Mbmg International

[churchill]

Has anyone any experience with this firm of financial advisors based in Bangkok and Pattaya ?

[The Alchemist]

Yeah.......I've known this firm and its senior management for almost 8 years now and enjoyed a very satisfactory relationship with them.

Originally I was introduced to them by colleagues at work who they've been dealing with since the mid 1990s and who were impressed with the advice and service that they'd received.

I've dealt with them in matters of Thai and Australian tax and pension advice, employer benefits scheme stock advice and also I have a number of investment portfolios with them, the oldest of which has increased by 108% in 6 years and the one that I most recently added a further investment to earlier this year has been going since 2004 and has averaged over 13% per year. The tax and financial planning advice has also been satisfactory and I remain very confident in their in-house and external expertise.

I haven't dealt with their insurance, accounting or legal divisions but I have only heard good reports about these, but other than that I can't really comment on those.

Hope this helps.

[eljeque]

I suggest that you use advisors in your home country as there are better laws to protect you there.

[Paul MBMG]

I suggest that you use advisors in your home country as there are better laws to protect you there.

Just seen this so apologis for the delay in replying.

That's a pretty sweeping statement, Ejelque.

Just for your info, MBMG's advice usually revolves around products and structures based in jurisdictions like the British Isles, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Singapore and the USA where the investor protection laws are extremely rigid. if these countries are your home country you would get the same or extremely similar protections effecting structures there based on our advice and if you're from somewhere else, well I can't think of anywhere off teh top of my head that offers better protection.

I understand what you mean as it is possible to set up as an advisor in Thailand and not use such robust structures but that is why it's alwasy important to look at the experience and accountability of the advisor and also look at the nature of the advice that they give and where it will be structured. There are a number of excellent advisors in Thailand who operate in this transparent and robust way and who provide protection as great as if not greater than in many clients' home countries, but you're absolutely right that investor protection is a key issue and should be a major consideration in any financial decision.

[churchill]

and I would like to add that since my OP I have had a meeting with MBMG in Bangkok and found there advice to be excellent .

[oldskool]

While I have not personally used MBMG I do know that they are a reputable company.

I would also put a reccomendation down for Matt McGarry at Credenda Associates who provided me with a very proffesional service, like I am used to in the UK.

[percy2]

Has anyone any experience with this firm of financial advisors based in Bangkok and Pattaya ?

I only have good things to say about Phil from MBMG.

Cheers

[leeriley]

I suggest that you use advisors in your home country as there are better laws to protect you there.

Just seen this so apologis for the delay in replying.

That's a pretty sweeping statement, Ejelque.

Just for your info, MBMG's advice usually revolves around products and structures based in jurisdictions like the British Isles, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Singapore and the USA where the investor protection laws are extremely rigid. if these countries are your home country you would get the same or extremely similar protections effecting structures there based on our advice and if you're from somewhere else, well I can't think of anywhere off teh top of my head that offers better protection.

I understand what you mean as it is possible to set up as an advisor in Thailand and not use such robust structures but that is why it's alwasy important to look at the experience and accountability of the advisor and also look at the nature of the advice that they give and where it will be structured. There are a number of excellent advisors in Thailand who operate in this transparent and robust way and who provide protection as great as if not greater than in many clients' home countries, but you're absolutely right that investor protection is a key issue and should be a major consideration in any financial decision.

Hi Paul

In the current financial markets, with the plethora of irregularities that pass for 'sound financial advice', it would be easy for some to mistake you for just another 'scumbag'.

It is refreshing to see that you have the support of your clients, stating, as they are, your personal integrity and intelligent approach to securing their financial future, and not just your own.

I once heard it said that a company could launch a $100 Million marketing campaign and be undone by word of mouth. If that truly is the case, then your clients are the ones paving the way to your success, primarily driven by your own desire to place their interests first.

I always was impressed by the level of self regulation at MBMG and the integrity to the core values set by the directors. In a region where there seem to be no shortage of 'fly by nighters', logevity surely equates to sound business practices, coupled with a desire to truly service your client base.

