It seems like Autowealth is not getting a lot of coverage - why is this so? - Seedly
Seedly logo
Seedly logo
Ā 

AutoWealth

Robo-Advisors

Investments

Anonymous

Asked 2w ago

It seems like Autowealth is not getting a lot of coverage - why is this so?

Their website seems outdated and there's not much to read about them. I like their pure passive investment approach but am afraid they will end up like Smartly. Doesn't seem very reassuring for prospective investors like me though.

0 comments

3 answers

Answer Now

Answers (3)

Sort By

Heng Kai Le
Heng Kai Le, Mondomover at School Of Life
Level 6. Master
Answered 2w ago

Maybe because they only have a 4-man management team? another reason could be because their barrier to entry is higher - you need to have a minimum of $3k before you can invest with them

Turtle Investor is their keen advocate though. (sign up using his referral code and you will get $20). he blogs quite regularly about AutoWealth: https://www.turtleinvestor.net/autowealth-expected-to-be-profitable-in-q3-2020/

1 comment

šŸ‘ 0
Question Poster

2w ago

Endowus has a min amount of 10k but I don't see many complaining about it - seems like Endowus is more well-known even though they are in the market later than Autowealth. Is it cos they offer CPF investments too?
Wilson Nid A Break
Wilson Nid A Break
Level 8. Wizard
Answered 2w ago

The more marketing a passive fund /fund manager does, incurring uncessary expenses, does not sound very reassuring to an incumbent investor like me

1 comment

šŸ‘ 0
CH
CH

2w ago

Lol. i see other robos advertise very frequently, book huge auditorium / ballroom for seminars. errrr... wait.... this sounds like typical trading courses salesmen šŸ˜†
CH
CH
Level 7. Grand Master
Answered 2w ago

Because their fees are not exactly cheap and they do not advertise as much?

i am just guessing.

but that does not mean they are not good. i do not see SGX academy advertise often, but their trainers are way better, more sincere (and cheaper) than other trading courses salesmen.

0 comments

šŸ‘ 0