49268164

8/11/2019 49268164

1/37

3.2 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPERTION

3.2.1 Table showing the age of the Respondent

Age (in years) No of Respondents Percentage

Less than 21 6 3

2130 41 20.5

3140 82 41

4150 45 22.5

More than 50 26 13

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that, 3% of the respondents are in the age group of Less than 21 years, 20.5% of

the respondents are in the age group in between 21 30 years, 41% of the respondents are in

the age group in between 31 40 years, 22.5% of the respondents are in the age group in

between 4150 years, 13% of the respondents are in the group of More than 50 years.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents are in the age group of in between 31 -40 years.

3.2.1 Chart showing the age of the Respondents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Less

than 212130 3140 4150 More

than 50

Age of Respondents

No.of Respondents

8/11/2019 49268164

2/37

3.2.2 Table showing the gender of the respondents

Gender No. of Respondent Percentage

Male 168 84

Female 32 16

Total 100 100

Findings:

In the above table it is understood that 84% of the respondents are Male and 16% of the

respondents are Female.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents are male.

3.2.2 Chart showing the gender of the respondents

168

32

Gender of the Respondents

Male

Female

8/11/2019 49268164

3/37

3.2.3 Table showing the occupation of the respondents

Occupation No of Respondents Percentage

Students 6 3

Business 74 37

Salaried 58 29

Professional 36 18

Other 26 13

Total 200 100

Findings:

In the above table it is understood that, 3% of the respondents are students, 37% of the

respondents are businessman, 29% of the respondents are salaried person, 18% of the

respondents are doing professional, and 13% of the respondents are other categories.

Inference

It is inferred that majority of respondents are business person.

3.2.3 Chart showing the occupation of the respondents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

7080

Occupation of the Respondents

no.of.respondents

8/11/2019 49268164

4/37

3.2.4 Table showing the monthly income of the respondent

Monthly income(Rs) No of

Respondents

Percentage

Below 20,000 32 16

20,00030,000 56 28

30,00140,000 47 23.5

40,00150,000 29 14.5

Above 50,000 36 18

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that, 16% of the respondents are comes under the monthly income of below

20,000, 28% of the respondents are comes under the income in-between 20,000- 30,000,

23.5% of the respondents are comes under the income in-between 30,001-40,000, 14.5% of

the respondents are comes under the income in-between 40,001-50,000, 18% of the

respondents are comes under the monthly income of above 50,000.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents are comes under the income in-between 20,000-

30,000.

3.2.4 Chart showing the monthly income of the respondent

16%

28%

23%

15%

18%

Age of the Respondents

Below 20,00020,00030,00030,00140,00040,00150,000

8/11/2019 49268164

5/37

3.2.5 Table showing how long respondents trading in stock market

Factors No. of Respondents Percentage

Less than 1year 38 19

1-2 years 72 36

2-5 years 35 17.5

More than 2 years 55 27.5

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that, 19% of the respondents are trading less than 1 year in the stock market, 36%

of the respondents are trading between 1-2 years in stock market, 17.5% of the respondents

are trading between 2-5 years in stock market and 27.5% of the respondents are trading more

than 2 years in the stock market.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents are involved in trading between 1-2 years in stock

market.

3.2.5 Chart showing how long respondents trading in stock market

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Less than1year

1-2 years 2-5 years More than 2years

Series1

8/11/2019 49268164

6/37

8/11/2019 49268164

7/37

3.2.7 Table showing the frequency of respondents trading

Frequency No Of Respondents Percentage

Daily trading 47 23.5

Weekly 61 30.5

Monthly 33 16.5

Quarterly 39 19.5

Half-yearly 20 10

Total 200 100

Findings:

In the above table it is understood that, 23.5% of the respondents are said that daily trading,

30.5% of the respondents are said that weekly trading, 16.5% of the respondents are said that

monthly trading, 19.5% of the respondents are said that every quarterly trading and 10% of

the respondents are said that half-yearly trading.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents are said that weekly trading.

