What is Systematic about Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) and who invented it?
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_Investment_Plan it's nothing but a fancy term for plain old dollar cost averaging. "Personally, I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle.  You're somewhat correct in assuming that what you're reading is usually some kind of marketing material.  Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) is not a universal piece of jargon in the financial world.  Dollar cost averaging is a pretty universal piece of jargon in the financial world and is a common topic taught in finance classes in the US. On average, verified by many studies, individuals will generate better investment returns when they proactively avoid timing the market or attempting to pick specific winners.  Say you decide to invest in a mutual fund, dollar cost averaging means you invest the same dollar amount in consistent intervals rather than buying a number of shares or buying sporadically when you feel the market is low. As an example I'll compare investing $50 per week on Wednesdays, versus 1 share per week on Wednesdays, or the full $850 on the first Wednesday.   I'll use the Vanguard Large cap fund as an example (VLCAX).  I realize this is not really an apples to apples comparison as the invested amounts are different, I just wanted to show how your rate of return can change depending on how your money goes in to the market even if the difference is subtle.  By investing a common dollar amount rather than a common share amount you ultimately maintain a lower average share price while the share price climbs.  It also keeps your investment easy to budget. Vanguard published an excellent paper discussing dollar cost averaging versus lump sum investing which concluded that you should invest as soon as you have funds, rather than parsing out a lump sum in to smaller periodic investments, which is illustrated in the third column above; and obviously worked out well as the market has been increasing. Ultimately, all of these companies are vying to customers so they all have marketing teams trying to figure out how to make their services sound interesting and unique.  If they all called dollar cost averaging, ""dollar cost averaging"" none of them would appear to be unique.  So they devise neat acronyms but it's all pretty much the same idea.  Trickle your money in to your investments as the money becomes available to you."
I will take Obama with an unbroken job creator record  despite a deliberate  GOP NO policy in Congress over George Bush and Herbert Hoover's massive job destruction any time, any day, any minute.   As for regulations - industry after industry have failed to self regulate effectively leaving state and federal government the onerous task. All it takes are a few companies in an industry to systematically break the rules for cost-cutting advantages relative to their competitors - and self regulation goes awry as in BP and Halliburton in the Gulf and all the small businesses hiring illegal immigrants and thus encouraging the illegal practice. Adam Curtis also drew the parallel very articulately last year with his film Hypernormalization. [He captures the sense of sweeping alienation very well in this teaser, I think.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtjfoEvsR9w)  [He did a interview on a neat podcast](https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-future-feat-adam-curtis-121216) too about his film, late capitalism, past art and media that covers systematic failure, and what sociologically might be expected as the system continues to fail. Check it out if you're into that kind of thing. I would suggest you to put your money in an FD for a year, and as soon as you get paid the interest, start investing that interest in a SIP(Systematic investment plan). This is your safest option but it will not give you a lot of returns. But  I can guarantee that you will not lose your capital(Unless the economy fails as a whole, which is unlikely).  For example: - you have 500000 rupees. If you put it in a fixed deposit for 1 year, you earn 46500 in interest(At 9% compounded quarterly). With this interest you can invest Rs.3875(46500/12) every month in an SIP for 12 months and also renew your FD, so that you can keep earning that interest.So at the end of 10 years, you will have 5 lacs in your FD and Rs. 4,18,500 in your SIP(Good funds usually make 13-16 % a year). Assuming your fund gives you 14%, you make: -  1.) 46500 at 14% for 9 years - 1,51,215 2.)8 years - 1,32,645 3.) 7 years - 1,16,355 4.) 6 years - 1,02,066 5.) 5 years - 89,531 6.) 4 years - 78,536 7.) 3 years - 68891 8.) 2 years 60,431 9.) 1 year - 53010 Total Maturity Value on SIP = Rs, 8,52,680 Principal on FD =      Rs 5,00,000 Interest earned on 10th year = Rs. 46,500 Total = Rs. 13,99,180(14 lacs). Please note: - Interest rates and rate of return on funds may vary. This figure can only be assumed if these rates stay the same.:). Cheers! "I have to disagree with you.   **Money is a store of value with which you can redeem your accumulated work for a  good or service you need, at any time.** Therefore, you don't have to wait until your crop has perished to trade it for what you need.  Any store of value that is not purely useful in terms of ""I can consume this"" or ""I can turn this into value directly through labor"" is essentially an IOU. It would be more accurate to say, in the context you provide, that for every asset (your apples) there exists an equivalent combination of liability (what you had to borrow to produce the apples) and equity (what you put in of your own in order to get the apples).  Since gold in this very simple hypothetical system has absolutely no use other than a **store of value**, it *is* debt. It is the promise that you will at some point in your process of transactions acquire the utility that you require. You can't fertilize with gold, but you can buy fertilizer. **Until you buy that fertilizer, you've only traded your harvest for a promise that you *can* buy your fertilizer.**  Something otherwiseyep didn't elaborate on very much, though he mentioned it and it is integral to his story, is the time value of money. That is, if I can borrow 10 gold pieces today for my future work accumulated, I'll pay you back 12 when it's done. This has an effect greater than just injecting value into the economy. It ensures that the negative value experienced by *not* having those 10 gold pieces will be compensated. Credit provides an opportunity for planning for the cyclical nature of markets. It provides an opportunity to make your transaction now - that you don't have to wait until harvest to trade your deer skins for apples.  &gt;Economists like Paul Krugman seem to believe that everything can be fixed by increasing demand, but they totally ignore the costs of production. There exists plenty of demand in the US economy right now, but the cooper has died, the barrels must be brought from China.  I also disagree with this. Krugman emphasizes the *importance* of demand-side measures, not their exclusivity. Any policy must account for cost curves, and that economic profit for any firm is maximized when marginal revenue (the revenue increase or decrease of a single unit added to production) is equal to marginal cost. The U.S may have some demand right now, but if the cost of production were truly the issue, then these firms would be adjusting their capacity, and not sitting on trillions of dollars of currency that ought to be liquid.   If demand was really that high, companies wouldn't be stuffing their mattresses right now to keep the money injected into the economy by QE *out* of circulation. The real problem is that while  in the last few decades consumption has been climbing steadily, real wages have flat-lined, and now we have high unemployment. We can't raise wages, we can't hire more workers, and we still want our cars and houses and corn syrup and lead-filled toys.  This, I think we can agree, is where credit goes wrong: the gap between consumption and wages was filled with credit. The housing bubble manifested itself thus: not as simply a boom in quantity and a lowering in price, but a lowering in price as a result of faulty (dishonest and misleading) risk assessment - (by the same folks who downgraded US debt), and an implosion as a result of that debt systematically dissolving through defaults and foreclosures (to put it very, very, very, simply).  Instead of an increase in consumer credit, we need greater investment by the companies who currently sit on trillions of dollars of frozen cash. Those investments could be better managed, with transparent risk assessment and greater restrictions on lending policy.  Or, ideally, that money could be used to hire workers, expand plants and lower marginal costs.  To tie it back to your concluding paragraph, credit makes it possible to satisfy the demand for those barrels of apples by buying them at a fair market value from China. If it weren't for China's ability to provide the apples at a ""fair"" price (you can, for our purposes here, consider this price to be fair market value if you make a transaction - the selling price equals the buying price), there would be an apple shortage, and the price of apples would climb ridiculously high." "I don't know really is the best investment strategy. People think that they have to know everything to make money. But realistically, out of the hundreds of thousands of publicly traded securities, you really can only invest in a tiny number of them. Of the course of a week, you literally have more than a million ""buy"" or ""don't buy"" decisions, because the prices of those securities fluctuate every day.  Simply due to the fact that there are so many securities, you cannot know what everything is going to do. You have to say ""I don't know"". Also, when you do understand something, it is usually fairly priced. So will you make money on it? ""I don't know"". Only very rarely will you find something that you actually understand well and it is significantly undervalued. You can be looking at a company a day for two years before you find it. But people get trigger happy. They bet on 51%/49% odds when they should only bet on 90%/10% odds or higher.  If you are forced to bet on everything, it makes sense that you bet on everything you believe is greater than 50% chance of winning. But since you cannot bet on everything, you should only bet on the highest quality bets, those with greater than 90% chance of winning. To find such a bet, you may have to shuffle through 100 different companies and only make 2-3 bets. You are looking for something that is at least 2 standard deviations away from the mean.  People are not good at doing a lot of work, most of which yields nothing, to find one big payoff. They are wired to only look at the present, so they take the best bet they can see at the moment, which is often barely above 50% (and with any misjudgment, it may actually be well below 50%). And people are not good at understanding compound/geometric growth. You can keep multipling 10% gains (1.10 * 1.10 * 1.10 ...), but that can all be wiped out by multiplying by one zero, which is why taking a 51%/49% bet is so dangerous (even though technically it is an advantageous one). They forget to adjust for the geometric aspect of compounding. A 99%/1% bet is one you should take, but if you are allowed to repeat it and you keep going all-in, you will eventually lose and have $0, which is the same as if you took a single all-in bet that has 0% chance of winning.  As Buffett says, if you are only allowed to make 20 investments over a lifetime, you will most likely do better because it prevents you from making many of these mistakes." You can keep your Mutual Funds. You have to communicate your new status to fund house.  The SIP can continue. Please note you have to convert the savings account to NRO account. Most banks would keep the account number same, else you have to revise SIP debit to new NRO account. From a tax point of view, it would be similar to resident status. Right now short term gains are taxed. There are quite a few other things you may need to do. Although dated, this is a good article. PS: Once you become resident alien in US for tax purposes, you are liable for taxes on global income. "This doesn't really make that much sense either. The amount of ""can't predict"" should be pretty consistent on a whole market basis. Even if stock markets aren't perfectly efficient, they're efficient enough that you can't predict that there will be less information risk in the future. Even with information risk, the stock market throughout history, trends one way, up. Not being invested is the surest way to miss that." I recall the name Martin Pring. As my fundamental analysis book from grad school was the work of Graham and Dodd titled Security Analysis, Pring was the author of the books I read on technical analysis. If you've not read his work, your education has a ways to go before you hit the tools.