Wealth Actually

Covering the issues that affect business, entrepreneurship, wealth, trusteeship and culture.

Wealth Actually is a business podcast hosted by Frazer Rice, with 214 episodes on record and a Required Pod Score of 80.

Frazer Rice hosts Wealth Actually, a business show with 214 episodes published.

Our AI reads these to draft pitches. Use them as grounding for a pitch that cites a real guest and a specific topic.

• 

  Wealth Actually

  Algorithms, AI, and the Attention Economy

  Sep 24, 202631 min

  DAVID PAKMAN — political commentator, YouTube host, and author of the new book Pay Attention — joins me to talk about Algorithms, AI, and the Attention Economy. We break down how attention became the core commodity of the modern economy, why algorithms reward outrage over nuance, and what happens when AI starts cloning creators without their consent. David walks through the real story of “The Daniel Carter Show,” a YouTube channel that used AI voice-cloning to impersonate him and was algorithmically recommended to his own audience. From there, the conversation covers why right-wing messaging has a structural advantage on algorithmic platforms, what “behavioral surplus” means and how platforms monetize it, and the media-literacy habits families should be teaching the next generation before handing over unrestricted social media access. https://youtu.be/RTy2vuw7oe8 We also discuss anonymity and accountability online, why the “calm middle” is checking out of social media, and a simple “media diet” framework for staying informed without getting consumed. https://www.amazon.com/Pay-Attention-Algorithms-Suppressing-Rewiring/dp/0063569809/ https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ti3d6FvXAmgwqX1h4pMQQ?si=x8cwV2-DQNewJJX9yM6Vpw Themes Why attention is the defining commodity of the digital economy How “rented ground” platforms (YouTube, TikTok, podcasts) shape what creators can say The real story behind an AI deepfake impersonating David Pakman “Behavioral surplus”: how platforms monetize what you don’t even realize about yourself A practical media-diet framework — and how to talk to kids and aging parents about safe media use AI’s Impact on Video Timestamped Show Notes / Chapters 00:00 — Cold open: “You just have to learn how to play the game” — David on the political right’s platform advantage 00:15 — Wealth Actually intro & disclaimer 00:40 — Introducing David Pakman and today’s topic: algorithms, attention, and responsible media consumption 00:59 — David’s new book Pay Attention: why he wrote it and the “confessional” behind-the-curtain angle 02:38 — Attention as the “lingua franca” of the modern economy 03:25 — Creating content on “rented ground”: YouTube, TikTok, and podcasting platforms as landlords with no clear lease 04:44 — How Facebook’s shift from chronological feeds to algorithmic “For You” feeds rewired the entire incentive system 06:36 — Why boring-but-important topics (like housing policy) need an emotional hook to break through 07:37 — What the political right does better on these platforms — and why it’s about style, not substance 08:01 — The COVID vaccine messaging case study: fear and scapegoating vs. accurate-but-boring nuance 10:10 — From the traditional GOP to the “Trump party”: the John McCain/POW moment as an inflection point 11:05 — The pre-Trump roots of modern right-wing messaging (AM/low-power FM religious radio, Rush Limbaugh) — and the recent press-corps ban of CNN, Politico, and MSNBC from the White House briefing room 12:08 — Why the “calm middle” checks out of social media, and how outrage drives engagement 12:40 — The trap of over-weighting vocal-minority feedback: “98% of my Twitter replies are anti-social screeds” 14:29 — Online anonymity, accountability, and Jonathan Haidt’s real-identity proposal 14:55 — David’s own experiment: requiring a real email address cut toxic messages by 95–99% 16:10 — AI and deepfakes: the danger of synthetic content built on real people’s data and personalities 16:44 — The “Daniel Carter Show”: how an AI voice clone of David was algorithmically pushed to his own audience 18:59 — “Behavioral surplus” — how platforms monetize the gap between what you say and how you actually behave 21:31 — David’s media-diet “food pyramid”: proactive, vetted sources as the staple; algorithmic scrolling as junk food 24:09 — Advising families and next generations on safer, smarter media habits 25:17 — David’s own household rules on kids, screens, and delaying unrestricted social media access 27:12 — The financial-literacy parallel: media literacy as a life skill that should be taught early 27:58 — The media-literacy pyramid — and the Pew Research finding that most Americans (across party lines) struggle to tell fact from opinion 29:10 — The AI risk multiplier: outsourcing critical thinking to algorithms 29:32 — Where to find Pay Attention and follow David Pakman 30:19 — Closing thanks Transcript [00:00] “So I actually think that from a political standpoint, if what people are trying to do is use these platforms to get the ideas they believe in out, you just have to learn how to play the game. I don’t think there really is any other solution on the political side.” — David Pakman [00:15] [Show Intro] Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast, the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators that will give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at WealthActually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is not investment, legal, or tax advice. It does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests. David Pakman has a multimillion person following and an outsized presence with his online political talk show. He knows a lot about how the algorithms work across platforms like YouTube. We’re gonna talk a lot about that and also how to responsibly consume media in this day and age [00:56] Frazer Rice: David Pakman, thanks for coming on. [00:58] David Pakman: Thank you. [00:59] Frazer Rice: You’ve got a new book out. Pay Attention. By the time this podcast launches, it will be fully out and about on Amazon and wherever else everybody gets books. Tell us a little bit, just briefly, from the book writing process, your major voice in media, and what got you writing on this topic? [01:18] David Pakman: Well, there’s a confessional aspect to the book — just kind of explaining the compromises as a content creator that I have to make. And I say “have to” in the context of, if I want this to be my full-time job, if I wanna succeed at it, there are compromises that have to be made, as is the case in most jobs. So one aspect of the book is kind of pulling back the curtain a little bit. The other aspect is about best practices at the individual level, when so much of what we come to believe is true — and sometimes isn’t — is mediated by these digital platforms that are algorithmically delivering content in a way that is not impartial. It’s so important to understand why we are fed the things we are fed rather than other things, as a starting point for having conversations about what we want the world to look like. And then I also have a political interest in this — as someone on the political left, I think the political right naturally benefits from the way these algorithms work, not because of anything special they’ve done, but from their communication style. So if the political left wants to succeed — which I think it does, at least it claims to — it has to better learn how to conduct itself on these platforms. We’ll dive into that in a second. [02:38] Frazer Rice: One thing in your book — and I think generally that you talk about — is the commodity of attention, and how that has become really the lingua franca of the modern economy. Maybe dive into that a little bit about why that has become the case. [02:55] David Pakman: Tell me from which perspective do you want me to talk about it? ‘Cause that could go in a bunch of directions. [03:00] Frazer Rice: Well, I think the main thing is to say: if people are sort of used to oil or plastics or gold being a commodity, the idea of attention really driving, in many ways, economic decisions or allocation decisions around productivity — that seems to be something that’s a little bit more nuanced in the last, certainly five years, but maybe even back the last 10 or 15. [03:25] David Pakman: Well, I think that conversation kind of starts with understanding incentives. I create content on what I describe as “rented ground” — YouTube, TikTok, podcasting platforms — all of these platforms are basically lending me space, for as long as it’s at their pleasure to do so, to publish my content. And they’re landlords that don’t really give me a clear lease that tells me what I’m allowed to do and expected to do. I kind of have to figure it out by doing it. Their incentive is to keep users on the platform as long as possible — the longer users are there, the more money the platform makes. So when we look at the content we get from these platforms, it’s not because the content is true that we’re shown it. It’s not because the content makes society better or makes us better citizens. We’re shown the content that the algorithm determines is most likely to keep us on the platform. That’s really the starting point. One of the critical changes: I don’t know how early you were on Facebook, but at the start, when I was in college, if you were friends with 20 people, your home feed was a chronological feed of what your friends posted. Very simple — if you looked on Saturday, went back Sunday and scrolled, at some point you’d hit the last thing you saw Saturday, and you were kind of done. There was a clear break