About
Services
Articles by Michael
-
Trading Card Records Set in 2020: Why Prices are Skyrocketing and How to Capitalize on It
Trading Card Records Set in 2020: Why Prices are Skyrocketing and How to Capitalize on It
It’s that time of the year, especially if you’re a trading card collector. Recent news has shown an explosion in value…
1 Comment -
More and more platforms emerge for fractional investment in collectibles
More and more platforms emerge for fractional investment in collectibles
You can finally own the most expensive memorabilia of your dreams… or, at least, a fraction of it. Platforms to invest…
2 Comments
Activity
13K followers
-
Michael Fox-Rabinovitz shared thisInstitutional investors just hit a 15, year high in equity overweight at 28 percent above their fixed income allocation. That's not a signal I'd ignore. We're well past the traditional 60/40 rebalancing sweet spot, and the gap between conviction and caution is widening. At Chartwell, we're watching this closely. When allocations drift this far from historical norms, it usually means one of two things: either the market is genuinely justified in repricing growth, or there's crowding that creates vulnerability. The real question isn't whether equities will perform, it's what happens when that 15, year positioning reverses. How are you stress testing for a rebalancing shock in your portfolio? Because it will happen, and the firms prepared for it will be the ones still standing. https://lnkd.in/gYGgUCdzMarket Signals and Shifts: What to watch in 2026 | State StreetMarket Signals and Shifts: What to watch in 2026 | State Street
-
Michael Fox-Rabinovitz posted thisActive ETFs have crossed $1.9 trillion globally and continue breaking monthly records. Meanwhile, traditional active mutual funds are shrinking, and passive products captured 70 percent of net flows in 2023. This isn't just product migration. It's a fundamental shift in how investors want to be invested. They want lower fees, transparency, and the ability to move capital without friction. What strikes me: firms still operating on the old active fund model are trying to compete on alpha generation while simultaneously bleeding assets to cheaper vehicles. That's a losing equation. The winners are the ones who've already accepted that tomorrow's portfolio construction looks completely different from today's. They're building modular, diversified solutions instead of defending legacy products. The convergence of public and private markets through efficient wrappers is where the real edge sits now.
-
Michael Fox-Rabinovitz shared thisMost companies get AI wrong because they're asking the wrong question. They ask: "What can AI replace?" when they should ask: "What systems are breaking because we've outgrown our people?" Listened to Kurt Uhlir on scaling, and he nailed something that applies directly to how we think about technology at Chartwell. The bottleneck at scale isn't usually the tool. It's the leadership model. Founders who thrive on directive decision making hit a wall when the organization gets too complex for one person's judgment to work. AI doesn't solve that. It actually exposes it. Because now everyone's managing systems and teams of tools instead of just managing people. That requires a completely different skill set. Clarity of communication. Documentation that actually exists. Understanding investor expectations so you know what you're optimizing for. I've watched plenty of teams throw AI at problems that were really problems of structure and misalignment. They wondered why adoption stalled. Usually because nobody translated what the tool actually does into business outcomes people cared about. The uncomfortable truth: human judgment becomes more critical when you have better systems, not less. You just have to know which decisions matter and which ones you've now delegated to automation. https://lnkd.in/e_gxM_eb
-
Michael Fox-Rabinovitz posted thisWe're seeing Separately Managed Accounts and Unified Managed Accounts post 18.7% and 18.3% compound annual growth over the last five years. The appeal makes sense: clients get tailored portfolios instead of prepackaged allocations. But I keep running into the same friction point with our clients. Customization sounds great until you're managing dozens of SMAs with different tax positions, rebalancing schedules, and reporting requirements. That operational complexity is real, and most firms are still bolting it onto legacy infrastructure. The asset managers winning right now aren't just offering flexibility. They're building the plumbing to handle it at scale without drowning their operations teams. That means unified platforms that can handle personalization without turning every client change into a manual workflow. The fee pressure is real too. Clients want customized solutions and lower fees. You can't deliver both by adding headcount. What's your experience? Are you expanding SMA/UMA offerings, or are the operational costs keeping you cautious?
