Seeking Alpha

Doug Casey's  Instablog

Doug Casey
Send Message
Doug Casey is a highly respected author, publisher and professional investor who graduated from Georgetown University in 1968. Doug literally wrote the book on profiting from periods of economic turmoil: his book Crisis Investing spent multiple weeks as #1 on the New York Times bestseller list... More
My company:
Casey Research
View Doug Casey's Instablogs on:
  • Unsound Banking: Why Most Of The World's Banks Are Headed For Collapse

    You're likely thinking that a discussion of "sound banking" will be a bit boring. Well, banking should be boring. And we're sure officials at central banks all over the world today-many of whom have trouble sleeping-wish it were.

    This brief article will explain why the world's banking system is unsound, and what differentiates a sound from an unsound bank. I suspect not one person in 1,000 actually understands the difference. As a result, the world's economy is now based upon unsound banks dealing in unsound currencies. Both have degenerated considerably from their origins.

    Modern banking emerged from the goldsmithing trade of the Middle Ages. Being a goldsmith required a working inventory of precious metal, and managing that inventory profitably required expertise in buying and selling metal and storing it securely. Those capacities segued easily into the business of lending and borrowing gold, which is to say the business of lending and borrowing money.

    Most people today are only dimly aware that until the early 1930s, gold coins were used in everyday commerce by the general public. In addition, gold backed most national currencies at a fixed rate of convertibility. Banks were just another business-nothing special. They were distinguished from other enterprises only by the fact they stored, lent, and borrowed gold coins, not as a sideline but as a primary business. Bankers had become goldsmiths without the hammers.

    Bank deposits, until quite recently, fell strictly into two classes, depending on the preference of the depositor and the terms offered by banks: time deposits, and demand deposits. Although the distinction between them has been lost in recent years, respecting the difference is a critical element of sound banking practice.

    Time Deposits. With a time deposit-a savings account, in essence-a customer contracts to leave his money with the banker for a specified period. In return, he receives a specified fee (interest) for his risk, for his inconvenience, and as consideration for allowing the banker the use of the depositor's money. The banker, secure in knowing he has a specific amount of gold for a specific amount of time, is able to lend it; he'll do so at an interest rate high enough to cover expenses (including the interest promised to the depositor), fund a loan-loss reserve, and if all goes according to plan, make a profit.

    A time deposit entails a commitment by both parties. The depositor is locked in until the due date. How could a sound banker promise to give a time depositor his money back on demand and without penalty when he's planning to lend it out?

    In the business of accepting time deposits, a banker is a dealer in credit, acting as an intermediary between lenders and borrowers. To avoid loss, bankers customarily preferred to lend on productive assets, whose earnings offered assurance that the borrower could cover the interest as it came due. And they were willing to lend only a fraction of the value of a pledged asset, to ensure a margin of safety for the principal. And only for a limited time-such as against the harvest of a crop or the sale of an inventory. And finally, only to people of known good character-the first line of defense against fraud. Long-term loans were the province of bond syndicators.

    That's time deposits. Demand deposits were a completely different matter.

    Demand Deposits. Demand deposits were so called because, unlike time deposits, they were payable to the customer on demand. These are the basis of checking accounts. The banker doesn't pay interest on the money, because he supposedly never has the use of it; to the contrary, he necessarily charged the depositor a fee for:

    1. Assuming the responsibility of keeping the money safe, available for immediate withdrawal, and
    1. Administering the transfer of the money if the depositor so chooses by either writing a check or passing along a warehouse receipt that represents the gold on deposit.

    An honest banker should no more lend out demand deposit money than Allied Van and Storage should lend out the furniture you've paid it to store. The warehouse receipts for gold were called banknotes. When a government issued them, they were called currency. Gold bullion, gold coinage, banknotes, and currency together constituted the society's supply of transaction media. But its amount was strictly limited by the amount of gold actually available to people.

    Sound principles of banking are identical to sound principles of warehousing any kind of merchandise, whether it's autos, potatoes, or books. Or money. There's nothing mysterious about sound banking. But banking all over the world has been fundamentally unsound since government-sponsored central banks came to dominate the financial system.

    Central banks are a linchpin of today's world financial system. By purchasing government debt, banks can allow the state-for a while-to finance its activities without taxation. On the surface, this appears to be a "free lunch." But it's actually quite pernicious and is the engine of currency debasement.

