TrustEgg (YC W11) Allows Anyone To Set Up A Trust For Their Kids(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
TrustEgg (YC W11) Allows Anyone To Set Up A Trust For Their Kids
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/29/trustegg-allows-anyone-to-set-up-a-trust-for-their-kids/
15 comments
>That is, Trusts are only useful and good for sheltering assets because only a privileged few know how to use them to their advantage. Since the volume of people is small, and enough of those people are sufficiently influential, the IRS looks the other way.
I think this is maybe a little misleading (at least to those who don't know much about them) because trusts generally don't really shelter income from the IRS. For the most part, they just change timing. Trusts, in fact, can actually be subject to higher tax rates than most individuals are. As I understand it, the tax benefit usually comes from giving money now and not having to worry about gift or estate taxes on a higher future valuation, only the current valuation.
Trusts are good for anyone who wants to avoid probate costs, which depending on location can be 5% or more (in addition to the other disadvantages of probate). Many middle to upper middle class families would fall into a situation where a simple trust could save their children tens of thousands of dollars in probate court costs.
There are also a number other situations where the non-"privileged few" can and do benefit from trusts, including the one that this seems to be set up to handle -- gifting money to a child or grandchild for their future, without giving them immediate access to it.
I think this is maybe a little misleading (at least to those who don't know much about them) because trusts generally don't really shelter income from the IRS. For the most part, they just change timing. Trusts, in fact, can actually be subject to higher tax rates than most individuals are. As I understand it, the tax benefit usually comes from giving money now and not having to worry about gift or estate taxes on a higher future valuation, only the current valuation.
Trusts are good for anyone who wants to avoid probate costs, which depending on location can be 5% or more (in addition to the other disadvantages of probate). Many middle to upper middle class families would fall into a situation where a simple trust could save their children tens of thousands of dollars in probate court costs.
There are also a number other situations where the non-"privileged few" can and do benefit from trusts, including the one that this seems to be set up to handle -- gifting money to a child or grandchild for their future, without giving them immediate access to it.
I hope this succeeds. I have 2 kids , and my basement is full of gifts from birthdays past, that they will probably never use. Now bear in mind that these gifts are from relatives with great intentions. If instead of those gifts, my kids had received a contribution to their trust funds , I think that would have been more beneficial.
Jeff - Founder/CEO - This is exactly what we want to do. Most parents we've talked to have made the same comment. Saving for a child's future should be easy, and involving the child's family/social network is our goal.
I think people want to give physical things and experiences, which you can't really do by just giving money, especially money that can't be spent for decades. That's why you can give someone a Starbucks gift card, but it's not good to give them a visa gift card.
I think pairing "donations" with physical gifts is ideal. Parents should ask for gifts to be half as big, with the other half put into the trust.
I think pairing "donations" with physical gifts is ideal. Parents should ask for gifts to be half as big, with the other half put into the trust.
Thanks for doing this!
I had fully intended to set up the trust ... the old hard way ... but this will make things easier.
Will you be offering trusts that can pass on digital assets?
I had fully intended to set up the trust ... the old hard way ... but this will make things easier.
Will you be offering trusts that can pass on digital assets?
Jeff - Founder/CEO - In the beginning we will only be able to accept deposits from a bank account. Taking on other assets would require more infrastructure and cost.
We hope to expand and offer more trust products as we grow.
Does someone who opens a trust account in 60 seconds on a web site really understand the legal, financial and tax implications of what they're doing?
Jeff - Founder/CEO - This will all be made clear. It's a UTMA and very easy to use. We will also be handling everything behind the scenes. Saving for your child can be complicated, but that is what we're going to change.
Can you explain how a solution based on UTMA account is a better solution compared to a 529-based solution. 529's seem to have much better tax advantages when the primary focus is saving for college (which I assume will be the primary audience for your service).
Jeff - Founder/CEO A UTMA can be used for non-education expenses without a penalty.
Gains, to an extent, on the account can also be offset by the kiddie tax exemption. We will be providing the education and tools to explain this and make it as easy as possible.
A family could also pair a 529 plan and a TrustEgg account to save.
