Jay,
That veritable mini-book you wrote to me is much appreciated. I spent a long time drafting a reply thereto—then, a longer time contemplating whether or not it reveals too much potentially identifying information. Not in the way you may think—but it’s nevertheless a concern, and I am still thinking about that. With apologies, for now, I’ll need to cut the main part, and leave only the tangent at the end:
I understand that even forum members who have been around a long time might not have completely left their BTC accumulation stage, so the three stages of long term investing are accumulation, maintenance and then liquidation, [...]
As a matter of thinking differently about goals, I posit that, unless a major expenditure is desired, there should be no “liquidation” phase for any asset with the fundamentals to constitute a long-term investment (as opposed to a short-term speculation). Given your apparent familiarity with estate planning, you can probably guess why: A goal of parlaying personal success into the intergenerational accumulation of familial wealth.
What is best left to one’s children? Depreciating fiat currency? Or a portfolio of gold, real estate, and nowadays, Bitcoin?
(I don’t consider stocks to be a “long-term” investment, unless either it is a large share of a privately held company under management personally known and trusted, or you have a Warren Buffet strategy with commensurate capital.)Of course, such planning must assure insofar as practicable that one’s heirs are of a character to grow the wealth and pass it on, rather than irresponsibly dissipating it. Now,
there is a discussion which could delve deeply into the context of the rule against perpetuities—among many other topics: The legal terms of devises cannot substitute for sound breeding and upraising.
A small anecdote: Many years ago, I had an affair with a woman whose late father had devised significant assets to a trust with her as a beneficiary. The trust was made to convey its assets to her when she was thirty-five years of age,
on condition that she was married. Obviously, the late gentleman must have desired some assurance that he would have
grandchildren who would naturally benefit from their mother’s enrichment. Well—she was past age thirty-five, married, independently wealthy thanks to papa, and—
she didn’t want any children, ever! In a sumptuous hotel bed that she paid for, she told me that she had never before cheated on her husband; take that for what it’s worth.
I would suggest that for having heirs worthy of the estate, the human element is much more important than legal concerns over the rule against perpetuities, etc.
, I'm glad
