Loading...
Philosophy 2018-06-14T14:00:54+00:00

Our Guiding Principles

Our company’s approach and our ethical-professional training is of Anglo-Saxon tradition.

The financial consultant works for the exclusive interests of their client/investor. Our objective is to reach the full success of an investment, and to contain the costs as much as possible.

Not needing to “sell” any financial products, we are not linked to any structure (bank or investment fund), that we would have to answer to.

We study the best products for the needs of our clients. To do that, we carefully study the profile of our clients, because not everyone has the same priorities.
So, our work, our recommendations must meet and satisfy the needs of our clientele as much as possible. With regard to financial advisory, the pride of our company, our philosophy is based on three paramount principles:

01

Capital
Protection

Risk/Reward Ratio

02

Asset
Liquidity

Speed of disinvestment = liquidity

03

Operating
Results

Revaluation of Invested Capital

With regard to the advisory and in reference to the directly managed assets, our objective will always be clear and singular: the maximum success of our client!

Our Approach

01

STEP

Know the client, their financial profile, their assets, their needs, their priorities and their plans for the next five years;

02

Study and formulation of the ideal asset allocation – Presentation to client;

03

A) Once the study and formulation phase of the project is finished, the client will choose whether to limit himself to only a technical advisory, liquidating the amounts relating to the service provided, or

B) accept our total proposal, including portfolio management. In this case, a contract will be signed, and our assistance will be 360°, Starting a solid and profitable “collaboration” relationship.

Example of Asset Management

An example that highlights the most apparent differences in quality that are the base of our operations and the banking system in general (banks and investment funds) is the following:
consider the case in which an investor wants to place € 100,000 of capital in a managed investment for 1 year, and that the estimated return is 10% gross.

Hypothesis A: with a traditional bank; Hypothesis B: with our asset management company.

Capital Invested 1 gen.
Entrance fee 3.5%
Annual Management Fee 1%
Switch Commission 3.5%
Performance results 10%
Performance commission 0%
Total Amount on 31 Dec.
PROFIT

HYPOTHESIS A:

Traditional bank
with Investment Fund


3,5%
1%
3,5%
10%
0%

(+1,35%)

€ 100.000 +
€ 3.500 –
€ 1.000 –
€ 3.500 –
€ 9.350 –
€ 0 –
€ 101.350 =
€ 1.350

HYPOTHESIS B:

Our Management


0%
1%
0%
10%
20%

(+7%)

€ 100.000 +
€ 0 –
€ 1.000 –
€ 0 –
€ 10.000 –
€ 2000 –
€ 107.000 =
€ 7.000

HYPOTHESIS A:
Traditional bank
with Investment Fund.
Capital Invested 1 gen. € 100.000 +
Entrance fee 3.5% 3,5% € 3.500 –
Annual Management Fee 1% 1% € 1.000 –
Switch Commission 3.5% 3,5% € 3.500 –
Performance results 10% 10% € 9.350 –
Performance commission 0% 0% € 0 –
Total Amount on 31 Dec. € 101.350 =
PROFIT (+1,35%) € 1.350
HYPOTHESIS B:
Our Management
Capital Invested 1 gen. € 100.000 +
Entrance fee 3.5% 0% € 0 –
Annual Management Fee 1%. 1% € 1.000 –
Switch Commission 3.5% 0% € 0 –
Performance results 10% 10% € 10.000 –
Performance commission 0% 20% € 2000 –
Total Amount on 31 Dec. € 107.000 =
PROFIT (+7%) € 7.000

With an equal gross result of 10%, in Hypothesis A, the investor realizes a net profit on capital of 1.35%, while in Hypothesis B, the investor realizes a profit of 7%, with a difference of 5.65% of profit. This is due to the number of costs and commissions that total € 8,000 in case A, and only € 3,000 in case B.
To conclude, we underline the fact that the commissions paid by the investor in Hypothesis B are calculated on the operating results (on profits), while with investment funds, Hypothesis A, the commissions are calculated a priori on the entire capital invested. From this we can clearly deduce that in the case of a negative operating result, in Hypothesis B, the company would not charge any commission, while in Hypothesis A, the investment fund will have already charged its commissions ex-ante, or in advance. Therefore, in both cases, the only one guaranteed to make money is the bank/investment fund.

All credit institutions “sell” their own or third-party products (Investment Funds, Hedge Funds, Financial Insurance), for which they receive commissions a priori, regardless of the future return on investment. The bank makes its profit ex-ante, that is, from the moment in which it “collects” the capital of the investor, even before putting the investment to work. At this point, the bank has reached its objective: to make Profit! Other commissions will be added to this first (as we have seen in the example), always calculated on the capital invested:
— Investment portfolio management costs
— “Switch” commissions relating to changes during the life of the investment
— Exit commissions, for disinvestment of part of all of the capital before the term of the contract

The substantial ethical difference in approach with the client is as follows:
In the Client/Bank relationship, the interests of the credit institution are completely different from those of the client; while in our case, our company and the client are on the same side.

Starting from this fundamental assumption, we take care of the present and future financial wellness of our clients.