point — “okay, I’m caught up, I’m getting off Facebook.” That’s a real problem for a platform that wants to keep you on there as long as possible. So eventually Facebook and Twitter switched to an algorithmically recommended feed. TikTok calls it the “For You” page, and it’s just the default. What that does is show you content not in chronological order, but based on what keeps you watching. [05:52] Frazer Rice: At a much, much smaller scale than you do, I get frustrated oftentimes saying, I’m putting out things that I think are interesting and good that get a good response from a narrow set of people. But if I were Sydney Sweeney or a dancing bear and able to proliferate content in those terms, I’m sure it would be a lot more, I guess, metrically successful in terms of eyeballs and duration. And it sounds like as you go through and create your content, and you get the tools YouTube gives you — retention curve and things like that — that shapes, in many ways, not just the content but the delivery from your end. [06:36] David Pakman: I try to limit the degree to which it shapes the content, but it certainly shapes the delivery. If you take a topic like housing — extraordinarily important, because everybody needs a place to live, and it interacts between municipal, state, and federal law — how do we talk about housing in a way that’s interesting? Definitely not starting with zoning or building permits and regulations and Section 8. There has to be some emotional core to it. One of the ways the political left can more successfully address that: “Do we agree that if you work full-time somewhere, you should be able to afford to live in that same place rather than commute an hour away?” That gets to the emotional core, and then we fill in the “boring stuff.” So the way I try to say it is — we’re thinking about presentation style, not about ignoring important issues. [07:37] Frazer Rice: So as we start to think about left and right, and who’s — let’s call it — good at the platform and good at what’s happening, and maybe less good: what does the right wing have as an advantage in this space that the left wing doesn’t? And I’d go so far as to say the left wing’s experience in traditional media isn’t translating over into this new way of communicating. [08:01] David Pakman: Yeah, that second part is really important. I want to make clear — I’m not making value judgments here, just trying to analyze what is. One of the things right-wing messaging over the last couple of decades in the U.S. has done very well: number one, pithiness and simplicity, which naturally work better, especially in short-form, low-attention-span formats; generating anger or fear as an immediate visceral response, in a much better way than the political left does; and often implying — or sometimes overtly naming — the scapegoats, enemies, and villains we should be pointing to. I’ll give an example — and I know some people on the right will say “that’s not what I believe,” totally fine, but we’re talking at scale. Imagine the COVID vaccine messaging: there was a period where you had people like Tucker Carlson and others saying “this vaccine has killed millions of people.” It’s extraordinarily short. It makes people afraid — “wow, I could have been one of those millions.” It makes people angry — “who did that to us?” And it creates villains: was it Dr. Fauci? Was it Biden? Even though Trump was taking credit for the vaccines when convenient, then it became less convenient — but put that aside. It creates villains and scapegoats out of pharmaceutical companies. It happens to be completely untrue, but it naturally does really well on these platforms because of those characteristics. Now compare a message like: “It would be great if this vaccine prevented transmission — it’s not great at that, but it does keep people, for the most part, alive and out of the hospital. It’s also safe. It might make your arm hurt, you might feel flu-like for a couple days.” It’s long. I’m explaining. There’s no obvious person to be angry at. There’s no particular reason to share what I’m saying. So aside from the truth of any of this, that second message just doesn’t do as well by the incentive structure of these platforms. [10:10] Frazer Rice: Back on the Republican side for just a second — maybe not “Republican,” but right-wing. I get back to an example where the Republican party I grew up watching changed and turned into more of the Trump party. The messaging and mode of messaging — I can almost pinpoint a spot: when Trump went after John McCain and basically said, “I don’t want my war heroes to [have been] captured.” [10:40] David Pakman: Exactly. [10:41] Frazer Rice: And I looked at that and said, “well, game over for Trump.” It didn’t happen that way — he swept aside a whole party, and then his — let’s call it Roy Cohn-inspired — way of communicating took over. Is that really the right-wing component, or is there something more GOP-oriented, or a combination that gives them an advantage? [11:05] David Pakman: A lot of this stuff predates Trump. In my first book, I tell the story of how a lot of modern Republican messaging, even before Trump, came from the right wing picking up AM and low-power FM radio licenses early and putting religious content out. Churches were very early to AM and low-power radio — and eventually that led to Rush Limbaugh. The origins of this communication style are older than Trump. Now, I think you’re right that Trump changed it — he went much more populist in his messaging, and ultimately became significantly more authoritarian. As we’re recording this, CNN, Politico, and MSNBC were just banned from the White House press briefing room by the administration. George W. Bush wouldn’t have done that. So there’s definitely a significant change there — but the style, if not the substance, really predates Trump by several decades. [12:08] Frazer Rice: So as we get back to how the economics of this work — ultimately the platforms have to make money. They have to get the eyeballs, and then the attention beyond the eyeballs. We talked about how outrage drives acquisition and retention. What makes the “calm middle” close the app and move on, out of fatigue, I think? Does that make sense to you, or do you analyze it differently? [12:40] David Pakman: Yeah, I don’t know — to the extent the “calm middle” exists on social media, they’re still there, but underrepresented in participating. This is tough for me as a creator: I may be motivated to look at the feedback I see online, but I have to remember that represents a tiny portion of my audience. I’ve been on the internet for decades and maybe left 10 comments in my life, never written into a show — I have to remember I’m not hearing from most people. If I look at my Twitter replies, 98% of them are anti-social screeds — the kind that would get you fired or blacklisted from your social circle if you behaved that way in real life. That’s one of the really pernicious effects of these platforms: they narrow the scope of topics in the discourse, because a lot of stuff doesn’t do well; they generate disproportionately negative reactions to differences that, if we met in person, would probably feel far smaller; and they make people think disagreement is inherently uncomfortable, when it doesn’t have to be. I’m both Jewish and Argentinian — two cultures very much known for arguing and debating politics and religion all the time, and then going back to “how’d the brisket come out?” I think the way we engage in these conversations online makes people believe disagreement is so uncomfortable that we need to wall ourselves off from anyone with a different view — and that’s a dangerous impact. [14:29] Frazer Rice: Where do you come out on quasi-anonymity when people engage online? If you have a Twitter account that isn’t quickly traceable back to your actual self, I assume it unlocks fiery opinions that people would otherwise feel accountable for. Is there a world where that accountability shows up more than it does now? Jonathan Haidt has put out a number of ideas— [14:55] David Pakman: —as to how he’d change the way people exist and engage online. One thing he said is there really should be no fully anonymous users — that doesn’t mean you post under your real name, but the platform has to know who you really are. Even that would change the level of accountability people feel. On my own website, I used to have a contact form that just checked the email field for something that looked like an email address — so “abc@123.com” would go through. When we changed it to require you to actually send a real email from a real address, the volume of angry, toxic messages dropped at least 95%, if not 99%. If you’re really motivated you can make a Hotmail account just to write to me, but most people won’t — most people are lazy. Just adding that layer of a traceable email address totally changed people’s behavior. There’s a lot to that idea. [16:10] Frazer Rice: Let’s talk a little bit about AI — the robots creating content under the auspices of somebody’s identity. I just did a podcast with some estate planners who talked about the idea that Facebook, et cetera, are going to have the tools to generate comments and responses out of people’s personalities even though they may be dead 10 years prior. The danger of generative AI using the data underpinning different users’ personalities — how do you relate to and diagnose that risk? [16:44] David Pakman: Well, it’s sort of the last section of the book. For creators, it’s a huge risk. We just dealt, over the last week, with a YouTube channel called “The Daniel Carter Show.” If you looked at it, there was a guy who loo