Cheers mate. Say hi to Robbo for me. Lee

[PCA]

I suggest that you use advisors in your home country as there are better laws to protect you there.

Just seen this so apologis for the delay in replying.

That's a pretty sweeping statement, Ejelque.

Just for your info, MBMG's advice usually revolves around products and structures based in jurisdictions like the British Isles, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Singapore and the USA where the investor protection laws are extremely rigid. if these countries are your home country you would get the same or extremely similar protections effecting structures there based on our advice and if you're from somewhere else, well I can't think of anywhere off teh top of my head that offers better protection.

I understand what you mean as it is possible to set up as an advisor in Thailand and not use such robust structures but that is why it's alwasy important to look at the experience and accountability of the advisor and also look at the nature of the advice that they give and where it will be structured. There are a number of excellent advisors in Thailand who operate in this transparent and robust way and who provide protection as great as if not greater than in many clients' home countries, but you're absolutely right that investor protection is a key issue and should be a major consideration in any financial decision.

Hi Paul

In the current financial markets, with the plethora of irregularities that pass for 'sound financial advice', it would be easy for some to mistake you for just another 'scumbag'.

It is refreshing to see that you have the support of your clients, stating, as they are, your personal integrity and intelligent approach to securing their financial future, and not just your own.

I once heard it said that a company could launch a $100 Million marketing campaign and be undone by word of mouth. If that truly is the case, then your clients are the ones paving the way to your success, primarily driven by your own desire to place their interests first.

I always was impressed by the level of self regulation at MBMG and the integrity to the core values set by the directors. In a region where there seem to be no shortage of 'fly by nighters', logevity surely equates to sound business practices, coupled with a desire to truly service your client base.

Cheers mate. Say hi to Robbo for me. Lee

Hello Lee, given the fact that Paul was banned from TV there might even be a very high chance that he is a scumbag but it is very charming for MBMG that you put in all the necessary effort to become a registered user and dedicate your very first post to revive this thread. One should understand that you are very happy with their services and of course can prove an overwhelming performance, right?

[lannarebirth]

I suggest that you use advisors in your home country as there are better laws to protect you there.

Just seen this so apologis for the delay in replying.

That's a pretty sweeping statement, Ejelque.

Just for your info, MBMG's advice usually revolves around products and structures based in jurisdictions like the British Isles, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Singapore and the USA where the investor protection laws are extremely rigid. if these countries are your home country you would get the same or extremely similar protections effecting structures there based on our advice and if you're from somewhere else, well I can't think of anywhere off teh top of my head that offers better protection.

I understand what you mean as it is possible to set up as an advisor in Thailand and not use such robust structures but that is why it's alwasy important to look at the experience and accountability of the advisor and also look at the nature of the advice that they give and where it will be structured. There are a number of excellent advisors in Thailand who operate in this transparent and robust way and who provide protection as great as if not greater than in many clients' home countries, but you're absolutely right that investor protection is a key issue and should be a major consideration in any financial decision.

Hi Paul

In the current financial markets, with the plethora of irregularities that pass for 'sound financial advice', it would be easy for some to mistake you for just another 'scumbag'.

It is refreshing to see that you have the support of your clients, stating, as they are, your personal integrity and intelligent approach to securing their financial future, and not just your own.

I once heard it said that a company could launch a $100 Million marketing campaign and be undone by word of mouth. If that truly is the case, then your clients are the ones paving the way to your success, primarily driven by your own desire to place their interests first.

I always was impressed by the level of self regulation at MBMG and the integrity to the core values set by the directors. In a region where there seem to be no shortage of 'fly by nighters', logevity surely equates to sound business practices, coupled with a desire to truly service your client base.

Cheers mate. Say hi to Robbo for me. Lee

Hello Lee, given the fact that Paul was banned from TV there might even be a very high chance that he is a scumbag but it is very charming for MBMG that you put in all the necessary effort to become a registered user and dedicate your very first post to revive this thread. One should understand that you are very happy with their services and of course can prove an overwhelming performance, right?

