CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This presents the conclusions of this study, the
implications, and limitations. The recommendations
for the future research were also explained in this
chapter in order to make some improvements for
future researches.
A. CONCLUSIONS
This study had investigated whether
demographic factors and personality traits had any
influence on stock preference. Stock preference
referred to what certain kind of stocks referred by the
investors, whether the investors prefer value stocks
or growth stocks. The demographic factors
investigated in this study consisted of age, education
and gender. While for personality traits, which was
investigated in this study was based on big five
personality traits, which consisted of neuroticism,
extraversions, openness to experience,
conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Nevertheless,
agreeableness was not investigated in this study.
The result of this study showed that
demographic factors investigated did not influence
personality traits, neuroticism and conscientiousness
were proven not influence the investors’ stock
preference. Therefore, only extraversions and
openness to experience influenced significantly
towards the stock preference.
B. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
This study investigated on demographic factors
and personality traits towards stock preference,
especially value and growth which were characterized
by the orientation of investment, the P/E ratio, the
media coverage and the price of the stock whether it
was undervalue or not. The previous study had
proven that demographic factors, such as gender, age
and education influence the investors’ decision
making in stock preference (Oertman, 2000;
Bhandari and Deaves, 2006; Chan and Lakonishok,
2004; Johnson, 2004; Gulen et al, 2011). While this
study only did not prove that demographic factors
influence the stock preference.
Moreover, the big five personality traits which
previously assumed to influence the investors stock
preference (Jamhidinavid et al, 2012; Mayfield et al,
2008; Zaidi and Tauni, 2012), in this study was
experience influenced the stock preference. It was in
accordance with the previous study done by
Jamhidinavid et al (2012), Larson ( 2005), John and
Srivastava (1999).
C. APPLIED IMPLICATIONS
This study extended the understanding of stock
preference decision making. From the above
conclusions and theoretical implications, there were
some applied implication should be developed. For
the investors, it was important to acknowledge their
own personality before choosing the certain stocks.
Although in this study, some of personality did not
prove significantly influence the stock preference, the
investors should acknowledge their personality to
maximize the profit. Moreover, the investors should
develop their own knowledge on investing since it was
assumed that mostly investors involved in this study
were followers. So in the future, it was expected that
the investors did not trapped in herding. For the
investment managers, they should understand the
investors’ personality. It was important to know their
personality traits so that they were able to assist the
D. LIMITATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This study had some limitations. Since
personality traits and demographic factors did not
adequately explain the influence towards stock
preference. Education, which was assumed to
influence stock preference, for future research,
should be broken down into what kind of background
study the investors had, because they who had
knowledge about investing and they who did not,
would act differently in stock investing. Then, age as
one of the variable in this study, which was not
proven influence stock preference, should be
emphasized on how long they engaged in investing. In
this study, mostly investors (59.2%) started their
investment after 2009. The investors’ stock trading
frequency was also assumed to have an impact on
stock preference. The more often the investors did
trading, the more experience they obtained. Thus,
future research might include this variable.
The personality characteristics owned by the
investors was previously assumed that significantly
influenced the stock preference, but only two of the
big-five personality traits (extraversion and openness
decision making process might be influence by the
certain characteristics. However, the condition
whether they were under-pressure or not, when they
took the decision, also provided important
information. Thus, the prospect theory from
Kahneman and Tversky (1979), which stated that
choices among risky prospects exhibit several
pervasive effects that were inconsistent with the basic
tenets of utility theory, needed to be considered for
the future study.
The strategies of value and growth stock
investment were effective in different types of market.
Value stocks would be very effective in stable market,
vice versa in volatile market growth stocks investing
would be more profitable. In this research, mostly
investors preferred growth stocks, but it was
assumed that the investors did not gained the
maximum profit, which could be seen from the salary
earned per year less than 25 million (30,3% of the
investors). The decision to prefer either value stocks
or growth stocks should be individual choices to
maximize their own profit. However, in this study,
most of the investors were followers, in which their
personal choices might be influenced by others’
maximum profit from stock investing since most of
them had income range, which was not bigger than
25 million a month (30.3% of investors). Which
effective strategy for Indonesian investors might be
considered in the future research.
Moreover, the investors involved in this study
mostly were men (76.3%), and mostly bachelor degree
(51.3%). It was important to analyze the likely
balance percentage of gender and education. By
obtaining the likely balance proportion of
