4 ms·

Re the 1% thing: might be worth it. Lots of people chase returns and pick risky investments. Instead of picking a diversified portfolio of index and/or blue chi

Re the 1% thing: might be worth it. Lots of people chase returns and pick risky investments. Instead of picking a diversified portfolio of index and/or blue chip stocks and sticking with it, they "play" the market, and almost never beat it. The 1% to a wealth advisor saves you from yourself. Of course, milage will vary

sokoloff 8y ago
I think most everyone in the sub-$25M bracket is better served paying a broad-based index fund 0 to 4 basis points for VTSAX or similar and using fee-only planner/advisers for tax, estate, and investment advice. Completely agree that if OP wasn't previously a skilled investor with a track record of beating the market (extremely unlikely), that they shouldn't now try to become one. With this amount of money, they've "won the game" and have no need to beat the market. They only need to match the market over the next 50 years. That can be done very simply, reliably, and cheaply.
- hangonhn 8y ago
  Having worked at a hedge fund, most "skilled" investors aren't. I would just do what you've suggested and park it in a diversified portfolio of index funds even if I had all that money. I've seen some atrocious usage of investor money at hedge funds. It mostly goes toward stoking the ego of the partners.
georgeecollins 8y ago
I think you should not chase returns and pick risky investments AND not have a 1% manager. You can pay for a good CPA and a good attorney, but I am very skeptical that in the long run you will do better with someone managing your money than ETFs and bonds. There is a myth that the wealthy get better advice. Sometimes. But people that want to advertise their skill advertise to the wealthy. There is tons of survivorship bias in wealth managers. You tend to hear about success, people are embarrassed by setbacks. Take it with a grain of salt.

4 ms·

Re the 1% thing: might be worth it. Lots of people chase returns and pick risky investments. Instead of picking a diversified portfolio of index and/or blue chi

by sethammons 8y ago

sokoloff 8y ago
I think most everyone in the sub-$25M bracket is better served paying a broad-based index fund 0 to 4 basis points for VTSAX or similar and using fee-only planner/advisers for tax, estate, and investment advice. Completely agree that if OP wasn't previously a skilled investor with a track record of beating the market (extremely unlikely), that they shouldn't now try to become one. With this amount of money, they've "won the game" and have no need to beat the market. They only need to match the market over the next 50 years. That can be done very simply, reliably, and cheaply.
- hangonhn 8y ago
  Having worked at a hedge fund, most "skilled" investors aren't. I would just do what you've suggested and park it in a diversified portfolio of index funds even if I had all that money. I've seen some atrocious usage of investor money at hedge funds. It mostly goes toward stoking the ego of the partners.
georgeecollins 8y ago
I think you should not chase returns and pick risky investments AND not have a 1% manager. You can pay for a good CPA and a good attorney, but I am very skeptical that in the long run you will do better with someone managing your money than ETFs and bonds. There is a myth that the wealthy get better advice. Sometimes. But people that want to advertise their skill advertise to the wealthy. There is tons of survivorship bias in wealth managers. You tend to hear about success, people are embarrassed by setbacks. Take it with a grain of salt.