- Original authors / creators
- Minh Tu Tran; Marie Paseková
- Original publication
- PLOS One · PLOS · 2026-10-30
- License & retained notices
- CC BY 4.0
© 2026 Tran, Paseková
Article-specific license evidence ↗Exact license notice
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Article-specific license URI: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ - Edition changes
- Narrative paragraphs and references retained with whitespace normalization; figures, tables and display equations remain in exact retained XML and original source, not the reader edition.
- Evidence limits
- Adjacent research, not a directly sampled family-office study. Applicability to a family office requires separate assessment. This study has several limitations. The data were collected from a non-probability sample of digitally engaged retail investors in Vietnam, and the findings should not be generalized to all investors, private banking clients, or high-net-worth individuals. The study also relied on cross-sectional self-reported data; therefore, perceived private wealth management capability should be interpreted as self-assessed capability rather than as objective portfolio performance, verified investment skill, private banking eligibility, or realized wealth outcomes. Future research could use longitudinal designs, objective investment-performance indicators, cross-country samples, or experimental approaches to examine how hybrid AI advisory, calibrated trust, and cyber-risk self-protection influence actual wealth management decisions over time. Additionally, the relatively small sample size and digitally engaged respondent profile may introduce selection bias, as individuals with a greater interest in digital financial services may be overrepresented. Although common method bias was assessed using multiple statistical procedures, it cannot be fully ruled out given the cross-sectional and self-reported nature of the study design.
- Retraction / correction check
- No retracted-publication label in the retrieved Europe PMC record or Crossref update-to/updated-by notice. XML metadata screened for retraction. Publisher article page searched for explicit correction/retraction/concern notices; see verification record. These bounded checks do not cover unlinked or unregistered notices and are not exhaustive independent retraction clearance. Verified 2026-11-05. Automated/source checks are not human peer review.
- Preserved record
- Rights and full text checked 2026-11-05. Included in this volume on 2026-11-05. Original source dates remain unchanged.
Download the preserved source
SHA-256 (retrieved artifact): 53a301b36c9c7c111b7d7cad37a0cda6d4c0e174b5ebd91a1cca87589d1ced0e
SHA-256 (preserved text edition): d70885935c69e2f7bbd2d57ab70f521ec0f920ed4badd84f0e3b8c6ec23adfb8