Anyone that has something to do with money and finances is now a Wealth Planner or Wealth Manager/Advisor. In the last installment I plan on doing about players in the trust industry are these "wealth" people.
Trust people were traditionally very weak in finances and investments. Only in the last 30years or so have trustee investment laws evolved to account for the ever changing investment market. Before, trustees were limited to "safe, low risk" investments so investment performance and ability wasn't a big a weakness as it is today. Jurisdictions like Hong Kong are still in the dark ages when it comes to trustee investment laws. Trust people traditionally built the structure to house the investments but now the investment people run it.
So who are these investment people? Now with the financial advisers, it gets a little messy. Like gold-diggers are attracted to old men with heart conditions, this mish-mash of IFAs, independent stock brokers, wealth managers, retirement advisers, financial planners/consultants, financing and forex traders are springing up all over the place trying to capture a piece of the lucrative market. They can be small and local or large and international. They can be ex-Lehman Brothers, they can be fresh grads. Some have even opened up restricted banks. All of them seem to offer advice on wealth protection, succession, estate/probate and will planning and trusts. Now you say that's no different than some of the retail trustee banks and independent trustees out there. True to a certain degree, but the difference is those organisations actually have trust companies and trust licenses and typically end up with the trust. These advisers only yap from the sidelines, they have no trust companies. Their goal is to manage your money, sell you those unit trusts, put you in some product. They couldn't care less about the whats or hows as long as they are the investment manager of the funds.
For those who know they know a little and refer their clients to a trust adviser are commendable (even though they may get a referral commission). I have no problems with those.
Although I wish it was an urban myth, I have seen FAs and WMs that have trust application forms in hand. To speed up the process, they are essentially representing some trust company that they are aligned with and have the audacity to fill out the forms and complete the trust documentation themselves and of course, appoint themselves as the trust's investment adviser/manager. The trustee never meets the settlor and everything is sent back and forth by the FA/WM. If that doesn't scare you then nothing will.
The ones I do have a problem with are those that try to plan trusts (or even estate or tax planning). Here is where a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. They are regulated as far as investment and their insurance sales but when it comes to trusts, these are by far the scariest advisers (if you can call them that) I have ever encountered. Some of the most incorrect, misleading and incompetent trust advice and planning have come from this bunch. If you believe they are good for something fine, just don't let them advise on trusts. If you need to work with them, tell them to shut and let you do the talking. These guys make private bankers look respectable. Wait a minute, some of them are ex-private bankers! Some of them weren't good enough to even get a private banking job. Harsh words and a disservice to those that try hard and do well for their clients but prove me wrong. If they have good trust people, I haven't seen them. You really need to do due diligence on their people before signing up with them. Have any of them worked in a trust company before? Are any former probate lawyers?
Just to be fair, I know about a half a dozen former Head of Private Banking or Director Trust and Fiduciary Services out there in their own financial advisory firms in Asia. If they are your financial adviser than I say you're one of the lucky ones and that if they have trust advice then it is probably very good. Unfortunately, that's only 6 out of the hundreds of FA firms out there.
In case it appears I am undecided, then I make it simple: avoid these types of trust advisers. They spew out catch-phrases and buzz words but know little of the implications. They prey on the unsophisticated (and many with wealth in Asia are unsophisticated, simple hard-working entrepreneurs. Just look at Li Ka-Shing, one of the wealthiest men in the world and he is as educated as your typical country pumpkin. That's not saying he isn't smart, he's just not sophisticated). They abuse their position of trust by "pretending" to be all-round competent advisers.
They are selling aspirin as a cure without any medical training or knowledge. Aspirin may offer some relief but it doesn't cure a lot. Aspirin can kill too.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Insurers, Pension Companies and Fund Houses as Trust Providers?
This is the 4th installment on the various people in the marketplace vying for your trust business. (Go back and look for write ups on lawyers, accountants & company secretaries, banks and independent trustees). This part focuses on insurers, insurance agents/brokers and pension/retirement scheme providers an Fund/Asset Managers.
