The simple SIP trick turning home loans into profit machines for Indian buyers

Most buyers think a home loan buys them a house — until the interest bill lands like a second price tag. Neha Nagar breaks down how a ₹50-lakh home silently balloons into a ₹93-lakh expense, exposing the hidden math most borrowers never dare to calculate.

The EMI feels harmless, even manageable — until you realise you're paying the bank more than the homebuilder. With ₹43 lakh lost to interest alone, Nagar argues the real trap is psychological: comfort today, compounded regret tomorrow.

Every monthly EMI quietly leaks wealth that could’ve compounded elsewhere. Nagar highlights how disciplined investors don’t just repay debt — they redirect their “lost” money into growth engines that outrun the bank’s interest machine.

Her strategy flips the usual script: invest 0.15% of your loan value into index funds monthly while repaying EMIs. It’s a simple, almost boring move — yet it weaponises compounding to crush the loan’s interest over time.

A modest ₹6,000 SIP morphs into ₹79 lakh over 20 years at 12% — the same period your loan drains ₹43 lakh in interest. Nagar’s point is brutal yet elegant: if you can’t avoid interest, outgrow it.

In her calculation, you don't just neutralise interest — you walk away with ₹22 lakh profit. The idea that a loan could actually make money feels absurd, but the math — cold, unemotional — tells a different story.

Nagar stresses that most borrowers lose not because loans are expensive, but because they never build an investing habit alongside repayments. Discipline, not income, separates those who break even from those who break through.

This strategy rewires the power dynamic: banks no longer grow richer while you shrink. You repay debt on one side while your portfolio snowballs on the other — a double-engine effect most households never tap into.

In an era of rising real-estate costs and stubborn interest rates, Nagar’s method offers a roadmap to stay cash-healthy. Instead of racing to become debt-free, she asks a bigger question: why not become wealth-positive instead?