I'm not HNW but I enjoy a little experimentation from time to time.HanSolo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 8:12 pmI don't think it's a matter of being self-satisfied. The issue is that if the majority of those funds underperform the index, then many of us won't be interested. This is about numbers.leehamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:54 pm But above-average returns exist, and we shouldn't be so self-satisfied as Bogleheads to deny half of the bell curve of returns.
But, as I've said all along, there's nothing wrong with a well-informed person giving it a try, if they want to.
Ultra HNW on this forum?
- TheTimeLord
- Posts: 12130
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. |
Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]
- BenfromToronto
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
This is not "idealistic".AlphaLess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:35 pmGreat post but a bit too idealistic.BenfromToronto wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:16 amYes, you can be an employee, having invested in a Bogle-congruent way (i.e., diversified low-cost funds) for your whole life, and end up as a UHNW individual.Sandtrap wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 7:20 am Given: IHNW = 10-20-30 mil plus .
Only my experiences: I have never heard or met or known anyone that was “self made” (no windfall) and of UHNW that did it only as an employee. All were business owners or very highly paid professionals who also had businesses.
I live among professionals (physicians, lawyers, architects, accountants...) who are in their 60's.
They have worked all their life and are still working.
Their annual income is in the $200-400K range.
If they are married, their spouse typically works and contribute another $100-200K per year.
Some of them live the life of a "millionaire next door": 1/3 of their income for the government; 1/3 for spending (supporting a very nice lifestyle); 1/3 invested (in both taxable accounts and maxed-out tax-advantaged accounts).
By their early 60's, their invested assets are above $10M and their net worth (including paid home, second home, collectibles...) is around $20M.
When they will stop working (in their early 70s), their invested assets should have doubled and be around $20M (with still another $10 in non-productive assets).
In retirement, they will be able to live off SS plus less than half the dividends generated by their invested net worth (maintaining their very nice lifestyle).
When they die in their 80s, their estate should be in the $40-50M range, qualifying for the current definition of UHNW.
All this has been accomplished by buying (via DCA) and holding a small number of low-cost funds (e.g. Vanguard mutual funds in the 1990s and ETFs now) but not necessarily the rigid 3-fund asset allocations (e.g., they may have tilted towards small caps; they typically did not have any bonds while they were paying mortgages...).
No individual stocks, no hedge-funds, no cryptocurrencies.
These people are the living demonstration of the Bogle's philosophy (which they may have discovered through books published in the 80s like the "Wealthy Barber" or the "Millionaire Next Door").
Their peers who have similar income and lifestyle but have let Financial Advisors and Private Bankers "manage their money" will end up with about a quarter of their wealth (e.g., $10M vs. $40M).
In other words, they will have given 3/4 of their wealth to their advisors.
This is simple math: an IRR of 7% (10% minus 2-3% in management and trading costs) vs. an IRR of 10% over 50 years.
1. High producing occupations with annual incomes of $200-$400K start that way, but also have significant above-inflation growth. Even a 25% growth over inflation over 30 years doubles the pay. Also, there are promotions, etc, resulting in 30% one time growths,
So, it is likely that at the peak of the career (may not be at age 70, but at age 55), these folks are making a lot more than that,
2. They also need to be luck in multiple ways: no major health issues, no early death or disablement, no disabled kids. Those things can be extremely draining on time, energy, focus, and assets,
3. Also, need to be luck not to have a financial disaster, like a bad one-time investment.
I describe the lived experience of some of my cohort: getting very rich very slowly following the simple (but not easy) approach of Jack Bogle.
1. I used 2022 salaries of $200K-400K. Our salaries in the late 1980s, early 1990s were in the $50K-100K.
They have grown at the pace of inflation plus a little bit (i.e., doubling every 15-20 years).
A physician with 30-year experience does not get paid much more than a recent graduate to do the same medical procedures.
2. Yes, I describe the majority of people who have been "lucky" and have been spared from major personal tragedies or disasters.
You forgot one personal disaster that would almost always prevent somebody from becoming rich (slowly): divorce.
3. One of the merits of the Bogle's approach to investment is that there are no "bad one-time investments."
However, it does not protect against "financial disasters": over the past 35 years, my cohort had to survive the flash-crash of 1987 (-35% over 101 days), the bear market of 1990 (-20% over 87 days), the 2000-2002 dot-com crash (-48% over 929 days), the financial crisis crash of 2007-2009 (-57% over 517 days),the Q4 2018 correction (-20% over 95 days), and the COVID-19 crash of 2021 (-34% over 33 days), plus 15 corrections (drops of -10% to -20%) and 8 dips (drops of -5% to -10%).
Becoming rich slowly is simple --earn, save, invest following a Bogleheads philosophy-- but it is not easy.
-
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:24 pm
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
+ 100.AlphaLess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:43 pmI used to be of this opinion. But there is one fundamental factor.susan123 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:39 pm I have a family member who's 9 digit NW, but he doesn't come to this forum (that I know of). He made his gold through founding tech companies (later either IPO or sold it). He still works full time and loves what he does. If you love what you do, you don't work a single day.
It depends WHO you work with.
You might love what you do, but if you work with A-h0les, that is not a good situation.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Ten years ago, Bill Gates was #2 on the Forbes Billionaires list @ $56B
https://web.archive.org/web/20120103153 ... llionaires
Currently Bill is #4 on the list @ $124B
https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
If instead of doing whatever Bill Gates did, he had put that $56B in 2012 into the portfolio Buffett suggested for his bequest to his wife (90% S&P 500/10% Short-Term Treasury) , and took 4% inflation adjusted withdrawals (starting at $2,224,000,000 in 2012 withdrawals)
Bill would still be #1 on the list, or at least tied with current Jeff Bezos $177B
PortfolioVisualizer Simulation
https://web.archive.org/web/20120103153 ... llionaires
Currently Bill is #4 on the list @ $124B
https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
If instead of doing whatever Bill Gates did, he had put that $56B in 2012 into the portfolio Buffett suggested for his bequest to his wife (90% S&P 500/10% Short-Term Treasury) , and took 4% inflation adjusted withdrawals (starting at $2,224,000,000 in 2012 withdrawals)
Bill would still be #1 on the list, or at least tied with current Jeff Bezos $177B
PortfolioVisualizer Simulation
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
- TheTimeLord
- Posts: 12130
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
It should be noted Gates has donated roughly $50 billion to charity over the years, best I could tell $14 billion since 2018, while charity is a more recent endeavor for Bezos. Also, Elon Musk is the current world's richest man.JoMoney wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:27 pm Ten years ago, Bill Gates was #2 on the Forbes Billionaires list @ $56B
https://web.archive.org/web/20120103153 ... llionaires
Currently Bill is #4 on the list @ $124B
https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
If instead of doing whatever Bill Gates did, he had put that $56B in 2012 into the portfolio Buffett suggested for his bequest to his wife (90% S&P 500/10% Short-Term Treasury) , and took 4% inflation adjusted withdrawals (starting at $2,224,000,000 in 2012 withdrawals)
Bill would still be #1 on the list, or at least tied with current Jeff Bezos $177B
PortfolioVisualizer Simulation
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billio ... 63037f3d78
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. |
Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I know one person with 9 figures. They made their money by founding a company and selling it for about 100M.
They hated retirement and bought another company a few years later.
They also bought a minor league sports team, which loses money, but they love.
The rest of their money is in a minority stake in a 10 figure real estate project that is under construction.
I know one mid-8 figure person and most of their wealth is in their company stock, which they still work for.
There is nothing to stop people UHNW people from investing like Bogleheads, but most of them probably beat the market to get as much money as they have, so they probably think about risk differently.
They hated retirement and bought another company a few years later.
They also bought a minor league sports team, which loses money, but they love.
The rest of their money is in a minority stake in a 10 figure real estate project that is under construction.
