Blog

When I speak to clients during financial planning, a few questions come up again and again. I thought it may be useful to share how we can look at these questions because many investors may be wondering the same thing.

“I am investing ₹50,000 every month. Is that enough?”

Another common question I hear is: “I increase my SIPs by 10% every year. Is that good enough?”

These sound like simple questions. But ₹50,000, ₹1 lakh or a 10% annual increase tell us very little by themselves.

The more useful question is: Enough for what?

The amount alone tells us very little

Suppose I tell you: “I drive 50 kilometres every day. Is that enough?”

You cannot answer unless you know where I am trying to go and when I need to reach there.

If the destination is nearby, it may be more than enough. If it is 1,000 kilometres away and I need to reach tomorrow, clearly it is not.

Investing works much the same way.

₹50,000 a month may be enough for one person and nowhere near enough for another. It depends on the goals you are trying to fund, how much those goals may require, when the money will be needed and how much you have already accumulated.

That is why these two statements are not the same: “I am investing regularly” and “I am on track for my goals.”

You can invest diligently for years and still discover later that the amount was not enough.

There is no magic SIP amount

Naturally, investors look for a rule.

“How much of my salary should I invest?”

“Is 20% enough?”

“Should I increase my SIP by 10% every year?”

Such numbers can be useful as broad assumptions or starting points. But they should not become financial rules that we follow mechanically.

There is no universal minimum or maximum investment amount.

Two people earning the same income may need to invest very different amounts. One may already have substantial investments and many years available. Another may have started later or have larger financial commitments.

So the right amount cannot come from a standard percentage. It has to come from your goals, your present financial position and the time available to you.

There is no compulsory 10% step-up either

The same applies to increasing investments every year.

A 10% annual SIP increase is commonly used in financial projections. But that does not mean everyone should increase investments by exactly 10%.

If your income rises substantially and you can comfortably increase your investments by 20%, 25% or 30%, why stop at 10% simply because a calculator assumes it?

And there may be another year when even a 10% increase is not practical.

A 10% SIP step-up is an assumption. It is not a financial rule.

Once normal expenses, near-term requirements and necessary liquidity are taken care of, invest the genuine surplus available to you. If your ability to invest increases, increase your investments.

Meeting your goals should not become a ceiling

Suppose your financial plan indicates that a certain monthly investment should reasonably put your important goals on track.

Does that mean you should stop investing anything beyond that amount? Not necessarily.

Meeting financial goals is important, but it need not be the end of the journey.

If you have additional genuine surplus, that money can continue working for you. Over time, it can build wealth, create a larger financial cushion and give you more choices later in life.

So the amount required for your goals may tell you what is needed for the plan.

It should not automatically become the maximum you are willing to invest.

This is why rigid rules such as “I already invest 20% of my income, so I am saving enough” can be misleading.

But what if you are already investing as much as you can?

Now consider the opposite situation.

You are already investing the genuine surplus available to you, but the amount may still not be enough for your goals. It means there is a gap that needs to be recognised.

Over time, you may be able to close it by investing more as your income rises, giving the goal more time or adjusting some expectations.

What we should avoid is making the gap disappear only by assuming higher returns.

A calculator may show that the plan works if we increase the expected return sufficiently. But nothing in your financial life has actually changed. We have changed the assumption, not the situation.

If there is a gap, it is better to see it clearly and deal with it through real changes rather than optimistic assumptions.

Start with the purpose, not the product

This connects with a theme running through my earlier articles.

In “Should You Invest in an International Fund? Try This Test First”, the question was whether an investment had a purpose in the portfolio.

In “You Don’t Drive an Entire Journey in One Gear. Then Why Invest That Way?”, I discussed why money needed at different stages of our financial journey should not all be invested in the same way.

The same principle applies here.

Before asking which mutual fund should receive the next SIP, first ask whether the amount being invested is enough for what you are trying to achieve. The product comes later.

One final thought

There is no universal answer to how much we should invest. ₹20,000 may be enough for one person’s goals and ₹2 lakh may not be enough for another’s.

What matters first is whether what you are investing is reasonably putting your important financial goals on track.

If it is not, recognise the gap rather than make it disappear with a higher return assumption.

And if your goals are comfortably on track and you can invest more, don’t let an arbitrary savings percentage become a stopping point. Let that additional money continue working for you and building wealth.

So instead of asking: “Am I investing a good amount?”

ask: “Is what I am investing enough for my goals?”

And once the answer is yes, let whatever more you can invest continue working for your future and create wealth for you.

---

Mahesh Kumar K is a SEBI-registered Investment Adviser, founder of ClearPath Wealth, and a member of Fee-only India, a group of fee-only SEBI RIAs. This article is for general education and does not constitute personalised investment advice.

