Wealth Management in India: What It Is and How It Works
A Comprehensive Guide to Growing and Protecting Your Wealth
Everyone needs financial planning to secure their future and ensure they are well-equipped to meet future financial requirements. However, wealth management is a special type of financial planning that focuses on managing existing wealth and growing wealth over time.
High-net-worth individuals generally seek wealth management services from qualified wealth managers in India. A wealth manager is an expert on various financial aspects, such as taxation and investment. Let’s dive deep to understand what wealth management is and how it works.
What is Wealth Management?
Wealth management is a form of financial advisory. Individuals and companies often seek this service to manage their money better. A qualified wealth manager can help you decide on money matters like investment, taxation, and estate planning, and even assist the treasury functions of small companies.
Generally, this service is needed only by high-net-worth individuals. Wealth managers are well-versed in the financial nuances of the wealthy and are educated and qualified to provide customized services to HNIs. For instance, if an individual wants estate planning, a wealth manager will guide them through the step-by-step process.
Wealth management in India is generally more expensive than financial planning. Wealth managers typically work on a pay basis as a percentage of assets managed, normally 1%.
How Much Money Should an Individual Have to Avail Wealth Management Services
There is no specific answer to this question. However, wealth managers are hired by high-net-worth individuals who need their more extensive portfolios managed. That said, there is no strict definition of a high-net-worth individual. A commonly accepted threshold now is that HNIs are individuals with more than Rs 45 crore in liquid assets. Wealth managers consider the investors’ financial goals and risk appetite before making any investment.
Types of Wealth Management Platforms in India
Now, let’s talk about wealth management. Nowadays, this term gets thrown a lot, but what exactly does it mean to hire a wealth manager in India?
The answer is that there are only four ways to be a wealth manager in India. There are four licenses, all regulated by SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India).
Why should you care? Because some platforms might suit you better than others. You should learn about all of these before you invest in one.
Here are the four options:
Mutual Fund Distributors (MFDs): They distribute mutual fund products, provide guidance on which funds to invest in, and manage mutual fund investments.
Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) offer personalized financial planning and advisory services and charge fees directly from clients.
Portfolio Management Services (PMS): They manage your investment portfolio on the client’s behalf, tailoring strategies to meet specific financial goals,
Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) pool money from investors to invest in assets other than traditional bonds and stocks.
Is It Worth Having a Wealth Manager?
Ask yourself. Would you want to invest randomly the way you want or take help from an expert? When the investible amount is large, the associated risks are also high. So, it’s only natural that you would want professionals and experienced hands to handle and generate wealth.
While financial planners and wealth managers provide similar services, the difference lies in the depth of services. For an HNI, the ideal way to manage and grow their wealth profile is to hire an experienced wealth manager who can provide services such as estate planning, taxation, and finding new investment avenues.
Taking the help of a trusted wealth manager should be considered an investment rather than an expense.
Future of Wealth Management in India
As people seek to financialise their savings, wealth management in India is seeing a significant transformation very rapidly. Modern Indians prefer to allocate household savings to financial assets, and that percentage has risen from 48% in FY13 to over 60% in FY23, reflecting a shift toward equities.
With financial wealth surpassing $3 trillion and growing at an annual rate of 11-12%, wealth managers focus on high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs). RM-led and IFA-led models are gaining traction, offering personalised and independent advisory services. Integrating technology, including AI-driven analytics and digital platforms, reshapes client interactions and enhances efficiency while maintaining a human touch.
Conclusion
Wealth management is a term quickly gaining popularity among the Indian population. This type of financial advisory is mostly common with high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs). They can use trusted wealth management services in India to manage their wealth and build on it further.