Still long that $AUD Paul?

[Gambles]

I suggest that you use advisors in your home country as there are better laws to protect you there.

Just seen this so apologis for the delay in replying.

That's a pretty sweeping statement, Ejelque.

Just for your info, MBMG's advice usually revolves around products and structures based in jurisdictions like the British Isles, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Singapore and the USA where the investor protection laws are extremely rigid. if these countries are your home country you would get the same or extremely similar protections effecting structures there based on our advice and if you're from somewhere else, well I can't think of anywhere off teh top of my head that offers better protection.

I understand what you mean as it is possible to set up as an advisor in Thailand and not use such robust structures but that is why it's alwasy important to look at the experience and accountability of the advisor and also look at the nature of the advice that they give and where it will be structured. There are a number of excellent advisors in Thailand who operate in this transparent and robust way and who provide protection as great as if not greater than in many clients' home countries, but you're absolutely right that investor protection is a key issue and should be a major consideration in any financial decision.

Hi Paul

In the current financial markets, with the plethora of irregularities that pass for 'sound financial advice', it would be easy for some to mistake you for just another 'scumbag'.

It is refreshing to see that you have the support of your clients, stating, as they are, your personal integrity and intelligent approach to securing their financial future, and not just your own.

I once heard it said that a company could launch a $100 Million marketing campaign and be undone by word of mouth. If that truly is the case, then your clients are the ones paving the way to your success, primarily driven by your own desire to place their interests first.

I always was impressed by the level of self regulation at MBMG and the integrity to the core values set by the directors. In a region where there seem to be no shortage of 'fly by nighters', logevity surely equates to sound business practices, coupled with a desire to truly service your client base.

Cheers mate. Say hi to Robbo for me. Lee

Hello Lee, given the fact that Paul was banned from TV there might even be a very high chance that he is a scumbag but it is very charming for MBMG that you put in all the necessary effort to become a registered user and dedicate your very first post to revive this thread. One should understand that you are very happy with their services and of course can prove an overwhelming performance, right?

PCA, Just to be clear, I personally was never banned from TV - I was however banned from using the name Paul@mbmg - TV kindly gave me the option of changing name or becoming an advertiser in which case Paul@mbmg would have been an admissible name. I refused to change it on the principle that if/when I post I would like everyone to know that everything that the post is from me and that I am accountable for it, rather than, for instance, sending snide comments from a nom de plume. However after all this time I have now registered using my surname as my username instead, complying with TV's rules and at the same time still making it very clear that it's me posting. Perhaps, you'll afford us the same courtesy? Especially as you were very quick to flame poor Lee Riley.

Cheers,

Paul

[Gambles]

Still long that $AUD Paul?

Hi Lanna,

Did a talk for the Australian Chamber last month saying that there will be huge vol in AUD this year - spikes in both directiosn but over the next few years expecting major weakness in AUD from current levels especially against Asian currencies. Currrency vol will be a major theme - USD may be in a long term downternd but expect significant short term rallies (when asset markets are in crisis or downturn) and that combination (long term downtrend, short time spike ups) is very volatile and (for many people) dangerous. Key themes for the year

Expect the unexpected - anything can happen

Be nimble, quick and agile - they'll be carrying out the corpses of buy and holders

Seek out expertise - don't try and do this stuff yourselves at home,

All the best,

Paul

[PCA]

Paulie r u looking for fresh customers with the warnings otherwise why did it take you almost a year to reply here?

Regarding my family name or other personal information who should be interested in it as long as I am not trying to sell something?

[Gambles]

Paulie r u looking for fresh customers with the warnings otherwise why did it take you almost a year to reply here?

Regarding my family name or other personal information who should be interested in it as long as I am not trying to sell something?

