Coda’s ZEG storytelling festival in Tbilisi has come to an end, and I am both overloaded with information and exhausted by drinking too much wine. My take-home message was that oligarchy is spreading ever wider, and that we need to take its threat to democracy far more seriously than anyone is doing at the moment.

I shared a stage with Ed Caesar, author and journalist from The New Yorker- magazine, who has written some great pieces on oligarchs (as well as much else), with Paul Caruana Galizia, who made this excellent podcast on Londongrad, and with Hans Gutbrod, whose piece on Georgia’s own Bidzina Ivanishvili is very much worth reading. And if you like surreal, ethereal documentaries, I highly recommend Salome Jashi’s ‘Taming the Garden’, which tackles oligarchy and its implications through the story of Georgian trees. 

The joy of the festival is in the incidental meetings, of which few were more joyful for me than sitting next to Joseph Stiglitz at dinner and getting to hear his views on inequality, oligarchy, and the age of Trump. Where else would I ever get to do that? 

Moral of the story: you too should find time to come to Tbilisi next year for ZEG. If you do, you can also make a side-trip to the market to stock up on one of the world’s best condiments.

SHOW US THE MONEY

Victoria Cleland, the Bank of England’s Chief Cashier, has announced that worried Brits are hoarding cash. “At a time of uncertainty, at a time of crisis people do move to cash. They want to make sure they have literally got something under the mattress,” she said at a conference in London.

This, she said, helps to explain why the value of all the banknotes in circulation keeps going up – indeed, it hit a new all-time high of 85.872 billion pounds this year – despite the fact that people use less cash all the time. The Bank of England has previously estimated that between 20 and 24 percent of banknotes at any one time are being used in transactions, and the rest are unaccounted for (or, according to Cleland, hoarded). 

So, if we do the sums and we accept Cleland’s logic, we can say that around 1,000 pounds worth of banknotes is being hoarded by every single person in the UK, up from around 920 pounds last year. I have to say that, with all due respect to Cleland, I am very dubious about that figure, not least because someone is getting a double share to make up for the fact that I don’t have even a fraction of that.

The most recent survey I can find, which is from 2022, suggests I am not alone. The average Brit had just 113.82 pounds at home back then, and it’s hard to see why that total would have increased ninefold in the last three years.

This is not a UK-specific situation. The last survey conducted for the Federal Reserve shows that the average American had $373 either in their wallet or at home in 2024, down $70 from the year before. So cash hoarding in the US is going down, but the value of banknotes in circulation keeps going up –  indeed, it hit a new all-time high of $2.835 trillion in the most recent data release, which is around $7,000 for every person in the United States. So either Brits and Americans alike are spectacularly under-reporting how much cash they’re keeping at home, or someone else is using all that cash for something else.

Considering that barely a week goes by without news of major money laundering gangs being busted with bags full of banknotes, I personally would like it if central bank officials put a little bit of thought into asking whether the extremely healthy demand for their products is not in fact coming from organised criminals. And if it is, whether central banks ought to do something about that.

Five years ago, the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee scolded the Bank of England for not caring about where its banknotes go. “The Bank needs to get a better handle on the national currency it controls,” its chair, MP Meg Hillier, said. It still does.

TRACKING ‘ENDANGERED’ MILLIONAIRES

Regular readers will know how much I admire the ability of Henley & Partners, the world’s foremost passport vendor, to turn almost any piece of news into an advertisement for buying a new passport and/or visa.

In recent times, the alarm is being sounded by changes to British tax policy which, basically, make it more expensive for very rich people to live and to die in the UK. And Henley responded in the way that it always does – “provisional estimates for 2024 are even more concerning, with a massive net outflow of 9,500 millionaires projected for this year alone,” it reported last year about the “wealth exodus”. All was not lost, however. If only the UK would scrap taxes on capital gains and inheritance and privatise its healthcare system, millionaires might be persuaded to stay.

The ‘research’ was picked up very widely, with few media outlets questioning its methodology, its publisher’s motivations, how representative its purported database of 150,000 people was of the millions of millionaires in the world, or indeed how exactly anyone knows where they’re all going. The Tax Justice Network has now delved into the report, and its findings are worth a read, not least the headline conclusion that there was no exodus. The correct policy response, it argues, would therefore not be tax cuts at all but higher taxes on wealth.

So, what should we think? Are millionaires leaving the sinking ship, or are they clinging on to help rebuild? Should we lower taxes or raise them? The obvious solution is surely to use satellite tags so millionaires can be tracked like wildebeest as they migrate from the watering holes of Chamonix to the rich, grazing pastures of Mayfair via the rutting grounds of St Barts. Only then can we know for sure if they’re being chased into extinction.

CALLING OUT MONACO

The European Union’s regularly updated “list of high-risk jurisdictions presenting strategic deficiencies in their national anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regimes” has done something worthwhile for the first time I can remember by singling out Monaco.

