celia, Leach Lauren J., Turner Pamela R.,

Bruin Marilyn J. and Lawrence, Frances C. (2000),

"Differences in Spending Habits and Credit Use in College

Students," Journal of Consumer Affairs, VoL 34 No 1, 113-

133.

274
§ Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten and Hansen, Ursula (2000), Relationship

Marketing, Springer, Berlin. Heskett, James L., Jones, Thomas O.,

Loveman, Gary W. and Sasser, W. Earl Jr., "Putting the Service

Profit Chain to Work." Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2,164-

175.

§ lacovou, C. L., Benbasat, I., and Dexter, A. S., (1995). "Electronic Data

Interchange and Small Organizations: Adoption and Impact of Technology,"

MlS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 465-485.

§ Ives, B., (1994). "Probing the Productivity Paradox," MIS Quarterly (editor's

comment), Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. xx-xxiii.

§ Jurison, J., (1995). Defining and Measuring Productivity. In Paul Gray and

Jaak Jurison, Productivity in the Office and the Factory. Danvers, MA: Boyd

& Fraser.

§ Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P., (1992). "The Balanced Scorecard - Measures

That Drive Performance," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, No.1, JanlFeb,

pp. 71-80.

§ Kapian, R. S., and Norton, D. P., (1996). "Strategic Learning & the Balanced

Scorecard," Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 24, No. 5, SeplOct, pp. 18-24.

§ Kauffman, R. J., and W, ill, P., (1989). An Evaluative Framework for

Research on the Performance Effects of Information Technology

275
 investmetns." Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on

Information Systems, Boston, MA, 1989, pp. 377-388.

§ Keen, P. G. W., {1991}. Shaping the Future: Business Design Through

Information Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

§ Keen, P. G. W., and Woddman, L. A., (1984). "What to Do With all Those

Micros," Harvard Business Review, Sep-Oct 1984, pp. 142-150.

§ King, W. R., (1998). "T-enhanced Productivity and Profitability," Information

Systems Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, Winter, pp. 64-66.

§ Kluckhon, F. R., (1962). "Dominant and Subtitute Profiles of Culture

Orientation: Their Significance for the Analysis of Social Stratification". In

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in

Work Related Values. London. England: Sage Publications.

§ Karimi, Jahangir, Somers, Toni M. and Gupta, Yash P. (2001), "Impact of

Information Technology Management Practices on Customer Service,"

Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 4, 125-158.

§ Kelly, Michael (2000), "Insure Against Administrative Nightmares,"

The British Journal of Administrative Management, July/August, 16-18.

§ Kiesnoski, Kenneth (2000), "ATMs give AmEx, E*Trade a Banking

Footprint, " Bank Systems and Technology, Vol. 37 No. S, 16.(1999),

276
 "Customer Relationship Management," Bank Systems and Technology, Vol.

36 No. 2, 30-34.

§ Leidner, D. E., (1995). "The Use of Information Technology to Enhance

Mangement School Education: A theoretical View," M!S Quarterly. Vol. 19,

No. 3, Sep, pp. 2fi5-292.

§ Loveman, G. W., (1994). "An Assessment of the Productivity Impact of

Information Technologies." In Allen T. J.; Scott Morton M. S. Information

Technologies and the Corporation of the 1990's. New York, N. Y.: Oxford

University Press.

§ Loveman, G. W., (1988). "An Assessment of the Productivity Impact of

Information Technologies". Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Management in the 1990's Working Paper No. 88154.

§ Lucas, H. C., (1999). Information Technology and the Productivity Paradox:

Assessing the Value of Investing in IT. New York, Oxford: Oxford University

Press 1999.

§ Lucas, H. C., Jr., (1993). "The Business Value of Information Technology: A

Historical Perspective and Thought for Future Research", In R. D. Banker, R. J.

Kauffman and M. A. Mahmood, Strategic Information Technology

Managemente: Perspectives on Organizational Growth and Competitive

Advantage, Harrisburg, PA:Idea Group Publishing.

277
§ Lucas, H. C., Jr., (1975). "The Use of an Accounting Information System,

Action and Organizational Performance," The Accounting Review. October, pp.

735-746.

§ Mafone, T. W., "Is Empowerrnent Just a Fad? Control, Decision Making, and

IT", Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, Winter 1997, pp. 23-35.

§ Markus, M. L., and Soh, C., (1993). Banking on Information Technology:

Converting IT Spending into Firm Performance, Chapter 19 in R. Banker, et al.

(Eds.). Strategic Information Technology Management: Perspectives on

Organizational Growth and Competitive Advantage, pp. 375-403. Harrisburg,

PA: Idea Group Publishing.

§ Marin, E., (20 00). Interview with Erasmo Marrn, C10 of International Bank.

