Keywords
Fundamental Analysis
Technical Analysis
Peer Influence
Investment satisfaction
How to Cite
Abstract
In the Dynamic Retail Investment Context, it is important to know how stock selection criteria correlate with investor satisfaction and perceived success. The current research examines the effects of three commonly known stock selection approaches—Fundamental Analysis, Technical Analysis, and Peer Pressure—on perceived investment outcomes, in terms of satisfaction with expected returns, risk management confidence, and satisfaction with investment decisions. The research applies theories of behavior and decision-making to formulate and empirically test a conceptual model, using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with a sample of 312 equity investors. The model demonstrates the differential effect of different selection processes on investors' perception. Technical analysis is the strongest predictor of returns satisfaction, indicating that investors desire short-term, empirical measures of their perceived success. Fundamental analysis strongly boosts confidence in risk-taking and decision satisfaction overall but paradoxically demonstrates a negative correlation with satisfaction for returns, and this can be attributed to conservative expectations or delayed outcomes. Social pressure provides poor affective support and has minimal influence on perceived returns or self-confidence, indicating the limitations of investment behavior based on social forces. The results highlight the psychological factors in investing and the necessity of balancing strategies with temperament of investors. The study offers practical implications for policymakers, platforms, and education about finance, who want to promote informed and confident investment participation by retail investors. The research contributes to the knowledge on how investors evaluate success in volatile equity markets by combining both analytical and behavioral factors.
References
1. Bradbury, M. A., Hens, T., & Zeisberger, S. (2015). Improving investment decisions with simulated experience. Review of Finance, 19(3), 1019-1052.https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfu021
2. Brock, W., Lakonishok, J., & LeBaron, B. (1992). Simple technical trading rules. Journal of Finance, 47(5), 1731–1764. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04681.x
3. Caginalp, G., Ilieva, V., Porter, D., & Smith, V. (2002). Do speculative stocks lower prices and increase volatility of value stocks?. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, 3(2), 118-132. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327760JPFM0302_07
4. Chan, L. K., Jegadeesh, N., & Lakonishok, J. (1996). Momentum strategies. The journal of Finance, 51(5), 1681-1713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb05222.x
5. Chang, E. C., Cheng, J. W., & Khorana, A. (2000). An examination of herd behavior in equity markets. Journal of Banking & Finance, 24(10), 1651–1679. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(99)00096-5
6. Chen, X., Li, Q., Cui, W., & Hu, Y. (2023). Institutional investor network embedding and firms’ total factor productivity. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 59(6), 1896-1918 https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2022.2156282 .
7. Dhingra, B., Batra, S., Aggarwal, V., Yadav, M., & Kumar, P. (2024). Stock market volatility: a systematic review. Journal of Modelling in Management, 19(3), 925-952. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-04-2023-0080
8. Garg, A. K., & Varshney, P. (2015). Momentum Effect in Indian Stock Market: A Sectoral Study. Global Business Review, 16(3), 494-510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150915569940
9. Guerard Jr, J. B., Markowitz, H., & Xu, G. (2015). Earnings forecasting in a global stock selection model and efficient portfolio construction and management. International Journal of Forecasting, 31(2), 550-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2014.10.003
10. Lin, H. F. (2015). Linking knowledge management orientation to balanced scorecard outcomes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6), 1224-1249. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2015-0132
11. Ma, C., Au, N., & Ren, L. (2020). Biased minds experience improved decision-making speed and confidence on social media: a heuristic approach. Information Technology & Tourism, 22, 593-624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-020-00184-0
12. Malmendier, U., & Nagel, S. (2016). Learning from inflation experiences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1555–1580. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv037
13. Morgan, J. (2013). Hedge funds: Statistical arbitrage, high frequency trading and their consequences for the environment of businesses. critical perspectives on international business, 9(4), 377-397. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-06-2013-0020
14. Neely, C. J., Weller, P. A., & Ulrich, J. M. (2009). The adaptive markets hypothesis: evidence from the foreign exchange market. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 44(2), 467-488. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109009090103
15. Peng, C. L., Lai, K. L., Chen, M. L., & Wei, A. P. (2015). Investor sentiment, customer satisfaction and stock returns. European Journal of Marketing, 49(5/6), 827-850. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-01-2014-0026
16. Piotroski, J. D. (2000). Value investing: The use of fundamental analysis to anticipate stock returns. Journal of Accounting Research, 38(Supplement), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2672906
17. Savor, P. G. (2012). Stock returns after major price shocks: The impact of information. Journal of financial Economics, 106(3), 635-659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.06.011
18. Silva, E. M., Costa, D. F., & Bortolon, P. M. (2024). Behavioral biases and personal indebtedness: A systematic literature review. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4510972/v1
19. Urquhart, A., & McGroarty, F. (2016). Are stock markets really efficient? Evidence of the adaptive market hypothesis. International Review of Financial Analysis, 47, 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2016.06.011
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 South India Journal of Social Sciences