Fake patterns in investing

 

Several decades back, a particular incident sparked Daniel Kahneman’s journey toward ground-breaking discoveries, ultimately leading to the birth of behavioural economics as a widely accepted field. Despite being a psychologist, Kahneman was honoured with a Nobel Prize in Economics for his pioneering contributions. However, for us investors, this story sheds light on how we can be misled into believing we are correct, even when we’re off the mark.

 

In the 1960s, Kahneman was a junior psychology professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem while having a part-time assignment of giving psychology lectures to the Israeli Air Force flight instructors. One of his recommendations was to advise instructors to praise trainee pilots for their achievements but to abstain from criticism when they erred. This approach was rooted in his psychological education and understanding.

 

However, the flight instructors argued that their real-life experiences taught a different lesson. They had seen that trainees often underperformed after receiving praise and improved after being reprimanded. Although Kahneman was confident in his ideas, he didn’t outright dismiss the instructors’ assertions, given their substantial real-world experience. He kept thinking it over. And then, he had the insight that set him on the path to behavioural economics.

 

Kahneman realised that good performance after a scolding was not a result of the scolding itself. Each pilot had a certain skill level, which gradually improved with training. Naturally, each trainee had some good days and some bad ones. These were distributed around an average that represented that trainee’s skill level. A good day in the aircraft had a higher likelihood of being followed by a bad day, and vice versa. However, because the instructors followed each day with either praise or criticism, it looked as if the feedback had a contrary impact. An almost random set of events created a powerful impression of cause and effect, which was utterly believable.

 

Isn’t it obvious how this has a great similarity to how we all make decisions about investments and how we come to conclusions about the impact of our decisions? The brain is an extremely powerful and persistent pattern-recognition system, to the extent that it will create believable patterns where none exist. After a few years of investing, whether in equities or equity mutual funds, all of our brains are likely to be as clouded with false conclusions and misleading rules of thumb as those flight instructors. The worst part is that, exactly like the flight instructors, we all have ‘evidence’ that our rules work. When we make bad investments, we explain them away by making more spurious connections that are, in effect, even more rules. Curiously, I find many more people who have made these little rules about timing the markets rather than identifying good investments. Everyone seems to have these signals they follow about when to buy stocks, when not to buy, and when and how to sell. Sometimes, purely due to chance, the rules appear to work, reinforcing our beliefs.

 

The way I have described this phenomenon, there is no solution. However, there is, and a very simple one. One word: automate. I don’t mean in the technology sense but in the sense of rule-based investing. A perfect example is investing through a SIP in an equity mutual fund.

 

That subjects you to an automated, rule-based system that is not amenable to the ad hoc timing you may be tempted by. For equity investing, do the equivalent. For stocks on your buy list, keep putting in a fixed amount of money at a regular period. That’s exactly the strategy we recommend in our Value Research Stock Advisor service.

 

Remember, the pattern recognition that serves you so well in many other aspects of life can be your biggest enemy as an investor.

 

Source- valueresearchonline

High returns or Appropriate returns?

Morningstar’s vice president of research, John Rekenthaler, on Bill Bernstein’s newly released second edition of his 2002 classic, The Four Pillars of Investing.

 

The book covers a wide range of territory: investment theory and history, financial advisory practices, portfolio construction, and investor psychology.

 

When Bernstein wrote the first edition of Four Pillars, as a relative newcomer to the field, he was enthralled by the numbers. Investment research is bounded by science. In contrast with many of his quantitatively minded peers, though, he recognized from the start that investment math could also be a trap. History never repeats exactly—sometimes not even approximately.

 

For that reason, he addressed investor psychology.

 

Twenty years later, he has expanded on that message. The second edition opens by contrasting two investors:

 

1) Hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management, run by two Nobel Laureates

2) Sylvia Bloom, a legal secretary who died at the age of 98, holding $9.2 million in assets

 

The former belied its name by surviving only four years, while the latter persisted for 67 years, with great success. Writes Bernstein, “Unlike the geniuses at LTCM, [Bloom] wasn’t trying to get rich quick, but rather to get rich slow—a much safer bet.” That sentence neatly summarizes Bernstein’s counsel.

 

Speculators pursue high returns; investors seek appropriate returns.

 

Four Pillars spends little time on the obvious forms of speculation, such as buying meme stocks or trading options. No need to beat that horse; the book’s readers either already realize the futility of tail-chasing, or they bought the book because they are ready to absorb that lesson.

