19 TMND : Economic Outpatient Care

 EOC (Economics outpatient care)

Many of today’s distributors of EOC demonstrated significant skill at accumulating wealth earlier in their lives. They are generally frugal with regard to their own consumption and lifestyle. But some are not nearly as frugal when it comes to providing their children and grandchildren with “acts of kindness.” These parents feel compelled, even obligated, to provide economic support for their adult children and their families. What’s the result of this largesse? Those parents who provide certain forms of EOC have significantly less wealth than those parents within the same age, income, and occupational cohorts whose adult children are economically independent. And, in general, the more dollars adult children receive, the fewer they accumulate, while those who are given fewer dollars accumulate more.

Distributors of EOC often conclude that their adult children could not maintain a middle-or upper-middle-class high-consumption lifestyle without being subsidized. Consequently, an increasing number of families headed by the sons and daughters of the affluent are playing the role of successful members of the high-income-producing upper-middle class. Yet their lifestyle is a facade.

These sons and daughters of the affluent are high-volume consumers of status products and services, from their traditional colonial homes in upscale suburbs to their imported luxury motor vehicles. From their country club affiliations to the private schools they select for their children, they are living proof of one simple rule regarding EOC: It is much easier to spend other people’s money than dollars that are self- generated.

EOC is widespread in America. More than 46 percent of the affluent in America give at least $15,000 worth of EOC annually to their adult children and/or grandchildren. Nearly half the adult children of the affluent who are under thirty-five years of age receive annual cash gifts from their parents. The incidence of giving declines as adult children grow older. About one in five adult children in their mid-forties to mid-fifties receives such gifts. Please note that these estimates are based on surveys of the adult children of the affluent and that gift receivers are likely to understate both the incidence and size of their gifts. Interestingly, when surveyed, gift givers report a substantially higher incidence and dollar amount of gift giving than their adult children who are the recipients.

Much EOC is distributed in lump sums or erratic patterns. 

(154 of 277)

For example, affluent parents and grandparents are likely to give their children entire coin collections, stamp collections, and similar gifts in one transfer. About one in four affluent parents has already given such collections to his or her adult children or grandchildren. Similarly, payment of medical and dental expenses is often precipitated by a grandchild’s need for orthodontal work or plastic surgery. About 45 percent of the affluent have provided for the medical/dental expenses of their adult children and/or grandchildren.

During the next ten years, the affluent population in America (defined as those with a net worth of $1 million or more) will increase five to seven times faster than the household population in general. Directly paralleling this growth, the affluent population will produce significantly more children and grandchildren than in the past. Economic outpatient care will increase greatly during this period. The number of estates in the $1 million or more range will increase by 246 percent during the next decade; these estates will be valued (in 1990 constant dollars) at a total of more than $2 trillion! But nearly the same amount will be distributed before millionaire parents become decedents. Much of this wealth will be distributed by so-called pre-decedent affluent parents and grandparents to their children/grandchildren.

The costs to provide outpatient care (EOC)  will also increase substantially in the future. Private school tuition, foreign luxury automobiles, homes in fashionable suburbs, cosmetic medical and dental services, law school tuition, and many other EOC items are increasing at rates that greatly exceed the general cost-of- living index.

In addition, as our population ages, more and more affluent parents and grandparents are reaching the age of estate tax realization. Widows and widowers especially are becoming more aware that the government can take 55 percent or more of their estate via estate tax mandates. Thus, as the affluent grow older, they will increase the size and incidence of their EOC in order to reduce the tax burden on their estates.

(155 of 277)

MARY AND LAMAR

How could Mary and Lamar afford the tuition to send their two children to private schools? They couldn’t afford it; Mary’s parents paid the bill. Unusual? On the contrary. Our survey research indicates that 43 percent of the millionaires in this country who have grandchildren pay for all or part of their private school tuition (see Table 5-1). We refer to such subsidies as third-generation educational enhancements.

We recently discussed this form of outpatient care with an audience of affluent grandmothers. We provided them with the results of our surveys. We did not endorse or criticize such behavior. After our presentation, we answered questions. The third questioner took this opportunity to make a statement:

TABLE 5-1 ECONOMIC OUTPATIENT CARE GIVEN BY AFFLUENT PARENTS TO THEIR ADULT CHILDREN AND/OR GRANDCHILDREN¹

ECONOMIC OUTPATIENT CARE : PERCENT OF AFFLUENT 

1. THIRD-GENERATION EDUCATIONAL  ENHANCEMENTS : 43%

◆ Funding of tuition for grandchildren’s private grade school and/or private high school.

