“The cost of something is the amount of life you exchange for it.” – Henry David Thoreau
Dear Investors & Friends:
Welcome to this week’s SundayReads.
A few months ago, Neha sat across from me at our favourite coffee shop in Matunga, stirring her cold coffee more than sipping it.
She was restless. A 29-year-old software engineer, she had just been offered a senior role at a promising startup in Bangalore. Better pay, better exposure. On paper, it looked perfect.
“But…” she hesitated, “My parents are here. Dad’s health is unpredictable. And honestly, I don’t know if I’m ready to uproot everything.”
I smiled and said, “Neha, every big decision in life—and in money—comes with a cost. Let’s see this through three simple lenses I use even in financial planning:
Compared with what? And then what? At the expense of what?”
She leaned in.
The first question – Compared with what? – made her pause. She’d been so focused on the glamour of the startup that she hadn’t weighed the life she’d be leaving behind: the support system, the comfort, the joy of coming home to her mother’s cooking.
It reminded me of clients who rush to buy a new car without asking: Compared with what?
Maybe the same EMI could fuel a SIP that compounds into a house down payment in five years.
The second question – And then what? – forced her to see beyond the excitement of the first month. If she moved, then what? New city, new skills—but also lonely festivals and guilt calls home. In finance, I often ask clients this same question before a big purchase: And then what? That gadget or impulsive splurge feels good today, but what’s the next consequence? Lost liquidity? Delayed goal?
The third lens – At the expense of what? – was the clincher. Any choice meant giving something up. Neha realised moving meant sacrificing daily family time; staying meant slower career growth. In money too, every “yes” is a “no” to something else. Every FD locked for five years is at the expense of liquidity. Every delayed SIP is at the expense of compounding.
She didn’t give me an answer that day. But a week later, she texted:
“Took the job. Negotiated remote weeks. And please increase SIP now that the salary is higher. Those three questions changed how I decide.”
A few weeks later, I used the same framework with Vikram, a client in Pune running a manufacturing unit. He wanted to invest in automation but feared the cost and its impact on long-term staff.
We walked through the lenses:
Compared with what? Staying manual risked losing contracts.
And then what? Automation could boost profits, but would need retraining.
At the expense of what? A chunk of reserves and possibly a few jobs.
He chose a phased plan—automate gradually, retrain his team, and invest the surplus profits in a corporate bond ladder to secure liquidity. Like any financial decision, it wasn’t painless, but it was conscious.
Over the years, I’ve realised that using mental models like this is a winner every time. Each time I read Shane Parrish’s Farnam Street blog, I come back with a practical takeaway that makes me a better decision-maker—for myself and for my clients. I’ve been doing this for some time now, and the pattern is clear: decisions made through these lenses are calmer, clearer, and far less regretful. And most important – it’s about being intentional.
So the next time you’re facing a financial choice—or even a life one—pause and ask:
Compared with what? And then what? At the expense of what?
It always helps.
Until the next week and the next SundayRead, Ciao
Warmly,
Kavita Bothra
Helping you think thoughts you may not have thought before.