December 21, 2000. Mexico, D. F., Mexico.

§ McKeen, J. E., Smith, H. A., and Parent, M., (1999). An Integrative Research

Approach to Assess the Business Value of Information Technology. In Mo

Adam Mahmood and Edwar J. Szewczak, Measuring Information

§ Technology Investment Payoff. - Contemporary Approaches, pp. 5-23.

Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

§ Malone, T. W., Yates, J., and Benjamin, R. I., (1994). Electronic Markets and

Electronic Hierarchies. In Allen and Scott Morton Information Technologies

and the Corporation of the 1990's, pp.61-83. New York, NY: University Press.

278
§ Mukhopadhyay, T., Kekre, S., Kalathur, S., {1995}. "Business Value of

Information Technology: A Study of Electronic Data Interchange," MIS

Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 137-15fi.

§ Masters, Tony (2000), "The Loyal Few," Marketing Week; Vol. 23 No.

17, 75-78.

§ Mather, A., Sherman, E. and Schiffman, L.G. (1998), "Marketing Travel

Services to New-Age Elderly," Journal of Service Marketing, VoL 12 No. 4,

265-77.

§ Mazanet, Shirley (2000), "Online ATMs Enhance Member

Relationships," Credit Union Magazine, Vol. 66 No. 11, 66-68.

§ Mazur, Laura (8/16/O1) "Life Stages Hold Key to Improving Customer

Bonds," Marketing, 16.

§ Milberg, Sandra J, Burke, Sandra J., Smith, H. Jeff and Kallman, Ernest A.

(1995), "Values, Personal Information Privacy, and Regulatory Approaches,"

Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 38 No. 12, 65-78.

§ Milligan, John W. (1997), "What Do Customers Want From You?

Everything!" US Banker, Vol. 107 No 12, 38-42.

§ Mols, Niels P. (1999), "The Internet and the Banks' Strategic Distribution

Channel Decisions," International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 17 No.

6, 295-307.

279
§ Moreau, C. Page, Lehmann, Donald R. and Markman, Arthur B. (2001),

"Entrenched Knowledge Structures and Consumer Response to New

Products," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, 14-29.

§ Morgan, Robert M. and Hunt, Shelby D. (1994) "The Commitment-Trust

Theory of Relationship Marketing. " Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3,

20-38.

§ Morrow, Edwin P. (2001), "Client Relationship Marketing," Financial

Services Advisor, Vol. 144 No. 5, 14-18.

§ Murdock, Gene W. and Franz, Lori (1983), "Habit and Perceived Risk as

Factors in Resistance to Use of ATMs," Journal of Retail Banking, Vol. 5

No. 2, 20-30.

§ Nelson, Kristi (2001), "NYCE Banks Testing `Pinless' Person-to-Person

Transactions Via ATMs, Phone and Web," Bank Systems and Technology,

Vol. 38 No. 2, 12.(2/20/01), "Profitability Software Gives Account Officers

20/20 Vision,"

§ Newell, Frederick (1997). The New Rules of Marketing: How to Use One-

to-One Relationship Marketing to be the Leader in Your Industry.

McGraw-Hill.

§ Nevin, J.R (1995), "Relationship Marketing and Distribution Channels:

280
§ Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, Dhruv (2000), "The Impact of Technology

on the Quality-Value-Loyalty Chain: A Research Agenda," Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1 168-174.

§ Patrickson, Margaret and Hartmann, Linda (1997), "Golden Oldies`1"

Management Development Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, 94-98.

§ Patton, Susannah (2001), "The Truth About CRM," CIO, Vol. 14 No. 14, 76-

85.

§ Payne, Adrian and Frow, Penelope (2000), "Services Relationship

Marketing: A Sector Case Study," in Relationship Marketing, 299-316.,

Holt, Sue and Frow, Penelope (2000), "Integrating Employee, Customer

and Shareholder Value through an Enterprise Performance Model," The

International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 6, 258-280.

§ Payne, Adrian, Christopher, Martin, Clark, Moira and Peck, Helen (1995),

Relationship Marketing for Competitive Advantage, Butterworth-Heinemann,

Ltd., Oxford.

§ Peppers, D and Rogers, M. (1999), The One-to-One Manager. Doubleday,

NY. and Dorf, Bob (1999), "Is Your Company Ready for Oneto-One

Marketing7" Harvard Business Review On Point, Product # 956X.

§ Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, Venkatram (2000), "Co-opting

Customer Competence," Harvard Business Review, 79-87.

281
§ Panko, R. R., (1991). "Is the Office Productivity Stagnant?," MIS Quarterly,

Vol. 15, no. 2., 191-203.

§ Parker, M. M., and Benson, R. J., (1988). Information Economics: Linking

Business Performance to Information Technology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hail, Inc.

