The Soft Side of Estate Planning 

Debate is a cherished sport in my family. A pastime that may have originated hundreds of years ago between the Fords and the Fitzgeralds, who were, I once discovered, neighboring clans in Ireland that didn’t get along.

As peasant stock, we favor speaking plainly – i.e., bluntly. We say what we mean. And expect our interlocutors to do the same. During family debates, euphemisms are eschewed and ad hominem attacks are fair play. We don’t cotton to touchy-feely experiences or sit comfortably in the presence of people that wear their hearts on their sleeves.

Two years ago, I hired Tom and Cathy Rogerson to assist me and the family with our estate plan. I had earlier assembled a team of lawyers, financial planners, investment specialists, tax accountants, and non-profit experts to help us design the structures we needed to meet our goals. The Rogersons were going to help with something less technical, something they called “corporate governance.”

Corporate governance, they explained, means “how to make group decisions.”

Our first meeting with them was a two-day workshop where we took a series of tests to determine our individual love languages and leadership styles.

We were uncomfortable with these topics, and did our best to derail the Rogersons with crude and corny remarks. But they pushed us through it. And that, I thought, was the end of that.

What happened afterwards surprised me. In the weeks that followed, we began farcically employing the terms we had learned. (“You know my love language is affirmation. Praise me!”) But then, as the months passed, we began to use these terms seriously. And that, over time, elevated our debates onto higher ground. The intensity of our arguments was still very high. But the bluntness and ad hominem attacks diminished.

Buoyed by this welcomed result, we hired the Rogersons to do another workshop with our boys and their spouses, and it had a similarly positive outcome. I felt good about our progress as a family.

The following year, the Rogersons suggested we should have a third workshop. I wasn’t sure. I felt that we had mastered the “soft” skills we needed, and I was ready to move forward with the “hard” stuff – the wills, trusts, FLPs, QPERTs, and other serious aspects of our estate plan.

But since my expectations had been exceeded by the first two, I cajoled the family to set aside two days for another one while we were all in LA.

I figured that this third workshop would cover some of the basic organizational and financial issues. But the topics were even more touchy-feely than those we’d covered before. We talked about how to “mirror” the comments of someone we disagreed with, how to “validate” their thoughts, how to express our own thoughts in non-threatening ways, etc.

As you might imagine, this work, for the Fords and Fitzgeralds, was uncomfortable to the nth degree. Over those two days, there were several minor emotional meltdowns, including my own. (“It’s a waste of time to try to change anyone’s behavior! You just have to learn to live with it!”) But we persevered, and made more real and identifiable progress.

A happy additional outcome was that the spouses – who had come from less verbally combative families – were able to have their voices heard clearly and distinctly for the first time. And by the end of the second day, we had arrived at an agreed upon method for discussing and resolving family issues. We had learned what “corporate governance” looks like in action.

I still struggle a bit with some of the techniques we learned. When I practice them, they feel awkward and unnatural. But they work. They really do work. And that’s a pretty darn good thing.

In fact, I believe that if we forewent these lessons (as 99% of families probably do), all the time and money we are putting into the “hard” and technical stuff would do little if any good.

The purpose of estate planning is not just to preserve wealth over time. A more important goal is to preserve the family through shared values and good family relations. I’m going to recommend the Rogersons to some of my book club members that are doing estate work now. I expect that they may think, as I did, that they don’t need this sort of training. I hope to convince them they are wrong.

Continue Reading

How to Destroy Your Wealth… and Your Family 

It’s a well-accepted (and reasonably-well documented) fact that most family fortunes are dissipated within three generations.

The first generation creates the wealth and then hands it to the second generation. The second generation accepts it happily. Then they fight about it, make whatever adjustments they can, which usually fractionalizes the fortune, and pass the remaining pieces on to the third generation, which pisses it all away.

The most popular way to leave your wealth to your children – dividing it equally among them at your death – is often seen as a solution to this problem. But as anyone who’s read about the history of the Vanderbilts can tell you, that approach destroys wealth faster than keeping it together, which is what the Rockefellers did. There are several good reasons for this. The most important one: Regardless of how “fairly” you apportion your assets among your heirs, some of them will not see your distribution as fair. (There’s a great book you should read on this topic: Splitting Heirs by Ron Blue.)

It is disappointing to think that the wealth you’ve worked all your life to accumulate will be destroyed after you die. But what is much worse is the fact that leaving your fortune to your loved ones can push them apart. Even make enemies of them.

I have friends that don’t speak to their siblings as a result of inheritance issues. I know families that are no longer families because of disagreements about how to apportion and/or manage estates.

What I Believe: This problem is not limited to families. It occurs whenever any form of wealth is given away freely and without conditions. Free love is a bad idea. Free money is worse. That is true for every kind of “giving” situation – from dividing a hundred-million-dollar estate to social welfare to private charity to giving money to beggars on the street.