    Central banks may seem like a permanent part of the cosmic landscape, but in fact they are a recent invention. The US Federal Reserve, for instance, didn't exist before 1913.

    Unsound Banking

    Fraud can creep into any business. A banker, seeing other people's gold sitting idle in his vault, might think, "What is the point of taking gold out of the ground from a mine, only to put it back into the ground in a vault?" People are writing checks against it and using his banknotes. But the gold itself seldom moves. A restless banker might conclude that, even though it might be a fraud on depositors (depending on exactly what the bank has promised them), he could easily create lots more banknotes and lend them out, and keep 100% of the interest for himself.

    Left solely to their own devices, some bankers would try that. But most would be careful not to go too far, since the game would end abruptly if any doubt emerged about the bank's ability to hand over gold on demand. The arrival of central banks eased that fear by introducing a lender of last resort. Because the central bank is always standing by with credit, bankers are free to make promises they know they might not be able to keep on their own.

    How Banking Works Today

    In the past, when a bank created too much currency out of nothing, people eventually would notice, and a "bank run" would materialize. But when a central bank authorizes all banks to do the same thing, that's less likely-unless it becomes known that an individual bank has made some really foolish loans.

    Central banks were originally justified-especially the creation of the Federal Reserve in the US-as a device for economic stability. The occasional chastisement of imprudent bankers and their foolish customers was an excuse to get government into the banking business. As has happened in so many cases, an occasional and local problem was "solved" by making it systemic and housing it in a national institution. It's loosely analogous to the way the government handles the problem of forest fires: extinguishing them quickly provides an immediate and visible benefit. But the delayed and forgotten consequence of doing so is that it allows decades of deadwood to accumulate. Now when a fire starts, it can be a once-in-a-century conflagration.

    Banking all over the world now operates on a "fractional reserve" system. In our earlier example, our sound banker kept a 100% reserve against demand deposits: he held one ounce of gold in his vault for every one-ounce banknote he issued. And he could only lend the proceeds of time deposits, not demand deposits. A "fractional reserve" system can't work in a free market; it has to be legislated. And it can't work where banknotes are redeemable in a commodity, such as gold; the banknotes have to be "legal tender" or strictly paper money that can be created by fiat.

    The fractional reserve system is why banking is more profitable than normal businesses. In any industry, rich average returns attract competition, which reduces returns. A banker can lend out a dollar, which a businessman might use to buy a widget. When that seller of the widget re-deposits the dollar, a banker can lend it out at interest again. The good news for the banker is that his earnings are compounded several times over. The bad news is that, because of the pyramided leverage, a default can cascade. In each country, the central bank periodically changes the percentage reserve (theoretically, from 100% down to 0% of deposits) that banks must keep with it, according to how the bureaucrats in charge perceive the state of the economy.

    In any event, in the US (and actually most everywhere in the world), protection against runs on banks isn't provided by sound practices, but by laws. In 1934, to restore confidence in commercial banks, the US government instituted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) deposit insurance in the amount of $2,500 per depositor per bank, eventually raising coverage to today's $250,000. In Europe, €100,000 is the amount guaranteed by the state.

    FDIC insurance covers about $9.3 trillion of deposits, but the institution has assets of only $25 billion. That's less than one cent on the dollar. I'll be surprised if the FDIC doesn't go bust and need to be recapitalized by the government. That money-many billions-will likely be created out of thin air by selling Treasury debt to the Fed.

    The fractional reserve banking system, with all of its unfortunate attributes, is critical to the world's financial system as it is currently structured. You can plan your life around the fact the world's governments and central banks will do everything they can to maintain confidence in the financial system. To do so, they must prevent a deflation at all costs. And to do that, they will continue printing up more dollars, pounds, euros, yen, and what-have-you.

    Editor's Note: While currency crises, bank runs and episodes of economic collapse are devastating to paper assets, they often hand us opportunities to pick up hard assets on the very cheap.

    Each month we scour the world looking for the best crisis-born opportunities from fundamentally sound businesses whose stock prices have been hammered down by fear, crisis, and politically caused distortions.

    Founded on the principles that made a Doug Casey a bold fortune, Crisis Speculator delivers boots-on-the-ground reporting and opportunities from Albania to Zambia.

