[NamTaf]

Having gone through an unexpected, young death where nothing was recorded, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion: anything significant enough to care about already has next-of-kin processes established such that the Right Person will be able to sort it out.

Indeed, when it comes to stuff like finances, at least where I live, touching them post-death creates issues when the legal channels confirming there’s no contest over next-of-kin haven’t been run to ground. In those situations, having a password means nothing.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t prep a will and have processes in place, but it gave me a lot of reassurance that I did not need to worry so much about this.

[shortandsweet]

That's fine if you're single but incredibly selfish if you're not.

[rjmorris]

I think an accusation like that warrants some elaboration. Please describe why you think this is selfish.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

It makes the whole thing the problem of whoever survives. By not leaving documentation, you pass the work of picking up the pieces to someone else. I think "selfish" might be a little strong, but it's not an indefensible position to take.

[wastedhours]

This depends on what we're defining as documentation vs access. My interpretation of the start of the GP was more about passing over actual login/access information, which especially for assets and finances really shouldn't be handed over this way.

Documentation in the form of "I have a bank account at Bank X, and a will at Lawyer Y (or, I don't have a will, but there are established protocols to handle this)" (even if only verbally) is different than "here's my username and password to my trading account in case I snuff it".