Independently Wealthy vs INTERdependently Wealthy

The family business space is a fascinating area because of all the complexities that can arise when you mix business with family. When a business is successful enough to provide the family with not just a job but with significant wealth, things can get even more interesting.

I just finished reading a great book, Strangers in Paradise, by James Grubman, that does a superb job explaining how and why family members from different generations can have such different views about wealth.

The book is worth a read for anyone interested in this subject, whether they are part of a business family or a family with wealth, or advisors to such families. Grubman makes the analogy that those who are not born wealthy, but become wealthy along the way, are like immigrants to a new land.

When those immigrants have children, the children are natives to wealth, and will thus view wealth very differently. The book gives detailed explanations of the different ways that these immigrants make the adjustment to being wealthy, again comparing the journey to that of people who uproot the family and move to a new country.

I recently spent some time with my late father’s sister, asking questions about their childhood and their immigration to Canada, and I can tell you that packing up and moving to another country that you have never even visited can be a terrifying experience, even if you do end up in “paradise”.

One of the things that surpises most people is that wealthy people are not always happier than middle class folks. Money can solve lots of problems, but it can cause just as many, if not more. But few people will feel sorry for those whose problems stem from having too much money.

One of the take-aways for me from readig Strangers in Paradise was Grubman’s use of a new term (for me), which I decided to feature in today’s blog title.

When a family has accumulated significant wealth, and they have decided to keep the wealth together as a family, they need to learn how to get along and figure out how to make decisions together. This is not new to me, or to any regular readers of this blog.

What is new to me is the wonderful term “Interdependently Wealthy”.

Most people have heard the term “independently wealthy”, even if they would not necessarily be able to define it. Just so that we are all on the same page, here is a definition that I just Googled:

Possessing enough wealth that one does not need financial support from another person and does not require income from employment.

So if you have enough wealth that you do not have to rely on anybody else, and you do not need to work, you are independently wealthy, fair enough.

But what about a wealthy family? OK, so maybe they don’t have to work for money, and many families are in the position where the next generation do not have to find a job to pay the bills, and hopefully they can find something productive to devote their lives to (but that is the subject of another blog).

Now let’s look at the part about “does not need financial support from another person”. When the wealth is created, it is very often because of the efforts of one person, and for simplicity’s sake, let’s call him Grandpa.

As long as Grandpa is still alive, things are usually pretty clear, since it is “his” wealth, so he calls all the shots, and few will argue with him.

Once Grandpa is no longer around, and there is not one person, but a number of people who own and control the wealth, I strongly suggest that these people learn to get along.

They are NOT independently wealthy, they have become INTERdependently wealthy.

The difference is huge. Some families have figured out how to make it work. Many other families have great difficulty with the distinction, and unfortunately those are the ones that we hear about the most.

 

/by
,

Transférer son entreprise et son patrimoine ensemble?

Le transfert d’une compagnie d’une génération d’une famille à la suivante est un projet qui fait peur à beaucoup de gens, tant ceux qui font partie de ces familles que les professionnels qui les aident.

Il y a plusieurs choses qui peuvent compliquer la tâche des familles dans ce genre de transfert, surtout puisqu’il consiste en réalité de plusieurs transferts, et que ces transferts varient en ce qui concerne leur début, leur fin, leur durée, et le fait qu’ils peuvent se chevaucher dans le temps ou non.

Je parle ici non seulement de qui fait quoi, mais aussi de qui en profite, quand, et comment. En plus, qui décide, qui contrôle, qui a le droit de faire quoi, qui est responsable, qui doit être consulté avant, qui doit être avisé après, etc.

En grande ligne, il y a le transfert des actions d’une entreprise (en anglais, ownership), et le tranfert de la gérance de la compagnie (management). Plus l’entreprise est petite, plus il est probable que le nombre de personnes impliquées est petit, et plus l’entreprise est grande, plus il y a de monde, ce qui augmente la complexité.

Pour chacune de ces questions, il existe une variété presque infinie de possibilités, même s’il y a des “règles générales” qu’on peut suivre.