For pension providers, they are already trustees. However, the trusteeship of pensions or employee benefit schemes is slightly different than personal trusts. Pensions usually have restricted asset classes and investments and very large number of silent beneficiaries. Private trust, typically have a much wider range of assets from bankables to real estate including homes, private operating/holding companies, art and jewelry and sometimes aircraft and yachts. Pension trust administration is highly regulated (at least onshore it is) more transactional and valuation oriented than dealing with tax, succession and other family issues. Taxation of pension benefits is usually straight forward. Taxation of private trust income and distributions is usually anything but straight forward. Pension distributions, additions and removals are very mechanical as pension vesting is usually quite contractual and non-discretionary. Almost everything with private trusts is discretionary. Just like trustees of mutual funds/unit trusts, asset securitization trusts, REITs, etc., the general trust theory is there. In practice there is little similarity with personal trusts. Hang gliding and powered flight are 2 different things despite same aeronautical principles. However, the background and infrastructure of large pension and corporate trustee providers make them well suited to leap into private trusts and some do. I would say you can get sound service and advice but I would say you are likely to get better service and better advice from those who do private trusts as a main business and not those who do it as a side business. Why ask Land Rover to build you a sports car when Ferrari specialises in them? I have no doubt if you have the money that Land Rover would entertain you and do a reasonably good job but is it worth the time and trouble?
Beware of those that try to use pensions as a tax planning tool. There is a lot of interesting (and questionable) planning that involves thinly disguised pension schemes as tax-mitigating investment holding vehicles. If it doesn't fly onshore, meaning it must be set up outside your country of residence, then you may want to avoid the risk.
For insurers, trust business used to pretty much mean pensions. Some of the large insurers had pension trust businesses for many years. So they had an infrastructure. They saw that personal life insurance and K&R insurance playing a big part in Asian (and international) wealth planning. They now had a workforce that was accustomed to dealing with the HNWI. It shouldn't be a big surprise that the insurers want a bigger slice of the wealth pie.
Some people expressed shock that insurers like AIG were caught up in the GEC. Well it shouldn't, insurers are some of the biggest gamblers, ah...investors in market. They want money to play with. It is a more recent phenomenon that the insurers had ventured into private wealth management and some have even ventured into private banking and portfolio management. Now we are seeing many of them attempt personal trust services. All because they want more money to play with.
Some insurers have business partnerships with external trust companies to provide trust services. In general, I have nothing against a referral program and these insurers as they aren't "selling" or planning the trust part.
Unfortunately, some go about all by themselves. My limited experience with these insurer trust companies is that I haven't come across any trust heavy-weights yet, just surprisingly well trained brochure-spewing Ken and Barbie dolls. They don't know the real answer, they just know where to find the relevant Q&A section in the brochure/sales manual. I have seen their glossy brochures and 3-page trust deeds. I would bet they have had high-priced external help in setting up documentation and procedure manuals. I would bet that they can offer a highly efficient operation. A simple, template product for mass market distribution. A simple trust, with little or no administration during its duration with a simple distribution at the end. Doesn't take much skill. Doesn't offer much benefit. You don't take on much fiduciary risk. It doesn't cost much to roll out. It's small unit revenue, nice easy revenue if you can build up a mass. A 10-20% penetration rate into your existing client base and your a rich man.
In many ways, they are like the retail/consumer banks, selling a trust for succession over a bank account and probate avoidance. What is going on is they are taking certain features of a trust for the purpose enhancing the appeal of their insurance product. You get a so-called "insurance trust" which is a trust purely for holding insurance policy. One-trick pony. This is like buying one of those strange kitchen utensils you find on late night TV paid advertisements. You have some specialist tool just for peeling oranges. Cool! Only $2.99, great! But do you really need it? Is there real value added? You could do a lot more with a (little more expensive and useful) stainless steel paring knife. In life, things are complex and inter-related. An insurance trust may be satisfactory if all your interested in is that insurance policy. What about your other insurance policies? Will your insurer-trustee let you put those in their trust too? I doubt it? What about your other valuables? Nope...only our insurance policies please. Are you even dealing with a "regulated" insurance policy?? If the insurance company is selling you a policy, that policy has to be approved by some government agency as being suitable for the local market (even if the policy is written under a foreign law like Bermuda or Ireland). With many of these "wealth planning" insurance products, they are not approved by the regulators. They are often "private placement" products which due to their monetary value, risk or sophistication, are not suitable for the general public but can only be sold to sophisticated investors/parties or outside your country. Guess who is usually considered a sophisticated investor? Guess who is often set up outside your country of residence? The trustee of your trust silly. See how nicely they have manage to circumvent....eh navigate, past local regulations and also pad their profit? Instead of letting the tail wag the dog, go to a good trust adviser and see if there's a better solution.
