Helen Brown Group

Search Results for: real estate

By

Why wealth screenings – and prospect researchers – are so reliant on real estate

life-saver-ring

Here’s the complaint I hear frequently about wealth screenings, prospect research, and real estate: Knowing what our prospect holds in real estate is useless! She’s never going to give any of those houses to our organization!(*)

That’s absolutely right. She’s probably not. But that completely misses the point of why real estate is key.

Here’s why:

Imagine with me that you’re on a lovely sailboat. You’re out for the day with friends in the Caribbean enjoying the sun and the breeze. You’re moving along at a pretty fast clip with the wind, but all of a sudden an unexpected gust causes the boom to flip from one side of the boat to the other, and somehow you’re overboard.

The water’s warm but it’s going to take a few minutes for your friends to turn the boat around and get you. That thin orange ring they tossed you is by no means reliably holding up your weight, but it’ll help keep you up while you tread water until the boat comes back. That orange ring may be crummy, but it’s the most solid thing you’ve got right now. [Read more…]

By

6 Reasons Why Real Estate Matters to the Savvy Prospect Researcher

Driveway of Traditional Craftsman HouseEvery so often, the topic of “Should we or shouldn’t we include real estate as one of the factors we use to determine a prospective donor’s gift capacity” comes up in the prospect research community.

Some folks have this logic: “Well, our prospective major donor is never going to give us their house (or sell their house and give us the money), therefore we shouldn’t include it.”

Which is absolutely true. (<stage whisper>: I won’t mention “planned gift” at this point, okay?)

[Read more…]

By

From Inheritance to Impact: A Realistic View of the Great Wealth Transfer

By: Josh Ostroski, Senior Consultant

Josh Ostroski

Josh Ostroski

Recently I have come across requests or mentions about inherited wealth, particularly, how much prospects could inherit. My short answer is, I don’t know. My longer answer is, we’ll never know unless it’s made public through court documents, news articles, contact reports, etc. With the Great Wealth Transfer approaching, I wanted to see what statistics said about how much is actually inherited.

When people talk about inheritance in the United States, what they mean can vary wildly depending on whose story you’re listening to. For many Americans, inheritance barely affects their financial lives at all. In fact, between 70% and 80% of U.S. households never receive any inheritance, a reality that surprises a lot of people who assume inheritances are common.

Even when Americans do inherit, the amounts are often modest. According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent comprehensive data, the average inheritance across all households is about $46,000, but that number is skewed by the handful of very large inheritances at the top. For households in the bottom half of the wealth distribution, the typical amount received is much, much smaller, closer to $9,700.

The “Great Wealth Transfer”

Experts are talking a lot about a looming wave of inherited wealth known as the Great Wealth Transfer. According to recent research, as much as $105 trillion could pass from older generations to younger ones over the next 25 years. Crucially, more than half of this wealth is expected to come from the roughly 2% of U.S. households with at least $5 million in investable assets. Most inheritances will flow within a relatively small slice of the population, further concentrating the economic power already held there.

Expectations vs Reality

Many younger adults overestimate how likely and how large their inheritances will be. For instance, surveys show a gap between expectations and reality. While 32% of Millennials and 38% of Gen Z expect to receive an inheritance, only about 22% of Boomers and Gen X say they plan to leave an inheritance. This “inheritance expectation gap” means many young adults are counting on transfers that may be smaller or less likely than they hope.

What Inheritance Looks Like for the Middle Class

For families in the middle of the wealth distribution, inheritance is more common but still relatively modest. These inheritances often fall somewhere between $50,000 and $200,000 and tend to function more as financial stabilization than transformation. They might help someone make a down payment on a home, reduce debt, or strengthen retirement savings, but they usually don’t turn middle-income households into wealthy ones. Inheritance at this level can ease financial stress and provide a buffer, but it rarely creates lasting, multi-generational wealth.

The Wealthy Get a Very Different Kind of Inheritance

While average inheritance figures across the entire population come in around $46,000, the average inheritance for the wealthiest 1% of households is about $719,000. That’s almost 75 times what the bottom half of households typically receives.

Children of top-1% families today are inheriting more money than previous generations did, largely because asset values have exploded. Stocks, private businesses, real estate, and financial portfolios are worth far more than they were a few decades ago, and those assets make up the bulk of wealthy estates. Even though wealthy parents are living longer and often spending more during retirement, the growth in asset values has more than offset that. As a result, typical inheritances for top-1% heirs now commonly reach multiple millions of dollars, and in many cases tens of millions.

The main change isn’t how much is inherited, but when. Heirs in wealthy families often don’t receive large inheritances until their 40s, 50s, or even 60s, compared with earlier generations who sometimes inherited younger. But this delay matters less at the top, because these children usually benefit from wealth long before inheritance arrives—through elite education, housing help, business connections, family investments, and early gifts or trusts. In practice, many top-1% heirs are financially comfortable throughout adulthood, with inheritance acting as a final multiplier rather than a lifeline.