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Wealth Actually

  AI, Digital Identity, and Estate Planning

  Sep 15, 202626 min

  What happens to your voice, image and online accounts after you die? In this episode of Wealth Actually, I welcome back NATALIA PARKER and TATYANA THURSTON of DEXIT to discuss digital identity and estate planning in the age of AI. https://youtu.be/MdnUcekE-08 The issue is bigger than recovering a password. An executor may have to decide whether to keep a book on sale, preserve a podcast, close a social media account or respond to an AI-generated version of the person who died. Those decisions can put income, reputation and family wishes in conflict. We discuss how to build a digital-asset inventory, document instructions for online accounts, protect against deepfake scams and think through the use of your name, image, likeness and voice. The practical question: does your estate plan give the next person enough information to make these decisions? What we cover Digital estate planning: Why books, podcasts, photographs, recordings and online accounts belong in the planning conversation. Instructions, not just an inventory: What an executor needs to know about the assets, the platforms and what you want done with each account. Deepfake fraud: Why a familiar face or voice should not replace verification when money or sensitive information is involved. AI after death: The questions raised by avatars, simulated social media activity and the reuse of a person’s creative work. Fiduciary judgment: How executors and trustees may have to weigh commercial value against reputation and the emotional impact on a family. A technology component: Why Natalia and Tatyana argue that technology planning belongs alongside wealth, tax and estate planning. Episode timestamps Timestamps refer to the supplied episode audio, including the opening preview and introduction. 00:00 Preview and introduction 00:52 Why AI belongs in the estate-planning conversation 03:36 Name, image and likeness beyond celebrities 04:56 Platform access, ownership and closing accounts 06:54 Deepfake fraud and verifying money transfers 08:48 Building a digital defense strategy 10:22 Digital-asset inventories and consent to AI recreation 13:15 Facebook, posthumous posting and the ethics of AI 15:46 Avatar businesses and the digital afterlife 18:50 Robin Williams and restrictions on likeness 21:02 Executors, trustees and the emotional cost to families 23:10 Adding a technology component to the estate plan 23:53 Where to find DEXIT and closing thoughts About the guests Natalia Parker and Tatyana Thurston are the co-founders of DEXIT, a digital succession-planning business. DEXIT works with clients, wealth advisors and estate planners on plans for online assets and accounts. ( DEXIT founder profile ; DEXIT ) Resources and related episodes DEXIT: Learn about the guests’ work at dexitplan.com . Our earlier conversation: Digital Assets Estate Planning with Natalia Parker and Tatyana Thurston covers digital inheritance, account access and planning for executors. Related Wealth Actually episode: Technology and Estate Planning explores digital tools for estate-planning work. Questions from the episode What should a digital-asset inventory include? In this conversation, we discuss online accounts, publishing platforms, books, podcasts, images, recordings and intellectual property. The emphasis is on pairing the inventory with instructions about what should be preserved, closed or considered for continued use. What should I decide about an AI version of myself? The guests suggest documenting whether you want your voice, image or recordings used to recreate you digitally after death. They also discuss the tension between those wishes, an executor’s decisions and the family’s reaction to the result. Why is this an issue for people who are not celebrities? Our discussion includes family photographs, personal accounts, recordings and unpublished creative work. Their importance may be emotional rather than commercial, which is why the conversation extends beyond celebrity estates. What is the first planning conversation to have? Start with what exists, what matters to you and what you want done with it. The next question is who will have to carry out those instructions and whether they have a usable roadmap. Clarification on the Meta discussion The opening preview and the discussion around 13:15 refer to Meta’s patent for simulating a user’s social media activity, including after death. In February 2026, a Meta spokesperson told Business Insider, “We have no plans to move forward with this example”; the report distinguishes the patent from a decision to implement the technology. ( Business Insider ) The transcript below preserves the conversation as recorded. This clarification is separate from the speakers’ remarks. Transcript This transcript has been lightly edited for readability, removing filler words and repeated starts while preserving the substance of the conversation. Speaker timestamps are approximate navigation aids; examples and legal or technical statements reflect the discussion, not independently verified advice. [00:00] Tatyana Thurston: Facebook in 2060, they’ll have way more deceased user accounts than live user accounts. And Facebook needs to monetize that. It takes up space in their servers, and they’ve actually recently patented the right to use the content that has been posted by deceased users. And they will be reposting as if they were still around. [00:26] Announcer: Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast, the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators that will give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at wealthactually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is not investment, legal, nor tax advice. It does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or the guests. [00:52] Frazer Rice: Natalia, Tatyana, welcome back. [00:54] Natalia Parker: Thank you for having us. [00:55] Tatyana Thurston: Thanks for having us. [00:56] Frazer Rice: Well, our last discussion actually engendered a lot of feedback from people who, if they were stuck in the executor role or in the trustee role, I thought it was very helpful in terms of laying out the roles and responsibilities and what you have to do to keep yourself and the estates safe. I thought we’d talk a little bit today about the intersection of technology, which hits close to home to me. I’m a big user of AI and really helped move things along for clients that way. But for me, I have a lot of IP as well. [01:29] Frazer Rice: I’ve got podcasts, I’ve got books, I’ve got all sorts of images, et cetera. And there’s an AI component to some of that as well. Maybe take us through a little bit about how you think about preparing someone who has to preside over somebody else’s IP, their name, image, likeness, and that type of thing as a broader scope of issues as they get prepared going on this journey. [01:57] Natalia Parker: Yes. First of all, yes, you do have a lot. And right now, your executors will have to know which platforms you’re using. And they have to know what you would like to do with those accounts. Do you want to keep your book open for readers and keep collecting money? Do you want your podcast to stop podcasting? Everything has to be written down somewhere. And then you have to have a plan for each one of them. We had a case where we had to close their Amazon book account. That was difficult because there were several authors. [02:37] Frazer Rice: Oh, yikes. So a lot of cooks in the kitchen, and all of them have an opinion on what they want to do with it. [02:45] Natalia Parker: Yes. So that’s where the DEXIT plan comes in. [02:52] Frazer Rice: In terms of getting your arms around what it means to have digital assets nowadays, a lot of people, we talked before about social media accounts, images, maybe even voice recordings, et cetera, that may not be commercial, but they’re personal and important to them. And as we all know, AI is using every bit of data to train their LLMs and all the other things that they have at play to make their AI agents more effective. What is the state of the art as far as either using or protecting your own digital presence if you don’t want to be a part of AI, or how do you responsibly be engaged with it? [03:36] Tatyana Thurston: I think it depends on where the name, image, and likeness is being used and in what capacity. For example, we have kids today as young as in high school, and they have a social media presence. They’re gaining followers in their teens, and maybe their goal is to be a professional football player. All those platforms hold their data and their videos and their name. And maybe they’re making money from it even at a young age. [04:07] Tatyana Thurston: So even estate planning isn’t just for folks who are older. It could even start as early as young kids because they’re on platforms. Those are platforms which are public. The public platforms is a ripe source for scammers to take your name, image, and likeness and capitalize it in another way. So there’s a source of truth that some people are trying to do, especially celebrities. A lot of celebrities now are actually creating avatars of themselves so that the true representation of themselves is on record. It’s actually really interesting, but that’s part of preserving their digital presence online. [04:56] Frazer Rice: And to circle back a little bit to what we were talking about in the previous episode, when you’re intersecting with these platforms, usually the social media platforms, the Facebooks, the Twitters, the Instagrams, et cetera. Step one, obviously, is to catalog exactly where you are, which is its own full-time job in many ways. But then what exactly do you have on there? It’s images, it’s quotes, it’s things like that. How do you intersect with these companies to not only get the terms of service figured out and get things pointed in the right direction ownership-wise, but even establishing what it is that you own or what they own or how things are held? [05:37] Natalia Parker: Yes, it’s very difficult because with Meta especially, they will hold the data to death. You cannot erase everything from Meta permanently. You can close the account and delete samples, but everything, it’s almost impossible. And you are not even talking to customer service, there’s no real person, you’re talking to AI. [06:01] Frazer Rice: Right. [06:02] Natalia Parker: Which doesn’t really care. [06:05] Frazer Rice: No, there’s no human element when you’re talking to Meta. I dealt with something where we had to deal with them, and it was like a hostage exchange. You had to hold up a piece of paper with the person to say that you exist and that there’s identification. And essentially I had to use back channels to get to somebody to try to move it up the line to fix the issue, and it was not a pleasing experience. So I’m sure magnified times a hundred, you kind of get to it where an executor has to do all of that, it just gets that much more complicated. [06:36] Natalia Parker: Yes, but at the same time, it’s very easy to create a new account and post something which will harm the family. And extort and use the account for scamming people out of money and information, everything. [06:54] Tatyana Thurston: I just have a story to go with that. There’s a company, Arup, it’s an engineering firm. And this is just to show you that deepfakes have come a long way. And they’re very professional looking. Arup is a company, and out of their Hong Kong office, there was a Zoom call just like this. The call was from the CFO in the UK. And the person in Hong Kong thought indeed that that was the CFO of the company. Unfortunately, a wire of 25.6 million dollars was made and lost right out of the company account because it was not being able to be verified through the online exchanges. [07:39] Tatyana Thurston: So it’s so realistic, AI has accelerated all the technology that it looks so real that the real thing for families is that they really need to have a code word, or they need to actually be sure who they’re talking to online is who they’re actually talking to, even though they may sound like someone from their family or look like someone they know. [08:02] Frazer Rice: Working for a financial group here, we get clients occasionally who complain about two-factor authentication and callbacks and making sure that we deal with real people and so on. And anytime I hear anybody complain that it’s not quite as convenient as they’d like it to be, I said, I’ll tell you what’s a lot less convenient. And that is to see minus 25 million in your bank account and somehow it made its way to Montenegro or Nigeria, and tracking that down, that’ll be inconvenient. So point taken on that, where good processes around movements of money, movements of information, et cetera, are a really good idea. [08:46] Tatyana Thurston: Absolutely. [08:47] Natalia Parker: Yes, I agree. [08:49] Frazer Rice: So from a defense strategy perspective for name, image, likeness, or dealing with AI, or this broader implication of an electronic world out there, what are the component parts that you think are important? [09:03] Tatyana Thurston: So I think there’s a part of it that is the educational part for clients, that there is this ability for scamming, and especially high net worth clients. The education piece I think is really important that they understand that when they are on social media, they are training those LLMs and they are in public view. [09:26] Tatyana Thurston: So closing out those accounts and making that conversation happen so that they understand that the risk is minimized as long as they’re not out there in public, having a plan of action is important. And of course categorizing those accounts because it’s very easy to open them, it’s a lot harder to close them. And then you also have to remember what’s on there. [09:48] Tatyana Thurston: If it’s something you use all the time, it’s very easily remembered. But if it’s something you opened once, probably is not that important to you. So it’s a very individualized plan that needs to happen to protect the identity. And some families, just like those in Hollywood, are trying to establish a ground zero. This is who I am, this is what I’ve done, this is what I’ve accomplished, this is my life. They can record these things so that there is a ground level of to who that person was originally. [10:22] Frazer Rice: From my perspective, we have a playbook for clients that really lists out a balance sheet of assets, financial assets, property, maybe if they have collectibles of a certain heft, that’s listed there. So maybe what you’re suggesting too, and maybe Natalia, you can talk to this, is the idea of putting together the same type of inventory or playbook of these different digital assets either at the copyright level or ownership level, but also at the account level so that there’s a bit of a roadmap for the people who have to make decisions about these things well after you’re gone. [10:54] Natalia Parker: Yes, you are correct because right now right of publicity laws exist just in a few states. And what we do in the DEXIT plan, we ask specifically, do you give a permission for your AI resurrection after your death, basically, to use your name and likeness, and to use your voice memos, your audio, your videos, to recreate you as a digital avatar. And if it is written down somewhere in a will, at least the executor will know if it is possible or not. It doesn’t mean that it will go all well because with the Scott Adams case, you know that he gave a permission that he could be used as an AI avatar. Yet his estate objected after some accounts started posting. [11:49] Frazer Rice: What was the resolution of that? Or is it still ongoing? [11:52] Natalia Parker: It’s still ongoing. [11:53] Frazer Rice: So in your opinion, you’ve got the wishes of the person who died, and then you’ve got the executor and then the trustees. You’ve got somebody who had a really monetizable presence. So I guess the issue would be something in the neighborhood of, on one hand you’ve got his wishes, on the other hand you’ve got the economically intelligent way to steward this asset so that you reduce risk of besmirchment or something like that. Any ideas on how that’s going to go? And maybe that’s just such an interesting point of law that we’ll follow that with great interest. [12:30] Natalia Parker: Yes, we don’t know yet because it depends. I know that New York has right of publicity, but again, it protects just economic kind of side, not the emotional or dignitary side of estate and the family life. So for them they felt that avatar didn’t represent him specifically the way he was. And I don’t know if it is true or not. I cannot tell you. I didn’t know the guy. [13:02] Frazer Rice: I’m sure whatever avatar I think is pleasing to me would probably, for everybody who knows me, it’s probably quite a bit different from what they think too. So point taken there. And Tatyana, your point. [13:15] Tatyana Thurston: Circling back with social media, Facebook has, in 2060 they’ll have way more deceased user accounts than live user accounts. And Facebook needs to monetize that. It takes up space in their servers, and they’ve actually recently patented the right to use the content that has been posted by deceased users, and they will be reposting as if they were still around. So there are some ethics questions that come up with that. But the fact that they even patented it should make somebody think twice about what’s going to happen in the future and what do you want to do with these accounts. [14:00] Frazer Rice: So let me think this through here. So they patented essentially probably some predictive model of what the deceased person would have posted based on past posts, and then the data that they have would allow them to engage with news that’s come out recently. And so then they could create additional media based on an algorithm that was built now sometime in the future. Scary stuff. [14:28] Tatyana Thurston: Yep. Precisely. [14:29] Natalia Parker: Yes, but it is changing, and the AI, we do not build AI with ethics in mind. So AI doesn’t care. AI has a goal to fulfill, it will fulfill that purpose and to get to his goal in any case, it doesn’t have consciousness like we do. [14:49] Frazer Rice: I guess I saw something where I remember it was one of Bill Simmons’s, and he’s a sports media person, but he also has a podcast called The Rewatchables around movies. And basically they took Roger Ebert and all of his different movie reviews, and they predict and say what he would have reviewed, he’s been dead for a long time, what he would think about The Avengers or certain movies that came out after he died. And that’s embroiled a lot of different people on things. [15:24] Frazer Rice: So that’s probably an immediate example of something right there where he’s dead, we don’t know what he would have thought of it or if he would have changed his mind or anything like that. But there’s a whole new concept of media and data coming out that has the label or moniker of somebody with credibility, but we’ll have no way of knowing whether they would have been a part of it or not. [15:47] Tatyana Thurston: Yeah, there&#8217

