RIA

Nominees Can Sell Shares. Why Not Real Estate?

Hemant learnt the hard way that not all nominated assets pass on with equal ease. His late father’s mutual fund units were transmitted in less than 48 hours. But when it came to the flat in a Mumbai housing society, the brothers were treated only as provisional members. They could not sell, transfer, or fully own it without a court order. That process took almost a year and cost over Rs 2 lakh. The law says a nominee holds assets for the legal heirs in both cases. Yet financial assets move quickly because nominees can redeem or sell them with ease. Property is different because a buyer needs clear title, and nomination alone does not provide that. Financial regulators have made transmission simple and time-bound. Real estate law has not kept pace. Until that changes, many families may find that inherited property brings not comfort, but complication.

Nominees Can Sell Shares. Why Not Real Estate? Read More »

Sometimes, steps to protect investors can hurt them

Devi wanted a lock-in to protect her savings from daily needs—something I had initially dismissed as a drawback.
But she was right: discipline often matters more than flexibility, especially for long-term goals.
Low-income households, as research shows, actively create barriers to prevent premature spending.
Even wealthier investors face the same struggle of staying committed to long-term plans.
Financial products like insurance tried to enforce this discipline, but often at high costs and poor returns.
Solution-oriented mutual funds offered a better balance—goal focus, reasonable lock-ins, and market-linked returns.
Regulatory attempts to remove such options risk pushing investors toward inferior alternatives.
In the end, good financial outcomes depend not on fewer choices, but on clearer products and better guidance.

Sometimes, steps to protect investors can hurt them Read More »

When markets fall: Should investors worry or invest more?

Markets often fall for different reasons — wars, financial crises, or pandemics — but the question investors ask remains the same: Should we worry or see it as a buying opportunity? The recent decline of about 12% from the January 2026 peak has raised similar concerns among investors.

History suggests such declines are normal. Since 1980, markets have risen in 38 of the 46 calendar years, yet they have experienced 10% or more corrections in 41 of those years. In fact, the average intra-year fall has been around 20%, even in years when markets ultimately ended higher. Despite these frequent declines, equities have delivered about 15% annual returns over the long term, roughly doubling investments every five years.

Periods of sharp market falls often create discomfort for investors, causing them to forget the long-term perspective. However, staying invested during such declines is precisely what creates long-term wealth. Historically, markets have delivered their strongest returns after major corrections.

While some investors attempt to exit during crises and re-enter later, this strategy rarely works well. Markets often recover before confidence returns, and missing just a few of the best recovery days can significantly reduce long-term returns.

Truth be told, the sensible approach is simple: decide your equity allocation based on a sound financial plan and stick to it, even when markets feel uncomfortable. Over time, discipline and patience do the heavy lifting

When markets fall: Should investors worry or invest more? Read More »

Being well informed is not enough, seek opposing views

Girish, a seasoned CFO who closely tracks global markets, was convinced that “all pundits were bullish” on silver. He had read extensively before forming his view. Yet my own reading revealed a far more divided expert opinion — some optimistic, many cautious.

The gap wasn’t about silver’s prospects. It was about perception.

Girish had unknowingly fallen into confirmation bias — the tendency to seek information that supports existing beliefs while overlooking contradictory evidence. He wasn’t trying to be selective. Like most investors, he was looking for reassurance, not contradiction.

This bias has deep evolutionary roots. Early humans benefited from acting quickly on established beliefs rather than endlessly questioning them. But in investing, that same instinct can be costly. Markets reward discipline, not conviction driven by selective information.

Today’s algorithms amplify the problem, feeding us content that aligns with what we already agree with, gradually narrowing our perspective.

Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated, but it can be managed. Awareness creates a pause — and that pause allows investors to test their views against opposing arguments before acting.

Sometimes the greatest value an advisor provides is not prediction, but perspective — helping investors slow down, challenge assumptions, and make deliberate decisions rather than instinctive ones.

Being well informed is not enough, seek opposing views Read More »

The SGB Issue: Why Tax Certainty Matters

Imagine a Test match where the host prepares two pitches — a green top for fast bowlers and a dry track for spinners. Before the match, it announces that the green top will be used, and the visiting team selects its players accordingly. After the toss, the host switches to the dry track — the one prepared for itself. In cricket, this would be called unfair play. In taxation, it is called a retrospective change. That is what the Budget 2026 proposal does by removing the capital gains exemption on Sovereign Gold Bonds (SGB) already bought.

