Page 1 of 13

A STUDY ON RISK PERCEPTION AND PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT OF EQUITY

INVESTORS IN TIRUCHIRAPPALLI CITY
1

K.Prabhakaran & P.Karthika

1
Assistant Professor, RVS Faculty of Management, Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu, India.
2
Assistant Professor, Maharaja Prithvi Engineering College, Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu,
India.
Abstract
Identifying key factors influencing individual investors decision to make portfolio
choices is important to understand their different investment behavior. This paper explores
individual investors preference for portfolio choices and provisionally investigates impacts of
risk tolerance and risk perception on their investment decision. Specifically we decide socioeconomic status difference in investment preference for portfolio choices with respect to
investors age, income level. Using chi-square analysis on investment experiments to obtain
some evidences from a sample of 200 respondents in survey; our results indicate that investors
decisions to make their portfolio choices are significantly and negatively related to personal
income level. This finding implicates that investor with higher risk tolerance level shows higher
likelihood to make their investment decision on portfolio choices it is found that male investor
demonstrates much preference on portfolio choices with higher percentage of total return.
Keywords : Portfolio Management, Risk Perception, Equity Investors, Risk Management.

Introduction

Portfolio management concerns

the constructions and maintenance of a
collection of investment. It is investment of
funds in different securities in which the
total risk of the portfolio is minimized, while
expecting maximum return from it. It
primarily involves reducing risk rather than
increasing return. Return is obviously
important though, and the ultimate objective
of portfolio manager is to achieve a chosen
level of return by incurring the least possible
risk.

Determinants of risk attitudes of

individual investors are of great interest in a
growing area of finance known as behavioral
finance. Behavioral finance focuses on the
individual attributes, Psychological or
otherwise, that shape common financial and
investment practices. Unlike traditional
assumptions
of
expected
utility
maximization with rational investors in
efficient markets, behavioral finance
assumes people are normal. Despite great
interest in this area, not much research looks
at the underlying factors that may lead to
individual differences and play a significant
role in determining peoples financing and
investment strategies in emerging markets.

theory
Study of risk perception and its impact on
investment behavior is one of the core
Review of related Literature
In this section, the literature review
including three parts. First, behavior
finance perspective of individual investor.
Second,
individual
investors
risk
perception, risk tolerance and portfolio
choice. Third, individual investors socioeconomic status differential and risk
tolerance. The results for gender,
education level and income level are
consistent with the earlier literature.
Previous literature indicating those factors
on risk-taking and risk tolerance are
gender, age, marital status, occupation,
income level, education level and
economic environments expectations,
which might influence an individual
investors level of risk taking, but the
factor of education level might not. Those
studies are classified by three catalogers.

Behavior Finance Perspective of Individual

Investor

As a result of traditional finance

theory appears to play a limited role in
understanding this issues such as (1) why
do individual investors trade, (2) how do
they perform the task, (3) how do they
choose their portfolios to conform their
conditions, and (4) why do returns vary so
quickly even across stocks for reasons
other than risk. In the new arena of
behavior finance or so-called behavior
economic, we could to interpret about
individual investors behave in their invest
choice more completely. Most of
behavioral finance researchers often
claimed that the reality results presents no
unified theory unlike traditional finance

appears
utility

expected

Page 2 of 13

investigation issues of behavioral finance

research.
maximizations using rational beliefs. Its
means those scholars in this field actually
postulate whole investors in financial
market are rationales; they cant influenced
through any factors only maximum profit
for themselves. Most authors show
behavior finance perspective on individual
investor, such as Deaux and Emswiller
(1974), Lenney (1977), Maital et al. (1986),
Thaler and Johnson (1990) and Beyer and
Bowden (1997). Those authors are to
exclaim that individual investor would
demonstrate different risk attitude when
facing investment alternatives. Later
instruction in our research, we called risk
perception and risk tolerance of individual
investor. Comparing with previously

research, current study is to focus on

external factors and psychological factors
how to affect investors investment
decision a nd portfolio choice. For
instance, Annaert et al. (2005), Wang et al.
(2006) indicate the impact of information
asymmetric problem on investor behave,
this is another subject in behavioral
finance field. Most of these researches are
pay close attention to behavioral finance,
especially in financial products choices
(investment) and behave of individual
investor invest related.