Aux États-Unis, la population est assez vaste et la valeur monétaire des entreprises familiales est assez grande qu’il existe un grand nombre de spécialistes qui sont disponibles pour servir ces familles et compagnies, et les avocats et fiscalistes sont très créatifs et les aident avec diverses façons de minimiser leurs impôts en même temps.

L’influence américaine se fait sentir également au Canada anglais, malgré que nous avons (heureusement) moins d’avocats. Au Québec, l’influence se fait sentir beaucoup moins.

De mon point de vue, le Québec est une société distincte à bien des égards, incluant évidemment la langue et la culture, mais aussi par rapport aux façons dont les familles traitent leur héritage d’une génération à l’autre.

Ici, quand on parle de la relève, c’est souvent vu comme une question de ressources humaines de la société, plutôt qu’une question de s’assurer qu’un membre de la famille soit intéressé et capable de remplacer le parent entrepreneur.

Comme exemple, quand j’ai appris que Groupe Relève Québec existait, je me suis intéressé instantanément, et j’étais très surpris d’apprendre que les gens qui se spécialisent dans les entreprises familiales sont qu’une petite minorité du groupe.

Il y a aussi le cas de CAFÉ, (Canadian Association of Family Entreprise) qui existe depuis plus d’une trentaine d’années, mais que depuis bien des années n’a aucune présence au Québec.

Nous avons pourtant beaucoup d’entrepreneurs, et beaucoup de compagnies familiales. C’est peut-être grâce au Groupement des Chefs d’Entreprises et son succès qu’il n’y a plus de place pour CAFÉ?

Il y a déjà eu des efforts pour créer des associations semblable à CAFÉ pour les Québecois, mais leur succès a été questionable. Je sais que HEC et McGill avaient eu le Centre International pour les Familles en Affaires (CIFA), mais ma recherche sur Google me revient avec des liens qui datent des années 2010 à 2012.

Je vois aussi des mentions pour Institut Québecois pour les Familles en Affaires, incluant une nouvelle récente disant que la famille Molson a contribué une somme d’argent pour son soutient.

Si je reviens au titre de ce blogue, je parlais de transfert d’entreprise et de patrimoine, en même temps. Ceci ne veut pas dire que je crois que garder la compagnie dans la famille est toujours la meilleure solution, parce que c’est loin d’être la réalité.

Ce que je préconise, c’est que les propriétaires d’entreprises fassent une bonne analyse et une longue réflection pour voir comment ils vont transférer non seulement la compagnie qu’ils ont créée, mais aussi la valeur de cette entreprise en tant que patrimoine familial pour la génération suivante, si possible ensemble.

Pour moi, il me semble qu’ailleurs c’est beaucoup plus commun et c’est une plus grande priorité qu’ici, et j’aimerais faire partie de l’amélioration chez nous.

 

/by
, ,

Successful Planning: Who Should Be Involved?

“If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail!”

Benjamin Franklin

In no way am I claiming to be smarter than Ben Franklin, but I will take his quote one step further. Franklin was right that planning is very important, but more needs to be added. After all, he died almost 225 years ago.

In the realm of multi-generational family planning, for business families or families of even moderate wealth, it is very important to make sure that you have the right people at the table when it comes time to make the plans.

Let’s look at another great quote (author unknown) that is also very profound. I will give you the backstory in a second.

“Plans that are about us, but don’t include us, are not for us”.

This is a quote that I got from Matt Wesley, a man who I consider to be one of the gurus in helping families with the dynamics of their legacy planning work.

I first heard Matt mention this quote a few months ago during a teleconference presentation for the Purposeful Planning Institute. Then, a few weeks ago while he was co-presenting on another PPI call, an audience member quoted it back to him during the Q & A session.

He thanked the participant and then added a bit more context for those who had missed the original citation. It comes from New Orleans in 2005, post Katrina.

He told us that he got the quote from the work of Margaret Wheatley, who was examining the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. Actually, it was a series of disasters, starting with the hurricane, but then also the fallout from the government’s response, which for many people ended up making things worse instead of better.

So where did Wheatley get the quote? It was spray-painted on the outside of one of the flood-ravaged houses in New Orleans. The disaster of the government response stemmed largely from the fact that they were dictating what would be done, without consulting the people for whom it was to be done.