I know one mid-8 figure person and most of their wealth is in their company stock, which they still work for.
There is nothing to stop people UHNW people from investing like Bogleheads, but most of them probably beat the market to get as much money as they have, so they probably think about risk differently.
-
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:48 pm
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Also most of his wealth is most likely in highly-appreciated Microsoft stock. If he sold it to move to S&P 500 he would have paid perhaps half of it in taxes.TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:43 pmIt should be noted Gates has donated roughly $50 billion to charity over the years, best I could tell $14 billion since 2018, while charity is a more recent endeavor for Bezos. Also, Elon Musk is the current world's richest man.JoMoney wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:27 pm Ten years ago, Bill Gates was #2 on the Forbes Billionaires list @ $56B
https://web.archive.org/web/20120103153 ... llionaires
Currently Bill is #4 on the list @ $124B
https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
If instead of doing whatever Bill Gates did, he had put that $56B in 2012 into the portfolio Buffett suggested for his bequest to his wife (90% S&P 500/10% Short-Term Treasury) , and took 4% inflation adjusted withdrawals (starting at $2,224,000,000 in 2012 withdrawals)
Bill would still be #1 on the list, or at least tied with current Jeff Bezos $177B
PortfolioVisualizer Simulation
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billio ... 63037f3d78
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
This reminds me of my father's situation. Serial entrepreneur for his entire career and still working 6 days a week. Was barely scraping by at 60 with next to nothing saved for retirement but company was trending in the right direction. Company is now worth well over 1 billion and he wouldn't sell it for twice that. Investing in himself paid off but he is now invested in all kinds of crazy things. I try to nudge my parent's into more traditional investments but they still gravitate to some odd things like country clubs and sports teams.Patzer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:56 pm I know one person with 9 figures. They made their money by founding a company and selling it for about 100M.
They hated retirement and bought another company a few years later.
They also bought a minor league sports team, which loses money, but they love.
The rest of their money is in a minority stake in a 10 figure real estate project that is under construction.
I know one mid-8 figure person and most of their wealth is in their company stock, which they still work for.
There is nothing to stop people UHNW people from investing like Bogleheads, but most of them probably beat the market to get as much money as they have, so they probably think about risk differently.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I have a couple associates, probably more towards the $100M range, who have always impressed me with their prudence. Like, they'll start a new company (or join at a high level), and do things like take no salary, and work their network to pull in like-minded people to help the company ... but they generally seem to limit themselves to a modest investment, like 10% of NW. I can't tell if this is managing risk, or if it is forcing the company to grow strong on its own (if you can't find investors, does that mean THEY are missing the point, or that YOU are missing the point?).CJD121213 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:10 pm This reminds me of my father's situation. Serial entrepreneur for his entire career and still working 6 days a week. Was barely scraping by at 60 with next to nothing saved for retirement but company was trending in the right direction. Company is now worth well over 1 billion and he wouldn't sell it for twice that. Investing in himself paid off but he is now invested in all kinds of crazy things. I try to nudge my parent's into more traditional investments but they still gravitate to some odd things like country clubs and sports teams.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Ignoring taxes. Microsoft returned 30% over the past 10 years to the S&P 500s 15%.... My understanding though that Gates is supposedly down to like 20 billion in Microsoft with most of his money in Cascade Investment. Last numbers I saw had them beating the S&P by a couple of points.FlyingMoose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:47 amAlso most of his wealth is most likely in highly-appreciated Microsoft stock. If he sold it to move to S&P 500 he would have paid perhaps half of it in taxes.TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:43 pmIt should be noted Gates has donated roughly $50 billion to charity over the years, best I could tell $14 billion since 2018, while charity is a more recent endeavor for Bezos. Also, Elon Musk is the current world's richest man.JoMoney wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:27 pm Ten years ago, Bill Gates was #2 on the Forbes Billionaires list @ $56B
https://web.archive.org/web/20120103153 ... llionaires
Currently Bill is #4 on the list @ $124B
https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
If instead of doing whatever Bill Gates did, he had put that $56B in 2012 into the portfolio Buffett suggested for his bequest to his wife (90% S&P 500/10% Short-Term Treasury) , and took 4% inflation adjusted withdrawals (starting at $2,224,000,000 in 2012 withdrawals)
Bill would still be #1 on the list, or at least tied with current Jeff Bezos $177B
PortfolioVisualizer Simulation
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billio ... 63037f3d78
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Is it realistic that someone starting out in their career, is going to save $250k/yr? Those early years have the biggest impact on net worth late in life because of compounding interest. My guess someone who has $30M+ did something outside a 9-5 job. ( I am sure another janitor will pop up but look toward an extraordinary event in most cases).FoolMeOnce wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 10:21 pmDepends how much that 9-5 job pays. Save $250k/yr for 30 years at 8% growth will get you there. But if you're doing it that way, most people would retire before reaching that point.moneyflowin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:55 pm If UHNW is defined as "above $30MM", then I doubt any subscribe to and follow the BH way. It's far is too conservative to generate that much wealth. Getting to that level would require one to lever up repeatedly (eg, real estate) or to concentrate in a small number of home runs whether stock or private investments, or plow all your money into your small business and let it grow (which is a form of risky concentration).
Working a 9-5 job and stashing it into your 401k and brokerage accounts at 60/40, with only passive ETFs and no leverage, while paying off your 3% mortgage, won't gonna get you to $30MM.
-
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:57 am
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
A friend of mine who owns a small business told me about an advisor who has been talking to him about investing in hedge funds and alternatives. He's currently an investor at Vanguard, and he told the advisor that index funds were working well for him.
The advisor has responded by saying that once you have $10-15 million or more, it's not about saving for retirement -- it becomes a matter of leveraging your portfolio to make bigger (I.e., more significant) profits to grow your wealth.
At such levels of wealth, the advisor argues that it becomes increasingly important to make impactful investments. These can only be made, he claims, by directly investing in small businesses, private properties and other alternative investments.
The advisor is making a case that risk is different for a very wealthy investor than for a less wealthy one. In buying publicly traded stocks and bonds, he claims that hedging a portfolio against loss is critical. He told my friend that stock investing represents incremental portfolio growth for this type of investor, and the emphasis should be on preservation of wealth. A good hedge fund and alternatives manager might cost more, he argues, but higher fees is not as much of a factor if they're able to cushion against major downside risk while capturing much of the return of market upturns. In short, he's trying to tell my friend that building wealth for an ultra-net-worth investor is a different ballgame with different risk and reward parameters. So, low-cost index funds might be fine for "most" investors, but they're not going to be comprehensive enough in scope and design to be suitable for an investor with him at a more "advanced" stage in his investment horizon.
My friend is considering selling his business. He is thinking about talking more with this advisor, and possibly, moving his portfolio. We've had several discussions about what this advisor (from a big bank) is telling him. I'm trying to talk him out of it!
The advisor has responded by saying that once you have $10-15 million or more, it's not about saving for retirement -- it becomes a matter of leveraging your portfolio to make bigger (I.e., more significant) profits to grow your wealth.
At such levels of wealth, the advisor argues that it becomes increasingly important to make impactful investments. These can only be made, he claims, by directly investing in small businesses, private properties and other alternative investments.
The advisor is making a case that risk is different for a very wealthy investor than for a less wealthy one. In buying publicly traded stocks and bonds, he claims that hedging a portfolio against loss is critical. He told my friend that stock investing represents incremental portfolio growth for this type of investor, and the emphasis should be on preservation of wealth. A good hedge fund and alternatives manager might cost more, he argues, but higher fees is not as much of a factor if they're able to cushion against major downside risk while capturing much of the return of market upturns. In short, he's trying to tell my friend that building wealth for an ultra-net-worth investor is a different ballgame with different risk and reward parameters. So, low-cost index funds might be fine for "most" investors, but they're not going to be comprehensive enough in scope and design to be suitable for an investor with him at a more "advanced" stage in his investment horizon.