Hi PCA,

I imagine that every business looks to attract new customers but to be honest I don't think that posts on ThaiVisa would be a great way to do that, notwithstanding its wide audience. Most of the new clients that we attract come to us by word of mouth and referral which is why I don't ever engage in cold-calling. I have given advice on TV.com in the past but that has to be necessarily general in nature - personal advice firstly requires a detailed knowledge of an individual's situation. I used to post a short term AUD trend update on here for readers.

My point about your name is that LeeRiley's name clearly identifies who he is and he clearly wasn't trying to sell anything, merely to pass on his own personal experiences so I think that it's possibly a little ungentlemanly to imply any ulterior motive - simply because LeeRiley's identity is a newbie - when Lee has taken the trouble to use such a transparent user name.

PCA, why not arrange to come by for a coffee sometime, I'll show you round without trying to sell anything and then you can share your views with the forum. Might be interesting for other TV readers and a perspective on us that is different from the client testimonials on here. Those testimonials are of course the most important feedback as far as we're concerned, not so much because of Lee's points about the value of such testimonials, but moreso because any business that doesn't satisfy its existing clients won't last too long in any sector. Sadly in the financial sector in Bangkok this last 16 years, I've seen way too many other practices come and go. Being selfish, such a meeting would be interesting for me too - I'm always keen to hear objective criticism of how I do business - if we don't listen to criticism, how can we improve? I've made this offer to other posters too and it's intended to be a genuine offer because I want to constantly improve both my own business and the industry that I work within.

Hope that you can make it sometime (and I guarantee not to try to sell you anything, I've always been an advisor not a salesman)

Best regards,

Paul

[lannarebirth]

Just another in the myriad of companies that want to charge you a percentage of your money for touching your money. If somehow that money should become more money they'll be wanting to charge you a greater percentage. If somehow you should lose your money, well, that's just the way it goes. There are presently no laws on the books that allow you to shoot them if they lose all your money. That's an unsatisfactory situation as far as I'm concerned.

[PCA]

Paulie r u looking for fresh customers with the warnings otherwise why did it take you almost a year to reply here?

Regarding my family name or other personal information who should be interested in it as long as I am not trying to sell something?

Hi PCA,

I imagine that every business looks to attract new customers but to be honest I don't think that posts on ThaiVisa would be a great way to do that, notwithstanding its wide audience. Most of the new clients that we attract come to us by word of mouth and referral which is why I don't ever engage in cold-calling. I have given advice on TV.com in the past but that has to be necessarily general in nature - personal advice firstly requires a detailed knowledge of an individual's situation. I used to post a short term AUD trend update on here for readers.

My point about your name is that LeeRiley's name clearly identifies who he is and he clearly wasn't trying to sell anything, merely to pass on his own personal experiences so I think that it's possibly a little ungentlemanly to imply any ulterior motive - simply because LeeRiley's identity is a newbie - when Lee has taken the trouble to use such a transparent user name.

PCA, why not arrange to come by for a coffee sometime, I'll show you round without trying to sell anything and then you can share your views with the forum. Might be interesting for other TV readers and a perspective on us that is different from the client testimonials on here. Those testimonials are of course the most important feedback as far as we're concerned, not so much because of Lee's points about the value of such testimonials, but moreso because any business that doesn't satisfy its existing clients won't last too long in any sector. Sadly in the financial sector in Bangkok this last 16 years, I've seen way too many other practices come and go. Being selfish, such a meeting would be interesting for me too - I'm always keen to hear objective criticism of how I do business - if we don't listen to criticism, how can we improve? I've made this offer to other posters too and it's intended to be a genuine offer because I want to constantly improve both my own business and the industry that I work within.

Hope that you can make it sometime (and I guarantee not to try to sell you anything, I've always been an advisor not a salesman)

Best regards,

Paul

Hi Paul,

thanks for the invitation. End of March I will be in Bkk for a few days and will take your offer. Please provide me with accurate contact details via PM.

BR,

PCA

[Gambles]

Hi Paul,

thanks for the invitation. End of March I will be in Bkk for a few days and will take your offer. Please provide me with accurate contact details via PM.

