Traditional bank model vs.
transparent fee logic.
This comparison shows how recurring fees and performance drag change long-term portfolio outcomes.
Long-term effect
The longer the horizon, the more visible the gap between recurring fee models becomes.
Traditional bank model
End value after 15 years
8.196.477 €
AME STRATICON
End value after 15 years
10.469.891 €
AME upside
2.273.414 €
after 15 years
Wealth development
- Bank
- AME
"A highly efficient cost comparison is the basis for any family office structuring. Savings are often the first lever for realizing ESG measures in the portfolio."
--Dr. Marlies Machens - AME STRATICON
/kontakt
/unternehmenswert-rechnerFee-impact decision basis
- The net-return gap is 1.70 pts/yr - small annually, large after compounding over the horizon.
- End wealth: AME 10.469.891 € vs bank 8.196.477 € - the fee drag is the single biggest controllable lever.
- Bank fee components (AUM, trading, product, performance) are illustrative defaults - request your provider's actual all-in fee.
- Gross return is an assumption, not a forecast - fees compound regardless of performance.
- Request a full all-in fee breakdown from your current manager.
- Re-run with your actual gross return and horizon.
- Compare net-of-fee, not headline returns.
Save this comparison and receive the AME optimization strategy for family office structures.
Assess fee structures transparently
Use the calculator as a first orientation and speak with us if you want to challenge your current model in a structured way.
Get in touch
Sondieren Sie diskret in einem strukturierten Gespräch.
60 Minuten unter strenger NDA. Wir hören zu, verstehen die Familie und zeigen, ob ein Mandat trägt. Kostenfrei, ohne Folgepflicht. 60-Monats-NDA als Vorbedingung.