Amit Upadhyaya

India’s merchandise exports rose sharply in August, while imports grew at a much slower pace.

The result? India’s merchandise trade deficit narrowed — despite crude oil remaining expensive.

But before we get into the numbers, let’s first understand what these terms actually mean.

When we talk about India’s international trade, there are broadly two parts:

1. Merchandise Trade: Physical goods that are bought or sold across countries — such as engineering goods, electronics, chemicals, textiles, crude oil and gold.

2. Services Trade: Services that are bought or sold across countries — such as IT/software, business services and professional services.

Now, when India imports more than it exports, the difference is called the Trade Deficit.

Simply put:

->> Trade Deficit = Imports − Exports

So when we say that the trade deficit has narrowed, it simply means that the gap between our imports and exports has become smaller.

Now, let’s look at what happened in August.

---> India’s merchandise exports rose by a massive 26% YoY.
---> Imports also increased — but at a much slower 14%.

As a result, the merchandise trade deficit came down to $26.86 billion, from $31.98 billion in July.

But here is what makes these numbers interesting.

There were two completely opposite forces working on India’s trade balance during the month.

-->> On one side was crude oil. Brent crude remained close to $90 a barrel in August, pushing India’s energy import bill sharply higher compared to last year.

-->> On the other side was gold. India’s non-monetary gold imports dropped significantly — from around $5.4 billion last year to just $2.3 billion this year.

And this fall in gold imports provided a significant cushion against the higher energy bill.

So despite crude becoming more expensive, India’s trade deficit still narrowed.

(Interestingly, June had reported almost similar YoY numbers, although crude prices were somewhat lower during that period.)

So, what does this mean for investors?

-- >> I would call this a positive data point.

A 26% increase in exports is encouraging and indicates resilient cross-border demand for Indian goods.

But there is a bit of nuance here.

The improvement in the trade deficit was also helped by the sharp fall in gold imports. Crude oil, on the other hand, continues to remain an important pressure point for India.

The Bottom Line

---> Keep an eye on crude.

If oil prices see a sustained fall, it can help reduce India’s current account deficit, ease some pressure on the falling rupee and make the overall trade picture much stronger.

So yes, the August numbers are encouraging — but crude remains the number that can significantly change this equation.

12 hours ago | [YT] | 0

Amit Upadhyaya

HUF is one of the most ignored financial structures that every Indian Family should explore. This video is the most comprehensive video you'll find on this subject. Do watch it, I am sure it will be useful.

Amit

https://youtu.be/M-dxZnlOY_M

6 days ago | [YT] | 13

Amit Upadhyaya

7.8% Growth. Time to Celebrate. Really?

India just posted 7.8% GDP growth for Q1 FY27. But almost immediately, an opposition leader called the data "fudged," and a former Finance Secretary publicly questioned the numbers. The debate is deepening with every single day.


So, what is actually going on? Let's decode this properly.


First, we need to understand how GDP is actually built.

It runs on something called GVA (Gross Value Added) - which is just the value added to a product, minus the cost to make it.

Let’s consider this scenario, a tailor buys cloth for ₹500 and sells a shirt for ₹800. His GVA is ₹300.

But to find the "real" growth of the economy, the government has to remove the effects of inflation.

- Here's the same tailor, one year later: cloth now costs ₹520 (+4%), the shirt now sells for ₹880 (+10%) → nominal GVA is ₹360.
- Single deflation (the old method): deflates the whole ₹360 margin using only the shirt's price (output) rise → ₹360 ÷ 1.10 ≈ ₹327. It doesn't check the cloth's price separately at all.
- Double deflation (the new method): deflates the shirt(output) and the cloth(input) separately, using each one's actual price change → (₹880 ÷ 1.10) − (₹520 ÷ 1.04) = ₹800 − ₹500 = ₹300, correctly showing there was zero real growth this year - just price effects.

Now let's talk about the 7.8%, and the math behind it.

The government has changed the way math is done. Especially, the two major changes are,
- The base year moved from 2011-12 to 2022-23, since the economy today looks nothing like it did back then.
- And manufacturing now uses double deflation instead of single deflation - the same fix we just did with the tailor.


MoSPI (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation) calls this a more accurate framework.

Former Finance Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg disagrees - he points out last year's Q1 nominal GDP was revised down from ₹86.05 lakh crore to ₹80 lakh crore, a lower base that make this year's growth look better.

MoSPI's counter: the two figures belong to different series and can't be compared directly.

Experts may debate the math and the derivation behind the official numbers. But, let's park that debate and assume the 7.8% is perfectly correct.

So here's the real question: If 7.8% is such a strong number, is this really a number we should be celebrating given the circumstances?

