Every advisory engagement produces documented outputs — not verbal recommendations. These are the formats and frameworks we deploy across the engagement pathway.
These are the objections we hear most often. Addressed not to persuade, but to clarify where our advisory model sits relative to your existing arrangements.
Most family offices do. J.P. Morgan (2024) found that 71% of family offices use external investment management, and Citi (2024) estimates that 52% of AUM is managed in collaboration with or exclusively by external managers. The question is not whether to use external managers — it is whether those relationships are coordinated, evaluated independently, and held accountable against documented objectives. Cambridge Associates (2023) identified fee duplication across uncoordinated external managers as a structural cost problem that "can erode performance and reduce strategic flexibility" without the principal's awareness. Private banks are not structurally positioned to provide objective oversight of their own mandates — their revenue model and ours are different. Our role is to ensure existing managers operate within a coherent governance framework and are evaluated on terms that serve the family's interests, not their distribution targets.
That is often the correct instinct — and one worth testing. Citi Private Bank (2024) found that only 47% of family offices formally measure performance against their own stated annual goals. If performance is not measured against documented objectives, it is difficult to confirm whether additional advisory creates value or not — because the baseline is unclear. The diagnostic is designed to answer that question concretely. If the existing arrangement passes the diagnostic with no material gaps, that is a useful finding in its own right. If it does not, the diagnostic identifies where the gaps are costing the family money, time, or risk exposure — without obligation on either side.
It is — and the research confirms it. Deloitte (2024) surveyed 354 single family offices and found the average AUM across their sample was $386M, the average family wealth $684M, the average team size 8 people, and the average annual operating cost $5.2M. The variation within those averages is enormous: from offices running on $700K per year to $24M. Every family office is unique. The value of an institutional framework is precisely that it is calibrated to the specific family — not applied as a template. What is standardised is the process: the structured diagnostic, the governance gap analysis, the risk register, and the advisory cadence. The outputs are always bespoke. We do not offer products.
That is often the right starting position. McKinsey (2024) sets the minimum viable AUM for a single family office in Asia Pacific at US$100 million, noting that operating costs below this threshold typically consume 4–6% of AUM annually. Campden Wealth (2024) found that a lean office with AUM below $250M typically spends ~$1M per year on operations — before external manager fees. Building a full family office before that threshold is justified may consume more resources than the structure saves. Our engagement model does not require a full office. It begins with identifying which elements of institutional discipline are most urgent and most achievable for your specific situation — an IPS, a reporting framework, a cybersecurity audit, a governance diagnostic — and engaging on those priorities without requiring a comprehensive transformation mandate.
The distinction matters. Bureaucracy is process for its own sake. Institutional discipline is a documented decision architecture that enables faster, more confident decisions under uncertainty. J.P. Morgan (2026) identified the lack of a succession plan for key decision-makers as a top-three risk for 33% of family offices surveyed — tied with regulatory risk and family conflict. Families with a documented IPS, defined governance structure, and clear communication cadence consistently report better decision-making in time-compressed situations — liquidity events, market dislocations, family disagreements — than those operating ad hoc. The purpose of the framework is clarity, not overhead. It can be designed to be as lightweight as the principal requires.
Discretion is non-negotiable in this practice and a structural feature of how we engage, not an afterthought. This diagnostic tool stores nothing: no data entered here is transmitted, retained, or accessible to any third party. All engagement discussions are conducted under a confidentiality agreement before substantive information is exchanged. Our advisory model is designed for principals who have serious privacy requirements — including concerns about competitor intelligence, family dynamics, and regulatory exposure. Notably, the cybersecurity landscape for UHNW individuals has worsened: Deloitte (2024) found that 25% of families with wealth exceeding $1 billion have been directly targeted by cyberattacks. Discretion is both a professional obligation and an operational priority. We structure engagements accordingly, including secure communications protocols and information minimisation principles.
This is more common than most principals acknowledge — and the research is unambiguous about its consequences. Williams and Preisser (2003), in the most widely cited longitudinal study of family wealth transfers, found that 60% of wealth transfer failures are caused by breakdown of trust and communication within the family, 25% by unprepared heirs, and 15% by lack of shared family purpose. Fewer than 5% are attributable to technical or professional errors. The implication is that investment returns and legal structures are secondary to family cohesion and governance communication. Our advisory practice addresses both: governance frameworks are meaningless unless the family has a shared understanding of why they exist. We engage with family dynamics as a substantive advisory matter, not a soft one. Where family alignment is the primary issue, the governance diagnostic and succession framework typically take precedence over investment process work.
That is exactly the right question to be deliberating — and the evidence should inform the answer. UBS (2024) found that 60% of family offices have an in-house CIO, 10% use an outsourced CIO, and 30% have no CIO at all. McKinsey (2024) sets the minimum viable AUM for an in-house model in Asia Pacific at US$100 million, with full viability more realistic above US$500 million–US$1 billion. OCIO adoption among institutional asset owners has risen to 46% (CIO Magazine, 2025) but remains at only 10% among family offices — a gap that reflects preference for control rather than cost efficiency. This decision does not need to be made comprehensively at the start. Our Build vs. Buy engine above provides a structured framework covering nine dimensions including AUM complexity, internal capability, technology gaps, talent access, and compliance requirements. It generates a recommendation and explains the reasoning behind it. This is a starting point for a structured conversation, not a binding prescription.
Sophisticated principals apply the same rigour to evaluating their advisors as institutional investors apply to evaluating fund managers. These questions are drawn from institutional due diligence practice. A current advisor unable to answer any of these clearly deserves a more structured conversation.
A practical self-assessment tool for family offices committed to institutional-grade operating standards. Each item represents a practice that distinguishes institutionalised offices from informal ones in the primary survey data (Citi, UBS, Campden, J.P. Morgan 2024). Click to mark items complete and track your coverage against the peer benchmark.
The first conversation is always confidential, always without obligation, and always focused on your specific situation. We do not pitch. We listen, we ask questions, and we tell you honestly what we see.