What This All Means

For most families, it’s a small boost at best. For the middle class, it’s a helpful but not transformative supplement. But for the wealthiest, inheritance is often a cornerstone of financial advantage.

This matters for nonprofits because so much of the money in motion is concentrated in relatively few hands. When wealthy families are thinking about how to pass on their assets, even setting aside a small share for charity can add up to a meaningful impact. Bequests, donor-advised funds, and charitable trusts let people support causes they care about while also thinking strategically about taxes and legacy. With trillions of dollars expected to move from older generations to younger ones in the coming decades, nonprofits that show up early – before estate plans are finalized – have a real opportunity to become part of that conversation.

By

Why Virtual Workers Are a Real Asset

This month we welcome HBG Research Associate Heather Hoke to the blog. Even before she joined HBG, Heather had years of experience with the benefits of being a remote worker. In this week’s post, Heather shares her knowledge and some of the latest research on why virtual workers may make sense for your organization.home office shed

Are you looking to hire or retain a superstar fundraising researcher? Consider implementing flexible work arrangements, including work-from-home (WFH) policies. There are benefits to both employers and employees.

Based on what I see on Prspct-L and APRA’s Career Center, many nonprofits are hiring new staff in prospect development. There are some 5,300 colleges and universities and more than 1.5 million nonprofits in the US, and there are about 2,000 APRA members worldwide. As you can see, the potential pool of development researchers to be employed at these institutions is quite small. If you are not looking to hire now, you likely will be in the future. A survey released by CareerBuilder found that more than one in five employees are planning to leave their current place of employment during 2016, a 5% increase since last year. Why not do something that will keep your best employees and expand your hiring pool to include people that live in other states? [Read more…]

By

Generative AI and Critical Thinking

By: Angie Herrington, Senior Consultant

Angie Herrington

Several years ago, I wrote a blog post about Primary Sources and why it’s important to verify our research with factual (primary) and not interpretive (secondary) data. I still start with an information aggregator or lookup source as a jumping off point from the many resources available to us. Keep in mind those vendors are pulling information from several other primary and secondary sources and aggregating the data into one convenient place. Although helpful it can’t fully confirm if James Smith is the same as Jim, Jimmy, Jamie, Jr., or Sr. It also might not find their $100 million home held under a holding company. It takes a real person like you to evaluate the information and provide context. We need to find the primary source so we don’t give our gift officers and leadership inaccurate information that might potentially embarrass them (and us) when they visit a donor.

Primary vs. Secondary Sources

A refresher on the difference between a primary and secondary source:

  • Primary sources are best described as direct, first-hand accounts. They are verifiable, factual and not interpretive, and transparent as to how the data was collected. (Spoiler alert: Generative AI isn’t a primary source)
  • Secondary sources are one step removed. Although they often quote or use primary sources, the information might include another person’s analysis or interpretations of that data. These sources should still transparently explain which primary sources were used and to any limitations or bias.

Generative AI

So why am I bringing this up again? AI. It’s long been part of our daily lives for 70 years in one form or another, including its use by vendors. Today’s concern is Generative AI – machine learning models providing new content influencing people’s beliefs and decision-making. You should already know about its tendency to provide misinformation and disinformation, privacy and copyright violations, data provenance, bias, economic and workforce impacts, hallucinations, ethical and environmental issues, and on and on.

When Wikipedia launched in 2001, we spent years questioning its accuracy and fearing the rumored WikiKraken. I eventually learned to use it as another jumping off point like I do other secondary resources and verify the results. Wikipedia has footnotes with links to where volunteers have contributed or edited its content (sometimes humorously), which can be reviewed under the page’s revision history. Keep in mind a lot of those footnotes are out of date or need citations making it ALWAYS important to doublecheck.

With the popularity of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, and others it’s tempting to assume the results as fact and then copy and paste something that does the work for us in seconds. Employers love this time and money saving idea but are quickly realizing the hard way that you can’t replace a human’s pesky critical thinking with a machine. Chatbots are one or more steps removed and although they might quote or use primary resources, the information includes analysis or interpretations that are frequently inaccurate. It’s important to treat them like any other secondary source and cross-check the information from multiple sources to ensure its accuracy and reliability.

I’m not going to tell you to not use Generative AI, but I am going to tell you to not rely on it or take it for granted that it’s fact. We’re too far past claiming blissful ignorance when it comes to its results. Information you are evaluating during your research must be transparent and verifiable. Humans can’t avoid bias – online, database aggregators (now providing their own interpretive analysis), and even you and me. What we can do is find the original source and continue proving ourselves as valuable prospect development professionals with accountability to the best of our ability.

If you do choose to use AI (as one of several tools for your research process), follow your organization’s policies and review Apra’s Ethics in AI for Fundraising Toolkit.

Research and Suggested Primary Sources

In my previous blog post, I also suggested resources you can use if you don’t have access to a vendor’s product, unable to find what you’re looking for, and to confirm information you already have.