    Tags: banking
    Apr 21 12:20 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Doug Casey: Signs Of A Resource Sector Bottom

    L: Well, Doug, we've seen another quarter of high volatility and significant world events. What strikes you as most important at present?

    Doug: Everything is still held together with chewing gum and baling wire, for which I'm grateful, considering what's coming. It's very clear to me that the global economy is in very much the same space as it was in 2007-in other words, on the edge of a precipice.

    […]

    L: On the global economy, my question is this: If Obama and Yellen have saved the US and Merkel and Draghi are saving the EU, why are commodities selling off so dramatically? Iron, copper, oil-just about everything is selling off. How can an economy be recovering if it's not using raw materials?

    Doug: That's another reason why I believe that the Greater Depression started in late 2007. During a depression, people are forced to consume less, and you see that reflected in the price of commodities-at least in real terms. This can be obscured in current price terms, depending on the debasement of the currency in question.

    But it's important to remember that commodities are only a good bet when they're cycling upward, and that only lasts for a time. The longest trend of all is the downward trend of real commodities prices, as the march of technology makes them and the cost of life itself cheaper over time. Real commodity prices have been going down for at least 2,000 years, but probably 4,000 or 5,000 years-at least since the invention of agriculture. And I think they will continue falling, despite the fact that most large, high-grade, close-to-surface mineral deposits have been discovered.

    L: Hubbert was right about "peak oil" in terms of West Texas Intermediate, but oil is still getting cheaper because of the fracking revolution.

    Doug: Exactly. Because we've made so much money on commodities and because we believe in gold and silver as money, people think of us as commodity bulls. But actually, in the big picture, I'm a commodity bear, and always have been. Nanotech will transform city dumps into high-grade ore bodies. The asteroids will be mined at low cost. Ocean water will be processed economically. It's simply a matter of technology and energy. The future could be-should be-better than we can even imagine.

    L: I understand that-but I have to step in here and remind readers that gold is not a commodity-or at least not a regular commodity, since it's also the most successful and enduring form of money ever devised.

    Doug: Yes. No matter how many times we tell readers that no one can time the market, they still want to know what I think of the timing of the gold market.

    So let me tell you that even I have been feeling a bit abused and unloved by the market over the last couple years. If I'm feeling that way, I'm sure the average person in the sector is feeling it in spades-and that's actually a strong sign of a bottom.

    It's not as if we're buying at $35 in 1971 or $250 in 2001-both times when gold was clearly a one-way street. But at $1,200, it's very reasonable considering how explosive the world situation is.

    L: That's why we call it contrarian investing.

    Doug: It's pretty stark. Most of these crappy little mining stocks have no money, no management, no assets. In bull markets, they're still crappy companies, but they can raise money, drill some holes in the ground, and hope to get lucky. But now they're turning into shells, and that's another sign of a resource sector bottom.

    On the other hand, Wall Street has been rising for about seven years now, which is record territory. Several major indices have hit new records. These are signs of a market top. If the market collapses, it can take everything down with it. Mining stocks are also stocks.

    L: What about earnings? Don't higher Es justify higher Ps?

    Doug: They do, but earnings can be pumped up by things like sacrificing sustaining capital to maximize near-term profit or buying back shares instead of investing in new growth. As per your question about commodities, I don't believe the real economy is truly in recovery, and I don't believe the earnings we've seen are sustainable; I expect them to collapse.

    That in turn could produce a general stock market crash as happened in 1929 and on into the 1930s. The odds are overwhelming that that's going to happen to the bond market, and if the bond market crashes, that's going to devastate the stock market, which will in turn bring down the real estate market.

    L: There you go again, Mr. Sunshine.

    Doug: You know I'm not trying to be perverse-that's just the way the world is.

    L: So what does that leave?

    Doug: Most people would say cash, but as we've seen in the last few years, every government in the world-including the US and EU-is more than willing to print unbelievable amounts of money to try to paper their problems over. That's going to go into hyper-drive in the next round, trashing the value of currencies around the world as it does.

    L: But gold is the real cash of the world-always has been.

    Doug: Yes. We can't stress enough that the primary reason for owning gold today isn't to speculate on its price rising, but for prudence, for wealth preservation. For speculation, that's what gold stocks are for, especially the kind you follow in the International Speculator.

    The good thing about all the money printing is that we can predict that it will create more bubbles. Hopefully these stocks will be among the bubbles.

