The Fiduciary Case for Facilitating Family Lending

← All posts

If informal family loans are happening anyway, helping structure them is squarely in the client's interest.

Advisors sometimes treat intra-family lending as outside their remit: a family matter, not a portfolio matter. That framing is getting harder to defend, because the transfers are happening regardless and their consequences land squarely inside the plan.

Start from what is already true

Pew Research found 59% of parents with a child aged 18 to 34 gave that child financial help in the past year. Among 2025's first-time homebuyers, 22% used a gift or a loan from relatives or friends.

These are not marginal events. They are frequently the largest single transfers a client makes outside of their estate, and they routinely happen without the advisor being consulted, or being told afterwards.

An advisor unaware of a $200,000 transfer out of a client's balance sheet is not managing that client's actual financial position.

The fiduciary argument

If the standard is acting in the client's best interest, then a transfer of this size raises questions the advisor is uniquely positioned to answer:

• Can the client afford it? Withdrawals for adult children are a genuine retirement risk, and clients frequently underestimate the drag.
• Which assets should fund it? Liquidating the wrong position at the wrong time has tax consequences a client will not model.
• Should it be a gift or a loan? These have completely different effects on the estate. See the comparison.
• Is it documented? An undocumented transfer can be recharacterized, creating exposure nobody planned for.
• How does it interact with the estate plan and the other children? This is the question that surfaces at probate if nobody asks it earlier.

Declining to engage does not make these questions disappear. It means they get answered badly, by default, without advice.

The conflict argument, honestly stated

There is an obvious objection: assets leaving the platform reduce fees, so encouraging transfers looks conflicted.

It runs the other way in practice. The transfers happen anyway. Structured as a documented loan, the capital remains a family asset, a receivable earning interest, rather than money that has simply left. And the arrangement creates a relationship with the next generation years before the wealth transfer that would otherwise take those assets away entirely.

The conflicted position is arguably staying silent to slow an outflow you cannot actually prevent.

What it does not require

Facilitating is not originating. The advisor does not lend money, broker a loan, guarantee repayment or provide tax or legal advice. The family lends to itself. The advisor's contribution is judgement: affordability, structure, documentation, and how it fits the plan, the same contribution they make on every other material financial decision a client faces.

The practical version

Adding one question to the annual review changes the picture: “Have you given or lent money to family this year, or are you planning to?”

Most advisors who start asking are surprised by the answer. The activity was always there. It simply was not visible, and what is not visible cannot be advised on.