The consensus among experts is
that a family must have at least $150 million in net worth to maintain an
individual family office, and the Family Office Exchange’s (FOX) average client
holds more than $300 million in liquid assets. So obviously, these families are
not candidates for something as mundane as life insurance, right? Not according
to a recent FOX survey, which reveals this and other myths regarding the use of
life insurance within family offices. The survey was designed in conjunction
with Atlanta-based Nease, Lagana, Eden & Culley, a life insurance advisory
firm focused on the ultra-affluent.
 (Click image to enlarge) Nearly nine in 10 respondents own life insurance, personally in
trust or through their company, and 59 percent anticipate adding additional
coverage. The majority (56 percent) own five or fewer policies, indicating a
potential concentration of risk in an insurance carrier and/or the underlying
design characteristics of the policies. This, along with other issues, suggests
that life insurance is not subjected to the same due diligence and scrutiny as
other financial assets.
Of the 13 percent of family offices that do not own life
insurance, all have implemented other techniques: Two-thirds say they are
self-insured, and half believe that it costs too much. While only 20 percent of
the respondents admit they don’t understand life insurance, we see
inconsistencies among other answers in the survey that would indicate this
percentage is probably higher among both those who own life insurance and those
who do not.
Life insurance is largely used by family offices to fund estate
taxes (59 percent); replenish or preserve buying power (50 percent); and create
liquidity (44 percent). No other option in the survey, including estate
equalization, business continuity or enhancing charitable gifts, exceeded 15
percent.
Family offices have begun to recognize and react to the effects
of the dilution of wealth across multiple generations. Without intervention, the
buying power per individual of each generation diminishes significantly,
primarily due to two factors: estate taxes and the growth of the family
outpacing the growth of the assets. Assuming living expenses and philanthropy offset investment
growth, if a couple worth $100 million has four children, and they each have
three children, individual wealth shrinks to $25 million each for the children
and then to $8 million for each grandchild. Estate-tax burdens further diminish
the amount of wealth transferred. Today family offices are turning to life
insurance to both fund estate taxes and replace at least a portion of the wealth
lost to the unavoidable dilution that comes with multiple heirs. Wealthy families are also starting to view life insurance as an
alternative investment strategy, as reflected by the 12 percent that use it to
leverage generation-skipping trust assets. For those with a multigenerational
view, insurance can be an attractive asset class when measured by the internal
rate of return of the premium to the coverage amount—and when considering tax
advantages, potential stability, predictability and noncorrelation to other
investment alternatives.
|