My friend is considering selling his business. He is thinking about talking more with this advisor, and possibly, moving his portfolio. We've had several discussions about what this advisor (from a big bank) is telling him. I'm trying to talk him out of it!
I'd rather be content than happy -- Lao Tzu.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I know 2 HNW. One sold a company for close to $500M. He hired an advisor who he told to be conservative and don't lose money. She lost him money. He fired her. He ended up in many different private investments including land deals, large scale RE development, and funding some startups. He would muse he probably would have been better off in the S&P index. But he was always tempted to make 20-30% ROI and was willing to take the risks to do so. The market was never sexy enough for him, he likes sexy investments.
The 2nd gentleman has some in the S&P index but much more $$ in hedge funds and private equity RE deals. He is looking for higher return with lower risk than the S&P and feels hedge funds are the way.
Dave
The 2nd gentleman has some in the S&P index but much more $$ in hedge funds and private equity RE deals. He is looking for higher return with lower risk than the S&P and feels hedge funds are the way.
Dave
"Reality always wins, your only job is to get in touch with it." Wilfred Bion
- abuss368
- Posts: 27850
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
- Contact:
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Thanks Dave! Amazing how at $500M the markets, and a few index funds, are not good enough.Dave55 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:17 pm I know 2 HNW. One sold a company for close to $500M. He hired an advisor who he told to be conservative and don't lose money. She lost him money. He fired her. He ended up in many different private investments including land deals, large scale RE development, and funding some startups. He would muse he probably would have been better off in the S&P index. But he was always tempted to make 20-30% ROI and was willing to take the risks to do so. The market was never sexy enough for him, he likes sexy investments.
The 2nd gentleman has some in the S&P index but much more $$ in hedge funds and private equity RE deals. He is looking for higher return with lower risk than the S&P and feels hedge funds are the way.
Dave
Everyday Jim and I try to get our hedge fund to $500 M. Once we achieve that, we are demanding a trip on the Gulfstream!
Tony
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I traded the Gulfstream in for a Boeing 757.abuss368 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:20 pmThanks Dave! Amazing how at $500M the markets, and a few index funds, are not good enough.Dave55 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:17 pm I know 2 HNW. One sold a company for close to $500M. He hired an advisor who he told to be conservative and don't lose money. She lost him money. He fired her. He ended up in many different private investments including land deals, large scale RE development, and funding some startups. He would muse he probably would have been better off in the S&P index. But he was always tempted to make 20-30% ROI and was willing to take the risks to do so. The market was never sexy enough for him, he likes sexy investments.
The 2nd gentleman has some in the S&P index but much more $$ in hedge funds and private equity RE deals. He is looking for higher return with lower risk than the S&P and feels hedge funds are the way.
Dave
Everyday Jim and I try to get our hedge fund to $500 M. Once we achieve that, we are demanding a trip on the Gulfstream!
Tony
Dave
"Reality always wins, your only job is to get in touch with it." Wilfred Bion
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I get why the advisor wants to touch his money, but ... why? Simply saying over and over that "Once you have $10M, it becomes increasingly important to protect against unicorn attacks" doesn't actually make it true! Someone with $1M arguably has a higher need for their portfolio to be reliable than someone with $10M does, the person with $10M to start with can MUCH more easily take hard hits and come through with positive outcomes. I'm not saying that a 70/30 three-fund portfolio is in any way scary, just that if it works at $1M, it works even better at $10M. The only change I'd make is to update your umbrella policy.BetaTracker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:04 pm A friend of mine who owns a small business told me about an advisor who has been talking to him about investing in hedge funds and alternatives. He's currently an investor at Vanguard, and he told the advisor that index funds were working well for him.
The advisor has responded by saying that once you have $10-15 million or more, it's not about saving for retirement -- it becomes a matter of leveraging your portfolio to make bigger (I.e., more significant) profits to grow your wealth.
At such levels of wealth, the advisor argues that it becomes increasingly important to make impactful investments. These can only be made, he claims, by directly investing in small businesses, private properties and other alternative investments.
The advisor is making a case that risk is different for a very wealthy investor than for a less wealthy one. In buying publicly traded stocks and bonds, he claims that hedging a portfolio against loss is critical. He told my friend that stock investing represents incremental portfolio growth for this type of investor, and the emphasis should be on preservation of wealth. A good hedge fund and alternatives manager might cost more, he argues, but higher fees is not as much of a factor if they're able to cushion against major downside risk while capturing much of the return of market upturns. In short, he's trying to tell my friend that building wealth for an ultra-net-worth investor is a different ballgame with different risk and reward parameters. So, low-cost index funds might be fine for "most" investors, but they're not going to be comprehensive enough in scope and design to be suitable for an investor with him at a more "advanced" stage in his investment horizon.
My friend is considering selling his business. He is thinking about talking more with this advisor, and possibly, moving his portfolio. We've had several discussions about what this advisor (from a big bank) is telling him. I'm trying to talk him out of it!
Don't get me wrong, I will fully grant that at $1M, your portfolio simply isn't big enough to accomodate high fees for someone to spend their time playing around with your money. At $10M, you can better afford those fees. But to my mind the most likely outcome of such a decision is probably to limit upside potential, without any compensating improvement to downside potential. For sure everything will be in illiquid positions that can't easily be compared to the public markets, and that would be entirely by design.
IMHO, $10M really isn't enough to properly get yourself involved in things outside the public markets, because you can't afford to diversify across the various options. If I had $100M and decided to go for it, probably my first step would be something like peeling off $10M to invest in a 70/30 portfolio as a backup plan... but I'll be honest, as time passes I find myself less and less interested in that kind of thing, so even at $100M I might just let it slide in a three-fund portfolio.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Just to restate all this and add my two cents. At UHNW it seems one is afforded the "luxury of failure." This person can gamble with their funds if they so choose. They can afford some losers if they get a few big winners. They can define their fallback position and never dip into those funds if they have the discipline to stop "gambling."shess wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:40 pmI get why the advisor wants to touch his money, but ... why? Simply saying over and over that "Once you have $10M, it becomes increasingly important to protect against unicorn attacks" doesn't actually make it true! Someone with $1M arguably has a higher need for their portfolio to be reliable than someone with $10M does, the person with $10M to start with can MUCH more easily take hard hits and come through with positive outcomes. I'm not saying that a 70/30 three-fund portfolio is in any way scary, just that if it works at $1M, it works even better at $10M. The only change I'd make is to update your umbrella policy.BetaTracker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:04 pm A friend of mine who owns a small business told me about an advisor who has been talking to him about investing in hedge funds and alternatives. He's currently an investor at Vanguard, and he told the advisor that index funds were working well for him.
The advisor has responded by saying that once you have $10-15 million or more, it's not about saving for retirement -- it becomes a matter of leveraging your portfolio to make bigger (I.e., more significant) profits to grow your wealth.
At such levels of wealth, the advisor argues that it becomes increasingly important to make impactful investments. These can only be made, he claims, by directly investing in small businesses, private properties and other alternative investments.
The advisor is making a case that risk is different for a very wealthy investor than for a less wealthy one. In buying publicly traded stocks and bonds, he claims that hedging a portfolio against loss is critical. He told my friend that stock investing represents incremental portfolio growth for this type of investor, and the emphasis should be on preservation of wealth. A good hedge fund and alternatives manager might cost more, he argues, but higher fees is not as much of a factor if they're able to cushion against major downside risk while capturing much of the return of market upturns. In short, he's trying to tell my friend that building wealth for an ultra-net-worth investor is a different ballgame with different risk and reward parameters. So, low-cost index funds might be fine for "most" investors, but they're not going to be comprehensive enough in scope and design to be suitable for an investor with him at a more "advanced" stage in his investment horizon.