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Wealth Actually

  250 Years of American Compounding with Meb Faber

  Aug 18, 202632 min

  Fire the Whole Investment Team: Meb Faber on 250 Years of American Compounding and Why CalPERS Can’t Beat a 60/40 allocation https://youtu.be/9lBYkG4J2sY A dollar invested in the U.S. stock market in 1800 is worth roughly $200 million today, and Meb Faber says the giant pension funds paid to beat that kind of compounding usually can’t. In this episode of Wealth Actually , Frazer Rice talks with Meb Faber , co-founder and CIO of Cambria Investment Management and host of The Meb Faber Show , about his new coffee-table book Investing in America: The Rise of a 250-Year Bull Market , the shareholder yield thesis behind Cambria’s ETF lineup, and his long-running public campaign arguing that CalPERS and other giant institutional pools routinely fail to beat a simple, low-cost buy-and-hold portfolio. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4WmnPm3GN8jwQtJuCVV9XG?si=nLLcz8y8RSuydORA5_ZHGQ Key Takeaways America is, in Faber’s words, the greatest compounding machine in history. He puts a dollar invested in U.S. stocks in 1800 at roughly $200 million today — a number he uses to reframe how clients should think about staying invested through wars, depressions, and pandemics. The book’s origin story starts with meme stocks. Faber says COVID pulled a new generation of retail investors into the market through gamified trading apps, and he wanted to hand them a historically grounded alternative to day-trading and zero-day options. Diversification is older than the country itself. Faber traces the concept back to 15th- and 16th-century joint-stock voyages — the Mayflower and the Virginia Company among them — where spreading capital across many risky expeditions let “merchant adventurers” survive when any single ship was lost. Shareholder yield, not dividend yield, is Cambria’s core factor. Since the S&P 500’s dividend yield now sits near an all-time low of 1.04%, Faber argues the real signal is cash dividends plus net buybacks — net of the dilution from stock-based compensation that quietly erodes shareholders’ ownership every year. Faber’s CalPERS critique boils down to one line: “the returns are not bad, they’re just not good.” He’s built an entire body of work, including Cambria’s ENDW endowment-style ETF, arguing that giant pools with virtually unlimited access to managers still can’t consistently beat a disciplined global 60/40. Complexity is often the enemy, not the edge. Faber contrasts investing with almost every other field of expertise: hiring the best doctor or coach nearly always helps, but hiring the most sophisticated (and expensive) money manager frequently doesn’t. Illiquidity has a way of showing up at the worst possible time. Faber points to endowments getting caught upside down in 2008–2009 and to more recent leveraged blowups as the same lesson repeating: over-lever a portfolio and you’re out of chips at the poker table. The real accountability gap is career incentives, not investment theory. Faber contrasts Yale, which gets a pass for strong long-term results, with Harvard’s endowment, which he says has underperformed for two decades without anyone losing their job over it — a dynamic he says maps directly onto UHNW family governance. Timestamps [00:00] Cold open — CalPERS CIOs vs. UK prime ministers [00:29] Show open and disclaimer [00:54] Welcome: Meb Faber, Cambria, and the new book [02:07] The $76 price tag and the 1776 joke [03:13] Genesis of Investing in America : COVID, meme stocks, and joint-stock voyages [06:33] The most surprising find: Ben Franklin’s “Mind Your Business” motto [09:09] Argentina vs. the U.S. — what actually drove American exceptionalism [12:47] Cambria today: the shareholder yield thesis [17:46] Why politicians target buybacks instead of stock-based comp [20:54] The CalPERS critique begins [21:34] The Ivy Portfolio , the ENDW endowment ETF, and year-one results [25:45] The Nevada pension comparison and the liquidity-complexity pushback [26:56] Institutional blowups, Harvard’s endowment dysfunction, and misaligned incentives [29:36] The “anti-Switzerland of asset management” bit [31:16] Close: where to find Meb, Cambria, and the book Pull Quotes “No, no, no, no, Frazer — it is $76, in honor of 1776.” — Meb Faber “A dollar would be worth roughly $200 million today… despite wars and depressions and pandemics and everything else terrible that’s happened in the history of the world, this relentless compounding is such a fun story.” — Meb Faber “There are dividend funds in the U.S. today… whose actual dividend yield is lower than their management fee. A negative net dividend yield — an astonishing statistic in 2026.” — Meb Faber “Who’s had more turnover in the past 10 years — CalPERS CIOs or UK prime ministers? Both totally dysfunctional. I think CalPERS has a slight edge, but it’s close.” — Meb Faber “I’m the anti-Switzerland of asset management.” — Meb Faber About the Guest Meb Faber is co-founder, CEO, and Chief Investment Officer of Cambria Investment Management , an independent, privately owned advisory firm built around quantitative asset management and alternative investment strategies ( BusinessWire ). He hosts The Meb Faber Show , one of the most widely followed investing podcasts, and is the author of eight books, including The Ivy Portfolio , Global Asset Allocation , Global Value , Shareholder Yield , and now Investing in America: The Rise of a 250-Year Bull Market — his first coffee-table book, released to coincide with the U.S. semiquincentennial ( Curzio Research ). Proceeds from the book go to charities that fund investment accounts for Americans born in the country. A ninth book, The Awesome Portfolio , is slated for release on September 8, 2026 ( Meb Faber on X ). Contact Meb Faber & Cambria Cambria Investment Management: cambriainvestments.com Cambria Funds: cambriafunds.com Meb’s blog, podcast & research: mebfaber.com The Meb Faber Show: themebfabershow.com Twitter/X: @MebFaber Book — Investing in America : available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and signed via Pages bookstore in Manhattan Beach, CA ( Acquirer’s Multiple ) Cambria Funds Mentioned Shareholder Yield suite (SYLD, FYLD, EYLD, plus small-cap and large-cap variants) — cash dividends plus net buybacks plus net debt reduction, divided by market cap ( MarketWatch ) GVAL — Global Value ETF screening the cheapest quartile of roughly 45 country markets by long-term valuation ( Cambria — GVAL ) TAIL / FAIL — U.S. and global ex-U.S. tail-risk ETFs pairing short-term Treasuries with a rolling ladder of out-of-the-money S&P 500 puts ( Cambria — TAIL ) Trinity Portfolio (TRTY) — roughly half buy-and-hold, half trend-following across a basket of other Cambria funds ( Cambria — Trinity Portfolio ) ENDW — Cambria’s endowment-style ETF, discussed on the show as roughly $150–180 million at launch and referenced later in conversation as having grown toward roughly $5 billion in assets with more than 100,000 investors ( MebFaber.com ) The CalPERS Critique — Further Reading 9 Institutions Can’t Beat a Basic Buy-and-Hold Allocation — MebFaber.com How California’s $450B Pension Fund Misses the Basics of Investing — YouTube Should a Robot Be Managing CalPERS’ Portfolio? — MebFaber.com, 2015 Index Funds vs. Ivy League — MarketWatch/Barron’s Streetwise CalPERS: America’s Misled and Misleading Pension Leader — Retired Public Employees Association CalPERS Section II Performance Tables (2026) — CalPERS.ca.gov Reducing the Noise of AI Investing – FrazerRice.com Frequently Asked Questions How much would a dollar invested in the U.S. stock market in 1800 be worth today? Meb Faber says roughly $200 million, using the figure to illustrate how relentless compounding has powered through wars, depressions, and pandemics over the country’s history. It’s an illustrative, back-of-envelope estimate rather than a precise index calculation, since standardized stock indexes didn’t exist in 1800. Why is Meb Faber’s new book priced at $76? It’s a nod to 1776 and the country’s founding, timed to the U.S. semiquincentennial. All proceeds go to charities that fund investment accounts for Americans born in the country. What is shareholder yield, and how is it different from dividend yield? Shareholder yield is cash dividends plus net stock buybacks (net of new share issuance, particularly from stock-based compensation), divided by market cap. Faber argues it captures real capital return to shareholders better than dividend yield alone, especially now that the S&P 500’s dividend yield sits near an all-time low of about 1.04% and share buybacks have outpaced dividends every year since the late 1990s. What is Meb Faber’s argument against CalPERS and other large pension funds? Faber’s recurring claim is “the returns are not bad, they’re just not good” — that giant institutional pools with access to virtually any manager on the planet still fail to consistently beat a simple, low-cost, diversified buy-and-hold portfolio, once fees and complexity are accounted for. Cambria launched an endowment-style ETF (ENDW) partly to make this a live, ongoing comparison rather than a hypothetical one. What is Cambria’s endowment-style ETF and how does it compare to institutions like CalPERS? ENDW replicates a Yale/Swensen-style endowment allocation — global stocks, global bonds, and real assets like gold, TIPS, and REITs — in a low-cost ETF with an all-in expense under 25 basis points. Faber uses it as a running, real-time benchmark against actual endowment and