A dollar is just a dollar, right? Not always.

A duo of researchers from Texas Tech University and the University of Alabama have published a new paper that investigates whether inheritances are managed differently than other financial windfalls, testing predictions from (the very scary sounding) Terror Management Theory. It turns out some 41% of heirs had their net worth fall back to, or below, their pre-inheritance level when measured about 12 months later, and there’s evidence to suggest that these assets are essentially “tainted” by thoughts of death and mortality, resulting in added pressure to spend. Advisors could benefit from factoring this dynamic into their planning process.

“That is not what most clients expect,” said Russell James, professor of charitable financial planning at Texas Tech. “It is also not what many planners expect, either. We often treat inherited wealth like any other money. A dollar is just a dollar. But heirs often do not experience it that way. It is money tied to a death, and that matters.”

Quickly spending down an inheritance isn’t inherently problematic, James told Advisor Upside, but the findings are troubling when considering factors like longevity risk and a lack of guaranteed pensions. Money that could be kept to backstop key retirement risks might instead be spent on discretionary items.

Messaging Matters

This behavior is exactly what James and his collaborator, Cory Thompson, expected based on experimental research. The death of a loved one triggers what researchers call “mortality salience,” which just means that most people respond to death-related discomfort with avoidance. “Psychologically, what we want is to avoid the death-reminder that the inherited assets bring,” James said. “The data shows that’s often what happens. The death money goes away, often very quickly.”

Even savvy financial advisors (and the clients themselves in many cases) overlook these dynamics. Instead, they are solely focused on factors like the tax efficiency of the transfer.

“If the plan transfers the wealth to the next generation with minimal tax loss, we’ve apparently succeeded, and if it transfers rapidly, the plan went even better,” James said. “Except that’s not how it works in reality.” Psychologically, the worst possible time to leave money to loved ones is at the client’s death. That’s when emotions are at their highest, and the inherited money feels most like “death money.”

An Emotionally Sound Strategy. All this leads to an obvious conclusion, James said. The estate planning processes should ask and answer a deceptively simple question: How much wealth would you like transferred in one lump sum at death and how much spread over time?

“That one question can change the conversation,” James said. “If we just ask the question, we’ll find that many people won’t choose one lump sum at death. If we provide a bit of real-world context, even fewer will choose it. Simply put, it’s important to give the heirs more than one shot at their inheritance.”

BlackRock is taking a “Q” from the competition.

Two Qs, rather. The company is preparing a new fund, the iShares Nasdaq 100 ETF (IQQ), which would compete directly with two similar funds from Invesco: the QQQ Trust and Nasdaq 100 ETF (QQQM). It’s a particularly significant development, since Invesco has had a lock on the category for decades, due in part to Nasdaq’s extremely limited licensing of the index to ETF providers.

“Invesco QQQ has been synonymous with innovation for over 25 years,” according to a statement from Invesco . “Creating a foundational ETF ecosystem does not happen overnight, and Invesco has always taken a long-term view on building and facilitating its development. There is only one QQQ.”

But Also, QQQM

The company’s two ETFs tracking the index highlight the importance of fees, something BlackRock is certainly considering as it readies its new fund (fees for IQQ were not included in the product’s initial filing). During the first two months of 2026, the $376 billion QQQ saw nearly $8 billion exit, per data from Morningstar Direct. Meanwhile, the $70 billion QQQM attracted $1.6 billion in net inflows, as well as $18 billion over 12 months, compared with $12 billion in net inflows for QQQ during that timeframe. Both ETFs track the same index, but QQQM offers a slightly lower fee, at 15 basis points versus 18.

There have also been some recent developments in Invesco’s product suite:

• QQQ successfully converted from a unit investment trust to an open-end fund, following a lengthy campaign to amass enough votes from shareholders. That resulted in the fund’s fee decreasing from 20 basis points to the current 18, along with Invesco gaining more latitude in using income from the fund for things other than marketing.
• The company last month launched the QQQ Equal Weight ETF (QEW), which gives each constituent stock a 1% allocation. The Nasdaq 100 includes the biggest companies on the exchange, excluding financial services.

Rocking the Boat. While BlackRock doesn’t already have a US-listed Nasdaq 100 ETF, it does have several that are domiciled elsewhere, including Canada, Hong Kong and Europe. The company also has US funds that could be used to build the same exposure: the iShares Nasdaq Top 30 Stocks ETF (QTOP) and iShares Nasdaq 100 ex Top 30 ETF (QNXT). The company did not comment on the new ETF filing, but said in a statement that the Nasdaq 100 has a history of “capturing companies shaping long-term growth.”

Nasdaq, in its own comments, referred to “a new select set of partners for ETF products in the US,” though it declined to say whether that includes companies beyond BlackRock. It also cited its ongoing relationship with Invesco and noted that “expanding access to the Nasdaq 100 is intended to be additive, supporting investors by improving the efficiency, liquidity and availability of benchmark-linked exposure across markets and product types.”

STEE-RIKE!!!

Most people would like to think they can trust their family, especially their parents, with anything. But when it comes to a client’s finances, familial relationships can sometimes be the perfect opportunity for nefarious activity. Last month, Philadelphia Phillies third baseman Alec Bohm accused his parents in a lawsuit of defrauding him of millions of dollars under the facade of managing his finances. Court documents claim Bohm’s parents acted as his primary financial advisors and funnelled his money through several limited liability companies for their own use.

It’s not that parents can’t or shouldn’t be involved with the financial affairs of their high-earning athlete children, but advisors can help strengthen those relationships by building trust and preventing situations in which family members start taking advantage of each other.

John Kovacs, managing director at RIA Wealthspire, has a handful of athlete clients whose parents have their children’s best interests at heart, and in those cases, he likes to double efforts on meetings, getting together every three months to keep everybody updated. “That ultimately makes the athlete more successful,” he told Advisor Upside. “We give back time, peace of mind and the ability to focus, so the client can play better ball, make more birdies or take more shots.”

Thicker than Water

Athletes can be easy targets for friends, family or fundraisers looking to ride their coat tails, mainly because of how public their earnings often are, Kovacs said. “If you go to a PGA Tour event and you just made $2 million or $4 million, everyone knows that because it’s on ESPN.com,” he said. Bohm, for instance, recently signed a one-year contract with the Phillies for more than $10 million. That’s when clients need to put their guards up and direct any investment opportunities to their advisors, Kovacs added.

Tee Time’s in 10 Years. Family members dipping into or mismanaging the accounts of their high-earning relatives is a tale as old as time, and it can have severe consequences:

• NHL player Jack Johnson filed for bankruptcy in 2014 after his parents took out multiple large, high-interest loans against his future earnings. He ended up with roughly $50,000 in assets and debts of more than $10 million.
• America’s original sweetheart, Shirley Temple, earned about $3 million starring in musicals as a little girl. But by adulthood, she had only about $44,000 left due to poor financial decisions made by her father. Despite the major losses, she didn’t actually hold a grudge against him. What a Little Princess.
• Singer Billy Joel filed a $90 million lawsuit against his brother-in-law, who was managing his finances in the 1980s, for fraud and breach of contract.

“There’s a negative connotation that parents shouldn’t be involved because you don’t really hear about all the great stories,” Kovacs said. “Some people, myself included, sacrifice a lot for their children’s athletics; capital, time. I personally don’t see myself playing weekend golf for the next 10 years.”