[deleted]
I'd assume this is where the Trust Egg company is making money.
This is exactly the kind of startup that we should encourage the most - it is taking a messy, complicated real-world problem that can only be solved by spending lots of money or doing tons of paperwork and turning it into an app that grandma can use!
Best of luck to the founders! Just signed up and sent the link to my friends with kids.
Best of luck to the founders! Just signed up and sent the link to my friends with kids.
Brutally honest: if you can't get basic things like mixed content issues worked out, how do I trust you with the security of my money? First impressions are really important.
"[getting] mixed content issues worked out" seems like such an incredibly weak signal to determine whether someone is trustworthy "with the security of my money". Is this really the best tool you have available to decide whether to trust or not?
If someone doesn't take care to make sure there are no mixed content errors, they may be less likely to take the care to make sure there are no other obvious security problems in their system, which handles money.
I totally 100% agree with you but I'm not the average web user who will see a red lock icon with an X over it and think "these guys aren't running a secure site". As web-savvy folks, sure, we know that it's a basic change and the security shortfall is minor (potentially not, though! there's a reason for mixed content warnings). You're average user has to be conditioned to even look for the lock or the https and seeing a big red X over it isn't doing anything for trustworthiness.
The security shortfall isn't minor. In Chrome (other browsers don't distinguish the severity), a crossed-out HTTPS means that a MITM attacker has the ability to run arbitrary javascript on the page. It doesn't even bother running severe mixed content now, though.
It's the same as someone sending my password in plaintext. It's a trust issue and a miserable first impression with something as complex as trusts.
HN has a very diverse set of readers; is anyone knowledgeable able to provide insight as to why we would want to open a trust, and any implications it would have?
As a single-father I am very interested in any knowledge that can be shared on this subject.
As a single-father I am very interested in any knowledge that can be shared on this subject.
Trusts allow for advanced estate planning that some can use to minimize tax burden on death. For most of the country, and most of my clients, current exemptions are high enough that this isn't a concern (federally $5 million for individuals, $10 million for a married couple). Here in Montana we don't have a state estate tax, but be sure to check your local laws.
Aside from tax issues, the primary benefit of a trust is the ability to exercise additional control over your property and assets after your death. Wills generally just say who to give how much to. Understandably, many parents think that handing over their entire life savings to a 16 year old is a bad idea. A trust can let you leave someone else (a Trustee) in charge of the money until your child is older and (hopefully) more responsible. One of the largest challenges in most estate planning is that we don't know when you're going to die and we don't know what your assets will look like when you do. In this way, a trust can mitigate one problem of dying with children.
You can exercise a lot more control than that with a Trust, but I find most people are just worried about handing a huge lump sum of assets over to a young kid, and the cocaine fueled spending spree that might follow.
The downsides of a trust vary depending on the type of trust. In its most basic form, you're still looking at additional set up costs. From there, the restrictions can go up to include limited and restricted access to the assets in the trust, administrative overhead, and time to manage the assets. Very few of my clients opt for the trust, even though all those with minor children could benefit from it.
The Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (referenced in this thread) aims to solve some of the problems of a trust by allowing for ad hoc creation at the time of transfer. You don't have to set as much up, since it's mostly statutory. It's a great tool, and (at least in Montana) underused.
Aside from tax issues, the primary benefit of a trust is the ability to exercise additional control over your property and assets after your death. Wills generally just say who to give how much to. Understandably, many parents think that handing over their entire life savings to a 16 year old is a bad idea. A trust can let you leave someone else (a Trustee) in charge of the money until your child is older and (hopefully) more responsible. One of the largest challenges in most estate planning is that we don't know when you're going to die and we don't know what your assets will look like when you do. In this way, a trust can mitigate one problem of dying with children.
You can exercise a lot more control than that with a Trust, but I find most people are just worried about handing a huge lump sum of assets over to a young kid, and the cocaine fueled spending spree that might follow.
The downsides of a trust vary depending on the type of trust. In its most basic form, you're still looking at additional set up costs. From there, the restrictions can go up to include limited and restricted access to the assets in the trust, administrative overhead, and time to manage the assets. Very few of my clients opt for the trust, even though all those with minor children could benefit from it.
The Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (referenced in this thread) aims to solve some of the problems of a trust by allowing for ad hoc creation at the time of transfer. You don't have to set as much up, since it's mostly statutory. It's a great tool, and (at least in Montana) underused.
Jeff - Founder/CEO - A trust is protected and in the child's name. Can't be touched by parents or the parents creditors. We also let you take advantage of the Kiddie Tax exemption. There are also no minimums. We offer access and ease.
I am familiar with the Kiddie Tax. I do not recognize the phrase "Kiddie Tax exemption." Please explain what that is.
Jeff - CEO/FounderThe first $950 of investment income for a child is tax free.
Do a trust for your kids if:
1. Funding college is not a concern for whatever reason.
AND
2a. You have enough assets that someone might try to sue your estate for a piece of it when you die.
or
2b. You want to make things as easy as possible for your kids on the day after you die.
1. Funding college is not a concern for whatever reason.
AND
2a. You have enough assets that someone might try to sue your estate for a piece of it when you die.
or
2b. You want to make things as easy as possible for your kids on the day after you die.
IANAL
First..there are many kinds of trusts...life insurance trusts, bypass trusts, crummey trusts, etc. There's a lot of possible reasons to do it/them; however, the main ones that interested me were:
* avoiding probate
* tax implications (by utilizing a trust properly, one can reduce estate taxes...for example...using a life insurance trust...you don't "own" the life insurance...so when you die, it's not considered part of your taxable estate.
* peace of mind around having things explicitly layed out. If my wife and I die, we know who takes care of the kid next and how the trust works (as far as education, giving to charity, etc.)
Hope this helps
First..there are many kinds of trusts...life insurance trusts, bypass trusts, crummey trusts, etc. There's a lot of possible reasons to do it/them; however, the main ones that interested me were:
* avoiding probate
* tax implications (by utilizing a trust properly, one can reduce estate taxes...for example...using a life insurance trust...you don't "own" the life insurance...so when you die, it's not considered part of your taxable estate.
* peace of mind around having things explicitly layed out. If my wife and I die, we know who takes care of the kid next and how the trust works (as far as education, giving to charity, etc.)
Hope this helps
Can anyone quickly sum up the benefits of trust funds over other forms of savings? Is it just a tax deduction?
I believe a trust fund lets you put conditions on what would otherwise be a "gift". For instance, if you die and you'd like to ensure your children go to college, you can set that as a condition for their inheritance by setting up a trust with an executor who's job it is to respect those conditions. I am sure that there are limits on said conditions and they could be challenged, but I'm pretty sure that this is a major benefit over just stroking someone a check.
From what I know, there is no trust-specific tax deduction, but you can do more detailed tax planning, e.g. trust may release funds gradually instead of paying hefty lump sum tax on inherited assets.
Also, trusts allow for immediate access to funds upon death, avoiding lockup during probate process.
Also, trusts allow for immediate access to funds upon death, avoiding lockup during probate process.
Sounds like a perfect first thing that should be on their website.
Tons of things...avoiding probate and reduction of estate taxes are two of the biggest ones for me.
This is really interesting. I've always thought there are a lot of opportunites in democratizing this sort of legal stuff.
Have you guys considered branching out into other types of trusts?
Have you guys considered branching out into other types of trusts?
Jeff - CEO/Founder - We will be creating other trust products down the road, but for now we're concentrating on children's savings.
I think the article might be exaggerating the success of the UK scheme. I am sure it was fairly successful when the government was giving kids money, but now it is just a tax exempt savings scheme (like children pay tax anyway) not sure it has made a difference.
Jeff Founder/CEO The government seeded the accounts, but it prompted families of all income levels to begin saving.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/may/25/child-trust-fund...
And the scheme has subsequently been canned. They have replaced it with a child ISA instead. Not sure if that was due to be being too successful.
[deleted]
Interesting idea but the branding is terrible and completely out of touch with the times.
