Advice on preserving wealth in a volatile economic/political country
"I suggest that you're really asking questions surrounding three topics: (1) what allocation hedges your risks but also allows for upside? (2) How do you time your purchases so you're not getting hammered by exchange rates? (3) How do you know if you're doing ok? Allocations Your questions concerning allocation are really ""what if"" questions, as DoubleVu points out. Only you can really answer those. I would suggest building an excel sheet and thinking through the scenarios of at least 3 what-ifs.  A) What if you keep your current allocations and anything in local currency gets cut in half in value? Could you live with that? B) What if you allocate more to ""stable economies"" and your economy recovers... so stable items grow at 5% per year, but your local investments grow 50% for the next 3 years? Could you live with that missed opportunity?  C) What if you allocate more to ""stable economies"" and they grow at 5%... while SA continues a gradual slide? Remember that slow or flat growth in a stable currency is the same as higher returns in a declining currency. I would trust your own insights as a local, but I would recommend thinking more about how this plays out for your current investments.  Timing You bring up concerns about ""timing"" of buying expensive foreign currencies... you can't time the market. If you knew how to do this with forex trading, you wouldn't be here :).  Read up on dollar cost averaging. For most people, and most companies with international exposure, it may not beat the market in the short term, but it nets out positive in the long term.  Rebalancing For you there will be two questions to ask regularly: is the allocation still correct as political and international issues play out? Have any returns or losses thrown your planned allocation out of  alignment?  Put your investment goals in writing, and revisit it at least once a year to evaluate whether any adjustments would be wise to make.  And of course, I am not a registered financial professional, especially not in SA, so I obviously recommend taking what I say with a large dose of salt." "You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency   devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any   more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term.   Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as ""What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?""  Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about.  Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good.  What to do about government confiscation?  Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an   expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows,   which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What   strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts   the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just   trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the   devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge?  If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment.  If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen.  The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong." US Treasury securities are the safest investment. You can buy short term by buying T-Bills.  You buy T-bills at a discount to face. For example, to buy a four week T-bill the treasury will take $99.98 out of your account. In four weeks the treasury will deposit $100 into your account. The $0.02 difference is your Intrest on the loan. Compounded over a year (13 four week periods) you get a 0.24% interest. But (presumably) more importantly (to you) you get your original $99.98 back.  Your government cannot nationalize money that you have on loan to the United States Government.  Edit : oops, I dropped a decimal position in my original calculation of compounded rate of interest. It is now corrected.
"Have to do a presentation for an International Business and Cultures class in about a month and the assigned WSJ article isn't quite clicking with me and looking for a kind soul here to put it into layman's terms I guess.  If I am violating any policy or breaking a rule by posting the text from the article, please delete.  Thank you for any reply!  WASHINGTON--Finance officials trying to avert the next global economic crisis found time at a summit here to worry about something besides Brexit and European banks: China's mounting debts and its flagging economic overhauls.  The country's surging credit growth, overcapacity in its steel and metals industries and its bloated housing market drew widespread complaints from finance officials and central bankers attending semiannual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.  Officials congratulated China for its efforts to get the yuan included in the IMF's international basket of currencies, known as special drawing rights, starting Oct. 1. And despite a couple of scares in the past year or so, the country's markets and economic growth have appeared to stabilize in recent months.  But in a sign of how important the world's second-biggest economy is to global growth, China is increasingly being called out.  U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew warned Beijing in unusually candid language about China's overproduction and overbuilding, which he suggested could become the biggest U.S. complaint about the country, as their earlier disputes over the country's exchange rate become less divisive.  ""I'm talking about steel, I'm talking about aluminum, I'm talking about real estate--when you don't have market forces driving investment, when you don't have bad investments allowed to fail, you end up with resources allocated in a way that ultimately chokes the future of economic growth,"" Mr. Lew said at the Peterson Institute for International Economics on Thursday.  The IMF zeroed in on a measure called current credit overhang, a widely followed international indicator of potential crises. The deviation of China's credit growth from its long-term trend has surged from zero during the financial crisis to up to 27%. Last year, banks' balance sheets grew to 286% of gross domestic product.  ""More is needed, especially to curb excess credit growth, reduce the opacity of credit products, and ensure sound interbank funding structures,"" said Peter Dattels, deputy director of the fund's monetary and capital-markets department.  China's policy makers are caught in a deepening trap, economists say. Dealing with the debt problem would require the country to start deleveraging. But slower credit growth is bound to hamper the overall economy. That could backfire by making it harder for companies to repay existing debt.  