It feels good to give away things – most especially, money. The giver is instantly rewarded by feelings of righteousness and seeing someone else’s need quickly and easily met.

But charity is a double-sided coin. There is the good you do in giving someone something of value. And the bad you do in creating in the recipient feelings of entitlement and dependency.

The good is usually temporary, but the bad endures. Sometimes for a lifetime. It debilitates the recipient and ultimately damages his/her relationship with the giver.

I am not saying that charity is bad. I’m saying it is dangerous. It can be done well, but only if the donor is willing to give away more than just money. To “do less harm than good” (the motto of my family foundation), the donor must take responsibility for the possible negative effects of the charity. The work does not stop with the giving. On the contrary, it begins with the giving. The rest of the obligation is to see to it that the recipient isn’t harmed by it.

The objection to this line of thinking is that it is paternalistic. And it is. I believe that the only moral way to be charitable is to take on the responsibility that all good parents assume with their children. They want to help them succeed in life and be happy – but in return for their help, they know that they must also demand respect, gratitude, and disciplined behavior.

That’s what I believe. It’s a big subject. Big enough for a book. In fact,  I’m in the middle of writing it (working title: The Challenge of Charity). If you have comments on my thoughts on charity, or books or articles on the subject to recommend, I’d appreciate hearing from you.

Continue Reading

* US inflation rose 7.5% during the 12-month period ending in Jan., according to newly released government data. The largest increase since Feb. 1982. What is even more alarming is that the cost of energy was up 27%.

* Joe Rogan announced that he will not accept a $100 million offer from video platform Rumble. The company’s CEO offered him the contract in a widely shared social media post amid controversy over Rogan’s future at Spotify. Rogan, who has come under fire for spreading COVID misinformation and using racial slurs on his podcast, has been the target of an intense online effort to pressure Spotify into getting rid of him. “Spotify has hung in with me, inexplicably,” Rogan said, “let’s see what happens.”

* UFC champion Israel Adesanya defended Joe Rogan. Click here.

Continue Reading

* 43.4 million – the number of borrowers who have federal student loan debt.

* $11.7 millionthe value of a cube that a German artist created from 186 kilograms of pure 24-karat gold. The cube sits in New York City’s Central Park with its own security detail.

* 1,600 – the number of retro baseball cards glued to a bedroom wall that a family found while renovating their new home in Idaho. The wall of cards was hidden behind roof shingles the previous owners had tacked on.

* 9% – the rate of the corporate tax the United Arab Emirates will introduce for the first time in 2023.

Continue Reading

Buenos Aires

Buenos Aires is located at the northeastern edge of the flat plain known as the Pampas, which occupies the agricultural heartland of Argentina. It is situated at the point where the Parana River delta widens to become the Río de la Plata estuary.

What I like about it:

* Buenos Aires is known as the Paris of Latin America, and it does feel that way.

* A pleasant climate and many expansive green spaces.

* Distinctive neighborhoods that have their own atmosphere.

* Beautiful architecture: It’s not colonial, but it’s very good.

* Culture: 300 theatres, 380 bookstores, and 160 museums.

* It’s the birthplace of the tango, and offers tourists plenty of venues to learn how to do it.

* Cosmopolitan and trendy (in a good way).

* Great steaks. Great malbec wines. Great Italian food. The city was designated Ibero-American capital of Gastronomic Culture 2017.

* A free 24-hour public bike share system.

* The Teatro Colón, one of the world’s best opera houses.

* Great people. Porteños, as the city’s residents are called, are warm, friendly, and very affectionate.

Continue Reading

From Letters of Note:  Frida Kahlo to Diego Rivera, 1953, awaiting the amputation of her leg

“I’m writing to let you know I’m releasing you. I’m amputating you. Be happy and never seek me again. I don’t want to hear from you, I don’t want you to hear from me. If there is anything I’d enjoy before I die, it’d be not having to see your fucking horrible bastard face wandering around my garden.

“That is all, I can now go to be chopped up in peace. Good bye from somebody who is crazy and vehemently in love with you.”

Continue Reading

* On Achievement: “Enterprise and hard work will almost always win, even under communism or African dictatorships.” – Taki

* On Forgiveness: “I once met a man who had forgiven an injury. I hope someday to meet the man who has forgiven an insult.” – Dr. Samuel Johnson

* On the Passage of Time: “In the middle, it feels slow. In hindsight, it feels fast.” – James Clear

Continue Reading

Re the Jethro Tull video in the Feb. 9 issue:

“I looked at the Jethro Tull video and had a flashback to grammar school. Sister Claire Eileen entered me in a music competition for the tuba when I was in 6th grade…. The professional in the Tull video criticized Ian Anderson for his flat fingering. Holy shit! That was the same mark against me when I was judged. It was the only mark against me but enough to lower my grade to a B. I was mortified. WTF! Flat fingers!” – JM

Continue Reading