
Investing abroad: Here are the pros and cons of using old and new routes
There are multiple ways to invest abroad, and with deepening of markets, more avenues are becoming available.
Here is a look at the advantages and disadvantages of both old and new avenues, and different investor profiles.
Direct purchase of stocks
There are broking firms, either multinational firms or Indian entities with tie-ups with broking firms abroad, who facilitate the execution. Your investment in stocks or bonds abroad is subject to liberalized remittance scheme (LRS) limit of $250,000 per financial year. At a conversion rate of 86 per dollar, it is ₹2.15 crore per financial year.
Provided you do not have any other requirement for money abroad, children's education, or travel, you can utilise this limit. However, one issue here is stock selection. If you are in a different profession, then analysing stocks, that too foreign stocks, is not your forte.
There are entities in India that offer a curated basket of stocks which you can purchase, and they will facilitate the transaction through a broking entity with which they have a tie-up. However, they do not have accountability for the performance of those stocks. You require guidance on picking stocks abroad. Otherwise, it is not advisable to venture into it.
Managed vehicles - mutual funds
Through the mutual fund route, you not only get the advantage of a professional fund management team managing the portfolio, but also the fact that it is not part of the LRS limit. The issue of the MF route is entirely different.
There are RBI limits for the MF industry, of $7 billion for investment abroad and another $1 billion for investments in ETFs abroad. The limits became almost full, and MFs had to stop accepting fresh subscriptions. However, certain MFs investing abroad do accept money from time to time.
There are redemptions, which open up scope for accepting fresh money. Hence, you can go through the MF route. You get the advantage of a fund manager managing your money, or a passive fund following an index abroad, where you can avoid the fund manager risk (risk of the fund manager underperforming a benchmark index).
GIFT City options
There is another avenue in MFs: recently, a fund has been launched under the IFSCA (International Financial Services Centres Authority) jurisdiction at GIFT City. This is a different jurisdiction, not subject to the usual RBI or SEBI regulations. That is, it is not subject to the cap on investments abroad or $7 billion or $1 billion. This is a retail fund, with minimum subscription of $5,000 ( ₹430,000) at a conversion rate of 86.
The term retail fund has a particular connotation: it is a particular fund structure under the IFSCA. This fund is subject to the LRS limit of $250,000 per year. The appeal of this structure is that at $5,000, the ticket size is relatively affordable. There are other outbound products available at GIFT City (other than mutual funds) where the ticket size is higher.
Portfolio management services
There are PMSs available at GIFT City, where you convert your money from your normal rupee bank account to dollar and remit to a bank housed at GIFT. The ticket size is usually $75,000, which is ₹64.5 lakh. Quantum could be lower if the service provider offers 'accredited investors". There is a professional fund manager to manage your portfolio. Money remitted to GIFT jurisdiction is part of the LRS limit of $250,000.
Alternative Investment Funds
There are fund management houses that have Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) under IFSCA guidelines. The fund would be structured as something like 'A Restricted Scheme (Non-Retail) classified as a close-ended category III AIF under the IFSCA FM Regulations".
A restricted scheme is one under a private placement offer to only accredited investors or investors investing above $150,000, and it shall have not more than 1,000 investors.
Things to know about GIFT City route
Similarly, when there is a redemption from investments abroad but the money stays within GIFT, there is no LRS implication. It can be remitted abroad later when required.Joydeep Sen is a corporate trainer (financial markets) and author. Views are personal.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mint
16 minutes ago
- Mint
The Big ‘Mc' Feud: Here's why a Gujarat snack maker is suing McDonald's
McPatel Foods Private Limited has filed a civil suit against McDonald's Corporation before an Ahmedabad rural court. The Gujarat-based snack maker alleged that it has been receiving 'groundless threats' from the American fast-food chain due to its use of the mark 'McPatel.' The Indian snack maker filed the suit under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, aiming for an injunction to prevent McDonald's from initiating or threatening legal action over its use of the 'Mc' prefix in its corporate and product branding. The case is listed for hearing on July 28, 2025, Bar and Bench reported. The conflict began when McPatel Foods applied to register the mark 'McPatel' under Class 30 (covering bakery goods, snacks, noodles, confectionery, sauces and frozen foods) in March 2024. However, on August 27, 2024, McDonald's filed an objection before the Indian Trade Marks Registry against this application. In its notice of opposition, McDonald's alleged the following: Deceptive similarity: McDonald's claims that the 'McPatel' mark is deceptively similar to its 'Mc' and 'Mac' family of trademarks, including McDonald's, McFries, McChicken and others. Acquired distinctiveness: The 'Mc' prefix, according to McDonald's has gained distinctiveness globally since the 1970s, and since 1996 in India due to its widespread use. Global enforcement: McDonald's argues that its trademarks are registered in more than 100 countries, solely with an aim to protect against third-party use of 'Mc'-formative marks. Dominant element: The fast-food chain also argues that 'Patel' and 'Foods' are quite common, making 'Mc' the dominant and source-identifying element in 'McPatel'. Bad intention: McDonald's also alleged that McPatel adopted the mark in bad faith to benefit from McDonald's goodwill, leading to confusion and deception and of the brand's reputation. In its counter statement filed on October 29, 2024, McPatel Foods denied all allegations, asserting the following: Legitimate adoption: The Indian snack maker claimed that the mark was adopted from its registered corporate name and trading style, with no intent to misrepresent or unfairly benefit from McDonald's reputation. Distinct identity: The company said that it is a legally incorporated Indian MSME specialising in processed food, particularly in frozen French fries and their mark is also visually, phonetically and conceptually different from McDonald's trademarks. No prior conflict: The Trademark Registrar is said to have found no conflicting marks at the examination stage, leading to the application's acceptance and advertisement. Lack of evidence: McPatel also pointed to the absence of actual confusion or consumer deception. Jealousy: McPatel contends that the opposition is driven by 'business jealousy' and is filed in bad faith to harass a domestic company. McPatel stood by its rationale that 'Mc' is a common prefix and McDonald's cannot claim monopoly over it across all combinations or industries. As of now, the trademark registry has not made a final decision on the dispute. The ongoing litigation is expected to cause further delays, as reported by Bar and Bench.


Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bombay HC issues notice on BCCI's appeal against Rs 538 crore arbitration awards to defunct Kochi Tuskers
The Bombay High Court on Friday issued notice in appeals filed by Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) challenging a single-judge bench order that upheld two arbitration awards worth over Rs 538 crore granted in favour of the now-defunct Indian Premier League franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala. A division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande restrained Rendezvous Sports World (RSW) and Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL) from withdrawing the amounts already deposited by the BCCI for eight weeks. The BCCI filed an appeal against the June 18 verdict of the single-judge bench of Justice Riyaz I Chagla that dismissed the BCCI's plea challenging arbitral awards. The franchise took part in only one season of the IPL, in 2011, under a consortium led by RSW and KCPL. The dispute began after the BCCI in September 2011 terminated the Kochi Tuskers Kerala due to alleged breach of the franchise agreement. Aggrieved RSW and KCPL began arbitration proceedings alleging 'wrongful' termination. On June 22, 2015, the arbitral tribunal awarded over Rs 384.83 crore to KCPL and over Rs 153.34 crore to RSW, along with interest and costs. The BCCI challenged the award before Bombay HC, which was upheld on June 18. Justice Chagla had held that arbitrator's conclusion was substantiated by records and there were 'no valid grounds' and 'no patent illegality' raised in BCCI's two pleas to warrant interference with the arbitration awards. Justice Chagla had permitted the KCPL and RSW to withdraw amounts deposited by the BCCI after six weeks. However, the BCCI filed an appeal against the single-judge bench order. The two-judge bench is likely to begin the final hearing on BCCI's appeal from September 17.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
16 minutes ago
- First Post
PM Modi, Prez Muizzu inaugurate Maldives defence ministry building
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu on Friday jointly inaugurated a state of the art building of the defence ministry of Maldives in Male. read more In this photo provided by the Maldivian President's Office, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi shakes hands with Maldivian president Mohamed Muizzu after his arrival in Male, Maldives, Friday, July 25, 2025.(Maldivian President's Office via AP) Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu on Friday jointly inaugurated a modern defence ministry building in Malé, in a ceremony that highlights the continuing defence cooperation between India and the Maldives. The new eleven-storey facility, built with financial assistance from India overlooks the Indian Ocean and is expected to boost the capabilities of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and other law enforcement agencies. Calling the structure a 'concrete building of trust,' Modi described it as a symbol of the 'strong partnership' between the two nations. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The prime minister also handed over 72 vehicles and equipment for use by the Maldives National Defence Force. The defence ministry building is a 'concrete building of trust' and it is a symbol of our 'strong partnership', Modi said. VIDEO | Prime Minister Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) and Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu (@MMuizzu) jointly inaugurate the building of Ministry of Defence in Maldives. (Source: Third Party)#Maldives — Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) July 25, 2025 'India will continue to support Maldives in the development of its defence capabilities. Peace, stability and prosperity in the Indian Ocean region is our common goal,' he said. In a social media post, Modi described it as 'yet another instance of strong India-Maldives cooperation.' 'Overlooking the Indian Ocean, the eleven-storey building is a symbol of the strong and long-standing defence and security cooperation between the two countries,' the Ministry of External Affairs said in a press release. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The MoD building has been constructed with India's financial assistance and will contribute towards enhancing the capabilities of the defence and law enforcement authorities of the Maldives, it added. The prime minister arrived here from London in the second and final leg of his two-nation trip. Modi was accorded a warm welcome with Muizzu and a number of top ministers of his government receiving him at the Velena International Airport. Hours later, Modi was accorded a colourful ceremonial welcome and a guard of honour at the iconic Republic Square. With inputs from agencies