On the one hand, investors perceive mutual funds to be riskier and a less rewarding investment channel as compared to the risk-free investments, and this leaves them dissatisfied. On the other hand, the volatile market has turned most of the investors to hold stocks with calculated risk, in the shape of mutual funds, to save themselves from the volatile market. Keeping this scenario in mind, understanding the investors' perception of mutual funds has become imperative as mutual funds can now prove to be the most preferred financial avenue, provided they are put forth before investors in the desired form. Investors' purchase decision for mutual funds is influenced by a chain of factors. Out of the list of factors, the perception of risk and satisfaction from returns have been found to be dominant. Other factors accountable for their final decision are quality of service delivered, cost of transaction, name familiarity, and so forth. The present paper aimed to identify the perceived relationship between investors' (respondents) risk, returns, service quality, and investment decisions. Furthermore, it investigated the impact of three factors - the perceived quality of services, name familiarity, and price - on respondents' mutual fund selection decision. It also studied the impact of the respondents' age, income, education, risk and returns perceptions on the choice between various financial avenues. Data were collected from 250 respondents using a structured questionnaire with pre-explained objectives of research. Reliabilities were tested using Cronbach's alpha. Furthermore, ranking and rating methodology was also used to prioritize the respondents' preferences. Chi square statistic was used to establish the factors that were significantly affected by the selected dimensions. Also, step-wise regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of the intention to invest in mutual funds. Facts revealed in this study highlight the preferences of varied investors who desire to invest in mutual funds. The critical gaps identified in the study provide key information inputs regarding the discrepancies in the risk, returns, and service quality perceptions of the respondents, which can be extremely beneficial to AMCs in designing more lucrative solutions to suit their expectations.

1. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personal Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173 - 1182.
2. Berkowitz, M. K., & Kotowitz, Y. (2000). Investor risk evaluation in the determination of management incentives in the mutual fund industry. Journal of Financial Markets, 3 (4), 365-387.
3. Garvin, D. A. (1984). What does “product quality” really mean? Sloan Management Review, 26 (1), 25-39.
4. Goetzman, W. N., & Nadav, P. (1997). Cognitive dissonance and mutual fund investors. The Journal of Financial Research, 20 (2), 145-158.
5. Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1 (1), 11- 27.
6. Kothari, R., & Sharma, N. (2009). Defining and measuring the effect of service quality in selection of a mutual fund in Indian context. Journal of Services Research, 9 (2), 153 - 172.
7. Kritzman, M. (1994). What practitioners need to know about time diversification. Financial Analysts Journal, 50 (1), 14-18.
8. Kumar, R., & Arora, R. S. (2013). Investors' perception about mutual funds in India: An empirical study. Indian Journal of Finance, 7 (1), 44 - 52.
9. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286.
10. Lopes, L. L. (1987). Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. Berkowitz, L. (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 255 - 295). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
11. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-40.
12. Ramasamy, B., & Yeung, M. C.H. (2003). Evaluating mutual funds in an emerging market: Factors that matter to financial advisors. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21 (3), 122-136.
13. Ranganathan, K. (2006). A study of fund selection behaviour of individual investor towards mutual funds - with reference to Mumbai city. The ICFAI Journal of Behavioural Finance, 3 (2), 2-9.
14. Shanmugham, R. (2000). Factors influencing investment decisions. Indian Capital Markets - Trends and Dimensions (Ed.) New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited.
15. Singh, J., & Chander, S. (2004). An empirical analysis of perceptions of investors towards mutual funds. Finance India, 18 (4), 1673-1692.
16. Singh, Y.P., & _______, Vanita (2002). Mutual fund investors' perception and preferences: A survey. The Journal of Commerce, 55 (3), 8-20.
17. Sundar, S. P.V., (1998). Growth prospects of mutual funds and investor perception with special reference to Kothari Pioneer mutual fund. Project Report, Sri Srinivas Vidya Parishad, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam.
18. Vannirajan, T., & Gurunathan, P. (2007). Investment in mutual funds: A customer centric analysis. Indian Journal of Accounting, 38 (2), 9-17.
19. Walia, N., & Kiran, R. (2009). An analysis of investor's risk perception towards mutual fund services. International Journal of Business and Management, 4 (5), 106-120.
20. Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., & Blais, A. (2004). Predicting risk-sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review, 111 (2), 430-445.
21. Weber, E. U., Siebenmorgen, N., & Weber, M. (2005). Communicating asset risk: How name recognition and the format of historic volatility information affect risk perception and investment decisions. Risk Analysis, 25 (3), 597-609.
22. Weber, E.U. (2001a). Decision and choice: Risk, empirical studies. In N. Smelser, & P. B. Baltes, (Eds.). International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 13347-13351). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier Science Limited.
23. Weber, E.U. (2001b). Personality and risk taking. In N. Smelser, & P. B. Baltes, (Eds.). International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 11274-11276.). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier Science Limited.
24. Weber, M. (2001). Decision and choice: Risk theories. In N. Smeler, & P. Baltes, (Eds). International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 13364-13368). Oxford, U.K. : Elsevier Science Limited.