High-net-worth families face a preservation environment that looks materially different than it did even a decade ago. Long-term care costs continue to rise; tax laws remain fluid, concentrated wealth positions create liquidity concerns, and multigenerational planning has become complex. At the same time, the risks affecting accumulated wealth no longer operate independently.

A liquidity event can create immediate tax exposure while simultaneously altering estate strategy. Long-term care needs can force decisions around gifting, trust structures, and liquidity management. Concentrated stock positions may create outsized market exposure precisely when a family is attempting to preserve generational wealth rather than continue accumulating it. As a result, wealth preservation is more about coordinating multiple moving pieces before triggering event limits available options.

The greatest planning risk may be fragmentation

Many affluent families already have planning structures in place. They have trusts, insurance policies, investment portfolios, estate documents, and tax strategies developed over many years. The problem is that those structures often evolve independently. Tax advisors focus on minimizing tax exposure. Estate attorneys structure transfer vehicles. Wealth managers oversee investment allocation. Insurance professionals evaluate risk protection. Over time, those strategies can drift away from one another operationally, particularly as family dynamics, asset values, and long-term objectives change. 

The consequences often emerge during periods of transition. 

A family may establish trusts designed to remove appreciating assets from the taxable estate but fail to transfer assets into those structures properly. Estate documents may no longer reflect current family realities after marriages, births, divorces, or business succession changes. Investment portfolios may create liquidity constraints that conflict with long-term care planning or gifting strategies. In many cases, failure is not technical; It is administrative. 

Planning structures exist on paper but were never fully implemented, funded, coordinated, or revisited. That risk becomes even more pronounced for business owners and families with concentrated wealth positions. A closely held business, real estate portfolio, or large single-stock exposure may create significant paper wealth while limiting actual liquidity during periods of medical stress, market disruption, or estate transition. 

Long-term care planning has become a preservation issue 

Long-term care planning now sits much closer to the center of wealth preservation discussions than many families anticipated. Financial exposure alone is difficult to ignore. Current projections estimate that private nursing home costs could approach $234,000 annually within the next two decades, with multi-year care needs potentially creating close to $1 million in expenses for a single individual.  

For affluent families, however, the issue extends beyond the cost of care itself. 

Long-term care events often create liquidity pressure at precisely the wrong time. Families whose wealth is concentrated in operating businesses, private investments, or illiquid real estate holdings may suddenly need access to cash while attempting to avoid distressed asset sales, unfavorable market timing, or disruption to long-term transfer strategies. 

The planning window also narrows significantly once care becomes imminent. Medicaid lookback rules, transfer restrictions, and asset eligibility requirements can severely limit repositioning strategies later in life. Families that postpone planning often discover that the structures and flexibility available years earlier become far more difficult to implement after a health event occurs. This has shifted long-term care planning from a peripheral healthcare discussion into a central wealth preservation issue tied directly to liquidity, asset protection, and multigenerational planning. 

Preserving wealth requires balancing control and transfer 

Many families entering advanced estate planning conversations confront a difficult tradeoff: reducing future estate exposure often requires surrendering some degree of future control or flexibility. Strategies designed to move appreciating assets outside the taxable estate may succeed technically while creating emotional or operational discomfort later. Families may underestimate the psychological challenge of relinquishing ownership, access, or decision-making authority over assets that still represent security, identity, or future optionality. 

This tension becomes especially pronounced following significant liquidity events or business sales. 

Families that recently monetized concentrated business interests often face competing priorities simultaneously: 

• • Preserving newly created wealth,  
  • Reducing concentrated exposure,  
  • Minimizing future estate taxes,  
  • Generating sufficient lifetime liquidity,  
  • Determining how much wealth should transfer across generations. 

Advanced planning structures including dynasty trusts, GRATs, SLATs, and defined-outcome hedging strategies may all become part of those conversations depending on the complexity of the estate and the family’s objectives. But the effectiveness of those structures depends heavily on timing, implementation, administration, and ongoing coordination. 

Legacy planning includes governance 

Many affluent families no longer define legacy planning solely as transferring assets tax-efficiently to heirs. Families focus on continuity, stewardship, and preparing future generations to manage complex wealth responsibly. That shift has elevated the importance of governance discussions that historically received far less attention than tax minimization strategies. Family meetings, succession planning, mentorship, and establishing decision-making structures now play a larger role in preservation planning. Without those conversations, even technically sophisticated structures can deteriorate over time. 

Flexibility is an asset 

Tax laws shift. Interest rates rise. Markets correct. Health conditions change. Family priorities evolve. Planning structures that appeared highly effective under one regulatory or economic environment may become materially less effective several years later if they are not revisited consistently. As a result, flexibility itself has become a strategic asset within modern wealth preservation planning. Families prioritize structures that preserve optionality while still allowing them to reduce future tax exposure, protect liquidity, and adapt to changing circumstances over time. The objective is to build coordinated planning frameworks capable of evolving alongside changing financial, family, and regulatory realities. 

Planning earlier expands available options 

The strongest preservation strategies typically share one characteristic: They are implemented before families are forced into reactive decisions. Once a health event occurs, a business sale closes, markets decline, or estate transitions become imminent; planning flexibility often narrows substantially. Families that plan earlier retain greater control over timing, structure, liquidity, and long-term transfer objectives. 

For a deeper dive, watch CohnReznick Wealth Management’s webinar, Preserving wealth: Tax strategy, long-term care, and legacy planning.

Any advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific issues. Nor is it sufficient to avoid tax-related penalties. This has been prepared for information purposes and general guidance only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice specific to, among other things, your individual facts, circumstances and jurisdiction. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and CohnReznick, its partners, employees and agents accept no liability, and disclaim all responsibility, for the consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it.