3.2.7 Chart showing the frequency of respondents trading

0

50

100

No.ofRespondents

8/11/2019 49268164

8/37

3.2.8 Table showing the respondents perception about stock market

Perception No Of Respondents Percentage

High risk and high return 42 21

High risk and low return 93 46.5

Moderate 53 26.5

Low risk and high return 12 6

Low risk and low return 0 0

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that, 21% of the respondents are said that their perception in high risk and high

return, 46.5% of the respondents are said that their perception is high risk and low return,

26.5% of the respondents are said that their perception is Moderate, 6% of the respondents

are said that their perception is low risk and low return.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents are said that their perception is high risk and low

return.

3.2.8 Chart showing the respondents perception about stock market

0

50

100

High risk

and high

return

High risk

and low

return

ModerateLow risk

and high

return

Low risk

and low

return

No.ofResponde

nts

8/11/2019 49268164

9/37

U-Test

Comparative analysis on perception about stock market future market condition

X 42 93 53 12 0

Y 23 57 78 33 9

COMBINED

RANKS

5 1 4 8 10

7 3 2 6 9

Ho: 1 = 2. There is no significant difference between Perception about stock market.

H1: 1 2. There is significant difference between future market condition.

U Statistic,

Where,

1= 5; 2=5R1 = Sum of ranks of first sample = 5+1+4+8+10 = 28

R2 = Sum of ranks of second sample = 7+3+2+6+9 = 27

= 13U = min(U1,U2)

U2 < U1

U = U2

8/11/2019 49268164

10/37

Mean of U,

||

Table value = 1.96

Calculated value < Table value;

0.1044 < 1.96

Conclusion: Accept Ho

There is no significant difference between perception about stock market and future market

condition.

8/11/2019 49268164

11/37

3.2.9 Table showing ways used for respondent to predict future market condition

Ways No. of Respondents Percentage

News 78 39

Advisor 28 14

Brokers 42 21

Reference group 52 26

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that 39% of respondents predict future market condition through news, 14% of

respondents predict through advisor, 21% of respondents predict through brokers and 26% of

respondent predict through reference group.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents predict future market condition through news.

3.2.9 Chart showing ways used for respondent to predict future market condition

0

50

100

News

Advisor

Brokers

Reference

group

No.ofRes

pondents

8/11/2019 49268164

12/37

3.2.10 Table showing factors used to select a brokerage firm

Attribute No Of Respondents Percentage

Safety 52 26

Investment Advice 24 12

Easy Trading 27 13.5

Customer Service 53 26.5

Experience 31 15.5

Brand Name 13 6.5

Total 200 100

Findings:

In the above table it is understood that, 26% of the respondents are said that they preferring

for safety, 12% of the respondents are said that they preferring for investment advice, 13.5%

of the respondents are said that they preferring for easy trading, 26.5% of the respondents are

said that they preferring for customer service, 15.5% of the respondents are said that they

preferring for experience and 6.5% of the respondents are said that they preferring for brand

name.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents are said that they preferring for customer service.

3.2.10 Chart showing factors used to select a brokerage firm

0

20

40

60

Safety

Investment

Advice

Easy

Trading

Customer

Service

Experience Brand

Name

No.ofRespondents

8/11/2019 49268164

13/37

KOLMOGOROV TEST

Null hypothesis:

Ho : There is no significant difference between the factors used to select a brokerage firm.

