BEFORE AND AFTER YOU’RE GONE
For one of our focus group interviews, we asked a recruiter to supply us with eight to ten millionaires for the three-hour session. All were supposed to be PAWS and to have a minimum of $3 million in net worth. We also instructed our recruiter that the millionaires had to be sixty-five years old or older. Each was to receive $200 for participating.
Two days before the interview, nine millionaires had been recruited. But on the morning of the interview, our recruiter telephoned to tell us that one of them would not be able to participate. The recruiter said that she would likely be able to find a substitute. Just an hour before the interview, the recruiter telephoned us again to say she had found a sixty-two-year-old recruit. He was a business owner with a high income, but he did not fit the strict definition of a PAW. Nevertheless, we agreed to include him. The decision proved fortuitous.
The substitute respondent, “Mr. Andrews,” was not told beforehand that the other respondents were affluent. Perhaps that was why he took the lead in bragging about how he was “very well-off financially.” In reality, Mr. Andrews had a high income but a relatively small net worth. He was a classic UAW who looked and acted the part. He wore gold bracelets on each wrist and had an expensive-looking diamond-encrusted watch and several rings. When Mr. Andrews began telling the group his story, he exuded confidence. But after three hours of talking with eight wiser men, his demeanor changed. His confidence seemed to deteriorate as the interview progressed. We believe Mr. Andrews learned some important lessons that day about financial planning and the intergenerational distribution of wealth.
Mr. Andrews told us that he was already well-off and had already achieved his financial goals. But when questioned, he could not articulate his goals. A major part of his plan was to earn a high income. He always assumed that “most of the other parts” of his financial plan would “take care of themselves.” We have interviewed many UAWSs like Mr. Andrews. No matter how we ask them about their financial goals, their responses are predictable:
Do you know how many celebrities live in my neighborhood?
I make a lot of money.
I live two houses away from a rock star.
My daughter married a guy who earns a tremendous income.
(205 of 277)
What do UAWSs such as Mr. Andrews tend to emphasize in telling us about themselves? Their income, consumption habits, and status artifacts. PAWs speak of their achievements, such as their scholarship and how they’ve built their businesses. You will notice that Mr. Andrews, the UAW, has a much different financial orientation than the eight PAWs who participated in our focus group interview.
Several of the more senior respondents reflected on their experiences in unusually great detail. We don’t think this information would have flowed so easily if it had not been for the initial comments made by Mr. Andrews. His views—so different from the others’—prompted an exchange that resulted in the PAWSs providing valuable advice on such issues as gift giving, the role and selection of executors, conflicts among heirs, trusts, and the pros and cons of “controlling children and grandchildren from the grave.”
We began our interview by asking:
Would you first tell us something about yourself?
All nine respondents briefly introduced themselves. A typical response:
I’m Martin. I am married, same wife for forty-one years. I have three children. One is a physician, one is an attorney, and one is an executive. We have seven grandchildren. I recently sold my business. I am now active in several religious organizations and two that help young people get started in business.
All the respondents currently owned and managed their own businesses or had recently retired after selling a business. All except Mr. Andrews, who was sixtytwo, were in their mid-sixties to late seventies. After the respondents briefly introduced themselves, they discussed their financial goals. The first to respond was Mr. Andrews:
(206 of 277)
Being in business for myself... When I wake up, every day is a challenge.... I plan my work ... work my plan. It’s why my business is a good one.
Mr. Andrews discussed his current gift giving and how his wealth would be distributed in the future:
I have a son-in-law who is a physician.... Another is an attorney. They are well-off [high-income generators]. They are both in the highest tax brackets.... They don’t need my money.
But their wives, my girls ... my daughters, do. They are spenders.... Of course, I have always spoiled them rotten, and I’m paying for it now.... They call and ask me to pay for their kids’ pianos and I buy pianos.... Bicycles and birthday parties ... I pay for them, too. I enjoy giving them money.
My daughters are the beneficiaries of all my life insurance policies, more than enough to take care of all my estate’s taxes and expenses. The girls are left with the balance.
After I am gone, it makes no difference to me how they dispose of my money.... [They] can keep it, shoot craps with it, ... but I just want them to be happy.
“Happy” to Mr. Andrews means having money to spend. And pride is having daughters who are married to high-income generators. He spoke repeatedly about these issues.
Seated next to Mr. Andrews was Mr. Russell, a very wealthy retired gentleman who had recently sold his manufacturing business. Immediately following Mr. Andrews’s admission that he spoiled his daughters, Mr. Russell moved forward in his chair and made the following statement:
I have three daughters.... All have careers. All are working.... All are happy. All live a long way from here. They have their own lives to live.... I’m not worried about paying for their futures.... Nor are they.
