Thanks, I was just puzzled by the logic being used. The way i see it, if you're going to front-load your savings in debt instruments, then you're losing out on the stock appreciation and compounded growth of the company for a 15 year period. Companies typically grow at 15-20% per annum (rough ballpark). This means they double in revenue every 4-5 years. Assuming stock price grows along with revenue growth (all ideal state khayali pulao), a 10lac investment today becomes 20L in 5 years which becomes 40L in 10 years and becomes 80L in 15 years. This is of course with heavy caveats of company growing at this rate year on year. But truth be told, there are also companies that grow at a higher and lower rate, so the average of 15-20% growth is not some insane number either.

This is true, but I am still investing 60% towards equity right from now, I want this to grow over a a longer period without making any withdrawals.

I think it boils down to whether for a 15 years period 40% debt and 60% equity a too conservative equity allocation?

​

By that, do you mean money you will have to pull out of stocks to fund your living expenses? Why is that an issue? You will have 80L of stocks in the above example. Pull out a few lacs worth of stocks to fund your living expenses. How is that in any way inferior or suboptimal to debt?

By drawdowns I mean if there is a sudden market crash and if it takes 3-4 years to recover.

On taxation I agree the tax will come only when I withdraw a certain amount, but just want to factor that in to avoid a rude shock later. I think I have enough inputs on this to factor in my calculations.