Which part is outdated? And if it is can you give the correct information, because that's what people asked here. Just say it is not correct is too easy. What I posted is less than 12 months old and was provided by a bank that sets up funds in Luxemburg. About Malta I have no clue how it works. Small part about capital already: Article 2. (1) Within the meaning of this Law, a well-informed investor shall be an institutional investor, a professional investor or any other investor who meets the following conditions: a) he has confirmed in writing that he adheres to the status of well-informed investor, and b) (i) he invests a minimum of 125,000 Euro in the specialised investment fund, or (ii) he has been the subject of an assessment made by a credit institution within the meaning of Directive 2006/48/EC, by an investment firm within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC or by a management company within the meaning of “Directive 2009/65/EC”4 certifying his expertise, his experience and his knowledge in adequately apprising an investment in the specialised investment fund. (2) The conditions set forth in this Article are not applicable to the directors and other persons who intervene in the management of the specialised investment funds. Article 21. The net assets of a common fund may not be less than one million two hundred fifty thousand Euro (1,250,000 Euro). This minimum must be reached within a period of twelve months following the authorisation of the common fund. A grand-ducal regulation may increase such minimum amount up to a maximum of two million five hundred thousand Euro (2,500,000 Euro). Law in Luxembourg did not change since 2007 for a far as I know.
How about adding value rather than cut paste boiler plate legal gibberish? Here's some real value for those serious from wealth X. Those who are serious about raising funds will read and get it--- good luck! Wealthy individuals — billionaires, ultra high net worth individuals worth at least US$30 million and high net worth individuals worth at least US$1 million —move in specific circles, whether it’s their professional circle with business partners and colleagues, or their social network with friends and family. According to Wealth-X data, the typical wealthy individual is connected to seven other UHNW individuals, one of whom is a billionaire. On average, these seven individuals are worth a total of US$6.5 billion, a sizeable pool of future clients. Furthermore, 91% of these individuals are married and through their spouse, have an extra connection to five other adult UHNW individuals. These personal connections constitute a person’s social graph, and from our experience, the social graph is the most effective method of generating qualified referrals. However, don’t blanket your clients with introduction requests just yet. Looking at the connections of the average billionaire, UHWNI and HNWI reveals a few interesting differences in the composition of their social graphs—differences that uncover opportunities for the business development professional engaging with the wealthy. Social Graph Comparison Billionaires UHNWIs HNWIs Connections per Social Graph 11.1 4.5 5.8 Social Graph Value (US$ m) 16,180 3,770 2,760 Avg. Net Worth (US$ m) 3,487 104 13 Avg. NW of a Connection (US$ m) 1,458 838 476 Ratio of Social Graph Value/Avg. Net Worth 4.6 36.2 214.0 Ratio of Avg. NW Connection/Avg. NW 0.4 8.1 36.9 It’s no surprise that billionaires have more connections than their wealthy brethren. What is surprising is that HNWIs hold more connections in their social graph compared to UHNWIs (5.8 compared to 4.5). HNWIs also seem to network with individuals who are significantly wealthier than themselves: they are on average connected to someone who is 36.9 times wealthier, and collectively their social graphs are 214 times more valuable than their own net worth.
I told you that I received this information directly from a bank specialized in luxembourg funds (this bank is registered in Luxembourg), with which I do other business. So not a copy and paste. I received a prospectus and a proposal for the creation of a fund in full details. I asked you to give me the correct information, but as I assumed already you don't have the correct and complete information nor about Luxembourg, nor about Malta. So you say that my info is outdated but you cannot post 1 word about the actual situation. If you were a real expert you would be able to give the correct and complete information. I have a personal friend who owns a fund in Luxembourg. So no copy and paste. What you posted is a copy and paste. Sometimes you are really hilarious. Correction: most of the time. I don't see the value of your copy and paste statistics about the HNWI, while the question was about opening a fund. So the question was: What was outdated? And what is the correct information? We will see if you know what you pretend to know, because if this is the case you can give for both countries the full and detailed rules and requirements.
This is absolutely hilarious. Why don't you try this and report back? Yes, for you, I think that selling other people on how to get rich may be your best chance at getting rich. You jest, but you might be surprised who visits here. In fact, you have been rude to some extremely successful people. You reveal a lot about your "networking skills" and you are not fooling anyone who knows how to think accurately about such matters. The law of the land - what factually governs the matter - is gibberish? And tedious paragraphs of third party editorial which reduces to the obvious conclusion that wealthy people associate with other wealthy people is adding value? Is your approach giving the results you want and making you happy surf?
I have raised nearly $100 million for a variety of funds and projects via what i suggest. Im far from wealthy but do ok in this business and am able to do what i want whenever i want. Over 35% of this has come from elite trader contacts-- so, yes, i agree with you some extraordinary succesful folks read andpost on elite. I know a few personally. FYI--if you knew who "surfs" fans are on here, u might be surprised. Yes, for every phony i expose on here who "hates" me -- multiple like what i write. I am only rude to those who deserve it. Yes, the results have been beyond what i ever expected from my humble start. Peace, surf
Ok, my xperence is with Malta domiciles not luxembourg. I mstakenly read quickly and believed you were speaking of Malta. My fault. Peace surf
I was speaking about Luxembourg, not Malta. So we should put our two stories together to get the whole picture.
I am sorry to hijack your thread OP because I don't want to open another thread. I hope you don't mind. I have a profitable system which I am currently not using because it generated only about 20% annually. It is a system based on an edge which exploits the market's behaviour and it will not fade as long as the markets move in the way they move (random/nearly random). I discovered this by accident by the way. I started with retail spot fx and has been brainwashed by some marketeers who claimed to have enormous returns and performance, something like 20% monthly or more. Also, I don't have enough capital to make the 20% annual return significant. These are the main reasons why I do not currently use this system. I am using a different system which is a discretionary system. I will post the performance of the system. It is not optimised except the trailing stop. However, it is based on the highest high/lowest low of a number of days (like the turtles). I have tested on a period and tried on another periods and found that the performance did not chance much, roughly +/- 1%. This system is an objective system. I have tested on forex pairs such as EURUSD, USDJPY and other major pairs. Here are the result for EURUSD: (All the system's parameters are constant, all trades are based on 1% risk per trade) 1980-1990 CAGR = 32.74% Maximal drawdown = 20.08% Profit trades = 39.06% Profit factor = 5.97 1990-2000 CAGR = 5.15% Maximal drawdown = 16.90% Profit trades = 20.17% Profit factor = 1.60 2000-2010 CAGR = 15.93% Maximal drawdown = 30.25% Profit trades = 18.60% Profit factor = 1.56 2010-2014 CAGR = 35.21% Maximal drawdown = 22.06% Profit trades = 19.03% Profit factor = 1.59 1980-2014 CAGR = 20.50% Maximal drawdown = 27.00% Profit trades = 20.15% Total trades = 1037 Profit factor = 1.59 I have achieved similar returns on other pairs. I believe that the drawdown could be minimised hence the return could be maximised (risk more) by diversifying through uncorrelated instruments.