Anyone can make plans, but you will only know how good your plans are once you get to the implementation stage. If things fall apart then, it may have been due to poor implementation, but then, shouldn’t the implementation have been part of the planning too?

If you are planning how you will help people after a flood, you might want to ask them what they need.

If you are planning what assets you are going to leave to your children, and how they are supposed to work together to manage those assets, you just may want to get them involved during the planning.

Here are some common planning approaches:

  1. Parents and advisors make the plans, children find out after death.

Not great, usually pretty bad, family harmony is an afterthought, plenty of disappointment and lack of preparedness to go around.

  1. Parents and advisors make the plans, and inform the children of the plans as a “fait accompli”.

A little bit better, but only slightly. If the siblings get along alright, hopefully they can work through the details and still want to get together as one big happy family over the holidays every year.

  1. Parents and children (actually former children, now adults!) work together on plans, and decisions are made in the best interests of the entire family. Once they know what they want to accomplish, they THEN engage the advisors to fine-tune the details of HOW they will write it up.

Actually, I said that these were common approaches. The last one is easily the best, but it is not yet common enough.

Hopefully, we are getting closer to the point where parents are satisfied that they have done a good enough job as parents to allow their offspring to have some say in their destiny.

The old “it’s MY money, so I will decide what I am going to do with it” seems so 20th century to me.

 

/by
,

Over-Parenting: Worse than Neglect?

My wife and I were recently discussing a child who plays on a sports team with one of our kids, and at one point I uttered a statement that actually stopped me in my tracks.

The child in question seems to be very immature for their age, especially when it comes to social interaction.

“Terry always acts like such a baby, more like a first grader than a “X”th grader”, my child would say. My wife’s point of view was that the kid’s parents are to blame for this situation.

Our discussion then turned to the fact that the child’s parents are divorced, and so both parents are likely “over-parenting” the kid, to the child’s detriment. That’s when I said,“the kid would be better off if the parents chose to neglect them instead”.

Whoa! Really? Did I just say that?

Did I mean what I said, and could I back it up? Well here is to trying to explain it, at the very least.

What I see with this child, and others in similar situations, is that their parents have always been there to do everything for them, and as a result, the children are incapable of having any kind of a normal relationship with others.

One of the other parents from the team is a second grade teacher, and she said that she witnesses this quite often. Parents are trying so hard to be good parents, and doing so much for their children to “help” them, that the kids soon become unable to do anything for themselves.

We can all probably name a few people that we know who are able to function well in everyday life, and who are what one would call “well adjusted” and self-aware.

We all know people who live more at the other end of the spectrum, people who cannot figure anything out for themselves, cannot make a decision without lots of external input, and go from one unsuccessful life experience to the next.

What do the people in the first group have in common, and what do the people in the second group have in common? What is different about the two groups?

To me, the first group exhibits a certain degree of confidence, independence, self-esteem, and interpersonal ability to get along in life.

The second group is easily flustered, lacks self-esteem, has difficulty in relationships, and is generally unhappy with their lot in life.

Could the parenting that they experienced in their childhood have anything to do with who ends up in which category? (That was a rhetorical question!)

It is very easy to get into the habit of doing things for our kids. This reminds me of times when my kids were much younger and they wanted to “help” me do something, and when pressed for time I would reply, “no thanks, I’ll do it myself” because doing it with their help would actually take longer.

But what about my comment that neglect would be better for the kid. Well, if I could only choose between the two extremes of neglect and severe over-parenting, it would be a tough choice, but neglect might just win out.

Fortunately, nobody needs to make such a stark choice for their children. The key, like with so many things, is balance.

If you let your kids fend for themselves a bit more, but remain there behind the scenes “just in case”, you are probably doing them a favour in the long run.

Learning to let go is not necessarily easy, but it can be learned. We have choices to make, and one of the first ones is to choose to detach ourselves and let our children off of the leash, to go and run around and get dirty and maybe even get hurt.

You will most likely die before your children do. The time to begin to ensure that they will be self-reliant is now.

 

/by