The problem is you now have a force of several hundred unqualified agents out there mass marketing trusts. There are bound to be some mis-selling, errors in form, screening of clients, etc.. Fortunately, they for the most part are just creating simple, essentially bare trusts, to hold their insurance policies and little else. I would be a much more apprehensive if they started venturing into true irrevocable discretionary trusts with assets other than an insurance policy. Still, there are many issues with trust administration that even bare trustees need to get right and I don't know whether the insurer trust administrators are up to the task.
Unfortunately for you, that simple trust may also ruin the chance your beneficiaries of getting all the proceeds. You may be put in worse position by having the trust than not. Adding a layer to the distribution of insurance proceeds, which is what these trusts do, has consequences. Some rules surrounding the legal and tax attributes of personal life insurance no longer apply or change if the policy is held by a trust. Did you take tax or legal advice? God no.....the adviser would have cost more than the $500 trust itself. Do you know what bearing divesting (if indeed you even did divest) part of your wealth has in relation to your spouse, heirs or creditors? Maybe you should. You have a trust that is not suited for tax planning. Fine, you say, I didn't need tax planning.....what they don't tell you is sometimes tax creeps up on you. If you are someone with "pre-existing condition" like foreign residency or citizenship/domicile/marriage, or your intended beneficiaries do, take advice. If you would like to achieve more than a redirected distribution of insurance proceeds, seek advice. How does this trust affect the rest of your wealth and estate planning? Seek advice.
Bear in mind that there are some specialist brokers/insurers out there, catering to the insurance needs of the HNWIs and UHNWIs that have become very well versed in using trusts in conjunction with insurance. These are usually the ones on the front line with respect to million dollar Universal Life policies, tax planning/compliant policies for the HWI and UHWI. I'm not talking about them as they usually do not provide trust services nor advisory. But they may try to get you to sign up for a trust. They do so from experience in working with the tax and trust lawyers/accountants. Some of them were tax and trust people. If they have general advice, usually you should take it and go with them to see a trust adviser.
The last group are what I refer to as Fund Houses and Asset Managers, traditionally serving institutional clients. These days it's hard to classify what the big financial houses do. For instance, most of them like say State Street Bank & Trust mainly serves institutional clients but they have a private wealth division. Some of them serve their key private clients and offer private trust services. The main distinction, if any, is these are usually a very big clients, US$10M or more in funds that they put a personal trust on top of. Admittedly I have only seen a few of their trusts but from what I've seen, they are competent and utilise top-notch external counsel. If you're big enough to be dealing with these players then you can afford your own trust counsel and so there's nothing I can add. Just beware of the smaller players getting into the market.
For pension providers, they are already trustees. However, the trusteeship of pensions or employee benefit schemes is slightly different than personal trusts. Pensions usually have restricted asset classes and investments and very large number of silent beneficiaries. Private trust, typically have a much wider range of assets from bankables to real estate including homes, private operating/holding companies, art and jewelry and sometimes aircraft and yachts. Pension trust administration is highly regulated (at least onshore it is) more transactional and valuation oriented than dealing with tax, succession and other family issues. Taxation of pension benefits is usually straight forward. Taxation of private trust income and distributions is usually anything but straight forward. Pension distributions, additions and removals are very mechanical as pension vesting is usually quite contractual and non-discretionary. Almost everything with private trusts is discretionary. Just like trustees of mutual funds/unit trusts, asset securitization trusts, REITs, etc., the general trust theory is there. In practice there is little similarity with personal trusts. Hang gliding and powered flight are 2 different things despite same aeronautical principles. However, the background and infrastructure of large pension and corporate trustee providers make them well suited to leap into private trusts and some do. I would say you can get sound service and advice but I would say you are likely to get better service and better advice from those who do private trusts as a main business and not those who do it as a side business. Why ask Land Rover to build you a sports car when Ferrari specialises in them? I have no doubt if you have the money that Land Rover would entertain you and do a reasonably good job but is it worth the time and trouble?
Beware of those that try to use pensions as a tax planning tool. There is a lot of interesting (and questionable) planning that involves thinly disguised pension schemes as tax-mitigating investment holding vehicles. If it doesn't fly onshore, meaning it must be set up outside your country of residence, then you may want to avoid the risk.