  • Real Estate – Search a county’s assessor’s office by name and the mailing address.
  • Foundations – I will never fall off my 20-plus year soap box to ALWAYS rely on the 990 filings and/or foundation’s website. The summarized information you get from a product frequently misses important grants and might not include the most recent year.
  • Public Companies and Stockholdings – Double check the SEC filing itself for accuracy.
  • Licensed Professionals – A state’s licensing board verification website frequently provides additional information such as education, employment history, and red flags.
  • Corporations – Search by names on a Secretary of State’s website. Addresses and names can lead to other companies, holding companies, or entities which can lead to real estate and other helpful information.
  • Giving – Simple searches on variations of a person’s name (and the spouse!) might find additional and/or more recent gifts, confirm missing or incorrect giving amounts, and articles or press releases with details about significant gifts to an organization.

If you can’t find a primary source, find other vendors and secondary sources to compare your results. Also, don’t ever forget or devalue the importance of critical thinking.

By

Speaking Capacity Rating: Translating Prospect Research for your Audience – Part II

By: Amy Caldarelli, Consultant

Amy Caldarelli

Amy Caldarelli

In a previous post (linked here), my wonderful colleague Anne Melton initiated a two-part blog adaptation of a session we presented at NEDRA in Providence, RI, earlier this year. The session focused on communicating and responding to misconceptions, feedback, and questions about capacity ratings from audiences who may find them confusing, frustrating, or insufficient. Anne’s Part I post took a broad view of where disconnects can happen between researchers and their audiences, along with proactive ways to build a foundation of stronger relationships, clearer communication, and shared understanding with our audiences.

Even with a strong foundation, miscommunications and challenges can still arise. In Part II, I’ll walk through a few examples of feedback and questions researchers may encounter—drawn from Anne’s and my own experiences—and offer possible ways to respond.

It took me a few years in prospect research—and experience at more than one organization—to understand the variety of ways capacity ratings can be used, and how they can interact with and reflect an organization’s broader systems, attitudes, and preferences. For example:

  • One organization may want aggressive, maximum-potential ratings, while another may prefer more conservative estimates.
  • CRM fields and reporting systems may influence whether an organization uses a range or a single number (for example, $100K–$249K vs. $155,000) for capacity ratings.
  • The information your organization has about a donor—such as a home or mailing address a donor shared directly, or gifts that do not appear in published donor reports—can affect the data available to factor into capacity ratings.
  • How your organization captures, makes accessible, and uses prospect data beyond capacity—such as affinity and philanthropic propensity—can shape how capacity ratings are expected to function.

Despite that variation, some of the same questions and criticisms have cropped up time and again for my colleagues and I about capacity ratings. I imagine some of these might sound familiar to you.

Question/Feedback:

“But I know they have a higher capacity, because…

  • …they have a boat!”
  • …a wealth screening tool said they’re rated much higher!”
  • …they come from a rich family!”

Response:

It may not always be possible—or appropriate—to address your audience’s concerns directly. Sometimes handling feedback will take the form of directly clarifying the meaning of, or data behind, a capacity rating. Other times, the response is internal: revisiting your work, consulting colleagues, or reviewing whether methods or policies need adjustment. When you do have the opportunity to respond directly, these talking points may help:

  • Prospect researchers—and capacity ratings—rely on visible assets and indicators in publicly available sources. Some assets and wealth are hidden from view, including certain property held in trusts or LLCs, stocks or securities held by individuals who are not “insiders,” and anonymous philanthropy.
  • A lavish lifestyle does not always equal high capacity, for many reasons. As one example: some professions, including many in the entertainment industry, can involve large but unpredictable paychecks.
  • Wealth screening tools are valuable for prioritizing prospects for further examination, but they have limitations. In a common example, what may appear in wealth screening results to be one donor with a real estate empire and prolific giving may actually be conflated assets and giving from multiple individuals with the same name.
  • Family wealth can be especially difficult to navigate because there is so much we cannot know or assume about inheritance. Things like your organization’s preferences for aggressive or conservative ratings, what you know from news reports or direct conversations with the prospect or family, and many other variables may factor in.

Question/Feedback:

“How can this donor’s capacity rating be lower than their lifetime giving total?”

Response:

I understand why this can be confusing: shouldn’t an estimate of what a donor can give be at least as much as they have already given? The key distinction is that the industry-standard capacity rating does not estimate lifetime giving; it estimates total giving capacity over a five-year period. At one organization, we addressed persistent confusion by renaming a report field from “capacity rating” to explicitly labeling it “5-year giving capacity.”

Question/Feedback:

“I want to ask for more than that—are you sure that’s as much as they can give?” – or – “They’re never going to give that much to us!”

Response:

These are two sides of the same coin: both mistake a capacity rating for a suggested ask amount. Capacity ratings are not commands—or even direct guidance—about how much to ask for; they are one data point to consider. Gift officers may ask for more, or more often less, than a capacity rating suggests after weighing additional factors such as philanthropic propensity, affinity for your organization, and timing.

