Well, we shall have to agree to disagree on this point. However, I did not refer to Mr. Grossman personally as being contemptible nor did I attack him personally, but commented upon what I interpreted as an unfair assertion. (In fact, I find many of his columns useful and informative. I have long been a fan of your work, Mr. Clements, and your website.) I stand by my comments that in many instances a corporate fiduciary provides significant value. And, no matter what field or service is being investigated, one needs to be thorough, fair and well-informed.
"A key downside, though, is that corporate trustees tend to be more expensive. They also have an inherent conflict of interest: Since they only get paid while the trust is in existence, they have an incentive to be stingy with beneficiaries, thereby prolonging the life of the trust." Taken from the article, Jonathan. Perhaps I have misinterpreted Mr. Grossman's sentiment, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Thanks for the opportunity to respond.
Mr. Grossman,
Many times the fees paid to a corporate trustee will pay significant dividends, both in terms of professional investment management and administrative expertise. Also, a professional fiduciary is bound by myriad duties - care, loyalty, diligence, etc. - and works according to formal policies and procedures under state and federal oversight to fulfill the terms of the trust agreement as established by the settlor. During my entire career as a professional fiduciary - some 35 years with both community and superregional bank trust departments - I have never encountered an instance in which a corporate trustee engaged in intentional self-enrichment at the expense of current and/or remainder beneficiaries. No doubt there are bad actors in every vocation - even financial advice columnists - but to make unsupported assertions is misguided at best, contemptible at worst.
Comments
Well, we shall have to agree to disagree on this point. However, I did not refer to Mr. Grossman personally as being contemptible nor did I attack him personally, but commented upon what I interpreted as an unfair assertion. (In fact, I find many of his columns useful and informative. I have long been a fan of your work, Mr. Clements, and your website.) I stand by my comments that in many instances a corporate fiduciary provides significant value. And, no matter what field or service is being investigated, one needs to be thorough, fair and well-informed.
Post: Trust Issues
Link to comment from April 25, 2022
"A key downside, though, is that corporate trustees tend to be more expensive. They also have an inherent conflict of interest: Since they only get paid while the trust is in existence, they have an incentive to be stingy with beneficiaries, thereby prolonging the life of the trust." Taken from the article, Jonathan. Perhaps I have misinterpreted Mr. Grossman's sentiment, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Thanks for the opportunity to respond.
Post: Trust Issues
Link to comment from April 25, 2022
Mr. Grossman, Many times the fees paid to a corporate trustee will pay significant dividends, both in terms of professional investment management and administrative expertise. Also, a professional fiduciary is bound by myriad duties - care, loyalty, diligence, etc. - and works according to formal policies and procedures under state and federal oversight to fulfill the terms of the trust agreement as established by the settlor. During my entire career as a professional fiduciary - some 35 years with both community and superregional bank trust departments - I have never encountered an instance in which a corporate trustee engaged in intentional self-enrichment at the expense of current and/or remainder beneficiaries. No doubt there are bad actors in every vocation - even financial advice columnists - but to make unsupported assertions is misguided at best, contemptible at worst.
Post: Trust Issues
Link to comment from April 25, 2022