Worried About Market Volatility? Lock in Shriram Unnati FD's High Rates While You Still Can
Mumbai (Maharashtra) [India], April 25: While President Trump's 90-day tariff pause has come as a welcome respite for volatile equity markets, the fact that there continues to be policy uncertainty will mean that business investment is likely to be sluggish in the near-future. This increasing economic uncertainty is also why the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) changed its monetary policy stance from 'neutral' to 'accommodative' when it announced a 25 basis points cut in the repo rate to 6.00% earlier this month. This represents a significant shift in the RBI's outlook - an accommodative stance effectively means that rate hikes are off the table for now and leaves room for further rate cuts if inflation stays under control.
For Indian investors, this changing economic and policy environment is a signal to urgently rethink their asset allocation strategy, leaning more heavily towards the stability of fixed-return instruments. With global trade tensions still unresolved and India's economic growth still under pressure, the likelihood of further monetary easing by the RBI looms large. This means that interest rates, especially on Fixed Deposits (FDs), may trend downward in the coming months. Many banks and financial institutions have already lowered their deposit rates following the recent repo rate cut. This presents a narrow window of opportunity for discerning investors to lock in higher returns with the few institutions that are yet to revise their rates downward.
The Smart Investor's Response to Upcoming FD Rate Cuts
In times of market volatility and economic uncertainty, experienced investors know the value of predictability. FDs offer stability and predictable returns, making them a smart choice when equity markets are choppy and interest rates are on the way down.
Shriram Unnati Fixed Deposit, in particular, stand out by offering some of the highest interest rates in the market today. For investors seeking stability without compromising on returns amidst the market fluctuations, this is an ideal moment to take advantage of the current high interest rates.
Prospective investors are, therefore, encouraged to lock in Shriram FD's high interest rates now to optimise their investment outcomes. This move can help mitigate the impact of future FD rate cut.
Key Benefits of Investing in Shriram Unnati Fixed Deposit
For those seeking a reliable investment option to navigate market volatility, Shriram Unnati Fixed Deposit offers a compelling set of benefits that cater to diverse financial needs and help maximise savings. Here are some of the key advantages:
- Predictable Returns: Shriram FD offers competitive interest rates, providing stability and predictability in uncertain financial environments. Customers can enjoy high interest rates up to 9.40%* p.a., inclusive of 0.50%* p.a. for senior citizens and 0.10%* p.a. for women depositors.
- Flexible Term Options: Investors can choose tenure options ranging from 12 to 60 months, allowing them to tailor their investments according to specific financial goals and risk tolerance.
- Multiple Interest Payout Options: Shriram FD offers diverse interest payout options--monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, yearly, and on maturity--enabling investors to manage cash flows effectively.
- Low Minimum Investment: Investors can begin their wealth creation with a minimum deposit amount of Rs5,000.
- High Credit Ratings: Shriram Finance is highly rated, with credit ratings of "[ICRA]AA+ (Stable)" by ICRA and "IND AA+/Stable" by India Ratings and Research, ensuring reliability for investors.
- Intuitive Digital Platform: The company offers a smooth customer experience through its seamless and user-friendly digital platform, facilitating easy management of the FD online.
Conclusion
Navigating market volatility in these turbulent times requires prudent investment choices. Shriram Unnati Fixed Deposit provides a reliable pathway to predictable returns and financial stability, helping investors build a reliable financial future despite market volatilities. By choosing Shriram FD, investors can make a strategic move towards maximising savings and achieving their long-term financial goals with confidence.
Shriram Finance is a leading diversified financial services company in India, offering a wide range of financial products and services across consumer, wholesale, and business finance segments. The company has a strong presence pan India with a network of 3,196 branches and an employee strength of 79,405 with an AUM of Rs. 254,469 crores. With a focus on financial inclusion and customer-centricity, Shriram Finance continues to empower individuals and businesses to achieve their financial goals.
With regards to deposit-taking activity of Shriram Finance Limited ('SFL'), viewers may refer to detailed information and T & C provided in our application form available at www.shriramfinance.in/downloads. The Company is having a valid Certificate of Registration dated 31st January 2023 issued by the Bank under section 45-IA of the RBI Act. However, the Reserve Bank of India does not accept any responsibility or guarantee about the present position as to the financial soundness of the company or for the correctness of any of the statements or representations made or opinions expressed by the company and for repayment of deposits/discharge of the liabilities by the company.
Please note that Shriram Fixed Deposit does not carry the insurance cover provided by the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (DICGC). Investors are advised to carefully consider their financial situation before making an investment decision. Please refer to the detailed terms and conditions provided by Shriram Finance for a comprehensive understanding of the product.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
41 minutes ago
- News18
ISL Clubs Warn AIFF Of Possible Shutdown If Impasse Continues: 'Over Past 11 Years...'
