Assuming the write-up is correct, it provides substantial evidence that the ultra-wealthy are capable of sheltering gains in ways that I am not.
As to the risk issue, I see no reason why the “asset” couldn’t be a combination of multiple assets, or an asset like an index ETF that tracks a diversified bundle of things. E.g. a substantial portion of my net-worth is tied up in a Vanguard target retirement fund (one asset). Most financial advisors consider this fine from a risk perspective.
Anyone can borrow against assets (securities and otherwise) they own. Home equity loans are big business, and securities-backed loans aren’t obscure below $300M.
Frankly, it’s the “but the ultra-rich get special low-interest loans” bit that’s the most unbelievable part of the write up. But it’s also the keystone: Without these magic loans, it’s just standard estate planning (which is all about tradeoffs of taxes vs. control) + a likely suboptimal investment strategy.
*shakes fist* "Damn you, Lucky Ducky!"
If you are rich, and is not borrowing at high LVR, it means the lender has a reasonable belief that you can pay back the loan (and the collateral is also good). The lender _can_ give you a lower interest rate, due to the loan market being pretty competitive, because they take on less default risk compared to a non-rich person taking the same loan.
it's not gonna be a massive difference, but for large sums, probably does make a difference worth doing.