My friend is considering selling his business. He is thinking about talking more with this advisor, and possibly, moving his portfolio. We've had several discussions about what this advisor (from a big bank) is telling him. I'm trying to talk him out of it!
Don't get me wrong, I will fully grant that at $1M, your portfolio simply isn't big enough to accomodate high fees for someone to spend their time playing around with your money. At $10M, you can better afford those fees. But to my mind the most likely outcome of such a decision is probably to limit upside potential, without any compensating improvement to downside potential. For sure everything will be in illiquid positions that can't easily be compared to the public markets, and that would be entirely by design.
IMHO, $10M really isn't enough to properly get yourself involved in things outside the public markets, because you can't afford to diversify across the various options. If I had $100M and decided to go for it, probably my first step would be something like peeling off $10M to invest in a 70/30 portfolio as a backup plan... but I'll be honest, as time passes I find myself less and less interested in that kind of thing, so even at $100M I might just let it slide in a three-fund portfolio.
The "luxury of failure" is never mentioned in speaking about the American Dream and the rugged individualist. Children and adults from wealthier families sometimes have the luxury of failure. They can keep failing until they succeed. UHNW individuals can leverage this for their investments.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
The hedge fund approach is betting on being lucky.
If you buy a highly undiversified portfolio and leverage it, your returns can be far different than those of the market as a whole. Everyone who does this hopes that their deviations from the market will be positive. For some this will be true.
Hedge funds as an industry underperform the market. One is successful in hedge funds if successful in picking the ones that will do well. Performance does not persist, so using past returns will not get you there. All you can do is hope for luck.
You have to pay high hedge fund fees, and in this case, advisor fees to pick hedge fuds, to try to get lucky.
You can save the fees and hope for good luck by randomly buying low cost undiversified funds or individual stocks. Your odds of beating the market before fees are the same as with hedge funds. After expenses, your odds are better. If you don't use leverage your chances of a catastrophic loss are lower than with hedge funds.
If you really want leverage, use a margin loan from IB.
Or put your $30M in a 3 fund portfolio and get on with your life.
If you buy a highly undiversified portfolio and leverage it, your returns can be far different than those of the market as a whole. Everyone who does this hopes that their deviations from the market will be positive. For some this will be true.
Hedge funds as an industry underperform the market. One is successful in hedge funds if successful in picking the ones that will do well. Performance does not persist, so using past returns will not get you there. All you can do is hope for luck.
You have to pay high hedge fund fees, and in this case, advisor fees to pick hedge fuds, to try to get lucky.
You can save the fees and hope for good luck by randomly buying low cost undiversified funds or individual stocks. Your odds of beating the market before fees are the same as with hedge funds. After expenses, your odds are better. If you don't use leverage your chances of a catastrophic loss are lower than with hedge funds.
If you really want leverage, use a margin loan from IB.
Or put your $30M in a 3 fund portfolio and get on with your life.
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either |
--Swedroe |
We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right |
--Fama
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Private Equity Valuations are highly subjective as they are giving an exit value to their existing portfolio. PE firms have a long history of selling their best performers early so that they can show investors stellar returns while raising their next fund. IRR is a function of time held and return. The underperforming companies in their portfolio are held the longest and provide the lowest or negative returns.leehamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:54 pmThere are outliers who provide market-beating returns in investments other than index funds. It's just hard to predict them, or to get into their funds once it's predictable. But the narratives are real enough that it can cause investors to chase them, and other funds to spring up to serve those investors.mikejuss wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:42 amBoy, if that's really the answer to this question, it's a pretty bizarre answer.
I'm on these BH boards, and agree that less complications is more. I'm happy to have average returns with below average costs, and to stay in the markets through thick and thin to harvest the market returns that are available through index funds. But above-average returns exist, and we shouldn't be so self-satisfied as Bogleheads to deny half of the bell curve of returns.
A couple of examples:
- Benchmark Capital: Over the years, Benchmark’s eight funds have paid out $22.6 billion to investors. Its backers received a 1,000% gain—net of fees— over the past decade. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad ... 4214b4006b
Silver Lake: Analysis showing IRRs of 28.9%, 25%, 19.7%, 11.1%, 8.7% and -7.3% for various Silver Lake funds. https://www.privateequityinternational. ... -pe-funds/
I am more than a little cynical/skeptical about these firms going public. It's more than a little about providing sustainable management fees to management. Buyer beware.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
randomguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:04 pm
Ignoring taxes. Microsoft returned 30% over the past 10 years to the S&P 500s 15%.... My understanding though that Gates is supposedly down to like 20 billion in Microsoft with most of his money in Cascade Investment. Last numbers I saw had them beating the S&P by a couple of points.
Gates diversified his fortune and Microsoft holdings and hasn't been the largest individual shareholder of MSFT for many years. That honor belongs to his friend and former CEO Steve Ballmer who's networth has appreciated greatly as the price of Microsoft stock has risen.
Well in 1996 he held 24% of the company and now I believe it's under 2%. He would be the richest man in the world by far if he still held a large chunk of Microsoft shares.JoMoney wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:27 pm Ten years ago, Bill Gates was #2 on the Forbes Billionaires list @ $56B
https://web.archive.org/web/20120103153 ... llionaires
Currently Bill is #4 on the list @ $124B
https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
If instead of doing whatever Bill Gates did, he had put that $56B in 2012 into the portfolio Buffett suggested for his bequest to his wife (90% S&P 500/10% Short-Term Treasury) , and took 4% inflation adjusted withdrawals (starting at $2,224,000,000 in 2012 withdrawals)
Bill would still be #1 on the list, or at least tied with current Jeff Bezos $177B
PortfolioVisualizer Simulation
- BrooklynInvest
- Posts: 1183
- Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:23 am
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Yeah, if I were that rich I'd have tax questions for my accountant and some questions for trust lawyers but I can't think my index-led approach would change.
There's no situation where I'd invest in a hedge fund or other esoteric vehicles, but that's me. My asset allocation might change.
At a certain scale it's possible that I could shave a few dollars off my expense ratio and tax loss harvest if I were to replicate my S&P index with individual stocks and still index, but I don't know at what point that becomes cost effective, and probably wouldn't want to take time off from sailing my yacht to figure it out.
Hey since we're dreaming I have a yacht. A BIG one...
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
A few years back in a similar discussion, I said "I dunno, maybe at like $100M, it would make sense to just replicate the index with individual stocks?"BrooklynInvest wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:31 pm At a certain scale it's possible that I could shave a few dollars off my expense ratio and tax loss harvest if I were to replicate my S&P index with individual stocks and still index, but I don't know at what point that becomes cost effective, and probably wouldn't want to take time off from sailing my yacht to figure it out.
Then someone asked for more info, so I did the math. The VOO ER is .03%. So at $100M, it would have to cost less than $30k/year to make sense just in terms of that cost. I'll be honest, I wouldn't trust an individual to manage $100M on an allowance of $30k/year, it's just not enough money to be sure they're doing a good job (I mean even if you believe they CAN do a good job, you still want to make sure they are able to cover costs without using sketchy revenue-generating options).
Of course, you can arm-wave about all sorts of other benefits. I'm just saying that with the current state of index ETFs, I can't really see circumstances where it makes sense to do it manually from a plain expense-ratio argument. In fact, you're probably going to be paying a fair bit over the ETF's ER to access those other benefits, so they had better be real!