Last Updated: Eleven ISL clubs warned AIFF of potential shutdowns due to the unresolved Master Rights Agreement with FSDL, impacting Indian football, livelihoods, and international readiness. Eleven Indian Super League (ISL) clubs have warned the All India Football Federation (AIFF) that they 'face the real possibility of shutting down entirely" if the ongoing impasse regarding the future of the top-tier domestic competition is not resolved soon. In a letter written to AIFF president Kalyan Chaubey, the clubs stated that the crisis arising from the non-renewal of the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between the national federation and the ISL organisers, FSDL, has 'paralysed professional football in India". What Did ISL Clubs Write In Letter To AIFF? 'Over past 11 years, through sustained investment and coordinated effort, clubs have built youth development systems, training infrastructure, community outreach programmes, and professional teams that have elevated India's footballing credibility both domestically and internationally," the clubs wrote in the letter sent on Friday. 'This progress is now in imminent danger of collapse. The current standstill has created immediate and severe consequences. With operations suspended and no certainty on league continuity, several clubs face the real possibility of shutting down entirely." The crisis surfaced after Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), the ISL organisers as well as AIFF's commercial partner, put the 2025-26 season 'on hold" on July 11 due to uncertainty over the renewal of the MRA, prompting at least three clubs to either pause first-team operations or suspend player and staff salaries. 'The 2025-26 ISL season is at risk of not taking place at all. This is not merely an administrative deadlock — it is an existential crisis for Indian football. We write to you in the gravest of circumstances," the clubs wrote. 'The trust painstakingly built with fans, sponsors, investors, and international footballing bodies over the past decade will be irreparably damaged if the league remains in limbo." The letter was signed by Bengaluru FC, Hyderabad FC, Odisha FC, Chennaiyin FC, Jamshedpur FC, FC Goa, Kerala Blasters FC, Punjab FC, NorthEast United FC, Mumbai City FC, and Mohammedan Sporting. Kolkata heavyweights Mohun Bagan Super Giant and East Bengal did not sign the letter. Detailing the risk of club closures and livelihood loss, the letter stated, 'More than 2,000 direct livelihoods — players, coaches, medical staff, analysts, kit managers, groundsmen, administrative staff — hang in the balance, alongside countless indirect livelihoods dependent on the league. 'Clubs face a season where revenue from tickets, merchandise and other avenues will be reduced to zero. Potential sponsors have already started backing out, looking at the scenario that the ISL is in. 'This is a huge financial blow that clubs will not recover from this year and it will affect payout of salaries to players and staff in the immediate future, besides making several stakeholders contemplate a complete and permanent shut-down of their respective clubs." The clubs said the impasse will also impact India's readiness for international matches, stating 'without a functioning league, our national team will be severely disadvantaged in upcoming AFC and FIFA tournaments". They also mentioned that without the ISL, they will not be able to play a minimum number of competitive matches for participation in continental competitions, thereby risking suspension of Indian clubs from AFC tournaments. 'The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) mandates a minimum number of competitive matches for participation in continental competitions. Without ISL, this requirement cannot be met, putting India at risk of suspension from all AFC and FIFA tournaments," the clubs said. 'FIFPRO, the global players' union, has already apprised FIFA of the situation, increasing the likelihood of external scrutiny and possible sanctions." On Thursday, the AIFF agreed to mention the ongoing issue concerning the ISL before the Supreme Court on Monday. The apex court has reserved its judgement in the case relating to the draft constitution of the AIFF. The decision to apprise the SC of the crisis situation was taken after a meeting of the legal representatives of the clubs and the AIFF. A reliable source said that the AIFF is willing to file a written application if the Supreme Court asks for one. 'We fully appreciate that related matters are before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, from the record of recent hearings, it appears that the immediacy and scale of the crisis have not been clearly conveyed to the Hon'ble Court," the clubs said. 'The human cost, the threat of clubs folding, the risk of losing our place in AFC/FIFA competitions, and the reputational harm to India's footballing image demand urgent action on our part. 'We therefore respectfully request the AIFF, as the regulator of Indian football, to urgently mention this matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on Monday, 18 August 2025, and to append this letter to present the unified concerns of all ISL clubs before the Hon'ble Court." The clubs said they are ready to support the AIFF in the case through their counsels, though they are not parties to the proceedings before the SC. 'Immediate collective action is the only way to preserve Indian football's future, safeguard livelihoods, and protect the country's standing in the global football community. We remain committed to working alongside the AIFF to achieve a resolution." (With inputs from PTI) About the Author Sports Desk A team of reporters, writers and editors brings you live updates, breaking news, opinions and photos from the wide world of sport. Follow @News18Sports Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. News18 Sports brings you the latest updates, live commentary, and highlights from cricket, football, tennis, badmintion, wwe and more. Catch breaking news, live scores, and in-depth coverage. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : aiff indian super league view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 16, 2025, 21:32 IST News sports ISL Clubs Warn AIFF Of Possible Shutdown If Impasse Continues: 'Over Past 11 Years...' Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Déjà vu in Delhi! India knows the sting of tariffs