BR,

PCA

Hi PCA

Just sent

Look forward to catching up

All the very best,

Paul

[Gambles]

Just another in the myriad of companies that want to charge you a percentage of your money for touching your money. If somehow that money should become more money they'll be wanting to charge you a greater percentage. If somehow you should lose your money, well, that's just the way it goes. There are presently no laws on the books that allow you to shoot them if they lose all your money. That's an unsatisfactory situation as far as I'm concerned.

Lanna,

I'm guessing that your tongue's embedded firmly in your cheek. I hope so!

There is indeed a myriad of wealth managers and financial advisors and if they are to survive in business they presumably need to charge something for their services, whether by upfront commissions, ongoing management fees or time-based service fees. Whichever of these is chosen should really depend on the scope and nature of the work (which is why we offer all options) but unless one charges something for professional endeavours then one won't be in business for very long. This would be a shame because financial and investment advice is an important service - and this is why I totally understand when feelings run so high about the profession; good financial advice can make such a positive difference to people's lives and bad advice can have such a serious impact. Costs are of course an important part of any service equation but so is the added value of the quality of service provided. The issue should be about value for money not simply cost. My experience across just about all aspects of life is that focusing solely on cost leads to a diminution in quality that reduces the value for money of any service or product offering, not improves it. I don't look to but the cheapest of anything any more because that's usually false economy. I personally always look to buy the best value for money offering that suits my requirements.

All research so far (although it is quite limited) shows that investors who use financial advisors achieve significantly better results than those who don't.

In terms of losing money, well everyone invests to make a profit not a loss but responsible advisors should give a clear definition of their investment mandate for each portfolio and if they fail to comply with the mandate, this is a contract and breaking any contract should incur some form of penalty. I'd suggest an advisor who uses a CFA approved Personal Investment Policy Statement as a mandate and who has the means and resource to redress any claim (ideally an advisor should have Professional Indemnity Insurance and generally I'd ask how long they've held it and how many claims they have had). I think that's probably a more appropriate redress all round than shooting anyone, no matter how tempting that might seem to be!

all the best,

Paul

[lannarebirth]

Just another in the myriad of companies that want to charge you a percentage of your money for touching your money. If somehow that money should become more money they'll be wanting to charge you a greater percentage. If somehow you should lose your money, well, that's just the way it goes. There are presently no laws on the books that allow you to shoot them if they lose all your money. That's an unsatisfactory situation as far as I'm concerned.

Lanna,

I'm guessing that your tongue's embedded firmly in your cheek. I hope so!

Not even a little bit.

[Gambles]

Just another in the myriad of companies that want to charge you a percentage of your money for touching your money. If somehow that money should become more money they'll be wanting to charge you a greater percentage. If somehow you should lose your money, well, that's just the way it goes. There are presently no laws on the books that allow you to shoot them if they lose all your money. That's an unsatisfactory situation as far as I'm concerned.

Lanna,

I'm guessing that your tongue's embedded firmly in your cheek. I hope so!

Not even a little bit.

Oh dear!

Edited February 22, 2010 by Gambles

[Naam]

1. All research so far (although it is quite limited) shows that investors who use financial advisors achieve significantly better results than those who don't.

2. There is indeed a myriad of wealth managers and financial advisors and if they are to survive in business they presumably need to charge something for their services, whether by upfront commissions, ongoing management fees or time-based service fees. Whichever of these is chosen should really depend on the scope and nature of the work (which is why we offer all options) but unless one charges something for professional endeavours then one won't be in business for very long.

1. this applies to the totally inexperienced and rather ignorant investor but not to a seasoned one. my own "research" based on dealing with three multinational banks renders completely different results no matter what risk level the investor has chosen.

2. if an employee does not perform he will lose his job. if a company does not make money the CEO loses his job. why should financial institutions which handle the money of investors get paid if they can't generate yield?

the most stupid excuse one hears repeatedly is "well, we are in line with the benchmark" even though losses were "achieved".

benchmark? my àss!

