Financial planning for couples: Should you invest together before marriage?

When Tim Lai and his then-partner decided to invest together before marriage, the decision was driven by housing constraints rather than sentiment.

After multiple unsuccessful attempts to secure a BTO flat, they became increasingly concerned that repeated applications would push their combined income beyond the eligibility ceiling. “We were caught in the middle-income trap,” Tim says. “We forecast that at that rate, our incomes would exceed the BTO income limit.”

Investing together became a practical way to stay focused on a shared goal. In Singapore’s environment of rising living costs, longer dating timelines, and relentless talk of compounding early, what once felt pre-maritally premature now feels almost prudent.

But while pre-marriage investing can look like trust in action and ambition made tangible, it also comes with the fine print that many couples reinterpret generously in the glow of shared plans. When love, money and uneven financial power mix, the risks are cast in a rosy tint until the romance fades, and the spreadsheets suddenly matter.

Why more are open to it

According to Schutz Lee, founder of Women+Invest, a community initiative for women to learn and connect around the topic of money and investing, the motivation is often less romantic than it sounds.

“Housing is a very large investment and thus, it makes sense to pool their incomes together before marriage to apply for a flat that will become their home,” she says.

For couples planning to apply for a BTO flat, combining savings early can feel logical. Property, after all, is seen as one of the safer joint investments, with legal structures that make ownership transparent to both parties. Beyond property, some couples choose to invest together to build a larger capital base.

As Schutz puts it, pooling funds can allow couples to “pool their incomes together and benefit from a larger capital sum that they may deploy into the markets, with the expectation of investment gains that they may then utilise as down payment for their BTO or property purchase”.

There is also a quieter dynamic at play. “Young women may be outsourcing their investing to their male partners,” she notes. “Men tend to discuss money, finance and investing more openly with their peers than women do.”

This can reinforce gaps in confidence and familiarity long before couples begin making joint financial decisions. This pattern is reflected in broader data.

The OCBC Financial Wellness Index has consistently found that women in Singapore are less likely than men to invest, and more likely to report lower confidence in making investment decisions. Similarly, data highlighted by the Singapore Global Network shows that fewer women than men feel equipped or confident to participate actively in investing conversations.

Against this backdrop, trust, familiarity, and perceived expertise can make joint investing feel reassuring, softening how risk is perceived rather than removing it.

Where risk actually sits

The risks, however, differ sharply depending on what is being invested and how. “If a woman is not familiar with investing, she will be outsourcing the job to her partner,” Schutz explains.

This creates real blind spots. Apart from having to explicitly trust her partner, a woman may be kept in the dark about how the portfolio is doing if she does not have the language to ask for information, according to Schutz.

She points out: “Stocks, REITS and ETFs are liquid assets – they may be sold easily and digitally through trading platforms.

Her partner may even stealthily sell and pocket the money without her knowledge.” In such cases, trust is no substitute for visibility or control.

Should priorities change, such as funding further education or responding to a personal emergency, accessing “her” share of the funds may not be straightforward. Even when both partners understand investing, joint portfolios can introduce new tensions.

“Investing is personal – you and your partner are unlikely to have the same stomach for risk and return,” Schutz says.

Shared investments can end up satisfying neither partner, and quietly eroding confidence rather than building it. One partner may feel pushed into taking risks they cannot stomach, while the other feels constrained by overly conservative choices. Over time, that imbalance can breed resentment.

For Schutz, the core issue is not whether couples should invest together, but whether women are equipped to invest at all.

“There is no shortcut. Women have to learn,” she says. Without that foundation, joint investing can quietly transfer money, agency and decision-making power away from women, often long before they realise it.

What the law actually looks at

From a legal standpoint, the picture is even clearer, and often less forgiving than couples expect. According to Eunice Ong, counsel at Netto & Magin, courts dealing with disputes between unmarried couples focus primarily on financial contributions.

“The extent of direct financial contributions by each person matters more than the person controlling the account,” she explains.

When Tim’s relationship ended during Covid, unwinding their joint robo portfolio was largely administrative. Tim transferred the funds back into their joint account, calculated how much each of them had contributed, and accounted for the interest earned. In the end, they agreed to split the profits evenly for simplicity. The process was manageable largely because the break-up was amicable and expectations were aligned.

