Philanthropic Planning - from Rookie Life Insurance Agents to the Slate 60

National Underwriter, a life insurance industry publication, accepted an article of mine on, "How, When, and Why" an insurance agent might get involved in philanthropic planning for clients.  The gist of the article is that helping others to give well and wisely is an extension, not just of the agent's professional role but also of the agent's role as a good citizen. Givers help other givers. An agent might start with simple gifts of life insurance, then move on to charitable remainder trusts, then begin to do overall estate planning with a philanthropic focus, but the state of the art is to begin with the client's vision of a better life in a better world for self, family, and fellow citizens. Such a plan, descending from life goals, might go well beyond money, to include volunteering, social connections, political activity, and partnership with leaders of other sectors to produce a desired "end in view."

As you rise to the highest level of planning for the kinds of figures who spoke at the recent Slate 60 philanthropy conference, where all the levers of power, influence, and wealth are being pulled - with or without "gifts" - in partnership or collusion with other powerful people you quickly see that almost all of today's "philanthropic professionals" are touching only a tiny fraction of the relevant materials. When a wealthy family funds AEI, Cato, Heritage, or Hudson to lobby for repeal of estate tax, or the rollback of regulations that protect consumers and reduce profits, or funds a political campaign to get their friend elected to high office, and that friend appoints judges who quash suits against the funder, or when the family sets up a private wealth management group that uses information gleaned from friends in high places to make extraordinary rates of return, or when the family and its firms use philanthropy to create a green image, even as the firm's factory spews toxic sludge into the nearest river, we begin to see that what professionals call "philanthropic planning" is always "tactical." The strategies, be they idealistic, or Machiavellian, are about changing the world you and I live in for "the better" by a definition of better constructed by PR types in our absence, without consulting us, or giving a damn what we might say or think. The better world, like the world we have, will work itself out over our heads, among the speakers at Slate, and in other such venues, most of which are in "safe places" closed to the public. Whether we are citizens or planners, or journalists, our role is to express admiration and gratitude - the prevailing sycophantic tone of essays on the Slate Conference. Thus, we might cozy our way into the big dollar game, in our role as Courtier.

Odd, isn't it, I started out talking about National Underwriter, a trade publication for life insurance agents. My impulse is to end with Aristotle's Ethics, on the obligations of wealth in a just society. I now very well that teaching Aristotle to either donors or financial professionals, much less politicians, lobbyists, and their enablers, is largely futile. We have people who are not very well educated outside their narrow disciplines, and whose experience is narrow, and whose ideals are cramped, who rise from selling this or that, to high places, and surrounded by Courtiers, and fawned on by the press, they don't become any wiser in the process, only more powerful, and the damage they do in their efforts to create their "vision of a better world" is all around us. We entrust giving and society and our world to this handful of wealthy and powerful people at our own risk. Thank God, there are a few teachers, like The Happy Tutor, who are willing even in Wealth Bondage, in our bondage to wealth and the market that we call Freedom, to teach the Slate 60 sorts, and their Courtiers, right from wrong.  Personally, I find it more prudent to teach insurance sales.  I think Tutor has about as much chance of living to old age as Jesus Christ or Socrates. A better world is coming, driven from wealth and power on down, and we had better stand clear. It is all good. 

Comments

[Sean Stannard-Stockton]

I think you and I agree on a lot. But I think you are incorrectly equating being "tactical" with engaging in philanthropy without charitable intent. Nothing could be further from the truth. I encourage you and your readers to read my recent post which outlines what I mean by "tactical".

[Phil]

Actually, no. I agree with the point that tactics answer to strategies, and strategies answer to vision. I agree with your point that implementation is as important as theory. What I am trying to understand reading your posts is what you mean by vision and strategy. How high up that hierarchy do you go? Do you assume the frame is giving and talk about the vision for giving, and then the strategies, then the tactics for that? Or do you talk about the vision for a good life, a decent society, a successful family, and then ask what strategies, financial and otherwise, might support that vision, and then work on down through the philanthropic tactics?

I guess, not from the standpoint of judging you at all, but just placing your discipline, I am trying to see what you consider the scope of your practice, what is in scope and what is out of scope.

An analogous situation: In financial services some of the best life insurance agents I know pretend to know little of estate planning or business planning or charitable planning. They work with sophisticated advisors but specialize in life insurance placement. That is tactical, but shrewd. They specialize in doing one thing very well, within an overall team that provides the necessary vision, and the larger strategies.

Is that comparable to your work with charitable tactics?

[Sean Stannard-Stockton]

In my professional life with Ensemble Capital I strive to understand the vision and strategy that donor/clients present to me and then use the process of Tactical Philanthropy to develop the tactical plan to put their vision and strategy into action. I do not assist with developing vision or strategy, although I very well may help the donor/client find an advisor who can help them through this process.

My focus on the tactics reflects my belief that Tactics is a very different discipline from Vision and Strategy. I feel that currently most advisors who offer tactical advice have very limited understanding of the vision and strategy that motivates the donor. Therefore, they often end up subverting the philanthropic motivation by suggesting a tactic which may minimize taxes, but does not maximize philanthropic impact.

[Sean Stannard-Stockton]

Realize too though that my blog is not simply an extension of my professional life. Part of the reason for the blog is so I can explore issues I care about (like teaching philanthropy to students), which do not connect directly to my job at Ensemble Capital. So, my blog may roam into the areas of Vision and Strategy.

[Phil]

Could you use case studies to make this concrete? What would be a typical client opening interview or request for assistance? How do clients get to you? What does the opening interview sound like? How has the client gotten to the point of having a philanthropic vision, mission, and strategy? Who brought them to that point? Are these long time givers, or new ones making their first major commitment? Do you canvas non-philanthropic means (such as social ventures, volunteering, or political engagement) to the social ends the client has in view?

We are all feeling our way through these issues, online and off, so don't feel uneasy is you yourself are seeking greater focus. I am as well.