This Is Too Much! Part 10: “Three Days of Friendship… and an Investment Proposal!”

THIS IS TOO MUCH!

Part 10 - “Three Days of Friendship… and an Investment Proposal!”

When the Pitch Arrives Before the Relationship

Background & Purpose

Some people think in days.

Some think in years.

Some people see an opportunity and act immediately.

Others first build trust, understand people, observe circumstances and allow relationships to develop naturally.

There is nothing inherently wrong with either approach.

A short-term thinker may ask:

“What can we do today?”

A long-term thinker may ask:

“What can we build over the next ten years?”

Both questions have their place.

But relationships become interesting when one person is thinking about today's opportunity, while the other is still trying to understand yesterday's introduction.

This episode deliberately focuses on short-term opportunity-seeking, because long-term relationship-building can involve complicated personal, cultural and financial dimensions that deserve a separate discussion.

The three incidents I am sharing happened around the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Looking back after more than two decades, I can now see a pattern that I could not clearly see then.

The mathematics was simple.

The psychology was fascinating.

And sometimes...

THIS WAS TOO MUCH!

Opening Question

How long does it take to build trust?

A day?

A week?

A month?

A year?

And another question:

How quickly should someone ask you to invest money?

These questions became real for me through three different encounters.

In each case, there was enthusiasm.

There was opportunity.

There was persuasion.

And there was one common feature:

The proposal arrived surprisingly early.

 

CASE 1

The Mineral Water, the Friendship & the ₹1,000

It was around 1998.

I was returning from Nashik after travelling with a sadhu who was a bhajan-upadeshak.

During the journey, I met a gentleman whom I will call Vinay Mohan.

He was highly qualified, yet extremely down to earth.

He had an impressive command of both Hindi and English and interacted with me warmly.

At one of the stations, he purchased a freshly opened bottle of mineral water.

He shared it with me wholeheartedly.

It was a small gesture.

But such gestures create warmth between strangers.

We spoke.

We connected.

Before parting, we exchanged contact numbers.

He said something that sounded very generous:

“I would be more than happy to help you.”

Then came another sentence:

“If you ever plan to start a business, let me know.”

I thanked him.

We went our separate ways.

A week later, I called him.

We decided to meet.

I was working at the time and pursuing my GNIIT, with my final semester going on. I had some money saved, but I had made one personal decision:

I would not give money to anyone without understanding what I was getting into.

We started talking.

Then, surprisingly quickly, the conversation moved towards investment.

He asked:

“How much can you invest?”

I looked around.

There were chemical bottles, packets and what appeared to be samples of products.

I became cautious.

I replied:

“At the moment, I don't have anything to invest.”

He didn't stop.

“Would you prefer a job or a business partnership?”

Then came another question:

“How much can you manage?”

He started with:

₹10,000?

“No.”

₹5,000?

Again:

“No.”

Then he smiled.

“At least ₹1,000? Just for stationery and initial requirements.”

That sounded manageable.

I agreed.

And that was the beginning of my exposure to chain/network marketing.

There were plans.

There was a network.

There was a structure.

There were promises of growth.

I invested, but I could not do much with it.

Looking back, the interesting part isn't whether the model was good or bad.

The interesting part is how quickly the conversation moved from friendship to investment.

The relationship was one week old.

The financial proposal was already mature.

That was my first lesson.

Reflection - Case 1

The sequence was almost mathematical:

Meeting → Warm interaction → Contact exchange → Friendship → Investment

The problem was the speed.

I had mentally stopped somewhere around:

Meeting → Understanding

The other side had already reached:

Understanding → Opportunity → Investment

We were not necessarily following the same timeline.

And perhaps this is an important principle:

Two people can be in the same conversation while operating on completely different timelines.

 

CASE 2

“₹500 and Help the Nation!”

The second incident happened around 1999.

A neighbour, whom I will call Mr. Mehta, lived on the ground floor while we were on the third floor.

One day he met me and greeted me.

Then, almost immediately:

“There is a big opportunity to earn - and you can also help the country. Zero cost!”

That certainly sounded interesting.

He continued:

“If you're interested, come to Borivali railway station, East side, at exactly 6 p.m. And bring some friends if anyone is interested.”

I was tempted by the idea.

So I went.

When he saw me alone, he wasn't particularly pleased.

“Where are your people? Call a few friends. There is another session.”

I made some calls.

Eventually, I managed to gather three people—friends, relatives and acquaintances who were available.

We entered the meeting.

The speaker was highly trained.

