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