Behaviour of Investors Under Risk in Profit and Loss Situations in Pune City

7/31/2019 Behaviour of Investors Under Risk in Profit and Loss Situations in Pune City

1/35

BEHAVIOUR OF INVESTORS UNDER RISK IN PROFIT ANDLOSS SITUATIONS IN PUNE CITY

By: Rutuja Pandit (25)Nilesh Pardeshi (26)Ravi Teja (27)

Rupali Patil (28)Rutuja Patil (29)Sagar Pawar (30)Swapnil Pawar (31)Amruta Raje (32)Priyanka Bhosale (33)

MBA I A

SINHGAD INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,VADGAON, PUNE-41

MARCH 2012


2/35

I INTRODUCTION

History

Expected value was one of the first theories of decision making under risk. The

expected value of an outcome is equal to its payoff times its probability. This model failed

in predicting outcomes in many instances because it was obvious that the value that a

particular payoff held for someone was not always directly related to its precise monetary

worth.

Daniel Bernoulli was the first to see this contradiction and propose modification to the

expected value notion. In fact, Bernoulli was the first to introduce the concept of systematic

bias in decision making based on a psychophysical model. Specifically, Bernoulli used a

coin toss game known as the St. Petersburg paradox to demonstrate the limitations of

expected value as a normative decision rule. Bernoullis analysis of the dynamics of the St.

Petersburg paradox led him to appreciate that the subjective value, or utility, that a payoff

has for an individual is not always directly related to the absolute amount of that payoff, or

expected value. Rather, the value a person attaches to an outcome can be influenced by

such factors as the likelihood of winning, or probability, among other things. In this way,

Bernoulli showed that people would not always bet solely on the basis of the expected

value of a game.

Out of his analysis, Bernoulli proposed a utility function to explain peoples

choice behaviour. Bernoulli assumed that people tried to maximize their utility, and not

their expected value. Bernoullis function proposed that utility was not merely a linear

function of wealth, but rather a subjective, concave, evaluation of outcome. The concave

shape of the function introduced the notion of decreasing marginal utility, whereby changes

farther away from the starting point have less impact than those which are closer to it. For

example, Bernoullis utility function argues that $1 is a lot compared with nothing; people

will therefore be reluctant to part with this dollar. However, $101 is not significantly

different to most people than $100. Thus, people are more willing to part with their

hundred- dollar than with their only one.


3/35

Because Bernoullis concave utility function assumed that increments in utility

decreased with increasing wealth, the expected utility model implicitly assumed risk

aversion. Specifically, Bernoulli argued that a person would prefer a sure outcome over a

gamble with an equal expected value. In other words, people would prefer $100 for sure

over a gamble that paid $200 or nothing on the toss of a fair coin.

Bernoullis model was the beginning of utility theory. As such, it combined a

mixture of descriptive and normative elements. The description seemed sensible, and the

normative implications merely represented the idea that caution constituted the better part

of prudence. To the extent that Bernoulli assumed that people are typically risk averse, he

explained this behaviour in terms of peoples attitudes toward the value of the payoff,

rather than in terms of the phenomenon of risk-taking behaviour itself. Peoples attitudes

toward risk were posited as a by-product of their attitude toward value.

Two centuries later, von Neumann and Morgenstern revolutionized Bernoullis

expected utility theory by advancing the notion of revealed preferences.In developing an

axiomatic theory of utility, von Neumann and Morgenstern turned Bernoullis suppositions

upside down and used preferences to derive utility. In Bernoullis model, utility was used

to denote preference, because people were assumed to prefer the option that presented the

highest utility. In the von Neumann and Morgenstern model, utility describes preferences;

knowing the utility of an option informs an observer of a players preferences. Von

Neumann and Morgensterns axioms do not determine an individuals preference ordering,

but they do impose certain constraints on the possible relationships between the

individuals preferences. In von Neumann and Morgensterns theory, as long as the

relationship between an individuals preferences satisfies certain axioms such as

consistency and coherence, it became possible to construct an individual utility function for

that person; such a function could then be used to demonstrate a persons pursuit of his

maximum subjective utility.


