hi tq,
the link did not appear. but it may that i needed to be a member. it took me to one site, then redirected me to another site.
they do not merge, cuz the trustee is obligated BY LAW to uphold the instructions in the trust.
so as long as the trust itself does not allow the trustee/beneficiary to take control of the money, then there is separation.
what i learned quite a long time ago is that most anything one puts in a trust is legal, unless it is illegal. i know that sounds a bit funny, but what i mean is that the trust is enforceable as long as it is not allowing criminal or illegal activity.
i look at them as functions. just because the same person is both trustee and beneficiary, when he acts as trustee, he is obligated by law to follow the instructions of the trust.
from my research, the term trust protector is just a fancy name for one function of the trust - namely firing and possibly hiring the trustee. that function usually lies with the beneficiary, with most every trust that i have ever seen.
now i dont get involved with huge overseas trusts that may entail millions or billions of dollars. it is not illegal for the beneficiary to fire the trustee, but highly impractical. first, he is not geographically local. secondly, unless he is extremely business-like, he probably would have no idea as to whether the trustee was doing well or not. so you really need a highly-trained person to oversee the trustee functions. however, that does not preclude giving the beneficiary the ability to fire, just that he would need to hire an advisor to tell him what's what.
that's not unusual. even in typical living trusts that parents leave to their children (the kind i am most familiar with), advice is often hired - be it accountants, lawyers, etc. but the parents almost always make one of the children the trustee. they usually pick the one that has the best business sense.
from past conversations, i do think we deal with very different types of trusts, in terms of value. i see the mom and pop trusts, and am quite familiar with how they are actually used. as i said, one of the children is almost always the trustee.
i think you deal a lot with the mega-wealthy trusts. so i suspect that our opinions are different because we are like 2 of the blind men looking at different parts of the elephant, and coming up with very different conclusions.
in my trust, i make the trustee contact the beneficiary before he invests in anything other than banking accounts - cds, etc. i do not want him unilaterally investing in stuff without knowledge from the beneficiary.
i also limit what he can invest in. i do not let him invest at vegas, i mean the stock market. he can not invest in a business. if he invests in real estate, it must be in the united states. if he lends money on real estate, it can not be more than 70% ltv.
so the trustee is obligated to a very, VERY DIFFERENT set of circumstances than he would be, if it was his own money. this is what i mean by following the instructions of the trust. and a very obvious separation of his own assets and the trust assets.
the beneficiary has everything to lose, and i simply do not want to tie his hands. if he needs to get rid of a trustee, i want him to be able to do so IMMEDIATELY. and at least with my trust experience, we are usually talking about a group of siblings.
anyways, i know you have a lot of working knowledge and respect what you say, even if i dont always agree with it, like in this instance.