“Start investing with zero cost.”
“No fees. No risks. Just growth.”
“Your free SIP journey begins today.”
These are the kinds of taglines that drew thousands of unsuspecting savers into so-called “free” Systematic Investment Plans (SIPs). The promise was seductive: a disciplined, zero-cost path to wealth. But behind the glittering slogans lurked hidden traps — lock-ins, high expense ratios, junk add-ons, and poor-performing funds.
Instead of building wealth, many investors ended up losing substantial money, paying for the “free” SIP with reduced returns and unforeseen costs. This article investigates how the “free” SIP narrative was built, why investors fell for it, and the heavy price they ultimately paid.
What Was Meant by “Free”
The “free” SIP label came in several forms:
- Zero Entry Load Pitch
Funds highlighted the absence of entry loads as a “free benefit,” even though SEBI had banned entry loads in 2009 for all mutual funds. - No Brokerage or Fees
Distributors marketed SIPs as “no-cost” compared to stock trading, ignoring the hefty expense ratios embedded in funds. - Bundled Gifts
Free credit cards, vouchers, or insurance were dangled as incentives for starting SIPs. - Digital “Zero-Cost” Platforms
Apps pitched SIPs as “commission-free” but redirected investors into regular plans with higher ongoing costs.
The Hidden Costs Behind “Free”
1. High Expense Ratios
While pitched as free, many SIPs were in regular plans with expense ratios 1–1.5% higher than direct plans. Over decades, this shaved lakhs off returns.
2. Lock-Ins and Exit Loads
Some “free” SIPs were tied to ELSS or hybrid funds with 3-year lock-ins. Exit loads applied if investors redeemed early, contradicting the “free” claim.
3. Cross-Selling Add-Ons
The “free” SIP often came bundled with credit cards, ULIPs, or Demat accounts that carried hidden charges.
4. Underperforming Funds
Investors were steered into poorly performing funds simply because they paid higher distributor commissions.
5. Tax Inefficiency
Frequent switches triggered by “portfolio reviews” generated short-term tax liabilities, eroding wealth.
How Investors Fell for the Trap
- Trust in Banks
Customers assumed their banks would not mislead them with fake “free” offers. - Emotional Hook
“Free” created an irresistible sense of value — especially for first-time investors. - Lack of Transparency
Few investors knew how expense ratios work or how regular plans differ from direct ones. - Digital Nudges
Fintech apps gamified the “free SIP” sign-up, making it seem like a riskless trial. - Peer Pressure
Seeing colleagues or neighbors sign up reinforced the belief that it was safe.
Case Studies
Case 1: The Salary Account Trap
A software engineer in Bengaluru was told he could start a “free SIP” with his salary account. Months later, he discovered hidden Demat charges and that his SIP was in a high-cost regular plan. Over 10 years, this cost him more than ₹4 lakhs in lost returns.
Case 2: The ELSS Surprise
A retiree in Pune signed up for a “free SIP with tax benefits.” Only later did he realize it was an ELSS fund with a 3-year lock-in. When he needed liquidity for medical expenses, he was trapped.
Case 3: The Fintech Nudge
A popular app marketed zero-cost SIPs. In reality, investors were directed into funds with expense ratios far above direct plans. The platform earned commissions hidden from the users.
Why the Industry Pushed “Free”
- AUM Growth
By making SIPs look effortless and cheap, AMCs boosted inflows. - Distributor Commissions
Regular plan SIPs gave banks and agents ongoing trail commissions. - Customer Stickiness
Lock-ins ensured investors stayed tied for years, regardless of performance. - Psychological Advantage
“Free” disarmed investor skepticism, lowering resistance to sign-ups.
The Real Cost of “Free”
Compounding Losses
- A ₹5,000 monthly SIP over 20 years at 12% CAGR grows to ~₹50 lakhs.
- In a regular plan (1% higher cost), it grows to only ~₹44 lakhs.
- The “free” SIP silently cost investors ₹6 lakhs.
Liquidity Costs
Investors trapped in lock-ins missed opportunities to reallocate when markets crashed or needs arose.
Emotional Damage
Feeling betrayed, many abandoned SIPs altogether, losing faith in the system.
Global Parallels
- U.S. “No-Fee” Funds: Brokers lured investors into “no-fee” funds with hidden spreads and underperformance.
- UK Endowment Scandals: Marketed as “free savings plans,” they carried hidden costs and collapsed into mis-selling scandals.
- Asia ULIPs: Sold as zero-cost investments but loaded with hidden charges.
The “free” investment trap is a global sales tactic, not unique to SIPs.
Warning Signs for Investors
- SIPs advertised as “free” or “zero-cost.”
- Bundled products like insurance or credit cards.
- SIPs locked in without clear disclosure.
- Regular plans sold instead of direct ones.
- No detailed explanation of expense ratios.
What Regulators Should Do
- Ban “Free” Labels
Prohibit SIP ads from using the word “free” unless all charges are explicitly zero. - Commission Transparency
Distributors must disclose commissions earned per SIP. - Digital Oversight
Fintech platforms should disclose whether SIPs are in regular or direct plans. - Investor Education
Campaigns should explain how expense ratios eat into long-term returns.
How Investors Can Protect Themselves
- Choose Direct Plans
Always prefer SIPs via AMC websites or trusted direct platforms. - Read Before Signing
Scrutinize mandates for lock-ins, add-ons, and costs. - Ignore “Free” Gifts
Credit cards or vouchers rarely justify hidden fees. - Compare Expense Ratios
A 1% difference compounds into lakhs over decades. - Keep SIPs Simple
Don’t combine with unnecessary financial products.
Could This Backfire on the Industry?
Yes. Just as ULIPs lost investor trust after hidden-cost scandals, SIPs risk reputational damage if “free” marketing continues. Once savers feel cheated, they abandon the system — and rebuilding credibility takes years.
Conclusion
The “free” SIP was anything but free. By hiding true costs under the glitter of marketing, banks, distributors, and apps exploited investor trust and drained long-term returns.
The lesson is clear: if it’s called free, it’s probably the most expensive mistake.
SIPs remain a powerful wealth-building tool, but only when chosen transparently, without gimmicks. Investors must demand clarity, regulators must enforce honesty, and AMCs must stop playing word games with household savings.
ALSO READ: The municipal bond disaster that bankrupted a city