2. SECOND-GENERATION EDUCATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS : 32%

◆ Funding of tuition for adult children’s graduate school 

3. INTERGENERATIONAL HOME OWNERS’ SUPPLEMENT : 17% 59%

◆ Payment of adult children’s mortgage 

◆ Financial assistance in purchasing a home

(156 of 277)

4. SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME BENEFITS : 61% 

◆ “Forgiveness loans” (those not to be repaid) to adult children

5. GIFTS OF INCOME-PRODUCING REAL ESTATE : 8% 

◆ Transfers of commercial real estate to adult children

6. TRANSFERS OF SECURITIES :17% 

◆ Gifts of listed stock to adult children

7. TRANSFERS OF PRIVATE ASSETS : 15%

◆ Gift of ownership (all or part) of family business to adult children

¹ The 222 affluent parents/millionaires included in this analysis all had at least one adult child, twenty-five years of age or older.

I’m as indignant as hell. What am I supposed to do with my money? My daughter’s family is having a rough time making ends meet. Do you know about the problems with public school around here? I’m sending my grandchildren to private schools.

It is obvious to us that this grandmother is not completely at ease about providing economic outpatient care (EOC) to her daughter’s family. The real problem is not with the public schools; it is that her daughter’s family is in a situation of economic dependency. Mother has difficulty with the fact that her daughter married someone who is unable to earn a high income. Daughter and grandchildren may not be able to live in an environment congruent with Mother’s upper-middle-class background. So Mother is determined to enhance the environment of her daughter’s family. She contributed heavily to the purchase of a home that was economically out of reach for her daughter and son-in-law. The home is in an upscale area where most of the residents send their children to private schools. The only way her children can stay in such a high- consumption residential area is with heavy doses of Mother’s brand of economic outpatient care (EOC). But Mother fails to realize that such an environment has more drawbacks than does self-sufficiency, even if that means accepting a less affluent lifestyle.

Mary is much like the daughter of the grandmother in our audience. Both have received economic outpatient care (EOC). 

(157 of 277)

The donors in both cases made the same assumption: Economic outpatient care (EOC) will “get the youngsters going” and then won’t be needed anymore. Mary’s mother was wrong. She has been providing her special blend of outpatient care for more than twenty-five years. Her daughter’s family is economically dependent.

Lamar has also benefited from outpatient care. Shortly after he and his wife were married, Lamar quit his job to pursue a master’s degree. His own parents paid all his tuition and related expenses. This is not at all unusual. In fact, 32 percent of America’s millionaires pay for their adult children’s graduate school education.

The couple’s first child was born shortly after Lamar began his graduate studies. Mary’s mother did not like the apartment that the couple initially rented near the university Lamar attended. She took it upon herself to send a cleaning crew over regularly to “freshen the place up.” But in her mind this was not the ideal environment for her daughter’s family. So Mother offered to help the couple buy a home.

Lamar did help to make ends meet. He received a few hundred dollars each month from the university for his part-time job as a staff assistant. Mary did not work at that time. In fact, she has been a fulltime housewife throughout her marriage.

Mary’s mother placed a sizable down payment on the couple’s home. Nearly six in ten (59 percent) affluent parents who have adult children tell us that they have provided their children with “financial assistance in purchasing a home.” Mary’s mother also made the couple’s mortgage payments. Note that 17 percent of the millionaires we have interviewed indicated that they have made such payments (see Table 5-1).

 Initially, Mary’s mother was to provide these funds as an interest-free loan. But eventually the loan was converted to a more conventional type. Forgiveness loans are considered to be quite conventional among recipients of economic outpatient care (EOC). Sixty-one percent of America’s affluent have provided such “loans” to their adult children. What happened when the couple traded up to a more expensive home? Mary’s mother once again subsidized the purchase. Eventually the couple moved to their current residence. Once again, economic outpatient care(EOC) was part of this purchase.

