The Increasing Country Risks for Families

Following the geopolitical and energy shocks of recent months, what matters is not just that the world has become more volatile, but that the relative positioning of countries is shifting and country risks are increasing. Jurisdictions that appeared stable even recently are being reassessed, while others are gaining ground not because they have fundamentally changed, but more often because risk elsewhere has increased more sharply.

This is the defining insight of the 2026 special edition of Henley & Partners’ Global Investment Risk and Resilience Index. And it leads to a more profound conclusion: no single country can provide lasting safety on its own. Resilience must now be built across multiple jurisdictions.

The Relative Turn

For most of the past three decades, safety was treated as a relatively static concept. Families selected one or more jurisdictions with strong rule of law, institutional depth, and fiscal stability, and anchored themselves there with confidence that the underlying system would remain broadly predictable.

That assumption no longer holds. The traditional safe havens — among them Switzerland, the Nordic countries, and Singapore — remain firmly at the top of our index. What has changed is the environment around them. A significant share of the 150 economies we track have moved sharply up or down the rankings within a single shock cycle.

Risk is now being priced continuously, often ahead of structural fundamentals. Safety and security, in this environment, is no longer absolute. It is relative and dynamic — a function of how a country compares to others at any given moment in time.

From Stability to Exposure

What has made this shift more acute is that geopolitical country risk is no longer abstract. It is increasingly translating into direct policy actions affecting individuals and families.

In the USA, for example, the Selective Service System is preparing to automatically register all eligible men for the military draft by December 2026, removing the previous requirement for self-registration. While a draft is not currently planned, the fact that it remains explicitly on the table has altered the perception of risk for many families. Would you want your son to serve in the US armed forces? Perhaps you accept this and are willing to serve your country in the military. But perhaps you do not, and if you disagree with your family being drawn into the tangible impacts of wars around the world led by the US and other countries, you may need to consider your options more carefully than before.

Across Europe, governments are moving with similar urgency. Germany’s Military Service Modernisation Act has reintroduced conscription in principle, including mandatory questionnaires for young men and the phased introduction of medical screening. A more controversial provision — which would have required men under 45 to seek military approval before extended stays abroad — was subsequently suspended following public backlash. The broader trajectory, however, remains clear: Germany is planning a substantial expansion of its armed forces over the coming decade. The government intends to introduce exit controls for young men — measures that are reminiscent of darker times in recent history.

This pattern extends across the continent. Croatia has reinstated compulsory service, Latvia is phasing in conscription, Denmark has expanded its draft system, and several other European states are strengthening mobilization frameworks. Further afield, Ukraine has lowered its conscription age, and China has introduced new mobilization rules in recent years.

These developments reflect a deeper shift. As Pope Leo XIV recently observed, “war is back in vogue and a zeal for war is spreading”. The post-Cold War assumption that conflict between states was receding has been fundamentally undermined. In my view, this is not least due to the fact that the last generation that personally witnessed war is now almost gone. There is no longer first-hand knowledge of the horrors of war among those who lived through it. And very soon there will be no second-hand knowledge either, as there will be no one left to tell the next generation. A new cycle is beginning, and it will be one of hard times. We have weak leaders almost everywhere, leaders with no experience of war. Weak leaders usually create hard times.

For globally mobile families, the implication is straightforward: country exposure is no longer theoretical and goes beyond where to place their assets. It primarily shifts to where they will have access to in hard times, in times of social unrest, economic crises, and even future wars.

The Sovereign Portfolio

The response is not to search for a single perfect jurisdiction. It is to abandon that idea entirely.

What sophisticated families are now constructing are sovereign portfolios — carefully designed combinations of residence rights, citizenships, countries where they operate their businesses and place their assets, and geographic positioning that work together to provide resilience across multiple scenarios.

Each jurisdiction serves a distinct role. Switzerland offers institutional continuity across generations. But will it continue to do so in the future? It depends on the scenario. Singapore provides disciplined access to Asia-Pacific markets — for now and likely in the future, but you need alternatives. The UAE has demonstrated remarkable adaptability and continues to attract global capital through a flexible and internationally oriented framework — but suddenly there are challenges which were not previously apparent. Canada and New Zealand, as well as Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay offer geographic distance from geopolitical flashpoints and will likely rise in importance again for global families seeking shelter for themselves and their assets.

No single country can deliver all of these attributes simultaneously. But in combination, they create something more powerful: options, access, and flexibility in uncertain times.

Resilience, in this context, is no longer a characteristic of a place. It is a function of how a family is positioned across places.

Two Pressures, One Direction

This structural shift is being driven by two forces acting simultaneously. On one side, governments are becoming more interventionist — in taxation, capital controls, and in some cases even the movement of people. The dismantling of longstanding frameworks such as the UK’s non-dom regime illustrates how quickly long-established rules can change. Germany’s attempt to impose exit permits for young men reflects the spirit of our time.

On the other, countries are competing more aggressively than ever to attract mobile capital and talent. The projections based on our world-leading wealth migration research suggest that 165,000 millionaires will relocate in 2026 alone — the largest movement of private wealth in modern history — and the behavioral signals from our own vast client base across all continents confirm that this trend is accelerating.

These two forces point in the same direction: Concentration in a single country is becoming a structural risk. Even diversification across two geographically close jurisdictions is not sufficient to address the increasing risks we face today.

No degree of financial diversification can offset exposure to a single legal, fiscal, or geopolitical system. Today, we need multiple bases for our businesses and assets, and residence and citizenship rights across more than one continent.

Designing Resilience

The question for wealthy families has therefore changed. It is no longer: Am I safe in our country? Where is the safest place to be? It is: What is the most resilient structure I can build across multiple countries, and how?

The answer is necessarily plural.

For families, resilience must now be actively designed across several jurisdictions and must necessarily include several access rights. Passive safety — the idea that one country or region can provide lasting protection — is no longer viable.

For governments, the implication is equally clear. In a world where investors and entrepreneurs are increasingly mobile, alert, and responsive, competitiveness to retain and attract capital and talent will depend on reliability, institutional trust, and policy consistency. While some countries increasingly fail in providing these essential elements of a state, others are becoming increasingly focused and competitive in this regard.

The world has not simply become more volatile or more dangerous. It has become more uneven, more dynamic, less reliable, less predictable. Those who understand this, and act accordingly, will excel in the next decade.