How to protect assets from international disruption

Investing / Others
1

Without going into politics, and I say that with all seriousness, things do not look good. Things did escalate, and I don’t know when or if it is going to stop. This uncertainty, of which one can not say how low or high it exactly is, is called Knightian.

Especially the expropriation risk can not be priced fairly. That follows from asymmetric risk. If you are going to be expropriated tomorrow, but someone else will not, the price should be between your zero and whatever that someone can gain from it. But it can not be both at the same time. Where it ends up has to do with the marginal investor, and that is influenced by which of both groups is dominant in capital. There might be more precise theoretical calculations, which I don’t have.

If you knew the exact likeliness of those events, you could just calculate diversification gain against loss. If diversification benefit of an asset can not beat expected loss, you reduce its allocation. Diversification benefit per Unit rises as it approaches 0. But it can also reach 0. That is option 1.

But if that likeliness is a very imprecise range, that is a more difficult decision. Your decision can be wrong before you even get results. Which is different from a good decision with bad results.

But you have actions with a better profile without changing your actual allocation:

  • Matching jurisdictions: E.g. hold VTI (US: stocks, wrapper, provider) in a US broker. Hold CEU2 (Europan: stocks, wrapper, provider) in a European broker. Same for Japan, etc.
  • Derivatives: Instead of stocks hold DITM long call Options. They limit the risk but give nearly full (upside) exposure. Your asymmetric risk might not be dominant. Your counterparty could be an unaffected local providing arbitrage. Eg. buy SPX options (US: underlying, clearing).
  • DRS (Direct Registration System): Registers shares in your name. Only the company and clearinghouse jurisdiction should matter anymore. Not available for all assets.
  • Jurisdiction tilt: Shift custody of some 3rd party assets to less hostile and less involved jurisdictions. Good candidates at the moment would be India, potentially New Zealand, Uruguay. Likely holds even if you need to flee (I hope not).

Additionally, the following assets can be taken over the border:

  • Assets already there (see above and also consider bank accounts)
  • Your human capital
  • Cryptos (blue chips like BTC, ETH)
  • Classic physical valuables (gold, jewelry, cash).

Holding some of those at a low percentage of your total value (include your human capital) won’t impact your return, but can be insurance.

If you think this is alarmist, I’m a very rational person. People have died in gas chambers in denial before. Ah, and if you can do some more than save your assets, please do, but this is not the forum to discuss that.

4 Likes
Selling before the bubble bursts?
2

Great lead sentence, Sir, but isn’t this question all – as in almost exclusively – about politics and the judgement we pass on the current developments?

Wouldn’t this be a question better suited for a prepper forum? People who (seem to) worry about their own survival and preserving (some of) their assets? Not mocking you.

I like some of the more detailed questions you ask, but overall, you’re – despite denying it – asking the question of the political possibitilies realizing that you’re fearing or theorizing about. No?

I remain an optimist for what it’s worth.

1 Like
3

No, whilst our portfolios are very much affected by politics (about which I have a very clear opinion), the content of this post aims at what to do with your portfolio, if you hold it possible that there could be problems. Especially if you fundamentally don’t know how likely it is, but at the same time could be elevated enough.

It shows that you don’t have to choose optimistic or pessimistic. You can optimize even under Knightian uncertainty. The cost of the first alternative is nearly free and can probably beat even very low probabilities. To not do so, you will have to be very sure that nothing will happen.

My assessment of probabilities has risen, but this is off-topic, and I do not ask about a discussion whether it is true or not. Such things can be discussed in private messages.

1 Like
4

I’m afraid Goofy is too dumb for this topic.

It seems intellectually interesting on a theoretical level – Asymmetry! Uncertaintly! Diversification! Assessment of Probabilities! – but it becomes increasingly poltical on a practical level the more concrete it gets (“Jurisdictions”, “India, New Zealand, India, Crypto, gold, jewelry, this and that”).

Y’all have fun discussing this, and good luck!, but I’ll stay away from this for now.

Enjoy!

5

I think your instinct is right, keep everything in the same bucket to reduce ‘attack surface’ of each element.

But in practice it is very difficult as there are so many intermediaries you don’t even know about.

You buy a security. It might be on one exchange, your broker might be in another jursidiction, you try to bring them all in the same jurisdiction.

Maybe sometimes this doesn’t work, for one reason or another. And then you have all these intermediaries in between which do settlement. Then there are the banks for all the intermediary parties.

As someone who got burned by buying Russian stocks which were actually depository receipts listed on the UK stock exchange and I tried to trace-back and un-pick this and had the worst combination of intermediaries. There were multiple sets of sanctions under different authorities.

I spoke with those who had simpler arrangements with only US sanctions and they managed to convert their units into native Russian stocks, but the UK had actually more stringent sanctions which blocked this.

6

Without going at the broker level, for someone who would want to derisk it also makes sense to avoid foreign intermediary at the fund level.

For instance US stocks in EU-domiciled ETFs and non-US stock in US ETFs would have higher chances of collateral damage in case of sanction from either side for a swiss investor.

(It also simplifies withholding taxes)

A Swiss ETF might also avoid that issue.

But that might have a complexity (and fee cost), so up to each individual investor to judge the odds.

1 Like
7

Long answer short, IMHO, there is no absolute protection if sh!t hits the fan. E.g. even ownership of gold was illegal during difficult times in the US.

That aside, but that’s the very political part of the topic, things might look better than ever. How was the past better? War in Yugoslavia, 1 hr flight from here, Cuban crisis, Red Army Faction RAF left terrorism killing business people in Germany, nuclear meltdown in Japan, Chernobyl, genocides in multiple countries, 9/11, and endless list… I get it, current events always feel worse and the mind tricks you into forgetting the negative experiences of the past. That’s my bottom line after endless conversations with my late grand mother. Imagine that, she felt the 2010s very more unsteady and scary than the 2nd World War she was born into, poorest of the poor, lost her father, was best in school but couldn’t afford getting more education… and still she thought the 2010s were scarier.

So, for me, in comparison, current events seem very manageable.

4 Likes