    Currencies come and go, but over the centuries, gold has always held value. About 100 years ago, you could buy a good suit with an ounce of gold, and that's still true today-and I expect it will still be true for the foreseeable future.

    In fact, as unlikely as it may seem to mainstream economic thinkers today, one of the more likely outcomes of the financial turmoil ahead is that some country or another is going to reinstitute the gold standard.

    We don't need a gold standard, of course, or any currencies at all, for that matter. People just need to be free to own and trade in gold. Period. Today, it can be represented by computer bits on your iPhone, of course.

    I think it will probably start with China or Russia, or possibly an Islamic country serious about its interpretation of the Koran. You know that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said in the Koran-which everyone knows is the direct and incontrovertible word of Allah himself-that one should only use the dirham and dinar as money. These are units of silver and gold.

    L: There have been attempts, but none has gotten very far.

    Doug: The new ISIS caliphate says it will operate according to the Koran on all matters, including money. They may make it stick, at least in the lands over which they have sway. Whatever else one might say about them, you have to admit they really are sincere fanatics. If someone says they believe something and they actually try to do what they say they believe, that's worthy of some respect, even if you don't share those beliefs. They appear to be not just talking the talk, but walking the walk, in every respect.

    L: Just the same, Doug, I wouldn't go pay my respects in person, if I were you.

    Doug: No question. They are clearly… unpleasant people. I'm certain I'd end up in one of those orange jumpsuits if I did go back to Syria or Iraq, and I doubt they'd consider my opinion over whether to behead me or burn me alive in a cage. But that's got nothing to do with the fact that they appear to be trying to act consistently with their principles, and it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss that.

    L: Well, I'd hate to see gold branded as "the preferred money of theocratic fanatics," but I do understand your intellectual point. Your remarks about evidence of a bottom are encouraging. I've heard it said by veteran investors with more experience than I have that the kind of bumping along the bottom we've been suffering through is actually a classic sign of a bottom in a long cycle. Do you agree?

    Doug: Yes, I do. I still think that intraday low of around $1,140 last November was likely the actual bottom.

    L: Personally, I was very encouraged then, because gold had broken below its December 2013 low, and it seemed that every pundit and blogger in the world was saying that there was nothing to stop the fall short of $1,000, or even $700. It was widely believed that breaching the prior low was the trigger that would take it much lower-but that's not what happened. Instead, the new low was a buying signal to Russians, Chinese, Indians, and others, and gold shot right back up again.

    Doug: Agreed. In absolute terms, gold isn't as good a value as it was in 2001, when I was telling readers that if I could call their brokers and buy gold for them, I would. On the other hand, the world is far, far less stable, so the prudence of owning precious metals is more paramount than ever.

    You've got to own gold, because as we've often pointed out, it's the only financial asset that is not simultaneously someone else's liability. That's particularly so when you remember that in reality, all of the major banks of the world are bankrupt. Between the fractional reserve system and the preponderance of bad loans and other factors, there isn't a one of them I'd trust.

    Worse, if you have a lot of money in a bank, you may think it's an asset, but the bank thinks it's a liability, and it's subject to seizure, come the bail-ins such as we saw in Cyprus. The EU is already laying the groundwork for that.

    ***

    For more contrarian investing tips, watch this video in which Doug, Louis, and six other industry experts discuss where we are in the gold cycle… why the best gold stocks will go vertical when the gold bull resumes… and how to prepare your portfolio for a shot at the jackpot. Or click here to get Louis' timely special report, The Top 7 Gold Stocks with Vertical Potential.

    Tags: gold, market
    Apr 02 12:40 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Doug Casey: “There Is A Rogue Elephant In Your House”

    One time when I was in Burma (now Myanmar), I spent a couple of days riding around the forest by elephant back. Elephants are a fine thing to have in the forest but, believe it or not, you have one living in your house with you. And you should do something about it now, before your house is wrecked and you and your family get stomped in the process.

    Any amount of financial success won't mean much if you get stepped on by the elephant in the room. The damage you routinely suffer from the elephant-not to mention the lingering threat that he'll go completely berserk someday-dwarfs the importance of the best investment decision you'll ever make. So, I'm going to invite your attention to a problem of overriding importance: How can you protect yourself and your wealth from the elephant?

