Isn't "wealth" a misnomer.
Do people with real wealth really use open source tools?
Or do they have meetings with their accountants, bankers, brokers.
This is really "wanna be wealthy" tools.
Do people with real wealth really use open source tools?
Or do they have meetings with their accountants, bankers, brokers.
This is really "wanna be wealthy" tools.
For example, you add all your accounts/investments and have the software calculate how much you need to save so that by age 65 (retirement) you have $X which you will need so that by the time you reach life expectancy (say 90 y/o) you have > 0$ left.
There is other stuff you can add in, like "I would like Y$ saved by 20XX so that I can purchase a house. How will that affect the amount I need to save now and how much will that affect my savings at retirement."
> Or do they have meetings with their accountants, bankers, brokers.
It is probably a good idea to have a financial advisor do this for you since they have the know-how (and certification depending where you live) and will know about regional benefits you can apply which can increase your "wealth". However, if you want to do this yourself because you know the space then there is software like this, or Wealth Simple for example.
So if I have an extra $5 I can manage that "Wealth".
You don't get wealthy by giving someone else 1% of AUM for performing on-par with a passive investment in index funds you could self-manage. So, sure, this is "wanna be wealthy", but what even is "wealthy"? I have a plan using spreadsheets and other tools that is on track to take me into low-mid double digit millions prior to retirement, I can't imagine giving someone 1%, which can be six-figures or more, every year for clicking some buttons. At some point managing my own wealth is worth more investment of my time than any other occupation.
This is how advisors are typically paid, but this isn't all that they do. Empirically, as people make more money, they turn more to advisors and away from self-directed or robo apps.
Lots of people have opined on why, if you follow the trade publications for advisors. To me, the reasoning comes down to risk: if you have a lot at stake then you will pay money for a lawyer to review for $$$$ per hour. If you have a lot of money you will pay 1% if you can feel more comfortable that the advisor is handling all the aspects of it and you can sleep better at night.
I don't trust industries that use ignorance to line their pockets, which is why I manage my own wealth.
The original comment says that no-one is using apps...what do you think wealth managers use? Wealth managers are usually the same products that are re-skinned for professional use with a few added features that most advisors should know how to do themselves...but usually don't (I worked for someone managing nine figures who didn't understand that you could use Excel to do calculations, so he would sit there with a calculator and hardcode every number...this man is worth $10m+ himself).
If you have the ability, I appreciate that some people have neither the time or inclination, do it yourself. At medium levels of wealth (more than $1m and under $50m), you are likely unable to access good advice so this is really the sweet spot for doing it yourself (if you prefer simple financial products, financial advice largely exists as a service in this bracket because people choose to invest in extremely complex products that are designed to give financial advisors something to charge money for...if you have a DC pension and are investing in ETFs, 99% of financial advisors cannot do anything for you).
What the actual f...
According to the "Global Wealth Databook 2021" by Credit Suisse, page 129, there are in the US:
- $1-5M : 19.5M people (<6%)
- $5-10M : 3.2M people (<1%)
- $10-50M : 1.5M people (0.4%)
And that is from one of the richest country in the world, with a very steep exponential wealth distribution.
$1-50M is _far_ from "medium wealth" by any stretch of the imagination.
>$1M (liquid) is enough to be denoted "high net worth" HNW and access private banking, with a dedicated wealth manager, from most major investment banks.
There are 2 ways to interpret "at medium levels of wealth":
* A medium amount of money among the general population. This is the interpetation you're thinking of.
* A medium amount of money among wealthy people. So wealthy might mean $500k+, with the low end of wealthy meaning $500k-1M, and medium level of wealthy meaning $1M-5M. Below wealthy would be middle class. This may be the interpretation skippyboxedhero was thinking of.
Regulatory costs are very high, this means insurance costs are high, etc. Marketing costs are extremely high in financial services too. If you are going mass market, you are paying hundreds of dollars for leads...how do you make that work if you can't charge much and need to acquire your whole customer base every week?
This is why most of the market is underserved, why rich people end up owning all the high-yield assets, and why the only real solution is having very large institutional pools of capital for most retail savings (i.e. like Australia's superannuation funds, which produced a level of wealth for the average consumer vastly in excess of the US with lower levels of GDP per capita, relatively poor penetration of financial markets, etc.).
Financial literacy doesn't seem optional for the wealthy from my perspective. There's too much to gain by having it and too much to lose by neglecting it.
So you're more wealthy then the person working 2 jobs, living with 3 roommates, commuting by public transit.
Wealth is just your possessions with value.
This is just being "pedantic about social class".
The term "Wealth" is just a word for money.
Pedantically, any money can be termed "Wealth".
So if I have an extra $5 dollars, I can manage that "Wealth", and I should not get hung up on a term that the ignorant masses associate with a "Social Class".
There are no social hierarchies, we are all wealthy on a sliding scale, from 5$ to $5MIL to $50BIL.
wealth can take many forms including human capital, social capital, future earning power, you can be wealthy in some way and yet cash-poor
- one of the apparently ignorant masses
I don't think it is surprising that the word "wealth" is used by a lot of people in different ways.
I was accused of using the word incorrectly as in "Wealth" means only "Rich" people. I was wrong because a lot of "non-Rich" can also manage their "Wealth". Someone in the comments even considered having 5Mil of assets to be NOT Rich, NOT wealthy.
It seemed like in the comments there was push back that just because they are managing their "Wealth" that they are NOT Wealthy, and so don't lump them into that category.
Instead of "Wealth" meaning, long list of asset types.
I think maybe that is the point. If you have enough 'assets' and free time to ponder the concept of "wealth" as units of exchange and the nature of money and future earning power, then you are probably "Rich" to many people.
So if you are needing a software tool to manage your "Wealth" then you probably have more "Money/Assets/Fungible Stuff" than most, like >5% of worlds population, so you could be considered "Rich". Then because you are "Rich", "Wealthy", "Have lot of Money", yes, you can be grouped with "Rich" and people can have opinions on the group of "Rich" people.
So I think it is ok to assume if someone needs tools to manage their "Wealth", that I can assume they are "Wealthy".
Build a tool that allows people to organize their 5 spreadsheet and you win.
1. Overview spreadsheet that shows my current net worth (fed from my other spreadsheets), a monthly snapshot of spending, income, and assets, and number of months until FIRE based on my trailing 12 month spend and income.
2. Spreadsheet tracking stocks I own + their current value
3. Spreadsheet tracking my crypto transactions (that I run a script against to get the cost basis and current value to plug into spreasheet 1)
4. Lunchmoney.app - website that I use to track and categorize spend. This data fees into my overview spreadsheet.