 

Four Pillars instead addresses the type of errors that educated investors might unknowingly make—and that Bloom did not. They include:

 

1) becoming seduced by investment narratives, as made by intriguing but ultimately mediocre theme funds

2) succumbing to recency bias

3) believing too strongly in one’s own abilities, thereby discounting the wisdom of the crowd (Is the marketplace crazy? Perhaps. But that occurs far less often than most investors believe.)

 

The most dangerous delusion comes not from how investors perceive the outside world, but instead from how they view themselves.

 

The first edition of Four Pillars included a risk-tolerance table, to help readers establish their equity allocation. For example, investing 80% of one’s assets in stocks might lead to a 35% portfolio decline, under unusually bad (although not the worst possible) circumstances, while owning 40% would cut the loss to 15%.

 

Writes Bernstein in the second edition:

 

I neglected to ask whether readers had actually lost 15%, 25%, or 35% of their portfolio. Simply looking at this table or running a portfolio simulation on a spreadsheet is not the same as facing real-world losses. The stock market only rarely falls for no good reason – bear markets are almost always the result of incipient financial system collapse, hyperinflation, or the prospect of nuclear annihilation. The fear of real geopolitical and economic catastrophe makes such times the most dangerous mountain passes on the highway of riches.

 

That is, it is not enough to have been in the right place at the right time, as wealthy Americans have been during the past 40 years. Investors must also know how to convert their paper opportunities into tangible dollars, by making sound decisions that withstand the test of time. Underinvesting is an obvious problem, as one can’t pocket stock market gains without stocks. But overinvesting can also be a costly error. Getting rich slowly means finding the appropriate personal level.

 

That conclusion may seem simple, but enacting it proves surprisingly difficult. Over the years, tens of millions of investors have crashed upon the asset-allocation rock. Such a fate, however, is unlikely to befall those who read Four Pillars. By the time the reader encounters Bernstein’s homily on risk perception, the book already established 200 pages of context, with another 100 yet to follow. The advice is therefore not hollow. It echoes.

 

Source- Morningstar

Navigating finances for new couples

 

New couples have a choice to make. They can choose to open up about their finances or not. Those who are successful will watch their nest eggs grow and progress towards shared goals.

 

Success simply starts with an open dialogue. When it’s missing, arguments are inevitable.

 

“While fighting about money is not necessarily common, those arguments tend to be longer than other arguments, and more damaging to the relationship than other types of arguments,” explained Sarah Newcomb, when she was Morningstar’s Director of Behavioural Science. Hence, it is very important for couples to find ways to communicate in a healthy way about finances.

 

You will be surprised to know that money is the top reason for stress among adults. This is regardless of the economic climate.

 

If money is the number one reason for stress in people’s lives, we need to talk about it. Talking helps reduce stress. Unfortunately, not many do so.

 

People who feel that they are moving towards a committed relationship need to start a dialogue about finances. When you go out with the person, you get a sense of what their values are around money, family history and debt.

 

How do you start chatting about money?

 

The first conversation shouldn’t be about your credit scores or how much you earn or how much debt do you have. Neither should it be about how to merge your finances as a couple.

 

Newcomb suggests “get-to-know-you” questions that make the person open up. What was money like in your household growing up? What does the good life mean to you? Does money keep you up at night? Do you think of money as a necessary evil or as freedom and opportunity?”

 

Tell your partner that you are curious and want to learn more about him/her and their family. It is not about judgement, but about developing a deep understanding of who your partner is and what the stories are that are driving the financial decisions that you two will eventually make. Share your experiences too.

 

You need to talk even if you never combine bank accounts. Learning how to talk about difficult things together is the key to having a solid financial life together.

 

Debt.

 

What debt does your partner have? What is their attitude towards clearing it? If your partner has a huge credit card bill and is least concerned, it is a red flag.

 

Credit scores are important when you’re contemplating buying a home and taking a loan. So your potential spouse’s credit score may have a significant impact on your financial ability together.

 

Splitting expenses.

 

If both are earning, then the conversation must move to sharing expenses and splitting bills.

 

Splitting expenses comes down to asking each other “what feels fair”, says Newcomb. Let’s say one person makes three times what the other person does, then they might want to split the bill proportionally. That would mean one partner pays 25% and the other pays 75%. Others may just want to split it 50/50.

 

Be partners, not judges.