Risk Perception, Risk Tolerance and

Portfolio Choice

Financial risk tolerance is defined

as the maximum amount of uncertainty
that someone is willing to accept when
making a financial decision. Although the
importance of assessing financial risk
tolerance is well documented, in practice
the assessment
Hallahan et al., (2004).

process tends to be very difficult due to the

subjective nature of risk taking (the risk of
investor willing to reveal their risk
tolerance) and objective factors such as
Grable and Joo (1997), Grable and Lytton
(1999), and Grable (2000).
Risk tolerance represents one persons
attitude towards taking risk. This indicated
is an important concept that has implications
for both financial service providers (asset
management institution or other financial
planner) and consumers (investors). For the
latter, risk tolerance is one factor which may
determine the appropriate composition of
many assets in a portfolio which is optimal
and satisfied investors invest preference in
terms of risk and return relative to the needs
of the individual investors Droms, (1987),

There are some empirical evidence showing

the impact of risk perception; risk tolerance and
socio-economic on portfolio choice, for
instance, Carducci and Wong (1998), Grable
and Joo (1997), Grable and Lytton (1999),
Grable (2000), Hallahan et al., (2003), Hallahan
et al., (2004), Frijns et al., (2008), and Veld and
Veld-Merkoulova (2008). In terms of different
risk perception or risk tolerance level, individual
investor may show different reaction base upon
their psychology factor and economic situation,
which would lead to heterogeneous portfolio
choice for individual investors. For this reason,
it is crucial to recognize and attitudinal how
individual investors with different risk
perceptions and risk tolerance make their invest
products choice on investment plan, in
particular socio-economic status differentials
may make their choice vary and difference.

Page 3 of 13

Investors Socio-Economic Status and

Risk Tolerance

Some researchers have indicated

that the validity of widely used
demographics as determinants of risk
tolerance is noteworthy as the
relationship between socio-economic
status differences including gender, age,
income level, net assets, marital status,
educational level and investment
decision or portfolio choice. With regard
to the financial risk tolerance literatures,
there is much interest in the demographic
determinants
and
risk
attention
(involving three risk types: risk aversion,
risk moderate and risk seeking) is
particularly focused on age, gender,
education level, income level, marital
status, the number of dependents and net
assets. Specifically, although debate

remains on some issues, a range of common

findings are generally observed. There are
five phenomenons in socio-economic status
variables differential and portfolio choice as
the following: First, risk tolerance decreases
with age (e.g., Morin and Suarez 1983;
Roszkowski, Snelbecker, and Leimberg
1993). Second, females have a lower
preference for risk than males (e.g.,
Roszkowski, Snelbecker, and Leimberg
1993; Grable 2000). Third, risk tolerance
increases with education level (e.g.,
Roszkowski, Snelbecker, and Leimberg
1993; Haliassos and Bertaut 1995). Fourth,
risk tolerance increases with income level
and net assets (e.g., Cohn et al. 1975;
Roszkowski, Snelbecker, and Leimberg
1993; Bernheim, Skinner, and Weinberg
2001). Fifth, single (i.e., unmarried)
investors are more risk tolerant than married
(e.g.,
Roszkowski,
Snelbecker,
and
Leimberg 1993).
investors

Objectives of the Study

To find out the risk perception of
equity
investors
in
Tiruchirappalli city
To bring out the importance of
portfolio management of equity
investors
To know about the Investors
knowledge and experience of
investing in equities
Scope of the Study
It relates
equities

to

investment

in

Understanding of customer / or
investors about the equities
It also help us to know the port
folio management of equity

Page 4 of 13

Source of Data
The task of collecting data begins
after a research problem has been defined
and plan is chalked out for this study data is
collected from primary and secondary
sources.
Research Plan

