Max Gerstein on the Hierarchy of Control in Modern Wealth Structures

 Most investors assume that because they own the wealth, they control it.

In modern private banking and custody structures, that assumption is incomplete.

You control your assets when everything is normal.
You can trade. Transfer. Reallocate.

But when something serious happens — death, incapacity, a court order, or a regulatory issue — execution does not simply follow family instruction.

It follows structure.

This raises a question many high-net-worth individuals never explicitly ask:

Who controls your assets if you die while they are held in a private bank?

The answer is not automatically “your family.”

When death occurs, banks follow legal process. Accounts can be frozen while documentation is verified. Executors must be formally recognised. In cross-border cases, multiple jurisdictions may need to confirm authority before assets move.

This is not a malfunction.

It is how the system is designed to protect itself.

Most global portfolios are held through intermediated custody chains. Legal title sits upstream with depositaries and custodians, while investors hold beneficial ownership.

That separation creates efficiency in normal conditions.

Under stress, it creates sequence.

Because legal title is fragmented across a custody chain, institutions cannot simply act on informal authority. They must confirm control through every recognised layer before executing movement.

Until that chain clears, nothing moves.

The same applies in incapacity scenarios.

Who controls your investments if you can no longer give instructions?

Powers of attorney must be validated. Trustees may need to act. Custodians must confirm documentation satisfies internal risk standards. Institutions are legally obligated to prioritise liability protection and regulatory compliance before client execution.

Ownership gives you economic rights.

It does not remove the legal framework around execution.

This is what I refer to as Authority Displacement.

Authority Displacement occurs when the structure recognises another party before it recognises you.

Under stress, control does not disappear. It shifts.

It shifts to whoever the structure is legally required to recognise first.

A court.
A regulator.
A custodian.
A trustee.

Not because something went wrong.

Because that is the order of recognition embedded in the system.

You may own the wealth.

But you are not the only authority acting on it.

And when control shifts, timing changes.

Accounts can be frozen while authority is verified.
Liquidity can be delayed when families require immediate access.
Assets may not be sold while documentation is reviewed.
Cross-border holdings may require multiple recognitions before transfer is permitted.

In volatile markets, delay can mean missed exits.
In succession disputes, delay can escalate conflict.
In liquidity events, delay can reduce negotiating leverage.

If a $40m equity portfolio is frozen for three months during probate, the market does not pause with it.

This is not a market problem.

It is a structural one.

Most wealth structures are built for performance in normal conditions.

Few are built for the moment the owner cannot act.

If your assets are held through a private bank, platform, or trust structure, this hierarchy already exists.

If you have never examined how control transfers within that structure, you are assuming your family will have access — not ensuring it.

Wealth transfer rarely fails because markets fall.

It fails because the structure was never designed for loss of control.

Control is not a matter of intent.

It is a matter of design.

Max Gerstein
Private Wealth Advisor
Global cross-border structuring | Jurisdictional risk | Structural wealth architecture
Building long-term financial resilience through structure, not speculation.