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I know enough very rich people to know they have huge FOMO when it comes to investments and information, more so than the average American. You would think it would be the opposite but it's not. My rich acquaintances are always talking about the latest thing or trying to navigate any changes in the tax or legal code.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
The simplicity vs. asset level debate obviously depends on preference, but also on what exactly people mean by 'simplified investing'. If they mean therefore not to do active estate planning (which might, for example, involve setting up separate accounts in the related trusts, etc) then yes 'simplicity' can become an objectively bad idea above a certain asset level. Extra taxes your family will pay if you refuse to give up on 'simplicity', overall, can be a lot more $'s than is at stake between index and actively managed stock funds.realfan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:51 pm I always preach the Boglehead three fund portfolio to this crowd as a great way to start investing. I also have friends on the older side of the spectrum whom I suspect are worth north of $25M (multiple homes, no mortgages, invested in hedge funds, PE funds, stock market, commercial RE, etc.). I also discuss simplified investing with a couple of folks in this crowd and I swear they think I am a simpleton.
But, one could also narrow it down and say 'simplified investing' only refers to what you invest in. It does not exclude separate tax and estate planning methods that complicate the overall picture. In that case I see no level of assets where simple index fund investing becomes an outright bad idea. But, while hedge funds and PE are common pinata's on this forum, those are things which can make sense IMO and are more likely to as asset level rises. Although, the level where those things would make *a lot* more sense would probably be >>$25mil, especially where you actually have the clout to negotiate on fees, or even employ your own people to carry out alternate investment strategies for you on a scale large enough for their pay to become an attractive %. Direct real estate investing OTOH is not IMO against any kind of rational investing principle at almost any asset level. If you understand the commitment and are able to make it, owning rental properties yourself can be a good diversifier far below $25mil.
Also, it isn't just asset level but kind of culture gap between high paid employee or independent professionals (the great majority here it would seem) vs. people who built a business (a lucrative private practice in medicine, law, etc. is a laudable achievement in return for effort and risk beyond being somebody else's employee in those fields, but still the 'product' is mainly directly that person's labor, different than true entrepreneurship). True entrepreneurs often wouldn't be within an order of magnitude of $25mil if they hadn't embraced complexity and undiversified risk as a way of life. It's hard to expect them to drop it after if pays off for them big time.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I think you are misunderstanding the point I was making. Of course someone with $25mm can legally invest in a hedge fund (or other private capital vehicles). My point was that being a small time investor, and not being a known industry investor, and not having connections and established relationships will make it very hard to access the top funds on a regular basis, broadly speaking. So practically, you face a high hurdle as far as executing in practice.FinancialSnowboarder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 2:58 amI agree with AlohaJoe. I know dozens of people under $25M who are invested in hedge funds, PE, and Real Estate funds. Many funds only require you to be an accredited investor ($1M net worth), with some requiring you to be a Qualified Purchaser ($5M net worth). Some funds have a limited number of spots for friends & family, so net worth is not relevant in that case.AlohaJoe wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 2:26 amI know several people under $25mm who are invested in hedge funds and PE. But it usually requires connections and investing via some kind of roll-up arrangement. For instance, they recently invested in Tiger Global's latest round. That had a $1M minimum investment for individuals and $5M for institutions. Maybe one of my friends put that much in on his own but I'm pretty sure none of the rest did. But they are involved with a group who represent 13 people/families -- basically the level below dedicated family office. And that group got involved with a much bigger family office (for a family that in the $2-3 billion net worth range) in a few deals. Now sometimes the smaller group gets invited in as a "friend" of the big group on bigger deals.
So the people I know invest in the shared-family-group which then gets rolled up into the friendly "real" family office which then invests in Tiger Global's latest round.
There are also SPVs that aggregate investors to hit the minimum investment to invest into a fund. For example, an SPV can have 50 investors to meet a $5M minimum investment.
Further, if half of the $25mm is in traditional equity and bonds, now you have $12.5mm to somehow build a diversified hedge fund portfolio... but also diversified PE/VC, and diversified real assets etc... You just dont have enough capital to invest in a diversified way when minimums are often $5mm or more -- but even if the minimums were $1mm you are going to be challenged to spread your investments properly.
Also, SPVs are not typically used as an access point to invest in the commingled fund. SPVs are more typically used to make co-investments where you are investing in a particular trade/position, so this is very different from a flagship fund investment.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I agree that private equity returns can be manipulated, and are often not informative until the later years of the term, and obviously at the conclusion of the fund's life.McGowan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:56 am Private Equity Valuations are highly subjective as they are giving an exit value to their existing portfolio. PE firms have a long history of selling their best performers early so that they can show investors stellar returns while raising their next fund. IRR is a function of time held and return. The underperforming companies in their portfolio are held the longest and provide the lowest or negative returns.
I am more than a little cynical/skeptical about these firms going public. It's more than a little about providing sustainable management fees to management. Buyer beware.
Not that this changes all that much from your point, but worth noting that PE valuations aren't so much subjective, but often based on the implied valuation of the most recent fundraise for each underlying portfolio company. Interestingly, a trend that many funds are doing to juice these mark-to-market returns isn't selling the top performers early, but they are actually holding them longer -- and keeping them private for extended periods of time. The average duration of time from funding to exit (monetization) is historically extended.
When you say you are cynical about the firms going public because it's all about management fees for management, this is a bit confusing. Are you talking about the companies going public, or the PE firms? Also, PE managers have potential to make far more money from an incentive fee than from an addition few years of management fees, and artificially extending the time period to monetization reduces the IRR which means less money for the PE manager.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Agreed, and well put.DarkMatter731 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 6:11 pm Which ignores the purpose of hedgefunds and private equity firms completely.
If I'm an institutional investor, I want uncorrelated returns and firms that generate alpha. A firm that returns 10% a year with a volatility of 5% is much more preferred than a firm that returns 12% with a volatility of 12% a year. Private equity and hedgefunds exist for a reason - institutional investors aren't dumb, they also understand how index funds work. But putting it in an index fund won't generate alpha nor will it be uncorrelated with the market.
The problem with debating these topics in this forum is that we often talk past each other because many folks simply don't understand the role hedge funds play in a portfolio. The fact that it's still common to point out that hedge funds didn't beat the SPX over some short time period, and think this is proof that they aren't a good investment is very telling.
This fundamental misunderstanding of the role of certain strategies in a portfolio, and the lack of understanding regarding institutional mandates (for example, reducing short-term volatility so the annual spend from an endowment doesn't permanently hurt the long term value if they must distribute capital during the bottom of a drawdown etc.).
This means we will keep talking past each other
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
My spouse & I are newly minted UHNW due to the sale of our business, with NW at $70m.
For now, we're just trying to follow the boglehead philosophy, talk to a by-the-hour financial planner, etc.
We did talk to several wealth advisors who charge 30-50 basis points AUM, but ultimately, we were swayed by the greater control of investing on our own and following the bogleheads.
FWIW...
For now, we're just trying to follow the boglehead philosophy, talk to a by-the-hour financial planner, etc.
We did talk to several wealth advisors who charge 30-50 basis points AUM, but ultimately, we were swayed by the greater control of investing on our own and following the bogleheads.
FWIW...
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
If I had that much networth , I would be looking at hedge funds , PE/VC etc .Sharpie90 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:56 pm My spouse & I are newly minted UHNW due to the sale of our business, with NW at $70m.
For now, we're just trying to follow the boglehead philosophy, talk to a by-the-hour financial planner, etc.
We did talk to several wealth advisors who charge 30-50 basis points AUM, but ultimately, we were swayed by the greater control of investing on our own and following the bogleheads.
FWIW...
-
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:43 am
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
A 50% levered portfolio of SCV has done exceptionally well this year too.leehamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:54 pmThere are outliers who provide market-beating returns in investments other than index funds. It's just hard to predict them, or to get into their funds once it's predictable. But the narratives are real enough that it can cause investors to chase them, and other funds to spring up to serve those investors.mikejuss wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:42 amBoy, if that's really the answer to this question, it's a pretty bizarre answer.
