The promise that made investing feel manageable
For a salaried reader, a monthly investing rule offers something valuable: a decision that does not have to be made again every morning. A SIP—a systematic investment plan—means putting money into an investment at regular intervals. It is a way to deploy money, not a guarantee about what happens to it.
Shrivastava’s earlier guidance spoke directly to that reader. An October 2023 thread encouraged monthly investing because timing the market is difficult. His official salary-investing article made the same case. Another official article offered monthly stock SIPs as a simple system for busy workers, although its publication date is unavailable.
The advice was not as unconditional as a slogan. The salary framework also discussed discounted assets, emergency money and diversification. That context matters. But so does the impression a repeated message leaves: keep investing, build the habit, and look beyond the next market move.
When prices fell, stopping was the mistake
In an archived thread dated 7 March 2022, the message had a sharper edge. Blue-chip stocks were described as 30–40% below their highs. Investors were stopping SIPs and moving money elsewhere. Shrivastava criticised short-term panic and predicted a turnaround. The year is inferred from the original post’s status ID; the original post itself was inaccessible.
That is the first tension with the quotation supplied to Follow.fyi. The earlier account challenged the instinct to stop buying during weakness. The supplied warning challenges the instinct to keep buying when worse may lie ahead.
Those positions can coexist. A temporary sell-off is different from a business whose growth has broken. Even before the March thread, a January 2022 archive records his warning against indiscriminate dip-buying, including the risk of bankruptcy and the need for sound assets and position limits.
So the question is more demanding than finding two opposing sentences. What rule tells an investor which kind of fall they are facing—and was that rule made clear before the outcome?
The rule near market highs becomes harder to follow
One comparison makes the change more concrete. The readable opening of an August 2024 video teaches viewers which stocks to SIP into while the market is at an all-time high. A later, directly readable LinkedIn post about growing a small account in 2026 says to stop SIP-ing near all-time highs and buy after a 10% drop. Its exact January date is inferred from the activity ID.
This is the clearest operational tension located: selected-stock SIPs at highs, then a rule to stop SIPs near highs. It is also an imperfect comparison. The full August video was inaccessible. A secondary summary flags valuation, growth and cash-reserve conditions, and the later post addresses a small account. Those differences may explain part of the change.
A September 2024 video shows why headlines alone make poor evidence. Its title advertises buying every dip and smart SIPs; its readable opening already rejects ordinary SIPs in that market. Presenting only the bullish headline would conceal the qualification.
Another March 2024 monthly-stock-SIP video remains a lead, not a verified receipt. Its original could not be inspected and its automated summary looked unreliable. An accountability story loses its own credibility if it cuts the caveats it demands from the adviser.
Meanwhile, the SIP survives in his own offering
The most revealing detail is on the official Wisdom Hatch community page checked on 5 October 2026. Smart SIP remains part of the offering. The stated method accumulates monthly, adds more during drawdowns and deploys less when markets are overheated. The portfolio has a stated June 2025 inception.
Monthly deployment and buying falls have therefore not disappeared from the framework. Nor has SIP investing vanished from his public experiments: a directly readable 2026 LinkedIn post proposes comparing three years of QQQ SIPs with Indian mutual funds in dollar terms. Its exact June date is inferred from the activity ID.
This does not prove that the supplied warning contradicts the method. Smart SIP has conditions, multiple asset types and valuation sensitivity. The warning concerns broken growth and concentrated exposure. The page describes educational personal trackers, not pooled client funds; its self-reported performance is not audited here.
What it does establish is a need for precision. If one kind of SIP is still useful and another is dangerous, the audience deserves the distinction in language clear enough to act on. A paid offering makes that explanation worth scrutinising. It does not establish why he changed his message.
The part of the critique that is not a new discovery
The supplied quotation also argues against keeping all wealth in Indian equities and points to gold, land and US stocks as protection. That sounds like a break only if the earlier record recommended the opposite.
The accessible record does not establish that. His 2023 official salary guidance already included real estate and US exposure. The QQQ experiment is consistent with looking beyond India. His 2025 gold-versus-stocks post favoured productive equities for long-cycle inflation protection while accepting gold’s safe-haven role; the exact May date is inferred from its activity ID, and the post is marked edited.
Even the February 2022 encouragement to invest despite limited knowledge came with a safety net and liquidity considerations. It was not an instruction to stop thinking.
There is no verified prior recommendation here to put 100% of total wealth into Indian equities. Diversification is therefore counterevidence to a sweeping reversal claim. Readers deserve to see it alongside the uncomfortable comparisons.
Changing your mind is allowed. Explain the change.
An adviser can revise a view when evidence changes. The obligation is to connect the new view to the old one: what assumption failed, which investors the new rule applies to, and what they should now do differently.
Moving the goalposts is the criticism at issue when that explanation is missing—especially when yesterday’s confident habit becomes today’s example of investor foolishness. This is an editorial standard for accountability, not a proven finding about every influencer.
The Akshat case supports scrutiny of changing messages. It does not establish an unqualified exact-opposite pair against the entire supplied statement, dishonesty, or a motive to preserve income and influence. Those are different claims, and the sources do not settle them.
If the adviser’s contribution is merely to repeat the mood of the market after it changes, what is the audience receiving? The value lies in rules people can understand beforehand—and explanations they can check afterwards.