Lamar spent nearly four years in graduate school. During that time he received two degrees. Today Lamar is a college administrator. But given his annual salary of less than $60,000, it’s still hard for Mary and him to make ends meet. Even with the $15,000 his mother-in-law provides each year, their income is not high enough to support their upper-middle-class lifestyle. What is so interesting about Mary and Lamar’s $60,000 annual income level is that they are not alone. About 30 percent of the households in America that live in homes

(157 of 277)

valued at $300,000 have annual household earned incomes of $60,000 or less. Is it because of creative budgeting, or could it be a result of widespread economic outpatient care in America? For the most part, it’s because of UAWs on EOC.

According to Mary, it’s not too difficult to pay for basic family necessities out of Lamar’s income plus her annual cash gift from Mother. What is difficult is purchasing motor vehicles. And Mary and Lamar enjoy “foreign luxury.” How do they squeeze such purchases into their budget? Do they buy used cars to reduce the “economic pain”? No, they purchase new cars every three years. Why so often? Because that’s Mother’s cycle. About every three years, Mary’s mother gives her daughter stock from her portfolio—so do about 17 percent of America’s affluent. Some adult recipients hold onto such gifts, but not Mary and Lamar. They sell the securities immediately, then purchase a new car with the proceeds!

But what will happen to Mary and Lamar after Mother is no longer alive? Obviously, this is a major concern to this couple. Unfortunately, we are not fortune tellers, so we were not able to tell them how much Mother had in trust for her daughter. We wish them good luck. It will not take long for Mary and Lamar to consume even a good-sized inheritance. They are already anticipating this economic windfall. A bigger home, a vacation home, and around-the-world travel are on the horizon.

(159 of 277)

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Adults who sit around waiting for the next dose of economic outpatient care typically are not very productive. Cash gifts are too often earmarked for consumption and the support of an unrealistically high lifestyle. This is precisely what happened to Mary and Lamar. Their household’s annual earned income of $60,000 is the same amount a blue-collar couple in their county earned with overtime. Both the man and woman drive buses for a living. Yet they have a more realistic view of who they are and what they have achieved. Conversely, Mary and Lamar are living in fantasyland. Displaying upper-middle-class status is their socioeconomic goal in life.

Does this mean that all adult children of affluent parents are destined to become Marys and Lamars? Absolutely not. In fact, stated as a statistical probability, the more wealth parents accumulate, the more economically disciplined their adult children are likely to be. Note that America’s millionaires are more than five times more likely than the average household to have a son or a daughter graduate from medical school. They are more than four times more likely to have a child who is a law school graduate.

Paying for an education is the equivalent to teaching your children how to fish. Mary’s mother taught her daughter and son-in-law something else. She taught them how to spend. She taught them to look upon her as a fish-dispensing machine. There are many forms of economic outpatient care. Some have a strong positive influence on the productivity of the recipients. These include subsidizing your children’s education and, more important, earmarking gifts so they can start or enhance a business. Many self-made millionaires/entrepreneurs know this intuitively. Unlike Mary’s mother, they prefer to give their offspring private stock, which cannot be readily traded in for a new foreign luxury automobile.

Conversely, what is the effect of cash gifts that are knowingly earmarked for consumption and the propping up of a certain lifestyle? We find that the giving of such gifts is the single most significant factor that explains lack of productivity among the adult children of the affluent. All too often such “temporary” gifts affect the recipient’s psyche. Cash gifts earmarked for consumption dampen one’s initiative and productivity. They become habit forming. These gifts then must be extended throughout most of the recipient’s life.

(160 of 277)

The subsidized lifestyle of many adults has another consequence. Neighbors see how Mary and Lamar live. What do they conclude? Too often it is that heavy spending is an acceptable way of life. For example, off and on for several years, Mary and Lamar have been on their neighborhood’s welcoming committee. Remember that the couple has also been active in fund-raising for the private school their children attended. What message do Mary and Lamar communicate to their new neighbors? Recently, a hard-charging, very successful sales manager/vice president and his family moved into the neighborhood. The sales executive was only thirty-five years old at the time. He earned nearly three times more income than Lamar. He and his wife had three school-aged children.

Within ten minutes after welcoming his new neighbors, Lamar initiated his sales pitch. He told them that the public schools in the area were inferior but that he had a solution to this problem. Lamar began to lecture his new neighbors about the benefits of the private school. The new neighbors listened attentively. Then they asked about the tuition. Lamar told them the costs were much less significant than the benefits. The annual tuition at the high school, Lamar reported, was only $9,000. Lamar tells all his incoming neighbors the same thing —that is, that $9,000 is a small price for a great education. Why, of course, Lamar loves the school. It was a real bargain for him to send his children there, since Mary’s mother paid 100 percent of the tuition.