AI can already do many things remarkably well with money. It can explain concepts, calculate scenarios, compare alternatives and help us understand investments much faster than before.

That is enormously useful. But a money decision is not simply a question-answer exercise. We may be deciding what to do with money built over years of work and saving, and a decision that looks sensible on a screen can affect important goals far into the future.

Consider a simple example. “Which are the best mutual funds for me?”

Ask an AI tool this question and, within seconds, it can give you a neat list of funds or categories, along with returns and reasons for choosing them.

The answer can look convincing. But an AI answer may not have independently verified every return, date or fact it presents. Sometimes it can produce information that sounds completely reasonable but is simply wrong — what is commonly called an AI hallucination.

Suppose AI tells you that an investment has delivered 12.4% over five years. Why would you doubt it? After all, one reason you asked AI was because you did not already know the answer.

Unless you independently verify the source, a wrong return and a correct return may look exactly the same on the screen.

Now suppose you ask, “Show me only options with at least a five-year track record.”

AI gives you a list, but you discover that one strategy has a live track record of only three years. When you point this out, AI explains that the earlier returns were calculated using historical data to show how the strategy might have performed before it actually existed.

That explanation may even sound reasonable. But there is a more important question: How would an investor unfamiliar with the subject know that this was something he needed to question in the first place?

To challenge an AI answer, you may first need to know what needs checking — whether the track record is real, whether the comparison is fair and whether that investment belongs in your portfolio at all.

The dangerous answer is not always an obviously wrong one. It may be a believable answer, presented confidently, with enough truth in it to make us stop asking questions.

So the difficulty is not getting an answer. It is knowing when that answer deserves another question.

The question may matter more than the answer

There is another problem with questions such as “Which is the best mutual fund?”, “Should I invest in gold?” or “Should I increase my equity allocation?”

All of them start with the investment. A perfectly good investment can still be the wrong investment for a particular purpose.

In my earlier article, “You Don’t Drive an Entire Journey in One Gear. Then Why Invest That Way?”, I discussed a related idea: money needed at different times has different jobs and should not all be invested in the same way.

AI may help us find an investment. The more important question is whether we need that investment in the first place.

Often, the most valuable part of a money decision is not finding the answer. It is making sure we are solving the right problem.

AI knows what you tell it. But is that everything that matters?

Imagine an investor tells AI: “I am 40, have a stable income, can invest for ten years and have a moderately aggressive risk profile.”

But what does “moderately aggressive” really mean? Someone may say he can tolerate a 25% fall in equity. When markets actually fall 10%, his behaviour may tell a different story. What we say about our risk tolerance and how we behave with real money are not always the same.

AI can analyse the information we give it. The harder problem is that we may not always know which information about ourselves is important enough to give.

The same issue arises when there is no single right answer. Should you prepay more of your home loan, invest more for retirement or keep more money available for family needs?

AI can calculate the alternatives. But some money decisions do not have one mathematically correct answer. They involve priorities, uncertainty and compromise.

Numbers can help us compare the choices. The final decision still has to work in real life.

Knowing what to do is not the same as being able to do it

Most investors know some sensible rules: diversify, invest for the long term, keep adequate emergency money and do not panic when markets fall.

Yet knowing these things and following them during a difficult market are different.

Suppose AI helps you arrive at a sensible equity allocation. Then markets fall 25%. The same long-term investor may now want to reduce equity “until things become clearer”.

Even a sensible decision has to be one you can stay with when circumstances become difficult.

Knowing what to do with money and being able to do it when markets are falling sharply are two different things.

So where is AI genuinely useful?

In many ways.

AI can organise financial information, explain investment concepts, compare alternatives, perform calculations and test assumptions. We can also ask it to challenge our thinking, show alternative scenarios and identify information we may have overlooked.

Used well, AI can help us become better informed and think more clearly. But better tools also place more responsibility on the person using them.

So before acting on an AI financial answer, I would ask four questions.

Before acting on an AI financial answer, ask these four questions

1. Do I know whether the important facts and numbers are correct?

If not, verify them from a reliable source.

2. Do I know what assumptions AI has made — and what important information may be missing?

A precise-looking answer can change completely when an assumption or an important fact changes.

3. Is AI answering the question I asked, or the money question I actually need to solve?

“Which fund is best?” and “What does my portfolio need?” are very different questions.

4. Can I actually follow this decision when circumstances become difficult?

A decision that looks sensible when markets are calm may feel very different after a sharp fall. It has to work not only on the screen, but also in real life.

One final thought

AI is making information, explanations and calculations available in seconds. That is extremely valuable.