pension performance reported each fiscal year. Why does Meb Faber say complexity is often the enemy in investing? Unlike most fields, where more resources and the best available experts reliably produce better outcomes, Faber argues that in investing, more complexity and more access to exotic managers frequently doesn’t translate into better returns net of fees — and often just adds cost and illiquidity risk. What lesson does Meb Faber draw from institutional blowups and the 2008–2009 crisis? Endowments that mark their portfolios only once a year got caught badly offsides in 2008–2009, with illiquid positions falling even further than public markets. Faber sees the same pattern recur whenever a fund over-levers and gets forced out of the game — a basic failure of position sizing and situational awareness that keeps repeating at the highest levels of finance. Full Transcript [00:00] Cold Open (produced VO): I said, who’s had more turnover in the past 10 years — CalPERS CIOs or UK Prime Ministers? Both totally dysfunctional. And I think CalPERS has a slight edge, but it’s close. Meb Faber suggested that CalPERS should fire its entire investment team, and that complexity has become a major headwind to their ability to generate returns. Find out more on this episode of Wealth Actually. We’re also going to talk about Meb’s new book, which argues that America is one of the greatest compounding machines in the history of capitalism. [00:29] Show Open (produced VO): Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast — the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators who give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at WealthActually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is not investment, legal, or tax advice. It does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guest. [00:54] Frazer Rice: Welcome back. Meb Faber is on the show. He founded Cambria Investment Management, which is a $4 billion ETF group. He also has The Meb Faber Show and does a lot of different writing. He’s famous for being on Twitter and taking on CalPERS. But most importantly, he has a new book out talking about America as a great compounding machine. It’s a lot of fun to have him on. Welcome aboard, Meb. [01:16] Meb Faber: My man, great to be here. Frazer Rice: Oh, thank you for being on. I thank you beforehand for including a piece of my writing in one of your old compendiums on best investment writing. I’ve never forgotten that, so thank you again. Meb Faber: Well, good job making the cut. Frazer Rice: Yeah, right, exactly. I passed the audition. Seen you a few times on The Idea Farm here and there over the years. Meb Faber: Yep. As I tell people with my girlfriend, I met expectations in my recent review, so we’re onto the next year. Look, key to life, Frazer — investors, we’re in a bull market, everyone expects 15% returns forever. Key to investing in life: just low expectations. That’s it. Set your expectations low, and you’ll be pleasantly surprised every day. Don’t lose principal over time — that’ll get you pretty far in life. [02:07] Frazer Rice: So anyway, you’ve got a new book out too, which I thought was pretty cool. I love the fact that you priced it at $17.76 and really focused on the— Meb Faber: No, no, no, no, Frazer — it is $76, in honor of 1776. Now to be clear, we don’t make any money on this book. We’re donating all the proceeds to the Invest America charities that fund accounts for Americans born in this country — a wonderful charity, big supporters of it. Frazer Rice: But yes, in honor of the country’s founding. This is why we have you all to make sure I get that stuff right. But the concept of America as the best compounding machine ever — I think that’s really interesting. First of all, what prompted you to get involved with putting this book together? You’ve written before — seems like you’ve been busy with other stuff, of course — but then you came back and decided this was a good topic to take on. What was the genesis of the book? [03:13] Meb Faber: Yeah, so this is my eighth book, and the first coffee-table book we’ve ever done. People were saying, “What the hell, $76? Are you guys crazy?” Look — this is a beautiful 200-page book. There’s probably 70 pictures, charts, tables. And the concept is in the subtitle: Investing in America: The Rise of a 250-Year Bull Market. And the origin story goes back to COVID. Nobody had anything to do — sports stopped, you couldn’t go to the beach. So people were sitting around, and Americans — look, they’re gamblers, they’re risk-takers, we know that. And I said, we can’t do anything about that. So this entire generation of young people turned their attention to the stock market, and we got meme stocks. Today that’s evolved into prediction markets and zero-day options and all sorts of other nonsense. We wanted to grab those young people and say, “No, you don’t understand — the real story is better than any of this. You don’t have to day-trade. You don’t have to bet against the casino and lose.” So we said, let’s do this history since the founding of our republic — what it would have looked like if you could invest from 1800. And the compounding math is so fantastical it seems wrong. A dollar invested in 1800 — and yes, I know there were no indexes back then, chill out, people — but just to be instructive, a dollar would be worth roughly $200 million today. The point is you get on this train despite wars and depressions and pandemics and everything else terrible that’s happened in the history of the world — despite all that, this relentless compounding is such a fun story. On top of that — the founding of our country, and a lot of people don’t know this: when you learn the history of America in elementary school, you learn about the immigration, particularly from Europe, people escaping religious persecution, seeking a better life through freedom — the Mayflower, all that. All true. But what they leave out is that most of these explorations and voyages were funded by companies. Back then they called them joint-stock companies; today we call them companies, LPs, C-corporations — corps, right, partnerships. Because the reality, going back to the 15th century, is that if you’re sending a ship to the New World to find gold, that ship could sink, or there were pirates — you’d lose all your money. So this brilliant invention we call diversification today has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. These companies said, it’s risky to invest in one voyage, but you can own part of a company that invests in 10 or 20 or 30 of these, and maybe one of them will hit. That sounds like venture capital. They used to call these people “adventurers” or merchant adventurers. Hudson’s Bay, the Mayflower voyage, the Virginia Company — many of them failed, many didn’t make money, but some made spectacular profits. It’s a fun origin story that hasn’t really been told about these early entrepreneurs and risk-takers, who honestly still permeate our culture to this day. [06:33] Frazer Rice: In putting the book together, what was the most surprising chart you found that you ended up including? [06:41] Meb Faber: There’s a lot of fun historical statistics in the book. One of my favorite parts of writing it was buying — I don’t know, 50 or 100 financial history books I’d never heard of, books on financial crises globally from various markets. We just had an author on the podcast talking about the global financial crisis of 1873, and on and on — you learn so much. One I love telling people, especially young people — my son or his friends — is: look at a dollar bill or a quarter, and I ask, what’s the motto on there? Well, that used to not be the motto. Ben Franklin, back in the day, the motto on the Fugio cent used to say “Mind Your Business” — which I thought was amazing. And it’s not “mind your business, kid” in the nosy sense — it’s more like, mind your (own) business. It had a sundial on it, too: time is short, mind your business. I thought, let’s go back to that — such a great motto. A bunch of little fun stories, but to me one of the big takeaways of the book is: as a public stock investor, the news is always negative. You turn on CNBC, Bloomberg, pull up your phone, social media — negative, negative, negative, negative. It’s hard to sustain conviction. Look, we haven’t been through a big bear market in 17 years, but when you’re down 30%, 40%, 50%, and you’re reading “Lehman’s going under” and all these crazy headlines — the book lets you zoom out. Each chapter zooms into a decade and then zooms back out and says, okay, 1930s, Great Depression, you lost 80% in stocks — but guess what, here’s your return over the next 50 years. Even over a 20-year period, large-cap stocks become less volatile than bonds, which is an amazing takeaway. Being able to zoom out and say, “I’m a long-term investor, why am I even concerning myself with day-to-day negativity” — that shift in mindset is really important, because when you zoom out, you can barely even see 1987 on a long-term chart of the stock market. I think it’s a useful thing to send to clients, particularly at year-end if you’re a financial advisor. We’ve got big discounts if you buy 50 books online — send it to clients and say, hey, stop going crazy, this too shall pass. [09:09] Frazer Rice: One thing I always have in my mind — I don’t remember if this is exactly true, but Argentina and the US were on roughly equal economic footing back around 1900. When you were putting this together, did you see anything in the US’s political climate or structure — the things that gave it