    The elephant in the room is, of course, the government.

    The elephant is your permanent roommate, and it has a permanently big appetite. In the name of "income tax," it regularly eats 40% or so of everything you earn. You may not like it, but by now you've probably learned to live with it.

    After you've lived out your income-tax paying years, the elephant will attend your funeral-not to console the mourners or to recount your good deeds, but to collect estate tax. In the name of the "estate tax," the government will take up to 40% of what you leave for the next generation and perhaps more of what you leave for your grandchildren.

    It's not the kind of roommate you'd advertise for. In fact, if you add things up, government probably is the most expensive disaster you'll ever suffer. Almost every year, you lose more to it in taxes than you lose on your worst investments. And unless you're a champion crime victim, you'll lose less to a lifetime's worth of burglars, bandits, muggers, and con men than your estate will lose to the tax collector… if you don't do something about it.

    Most successful people respond to the elephant by trying harder-working harder, working smarter, and earning enough to live well on what the elephant doesn't eat. They're like the farmer who plants enough to have a good harvest even after the bugs have taken their share. This is a workable solution, up to a point. But it won't work at all if the elephant decides to take everything.

    The idea of losing everything is literally unthinkable for many people. It is so far outside the range of their experience that all they can do with the idea is to reject it as not worth considering. Unfortunately, this also means rejecting all the opportunities for protection-just as many Titanic passengers shunned the early invitations to a lifeboat.

    But the danger of a total wealth wipeout doesn't go away. Some people do in fact lose everything to the elephant. In a few cases, it happens through seizures. A government agency points to an individual, calls him a bad name (drug trafficker, money launderer, polluter, racketeer, or tax evader), and takes everything the target owns. The target may not even have enough money left to hire a lawyer to help recover a portion of what he's lost.

    More commonly, it's a lawsuit that takes everything a person has. The judge hears a story. The judge likes the story. The judge orders the defendant to give the plaintiff everything the defendant owns. Then the plaintiff wonders why a seat in the lifeboat seemed so uncongenial.

    Perfect Protection

    The best protection you can have from the elephant is not to own anything. What you don't own can't be taken from you by a tax collector, by a government agency, by a results-oriented judge, or by anyone else. You don't want to be poor, obviously. But there's a strategy that lets you have it both ways-the safety of not owning anything and the benefits of being wealthy. You can have it both ways by transferring your assets into an institution in another country that will return them to you (or family members) only when you want them back.

    That's the essence of an international trust. It puts just enough distance between you and your assets that the assets can't be taken from you. But it makes those assets available to you when you want them. An international trust needs to be designed in just the right way. It mustn't leave you with any rights that a local court or government agency might try to take away from you; and it mustn't leave you with any powers you could be forced to use against your wishes. On the other hand, the trust must give you emphatic assurance that the trustee will never lose sight of your real objectives-otherwise you're not going to use it.

    Here's an outline of how an international trust protects you from the elephant:

    1. You are the grantor of the trust-the person who transfers legal title to selected assets to the trustee.
    1. The trustee is a bank or trust company in a country with no income or estate taxes and a legal system that won't tolerate a US-style litigation explosion. The trustee takes legal responsibility for the safekeeping of trust property and applying it for your purposes.
    1. You and everyone else you care to include are the beneficiaries-the persons who are eligible to receive cash distributions or other benefits from the trust. You can include family members (including descendants who haven't been born yet), or anyone else.
    1. You are the protector of the trust. As protector, you have the legal power to monitor the trustee's performance and the power to replace it with another institution if needed. You also have the power to name your successor as protector-so that the trust will continue to have a protector even after your lifetime.

    The relationship among the participants is spelled out in a written trust agreement. Two provisions are essential to getting maximum protection. First, the trust should be irrevocable. If it isn't, then anyone can undo your trust simply by forcing you to revoke it.

    Second, the trust should be discretionary. "Discretionary" means that no one beneficiary owns a particular share of the trust. Instead, each beneficiary receives what the trustee, in its discretion, decides to give the beneficiary. With a discretionary trust, no beneficiary owns anything he can be forced to assign to a judgment creditor or tax collector. And a discretionary trust makes it impossible for any tax collector to attribute the trust's income to a beneficiary.