Data source: Primary and Secondary

Data

Research Approach: Survey Method

Research Instrument:

Questionnaire

Contact Method: Direct-Personal

Sample Size: 200

Sampling Technique: Simple Random

Sampling

Data Analysis of the Study

Type of Investment Preferred and Time taken for Evaluation of Performance of
Investment by the Respondents
Table - 1
Type of
No. of
Period of
No. of
Sl. No
%
Investment
Respondents
Time
Respondents
1
Bonds
51
25.50
Monthly
71
2
Equities
91
45.50
Quarterly
42
3
Bank Deposits
58
29.00
Annually
50
4
T-Bills
0
0.00
Over 5 Years
37
Total
200
100.00
Total
200

From the above table, it shows that 45.5% of

the respondents preferred Equity type of
investments, 29% of the respondents
preferred Bank Deposits and 25.5% of the
respondents preferred bonds type of
investment. No one prefers T Bills. , it is
clear that 35.5% of the respondents judge

%
35.50
21.00
25.00
18.50
100.00

the performance of investment in a month,

25% of the respondents judge the
performance of investment, 21% of the
respondents judge the performance of
investment Quarterly and 18.5% of the
respondents take over 5 years to judge the
performance of the investment.

Page 5 of 13

Performance about their Financial Future and age from which the Respondents
are investing
Table - 2
Financial
No. of
No. of
Sl. No
%
Age of Investing
%
Future
Respondents
Respondents
1
Very optimistic
45
22.50
Age 80 and Over
35
17.50
2
Positive
68
34.00
Age 70 to 79
46
23.00
3
Unsure
58
29.00
Age 60 to 69
52
26.00
4
Pessimistic
29
14.50
Age 50 to 59
59
29.50
Total
200
100.00
Age under 40
8
4.00
Total
200
100.00
of the respondents have invested in the age
between 60 to 69 years, 23% of the respondents
From the above table, it shows that 34% of the
have invested in the age between 70 to 79 years,
respondents are positive about their financial
and 17.5% of the respondents have invested in
future, 29% of the respondents are unsure,
the age 80 and above. It is revealing that people
22.5% of the respondents are very optimistic
under 40 years only 4% have been investing.
about their financial future and 14.5% of the
respondents are Pessimistic. It is found that
29.5% of the respondents have invested in age
between 50 to 59 years, 26%

Understanding comfort level in stock Investing and Investor Perception

Table - 3
Sl. No

Unde rstanding and

Comfort level

No. of
Respondents

No Experience in Stock Market

59

29.50

40

20.00

33
45

16.50
22.50

Some Current
Income
High Current
Income
High Total Return
Substantial Return

23

11.50

Total

200

100
have no experience

2
3
4
5

No Experience, but some level

of comfort
Some Experience & Interest
Reasonable Experience
Extensive Background and good
comfort
Total

From the above table, shows that 29.5%

of the respondents have no experience in stock
market, 22.5% of the respondents have
reasonable experience, 20% of the respondents

Best
Statement

No. of
Respondents

54

27

15

82
49

41
24

200

but some level of comfort, 16.5% of the

respondents have some experience and interest
and 11.5% of the respondents are have extensive

background and good comfort. It is found that

41% of the

Page 6 of
13

re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
p
er
c
ei
v
e
hi
g
h
to
ta
l
re
tu
r
n
a
s
th
e
b
e
st
st
at
e
m
e
nt
,
2
7
%
o
f

th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
p
er
c
ei
v
e
s
o
m
e
c
u
rr
e
nt
in
c
o
m
e
a
n
d
ar
e
v
er
y

s
ar
e
p
er
c
ei
v
e
s
u
b
st
a
nt
ia
l
re
tu
r
n.

s
af
e,
2
4.
5
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt

Attitude about
Financial Risk
Table - 4
Sl. No

1
2
3

D
I Only inve
Ass
The Higher

From the above

41% of the respondent
playing in the stock m
respondents have div

Sl. No
1
2

r
o

An

m
th
e
a
b
o
v
e
ta
bl
e,
s
h
o
w
s
th
at
5
0.
5
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
d
o
n
ot
h
a
v
e
a
n
y
p
o
rt
f
ol
io

a
ct
iv
it
ie
s
a
n
d
4
9.
5
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
ar
e
h
a
vi
n
g
p
o
rt
f
ol
io
a
ct
iv
it
ie
s.

