'Affluent' Investors

[REWahoo]

This quote in a Marketwatch.com article on how the sentiment of “wealthy investors” has turned negative towards the investment climate caught my eye:

“The investment outlook by affluent investors, those with $100,000 or more in financial assets,…”

I would not consider someone having $100,000 in financial assets to be ‘affluent’. But when a huge chunk of the population has a negative net worth, I suppose it doesn’t take much to be considered well-to-do these days.

 

[setab]

That definition would make me affluent. I don't feel affluent. HMMMM.

setab

 

[Andre1969]

I like that title in the article..."The Rich are worried; Should You Be?"

Umm, yes, if you're classifying ME as "rich", then yes, you SHOULD be worried!

 

[HFWR]

Effluent...

 

[setab]

Effluent...

Is that a comment on the quality of the argument?

setab

 

[Texas Proud]

New definition of affluent:

Someone who after being fired will not be bouncing checks within a week, who will not have the cars, boats, RV etc. repoed wiithin two months, and who will not be foreclosed within six months.

I did find it interesting that the affluent are stupid.... yet we have the money...

 

[MasterBlaster]

Since I am now Affluent I have modified how I dress.

Here is my outfit fitting for a visit to Starbucks

 

[Bimmerbill]

woohoo! I am affluent!

I can check that off my list of things to do.

 

[Sheryl]

Rich people are pretty dumb when it comes to their investments. A Northern Trust study conducted last year found rich people's expectations are unrealistic and "out of synch." They aren't diversified across asset classes and some believed they could earn as much as five percentage points above what is historically accurate.

OK, so this would imply that the Poor are actually smarter than the Rich? Those 60 year olds with $50,000 in retirement savings are smarter than the rich? The people who don't even know what an asset class is, are they the smart ones?

What a dumb article.

 

[brewer12345]

Since I am now Affluent I have modified how I dress.

Here is my outfit fitting for a visit to Starbucks

Which pocket does the Mad Dog or 40 fit into?

 

[Arif]

Which pocket does the Mad Dog or 40 fit into?

The back pocket of course...but it would have to go in a flask.

 

[Nords]

Which pocket does the Mad Dog or 40 fit into?
The back pocket of course...but it would have to go in a flask.

"Women go crazy for a sharp-dressed man"...

 

[Siv]

I'll freak out if I see someone like that in Starbucks...haaaa.... that will be hilarious!

 

[LOL!]

OK, so this would imply that the Poor are actually smarter than the Rich?   Those 60 year olds with $50,000 in retirement savings are smarter than the rich?    The people who don't even know what an asset class is, are they the smart ones?

I read it a slightly different way.  It implies that the Poor are actually dumber than the dumb rich.  Perhaps the Poor believe they can earn 10% above what is historically accurate?  But the article makes no reference to what the Poor think.

Also the survey smacks of recency bias, but that's to be expected.  Since the market went down from May to June, everyone feels bad.  If the exact same survey were conducted from February to March, a different article would have been written.

Nevertheless, the author has to write something or he won't get paid. If he doesn't get paid, how can he become Affluent and dress like MasterBlaster?

 

[ladelfina]

Only 23% those polled by Smith Barney say their investments are performing better than they expected -- just about half as many who said the same thing a month ago.
Which is odd because the Dow Jones Industrial Average has taken a nice little bounce over the last 30 days; it's up more than 500 points since this time last year.
This probably has more to do with expectations than actual results.

I can't even read articles like this; one or two statistics in and they cease to make sense to me.
"Crack" journalism, indeed.. (maybe the writer is ON crack..)

"Only 23% those [sic] polled... are performing better than they expected... This probably has more to do with expectations than actual results." ~Ahem~ 

"Probably"? Ya think? :

 

[Mach1]

“The investment outlook by affluent investors, those with $100,000 or more in financial assets,…”

I think they meant $1,000,000. At AMSouth Wealth Management Team won't talk to any one unless he/she have $1,000,000 in investable asset as is considered as 'Affluent Investors'.

 

[Texas Proud]

I think they meant $1,000,000.   At AMSouth Wealth Management Team won't talk to any one unless he/she have $1,000,000 in investable asset as is considered as 'Affluent Investors'.

I am sure they meant the $100,000... what a bank will do and what is considered by studies is different.. a bank can not make money on a $100,000 portfolio in the private bank or wealth management group... usually a bank has another group for the 'less affluent' people.. they just do not get the personal touch as the high rollers...

 

[Mach1]

usually a bank has another group for the 'less affluent' people..  they just do not get the personal touch as the high rollers...

But the problem is I have a little more than what they called 'Affluent Investors', I just don't want to open a million dollar account so they can talk to me about wealth management.

 

[Texas Proud]

But the problem is I have a little more than what they called 'Affluent Investors', I just don't want to open a million dollar account so they can talk to me about wealth management.

I hear you... I work at a bank and I would not want to open an account in the private bank... man, they rape you with fees...

But, they are there for some... let's say you are a $1,000,000 a year or more worker.... what would you rather do, spend a few grand on someone to take care of your money and do what you do best and make more... or take the time to know what you should and invest wisely??