    These two key features-irrevocable and discretionary-are both powerful and cautionary. They are powerful in that they put up a wall around your assets that the elephant can't knock down. The elephant can't reach trust assets directly, because they're held by an institution offshore, where US courts and government agencies have no jurisdiction or power to enforce a judgment. And it can't reach them through you because you don't have the power to get them back without the consent of the trustee. You can do or sign whatever you're ordered to and still be confident that your wealth is protected.

    But that same power is a source of caution. How can you be confident that the trustee will use the discretionary authority you've given it in the right way? How can you be confident that the trustee will send you a check when you need it? You get that confidence by being the protector.

    The trust agreement should give you, the protector, the power to replace the trustee with another institution of your liking-in other words, you should have the power to fire the trustee.

    Two other features should be included to ensure that the trustee uses its discretionary authority correctly. First, the trustee should be obligated to consider all the advice it gets from the protector. Second, the trustee should be absolved of liability for decisions it makes based on the protector's advice. Together with the power to fire the trustee, these provisions give the protector all the influence he needs.

    Using an international trust for lawsuit protection and tax savings doesn't interfere with your freedom to make investment decisions. If you want, the trustee can open a brokerage account for your trust anywhere in the world and appoint you as the trading advisor. You continue to give the buy and sell orders. Or you can ask the trustee to hire a particular investment manager for your trust. Or you can keep complete management control by using a limited partnership. You transfer the real estate, business, or investments you want to protect to a limited partnership and then transfer the limited partnership interest to the trust. As general partner, you would still make the day-to-day investment and management decisions, but the value of the assets is protected by the trust.

    The biggest, simplest benefit of an international trust is lawsuit protection. You can't be forced to hand your assets over to the winner of a lawsuit (or to any other creditor), because you no longer own them. The trustee is the legal owner. Anyone who hopes to reach those assets must bear the expense and bad odds of legal action in another country. Provided you've selected the right country for your trust and assuming that you were solvent when you funded it, his prospects are extremely dim.

    Plaintiffs' lawyers know how difficult it is to break into a properly established international trust. As a result, having your assets protected by an international trust means that litigation against you never gets started or gets settled on terms that are extremely favorable for you.

    Income tax savings for yourself aren't automatic. They depend on how your trust investments are structured. This is a complex topic, but the summary is short: Merely transferring assets to an international trust won't achieve any income tax savings in your lifetime.

    For future generations, the income tax consequences of an international trust are far more dramatic. The trust will have no ties to the US tax system. It can be used to accumulate and compound investment returns free of current income tax. Future generations will face no tax on the profits until they spend them. Even then much of what they take from the trust can come to them free of income tax. An international trust allows you to pursue any type of estate plan you want (or none at all). You can do all the conventional things you're likely to hear about if you visit an estate planner, and also do some other things that wouldn't be possible without going international. For example, with an international trust, you can get property out of your estate and still be eligible to receive the money back for your own support if you later find that you need it. This frees you to act aggressively to reduce your taxable estate without the fear of planning yourself into the poorhouse.

    The biggest estate-planning advantage is finality. The wealth you leave in an international trust disconnects from the US tax system. It will never be included in the taxable estate of any future generation. For your family, estate tax comes to an end. The elephant will have to dine elsewhere.

    Previously, getting the protection of an international trust demanded so much effort and expense that almost no one did it. But now an international trust is cheap and easy to use.

    What has opened up the world of international trusts is Terry Coxon's International Trust Guidebook. This guidebook takes all the mystery out of the topic. The material is laid out in such a clear and direct fashion it will quickly make you feel like a minor expert.

    It's thoroughly footnoted with tax law and court case references, the kind of supporting details that your lawyer or accountant would insist upon. Plus professional commentary is provided by noted tax and asset protection attorney Robert B. Martin, Jr.

    Mr. Martin writes from the real-world perspective of 43 years of legal experience. He's the author of dozens of published articles on tax and other legal topics and has been the point man in hundreds of legal battles.

    It's like having your own asset protection lawyer right by your side and can save you thousands in legal fees in setting up an international trust.

    Several members of my family are taking action using international trust. If you're inclined, I urge you to do so now, not later. The US government could one day arbitrarily make it impossible to form an international trust.

    If you're interested in using an international trust to protect your wealth from the elephant in the room, you can find out more about the International Trust Guidebook by clicking here.

    Sep 08 12:28 PM | Link | Comment!
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.