Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Engineer250
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:41 pm

Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by Engineer250 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:40 pm

Saw this blog post on Financial Samurai and thought it was interesting:

https://www.financialsamurai.com/how-hi ... breakdown/
According to the pie-chart below, the average asset allocation for respondents with over $3 million in investable assets is 55% stocks, 21% bonds, 15% cash, 6% alternatives, and 4% other.
What's more interesting is the breakdown between generations. Equity portion has increased for both Gen Xers and Millenials from 25% in 2017 to 46% in 2018 for Millenials, and 45% in 2017 to 54% in 2018 for Gen Xers. Wonder how much of that is an actual decision to invest more, or just the effect of a very positive stock market year on what are likely smaller portfolios than the two older generations (Boomers and Silent Generation) and a sort of unintentional portfolio slip.
After a great 2017, it’s understandable that most generations increased their stock allocation. If you’re a Millennial, you’ve mostly seen good times since 2010. Even though you may have graduated college during the recession, you had no money to invest for the first two years anyway. Now that Millennials are entering stronger earning years and are better educated about the benefits of long-term investing, the trend towards higher stock allocation should continue.
Granted this is a blog post not an academic article, but I disagree with the bolded statement, however think the author is probably correct with his next statement. Millenials are probably entering peak earning years. Rather than say the stock market has been fantastic, it's important to point out the labor market has not. So many Millenials might just be getting on their feet and getting good jobs right now. But as for me, a millenial, I did have a 401k in 2007 and remember vividly the downturn. Sure it wasn't a balance anyone on here would brag about, but at that time that was the most money I'd ever scrounged together. I suppose that's sort of the problem with the generational markers, many millenials weren't working yet, though there is plenty the generation has in common (bad job market, rapidly increasing tuition/rent, student loans). They still have the largest cash allocation, which shows a generation that still feels burned by the financial markets.
For me, the biggest surprise really is how those ages 73+ have a 61% allocation towards stocks. 73+-year-olds have seen it all, yet they are still undeterred. This is very insightful because it seems experience has taught them that staying the course long term is the way to go despite the stock market being at close to record highs today. To them, long-term investing has been proven correct.
60/40 seems a pretty common ratio once someone hits retirement, so I'm not too surprised at the numbers. Also, AARP says more than half of folks in their 70s have some type of pension. So some type of pension + social security, makes sense to me they would be able to tolerate downturns. It probably has little to do with all they've been through and more to do than many might be trying to grow their nest egg for heirs rather than themselves.

Curious what others take on this is, did it surprise you or in line with what you thought?
Where the tides of fortune take us, no man can know.

User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 5229
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii😀 Northern AZ.😳 Retired.

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by Sandtrap » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:53 pm

Not sure what correlation the article is trying to draw and if there's any distinction between "High Net Worth >3mil" or others.
But it does reinforce the 60/40 allocation as a solid baseline for many.
This for review.
Outstanding write up on the 64/40 allocation by Bernstein.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061214061 ... in6040.pdf
R. Ferri on Bernstein's 60/40
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-inve ... nopaging=1

The author refers to the equity portion as the "business component". Hmmm.
j :happy

User avatar
munemaker
Posts: 3405
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by munemaker » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:59 pm

Sandtrap wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:53 pm
Not sure what correlation the article is trying to draw and if there's any distinction between "High Net Worth >3mil" or others.
I think there would be more distinction with large pensions and those without - than there is between those with net worth over $3 million and those of say $1 million.

User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 5229
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii😀 Northern AZ.😳 Retired.

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by Sandtrap » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:02 pm

munemaker wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:59 pm
Sandtrap wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:53 pm
Not sure what correlation the article is trying to draw and if there's any distinction between "High Net Worth >3mil" or others.
I think there would be more distinction with large pensions and those without - than there is between those with net worth over $3 million and those of say $1 million.
Yes. Exactly.
As in most portfolio evals., the variance is in the nature and diversity of income stream in retirement vs size of total assets.
j :happy

User avatar
munemaker
Posts: 3405
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by munemaker » Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:57 am

Engineer250 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:40 pm
Saw this blog post on Financial Samurai and thought it was interesting:

https://www.financialsamurai.com/how-hi ... breakdown/
Dishing the deets:
https://ustrustaem.fs.ml.com/content/da ... ndings.pdf

Tamalak
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 2:29 pm

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by Tamalak » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:19 pm