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Wealth Actually

  Founder Succession Roadblocks

  Aug 4, 202630 min

  When the Title Changes but the Authority Doesn’t: Family Business Succession with Paul Edelman Most family business succession plans fail not because the legal structure is wrong, but because authority never actually moves.  In this episode of  Wealth Actually , Frazer Rice talks with  Paul Edelman, PhD  of  Edelman & Associates  about how to tell the difference between a real handoff and a cosmetic one. Edelman unbundles succession into six separate questions, explains the three behavioral tells that reveal who is really in charge, draws a hard line between a legitimate safeguard and an open-ended veto, and makes the case that agreement from a family is not the same thing as ownership of a decision. https://youtu.be/p2KCsftvM74 Key Takeaways Succession is not one decision — it is at least six.  Who gets the economic benefit of ownership, who votes the shares, who appoints and removes directors, who runs operations, who receives what information, and who retains informal influence after formal authority ends. Watch behavior, not titles.  Compensation changes and org charts are easy to read and easy to fake. How decisions actually get made — and whether they get reversed — is the real signal. Three tells that authority hasn’t moved:  the next management layer still routes real decisions to the founder; the successor has never had a disputed call stand; and in a genuine crisis, the founder is the one who walks into the room. Speed is not the test.  A five-year transition can be disciplined development; a six-month transition can be denial with a deadline. The test is whether milestones and readiness criteria are observable and stable, or whether the goalposts keep moving. “Not ready” is not a concern — it is a placeholder.  If a founder cannot restate it in specific, testable terms, the obstacle is emotional rather than substantive, and it needs a different path. Advisor impatience often masquerades as clarity.  When you catch yourself thinking “why can’t they just do this,” ask whose timeline is actually being served — the family’s, or your need to close the file. A safeguard is bounded; a veto is not.  Reserve specific extraordinary decisions with defined scope, thresholds, triggers, evidence, and duration. “The successor is in charge unless the founder feels uncomfortable” is an undefined operational veto. Agreement is not ownership.  A family can be outvoted and formally agree while owning nothing. Ownership comes from having weighed the trade-offs and the implications of each option in the room. Timestamps [00:00]  Cold open — why “he’s just not ready” is untestable [01:05]  Welcome: founders at the sell-or-transfer crossroads [01:48]  Unbundling succession into six separate questions [02:23]  Running a diagnostic on where the founder actually is [03:00]  Watch behavior, not titles — and what the CFO tells you [04:00]  Decision reversals and the second-guessing test [05:00]  The crisis test: who owns the emergency [05:36]  Fast handoff vs. staged succession and prolonged ambiguity [06:10]  Milestones that show it’s working — and goalposts that keep moving [08:00]  Inside vs. outside successors and family dynamics [08:54]  Competing heirs and the outside CEO as bridge or avoidance [09:47]  Reading resistance: making “not ready” addressable [11:10]  The advisory ecosystem’s frustration with stalled progress [12:16]  Whose timeline is being served? [13:31]  Push, pause, or reframe — the art and science of advising [15:00]  When to change the forum, the decision rights, or bring in a facilitator [15:36]  Safeguards vs. vetoes and the trap doors founders build [17:37]  Board composition: independence vs. familiarity [20:00]  Restructuring boards to create seats for new expertise [20:54]  Income-dependent family members vs. growth-minded owners [21:34]  Agreement is not ownership: dividends vs. reinvestment [23:31]  Matching complexity to the outcomes you need [25:00]  Communicating decisions to people who weren’t in the room [25:26]  How to reach Paul Edelman [25:46]  The Edelman–Shenkman trilogy for estate planning attorneys [29:19]  Close Pull Quotes “If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story.” — Paul Edelman “To have authority when things are going well is fine. But the person who owns the crisis is the one who’s really owning the leadership.” — Paul Edelman “A safeguard should be limited, explicit, and connected to some extraordinary risk. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse any old ordinary decision.” — Paul Edelman “Just because there’s an agreement in name doesn’t mean there’s ownership of the decision.” — Paul Edelman About the Guest Paul Edelman, PhD  is a coach, facilitator, and mentor at  Edelman & Associates , where he works with family enterprise and family office leaders on decisions that cannot be delegated. He holds a PhD in developmental psychology from Harvard University and a BS in physics from MIT, and serves as faculty at  The UHNW Institute  and the Bertarelli Institute for Family Entrepreneurship at Babson College. Contact Paul Edelman Email:  paul@edelmancoaching.com Website:  edelmancoaching.com  (contact form on site) LinkedIn:  linkedin.com/in/pauledelman The Edelman & Shenkman Trilogy Paul and  Martin M. “Marty” Shenkman , CPA, MBA, JD, PFS, AEP (Distinguished), of  Shenkman Tietz , have written a three-part series aimed at estate planning attorneys: Simplicity and its trade-offs  —  When Clients Ask for a Simple Estate Plan ,  WealthManagement.com / Trusts & Estates , July 8, 2026. The language of estate planning conversations  — published in  Steve Leimberg’s LISI Estate Planning Newsletter  (subscriber archive). Beneficiary education  — forthcoming October 2026, expected in  Estate Planning . Paul’s running author archive:  wealthmanagement.com/author/paul-edelman More from Paul Edelman Approval Is Not Ownership: Helping Family Office Investment Decisions Hold Under Pressure  —  Family Wealth Report , July 1, 2026 How Families Can Override Emotions to Make Better Judgments  —  Family Business Magazine , April 9, 2026 Lessons For Families And Their Advisors From A Hit TV Series  —  Family Wealth Report , February 24, 2026 Stronger Family Bonds and Better Strategic Decisions  —  FFI Practitioner , January 20, 2026 Frequently Asked Questions What are the six questions a family business succession decision should be broken into? Who receives the economic benefit of ownership; who votes the shares; who appoints and removes directors; who runs the company operationally; who receives what information; and who continues to hold influence after formal authority ends. Bundling these into a single “handoff” decision is what creates ambiguity. How can you tell whether authority has really transferred to a successor? Watch three behaviors. First, where the next management layer goes for real decisions — employees are excellent at reading where power actually lives. Second, whether the successor has ever made a call the founder disagreed with and had it stand. Third, the crisis test: when a covenant breaks or a key employee leaves, who walks into the room and who gets briefed afterward. Is a fast succession better than a gradual one? Speed itself is not the test. A five-year transition can represent disciplined development, and a six-month transition can be avoidance followed by an arbitrary deadline. What matters is whether responsibility moves against observable milestones, whether the successor learns from outcomes instead of being rescued, and whether readiness criteria stay fixed rather than shifting each time the successor advances. What is the difference between a safeguard and a veto? A safeguard is limited, explicit, and tied to extraordinary risk — selling the company, debt above a threshold, issuing new equity, changing core strategy, or related-party transactions — with defined scope, thresholds, process, duration, trigger, evidence, and who decides. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse ordinary decisions. If the founder can intervene whenever they feel uncomfortable, that is an undefined operational veto. How should advisors handle their own frustration with a stalled family? Notice that impatience often feels like clarity. When you think “I see exactly what they need to do, why can’t they just do it,” that is often the moment to slow down and ask whose timeline is being served — whether the ambiguity is genuinely damaging the company, or whether the recommendation mainly closes the case and relieves the advisor’s discomfort with uncertainty. What makes an independent director genuinely independent in a family company? The ability to exercise business judgment and fiduciary duty free from undue family influence or loyalty to a particular branch. A director who is the founder’s golfing buddy or tied to one family faction will struggle to deliver the value independence is supposed to provide. Why isn’t agreement good enough? Because agreement in name is not ownership. A family branch can be outvoted, formally accept the outcome, and still feel no responsibility for it. Ownership comes from working through the trade-offs — what each option makes better and worse — so participants can say they helped weigh the considerations even if the result was not their first choice. Full Transcript [00:00] Paul Edelman:  The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like, for example, the most general concern that people will say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It’s not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable. [00:36] Announcer:  Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast, the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators that will give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at wealthactually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests. [01:05] Frazer Rice:  Welcome aboard, Paul. [01:07] Paul Edelman:  Thanks, Frazer. Looking forward to our conversation. [01:09] Frazer Rice:  Well, it’s important because I deal with a bunch of founders and a bunch of other business owners, families, et cetera, that are trying to make sense out of the concept of passing along the business either to the next generation or deciding to sell it, and all sorts of parts of that tough crossroads that everybody has to go through at some point. And that’s really the crux of your practice — to help people with those conversations. [01:34] Paul Edelman:  Yes. [01:35] Frazer Rice:  So when we’re thinking about that and kind of unbundling the decision to pass the business along, when a family wants to talk about that, what are the separate parts of that decision that need to be contemplated? [01:48] Paul Edelman:  Well, I see at least six different questions that need to be separated. One is who receives the economic benefit of ownership in the company. Another is who gets to vote the shares. And a third is who appoints and removes the directors. Then there’s who runs the company from an operational standpoint, and who receives what information. And then, who continues to have influence even though they may no longer have formal authority. [02:23] Frazer Rice:  So once you get into the… it always seems to me to be tough to sort of say, okay, here are six things that have to happen, and that’s a lot for somebody to digest in the course of one or two meetings and get the buy-in from all the different constituencies that are interested in what the business is up to. How do you run a diagnostic to understand where a founder is — or generation one — in their own head space, and understanding what control being passed on looks like in summary form on those six different aspects that you brought up? [03:00] Paul Edelman:  I think the key thing is to watch behavior more than titles. People often pay a lot of attention to when the titles have shifted or compensation shifts, things like that. But they pay less attention to how decisions are being made and whether those decisions get reversed. So when the title has moved but the authority hasn’t moved, you tend to see three different things. First of all, you can see something going on at the next level down in management — not with the founder and successor per se, but with the other executives. You can ask yourself, who do they go to for the real decisions? If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story. [04:00] Paul Edelman:  Employees are excellent at reading where the actual power lives, because they can’t afford to be wrong about that sort of thing. So that’s one clue. Another is to look at decision reversals, or what is more commonly called second-guessing. You want to look for whether the successor has made a call that the founder disagreed with. And if so, did it stand, or did it get reversed? If the company is two years into succession and that’s never happened, it’s possible that the successor is pre-clearing everything with the former CEO and only making decisions that they know will be approved. So in that case, it’s not real authority. And a third situation is what you could call a crisis test. [05:00] Paul Edelman:  So when something genuinely bad happens — there’s a breach of a covenant, or a key employee departs, or a lawsuit — the question is, who do people go to? Who walks into the boardroom and into the decision-making situation, and who ends up getting briefed afterwards? To have authority when things are going well is fine, but the person who owns the crisis is the one who’s really owning the leadership, in a sense. [05:36] Frazer Rice:  So one of the avenues that I think is interesting, that I read in your materials ahead of time, was the idea that a quick succession oftentimes — and maybe not often, but can be — a better avenue in terms of moving the succession forward, as opposed to having a staged succession where a long period of ruminating and decision-making often perpetuates ambiguity, or even confusion, amongst different constituencies both managerially and ownership-wise. [06:10] Paul Edelman:  Speed itself is not the test. You could have a five-year transition that represents disciplined development of the successor, and you could also have a six-month transition that essentially is a denial of what needs to happen, followed by some kind of a deadline. But you certainly don’t want to allow things to drift. If the transition is proceeding gradually, you can tell it’s working if responsibility and authority are moving according to observable milestones. So the successor is making increasingly consequential decisions. They’re learning from the outcomes rather than being rescued by the founder or the prior leader from their mistakes. [07:01] Paul Edelman:  They’re developing important relationships and they’re becoming someone that others rely on. The criteria for readiness also should become clearer over time, and the founder’s involvement should change in ways that are recognizable. So that’s the ideal. But sometimes a gradual transition represents avoidance, and in those cases you see criteria — sometimes people refer to them as the goalposts — that keep moving. And decisions are repeatedly returned to the founder. Also, each step that the successor takes toward greater authority may be followed by a new reason why the founder feels that they’re not ready. So the question that can be asked is: what are the capabilities that the successor is developing, and what specific evidence would demonstrate that? [08:00] Frazer Rice:  When you’re diagnosing what those capabilities are, as part of that diagnosis, if the successor is inside the family versus outside the family, how do you diagnose whether that is a positive or a negative, in addition to maybe the harder skill sets that are being dealt with? [08:29] Paul Edelman:  If the successor is from inside or outside the family, I would say that many of the capabilities needed for leadership are the same. [08:40] Frazer Rice:  Yeah, I was going to say — if you run into situations where a family member is capable skill-wise, but there are dynamics issues that have prevented their succession to the throne, essentially. [08:54] Paul Edelman:  Sometimes there may be a situation in which you have more than one potential successor and they’re in competition with one another, and the family is reluctant to declare a winner. And so one move that can be made in that situation is to essentially bypass the decision by going to the outside to bring in someone. It could be a kind of conflict avoidance mechanism. On the other hand, if no successor is really ready, then sometimes going to the outside can be an interim move. So some companies will hire an external candidate for CEO with the expectation that part of the responsibility will be to develop one of the family members who ultimately may take over. [09:47] Frazer Rice:  And so part of your methodology is to read resistance in the room and understand where those pain points are. How does a founder, or generation one, or the successive generations understand what the resistance is? And how do you help them overcome that? [10:02] Paul Edelman:  The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like — for example, the most general concern that people say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It’s not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable. If you try to do that and you’re unable to, that’s an indication that the concern is less about something specific and addressable, and more about some unpleasant feelings that the founder is experiencing — and that implies a different path for how to address those, or what needs to be done. [11:10] Frazer Rice:  For those of us in, let’s call it the advisory ecosystem — that can be the wealth manager, or the lawyer, or the accountant, the people who help guide the technical succession issues, whether it’s tax planning or trusts and estates or even just the corporate handoff — oftentimes we’re presented with situations that just get muddled, and we look at lack of progress with frustration. How does an advisor deal with that, when the instinct and in a sense the business model is to try to push, to get resolution and to get progress on these types of issues? [12:16] Paul Edelman:  The signal that I watch for is what that impatience feels like to the advisor. Sometimes it feels like clarity. The advisor says to himself, oh, I see exactly what they need to do — why can’t they just do this? And in my experience, that’s often the moment when it’s helpful for the advisor to slow down. Not because the family should be allowed to delay indefinitely, but because the advisor’s own need for resolution may begin to shape what they say and do, a