[Gambles]

1. All research so far (although it is quite limited) shows that investors who use financial advisors achieve significantly better results than those who don't.

2. There is indeed a myriad of wealth managers and financial advisors and if they are to survive in business they presumably need to charge something for their services, whether by upfront commissions, ongoing management fees or time-based service fees. Whichever of these is chosen should really depend on the scope and nature of the work (which is why we offer all options) but unless one charges something for professional endeavours then one won't be in business for very long.

1. this applies to the totally inexperienced and rather ignorant investor but not to a seasoned one. my own "research" based on dealing with three multinational banks renders completely different results no matter what risk level the investor has chosen.

2. if an employee does not perform he will lose his job. if a company does not make money the CEO loses his job. why should financial institutions which handle the money of investors get paid if they can't generate yield?

the most stupid excuse one hears repeatedly is "well, we are in line with the benchmark" even though losses were "achieved".

benchmark? my àss!

Well actually, Naam, strictly it's an average across all participating investors so I guess it would include all levels of investors but I totally take the point that individual investor returns is a diverse 'scattergram' in just the same way that advisor returns are. Some will do better than others. In both cases for there to be an average there must be both above and below average performance also. This is I believe that why one of the most important criteria that we believe that investors should take into account when assessing their performance or that of their advisor is top quartile consistency. Public sites such as Trustnet now produce a Rolling Alpha Quartile for Discrete three year periods, which shows a manager's alpha score in quartile terms, plotting his or her risk adjusted performance against all other managers in the Unit Trusts & OEICs universe. The best managers are those who are consistently ranked in the first or second quartile. Ideally a manager's record should be top quartile across all the periods. That's why we remain so enamoured with our portfolio managers -

trustnet.com/Managers/ManagerFactsheet.aspx?personCode=00000068KO&univ=U

There's something very wrong if in your experience the results don't reflect the risk level. Looking at the private banking performance indices (and don't shoot me down here I'm no spokesperson for private banking; we tend to regard private banking as our most direct competitor moreso than other IFAs in Bangkok and I have been extremely critical of the performance of many of these banks in the past) overall they do reflect the impact on risk and reward of risk criteria but obviously your experience doesn't bear that out - and this is exactly the kind of variation in performance that I was referring to above.

2) I would like to see greater reliance on performance fees but care has to be taken not to create a moral hazard doing so but as long as you set the right risk and reward criteria - I believe that sometimes performance requirements have focused solely on return with unfortunate consequences. All other benchmarks should be out of the window - performance relative to peer groups, performance relative to cash and performance relative to equity or other asset markets should be merely interesting background - the only benchmark that matters is performance relative to individual risk and reward expectations. Every client of an advisor should have some form of individual personal investment policy statement and for most self-managed investors it's probably not a bad idea to do this to keep yourself focused too. As you know, money is an emotional business and it's vital to remain totally dispassionate and objective when managing your own money or that of other people.

cheers,

Paul

Edited February 23, 2010 by Gambles

[Naam]

"Every client of an advisor should have some form of individual personal investment policy statement and for most self-managed investors it's probably not a bad idea to do this to keep yourself focused too. As you know, money is an emotional business and it's vital to remain totally dispassionate and objective when managing your own money or that of other people."

an inexperienced client is not able to establish a policy that suits his personal circumstances and demands. the experienced and successful investor might have a policy but has to abandon it according to prevailing market conditions. looking back i have to admit that most of the time i failed whenever i tried to stick to my personal policy if/when the markets demanded flexibility. therefore, about five years ago, i threw all "policies" overboard and i did not regret my decision.

