One-Time Portfolio Strategy
for Self-Directed International Investors
A defined-scope, flat-fee engagement for investors who want professional portfolio architecture without handing over their assets or paying an annual AUM fee.
Every engagement is designed and delivered personally — no team, no handoff, no relationship manager. Portfolio architecture led by a CFA® charterholder, formerly Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan.
§ 01 — Recognition · Who this is forYou are probably here because…
This engagement is specific rather than general. It is built for self-directed, non-US-resident investors — from about €250k to €5m and beyond — facing a decision big enough that the structure matters more than the ticker. It serves both halves of an investing life: building the capital, and later living off it. If several of these describe you, the fit is likely good.
- You want someone to manage the money for you. That is a different service, and a discretionary manager is the right answer.
- You are a US resident or US taxpayer. The practice is built for non-US residents, and the structural work would not apply to you.
- You are looking for stock tips, market calls, or a view on what happens next. Nothing here forecasts markets.
- You need tax or legal advice specifically. That requires qualified counsel in your own jurisdiction, not a portfolio architect.
- Your portfolio is small and uncomplicated. A low-cost global index fund and a rebalancing rule will serve you better than a €750 engagement.
§ 02 — The deliverable · Investment Policy StatementNot a conversation. A document.
Most advice evaporates the moment the call ends. This engagement produces a written Investment Policy Statement — your personal investment mandate — that governs decisions long after the session. These are real pages from a real report.
§ 02.1 — Contents of the engagement · What you receiveOne session. Eight outputs.
The methodology behind it
Allocations are constructed using Black-Litterman with Ledoit-Wolf covariance shrinkage, rather than naive historical estimates that overfit to whichever decade happened to be in the sample. Forward outcomes are evaluated with Monte Carlo simulation across thousands of paths, and portfolio risk is attributed to individual holdings using Euler risk decomposition so that concentration is measured rather than assumed. Risk figures follow Basel III VaR/CVaR conventions.
The purpose of naming the methods is narrow: to establish that the recommendation is derived, reproducible and stress-tested rather than an opinion delivered confidently. The methods are the proof. What you buy is the mandate.
§ 03 — Precedent · Client engagementsEngagements, in the clients’ own words.
Real, paid engagements. The cross-border and decumulation work is shown first because those are exactly the high-stakes situations this engagement is built to solve. Two are named and independently verifiable; one is anonymised at the client’s request. Note what the quotes have in common: a probability, not a promise.
A thirty-year drawdown plan, pressure-tested before the first withdrawal.
- Explicit risk limits — built against drawdown, CVaR and volatility ceilings, not just a return target.
- 35% equity / 55% fixed income / 10% private credit — strategic allocation via policy-weight optimisation.
- Cross-border implementation — instrument domicile and distribution characteristics evaluated to reduce avoidable withholding exposure, subject to confirmation with local tax counsel.
- Withdrawal sustainability — stress-tested against a Monte Carlo ruin ceiling, with the safe withdrawal range mapped rather than assumed.
The honest probability behind the number — not just the number.
- A = 2.92 risk-aversion coefficient — placed in the Growth tier by behavioural calibration, not a generic questionnaire.
- 82% equity / 18% gold, five holdings — Black-Litterman posterior allocation across a global portfolio.
- UCITS correction — a non-UCITS gold holding swapped for a compliant equivalent.
- 30-year model, 10,000 Monte Carlo paths — the gap to his self-set target quantified, and exactly what closes it.
A ten-year growth target, priced as a probability — not a hope.
- A = 4.4 risk-aversion coefficient — calibrated by revealed-preference profiling, not a questionnaire.
- Nine-holding fixed strategic policy — 35% core S&P 500, the balance across emerging markets, Japan and satellites.
- 87.7% probability of reaching his target — quantified via a 10-year, 3,000-path Monte Carlo simulation.
- HHI concentration check — flagged at construction and monitored against the covariance risk model rather than left unmeasured.
On this evidence: these are real, paid engagements, published with each client’s consent; two are named and independently verifiable on LinkedIn, and the third is anonymised because that client did not consent to being named. The figures describe the analysis performed, not investment returns — a stated probability is a modelled estimate, not a forecast, and nothing here is a projection of your results. Most clients of this practice to date hold accumulation mandates, which is why two of the three shown are.
§ 04 — Accountability · Your portfolio architectWho is actually doing the work.
§ 05 — The arithmetic · Flat fee vs AUM feeWhat the relationship normally costs.
On a €2,000,000 portfolio, a 1% annual fee costs €200,000 over ten years — the fee alone, before compounding on the money that left. The column below doubles as the portfolio grows, for work that does not double. A flat fee is the same number at both ends of it.
| Portfolio | Ongoing manager | This engagement |
|---|---|---|
| €500,000 | €50,000 | €750 |
| €1,000,000 | €100,000 | €750 |
| €2,000,000 | €200,000 | €750 |
| Every year · on everything you own | Once · then it is yours |
Illustrated at 1% per annum. Actual advisory fees vary by provider, portfolio size and the services included. This is not a like-for-like substitution — an ongoing manager provides continuous discretionary management, which this engagement deliberately does not. Fund, brokerage, tax and implementation costs are separate in both cases and are excluded above, as is any compounding on fees avoided.
§ 05.1 — The alternatives · AUM adviser vs robo-advisorThree ways to solve this. Only one is this.
A fair reading of that table: if you want someone to run the money for you, the first row is genuinely the right answer and you should take it. This engagement only makes sense if you intend to stay self-directed. Fee descriptions are general market characterisations, not quotes for any specific provider.
§ 06 — Process · How the engagement worksFive steps. No surprises.
§ 07 — The fit call · Book a free 15-minute callFifteen minutes to find out if this is worth €750.
Most people who land here have a specific, high-stakes decision in front of them and a reasonable suspicion that the standard answer — hand it to a manager, pay 1% a year — is not right for their situation. The call establishes whether this engagement can actually help. If it cannot, Anton will say so, and that is the end of it.
- A scope and suitability conversation
- A direct answer on whether your situation fits
- A walkthrough of the deliverable and the process
- A chance to assess the person, not just the website
- A free portfolio consultation
- Specific allocation or product recommendations
- A sales sequence with follow-up pressure
- Anything you need to prepare documents for
Free · 15 minutes · no card · you pick the time on the next screen.
Your name, email and the details above are processed by A.L. Capital Advisory to respond to your enquiry and, if you proceed, to deliver advisory services (GDPR Art. 6(1)(b)). Data retained for 3 years. Privacy Policy
Either way, Anton now has your details and will be in touch within 24 hours to confirm a time. Every submission is reviewed personally.
§ 08 — Questions · Portfolio strategy FAQWhat people ask before booking.
Something not answered here? Ask it on the fit call — or email [email protected] and Anton will reply directly.