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Wealth Actually

  Choosing a Trustee: Why Naming Your Kid May Be a Mistake — Marguerite Lorenz

  Jul 28, 202628 min

  Choosing a Trustee: Why Naming Your Kid May Be a Mistake — Marguerite Lorenz Short answer:  Naming your child as trustee, executor, or agent under your power of attorney is the default choice for most American families — and it is frequently the wrong one. In this episode of  Wealth Actually , host Frazer Rice talks with California Licensed Professional Fiduciary and Master Certified Independent Trustee  Marguerite Lorenz  about why roughly two-thirds of American adults still have no estate plan, why the job of a trustee is far more intimate and technical than families expect, and how to decide between a family trustee, a bank or trust company, and an independent professional trustee. https://youtu.be/56bzuORe8YI Episode Overview: Who Will Actually Run Your Plan? Most estate planning conversations stop at the documents. Marguerite Lorenz argues the documents are the easy part. The hard part is  staffing  — deciding who steps in when you can no longer make new decisions, and whether that person can absorb the technical, financial, and emotional weight of the job. Lorenz has served as trustee, executor, agent under power of attorney for finance, and agent for health care for hundreds of families since 2003. She is the author of three books —  Luck or Control? The Life-Improving Power of Estate Planning ,  How to Be a Successful 90-Year-Old , and the newly updated  Ethics for Trustees 2.0  — and she is Vice-Chair of the Independent Trustee Alliance. Her framing line, and the one that should stick with every listener: “If you don’t get your estate plan done, you’re suing your family. You’re making them go to court. And who would want to make anyone else go to court?” — Marguerite Lorenz This is the second time Marguerite has joined the show. Her first appearance covered the mechanics of individual trusteeship: EP.75 — Individual Trusteeship with Marguerite Lorenz. Key Takeaways • Only about a third of American adults have any written estate plan  — and Lorenz argues half of those plans would not actually function when needed. • Professionals are barely better than the public.  When Lorenz polls rooms of attorneys, CPAs, and financial advisors, roughly one-third raise their hands for a complete, up-to-date, ready-to-go plan. • The trustee role is intimate, not administrative.  A trustee sees your paperwork, your bills, your medications, and your bedroom. “Who is going to be the first person in your bedroom when you are no longer able to make new decisions?” • Incapacity, not death, is the long tail.  Many people live for five or six years unable to make new decisions. The trustee’s job often runs during your lifetime, not just after it. • A professional trustee can be temporary.  Lorenz recounts stepping in for a client during cancer treatment, providing a full accounting, and stepping back down when he recovered — then serving again after his death. Would your child step back down? • Estate planning is about preferences, not predictions.  “Our power in estate planning is not prediction, it’s setting our preferences” — and preferences can only be set while you are competent. • Quality of life belongs in the plan.  Not just tax, legal, and financial terms — but how you want to live, where you want to live, and what small things matter (for Lorenz, an international selection of dark chocolate). • Digital assets are now a core trustee problem.  Phones, social accounts, and daily transactions all require someone with access and authority. • A will does nothing while you are alive.  “The will doesn’t operate at all if you go to the hospital and you haven’t granted authority to anyone.” • Cost is usually overestimated.  Both an estate plan and an independent professional trustee typically cost far less than probate court. • Revisit every five years.  Calendar a five-year check-in with your attorney to review law changes, marriages, divorces, births, and deaths. Chapters and Timestamps • [00:00]  Cold open: “If you don’t get your estate plan done, you’re suing your family.” • [00:32]  Welcome back — introducing Marguerite Lorenz, California trustee and author • [01:14]   Luck or Control?  — why fear keeps families from finishing an estate plan • [02:22]  What a full-time trustee actually sees: trustee, executor, agent for finance, agent for health care • [03:49]  Why families default to naming a child — and where that breaks down • [05:00]  The skill set nobody screens for: negotiation, calm, empathy, and grief • [05:40]  Case study: serving as temporary trustee through a client’s cancer treatment — and stepping back down • [07:51]  Why even attorneys need their own attorney: nobody is objective about their own circumstances • [09:09]  The five-year estate plan check-in as a life milestone • [09:39]   How to Be a Successful 90-Year-Old  — living well to the very end • [10:20]  The “black box” problem: privacy, dignity, and care in your own home • [11:54]  Preferences over predictions — planning for your future vulnerable self • [13:40]  Rewriting an advance health care directive after hundreds of hospital bedsides • [16:13]  The statistics: only a third of adults — and only a third of professionals — are actually ready • [17:47]  Frazer’s challenge to advisors: you can’t advise well if you aren’t practicing what you preach • [18:22]  The first question in  Luck or Control? : “Hey professional, do you have your estate plan done?” • [19:21]   Ethics for Trustees 2.0  — what’s new in the updated audio and PDF edition • [20:27]  Family trustee vs. bank trustee vs. independent professional trustee • [21:52]  The looming crisis: the great wealth transfer, incapacity, and digital assets • [24:54]  Documenting the “why” behind hard trustee decisions • [25:23]  Probate courts overrun, bioethics committees, and next-of-kin defaults • [26:54]  Where to find the books, the podcast, and the Independent Trustee Alliance directory About the Guest: Marguerite Lorenz, MCIT, CLPF Marguerite Lorenz is a California Licensed Professional Fiduciary (CLPF #319) and a Master Certified Independent Trustee (MCIT) . She has served as Trustee, Executor, Agent for Finance, and Agent for Health Care for more than 200 families since 2003 as managing partner of Lorenz Private Trustees. Marguerite is Vice-Chair of the Board of the Independent Trustee Alliance, past Chair of the California Professional Fiduciaries Bureau Advisory Committee, and host of the Plan For This podcast. She is the author of Luck or Control? The Life-Improving Power of Estate Planning , How to Be a Successful 90-Year-Old , and Ethics for Trustees 2.0 . About the Host: Frazer Rice Frazer Rice is the author of  Wealth, Actually: Intelligent Decision-Making for the 1%  and host of the  Wealth Actually  podcast, where he interviews experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators on preserving assets and enjoying wealth. Resources and Links Mentioned •PlanForThis.com — Marguerite’s books, the  Plan For This  podcast, and a free First Steps toolkit.  Ethics for Trustees 2.0  is now exclusive to this site (audio + PDF bundled with purchase). •TrusteeAlliance.com — the Independent Trustee Alliance directory for locating certified independent trustees by state. •Marguerite Lorenz on LinkedIn •California Professional Fiduciaries Bureau — state licensing for professional fiduciaries •Related episode: EP.75 — Individual Trusteeship with Marguerite Lorenz •Related episode: What If You Are Named in a Will or Trust? Frequently Asked Questions Should I name my child as trustee? Not automatically. A child understands the family but may lack the technical skill to handle tax, legal, financial, and medical decisions — and may be grieving or in conflict with siblings at the exact moment judgment is required. Marguerite Lorenz notes that a trustee must be a good negotiator, stay calm under pressure, set aside personal feelings, and enforce rules the grantor set. She also raises a test most families never consider: if you recover, would your child voluntarily step back down and hand you a full accounting? What is the difference between a family trustee, a corporate trustee, and an independent trustee? A family trustee is a relative or friend serving in a personal capacity, usually unpaid and untrained. A corporate trustee is a bank or trust company with institutional infrastructure, minimum account sizes, and staff turnover. An independent professional trustee is a licensed or certified individual — like a California Licensed Professional Fiduciary — who serves full-time, carries a succession plan, and can often be engaged at a lower cost than families expect. The Independent Trustee Alliance maintains a national directory of independent trustees. What does a trustee actually do while I am still alive? A trustee acting during incapacity manages assets, accounts for every dollar, handles taxation, pays bills, coordinates care, and increasingly manages digital assets such as phone-based transactions and social media accounts. Lorenz emphasizes that many people live for five or six years unable to make new decisions, so the trustee’s lifetime role is often longer and more demanding than the post-death administration. How often should I update my estate plan? Roughly every five years, or sooner after a major life event such as marriage, divorce, birth, death, a liquidity event, or a change in tax law. Lorenz recommends putting a five-year reminder in your phone to call your attorney and ask what has changed in the law and