4/35

This shift in utility theory toward revealed preferences allowed room now for

different people to have different preference orderings. In von Neumann and Morgensterns

model of subjective expected utility, there is no clear distinction between normative and

descriptive aspects. As mentioned, Bernoulli combined these elements, because risk

aversion was assumed to offer prudent counsel. In von Neumann and Morgensterns model,

it was assumed that axiomatic subjective expected utility is not only the way rational

people should behave, but do behave.

People seek to maximize their subjective expected utility; one person may not share

the same utility curve as another, but each follows the same normative axioms in striving

toward their individually defined maximum subjective expected utility.


5/35

Background

Prospect Theory

Given by Daniel Kahneman And Amos Tversky

Prospect Theory is a theory that describes decisions between alternatives that

involve risk where the probabilities are known. The model is descriptive: it tries to model

real-life choices, rather than optimal decisions.

The theory was developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1979 as a

psychologically realistic alternative to expected utility theory. It allows one to describe

how people make choices in situations where they have to decide between alternatives that

involve risk (e.g., in financial decisions). Starting from empirical evidence, the theory

describes how individuals evaluate potential losses and gains.

Tversky and Kahneman have demonstrated in numerous highly controlled experiments

that most people systematically violate all of the basic axioms of subjective expected utility

theory in their actual decision-making behavior at least some of the time.These findings run

contrary to the normative implications inherent within classical subjective expected utility

theories. In response to their findings, Tversky and Kahneman provided an alternative,

empirically supported, theory of choice, one that accurately describes how people actually

go about making their decisions. This model is called prospect theory. In short, prospect

theory predicts that individuals tend to be risk averse in a domain of gains, or when things

are going well, and relatively risk seeking in a domain of losses, as when a leader is in the

midst of a crisis.

Tversky and Kahneman applied psychophysical principles to investigate judgment and

decision making. Just as people are not aware of the processing the brain engages in to

translate vision into sight, they are not aware of the kinds of computations the brain makesin editing and evaluating choice. People make decisions according to how their brains

process and understand information and not solely on the basis of the inherent utility that a

certain option possesses for a decision maker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahnemanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Tverskyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_utility_hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_(finance)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahnemanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Tverskyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_utility_hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_(finance)


6/35

Disposition Effect

Given by Shefrin and Statman

Aversion to loss realization this behavioural pattern can be placed into a widertheoretical framework concerning a general disposition to sell winners too early and hold

losers to long. They examined the decisions to realize gains and loses in a market setting.

Specifically with focus on financial markets to determine whether investors exhibit

reluctance to realize loses.

Statement of the problem

Behaviour of investors under risk in profit and loss situation in Pune city

Theoretical Framework

Uncertainty Certainty

Profit Avoid Risk Generally select

Loss Take Risk Generally avoid

As seen in the above payoff matrix we can see that the assumption on the basis of the

theory given by Kahneman and Tversky in profit situation under uncertainty is that people

avoid risk and go for profit output having certainty.

Similarly in loss situation in uncertainty people generally take risk and generally avoid loss

with certainty.


7/35

PROSPECT THEORY:

Prospect Theory given by Kahneman and Tversky.

The prospect theory implies that decision makers tend to risk aversion when choosing

between gains and risk seeking when choosing between losses.

i.e. decision makers avoid risk in probable profit situations and seek risk in probable loss

situation.

DISPOSITION EFFECT:

Disposition effect states that The tendency of investors to hold losing investments

too long and sell winning investments too soon

This is given Stefrin and Statman. Further this theory is utilized by other people.

The disposition effect was used by Terrance Odean to prove this effect, he used secondary

data collection method for performing analysis.

Linking the prospect theory with Disposition effect

Prospect theory: Avoid risk in profit situation.

Disposition effect: sell winning investment to avoid risk of falling prices.

Prospect theory: Seek risk in loss situation.

Disposition effect: hold on to losing investment in the hope that prices may rise subject to

the risk that the prices may fall even more.

We could analyze this on the response of the sample group i.e. the investors and then we

could segregate it based on the age ( 3 groups: below 30, 30-50 and above 50)

Again segregate on the basis of gender and carry out analysis to check if the responses

vary with marital status.

Significance of the study


8/35

Behavioural Economics is a newer branch of Economics and it is gaining importance.