§ Regozinski, J., (1993). La privatizacion de Empresas Paraestatales. [

Government Owned Companies Privatization]. Mexico D_ F., Mexico: FCE.

§ Roach, S. S., (1991). "Services under siege- the restructuring imperative,"

Harvard Business Review. September/October, 82-92.

§ Roach, S. S., (1989). The Case of the Missing Technology Payback. Tenth

International Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA.

§ Shani, D. and Chalasani, S. (1992), "Exploiting Niches Using

Relationship Marketing," Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9

No. 3, 33-42.

§ Sheth, Jagadish N. (2002), "The Future of Relationship Marketing,"

Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 7, 590-592.

§ Sievewright, Mark (2001), "Delivery Channels are Evolving,"

Credit Union Magazine, Vol. 67 No. S, 36-40.

§ Sin, Leo Y.M., Tse, Alan C.B., Yau, Oliver H.M., Lee, Jenny S.Y. and

Chow, Raymond (2002), "The Effect of Relationship Marketing Orientation

282
 on Business Performance in a Service-oriented Economy, " Journal of

Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 7, 656-676.

§ Singh, Jagdip and Sirdeshmukh, Deepak (2000), "Agency and Trust

Mechanisms in Consumer Satisfaction and Loyalty Judgments," Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Services, Vol. 28 No. 1, 150-167.

§ Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Vitell, Scott J. and Franke, George R. (1999),

"Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Effects of Perceived Moral

Intensity and Personal Moral Philosophies," Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 1, 19-35.

§ Sanchez Montemayor, J., (1991). "El Proceso de Privatizacion de fa Banca

Mexicanna [The Mexican Banking Divestiture Process]. Revista de

Administracion Publica. Instituto de Administracion Publica: Mexico D.F.

Mexico.

§ Schrage, M., (1997). "The real problem with computers," Harvard Business

Review, Vol. 75, No. 5, Sep/Oct, pp. 178-188.

§ Scott Morton, M. S., (1991). The Corporations of the 1990s Information

Technology and Organizational Transformation. Oxford University Press. PP.

1-23.

§ Sichel, D. E., (1999). "Computers and aggregate economic growth: An

update," Business Economics, Vol. 34, No. 2, Apr 1999, pp. 18-24.

283
§ Skinner, IN., (198fi). "The Productivity Paradox," Management Review, Vol.

77, pp. 41-45.

§ Slavin, R. H., (1994). "Re-engineering: A productivity paradox," Quality, Vol.

33, No. 6, Jun, p. 18.

§ Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., and Coleman, N. J., Jr., (1992). "Managing 21st

Century Network Organizations," Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 3,

Winter 1992, pp. 5-20.

§ Spiegel, M. R. (1961). Theory and Problems of Statistics. McGrow-Hill, pp.

168.

§ Steiner, T. D., and Teixeira, D. g., (1990). Technology in Banking: Creating

Value and Destroying Profits. Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwing.

§ Strassman, P. A., (1984). "Value-added Productivity Measurements: Concepts

and Results," EDP Analyzaer, June, pp. 13-14.

§ Strassman, P. A., (1990). The Business Value of Computers: An Executive's

Guide. New Canaan, CT: Information Economic Press.

§ Strassman, P. A., (1998}. Response of the Author, Communications of the

ACM, Vol. 41, No. 21, pp. 11.

§ Tello, C., {1984). La Nacionahzacion de la Banca en Mexico. (The Mexican

Banking Industry Nationalization]. Mexico, D. F., Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores,

S.A.

284
§ Thor, C. G., (1998). Designing Fedback Performance Measures for Continous

Improvement Crip Publications.

§ TrA. W., and Treacy, M. E., {198fi). "Utilization as a Dependent Variable in

MIS Research," Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on

Information Systems, pp. 227-257.

§ Triplett, J. E., (1989). "Price and Technological Change in a Capital Good: A

Survey of Research on Computers". In Jorgenson, D.W. and Landau, R.

Technology and Capital Formation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

§ Venkatraman, N., (1991). "IT-Induced Business Reconfiguration". Chapter 5 in

M. Scott Morton (Ed.) The Corporation of the 1990s: Information Technology

and Organizational Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.

122-158.

§ Vitell, Scott J., Rao, C.P. and Kurtz, David L. (1949), "Ethics Gap: Comparing

Marketers with Consumers on Important Determinants of Ethical Decision-

Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 21 No. 4, 317-328.

§ Wehrs, W.E., (1999). A Road Map for IS/IT Evaluation. In Mo Adam

Mahmood and Edwar J. Szewczak, Measuring Information Technology

Investment Payoff Contemporary Approaches, pp. 5-23. Hershey, PA: Idea

Group Publishing.

