If your family had generational wealth when did it end?

[Anonymous]

My maternal grandparents wealth remains with my maternal uncle and his sons. At least 6 generations of wealth based on extensive farming property. They are like the BRF - property does not get divide. The sons inherit the wealth and they have not sold the property. Daughters are married off and do not get anything more than a modest dowry. They get married to white collar professional men with capacity to earn adequately and who feel great about marrying daughter of illustrious family. Just like the BRF, the Firm is all about preserving the wealth. The sons also work professional white collar jobs so that they do not touch the generational wealth or squander it away.

my paternal grandfather started from scratch and my dad did not get anything more than an education. My mom made sure that he built a house because she believed (seeing her wealthy family) that real estate as well as agricultural property was the way to prosperity. Our dad gave us an education and got us married. Now in our middle age, we might get some modest amount after we sell his house.

My DH and I, immigrated to US with an education and no money. We too started off with nothing. My kids will get an education and a paid for wedding. We can give them a car each and maybe we will give them some cash gift once we retire etc. The thing is that for my grandfather, father, us, my kids - all of us will have to continue to earn a living. And we have been lucky for at least the past few generations to not face any catastrophic situation - war, crime, extreme weather, pandemic, addiction, slavery, family dysfunction etc - that wiped everything out.

My philosophy is - you should have enough money to at least cover the first level of Maslow's hierarchy of need and get everyone educated so they can grow up and earn a living. We all have walked a tightrope of making prudent decisions and walk on the straight and narrow. We are not risk takers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is generation skipping? How does it work?

You leave significant assets to your grandchildren, giving the assets more time to grow. Used to be able to do stretch IRAs and the like so anyone--not just the very wealthy can do it. Now most set up trusts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My grandparents had a 77M estate but 4 kids. The vast majority went into our family's foundation and each kid (my parents) got $4M (they/we received gifts in the past as well). Grandkids got small amounts to help with down payments/college.

While a $4M inheritance is nothing to sneeze about my grandparents did not want their kids to coast with $15M each (in addition to their savings) since they built the wealth from the ground up.

The family foundation is the most rewarding inheritance we "received.' It is so special to be able to control sizable gifts each year to organizations we love.

With that, the wealth could have been substantial to all but they chose philanthropy. Obviously we will inherit a good amount from my parents but not 15-20M. Is that still generational? TBD.

Yes, yes it is. WTF.

It's one thing for people on this board to say they "feel" middle class at $300k HHI, but gmafb with this reach that a seven figure inheritance over three generations may or may not be generational wealth because you think you should be getting 8 figures. Get bent, seriously.

I have a different take on this case. You give the bulk of your estate to philanthropy because you don't want your kids to coast?? I wonder if the grandparents had any help in building up that sizable estate. You can set up trusts for the kids, whereby the kids have restricted access to the money, and as they age they are granted more access. You don't trust your kids with the $$$ but you trust a philanthropy? Seems off to me, family first.

I never said they didn’t trust the kids/grandkids. My grandparents grew up poor, built multiple businesses and treated us to a fantastic life. There is a massive difference between inheriting $4m and $15m+ from a mental standpoint, regardless if it’s in trust or not.

They provided enough money to make us comfortable but not enough to allow us to coast. They gave us a leg up and most importantly a significant foundation to do good in perpetuity. They always states their wealth was for their community. Without their community they wouldn’t not have become wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My grandparents had a 77M estate but 4 kids. The vast majority went into our family's foundation and each kid (my parents) got $4M (they/we received gifts in the past as well). Grandkids got small amounts to help with down payments/college.

While a $4M inheritance is nothing to sneeze about my grandparents did not want their kids to coast with $15M each (in addition to their savings) since they built the wealth from the ground up.

The family foundation is the most rewarding inheritance we "received.' It is so special to be able to control sizable gifts each year to organizations we love.

With that, the wealth could have been substantial to all but they chose philanthropy. Obviously we will inherit a good amount from my parents but not 15-20M. Is that still generational? TBD.

Imo, they did it right.

[Anonymous]

My mother in law was supposed to inherent but the stepmother passed and the step siblings took it. Good riddence since it was blood money anyhow.

[Anonymous]

My grandfather made it out of nothing (was literally an orphan during the Great Depression), so I guess I'm the third generation and I'm too frugal for it to end with me. I can see my kids blowing everything though, despite my best efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grandfather patented two very profitable things that are still in use today. We should all be filthy rich but he divorced my grandma and remarried. She outlived him and I assume her kids/his stepkids are doing very well.

So it goes.

Np, remarriage w/deep pockets is such a bad idea. My dad remarried at 76 after my mom passed.

This is why I plead with my mother not to die before my father. I know he will marry a gold digger in the name of "propriety." If my father dies before my mom, I know she will never remarry.

Same. My mom would have remained single had she outlived my dad.

My MIL has a longtime companion of her age after FIL passed away but she will not remarry. The difference with widowed men is that they usually prefer younger women who want their own families to ensure a share of the pie.

Women realize that men add work to their lives. Men realize that women do work and make life easier for them.

YES!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My grandparents had a 77M estate but 4 kids. The vast majority went into our family's foundation and each kid (my parents) got $4M (they/we received gifts in the past as well). Grandkids got small amounts to help with down payments/college.

While a $4M inheritance is nothing to sneeze about my grandparents did not want their kids to coast with $15M each (in addition to their savings) since they built the wealth from the ground up.

