As Indian investors increasingly look overseas, questions around US tech valuations, AI concentration risks and global diversification are becoming harder to ignore. Speaking in an interview with Livemint, Viram Shah, CEO and Founder of Vested Finance shared why the era of blindly buying US tech may be over, the risks of Magnificent Seven dominance, and what Indian investors often misunderstand about global investing.
1. The recent data shows a sharp rise in global investing. What’s the lead cause? Has volatility changed behaviour meaningfully, or are flows still momentum-driven?
What’s actually happening is that Indian households have been getting financialised for over a decade. Investors first moved from fixed deposits to mutual funds, and subsequently to direct equity investments. Global investing is just the next step on that ladder. Global markets have delivered strong performance over the past one year, which has further fuelled investor interest.
Another major shift has been improved accessibility. Five years ago, opening a US brokerage account from India involved extensive paperwork, a relationship with some private bank, and probably a CA on speed dial. Today, the process can be completed in a matter of minutes through a smartphone. This has significantly reduced the friction that once limited global investing largely to ultra-high-net-worth individuals (UHNIs).
On volatility — has it changed behaviour? A bit. When the April 2025 tariff scare hit, monthly SIP-style contributions remained largely intact. Lumpsum investments paused for a few weeks, but then resumed. This suggests a more mature investor base compared to three years ago. There’s still a momentum-chasing crowd, but they no longer represent the majority.
2. International investing in India was largely ‘US tech investing’ for years. Are you now seeing a more mature diversification mindset, or is it still Nasdaq-centric?
The tilt remains towards the US, but the composition has evolved.
Three years ago, someone’s “global portfolio” often meant a handful of US tech names — Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Tesla, and perhaps Nvidia. Today, investors are more likely to build around an S&P 500 or total-market ETF and complement it with a few high-conviction stock positions.
That’s a real change. From our own platform numbers, the share of new account allocations going into pure single-stock US tech has dropped from roughly two-thirds in 2022 to under 40% now.
Beyond the US, the curiosity is genuine but the actual money moving is still small. Japan and South Korea are increasingly discussed, driven by strong performance in the Nikkei and KOSPI, as well as improving corporate governance. Europe is attracting interest, particularly in defence and industrial sectors, while emerging markets ex-China remain on investors’ radar, though not yet at scale.
The most interesting diversification signal, however, is gold. AMFI numbers showed gold ETF inflows in India crossed ₹24,000 crore in January 2026, briefly higher than equity mutual fund inflows for the first time ever. That suggests investors are beginning to think about diversification across asset classes, not just geography. Nasdaq still dominates the conversation, but it is no longer the only one.
3. Are you concerned about US tech valuations after the record rally? What’s your outlook?
The reasons to be careful are easy to list. The Magnificent Seven now account for roughly 35% of the S&P 500’s market capitalisation, the highest concentration in modern history. The CAPE ratio is close to 40 — near dotcom-era levels — while the Buffett Indicator stands at about 230% of GDP. Goldman Sachs has indicated the Magnificent Seven may underperform the equal-weight S&P 500 next year, while earnings growth projections are beginning to converge with the broader market.
That said, comparisons with the dotcom bubble are imperfect. These companies generate substantial cash flows. The Mag 7 forward P/E is around 29x, not 50x+. Hyperscaler capex is heading toward $725 billion in 2026 and most of that’s funded from operations. Nvidia did 65% revenue growth last year. These aren’t dotcoms with PowerPoint decks.
Our view is that US large-cap tech may deliver reasonable but unspectacular returns over the next two to three years, with greater divergence across companies. The period when investors could buy any major tech name and outperform is likely over. From here, investors will need to differentiate between competing AI themes — chips, power, applications, and infrastructure — because outcomes will vary significantly.
4. What’s the most misunderstood thing Indian retail investors believe about international diversification today?
The biggest misconception is: “I bought the S&P 500, so I’m diversified.”
That sentence breaks our hearts a little, because it’s so close to right and so far from it at the same time. Today’s S&P 500 is heavily concentrated in technology and AI. The top 10 companies account for roughly 40% of the index. So when somebody tells us they own the S&P “for safety,” what they actually own is a portfolio where one Nvidia earnings miss can swing their entire international allocation by double digits.
Another misunderstanding relates to the Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS) limit of $250,000 annually — as some kind of ceiling on their ambition. For 99% of retail investors that limit is enormous, and they’ll never come close to using it. The real challenge is consistency, not capacity. People want to deploy $20,000 once and feel done. The math of compounding doesn’t care about that.