For insurers, trust business used to pretty much mean pensions. Some of the large insurers had pension trust businesses for many years. So they had an infrastructure. They saw that personal life insurance and K&R insurance playing a big part in Asian (and international) wealth planning. They now had a workforce that was accustomed to dealing with the HNWI. It shouldn't be a big surprise that the insurers want a bigger slice of the wealth pie.
Some people expressed shock that insurers like AIG were caught up in the GEC. Well it shouldn't, insurers are some of the biggest gamblers, ah...investors in market. They want money to play with. It is a more recent phenomenon that the insurers had ventured into private wealth management and some have even ventured into private banking and portfolio management. Now we are seeing many of them attempt personal trust services. All because they want more money to play with.
Some insurers have business partnerships with external trust companies to provide trust services. In general, I have nothing against a referral program and these insurers as they aren't "selling" or planning the trust part.
Unfortunately, some go about all by themselves. My limited experience with these insurer trust companies is that I haven't come across any trust heavy-weights yet, just surprisingly well trained brochure-spewing Ken and Barbie dolls. They don't know the real answer, they just know where to find the relevant Q&A section in the brochure/sales manual. I have seen their glossy brochures and 3-page trust deeds. I would bet they have had high-priced external help in setting up documentation and procedure manuals. I would bet that they can offer a highly efficient operation. A simple, template product for mass market distribution. A simple trust, with little or no administration during its duration with a simple distribution at the end. Doesn't take much skill. Doesn't offer much benefit. You don't take on much fiduciary risk. It doesn't cost much to roll out. It's small unit revenue, nice easy revenue if you can build up a mass. A 10-20% penetration rate into your existing client base and your a rich man.
In many ways, they are like the retail/consumer banks, selling a trust for succession over a bank account and probate avoidance. What is going on is they are taking certain features of a trust for the purpose enhancing the appeal of their insurance product. You get a so-called "insurance trust" which is a trust purely for holding insurance policy. One-trick pony. This is like buying one of those strange kitchen utensils you find on late night TV paid advertisements. You have some specialist tool just for peeling oranges. Cool! Only $2.99, great! But do you really need it? Is there real value added? You could do a lot more with a (little more expensive and useful) stainless steel paring knife. In life, things are complex and inter-related. An insurance trust may be satisfactory if all your interested in is that insurance policy. What about your other insurance policies? Will your insurer-trustee let you put those in their trust too? I doubt it? What about your other valuables? Nope...only our insurance policies please. Are you even dealing with a "regulated" insurance policy?? If the insurance company is selling you a policy, that policy has to be approved by some government agency as being suitable for the local market (even if the policy is written under a foreign law like Bermuda or Ireland). With many of these "wealth planning" insurance products, they are not approved by the regulators. They are often "private placement" products which due to their monetary value, risk or sophistication, are not suitable for the general public but can only be sold to sophisticated investors/parties or outside your country. Guess who is usually considered a sophisticated investor? Guess who is often set up outside your country of residence? The trustee of your trust silly. See how nicely they have manage to circumvent....eh navigate, past local regulations and also pad their profit? Instead of letting the tail wag the dog, go to a good trust adviser and see if there's a better solution.
The problem is you now have a force of several hundred unqualified agents out there mass marketing trusts. There are bound to be some mis-selling, errors in form, screening of clients, etc.. Fortunately, they for the most part are just creating simple, essentially bare trusts, to hold their insurance policies and little else. I would be a much more apprehensive if they started venturing into true irrevocable discretionary trusts with assets other than an insurance policy. Still, there are many issues with trust administration that even bare trustees need to get right and I don't know whether the insurer trust administrators are up to the task.
Unfortunately for you, that simple trust may also ruin the chance your beneficiaries of getting all the proceeds. You may be put in worse position by having the trust than not. Adding a layer to the distribution of insurance proceeds, which is what these trusts do, has consequences. Some rules surrounding the legal and tax attributes of personal life insurance no longer apply or change if the policy is held by a trust. Did you take tax or legal advice? God no.....the adviser would have cost more than the $500 trust itself. Do you know what bearing divesting (if indeed you even did divest) part of your wealth has in relation to your spouse, heirs or creditors? Maybe you should. You have a trust that is not suited for tax planning. Fine, you say, I didn't need tax planning.....what they don't tell you is sometimes tax creeps up on you. If you are someone with "pre-existing condition" like foreign residency or citizenship/domicile/marriage, or your intended beneficiaries do, take advice. If you would like to achieve more than a redirected distribution of insurance proceeds, seek advice. How does this trust affect the rest of your wealth and estate planning? Seek advice.
