In the January issue of Beyond Numb...

In the January issue of Beyond Numbers, I had the pleasure of conducting a round-table discussion onward the topic of which professional is best suited to "lead" the relationship with the high-net-worth (HNW) client.

This month I asked another assign places to a different question: How involved should the professional be when it results to working out a HNW client's personal and family issues? Should the professional be prepared to act as something of a "counsellor" to wealthy clients? Or is it best to stair back and let clients sort on the outside these kinds of problems for themselves? Here's what the cluster had to say.

At the table:

Thane Stenner CIM, FCSI, first vice-president and investment advisor, T Stenner cluster CIBC Wood Gundy

Kathryn Edwards, CA, partner, Pagnanini Edwards Lam, Burnaby

Howard Bickford, CA, partner, Bekken, Bickford dr Associates Inc., Vancouver

Martin McKinley, CA, CFP principal, McKinley Estate Management, North Vancouver

Thane Stenner: Kathryn, you have a useful deal of experience working with business possessors and wealthy clients. Let me ask you: Does working with family business clients mean getting involved with family issues?

Kathryn Edwards, CA: When working with family businesses, it's ofttimes difficult to separate the family or personal issues from the "true" business issues. And, in fact, it's not always a upright idea to keep them separate.

TS: on what account is that?

KE: I've construct that it's often the personal issues and objectives of an individual that drive the business. Without that personal agenda, the business would advance in a completely different direction.

TS: That appear to bes to make sense.

KE: Not always. vexed questions can arise when there is more than individual family member "driving" the business, and each bodily substance has his or her confess personal agenda. As a be the effect I find it's a profitable idea to discuss with each client just what their personal and business objectives are. That way, I can better help them appropriate their objectives and avoid conflict.

TS: with equal reason how do these situations work themselves disclosed in the real world?

KE: I've actioned situations where several family members are involved in a business and they don't all have the same goals. This will sometimes manifest itself in the issuing of conflicting instructions to us by means of the client: One family member wants to "bonus down," another wants to pay tax in the company-that kind ofthing.

TS: in such a manner what do you do in that situation? Who do you listen to?

KE: Our approach is to discuss the issues with the clients as a collection We clearly describe the possible implications to the company and individuals. many times we'll require all parties to "sign off" forward the agreed course of action before we act. We'll also intimate that each party consult another professional just to avoid any perception of a lack of independence. This is particularly important if there's potential for dissent among family members or shareholders.

TS: perfects like a real balancing act. Wouldn't it be easier to simply decline the character of counsellor when family issues arise?

KE: 1 think it's impossible to completely avoid being a counsellor. That said, I believe professionals should experience to avoid advising clients upon personal matters or family conflicts, particularly when they have a relationship or obligation to more than the same party. It's just too easy to misspend that perception of independence.

TS: Is there an alternative?

KE: I think it's better to be a mediator than a counsellor. As a mediator, the CA draws the parties together without really advising them with reverence to their personal views.

TS: Howard, do you agree?

Howard Bickford, CA: Generally, ye My experience is that it's not really counselling skills that are required. However, if your client is having a tough time emotionally, a little empathy does go on a long way.

TS: in like manner how should the professional navigate by the agency of some of these issues?

HB: Well, my experience uninjureds like it's been a little different. I have a well adapted number of "wealthy family" clients, and of course I'm aware of certain family challenges they face. However, for the most numerous part, I haven't found myself being dragged into family politics exceedingly often.

TS: The subject doesn't ensue up?

HB: No, I wouldn't say that. Clients may confide in me as to the family enigmas or issues they're experiencing, if it were not that they don't often ask me to win involved, or to solve them.

TS: in this way how does the problem achieve solved?

HB: Essentially, clients elucidate it for themselves. For example, I've had several clients who have wearied a lot of time agonizing through an issue of control when they consider setting up a family trust. What will happen when they pass away? Who will be in control? They may talk it not at home with me, but in my experience, clients have always been able to arrive up with a solution according to themselves. I haven't had to win involved too much, except to ask the question in the first place.

TS: What about a second-generation situation? I imagine that could be a different story.

HB: You're right, it can be more difficult. In my experience, bigger family moot points often emerge in the next to the first or later generations-after the wealth has been created according to the original business leader-when the son and daughters fight from one side of to the other the control or division ot the wealth. In these circumstances, I think the critical thing for the professional to retain in mind is that he or she should act for the same side of the dispute only