Risk Tolera
Sl. No

Risk Toleran

1
2

More Willingn
Less Willingn
Risk factors ha
influence
4
Total

3
4

F
r
o
m
th
e
a
b
o
v
e
ta
bl
e,
it
s
h
o
w
s
th
at
f
o
r
3
6
%
o
f
th

e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
ri
s
k
fa
ct
o
r
h
a
s
n
o
in
fl
u
e
n
c
e
si
n
c
e
th

e
ti
m
e
o
f
fi
rs
t
in
v
e
st
m
e
nt
,
3
4.
5
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
h
a
v
e
le
ss
w
il
li
n

g
n
e
ss
to
ta
k
e
o
n
ri
s
k,
2
9.
5
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
h
a
v
e
n
o
id
e
a
a
b
o
ut
ri

s
k
.
It
is
in
fe
rr
e
d
th
at
4
0.
5
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s

P
a
g
e
7
o
f
1
3

w
o
ul
d
w
ai
t
f
o
r
m
ar
k
et
tu
r
n
ar
o
u
n
d,
2
8
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d

e
nt
s
w
o
ul
d
i
m
m
e
di
at
el
y
li
q
ui
d
at
e
a
n
d
m
o
v
e
to
a
m
o
re
st
a
bl
e
in
v
e
st
m
e
nt

,
2
2.
5
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
w
il
l
m
o
v
e
at
7
5
0
0
0
f
o
r
st
a
bl
e
in
v
e
st
m
e

nt
a
n
d
9
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
w
il
l
m

o
v
e
at
9
0
0
0
0
f
o
r
st
a
bl
e
in
v
e
st
m
e
nt

Time Horizon for Withdrawals and

G
r
o
w
t
h
E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
O
f
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e

n
t
i
n
5
Y
e
a
r
s
T
a
b
l
e
7

Time Horizo
withdraw

Sl. No
1

Currentl

Less than 3 Y

Between 6 to 1

After 15 Y
Total

F
r
o
m
th
e
a
b
o
v
e
ta
bl
e,
it
is
f
o
u

n
d
th
at
3
5
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s

w
il
l
m
a
k
e
w
it
h
d
ra
w
al
s
b
et
w
e
e
n
6
to
1
5
y
e
ar
s,
3
2.
5
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e

nt
s
c
u
rr
e
nt
ly
n
e
e
d
to
m
a
k
e
w
it
h
d
ra
w
al
s,
1
8
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
w
il
l

w
it
h
d
ra
w
in
le
ss
th
a
n
3
y
e
ar
s
a
n
d
1
4.
5
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
w
il
l
w
it
h
d

ra
w
af
te
r
1
5
y
e
ar
s.
It
is
cl
e
ar
th
at
2
8.
5
%
o
f
th
e

re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
e
x
p
e
ct
th
ei
r
in
v
e
st
m
e
nt
to
g
r
o
w
fr
o
m
3
0
%
t
o
5
0
%
,
2
6
%

o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
e
x
p
e
ct
th
ei
r
in
v
e
st
m
e
nt
to
g
r
o
w
fr
o
m
0
to
1
5
%
,
2
3

%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
e
x
p
e
ct
a
g
r
o
w
th
a
b
o
v
e
5
0
%
a
n
d
2
2.