Bear in mind that there are some specialist brokers/insurers out there, catering to the insurance needs of the HNWIs and UHNWIs that have become very well versed in using trusts in conjunction with insurance. These are usually the ones on the front line with respect to million dollar Universal Life policies, tax planning/compliant policies for the HWI and UHWI. I'm not talking about them as they usually do not provide trust services nor advisory. But they may try to get you to sign up for a trust. They do so from experience in working with the tax and trust lawyers/accountants. Some of them were tax and trust people. If they have general advice, usually you should take it and go with them to see a trust adviser.
The last group are what I refer to as Fund Houses and Asset Managers, traditionally serving institutional clients. These days it's hard to classify what the big financial houses do. For instance, most of them like say State Street Bank & Trust mainly serves institutional clients but they have a private wealth division. Some of them serve their key private clients and offer private trust services. The main distinction, if any, is these are usually a very big clients, US$10M or more in funds that they put a personal trust on top of. Admittedly I have only seen a few of their trusts but from what I've seen, they are competent and utilise top-notch external counsel. If you're big enough to be dealing with these players then you can afford your own trust counsel and so there's nothing I can add. Just beware of the smaller players getting into the market.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Malaysia on the White List
There is a building right now.........that is the address for 18,000 corporations. Well that is either the biggest building in the world or the biggest sham in the world, and I think we know which one it is. I will shut down those offshore tax havens and all those corporate loopholes as President, because you shouldn’t have to pay higher taxes because some big corporation cut corners to avoid paying theirs. All of us have a responsibility to pay our fair share. That’s putting country first. - Barack Obama
Well most of us know Barack was talking about.......Delaware. Well he could have been referring to an island close to his old neck of the woods....Labuan.
Despite the "offshore" baggage known as Labuan, Malaysia on now on the OECD "white list" and fair game to park money and structures.
Like some of its Asian tiger neighbours, Malaysia has remained on the cusp of being a player in global finances. As for trusts, on paper, it was every bit a competitive a trust jurisdiction as Singapore or Hong Kong,......thirty years ago that is. English law based, some local jurisprudence, etc. Unfortunately, the competition just soaked up everything and left the place as is thirty years later.
Labuan is another matter. Labuan is a politically and geographically part of Malaysia but isn't when it doesn't want to be. The special economic zone of Malaysia.....quite an advanced concept back in the 90s. It was perhaps the most tax, funds and corporate vehicle advanced and sophisticated place in Asia at one time. At one time, there were perhaps as many international CPA/law firms, trust, funds and corporate providers there to rival the BVI or Caymans in their formative stages. Then "offshore" became a bad word, the tax "planning" got a little overzealous and Labuan's light started to dwindle and never reached the heights that it might have. It very well could have become the Delaware of Asia.....the Channel Islands of the East. Perhaps the Achilles' heel was that there was no "onshore" to support and bolster the offshore component.
Looking forward, there will always be a lucrative Malaysian wealth market to tap but unless there's some factor (ie tax) that drives you into Malaysia or Labuan, there's simply nothing to motivate you to move onto onshore Malaysia. In fact, the strategy will be as it was thirty years ago........pull the money out Malaysia and park it in Singapore or Hong Kong.
Well most of us know Barack was talking about.......Delaware. Well he could have been referring to an island close to his old neck of the woods....Labuan.
Despite the "offshore" baggage known as Labuan, Malaysia on now on the OECD "white list" and fair game to park money and structures.
Like some of its Asian tiger neighbours, Malaysia has remained on the cusp of being a player in global finances. As for trusts, on paper, it was every bit a competitive a trust jurisdiction as Singapore or Hong Kong,......thirty years ago that is. English law based, some local jurisprudence, etc. Unfortunately, the competition just soaked up everything and left the place as is thirty years later.
