May 21, 2013

In Trusts We Trust: Controlling When Your Kids Get Your Money


Read the original article at DailyFinance.com

Filed under: , , ,

Family inheritance
Alamy

For years, Australian billionaire Gina Rinehart — one of the five richest women in the world — has been in a headline-making fight with her kids over the family fortune. Under dispute is control of around $18 billion in a family trust, with three of Rinehart’s four children dropping in and out of lawsuits against their mother after she delayed the vesting date of the family trust, thereby preventing her children from gaining control of billions of dollars when Rinehart’s youngest daughter turned 25.

The result has been extended litigation, with allegations going both ways about the fitness of Rinehart to act as trustee and questions about whether the children would be able to manage their shares of the family’s vast mining business responsibly.

Not Just a Billionaires’ Problem

While Rinehart’s case is an extreme example — and one that might wrongly lead you to think that an ordinary trust might only create more family troubles — plenty of well-off people have doubts about leaving substantial inheritances to their children, worrying about the potential impact of having too much money too early in life.

Many wealthy Baby Boomers who started out with modest means want their children to have the same incentive to work hard and struggle for their financial prosperity, rather than having it handed to them. Moreover, a large fraction of Boomers believe their offspring don’t know how to handle money — an opinion which might lead them to conclude their children also lacked the wherewithal to handle a large inheritance.

Sponsored Links

Research bears out those concerns. Figures from The Williams Group estimate that barely a third of families are able to maintain control of their wealth through the second generation, and only one third of that third manage to keep third-generation control.

With some planning, though, you can provide whatever protection from your wealth that you believe your kids need.

Don’t Trust Your Kids? Put Their Money in Trust

Fortunately, it’s not difficult to keep your kids from squandering their newfound wealth indiscriminately. It’s all about setting up controls — the most powerful of which is creating a trust, either during your lifetime or written into your will. A trust lets you determine when and to what extent your kids and other heirs will get access to your financial resources.

For instance, in most states, children can take control of assets that aren’t held in trust when they turn 18. But with a trust in place, you can choose whatever age you want.

One common strategy is to make partial distributions at various ages ranging from 25 to 45, but trust law allows for longer terms at your discretion. You can also craft the trust to allow the trustee to make distributions to your heirs at regular intervals, helping the money last as long as possible while still making it available in times of true need.

Establishing a trust also lets you choose who will have control of making investment and management decisions for your assets. By picking either a financial institution or a family adviser to act as trustee, you can ensure that someone you believe has the ability to manage your money for years or even decades will be in charge of your trust.

Most importantly, having a trust in place can actually protect your family members in certain cases. If one of your heirs is disabled or has other special needs, a well-crafted trust can provide supplemental financial support while still allowing access to available government benefits. Also, if an heir gets divorced, trust assets typically aren’t considered as part of the heir’s marital property, preventing the divorcing spouse from taking a share of the family fortune.

The Best Way to Set Up a Trust

Just as you can buy do-it-yourself will kits, there are ways to set up your own trust. However, in order to get the most benefits possible, it’s worth it for wealthy people to get professional legal advice.

With trust laws having seen some significant changes even in the past few years, the area is complicated enough that having some professional help will ensure you don’t slip up and create exactly the sorts of problems you’re trying to prevent.

Obviously, the best way to handle concerns about your children’s money management skills is to teach them the lessons you’ve learned throughout your lifetime. But if doing that doesn’t allay your fears, then having a trust in place to provide additional protection is a good way to backstop your kids from their own financial mistakes.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Read the original article at DailyFinance.com

Study: More Money Never Stops Buying More Happiness


Read the original article at DailyFinance.com

Filed under: , ,

Happiness and wealth
Alamy

Another salvo in the ongoing debate over whether money buys happiness: New research out of the Brookings Institution claims there is no ceiling above which additional wealth stops contributing to people’s sense of well-being.

The authors are Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economists at the University of Michigan, and their primary foil is Richard Easterlin, who in 1974 proposed that increasing average income in a country is not associated with rising happiness — a notion that came to be called the Easterlin Paradox.

In cross-country comparisons, Easterlin found that the average reported national happiness level did not vary significantly with national per capita income. In addition, although the United States saw its per capita income rise from 1946 to 1970, there was no accompanying trend in the average reported happiness level, which actually declined during the 1960s.