The family foundation is the most rewarding inheritance we "received.' It is so special to be able to control sizable gifts each year to organizations we love.

With that, the wealth could have been substantial to all but they chose philanthropy. Obviously we will inherit a good amount from my parents but not 15-20M. Is that still generational? TBD.

Yes, yes it is. WTF.

It's one thing for people on this board to say they "feel" middle class at $300k HHI, but gmafb with this reach that a seven figure inheritance over three generations may or may not be generational wealth because you think you should be getting 8 figures. Get bent, seriously.

I have a different take on this case. You give the bulk of your estate to philanthropy because you don't want your kids to coast?? I wonder if the grandparents had any help in building up that sizable estate. You can set up trusts for the kids, whereby the kids have restricted access to the money, and as they age they are granted more access. You don't trust your kids with the $$$ but you trust a philanthropy? Seems off to me, family first.

I never said they didn’t trust the kids/grandkids. My grandparents grew up poor, built multiple businesses and treated us to a fantastic life. There is a massive difference between inheriting $4m and $15m+ from a mental standpoint, regardless if it’s in trust or not.

They provided enough money to make us comfortable but not enough to allow us to coast. They gave us a leg up and most importantly a significant foundation to do good in perpetuity. They always states their wealth was for their community. Without their community they wouldn’t not have become wealthy.

I’m fine with doing whatever with one’s money but in my extended family, this idea that you can make your children grow up to be industrious but comfortable by leaving them just the right amount of money is pretty much a myth. They seem to just become who they’re going to become either way. And I’m not at all sure that some of the “industrious” ones are morally superior to the ones who “coast” by being art teachers or whatever it is you look down on. And I’m not sure they’re happier, either. It just depends on the person.

I would advise anyone with a lot of money to free themselves from the burden of figuring out exactly how much to leave in what way to make your children or grandchildren or great grandchildren do one thing or another. It’s probably out of your hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My grandparents had a 77M estate but 4 kids. The vast majority went into our family's foundation and each kid (my parents) got $4M (they/we received gifts in the past as well). Grandkids got small amounts to help with down payments/college.

While a $4M inheritance is nothing to sneeze about my grandparents did not want their kids to coast with $15M each (in addition to their savings) since they built the wealth from the ground up.

The family foundation is the most rewarding inheritance we "received.' It is so special to be able to control sizable gifts each year to organizations we love.

With that, the wealth could have been substantial to all but they chose philanthropy. Obviously we will inherit a good amount from my parents but not 15-20M. Is that still generational? TBD.

Yes, yes it is. WTF.

It's one thing for people on this board to say they "feel" middle class at $300k HHI, but gmafb with this reach that a seven figure inheritance over three generations may or may not be generational wealth because you think you should be getting 8 figures. Get bent, seriously.

I have a different take on this case. You give the bulk of your estate to philanthropy because you don't want your kids to coast?? I wonder if the grandparents had any help in building up that sizable estate. You can set up trusts for the kids, whereby the kids have restricted access to the money, and as they age they are granted more access. You don't trust your kids with the $$$ but you trust a philanthropy? Seems off to me, family first.

I never said they didn’t trust the kids/grandkids. My grandparents grew up poor, built multiple businesses and treated us to a fantastic life. There is a massive difference between inheriting $4m and $15m+ from a mental standpoint, regardless if it’s in trust or not.

They provided enough money to make us comfortable but not enough to allow us to coast. They gave us a leg up and most importantly a significant foundation to do good in perpetuity. They always states their wealth was for their community. Without their community they wouldn’t not have become wealthy.

I’m fine with doing whatever with one’s money but in my extended family, this idea that you can make your children grow up to be industrious but comfortable by leaving them just the right amount of money is pretty much a myth. They seem to just become who they’re going to become either way. And I’m not at all sure that some of the “industrious” ones are morally superior to the ones who “coast” by being art teachers or whatever it is you look down on. And I’m not sure they’re happier, either. It just depends on the person.

I would advise anyone with a lot of money to free themselves from the burden of figuring out exactly how much to leave in what way to make your children or grandchildren or great grandchildren do one thing or another. It’s probably out of your hands.

Total aside, but I think being an art teacher is potentially an amazing career--for how many students might that teacher be the best moment of their school day? How many people did they impact? How many people were just a little more creative or introspective than they would otherwise be as a result of their efforts? Art teachers end up working with thousands of kids over their careers. I don't have that level of impact on that many people through my work even though I make more money. I would be happy if assets I left enabled someone to pursue a career that was valuable to society but not at their particular moment of living financially well-compensated. That would be a good legacy.

Anyway, I agree with you--trying to control use of money across generations is kind of hard and often pointless. I think some documents associated with trust checks that explain your history and philosophy might have some impact, and an educational trust or 529 plans can be useful if your core value is education.

[Anonymous]

4th generation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

[Anonymous]

My dad came from a wealthy family and something happened where the money was lost to bad investments. I was young so idk what really happened. It was in my grandparents control at the time and seems like the money disappeared right after my grandfather died. No clue really where it went. I was raised MC and am UMC now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

[Anonymous]

Grandparents were wealthy but had 7 children, they all received 1M+ liquid inheritances, plus property (and had private school, fully paid for college and grad school, help buying houses while grandparents were alive). 4/7 of them are wealthy and will provide a similar amount or more to their children, 3 of them squandered it. Of my generation, most of the ones whose parents managed it well are on track to do the same and the others are not. Probably a mix of financial education from parents and actual resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Can you cite the source for that definition please?