I'm on these BH boards, and agree that less complications is more. I'm happy to have average returns with below average costs, and to stay in the markets through thick and thin to harvest the market returns that are available through index funds. But above-average returns exist, and we shouldn't be so self-satisfied as Bogleheads to deny half of the bell curve of returns.
A couple of examples:
- Benchmark Capital: Over the years, Benchmark’s eight funds have paid out $22.6 billion to investors. Its backers received a 1,000% gain—net of fees— over the past decade. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad ... 4214b4006b
Silver Lake: Analysis showing IRRs of 28.9%, 25%, 19.7%, 11.1%, 8.7% and -7.3% for various Silver Lake funds. https://www.privateequityinternational. ... -pe-funds/
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I disagree with above comment. You might want to look into direct indexing. I’m sure a good financial advisor can lay out the potential benefits and help think through whether it’s worth the effort.Jimsad wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:13 pmIf I had that much networth , I would be looking at hedge funds , PE/VC etc .Sharpie90 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:56 pm My spouse & I are newly minted UHNW due to the sale of our business, with NW at $70m.
For now, we're just trying to follow the boglehead philosophy, talk to a by-the-hour financial planner, etc.
We did talk to several wealth advisors who charge 30-50 basis points AUM, but ultimately, we were swayed by the greater control of investing on our own and following the bogleheads.
FWIW...
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I just bought the winning Mega Millions ticket for tomorrow's draw, so I'll soon be contributing to this thread
Lol on a note serious note, I still think there is hit a huge difference in bogleheads approach to hnw vs uhnw individuals.
Lol on a note serious note, I still think there is hit a huge difference in bogleheads approach to hnw vs uhnw individuals.
(AGE minus 23%) Bonds | 5% REITs | Balance 80% US (75/25 TSM/SCV) + 20% International (80/20 Developed/Emerging)
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Direct investing makes sense if you are able to get it done cheaply, say 20 basis points or so. I've not found anyone though who charges below 50 basis points, at which point the tax advantages of direct investing starts to outweigh the cost. And direct investing is definitely something we cannot DIY.Firemenot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:58 pmI disagree with above comment. You might want to look into direct indexing. I’m sure a good financial advisor can lay out the potential benefits and help think through whether it’s worth the effort.Jimsad wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:13 pmIf I had that much networth , I would be looking at hedge funds , PE/VC etc .Sharpie90 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:56 pm My spouse & I are newly minted UHNW due to the sale of our business, with NW at $70m.
For now, we're just trying to follow the boglehead philosophy, talk to a by-the-hour financial planner, etc.
We did talk to several wealth advisors who charge 30-50 basis points AUM, but ultimately, we were swayed by the greater control of investing on our own and following the bogleheads.
FWIW...
(AGE minus 23%) Bonds | 5% REITs | Balance 80% US (75/25 TSM/SCV) + 20% International (80/20 Developed/Emerging)
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I think it is important to keep in mind that a 3-fund portfolio works just as well at $70M as as $7M. 15 years ago, I really was infatuated with the idea of direct indexing with Parametric or Aperio - I'm glad I took a pass on it, because I no longer think the TLH opportunities are all that compelling, nor am I interested in signing up for the forever complexity (once you have 1,000 positions, you can ACAT that wherever you want, but you can't pack that back into a 3-fund ETF without realizing the gains). Likewise for hedge funds and MLPs and venture capital, just because you can get good access to them with that much money doesn't mean you need to, nor does it mean that you'll actually see that much benefit from it.gas_balloon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:06 pmDirect investing makes sense if you are able to get it done cheaply, say 20 basis points or so. I've not found anyone though who charges below 50 basis points, at which point the tax advantages of direct investing starts to outweigh the cost. And direct investing is definitely something we cannot DIY.Firemenot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:58 pmI disagree with above comment. You might want to look into direct indexing. I’m sure a good financial advisor can lay out the potential benefits and help think through whether it’s worth the effort.Jimsad wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:13 pmIf I had that much networth , I would be looking at hedge funds , PE/VC etc .Sharpie90 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:56 pm My spouse & I are newly minted UHNW due to the sale of our business, with NW at $70m.
For now, we're just trying to follow the boglehead philosophy, talk to a by-the-hour financial planner, etc.
We did talk to several wealth advisors who charge 30-50 basis points AUM, but ultimately, we were swayed by the greater control of investing on our own and following the bogleheads.
FWIW...
So I applaud Sharpie90 for sticking to simplicity, and I hope to join you someday...
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
What is the point of having all that money if you cannot take some risk and try out those that I suggested with May be 10% of your portfolio ? Rather than keep sticking to the boring 3 fund portfolio?shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:38 amI think it is important to keep in mind that a 3-fund portfolio works just as well at $70M as as $7M. 15 years ago, I really was infatuated with the idea of direct indexing with Parametric or Aperio - I'm glad I took a pass on it, because I no longer think the TLH opportunities are all that compelling, nor am I interested in signing up for the forever complexity (once you have 1,000 positions, you can ACAT that wherever you want, but you can't pack that back into a 3-fund ETF without realizing the gains). Likewise for hedge funds and MLPs and venture capital, just because you can get good access to them with that much money doesn't mean you need to, nor does it mean that you'll actually see that much benefit from it.gas_balloon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:06 pmDirect investing makes sense if you are able to get it done cheaply, say 20 basis points or so. I've not found anyone though who charges below 50 basis points, at which point the tax advantages of direct investing starts to outweigh the cost. And direct investing is definitely something we cannot DIY.Firemenot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:58 pmI disagree with above comment. You might want to look into direct indexing. I’m sure a good financial advisor can lay out the potential benefits and help think through whether it’s worth the effort.Jimsad wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:13 pmIf I had that much networth , I would be looking at hedge funds , PE/VC etc .Sharpie90 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:56 pm My spouse & I are newly minted UHNW due to the sale of our business, with NW at $70m.
For now, we're just trying to follow the boglehead philosophy, talk to a by-the-hour financial planner, etc.
We did talk to several wealth advisors who charge 30-50 basis points AUM, but ultimately, we were swayed by the greater control of investing on our own and following the bogleheads.
FWIW...
So I applaud Sharpie90 for sticking to simplicity, and I hope to join you someday...
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
What is the point of having all that money if you cannot take some risk and try out those that I suggested with May be 10% of your portfolio ? Rather than keep sticking to the boring 3 fund portfolio?shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:38 amI think it is important to keep in mind that a 3-fund portfolio works just as well at $70M as as $7M. 15 years ago, I really was infatuated with the idea of direct indexing with Parametric or Aperio - I'm glad I took a pass on it, because I no longer think the TLH opportunities are all that compelling, nor am I interested in signing up for the forever complexity (once you have 1,000 positions, you can ACAT that wherever you want, but you can't pack that back into a 3-fund ETF without realizing the gains). Likewise for hedge funds and MLPs and venture capital, just because you can get good access to them with that much money doesn't mean you need to, nor does it mean that you'll actually see that much benefit from it.gas_balloon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:06 pmDirect investing makes sense if you are able to get it done cheaply, say 20 basis points or so. I've not found anyone though who charges below 50 basis points, at which point the tax advantages of direct investing starts to outweigh the cost. And direct investing is definitely something we cannot DIY.Firemenot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:58 pmI disagree with above comment. You might want to look into direct indexing. I’m sure a good financial advisor can lay out the potential benefits and help think through whether it’s worth the effort.Jimsad wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:13 pmIf I had that much networth , I would be looking at hedge funds , PE/VC etc .Sharpie90 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:56 pm My spouse & I are newly minted UHNW due to the sale of our business, with NW at $70m.
For now, we're just trying to follow the boglehead philosophy, talk to a by-the-hour financial planner, etc.