 

At some point, there needs to be an ‘I’ll show you mine and you show me yours’ numbers conversation where you will show one another your debt and your assets. So many of us will combine our lives, and never sit down and have that conversation where you just simply show one another your accounts.

 

Avoiding the subject is detrimental. The truth will come out and partners’ finances affect each other.

 

Financial intimacy is what a lot of couples don’t have. It’s a scary intimacy because it requires trust to show someone your situation. Often we are afraid of being judged and what our partner will think of us if they know our financial situation. Some people are afraid to be judged for having too much. Some people are afraid to be judged for having too little. People are afraid to be judged for being disorganized.

 

Be honest.

 

It’s important to tell the truth. As a basis for a committed relationship, being dishonest about how you manage money is a shaky foundation for your marriage.

 

Have the financial planning and financial future conversations before you get married. Talk about the way you will manage money. The goals you want to accomplish as a couple.

 

After the most difficult conversations take place, it will make what you have stronger. You’re setting yourself up for success because you did the scary, courageous thing.

 

Decide the path ahead.

 

Budgets are not sexy. Budgets are not romantic. But that’s the reality. Sit down at the end of each month and go over the expenses and savings.

 

It is just as important to keep the romance alive as it is to have financial discussions.

 

Source- Morningstar

Balanced-advantage funds: Are they the right choice for regular income?

 

Mr Naresh Gupta, a non-pensioner super senior citizen living in Delhi, recently took out fixed deposits (FDs) to manage his household expenses. However, he needed a regular income and sought our advice on whether to invest in a balanced-advantage fund (as suggested by his friend) for this purpose.

 

What are balanced-advantage funds?

 

  • Balanced-advantage funds, also dynamic asset allocation funds, are a type of hybrid funds that invest in both equity and debt instruments.

 

  • Unlike equity and debt funds that have fixed investment mandates, balanced-advantage funds have a dynamic equity-debt allocation. Broadly speaking, these funds put more money in equities and less in debt when markets are depressed, and vice versa.

 

  • Fund houses claim this dynamic allocation helps them capture potential upsides and limit downsides in volatile equity markets, making them popular among investors.

 

  • However, balanced-advantage funds widely vary in their risk-reward profile. Some funds are vastly conservative, while others can be high on the risk metre.

 

What does this mean for Mr Gupta?

 

  • Given these funds’ wildly differing risk profiles, Mr Gupta must exercise caution while choosing the right balanced-advantage fund.

 

  • For a regular-income portfolio, Mr Gupta can go for a balanced-advantage fund where the equity allocation stays in the range of 40-50 per cent, and doesn’t move to extremes.

 

  • For instance, if a balanced-advantage fund goes aggressive on equity and the market tanks, it can pose a hurdle in deriving regular income. At the same time, a balanced-advantage fund which takes a very conservative call on equities (around 15-20 per cent) may not earn enough returns to support regular income

 

 

That being said, Value Research is sceptical of mutual funds that rely on timing the market. We believe that static equity-debt allocations (such as 75:25, 50:50 and 25:75) based on your ability to take risks work better in the long run. It eliminates the chances of pre-empting market moves based on models or human judgement. Even in the case of funds with dynamic asset allocation, we would prefer the ones that do not take extreme calls. It brings higher predictability.

 

An alternate route

Mr Gupta can also follow the below alternate strategy:

 

  • Invest at least one-third of the money in equities at all times, preferably in good flexi-cap funds or large-cap funds (for very conservative investors) to achieve returns that beat inflation.

 

  • Invest the other two-thirds of the money in fixed-income investment avenues, such as government-backed guaranteed return schemes like the Senior Citizen Savings Scheme (SCSS). Also, allocate some of the funds to high-quality short-duration funds for emergencies.

 

  • Rebalance the portfolio every year and limit annual withdrawal to no more than 5-6 per cent of the corpus.

 

Source- Valueresearchonline

Should I allocate over half of my portfolio to small and mid-cap funds?

 

Is it advisable to build a core equity portfolio (50-60 per cent) in mid and small caps, considering an SIP tenure for 10 plus years? – Anonymous

 

When it comes to long-term investing, a time horizon of 10 years or more is well-suited for equity investments. However, it’s important to avoid over-concentrating in one type of fund or solely investing in mid and small-cap funds. For example, building a core equity portfolio where 50-60 per cent is allocated to mid and small-cap funds is not recommended.