One way to address this is to use what is sometimes called a “gift officer rating” to estimate the portion of a prospect’s capacity your organization might reasonably expect to receive. That number may be lower than the capacity rating—or higher, if gift officers have credible knowledge of wealth that cannot be verified through public sources.

Question/Feedback:

“I keep seeing this person on my ‘top prospects’ list, but they’re never going to give to us. Why are they rated so highly?”

Response:

You might have an alum or past parent who has never given or hasn’t engaged with your organization since graduation, a donor who made one $100 gift 20 years ago and has not responded to outreach since, or a past loyal donor who became upset about an organizational decision. None of these means their capacity to make a charitable gift is low, but it might mean their affinity for your organization is low. This is where prospect management policies and data beyond capacity ratings matter. Tools such as disqualification, “not a prospect” coding in your CRM, or other indicators can clarify that someone may have the capacity to make a large gift but is unlikely to do so. If those mechanisms exist, your response may be to apply them to the prospect or ensure they are reflected in the data and reports your audience uses to identify “top prospects.” If they do not exist at your organization, it may be worth starting a conversation to develop them.

Ultimately, there is no one-size-fits-all response to feedback or questions about capacity ratings. To return to a point from Anne’s Part I post, start by listening with curiosity: hear what your audience is saying, try to understand the underlying concern, and respond in a way that addresses the issue or clarifies a misunderstanding.

What common questions have you encountered in your work? How do you approach the important task of translating capacity ratings for your audiences?

 

By

The New Signals of Philanthropic Intent: What Prospect Researchers Should Be Watching in 2026

By: Melissa Bank Stepno, President & CEO

For years, prospect development has relied on a familiar collection of indicators to understand donor intent: giving history, wealth events, board service, liquidity, and personal connection. Those signals still matter, but they are no longer enough. The landscape of wealth, philanthropy, and public behavior is shifting faster than most nonprofits can adapt to, and the cues that reliably predict engagement are becoming more disperse, more digital, and more nuanced.

In 2026, the challenge for prospect researchers isn’t a lack of information. In fact, I would suggest that we are being inundated with too much information.  Rather, our challenge is knowing which signals actually mean something.

As donor expectations evolve and new wealth categories emerge, researchers have an opportunity (and dare I say it: a responsibility) to help our organizations interpret donor interest with greater clarity, context, and care.

Below are five of the new and/or newly important signals worth watching.

 

  1. Public Values Statements Are Becoming Actionable Data

A decade ago, mission‑aligned giving was a trend. Today, it’s a baseline expectation. Donors, especially those in younger generations, are increasingly vocal about the issues they care about, and they’re doing it in places that may not have traditionally been part of a researcher’s workflow.

A few examples:

  • Public comments about issues that matter to them (both pro and con) made on social media channels, in podcasts, via interviews, blog posts, etc.
  • Participation in public events or pledges, such as corporate responsibility statements, participation in mission-based civic initiatives, membership to cause-oriented coalitions, etc.
  • Values‑driven statements tied to major life events, particular for those in leadership roles or with ownership stakes at private companies, such as a company sale, IPO, leadership transition or investment strategy.

These aren’t just expressions of opinion.  They can also be indicators of where philanthropic interests may align.

 

  1. Wealth Events Are Faster, Quieter, and More Complex

The traditional liquidity events such as real estate sales, business mergers and acquisitions, and IPOs still matter, but they’re no longer the whole story. New wealth is emerging from sectors that move quickly and often operate in private.

Signals to watch:

  • Residences in international locations
  • News about private lending or investment activities
  • Material (physical) categories of investment, such as art, luxury goods and collectibles

Prospect Researchers don’t need to become financial analysts, but they do need to understand the generalities of these markets well enough to spot meaningful patterns and wealth indicators.

 

  1. Digital Engagement Is a Window Into Donor Readiness

Some donors are demonstrating their intent long before they fill out a form, actively raise their hand, or take a meeting with a gift officer. The challenge is distinguishing curiosity from commitment.

Activities to watch, especially when they happen with repetition:

  • Attendance at virtual events
  • Downloading research reports or impact briefs from your website
  • Following staff or leadership on LinkedIn
  • Engaging with thought leadership content
  • Participation in online communities tied to your mission

These behaviors don’t replace traditional qualification, nor do they identify capacity, but they can help you prioritize who to watch more closely or who to research first.

 

  1. Transparency Expectations Are Reshaping Donor Behavior

Just as our organizations are doing more due diligence on our donors, today’s donors are increasingly concerned about doing due diligence on the organizations that they support.  Donation dollars are going to organizations that are deemed trustworthy, well‑governed, and aligned with a donor’s values.

