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 Read the rest of this entry »

What are profits?

I don’t think most of us really understand the concept very well. In fact, I’ll include myself in the number who struggle to understand what profits are.

To illustrate: When you hear that a company made, say, $8 billion last year, what image comes to your mind? –For me, I tend to think: “Oh, wow! They have $8 billion in cash in a bank somewhere–$8 billion that they did not have the year before.” “Profits” mean “cash.”

That’s what many people think. But that’s not right.

I’m sure there are more technically correct definitions of the word profits, but here’s a the best working definition I’ve been able to come up with: Profits are any increase in assets for which a business does not have increased liabilities (or debts) other than to the owners. Put another way, profits are an increase in wealth–and (most important to understand–and something I still tend to forget!) wealth comes in many forms other than money!

I say this because, for the longest time, I thought of profits in the same way I thought of a paycheck: profits are the same thing as a paycheck. You take them, bring them to the bank, and buy stuff with them.

But that’s not the case. Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

In my last post, I noted that, going in to your estate planning process, you need to answer three fundamental questions:

1. How many of the resources God has placed in your hands do you need in order to live your life as you believe you ought?
    
2. How many of the resources God has placed in your hands will benefit your heirs to help them live their lives as you would like them to be able to live?

   And, finally,

3. To what causes do you want to give what’s left over?

I said that, if you walk in without answers to those three questions, I can almost guarantee that your estate planning attorney will answer those questions for you . . . based on assumptions he or she will make in your behalf.

And what might those assumptions look like?

Here’s my experience. Most estate planning attorneys will assume you want to minimize taxes and, upon your death, pass everything you’ve saved over the course of your life–as much as possible–to your heirs: your children and grandchildren.

And beyond that?

“No assumptions.” –What else could you possibly want?

Well, let me raise some questions to see if even these assumptions are really what you want.

And in this post I hope simply to address the assumption of estate-transfer timing: the idea that your estate should pass to your heirs at your death. Read the rest of this entry »

From a financial or physical wealth perspective, there are three questions every estate plan donor must answer:

1. How many of the resources God has placed in our hands do we need in order to live our lives as we believe we ought?
    
2. How many of the resources God has placed in our hands do our heirs need in order to help them live their lives as we would want them to be able to live?

   And, Read the rest of this entry »

Growing up, my mom taught me a song to be sung to the tune most of us know as “Jingle Bells”:

J-O-Y. J-O-Y. J-O-Y spells joy.
Jesus first, Yourself last, and Others in between.

The priorities and values certainly appear correct according to most Scriptures of which I am aware:

Mathew 6:33 – [S]eek first [God']s kingdom and His righteousness, and all [the food, drink, clothing, etc., you need] will be added to you.

Philippians 2:3 – Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

And so forth.

But then Jay Link comes along and says this advice is all screwy when it comes to legacy planning. Certainly when it comes to the O and the Y. Indeed, he says, the first priority in estate planning/legacy planning is–it has to be–to ensure the physical and financial needs of the benefactors are met. The second priority is to meet their heirs’ needs. And then–and only then–is it legitimate to consider the needs of others.

If any legacy planner were to attempt any other order–”Others before Yourself”–you can be confident, Link says: “The plan won’t be implemented.” And an unimplemented plan is no better than no plan.

“Oh! Horrors!” I thought when I first came across Link’s suggested priority order a year and a half ago or so. “It’s so . . . selfish!” (So opposite what my mom’s song taught!)

But over time I have come to realize how wise Link really is.

1. It is not “unrighteous,” “ungodly” or “unbiblical” to make sure your own needs are taken care of.

   According to 1 Timothy 5:8, “[I]f anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” –So by making sure you have taken care of your own and your heirs’ needs, you are actually fulfilling the “law of Christ.” You are ensuring you do avoid becoming an unnecessary burden to those around you.
    

2. As far as placing yourself before your heirs, Jay made a comment about how most parents love their children very much but are unwilling to forego their own comfort in order to increase their children’s at some unknown future date.

   I was going to quote him to that effect and leave it there, but it just struck me: that attitude may be neither biblical nor true.

   I know a lot of parents through the years who have made tremendous sacrifices in behalf of their children. They do this when their children are infants. They do it when their children are growing up. They do it again when their children have children of their own.

   I’m not saying such attitudes are ubiquitous. But many, many parents–I think of immigrant parents, especially, but lots and lots of moms, too–make all kinds of sacrifices in behalf of their children and grandchildren.

   Still. And, I’d say, especially for parents who are concerned not to place a burden upon their children, there is something to be said for making sure your own needs are taken care of so you don’t place an unnecessary burden upon your children.
    

3. As far as Jesus being first, I thought Link’s company mission statement said it well. He quotes 1 Timothy 6:17-19:
   

   Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

Whoa! I had the privilege yesterday morning of listening to a high-intensity presentation by E.G. “Jay” Link, president of Kardia, Inc., a legacy planning service, and John Bandimere, Jr., president of the Bandimere Speedway here in the Denver metro area. They were talking about Link’s methodology of legacy planning. (Bandimere is one of Mr. Link’s clients.)

I garnered several really worthwhile insights from the presentation (most found in Link’s book, but, for some reason, I found some of them presented with greater force or clarity this morning). I expect to share them over the next several days. Each one in its own post.

First insight:

In most families, there are two CEOs–and they are usually not the same person! One is 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 »