Currency is another overlooked factor. Investors often focus on dollar-denominated returns without accounting for rupee movements. If the S&P 500 gains 10% in USD terms while the rupee strengthens 4%, the effective return falls to 6%. Global investing should be viewed primarily as diversification and a currency hedge — not as a vehicle to outperform the Nifty every quarter.
5. Do you worry that international investing is becoming too concentrated around a handful of AI names? Are we recreating a ‘globalised meme-stock era’ in a more sophisticated wrapper?
The concentration risk is real, and arguably under-discussed. A significant portion of investments into “US markets” is effectively concentrated in seven companies, whether investors realise it or not. That is not true diversification.
That’s a leveraged bet on AI capex paying off. And the 2022 reminder is uncomfortable: that year the Mag 7 fell about 40% while the broader S&P fell 18%. Asymmetric exposure works both ways.
However, comparisons with the meme-stock era are misplaced. The 2021 meme-stock boom involved retail buying companies with deteriorating fundamentals based largely on social media narratives. What’s happening with Nvidia or Meta is people buying businesses that are posting genuine, audited, eye-watering growth. The valuations can still be wrong, that’s a fair separate argument. But it’s not the same animal as GameStop.
6. Retail investors today can buy leveraged ETFs, thematic baskets, crypto proxies and private-market exposure globally. Is access expanding faster than financial literacy?
The product universe available to Indian retail investors is unquestionably broader than it was five years ago. Leveraged ETFs, thematic AI baskets, and crypto-related exposure are all accessible through a smartphone.
But we’d resist the framing that this is automatically a bad thing or that literacy is “losing the race.” The same expansion of access is what’s letting a salaried professional in Indore own a slice of the global economy for the first time in history. That’s a genuinely democratising shift, and it shouldn’t be undersold.
It is also important to note that high-risk products are not new to Indian retail investors. Participation in futures and options in India dwarfs anything happening in global leveraged ETFs, and the regulator is already working through that conversation.
The more relevant question is whether products are matched to the right investors. A 3x leveraged ETF is a perfectly reasonable tool for a tactical trader and a terrible idea for someone’s retirement corpus.
Our focus remains on clear risk disclosures, guardrails for complex products, and investor education. Broader product access and stronger investor awareness must evolve together.
7. If you had to invest your own ₹1 crore today, how would you allocate it across sectors, stocks or themes?
An allocation of roughly 65–70% to India appears reasonable — mostly large-cap equities, with a smaller mid-cap slice and some debt exposure. Around 20–25% could be allocated to global equities, combining a broad US market core, developed markets outside the US for diversification, and a small emerging markets ex-China allocation. Around 8-8% in gold could serve as a tail-risk hedge, with the remainder kept in cash to capitalise on opportunities.
Within global equities, roughly half could go into broad-based indices, a quarter into AI-adjacent infrastructure themes — such as power, cooling, grid infrastructure, and interconnects — and the remaining quarter into geographic diversifiers such as Japan and Europe.
What we would avoid is chasing last year’s winners among US mega-caps. One of the most expensive investing mistakes is buying last year’s winner with this year’s money.
8. How can GIFT City become a game changer in the current investment context?
GIFT City remains one of the most underappreciated aspects of India’s global investing story. We genuinely believe the next three years are when it stops being a footnote and becomes a household route.
Over 600 entities now operate in GIFT City, and retail participation has begun to scale. Recent launches by fund houses have lowered investment thresholds, making global investing more accessible.
Its biggest advantage is structural. GIFT City operates outside SEBI’s $7 billion overseas mutual fund industry cap, which has been the single biggest bottleneck in Indian global investing for years. Once limits are hit, inflows stop. GIFT does not face that problem. Additionally, if structured appropriately, fund-level taxation may help simplify tax-related complexities.
9. Given the increased competition in the global investing space, what are your plans for the next 3–5 years?
Greater competition is a positive sign. It indicates that global investing has become a meaningful category. Five years ago, the challenge was convincing investors why they should invest globally. Today, the conversation is about how and with whom. That’s a much healthier place to be.
Three things on our mind for the next few years.
First, expanding beyond the US into markets such as the UK, Japan, Europe, and select emerging economies, as diversification in India remains at an early stage.
Second, broadening the product suite to include fixed income, structured global ETFs, GIFT City-domiciled vehicles so investors aren’t forced down one narrow path.
Third, investing heavily in advisor tools and investor education. Access is expanding faster than literacy, and sustainable growth requires both to evolve together.
The long-term goal is simple: by 2030, globally diversified portfolios should become as standard for Indian investors as SIPs are today — a default habit rather than a specialised decision.
Disclaimer: The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, and not of Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