We don't discuss it. But there will be a large sum.... Plenty, I’m sure, left over after I pass away.
(207 of 277)
Another respondent, Mr. Joseph, nodded his head and stated:
We have two daughters, one is a vice president for a large corporation and the other is a scientist.... We are very proud of them.... They will be very well provided for. But as a family, we don’t spend much time thinking about my estate.
Mr. Russell and Mr. Joseph have the correct formula. If you are wealthy and want your children to become happy and independent adults, minimize discussions and behavior that center on the topic of receiving other people’s money.
Following these statements, one of the other respondents asked Mr. Andrews about the disposition of his business. His comments generated a series of interesting remarks from the more senior members of the group. Mr. Andrews stated:
All the money I’ve been making in my business I dedicate to my daughters and their children.... 7 don’t need the money. The kids can use it. I give the maximum within the bounds of the law.
What does Mr. Andrews plan to do about ownership of his business? Will he eventually sell it? Will he give it to the children to operate? Or does he have some other idea in mind?
I have an agreement with my oldest son. He is required to pay X amount of dollars each year, ... and Billy will eventually own the business outright.
Several of the more senior respondents questioned this plan, since it clearly has the potential to create conflicts among Mr. Andrews’s children.
(208 of 277)
Mr. Andrews’s business is in the service/distribution industry; it does not have a great deal of value unless it continues to operate under the Andrews affiliation. In other words, unless Billy Andrews keeps the business operating, there will be no business at all. Asked one respondent:
Would the business have significant value if you placed it for sale today?
Mr. Andrews admitted that it would not. Then why is he requiring his oldest son and key employee to purchase the business? Why notgive it to him? Remember, Mr. Andrews gives all of the profits of the business to his daughters. He also plans to give them the revenue he receives from the sale of the business —the money his son Billy pays for the business. Moreover, Mr. Andrews’s daughters already receive sizable cash gifts from their father. But not Billy. Billy, in his father’s estimation, needs no subsidies. He is extremely productive in generating income. He could always “carry a great deal on his shoulders.” Mr. Andrews feels that his daughters, on the other hand, do not have the ability to maintain an upper-middle-class lifestyle by themselves. But what about his highincome-producing sons-in-law?
In Mr. Andrews’s mind, his sons-in-law will never generate an income high enough to support “the girls’” high-consumption habits. Also, he told us:
You can never fully trust your sons-in-law.... Divorce is always a possibility.
What about future outpatient care for his daughters? Billy, Mr. Andrews’s surrogate, will provide the solution to this problem. Mr. Andrews’s plan calls for Billy to make the payments to his sisters for years after Mr. Andrews’s death. The money for these annual payments will come from the profits of “his business.” Is this unusual? No. Business owners, entrepreneurs, and physicians often find themselves in similar situations (see Tables 6-5 and 6-6).
In essence, Billy will be required to heavily subsidize his sisters’ lifestyle, a lifestyle predicated on conspicuous consumption. Mr. Andrews feels “fairly certain” that Billy will carry out his father’s wishes. Perhaps he will. But how would you respond to this plan if you were Billy’s wife? Think for a moment. Your husband is paying for his sisters’ expensive clothing, luxury automobiles, vacations, and so on. Most spouses feel that charity begins at home. Note that spouses are often the initiators of family conflicts regarding inequities in the distribution of wealth.
(208 of 277)
The other participants did not criticize Mr. Andrews’s plan directly. When each spoke, he looked at the group in general, not at Mr. Andrews. Yet it became increasingly clear as the discussion progressed that the other respondents rated the Andrews Plan a poor one.
One senior respondent reflected on a related situation:
TABLE 6-5 ENTREPRENEUR-GIFTS AND INHERITANCE: CONTRASTS AMONG THE ADULT CHILDREN OF THE AFFLUENT
PROPENSITY TO RECEIVE GIFTS INHERITANCE
Entrepreneurs are less likely than the norm for all children of the affluent to receive cash gifts or on inheritance from their parents.
Only a small minority of entrepreneurs inherit a family business. Generally, they start their own business.
RATIONALE FOR GIVING GIFTS/PROVIDING INHERITANCE
Parents often provide seed money for their entrepreneurially oriented sons/daughters who wish to start a business.
Entrepreneurs are much less likely to receive any cash gifts/inheritance once they are viewed as being successful. Parents often conclude that entrepreneurs don't need economic outpatient care.
The entrepreneurially oriented sons and/or daughters of the affluent have the highest income/ net worth characteristics of all occupational categories.
Some of those sons/daughters who take over their parents/family business are often required to make long term "purchase payments" to their less productive siblings.