Behavioural Finance is following in the footsteps of Behavioural Economics. It has

extreme importance in todays world. The psychology of every person determines his

decisions in economic and financial transactions. Analysis of behaviour helps in

understanding the general pattern of the population. This analysis helps in every walk of

life. Understanding human tendency is of great importance and equally challenging.

II LITERATURE REVIEW


9/35

Victor Ricciardi and Helen K. Simon

Business, Education and Technology Journal

Fall 2000

While conventional academic finance emphasizes theories such as modern portfolio theory

and the efficient market

Hypothesis, the emerging field of behavioural finance investigates the psychological and

sociological issues that impact

The decision-making process of individuals, groups, and organizations. This paper will

discuss some general principles

Of behavioural finance including the following: overconfidence, financial cognitive

dissonance, the theory of

Regret and prospect theory. In conclusion, the paper will provide strategies to assist

individuals to resolve these mental

Mistakes and errors by recommending some important investment strategies for those

who invest in stocks and

Behavioural Finance

Robert Bloomfield

Cornell University

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

October, 2006

Behavioural finance began as an attempt to understand why financial markets react

inefficiently to public information. One stream of behavioural finance examines how

psychological forces induce traders and managers to make suboptimal decisions, and how

these decisions affect market behaviour. Another stream examines how economic forces

might keep rational traders from exploiting apparent opportunities for profit. Behavioural

finance remains controversial, but will become more widely accepted if it can predict

deviations from traditional financial models without relying on too many ad hoc

assumptions.


10/35

Mounting evidence suggests that a variety of trading strategies generate returns that

are larger than permitted by the reigning theory of efficient financial markets. Defenders of

efficient markets theory argue that the anomalies represent methodological errors, and in

many cases they appear to have been correct; in cases where the anomalies appear robust,

the debates turn to two other questions. First, why would investors make systematic trading

errors that could result in mispricing? Second, why wouldnt smarter traders exploit those

errors, thereby driving prices to appropriate levels? Many answers to the first question have

relied heavily on the branch of psychology called behavioural decision theory, which has

led to the entire body of research being dubbed behavioural finance, even though there is

rarely much behavioural content in the literatures identifying pricing anomalies and

explaining why price errors are not eliminated by smarter traders.

The next section of this article discusses the empirical evidence that market prices deviate

from levels that would reflect perfectly rational traders acting in competitive markets (the

anomalies literature). I then discuss literatures that document how behavioural forces can

explain these anomalies, and that examine why irrational traders might influence prices in

competitive markets. I conclude by suggesting some promising future directions in

behavioural finance.

The Influence of Investor Psychology on Disposition Effect

Pi-Chuan Sun, Shu Chun Hsiao

Associate Professor, Department of Business Management, Tatung

University,

Market hypothesis (EMH). Previous studies (e.g., Bernartzi and Thaler, 1995) related to

behavioral model suggest that certain market anomalies are consistent with the presence of

irrational trades by investors. Kahn man and Tversky (1979) proposed the prospect theory

as an alternative to expected utility in describing investor behavior.

Based on previous works (Lichtenstein, Fischhoff and Phillips, 1982; Shefrin and Statman,

1985) this research examined the influences of overconfidence, mental accounting, regret

aversion and self-control on the disposition effect of selling winners too early and holding

losers too long. The results of empirical data analysis of 290 investors In 1980s, many


11/35

empirical researches findings (i.e., Shiller(1984), Thaler (1985) et al. ) did not support

efficient indicate that all four psychological factors have significant influences on the

disposition effect. The findings show that overconfidence, mental accounting and self-

control positively influence the disposition effect, and self-control negatively influences the

disposition effect. As predicted, self control can reduce irrational behavior of investor.

Market efficiency, long term returns, And behavioural finance

Eugene F. Fama

June 1997

Market efficiency survives the challenge from the literature on long term return anomalies

consistent with the market efficiency hypothesis that the anomalies are change results

apparent over reactions to information is about as a common as under reaction and post

event reversal. Most important consistent with the market efficiency prediction that

apparent anomalies can be due to methodology most long term returns anomalies tend to

disappear with reasonable changes in technology.