Later the sales executive and his wife did some research on the local public school system. They found that it was far better academically than Lamar had told them. They decided that all their children would attend public schools. They were pleased with the quality education provided there.

What is the value you place on a private school education, luxuryautomobiles, foreign travel, and a lovely home? How sensitive are you to the prices of these products and services? Lamar is quite insensitive to high prices. The sales executive is just the opposite. Lamar finds it much easier to spend other people’s money than his own. The sales executive, on the other hand, never received any economic outpatient care (EOC) except for some of his undergraduate college tuition. The sales executive is fully self-sustaining today. Why? Because he and his family do not receive economic outpatient care earmarked for consumption. He spends much of his time enhancing his productivity by working harder and investing wisely. Conversely, Lamar and Mary spend much of their time anticipating the receipt of stronger doses of economic outpatient care.

(161 of 277)

THE QUESTION OF QUESTIONS

You may ask, “Will I spoil my adult children if I give them cash gifts?” All the effects of cash gifts on the adult children of the affluent cannot possibly be presented in one chapter. And it is important to note that those who receive such gifts are not the “jobless dropouts” so often reported in the press. They are, in fact, likely to be well educated and to hold well-respected occupational positions. The top ten occupations of the adult children of the affluent are as follows:

1. Corporate Executive

2. Entrepreneur

3. Middle Manager

4. Physician

5. Advertising/Marketing/ Sales Professional 

6. Attorney

7. Engineer/Architect/Scientist

8. Accountant

9. College/University Professor

10. High School/Elementary School Teacher

Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that adult children who receive cash gifts differ from those who do not. Let’s contrast the wealth and income characteristics of adult children who do receive gifts with those who do not. Because age is highly correlated with both wealth and annual household income, it is important to attempt to hold age constant when making comparisons between gift receivers and nonreceivers. It is also useful to examine the differences in these two groups within each of ten occupational classifications, since different occupational groups tend to generate different levels of income and net worth.

Let’s look at a survey of gift receivers and nonreceivers from all economic backgrounds, in their early forties to mid-fifties. Examine the numbers given in Table 5-2. 

(162 of 277)

TABLE 5-2 RECEIVERS VS. NONRECEIVERS OF CASH GIFTS: WHO HAS MORE WEALTH/HIGHER INCOME?

OCCUPATIONS : HOUSEHOLD NET WORTH % ; RANK ; ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME % ; RANK .

•Accountant :  57¹ ;  10th ; 78² ; 7th

•Attorney : 62 ; 9th ; 77 ; 8th 

• Advertising/Marketing Sales professional : 63 ; 8th ; 104 ; Ist 

• Entrepreneur : 64 ; 7th; 94 ; 2nd 

• Senior Manager /Executive : 65 ; 6th ; 19 ; 6th 

• Engineer /Architect /Scientist ; 16 : 5th ; 14 ; 10th 

• Physician : 88 ; 4th ; 15 ; 9th 

• Middle Manager : 91; 3rd ; 80 ; 5th 

• College /University Professor : 128 ; 2nd ; 88 ; 4th 

• High School/Elementory School Teacher : 185 ; Ist ; 92 ; 3rd 

•All Occupations : 81.1; – ; 91.1; —

¹For example, households headed by accountants who receive cash gifts from their parents have 57 percent of the net worth of those in the same occupational category who do not receive gifts.

²For example, households headed by accountants who receive cash gifts from their parents have 78 percent of the onaval hause- hold income of those in the some occupational cotegory who do not receive gifts.

Note that in eight of the ten occupational categories, gift receivers have smaller levels of net worth (wealth) than those who do not receive gifts. For example, on average, accountants who are approximately fifty years of age and receive cash gifts from their parents have only 57 percent of the net worth of accountants in the same age group who do not receive gifts. Further, accountants who receive gifts generate only 78 percent of the annual income of accountants who don’t receive gifts.

Note that cash gifts were not included in computing the annual incomes of accountants who receive gifts. When these tax-free dollar gifts are added to the incomes of gift receivers, then, on average, gift receivers have approximately 98 percent of the average annual income of nonreceivers. In spite of this, they still only have 57 percent of the net worth of accountants who do not receive gifts.

