I’ve talked about this often enough in the past. (See the “Related posts” list at the end of this one!) But it bears repeating . . . especially if and when it can be said briefly. And I think this is the briefest way I have ever said these things.

What follows is from an interview I did five and a half years ago with the newsletter editor of one of the non-profits we support. I quote his questions and my answers: Read the rest of this entry »

In my last post, I talked about giving your children the vast majority of their inheritance “early”–while they’re still in their 20s and early 30s, say–rather than later.

A few weeks ago, I was talking with a friend who has many years’ experience counseling and coaching wealthy individuals . . . as a wealthy person himself and a friend, not as a professional counselor. He made an interesting observation about a reason why you want to predefine for your heirs–and make sure they know–how much you intend to leave them: You want to remove every potential reason they may have (every potential conflict-of-interest) that may lead them to think that, by reducing cost of the care you receive toward the end of your life, they will benefit.

“I have seen it,” he said, “where the children say, ‘Y’know, if we put Mom in the _____ Village, we will be spending [i.e., they will be digging into Mom's nest-egg!] to the tune of an extra $50,000 a year compared to _____ Nursing Home. Why should we waste our money?’ “

Of course, they are not “wasting” money if the quality of service is significantly different (which it was in this particular case). And they weren’t about to “waste” or “spend” their money. It was Mom‘s money they were talking about. But they were already anticipating it as their own. And so they withheld from their mother what should have been rightfully hers . . . if only she and her husband had done advanced planning that predefined for the children exactly what they could expect and demonstrated that there was no reason for the kids to modify their care plans in hopes of gaining advantages for themselves.

Is your house big enough? Do you need more room? Will your family be happier in a bigger home?

I think my perspective on this issue was shaped a bit last week by a conversation I had with a few members of an American family that has lived and worked most of the time over the last nine years in the foothills of the Himalayas. Read the rest of this entry »

I mentioned that profits have to do with increased wealth; and increased wealth is not the same as cash. If we fail to understand those differences, we can run into some serious trouble.

I thought I would illustrate what I am talking about. Read the rest of this entry »

Last August I wrote a brief outline of what one might want to include in a Gifting Criteria Statement.

As I was picking through a pile of papers on my desk on Saturday, I came across the actual document our family has at the moment. I thought you might find it interesting and, possibly, useful–at least as a discussion-starting model for your family’s statement: Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve written before about charity that may make the giver “feel good” but actually does harm.

I’m afraid I’ve been offered an opportunity to participate in just such a “ministry” in the last 24 hours. Read the rest of this entry »

Charitable giving comes in many forms. Cash donations and hands-on volunteerism are only two.

I have mentioned before the Sonlight Rice Bag Project. The repercussions of that project continue to reverberate in my mind and heart.

This morning, I woke up with the idea that I should write to some people with whom our family business competes. Not about our business, per se, but, rather, about opportunities we–both they and we–have to influence our customers for good.

This is a slightly edited version of the letter I sent. Read the rest of this entry »

The Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog included the story of a lawsuit settled out-of-court by Princeton University. According to a New York Times story, a $35 million gift given to the university in 1961 “to educate graduate students for careers in government” wound up underwriting most of the “graduate programs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.”

Since the $35 million had grown to more than $900 million by June of this year, Princeton wasn’t too keen on pulling any of this money away from its broader uses.

So what happened? Read the rest of this entry »