They're supposed to get branding perfect before launching a pre-beta signup form? What if they don't get the necessary traction, investment or licenses? Sounds like a terrible waste of money and bad prioritization for a startup in their situation.
Disputing feedback when people give it is a surefire way of making sure that no feedback is given in the future.
When I see constructive feedback, I'll take that into consideration.
Does that make his observation invalid?
It's not an observation, it's an opinion, and definitely not an inarguable one.
Branding is as important as product or software development for startups. I'm not talking about selecting cool colors, having a nice logo or tagline, but purposely making strategic marketing decisions so that it's not left to chance or, even worse, your competitors.
I just looked at the page, and I don't believe any normal person would think that.
How does a trust compare to a UGMA/UTMA?
Jeff - Founder/CEO - A TrustEgg account is a UTMA. TrustEgg is the custodian and we will provide the infrastructure for parents and other family members to make easy transfers into the account - both one time and recurring deposits.
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Is there a process for using money for the beneficiary before they reach majority?
That seems the only downside of not having one of the parents retain custodianship (which is bad tax-wise if they die). It's not really a big deal for me, since I'm using my kids UTMAs as college-savings/nest-egg and have no plans of using it before they are 18.
That seems the only downside of not having one of the parents retain custodianship (which is bad tax-wise if they die). It's not really a big deal for me, since I'm using my kids UTMAs as college-savings/nest-egg and have no plans of using it before they are 18.
Does it guarantee dreadlocks?
This should be a great way to fleece unsuspecting unsophisticated investors trying to provide for their children. For instance, front-loading a bunch of fees against the deposited amount, so that if, say, the child dies, you get to keep most of the money.
http://www.moneyville.ca/article/1244729--fees-eat-up-90-per...
Be sure to market it to the poor primarily. The marketing tagline can be something like "The wealthy use trust funds to provide for their children - now you can too!"
Should be highly successful, even though there are zero benefits to trust funds for 99% of the population. Actually it's probably a net minus for most people, due to the way college financial aid is calculated.
I give it an A+ for income potential, C- for utility, F for ethicality.
http://www.moneyville.ca/article/1244729--fees-eat-up-90-per...
Be sure to market it to the poor primarily. The marketing tagline can be something like "The wealthy use trust funds to provide for their children - now you can too!"
Should be highly successful, even though there are zero benefits to trust funds for 99% of the population. Actually it's probably a net minus for most people, due to the way college financial aid is calculated.
I give it an A+ for income potential, C- for utility, F for ethicality.
What basis do you have for believing TrustEgg will do any of the unethical things you list? Your logic seems to be "there are unscrupulous financial service providers in the trust fund business, therefore TrustEgg is unscrupulous." Which deserves an F for logic and a second F for constructive feedback.
My assumption is that there a few ways a company can grow and be successful. One is by providing something of value, and charging people for it. However, the service in this case is of negative value. There are ZERO trust fund benefits for most people, and if your kid goes to college, the trust fund will be a substantial negative - your parents should have kept the money in their bank account. So that can't be the way forward for this company.
The second way is by exploiting something. Exploiting people's desires to provide for their children. Exploiting their financial illiteracy. Scamming people, in other words. This is also a successful business model, in that it works for the business (bad for society, of course).
We have something that looks like a duck and walks like a duck. We have not actually heard it quack like a duck, not yet. But the question in my mind is, how COULD this be a successful business? The product being offered has zero or negative value to almost everyone[1], and this is an age of financial scams of various sorts, the "grifter economy" as it has been dubbed. Am I so off-base in suggesting that this might be one of them? Am I crazy?
[1] Just a caveat: trust funds can be useful in a few cases, but you aren't rich enough to benefit.
The second way is by exploiting something. Exploiting people's desires to provide for their children. Exploiting their financial illiteracy. Scamming people, in other words. This is also a successful business model, in that it works for the business (bad for society, of course).
We have something that looks like a duck and walks like a duck. We have not actually heard it quack like a duck, not yet. But the question in my mind is, how COULD this be a successful business? The product being offered has zero or negative value to almost everyone[1], and this is an age of financial scams of various sorts, the "grifter economy" as it has been dubbed. Am I so off-base in suggesting that this might be one of them? Am I crazy?