An extension of the activities listed in the previous category, some additional items to pay attention to are:

  • Requests for due diligence materials
  • Interest in impact measurement
  • Questions about data privacy and stewardship
  • Engagement with annual reports or audited financials

These aren’t red flags. They’re signs of a donor who is very interested in your organization and are likely more sophisticated in their approach to philanthropy.

 

  1. Relationship Intelligence Is Outpacing Data Intelligence

As wealth becomes more global and more mobile, personal networks are becoming one of the most reliable indicators of philanthropic alignment. The strongest signal of intent may not be what a prospect does but who they trust.

Some examples include:

  • Board overlaps and advisory roles
  • Peer‑to‑peer influence patterns
  • Family office relationships
  • Professional networks that cluster around shared values or industries

As such, relationship mapping is becoming more critical, and where a researcher can help translate relational affiliations into actionable strategy.

 

What This Means for Prospect Development Teams

The work of prospect development has always been about pattern recognition. What’s changing is the pattern itself.  Some of the concepts shared here aren’t new, but they are taking on heightened focus.

To stay ahead, prospect researchers should be mindful to:

  • Expand their understanding of wealth beyond traditional assets
  • Develop fluency in emerging industries
  • Integrate digital behavior and other engagement metrices into qualification workflows
  • Continue to strengthen partnerships with frontline fundraisers
  • Embrace relationship mapping as a core competency

Most importantly, researchers should feel empowered to bring interpretation and judgment, not just raw information to the table. Data is abundant. Insight is rare.

This is just one more opportunity for prospect researchers to guide their organizations with clarity, nuance, and strategic foresight.

The future of prospect development isn’t about having more data. It’s about knowing what matters and why.

By

A Patent Primer

By: Mandi Matz, Senior Consultant

Mandi Matz

Mandi Matz

The year 2026 marks my 20th anniversary working in development and prospect research. Remembering the first year of my career, I laugh at myself because I realize how much I didn’t know. I was so overeager not to miss anything in my research that my first profiles were as long as term papers, a bad habit of which my then-boss soon cured me.

I also remember that the first prospect I was assigned to research was a real stumper. He owned complicated real estate, a lot of stock and several patents. Being completely green, I spent too much time trying to figure everything out, including how much he may be earning from those patents.

All these years later, I’m still a bit baffled by patents, so I asked an expert: My brother Aaron Matz, who’s a patent litigator. It led to an interesting conversation between adult siblings who started our respective careers at about the same time.

So, here’s a patent primer. If you encounter prospects with patents, I hope it will be helpful. It certainly has some information I wish I knew way back when.

What is your background? How did you become a patent attorney?

I have a degree in electrical engineering from Caltech and went on to a Ph.D. program at MIT. When I started working, I was as an engineer for Motorola and later General Dynamics, which bought my division of Motorola. After a few years, I decided to apply to law school on a lark. I kept working while I was in school, and I earned my J.D. from Arizona State. That was 20 years ago. I’m a senior attorney in the Phoenix office of Perkins Coie.

Is it common for engineers to become patent attorneys?

It’s not necessary for patent attorneys to have an engineering background, but for engineers who do become lawyers, it is fairly common.

What do you find most interesting about your work?

Getting to work with inventors and people who are experts in technology. I’ve met people who have invented fundamental things that are now in absolutely everything. For example, for one case, I met some of the people who invented a very early version of Wi-Fi. For another case, I met with the inventors of what’s basically the little computer that’s in every cellphone.

Let’s go through some patent basics. If a prospect researcher comes across a patent, what are the first few things they should look at to understand its significance?

The very first thing to look for is the assignment of the patent. The assignee is the owner.

Are there reliable public databases or tools you recommend for researching patents, and how should a beginner approach them?

You can always start at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (https://www.uspto.gov/). It’s searchable and has good resources for those that are new to intellectual property. There’s also a section specifically for researchers and librarians (under the Learning and Resources tab) that might be helpful.

I like Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/). It’s free and more user friendly than the USPTO site. It’s also good for searching for international patents. I find the best way to search is by a person’s name and the patent number, if you have both of those pieces of information.

Who can apply for a patent and how long does it take before it’s issued?

Anyone can apply for a patent. You don’t need a lawyer to apply, but it can be helpful to have one. The typical time until the patent is issued is two or three years.

Are there different types of patents?

The two most common types – the types that you as researchers are most likely to encounter – are utility patents and design patents. Utility patents cover something that you make or how you use it. Unexpired utility patents will have a seven-or-eight-digit number. Design patents cover the aesthetic design aspects of an object. These patents are designated by “D” followed by a number.

How much does it cost to apply? Is the fact that a prospect applies for a patent a wealth indicator?

Could be. The fees for a patent are usually a few thousand dollars over the life of the patent, including the application fees, the issue fees and the maintenance fees. Of course, if someone uses a lawyer to apply for a patent, the cost is substantially more. One thing you can find out from the face of the patent is if the person used an attorney or agent. So, if you have a prospect who has numerous patents and you see that they used an attorney each time they applied for one, you can assume that they have some wealth.

