How to Hide a Billion Dollars
economist.com
economist.com
If you've got $100m there are entire ecosystems of consultants offering to "help you put that money to work." Identifying the more "cooperative" ones willing to look the other way or sidestep certain barriers is probably not too hard. And with $100m to hide, if it costs $5m to get the job done, that may seem like a good deal.
Back when I sold my startup to an F500 acquirer, within days of the acquisition hitting the news I started getting calls on my non-public, pretty closely guarded, mobile number from financial advisors, investment bankers and consultants. Everyone from Goldman Sachs on down. One of them pitched me on how I could "shelter" funds. I asked him how and he walked me through a byzantine scheme that seemed pretty shady - and I didn't even have anywhere close to "real" money compared to even a fledgling banana-republic despot.
No need to identify, just call Goldman Sachs or HSBC.
Pretty easy to put coins in your pocket (or several pockets) with change.
Carefully thought through, I'd bet you can put $100,000 into the change cup at the airport security line and nobody would have a clue.
For instance, the Canadian Loonie [0], and the Canadian Gold Maple Leaf coin [1] have similar color the same face on one side.
You can get more esoteric if you go with collector coins. Take a 1932 US Quarter, with a value up to $15,000. [2] I guarantee you could put ten of those in your pocket and nobody would notice!
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loonie#/media/File:Canadian_Do...
[1] - https://www.walmart.com/ip/Canada-1-oz-Gold-Maple-Leaf-9999-...
[2] - https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/washington-quarters-19...
If so how did you choose? Did you go by a personal referral or did you go with one who cold called you?
My judgment was that you can either play for a special edge and pay the fees for that active management (while hoping you've chosen a Buffet vs a Madoff), or you can just bet on the overall market based on the risk profile and time horizon you're comfortable, save all the fees you can by letting it ride and not trading. My gut was that the best strategy was likely to be one of those two extremes and anything in-between would be less optimal. Since I acknowledge I don't have the experience or skill to tell a Buffett from a Madoff, I decided not the play that game and go the other way.
It's been over 12 years now and the 'fire and forget' approach has worked out super well. By only rebalancing once a year I also saved a lot of time, mental bandwidth and stress. Admittedly, my market presence has coincided with a ten year bull market, however the long-term market backcasting data shows that buying a diversified portfolio of ultra-low fee funds and just holding has historically worked out best. Of course, it's somewhat sensitive to when you enter the market but IIRC if you hold for ten years, regardless of entry year, it outperformed active management in something like 96% of scenarios.
Actually South Africa's former crooked president solved that.
You see it's not a swimming pool. It's a firepool. A source of water in case of fire. Making it a safety feature and thus legitimate expense to guard the president.
And to prove it they - I kid you not - made a youtube video about it:
In Australia they are a tax deductible expense as a water facility: https://www.theland.com.au/story/4330059/cool-pool-20k-tax-w...
Yeah it was in a way legit. Lots of thatch roof houses nearby etc - if it hadn't been for the context.
They built a ton of private stuff with taxpayer money and then tried to justify it later when called to account. e.g. A mini Amphitheatre because a soil retaining wall. Swimming pool became a fire pool. The chicken coop...well there their creativity failed them.
The book that chronicles (Billion Dollar Whale) is a real page turner, with lots of it being unbelievable.
Seen The Wolf Of Wall Street? He funded its production with his stolen $... :)
[1] https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2019/10/10/...
Same for a lot of developed countries with the 2008 banking crisis with billions unaccountable
That's completely different from rulers who are actively looting their nations today.
If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives.
I'm glad you admitted that there is an argument to be made there.
What's the difference? Why don't they return the stolen property?
> If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives.
Why shouldn't they? Have you heard of native title?
You can put a very large fortune into a pocket (or small bag) if necessary.
Whataboutism is a bit tiring. That issue doesn't really seem essential to include.
"Mswati III, the absolute monarch of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) lives like a king—and it’s legal."
As long as Kings are content with what they have today we leave them be. It may be outdated and unfair, but its stable and usually not too terrible for the people. The alternatives may not be much better either, especially in countries with high levels of corruption. There is a hope that all monarchies will eventually crumble and be replaced by something more representative now that the concept of divine right seems quaint and out of touch, but power tends to be self supporting so it will likely take a long time.
If so, we might as well all be hanged.