[1] Just a caveat: trust funds can be useful in a few cases, but you aren't rich enough to benefit.
> There are ZERO trust fund benefits for most people, ...
Trust funds are a liability shield.
> ... your parents should have kept the money in their bank account.
Where it can be taken in a personal injury claim, or seized as alimony by a vindictive ex wife, or spent down by a the parent's medical trustee, or hundreds of other financial disasters.
The point of establishing a trust fund is to give a young person money that cannot easily be diverted or frittered away. Strings can be attached so that a teenager does not destroy themselves with money.
P.S. Companies like this make money by keeping overhead low and scaling up to bazillions of customers. You don't have to be a cheat or even expensive if you can get 10,000,000 customers.
Trust funds are a liability shield.
> ... your parents should have kept the money in their bank account.
Where it can be taken in a personal injury claim, or seized as alimony by a vindictive ex wife, or spent down by a the parent's medical trustee, or hundreds of other financial disasters.
The point of establishing a trust fund is to give a young person money that cannot easily be diverted or frittered away. Strings can be attached so that a teenager does not destroy themselves with money.
P.S. Companies like this make money by keeping overhead low and scaling up to bazillions of customers. You don't have to be a cheat or even expensive if you can get 10,000,000 customers.
You have a pretty high karma here so I don't know if you are joking, being sarcastic, or trolling. If TrustEgg discloses all fees prior to sign up and provides the same benefits a typical Trust Fund does, then what is the problem?
Jeff CEO/Founder - We will be disclosing all fees, which as a financial institution we would be required to do anyway. We also aren't charging any upfront fees or 'loads'.
I flagged this comment--this is an unwarranted and extraordinarily mean-spirited accusation, accusing the founders of seeking to steal from the poor, based entirely on a scenario that the author seems to have made up based on one article he read about one incident. Actually, this comment is so awful, I wish there was a way to flag the people who upvoted it!
Wow, this is uncalled for. What evidence do you have that this is the motivation behind this service?
Couldn't it also be a way for low-income families to benefit from the tax advantages normally only afforded to the wealthy?
Couldn't it also be a way for low-income families to benefit from the tax advantages normally only afforded to the wealthy?
I agree that the GP comment is uncalled for - we have no way of knowing if this company will help or hurt families, so let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
But let me address your second question.
The way that a trust is set up, it's not always the best solution for reducing the cost of college, particularly if you think you will qualify for financial aid (though that's a very difficult projection to make for the year 2030 at this point).
The way financial aid is calculated, these assets count against your eligibility. So while having the money won't 'hurt' you in some sense, there's the possibility that you'd receive that money from financial aid anyway, and by saving e.g. $10,000, you've reduced your financial aid eligibility by the same amount.
Of course, if you are able to save up the cost of college (>$200,000 for private schools) over two decades - or at least come reasonably close - then yes, it is good to have that money at the end of the term in case you wouldn't have qualified for financial aid anyway, but as you can see, having the fund doesn't necessarily leave you better off than the alternative.
The kicker is that the very-wealthy are able to secure vast amounts of financial aid for their children. I went to an Ivy League school, so I'll speak to their policies, as all Ivy League schools but one have the same financial aid policy: guaranteed to meet 100% of 'demonstrated need'. The problem is that 'demonstrated need' is very easy to manipulate if you're savvy enough to know how to reduce your taxable income, reduce your child's net worth to zero (or less), and exploit several other loopholes that are nevertheless entirely legal.
The end result is that I had some classmates whose families were wealthy enough to donate tens of thousands of dollars in charitable donations, and yet they also received the top financial aid packages reserved for the 'high need' (ie, very poor) families.
All of that is orthogonal to the company we're discussing: it's possible they may help, and it's possible that they may 'do no harm' (ie, it will be a wash for the family). Or they may be able to help educate these families how to take advantage of those same loopholes, but that would be difficult, and it's completely unrelated to the business of simply having a trust.
But let me address your second question.