Sandtrap wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:53 pm
Outstanding write up on the 64/40 allocation by Bernstein.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061214061 ... in6040.pdf
This is my preferred asset allocation for its immediate 4% return :D

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 5381
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by willthrill81 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Actually, there is academic research showing that Millennials may be the most conservative generation since their great-grandparents, who went through the Great Depression. Being automatically placed into target-date funds, which are mostly stocks at this point for them, may be their only 'saving grace'.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

staythecourse
Posts: 5877
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by staythecourse » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:32 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:26 pm
Actually, there is academic research showing that Millennials may be the most conservative generation since their great-grandparents, who went through the Great Depression. Being automatically placed into target-date funds, which are mostly stocks at this point for them, may be their only 'saving grace'.
Agreed. Another win for the concept of target dated funds in retirement accounts. How this is NOT the default in every workplace retirement plan in beyond me.

Good luck.
"The stock market [fluctuation], therefore, is noise. A giant distraction from the business of investing.” | -Jack Bogle

User avatar
munemaker
Posts: 3405
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by munemaker » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:45 pm

Tamalak wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:19 pm
Sandtrap wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:53 pm
Outstanding write up on the 64/40 allocation by Bernstein.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061214061 ... in6040.pdf
This is my preferred asset allocation for its immediate 4% return :D
That is interesting to know, but the thread is about the asset allocation used by high net worth investors.

CurlyDave
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:37 am

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by CurlyDave » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:34 pm

Well, I read the article and it pegged my BS detector way over on the deep red "Man the Lifeboats" side of the scale.

Not surprisingly, since it is put out by the Private Wealth Management arm of Bank of America, either they are ignoring real estate, or it is in that 4% "other" category.

In my lifetime, I have personally known (not just met in passing) at least 6 of the HNW individuals they talk about and one UHNW individual. The UHNW guy was a business owner, the other 6 had healthy amount of both stocks and real estate outside of their primary residence.

Sure, this was a limited sample, but the odds on meeting 6 out of 7 people who are in that category and have at least 50% real estate instead of 4% are slim to none. And the 7th, the UHNW individual still had much more than 4% of his net worth in real estate.

My take on it is that "the Private Wealth Management arm of Bank of America" advises people on stocks and bonds, but does not have anyone on staff who is a real estate broker.

User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 1677
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by CyclingDuo » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:29 am

Engineer250 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:40 pm
Curious what others take on this is, did it surprise you or in line with what you thought?
Nothing too terribly surprising. Respondents to the survey totaled only 892. That's a rather small sampling size. According to this article....

https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionaires ... s-america/

...there are 4,665,039 households in America with net worth of $3M or more. If that is true, then the sampling size of 892 barely even registers. Extrapolating asset allocation from such a small sample size for such a large group doesn't seem to warrant more than a glance.

Financial Samurai has written many similar articles in the past. I recall one where he said $3M is the new $1M in terms of being a millionaire compared to prior generations' thoughts of that status. So using the "target" of $3M for the particular article linked above seems to coincide with that premise.

He also conducts a lot of polls of what his readers think about certain things. Example, here is one he did with over 13K respondents on the minimum amount of net worth it takes to be considered "rich":

Image

The most popular answer by his readers who voted was $5M. Again, he runs lots of articles, opinions, thoughts, polls on various wealth levels that may be interesting to glance at, but I don't get much more out of it than a curious glance.
"Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time." ~ Steven Wright

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 5381
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by willthrill81 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:34 am

CyclingDuo wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:29 am
Engineer250 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:40 pm
Curious what others take on this is, did it surprise you or in line with what you thought?
Nothing too terribly surprising. Respondents to the survey totaled only 892. That's a rather small sampling size. According to this article....

https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionaires ... s-america/

there are 4,665,039 households in America with net worth of $3M or more. If that is true, then the sampling size of 892 barely even registers. Extrapolating asset allocation from such a small sample size for such a large group doesn't seem to warrant more than a glance.
It depends significantly on the sampling method being used. If simple random sampling, the 'gold standard', were used, a sample size of 892 is actually quite powerful. Nearly all samples are more or less capped at around an N of 1,000 because the marginal benefit of going up from there is small. For instance, with simple random sampling, an N = 1,000 translates to a margin of error of +/- 3%. To get that margin of error down to +/- 1%, you need a sample size of about 6,500.