"POSITION" OF SON/DAUGHTER TO PARENTS
Entrepreneurs are typically strong, independent types. They are less likely, both emotionally and as financially, to be "tied" to their parents.
Often elderly parents are more "attached" to their entrepreneurially oriented sons and daughters than the other way around.
THE STAGE AT WHICH SON/DAUGHTER IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE
Entrepreneurs generally receive cash gifts in the early stages of their adult lives.
FORM/TYPE OF GIFTS/ INHERITANCE
Entrepreneurs generally complete fewer years of college/groduate school than the norm for all children of the affluent. Often affluent parents significantly overfund entrepreneurial oriented children's college tuition funds. Gifts of cash/securities are often derived from these types of scenarios. Cash gifts are also given in the partially forgiven loans for seed money.
(209 of 277)
PHYSICIANS-GIFTS AND INHERITANCE: CONTRASTS AMONG THE ADULT CHILDREN OF THE AFFLUENT
PROPENSITY TO RECEIVE GIFTS/ INHERITANCE
Physicians are the least likely of all children of the affluent to receive any inheritance from their parents.
Their propensity to receive annual cash gifts from their parents is about average for all adult children of the affluent.
Often parents of medical doctors expect them to give gifts of professional services and, in some cases, financial gifts to their less prosperous adult brothers and sisters.
RATIONALE FOR GIVING GIFTS/PROVIDING INHERITANCE
Parents often feel that the son/ daughter who is a physicion has little or no need for an inheritonce. In other words, they feel that physicians don't need any additional wealth since "they are already wealthy. "
Their brothers and sisters (non physicians) occasionally lobby against them, encouraging their parents to "write the doctor out of the family's will". Some parents assume that their doctor son/daughter will provide economic support to their siblings in need.
"POSITION" OF SON/DAUGHTER TO PARENTS
Physicians are among the least likely to be economically or emotionally dependent upon their parents. They are typically strong willed in asserting their independence. Such "positioning" gives parents added evidence that "the doctor" doesn't need our money.
THE STAGE AT WHICH SON/DAUGHTER IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE GIFTS / INHERITANCE
Physicians tend to receive cash gifts early in their adult lives. The likelihood of receiving cash gifts is greatly reduced as they approach middle age.
FORM/ TYPE OF GIFTS/ INHERITANCE
Gifts that ore received are in the form of cash for tuition and "getting started."
Those who do receive an inheritance typically receive cash / other financial assets as opposed to real estate or tangible/ collectibles.
A son grew impatient with his father The son wanted to take over his father’s business, but he did not wish to wait for Dad to pass away. So the son opened his own business and actually competed with his father’s.
Mr. Andrews quickly countered:
My son signed a noncompete contract with me.... Everything in a family is based on trust, isn’t it?
The participants seemed to think about this statement for a moment. Perhaps Mr. Andrews was having some second thoughts about his plan.
Shortly after Mr. Andrews made this comment, he revealed that his children were the executors of his estate. Mr. Harvey then raised his hand and asked if he could respond. We were delighted. Mr. Harvey was the oldest and wealthiest respondent in the group. He began by noting the importance of facilitating harmony among one’s heirs. And, according to him, the choice of executor(s) of an estate was critical in this regard. Mr. Harvey had served as executor or co-executor of several estates. He understood full well that being an executor was a difficult task and that there was often animosity among executors and the heirs of estates. For this reason, he had carefully chosen the executors of his estate:
I have two children. They are close to each other. They can settle my estate between them.... But they will do it along with my attorney.... The children and my attorney are executors of my estate. I put the attorney in just to keep the balance.... You know when money’s involved what can happen. I want to keep good relations, ... but good relationships may deteriorate at the last moment without an experienced professional.
Mr. Andrews then spoke. He asked, with a hint of a challenge:
Are you really going to use someone from outside the family as an executor ?
(213 of 277)
In response, seven of the nine participants stated that, in addition to a family member, at least one outsider would be co-executor of their estates. Mr. Ring, a retired entrepreneur and grandfather of nine grandchildren, was one such participant. Mr. Ring had served as co-executor of several estates. He knew of situations in which the heirs to a grandparent’s fortune were seriously spoiled children in their late twenties and thirties who did not have the training, discipline, or ambition to support the affluent lifestyle they had been conditioned to enjoy. Several of these adults still lived at home. All had been receiving economic outpatient care (ECO) from their grandparents. But, as Mr. Ring explained, once the “well ran dry,” problems arose. When the grandparents died, the grandchildren and parents became adversaries. Each generation felt it should receive the bulk of the estate’s proceeds.
