Very good start of the year, almost +4% after the first week.
2 Likes
If the U.S. invaded Greenland:
- Europe would not try to defeat America militarily
- Europe would make the invasion politically and economically impossible to sustain
- The real target would be the U.S. presidency itself, not the country
Above is aside from an invasion order never flying (requires Congress, violates War Powers Resolution, would be ākilledā by illegality triggering courts and military refusal, etc.), it would cause dramatic damage to the US (stockmarket, dollar status, borrowing costs). I think Europe can just laugh away Trumps threat but if you seriously believe heāll follow through, then better to pull out investments now because they will take a serious hit.
Imagine Europe dumping treasuries, forcing sale of US assets, rigorously applying the law on the mag7, etc. - it would be an economic disaster.
1 Like
I suppose there will be a 2026 thread?
This is all about prediction. Fortunately I know my prediction ability: it is non-existent. I know that I donāt know.
The only point where I can, after many many years of experience, trust my non-existing prediction ability: when it hurts to do something, to trade a stock. When this trade is against all my predictions, when it physically hurts to tradeā¦ that is when I make the most money.
So I hope I will predict the future that bad as I did the past. Because it does not matter for me, my captān (mechanical strategy) tells me what to do.
And that is my investment strategy for 2026: keep following my rules.
1 Like
And on both side, tons of economic value is derived from global supply chains, the dependencies are pretty deep.
Honestly Iām sure thereās people on both sides role playing those hypothetical (better be prepared, I assume EU learned their lesson after dismissing the Russian invasion as unlikely when the US told them about it) but I canāt really imagine what they come up with realistically.
Those economies are so linked and so big that even small amount of retaliation is likely to escalate with huge cost (industrial supply chain / IT / financial / etc.).
While Europe is trending towards self sufficiency for energy with e.g. renewable, itās still decades away from achieving it (it still relies on China to provide material, esp for battery and solar, but unlike fossil fuel import, itās not a continuous external dependency, and something that can be replaced domestically with time) and energy cost massively impacts the economy.
Note that while the US is the (or one of the) biggest fossil fuel exporter right now (this increased massively in the past decades), they only have a 15y runway. If they donāt decarbonize and want to stay somewhat energy independent, finding oil reserves outside the current territory is logical (Venezuela has the biggest known reserves, tho itās not the most convenient type of oil so can still be pricey to extract/process).
Anyway all that to say, Iām not sure I have a better plan than doing nothing, if something happens many people will probably be screwed, if everyone is screwed I guess Iāll figure out what to do with the rest of society and hopefully weāll be resourceful and have a good plan 
(maybe Iām too optimistic).
I think Europe would shuffle uncomfortably but ultimately eat it since thereās not much they can do about it. Some claim that it would be the end of NATO as if that is a deterrent, perhaps it is considered a bonus by some within the administration.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Thereās a lot that could be done but
- Europeans tend to be more mature/thoughtful than e.g. Trump. So theyād expect that sitting it out until the next POTUS (unless: Vance) or action by Congress may be the best (least damaging) way to approach it.
- Aggressive action would not be so much military in nature (again: adult in the room) vs. political / legal / economic. When you list things that could be done to inflict pain on Trump and make it visible to the American public that itās due to him, itās actually clear that the US-Europe relationship isnāt as asymmetrical as some think. E.g. dumping of treasury bonds, going after the Mag 7 IT companies (imagine strictly enforcing GDPR and digital services act with max penalties), forbidding defense purcahses from the US, prohibiting Euro-area banks from clearing USD trades / holding new U.S. sovereign or corporate debt, SWIFT restrictions on U.S. government-linked entities, forced divestment of US assets (think: pension funds / insurers), etc. etc. - this would permanently raise US cost of capital, not just crash markets. It would be legally justified by an illegal armed aggression.
Rationally, it would make no sense for the US to risk this given (as everybody undoubtedly knows by now) that Greenland/Denmark are in fact loyal allies and there is a treaty in place enabling US to put as many bases in Greenland as they wantā¦ but even bullies sometimes go too far and can get a bloody nose (if not worse).
It would be a case of very, very poor judgment to have this escalate (even to articulate in interviews the mere thought of invading Greenland) and Europeans tend to be (driven by history) slower, thoughtful and more peaceful in their response but to consider that as weak would be a mistake in my eyes and would be incredibly painful for both European and US investors and FIRE/pension investors.
Similar to some others, it would likely cause me to pull back (more than Iāve already done) my own US oriented investments (Iāve already halted travel to the US since a year) and expect the domestic US / global political / economic / strategic damage would take a VERY long time to reverse and this includes in the real damage in the US (how many in the military will flat out refuse the invasion order based on the questionable legality of it?).