However, when the relationship becomes acrimonious or when expectations are unclear, arguments will start about who is entitled to how much.

The contrast between how couples talk about money and how the law interprets it becomes stark here. Trust, Eunice notes, is not a legal safeguard, and she warns: “Verbal agreements are almost never useful in most circumstances.”

In disputes, courts look for documentation, even if informal. Whatsapp messages, e-mails, or written discussions that reflect each party’s intentions can carry far more weight than recollection alone.

Eunice also notes that problems often arise when couples mix finances without clarity. She points to the absence of written agreements on ownership, adding partners’ names to property purchases solely to increase loan eligibility, or structuring ownership in ways that do not reflect actual contributions.

These decisions may feel convenient at the time, but they can become difficult to unwind later.

“In the absence of a clear written agreement, courts will look at the direct contributions of each party towards the investment – provided there are bank statements or other evidence of payment. If neither party is able to produce documentation supporting their claim to a share of the investment, the division may default to a 50-50 split,” says Eunice.

She recalls a case that illustrates how this plays out in practice. Her client had funded the vast majority of a property purchased with her partner as joint tenants, even though she contributed around 95 per cent of the purchase price.

When the relationship ended and the property was sold, the partner claimed a larger share than five per cent, arguing broader entitlement. In court, however, the outcome hinged on evidence, not narrative.

Eunice was able to substantiate her client’s contributions through bank statements, while the partner could not. The court ultimately recognised ownership in line with actual payments, not perceived effort or control.

Joint account or separate investments?

There is no single correct answer, but experts agree that structure matters more than symbolism. Some couples choose to invest separately while aligning on goals and timelines. Others set aside a limited joint pool for a specific purpose, such as a home down payment, while keeping the rest of their investments individual.

What matters is transparency. Who contributes how much? Who controls the account? How can funds be accessed or unwound if circumstances change? A joint account can feel equal, but if only one person understands or controls it, the balance of power may not be equal at all.

Before investing together, women should feel confident having conversations that may feel unromantic, but are essential. These include discussing existing debts, financial obligations to family, risk tolerance, and what happens if one partner wants to exit the investment. Talking about a break-up plan is not pessimistic; it is protective.

Schutz puts it plainly: “Women need to understand money and investing for themselves before they can invest confidently with someone else.”

Without basic financial literacy, it is easy to give up agency without realising it. Knowledge provides language, confidence, and the ability to ask the right questions. If there is one piece of advice Eunice stresses above all, it is record-keeping. “Keep proper records of all money you contribute,” she advises.

Saving statements, receipts, and proof of payment consistently can make a significant difference if disputes arise later. It may not feel romantic, but it is practical.

Know when and why to merge money

Investing together before marriage is neither inherently wise nor reckless. It is a tool that amplifies existing dynamics in a relationship.

Done thoughtfully, with clarity and shared understanding, it can support long-term goals. Done casually, without structure or safeguards, it can leave women exposed in ways they never anticipated. In the end, financial maturity is not about merging money early.

More fundamentally, it is about knowing when and why to merge money in the first place. At its core, financial maturity is about individual clarity: understanding your own finances, risk tolerance, and decision-making style before entangling them with someone else’s.

If investing feels confusing or intimidating on your own, pooling money does not simplify things. It adds layers of complexity, emotional negotiation, and legal exposure. Joint investing can work, but only when both partners are already financially grounded as individuals.

Without that foundation, shared portfolios tend to magnify imbalance rather than alignment. Knowing where you stand, protecting your agency, and making decisions with open eyes – not just open hearts – matters far more than whether the money is pooled.

Today, Tim is married, and he and his wife maintain separate investment portfolios. The decision reflects a change in circumstances rather than a rejection of joint investing. By the time they met, he had already used his savings to purchase property, while his wife was not yet in a position to invest.

Keeping their finances separate made the sums cleaner, set clearer expectations, and avoided imbalances that would have been harder to unwind later.

As Tim puts it: “My biggest piece of advice is that trust is not a feeling; it’s a strategy.