We did talk to several wealth advisors who charge 30-50 basis points AUM, but ultimately, we were swayed by the greater control of investing on our own and following the bogleheads.
FWIW...
So I applaud Sharpie90 for sticking to simplicity, and I hope to join you someday...
- TomatoTomahto
- Posts: 17158
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I’m “alternative industry adjacent.” There is only one of the alternatives that I’d be interested in investing in, and they don’t want my money. Feh on the others.Jimsad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:54 amWhat is the point of having all that money if you cannot take some risk and try out those that I suggested with May be 10% of your portfolio ? Rather than keep sticking to the boring 3 fund portfolio?shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:38 amI think it is important to keep in mind that a 3-fund portfolio works just as well at $70M as as $7M. 15 years ago, I really was infatuated with the idea of direct indexing with Parametric or Aperio - I'm glad I took a pass on it, because I no longer think the TLH opportunities are all that compelling, nor am I interested in signing up for the forever complexity (once you have 1,000 positions, you can ACAT that wherever you want, but you can't pack that back into a 3-fund ETF without realizing the gains). Likewise for hedge funds and MLPs and venture capital, just because you can get good access to them with that much money doesn't mean you need to, nor does it mean that you'll actually see that much benefit from it.gas_balloon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:06 pmDirect investing makes sense if you are able to get it done cheaply, say 20 basis points or so. I've not found anyone though who charges below 50 basis points, at which point the tax advantages of direct investing starts to outweigh the cost. And direct investing is definitely something we cannot DIY.
So I applaud Sharpie90 for sticking to simplicity, and I hope to join you someday...
A boring financial life is okay as long as your daily life isn’t boring.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Just got some running water to brush my teeth, then flipped a switch to increase warmth in my dwelling. We’ve got it better than kings of old.
After a few jaunts with the military I realized that worldwide, I’m UHNW and right here, on Bogleheads
After a few jaunts with the military I realized that worldwide, I’m UHNW and right here, on Bogleheads
Last edited by Wings5 on Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Spending money to show people how much money you have is the fastest way to have less money.” - Morgan Housel
-
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:25 pm
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Talking about Bezos, Gates, and Musk in terms of "they have the majority of their net worth in a single stock" is a bit out of context when you factor in that they held 51% or more until they got filthy rich or were wealthy beforehand (Musk/Tesla). Musk was actually wealthy (maybe not filthy) long before Tesla. It's not that most advise against single stocks, it's that they advise against single stocks you don't have majority decision making in and then when you get filthy rich. And most companies never make it anyhow, regardless of ownership.
It is interesting to see the partnership debates and how many are weary, even some of the greatest minds on the planet like Gates and Allen couldn't keep egos in check for very many years, of course they were filthy rich when this happened but it does justify the stance many have in business.
It is interesting to see the partnership debates and how many are weary, even some of the greatest minds on the planet like Gates and Allen couldn't keep egos in check for very many years, of course they were filthy rich when this happened but it does justify the stance many have in business.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Apologies, but I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me or if you're serious. At least in my case, my portfolio is a tool for implementing a lifestyle. I could care less whether people it's boring, as long as it does its job. IMHO, being interesting is not a selling point for a portfolio, even though it is a selling point for financial media.Jimsad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:54 amWhat is the point of having all that money if you cannot take some risk and try out those that I suggested with May be 10% of your portfolio ? Rather than keep sticking to the boring 3 fund portfolio?shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:38 amI think it is important to keep in mind that a 3-fund portfolio works just as well at $70M as as $7M. 15 years ago, I really was infatuated with the idea of direct indexing with Parametric or Aperio - I'm glad I took a pass on it, because I no longer think the TLH opportunities are all that compelling, nor am I interested in signing up for the forever complexity (once you have 1,000 positions, you can ACAT that wherever you want, but you can't pack that back into a 3-fund ETF without realizing the gains). Likewise for hedge funds and MLPs and venture capital, just because you can get good access to them with that much money doesn't mean you need to, nor does it mean that you'll actually see that much benefit from it.gas_balloon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:06 pmDirect investing makes sense if you are able to get it done cheaply, say 20 basis points or so. I've not found anyone though who charges below 50 basis points, at which point the tax advantages of direct investing starts to outweigh the cost. And direct investing is definitely something we cannot DIY.
So I applaud Sharpie90 for sticking to simplicity, and I hope to join you someday...
I grant that some people feel the need to be in there playing with their money. And that's fine, go for it. You don't have to, though. Just because you can afford a Bentley doesn't mean that a Civic is not completely adequate to the task.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Heh - even though Civic could mostly do what Bentley could do.shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:45 amApologies, but I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me or if you're serious. At least in my case, my portfolio is a tool for implementing a lifestyle. I could care less whether people it's boring, as long as it does its job. IMHO, being interesting is not a selling point for a portfolio, even though it is a selling point for financial media.Jimsad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:54 amWhat is the point of having all that money if you cannot take some risk and try out those that I suggested with May be 10% of your portfolio ? Rather than keep sticking to the boring 3 fund portfolio?shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:38 amI think it is important to keep in mind that a 3-fund portfolio works just as well at $70M as as $7M. 15 years ago, I really was infatuated with the idea of direct indexing with Parametric or Aperio - I'm glad I took a pass on it, because I no longer think the TLH opportunities are all that compelling, nor am I interested in signing up for the forever complexity (once you have 1,000 positions, you can ACAT that wherever you want, but you can't pack that back into a 3-fund ETF without realizing the gains). Likewise for hedge funds and MLPs and venture capital, just because you can get good access to them with that much money doesn't mean you need to, nor does it mean that you'll actually see that much benefit from it.gas_balloon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:06 pmDirect investing makes sense if you are able to get it done cheaply, say 20 basis points or so. I've not found anyone though who charges below 50 basis points, at which point the tax advantages of direct investing starts to outweigh the cost. And direct investing is definitely something we cannot DIY.
So I applaud Sharpie90 for sticking to simplicity, and I hope to join you someday...
I grant that some people feel the need to be in there playing with their money. And that's fine, go for it. You don't have to, though. Just because you can afford a Bentley doesn't mean that a Civic is not completely adequate to the task.
With sufficient dough you can float your own boat (Yachts), instead of a cruise.
You can go to space (a few minutes of fun), and/or fly Private - rather than simply flying your own drone.
There are things money (including power/influence) buys - one, simply can’t make-do with mere frugal ways.
At the end of the day - what is the value of amassing large sums - you can’t take it with you ..
Last edited by sc9182 on Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:52 am
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
People have their own ideas of what they would do with generational money. The list of past lottery winners is flush with those who were greedy and thought they were JP Morgan. It's the same thing with pro athletes.Jimsad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:54 amWhat is the point of having all that money if you cannot take some risk and try out those that I suggested with May be 10% of your portfolio ? Rather than keep sticking to the boring 3 fund portfolio?shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:38 amI think it is important to keep in mind that a 3-fund portfolio works just as well at $70M as as $7M. 15 years ago, I really was infatuated with the idea of direct indexing with Parametric or Aperio - I'm glad I took a pass on it, because I no longer think the TLH opportunities are all that compelling, nor am I interested in signing up for the forever complexity (once you have 1,000 positions, you can ACAT that wherever you want, but you can't pack that back into a 3-fund ETF without realizing the gains). Likewise for hedge funds and MLPs and venture capital, just because you can get good access to them with that much money doesn't mean you need to, nor does it mean that you'll actually see that much benefit from it.gas_balloon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:06 pmDirect investing makes sense if you are able to get it done cheaply, say 20 basis points or so. I've not found anyone though who charges below 50 basis points, at which point the tax advantages of direct investing starts to outweigh the cost. And direct investing is definitely something we cannot DIY.
So I applaud Sharpie90 for sticking to simplicity, and I hope to join you someday...
