Connect with us

Business

The Great Wealth Transfer – Billions To Change Hands By 2026

Published

9 minute read

Here comes the boom.

What is ‘The Great Wealth Transfer’? 

 

This term has been coined by several major wealth managers across North America; referring to the tremendous amount of wealth that will be transferred to younger generations over the next decade. Wealth amassed by baby boomers will eventually be passed down to their families or beneficiaries, typically with the aid of a trusted wealth manager or financial advisor. 

Similar in a way to climate change, when we visit some of the data that has been reported in both Canada and the US, this issue seems to be far more pressing than most people are aware. Depending on the publication, the exact amount of wealth that will be transferred is questionable. Cited in Forbes, a report done by the Coldwell Banker Global Luxury® program and WealthEngine claim that $68 Trillion will change hands in the US by 2030.

We spoke with Gwen Becker and Devin St. Louis, two VP’s, Portfolio Managers and Wealth Advisors for RBC Wealth Management, offering their expert insight into the industry and the vast amount of wealth that is changing hands in Canada. 

According to RBC Wealth Management, their numbers in terms of the wealth transfer report $150 billion is set to change hands by 2026. The industry as a whole is at the forefront of this generational shift, whereas a trusted advisor can onboard younger family members to ensure the highest level of support through the process. Gwen offers her perspective:

“Certainly just around the corner; something that we are definitely paying attention to. My practice has always been very relationship-driven. It has been my privilege to advise many of my clients for decades. I have been intentional to welcome and include multiple generations of the same family. I advise grandparents who are now in their 90s, to which the majority of their children are my clients and even beginning to onboard grandchildren.”

This is an example of what is referred to as multi-generational estate planning. Being in the midst of the ‘great transfer of wealth’, this type of planning is crucial for advisors to implement early so they can continue to support the same family in the future. According to the Canadian Financial Capability Survey conducted in 2019, 51% of Canadians over the age of 65 will refer to a financial advisor to seek literacy and support. Contrary to that, Canadians aged 18-34 show that 51% are more likely to use online resources to aid in their financial literacy. 

Devin offers his perspective on how the importance of family legacy plays a role when an advisor poses this question: What is your wealth for?

“If you sat down with a couple 10 years ago, they may say, when I pass away, whatever wealth is left can be distributed evenly amongst our children. That has changed quite a lot now because elder family members are now more concerned about how their wealth is passed on to the next generation. Onboarding grandchildren can ensure that a family legacy that receives their wealth, uses it to benefit their family and their community.”

An important question to consider. Clearly there is a shift in attitude towards having a family legacy live on through younger generations of a family. Evident that having the support of a financial advisor or wealth manager not only ensures the most efficient use of your money and assets but also ensures financial stability for your family in their future.

If we revisit the above study in how a younger demographic is more likely to utilize online resources, interesting how a more digitally inclined audience will be receptive to advisors. Boiling down to how millennials and younger age groups will perceive wealth management if those in that space fail to offer their services through online communication.

Devin agrees that RBC is uniquely positioned for this digital shift:

“interesting that everybody had to transform their processes online through this COVID-19 pandemic. Every company has been forced to step up their technology means, RBC has definitely risen to that occasion. RBC has adapted quickly, improving a great technology base that already existed. I don’t perceive it at this point to be a challenge. I believe we have the right focus. I think it’ll be a good transition for us.”

Gwen continues:

“I do agree that RBC is very well positioned. The younger generations below millennials that would eventually take over some of this wealth carries some challenges. How does that age demographic think, and what are their expectations of wealth management or financial advisors? It is difficult to understand what that generation will expect out of digital advisors. Estate planning matters, and it will always be tied to you knowing the family, it’s a relationship business”

Consider that RBC Wealth Management oversees $1.05 trillion globally under their administration, has over 4,800 professionals to serve their clients and was the recipient of the highest-ranking bank-owned investment brokerage by the 2020 Investment Executive Brokerage Report Card, safe to say their decades of professionalism, expertise and ‘get it done’ attitude speaks for itself.

So, what does this mean for younger members of families who may not understand the field of wealth management?

Starting the conversation early

Whether you are the elder family member who has their financial ‘quarterback’ preparing their estate to change hands or are younger family members who may be the beneficiary of wealth in the near future, starting the conversation amongst family members early is important for the process to be successful. Considering that some possessions have more than just monetary value, but an emotional tie to the family legacy can be a difficult asset to distribute evenly. Of course, it can be a tough conversation to have, it may involve discussing the passing away of a loved one or even setting a plan to cover future expenses. Gwen mentions:

“I encourage my clients to have open conversations with their children while they are alive so that their intentions are clear. Depending on the dynamics of the family, things such as an annual family meeting with a beneficiary can be effective once it’s put in place. If they are not comfortable leading that conversation, bring a trusted adviser to the table to be impartial and logical.”

There is no way to know what ramifications will come of this ‘great transfer of wealth’. It may be that we see the resurgence of a strong bull market in the near future, we may see new tech innovation that we cannot yet grasp or new business investments that continue to disrupt traditional processes. Only time will tell.

For more stories, visit Todayville Calgary

Business

Trump says tariffs on China will remain until trade imbalance is corrected

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump said Sunday he won’t make a tariff deal with China unless its $1 trillion trade surplus with the U.S. is balanced. Speaking aboard Air Force One, he called the deficit “not sustainable” and said tariffs are already driving a wave of investment back to America.