-
Michael Fox-Rabinovitz posted thisYour business infrastructure choices quietly compound over time, and most growing companies don't realize it until they're stuck. I'm not talking about your tech stack or office location. I'm talking about the foundational decisions that control how you operate at scale, like how your customers actually reach you. Take toll, free numbers. Most businesses grab whatever's available without thinking about the long, term implications. They inherit recycled 800 numbers with baggage from previous owners, or they lock themselves into contracts that make switching painful. Then when they want to rebrand or migrate providers, they're trapped. The smarter play? Owning your infrastructure outright. A fresh 866 number gives you the same credibility as an 800, but with cleaner availability, full portability rights, and the flexibility to move between providers without disruption. It's a small decision that compounds into real control over your brand. The pattern holds across everything operational: contracts that own you, recycled assets that carry hidden costs, infrastructure you can't actually move. These aren't sexy decisions, but they're the ones that determine whether you're in control of your growth or at the mercy of it. What foundational infrastructure decision have you postponed that's actually costing you more each quarter you wait?
-
Michael Fox-Rabinovitz posted thisCambridge Associates just flagged something I've been watching closely: endowment allocations to public and private equity jumped from 51.7% in 2015 to 64.8% by mid, 2025. US households are hitting record equity weightings too. That's not a sign of confidence. That's a warning sign. When portfolios drift heavily into one direction, it's usually because markets have been kind, not because the underlying risk math has changed. The moment volatility returns, those allocations look reckless in hindsight. The real question isn't whether you should own equities. It's whether your allocation reflects where valuations actually are, not where they were when you last rebalanced. If your equity weighting is near an all, time high, you've already answered what your risk tolerance is. The market will test that answer soon enough. What's your actual policy allocation, and when's the last time you stress, tested it against a real drawdown?
-
Michael Fox-Rabinovitz shared thisMost organizations I work with claim they want to be 'more mature' in how they operate. What they actually mean is they want fewer meetings and less bureaucracy. The irony? They're confusing maturity with agility, and those aren't the same thing. Maturity models get a lot of attention because they sound like a roadmap to excellence. Five levels, clear progression, everyone knows where they stand. But here's what I've noticed after years in this space: a maturity model is a diagnostic tool, not a fix. It tells you that your processes are broken. It doesn't tell you how to unbreak them. The real issue is that most maturity frameworks live in isolation from how actual work gets done. They're descriptive, not prescriptive. A company can measure itself against CMM or some other standard and still be drowning in inefficiency because the model doesn't connect to the people running the business. What separates the companies that actually improve from those that just go through the motions? They treat maturity as something that happens through process optimization and data, not just assessment. They look at where the friction actually lives, measure it, and fix it. Then they measure again. If your maturity model isn't driving real operational change within weeks, not months, you're probably using it wrong. https://lnkd.in/egVunaUA Growth HackersMaturity Model | Improve your Business Processes with Maturity Models | Growth HackersMaturity Model | Improve your Business Processes with Maturity Models | Growth Hackers
-
Michael Fox-Rabinovitz shared thisUMA and SMA programs are growing at 18.7 and 18.3 percent annually, respectively. Everyone's jumping in. But the real story isn't the growth rate. It's what's driving it. Investors aren't buying these products because they're fancy. They're buying them because fee pressure is forcing asset managers to actually differentiate. Personalization stopped being optional. Here's where most firms stumble: they bolt customization onto an infrastructure built for standardized products. You get complexity without real value. Real client service requires rebuilding how you operate from the ground up. Different data flows. Different workflows. Different talent models. The firms winning in 2026 aren't the ones with the biggest product suites. They're the ones who treated this shift as structural, not cosmetic. They rewired their operations first. If you're running a platform, ask yourself: could we actually deliver on personalization promises at scale today, or are we one client crisis away from realizing our infrastructure doesn't support what we're selling? https://lnkd.in/eNTe6PWd, and, insights/blog/5, trends, reshaping, investment, management, in, 2026/ https://lnkd.in/eh5ztKjh
-
Michael Fox-Rabinovitz posted thisMost people evaluate a business acquisition by looking at the profit line first. That's backwards. I've watched plenty of deals blow up because a solid income statement was sitting on top of a fragile foundation. The numbers looked great. The business fell apart the moment the new owner took over. The real questions aren't about what the financials say today. They're about durability. Is this business solving a problem that will still need solving next year? Can it generate predictable cash flow without the current owner's daily involvement? Do customers actually trust the business, or do they just trust one person in it? These softer signals reveal something a balance sheet never will: whether you're buying a sustainable operation or just inheriting someone else's headaches. What's the most overlooked factor you've seen in evaluating whether a business is actually worth buying?