The presentation was energetic.

Marketing was connected with patriotism, national service and the recent Kargil atmosphere.

The emotional appeal was powerful.

Then came the question:

“How many of you want to come forward?”

The required contribution?

₹500.

In return, participants were told they would receive an ID card, a kit and samples from an Indian/Swadeshi company.

The speaker painted an attractive picture of opportunity.

Then came the crucial moment.

“Who is ready?”

Hands went up.

I hesitated.

Mr. Mehta looked at me.

I thought:

“Dekha jayega... I can always refuse later.”

And, almost reluctantly, my hand went up too.

We left.

The follow-up began.

Then came another small sentence:

“Cheque will also work.”

Eventually, I paid the ₹500.

I genuinely tried to make it work.

I spoke to people.

I tried to explain the opportunity.

But I couldn't convince many people.

And once again, the experience taught me something.

Reflection - Case 2

The interesting part was not merely the ₹500.

It was the sequence of persuasion.

The decision was influenced by several factors:

• Authority of the speaker

• Group participation

• Emotional appeal

• Patriotism

• Social pressure

• Presence of a known neighbour

• Small initial financial commitment

Behavioural economics gives us a useful lens here.

Small commitment can reduce psychological resistance.

₹500 feels very different from ₹50,000.

But the decision-making mechanism can still be significant.

The mind sometimes says:

“It's only ₹500. Let's see.”

That sentence can be harmless.

But it can also become a gateway to a much larger commitment.

Small step ≠ Small consequence

CASE 3

“Three Days of Knowing Me... and You Know My Savings?”

Now comes the third case.

Around 2000, I met another gentleman whom I will call Mr. Chaddha.

He joined our morning-walk group.

He was soft-spoken and pleasant.

For the first couple of days, our conversations were completely ordinary.

Day 1:

Introduction.

Day 2:

“What do you do?”

We discussed jobs and daily routines.

So far, perfectly normal.

Day 3:

The conversation took another turn.

“How much do you save?”

Then:

“Where do you invest?”

Then came investment plans.

He even came to my centre and proposed certain investment opportunities.

I remember thinking:

“Isn't this a little early?”

We had known each other for roughly three days.

We were still establishing basic familiarity.

Yet the conversation had already entered the territory of:

Savings → Investment → Financial Planning

There was nothing wrong with discussing investment in itself.

The question was one of timing and trust.

Three days of relationship.

Three steps into financial territory.

That was enough to make me pause.

Reflection - Case 3

This case introduced another important variable:

Relationship Depth

Knowing someone's name is not the same as knowing the person.

Walking together is not the same as understanding someone's financial goals.

Having friendly conversations is not the same as having financial trust.

We can represent it simply:

Familiarity ≠ Trust

And:

Trust ≠ Financial Suitability

These are different variables.

The Mathivation Connection

Looking back at all three incidents, I see something very interesting.

Case 1:

A warm meeting quickly became an investment discussion.

Case 2:

A neighbour quickly became an opportunity promoter.

Case 3:

A new walking companion quickly moved towards investment planning.

The common mathematical idea is:

Speed of Proposal ≠ Depth of Relationship

We could even create a simple conceptual model:

Decision Quality = Information × Understanding × Time

If information is limited...

understanding is limited...

and time is compressed...

the quality of the decision can become uncertain.

This is not a financial formula.

It is a Mathivation framework for thinking.

Short-Term Vision vs Long-Term Vision

There is another important distinction.

A short-term approach may think:

Opportunity → Action → Result

A long-term relationship approach may think:

Introduction → Familiarity → Trust → Understanding → Shared Values → Decision → Long-Term Result

Neither model automatically guarantees success.

But they optimise for different things.

The first optimises for speed.

The second optimises for depth.

And perhaps the most important question is:

Which one is appropriate for the situation?

Behavioural Economics Connection

These experiences also show several forces that influence human decisions:

1. Social Proof

When many people raise their hands, we may feel that the opportunity must be credible.

2. Authority

A confident speaker can make an idea appear more convincing.

3. Commitment

Once we say “yes” publicly, withdrawing can feel uncomfortable.

4. Reciprocity

A friendly gesture or relationship can create a subtle feeling that we should respond positively.

5. Scarcity & Opportunity Framing

When an opportunity is presented as something special or urgent, we may feel pressure to act before fully evaluating it.

6. Emotional Framing

When financial decisions are connected with patriotism, friendship, success or helping others, the emotional component can influence rational evaluation.