Easterlin’s thesis was influential, sparking lots of subsequent inquiry in the field of “happiness economics.” Stevenson and Wolfers first challenged it in 2008, arguing that a review of “recent data on a broader array of countries” established “a clear positive link between average levels of subjective well-being and GDP per capita across countries.” They also found “no evidence of a satiation point beyond which wealthier countries have no further increases in subjective well-being,” and reported that economic growth is in fact associated with rising happiness.

Sponsored Links

Since then, Stevenson entered public service, working as chief economist at the Bureau of Labor under former Secretary Hilda Solis. Now she and Wolfers are taking another shot at the Easterlin Paradox in a paper titled “Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of Satiation?” Their conclusion: Easterlin had it all wrong. (Although, in fairness, he didn’t have access to as much data as they do.) “The relationship between well-being and income is roughly linear-log and does not diminish as incomes rise,” Stevenson and Wolfers contend. “If there is a satiation point, we are yet to reach it.”

The authors discuss a “modified-Easterlin hypothesis” — the idea that a link exists between income and well-being among the world’s poor, but that the correlation levels off or disappears above a certain income threshold. The so-called satiation point, at which rising income stops matching increased happiness across countries, has been identified as falling between $8,000 and $25,000 by other scholars.

Stevenson and Wolfers are having none of it. They say there is an association between income and happiness among the rich similar to that found among the poor, and that this link holds “in roughly equal measure” for cross-national comparisons between rich countries and poor ones. The two graphs below summarize their findings:
more money more happiness

Here, income increases in rich countries — those with per capita GDP above $15,000 — are actually associated with a steeper rise in life satisfaction.

more money more happiness

And here, although different countries display different slopes, in no nation does the money-happiness relationship disappear as income increases. The association appears instead to hold in roughly equal measure. (The scale is logarithmic; each mark on the horizontal axis denotes a doubling of income.) There is, in other words, no satiation point.

The authors acknowledge an “interesting” 2010 study which found that, in the United States, people who earn more than $75,000 do not seem to be happier than those who earn just less than that. But they believe that this result was based on “very different measures of well-being.”

More on Money and Happiness

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Read the original article at DailyFinance.com

Middle Class America: More Anxious Than Aspirational


Read the original article at DailyFinance.com

Filed under: Family Money, Personal Finance, EconomyGetty Images
The core of the middle class belief system is that anything is attainable through hard work, whether it’s a good education, home ownership or a healthy retirement fund. But that mentality…

Read the original article at DailyFinance.com

You’re Rich! 5 Strategies for Staying That Way


Read the original article at DailyFinance.com

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , ,


Alamy

Most people believe that striking it rich will instantly solve all their financial problems forever. Yet as rich people know all too well, it can be just as hard to hang onto your wealth as it was to earn it in the first place.

There are countless stories of lottery winners, high-paid professional athletes, and celebrities showing that the trip from rags to riches often proves to be a round-trip back to rags.

If you have aspirations to get rich in the future or are fortunate enough to already be well off, there are steps you can take to avoid becoming another rags-to-riches-to-rags story. It mostly boils down to protecting your money from five common fortune killers.

Challenge 1: Fight Off the IRS.

The threat: High-income individuals pay the highest rates on their income taxes. Moreover, after you die, the IRS will be waiting to collect their share from your heirs, with estate tax rates currently as high as 40 percent for those with assets worth more than $5.25 million.

The solution: Take advantage of tax-favored retirement accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s to shelter income from tax. In addition, consult an estate-planning attorney who can help you structure your legal affairs to minimize the amount of estate tax you’ll owe. A good pro can steer you toward a combination of current gifts and complex financial strategies that will get as much of your money as possible to your loved ones.

Challenge 2: Steer Clear of Legal Liabilities and Fortune Hunters.

The threat: The richer you are, the more you have to lose from a potential lawsuit. Simple incidents like car accidents or household slips and falls can turn into a search for a target with deep pockets.

The solution: Be sure that you have adequate insurance coverage to handle the full extent of any damage award. At a minimum, be sure your auto policy gives you more than the legal minimum coverage for your state, and look at your homeowners’ policy limits to make sure they’re adequate. In addition, consider an umbrella liability policy to cover additional extraordinary claims.

Challenge 3: Don’t Be Tempted by Exotic Investments.

