The 'Semi-Affluent' Investor

[intercst]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...mns/2005/stories/080705dnburns2.228cdca5.html

In addition, the acknowledgements in his 1999 study, "The Future of the Financial Advisory Business and the Delivery of Advice to the Semi-Affluent Investor," included three other people I take very seriously – Richard Lee, David Diesslin and David Folz, all in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Big firms, the study said, would trump small firms because it was impossible for small shops to have the inventory of skills and talents required by today's financial markets. Equally important, it was very difficult for a small firm to achieve the economies of scale that large firms can achieve. Finally, only large firms had the staying power to defer making a profit.

There are lots of "semi-affluent investors" out there. Their numbers are growing rapidly. They have a big stake in how this works out.

What does it take to be considered "semi-affluent"? You need a net worth of at least $1 million but less than $10 million. (I cringe to think what they call all those people – the vast majority of Americans – who have less than $1 million.)

</snip>

intercst

 

[wabmester]

Semi-affluent? I guess it's a little shorter than "upper-middle-class," but I think I prefer being upper-something than semi-something.

 

[REWahoo]

(I cringe to think what they call all those people – the vast majority of Americans – who have less than $1 million.)

"Semi-effluent"?

REW

 

[unclemick]

Lucky - if they avoid financial planners/advisors/ brokers et al.

 

[HFWR]

For $1-10mil, you can call me whatever you want!!

 

[Nords]

"Big firms, the study said, would trump small firms because it was impossible for small shops to have the inventory of skills and talents required by today's financial markets."

Gaaaa-aawwwwwlee, it's amazing that we've somehow managed to get ourselves to ER without all that professional help!

Are these "semi-affluent" investors worth $1-10M because they:
- started with nothing and did it themselves, or
- started with nothing and hired a big firm, or
- started with >$10M and hired a big firm to knock them down a level?

 

[maddythebeagle]

yes, i suspect that they aernt targeting a group that is going to generate any fee income for them.

 

[TargaDave]

Are these "semi-affluent" investors worth $1-10M because they:
- started with nothing and did it themselves, or
- started with nothing and hired a big firm, or
- started with >$10M and hired a big firm to knock them down a level?

My feeble 2C. Basically choice A. The few that I get to interact with (VC, angel investor, and executive types): doesn't matter what they started with, they earn it faster than the rate they make it grow. So they put all their effort into earning and the outside firms are for convenience. It's also where their buddies go, sort of the like the Vanguard groupies here.

 

[unclemick]

Hmmmm

Planned on 63 - engineer job - DCA from day one - kicked out the door at 49 - made do with 350k in 1993 dollars(what was semi-affluent then).

Tide of history took care of the rest - a very good decade. Stock growth, falling interest overwhelmed spending growth as such.

Somehow - I don't get worked up by stat's to go get more 'affluent'. I remember in working days - I did look at salary survey's to 'see how I was doing.'

Todays view from the cheap seats - in the bleachers - is just fine thank you.

Heh, heh.