[Naam]

"There's something very wrong if in your experience the results don't reflect the risk level. Looking at the private banking performance indices (and don't shoot me down here I'm no spokesperson for private banking; we tend to regard private banking as our most direct competitor moreso than other IFAs in Bangkok and I have been extremely critical of the performance of many of these banks in the past) overall they do reflect the impact on risk and reward of risk criteria but obviously your experience doesn't bear that out - and this is exactly the kind of variation in performance that I was referring to above."

there is nothing wrong with the performance of private banking for the benefit of the institution. but something is very wrong with the performance of client portfolios handled by private banking which i consider (politely) as deplorable.

[Gambles]

"Every client of an advisor should have some form of individual personal investment policy statement and for most self-managed investors it's probably not a bad idea to do this to keep yourself focused too. As you know, money is an emotional business and it's vital to remain totally dispassionate and objective when managing your own money or that of other people."

an inexperienced client is not able to establish a policy that suits his personal circumstances and demands. the experienced and successful investor might have a policy but has to abandon it according to prevailing market conditions. looking back i have to admit that most of the time i failed whenever i tried to stick to my personal policy if/when the markets demanded flexibility. therefore, about five years ago, i threw all "policies" overboard and i did not regret my decision.

this is the real crux - as an advisor a policy statement that incorporates the flexibility required while defining the aims is a work of art...but it is possible. CFA guidelines are very useful here in helping to create policy statements that allow unconstrained investing within acceptable defined parameters for risk and liquidity.

And while I totally hear what you're saying about the self-imposed limitations having caused you problems in the past I feel that you're in the very small minority at the top of the self-managed pyramid and that further down the pyramid you go, more mistakes regularly occur because of the lack of self-imposed guidelines but you know at the end of the day the important thing is to find what's right and what works for you - be that from your own resources or from an advisor.

[Gambles]

"There's something very wrong if in your experience the results don't reflect the risk level. Looking at the private banking performance indices (and don't shoot me down here I'm no spokesperson for private banking; we tend to regard private banking as our most direct competitor moreso than other IFAs in Bangkok and I have been extremely critical of the performance of many of these banks in the past) overall they do reflect the impact on risk and reward of risk criteria but obviously your experience doesn't bear that out - and this is exactly the kind of variation in performance that I was referring to above."

there is nothing wrong with the performance of private banking for the benefit of the institution. but something is very wrong with the performance of client portfolios handled by private banking which i consider (politely) as deplorable.

I wish you could share the not so polite version with us too but as we are talking about my competitors then business protocol demands that in public I simply say that you might very well have good reasons to think that but I couldn't possibly comment.

cheers,

Paul

[Naam]

this is the real crux - as an advisor a policy statement that incorporates the flexibility required while defining the aims is a work of art...but it is possible. CFA guidelines are very useful here in helping to create policy statements that allow unconstrained investing within acceptable defined parameters for risk and liquidity.

in my [not so] humble opinion that means "squaring the circle" which -we all know- is an impossible undertaking.

[Naam]

"There's something very wrong if in your experience the results don't reflect the risk level. Looking at the private banking performance indices (and don't shoot me down here I'm no spokesperson for private banking; we tend to regard private banking as our most direct competitor moreso than other IFAs in Bangkok and I have been extremely critical of the performance of many of these banks in the past) overall they do reflect the impact on risk and reward of risk criteria but obviously your experience doesn't bear that out - and this is exactly the kind of variation in performance that I was referring to above."

there is nothing wrong with the performance of private banking for the benefit of the institution. but something is very wrong with the performance of client portfolios handled by private banking which i consider (politely) as deplorable.

I wish you could share the not so polite version with us too but as we are talking about my competitors then business protocol demands that in public I simply say that you might very well have good reasons to think that but I couldn't possibly comment.

cheers,

Paul

since a couple of years i am striving to enhance the quality of life of me and my family (wife and two dogs), meaning to reduce the daily ten or twelve hours i spend in front of three -or sometimes four- screens, read more books, play more often with the Mrs. and the dogs by handing over a part of my and the few portfolios which i am handling for some friends to private banking. that's why i am checking once or perhaps twice a year the performance of client portfolios handled by Credit Suisse, UBS and Julius Baer. the results always put a tired smile or a grimace on my face. as each bank offers more than half a dozen risk levels and these in a variety of specific areas the "versions" are virtually infinite and that makes it impossible to share any information.

all what i can say is that if the manager of any portfolio (conservative to moderate risk level) has generated a loss exceeding 10% in 2008 (Bear Sterns march, Lehman et al september) he/she is not qualified to handle a single penny of my money.