Here n = 6 G = 200

Ei = Oi = 200 = 33.33

n 6

Oi Cum Oi Cum Oi = pi

G

Ei Cum Ei CumEi = qi

G

| pi - qi |

52 52 0.26 33.33 33.33 0.17 0.19

24 76 0.38 33.33 66.66 0.33 0.05

27 103 0.52 33.33 99.99 0.50 0.02

53 156 0.78 33.33 133.33 0.67 0.11

31 187 0.93 33.33 166.66 0.83 0.1

13 200 1 33.33 200 1 0

KS = Max { | piqi | } = 0.19

Table value:

d.f = n = 6

At = 0.05, table value = 0.565

0.19 < 0.565

Calculated value < Table value

Accept Ho

Conclusion

There is no significant difference between the factors used to select a brokerage firm.

8/11/2019 49268164

14/37

3.2.11 Table showing the source of awareness about Shriram Insight

Source No. of Respondents Percentage

Newspaper/Magazine 33 16.5

Television 7 3.5

Reference group 78 39

Brokers 61 30.5

Internet 21 10.5

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that 16.5% of the respondents are aware of the Shriram Insight through

newspaper/magazine, 3.5% of the respondents are aware through television, 39% of the

respondents are aware through reference group, 30.5% of the respondent are aware through

brokers, 10.5% of the respondents are aware through internet.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents are aware of the Shriram Insight through reference

group.

3.2.11 Chart showing the source of awareness about Shriram Insight

33

7

78

61

21Newspaper/Magazine

Television

Reference group

Brokers

Internet

8/11/2019 49268164

15/37

Karl Pearson correlation coefficient

Comparative analysis between awareness and overall satisfaction about Shriram Insight.

Awareness 33 7 78 61 21

Satisfaction 27 86 69 13 5

Karl Pearson r=

2 2

Where, X = Awareness

Y = Satisfaction

X Y X2

Y2

XY

33 27 1089 729 891

7 86 49 7396 602

78 69 6084 4761 5382

61 13 3721 169 793

21 5 441 25 105

x = 200 y = 200 X2

= 11384 Y2= 13080 XY=7773

n = 5

r = 2 2

r = -0.05474

Conclusion

It can be concluded that there is a negative relationship between awareness andsatisfaction.

8/11/2019 49268164

16/37

3.2.12 Table showing the respondents opinion about Shriram Insight

Opinion No. of Respondent Percentage

Very good 23 11.5

Good 57 28.5

Neutral 78 39

Bad 33 16.5

Very bad 9 4.5

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that 11.5% of the respondent have got very good opinion about Shriram Insight,

28.5% of the respondents have got good opinion, 39% of the respondent have got neutralopinion, 16.5% of the respondents have got bad opinion and 4.5% of the respondents have

got very bad opinion.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents have got neutral opinion.

3.2.12 Chart showing the respondents opinion about Shriram Insight

0

20

40

60

80

Very

goodGood

Neutral BadVery

bad

No. of Respondednt

8/11/2019 49268164

17/37

3.2.13.1 Table showing that the respondents get investment advice from the brokers

Opinion No. of Respondents Percentage

Yes 174 87

No 26 13

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that 87% of the respondents get their investment advice from the brokers and 13%

of the respondents did not get any advice to make investment.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of the respondents get investment advice from brokers.

3.2.13.1 Chart showing that the respondents get investment advice from the brokers

0 50 100 150 200

Yes

No

8/11/2019 49268164

18/37

Interval estimation: Respondents get investment advice from the brokers

Formula:

Interval Estimation

No. of respondents who get investment advice from the brokers: 174

No. of respondents who not get investment advice from the brokers: 26

n= Sample size=200

p= Number of yes = 174 =0.87

Sample size 200

Q = 1-p =1-0.87 = 0.13

= 1.96 at 95% confidence level

Standard error = =

= 0.024

Interval estimation = P = (0.871.96 (0.024)) = (0.87 0.04704) = (0.91704>p> 0.82296)

Conclusion:

Hence we conclude that 95% level of confidence, respondent get investment advice from

broker lies between 92% and 82%

StdErrorp2

8/11/2019 49268164

19/37

3.2.13.2 Table showing that the respondent whether satisfied with return


Yes 88 44

No 112 56

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that 44% of the respondents are satisfied with the return and 56% of the

respondents are not satisfied with the return.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of the respondents are not satisfied with the return.

