Inherited wealth is often viewed as a safeguard. It represents security, opportunity, and a head start that previous generations worked hard to provide. In the work Parkhill does with multigenerational families, it is clear that when wealth is transferred without education, it can introduce risks that are less visible but far more destabilizing than financial loss alone.
These risks do not stem from bad intentions or irresponsibility. They arise from absence. Absence of context. Absence of preparation. Absence of understanding about how and why the wealth exists in the first place.
When individuals inherit assets without education, they are asked to manage complexity they did not build. Structures appear fully formed, decisions seem predetermined, and expectations feel opaque. Without insight into how those systems were designed, inherited wealth can feel arbitrary rather than empowering. Mark Bianchi, who founded Parkhill with a long-term view toward stewardship, has seen how often confusion replaces confidence when this context is missing.
One of the most common risks is disengagement. When beneficiaries do not understand the mechanics or purpose of inherited wealth, they often distance themselves from it. Decisions are deferred. Responsibility is avoided. Over time, this disengagement creates dependency on others to manage outcomes without meaningful oversight. What was meant to provide stability begins to feel abstract and disconnected from daily life, a pattern Parkhill encounters frequently when education was postponed.
Another risk is overconfidence. In some cases, inherited wealth creates a false sense of competence. Access to capital can be mistaken for understanding, leading individuals to make decisions without appreciating the constraints or tradeoffs involved. Without education, confidence is not anchored in judgment. It is anchored in access.
This imbalance becomes particularly dangerous when circumstances change. Markets shift. Regulations evolve. Family dynamics grow more complex. Individuals who were never taught how to evaluate decisions struggle to adapt, not because they lack intelligence, but because they were never given the tools to engage thoughtfully. As CEO of Parkhill, Mark Bianchi often observes that these moments reveal gaps that were invisible during more stable periods.
Inherited wealth without education also amplifies emotional pressure. Beneficiaries may feel guilt for receiving something they did not earn, or anxiety about maintaining something they do not fully understand. These emotions often go unspoken, but they influence behavior. Some individuals overspend as a way of asserting independence. Others become overly cautious, afraid that any decision could lead to irreversible loss.
Education helps normalize these emotions by placing wealth in context. It explains how wealth was built, what it is intended to support, and what responsibilities accompany it. Without that framing, emotions fill the vacuum left by understanding, a dynamic Parkhill actively works to address with families before transitions occur.
Family relationships are another area where risk emerges. When education is uneven across siblings or branches of a family, perceptions of fairness diverge. Decisions made by one individual may appear arbitrary or self-serving to others. Without shared understanding, trust erodes quietly.
Conflict does not require disagreement to surface. It grows when people feel excluded from information or uncertain about how decisions are made. Education creates a common language that allows families to navigate differences without personalizing them.
There is also a structural risk. Inherited wealth often involves entities, trusts, and governance arrangements that require informed participation. When beneficiaries are unprepared, these structures become fragile. Decisions are made without appreciation for long-term consequences. Adjustments are delayed because no one feels confident enough to act.
This fragility does not announce itself immediately. It becomes visible during transitions. A death. A divorce. A generational shift in leadership. Moments that require clarity expose the cost of years spent avoiding education, something Parkhill emphasizes when helping families prepare for inevitable change.
Charitable giving is often affected as well. Many families hope philanthropy will unite future generations, yet without education, giving can become fragmented. Donations are made without coordination or understanding of prior intent. Causes are supported inconsistently. Impact becomes difficult to assess.
When education is present, charitable activity becomes a platform for learning. It introduces accountability, decision making, and reflection in a way that feels tangible. Without education, it becomes another source of confusion.
One of the most overlooked risks of inherited wealth without education is loss of agency. Beneficiaries may technically control assets, but without understanding, they lack the confidence to engage fully. Decisions are outsourced by default. Responsibility feels burdensome rather than empowering.
Education restores agency by making complexity approachable. It does not require turning beneficiaries into experts. It requires helping them understand enough to ask better questions and recognize when guidance is needed. This philosophy sits at the core of how Mark Bianchi and the Parkhill team approach generational planning.
Avoiding education in an attempt to protect future generations often produces the opposite result. Shielding delays learning rather than eliminating risk. When education is postponed until inheritance occurs, it arrives too late to prevent missteps that could have been avoided with earlier exposure.
Families that address education proactively acknowledge that wealth is not self-sustaining. It depends on people who understand how to steward it. This understanding does not emerge automatically with age or access. It must be cultivated intentionally.
Inherited wealth can be a powerful tool when paired with education. Without it, the same wealth can create confusion, strain relationships, and undermine the very security it was meant to provide.
The difference is not the amount transferred. It is whether understanding is transferred alongside it.