The way that a trust is set up, it's not always the best solution for reducing the cost of college, particularly if you think you will qualify for financial aid (though that's a very difficult projection to make for the year 2030 at this point).
The way financial aid is calculated, these assets count against your eligibility. So while having the money won't 'hurt' you in some sense, there's the possibility that you'd receive that money from financial aid anyway, and by saving e.g. $10,000, you've reduced your financial aid eligibility by the same amount.
Of course, if you are able to save up the cost of college (>$200,000 for private schools) over two decades - or at least come reasonably close - then yes, it is good to have that money at the end of the term in case you wouldn't have qualified for financial aid anyway, but as you can see, having the fund doesn't necessarily leave you better off than the alternative.
The kicker is that the very-wealthy are able to secure vast amounts of financial aid for their children. I went to an Ivy League school, so I'll speak to their policies, as all Ivy League schools but one have the same financial aid policy: guaranteed to meet 100% of 'demonstrated need'. The problem is that 'demonstrated need' is very easy to manipulate if you're savvy enough to know how to reduce your taxable income, reduce your child's net worth to zero (or less), and exploit several other loopholes that are nevertheless entirely legal.
The end result is that I had some classmates whose families were wealthy enough to donate tens of thousands of dollars in charitable donations, and yet they also received the top financial aid packages reserved for the 'high need' (ie, very poor) families.
All of that is orthogonal to the company we're discussing: it's possible they may help, and it's possible that they may 'do no harm' (ie, it will be a wash for the family). Or they may be able to help educate these families how to take advantage of those same loopholes, but that would be difficult, and it's completely unrelated to the business of simply having a trust.
I see your points here, makes sense.
However, in my opinion, promoting individual saving for higher education and reducing government subsidies is a positive step. Because of the uncertainty about the situation in 2030 (as you mentioned) and government subsidies tend to lead to unintended consequences (see housing price bubble and collapse).
Edit: Also, the money doesn't have to be used for college.
However, in my opinion, promoting individual saving for higher education and reducing government subsidies is a positive step. Because of the uncertainty about the situation in 2030 (as you mentioned) and government subsidies tend to lead to unintended consequences (see housing price bubble and collapse).
Edit: Also, the money doesn't have to be used for college.
It's almost certain that putting money in the child's name will serve to reduce their financial aid package. Financial aid, since the system was invented, has always counted assets in the child's name as being highly available to meet college needs, while parental assets are less available. This is going to be true 18 years from now even if the system is tweaked in the meantime.
Putting money in a trust fund for your child will reduce their eligibility for financial aid, full stop, no doubt about it.
Putting money in a trust fund for your child will reduce their eligibility for financial aid, full stop, no doubt about it.
Jeff - Founder/CEO It does reduce financial aid, but only 20% of the child's assets are included.
TrustEgg assets also don't have to be used for education, while a 529 plan would assess a 10% penalty for non-education withdrawals.
Having the assets in the child's name also protects the assets from the parents, and parents creditors, which is necessary when taking deposits from other family members.
What tax advantages are those?
Low-income families aren't going to be taxed on any of the money they gift to their children.
Low-income families aren't going to be taxed on any of the money they gift to their children.
Jeff - CEO/Founder - The tax advantage is for the income earned on the investment. The kiddie tax exemption eliminates the the first $950 of unearned income.
As long as deposits are less than $13,000 per parent/grandparent each year there are no tax issues for them either.
Could you explain why a trust fund is a net minus for most people, and how college financial aid is affected by it?
At many of the top colleges and universities in the US, the institution is able to meet 100% of the "demonstrated financial need" of the family. At several schools, all of the provided financial aid comes in the form of grants, which is basically free money.
At all of these schools, while the tuition price tag might be $50,000 per year or more, relatively few families actually have to pay this sticker price. At my alma mater, Bowdoin, the overall cost is around $54k, but the average financial aid package (according to the College Board) is $41k, leaving the average Bowdoin student on the hook for only $13k a year.
If you're a family that otherwise would qualify for a large amount of financial aid, but you've saved up into a trust or other savings plan for the purpose of funding your child's education, you'll lose this free money. The institution will count this amount against your demonstrated financial need.