Behavioral Finance

Jay R. Ritter

Cordell Professor of Finance

University of Florida

(September 2003)

This article provides a brief introduction to behavioral finance. Behavioral finance

encompasses research that drops the traditional assumptions of expected utility

maximization with rational investors in efficient markets. The two building blocks of

behavioral finance are cognitive psychology (how people think) and the limits to arbitrage

(when markets will be inefficient).


12/35

The growth of behavioral finance research has been fueled by the inability of the traditional

framework to explain many empirical patterns, including stock market bubbles in Japan,

Taiwan, and the U.S.

Are Investors reluctant to realize their losses?

Terrance Odean

Oct 1998

I test the disposition effect, the tendency of investors to hold losing investment too long

and sale winning investments too soon, by analyzing trading records for ten thousand

accounts at larger discount brokerage house. These investors demonstrate a strong

preference for realizing winners rather than losers. Their behavior doesnt appear to be

motivated by a desire to rebalance port folios, or to avoid higher trading cost of low price

stocks nor it is justified by subsequent port folio performance. For tangable investments, it

is sub optional and leads to lower after tax returns.

A SURVEY OF BEHAVIORAL FINANCE

Nicholas Barberis

Richard Thaler

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH

1050 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02138

September 2002

Behavioural finance argues that some financial phenomena can plausibly be understood

using

models in which some agents are not fully rational. The field has two building blocks:

limits to

arbitrage, which argues that it can be difficult for rational traders to undo the dislocations

caused by less rational traders; and psychology, which catalogues the kinds of deviations


13/35

from full rationality we might expect to see. We discuss these two topics, and then present

a number of behavioural finance applications: to the aggregate stock market, to the cross-

section of average returns, to individual trading behaviour, and to corporate finance. We

close by assessing progress in the field and speculating about its future course.

A SURVEY OF B.F. NICHOLAS BARBERIS &RICHARD THALES

B.F. argues that some financial phenomena can plausibly be understood using models in

which some agents are not fully rational. The field has two building blocks limits to

arbitrage, which argues that it can be different for rational , traders and psychological

which catalogues the kinds of deviations. From full rationality we might expect to see. We

discuss these two topics and then present a number of behavioural finance applications to

the aggregate stock market to the cross section of average returns to individual trading

behaviour and to corporate finance . we close by assessing progress in the field and

speculating about its further course.

III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY


14/35

HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis 1

. Ho= The investors do not behave in accordance with the Prospect Theory

Hypothesis 2

Ho= The investors do display the disposition effect.

Hypothesis 3

Ho= The behavior under risk is independent on gender, age and marital status.

Objectives:

1) To analyze whether the investors averse risk in profit situation and take risk in loss

situation.

2) To analyze whether the investors sell their wining investments too early and hold on to

their losing investments too long.

3) To analyze whether the behavior is dependent on gender or age.

Type of Research

The type of research used is Descriptive research since the survey was carried out.

The main characteristic of this research is that, the researcher has no control over the

variables, he can only report and analyse the responses. The research is also a quantitative

research.


15/35

Research Method

The type of research method used for the analysis is Field Research, the method

used is questionnaire and the techniques include analysis of the choices provided by the

subjects in order to check their consistency with the hypothesis mentioned above.

Subjects were given the questionnaires with 9 questions. All the questions had their

options as either 1 or 2. Subjects were told to choose their answers and mark them on the

questionnaire itself. Questionnaire is the easiest and efficient form of collecting the primary

data from the subjects that directly reveals their choice. It makes the analysis more

efficient.

Sample Size

Two hundred investors were chosen as samples. Categorized into male and female

falling into three different age groups.

Sampling Technique

Sampling technique used is purposive sampling.

Analysis

We use the chi square to analyze if risk taking behavior is dependent or independent of

gender, age and marital status.

We have used binomial distribution for the questions based on shares leading to the

disposition effect.


16/35

IV RESEARCH DESIGN

We divided the samples on the basis of gender, their marital status and age.

Question wise design

Q1) Two options for winning were given the first was uncertainty of winning higher

amount and the second was certainty of winning lesser amount

80% probability of winning Rs.40,000 and 100% certainty of Rs.30,000.

Q2) Two options were given, these two options were coded in terms of loss but were

actually winning situations. Uncertainty of winning nothing and certainty of winning a

certain amount.

