Most family foundations are designed on an unspoken assumption that they will last indefinitely. An endowment is invested, grants are paid from the returns, and the family name is attached to the institution for generations. Jamie Webb questions whether that assumption should be automatic. In his conversation with Kedge Martin and Michael Macfarlane on Wealth Office X, he argues that the right lifespan for philanthropy depends on the problem it sets out to solve.

Why the foundation still matters

Webb does not dismiss the foundation. He sees it as a good starting point because it gives a family a structure and a shared space in which to understand an issue together. It also matters for legitimacy. Private wealth is being directed towards public issues, and in Webb's view philanthropy can only remain legitimate if there is transparency about how that happens. A foundation provides a visible home for that accountability, and it allows a continuity that occasional giving cannot.

The difficulty arrives with succession. Webb has observed that it is hard to bring other family members into a cause chosen by its founder. Something that drives one person's passion will not necessarily move their children and grandchildren. A perpetual institution built around one individual's conviction may find itself carried forward by heirs who do not share it.

The case for a time horizon

Webb points to Bill Gates's recent statement that he wants his foundation to come to an end 20 years after his death.

Philanthropy doesn't have to live forever. I think it very much is determined by the cause, the issue that you're working on and its time horizon.

— Jamie Webb, Wealth Office

He accepts that there is a good argument for perpetual foundations, in which an endowment regenerates the money over time. Some needs are permanent, and some institutions are valuable because they will still be there in fifty years. He also sees a strong case for the alternative: putting money, time and energy into accelerating progress towards a solution while the founder is still young enough to drive it. Macfarlane picks out that idea of accelerating the path towards a solution as a distinctive way to think about impact.

For a principal, the useful question concerns the nature of the problem. A cause with a plausible end point, such as a disease that could be eliminated, may suit front-loaded spending. A cause rooted in a permanent human need may suit an endowment. On Webb's reasoning, the structure should follow the problem.

Regeneration without perpetuity

Macfarlane frames the same issue from another angle. If philanthropy consists only of signing cheques, the impact ends on the day the cheques stop. He asks which models create what he calls a regenerative effect, in which impact continues by design.

One answer is to turn donors into advocates. Macfarlane describes advising wealthy clients to become champions for the causes they fund, using their platforms to encourage others, including NGOs and governments, to act. In his experience this creates a multiplier and a sense of ownership that keeps donors engaged, and their cheques tend to grow.

Martin's answer is involvement. She takes donors to see their projects and finds that seeing the impact first hand generally leads to larger commitments. Webb's answer is long-term partnership. He notes that institutional foundations sometimes fund a charity for a couple of years and then move on or change strategy, which is not always helpful. Private philanthropists, in his experience, are often better at providing long-term commitment and continuity.

These three answers share a feature. None of them depends on the foundation existing for ever. Regeneration can come from advocacy, from the donor's own deepening engagement and from steady partnership with trusted organisations over a defined period.

Bringing the next generation in deliberately

If a family does want its philanthropy to continue across generations, Webb's experience suggests it cannot be taken for granted. He recommends giving the next generation a sum of money and a defined role within the foundation, creating space for shared decision-making and shared purpose. This lets young family members test their interests and capabilities step by step.

Martin starts even earlier. She believes exposure cannot begin too soon, and favours small amounts given at risk, volunteering and time spent inside organisations before large sums are committed. Macfarlane notes that another Wealth Office guest, who runs a single family office in Hong Kong, gives the same advice: let the next generation experiment with small pots of money so that they already know what resonates when they step into larger responsibilities.

Webb adds that values sit at the centre of this. In the conversations he convenes, families repeatedly ask what values guide them. In his view those values create a container within which the next generation can acknowledge the family's approach while updating it for the modern world and for their own interests. He is also candid about how daunting inheritance can feel, recalling a next-generation gathering in Singapore where the sense of being overwhelmed was palpable, and he stresses the value of good advice and peer networks.

The choice between perpetuity and spend-down is ultimately a question about the cause. A family that asks what its cause needs, and for how long, is better placed to choose a structure that fits it, and to bring its next generation in on terms they can own.