Key Details:

  • Trump told reporters the U.S. has “a $1 trillion trade deficit with China,” adding, “hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose to China, and unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal.” He insisted any agreement must begin with fixing that imbalance.

  • The president said tariffs are generating “levels that we’ve never seen before” of private investment, claiming $7 trillion has already been committed in areas like auto manufacturing and chip production, with companies returning to places like North Carolina, Detroit, and Illinois.

  • On Truth Social Sunday night, Trump wrote: “The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS… a beautiful thing to behold.” He accused President Biden of allowing trade surpluses to grow and pledged, “We are going to reverse it, and reverse it QUICKLY.”

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump reaffirmed his tough trade stance on Sunday, telling reporters that he won’t negotiate any new deal with China unless the massive trade deficit is addressed. “We have a $1 trillion trade deficit with China. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose to China, and unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal,” Trump said while aboard Air Force One.

He emphasized that while some countries have deficits in the billions, China’s trade advantage over the U.S. exceeds a trillion dollars and remains the most severe. “We have a tremendous deficit problem with China… I want that solved,” he said. “A deficit is a loss. We’re going to have surpluses, or we’re, at worst, going to be breaking even.”

Trump touted the impact of tariffs already in place, pointing to an estimated $7 trillion in committed investments flowing into the U.S. economy. He highlighted growth in the automotive and semiconductor sectors in particular, and said companies are now bringing operations back to American soil—citing North Carolina, Detroit, and Illinois as examples.

He also claimed world leaders in Europe and Asia are eager to strike deals with the U.S., but he’s holding firm. “They’re dying to make a deal,” he said, “but as long as there are deficits, I’m not going to do that.”

Trump projected that tariffs would add another $1 trillion to federal revenues by next year and help re-establish the U.S. as the world’s top economic power. “Our country has gotten a lot stronger,” Trump said. “Eventually it’ll be a country like no other… the most dominant country, economically, in the world, which is what it should be.”

Later Sunday night, Trump doubled down in a Truth Social post, writing, “We have massive Financial Deficits with China, the European Union, and many others. The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS, which are now bringing Tens of Billions of Dollars into the U.S.A.” He added that trade surpluses have grown under Joe Biden and vowed to reverse them “QUICKLY.”

Continue Reading

Business

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Published on

Offshore drilling rig Development Driller III at the Deepwater Horizon site May, 2010. 

From The Center Square

By 

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

A $744 million jury verdict in Louisiana is at the center of a coordinated legal effort to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to ameliorate the erosion of land in Louisiana, offset climate change and more.

Proponents say the payments are overdue, but critics say the lawsuits will hike energy costs for all Americans and are wrongly supplanting the state and federal regulatory framework already in place.

In the Louisiana case in question, Plaquemines Parish sued Chevron alleging that oil exploration off the coast decades ago led to the erosion of Louisiana’s coastline.

A jury ruled Friday that Chevron must pay $744 million in damages.

The Louisiana case is just one of dozens of environmental cases around the country that could have a dramatic – and costly – impact on American energy consumers.

While each environmental case has its own legal nuances and differing arguments, the lawsuits are usually backed by one of a handful of the same law firms that have partnered with local and state governments. In Louisiana, attorney John Carmouche has led the charge.

“If somebody causes harm, fix it,” Carmouche said to open his arguments.

Environmental arguments of this nature have struggled to succeed in federal courts, but they hope for better luck in state courts, as the Louisiana case was.

Those damages for exploration come as President Donald Trump is urging greater domestic oil production in the U.S. to help lower energy costs for Americans.

Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute, told The Center Square that the Louisiana case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Chevron is expected to appeal.

“So the issue at play here is a question about coastal erosion, about legal liability and about the proper role of the courts versus state government or federal government in enforcing regulation and statute,” Erspamer said.

Another question in the case is whether companies can be held accountable for actions they carried out before regulations were passed restricting them.

“There are now well more than 40 different lawsuits targeting over 200 different companies,” Erspamer said.

The funds would purportedly be used for coastal restoration and a kind of environmental credit system, though critics say safeguards are not in place to make sure the money would actually be used as stated.

While coastal erosion cases appear restricted to Louisiana, similar cases have popped up around the U.S. in the last 10 to 15 years.

Following a similar pattern, local and state governments have partnered with law firms to sue oil producers for large sums to help offset what they say are the effects of climate change, as The Center Square previously reported.

For instance, in Pennsylvania, Bucks County sued a handful of energy companies, calling for large abatement payments to offset the effects of climate change.

“There are all kinds of problems with traceability, causation and allocability,” George Mason University Professor Donald Kochan told The Center Square, pointing out the difficulty of proving specific companies are to blame when emissions occur all over the globe, with China emitting far more than the U.S.

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

Those cases are in earlier stages and face more significant legal hurdles because of questions about whether plaintiffs can justify the cases on federal common law because it is difficult to prove than any one individual has been substantively and directly harmed by climate change.

On top of that, plaintiffs must also prove that emissions released by the particular oil companies are responsible for the damage done, which is complicated by the fact that emissions all over the world affect the environment, the majority of which originate outside the U.S.

“It’s not that far afield from the same kinds of lawsuits we’ve seen in California and New York and other places that more are on the emissions and global warming side rather than the sort of dredging and exploration side,” Erspamer said.

But environmental companies argue that oil companies must fork out huge settlements to pay for environmental repairs.

For now, the Louisiana ruling is a shot across the bow in the legal war against energy companies in the U.S.

Whether the appeal is successful or other lawsuits have the same impact remains to be seen.

Continue Reading

Trending

X