5
%
o
f
th
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
nt
s
e
x
p
e
ct
a
g
r
o
w
th
fr
o
m
1
5
%
t
o
3
0
%
.
Shar
ing
Info
rma
tion
abo

ut
Risk
with
Con
sulta
nt,
Lear
ns
from
Risk
and
Mea
sure
to
Control Risk
Table 8

F
r
o
m
t
h
e
a
b
o
v
e
ta
b
le
,
it
is
f
o
u
n
d
t
h

Sl. No

Feel Free

1
2
3

Yes
No
Total

at
6
3.
5
%
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
ts
f
e
el
fr
e
e
t

o
s
h
a
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
at
i
o
n
o
n
ri
s
k
w
it
h
c
o
n
s
u
lt
a
n
t
a
n
d

3
6.
5
%
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
ts
d
o
n
o
t
f
e
el
fr
e
e
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
at
i
o
n
w

it
h
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
u
lt
a
n
t.
It
is
f
o
u
n
d
t
h
at

6
4.
5
%
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
ts
d
o
n
o
t

learn from their risk

respondents learn from
shows that 55.5% of r
Chi
Age of
Investing
income level
Rs.5000
Rs.5000 to Rs.6000
Rs.6000 to Rs.7000
Rs.7000 to Rs.8000
Above Rs.8000
Grand Total
N
u
l
l
H
y
p
o
t
h
e
s
i
s
(
H
0

)
:

N
o
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h

i
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
I
n
c
o
m
e
a
n
d
A
g
e
o
f
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
n
g
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
H
y
p
o
t
h
e
s
i
s
(
H
1

)
:
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a

C
l
o
s
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
I
n
c
o
m
e
a
n
d
A
g
e
o
f
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
n
g
.

factor

calcula

Income Level
It is noted from the
calculated Chi-square

Page 9 of 13

Chi Square Analysis for Income Level and Performance of Investment

Table - 10
Performance of
Investment
Monthly Quarterly Annually Over 5 Years Grand Total
income level
Below Rs.5000
15
9
15
5
44
Rs.5000 to Rs.6000
16
9
6
8
39
Rs.6000 to Rs.7000
15
10
9
11
45
Rs.7000 to Rs.8000
14
7
9
7
37
Above Rs.8000
11
7
11
6
35
Grand Total
71
42
50
37
200
Null Hypothesis (H0)
Alternate Hypothesis
(H1)

Factor
Incom
e
Level

Calculated chisquare
6.978

: No Significant relationship between

Income level and Performance of investments.
: There is Close Significant relationship
between Income level and Performance of investments

value

Table value

Degree of freedom Remarks

21.026

12

Chart 1.2

Not
Significant

Page 10 of
13

Chi Square Analysis for Income Level And financial Future

Table - 11
Financial future
Very
Positive
Uns ure
Pessimistic
income level Optimistic

Grand
Total

Below Rs.5000

14

14

44

Rs.5000 to Rs.6000

13

14

39

Rs.6000 to Rs.7000

11

13

13

45

Rs.7000 to Rs.8000

16

37

Above Rs.8000
Grand Total

6
45

11
68

13
58

5
29

35
200

Null Hypothesis (H0)

Alternate Hypothesis (H1)

factor
Income Level

: No Significant relationship between

Income level and Financial Future.
: There is Close Significant relationship
between Income level and Financial Future

Calculated chi-square value

8.267

Table value

Degree of
freedom

Remarks

21.026

12

Not
Significant

Chart 1.3

Page 11 of
13

Chi Square Analysis for Income Level And attitude About Financial Risk
Table - 12
Invest with Associated
Financial Risk
Reduces
Rate of Grand
Extra
with Playing
income level Risk
Returns Total
Money
in the Stock
Below Rs.5000
14
7
19
4
44
Rs.5000
to
15
5
15
4
39
Rs.6000
Rs.6000
to
9
11
16
9
45
Rs.7000
Rs.7000
to
7
7
17
37
Rs.8000
6
Above Rs.8000
6
6
15
8
35
Grand Total
51
36
82
31
200
Null Hypothesis (H0)

Alternate Hypothesis (H1)

Factor
Income Level

: No Significant relationship between

Income level and Financial Risk.
: There is Close Significant relationship
Between Income level and Financial Risk.

Calculated chi-square value

11.505

It is noted from the above table

that the calculated Chi-square value is less

Chart 1.4

Table value
21.026

Degree of
freedom
12

Remarks
Not
Significant

than the table value. So, there is Close

relationship between Income level and
Financial Risk.