Where the rub comes into play is when something other than a probabilistic sampling method is used. In truth, non-probabilistic sampling methods are far more common with real people because we seldom have a list of all of the people in our target population, a requirement for a probabilistic sampling method to be used. They are less powerful than probabilistic sampling methods, but precisely how much less powerful a given sample is is unknown. The results may be close to that of a probabilistic method or not.

But even so, a sample size of 892 is very decent even if a non-probabilistic sampling method was used, significantly larger than what is commonly used in the social sciences, and particularly if the sampling methods were decent otherwise.

The point is that you don't need to sample X% of a population in order to have a good sample. The parameters of a population with 1,000,000,000,000 elements in it can be estimated surprisingly well with a simple random sample of just 1,000 elements or fewer, depending on the margin of error you're comfortable with.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 1677
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by CyclingDuo » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:54 am

willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:34 am
CyclingDuo wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:29 am
Engineer250 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:40 pm
Curious what others take on this is, did it surprise you or in line with what you thought?
Nothing too terribly surprising. Respondents to the survey totaled only 892. That's a rather small sampling size. According to this article....

https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionaires ... s-america/

there are 4,665,039 households in America with net worth of $3M or more. If that is true, then the sampling size of 892 barely even registers. Extrapolating asset allocation from such a small sample size for such a large group doesn't seem to warrant more than a glance.
It depends significantly on the sampling method being used. If simple random sampling, the 'gold standard', were used, a sample size of 892 is actually quite powerful. Nearly all samples are more or less capped at around an N of 1,000 because the marginal benefit of going up from there is small. For instance, with simple random sampling, an N = 1,000 translates to a margin of error of +/- 3%. To get that margin of error down to +/- 1%, you need a sample size of about 6,500.

Where the rub comes into play is when something other than a probabilistic sampling method is used. In truth, non-probabilistic sampling methods are far more common with real people because we seldom have a list of all of the people in our target population, a requirement for a probabilistic sampling method to be used. They are less powerful than probabilistic sampling methods, but precisely how much less powerful a given sample is is unknown. The results may be close to that of a probabilistic method or not.

But even so, a sample size of 892 is very decent even if a non-probabilistic sampling method was used, significantly larger than what is commonly used in the social sciences, and particularly if the sampling methods were decent otherwise.

The point is that you don't need to sample X% of a population in order to have a good sample. The parameters of a population with 1,000,000,000,000 elements in it can be estimated surprisingly well with a simple random sample of just 1,000 elements or fewer, depending on the margin of error you're comfortable with.
Well, at least they increased the number that were surveyed. They only sampled 640 in 2015. I would like to see the Spectrem Group's reports: https://spectrem.com/Content_Info/inves ... veyed.aspx

The only problem being they charge $9000.00 per report. :shock:
"Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time." ~ Steven Wright

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 5381
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by willthrill81 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:05 am

CyclingDuo wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:54 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:34 am
CyclingDuo wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:29 am
Engineer250 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:40 pm
Curious what others take on this is, did it surprise you or in line with what you thought?
Nothing too terribly surprising. Respondents to the survey totaled only 892. That's a rather small sampling size. According to this article....

https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionaires ... s-america/

there are 4,665,039 households in America with net worth of $3M or more. If that is true, then the sampling size of 892 barely even registers. Extrapolating asset allocation from such a small sample size for such a large group doesn't seem to warrant more than a glance.
It depends significantly on the sampling method being used. If simple random sampling, the 'gold standard', were used, a sample size of 892 is actually quite powerful. Nearly all samples are more or less capped at around an N of 1,000 because the marginal benefit of going up from there is small. For instance, with simple random sampling, an N = 1,000 translates to a margin of error of +/- 3%. To get that margin of error down to +/- 1%, you need a sample size of about 6,500.

Where the rub comes into play is when something other than a probabilistic sampling method is used. In truth, non-probabilistic sampling methods are far more common with real people because we seldom have a list of all of the people in our target population, a requirement for a probabilistic sampling method to be used. They are less powerful than probabilistic sampling methods, but precisely how much less powerful a given sample is is unknown. The results may be close to that of a probabilistic method or not.

But even so, a sample size of 892 is very decent even if a non-probabilistic sampling method was used, significantly larger than what is commonly used in the social sciences, and particularly if the sampling methods were decent otherwise.