Clamping down on credit would also raise the prospect of political unrest in a country that has grown accustomed to very rapid growth. Faced with such unappetizing prospects, the country's leaders have largely eschewed credit restraint in the hope that they will be able to deal with its economic problems over time.  Part of the problem is the complicated and poorly disclosed structure of the country's swollen banking system, economists say.  ""The increasing complexity, opaqueness of the shadow banking, both on the asset side, but even more on the funding side where a lot of the funding is short term, is not stable,"" Markus Rodlauer, the IMF's Asia-Pacific deputy director, told reporters on Thursday. ""It's still of a size that is manageable, but the trajectory is dangerous, and needs to be contained.""  China's appetite for steel and aluminum, which shrank abruptly in the past year or so, is of vital interest to commodity-exporting economies such as Russia and Brazil. For now, exporters appear to be confident that demand won't drop off again in the short term.  ""China's growth is stabilized at a lower level,"" Brazilian Finance Minister Henrique Meirelles said in an interview. ""I don't see a further collapse coming.""  Still, much will depend on China's economic transition.  ""They are trying to alter their priority from manufacturing to services, from export-oriented to domestic consumption,"" said Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in an interview. ""In the transformational stage, there will be ripples.""  Chinese officials in Washington touted the country's annual GDP of between 6% and 7% and said growth has remained stable as economy transitions.  ""If that transformation is successful, China will continue to have a stable share of global growth,"" People's Bank of China Deputy Governor Yi Gang said on Thursday.  Ian Talley and Bob Davis contributed to this article.  Credit: By William Mauldin" That's a broad question, but I can throw some thoughts at you from personal experience.  I'm actually an Australian who has worked in a couple of companies but across multiple countries and I've found out first hand that you have a wealth of opportunities that other people don't have, but you also have a lot of problems that other people won't have. First up, asset classes. Real estate is a popular asset class, but unless you plan on being in each of these countries for a minimum of one to two years, it would be seriously risky to invest in rental residential or commercial real estate. This is because it takes a long time to figure out each country's particular set of laws around real estate, plus it will take a long time to get credit from the local bank institutions and to understand the local markets well enough to select a good location. This leaves you with the classics of stocks and bonds. You can buy stocks and bonds in any country typically. So you could have some stocks in a German company, a bond fund in France and maybe a mutual fund in Japan. This makes for interesting diversification, so if one country tanks, you can potentially be hedged in another. You also get to both benefit and be punished by foreign exchange movements. You might have made a killing on that stock you bought in Tokyo, but it turns out the Yen just fell by 15%. Doh. And to top this off, you are almost certainly going to end up filling out tax returns in each country you have made money in. This can get horribly complicated, very quickly. As a person who has been dealing with the US tax system, I can tell you that this is painful and the US in particular tries to get a cut of your worldwide income. That said, keep in mind each country has different tax rates, so you could potentially benefit from that as well. My advice? Choose one country you suspect you'll spend most of your life in and keep most of your assets there. Make a few purchases in other places, but minimize it. Ultimately most ex-pats move back to their country of origin as friends, family and shared culture bring them home. I posted this here because I thought it would get well thought out and intellectual responses, save this for r/politics. Responding to your replies to CuilRunnings, the truth can be simple, sure. But more often than not it is a shade of gray, not a pure, simple black or white, especially in a field as complex as economics. Also, CuilRunnings idea that you should be loyal to objective truth is not diminished if he/she does not follow it; it is still just as valid a point if he follows his own advice or not. "For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The ""return of capital, not return on capital"" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb." Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof.  No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping.  Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing.  This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond.  Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions.  Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond.  You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries.  If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value.   But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk. Different risks require different hedges.  You won't find a single hedge that will protect you against any risk.  The best way to think about this is who would benefit if those events occurred?  Those are the people you want to invest in.  So if a war broke out, who would benefit?  Defense contractors.  Security companies.  You get the idea. You also need to think about if you really need to hedge against those things now or not.  For example, I wouldn't bother to hedge against global warming or peak oil.  It's not like one morning you're going to wake up, turn on CNNfn and see that the stock market is down 500 points because global warming or peak oil just hit.  These are things that happen gradually and you can react to them gradually as they happen. "For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The ""return of capital, not return on capital"" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb." "Remind him that, over the long-term, investing in safe-only assets may actually be more risky than investing in stocks. Over the long-term, stocks have always outperformed almost every other asset class, and they are a rather inflation-proof investment. Dollars are not ""safe""; due to inflation, currency exchange, etc., they have some volatility just like everything else."