As I prepare for the inevitable, I am realizing how important it is to consolidate my records. I haven’t done this. I have plans . . . for what is to happen with my estate when I die. I have all the paperwork in order. Or so my advisors tell me.

But I haven’t prepared the kinds of records that will enable my survivors easily to tie up whatever loose ends my death will create. And that’s where Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been writing about some tools that can help you record your personal, family history.

I recently finished Bill Gates, Sr.’s book Showing Up for Life: Thoughts on the Gifts of a Lifetime. It’s not a particularly remarkable book among all the books one might read. But it struck me, as I read it: It is one man’s testament, one man’s summation of “lessons from life,” and it’s a good model of the kind of thing parents might do for their children in terms of memorializing family history, values, purpose, and so forth. Read the rest of this entry »

I will confess: I’ve been dragging my feet. Not sure why. But I had to overcome the hurdle.

I have finally “turned on” the Strategic Inheritance Legacy Lounge forum and invite you to join what I hope will soon be a freewheeling and inspirational discussion of all things related to passing on a heritage from one generation to another.

Join us, won’t you?

Thanks!

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.

I read an article this morning that reminded me: Most estate- and legacy-planning professionals ignore philanthropic considerations in their basic planning strategies.

Alexis Martin Neely, for example, notes, in an article printed in the latest Bottom Line Personal, that single adult parents (widowed or divorced, in particular) need to make allowances in their estate plans not only for their personal health care, but also “for the guardianship of any minor children and transfers [of] assets to heirs of your choice while minimizing taxes.”

It struck me: This is the standard mantra of traditional estate planning professionals. For them, estate planning is all about minimizing taxes and maximizing flow-through to the next generation. And it has absolutely nothing to do with larger life purposes, the legacies–the accomplishments–for which donors might want to be remembered. They don’t ask about favorite causes or charities or philanthropic goals they may have. The question simply never comes up.

And so a person who actually might be inclined to make a significant contribution to some effort in which he or she is truly interested . . . simply won’t make the contribution. S/he will “forget” . . . because s/he was never reminded, never caused, even, to think of it.

And this line of thought reminded me of what I heard two or three years ago from Henry Doorn, executive director of the Barnabas Foundation: “What if you were to add another ‘child’ to your estate plan? What if that ‘child’ were a charity?”

I thought, this morning, “What if we turned that statement on its head? Instead of your favorite charities becoming additional ‘children,’ what if you thought of your children as additional ‘charities’?”

And why would we want to think of our children as “charities” rather than our favorite charities as additional “children”?

Personally: I think it makes sense to think of our children as “charities” because . . . once they are grown, and especially if and as they pass their 20s and become settled adults: what good, really, will our bequests do them . . . or their children?

Yes, for a while, perhaps–while Sarita and I are in our 50s and our children are still establishing themselves in the world and our grandkids are still at home–it might make sense for us to give bequests that could aid them with their lives. But by the time Sarita and I are in our 70s and our own kids are in their 40s and 50s and our grandkids are past college: isn’t it time for our kids to be passing along their resources to their children and grandchildren? . . . So our part becomes more of a charitable contribution to their lives, a “little something extra,” perhaps.

But whatever we give ought not to be some major portion or major addition to their own nest eggs!

Beyond that, shouldn’t we be thinking of the significance of our donations: what our donations will achieve? Will our donations achieve something more important through the lives of our children . . . or through a favorite agency, foundation, or other philanthropic or charitable entity? . . . Especially if and/or as one or more of our children or grandchildren “moves on” to espouse or to pursue causes to which we ourselves are opposed! –Should we donate to them–so they can invest more in their antithetical causes? Or should we donate to the charitable causes that we believe in and let them do whatever they want apart from our support?

[I have one more idea along these lines based on a conversation I had a few weeks ago with a wealthy man I know.]

Mark Nestmann writes in the Sovereign Society’s Offshore A-letter about how you can evaluate the financial health of the companies you rely upon for insurance.

Among his suggestions: Read the rest of this entry »

A young lady, just graduated last year from the University of Kentucky, a former Sonlight Curriculum student, wrote a beautiful remembrance of her grandparents on her mother’s side.

I asked her for permission to reprint a portion of it here. I thought it illustrated so well the kinds of things those of us on the giving end might want to consider: What do we do that could create unique and memorable family traditions? How would we like to be remembered?

Read this story and tell me how it inspires you: Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve touched on it before. I have no question I will be writing about it again. This, perhaps more than anything else, is what distinguishes legacy planning from estate planning: the content of what some call the “ethical will,” and others refer to as a person’s “testament” or “legacy letter” or what our second legacy planner called the “family wealth letter of intent.” It’s the device–or collection of devices: written, audio, video, or other–that conveys to members of future generations the special messages the estate plan donor wants them to know and remember, the stories of the people and events that shaped their lives, the special life lessons, the heart of the donor. Read the rest of this entry »