in your life. What happens if I go to the hospital without an estate plan? The hospital and its bioethics committee will do the best they can and will look for next of kin to make decisions for you — potentially people with whom you have never discussed your personal wishes. A will does not help here, because a will only operates after death. Financial and health care powers of attorney are what grant someone authority while you are alive. Is an estate plan expensive? Usually less than people assume, and materially less than probate court. Lorenz makes the same point about professional trustees: “Independent individual professional trustees cost a lot less than you think also. And you need to ask, because this is your life we’re talking about.” Do financial professionals have their own estate plans? Often not. When Lorenz polls audiences of attorneys, CPAs, and financial advisors, only about a third report having a complete, up-to-date, ready-to-go plan — barely better than the general public. Her challenge to the profession is that clients will increasingly ask advisors directly: “Do you have your estate plan completed?” Pull Quotes “Our power in estate planning is not prediction, it’s really about setting our preferences.” “Who’s going to be the first person in your bedroom when you are no longer able to make new decisions?” “I’m not in charge. I’m a servant-manager.” “Once I get my estate plan done and updated, I don’t think about it anymore. My head space is so clear because everything I was worried about has been thought about, considered, allowed, and put down in writing.” Full Transcript Transcript lightly edited for clarity. Timestamps are approximate. [00:00] Marguerite Lorenz:  You know, if you don’t get your estate plan done, you’re suing your family. You’re making them go to court, right? And who would want to make anyone else go to court? [00:08] Announcer:  Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast, the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators that will give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at wealthactually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is not investment, legal, nor tax advice and does not represent the opinion of the employers of the host or guests. [00:32] Frazer Rice:  Welcome back. Friend of the podcast Marguerite Lorenz is on the podcast this week. She’s a California trustee and has a new book called  Luck or Control?  out. We’re going to talk a little bit about fiduciary matters and what it takes to have good staffing within your estate plan. Welcome back, Marguerite. [00:54] Marguerite Lorenz:  Thank you, Frazer. [00:55] Frazer Rice:  Since the last time you were on, you have a couple of books out and we’ve gotten to see each other a couple of times with the Independent Trustee Alliance. Let’s talk a little bit about the new book that you just published and what you’re trying to do with it. [01:14] Marguerite Lorenz:  So that book is  Luck or Control? The Life-Improving Power of Estate Planning . And I wrote it because I’ve seen hundreds and hundreds of families really struggle with how this is going to get done, and many people don’t get their estate plan done at all because they’re so afraid. They don’t know what to expect, they don’t want to talk about their mortality, they don’t want to have serious conversations with their loved ones. And if we don’t have those conversations, we really lose all control when we need it the most — when that medical crisis happens or when life changes in a big way. [01:52] Frazer Rice:  No question about it. And I went through the book and it’s an important read, because for those people who really have to get their affairs in order and feel stuck for some reason, I think you do a good job of laying out why you need to get unstuck and then how to take a couple of steps to initiate those conversations and get the important things down so that you can then have the deeper conversations that help out later on as you’re structuring things. What part of your experience being a full-time trustee helped to inform all of this? [02:22] Marguerite Lorenz: Well, as a trustee professionally, I’ve met with lots of different families in lots of different circumstances. And for many of them they’ve named me, and so I’m serving in that role. It’s not just trustee; it’s trustee, executor, agent on the power of attorney for finance, and even as agent for health care. And so that’s a very intimate job. It’s a job where you end up seeing someone’s entire life, or as much as you can of another person — their paperwork, how they do things, how they pay their bills, how they live, what medications they take. It’s really very intimate. And I think a lot of us assume that our children know us and they’ll do what we want them to do. But the thing is that it’s very likely you haven’t lived with your children in the same household for decades. And now you’re asking them to come back, drop their life, and come in and be that person for you. Be the person who’s going to protect your privacy, be that person who’s going to protect the way you want to live. And they may disagree with the way you want to live. They may actually have issues with some of the choices that you’ve made or how you’ve proceeded. So now, in addition to having a medical challenge where you’re not able to make new decisions — maybe temporarily, maybe permanently — now you have someone who wants to run the show or actually be in charge. In my job as a professional trustee, I’m not in charge. I’m a servant-manager. I’m really taking the trustor’s wishes and how they’ve structured things and really looking at that to be sure that I can continue it as best I can with all the changes that have occurred. [03:49] Frazer Rice:  One of the things we were talking about before we got on board, and something we’ve discussed generally through the Independent Trustee Alliance, is that people who are asked to serve in those roles usually are family members. And for people who are uninitiated in the field, that seems like an obvious choice, because they’re really trying to put somebody in there who understands the family. But as you and I know, they may not be necessarily qualified to deal with the technicalities of the different roles that we just discussed. But also, the idea of taking on the emotional toll of these new conditions can be something different and unapproachable for many people. [04:30] Marguerite Lorenz:  Well, I think it helps to kind of look at some of those issues. So you might have more than one child. Even if you have an only child, these issues apply. And now you’ve been in the hospital and you’re expecting this person to deal with your tax, legal, financial, and medical decisions. This person has to be a good negotiator. This person has to be calm when there’s issues that arise, and they may have feelings — they may be grieving that things have changed for themselves and in their relationship with you. So I think to be really empathetic and to be really kind and compassionate, we have to get our own stuff in order so that we can really have a good experience for our last days. And again, some of these roles that I’ve served in have been temporary. Let me give you an example. I worked with a gentleman whose wife had passed away because of cancer. She had been gone about two years and he himself was diagnosed with cancer. So he already knew what that might be like, right? She had already had chemotherapy; he was right there with her through all of that experience. Well, now faced with it himself, he said, “In order for me to do this, I don’t have a partner. I need somebody who’s going to deal with the business of my life so that I can focus on my health.” He named me as his trustee. I became active. I reported to him because he was still able to receive those reports. He was certainly mentally able, but physically it was really hard. He was exhausted most of the time. And he was going to grief support for the loss of his wife and going to chemotherapy treatments. So you can imagine just how full his day was. So we’re into this two years. He met a woman at grief support. He was feeling better because the treatment worked, and he decided he wanted to travel the world before he died. And he married this woman, and they were very happy together. And he asked if he could be trustee again. So — I’m a professional trustee. It’s part of my duty to step back and step down when the trustor who wants to be trustee again wants that job back. So I gave him a full report, he had an accounting, he knew exactly what had happened during my term. He went on with his life, and then he passed away and I became trustee again. So I just wanted people to know that it could be temporary. It’s not necessarily a permanent job. Would your child step back down? [07:14] Frazer Rice:  No question. Once in the role, sometimes it’s difficult to get out of it. But you did the right thing in terms of getting an accounting, making sure that your duties stopped when you were told to get off, and then when you were ready to come back on, that those sightlines are very clear. And that’s what comes with talking to a professional like you. You understand those parts so that you’re not having things bleed from one role into another and having liability issues or misunders

  ListenShow Notes

Recent guests on Wealth Actually. Study who booked and why before you pitch.

Based on semantic analysis of episode topics and host coverage, this show is a strong guest fit for executives in:

Industry fit is computed by PitchCentric using vector embeddings of the show's episode catalog.