 

Instead, a diversified approach to equity via flexi-cap funds is recommended, as they invest across large, mid, and small-cap stocks. By investing in a flexi-cap fund, around 25-30 per cent of your portfolio is exposed to mid and small-cap stocks, while large-caps make up about 70 per cent. When building a portfolio, it’s best to focus on stocks that provide growth with stability, which large-caps tend to offer. Riskier assets should only be allocated a small portion of the portfolio.

 

While mid and small-cap funds may provide higher returns than flexi-cap funds in the long run, they may fluctuate more in the short run and are generally considered riskier. Having a higher exposure of 50-60 per cent to mid and small-cap funds can make your portfolio much more volatile, which is not advisable.

 

In conclusion, if you’re willing to accept higher risk and volatility for higher returns, you can add a mid or small-cap fund along with a flexi-cap fund. This way your portfolio allocation to mid- and small-caps would be slightly higher. However, it’s not advisable to make them the core of your portfolio.

 

Source- Valueresearchonline

Direct plan platforms to charge a flat transaction fee either from AMCs or investors

 

Execution Only Platforms (EOPs) will become reality by September 1, 2023. In a circular, SEBI has introduced the concept of EOPs, which essentially says that digital platforms offering direct plans free of cost will now have to charge a flat transaction fee either from AMCs or directly from investors.

 

SEBI has introduced two set of norms of EOPs – category 1 EOPs can become agent of AMCs and charge transaction fee from them by obtaining license from AMFI and category 2 EOPs can become representative of investors and charge them directly by taking stock broking license.

 

SEBI has defined EOP as any digital or online platform, which facilitates transactions such as subscription, redemption and switch transactions in direct plans of the schemes of mutual funds.

 

All players who are into distribution of direct plan will have to obtain EOP license by December 01, 2023. Also, industry platforms like MF Central, MF Utilities, BSE Star MF and NSE NMF II will also have to obtain EOP license.

 

Further, the market regulator has clarified that platforms provided by SEBI RIAs and stock brokers to their advisory or broking clients are not covered under EOP framework.

 

Let us look at the other key details of the new regulation on this new distribution channel:

 

  • While Category 1 EOPs will have to obtain license from AMFI, category 2 EOPs will have to get stock broking license under SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations

 

  • Category 1 EOPs will act agent of AMCs whereas category 2 EOPs will act as agent of investor

 

  • EOPs will have to facilitate non-financial transaction like change of email id or phone number, bank account and so on

 

  • They cannot deal in regular plans of mutual funds

 

  • Category 1 EOPs can provide their services to other intermediaries

 

  • Category 1 EOPs will have to abide by AMFI norms to onboard clients. AMCs will be held responsible for carrying out KYC of investors coming through this channel

 

  • Category 2 EOPs will have to comply with KYC norms to onboard new clients. Further, they should have access to KYC data through KRAs

 

  • Both category 1 and 2 EOPs can charge transaction fee from AMCs and investors, respectively subject to upper limit capped by AMFI and stock exchange

 

  • AMCs cannot adjust such a fee with the scheme i.e. they cannot charge it to the scheme

 

  • Both EOPs will have to ensure comprehensive risk management, access control and prevent unauthorised access

 

  • EOPs will have to ensure all transaction are dealt in a fair and non-discriminatory manner

 

  • EOPs will have to formulate data protection policy, ensure data privacy and confidentiality and maintain all data

 

  • Entity will have to maintain arm’s length relationship with clients to avoid conflict of interest if performing multiple activities

 

  • If such an entity is into MF distribution at group level, they will have to ensure family level segregation between direct and regular business

 

  • Category 1 EOPs will have to route transaction directly through AMCs or respective RTAs whereas category 2 EOPs can route MF transaction through stock exchange platforms

 

  • Both EOPs cannot display advertisement of MF scheme or brand

 

  • Pooling of funds will not be allowed

 

  • EOP will have to disclose – name of MF scheme, name of fund manager, investment objective, scheme performance, scheme details, risk-o-meter among other things

 

  • EOP cannot list products based on ratings or rankings

 

 

Source- Cafemutual

Is it good to have four mutual funds in your portfolio?

 

You recommend four or five funds for a portfolio. Does it include both debt fund and equity fund or does it depend on the amount invested or you refer four or five equity funds only? – Hemant Bhatt

 

There is no rigid rule to recommend a certain number of funds. Also, there is no one scientifically derived precise number of funds that one can have. The rationale for investing in more funds is to diversify. This helps in offsetting the risk of some of the investments turning bad or performing poorly.