Normally, the list is made up of a random selection of irrelevant places and third-order tax havens. And there’s plenty of the usual on display: why anyone would worry that Côte d'Ivoire, Namibia and Nepal, for example, are supposedly big centres for financial crime, I have no idea. And normally, the list will avoid pointing a finger at any country that is closely allied or aligned with any EU member, which means the U.S. and U.K. never get singled out even though they’re clearly far more problematic than, say, Algeria.

This time, however, the list does single out Monaco. The principality is a major problem, with deep ties to deeply unsavoury people and a fast-developing financial scandal.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post The cash hoarders, migrating millionaires, and Monaco mischief appeared first on Coda Story.

The Corporate Transparency Act was passed by Congress at the very end of Donald Trump’s first term, with bipartisan support and an important mission to protect national security, expose wrongdoing and complicate the committing of financial crime by forcing companies to declare the names of their owners. 

This was at the time not a controversial piece of legislation, not least because American politicians – as part of the Financial Action Task Force – have been pressuring other countries to pass similar laws since the late twentieth century. But it has proved messy to implement. FinCEN, the United States’ financial crimes enforcement network, only finished making the necessary rules to file what it calls “beneficial ownership information” last year – just in time for judges in Alabama and Texas to declare them illegal, and then for the second Trump administration to basically ditch them altogether by saying they don’t apply to 99.9 percent of corporations that are registered in the U.S.

The consultation period over this decision to ditch the filing requirement is now over. (So, if you feel strongly but didn’t get round to writing in, I’m sorry to say you’ve missed your chance.) It is now possible to browse through the several-dozen submissions from concerned citizens and organisations, which is an enlightening experience.

MAKING COMPANIES OPAQUE AGAIN

In the pro-rules camp, you can find comments from law enforcement agencies, anti-corruption organisations, environmental campaigners, credit unions and others who are concerned that the Trump administration’s decision to maintain the previous lax standards is damaging and unwise.

“Without this data,” stated the National District Attorneys’ Association, in a fairly typical submission, “prosecutors are left blind when investigating shell companies used by fentanyl and human traffickers, cybercriminals, and corrupt foreign actors.” These, they added, “are not abstract concerns –these are real threats to American families and communities.”

In the other camp are the small business owners, or associations representing them, who are delighted that the requirements to file their details with FinCEN are now history, and want all beneficial ownership information already filed to be deleted. 

“For many of us, the original BOI requirements felt like an unfair assumption of guilt, treating hard working entrepreneurs as potential criminals rather than the backbone of our economy,” wrote Stephen McKissen, the owner of a video production company in Denver, Colorado. Removing the requirement, he argued, “for US companies and US persons to report BOI lifts a significant weight off our shoulders.” 

Ever since the world’s first piece of anti-money laundering legislation was passed in 1970, businesses have complained about the compliance burdens it imposed upon them. Criminals hide by pretending to be legitimate businesspeople, and the only way they can be exposed is by imposing rules on everyone, thus obliging honest folk to undergo paperwork and inconvenience, which is not popular with the honest folk (or, I suppose, the dishonest ones).

It's crucial to the way the legislation is implemented therefore to minimise that inconvenience, to make sure it does not cause so much irritation that it becomes a political issue. This appears to be where the U.S. efforts ran aground. I had a look at the FinCEN portal through which company ownership is registered and which the small businesses were complaining about. It didn’t look too bad to me, but if the registration process is anything like the comment-reading process, I can see why people are annoyed about having to do it.

Every single comment on the proposed rule changes has the same headline, so it’s impossible to tell which are interesting and which are utterly banal, without opening a new page, then opening a new attachment. When you return to the main page, the list of them rearranges itself unexpectedly, so it’s hard to know which ones you’ve already read. It is in short a very poorly designed piece of software, and you’d think a country that created Google, Apple, Facebook and the rest might have been able to find some better programmers.

Back, though, to America’s notoriously lax shell company legislation. It is the result of it being devolved to state level, so that some states – Delaware and Nevada are stand-out examples – end up competing with each other to attract more incorporation, thus sparking a race to the bottom. 

Perhaps there’s nothing that could have been done to make American business owners appreciate the need to file information about beneficial ownership, but the lesson for bureaucrats is that you have to make compliance easy. Having to file information at both state and federal level was never going to be popular, particularly if the web portal involved was also clunky and annoying. 

However, what’s left of the Corporate Transparency Act will nicely align with the White House’s wider agenda, since it now only applies to foreign companies that have registered to do business in the United States. If criminals currently using offshore-incorporated corporations want to avoid having to report their identity to the authorities, they’ll now need to set up a domestic shell company, which will I suppose be a small win for USA Inc.  

It’s too early to say whether Trump’s tariffs and threats will bring businesses and manufacturing back to America, but he is at least making onshore shell companies great again.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post How Trump is bringing shell companies back onshore appeared first on Coda Story.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the apocalypse in the last few days, and wondering what options oligarchs believe are available to help them escape it. In Mark Lynas’s new book about atomic weapons, he helpfully provides a table showing what percentage of each country’s population would die during or immediately after a nuclear war. The sheer number of places that have 100 or a number in the high 90s in the right-hand column is a bit bleak, but if you think like an enabler you can see opportunity.