Page 12 of
13

Chi Square Analysis for Income Level and Risk Tolerance

Table - 13
Risk
Tolerance
Income Level
Below Rs.5000
Rs.5000 to Rs.6000
Rs.6000 to Rs.7000
Rs.7000 to Rs.8000
Above Rs.8000
Grand Total

Less
Risk
No
Willingnes
s
Tolerance Idea
12
19
16
13
9
69

23
7
16
14
12
72

Null Hypothesis (H0)

Alternate Hypothesis
(H1)

Factor
Income Level

Grand
Total

9
44
13
39
13
45
10
37
14
35
59
200
: No Significant relationship
between
Income level and Risk Tolerance.
: There is Close Significant
relationship
Between Income level and Risk Tolerance.

Calculated chi-square value Table value

13.391

15.507

Degree of
freedom

Remarks

Not
Significant

market.
Findings

55% of the respondents are

experienced in the stock market.

not

48.5% of the respondents belong to

the age between 30 years to 60 years
old.
45.5% of the respondents
purchased
Equities
type
investments.

are
of

34% of the respondents are optimistic of

their financial future.

41% of the respondents describe high total

return as best statement.

41% of the respondents are

associated with playing in the stock

28.5% of the respondents are

expecting their growth 30% to 50%.
55.5% of respondents control the risk by
modification.

From the Chi-Square Analysis, It is

clear that there is a close relationship
between Age group and Age of
investing
and
Performance
of

proper guidance can be given to them.

This is to create awareness.

A regular investor friendly seminar can

be organized to suit the timings of the
investing public. For instance, Such seminars
can be interactive sessions, arranged at
frequent intervals.
The newsletters published help
investors. Hence newsletters / bulletins can be
published for guidance.
Efforts should be taken to popularize
Equity
through
appropriate
publicity
measures.
Bibliography

Most of the respondents are not aware of

Portfolio Management. So,
Page 13 of
13

Conclusion
The study is made to find out Risk
perception and portfolio management of equity
investors. The study reveals that the investors
in Tiruchirappalli city are not aware of
portfolio which would minimize risk and
maximize the return. And also it is clear that
the investors in Tiruchirappalli city have low
level of understanding about risk and the
importance of portfolio management as they
are not aware these factors. Hence proper
should to be taken in order to improve the
awareness level in the minds of the investors.

Asai, M. and M. McAleer (2007), Portfolio index GARCH: a class of parsimonious dynamic
covariance models, Unpublished Paper, University of Western Australia.
Bollerslev, T. (1990), modeling the coherence in short-run nominal exchange rates: a multivariate
generalized ARCH model, Review of Economics and Statistics, 72.

Chen, N.F., R. Roll and S.A. Ross (1986), Economic forces and the stock markets, Journal of
Business.
Fama, E.F. and K.R. French (1989), Business conditions and expected returns on stocks and bonds,
Journal of Financial Economics.
F. Modigliani & M.Miller (1958), the Cost of Capital- Corporation Finance and the Theory of
Investment, the American Economic Review, Vol.6.

Freid.D Arditti,(Mar, 1967), Risk and the Required on Equity, Journal of Finance,Vol.22.

From the Chi-Square Analysis, It is

confirmed that there is Close
relationship between Income level
and Financial Future and risk
Suggestions

Campbell, J.Y. (1987), Stock returns and the term structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 18, 373-399.

Alex Kane: (Mar- 1982) Skewness Preferences and Portfolio Choice, Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, Vol 17, No.1.

investments.

Harry Markowitz (1992) Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments, New Haven,
Yale University Press.

Jorion, P. (2000), Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk,

McGraw-Hill, New York.

McAleer, M. (2005), Automated Inference and Learning in Modeling Fina ncial Volatility, Econometric
Theory.

PrasanaChandra (2006) Projects-Planing-Analysis-Seelection-Financing-Implementation-and Review,

Tata McGraw Hill.