Wealth Management Models Shift as Families Reevaluate Office Structures

As global family wealth continues to expand, ultra-high-net-worth families face a critical decision: how to best manage, preserve and transfer their assets across generations. Two primary models have emerged as the gold standard in this space: the single-family office (SFO) and the multi-family office (MFO). Each offers distinct advantages and trade-offs, particularly in control, customisation, cost and expertise.

A single-family office is a private organisation established to oversee the wealth and affairs of one family. With dedicated staff and resources, SFOs provide bespoke solutions tailored to the family’s specific needs. Services often include investment management, estate planning, philanthropy and even lifestyle management. However, the cost of running an SFO is significant. Industry data suggests annual operating expenses can reach $2 million or more, making this model most viable for families with assets of $250 million or more.

In contrast, multi-family offices serve several families, pooling resources to offer a broader range of services at a lower cost per family. MFOs provide access to teams of experts in investment, tax, legal and family governance matters. This model is more cost-efficient, often charging between 0.2% and 0.3% of assets under management. However, families may find that MFOs offer less customisation and control compared to an SFO.

To understand the nuances of these models, I spoke with two senior representatives from Bloor Office, a leading London-based single-family office: James Bloor, Managing Director, and Olivia Bennett, Head of Family Governance.

Bloor emphasised the importance of alignment and focus, noting,

“Families considering a single-family office must weigh not just the cost but the value of true alignment between their wealth management and their family’s unique values, goals and governance style. In our experience, building a team whose sole focus is the family’s interests, without compromise, enables us to address complex, multi-generational needs with precision and confidentiality that simply isn’t possible in a shared environment.”

The question of control is often the most significant differentiator between the two models. SFOs allow families to make all key decisions, from hiring staff to setting investment policies and risk parameters. This autonomy ensures that every action aligns precisely with the family’s values and legacy goals. By comparison, MFOs involve shared governance and standardised processes, which can dilute a family’s influence over decision-making.

Customisation is another critical factor that influences this choice. SFOs can design and implement highly tailored solutions, whether that means structuring complex trusts, managing unique assets or developing next-generation education programs. MFOs, while offering some degree of customisation, must balance the diverse needs of multiple families, often resulting in more generalised offerings.

Bennett highlighted the importance of continuity and vision, explaining,

“We often see that the real differentiator is not just customisation but the continuity of vision. A single-family office allows us to design and execute strategies that evolve seamlessly as the family grows and priorities shift. This continuity is crucial for succession planning and instilling stewardship values in the next generation. These are areas where multi-family offices, by necessity, must generalise their approach.”

Cost is a practical consideration that cannot be overlooked. SFOs require a substantial financial commitment, with fixed costs that only become efficient at very high asset levels. On the other hand, MFOs leverage economies of scale to reduce expenses, making sophisticated wealth management accessible to families with lower asset bases.

Expertise is increasingly important as wealth management becomes more complex. MFOs can attract and retain a broad array of specialists, offering families access to deep pools of knowledge. SFOs, while typically smaller, can build teams entirely focused on the family’s unique situation. This leads to greater alignment with family priorities, though it may result in less diversity of opinion.

Bloor also addressed the issues of privacy and governance, stating,

“While multi-family offices provide excellent access to a broad pool of expertise and can be highly cost-effective, the trade-off is often in governance and privacy. In an SFO, the family retains direct control over decision-making and risk management, and we can implement security protocols tailored to their specific risk profile. This level of control is non-negotiable for families with significant complexity or privacy concerns.”

Ultimately, the choice between an SFO and an MFO comes down to the family’s priorities and resources. Bennett concluded,

“Ultimately, the choice is about strategic alignment. For some families, the efficiencies and collaborative opportunities of an MFO are ideal. For others, particularly those with intricate assets, intergenerational ambitions, or a need for absolute discretion, the SFO model is the only way to ensure their legacy is managed with the care and attention it deserves.”

There is no one-size-fits-all answer for ultra-wealthy families seeking to manage their wealth. The decision between a single-family office and a multi-family office involves careful consideration of control, customisation, cost and expertise. As families weigh their options, the guidance of experienced advisors-whether within an SFO or an MFO-remains invaluable in safeguarding their legacy for generations to come.