285
§ Weill, P., (1988). The Relationship between Investments in Inotormation

Technology and Firm Performance in the Manufacturing Sector. Unpublished

Ph.D. Theses. Stem School of Business, New York University. In McKeen J. E.

! Smith, H. A.; and Parent, M. (1999). An Integrative Research Approach to

Assess the Business Value of Information Technology. In Mo Adam Mahmood

and Edwar J. Szewczak, Measuring Information Technology Investment

Payoff.* Contemporary Approaches. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing,

pp.5-23.

§ Weill, P., (1992). "The Relationship Between investment in information

Technology and Firm Performance: A Study of the Value Manufacturing

Sector," Information Systems Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, Dec 1992, pp. 307332.

§ Willcocks, L. P., and Lest r, S., (1996). "Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox,"

European Management Joumal, Vol. 14, No. 3 Jun 1996, pp. 279-291.

§ Willcocks, L. P., and Lester, S., (1997}. in search of information technology

productivity: Assessment issues," Journal of the Operational Research Society,

Vol. 48, No. 11, Nov, 1082-1094.

§ Rao, C.P. and Vitell, Scott J. (1996), "Ethical Decision Making: An

Investigation of Services Marketing Professionals," Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 6, 635-644.

286
§ Yates, J., and Benjamin, R. I., (1991 ). "The Past and Present as a Window On

the Future." !n Scott Morton, M. S. (1991) The Corporation of the 1990's.

Oxford University Press, pp. 61-93.

§ Zeithaml, Valarie A. (2000), "Service Quality, Profitability, and the Economic

Worth of Customers: What We Know and What We Need to Learn," Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, 67-85.and Bitner, Mary

Jo (2000), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm

(2"° edition), Irwin McGraw-Hill

§ Asian Development Bank, “2005 Outlook and Key Indicators”, Banerjee, A.

(1992) “A Simple Model of Herd Behavior”, The Quarterly Journal of

Economics, Vol.10, No.3, pp.797-817

§ Bekaert, Geert; Campbell R. Harvey, and Christian Lundblad (2001).

“Emerging Equity Markets and Economic Development”, Journal of

Development Economics, Vol.66(2001), pp.465-504.

§ de Brouwer, Gordon (2003). “Financial Markets, Institutions, and Integration

in East Asia”, Asian Economic Papers, CSIS-MIT (The Center for Strategic

and International Studies), pp.53-65.

287
§ Chow, Peter (1989). “Monetary Coordination in a Tripartite Word, An

Empirical Test of the International Monetary Rule”, The Journal of

Economics, Vol. XV,1989, pp.55-

§ Feldman, RA, and Kumar, MS (1994). “Emerging equity markets: growth,

benefits and policy concerns”, IMF Working Paper on Policy Analysis and

Assessment, WP/92/85.

§ Fry, M.J. (1997). “In Defence of Financial Liberalisation”, Economic Journal,

Vol. 107 (May 1997) pp. 754-70.

§ Johnston, R. Barry (1998), “Sequencing Capital Account Liberalization”, IMF

Quarterly, Finance and Development, Vol.35, No.4.

§ Kaminsky, Graciela, Richard Lyons, Sergio Schmuckler (2001). “Mutual Fund

Investment in Emerging Markets: An Overview”, World Bank Economic

Review, 15:2, pp. 315-340.

§ Kennedy, Peter, “A Guide to Econometrics”, Cambridge MIT Press, 1998.

§ Levy-Yeyati, Eduardo and Angel Ubide (1998). “Crises, Contagion, and the

Closed-End Country Fund Puzzle”, IMF Working Paper, WP/98/143.

288
§ Masson, Paul R. (1999). “Multiple Equilibria, Contagion, and the Emerging

Market Crises”, IMF Working Paper, WP/99/164.

§ Montiel, Peter (1993). “Capital Mobility in Developing Countries”, PRE Paper

1103 1993, Policy Research Department, World Bank Morgan Stanley Capital

International (MSCI) Emerging Markets Data.

§ Park, Yung Chul (1996). “East Asian Liberalization, Bubbles, and the

Challenge from China”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1996,

No. 2 (1996) 357-371.

§ Pindyck and Rubinfeld (1998). “Econometric models and Economic

Forecast”, McGraw-Hill.

§ Sayuri Shirai (2002). “ Is Equity Market really developed in PRC?”, ADB

Institute Research Paper No. 41.

§ Scharfstein, D.(1990). “Herd Behavior and Investment”, The American

Economic Review, Vol.80, No.3 (Jun1990), pp.465-479.

§ Sharma, S. and Sushil B. (2000). “Herd Behavior in Financial Markets”, IMF

Working Paper, WP/00/48.

289