In an article for CNBC, author Jessica Rao quotes Dr. Nancy Molitor, Clinical Psychologist and Public Education Coordinator for the American Psychological Association, as saying “Money is the most taboo, fearful subject that we can encounter as people.” An inability to discuss this taboo subject can have tremendous implications when taken in context of families and their money.
We are all familiar with the term generation gap, but the lack of communication between generations can be very costly from a both a financial and social perspective. The substantial wealth transfer taking place in Canada from parents to children, or from children to parents, makes clear communication between generations more important now than ever, yet the communication is mitigated by this taboo topic of money.
So what am I talking about? Let’s consider Emily, a widower with two children. Emily’s husband Bob passed away a couple years ago, but during his lifetime he amassed a significant estate due to the sale of his composite hockey stick company ten years ago. Emily has two children, John, a Bay street lawyer making $800,000 a year and living in the upscale Toronto Rosedale neighborhood, and Susan, stuck in a bad marriage, who never finished University and married early.
Emily was brought up in an era where you don’t discuss your family assets with your children. John knows he will inherit millions of dollars when mom passes away, but gives it little thought as he is very comfortable and only acknowledges the inheritance in that he does not fully contribute to his RRSP. Susan on the other hand has had a somewhat strained relationship with her mom since her early marriage. Although they are currently on better terms, Susan is too proud to ask her mom for money and she does not think she would receive a warm reception even if she got over her pride and spoke to her mom about her finances. What Emily does not know is that Susan’s husband is a cocaine user and she would like to leave him, but she is concerned about how she could survive. She also would give anything to go back to University to become a social worker, but that is currently just a dream.
Now imagine if everyone felt comfortable discussing money? Those that know Emily, realize that she would give Susan some sort of early inheritance, but she does not want to insult Susan and she is not aware of her husband’s issues and Susan’s dreams. Further imagine you were brought in as a family friend and could open up the intergenerational communication gap. Emily would be thrilled to provide an early inheritance to allow Susan to leave her husband and pay for the legal bills and, with Susan free of her husband, she would have the financial ability to go back to school to pursue her dream of being a social worker.
How is this gap bridged? I can’t answer that question. But I know I have advised clients who have the financial means that they should try and have a heart to heart with their children in respect of their children’s financial needs.
How about the alternative scenario of children who have the means to support less financially secure parents? Sam is a widower. He was a factory worker who scrimped and saved to buy a house and put his two kids through school. Sam does not have enough money to retire and decides to obtain a reverse mortgage on his house such that when he dies, the mortgage owing is deducted from the sale proceeds of the house. This is often a costly form of financing.
Sam is too proud to approach his children about his financial situation. However, if you were able to bridge the intergenerational gap, you would be able to inform Sam that his children, who are both successful, feel that they owe everything to Sam and would be happy to either gift dad some money or provide him a loan at lower interest then the bank so he wouldn’t have to reverse mortgage the house.
The two scenarios above have many variations. However, pride, secrecy, and perceived “grabbing of the family money before the body is cold” prevent any kind of open communication.
I have no magical fix, however, if you are the parent, consider speaking to your children about their financial situations and dreams to see whether you can assist them in realizing those dreams. If you are tight for money in retirement, at minimum let your children know if you are undertaking a reverse mortgage or similar financial arrangement so they can potentially assist you or, at a minimum, understand that your estate has been compromised by a mortgage.
If you are the child in need, have a frank conversation with your parents to let them know your issues so they don’t perceive you to be “money grabbing” and, if you are a successful child with a parent of limited financial resources, offer to help or to pay for your financial advisor to sit down with your parent.
Maple Leaf Rant
Little did I know that when my parents let me stay up late to watch the Toronto Maple Leafs win the Stanley Cup in 1967, that it would be the beginning of a Stanley Cup drought of 43 years and counting.
So when the Maple Leafs hired Brian Burke a couple years ago as general manager, I was pleased. Burke had success with the Anaheim Ducks, seemed to have the sense of humor needed to deal with the Toronto sports media and had an aura that said “Don’t worry, I know what I am doing and I will get it done.”
In my opinion, Burke also arrived at a time that Maple Leaf fans were so worn down by mediocrity and worse, that the Leaf Nation would allow him time to build properly using the draft and astute signings.
However, for some reason, Burke, who I am sure would succeed 8 times out of 10 as a GM, seems to have badly misfired in Toronto; as surprisingly, he, and not the Leaf fans, appears to have limited patience.
Burke’s first puzzling move was signing Martin Gerber late in the 2009 season to bolster a weak goaltending situation. As a fan, I was ecstatic that the goaltending was weak. The Leafs had a chance to get into the lottery for a top pick and poor goaltending may have helped them lose games and achieve a higher draft pick. However, Gerber won several meaningless games for the Leafs that year to move them down to the seventh draft pick. Considering Gerber was then released following the season, his signing was the first perplexing move made by Burke.
The second odd move occurred when Burke started signing veteran free agent defensemen the next fall. Once again, one would have thought he would have traded all the veterans for younger players to build from youth and to ensure a high draft position the following season.
The third and most puzzling move was the trade of two number one draft picks and a second round draft pick for Phil Kessel. One can understand Burke’s thinking in that Kessel was young and his acquisition was like getting a guaranteed number one choice. However, the Leafs gave up three draft picks and if Kessel (a player whose temperament has been questioned) performed well, he would seemingly only help the Leafs to maybe fight for one of the last playoff spots.
Well, we all know that last year, the Leafs did poorly and Boston got the Leafs’ second pick in the draft and it now looks like the Bruins may get another high pick this year. Burke may end up building the Bruins, not the Leafs. Meanwhile, the Leafs only have a few individual players who appear to be useful for the future and no draft pick again in 2011.
The whole direction Burke has taken has been very confusing and disappointing and I now have gone from having confidence to being sceptical that Burke can fix the Maple Leaf mess.
The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide
information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice;
as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific.
Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any
of the information contained in one of the blogs.
