Women-only wealth manager network rolled out in the UK

Submitted by Mastodon on Wed, 2018-11-14 06:15

Article here. Excerpt:

'Raymond James has launched the Women Wealth Manager Network (WWMN) in the UK, with the aim of supporting and retaining female wealth mangers and to encourage women into becoming wealth professionals.

Women’s share of wealth is growing rapidly – as a recent Credit Suisse report showed. Women account for 40% of the world’s wealth and female investors are more likely to choose and work with a diverse wealth management team.

As a result of this demographic shift, Raymond James has set up the WWMN, established for women by women to share best practice, mentor, network and develop events.

The UK launch marks the third such Raymond James’ network, following ones in the US and Canada. The US Women Adviser Network started 24 years ago.

The WWMN is also open to paraplanners and women working through their qualifications.

“This network has been created by women for women. We want to more accurately reflect the world around us where female investors are rightly gaining more power and influence,” said Nicola Tomlin, branch principal of Raymond James Solent.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... a man's name?

Isn't it?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2018-11-14 23:47

"Women account for 40% of the world’s wealth ..."
I'm not sure how they arrive at this figure, or what "account for" actually means here, but in terms of "control," I suspect that women CONTROL a great deal of the world's wealth. I suspect that even fabulously wealthy alpha males devote much of their wealth to women, who manipulate them for that purpose. It's the same with wealth as with other areas of life: find a man who appears to be in control, then look around him and you see that in reality he is really "driving Miss Daisy." Driver's seat, yeah, but for what purpose? Usually for a woman (or women). A big reason men are driven to accumulate wealth is to attract women. Who was it that wrote (paraphrasing): "If men make more than women that's because they have a major expense that women do not have: purchasing the devotion of the opposite sex." Or something like that. Women will never have that expense.

Like2 Dislike0
Submitted by Roger on Thu, 2018-11-15 13:17

... back in the '70s. Sociologists pointed out that in order for women to find men "compelling", men needed to make money, more than women did. As a matter of fairness, women getting jobs that men used to have generally and that paid more than the jobs women typically had is a good thing. As an influence on sexual politics though, it tends to have a dampening effect on "romance" -- hence the recent drop-in-sex-among-Millenials. But I think income as a factor can be over-emphasized. Perhaps more influential is what young women have been taught about men and how that makes them view men. Further there is how men feel abt the costs and risks associated w/ having rel'ps w/ women. Put these two things together and you get perhaps a bigger force than even income keeping "the younger folks" less busy w/ each other than in the past.

Like1 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2018-11-16 06:33