Ja.
Nee.
Ja, als er op termijn risico is dat jouw ouders zelf zullen proberen in individuele aandelen te beleggen, of in obscure indexen.
Dat is dan een veiligheid tegen eigen dommigheid, waarvoor je +- 1-5% per jaar aan kosten/underperformance betaalt.
Maar zij zullen jouw geld vrij 'defensief' beleggen (lees: een deel gewoon in cash/obligaties) waardoor het niet verbrast zal worden.
Dat kan potentieel een groot voordeel zijn.
Daarnaast word je ook uitgenodigd voor events, of krijg je tickets voor bv. Rolland Garros of zo. Dat kan een gevoel van status of 'erbij horen' geven.
Nee.
Ja.
Bron:
- Buffett:
https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2016ltr.pdf p24 onderaan (*)
- Mezelf: gewerkt in vermogensbeheer, +300 rijke mensen hun volledige detailvermogen gezien + ook gewerkt voor een bank in Brussel dus ik ken alle fondsjes en de waarde van "private banking".
(*):
Over the years, I’ve often been asked for investment advice, and in the process of answering I’ve
learned a good deal about human behavior.
My regular recommendation has been a low-cost S&P 500 index
fund. To their credit, my friends who possess only modest means have usually followed my suggestion.
I believe, however, that none of the mega-rich individuals, institutions or pension funds has followed
that same advice when I’ve given it to them. Instead, these investors politely thank me for my thoughts and
depart to
listen to the siren song of a high-fee manager or, in the case of many institutions, to seek out another
breed of hyper-helper called a consultant.
That professional, however, faces a problem.
Can you imagine an investment consultant telling clients,
year after year, to keep adding to an index fund replicating the S&P 500? That would be career suicide. Large
fees flow to these hyper-helpers, however, if they recommend small managerial shifts every year or so. That
advice is often delivered in esoteric gibberish that explains why fashionable investment “styles” or current
economic trends make the shift appropriate.
The wealthy are accustomed to feeling that it is their lot in life to get the best food, schooling,
entertainment, housing, plastic surgery, sports ticket, you name it. Their money, they feel, should buy them
something superior compared to what the masses receive.
In many aspects of life, indeed, wealth does command top-grade products or services.
For that reason,
the financial “elites” – wealthy individuals, pension funds, college endowments and the like – have great trouble
meekly signing up for a financial product or service that is available as well to people investing only a few
thousand dollars. This reluctance of the rich normally prevails
even though the product at issue is –on an
expectancy basis – clearly the best choice.
My calculation, admittedly very rough, is that the search by the elite
for superior investment advice has caused it, in aggregate, to waste more than $100 billion over the past decade.
Figure it out: Even a 1% fee on a few trillion dollars adds up. Of course, not every investor who put money in
hedge funds ten years ago lagged S&P returns. But I believe my calculation of the aggregate shortfall is
conservative.
Human behavior won’t change. Wealthy individuals, pension funds, endowments and the like will
continue to feel they deserve something “extra” in investment advice. Those advisors who cleverly play to this
expectation will get very rich. This year the magic potion may be hedge funds, next year something else.
The likely result from this parade of promises is predicted in an adage: “When a person with money meets a person
with experience, the one with experience ends up with the money and the one with money leaves with
experience.”