The point is that you don't need to sample X% of a population in order to have a good sample. The parameters of a population with 1,000,000,000,000 elements in it can be estimated surprisingly well with a simple random sample of just 1,000 elements or fewer, depending on the margin of error you're comfortable with.
Well, at least they increased the number that were surveyed. They only sampled 640 in 2015. I would like to see the Spectrem Group's reports: https://spectrem.com/Content_Info/inves ... veyed.aspx

The only problem being they charge $9000.00 per report. :shock:
Market research, whether it's good or bad, is not usually cheap. That's actually a fairly typical amount for a sector report.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
munemaker
Posts: 3405
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by munemaker » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:57 am

CyclingDuo wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:29 am
Engineer250 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:40 pm
Curious what others take on this is, did it surprise you or in line with what you thought?
Nothing too terribly surprising. Respondents to the survey totaled only 892. That's a rather small sampling size. According to this article....

https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionaires ... s-america/

...there are 4,665,039 households in America with net worth of $3M or more. If that is true, then the sampling size of 892 barely even registers. Extrapolating asset allocation from such a small sample size for such a large group doesn't seem to warrant more than a glance.

Financial Samurai has written many similar articles in the past. I recall one where he said $3M is the new $1M in terms of being a millionaire compared to prior generations' thoughts of that status. So using the "target" of $3M for the particular article linked above seems to coincide with that premise.

He also conducts a lot of polls of what his readers think about certain things. Example, here is one he did with over 13K respondents on the minimum amount of net worth it takes to be considered "rich":

Image

The most popular answer by his readers who voted was $5M. Again, he runs lots of articles, opinions, thoughts, polls on various wealth levels that may be interesting to glance at, but I don't get much more out of it than a curious glance.
If you polled the people who actually have $5 million, I bet they would say $10 million.

deltaneutral83
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by deltaneutral83 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:11 am

If you've stayed the course I don't see why you would need to go lower than 60/40 in retirement. Most of these types of people at $3MM or more at 65+ years of age are in estate mode rather than worrying that they will spend down their assets. Yes, we could have another depression but your asset allocation isn't going to matter much because your younger heirs will probably not have jobs and being the most conservative at 40/60 instead of 70/30 or whatever isn't going to make a big difference in your quality of life or that of your children and grandchildren.

A 60/40 portfolio on $3M in a 50% equity downturn would likely not even lose $1M as bonds would likely go up? I personally don't really see a 65+ year old who's seen the market the last 40 years and stayed the course as losing their minds over this with a $3M net worth. You may even be able to swing less than a million down on a 70/30 in this situation. I'm sure someone can back test Oct 2007-March 2009 on $3M at 70/30. This of course doesn't analyze SS or pensions.

That chart is interesting in that 11% of the population thinks $1M is "rich"

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 5381
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by willthrill81 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:13 am

One of life's greatest ironies, IMHO, is that people want to have money in order to spend it. But in order to have money, one cannot spend it.

Most people don't want $5,000,000 in order to possess it; they want it in order to spend it (e.g. most lottery winners, celebrities, and pro athletes). And once they spend it, they'll likely be less happy (and possibly less financially secure) than they were when they started. This is probably also why people so often view wealth in terms of income instead of assets.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 1677
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by CyclingDuo » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:56 pm

munemaker wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:57 am
If you polled the people who actually have $5 million, I bet they would say $10 million.
At which point we cue the Bob Marley music, or post up a famous quote...

Image
"Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time." ~ Steven Wright

bhsince87
Posts: 1734
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:08 pm

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by bhsince87 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:14 pm

i guess i can add another data point as an "HNW" Genexer.

Currently at 62% stock, 22% bond, 16% cash. Zero "alternatives".

Toying with early retirement, and i haven't been buying bonds for the past few years, so I am more cash heavy than in the past.

My plan is to stay around 60-65% stock going forward.
BH87

Random Poster
Posts: 1672
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by Random Poster » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:06 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:13 am
One of life's greatest ironies, IMHO, is that people want to have money in order to spend it. But in order to have money, one cannot spend it.
Maybe, but you don't need to have money (or event want to have money) in order to spend it. A high-limit credit card will do just fine...
willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:13 am
Most people don't want $5,000,000 in order to possess it; they want it in order to spend it (e.g. most lottery winners, celebrities, and pro athletes).
I can't imagine wanting to spend $5M. What would one even spend it all on? And then, once you bought something, you'd still have to maintain it, which is going to cost you even more money---so what's the point of buying said something in the first place?