About the Creator
Brutality Before Peace: Ukraine Condemns Russian Strikes Amid Fragile Negotiations
When Peace Is Shadowed by Violence Peace talks are meant to signal hope. They are supposed to mark a pause in bloodshed, a willingness to listen, and a fragile step toward ending human suffering. Yet, in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, peace has once again been overshadowed by violence. Ukraine has strongly condemned what it describes as “brutal” Russian strikes launched just ahead of the second day of peace negotiations, casting a dark cloud over diplomatic efforts that were already hanging by a thread. These attacks did not merely damage infrastructure or military positions; they struck at the heart of trust itself. When bombs fall before dialogue begins, the message sent is louder than any words spoken at a negotiating table. This contradiction—talking peace while waging war—has become a recurring and deeply troubling pattern in modern conflicts. Background: A War That Refuses to Pause Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, cycles of escalation and diplomacy have repeated themselves with painful predictability. Every announcement of talks is met with cautious optimism, only to be followed by renewed offensives, accusations, and shattered expectations. For Ukraine, these latest strikes represent more than a tactical move. Officials argue they are a deliberate attempt to weaken morale, pressure negotiators, and gain leverage before discussions even begin. The timing—just hours before a critical day of peace talks—has intensified suspicions about Russia’s true intentions. From Ukraine’s perspective, peace cannot be negotiated under fire. Diplomacy, they insist, requires at least a temporary respect for civilian life and international norms. The Meaning of “Brutal”: Beyond a Political Statement The word “brutal” is not used lightly in international diplomacy. When Ukraine labeled the strikes as such, it was acknowledging not only the physical destruction but also the psychological and humanitarian impact. Reports from affected regions described explosions near residential areas, damaged energy infrastructure, and terrified civilians seeking shelter. Winter conditions in parts of Ukraine have made these strikes especially devastating, cutting off heat, electricity, and essential services for vulnerable populations. In war, numbers often dominate headlines—casualty counts, missile totals, square kilometers gained or lost. But brutality is felt most deeply in moments unseen by cameras: a family huddled in darkness, hospitals running on emergency generators, children learning the sound of sirens before lullabies. Peace Talks Under Pressure The second day of peace talks was expected to focus on humanitarian corridors, ceasefire possibilities, and confidence-building measures. Instead, the renewed violence shifted attention back to survival and damage control. Negotiations conducted in the shadow of active strikes are inherently compromised. Trust erodes, positions harden, and compromise becomes politically dangerous. Ukrainian negotiators now face the impossible task of advocating dialogue while their nation absorbs fresh wounds. Historically, peace processes that begin under active military pressure rarely succeed. Violence before or during talks often signals that one party views diplomacy not as a path to resolution, but as a strategic tool to legitimize gains or stall for time. International Reactions: Condemnation and Concern The global response to Ukraine’s condemnation was swift but familiar. Western allies expressed deep concern, reiterating calls for restraint and respect for international law. Statements emphasized the need for genuine commitment to peace rather than symbolic negotiations. However, critics argue that repeated condemnations without decisive consequences have lost their deterrent effect. Strong words, they say, cannot compete with missiles unless backed by meaningful action. At the same time, some nations urged continued dialogue, fearing that abandoning talks altogether would lead to further escalation. This delicate balance—condemning violence while clinging to diplomacy—highlights the international community’s limited options in influencing a conflict driven by power, security fears, and national identity. Civilian Cost: The True Measure of Failure While diplomats debate language and leverage, civilians pay the price. Each strike ahead of peace talks undermines the very purpose of negotiation: to protect lives. In affected Ukrainian cities and towns, residents have grown weary of promises. For many, peace talks feel distant and abstract compared to the immediate reality of explosions, displacement, and loss. Trust in international processes weakens when violence appears unchecked. Children miss school, families are separated, and communities fracture under prolonged stress. Mental health experts warn of long-term trauma that will persist long after the last shot is fired. These invisible scars may ultimately prove harder to heal than destroyed buildings. Strategic Calculations: Why Strike Before Talks? Analysts suggest several reasons why such strikes occur before negotiations: Leverage Building – Demonstrating military capability to strengthen negotiating positions. Psychological Pressure – Undermining morale and confidence on the opposing side. Domestic Messaging – Appearing strong to internal audiences. Testing Limits – Gauging international reaction and tolerance. Yet these short-term gains often come at the expense of long-term peace. Violence hardens narratives, fuels resentment, and makes reconciliation more difficult. A Pattern Repeated Across History The Ukraine-Russia conflict is not unique in this pattern. History is filled with examples where peace talks were preceded—or accompanied—by intensified fighting. From the Balkans to the Middle East, such strategies have repeatedly delayed resolution and deepened suffering. What history also teaches is that sustainable peace rarely emerges from fear. It requires mutual recognition of humanity, security guarantees, and accountability. Strikes before talks may alter maps, but they rarely heal nations. The Role of Media and Public Perception Media coverage plays a critical role in shaping how such moments are understood. Headlines about “brutal strikes” influence public opinion, political pressure, and diplomatic tone. For Ukraine, speaking out forcefully is not only about international advocacy but also about maintaining domestic unity. Silence could be interpreted as weakness or acceptance. Condemnation becomes a necessary act of resistance in the information battlefield. However, constant exposure to violence also risks desensitization. The world watches, reacts briefly, and moves on—while the war continues. Is Peace Still Possible? Despite the grim timing of these strikes, abandoning hope entirely would mean surrendering to endless war. Peace remains possible, but it demands more than talks scheduled on calendars. It requires: Genuine ceasefires, not symbolic pauses Protection of civilians as a non-negotiable principle Accountability for violations International mediation with real leverage Without these elements, negotiations risk becoming rituals devoid of meaning. Conclusion: A Test of Intentions Ukraine’s condemnation of the “brutal” Russian strikes ahead of peace talks is more than a diplomatic statement—it is a test of intentions. It asks a simple but profound question: can peace be pursued honestly while violence continues? Every strike before dialogue answers that question, at least temporarily, with destruction rather than dialogue. Yet history reminds us that even the darkest conflicts can change course when courage replaces coercion. Until then, peace talks held under fire will remain what they are now—fragile, painful reminders of how far the world still has to go.
By Zahid Hussain2 days ago in 01
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.