In the meantime, Trump scolded Europe (really primarily 2 countries in Eastern Europeā¦) for still buying gas from Russia which would lengthen the warā¦ yet he has stated heās happy to sell as much from Venezuela to Russia as Russia wants.
We live in very unpredictable times. Lot of money to be made, and lost. Time will tell how it plays out. In the mean time, I regret not having bought more GOLD!
2 Likes
Scary but well-articulated and aligns with my thoughts. Have also reflected (for a while) and come to the conclusion that I need to get more overweight in CHF. I do still have some US$ denominated allocation of investments but not much and certainly donāt want to expand it.
Gold and ex-US are on my 2026 buy list. US large-cap is on my āholdā list (wonāt sell, but wonāt be adding more).
I will also build up my position in CH real estate funds and slowly grow the CHF cash buffer.
Intention is to reduce exposure to US (for all the reasons already mentioned by others here) and prepare for FIRE in 2027 where I will want some safety margin and not have to immediately sell equities if a possible downturn initiates.
1 Like
- CHF as in cash or CHF ETFs? What about EUR?
- When you mention āUSD denominated allocation of investmentsā what do you mean exactly? Single US stocks? US ETFs? Cash?
More generally I wonder:
-
How are you all incorporating US-related risks into overall portfolio allocation, as VT is still heavily tilted towards US; are you reducing VT exposure in general (selling)? Moving to UCITs funds (VWRL)? Combination of VGK/VWO?
-
How does the general rule of thumb of - mostly - ignoring currency fluctuations if fully invested, hold in the current climate?
-
Not even mentioning counterpart (broker) risk as it eludes the topic, but itās there.
Given I live in CH and intend to retire here, I should gradually have more CHF denominated stocks/ETFs for me to feel comfortable and avoid FX for living expenses. Iām fairly heavy on Euro (individual stocks and ETFs) which Iām OK with. Have reduced US (individual stocks and US$ ETFās) but could prune some more.
My cash is already largely CHF and some Euro, only extremely limited US$.
Probably you should have last year. This year may be another storyā¦
Makes sense (for me). I will probably focus more on SCHD + SCHY while buying them on USD margin. I will let VT work, keep my German defense titles and will keep my big chunk in META and AMD.
I think Europe will keep accepting US tantrums as long as Europe is afraid of Russia. This is why they accepted the one sided trade deal too. Because there is always this assumption that Russia is waitinim to take over Eastern Europe and only US is its way. Irony is that now US is trying to take part of Western Europe
So yeah most actions will be by people / investors and not by governments or military
I donāt think Europe (or its politicians) is as weak / afraid as people like to state. People confuse calmness, maturity, thoughtfulness for weakness I believe that is a mistake.
Europe is in a balancing act re maintaining US support for Ukraine while also biting on tongue to āoutwaitā Trump (3 more years). I consider this perhaps the least worst strategy.
Take the recent Greenland statements by Trump. Denmark could have easily and justifiably invoked article 4 (not 5) to call NATO together for consultation in response to these statementsā¦ but it would pour oil on the fire and damage the alliance without an immediate benefit above/beyond the large countries already recently stating they reject any encroachment on Greenland. In other words, again, mature behavior, sound judgment.
I do wonder whether all this orange turmoil is desensitizing the equity market from risks and what the effect of that may be - near term stability at the expense of long term āunder-responseā to real risks?
3 Likes
I totally agree with your whole comment, especially this quotation. I think some people need to reconsider how much they are influenced by the media. Europe is still an economic and military powerhouse. We still have nuclear weapons, a formidable military-industrial complex and intelligent diplomats. In 2024, EU states had defence expenditure of ā¬343 billion and a GDP of ā¬17.9 trillion!
2 Likes
Another item not on my 2026 bingo card:
1 Like
I think this period will be known as āTrump cyclesā, I expect weāll see some commotion in Q1, maybe Q2, then heāll go back to sleep again for 6-9 months.
I just saw Trump considering military action on Iran. Maybe I should have bought more oil after allā¦
There are a couple of articles around the net about greenland.
The first one said that the US can theoretically already now put their whole army in Greenland without any issue. They are allowed. That is, the excuse that they need G for defense is moot. Actually they moved out a bit of their men last year.
The second one is about some rumor that the higher grades in the army are annoyed that the Orange man and they try to distract him with other wars.
I donāt have links, so donāt trust me.
Maybe if they invade, the EU could stop X and Meta. Not sure what we will all lose, other than a few days to adjust the move from Whatsapp to ..SMS or whatever. 
1 Like