Future Returns: Why Women Need to Participate in Financial Planning

It sounds hopelessly antiquated: A female spouse cedes control of the family’s finances, either willingly or unwillingly, to her male partner, only to be caught by surprise when her husband dies.

Yet financial advisors say it’s true—and problematic. Data is spotty, but a 2019 UBS survey of high-net-worth women found that 56% of American women aged 20-34 deferred long-term financial decisions to their spouse, as did 54% of women 51 and older.

Vance Barse is the founder of Your Dedicated Fiduciary, an investment advisor firm based in San Diego, Calif., that has made centring women a bedrock of its practice: two-thirds of its clients are female-headed households.

In a conversation with Penta, Barse says that if women aren’t part of the financial-planning conversation already, they should be. And if they lose their spouse before that can happen, they should be deliberate, not hasty, in finding a trusted advisor.

‘A Little Resentful’

No one wants to think about losing a spouse, but it will happen at some point—and as all the statistics show, it’s far more likely for a woman to outlive her male partner. That’s why Barse tries to centre female-headed households in his business model, but also why it’s wise for couples to make sure the wife has a say in the family finances before she’s all alone.

Barse describes the scenario he and other advisors see far too often with new widows: “After that initial shock, there is acceptance of the reality, which is that she is the one in charge of estate administration, she is the one who receives the estate, and now she is front and centre in her own financial life. There’s a transition where these women may become a little resentful or realise that they don’t have a trusting relationship with the person who was the husband’s—not the family’s—advisor.”

That’s when many widows fire the family’s existing advisor, and go in search of someone they can trust, Barse says.

But Barse says women usually turn to friends and family members for recommendations. Far too often those people aren’t right for the new widow, and may even take advantage of her.

High-net-worth women don’t need a retail advisor selling them whatever mutual fund the home office is hawking, Barse points out—they need what he calls an “in-house, right-hand person” to manage all aspects of the household’s financial life, even if that’s not what the husband’s expectations were while he was alive.

Look Before It’s Too Late

Women with male spouses—even happily married ones—may want to take a more active role in the family’s finances sooner rather than later, even if their husbands are content with the way things have always been, and especially if they feel left out of the conversation.

“When a new client couple first comes in, I ask, in a social situation, which one of you typically talks first,” Barse says. “Whichever of the spouses raises the hand and says I do, I turn to the other spouse. That means we’re giving the less-vocal spouse more of a voice right out of the gate.”

That’s critical, he says, not only because both voices should be heard, but because men and women often bring different perspectives to financial planning. With high-net-worth women, Barse says, “the conversation focuses more on how to make an impact and how to keep as much money in the estate as possible and prevent the heirs from fighting over the assets.”

For Widows

Women who have lost a spouse are in a difficult position. The recent loss may make it difficult to think about vetting someone analytically. Still, Barse offers a few considerations, starting with approaching the existing advisor as if he or she were any other candidate for the job.

“It’s highly appropriate to interview different financial advisors and their firms to determine which one feels like the best long-term fit,” he says. “There is no such thing as too much due diligence.”

Ask the advisor to detail in writing what products and strategies are in your best interest, what value they will bring to your estate, and how much that will cost you

Ask the advisor to outline any potential conflicts of interest in writing. Barse recalls one client whose family advisor had put almost 100% of the household assets in expensive financial products such as mutual funds managed by the advisor’s parent company—but one that just happened to have a different name.

Ask the financial advisor to outline how he or she will work alongside other estate advisors such as the CPA, the estate planner, the insurance agent, the realtor, and so on. You need someone to be sure all the professionals are communicating with each other and that there are no gaps.

Berkshire began liquidating its big stake in the banking company in mid-July—and has already unloaded about 15% of its interest. The selling has been fairly aggressive and has totaled about $6 billion. (Berkshire still holds 883 million shares, an 11.3% interest worth $35 billion based on its most recent filing on Aug. 30.)

The selling has prompted speculation about when CEO Warren Buffett, who oversees Berkshire’s $300 billion equity portfolio, will stop. The sales have depressed Bank of America stock, which has underperformed peers since Berkshire began its sell program. The stock closed down 0.9% Thursday at $40.14.

It’s possible that Berkshire will stop selling when the stake drops to 700 million shares. Taxes and history would be the reasons why.

Berkshire accumulated its Bank of America stake in two stages—and at vastly different prices. Berkshire’s initial stake came in 2017 , when it swapped $5 billion of Bank of America preferred stock for 700 million shares of common stock via warrants it received as part of the original preferred investment in 2011.

Berkshire got a sweet deal in that 2011 transaction. At the time, Bank of America was looking for a Buffett imprimatur—and the bank’s stock price was weak and under $10 a share.

Berkshire paid about $7 a share for that initial stake of 700 million common shares. The rest of the Berkshire stake, more than 300 million shares, was mostly purchased in 2018 at around $30 a share.

With Bank of America stock currently trading around $40, Berkshire faces a high tax burden from selling shares from the original stake of 700 million shares, given the low cost basis, and a much lighter tax hit from unloading the rest. Berkshire is subject to corporate taxes—an estimated 25% including local taxes—on gains on any sales of stock. The tax bite is stark.

Berkshire might own $2 to $3 a share in taxes on sales of high-cost stock and $8 a share on low-cost stock purchased for $7 a share.

New York tax expert Robert Willens says corporations, like individuals, can specify the particular lots when they sell stock with multiple cost levels.

“If stock is held in the custody of a broker, an adequate identification is made if the taxpayer specifies to the broker having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold and, within a reasonable time thereafter, confirmation of such specification is set forth in a written document from the broker,” Willens told Barron’s in an email.

He assumes that Berkshire will identify the high-cost Bank of America stock for the recent sales to minimize its tax liability.

If sellers don’t specify, they generally are subject to “first in, first out,” or FIFO, accounting, meaning that the stock bought first would be subject to any tax on gains.

Buffett tends to be tax-averse—and that may prompt him to keep the original stake of 700 million shares. He could also mull any loyalty he may feel toward Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan , whom Buffett has praised in the past.

Another reason for Berkshire to hold Bank of America is that it’s the company’s only big equity holding among traditional banks after selling shares of U.S. Bancorp , Bank of New York Mellon , JPMorgan Chase , and Wells Fargo in recent years.

Buffett, however, often eliminates stock holdings after he begins selling them down, as he did with the other bank stocks. Berkshire does retain a smaller stake of about $3 billion in Citigroup.

There could be a new filing on sales of Bank of America stock by Berkshire on Thursday evening. It has been three business days since the last one.

Berkshire must file within two business days of any sales of Bank of America stock since it owns more than 10%. The conglomerate will need to get its stake under about 777 million shares, about 100 million below the current level, before it can avoid the two-day filing rule.

It should be said that taxes haven’t deterred Buffett from selling over half of Berkshire’s stake in Apple this year—an estimated $85 billion or more of stock. Barron’s has estimated that Berkshire may owe $15 billion on the bulk of the sales that occurred in the second quarter.

Berkshire now holds 400 million shares of Apple and Barron’s has argued that Buffett may be finished reducing the Apple stake at that round number, which is the same number of shares that Berkshire has held in Coca-Cola for more than two decades.

Buffett may like round numbers—and 700 million could be just the right figure for Bank of America.

Future Returns: Why Women Need to Participate in Financial Planning

When will Berkshire Hathaway stop selling Bank of America stock?