Interestingly, the U.S. Patent Office is one of the few government agencies that is self-funded. All of its funding comes from the various fees.

Who typically owns a patent – the individual inventor, their employer or another entity?

In the vast majority of cases, the assignee is the employer of the inventor(s).

So, what does it actually mean when someone is listed as an inventor on a patent? As researchers, does that tell us anything meaningful about their financial situation?

In and of itself, no. When someone applies for a patent, they are required to list all of the inventors. In the most common scenario, the inventors work for a company or in academia. In that case, the institution almost always owns the patent. The inventors may get a bonus of some kind from their employer, but they aren’t otherwise making any money from the patent. Their employer most likely isn’t making any money from the patent either.

As researchers, we are always trying to figure out how much a prospect is potentially worth. So, what are the ways patents actually generate money?

There are three ways a patent can generate money: licensing, litigation and sale. Licensing is probably the most common of the three.

In cases where litigation is involved, the patent owner can sue for damages, but that’s limited to a six-year window. At least 95% of cases settle before trial, typically because of the cost and level of risk involved in a trial. Most settlements are confidential so while you can find out that a settlement occurred, it is unlikely that you will be able to find out any financial terms or details.

Think of litigation like a funnel. A very small number of patents have gone to litigation. Of those, a very small number have gone to trial. Of the ones that have actually gone to trial, only a fraction have resulted in damages being awarded to the patent owner. If damages have been awarded, that is a matter of the public record. But even then, it is almost impossible to determine how much an individual inventor or owner may have received.

Sales of patents are relatively uncommon. They most often occur when a company goes bankrupt and the patents are sold out of the bankruptcy or when a company is getting out of a certain line of business, so they sell their patents to another company. Sometimes the company selling the patents will retain a back-end interest, or it may be an outright sale. But again, it’s very difficult to find financial information in this case.

Do most patents ever generate meaningful income, or is that rare?

Patents come from the Constitution. The original patent law was written in 1790. Since then, more than 12 million utility patents and more than one million design patents have been issued in the U.S., the vast majority of which have never been licensed or subject to litigation, meaning they’re pieces of paper that have never generated any money.

I had no idea patent law is that old.

Here’s another fun fact. Abraham Lincoln held a patent. It was issued in 1849 for an invention that lifts boats over obstructions in a river (https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/journeys-innovation/abraham-lincoln).

Back to the basics. We’ve talked about patents and inventors who work for large institutions. Are things different for someone who works for a startup or who is an independent or garage inventor?

If the person works for a startup, the same rules apply. The assignee of the patent will usually be the employer, and the inventor will not be earning anything from the patent, but they may get some kind of bonus.

The one thing that may be different is if the inventor is a founder of the company. A founder is more likely to have an ownership stake in the company that owns the patent, particularly if it’s their own company. So, if they are able to license or sell the patent, that will affect their bottom line more than if they are just an inventor who works for a big company in which they don’t have a significant stake. But still, even with a company founder, it’s very unlikely that you’ll be able to find specific information about how much they may be earning from that patent.

Sales of patents by garage inventors are extremely rare.

Are there certain industries that are more likely to produce financial returns?

This is where the garage inventor may have a chance. Smaller, simpler inventions that don’t require a lot of capital or the infrastructure of a large company or academic institution behind them can be profitable. The type of thing you see on Shark Tank: Something some friends made in their spare time. If the inventors hit it “big,” meaning they licensed or sold their invention and made some money from it, you may find some information about that in a news story online.

That scenario is really one-in-a-million, but it can happen. One example of this is the Super Soaker, that toy water gun. (The Super Soaker was invented by Lonnie Johnson, who was trained as a nuclear engineer. In 1989, he licensed his famous invention to Larami Corp. Two years later, the Super Soaker generated more than $200 million in sales and became the #1 selling toy in America. The Super Soaker has generated more than $1 billion in sales over its lifetime: https://www.invent.org/inductees/lonnie-johnson).

There’s also an interesting movie (Flash of Genius from 2008) with Greg Kinnear, where his character (Robert Kearns) develops an intermittent windshield wiper. That’s another case of a garage inventor who made some money. The movie, which is based on a true story, does a pretty accurate job of showing the patent process to the layperson.

(After we talked, Aaron sent me this article about inventors who became rich from their patents. Included in the list? Lonnie Johnson and Robert Kearns: https://www.slashgear.com/1636698/patents-that-made-founders-rich/).

It seems like it’s virtually impossible to tell whether a patent is being monetized.

That’s true. It is very rare that you can find monetary information in the public domain. You can do a news search and see if the patent has been subject to litigation, but the financial terms are rarely disclosed. If a public company is involved, there may be something in the SEC filings. But even in those filings, while there may be information about litigation, the amount of money involved is rarely detailed.

