The short answer: there is no single universal number, but the framework gives you two anchors.
This measures how much you have already accumulated relative to your annual income. [1]
| Age | Rough benchmark |
|---|---|
| 35 | ~2× annual income accumulated — already behind if you're not there |
| 45 | ~10× annual income accumulated — well-positioned |
If you're below these levels, you need a higher flow rate to close the gap.
$$\text{Savings Rate} = \frac{\text{Total Savings}}{\text{Annual Income}}$$
The NISM curriculum frames it this way: [4]
A practical floor:
At minimum, fund your mandatory deductions first (EPF, PPF if applicable), then target an explicit surplus beyond that. The sooner you set a number and automate it, the less dependent you are on willpower. [10]
| Ratio | Formula | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Liquidity | Liquid assets ÷ Monthly expenses | 3–6 months |
| Debt Servicing | Monthly EMIs ÷ Monthly income | < 30% |
| Leverage | Total liabilities ÷ Total assets | < 30% |
| Expense | Monthly expenses ÷ Monthly income | Falling over time |
If your debt servicing ratio is above 50%, prepaying high-cost debt (personal loans, credit cards at 18%+ — which doubles every 4 years if unpaid) likely beats increasing your SIP. [2]
In the accumulation years, how much you save dominates how well you invest. A 1% fee difference matters less at age 30 than saving an extra ₹5,000/month does. The maths: at 10% returns, ₹1 lakh today becomes ₹17.45 lakh in 30 years — the curve accelerates, so every rupee saved early carries disproportionate weight. [2]
Apply this → Run your own numbers in the Financial Planning Ratios module — enter income, expenses, EMIs, and liquid assets to see exactly where your ratios stand against the benchmarks.