US President Donald Trump's decision to impose punishing tariffs on India might seem unprecedented — until you flip the calendar back 36 years. In 1989, Washington tried to pry open the Indian economy by threatening tariffs, leading to a 12-month bitter stand-off between the two nations. Eventually the US backed down, but the conflict left a scar on the bilateral relationship. A look back at the Super 301 episode can help us better understand the dynamics at play today. In the late 1980s, the US was engaged in an intense trade war with Japan, its primary economic rival at the time. Washington developed an arsenal of diplomatic and economic weapons for its war including Super 301, a legal mechanism upgraded in 1988. It authorised the US President to identify countries with 'unfair' trade practices and punish them with retaliatory tariffs. Once the statute came into force, President George HW Bush did not limit its use to Japan. His administration sought to address America's rising trade deficit by using the threat of Super 301 to strong-arm several countries, including American allies like Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. Parallels with the current administration are evident. In his first term, Trump used tariffs to battle China; now he uses them on friends and foes alike. Once Washington develops a policy tool to coerce one country, it becomes all too tempting to use that tool indiscriminately and sometimes unthinkingly. It is an important facet of US hegemony, regardless of who occupies the White House. Many countries tried to avoid Super 301 by hastily cutting deals with Washington to open their markets or voluntarily restricting their exports. In June 1989, the Bush administration declared that it would target three countries — Japan, Brazil and India. New Delhi was taken by complete surprise. Its relations with Washington had been improving in the previous few years. Its trade surplus with the US was relatively paltry. Washington's two central demands, that India allow American investments and foreign insurance companies, seemed arbitrary. Unlike Japan and Brazil, India refused to even enter into negotiations with the US. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said he wouldn't let the US dictate how to run the country. American heavy-handedness sparked intense outrage in the Parliament, further tying the govt's hands politically. At the same time, the American threat of tariffs posed serious risks for the Indian economy. US share in India's exports at the time was about one-fifth, the same as it is today. India was much less dependent on foreign trade in 1989 than it is today, but it was also a much smaller and more vulnerable economy. India failed to enlist world opinion to its side. Western countries, including even Japan, agreed with Washington that India was too restrictive of foreign investments. Today, Indian diplomats looking for international solidarity against US tariff assault may discover a similar situation. Many countries may deplore Trump's ham-fisted tactics, while endorsing his goals of lowering Indian protectionism and weaning it away from Russian oil. PM VP Singh, elected in December 1989, tried to placate Washington through a tightrope act. While India continued to refuse negotiations on the two demands under Super 301, it offered concessions on other economic fronts. Americans were not satisfied with Indian offerings. In April 1990, Japan and Brazil were dropped from the Super 301 list, leaving India as the sole target. Washington issued a two-month ultimatum to New Delhi. American 'bullying' was loudly condemned by Indian media and politicians. In the end, the showdown never arrived. At the expiration of the ultimatum deadline, the Bush administration determined that following through with its threats was not worth it. It declared that while India was an 'unfair trader', it was not in American interest to take retaliatory actions. The Super 301 process against India was discontinued. The Bush administration backed down without much loss of face because Washington's trade campaign was global and India was only a small piece of it. Same remains true today. Although the tariffs are a major issue for New Delhi, they are just one battle among dozens that Trump is fighting on multiple fronts. The Indo-US relationship quickly bounced back, buoyed by alignment of certain economic and geopolitical interests. However, the Super 301 episode left a bad taste in the Indian mouth. It was yet another reminder that American power can unexpectedly become capricious and overbearing. In the last few years, many commentators have expressed befuddlement at why New Delhi resists moving closer to Washington despite its persistent conflict with Beijing. Its reticence partly stems from its fear that greater dependence on the US will leave it more vulnerable to Washington's volatile high-handedness that manifests from time to time. Trump's tariff assault has again affirmed the wisdom behind India's caution. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Could India have handled President Trump better?
