arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Comparative Analysis on EPF Investors’ Knowledge, Experience and Behaviour Towards Investing in Islamic and Conventional Unit Trusts : The Case of Malaysia

Abu Hasna & Marhanum Che Mohd Salleh

Journal of Islamic Economics, Banking and Finance2018https://doi.org/10.12816/0051171article
ABDC C
Weight
0.41

What the paper says

The study explores EPF investors’ knowledge, experience and behavior towards investing in Islamic and conventional unit trusts in Malaysia. 110 valid responses were collected through surveys among government and private employees residing in Klang Valley area. Based on Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), it is found that majority of the respondents have enough knowledge about Islamic and conventional unit trusts while they have more experiences with the Islamic unit trust compared to the conventional. With regards to the EPF investors’ behaviour, most of them are heavily relied on various source of information to make decision on investing in the Islamic unit trust. Results of this research is very significant to proof that besides other sources of information, knowledge on both Islamic and conventional unit trust is relevant to make decision for future financial planning.

6 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12816/0051171

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{abu2018,
  title        = {{Comparative Analysis on EPF Investors’ Knowledge, Experience and Behaviour Towards Investing in Islamic and Conventional Unit Trusts : The Case of Malaysia}},
  author       = {Abu Hasna & Marhanum Che Mohd Salleh},
  journal      = {Journal of Islamic Economics, Banking and Finance},
  year         = {2018},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12816/0051171},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Comparative Analysis on EPF Investors’ Knowledge, Experience and Behaviour Towards Investing in Islamic and Conventional Unit Trusts : The Case of Malaysia

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.41

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.17 × 0.4 = 0.07
M · momentum0.80 × 0.15 = 0.12
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.