Given Rs.40,000 select either of the options 80% -Rs.40,000 and 100% -Rs.30,000.

Q3) In this question also in the first option profit probabilities are fragmented with only 1%

uncertainty and the second option is certainty of winning.

33% Rs.25,000

66% Rs.24,000

1% Rs.0

100% Rs.24,000


17/35

Q4) Two winning situations are given with different probabilities. One with higher gain

and higher risk and second with lesser gain and lower risk.

1/6 th probability of winning 5000 and 1/2 probability of winning 2500

Q5) Two losing situations are given with different probabilities. One with higher loss and

lower risk and second with lesser loss and greater risk.

1/6 th probability of losing 5000 and 1/2 probability of losing 2500

Q6) Two probabilities in loss situation given involving human lives

1/3 rd possibility that 400 people will die and 100 people will die with certainty.

The following questions are related to the investment in shares, these questions are to be

answered in terms of yes on no

Q7) If the shares have been bought and the prices increase by 20% then whether the

subjects will sell the shares

Q8) If the shares have been bought and the prices fall by 20% then whether the subjects

will sell the shares.

Q9) If the shares further fall by 12.5% then whether the subjects will sell the shares or hold

onto the shares.


18/35

ANALYSIS

Hypothesis 1

Ho= The investors do not behave in accordance with the Prospect Theory

Q1) Choose between the two options

o 80% probability of winning Rs 40,000

o 100% probability of winning Rs 30,000

Winning Probability

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 80% probability of 40,000 66 39.3 39.3 39.3

100% probability of 30,000 102 60.7 60.7 100.0

Total 168 100.0 100.0


19/35

As we can see 61% of the subjects would select 100% probability of winning rather than go

for an option which involves risk.

Q2) In addition to whatever you own you have been given Rs 40,000

Choose between the following two options

o -Rs 40,000, 20%

o -Rs 10,000, 100%

Losing probability


Cumulative

Percent

Valid -40,000 80% 104 61.9 61.9 61.9

-10,000 100% 64 38.1 38.1 100.0

Total 168 100.0 100.0


20/35

If the given data is given in terms of loss people have a psychological inclination to take

risk.62% people take risk even though the options given are in terms of loss but the

situation is actually profit situation.

Q3) Choose between the two gamble options

o 33% chances of winning Rs 25,000

66 % chances of winning Rs 24,000

1% chances of winning Rs 0

o 100% chances of winning Rs 24,000


21/35

Gamble selection


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 33% 25000,66%24000,1%0 82 48.8 48.8 48.8

100% 24000 86 51.2 51.2 100.0

Total 168 100.0 100.0

In this given case the options given were winning probability with only 1% risk involved of

not winning anything but even then we cannot see a significant inclination of subjects

towards risk taking. There are 86 subjects out of 168 who would still go for certainty when

it comes to a winning situation.. 51.1% still go for certainty

The following two games of dice show varying degrees of risk involved in the winning and

losing situations.


22/35

Q4) There are two games of dice, following possibilities are there in the games when the

dice is thrown. Which game would you play?

o 1/6 probability of winning 5000.

o 1/2 probability of winning 2500.

Dice winning


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1/6 5000 51 30.4 30.4 30.4

1/2 2500 117 69.6 69.6 100.0

Total 168 100.0 100.0

In the winning situation people take lesser risk even though the winning amount is that

of the option with higher risk involvement.

70% of the people take less risk when it comes to gains


23/35

Q5) There are two games of dice, which one would you play?

o 1/6 probability of losing 5000

o 1/2 probability of losing 2500

Dice losing


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1/6 5000 93 55.4 55.4 55.4

1/2 2500 75 44.6 44.6 100.0

Total 168 100.0 100.0


24/35

In the losing situation subjects are not following a distinct pattern towards risk take, the

risk appetite in this situation differs by a small margin. We can thus conclude that when

both options involve risk taking the subjects behave in a random manner.

Thus we can conclude that people tend to avoid risk in gains and take risks in losses.

This is in accordance with the prospect theory.

Thus hypothesis1,

Ho= The investors do not behave in accordance with the Prospect Theory, is not proved

Hence we can conclude that the investors tend to take risk in loss situation and risk averse

in profit situation.