The Narendra Modi government converted an economically disastrous idea such as demonetisation into a political win. It dealt with a brutal Covid-19 pandemic that took millions of lives and devastated livelihoods, yet emerged politically unscathed. The Modi government played with fire on land acquisition and farm laws, yet pulled back without getting burnt. And despite its limited success in pulling off a manufacturing revolution to generate jobs on scale, it has remained politically dominant and maintained its multi-class and multi-caste alliance. The Modi government confronted a serious national security crisis with a far more powerful adversary, China, and had to redefine the idea of normalcy for the sake of peace, yet it did not pay a domestic political price. India dealt with a highly polarised West-Russia landscape and a China that was either actively hostile or passively aggressive or absent, yet pulled off a spectacular G20 presidency. It had to secure its interests with diametrically different American administrations with almost opposing priorities, and yet it was able to be friends with the sitting administration while still having enough goodwill with the preceding power constellation. How did a government that has been so adept in dealing with the domestic and international landscape, and overcoming its own missteps and mistakes, fumble in reading the US? How did a government so sharp in reading danger signals not manage friction when there were clear possibilities of trouble with the US from earlier this year, but definitely from May 10 when Donald Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire? How is it that in over 90 days since then, India, with all its equities and power, has failed to shift the conversation or make enough inroads into Trump's world to find a meeting ground while keeping to its redlines? To be sure, it has been difficult to predict the US president's next move, but there are countries that have managed to get their (limited) way. Let there be no doubt about the severity of the crisis. India is worse off among all the regional competitors for investment, and in its own immediate neighbourhood in terms of access to the US market. This has implications way beyond trade, for suddenly, the signal to American capital about India is of uncertainty, despite the charms of its huge market and extensive talent pool. This puts under strain India's broader economic modernisation roadmap that hinges at least partly, if not substantially, on western investment and technology partnerships to boost manufacturing and generate mass employment. India is confronting repeated blows against its core strategic concerns: Trump appears more than willing to make long-term strategic concessions for a deal with China. Pakistan's comeback to the Washington DC theatre, even if it is only in the short-term as some pundits believe, is arguably on a more broad-based diplomatic, economic and strategic footing than even 2001 when it was driven by the narrow counter terror frame in Afghanistan. And, India is paying a price for US-Russia tensions in ways that it hasn't for decades. India is also staring at a crisis in the people-to-people relationship, given the challenges in getting student visas, the backlash against H1Bs in Trump's base and intense spurt in anti-Indian and anti-Hindu racist rhetoric from the White supremacist Right. The biggest crisis, of course, is there are no easy pathways out of it anymore. The more time has passed, the more rhetoric has got meaner, the more demands have escalated and become public, the less political space there is to make compromises. The Indian political and street mood is now, justifiably, furious at how the country has been treated by the US even as everyone realises the importance of that country and the bilateral relationship. There are structural factors at play, for core contradictions on trade openness and relationships with third countries have come to the fore. There are personality-centric issues at play, especially on the American side with a president who revels in sharpening contradictions with his own country's institutions, the international system, and allies and partners in the quest for political or personal or financial wins. And, there are unanticipated variables and events that have affected the chessboard. But none of this can take away from the fact that the government may have missed out on multiple opportunities to manage Trump. This is particularly striking since the political leadership has usually been alert in responding creatively in difficult situations, managing narratives, engaging with all kinds of interlocutors, unleashing diplomatic charm in the external domain or pre-empting rivals by appropriating political issues in the domestic domain, finding wins-wins when possible and framing compromises as wins when necessary. To be sure, as Pratap Bhanu Mehta has eloquently and wisely argued, the Trumpian project is an imperial project and dignity is essential. But avoiding being in the direct firing line of the imperial project was in national interest and the government's core diplomatic duty. And, yes, there may have been ways to do it without compromising on India's historic stance on third-party mediation, or on core interests of small farmers, or on Indian manufacturing potential. And, this was possible because a childishly transparent, vain and corrupt Trump world is always open to a better deal and packaging has always been more central to his politics than substance. To return to the puzzle then, what happened? A detailed empirical account will only emerge once the crisis passes, actors move on from their current roles, and files are declassified. And even a more specific discussion on who got what wrong and when and what could have been done need not detain us here. One school of thought is there was a problem with the personnel chosen to make judgments on the ground and offer advice. Another is that India may have genuinely misread the problem, or been unable to anticipate second or third order consequences of Trumpian rupture. A third suggests that there may have been a problem with the channels selected for execution of goals; India's adversaries and critics have been constantly in Trump's ear while India's perspective has failed to register a mark. It could well be a combination; the problems with personnel, judgment and execution, may have resulted in a problem in decision making. And, to be fair, all of this may have been exacerbated by domestic concerns, not just of the man (and woman) on the street, but the political Opposition. After 11 years, this is the biggest challenge facing Narendra Modi, and he may want to consider a reset. It could start with foreign policy but a full Kamraj-plan style reset across the party and government may not be a bad idea at this time, especially given the ambitious agenda the Prime Minister laid out in his Independence Day speech. This could bring fresh energy and ideas and shatter vested interests to help India prepare for the coming political, economic and strategic storms. For coming they are.
