Just SIP, don't gulp or be thirsty

The MF industry has built an entire theology around a single, reasonable observation: most investors trade too much and would be better off doing nothing. The observation is correct. A 2007 Journal of Banking & Finance study, 'Mutual fund flows and investor returns: An empirical examination of fund investor timing ability', looking into of 7,125 US equity-fund share classes across 1991-2004, found that investor timing cost 1.56 percentage points annually.

Peter Lynch's Fidelity Magellan Fund compounded at 29.2% a year over his 1977-90 tenure. The average investor in the fund reportedly earned only about 7%. The culprit in both cases was investors' desire to time the market by buying after good returns, and selling after bad ones. India's 'SIP karo, bhool jao' was engineered precisely to neutralise this behavioural tendency. And for most investors, across most market conditions, it works.

But the industry has extended this observation, without much scrutiny, into a far more ambitious claim: that investors should never respond to any information at all. The first proposition is well-supported by decades of research. The second is a leap of logic that data does not justify.


Also read: In healthcare, the patient is the least informed consumer

In late 2017, Nifty Smallcap 100 was valued at about 1.9x Nifty 50's earnings multiple. By early Jan 2018, that premium had reached about 90%. This was not hidden information but widely available on index dashboards and in many fund fact sheets.

What followed was a 43% decline from peak to trough over the next 2 yrs. Nifty Smallcap 100 did not regain its 2018 high until 2021. Investors who continued contributing mechanically to the category did so through a deep, multi-year drawdown because the prevailing orthodoxy told them that stopping constituted market timing.

Two questions are sufficient to determine whether pausing an SIP in Jan 2018 would have been market timing, or merely prudent portfolio management:

Did available information materially change the expected distribution of future returns and risk? At nearly twice the benchmark's earnings multiple, the answer's plainly yes.

Did cost of acting exceed expected benefit? Pausing a monthly SIP involves no exit load or redemption cost, since no existing units are sold. The only cost is the opportunity cost of units not bought.

The same pattern played out again between 2024 and 2026. India's securities regulator flagged froth in the small- and mid-cap segments in early 2024 and required monthly liquidity stress-test disclosures from fund houses. By early 2026, Nippon India Small Cap Fund, the largest scheme in the category, was estimated to need 44 days to liquidate half its portfolio under the industry's stress-test assumptions.

Also read: Neighbourhood Power Play: Transmission lines are new pathways of India’s subcontinental influence

Nifty Smallcap 250 fell 23% between September 2024 and March 2026, and nearly 80% of listed companies above ₹1,000 cr in market cap were trading at least 20% below their all-time highs. The market evidence was visible. The behavioural framework didn't change.

SIP has evolved from a financial instrument into something closer to a cultural institution. Any suggestion that an investor might pause or redirect a monthly contribution is now treated as apostasy, not analysis. The industry has a structural interest in this framing: AUM grows fastest when redemptions are lowest.

Core of a portfolio allocated to broad, mechanically managed vehicles like Nifty 500 index funds, EPF and NPS should remain undisturbed. These instruments are designed for mechanical accumulation and perform well under constraint. But the allocation directed towards active equity, sectoral or thematic strategies warrants periodic review against 3 conditions - whether:

Category is trading at historic valuation extremes relative to its own history.

Macro environment has shifted structurally since the position was established.

Fund's management strategy or asset base has changed in ways that alter its risk profile.

Describing this exercise as market timing is a category error. The objective isn't to respond to every headline, but to avoid sleepwalking through rare moments in a decade when the available evidence was unambiguous. Under-reaction remains the safer default in nearly all circumstances. When the evidence is ambiguous, doing nothing is the correct response. But 'nearly all circumstances' is not 'all circumstances'. The distinction matters more than the investing orthodoxy is willing to acknowledge.

The writer is founder, Kuvera.