Labuan is another matter. Labuan is a politically and geographically part of Malaysia but isn't when it doesn't want to be. The special economic zone of Malaysia.....quite an advanced concept back in the 90s. It was perhaps the most tax, funds and corporate vehicle advanced and sophisticated place in Asia at one time. At one time, there were perhaps as many international CPA/law firms, trust, funds and corporate providers there to rival the BVI or Caymans in their formative stages. Then "offshore" became a bad word, the tax "planning" got a little overzealous and Labuan's light started to dwindle and never reached the heights that it might have. It very well could have become the Delaware of Asia.....the Channel Islands of the East. Perhaps the Achilles' heel was that there was no "onshore" to support and bolster the offshore component.
Looking forward, there will always be a lucrative Malaysian wealth market to tap but unless there's some factor (ie tax) that drives you into Malaysia or Labuan, there's simply nothing to motivate you to move onto onshore Malaysia. In fact, the strategy will be as it was thirty years ago........pull the money out Malaysia and park it in Singapore or Hong Kong.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Britons Never Will be Slaves...but Will Always be Taxpayers
Robert Gaines-Cooper. A name that may become infamous to all Britons abroad.
If all this resident, domicile, non-dom, nonresident, 91 days and IR20 stuff wasn't heady enough already, the courts have basically re-confirmed that the HMRC is almighty:
http://www.international-adviser.com/lwm/article/1249
If you have any ties to the UK and are (or thought you were) playing the non-res game, go see your UK tax adviser.
[Edit: and should you be caught of the wrong side of the tax law, you will be a poster boy for the HMRC under their new name & shame campaign: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5cd320c8-26e4-11df-8c08-00144feabdc0.html]
If all this resident, domicile, non-dom, nonresident, 91 days and IR20 stuff wasn't heady enough already, the courts have basically re-confirmed that the HMRC is almighty:
http://www.international-adviser.com/lwm/article/1249
If you have any ties to the UK and are (or thought you were) playing the non-res game, go see your UK tax adviser.
[Edit: and should you be caught of the wrong side of the tax law, you will be a poster boy for the HMRC under their new name & shame campaign: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5cd320c8-26e4-11df-8c08-00144feabdc0.html]
Putting the Fun in Dysfunctional
The UK law firm of Herbert Smith has the marketing machine rolling recently including a "new" private client practice in Hong Kong: http://asia.legalbusinessonline.com/news/breaking-news/herbies-targets-wealth-management-industry-with-new-hong-kong-practice/40419
Herbies is certainly not new in Asia but was traditionally more of a corporate law firm and may have be only familiar to those on the corporate trustee side. Now they have set the hounds loose hoping to drum up contentious trust and estate business.
And if Herbies is successful, then that means trouble for somebody. Their raison d'être is to stir up trouble: sue or be sued. They are the antithesis of family governance for a family that stays happily together means no business for them. They require dysfunctional, and somewhat greedy families. They are looking for the respective sons and daughters of Hidetora Ichimonji and King Lear.
As the patriarch system of wealth in Asia is slowly dying out and being replaced by by western educated 2nd and 3rd generations, "issues" are more often settled in court rather than the old school way of being settled out of court. "All under heaven" is being replaced by fractional and warring family camps. Gentlemen's agreements are now replaced by writs. Appeasing the old man is now being replaced by marginalizing the old man.
If you're a trust/estate beneficiary or feel you should have been one, call them.
If you're a trustee or executor, avoid them or put them on retainer so they can't be used against you.
Herbies is certainly not new in Asia but was traditionally more of a corporate law firm and may have be only familiar to those on the corporate trustee side. Now they have set the hounds loose hoping to drum up contentious trust and estate business.
And if Herbies is successful, then that means trouble for somebody. Their raison d'être is to stir up trouble: sue or be sued. They are the antithesis of family governance for a family that stays happily together means no business for them. They require dysfunctional, and somewhat greedy families. They are looking for the respective sons and daughters of Hidetora Ichimonji and King Lear.
As the patriarch system of wealth in Asia is slowly dying out and being replaced by by western educated 2nd and 3rd generations, "issues" are more often settled in court rather than the old school way of being settled out of court. "All under heaven" is being replaced by fractional and warring family camps. Gentlemen's agreements are now replaced by writs. Appeasing the old man is now being replaced by marginalizing the old man.
If you're a trust/estate beneficiary or feel you should have been one, call them.