The Hidden Mathematics of Persuasion

Perhaps we can write:

Persuasion = Information + Emotion + Social Influence + Timing

The problem begins when:

Emotion + Social Pressure > Independent Evaluation

Then the decision may no longer be entirely our own.

And therefore:

Before saying YES, give your reasoning time to catch up with your emotion.

A Simple Mathivation Safety Rule

Whenever someone presents an opportunity, especially a financial one, pause and ask:

What?

What exactly am I being offered?

Why?

Why is this opportunity suitable for me?

How?

How does the model actually work?

Risk?

What can I lose?

Evidence?

What independently verifiable information supports the claims?

Time?

Why must I decide now?

And finally:

Would I make the same decision if nobody I knew were standing beside me?

That last question is powerful.

Human Error of the Day

The Speed-to-Trust Error

We sometimes confuse:

Friendly conversation

with

Established trust.

We confuse:

Opportunity

with

Suitability.

And sometimes:

Urgency

with

Importance.

They are not the same.

Takeaways

• A good opportunity does not necessarily become a good opportunity for everyone.

• Friendship and financial trust are different things.

• Familiarity takes time; financial decisions deserve independent evaluation.

• A small initial investment can still lead to a larger commitment, so the amount alone should not determine the quality of a decision.

• Emotional appeals can influence decisions even when the underlying proposition has not been independently evaluated.

• Social proof can be useful, but “everyone is doing it” is not evidence by itself.

• Before investing, understand the product, business model, risks, costs and alternatives.

• Never confuse a confident presentation with proof.

• A person can be sincere and still offer something that is not suitable for you.

• Long-term relationships are built through consistency, trust and mutual understanding—not merely through quick opportunities.

• Sometimes the wisest financial decision is simply to say: “Let me think about it.”

Mathivation Note

Perhaps the deepest lesson from these three encounters is:

Good decisions need both information and time.

A useful conceptual equation is:

Better Decision = Information × Understanding × Reflection

And another:

Relationship Depth ≠ Time Spent Together

What matters is not merely how long we have known someone...

but how deeply we understand their intentions, values and reliability.

Disclaimer

This article is a personal reflective narrative based on experiences from approximately 1998–2000. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

The article does not identify, accuse or make allegations against any individual, organisation, company or business model. The descriptions are based on the author's personal recollection of conversations and experiences at the time.

The references to network marketing, chain marketing, investment proposals or business opportunities are presented only as part of personal reflection and are not intended as a blanket judgement of any particular industry or organisation. Different business models have different structures, risks and regulatory requirements.

The mathematical equations used in this article are conceptual Mathivation models, not financial Formulae or investment advice.

Readers should independently verify financial opportunities, understand risks and seek appropriate professional advice before making financial decisions.

The central purpose of this article is not to tell readers what to invest in or avoid.

It is to encourage one simple habit:

Pause. Understand. Verify. Then Decide.

Closing Note

When I look back at those three experiences today, I don't see them merely as financial episodes.

I see them as lessons in human behaviour.

In 1998, a bottle of mineral water opened the door to friendship - and eventually to a business proposal.

In 1999, a neighbour's invitation took me into a large gathering where emotion, patriotism and opportunity became part of a financial pitch.

In 2000, a new morning-walk acquaintance reached the subject of investments before we had even built a meaningful relationship.

None of these experiences needed to become bitter memories.

They simply became lessons.

And perhaps that is what life does best.

It gives us experiences first...

and understanding later.

Today, I would ask a few questions that I might not have asked then:

What exactly am I being offered?

What evidence do I have?

What are the risks?

Why am I being asked to decide now?

And most importantly:

Am I making this decision because I understand it - or because someone has made it sound attractive?

Because sometimes...

the opportunity is real.

Sometimes it isn't suitable.

Sometimes the person presenting it is genuine.

Sometimes the timing is wrong.

And sometimes...

we simply need another day to think.

Speed can create action.

Reflection creates better decisions.

And when someone asks you to decide before you have understood the equation...

perhaps the appropriate response is:

THIS IS TOO MUCH! 

Curious Question

Have you ever said “YES” to something mainly because a friend, neighbour or acquaintance persuaded you - and only later realised that you had not understood the complete proposition?

Or perhaps the better question is:

How much time should a person take before trusting an opportunity that asks for money?

Rakesh Kushwaha
Founder, Mathivation Research Lab

A Mathivation Research Lab Initiative

“A relationship may begin in minutes, but trust should never be forced to mature at the same speed.”