 

But there is no merit in continuing to add more funds in your portfolio beyond a certain point when you don’t get much benefit out of diversification.

 

How much is too much?

Four or five funds are good enough for diversification. This is as per an elaborate study which we did sometime back. The study suggested that beyond four or five funds, typically in the case of equity, you don’t get any meaningful benefit out of diversification in terms of reduced volatility.

 

Having said that, we’d suggest that you think of this aspect from the lens of your goals. As long as you have reasonable diversity in the number of funds for different goals, it is good enough.

 

Let’s understand with an example

Let’s say a person has three different goals to be achieved in the next one year, next two-three years and next 15 years. Such goals with different time frames would require a very different set of investments. Therefore if this person has 10-12 funds, they may not be too many considering all the three goals.

 

In contrast, if someone has three different goals, all to be achieved over the long term, say, in the next five years (single time frame), then a portfolio of more than 10 funds would be too many.

 

In conclusion
Your goal will have an important role to play in determining the number of funds that are good enough for your portfolio. So, have a goal-based investing mindset, and you’ll probably be able to make a better sense of diversification.

 

Source- Valueresearchonline

How to move your corpus to an equity fund?

 

Hi, I am 40 years old and my PPF maturity of around Rs 15 lakh is due next year. I want to move to a better growth investment instrument like NPS wherein I am ready to stay invested for another 15-20 years. I am aware that my withdrawals from PPF will be tax free. Can you please suggest the strategy to systematically move my investment into these equity funds? – Suchit Poothia

 

You need to keep a few things in mind when you want to move your corpus to equity funds.

 

  • Duration: The thumb rule to decide the duration of your equity investment when you have a lump sum is to spread the investment across half the period it took you to earn that money, but it shouldn’t be more than three years. For instance, if it took you five years to build a corpus of Rs 30 lakh, then you can divide the corpus and spread the new investment across 12 to 24 months. This staggering approach to investing will help reduce the cost of investment as well as the risk.
  •  

  • Allocating to equity: Since the time horizon for your new investment is about 15 to 20 years, you should look at allocating more in equity. This is because they tend to beat inflation in the long-run.

 

Now if you wish to use the current corpus to invest in your NPS account, select the active choice option and allocate 75 per cent to equities. But do keep in mind the withdrawal restriction.

 

You can withdraw only up to 60 per cent of the NPS corpus as a lump sum when you reach the age of 60 and the remaining 40 per cent has to be used to purchase annuities. Partial NPS withdrawal is allowed only under certain special circumstances such as to meet medical expenses, education and marriage expenses of children, etc.

 

Other investment options

Alternatively, if you are a disciplined investor and won’t touch the corpus until retirement, then you can invest in flexi-cap funds. These are pure equity funds and have no restrictions on withdrawals. Unlike the NPS which mostly invests in large-cap stocks, flexi-cap funds diversify their investments in mid and small caps too. This can provide you slightly better returns.

 

However, if you have never invested in equities before and are wary of allocating 100 per cent to equity, you can choose an aggressive hybrid fund. These funds invest about 65 per cent in equities and 35 per cent in debt. This mixture helps to contain the equity volatility and is better placed to provide more consistent returns as compared to pure equity funds.

 

Softening the risk is what is necessary for new investors so that you are psychologically strong to stay the course and do not end up exiting the fund in panic.

 

Source- Valueresearchonline

How to manage asset allocation during the accumulation phase?

 

I am 32 years old. I have been investing in mutual funds and shares since the last five years. But my question is how should I manage asset allocation during this accumulation phase, or to be specific when should I sell out part of the equity investment and move it to debt? – Anonymous

 

Great to know that you started investing early. Investing early has several benefits.

 

Asset allocation is a critical aspect of investing. It involves distributing equity and fixed-income assets in your portfolio, based on your investment horizon, risk tolerance, and investment goals.

 

Equity allocation based on investment horizon

As a general guideline, your equity allocation should increase with a more extended investment horizon. Equities have the potential to offer higher inflation-adjusted returns than other asset classes over time. However, as you approach the time when you need your funds, you should reduce your equity allocation in your portfolio and allocate more to debt.

 

If your financial goals are approximately three years away, investing solely in debt/fixed-income instruments is advisable. For goals that are further than three years away, you may choose to allocate a portion of your portfolio to equities.