-
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:19 am
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Ha, this is what I keep telling my kids. That we live 100x better than Royalties as recent as last century.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
+1sc9182 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:52 amHeh - even though Civic could mostly do what Bentley could do.shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:45 amApologies, but I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me or if you're serious. At least in my case, my portfolio is a tool for implementing a lifestyle. I could care less whether people it's boring, as long as it does its job. IMHO, being interesting is not a selling point for a portfolio, even though it is a selling point for financial media.Jimsad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:54 amWhat is the point of having all that money if you cannot take some risk and try out those that I suggested with May be 10% of your portfolio ? Rather than keep sticking to the boring 3 fund portfolio?shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:38 amI think it is important to keep in mind that a 3-fund portfolio works just as well at $70M as as $7M. 15 years ago, I really was infatuated with the idea of direct indexing with Parametric or Aperio - I'm glad I took a pass on it, because I no longer think the TLH opportunities are all that compelling, nor am I interested in signing up for the forever complexity (once you have 1,000 positions, you can ACAT that wherever you want, but you can't pack that back into a 3-fund ETF without realizing the gains). Likewise for hedge funds and MLPs and venture capital, just because you can get good access to them with that much money doesn't mean you need to, nor does it mean that you'll actually see that much benefit from it.gas_balloon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:06 pm
Direct investing makes sense if you are able to get it done cheaply, say 20 basis points or so. I've not found anyone though who charges below 50 basis points, at which point the tax advantages of direct investing starts to outweigh the cost. And direct investing is definitely something we cannot DIY.
So I applaud Sharpie90 for sticking to simplicity, and I hope to join you someday...
I grant that some people feel the need to be in there playing with their money. And that's fine, go for it. You don't have to, though. Just because you can afford a Bentley doesn't mean that a Civic is not completely adequate to the task.
With sufficient you can float your own boat (Yachts), instead of a cruise.
You can go to space (a few minutes of fun), and/or fly Private - rather than simply flying your own drone.
There are things money (including power/influence) buys - one, simply can’t make-do with mere frugal ways.
At the end of the day - what is the.l value of amassing large sums - you can’t take it with you ..
I just do not see the point of being frugal at 70 million
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
IMHO, frugal is not the right word, because the opposite of frugal is extravagant. To me, the goal is to be able to push financial considerations into the background. I might buy a more expensive item than I would have 20 years ago, but I do it because it meets my needs and I can afford to buy it, the mere fact that it is more expensive is not generally a functional attribute for me.Jimsad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:15 am+1sc9182 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:52 amHeh - even though Civic could mostly do what Bentley could do.
With sufficient you can float your own boat (Yachts), instead of a cruise.
You can go to space (a few minutes of fun), and/or fly Private - rather than simply flying your own drone.
There are things money (including power/influence) buys - one, simply can’t make-do with mere frugal ways.
At the end of the day - what is the.l value of amassing large sums - you can’t take it with you ..
I just do not see the point of being frugal at 70 million
Tying it back to the thread, my point up a few posts was that just because you have $70M doesn't mean that a three-fund portfolio stops meeting your needs. If you want to participate in a round at a VC because that's personally exciting to you, go for it! Just don't claim that the money is making you do it. Meanwhile, if you'd rather go hang out by the lake reading, or travel the world to visit coffee shops, a three-fund portfolio will leave you plenty of time and resources to do that.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
I’m making some assumptions about the poster that sold his/her business. Let’s assume they built most of the value of the sold business. Or perhaps it was a multi-generational family business that was sold. Either way, I would think there’s a certain sense of legacy to be a good steward towards.sc9182 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:52 amHeh - even though Civic could mostly do what Bentley could do.shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:45 amApologies, but I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me or if you're serious. At least in my case, my portfolio is a tool for implementing a lifestyle. I could care less whether people it's boring, as long as it does its job. IMHO, being interesting is not a selling point for a portfolio, even though it is a selling point for financial media.Jimsad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:54 amWhat is the point of having all that money if you cannot take some risk and try out those that I suggested with May be 10% of your portfolio ? Rather than keep sticking to the boring 3 fund portfolio?shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:38 amI think it is important to keep in mind that a 3-fund portfolio works just as well at $70M as as $7M. 15 years ago, I really was infatuated with the idea of direct indexing with Parametric or Aperio - I'm glad I took a pass on it, because I no longer think the TLH opportunities are all that compelling, nor am I interested in signing up for the forever complexity (once you have 1,000 positions, you can ACAT that wherever you want, but you can't pack that back into a 3-fund ETF without realizing the gains). Likewise for hedge funds and MLPs and venture capital, just because you can get good access to them with that much money doesn't mean you need to, nor does it mean that you'll actually see that much benefit from it.gas_balloon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:06 pm
Direct investing makes sense if you are able to get it done cheaply, say 20 basis points or so. I've not found anyone though who charges below 50 basis points, at which point the tax advantages of direct investing starts to outweigh the cost. And direct investing is definitely something we cannot DIY.
So I applaud Sharpie90 for sticking to simplicity, and I hope to join you someday...
I grant that some people feel the need to be in there playing with their money. And that's fine, go for it. You don't have to, though. Just because you can afford a Bentley doesn't mean that a Civic is not completely adequate to the task.
With sufficient dough you can float your own boat (Yachts), instead of a cruise.
You can go to space (a few minutes of fun), and/or fly Private - rather than simply flying your own drone.
There are things money (including power/influence) buys - one, simply can’t make-do with mere frugal ways.
At the end of the day - what is the value of amassing large sums - you can’t take it with you ..
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
You can get many of the benefits of direct investing by buying a small (10-25) portfolio of diversified stocks on your own, as a portion of your overall portfolio.shess wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:38 am I think it is important to keep in mind that a 3-fund portfolio works just as well at $70M as as $7M. 15 years ago, I really was infatuated with the idea of direct indexing with Parametric or Aperio - I'm glad I took a pass on it, because I no longer think the TLH opportunities are all that compelling, nor am I interested in signing up for the forever complexity (once you have 1,000 positions, you can ACAT that wherever you want, but you can't pack that back into a 3-fund ETF without realizing the gains). Likewise for hedge funds and MLPs and venture capital, just because you can get good access to them with that much money doesn't mean you need to, nor does it mean that you'll actually see that much benefit from it.
So I applaud Sharpie90 for sticking to simplicity, and I hope to join you someday...
The Dow Jones is only 30 stocks, with a weird weighting system that reduces the effective diversification to even less than 30 stocks, yet it mostly stays in line with the S&P 500. Obviously, this wouldn't hold if the DJIA were only 30 energy stocks, or 30 utilities, or whatever.
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
The first 2 bolded statements don't jive with the 3rd.Dave55 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:17 pm I know 2 HNW. One sold a company for close to $500M. He hired an advisor who he told to be conservative and don't lose money. She lost him money. He fired her. He ended up in many different private investments including land deals, large scale RE development, and funding some startups. He would muse he probably would have been better off in the S&P index. But he was always tempted to make 20-30% ROI and was willing to take the risks to do so. The market was never sexy enough for him, he likes sexy investments.
The 2nd gentleman has some in the S&P index but much more $$ in hedge funds and private equity RE deals. He is looking for higher return with lower risk than the S&P and feels hedge funds are the way.
Dave
(Unless maybe you live in a 20%+ inflation country, which I doubt was the case here.)
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
Renaissance told you no?TomatoTomahto wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:56 amI’m “alternative industry adjacent.” There is only one of the alternatives that I’d be interested in investing in, and they don’t want my money. Feh on the others.
:)
Re: Ultra HNW on this forum?
What's the point of taking risk, when you have all that money and a boring portfolio? Assuming you double your money with the 10%, that gets you an extra $7M; I don't have $70M, but if I did, I can't imagine what an extra $7M would get me.