Q1's own real-economy data was strong and lines up with the 7.8%.

But the momentum didn't carry; by August

- Manufacturing PMI has dropped to a 5-year low, and Services PMI is near a 4-year low.
- Foreign investors pulled over $24 billion out of Indian equities for most of 2026.
- At the exact same time, the government insists - To buy less gold, avoid foreign holidays, and consider getting married in India instead of abroad - all to conserve dollars and support the rupee.

None of these things proves the 7.8% number is wrong. But put them together, and the question becomes difficult to ignore.

India can grow at 7.8%, and yet there can still be very real reasons to question whether that growth deserves to be celebrated this early without qualification.
What’s your take? Let me know in the comments

#DecodedByAmit

1 week ago | [YT] | 42

Amit Upadhyaya

After my recent video on buying a house vs continuing your SIP, I was expecting disagreement. And there was plenty of it.

But one particular argument in the comments genuinely made me think.

Many people said that a home loan is probably one of the best forms of enforced investing.

An EMI is a demand from an external system. You cannot simply decide one month that you don’t feel like paying it. There are consequences if you don’t.

SIP is very different. There is no external pressure. You can stop investing whenever you want. You can reduce it. You can postpone it for a few months. Nobody is going to call you and ask why you did not invest this month.

So the argument was that even if SIP wins mathematically in a particular calculation, a house may still win in real life because it forces you to remain consistent.

I think this is a very valid argument. But it also made me think about something else.

An EMI can definitely force us to save. But can external pressure alone make us good investors?

Because over a long period, wealth creation requires many decisions for which nobody is going to force us.

Nobody forces us to increase our investments when our income increases.
Nobody forces us to stay invested when markets fall.
Nobody forces us to avoid increasing our lifestyle every time our income goes up.
Nobody forces us to maintain the right asset allocation, rebalance periodically and keep doing all this for 20–30 years.

There is no penalty if we get any of these things wrong. That discipline has to come from within.

And perhaps that is the bigger lesson I took away from those comments.

Investment has to become somewhat like an EMI in our life.

Not because someone else is forcing us to do it. But because we ourselves have decided that it is structured, consistent and non-negotiable.

The amount can change. The investment can change. Our asset allocation can change as our life changes. But the habit of investing should remain.

External pressure can definitely create consistency. But I feel long-term wealth creation becomes much more powerful when that consistency is no longer imposed on us, but becomes part of how we live.

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 88

Amit Upadhyaya

A few days ago, I met my ex-team member who had recently become a father.

He was already investing regularly in mutual funds. But after his child was born, he did something different.

He bought a “Child Plan” in his child's name.

I asked him, “Why this plan? You were already investing through mutual funds.”

His answer was well prepared.
“This is for my child's education. It's a fixed return plan. I don't want to take any risk with that money.”

It sounded perfectly reasonable. But still I could not resist asking him one last question - “When will you actually need this money?”

He replied - “Probably 17–18 years later.”

And that is where I think we often confuse the importance of a goal with the risk we should take for it.

Child education, Retirement, buying a house - all of these are important goals.

But money doesn't know what it is being saved for. It only knows when it will be required.

If you need the money 18 years later, your investment decision should primarily reflect an 18-year horizon.
If you need it 18 months later, the same money may need to be protected very differently.

The problem starts when we attach emotions to financial products.

“Child education hai, so it has to be safe.”
“Retirement hai, so I can't take risk.”

And financial products often use exactly this emotion—Child Plans, Retirement Plans, Education Plans. The name makes the product feel specially designed for the goal.

But the better sequence, in my view, is:
- > The goal decides how much money you need.
-> The time horizon decides how much risk you can take.
-> The product is only the vehicle.

As the goal comes closer, safety should increase. Not because the goal suddenly became more important.

Perhaps we should stop asking:
“Which investment is best for my child's education?”
And start asking:
“I need this money after 18 years. What is the right way to invest for an 18-year horizon?”

1 month ago | [YT] | 62

Amit Upadhyaya

People often ask me one question — why did I stay in the same organisation for more than 19 years?

I never really thought of it as a conscious decision to “stay for 19 years.”

Every few years, I was looking at something different — a new role, a new responsibility, a different problem to solve. And as long as I felt I was learning and growing, I never felt a strong reason to leave.

Much later, I realised that perhaps careers work a little like investing.

If you have invested in a good business or a good fund, you don't keep changing it just because someone else made better returns last year. Sometimes the real benefit starts showing only after you have stayed invested long enough.

A career can compound too.

Over time, your skills improve, people start trusting you with bigger problems, your understanding of the business becomes deeper, and the relationships you have built begin to matter. None of this shows up immediately in your salary or designation.