Experience & Education
Licenses & Certifications
Publications
-
Unlock the Vault: A Blueprint For Building Wealth With Fractional Ownership
Amazon
See publicationIn Unlock the Vault, Michael Fox-Rabinovitz continues the teachings he provided in his top-selling book, Own a Fraction, Earn a Fortune, where he laid out all the tools and methodologies needed to realize superior profits through fractional ownership of luxury collectible items.
Now, with Unlock the Vault, Michael provides a roadmap for applying these same principles to gain access to an even more diverse group of investment opportunities -
Own a Fraction, Earn a Fortune: The Complete Guide to Co-investing in Art and Collectibles
Michael Fox-Rabinovitz
See publicationCannot afford to buy a $325,000 vintage Aston-Martin or a $45,000 vintage Rolex? How about a $270K 1963 mint condition Marvel The Avengers #1 comic? What if you could build a portfolio of these and many more unique collectibles and reap the rewards?
Discover how fractional ownership platforms can empower you to easily buy and sell shares of collectible items such as Art, Sports Memorabilia, Trading Cards, Comic Books, Watches, Classic Cars, and other asset categories which were…Cannot afford to buy a $325,000 vintage Aston-Martin or a $45,000 vintage Rolex? How about a $270K 1963 mint condition Marvel The Avengers #1 comic? What if you could build a portfolio of these and many more unique collectibles and reap the rewards?
Discover how fractional ownership platforms can empower you to easily buy and sell shares of collectible items such as Art, Sports Memorabilia, Trading Cards, Comic Books, Watches, Classic Cars, and other asset categories which were previously out of reach for the vast majority of investors.
“For millions of individuals around the globe buying small fractions of luxury collectibles is a way to participate in an economy previously exclusively reserved for the very wealthy who knew the secret: luxury goods won’t just hold value; they will appreciate over time.” Michael Fox-Rabinovitz.
In this comprehensive yet easy-to-read book, Michael Fox-Rabinovitz, Managing Partner of Chartwell Capital LLC, and a successful investor with over twenty-five years of experience, decodes the secrets, nuances, and benefits of collectible assets. He also provides a road map on how best to leverage fractional ownership to include collectible investments in your long-term financial plan. You will learn:
Benefits of fractional ownership of collectibles for risk diversification and profitable investing
Key value drivers for each collectible asset category
Sports Memorabilia
Trading Cards
Comic Books
Cars
Watches
Art
And many more!
Which platforms to use and the features of each
Emerging collectibles to keep an eye on
After reading this in-depth guide you will know how to realize superior profits independent of stock market performance by including collectibles in your investment portfolio and how to use fractional ownership platforms to unlock access to collectible investments which were once unobtainable. -
Fund of Fund Portfolios for Family Offices: Methodology Overview
Custom
-
Integrated Risk Framework
Citi Private Bank White Paper
White paper on Integrated Risk Management approach to holistically managing both liquid and illiquid assets of UHNW families
Languages
-
English
Native or bilingual proficiency
-
Russian
Native or bilingual proficiency
-
Spanish
Limited working proficiency
-
French
Limited working proficiency
-
German
Elementary proficiency
-
Hebrew
Elementary proficiency
Recommendations received
3 people have recommended Michael
Join now to viewOther similar profiles
Explore more posts
Explore top content on LinkedIn
Find curated posts and insights for relevant topics all in one place.
View top content