 

Allocation guidelines for specific financial goals

For goals that are three to five years away, allocating around 25-30 per cent in equities is preferable. If your goals are five to seven years away, you may allocate 30-50 per cent, or even higher, in equities, depending on your risk tolerance. For goals that are seven or more years away, you may allocate even a higher portion to equities (70-80 per cent) and the remainder to debt or fixed income.

 

Systematic investment and exit

Additionally, since it is advisable to invest systematically via SIPs, it is equally important to exit in a systematic manner through an STP or SWP. For example, if your long-term goal is only three years away, consider transferring from equity to debt in a staggered manner instead of doing so all at once. This approach can assist you in avoiding market volatility and ensuring a smooth investment experience.

 

In conclusion, managing asset allocation during the accumulation phase necessitates a thorough understanding of your investment horizon, risk tolerance, and investment goals. By making informed decisions and following a systematic approach, you can create a well-diversified portfolio that can help you achieve your financial goals.

 

Source- Valueresearchonline

Invest lump sum in aggressive hybrid funds?

 

“Can I invest a lump sum of Rs 10 lakh in an aggressive hybrid fund, since it is not a pure equity fund?”, asked one of our readers.

 

Investors often ask this question because they co-relate the importance of SIP and the averaging cost of purchase with equity funds alone. However, it is equally important to not invest a lump sum in equity or equity-oriented funds. For instance, in aggressive hybrid funds. To understand why, let us quickly look at how aggressive hybrid funds work in the first place.

 

Aggressive hybrid funds or equity-oriented hybrid mutual funds

An aggressive hybrid fund invests in both equity and debt securities. However, their allocation in equity and related instruments is higher (65-80 per cent) than in debt instruments. In other words, they can even be called equity-oriented funds.

 

Theoretically, the equity-debt combination helps them balance high returns and stability. However, because of their higher asset allocation in equity, they are subject to volatility and market risks.

 

Understanding the impact of market on aggressive hybrid funds

 

For instance, this graph illustrates the ten worst one-year rolling returns of the Sensex index and aggressive hybrid Funds. There are two things to notice here.

 

Firstly, it is evident that aggressive hybrid funds, despite being equity-oriented, have weathered the equity market downturn better due to their debt component. This aspect provides a protective cushion, resulting in smaller losses compared to pure equity funds, like the sensex index fund for instance.

 

More importantly, this graph indicates how a lump sum investment can suffer from massive losses if it experiences a market fall. In this scenario, if you had invested a lump sum of Rs 1 lakh just a year before March 2020, you would have suffered a 21 per cent loss over the year, leaving you with just Rs 79,000. This is why investing the entire sum at once doesn’t make sense.

 

The alternative

This is where SIPs step in.

 

They have the ability to shield your investments from short-term market fluctuations and thus protect you from risk. SIPs ensure that you do not invest a significant sum during a market high and then suffer from a subsequent fall.

 

When you invest through an SIP, it allows you to invest only a portion of your money, albeit on a regular basis, irrespective of the market conditions. As a result, when market prices are high, fewer units are purchased, and when prices are low, more units are bought.

 

In the longer run, your investment ends up with an average purchase cost, thus reaping the benefits of a disciplined approach to investing. This is commonly known as ‘rupee cost averaging’.

 

The timeline

Now you know you shouldn’t invest a large sum of money, all at once. Instead you should opt for an SIP.

 

The only question is – how much time should you take to invest this money?

 

An efficient way of calculating your investment timeline is to calculate the time it took you to accumulate these funds. Ideally, you should invest this money in half that time.

 

However, it is recommended that you invest this money in not more than three years.

 

Three years is a good time to go through an entire market cycle, and capture both the market rise and fall.

 

Beyond this timeline, there isn’t any real advantage to staggering your investment. In fact, a major downside to a longer timeline is that you may be tempted to spend this money.

 

Our take

Do not invest a large sum all at once. Instead, always plan an SIP.

 

To calculate the timeline for your SIPs, consider the following:

  • How large is this sum?
  • How important and valuable is this money for you?
  • How much time, effort, and energy went into accumulating it?
  • Invest the money over a shorter duration if you have a higher income.
  • Or, if your risk appetite is low, invest this money over a slightly extended period.

Do not take more than three years to invest your lump sum.

 

The key to your wealth, dear reader, is always in disciplined investing!

 

Source- Valueresearchonline