The inventor Jerome Lemelson is a rare example where you can find some information. He owned hundreds of patents, on his own and through a foundation controlled by him (the Lemelson Foundation). You can certainly find estimates of his wealth, but there are also controversies surrounding the validity of his patents and the tactics he used to extend them, to the point where patent law was changed because of him.

Do expired patents have any relevance when evaluating a prospect’s past or present wealth?

Most patents don’t expire for 20 years from the filing date. If the patent was licensed, once it expires, the assignee is no longer earning any licensing revenue from it.

AI is on everyone’s mind. How may it affect patents?

It’s hard to say. It’s likely that more and more patents will be written by AI, and AI will be used in the examination process. The use of AI likely will mean that the quantity of patents being issued will go way up and the quality will go way down. In that case, patents will be worth less, at least in the short term, until the patent office catches up in terms of using AI technology. But that’s just a guess. As with everything AI, there’s a lot of speculation about how it will affect all kinds of things.

If you had to give prospect researchers one piece of advice about how to interpret patent information, what would it be?

Temper your expectations for finding financial information. It’s ironic. The purpose of a patent is to make the details of the invention public, yet it’s very difficult to find information in publicly available sources about how much it’s worth. Don’t spend too much time trying.

But that doesn’t mean you should ignore a patent if you are researching someone. Remember that it costs thousands of dollars to apply for a patent, especially if you use a lawyer. Wealth indicators that you can find in public sources – like real estate, clues that suggest a lavish lifestyle, things like that – may mean that someone has made some money from a patent, although you likely won’t find out or be able to figure out exactly how much.

Anything else we should know?

Although its imperfect, the U.S. probably has the best patent system in the world, bar none.

By

Filled with Pride, Feeling Lucky

By: Jessica Woodbridge, Senior Consultant

Jessica Woodbridge

Jessica Woodbridge

As a prospect development professional, I feel so lucky to do what I love every day for work. There are so many reasons why I love what I do, from finding little gems of information that will be extra helpful for gift officers as they build relationships with prospective donors, to experiencing professional development on a daily basis as I research people from many different backgrounds (i.e. stock broker, CEO of a pet food company, 3rd generation executive of a family-owned commercial construction business). More than 15 years of working in this field and I’m still learning so much! One of the things I’m actively working on this year is how to better manage my workload in order to provide an excellent product while also being time efficient. Here are a few thoughts that have helped me (and may also help you) in the process.

Something that I’ve been told throughout the years is that I am very detail oriented. In our line of work, this can be a great thing! However, there is also an opportunity to learn how to balance excellent detailed work while also getting a profile completed in a timely matter. My curiosity tends to make me want to keep digging when creating a prospect profile. Many times, this has proven helpful to the gift officers receiving that information. Unfortunately, it also means that I can sometimes get too into the weeds and find it difficult to know when a profile is ready to be delivered. There is a fine line between going that extra mile and feeling confident that if the gift officer needs more information, they need only ask.

Along the same lines, U.S. comprehensive data privacy laws have rapidly come into effect over the past few years. One theme that many of these laws share is requiring the practice of data minimization. Many U.S. privacy laws require data processors to limit the collection of personal data to what is “adequate, relevant, and reasonably necessary”. This is especially important in our field because information collecting is what we do.

In prospect development, one of our products is the creation of profiles that contain information such as a person’s stock holdings, philanthropy, foundation information, real estate holdings, spousal information, compensation estimates, board affiliations, and business ownership. There is so much information that can be uncovered in order to build a picture of who the prospective donor is and how they may connect with your organization. We should consider that we can provide different levels of information, from shorter bios to more comprehensive profiles, based on where a prospect is at in the gift giving cycle.  Sometimes, a gift officer requests a full profile before a meeting has even been set. The key is to give them enough information so that they feel confident while also letting them know that they can always request more information as the relationship progresses. It can sometimes be difficult to “push back” on a gift officer who requests a full profile when you know this is a first meeting they will have with a prospective donor. The more you ask questions and keep an open dialogue, the easier this relationship will feel.

A few questions/thoughts that may come up for you during your work:

  • “Does my product fulfill the request?”
  • “Have I answered the question(s) asked?”
  • “Is this information necessary and/or helpful?”
  • “This prospect has made thousands of gifts. Is there a way for me to summarize their work while also highlighting their largest gifts and/or giving that is similar to what my organization does?”

I also always add, “Please let me know if you need anything else for this” as a way to keep the dialogue open between the gift officer and research, signifying this isn’t necessarily the end of the research on this particular prospect or the project. If they need more information or if the research helps them come back with specific questions, then we can tackle that then. Know that your work is valued and your version of “good enough” is probably exceptional! Also, if you can see yourself going down a rabbit hole, you can stop yourself by letting the gift officer know that more information is available should they be interested in learning more.

Another thing you might consider is if you find yourself learning something new during your research such as how private equity professionals make their money, you may want to bookmark articles, white papers, and other sources you find during your research for review later on when you have some time. This will help you in your professional development while also getting the product finished in a timely manner.