But when answers become easier to obtain, the quality of the decision becomes even more important.

The real opportunity is not to hand our money decisions over to AI. It is to use AI to question more, understand more and think more clearly before we act.

For money built over years of work and saving, that difference matters.

---

Mahesh Kumar K is a SEBI-registered Investment Adviser, founder of ClearPath Wealth, and a member of Fee-only India, a group of fee-only SEBI RIAs. This article is for general education and does not constitute personalised investment advice.

When I review investment portfolios, I often see two very different kinds of investors. Some have most of their money in fixed deposits, savings accounts and other very safe investments. Others have gone almost entirely the other way, with most of their wealth in equity mutual funds, stocks or other growth-oriented investments.

These approaches look completely different, but they can create the same problem: almost all the money is travelling in one gear. That can make the financial journey unnecessarily difficult and, at times, risky.

Different roads need different gears

Think about a long road journey. There are stretches where you need control, stretches where you can move comfortably, and open roads where you can travel faster. You do not remain in the lowest gear for the whole journey, but you do not stay in the highest gear everywhere either. The right gear depends on the road ahead.

Money works in much the same way. Some may be needed soon, some a few years later, and some may not be needed for five years or more. For retirees, the long-term portion may have an even longer runway. The exact number matters less than the principle: money needed at different times should not all travel in the same investment gear.

The lower gear: when safety and access matter most

Money that may be required soon has one primary job: it should be available when you need it. Here, liquidity and stability matter more than squeezing out the highest possible return. Savings accounts, fixed deposits or other suitable low-volatility investments can play this role depending on the purpose.

It can be tempting to say, “Equity should earn more.” Perhaps. If your child’s college fee is due next year, the market does not know that. If you need money for a house purchase six months from now, equity markets will not become less volatile because your payment date is approaching. For this part of the portfolio, certainty can be more valuable than return.

But staying in the lower gear forever creates another risk. Money meant for goals several years away may not grow enough if it remains permanently in very low-return investments. Inflation keeps increasing the cost of the destination while the portfolio moves slowly toward it. The ride may feel smooth, but you may still fall short.

The higher gear: when time allows growth

Now consider money that may not be needed for five years or more. Here, the job is different: there is more time to absorb market ups and downs in pursuit of stronger long-term growth.

This is where equity and other suitable growth assets can play an important role. But one condition matters enormously: the money must genuinely have a long runway.

High gear works because the road is long. It does not mean high gear is always better.

The problem appears when almost everything is in high gear. If an important requirement arrives during a sharp market fall, the investor may have to sell equity after it has fallen.

The danger is not simply that equity can fall. The danger is needing to sell equity when it has fallen.

Markets recover on their own timetable; our financial goals follow ours. When those timetables collide, a portfolio that looked efficient during good markets can suddenly become fragile.

I discussed a related idea in my earlier Freefincal article, “Should You Invest in an International Fund? Try This Test First“. There too, the question was whether an investment actually had a role in the portfolio. The same principle applies here: first understand when the money may be needed, then choose the investment.

The missing middle gear

Between money required soon and money that can remain invested for the longer term lies a large part of real financial life. This is where a middle gear becomes useful: a part of the portfolio designed to balance stability with reasonable growth. Investors often behave as if money has only two choices: very safe or very aggressive. Financial life is rarely that binary.

The middle layer also performs another important job. If money needed over the next few years is positioned appropriately, you are less likely to disturb long-term growth investments during a bad market. In that sense, the safer parts of the portfolio do more than protect themselves; they can protect the growth portfolio from being sold at the wrong time.

Your portfolio should not ask one investment to do three different jobs

This is the larger idea: some money needs to remain liquid and stable. Some needs a balance between stability and growth. Some needs to compound for the longer term.

No single investment can optimise all three jobs at the same time.

That is why “Which investment gives the highest return?” should not be the only question. Equally important is whether the investment is suitable for when the money will actually be needed.

One final thought

A good financial journey does not require us to predict every difficult road ahead. It requires a portfolio that can handle different roads when they arrive.

The goal is not to stay permanently safe, nor is it to remain permanently aggressive. The goal is to have the right money in the right gear for the road ahead.

You would not drive an entire road journey in one gear. Your portfolio should also have different gears for different parts of your financial journey.

---

Mahesh Kumar K is a SEBI-registered Investment Adviser, founder of ClearPath Wealth, and a member of Fee-only India, a group of fee-only SEBI RIAs. This article is for general education and does not constitute personalised investment advice.

“Can you suggest a good international fund?”

