/biz/ - Business & Finance

because you first have to grow your wealth before you begin protecting it. its great if you have a six fig career. its bad if you have 10k and nothing else and a 20/hr job.

bc their main job makes so much $ they dont
want to waste time managing $ they have.

>>56018524
they want to do the best they can, so they hire someone they can trust. this person then just buys the s&p anyway, but the client gets to feel safe

>>56018576
Is literally any risk at all mitigated by using a managed portfolio? will they at least pull your money if there are indicators that they should?

Rich people usually aren't rational about how they invest their savings. Most of them don't understand the arguments against active management. In that way, they're just poor people with more money.

Rich people (or their advisors) often want diversification with alternative investments: angel investments, private equity, hedge funds, commodity trading advisors, etc. These are necessarily actively managed; there aren't really passive versions of these.

>>56018524
>>56018586

Actively managed funds are good if you're doing sector allocations. There's no reason to buy an actively managed fund that compares itself to the S&P 500 though.

>>56018624
>need to manage my managed fund
I'd just gamble on stocks myself at that point

>rich people are smart about everything
most of the time they're only smart about their specific expertise or just average/stupid and lucky

>>56018631

You do what you gotta do to survive OP.

>>56018524
many rich people don't earn their wealth. it is generational, or they get lucky. people that don't understand wealth, hire other people to manage it for them.

people that earn their wealth, and understand what wealth is, tend to manage it themselves.

you've apparently met only privileged rich people. unless you are privileged yourself, their advice is unlikely to be useful to the underprivileged.

At what NW should you be looking to put capital into ETFs?

>>56019220
i assume NW stands for "net worth"?

it is not a matter of income, or capital. it's a matter of investment strategy...

are you an aggressive investor? a defensive investor? day trader? are you planning to invest for 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? how old are you? are you investing a few dollars every month out of your paycheck? or did you inherit a large sum from a passing relative, etc?

short answer : ETFs are valid based on your personal investment strategy, not your overall wealth/income.

>>56019220
Never. If I already made it and had millions right now I’d put half of it into T-bills and the other half into ETH

>>56019339
haha. probably why you haven't already made it. moron.

>>56019387
Yeah because putting $100k into stocks is going to make you a millionaire

Fucking retard

>>56019406
It will after about 28 years

>>56019406
See this:

>>56019505

maybe put 5 or 10% into bonds if you aren't already 50+ years old...

crypto is a pyramid scheme. highly volatile. could make LOTS of money, or could LOSE all your money. have fun gambling... why not go down to the casino and put it all on black?

>>56019505
>>56019528
Yeah I don’t plan on waging for Mr. Goldstein for 30 years you dumb kike. Plan A is to make it with crypto. Plan B is to move back into my parents house then kick them out

You don’t have an ISDA, they do. If you actually think managed funds are a scam you clearly don’t understand economies of scale

>>56019539
haha. yea, dividends are NOT a healthy way to earn money without eating into your investment capital.

$1 million @ 5% apy = $50k/year

whatcha gonna do with the money you earn from crypto? put it into a savings account that earns .04% apy? spend it? fucking pleb.

>>56019563
I told you already retard. If rates are still elevated then mostly t-bills and if not then all in on ETH and BTC

>>56019568
good luck with that, moron.