'We’re not the same': Nithin Kamath highlights why comparing Indian markets to US is misleading

Nithin Kamath concluded his post with an appeal for restraint and realism.

In a strongly worded critique that gained rapid traction across financial circles, Zerodha co-founder Nithin Kamath challenged what he described as a “misguided narrative” comparing India’s options trading volumes with those of the United States. Kamath’s sharply worded post on LinkedIn dissected the flaws in such comparisons, highlighting fundamental differences in market maturity, investor behaviour, and cultural ethos. His blunt assertion—“Gambling runs deep in American culture”—sparked extensive debate online.

The remarks came amid rising concerns over surface-level interpretations of trading data, particularly as retail participation in India’s stock markets continues to expand.

At the core of Kamath’s argument was the contention that India’s options trading market is not dangerously overleveraged, contrary to some recent analyst and commentator opinions. He contended that many of these comparisons were based solely on the number of options contracts traded, while ignoring crucial aspects such as premiums or the actual value of capital involved.

“If anything, India is significantly less leveraged than the US, even taking into account the fact that our markets are 15–20 years behind theirs,” Kamath wrote.

To underscore the scale of disparity, Kamath drew attention to the US margin funding market, which recently crossed $1 trillion. By contrast, India’s equivalent market remains under $10 billion—approximately just 1% of the American figure. He also noted that shorting—now a trillion-dollar mechanism in the US—barely exists in India, where the stock lending and borrowing market is still in its nascent stage.

In perhaps the most striking segment of his post, Kamath referenced a $210 million wager on whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would wear a suit to a NATO summit. Using this as a metaphor, he questioned the cultural foundations of financial speculation in the US.

“From the stock market to sports, casinos, events, lotteries, prediction markets, and crypto, you can bet on anything,” he remarked. “Calling the US a gambling society wouldn’t be unfair.”

Kamath’s remark drew particular attention for its cutting critique of how embedded gambling is within the American psyche—even in contexts that appear far removed from traditional trading floors.

It’s ridiculous to see people comparing options trading volumes in India and the US and claiming that we’re overleveraged. For starters, the comparison itself is flawed. People often look at the number of contracts traded, not the premiums or the actual value involved.If… pic.twitter.com/3uMAgllGQD

— Nithin Kamath (@Nithin0dha) July 31, 2025

Kamath’s comments triggered a wave of discussion online, with several users expressing support for his nuanced take on the subject. One respondent noted, “We actually cannot compare Indian markets with the US… the biggest companies in the US are still growing fast, but fractional investing will change the Indian market.”

Another user was more bullish in tone: “In the US, approximately 62% of the population has stock market investments, whereas in India, it's only 6%. India could be a sleeping giant waiting to awaken.”

Others praised Kamath for urging more meaningful financial metrics. “Comparing contract numbers without looking at actual value is like counting cars without checking if they’re Ferraris or Fiat Puntos,” one user quipped.

Another comment added, “We’re still building basic infrastructure. Our regulators are right to be cautious given how new retail participation is. Better slow growth than 2008 crashes.”

Kamath concluded his post with an appeal for restraint and realism. While acknowledging the rapid pace of India’s financial market development, he warned that comparing it prematurely with the United States could be misleading for both retail investors and policymakers.

His message was unequivocal: India’s markets were evolving on their own trajectory, and it was both inaccurate and unhelpful to draw conclusions based on metrics designed for a vastly different financial and cultural environment.