In my career, I have seen phrases used in prospect development job descriptions such as “High level of intellectual curiosity and persistence”, “Innate curiosity to surface information and connections that advance fundraising goals”, and “A strategic thinker with a natural curiosity to continually improve results and experiment with new methods and ideas”. What I am learning is that we can be both very curious in our work while also providing an exceptional product for what is needed at that moment in a prospective donor’s lifecycle of your organization.

By

Prospecting Without Property: How to Evaluate Assisted Living and Nursing Home Residents

By: Jennifer Turner, Senior Consultant

Jennifer Turner

Jennifer Turner

When evaluating a new prospect, one of the first places I look is at their real estate assets. After all, the Capgemini/Merrill Lynch World Wealth Report makes it seem easy:

The Capgemini/Merrill Lynch World Wealth Report provides evidence that real estate comprises approximately 19 percent of high-net-worth individuals’ total assets.

So, if you’re like me, you cringe when you realize a prospect lives in a rental unit or does not have any real estate assets of their own. Similarly, what about those prospects who live in an assisted living facility? Does this mean they are not good prospects because their money is being consumed by the facility? Or, on the contrary, does it mean the prospect is quite wealthy because they have the means to live in what might be considered a “luxury” nursing home? Arguments can be made for both sides of the spectrum.

The reality is there’s no Capgemini-style equation for estimating a nursing home resident’s capacity. But that doesn’t mean we have to stop here. What we can do is provide meaningful context to indicate whether or not a prospect is worth pursuing – albeit without the assignment of a numerical rating.

But first let’s look at some important terms:

Nursing home vs. assisted living

According to the website A Place for Mom, assisted living communities help with the activities of daily living, such as bathing, toileting, dressing, while nursing homes provide 24-hour monitoring and medical care (deeming it the highest level of health care offered outside of a hospital setting). The national median monthly cost of assisted living is $5,190, while the national median monthly cost of a nursing home is $10,646 according to CareScout’s 2025 Cost of care survey.

Medicaid vs Medicare

Medicare is a federal health insurance program for people age 65 and older that typically only covers limited short-term nursing home stays for rehabilitation after a hospitalization. For ongoing long-term care costs, Medicaid can serve as a primary payer. However, unlike Medicare, eligibility depends on meeting strict income and asset limits. Rules vary by state, but most limit individuals to no more than $2,000 in countable assets. While we cannot tell from our own research if a prospect is on Medicaid, should the term happen to come up in their conversation with a gift officer, most likely they do not have significant wealth (and therefore should not be pursued for a gift).

Factors to consider when evaluating a nursing home or assisted living resident as a prospect:

  • The nursing home/assisted living facility itself – is it “luxury” housing or is it considered “affordable senior housing”?
  • What was the prospect’s lifestyle prior to moving into the nursing home? You may not be able to use current assets to calculate a rating, but if you take a step back and examine their lifestyle before becoming a resident, you may be able to get a sense of their wealth.
  • Career history – most nursing home residents are retired, but what did the prospect do for a living? If you are lucky enough to learn that they worked at a public company, you may be able to find the details of his or her retirement package.
  • Did they recently sell their home? And for how much?
  • Giving history – are they still giving? Has their giving stopped since moving into the nursing home?
  • Do they/did they have a foundation?

Caveats:

  • They may have already settled their affairs (did you notice any recent planned gifts during your search for gifts?)
  • Some of their assets may have been transferred to their children, so if you think they may still own that second home in Florida, but can’t find it under their name, check their children’s real estate holdings.
  • According to the 2016 study “Later-Life Household Wealth Before and After Disability Onset” by Richard W. Johnson, people who spent at least 90 days in a nursing home had 86 percent less total household wealth and 96 percent less housing wealth within two years of entry than their counterparts who did not experience extended nursing home care. Therefore, if you are going to consider a nursing home resident a potential prospect, you may want to bump them up to the top of you visit list (before nursing home costs consume their assets). Perhaps they are looking to spend their money in other, more rewarding ways, such as a gift to their favorite nonprofit organization.

Conclusion:

While we cannot use nursing home residency to assess a prospect’s capacity, we can still get a sense of whether or not they are a viable prospect, we just need to think outside the box a bit and take other factors into consideration. While we may have to be content knowing that we will never find their true capacity, it is our job as diligent researchers to at least provide our gift officers with as much context as possible.

Finally, don’t forget their children! Just because the resident may not be a prospect, don’t rule out their family. After all, what better way to honor the memory of one’s parent than by making a gift in their name to your organization?

Sources:

https://www.aplaceformom.com/caregiver-resources/articles/assisted-living-vs-nursing-homes

https://www.carescout.com/cost-of-care

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files//171881/householdwealth.pdf

The Helen Brown Group Prospect Research & Fundraising Intelligence
Follow Us: Linkedin
617-393-1983
info@helenbrowngroup.com
Helen Brown Group