Wealth’s Illusion of Control: Why Ownership Isn’t Enough
There’s a dangerous assumption many of us make about our wealth: that because we own it, we can access it whenever we need to. But as Steffen Feike, Co-Founder of Autark Advisory, recently pointed out, this assumption is often built on sand. His insights at the Hubbis Wealth Planning & Structuring Forum in Singapore were a wake-up call—one that challenges the very foundation of how we think about financial security.
The Gap Between Ownership and Control
Steffen’s core argument is deceptively simple: owning wealth and controlling it are two very different things. What makes this particularly fascinating is how rarely we test this distinction until it’s too late. Personally, I think this is where most financial advice falls short. We focus on portfolio performance, diversification, and returns, but rarely ask: Can you actually move your wealth when you need to?
Take, for example, the idea of liquidity. We assume our bank balances are readily available, but as Steffen demonstrated with a simple exercise—asking the audience to transfer $300,000 across borders on the spot—most of us have never truly tested this. What many people don’t realize is that large transfers often require layers of approvals, compliance checks, and institutional permissions. It’s not just about having the money; it’s about whether the system will let you use it.
When Systems Fail—or Worse, Freeze
One thing that immediately stands out is how vulnerable our access to wealth really is. Steffen highlighted examples like the freezing of bank accounts in Ottawa during protests, the losses imposed on depositors in Cyprus, and even cases where accounts were closed due to political views. These aren’t edge cases in failed states; they happened in advanced financial systems. If you take a step back and think about it, this raises a deeper question: is our wealth truly ours, or is it just on loan until someone decides otherwise?
What this really suggests is that ownership is often just a legal fiction. The systems we rely on—banks, custodians, transfer networks—can fail, freeze, or be co-opted by external forces. Steffen’s point about the “five gates of mobility” (access, custody, transfer, jurisdiction, and succession) is particularly insightful. Each gate is a potential choke point, and one blocked gate can stop the entire system.
The Psychology of Dependency
A detail that I find especially interesting is how we’ve grown complacent about our dependencies. We trust banks, custodians, and governments to safeguard our wealth, but rarely consider what happens when these entities fail or act against our interests. Steffen’s analogy of wealth as a “number on a hard drive” is a stark reminder of how fragile our financial systems can be.
This raises another layer of complexity: the psychological comfort of assuming everything will work. We’ve grown accustomed to the idea that our wealth is always reachable, but as Steffen’s personal anecdote about his bank balance disappearing shows, this is an illusion. The algorithm that flagged his $400 transfer as suspicious wasn’t just an inconvenience—it was a glimpse into how easily access can be restricted, even for trivial amounts.
Building Resilience in an Uncertain World
From my perspective, the real takeaway here is the need for resilience, not just in our portfolios but in our ability to control our wealth. Steffen’s emphasis on “replaceable dependencies” is spot-on. It’s not about eliminating reliance on systems, but ensuring that if one fails, there’s a backup.
This brings me to a broader trend: the increasing tension between regulation and jurisdictional competition. On one hand, governments are tightening control over cross-border flows and compliance. On the other, countries are vying for capital and talent, creating opportunities for those who can structure their wealth intelligently. The challenge, as Steffen notes, is to design systems that don’t fail together.
The Freedom to Move—or Stay
What many people overlook is that true financial freedom isn’t just about the ability to move wealth; it’s about having the option to do so. Steffen’s experience during regional stress in the Emirates is a perfect example. Because he and his clients had a credible exit strategy, they could choose to stay. This, in my opinion, is the ultimate value of optionality: it gives you control, even in chaos.
Final Thoughts
Steffen’s message is a call to action for both individuals and advisers. Wealth that can’t be moved isn’t truly wealth—it’s a liability waiting to be exposed. The question isn’t whether the next outage, freeze, or failure will happen; it’s whether you’re prepared for it.
Personally, I think this shifts the conversation from performance to resilience. It’s not enough to grow wealth; you must ensure it can withstand stress. As Steffen bluntly put it, “Wealth that cannot be moved is not fully wealth.” That’s a lesson we’d all do well to remember.
