I wrote a couple of days ago about how advisors can skew your perspective.

In the content of my post, I tried to make clear that I don’t believe any of our advisors have deliberately attempted to distort our views. But I do believe they have failed, in different ways, to call our attention to salient facts, issues we really should have addressed, actions we should have taken but didn’t. And those failures have only been revealed as a result of subsequent counselor/advisors calling our attention to the oversights in previous counselors’ advice.

Now that our nation is going through a massive economic dislocation, I am seeing that additional problems with various estate and legacy plans are being brought to light. Read the rest of this entry »

My wife and I have seen this in the past. I was “just” floored, yesterday, when we saw once more how different advisors’ perspectives can impact one’s plans . . . for better or worse.

Yesterday, our legacy planners wanted to discuss what they characterized as “wealth planning” “to ensure that there is a legacy to plan.” –Especially in these uncertain and highly volatile times, they noted, we must pay particular attention to our cash and near-cash assets.

That all sounded well and good.

But then it hit me. About halfway through the meeting, I held up my hand. “Hold on a second. I just want to make sure I’m hearing you accurately and fully understanding what you are talking about. Read the rest of this entry »

The pressure had been building for weeks. And it all came to a head last Thursday. I was sure Sarita and I were about to lose our long-time investment advisor. In fact, I went into my meeting with him sure this would be our last meeting together. And I was totally–totally–bummed. It was the culmination of growing distrust between our advisors.

Why had things come to this point? Read the rest of this entry »

I got the title for this post from James E. Hughes Jr.’s Family: The Compact Among Generations. A strict, literal translation of the phrase would render it as “persons of confidence.” But the meaning that Hughes wants to convey has to do with “persons in whom [a family] can have confidence,” “trustworthy persons,” or, in brief: “confidants.”

Hughes suggests every family needs personnes de confiance, and he goes into some detail describing their duties, responsibilities, and characteristics. In sum, he says, personnes de confiance fulfill “the role of the great ‘number two’–the person whose mission is to make others great.” These are people who subordinate their own ambitions to help promote the concerns and interests of those they serve. [p. 247] Read the rest of this entry »