
Maximizing
the Benefits of Inherited Wealth
Reprinted with permission of Michigan Lawyers Weekly

By John E. Mayer
Here’s
a riddle for you. The first generation
makes it. The second generation holds
it. The third generation spends it. And the fourth generation strives to make it
again. What it is it? Money.
The problem with money is that when
it is inherited, it often is not fully appreciated. Most people believe that a family inheritance
should provide opportunity to those who benefit from it. The problem is that all too often, money that
is inherited simply supports the lifestyle of those who remain behind. This results in a negative impact instead of
a positive one.
In an effort to maximize the benefits that wealth can confer, many people are exploring new and exciting alternatives. One of these is Charitable Trusts. Another is the family incentive trust. Both have the potential to dramatically confer benefit on whomever the client chooses.
Charitable trusts enable donors to
earmark a significant amount of wealth from their estates for philanthropic
purposes that support causes they believe in.
In effect, the charitable trust is funded by monies, which would
otherwise revert to the government through estate taxes.
Charitable trusts are an excellent
way to channel money for philanthropic purposes—particularly when accumulated
wealth far exceeds what the family could possibly want or need. Family members can be appointed as trustees who
can draw a salary for their efforts on behalf of the trust. They also have the opportunity to travel in
circles where connections can be made to benefit their businesses.
The other vehicle, the family
incentive trust (FIT), is a “dynasty” trust designed to exist across
generations of the client’s family. It
can potentially minimize the adverse impact of inherited wealth. The FIT is used to:
·
provide a safety net for family members;
·
encourage and reward responsible behavior; and
·
serve as a source of investment capital and
loans.
The client specifies what needs and/or positive behaviors
the trustees should respond to. The
positive impact inherited funds can make under such a program is truly
exciting.
Drs. Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko have studied people and the accumulation of wealth for more than 20 years. In their best selling book, The Millionaire Next Door, one of the issues they examine is how wealth accumulated by parent’s impacts on their offspring.
Parents who have demonstrated
significant skill at accumulating wealth earlier in their lives are often in a
position to distribute “economic outpatient care” (EOC). These parents may have been frugal when
addressing their own needs but wish to shower their children and grandchildren
with “acts of kindness” in the form of economic support.
There are many forms of EOC. Some have strong positive influence on the
productivity of the recipients. Others
can be detrimental. Positive uses for
EOC include subsidizing children’s education and earmarking gifts to start or
enhance a business. The giving of
non-cash gifts allows the parent to have control over how funds are spent.
Cash gifts, on the other hand, are most often used to prop up one’s lifestyle. These gifts are the single most significant factor leading to lack of productivity among adult children of the affluent. Cash gifts often affect the recipient’s psyche resulting in a decrease of initiative and productivity. They become habit forming—almost like a drug. The recipient may develop a lifelong dependence.
From their survey Stanley and Danko’s conclude that:
·
giving precipitates more consumption than saving
and investing;
·
gift receivers in general never fully
distinguish between their wealth and the wealth of their gift-giving parents;
·
gift receivers are significantly more dependent
on credit than non-receivers; and
·
receivers of gifts invest much less money than
non-receivers.
Author John Sedgwick explores what
happens to those “lucky souls” who strike it rich at birth in his book, Rich
Kids. He interviewed 57 young heirs
and heiresses to
A
Construction engineering magnate Joseph Jacobs, who is the son of poor Lebanese immigrants, decided with his wife, Violet, to empower their three daughters. “Because we love you very much, we have decided that we are not going to leave you a lot of money,” they were told. Each received $1 million dollars of stock in Jacobs Engineering in 1971, and while it has appreciated in value, this represents only a small portion of their parents’ wealth.
Jacobs, now 80, has not changed his
mind. “One of the worst things I could
do, is indulge them to the point where they don’t have the opportunity to make
their own failures and successes that they can say are theirs and not their
parents,” he said.
In addition, Home Depot Chairman Bernard Marcus agreed that inheritances can be a “terrible burden for some.”
“If my kids want to be rich,
they’ll have to work for it,” he said.
He plans to leave almost all of his $850 million in Home Depot stock to
the Marcus Foundation, which supports education and the handicapped.
Meanwhile, Telecommunications
Inc.’s John C. Malone doesn’t believe his kids want a lot of money. “I think your kids are destroyed by too much
wealth, not enhanced by it,” he explained.
Malone and his wife, Leslie, and their two grown children aren’t
interested in the burden of being super rich.
Instead, they support the idea of a charitable foundation that they can
oversee as trustees.
“Many wealthy people crush their
children inadvertently,” said billionaire Herbert A. Allen of the investment
banking firm, Allen & Co. “If you’re
the child of a wealthy person and your first paycheck is totally meaningless,
you’ve had something taken away from you.”
And Warren Buffett
said that, “parents should leave children enough so they can do anything, but
not so much that they could do nothing.
Giving heirs a lifetime supply of food stamps just because they came out
the right womb can be harmful for them and is an antisocial act.”
The Whitman Institute coined a term
they call, “affluenza” — which refers to the
liabilities attached to inherited wealth.
“The money that buys power, privileges and luxuries can just as easily
damage a child’s self-concept and motivation to achieve — [with] a range of
symptoms: immaturity, boredom, selfishness, lack of self-discipline,
alienation, aimlessness, rebelliousness and suspiciousness.”
Further, psychologist Martin E. P.
Seligman conducted an experiment with caged rats. He taught one group to push down on a metal
bar by rewarding their successful efforts with a few pellets of food. Another group of caged rats was showered with
pellets of food from the top of the cage although these rats could also obtain
food by pressing the bar. The first group eagerly worked for its food while the
second sat around looking up at the ceiling. Rats who had a task to perform for
their food were happier. Rats in the
second group were frustrated that they couldn’t control events though their own
actions.
Seligman wrote, “What produces
self-esteem and a sense of competence, and protects against depression, is not
only the absolute quality of the experience, but the perception that one’s own
action controlled the experience. To the
degree that uncontrollable events occur, whether traumatic or positive,
depression will be redisposed and ego strength
undermined. To the degree that
controllable events occur, a sense of mastery and resistance to depression will
result.”
In the animal kingdom, the mother
raises her cub until it is able to fend for itself. Then she leaves and lets it make its own way
in the world with no help except its early training. Empowerment works in nature. Empowerment works with people.
Earned money is clearly one’s own, an affirmation of talent, energy and self.
An inheritance is none of
these. Instead of being a source of
pride, it is a subject of embarrassment; instead of rewarding accomplishment, it
fosters sloth; instead of belonging to you, you belong to it. People need a sense of accomplishment to be
fulfilled.
Should money be left directly to
children? Should it all be left to them
or should some of it be channeled to charitable causes? There are choices. A charitable trust can be established, or
monies left to family members can be controlled through a FIT that will
encourage positive behaviors and help the children become individuals who
contribute to society. It is clear that
the next generation must be prepared for inherited wealth. It may be a mistake to just leave it. Therefore, clients must have their estates
planned carefully.
Estate planning choices enhance the
probability that the children will become economically productive. In addition to providing the resources for an
education, clients can create an environment that honors independent thoughts
and deeds, cherishes individual achievement and rewards responsibility and
leadership.
By taking advantage of charitable
trusts and/or a FIT, clients can minimize the adverse impact of inherited
wealth, and ensure the money left to the family is used for productive purposes
and the greater good in the community can be supported.
Now is the time to clarify your
clients’ values to determine how their heirs can be best served by the estate
and leave the legacy of their values to those they care about most.
Bio: John E. Mayer is president of BFA® Family
Wealth Planners, a registered investment advisor firm with offices in