25/35

Hypothesis 2

Ho= The investors display the disposition effect.

We have used the binomial distribution to test the responses to the questions on shares

Q7) If you have bought shares at Rs 100 and if the current rate is Rs 120.

Will you sell the shares, if there is a 50% probability that the rate will further increase?

o Yes

o No

Shares profit


Cumulative

Percent

Valid yes 93 55.4 55.4 55.4

no 75 44.6 44.6 100.0

Total 168 100.0 100.0


26/35

As we can see from the above chart 55.35% people will sell the share after the value

appreciates by 20%

I) For shares involving gains, values for binomial distribution are

p.m.f =2.35x10 -2

actual p.m.f=6.15x10^-2

There is no significant difference between the p.m.f and actual p.m.f

Q8) If you have bought shares at Rs 100 and if the current rate is Rs 80.

Will you sell the share, if there is a 50% probability that the rate will fall and 50%

probability that rate will increase?

o Yes

o No


27/35

Shares loss


Cumulative

Percent

Valid yes 62 36.9 36.9 36.9

no 106 63.1 63.1 100.0

Total 168 100.0 100.0

64 % people will not sell the shares, Subjects are reluctant to realize their losses.

II) For shares involving loss, values for binomial distribution are

p.m.f=6.3x10^-2


There is some significant difference between the p.m.f and actual p.m.f values

So the subjects have not made random choices. They have more inclination towards not

realizing the loss


28/35

Q9) If the shares further falls to 70 and there is a 50% probability that the rate might

increase and 50% probability that the rate will fall. Will you sell the shares?

o Yes

o No

Share further loss


Cumulative

Percent

Valid yes 95 56.5 56.5 56.5

no 73 43.5 43.5 100.0

Total 168 100.0 100.0

III) For shares whose value falls further falls the values are

p.m.f=3.64x10^-5



29/35

There is some significant difference between the p.m.f and actual p.m.f values

So the subjects have not made random choices. They have more inclination towards not

realizing the loss even when the prices of shares further falls by 12.5%

Thus hypothesis2,

Ho= The investors behave in accordance with the Disposition effect, is proved.

Thus, we can conclude investors tend to realize their profits too soon and are reluctant to

realize their losses.


30/35

Hypothesis 3

Ho= The behavior under risk is independent of gender, age and marital status

Gender

o Female

o Male

Gender


Cumulative

Percent

Valid female 63 37.5 37.5 37.5

male 105 62.5 62.5 100.0

Total 168 100.0 100.0

Gender * Dice winning Crosstabulation

Count

Dice winning

Total1/6 5000 1/2 2500

Gender female 21 42 63

male 30 75 105

Total 51 117 168


31/35

Age

o Below 30

o 30 50

o 50 and above

Age


Cumulative

Percent

Valid below 30 106 63.1 63.1 63.1

30-50 41 24.4 24.4 87.5

Above 50 21 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 168 100.0 100.0

Age * Dice winning Crosstabulation

Count

Dice winning

Total1/6 5000 1/2 2500

Age below 30 32 74 106

30-50 11 30 41

Above 50 8 13 21

Total 51 117 168


32/35


33/35

Marital Status

o Single

o Married

Marital status


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Single 93 55.4 55.4 55.4

Married 75 44.6 44.6 100.0

Total 168 100.0 100.0


34/35

CHI SQUARE TEST

Chi square test was carried out for age and risk taking nature in profit situation, the result

obtained was as follows

The difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Similarly chi square test was carried out for age criteria and marital status the difference in

these cases also was not statistically significant.

CORRELATION

Correlation test was carried out for loss situation to check if there is correlation between

age, marital status and risk taking in loss situation.

According to the table above there is slight negative correlation.

Thus, hypothesis 3

Ho= The behavior under risk is dependent on gender, age and marital status

is not proved


35/35

CONCLUSION

We thus conclude that,

The investors averse risk in profit situation and take risk in loss situation.

The investors hold on to their losing investments too long.

The behavior is independent of gender, age and marital status .

Behaviour of Investors Under Risk in Profit and Loss Situations in Pune City

Documents

Transcript of Behaviour of Investors Under Risk in Profit and Loss Situations in Pune City