When Robin Williams and Joan Rivers died in 2014, they had already taken steps to look after their families by setting up trusts. That didn't happen by accident – it required careful planning, diligence, and close work with their estate lawyers and financial advisors.
Is it time to talk to your clients about setting up a trust? Use this article as a framework for that conversation. We'll go over what a trust is, what the different types are, and how to make it part of a solid estate plan.
A trust is a fiduciary relationship where one party – the grantor – gives a second party, the trustee, the right to hold title to property or assets. The trustee holds these assets on behalf of a third party called the beneficiary.
These three parties are named in a trust, and each has a specific role:
While trusts are considered an investment vehicle, they are primarily a legal entity that names these three parties and their responsibilities.
A trust contains two main components:
Trusts serve important estate planning goals, such as reducing taxes. But here's the key benefit: trusts typically avoid probate, which saves time and money. And for your high-profile clients, avoiding probate means records are kept private.
We'll go over other benefits of trusts in a later section.
These are the two broad categories of trusts. Most clients start with revocable trusts, and some eventually use irrevocable trusts for specific tax goals.
Revocable trusts, also called living trusts revocable living trusts, are created during the grantor's lifetime. The grantor can:
The grantor has full control of the trust. This means having free access to the assets in the trust. This flexibility is the main appeal. They can adjust the plan as circumstances change.
With that flexibility comes one restriction: a revocable trust is subject to estate taxes. Since the grantor controls and benefits from the assets, the IRS includes them in the taxable estate. In effect, a revocable trust is primarily a probate avoidance tool.
An irrevocable trust works differently; once it has been set up, it cannot be changed at all. This restriction comes with these benefits:
A client who sets up an irrevocable trust loses control forever. They cannot access the money for personal needs later. This permanence calls for careful planning. Read our guide on irrevocable trusts for more.
There are other options to discuss with clients, depending on what type of trust suits their needs best. Here are a few of them:
These are just a few of the strategies you can take when discussing estate planning with your clients.
In 2024, a survey on estate planning found that respondents knew the basic differences between trusts and wills but missed out on the small but important details. This presents an opportunity for advisors like you to educate clients on trusts and wills.
A will is a legal document that directs who receives assets after death. Think of it as your client's instruction letter to the court – a will:
Here's a downside: a will goes through probate court. It is reviewed by a judge but can be contested by others, such as family members excluded from the will. The entire process becomes public record. Anyone can access the will and see what was owned and who inherited what.
Probate involves costs. Court fees and attorney fees reduce what beneficiaries stand to receive. The process takes time. In many states, it can take months or even years.
A trust, meanwhile, is a legal contract. It can operate during the grantor's lifetime. Assets held in a trust bypass probate entirely, so beneficiaries access assets much faster. The process remains completely private. Court involvement is minimal or nonexistent.
Trusts offer control that wills cannot match. The grantor can specify exactly when distributions take place. They can specify to whom distributions go. They can leave everything to a spouse or split assets between spouse and children. They can stagger distributions based on age.
Here's one big difference: Wills only work after death. Unlike irrevocable trusts, wills and revocable living trusts can be updated. They should be reviewed and revised after major life events:
The best practice is to use both wills and trusts. A trust delivers efficiency, privacy, and control for key assets; a will names guardians and ensures everything else follows the same plan.
| Feature | Will | Trust |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Instruction letter to the court | Legal contract |
| Takes effect | After death only | During lifetime or after death |
| Probate | Yes – court reviews and approves | No – bypasses probate |
| Privacy | Public record | Private |
| Time to settle | Months to years | Much faster |
| Cost | Court fees, attorney fees | Minimal ongoing costs |
| Can be changed? | Yes (anytime before death) | Yes (revocable trusts)No (irrevocable trusts) |
| Names guardians | Yes (minor children, pets) | No |
| Controls timing | Limited – all at once after death | Precise – by age, purpose, conditions |
| Incapacity planning | None | Yes – successor trustee steps in |
| Best for | Naming guardians, catching leftover assets | Major assets, privacy, control, avoiding probate |
Trusts aren't just for the ultra-wealthy; they are recommended for anyone who:
If your client meets the conditions above, here are some reasons to set up a trust:
Trusts are fundamental to comprehensive financial planning. They offer control, privacy, and probate avoidance for clients. For independent advisors and RIAs, understanding how a trust works helps you guide clients through important decisions.
Your role includes understanding trusts even if you don't create them. Help clients recognize when a trust makes sense. Know when to refer to professionals. Coordinate your financial advice with their legal strategy. The best estate plans integrate financial planning, tax strategy, and legal structure seamlessly.
Trusts aren't exclusively for ultra-wealthy clients. Any client with substantial assets or specific control goals should consider one. With proper planning, a trust becomes the centerpiece of a solid estate plan.
The U.S. Labor Department sued four investment firms for allegedly failing to examine swindler Bernard Madoff's business practices before entrusting him with hundreds of millions of dollars in pension funds.
A broad coalition of accounting, financial planning and consumer groups are hoping that the new Congress will take up a long-sought-after ban on the practice of patenting tax strategies
Next Financial Group Inc. was hit last month with its third significant regulatory action in three years when Finra socked it with a $400,000 fine and $102,000 in restitution to clients.
Financial advisers and mutual fund executives are increasingly worried that the latest insider trading probe will result in regulations limiting how active fund managers are allowed to use outside research, hurting returns and prompting investors to flock to index funds.
For financial advisers, Chicago is definitely not a second city.
The days of advisers wearing a suit and tie to the office every day are long gone, but most reps still try to maintain a professional — if more casual — feel. That means khakis, dress pants and button-down shirts are in. Jeans are still out.
News of a federal investigation reportedly probing mutual fund companies, broker-dealers and consultants — as well as investment banks and hedge funds — could cause investors to dump equities, according to industry observers and financial advisers.
The following is an edited transcript of <i>InvestmentNews' </i>technoogy round table, held in New York Sept. 15
Many financial professionals see client reviews solely as a time to discuss portfolio performance
In trying to clarify who can give advice to 401(k) plan participants and under what circumstances, the Labor Department appears to have antagonized just about everybody.
More affluent Canadians are flocking south for the warm winter sun and cheap real estate deals
In light of a recent IRS decision that took some by surprise, there's one options strategy we're not likely to see anymore
Risk-reward ratio shot to heck; 7% yield, but one typhoon and your investment may be lost
A First Republic Bank unit was ordered to pay a retired Stanford University professor and his wife $2.18 million after arbitrators found the firm gave them only a “fleeting and slapdash” explanation of a municipal bond fund that imploded during the credit crisis in 2008.
