Most financial advisors tell you what they believe. This page shows you what I have built, what I use, and what you receive — so you can judge the difference for yourself.
A SEBI registration, a CFP® certification, and FPSB Specialist credentials tell you I have met the minimum standard. They do not tell you how deeply I prepare, what tools I use to understand your situation, or how rigorous my analysis actually is. Five things, specifically:
Financial planning in India is underserved not because practitioners lack qualifications — but because the work is often shallow. Generic risk questionnaires. Off-the-shelf fund lists. Plans built from templates rather than from genuine understanding of the person in front of them.
"I follow the FPSB proven methodology. I have built my own analytical tools. I ground every recommendation in research. And I am transparent about all of it — because a client who understands the work is a client who can trust it."
I hold the CFP® (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER®) designation and follow the financial planning process defined by FPSB, the global body that governs it. This is not a framework I invented. It is the globally recognised standard used by certified financial planners across 27 countries, built on decades of research into what comprehensive financial planning actually requires.
The FPSB process covers six interconnected domains — cash flow, risk management, investment, tax, retirement, and estate planning — in a defined sequence that ensures nothing is missed and everything is connected. It is the skeleton on which every other tool and analysis sits.
Financial data, life context, goals, values. The complete picture — not just the numbers.
Specific, honest, ranked. What matters most and what the money needs to do.
Gap analysis across all six domains. Where you are versus where you need to be.
Evidence-based, specific to your situation. Not a template applied to it.
Options with honest trade-offs. You decide with full information.
Annual review. Plan updated as your life changes. Not filed and forgotten.
Most financial plans are built on what clients say about themselves. The problem is that people are poor predictors of their own financial behaviour — especially under pressure, and especially about how they'll actually follow through. I use four distinct tools to build a genuinely accurate picture of who you are with money, and how best to work with you.
Tool 01
A deep mapping of your relationship with money — beliefs, behavioural patterns, and the life events that shaped how you think about it. Surfaces the unconscious narratives driving your financial decisions, often without you realising it, so recommendations account for how you actually relate to money — not just your numbers.
Tool 02
A four-source risk assessment that goes well beyond a questionnaire. Your stated tolerance, your financial capacity for risk, your investment time horizon, and — critically — your demonstrated behaviour under stress. What you say and what you do are often very different.
Tool 03
Every goal gets worked through in session — restated until it's specific, tested against whether it's actually achievable and relevant, and placed on a hierarchy from survival and safety through to family, esteem, and legacy. The funding math only starts once I understand what a goal actually means to you, not just its price tag.
Tool 04
Twenty-four questions across how you make decisions, how you absorb information, how you build trust in advice, and how you turn intentions into action. This doesn't produce a personality label — it produces an implementation playbook: how your IPS gets worded, how meetings get structured, how much automation and follow-up you actually need. The best-designed plan still fails if it's delivered in a way you won't act on.
A real financial plan is not a list of recommended funds, and it is not built in a single meeting. It is assembled across a series of structured sessions — the exact number depends on your situation — each uncovering something the previous one couldn't, before anything is finalised.
I share a redacted sample engagement document on request.
Standard fund analysis looks at trailing returns and star ratings. I built a screening pipeline that goes significantly deeper — tested across multiple market cycles, and benchmarked against the same skill threshold institutional investors use, not a simple "beat the index once" bar. It exists for one job: working out the right combination of active and passive mutual funds for you, not defaulting to either extreme.
Tool 01
A rolling, category-level fund analysis that goes beyond the standard SPIVA report. Analyses consistency of outperformance across multiple market cycles, not just a single snapshot. Measures cost accurately using Base Expense Ratio, not Total TER, and tests for genuine skill using Information Ratio — not just whether a fund beat its index once.
Tool 02
A written, rules-based framework for combining active and passive funds in one portfolio — index by default, with active management permitted only in a capped slot, filled exclusively by funds that cleared the SPIVA++ screen. Decided in advance, not re-argued every time a compelling new fund launches.
Tool 03
Your actual holdings, run through the same rigour. Does the fund beat its benchmark, and by how much? Is that genuine skill or just risk? How has it really behaved in a downturn? Does it do what its category label claims? You see exactly where each fund you own stands — not a star rating.
No preparation needed. No commitment implied. Just an honest conversation about whether this is the right fit.
Talk to Jeetu →SEBI Registered Investment Adviser — INA000022145