[Gambles]

"There's something very wrong if in your experience the results don't reflect the risk level. Looking at the private banking performance indices (and don't shoot me down here I'm no spokesperson for private banking; we tend to regard private banking as our most direct competitor moreso than other IFAs in Bangkok and I have been extremely critical of the performance of many of these banks in the past) overall they do reflect the impact on risk and reward of risk criteria but obviously your experience doesn't bear that out - and this is exactly the kind of variation in performance that I was referring to above."

there is nothing wrong with the performance of private banking for the benefit of the institution. but something is very wrong with the performance of client portfolios handled by private banking which i consider (politely) as deplorable.

I wish you could share the not so polite version with us too but as we are talking about my competitors then business protocol demands that in public I simply say that you might very well have good reasons to think that but I couldn't possibly comment.

cheers,

Paul

since a couple of years i am striving to enhance the quality of life of me and my family (wife and two dogs), meaning to reduce the daily ten or twelve hours i spend in front of three -or sometimes four- screens, read more books, play more often with the Mrs. and the dogs by handing over a part of my and the few portfolios which i am handling for some friends to private banking. that's why i am checking once or perhaps twice a year the performance of client portfolios handled by Credit Suisse, UBS and Julius Baer. the results always put a tired smile or a grimace on my face. as each bank offers more than half a dozen risk levels and these in a variety of specific areas the "versions" are virtually infinite and that makes it impossible to share any information.

all what i can say is that if the manager of any portfolio (conservative to moderate risk level) has generated a loss exceeding 10% in 2008 (Bear Sterns march, Lehman et al september) he/she is not qualified to handle a single penny of my money.

or indeed anyone's money!

[Gambles]

this is the real crux - as an advisor a policy statement that incorporates the flexibility required while defining the aims is a work of art...but it is possible. CFA guidelines are very useful here in helping to create policy statements that allow unconstrained investing within acceptable defined parameters for risk and liquidity.

in my [not so] humble opinion that means "squaring the circle" which -we all know- is an impossible undertaking.

we should have a long chat about that sometime - with respect I totally disagree. By starting from liqudity, currency and REAL risk (i.e. what size of drawdown can you withstand?, for what duration? etc) you can create a clear and meaningful risk profile. From there you can decide whether a matrix of assets fits within that or not. The key though is understanding asset risk. It's my personal opinion that too many professional and personal investors don't - for instance what's the risk with a stock - 100% loss. We all know that but how many investors factor that in. The risk that all stocks in the world can go bankrupt at once is such a negligible fat tail that it probably isn't reasonable to assume that a diversified stock portfolio has 100% risk but it's probably closer to that than the 20% V-a-R that many portfolios assume. After all if the portfolio falls 20% would they sell on a stop loss? invariable not they would hold and then it could fall 50% or more from there and this blows their V-a-R models apart. So understanding specific asset risk and the inter-relationship between risks is the key (too many American advisors and managers in particular repeatedly fail to understand that different types of stock holding do not represent diversification in many conditions - in the run up to 2008 we warned of the dangers of unitary correlation - i.e. all risk assets plummet in a crisis). I get the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that you this more intuitively rather than rules-based and that this works for you so I'm certainly not trying to change you BUT I do believe that for most investors this is possible and is a major breakthrough although it requires a lot of hard work from the advisor and not just asking "on a 1-10 risk scale what risk factor are you?"

If the private banks that you talk about did this more effectively then perhapos the likes of UBS wouldn't have clients deserting them in droves? (that's not meant to be snide, just a sad reflection)

cheers,

Paul

Edited February 23, 2010 by Gambles