If you're a trustee or executor, avoid them or put them on retainer so they can't be used against you.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out
Don't really have a point to this entry but.....Kevin Horrocks has left Merrill Lynch-BOA. Bear with me...there is an Asian connection.
Unless you work in Marina Bayfront, you probably don't know Kevin. Kevin used to head up ML's ITWS (International Trust & Wealth Structuring - I think that's what it is) out of Switzerland. As big of a fish in the bank trust industry as they come. Surely paid well too.
I suspect that this was an unpleasant divorce but how do they announce his departure? Just a footnote to the announcement of the appointment of his successor. That's life. That's also how many jobs/tour-of-duty/careers end. No big send off, no congratulations, no thanks, no fanfare, no pat on the back for years of hard work, no nothing. In fact Kevin got his name in which is more than most people.
Just to show how old I am, Kevin used to peddle trusts out at Credit Suisse in Singapore. This is before they even had a licensed trust company in Singapore.
Unless you work in Marina Bayfront, you probably don't know Kevin. Kevin used to head up ML's ITWS (International Trust & Wealth Structuring - I think that's what it is) out of Switzerland. As big of a fish in the bank trust industry as they come. Surely paid well too.
I suspect that this was an unpleasant divorce but how do they announce his departure? Just a footnote to the announcement of the appointment of his successor. That's life. That's also how many jobs/tour-of-duty/careers end. No big send off, no congratulations, no thanks, no fanfare, no pat on the back for years of hard work, no nothing. In fact Kevin got his name in which is more than most people.
Just to show how old I am, Kevin used to peddle trusts out at Credit Suisse in Singapore. This is before they even had a licensed trust company in Singapore.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
Jimmy Lee is head of Head of Asia for Clariden Leu. He should be no stranger to anyone in the PB/WM arena in South Asia having worked for many players for many years. Another chronic job hopper. Jimmy is a fine banker and I'm sure he and Chit will keep CL relevant and this should not be construed as a personal attack but rather more of keeping track of the politicians and their election promises.
I love it when senior banking officials come out and talk about how he feels "that clients are increasingly demanding a comprehensive range of services that go far beyond traditional wealth management and the provision of investment advice. This spectrum of services spans financial and tax advice, succession and inheritance planning..........." We trust people love that sexy talk.
http://www.financeasia.com/News/166669,jimmy-lee-from-clariden-leu-discusses-asian-private-banking.aspx
The problem isn't that they are not aware of the market potential for "tax, succession and inheritance planning", but rather how to implement a strategy and course of action. Exercise and eating a balanced diet are known contributors to good health. How many people actually have a plan to exercise and eat right? How often are we led astray by that deep fried curry fish ball or pint of ale?
So Jimmy, is this all rhetoric or will I-Ning be getting some company? Will you go on a hiring binge for people that can offer tax advice, succession and inheritance planning? What's your plan to cover the spectrum of needs your client base wants? Let's keep tabs shall we?
[Edit - It seems in Jimmy's word is gold! I understand that he poached two former wealth planning colleagues from Deutsche PWM in Hong Kong in March. I have the names of the 2 ladies but have no idea who they are - I do not claim to know everybody but would guess that they are relatively new to the arena]
I love it when senior banking officials come out and talk about how he feels "that clients are increasingly demanding a comprehensive range of services that go far beyond traditional wealth management and the provision of investment advice. This spectrum of services spans financial and tax advice, succession and inheritance planning..........." We trust people love that sexy talk.
http://www.financeasia.com/News/166669,jimmy-lee-from-clariden-leu-discusses-asian-private-banking.aspx
The problem isn't that they are not aware of the market potential for "tax, succession and inheritance planning", but rather how to implement a strategy and course of action. Exercise and eating a balanced diet are known contributors to good health. How many people actually have a plan to exercise and eat right? How often are we led astray by that deep fried curry fish ball or pint of ale?
So Jimmy, is this all rhetoric or will I-Ning be getting some company? Will you go on a hiring binge for people that can offer tax advice, succession and inheritance planning? What's your plan to cover the spectrum of needs your client base wants? Let's keep tabs shall we?
[Edit - It seems in Jimmy's word is gold! I understand that he poached two former wealth planning colleagues from Deutsche PWM in Hong Kong in March. I have the names of the 2 ladies but have no idea who they are - I do not claim to know everybody but would guess that they are relatively new to the arena]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)