That Confident Fund Recommendation on Your Feed Was Probably Paid For

Divya Raghunathan fixes teeth for a living, not portfolios. She is a dental technician in Puducherry, twenty-eight, and she found her fund recommendation the way most of her generation does — a ninety-second reel from a creator with four hundred thousand followers and a blue verification tick that she mistook for a regulatory one. The creator’s caption said “link in bio for the exact fund I use.” Divya clicked it, invested through it, and never once asked what the creator earned for that click. Eighteen months later she is still in that fund. She still doesn’t know the answer.

Almost everything written about finfluencers focuses on the loud cases — the pump-and-dump stock tipster, the “guaranteed returns” scammer. Divya’s situation is quieter and more common: a creator who never promised anything outrageous, recommending a real, legitimate mutual fund, through a link that may or may not have been paid. That ambiguity, multiplied across millions of followers, is the actual scale of the problem, and it is exactly the gap regulation has spent two years trying to close.

What SEBI actually did, and when

Starting in August 2024 and reinforced by an October 2024 circular, SEBI restricted its own regulated entities — brokers, asset management companies, registered investment advisers — from engaging with unregistered financial influencers for marketing, financial exchanges, or any form of partnership. Regulated entities were given a three-month window from the October circular to terminate existing arrangements with anyone violating these terms, with penalties, suspension, or cancellation of registration on the table for non-compliance. Genuine investor education is still allowed — but the moment an influencer makes a specific performance claim or a buy/sell recommendation without being SEBI-registered themselves, that crosses the line these rules were built to police.

The rule that finally draws a line between education and advice

The gap in the August and October 2024 rules was obvious the moment they were published: they restrict what regulated entities may do with unregistered influencers, but they say nothing about an influencer operating entirely on their own, with no AMC or broker partnership to terminate. SEBI closed that specific gap on January 29, 2025, through the SEBI (Intermediaries) (Amendment) Regulations, 2024, introducing Section 16A. The provision draws the line by data, not by disclaimer: anyone who is not registered as an Investment Adviser under the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013, or as a Research Analyst under the SEBI (Research Analysts) Regulations, 2014, may only reference security prices or market data that is at least three months old in content framed as education. The instant a creator uses live or recent price data to justify a specific buy or sell call, that content stops being education in SEBI’s own framework and becomes unregistered advice.

This matters for Divya’s exact situation, because it removes the defence a creator would otherwise reach for — “I was just educating, not advising.” A reel showing this week’s NAV, this month’s returns, and a “buy this” caption in the same breath is no longer education under the rule, regardless of what the caption calls itself.

The arithmetic Divya never ran

The reel never mentioned that the fund it linked to was the same fund, at the same NAV, available through a direct plan at a meaningfully lower ongoing cost. Divya invests ₹5,000 a month. Run that through both routes at an assumed 12% gross annual return, over the fifteen years she says she plans to stay invested.

A direct plan, with no distributor built into its expense ratio, compounds close to the full 12%. A regular plan — the kind sold through a referral link that pays the seller a trail commission, typically funded by roughly one percentage point of extra ongoing charge — compounds closer to 11%. Over fifteen years of ₹5,000 monthly contributions, that one-point gap is not decoration. It is the difference between a corpus of roughly ₹25.2 lakh and roughly ₹22.9 lakh — a gap of about ₹2.3 lakh, on total contributions of just ₹9 lakh. Nobody in the reel mentioned that number, because the reel’s business model depends on nobody asking for it.

What nobody tells you: the loophole the association ban does not close

Here is the part the coverage of SEBI’s crackdown mostly skips. The August and October 2024 rules stop a regulated entity — an AMC, a broker — from formally partnering with an unregistered influencer. They do not stop that same influencer from independently registering as a mutual fund distributor with AMFI, getting their own ARN code, and earning ordinary trail commission on every purchase routed through their referral link. That structure is completely legal, fully disclosed if you read the fund’s commission disclosures, and functionally identical to what a bank relationship manager does at a branch counter. The difference is that a branch RM’s incentive is at least visible as a sales conversation. A creator’s incentive is dressed as a tip from a friend who “just wants to help you build wealth” — and the target-sheet logic underneath is exactly the same.

This is why the fix is not “wait for SEBI to ban this too.” An ARN-holding creator recommending a regular plan is not violating anything. The protection has to come from the viewer checking which plan type the link actually leads to, every single time, regardless of how the creator is registered.

What to actually check before trusting financial content online

Look for a clear, upfront disclosure of any paid partnership, ARN code, or distributor relationship — not buried three paragraphs into a caption. Check whether the creator holds a SEBI registration as an Investment Adviser or Research Analyst if they are making a specific fund recommendation rather than general education, and separately check, every time, whether the fund link routes to a direct or a regular plan. Be specifically wary of content that emphasises a fund’s past returns without any discussion of risk, expense ratio, or whether it suits your own goals — that imbalance alone is a signal the content is optimised for engagement or commission, not your outcome.

Divya’s next step, and the one worth building into any recommendation you get from a screen, is simple: YOU ENTER the fund name and the plan type the link led you to, and the calculator settles whether that link was pointing at the cheaper version of the same fund all along.

The incentive that survives any single regulation

Even with SEBI’s rules in force, the underlying economics have not changed: a creator whose income depends on views and engagement is rewarded for confident, simple, urgent-sounding claims — “buy this now” performs better on the algorithm than “here is a balanced framework for thinking about this.” That structural incentive exists independently of any specific disclosure rule, which is why the responsibility for filtering financial content ultimately still sits with the viewer, not only the regulator.

What this does not mean

This does not mean every creator making financial content is compromised, or that Divya was reckless to watch a reel in the first place. Plenty of creators disclose paid partnerships clearly, hold genuine SEBI registrations, and give balanced, well-sourced education. It does not mean a regular plan is always a scandal either — some investors genuinely want a human relationship and are willing to pay for it, which is a legitimate choice as long as it is a chosen one rather than a hidden one.

It means something narrower: a follow count is not a credential, a verification tick is not a SEBI registration number, and the only way to know what a recommendation actually costs you is to check the plan type and run the numbers yourself, every time, regardless of how trustworthy the person on screen seems.

Frequently asked questions

Is all financial content from influencers untrustworthy?

No — plenty of creators provide genuinely balanced, well-researched education, some of them SEBI-registered advisers or research analysts themselves. The concern is specifically undisclosed commercial relationships and confident recommendations from unregistered sources, not financial content as a category.

Can I report a finfluencer I suspect is violating SEBI’s rules?

Yes — SEBI’s SCORES portal accepts complaints against registered entities and their associated marketing arrangements, and investigative referrals for unregistered individuals making investment recommendations.

How do I check if a fund link is a direct or a regular plan?

The fund’s name in the app or statement will explicitly say “Direct Plan” or “Regular Plan” — if it only shows a scheme name with no plan type visible, that is itself worth asking about before you invest, since the default routing for most referral links is the regular plan.

Regulatory source: SEBI circulars of August 2024 and October 2024 on regulated entities’ association with finfluencers, and the January 2025 amendment introducing Section 16A of the SEBI (Intermediaries) (Amendment) Regulations, 2024 on the three-month data-lag distinction between education and advice. The reconstruction of Divya’s numbers, the ARN-loophole framing, and the direct-versus-regular arithmetic are this article’s own.

---

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not financial or legal advice. “Divya Raghunathan” is a composite character, not a real individual. SEBI’s finfluencer regulations continue to evolve — check SEBI’s official circulars for the current requirements before treating any recommendation as advice.