In a recent video, I sat down with professional kickboxer and internet legend, Andrew Tate. Tate has some strong views about property and is concerned about the idea that it could be seized by the government. In the short clip (above) we debate the good and the bad of property investment. This video is only a small clip of a much larger interview that I will be posting on my YouTube channel in the near future.
I am always interested in exploring other perspectives and, in this article, I will summarise both sides. First, we will take a look at Andrew's viewpoint and then my own. Hopefully, this will give you enough information to make up your own mind on the subject. Either way, it is important to find something to invest in, as we both agree keeping money in the bank isn’t a smart idea. Keep an eye out for the full interview,, which I will be posting very soon!
Andrew Tate’s View On Property
Andrew Tate does own property but he prefers other assets. This isn’t because he thinks property is an unprofitable endeavour, but rather because it is very open to state seizure. The ownership of real estate is normally quite open and therefore subject to the full range of actions from private lawsuits to authoritarian-style governments taking exception to you. Tate has given the example of Russians that have had assets seized in the UK (even if they disagree with Putin’s actions).
Tate thinks certain digital assets are safer to own. He gave the example of domain names. A domain name can be owned by an offshore trust meaning it would take someone a long time to track down true ownership. For Tate, this offers more protection and anonymity than owning a house, which is highly tied into the legal system of a specific nation.
Tate is at a stage where he doesn’t want any government to have control over him. He doesn’t want to be tied to a specific place and he has the money to ensure that he is not. By carefully structuring what he does, he is able to live outside of the system in a totally legal way.
Samuel Leeds’ View On Property
In my view, any asset can be seized by a government determined enough to do so. A digital asset seems more risky to me than real estate. Take the domain name example, you have a bunch of third-parties involved from ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to the government of the country your offshore trust is located in. All assets have some risk of seizure. You can structure your ownership of each one of them to mitigate that risk if you are really worried about it.
As Tate has said, his feelings about property ownership are particular to him, a member of the super rich with a strong interest in personal sovereignty. If you are not quite there yet though, I would still consider property. Once you are a multimillionaire or a billionaire, then maybe you can start thinking about how you want to protect your assets like Tate has!