As to the OP or what allocations high net worth people have, it seems to me that the higher your net worth, the more likely it is that you'd care about keeping your money than making/earning more of it, so a stock allocation in the 30% to 60% range would seem commonplace to me. But what do I know?

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 5381
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by willthrill81 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:16 pm

Random Poster wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:06 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:13 am
One of life's greatest ironies, IMHO, is that people want to have money in order to spend it. But in order to have money, one cannot spend it.
Maybe, but you don't need to have money (or event want to have money) in order to spend it. A high-limit credit card will do just fine...
That's could be argued to be 'borrowing' rather than 'spending'.
Random Poster wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:06 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:13 am
Most people don't want $5,000,000 in order to possess it; they want it in order to spend it (e.g. most lottery winners, celebrities, and pro athletes).
I can't imagine wanting to spend $5M. What would one even spend it all on? And then, once you bought something, you'd still have to maintain it, which is going to cost you even more money---so what's the point of buying said something in the first place?
You could easily spend that much just on a small private island.

And my statement is more applicable to non-Bogleheads as well.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 5229
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii😀 Northern AZ.😳 Retired.

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by Sandtrap » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:42 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:13 am
One of life's greatest ironies, IMHO, is that people want to have money in order to spend it. But in order to have money, one cannot spend it.

Most people don't want $5,000,000 in order to possess it; they want it in order to spend it (e.g. most lottery winners, celebrities, and pro athletes). And once they spend it, they'll likely be less happy (and possibly less financially secure) than they were when they started. This is probably also why people so often view wealth in terms of income instead of assets.
Well said, as always!

I would venture that most here view wealth in terms of "net worth", whereas many others view "high income" as wealthy, on a day to day basis. IE: High earners (usually also high spenders).

Also, that how a person accumulates $3-5 million dollars, whether earned $1 at a time or windfall, etc, has a lot to do with their perception of wealth and how easily disposed it might be.

j
Last edited by Sandtrap on Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
munemaker
Posts: 3405
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by munemaker » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:48 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:13 am
One of life's greatest ironies, IMHO, is that people want to have money in order to spend it.
With me, it has a lot to do with security.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 5381
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by willthrill81 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:50 pm

Sandtrap wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:42 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:13 am
One of life's greatest ironies, IMHO, is that people want to have money in order to spend it. But in order to have money, one cannot spend it.

Most people don't want $5,000,000 in order to possess it; they want it in order to spend it (e.g. most lottery winners, celebrities, and pro athletes). And once they spend it, they'll likely be less happy (and possibly less financially secure) than they were when they started. This is probably also why people so often view wealth in terms of income instead of assets.
Well said, as always!

I would venture that most here view wealth in terms of "net worth", whereas many others view "high income" as wealthy, on a day to day basis. IE: High earners (usually also high spenders)

j
Thank you.

Yes, I agree. Many, perhaps most, non-Bogleheads seem to me to want the ability to spend, spend, spend, and they view a high income as an easier and faster way to achieve this than high net worth. That perspective can remain for a long time, perhaps even most of one's life, until the person realizes that if a high income requires them trading their work/time/abilities for money, they may no longer be able to make that trade.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 5381
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by willthrill81 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:53 pm

munemaker wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:48 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:13 am
One of life's greatest ironies, IMHO, is that people want to have money in order to spend it.
With me, it has a lot to do with security.
Ditto that for me as well. That's partly why we're Bogleheads. :beer

Of course, one could argue that security can only be achieved through the ability to spend that money, but that might make my statement a truism. :wink:
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

Nate79
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by Nate79 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:12 pm

This study was recently posted but for the life of me I can't find the thread.

golfCaddy
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:02 pm

Re: Asset Allocation for High Net Worth (>$3M) Individuals

Post by golfCaddy » Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:29 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:13 am
Most people don't want $5,000,000 in order to possess it; they want it in order to spend it (e.g. most lottery winners, celebrities, and pro athletes).
Exactly, I view it as a Scrooge-like illness to aspire to be the richest man in the graveyard. Even if you have a bequest motive, whether heirs or charity, those beneficiaries might benefit from receiving some of the money now, instead of waiting for an event decades in the future.

Post Reply