The only catch is that a career doesn't send you a quarterly statement, so you only have to assess it.

Just as we review our portfolio from time to time, we probably need to review our career too.

Am I still learning? Am I becoming better at what I do? Am I building skills that will remain valuable outside this organisation as well?

And sometimes that review may tell you to stay. Sometimes it may tell you to move. There is no right tenure for a career.

Maybe the better question is not - “How long have I stayed here?”
It is

“Is my career still compounding?”

1 month ago | [YT] | 30

Amit Upadhyaya

After a strong rally in April and May, the US market has become more volatile and uneven over the last couple of months, particularly around technology and semiconductor stocks. One of the concerns driving this is whether the massive CapEx spending by Big Tech will translate into enough future earnings and cash flows.

Such debates will always be part of investing.

But for a long-term investor, periods like these can be an opportunity to build a portfolio gradually rather than waiting for the "perfect" entry point.

So, if you've been thinking about building your US portfolio, start small and build gradually.

And if you haven't watched my latest video, watch it once. I've created a simple framework to help you decide which US ETFs to choose and what role each ETF should play in your portfolio.

https://youtu.be/CyhsiaFl5tw

1 month ago | [YT] | 7

Amit Upadhyaya

You Can't Predict the Bottom. But You Can Be Ready For It.

At the start of 2026, in our 2026 Portfolio Strategy, we said: keep an Opportunity Fund ready. Not because we knew a correction was coming - nobody can call that with certainty. Just because you never know when the market gives you an opportunity.

Then came the March 2026 correction.

One of our subscribers had their Opportunity Fund ready and deployed it during the dip - staggered, not all at once. Here's what that looked like 👇
XIRR on this investment: **20.55%**, over almost 2 years
The instalments added closest to the March dip are already sitting on strong double-digit gains,

Before anyone says, "So you called the bottom?" We didn't.
Nobody can consistently do that.
> Keep capital aside. When the market corrects, deploy. If it falls further, deploy more.

Not every dip is the bottom, and not every staggered entry plays out this well - the market can always fall further after you start buying. That's exactly why staggered deployment beats trying to time it.

But that's the point.

You don't need to know where the bottom is. You just need to be ready when the market gives you an opportunity.

That's what portfolio strategy is about.
(Graph generated with a prompt Groww AI agent GR-1)

p.s. If you don't understand that principle, check this video. It's worth watching and applying.

https://youtu.be/ydWw_tFR1ZM

Skip the Carousel

1 2

1 month ago (edited) | [YT] | 36

Amit Upadhyaya

While I was in my corporate job, Friday was my favourite day of the week.

Not because it was easy. In fact, Fridays were usually the busiest. I tried to finish every pending task before logging off so that I wouldn't have to open my laptop over the weekend.

Yet, Friday always felt special.

It was the day that told me, "You've made it through another week."

For the next two days, there would be no client calls, no reviews, no deadlines, no endless meetings. I could finally switch off without feeling guilty.

Today, my life is very different.

I work for myself. If I want, I can take a Monday off. I can go for a long ride on a Wednesday afternoon. I don't need anyone's permission to slow down.

Ironically, I miss Fridays the most.
Not because I want the pressure back, but because I miss the feeling of crossing a finish line.

When you can stop whenever you want, there is no moment that says,
"Well done. You've earned this break."

Freedom is a wonderful thing. But I have realized that freedom is meaningful only because we've experienced constraints.

Rest feels rewarding only because there was effort before it.
Weekends felt magical because weekdays existed.

Life is built on contrasts.

So the next time you find yourself cursing another hectic week, remember—it is that very week that makes Friday evening and the weekend feel so satisfying.
Sometimes, what we think is taking away our happiness is actually creating it.

1 month ago | [YT] | 71

Amit Upadhyaya

While I was in college, I had a classmate who used to wear a Nike shoe.

This was the 90s. Back then, for a middle-class teenager, Nike was something you saw on TV, not on feet. Owning a pair was totally out of reach.

I loved shoes. And I envied him for owning a Nike.

Every time I bumped into him — in class, in the mess, on the ground — I used to look down at his shoes and that big swoosh sign with desire.

One day, sitting in our hostel room, I finally said it — "Yaar, this shoe looks so amazing. You must be so proud of it. It looks so expensive."

He paused for a while, and then said - "You know... this isn't an original Nike. It's a duplicate. Bought from a thrift store."

And then he added, as if it was stuck somewhere deep — "I wish I could have an original one day."

This made me thinking: we spend so much of our lives comparing ourselves with people ahead of us.

We rarely realise they're often looking at someone else the same way.

Sometimes, what we envy is someone else's unfinished dream, and the cycle goes on and on !!

1 month ago (edited) | [YT] | 71