3.2.13.2 Chart showing that the respondent whether satisfied with return

0

50

100

150

Yes

No

8/11/2019 49268164

20/37

Interval estimation: Respondents whether satisfied with return on investment

Formula:

Interval Estimation



n= Sample size=200


Sample size 200

Q = 1-p =1-0.44 = 0.56


Standard error = =

= 0.035


Conclusion:

Hence we conclude that 95% level of confidence, respondent are satisfied with the return on

investment lies between 51% and 37%

StdErrorp2

8/11/2019 49268164

21/37

3.2.12.3 Table showing that respondents are investing in the current market situation


Yes 72 36

No 128 64

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that 36% of the respondents are investing in current market situation and 64% of

the respondents are not investing in current market situation.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of the respondent are not investing in current market situation.

3.2.12.3 Chart showing that respondents are investing in the current market situation

72

128

Yes No

8/11/2019 49268164

22/37

Interval estimation: Invest in current market situation

Formula:

Interval Estimation



n= Sample size=200


Sample size 200

Q = 1-p =1-0.36 = 0.64


Standard error = =

= 0.034


Conclusion:

Hence we conclude that 95% level of confidence, respondents are investing in current market

situation lies between 43% and 29%

StdErrorp2

8/11/2019 49268164

23/37

3.2.12.4 Table showing that the respondents have faced any problem after making

investment


Yes 91 45.5

No 109 54.5

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that 45.5% of respondents have face problem after making investment and 54.5%

of respondents have not faced any problem after making investment.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of the respondents have not faced any problem after making

investment.

3.2.12.4 Chart showing that the respondents have faced any problem after making

investment

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

Yes No

No.o

fRespondents

8/11/2019 49268164

24/37

Interval estimation: Respondents have faced any problem after making investment

Formula:

Interval Estimation



n= Sample size=200


Sample size 200

Q = 1-p =1-0.46 = 0.54


Standard error = =

= 0.035


Conclusion:

Hence we conclude that 95% level of confidence, respondent have faced any problem after

making investment lies between 53% and 39%

StdErrorp2

8/11/2019 49268164

25/37

3.2.13.5 Table showing whether the respondents have recommended Shriram Insight

for trading to any other.


Yes 127 63.5

No 73 36.5

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that 63.5% of the respondents have recommended Shriram Insight for trading and

36.5% of the respondents have not recommended Shriram Insight for trading.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of the respondents have recommended Shriram Insight for trading.

3.2.13.5 Chart showing whether the respondents have recommended Shriram Insight

for trading to any other.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Yes No

No.ofRespondents

8/11/2019 49268164

26/37

Interval estimation: Recommended Shriram Insight for trading to any other

Formula:

Interval Estimation



n= Sample size=200


Sample size 200

Q = 1-p =1-0.64 = 0.36


Standard error = =

= 0.034


Conclusion:

Hence we conclude that 95% level of confidence, respondent have recommended Shriram

Insight for trading to any other lies between 71% and 57%

StdErrorp2

8/11/2019 49268164

27/37

3.2.13.6 Table showing that trading through Shriram Insight is secure.


Yes 184 92

No 16 8

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that 92% of the respondents have said trading through Shriram Insight is secure

and 8% of the respondents have said trading through Shriram Insight is not secure.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of the respondents have said trading through Shriram Insight issecure.