These experiences had had a profound influence on Mr. Ring. He realized that long before one passes away, one should select professionals to be co-executors. Consequently, over the years, he had developed close relationships with a highly skilled estate attorney and an outstanding tax accountant. Mr. Ring sought their advice before he retired, realizing that someday these professionals would likely act on his behalf to prevent, or at least reduce, the probability that his grandchildren would battle over his estate. Through the years he had also sought their counsel on how to “give without spoiling.” Mr. Ring now gives gifts to his grandchildren, but not in the form of products or social privileges. And he never gives without first gaining the approval and blessings of his grandchildren’s parents.
The trusts for the grandchildren are controlled.... Money is distributed only when each grandchild reaches certain maturity.... I was a little against it. But I listened to my lawyer and tax man.... I don’t want to reach out from the grave to control them, ... but the way the trusts are set up, my grandchildren will have to work.
Mr. Ring’s heirs will not begin to receive their inheritances until they approach their thirties. While some affluent grandparents give their grandchildren products and privileges, the Rings give them educations. Such gifts are intended to enhance their grandchildren’s discipline, ambition, and independence.
Mr. Graham spoke next. He reflected on his own experiences as a co-executor, which had helped him select co-executors for his own estate.
You have to use your judgment. You have to have understanding and compassion. I was an executor of a [close friend’s] estate of a substantial amount of money. I had discretionary power.... Every [decision] was not necessarily dictated...
When the daughter [age twenty-three] was ready to marry, ... I knew her father would have wanted her to have a nice wedding ... so we gave her ... the kind of wedding he would have given her.
After she married and started a family, I was still not quite sure of her maturity. So I distributed only enough money for her to buy a nice home.... Later I was convinced that she was able to take care of herself... so I approved the distribution of what was left in the trust.
The daughter received the balance of her inheritance just before her thirtieth birthday, when Mr. Graham judged her to be capable of handling her inheritance. She had demonstrated her maturity in her stable marriage, role as a mother, and career of her own.
When selecting the executors of his own estate, Mr. Graham chose an attorney who was an old friend. He discovered that “it’s better for the children to be mad at the arbitrator than with each other.”
Mr. Ward, yet another affluent respondent, had also served as a co-executor. He chose two attorneys as executors of his multimillion-dollar estate rather than his sons or daughters. One of the attorneys was his niece; the other, a partner in one of the top law firms in the country. Mr. Ward explained his choices:
I chose younger attorneys because I felt that they would have a better understanding of the needs of the heirs of my estate. Both have the greatest integrity and understanding, ... and the two of them know each other professionally.
Beyond understanding, empathy, and integrity, another characteristic was critical to Mr. Ward:
The attorney who wrote [my] will was the one I selected as co-executor along with my niece. I felt that if there was a dispute between my sons and sons-in-law ... that he would be a good one to arbitrate. That’s the reason I selected him. He’s been a personal friend for a long time and a very successful businessman.
(215 of 277)
Mr. Ward’s comments are congruent with many of our research findings. First, most PAWs have long-term close relationships with several key professionals, such as top attorneys and accountants. Second, many people in Mr. Ward’s category have relatives and/or close friends who advise them about wills, trusts, estates, and gift giving. In fact, all things being equal, estates in which the heirs, typically the sons and daughters, are professional estate attorneys tend to be taxed less. Sons and daughters who are attorneys act as formal and informal legal advisors and opinion leaders for their affluent parents. They have a significant influence over all aspects of estate plans, including the choice of the estate attorney, provisions in wills, the ultimate disposition of family assets, the choice of executor(s), the use of trust services, and the incidence and size of the financial gifts to be given to children and grandchildren.
“Attorney relatives” typically advise their affluent parents on how to minimize estate taxes via annual gift giving to the children and grandchildren. Thus, the mere presence of a son or daughter who is an attorney increases the probability that all the children in the family will receive substantial cash gifts from their parents. (Consequently, these children inherit smaller amounts than the norm for all children of the affluent, since much of the wealth in their parents’ estates is distributed to the attorney and siblings prior to the death of their parents.)
What were all of these experienced respondents trying to tell Mr. Andrews? First, that his estate was complex, with many subjective provisions. He had acknowledged that his plan contained numerous verbal promises and monetary commitments. Mr. Andrews needed expert advice in how to handle these complex arrangements. He would be wise to consider having an estate attomney/arbitrator as the co-executor of his estate. Otherwise, his estate plan could very well become the cause of much conflict and animosity among his children.
But what if Mr. Andrews is like many other under accumulators of wealth (UAW), we have interviewed? In that case, he is not likely to establish close and long-term working relationships with professionals such as attorneys. Remember that Mr. Andrews stated that he needed no outsiders to help him because “I trust my children.... It is all based on trust.” But trust is not the only element in such situations.
(216 of 277)
No comments:
Post a Comment