New Zealand is often touted as the go-to destination for riding out the apocalypse. Vivos has apparently built a 300-place luxury bunker on the South Island, and Rising S Bunkers, an American company that specializes in the building of doomsday shelters, have been busy too. Peter Thiel obtained New Zealand citizenship, though tragically was not able to build his own mega-bunker after he failed to get planning permission. But that has not stopped other billionaires from planning their escapes to the land of the long white cloud.

BILLIONAIRE BOLTHOLES

Politicians in Wellington are only too happy to help. In April, they eased up on the rules around the country’s golden visa programme to attract more of this sweet flight capital, removing a requirement that applicants speak English, and reducing the cost. You now only need to spend 21 days in the country to establish residency, down from three years, which is good news for tech barons keen not to have to pay tax or make friends or stuff like that.

“In the past, the vast majority of applicants were looking for tax havens,” former immigrant minister Stuart Nash told the FT. “Now they’re looking for safe havens.” Nash is a man for the snappy catch phrase. Since leaving government, he has set up Nash Kelly Global, a relocation company, which has the distinctly yuk for an ex-politician but very on-brand tagline: ‘What they don’t tell you about New Zealand. It’s not what you know. It’s who you know.’

But I’m afraid New Zealand is not quite the safe option it’s been cracked up to be. For a start, how safe is New Zealand? Lynas’ deaths table shows that in the event of war, 68 percent of New Zealanders would be dead after two years of nuclear winter. Okay, that’s better than Russia (98 percent), the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany (99 percent) or Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates (100 percent), but it’s still not great. And expensive fortifications wouldn’t help: billionaires would not be able to hide forever from gangs of survivors and would be, Lynas writes, “winkled out of their bunkers and hiding places like fat grubs”. 

So, which countries do offer the best survival prospects in the event of Trump or Putin getting an itchy trigger finger? Iceland, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Haiti and – painfully no doubt for Kiwis – Australia all have a 0 percent death rate. At present, Iceland does not sell visas, and Australia closed its investor visa programme last year, so it’s no good to you even if you have the cash to flash. But there are plenty of options among the others: Uruguay’s is a bit pricey, but Costa Rica will sell you residency for just $150,000, and Argentina is practically giving it away.

I’m surprised no one’s started marketing these countries to rich people worried about nuclear war: ‘If life sends you nuclear winter, enjoy the fresh powder.’ Mr Nash, you can have that one for free.

ESCAPE TO MARS

Of course, everywhere on Earth is going to be impacted a bit by nuclear war, so why not abandon our planet altogether? Elon Musk’s current plan is for a first unmanned mission to take off for Mars next year, with people due to land on the red planet in 2028, and for a self-sustaining colony to exist within 20 years.

SpaceX has released a handy new video simulation of the journey, though I hope for the Muskonauts’ sake that they won’t have to listen to that dreadful music for the entire eight-month trip. If I was as rich as Musk, I’d have licensed Queen’s ‘Don’t Stop Me Now’ at least. The upside to living on Mars of course is that you wouldn’t be on a planet that could be rendered uninhabitable by a nuclear bomb. The downside though would be that you’d be on a planet that’s already uninhabitable. So, perhaps it would be better to focus on securing the future of Earth instead? 

“Surely the best way to protect the human species in coming decades is to focus on resolving the tensions we face at home, from unbridled nuclear proliferation to strategic global competition and realignment,” wrote noted physicist Lawrence Krauss.

Predictably enough, Musk dismissed Strauss’ argument by tagging @IfindRetards in reply (such a hilarious guy!). But Strauss raises an interesting point. Cold War-era treaties, negotiated to prevent an extraterrestrial arms race, declare that there is no sovereign territory or territorial appropriation in space. Yet, according to Starlink’s terms of service, Mars is “a free planet”, and no Earth-based powers have authority there: “Disputes will be settled through self-governing principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian settlement.” 

That looks a lot like Musk is claiming the right to govern Mars as its settlers see fit. Of course, it’s not impossible that the new settlers (who will have been chosen by Musk, trained by Musk, brought to Mars by Musk’s rocket, and who will be entirely dependent on Musk for future resupply) might set up a genuinely democratic system of self-government. But it’s also possible that Musk might want to claim Mars for himself. That would be in violation of Earth’s treaties, and therefore bad. It would also – considering the havoc wreaked by Musk in his brief stint in government – be a pretty grim prospect on its own terms. 

Of course, you don’t need to go to Mars to set up your own government. Right here on earth we have Eleutheria, which is now aiming to negotiate a 99-year lease for a bit of Tuvalu to build a “free private city”, having given up on the idea of building a state in a Bir Tawil, an isolated, unclaimed bit of desert between Egypt and Sudan. It is indeed easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post The oligarch’s guide to sitting out a nuclear winter appeared first on Coda Story.