3.2.13.6 Chart showing that trading through Shriram Insight is secure

0

100

200

Yes

No

No.ofRespondents

8/11/2019 49268164

28/37

Interval estimation: Trading through Shriram Insight is secure

Formula:

Interval Estimation



n= Sample size=200


Sample size 200

Q = 1-p =1-0.92 = 0.08


Standard error = =

= 0.019


Conclusion:

Hence we conclude that 95% level of confidence, trading through Shriram Insight is secure

lies between 96% and 88%

StdErrorp2

8/11/2019 49268164

29/37

3.2.13.7 Table Showing Whether the respondents are aware of the regulation that are

framed by SEBI

Opinion No. of respondents Percentage

Yes 139 69.5

No 61 30.5

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that 69.5% of the respondents are aware of the regulation that are framed by SEBI

and 30.5 % of the respondents are not aware of the regulation that are framed by SEBI.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of the respondents are aware of the regulation that are framed by

SEBI.

3.2.13.7 Chart Showing Whether the respondents are aware of the regulation that are

framed by SEBI

0

50

100

150

Yes

No

No.ofRespondents

8/11/2019 49268164

30/37

Interval estimation: Awareness of the regulation that are framed by SEBI

Formula:

Interval Estimation



n= Sample size=200


Sample size 200

Q = 1-p =1-0.70 = 0.30


Standard error = =

= 0.032


Conclusion:

Hence we conclude that 95% level of confidence, awareness of the regulation that are framed

by SEBI lies between 76% and 64%

StdErrorp2

8/11/2019 49268164

31/37

3.2.14 Table showing the respondents trading through stock brokers is easier


Strongly agree 41 20.5

Agree 72 36

Stable 38 19

Disagree 32 16

Strongly Disagree 17 8.5

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is found that 20.5% of respondents strongly agree that trading through stock brokers is

easier, 36% of the respondents agree that trading is easier, 19% of the respondents disagreethat trading through stock brokers is easier and 8.5% of the respondents strongly disagree that

trading through stock brokers is easier.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents agree that trading through stock brokers is easier.

3.2.14 Chart showing the respondents trading through stock brokers is easier

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

No.ofRespondents

8/11/2019 49268164

32/37

3.2.15 Table showing the reason of preferring Shriram Insight

Attributes No Of Respondents Percentage

Low brokerage 106 53

Customer service 33 16.5

Free depository a/c 28 14

Safety 17 8.5

Quality advice 7 3.5

Market updates 9 4.5

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is founded that 53% of the respondents are said that low brokerage, 16.5% of the

respondents are said that customer service, 14% of the respondents are said that free

depository a/c, 8.5% of the respondents are said that safety, 3.5% of the respondents are said

that quality advice, 9% of the respondents are said that market update.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of respondents are said that they preferring for low brokerage.

3.2.15 Chart showing the reason of preferring Shriram Insight

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No.ofRespondents

8/11/2019 49268164

33/37

3.2.16 Table showing the factors which influence investors to invest in stock market

Weighted average= weighted total/total weight

weighted total=[(r1*w1)+(r2*w2)+(r3*w3)+(r4*w4)+(r5*w5)+(r6*w6)]

Applying weighted average method:

Volatility = 26*6+29*5+38*4+32*3+31*2+44*1 = 31.1905

21

Growth prospect = 47*6+39*5+32*4+37*3+24*2+21*1 = 37.381

21

Transparency = 43*6+40*5+36*4+23*3+28*2+30*1= 36.0476

21

Flexible investment

Opportunities = 32*6+36*5+29*4+27*3+34*2+42*1 = 32.3333

21

Effective hedging = 20*6+26*5+34*4+39*3+32*2+49*1 =29.3333

21

Regulation = 32*6+30*5+31*4+42*3+51*2+14*1 = 33.7143

21

FINDING:

It is found that volatility have been ranked 5th, growth prospect have been ranked 1st,

transparency have been ranked 2nd, flexible investment opportunities have been ranked 4th,

effective hedging have been ranked 6thand regulation have been ranked 3rd.

INFERENCE

It is inferred that growth prospect is ranked 1st.

