> Immediately sounds like its related to / because of the rule against perpetuities? Which then makes sense AFAIK (IANAL) for them to pick peoples babies, as fu

> Immediately sounds like its related to / because of the rule against perpetuities? Which then makes sense AFAIK (IANAL) for them to pick peoples babies, as funny as that sounds. Yea that's the problem with unit investment trusts. > Reading on Wikipedia - why wasn't something like the Kennedy / royal lives clause used? I can hazard a guess - it was cheap for them to make an amendment to change from 25 yrs to named-person+20, and it would have been expensive for them to figure out how to do a dynasty thing. So they kicked the can probably 90 years down the road for cheap. Newer ETFs, from what I gather, don't have this problem at all. So presumably the "real" fix down the road will be to restructure in the proper legal entity, not a UIT.