The New York Times article and the corresponding blog entry may be a few months old, but they're still worth a moment, as they flag a different future than many in philanthropy have been awaiting. ''8 Reasons You Should Not Expect an Inheritance'' in the Times and ''Transfer WHAT wealth?'' in Philanthropy 2173 suggest that the great generational transfer of wealth we've been awaiting like the Great White Whale may be more like a grouper than a whale.

Over the past decade or so, financial planners and development officers have been drooling over the transfer of accumulated wealth from Boomers to their children. Said this article back in 2004:

...by the year 2052, an estimated $40.6 trillion will change hands as Baby Boomers and their parents pass on their accumulated assets to their heirs.

The transfer meant freshly wealthy donors, and newly eager financial management clients. But, as it turns out, it's more expensive to get older than it used to be. Asks Lucy Bernholz:

So...what happens if the transfer happens but the money goes to things like housing and education costs? Or if the transfer doesn't happen because it is really expensive to live forever as some baby boomers are planning?

It might be good time to revisit your capital gift projections (and planned giving cash flows) for the next decade to be sure they're free of Boomer-transfer enthusiasm.

UPDATE: If this doesn't shake your predictive capacity, consider the possible impact of repealing the estate tax [ thanks Michael ].