The SGB Issue: Why Tax Certainty Matters Read More »

Virtual retro tax overshadows many positives of this Budget

Budget 2026 offers several promising reforms, but one provision threatens to overshadow them all: taxing capital gains on Sovereign Gold Bonds bought from the secondary market. Previously, RBI redemption was tax-exempt regardless of how the bonds were acquired; restricting this benefit only to original subscribers is effectively retrospective, with an estimated impact of about ₹8,000 crore.

Other measures are constructive—TRS-based sell-downs could deepen the corporate bond market; overseas individuals of non-Indian origin may soon invest in Indian equities; and proposals such as exempting global income of returning experts and enabling online low-TDS certificates could ease frictions for talent and startups. Yet some areas fall short, including limited relief in TCS on overseas tours and a less calibrated STT hike.

Rolling back the SGB amendment is essential to avoid reviving concerns over retrospective taxation and to let the Budget’s genuine positives shine through

Virtual retro tax overshadows many positives of this Budget Read More »

Bolster dispute platform, skip ombudsman creation

Smart ODR has worked well, resolving about 75% of the disputes referred to it within three months. It has enabled disputes to be resolved far faster than courts and without requiring SEBI to decide individual cases. What it lacks, however, is institutional memory. Because arbitration orders are not published, each dispute starts from scratch, and the same questions keep recurring—making arbitration efficient in the moment, but wasteful in the long run.

Bolster dispute platform, skip ombudsman creation Read More »

Unclaimed Assets: Easy Searchability, Not Opacity, Cuts Fraud

India’s ₹2 lakh crore pile of unclaimed assets remains largely out of reach not because citizens are unwilling to claim them, but because the system makes discovery nearly impossible. Official portals demand prior knowledge of assets, defeating their very purpose. As a result, meaningful restitution is rare, while private intermediaries succeed where the state does not. Without a unified, searchable database focused on discovery, initiatives like Aapki Poonji – Aapka Adhikar risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative. Truth be told, transparency—not opacity—is the real safeguard against fraud.

Unclaimed Assets: Easy Searchability, Not Opacity, Cuts Fraud Read More »

Retirement income: Systematic withdrawals win over dividends

Investors often prefer “income” like dividends over withdrawing capital, even when withdrawals are more tax-efficient.
Austin, investing ₹5 crore for retirement, shared this instinct and favoured the dividend option to avoid “touching capital.”
Behavioural research by Shefrin and Statman shows investors treat dividends as safe, approved income, while selling units feels uncomfortable.
This mental accounting bias is widespread and reinforced by the social-media push for “second incomes.”
But relying only on income requires a much larger corpus and can derail retirement planning.
Recognising these biases helps investors accept disciplined SWPs or products that withdraw only from gains.

Retirement income: Systematic withdrawals win over dividends Read More »

When paying fees hurts: Why investors favour commissions

When Paying Fees Hurts: Why Investors Favour Commissions
Nobel Prize–winning behavioural economist Richard Thaler showed that people spend far more when the payment feels painless — like using a credit card instead of cash. The “pain of paying” is strong when money leaves your hand, but much weaker when the cost is hidden or delayed. The salience also drops because the price of a ticket gets buried among dozens of items in the credit-card bill. A ₹10,000 ticket feels expensive on its own, but as part of an ₹80,000 bill it seems acceptable.
This simple insight explains why investors resist paying visible fees to advisers but readily accept commissions embedded in financial products. Fees deducted from investments (as in PMS) are also less painful than fees paid separately by cheque.

This pattern holds worldwide: wherever investors can choose between commissions and fees, most pick commissions because they feel painless. Only in countries like the UK and Australia — which have banned commissions — do large numbers of investors pay fees directly.

When paying fees hurts: Why investors favour commissions Read More »

Scroll to Top
Secret Link

Vigilance Awareness Week 2025 (VAW2025)

Vigilance Awareness Week 2025 is being observed from October 27th to November 2nd, 2025, with the theme:

सतर्कता: हमारी साझा जिम्मेदारी (“Vigilance: Our Shared Responsibility”).

All stakeholders are encouraged to participate in the e-pledge initiative by visiting the CVC portal: https://pledge.cvc.nic.in/.