FactorsRank

1

Rank

2

Rank

3

Rank

4

Rank

5

Rank

6

Total Avg

Weight

Rank

Weight 6 5 4 3 2 1

Volatility 26 29 38 32 31 44 200 31.1905 5

Growth prospect 47 39 32 37 24 21 200 37.381 1

Transparency 43 40 36 23 28 30 200 36.0476 2

Flexible investment

opportunities32 36 29 27 34 42

200 32.3333 4

Effective hedging 20 26 34 39 32 49 200 29.3333 6

Regulation 32 30 31 42 51 14 200 33.7143 3

8/11/2019 49268164

34/37

3.2.18 Table showing the satisfaction level of respondents about Shriram Insight

Highly

Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied

Highly

Dissatisfied

Right

Advice 32 29 46 58 35

Transaction

speed 38 48 51 45 18

Reliability 27 44 53 60 16

Easy

trading 48 56 42 35 19

Market

update 36 42 59 46 17

Customerservice 47 40 48 39 26

Brokerage 52 49 50 37 12

ONE WAY ANOVA:

S.No 5 4 3 2 1

1 32 29 46 58 35

2 38 48 51 45 18

3 27 44 53 60 16

4 48 56 42 35 19

5 36 42 59 46 17

6 47 40 48 39 26

7 52 49 50 37 12

Ci280

308 349 320 143 1400

Ci2 78400 94864 121801 102400 20449

Ni 7 7 7 7 7

Ci2/Ni 11200 13552 17400.14 14628.57 2921.286 59702

8/11/2019 49268164

35/37

NULL HYPOTHESIS:

H O : There is no significance difference between the facilities provided.

ALTERNATE HYPOTHESIS:

H1: There is a significance difference between the facilities provided.

PROCEDURE:

I. Number of all items (N)= 35,

Number of columns(c) = 5

N-c=30 c-1=4

Grand Total Ti= 1400

II.

Correction factor C.F = Ti2/N

14002 /35 = 56000

III. Xij2 = 322 +292 + ..+ 122

= 61762

IV. Total sum of squares (TSS) = Xij2 - C.F

= 61762 - 56000

TSS= 5762

V. Column sum of squares= X2 /ci - C.F

= 59702 - 56000

CSS = 3702

VI. Error sum of Squares =TSSCSS

= 5762-3702

ESS = 2060

Table 3.2.19 c one way ANOVA table

Source of

Variation

Sum of

Squares

Degrees of

Freedom (d.f)

Mean Sum of Square

(MSS) F-ratio

8/11/2019 49268164

36/37

Treatment

between

Columns

CSS = 3702 c-1 =4 M1=CSS/c-1

= 926 FC = M1

/M2

=926/69

=13.42

Residual or

ErrorESS= 2060 N-c = 30

M2=ESS/N-c

= 69

Table value = df (1, 2) = (Nr n-1, Dr n-1)

= (C-1), (N-C)

= 4, 30

Table value = 2.9

Level of significance =5%

Calculated value = 1.216

Calculated Value < Table Value

FINDINGS:

From the above analysis it was observed that calculated value 1.216 is lesser than

table value 2.9. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. Hence, there is no significance

difference between the facilities provided at Serco.

3.2.18 Table showing the overall of satisfaction of respondent about Shriram Insight.

Opinion No of respondents Percentage

Highly satisfied 27 13.5

Satisfied 86 43

Neutral 69 34.5

8/11/2019 49268164

37/37

Dissatisfied 13 6.5

Highly dissatisfied 5 2.5

Total 200 100

Findings:

It is founded that, 13.5% of the respondents are said that highly satisfied, 43% of the

respondents are said that satisfied, 34.5% of the respondents are said that neutral, 6.5% of the

respondents are said that dissatisfied, 2.5% of the respondents are said that highly

dissatisfied.

Inference:

It is inferred that majority of the respondents are said that satisfied.

3.2.18 Chart showing the overall of satisfaction of respondent about Shriram Insight

0

20

40

60

80

100

No of respondents

49268164

Documents

Transcript of 49268164