(163 of 277)

Accountants who receive gifts are not the only occupational group that has lower income and net worth characteristics. As you can see in Table 5-2, gift receivers in seven other occupational categories also have lower levels of net worth than nonreceivers, including attorneys, 62 percent; advertising/marketing/sales professionals, 63 percent; entrepreneurs, 64 percent; senior managers/executives, 65 percent; engineers/architects/scientists, 76 percent; physicians, 88 percent; and middle managers, 91 percent.

Gift receivers in only two of the ten occupational groups have higher levels of wealth than nonreceivers. In spite of having lower incomes than nonreceivers, gift receivers who are high school/elementary school teachers have higher net worths than nonreceivers. Teachers who receive gifts have 185 percent of the net worth of the average for nonreceivers, but only 92 percent of the income. College/university professors who receive gifts have 128 percent of the net worth and 88 percent of the income of nonreceivers. Affluent parents can learn a great deal from gift receivers who are teachers and professors. Teachers and professors who receive cash gifts have a much higher propensity to accumulate wealth than do gift receivers in the other eight occupational classifications. How can one explain this peculiarity? To do so it is important first to explain why most gift receivers in general have a lower propensity to accumulate wealth than do nonreceivers.

1. GIVING PRECIPITATES MORE CONSUMPTION THAN SAVING AND INVESTING.

For example, affluent parents often subsidize their children’s purchase of a home. The intent may be to help their children “get started on the right foot.” The parents assume that such gifts are a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon. Some have told us that they thought “this would be the last dollar the kids would ever need.” They assume that the recipients of their kindness will be able to “do it on their own” in the near future. Nearly half the time, they are wrong.

Gift receivers frequently are underachievers in generating income. All too often the income of the gift receiver does not increase at the same rate as his consumption. Remember, expensive homes are typically located in what we call high-consumption neighborhoods. Living in such neighborhoods requires more than just being able to pay the mortgage. To fit in, one needs to “look the part” in terms of one’s clothing, landscaping, home maintenance, automobiles, furnishings, and so on. And don’t forget to add high property taxes to all the other items.

(164 of 277)

Thus, a gift of a down payment, whether full or partial, can place a recipient on a treadmill of consumption and continued dependence on the gift giver. But the majority of these recipients’ neighbors, more likely than not, receive no cash gifts from their parents. They are much more content and confident about their lifestyle than most gift receivers are. Many gift receivers in such situations become sensitive to the need for continued economic outpatient care. Their orientation may even dramatically change from a focus on self-generated economic achievement to one of hoping for and contemplating the arrival of additional gifts. Underachieving income producers in such cases find it nearly impossible to accumulate wealth.

Gifts of down payments are not the only type that precipitate more consumption. Take, for example, the affluent parents who gave their son Bill and daughter-in-law Helen a $9,000 rug that we were told contained millions of hand-tied knots. Bill is a civil engineer who works for the state. He earns less than $55,000 a year. His parents feel compelled to help him maintain a lifestyle and level of dignity congruent with someone with a graduate degree from a prestigious university. Of course, the expensive rug looked out of place in a room filled with hand-me-down furniture and inexpensive light fixtures. So Bill and Helen felt compelled to purchase expensive walnut dining room furniture, a crystal chandelier, a solid-silver service, and expensive lamps. Thus, the gift of the $9,000 rug precipitated the consumption of nearly that same amount for other “affluent artifacts.”

Sometime later, Bill mentioned to his mother that the local public schools were not as good as they were when he was an elementary school student. His mother countered that she would pay for part of her grandson’s and granddaughter’s private school tuition. Of course, it was up to Bill and Helen to decide if they should take their children out of the public school system. Mother paid two-thirds of the tuition; Bill and Helen, the rest. In this case, a gift of $12,000 ended up costing Bill and Helen $6,000 a year.

Moreover, Bill and Helen did not contemplate the additional expenses of sending their children to private school. For example, they are often asked to make contributions to the school beyond the cost of tuition. They also felt they needed to buy a seven-passenger station wagon so they could participate in the school’s car pool. Books and related fees are also costly. And their children are now exposed to other children and parents who tend to have higher-consumption lifestyles than were the case in the public school environment. In fact, their children are looking forward to traveling to Europe this summer. It’s part of their education and socialization process. Gift receivers are significantly more likely than non-gift receivers to send their children to private schools.