Some families with means are able to hide away these funds, and still get significant financial aid from a school like Bowdoin, but most families don't have the resources or savvy to do so.
Of course, if we're talking about institutions that don't have such strong financial aid programs – which is the vast majority – you probably want that savings. Deciding to save for your child's education is, statistically, usually a good decision. If your child ends up going to one of the above, though, it can be a costly one.
At all of these schools, while the tuition price tag might be $50,000 per year or more, relatively few families actually have to pay this sticker price. At my alma mater, Bowdoin, the overall cost is around $54k, but the average financial aid package (according to the College Board) is $41k, leaving the average Bowdoin student on the hook for only $13k a year.
If you're a family that otherwise would qualify for a large amount of financial aid, but you've saved up into a trust or other savings plan for the purpose of funding your child's education, you'll lose this free money. The institution will count this amount against your demonstrated financial need.
Some families with means are able to hide away these funds, and still get significant financial aid from a school like Bowdoin, but most families don't have the resources or savvy to do so.
Of course, if we're talking about institutions that don't have such strong financial aid programs – which is the vast majority – you probably want that savings. Deciding to save for your child's education is, statistically, usually a good decision. If your child ends up going to one of the above, though, it can be a costly one.
But it also depends on how the trust is created. I have no idea how TrustEgg establishes the trusts, but many people set up trust funds for their children - but name the child as an alternate beneficiary, after themselves. So, if I set up a fund for my child - the trust fund would be mine until I died. Assuming I was still alive while my kid was at college, the trust fund would be mine and not hers.
From what I recall the parents assets can be used, up to a certain percentage, to determine what the child is eligible for. One way around this is to use a Roth IRA, since it allows you to take money out for college without a penalty and would not be used to determine FAFSA.
Jeff - Founder/CEO - A UTMA is in the child's name, so 20% of the assets are considered for financial aid.
http://www.axa-equitable.com/plan/education/can-UGMA-UTMA-ac...
It reduces your financial aid package 20% each year.
Most private colleges charge the maximum you can possibly afford after going into significant debt.
The "maximum you can possibly afford" goes up on almost a 1:1 basis for every dollar in the child's name.
You might as well just write the check directly to the college as a donation. At least you can deduct it as a charitable donation that way (assuming it's a qualified non-profit blah blah).
The "maximum you can possibly afford" goes up on almost a 1:1 basis for every dollar in the child's name.
You might as well just write the check directly to the college as a donation. At least you can deduct it as a charitable donation that way (assuming it's a qualified non-profit blah blah).
The formula for financial aid counts assets in the child's name as being highly available to pay college costs, while parental assets are much less so.
Family A: parents have $10K, child has nothing
Family B: child has $10K, parents have nothing
Family B will be calculated to have more money available to spend on college (OBVIOUSLY the child should pay for college out of his own assets first...) and will get less financial aid. This will be true 18 years from now even if the system is tweaked slightly in the meantime.
Family A: parents have $10K, child has nothing
Family B: child has $10K, parents have nothing
Family B will be calculated to have more money available to spend on college (OBVIOUSLY the child should pay for college out of his own assets first...) and will get less financial aid. This will be true 18 years from now even if the system is tweaked slightly in the meantime.
The average American kid has an IQ of 100 and will attend a state subsidized community college, trade school, etc. They need to minimize loan interest and time spent working their way through school with menial jobs, not worrying about the exact financial aid efficiency of Harvard.
I think that we're at a Nash Equilibrium for Trusts, at the moment. That is, Trusts are only useful and good for sheltering assets because only a privileged few know how to use them to their advantage. Since the volume of people is small, and enough of those people are sufficiently influential, the IRS looks the other way.
As soon as a large amount of people can create trusts easily, I predict that two things will happen, roughly in order:
1) The IRS will attempt to reclassify trusts in a way that preserves revenue.
2) The privileged few who have always used trusts as a matter of routine financial planning will seek to create a new class of trusts that will not be vulnerable to #1.
Given that #1 is inevitable, and #2 will add some sunlight on things, I have to say that this is fascinatingly disruptive.