Knowledge pillar
Direct investing, co-investments, alternatives, portfolio construction, risk management, and ESG/impact investing for family offices.
Iconiq Capital manages $65bn for Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and dozens of tech founders. Its evolution from multi-family office to venture investor reveals the opportunities and conflicts inherent in shared-services models.
Jeff Bezos's 2019 divorce transferred $38.3 billion in Amazon shares to MacKenzie Scott, exposing structural lessons on principal separation, venture allocation, and philanthropic vehicle design for ultra-high-net-worth families.
MSD Capital's journey from managing the Dell family fortune to forming BDT & MSD Partners offers a blueprint for family offices considering third-party capital — and a cautionary tale about maintaining alignment.
With 42% of Oracle and $1bn in trophy real estate, Ellison demonstrates when direct ownership trumps traditional family office structures—and what tax authorities now think about it.
Elon Musk's Texas-based Excession LLC manages over $200bn in assets with approximately 10 employees—no tax desk, no concierge, no traditional philanthropy team. What the structure reveals about minimum-viable family offices.
Bill Gates's Cascade Investment LLC, formed in 1995 and stewarded by CIO Michael Larson, manages approximately $175 billion through a lean structure that challenges conventional multi-family-office staffing models.
Single family offices and hedge funds differ fundamentally in structure, fees, and alignment. We examine the regulatory, economic, and operational factors driving families' decisions to build internal capabilities or maintain external allocations.
Family offices at $50M allocate 47% to public equity; those above $1B drop to 28% and triple alternatives. We analyse structural drivers, institutional comparisons, and policy ranges across three AUM tiers.
A comprehensive framework for family offices conducting direct investments: sourcing methodologies, four-stage due diligence, team sizing by AUM, term negotiation, board governance, and exit discipline with jurisdiction-specific considerations.
Three operating-model questions decide whether direct investing or fund allocation is the more honest answer for a given family office. The wrong choice is rarely loud — it just compounds slowly.
The IPS defines the boundary conditions inside which the investment team makes decisions. Without it, the team substitutes its own judgment for the family's intent — sometimes well, often not.
Pension and endowment models inform UHNW allocation but cannot drive it. Single-family circumstances — taxation, concentration, generational horizons, liquidity needs — produce a different efficient frontier.
ESG screening removes harmful holdings; impact investing actively seeks measurable outcomes. They are different disciplines, often confused, and a family office serving both should treat them separately.
The discipline that separates good manager selection from average is the willingness to say no — frequently, with documented reasons, and against social pressure.
A manager that scored well three years ago can be a different organisation today. Ongoing monitoring catches the drift before it costs the portfolio.
IMP, IRIS+, SDG alignment, and TCFD all attack overlapping problems from different angles. The risk for a family office is endless framework comparison; the remedy is a documented choice the team uses for every impact decision.
Standard risk reports — VaR, stress tests, factor exposures — are useful inputs to a richer conversation. The conversation is what catches concentrations, dependencies, and behavioural risks the numbers miss.
Most family offices receive competent risk reports. Far fewer translate them into committee conversation, action, and follow-through. The gap is where avoidable losses live.
Definitions every principal and advisor working in this area should be fluent in.
Curated insights on governance, investment, and operations for family office professionals. No noise, no sales pitches.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.