Let's say the primary and secondary beneficiaries on the mutual funds are identical to what's in the trust. By naming the trust as a secondary beneificary the lawyer would act as a middle man and take a hefty cut, don't you think ? I think that would be the case only if the lawyer were the trustee or executor, as well as being the lawyer who drew up the trust.________________________My trust is set up to have a lawyer as the trustee. I intend to name the trust as beneficiary for my taxable accounts but I'm looking to have my IRAs stretched out by naming the beneficiaries to handle it themselves. I suspect my lawyer would liquidate the IRA's and payoff the beneficiaries or he might even stretch it our over time and make money off the trust on a yearly basis. I'm thinking the best approach is not to name the trust as beneficiary for my IRAs. Any thoughts ?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra