Founder Succession Roadblocks

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Android | Pandora

When the Title Changes but the Authority Doesn’t: Family Business Succession with Paul Edelman

Most family business succession plans fail not because the legal structure is wrong, but because authority never actually moves. In this episode of Wealth Actually, Frazer Rice talks with Paul Edelman, PhD of Edelman & Associates about how to tell the difference between a real handoff and a cosmetic one. Edelman unbundles succession into six separate questions, explains the three behavioral tells that reveal who is really in charge, draws a hard line between a legitimate safeguard and an open-ended veto, and makes the case that agreement from a family is not the same thing as ownership of a decision.

Key Takeaways

Succession is not one decision — it is at least six. Who gets the economic benefit of ownership, who votes the shares, who appoints and removes directors, who runs operations, who receives what information, and who retains informal influence after formal authority ends.
Watch behavior, not titles. Compensation changes and org charts are easy to read and easy to fake. How decisions actually get made — and whether they get reversed — is the real signal.
Three tells that authority hasn’t moved: the next management layer still routes real decisions to the founder; the successor has never had a disputed call stand; and in a genuine crisis, the founder is the one who walks into the room.
Speed is not the test. A five-year transition can be disciplined development; a six-month transition can be denial with a deadline. The test is whether milestones and readiness criteria are observable and stable, or whether the goalposts keep moving.
“Not ready” is not a concern — it is a placeholder. If a founder cannot restate it in specific, testable terms, the obstacle is emotional rather than substantive, and it needs a different path.
Advisor impatience often masquerades as clarity. When you catch yourself thinking “why can’t they just do this,” ask whose timeline is actually being served — the family’s, or your need to close the file.
A safeguard is bounded; a veto is not. Reserve specific extraordinary decisions with defined scope, thresholds, triggers, evidence, and duration. “The successor is in charge unless the founder feels uncomfortable” is an undefined operational veto.
Agreement is not ownership. A family can be outvoted and formally agree while owning nothing. Ownership comes from having weighed the trade-offs and the implications of each option in the room.

Timestamps

[00:00] Cold open — why “he’s just not ready” is untestable
[01:05] Welcome: founders at the sell-or-transfer crossroads
[01:48] Unbundling succession into six separate questions
[02:23] Running a diagnostic on where the founder actually is
[03:00] Watch behavior, not titles — and what the CFO tells you
[04:00] Decision reversals and the second-guessing test
[05:00] The crisis test: who owns the emergency
[05:36] Fast handoff vs. staged succession and prolonged ambiguity
[06:10] Milestones that show it’s working — and goalposts that keep moving
[08:00] Inside vs. outside successors and family dynamics
[08:54] Competing heirs and the outside CEO as bridge or avoidance
[09:47] Reading resistance: making “not ready” addressable
[11:10] The advisory ecosystem’s frustration with stalled progress
[12:16] Whose timeline is being served?
[13:31] Push, pause, or reframe — the art and science of advising
[15:00] When to change the forum, the decision rights, or bring in a facilitator
[15:36] Safeguards vs. vetoes and the trap doors founders build
[17:37] Board composition: independence vs. familiarity
[20:00] Restructuring boards to create seats for new expertise
[20:54] Income-dependent family members vs. growth-minded owners
[21:34] Agreement is not ownership: dividends vs. reinvestment
[23:31] Matching complexity to the outcomes you need
[25:00] Communicating decisions to people who weren’t in the room
[25:26] How to reach Paul Edelman
[25:46] The Edelman–Shenkman trilogy for estate planning attorneys
[29:19] Close

Pull Quotes

“If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story.” — Paul Edelman

“To have authority when things are going well is fine. But the person who owns the crisis is the one who’s really owning the leadership.” — Paul Edelman

“A safeguard should be limited, explicit, and connected to some extraordinary risk. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse any old ordinary decision.” — Paul Edelman

“Just because there’s an agreement in name doesn’t mean there’s ownership of the decision.” — Paul Edelman

About the Guest

Paul Edelman, PhD is a coach, facilitator, and mentor at Edelman & Associates, where he works with family enterprise and family office leaders on decisions that cannot be delegated. He holds a PhD in developmental psychology from Harvard University and a BS in physics from MIT, and serves as faculty at The UHNW Institute and the Bertarelli Institute for Family Entrepreneurship at Babson College.

Contact Paul Edelman

Email: paul@edelmancoaching.com
Website: edelmancoaching.com (contact form on site)
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/pauledelman

The Edelman & Shenkman Trilogy

Paul and Martin M. “Marty” Shenkman, CPA, MBA, JD, PFS, AEP (Distinguished), of Shenkman Tietz, have written a three-part series aimed at estate planning attorneys:

Simplicity and its trade-offs — When Clients Ask for a Simple Estate Plan, WealthManagement.com / Trusts & Estates, July 8, 2026.
The language of estate planning conversations — published in Steve Leimberg’s LISI Estate Planning Newsletter (subscriber archive).
Beneficiary education — forthcoming October 2026, expected in Estate Planning.

Paul’s running author archive: wealthmanagement.com/author/paul-edelman

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the six questions a family business succession decision should be broken into?
Who receives the economic benefit of ownership; who votes the shares; who appoints and removes directors; who runs the company operationally; who receives what information; and who continues to hold influence after formal authority ends. Bundling these into a single “handoff” decision is what creates ambiguity.

How can you tell whether authority has really transferred to a successor?
Watch three behaviors. First, where the next management layer goes for real decisions — employees are excellent at reading where power actually lives. Second, whether the successor has ever made a call the founder disagreed with and had it stand. Third, the crisis test: when a covenant breaks or a key employee leaves, who walks into the room and who gets briefed afterward.

Is a fast succession better than a gradual one?
Speed itself is not the test. A five-year transition can represent disciplined development, and a six-month transition can be avoidance followed by an arbitrary deadline. What matters is whether responsibility moves against observable milestones, whether the successor learns from outcomes instead of being rescued, and whether readiness criteria stay fixed rather than shifting each time the successor advances.

What is the difference between a safeguard and a veto?
A safeguard is limited, explicit, and tied to extraordinary risk — selling the company, debt above a threshold, issuing new equity, changing core strategy, or related-party transactions — with defined scope, thresholds, process, duration, trigger, evidence, and who decides. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse ordinary decisions. If the founder can intervene whenever they feel uncomfortable, that is an undefined operational veto.

How should advisors handle their own frustration with a stalled family?
Notice that impatience often feels like clarity. When you think “I see exactly what they need to do, why can’t they just do it,” that is often the moment to slow down and ask whose timeline is being served — whether the ambiguity is genuinely damaging the company, or whether the recommendation mainly closes the case and relieves the advisor’s discomfort with uncertainty.

What makes an independent director genuinely independent in a family company?
The ability to exercise business judgment and fiduciary duty free from undue family influence or loyalty to a particular branch. A director who is the founder’s golfing buddy or tied to one family faction will struggle to deliver the value independence is supposed to provide.

Why isn’t agreement good enough?
Because agreement in name is not ownership. A family branch can be outvoted, formally accept the outcome, and still feel no responsibility for it. Ownership comes from working through the trade-offs — what each option makes better and worse — so participants can say they helped weigh the considerations even if the result was not their first choice.

Full Transcript

[00:00] Paul Edelman: The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like, for example, the most general concern that people will say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It’s not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable.

[00:36] Announcer: Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast, the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators that will give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at wealthactually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests.

[01:05] Frazer Rice: Welcome aboard, Paul.

[01:07] Paul Edelman: Thanks, Frazer. Looking forward to our conversation.

[01:09] Frazer Rice: Well, it’s important because I deal with a bunch of founders and a bunch of other business owners, families, et cetera, that are trying to make sense out of the concept of passing along the business either to the next generation or deciding to sell it, and all sorts of parts of that tough crossroads that everybody has to go through at some point. And that’s really the crux of your practice — to help people with those conversations.

[01:34] Paul Edelman: Yes.

[01:35] Frazer Rice: So when we’re thinking about that and kind of unbundling the decision to pass the business along, when a family wants to talk about that, what are the separate parts of that decision that need to be contemplated?

[01:48] Paul Edelman: Well, I see at least six different questions that need to be separated. One is who receives the economic benefit of ownership in the company. Another is who gets to vote the shares. And a third is who appoints and removes the directors. Then there’s who runs the company from an operational standpoint, and who receives what information. And then, who continues to have influence even though they may no longer have formal authority.

[02:23] Frazer Rice: So once you get into the… it always seems to me to be tough to sort of say, okay, here are six things that have to happen, and that’s a lot for somebody to digest in the course of one or two meetings and get the buy-in from all the different constituencies that are interested in what the business is up to. How do you run a diagnostic to understand where a founder is — or generation one — in their own head space, and understanding what control being passed on looks like in summary form on those six different aspects that you brought up?

[03:00] Paul Edelman: I think the key thing is to watch behavior more than titles. People often pay a lot of attention to when the titles have shifted or compensation shifts, things like that. But they pay less attention to how decisions are being made and whether those decisions get reversed. So when the title has moved but the authority hasn’t moved, you tend to see three different things. First of all, you can see something going on at the next level down in management — not with the founder and successor per se, but with the other executives. You can ask yourself, who do they go to for the real decisions? If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story.

[04:00] Paul Edelman: Employees are excellent at reading where the actual power lives, because they can’t afford to be wrong about that sort of thing. So that’s one clue. Another is to look at decision reversals, or what is more commonly called second-guessing. You want to look for whether the successor has made a call that the founder disagreed with. And if so, did it stand, or did it get reversed? If the company is two years into succession and that’s never happened, it’s possible that the successor is pre-clearing everything with the former CEO and only making decisions that they know will be approved. So in that case, it’s not real authority. And a third situation is what you could call a crisis test.

[05:00] Paul Edelman: So when something genuinely bad happens — there’s a breach of a covenant, or a key employee departs, or a lawsuit — the question is, who do people go to? Who walks into the boardroom and into the decision-making situation, and who ends up getting briefed afterwards? To have authority when things are going well is fine, but the person who owns the crisis is the one who’s really owning the leadership, in a sense.

[05:36] Frazer Rice: So one of the avenues that I think is interesting, that I read in your materials ahead of time, was the idea that a quick succession oftentimes — and maybe not often, but can be — a better avenue in terms of moving the succession forward, as opposed to having a staged succession where a long period of ruminating and decision-making often perpetuates ambiguity, or even confusion, amongst different constituencies both managerially and ownership-wise.

[06:10] Paul Edelman: Speed itself is not the test. You could have a five-year transition that represents disciplined development of the successor, and you could also have a six-month transition that essentially is a denial of what needs to happen, followed by some kind of a deadline. But you certainly don’t want to allow things to drift. If the transition is proceeding gradually, you can tell it’s working if responsibility and authority are moving according to observable milestones. So the successor is making increasingly consequential decisions. They’re learning from the outcomes rather than being rescued by the founder or the prior leader from their mistakes.

[07:01] Paul Edelman: They’re developing important relationships and they’re becoming someone that others rely on. The criteria for readiness also should become clearer over time, and the founder’s involvement should change in ways that are recognizable. So that’s the ideal. But sometimes a gradual transition represents avoidance, and in those cases you see criteria — sometimes people refer to them as the goalposts — that keep moving. And decisions are repeatedly returned to the founder. Also, each step that the successor takes toward greater authority may be followed by a new reason why the founder feels that they’re not ready. So the question that can be asked is: what are the capabilities that the successor is developing, and what specific evidence would demonstrate that?

[08:00] Frazer Rice: When you’re diagnosing what those capabilities are, as part of that diagnosis, if the successor is inside the family versus outside the family, how do you diagnose whether that is a positive or a negative, in addition to maybe the harder skill sets that are being dealt with?

[08:29] Paul Edelman: If the successor is from inside or outside the family, I would say that many of the capabilities needed for leadership are the same.

[08:40] Frazer Rice: Yeah, I was going to say — if you run into situations where a family member is capable skill-wise, but there are dynamics issues that have prevented their succession to the throne, essentially.

[08:54] Paul Edelman: Sometimes there may be a situation in which you have more than one potential successor and they’re in competition with one another, and the family is reluctant to declare a winner. And so one move that can be made in that situation is to essentially bypass the decision by going to the outside to bring in someone. It could be a kind of conflict avoidance mechanism. On the other hand, if no successor is really ready, then sometimes going to the outside can be an interim move. So some companies will hire an external candidate for CEO with the expectation that part of the responsibility will be to develop one of the family members who ultimately may take over.

[09:47] Frazer Rice: And so part of your methodology is to read resistance in the room and understand where those pain points are. How does a founder, or generation one, or the successive generations understand what the resistance is? And how do you help them overcome that?

[10:02] Paul Edelman: The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like — for example, the most general concern that people say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It’s not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable. If you try to do that and you’re unable to, that’s an indication that the concern is less about something specific and addressable, and more about some unpleasant feelings that the founder is experiencing — and that implies a different path for how to address those, or what needs to be done.

[11:10] Frazer Rice: For those of us in, let’s call it the advisory ecosystem — that can be the wealth manager, or the lawyer, or the accountant, the people who help guide the technical succession issues, whether it’s tax planning or trusts and estates or even just the corporate handoff — oftentimes we’re presented with situations that just get muddled, and we look at lack of progress with frustration. How does an advisor deal with that, when the instinct and in a sense the business model is to try to push, to get resolution and to get progress on these types of issues?

[12:16] Paul Edelman: The signal that I watch for is what that impatience feels like to the advisor. Sometimes it feels like clarity. The advisor says to himself, oh, I see exactly what they need to do — why can’t they just do this? And in my experience, that’s often the moment when it’s helpful for the advisor to slow down. Not because the family should be allowed to delay indefinitely, but because the advisor’s own need for resolution may begin to shape what they say and do, and the advice that they give.

[13:00] Paul Edelman: One useful check that advisors can use for themselves is to ask whose timeline is being served. There may be a genuine business reason to act — it may be, for example, that the continued ambiguity is hurting the company, or weakening the successor, or leaving employees unsure about who’s in charge. But I would also ask myself, and other advisors can ask themselves, whether their recommendation is mainly to help them close the case, or to demonstrate progress, or to relieve their own discomfort with uncertainty.

[13:31] Frazer Rice: The concept of — this is really, I guess, the mix of art and science of advising — between push versus pause versus a total restructure or a reframing of the conversation. There’s an intersection of, you have to have the technicals down, but then experience in dealing with personalities, experience with dealing with the specific family and situation, and guiding that.

[14:15] Frazer Rice: I imagine occasionally you run into situations where, at the intersection between the advisors and the family, they feel stuck. And so then the concept of getting them unstuck — yet there is resistance to maybe bringing in a facilitator to help grease the skids and get the conversation moving again. How do you help that reframing discussion?

[14:40] Paul Edelman: I guess the question I would ask is, where do things stand? Has a decision actually been made, or is the obstacle substantive, or is it the process? So when a decision has been reached through a legitimate process and what you see is some sort of executional drag or discomfort, those are the situations where I think it’s helpful to hold the boundary. You can acknowledge whatever feelings may be slowing things down, but there’s not a need to reopen the decision.

[14:55] Paul Edelman: On the other hand, if the discomfort that people are feeling suggests that there’s some sort of important concern that hasn’t yet been understood, then that’s where I would pause. And that pause can involve useful work. You can ask people, what is it you’re trying to protect? What are the consequences that you fear? What would need to be true for proceeding to feel responsible rather than reckless? And then there are times when it makes sense to restructure or to add structure. So for example, the choices are pretty clear, but the same conversation keeps recurring and producing the same result. In that case, you want to think in terms of either changing the forum, or clarifying the decision rights, or maybe dividing the issue into smaller decisions, or even bringing someone in to help structure the conversation, like a third-party facilitator.

[15:36] Frazer Rice: The handoff ultimately — when the founder, or generation one, has gotten to the point where they’re ready to move things along to the next set of operators, the next set of owners — and at the same time, in order to feel safe, they’ve created some safeguards, or let’s call it some trap doors or back doors, to be able to help influence decisions if they feel like things are going in a different direction. How do you think about it so that they don’t turn into pain points — maybe regret that turns into a veto power that stymies the succession, even if it’s already been decided and put in motion?

[16:21] Paul Edelman: Well, I think you put your finger on it. There’s a key distinction to be made here between a safeguard and a veto. A safeguard should be limited, explicit, and connected to some extraordinary risk, whereas a veto is kind of an ongoing ability to stop or reverse any old ordinary decision. So when it comes to safeguards, a family might reserve certain kinds of decisions — like selling the company, or taking on debt above a certain level, or issuing new equity, or changing the basic business strategy, or entering into a transaction with a family member.

[16:59] Paul Edelman: Those kinds of things can be specified, and the scope, the threshold, the decision process and the duration of the safeguard should be clear — as well as who can invoke that protection, what evidence is required, and who decides whether the trigger has occurred, and so on. So the problems arise when the arrangement is essentially one in which the successor is in charge unless the founder feels uncomfortable. If the founder is allowed to intervene anytime they feel uncomfortable, as opposed to for these specific kinds of reasons, then you’re dealing with more of an undefined operational veto.

[17:37] Frazer Rice: To that end — boards of directors related to these companies, whether they’re private or public, but we’re really talking about private in most cases. The constitution of those boards: how involved do you get in that? And what is the importance of independence versus familiarity versus family member input, to act as a go-between in many ways between founder, the operational executives, and then ultimately the owners?

[18:07] Paul Edelman: Well, in order to really add value — the kind of value that independent directors can potentially offer to a company — they need to be adequately independent. That is to say, they need to be able to exercise their sound business judgment and carry out their fiduciary responsibilities in a way that is free from undue influence by other kinds of family considerations, and potentially loyalty to particular family members. So I think in those cases where a so-called independent board member is actually a golfing buddy of the CEO or the founder, or has a tie to one particular family member or branch of the family, it may be harder for them to bring the full value that an independent director can bring.

[18:55] Paul Edelman: Then of course, another reason why companies bring in independent directors is because they have some additional expertise that the current board members or family members lack. So for example, a colleague and I are working with a company right now where the core business has been subject to commoditization, and they’ve made a strategic decision to diversify. But in order to diversify, they need to bring in people with new expertise, particularly in the line of business that they want to move into. In order to do that, they need to create some space in their board or boards of directors — they have several different kinds of boards. And as part of this, we were brought in to take a look at those existing boards and help them think about how to restructure in a way that could create some open seats while minimizing the displacement of people who are currently board members, including family members who are board members, who may not feel too positively about losing their board seat.

[20:54] Frazer Rice: Related to board seats, but more specifically to family ownership — the concept of family members who rely on the family business for income, versus maybe other parts of the family that are looking at the business and thinking of growing the valuation or innovating with the business, that type of thing. With the tension between those two different components, how do you solve for that and have that conversation stay productive, when I imagine it can get emotional very quickly?

[21:34] Paul Edelman: This is where a third-party facilitator can be helpful to slow things down. When things begin to get heated, it’s often helpful to have a neutral or impartial person present who can help to reduce the heat in the conversations. There are a number of things in particular that can be done under those circumstances. First of all, anytime there are these kinds of tough decisions, there’s never a single right answer. There’s always trade-offs involved. And some boards work their way through these things by voting. I’m dealing with a situation right now where some members of the family were outvoted. At the end of that vote, they say, okay, we now have an agreement, we’re going to move forward with this. But just because there’s an agreement in name doesn’t mean there’s ownership of the decision.

[22:34] Paul Edelman: So in order to create ownership, I think it is helpful to have the difficult conversations and to consider the implications of going one way versus another. If we were to distribute all this money in the form of dividends, what would be the benefits of that, and what would be the costs associated with that? And on the other hand, if we were to plow it all back into growth of the business, what’s the upside and downside of that? Only by considering different options and the implications of each can the family ultimately arrive at a decision where people feel like, well, I may not have agreed to this, but I was part of the discussion, I was part of the process of weighing the different considerations, and I’m willing to buy into this. In other words, I feel some ownership for this decision.

[23:31] Frazer Rice: As we start to wind down here, an interesting concept is what should all the constituencies come away with from the decision-making process. And as a follow-up to that is simplicity versus complexity of the solution. How do you manage that so that you take care of the needs of the business and the needs for structuring, with the need for simplicity, so that everyone who comes away from the discussion and the decision-making understands what’s been put in place?

[24:06] Paul Edelman: As far as the solution itself goes, the level of complexity should match what’s required to accomplish the desired outcomes. So complexity for its own sake is not useful. But when you’re trying to accomplish more than one thing at a time, it may require a more complex approach to the solution. So that’s on the solution side. Now the other side of it has to do with communication. How do you share what’s been decided with other people, especially people who haven’t been in the room? And I think that the best way to do that is to try to explain clearly what was the context of the situation in which the need to make this decision arose; what were the desired outcomes that the decision makers were trying to produce, what were they trying to accomplish; and the flip side of that is what were they trying to avoid, or what were they trying to protect.

[25:00] Paul Edelman: When you share all of that, the rationale for the decision becomes more understandable, and also you have a better case for justifying any complexity that’s part of the decision. As far as complexity goes, of course, you want to use the simplest, most straightforward language to describe what you’ve come up with. But I think the key thing to getting buy-in is to make sure that the rationale is clear, and people understand that there was a thoughtful and systematic process behind it.

[25:26] Frazer Rice: Really good stuff. Paul, how do people find you to hear more about what you’re up to?

[25:32] Paul Edelman: My website is edelmancoaching.com. So people can go to edelmancoaching.com, read more about the work that I do, and there’s a contact form there. Or people can simply email paul@edelmancoaching.com.

[25:46] Frazer Rice: Just to — because you’re being very humble — you have a couple of articles coming out with Marty Shenkman, where the intersection of probably the trust and estate planning and the actual, let’s say, getting the business ready for the next generation, whatever form that takes, is probably front and center there. How would people find that?

[26:06] Paul Edelman: So we’ve written three articles recently, kind of a trilogy, and they’re each going to be carried in different places. Two have already come out, and one is due to come out. These are aimed primarily at estate planning attorneys. But the first one is on when the client asks for a simple estate plan. And this relates a little bit to what you were describing, in a different domain — the domain of trusts and estate plans and so on. But the point that we make is that the client’s request for simplicity is understandable, and ideally the attorney will validate that. But at the same time, along with the request for simplicity goes potentially some compromises, because when you have multiple desired outcomes, it may take more of a complex structure to achieve those outcomes. So the role of the planner is not to introduce complexity for its own sake, but to make clear to the client

[27:06] Paul Edelman: what trade-offs they’d be making if they went with a simpler plan, and what additional protections they can get by considering a more complicated one. Then the second piece is on the use of language in these estate planning conversations. And again, it relates to this concept we were talking about a minute ago, of the difference between agreement and ownership. Some clients are willing to agree to whatever the attorney says. If you say to them, “Well, I think this is the best plan for you,” they say, “Fine, where do I sign?” But the goal, ideally, is more than just agreement. It’s ownership. Because in the absence of ownership — and by ownership, I mean that the client understands the trade-offs that are being made, they feel that they had agency in the process of making those trade-offs —

[28:06] Paul Edelman: and ultimately, if something doesn’t work out as well as hoped, people will not go back and point a finger at the planner and say, “You did this, how could you do this?” or something like that, but rather, “This was a collaborative effort. You made clear what the choices were, and we made them together.” So that piece talks about language, and how, for example, there’s a difference between saying to a client “you should do this,” and speaking to them in terms of what they can do.

[28:42] Frazer Rice: And then the third piece — when’s that coming out?

[28:46] Paul Edelman: The third piece is on beneficiary education, and that one will come out in October. And so the first piece came out in a publication called Wealth Management. The second piece came out in a newsletter that’s published by, I think it’s LISI. And the piece that’s coming out in October is, I think, being published in a magazine or a journal, something like Estate Planning.

[29:19] Frazer Rice: They’re everywhere. So, terrific. Well, Paul, thanks for being on. I’ll put all that in the show notes, and look forward to staying in touch.

[29:26] Paul Edelman: Thanks very much, Frazer.

[29:28] Announcer: This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice, and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests.

Additional Links

Mark Tepsich of Family Governance

estate planning family business family office family succession Family Wealth founders