Waiting for the 'right time' to invest? You’re already losing money: CA warns

Many people delay investing, telling themselves they will start once things feel clearer or safer. But that wait often comes at a quiet, invisible cost. In a recent post on X, CA Nitin Kaushik broke down how hesitation can eat into long-term wealth, using simple numbers that feel uncomfortably relatable. His message struck a chord because it highlights a reality many ignore: doing nothing with money is still a decision, and often an expensive one.

Kaushik explained that a monthly investment of Rs 25,000 over six years adds up to Rs 18 lakh in actual contributions. But when invested instead of parked, that same amount could grow to around Rs 32.6 lakh. That difference, roughly Rs 14.6 lakh, is the cost of waiting. He pointed out that keeping the same money in a standard savings account earning around 3 per cent would not even keep pace with inflation, meaning the purchasing power slowly erodes over time.

According to Kaushik, many people believe they are being cautious by waiting for clarity. In reality, they are missing out on years of compounding, which is where real wealth is built. His larger point was that investing does not require perfect knowledge or market timing. What matters more is giving money time to grow. In today’s world of rising expenses and persistent inflation, starting early, even imperfectly, often matters more than starting late with confidence.

Delayed investment destroys wealth

In a previous post, CA Nitin Kaushik highlighted how delaying investments can quietly destroy long-term wealth, using a simple comparison rooted in numbers, not motivation. He explained how Raj waited until 30 to feel financially ready and started a Rs 25,000 SIP, while Vikram began at 20 with a lower Rs 20,000 SIP but stronger discipline. Both earned the same 15% annual return and stayed invested until 55. Yet the outcome was stark. Raj’s 25-year journey grew to about ₹8.2 crore, while Vikram’s 35-year run touched nearly ₹29.7 crore.


The difference was not salary, returns, or strategy. It was time. Those extra 10 years allowed compounding to do irreversible heavy lifting.