The threat: Rich people often get access to high-risk investments that offer the promise of even greater wealth. All too often, though, these investment opportunities turn out to be overhyped or even fraudulent, resulting in big losses.

Sponsored Links

The solution: Trying to get richer is a hard habit to break, even for the wealthy. But if you have enough money to meet all your needs, it doesn’t pay to take big risks with your portfolio. Rein in your risk-taking and give yourself a core of safe investments that will provide for your financial needs. If you have money left over and can afford to lose it, then dabbling in high-risk opportunities can let you stay excited about your investments without putting your lifestyle in jeopardy.

Challenge 4: Pay Off Those IOUs.

The threat: The way many people get wealthy is by borrowing money cheaply and making a bigger profit on it. Yet rather than paying down their debt once they strike it rich, successful people often keep using the same strategies to find even more wealth, taking out loans on their newly acquired assets and putting their entire fortunes at risk.

The solution: Reorganizing your finances once you’re well off is essential to avoid losing everything you’ve gained. By paying down debt and establishing a baseline of wealth below which even the worst-case scenarios won’t take you, you’ll avoid the trap of using too much leverage and suffering big losses as a result.

Challenge 5: Plan to Live Forever — or at Least to Stick Around for a Long While.

The threat: With life expectancies longer than ever and medical costs skyrocketing, even the well-off can outlive their money and end up spending all their assets on nursing homes and hospital care in their old age. Even the more basic living expenses often rise after you retire, and if you overspend early in retirement, you can end up in a downward spiral and run out of money.

The solution: A combination of strategies can help you preserve at least a baseline of income no matter what the future brings. Long-term care insurance specifically addresses nursing-home and home-health care costs, while buying an immediate annuity converts a lump sum of wealth into regular monthly income that’s guaranteed to last the rest of your life.

Don’t Blow It

As hard as it is to get rich, staying rich is no easier. But by taking these simple steps, you’ll put yourself in the best position to hang onto your wealth as long as you can.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Read the original article at DailyFinance.com

Study: America’s Richest 7% Got Richer During Recovery


Read the original article at DailyFinance.com

Filed under: , , , ,

Rich Americans wealth Gap - Getty Images
Getty Images

By PAULINE JELINEK

WASHINGTON — The richest Americans got richer during the first two years of the economic recovery while average net worth declined for the other 93 percent of U.S. households, says a report released Tuesday.

The upper 7 percent of households owned 63 percent of the nation’s total household wealth in 2011, up from 56 percent in 2009, said the report from the Pew Research Center, which analyzed new Census Bureau data released last month.

The main reason for the widening wealth gap is that affluent households typically own stocks and other financial holdings that increased in value, while the less wealthy tend to have more of their assets in their homes, which haven’t rebounded from the plunge in home values, the report said.

Sponsored Links

Tuesday’s report is the latest to point up financial inequality that has been growing among Americans for decades, a development that helped fuel the Occupy Wall Street protests.

A September Census Bureau report on income found that the highest-earning 20 percent of households earned more than half of all income the previous year, the biggest share in records kept since 1967. A 2011 Congressional Budget Office report said incomes for the richest 1 percent soared 275 percent between 1979 and 2007 while increasing just under 40 percent for the middle 60 percent of Americans.

Other details of Tuesday’s new report:

  • Overall, the wealth of American households rose by $5 trillion, or 14 percent, during the period to $40.2 trillion in 2011 from $35.2 trillion in 2009. Household wealth is the sum of all assets such as a home, car and stocks, minus the sum of all debts.
  • The average net worth of households in the upper 7 percent of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28 percent, while that of households in the lower 93 percent dropped by 4 percent. That is, the mean wealth of the 8 million households in the more affluent group rose to an estimated $3.2 million from an estimated $2.5 million while that of the 111 million households in the less affluent group fell to roughly $134,000 from $140,000.
  • The upper 7 percent were the households with a net worth above $836,033 and the 93 percent represented households whose worth was at or below that. Not all households among the 93 percent saw a decline in net worth, but the average amount declined for that group.
  • On an individual household basis, the average wealth of households in the more affluent group was almost 24 times that of those in the less affluent group in 2011. At the start of the recovery in 2009, that ratio was less than 18 to 1.
  • During the study period, Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index rose by 34 percent, while the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller index for home prices fell by 5 percent.

%Gallery-179542%

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Read the original article at DailyFinance.com