(165 of 277)

 (Although there are more children of non-gift receivers in private school overall, it is because the population of non-gift receivers is much larger than its counterpart.)

2. GIFT RECEIVERS IN GENERAL NEVER FULLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THEIR WEALTH AND THE WEALTH OF THEIR GIFT- GIVING PARENTS.

Perhaps Tony Montage, a professional asset manager, said it best:

Gift receivers ... the adult children of the affluent feel that their parents’ wealth/capital is their income ... income to be spent.

One of the main reasons gift receivers typically think of themselves as being financially well-off is because they receive parental subsidies. And people who think they are financially well-off tend to spend. In fact, statistically they are just as likely to view themselves as being affluent as are truly affluent non-gift receivers. This is the case in spite of earning 91 percent of the income and having 81 percent of the wealth of nonreceivers.

Look at the situation from a gift receiver’s side of the equation. During each year of his adult life, William receives an annual tax-free gift of $10,000 from his parents. William is forty-eight years of age. Ten thousand dollars of tax-free income could be viewed as the product of what amount of capital? Assume an 8 percent return. This would equate to $125,000 in capital. Add this amount to his actual net worth. What is the result? William perceives himself as having $125,000 more in capital than he does.

Consider this analogy. Have you ever been confronted by an eight-year-old youngster standing in the front yard of his parents’ home? If you, a stranger, attempt to walk on to the property, Billy or Janie will likely say, “You can’t come into my yard. This is my property.” Billy and Janie think that it is their property. At the age of eight they may be correct. After all, they are children living at home. At this age kids feel that the yard, the home, and the car are family property. But as the majority of Billys and Janies mature, they become properly socialized by their parents. They grow into independent adults, adults who can easily distinguish between what is theirs and what is not. Their parents teach

them independence. (165 of 277)

Unfortunately, a growing portion of adult children are not being taught the value of being emotionally and economically independent of their parents. How did one set of parents recently test to see if their adult son was independent? They used the “Montage Effect” as a basis for the test.

After Thanksgiving dinner at his parents’ home, James and his parents had a conversation. His parents told James that they had decided to give several pieces of “their” commercial property to the local private college. His father told his son, “I know you will understand that the college really will benefit from such a gift.” James’s response, if written as a headline, might read:

Son of affluent couple screams, “That’s my property, too, and the college people can’t come in (to my yard).”

James’s response was predictable. He has received substantial cash gifts from his parents throughout his adult life. He needed an annual gift equivalent to about 20 percent of his income to cover his annual expenses. He viewed his parents’ idea of giving their capital to the college as a threat to his future income.

Like many other gift receivers, James views himself as “self-made.” In fact, about two of every three adult children who receive significant cash gifts periodically from their parents view themselves as members of the “I did it on my own” club. We are amazed when these people tell us in interviews, “We earned every dollar we have.”

3. GIFT RECEIVERS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DEPENDENT ON CREDIT THAN ARE NONRECEIVERS.

Those who receive periodic gifts of cash or its equivalent are euphoric about their economic well-being. Euphoria of this type is related to their need to spend money. But much of this money is not in hand. It is tomorrow’s economic outpatient care. So how do gift receivers respond to this dilemma? They use credit vehicles to smooth out their problems with cash flow. Why wait for the windfall at the end of the rainbow? Adult children who receive cash gifts are more likely than other adult children to live in anticipation of the sizable inheritance eventually coming their way.

(166 of 277)

In spite of having only about 91 percent of the total household annual income and 81 percent of the net worth of nonreceivers of gifts, gift receivers are significantly more likely to be credit-oriented. This credit is obtained for consumption, not investment, purposes. Conversely, nonreceivers of gifts borrow more for investment purposes than do gift receivers. Otherwise, in nearly every conceivable type of credit product/service category, gift receivers outpace nonreceivers. This applies both to the incidence of credit usage and to the actual dollars spent to pay the interest on outstanding balances. It applies to personal loans and to unpaid balances on credit card loans. Gift receivers and nonreceivers are not significantly different in their use of mortgage services or in the allocation of dollars for such purposes. However, asignificant portion of the gift receivers were given money for sizable down payments on their homes.