Perhaps for those of us who are professionally engaged in it, the answer may seem obvious. Especially for those of us who have suffered for decades in our own flesh the miseries and shortcomings of private banking. It is no coincidence that, in addition to being advisors, we were, are and will continue to be essentially investors, and as such, our interests are still, unfortunately, at the antipodes of those of the banks and their misnamed advice. Having said that, let us now analyse the transcendental decisions that every investor should take to advise on the correct management of their assets.
To begin with, the ordinary investor should analyse his or her asset situation and determine whether, in addition to purely financial advice, he or she also needs tax, legal, commercial, corporate or real estate advice. In other words, they may need to put their companies/businesses in order, their real estate investments or divestments, the administration of these properties, inheritance and family matters, their investments in the stock market and in unlisted companies, the generation of the necessary income for their family or projects, optimising the taxation of all of this, etc. (more…)
The concept is new and meets a logical and increasingly common need in a globalised world. It is common knowledge that Family Offices are companies or groups of professionals that are essentially dedicated to the management and control of the assets of one or several families, as well as to attending to all aspects that may affect these family groups, such as taxation, legal advice or assistance in family logistics and concierge services (concierging), among others. But the new figure that has appeared for the users of a Family Office (whether they are Clients of a Multi-Family Office, or owners of a Single-Family Office), is that of the Outpost FO, or global support network for a Family Office. 
It seems that the world is divided between those who save and those who don’t. But many of those who claim to live from hand to mouth do, at some point in their lives (mostly in middle age) and despite the hardships of this crisis, tend to put a little money aside for their old age or for an uncertain future. However, most of these forward-thinking people have never considered themselves investors, but simply savers. Warren Buffett said that Investing means spending less today so that we can spend more in the future, and he hit the nail on the head, as he almost always does. 
There is no greater failure than that of someone who gives up on success. Something similar happens to investment funds that stick to their benchmark indices, confident that, despite their mediocrity, the firms they work for will have no trouble marketing these funds on a massive scale, and will never blame them for failing to shine. A bank’s commercial capacity is directly proportional to the mediocrity of its investment products. Perhaps it’s because Necessity is the mother of invention, and fund managers at independent fund management firms (which do not belong to banks, at least not directly) can only compete for a place in the investment sales arena by demonstrating sheer quality and superior returns compared with their competitors. 
First of all, we must tell you that the subject we are going to deal with today is complex and may offend some professional sensibilities. But that is not our intention at all, but rather our interest is focused on clarifying a situation that is currently generating a lot of confusion and, more importantly, is damaging families with a certain amount of wealth. Both large fortunes and small savers. We will therefore discuss, for example, Santander's convertible bonds, the recent inflammatory statements by Greg Smith (ex-Goldman Sachs), the types of assets that a properly diversified wealth should contain, the Spanish and Luxembourg regulators, banking, EAFIs, Family Office, or how to distinguish between a perverse advice and a perverse advice. comme il faut. We apologise for the length of the post, but we have chosen to publish it in its entirety so as not to lose the thread in the middle of the reflections that follow. 
This week I came across an article published in FundsPeople titled «
Knowing which types of assets or which companies’ shares are going to skyrocket in the coming months is the pipe dream of those who, rather than investing, speculate. Of those who are hoping for a windfall to bail them out of the financial difficulties they have got themselves into through their own foolishness. But even if Lady Luck were to smile on them, their poor judgement would remain just as bad. Consequently, they will believe themselves to be shrewd investors rather than merely lucky, and their cycle of financial difficulties, windfalls and further difficulties will repeat itself, at best. In the long run, the result for most of them is that their forays as speculators (even though they describe themselves as investors), far from supplementing their income, cost them a significant portion of the wages they have earned through the sweat of their brow over the years. And if at any point they were to make an objective calculation of their gains and losses—something they consciously or unconsciously avoid doing—the balance sheet would reveal the harsh reality: that throughout their investing lives, a large part of their own and their families’ well-being has been taken by Mr Market.