I hear some version of this question quite regularly in my work as a SEBI registered investment adviser. Usually, I respond with another question:

“If I hid the last three years of returns from you, would you still want to invest internationally?”

Take a moment before answering. If the answer is still yes, there may be a genuine portfolio reason for investing abroad. If the answer suddenly becomes less certain, perhaps the attraction is not diversification. Perhaps it is recent performance.

That is an important difference.

A good idea is not always a good portfolio decision

There is nothing inherently wrong with international investing. An investor may want exposure outside India, access to businesses or sectors not adequately represented in India, or an allocation linked to a future foreign-currency expense. All can be reasonable.

But there is a difference between “My portfolio needs a planned international allocation” and “This market has done very well. Which fund should I buy?”

The first starts with the portfolio. The second starts with the performance chart.

A good investment idea is not automatically a good portfolio decision.

Imagine three funds. One has underperformed for five years. Nothing exciting has happened in the second. The third has produced spectacular recent returns and everybody seems to be talking about it.

Which one are we most likely to research? Usually, the third.

That is not stupidity. It is simply human behaviour. What has recently worked becomes easier to believe in. Once we like the story, words such as “diversification” can sometimes give us a respectable reason to do what recent returns already made us want to do.

The biggest risk may not be investing abroad. It may be investing abroad for the wrong reason.

What about all the discussion on social media?

Today, a few videos can introduce us to the US, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, China, global ETFs, semiconductor funds and many other ideas. Some of that content can be genuinely useful, and many finfluencers explain investment ideas well.

The limitation is simpler:

A video can explain why an investment is interesting. It cannot know whether your portfolio needs it.

It does not know your goals, existing investments, ability to tolerate long periods of underperformance, or what you will do when today’s exciting market stops being exciting. A general idea meant for thousands of viewers still has to pass through one person’s financial plan before becoming an investment.

Social media can tell us what is getting attention. It cannot tell us what our portfolio is missing.

What the recent return chart doesn’t show

Recent performance has a strange effect on memory. Long periods when a market went nowhere gradually disappear from the story.

Consider three examples:

Japan: The Nikkei 225 reached its famous bubble-era record in December 1989 and surpassed it only in February 2024 — more than 34 years later.

Taiwan: The TAIEX peaked in February 1990 and surpassed that level only in July 2020 — roughly 30 years later.

Singapore: The Straits Times Index set a record in October 2007 and did not surpass that price-index level until February 2025 — more than 17 years later.

The point is not that Japan, Taiwan, Singapore were bad places to invest, nor that today’s popular international markets will repeat these periods.

The lesson is simpler:

A good country can have a disappointing market. A good market can have a disappointing decade. But markets do not know when our financial goals are due.

International does not automatically mean diversified

There is another trap hidden inside the word “international”. Sometimes it simply becomes shorthand for US investing; at another time, the fashionable destination may be Japan, Taiwan, Korea or China.

Different countries do not necessarily mean different risks either. Taiwan and Korea, for example, both have significant exposure to the global semiconductor cycle.

Diversification is not about collecting more flags in a portfolio. It is about understanding which risks we are reducing and which new risks we are adding.

For Indian investors, international funds also come with extra moving parts. Indian mutual funds face industry-wide overseas-investment limits of US$7 billion for overseas securities and US$1 billion for overseas ETFs. In 2026, fund houses including PGIM India and Edelweiss again restricted investments in some international schemes as available capacity became tight.

Add currency movements, different taxation and occasional investment restrictions, and the picture becomes less simple than the return chart suggests.

International equity is still equity. Crossing a national border does not make market risk disappear.

Three questions before you invest

I don’t think there is one answer for everybody. Before adding an international fund, I would ask just three questions:

1. Would I still want it if its recent returns were hidden? If most of the attraction disappears when the return chart disappears, that tells us something.

2. What job will it do in my portfolio or financial plan? What risk does it reduce? What exposure does it add that I genuinely need?

3. If it underperforms Indian equity for the next seven or ten years, will I still hold it? Diversification is easiest to believe in while the diversifier is outperforming. The real test of an allocation is whether its logic still makes sense when its returns stop helping the argument.

One final thought

I am not making a case against international investing, nor am I making a case for it.

I am making a case for knowing why an investment belongs in the portfolio before deciding which product to buy.

Sometimes that process will lead to an international fund. Sometimes it will lead to no new fund at all. Both can be perfectly reasonable answers.

The fund should enter the portfolio because the plan needs it. Not because the performance chart made you want it.

---

Mahesh Kumar K is a SEBI-registered Investment Adviser, founder of ClearPath Wealth, and a member of Fee-only India, a group of fee-only SEBI RIAs. This article is for general education and does not constitute personalised investment advice.