As a general rule, it doesn't appear that it's the British monarchy that's been principally embroiled in recent offshore banking scandals, that is, excavating national wealth and moving it outside the country. Rather, the UK (and several of its Crown territories) are strongly implicated in numerous offshore banking centres (as is the US for that matter), and its often business and financial actors who are engaged in such activities, along with some elements of organised crime.
Not heads of state, titular or (nominally) elected.
There's no evidence that they have neither is their evidence that they haven't participated in that kind of activity. Perhaps they don't need to (at least not while they are still popular in their country). Perhaps it's just a result of lack of exposure in the Western press - I wouldn't put it past the economist to not cover it if indeed they were involved in something like that. Look at the (lack of) coverage of the Epstein case for years for example. Your comment is trying to be balanced and impartial but is a little (maybe unintentionally) biased.
The UK (and its various predecssor states) have been a limited monarchy for quite some centuries. That's not a guarantee of perfectly non-corrupt behaviour, but it helps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
too long; didn't watch:
The royal family likely contributes quite significantly to the popularity of the UK tourism industry, which brings in FAR more money to the country than the institution costs to maintain, even considering all the royal salaries to pay, the palaces to maintain, public events to produce, security, etc.
They also lease out a great amount of land to the country - to the wide benefit of the entire populace - for pennies of what it would cost the nation to purchase such land and resources outright.
Land which, without support from the royal family, would sink into the ocean.
In seriousness though, there is a line between the monarchy's possessions and the the rest of the government's; in theory even if they monarchy were dissolved, seizing that land would be illegal/immoral/unethical.
France beheaded their king, and people are still visiting Versailles.
No one is coming to see the UK palaces because the Queen may be around.
Also, her frequent social functions with some of these other thieving royals is kind of shameful
The latter consisted in large part of property (Sandringham and Balmoral are privately-owned), furniture, art, jewellery left by the Queen Mother to the current Queen (some of which was then gifted to the state) and an investment portfolio...which no-one actually anything about (it is not large) but which was all acquired privately (both Sandrigham and Balmoral were bought on the open market by Queen Victoria).
To suggest they have "so much of the country's wealth" is wildly inaccurate though (most estimates are $500m, and that is including the Duchy of Lancaster/Cornwall...she benefits from the income of both but they are not owned by her personally). The Royal Family aren't even the wealthiest members of the aristocracy in Britain (or anywhere close, frankly).
Btw, it is worth remembering that we executed our king ~500 years ago when he got out of line. This isn't our first rodeo.
This is usually not the case in most monarchies outside Europe (Brunei, Thailand, etc.).
Yes, that is what I am arguing. You are obviously a genius.
When you say "the palaces, the estates from which they derive income even if they don't own them...acquired prior to becoming heads of state", you are showing that you didn't read anything I wrote (I understand why you don't see the relevance now, it has been explained more than once however).
They did not acquire them, they are owned by the state. And the income from those sources accrues to the state, which is then passed to the Crown. The relevance of this point is: the British Royal Family are not wealthy, the majority of what people attribute to them is in fact state-owned, the personal assets they have were acquired on the open market (i.e. not related to their position as head of state...again, the reason you might not understand the relevance of that distinction is because you don't know that this isn't the case in many other monarchies...I gave you two examples...you are taking learned helplessness to new lows).
Btw: the UK went through this 400 years ago. If you want to know more about this issue, don't get angry first...read books. You don't seem to understand quite fundamental aspects about how monarchy/government works in this case.
Anyway, monarchy in UK is partially tolerated because most of the income from their properties goes to the state, otherwise, I suspect, they would be done for long ago.
The last sentence was truncated.
But that may change: https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-passes-bill-to-expose-own...
The fact is Switzerland has very much cleaned up their act in the last 10 years, and the worse offender when it comes to cleaning and hiding ill-gotten gains these days are actually the US and Canada.
Swiss government is accountable to their people, not to foreigners - if they choose to act in a manner that benefits the swiss (not because it somehow directly enriches these Swiss leaders personally) at the expense of some other people exploited by their corrupt dictator, then that's not a corrupt action but a prudent decision for the benefit of their country, possibly even a duty if their people support that.
(Loud chorus of laughter)
It should be an instruction manual on laundering it.
It instead lists how state actors messed up and defend the asset forfeitures in court.
From my travelling amongst the supposed wealthy in various countries, some cultures are just less flashy and more private than others.
The online lists of top 100 wealthiest people are 95% wrong. As in they only correctly list 5 people, in approximate order, and dont even have the names of the other 95.