1. What is a Multi-Family Office (MFO)?

Q1: Why has the concept of a ‘Multi-Family Office’ emerged?

In the early days of wealth management, ‘Investment Advisor’ or ‘External Asset Manager (EAM)’ were common terms. As demand grew from ultra-high-net-worth individuals, some firms rebranded the traditional ‘managing assets for clients’ model into the concept of a ‘Family Office’ to emphasise an image of exclusivity, privacy, and comprehensive services. When such a ‘Family Office’ serves not just a single family but multiple families, it is referred to as a ‘Multi-Family Office (MFO)’.

Q2: Is there a significant difference between an MFO and a traditional investment advisor or EAM?

In theory, an MFO offers additional services such as ‘family succession planning, tax structuring, and philanthropic planning’ beyond what a typical investment advisor/EAM provides. However, in practice, many MFOs primarily focus on ‘investment management’ and ‘wealth advisory’—essentially the same old services—simply repackaged under the ‘Family Office’ label to appear more exclusive and justify higher management fees.

2. Why Do Some People Say MFOs Are ‘Pretentious’ or a ‘Marketing Gimmick’?

Q3: What is considered ‘pretentious’ about them?

Lack of genuine service innovation: Most MFOs still concentrate on wealth management, asset allocation, and product selection—the same old practices. Few genuinely execute ‘family governance’, ‘family charters’, or ‘multi-generational planning’.

Branding and pricing: Once a firm calls itself an ‘MFO’, fees often increase. Clients are led to believe they are receiving an ‘elite, private, bespoke’ service, but the reality is often just the usual ‘buy-sell products + charge management fees’.

Satisfying clients’ ‘vanity’: Some clients do not actually require the full ‘Family Office’ suite but are willing to pay simply because ‘MFO’ sounds prestigious and enhances their social status.

Q4: Could you provide some examples?

Example 1: A small wealth advisory firm previously provided clients with fund recommendations and stock portfolio management, branding itself as an ‘asset management company’. Later, to attract ultra-high-net-worth clients, it rebranded as a ‘Multi-Family Office’, added a few lawyers and tax consultants as nominal advisors, and promoted ‘family succession + global asset allocation’. Yet, the core business remained managed by the same advisors, but fees doubled.

Example 2: A client, having accumulated considerable wealth, sought a ‘prestigious’ service. The firm offered an ‘MFO package’, creating a so-called ‘family charter’. However, in daily life, the client merely used the firm to buy funds or execute stock trades—there was no real need for family governance services. Ultimately, the ‘family charter’ was shelved, serving mainly to provide psychological satisfaction that the client had a ‘Family Office’.

3. Are MFOs Completely Without Value?

Q5: Do MFOs have any genuine strengths?

Offering a comprehensive team: Some truly professional MFOs integrate wealth management, tax planning, cross-border legal advice, and family trusts into a ‘one-stop service’—beneficial for families with complex needs.

Cost efficiency compared to a single-family office: If a family’s wealth is insufficient to establish a standalone family office, an MFO allows costs to be shared across multiple families while offering ‘family office-like’ services.

Expanding networks and resources: Some MFOs provide access to research, overseas fund connections, and even property investment networks—resources that typical investment advisors/EAMs may not offer.

4. Final Thoughts: How to View the ‘Pretentious’ Side of MFOs?

Q6: How should potential clients evaluate whether an MFO is worth it?

Ultimately, they are still financial services providers: Recognise that whether it is called an MFO or an EAM, the core task is ‘managing wealth for clients’.

Match services to your real needs: If you require family succession, cross-border tax planning, or offshore trusts, a regulated and professional MFO might be suitable. If you simply need investment advice or portfolio management, there is no need to pay high MFO fees; a traditional investment advisor/EAM can meet your needs.

Do not be misled by branding and titles: Ask detailed questions about what specific services the MFO will provide. Do they have a genuine tax and legal team, or are these merely names on a brochure? How is their fee structure arranged? Are there hidden product sales or commission-based incentives? Understand these before committing.

Q7: How can you spot a ‘hollow’ MFO?

Ask: Do they provide a detailed and transparent service breakdown? If they only say, ‘We are an elite family office offering everything’, but cannot clarify processes or team credentials, and ask for large management fees upfront, be cautious.

Check: Can they demonstrate successful case studies? For instance, have they helped set up a trust or resolved cross-border tax issues? If their pitch is merely ‘we are excellent’ and ‘we can handle everything’, approach with caution.

5. Brief Conclusion

The ‘pretentiousness’ of MFOs stems from branding outpacing substantive change: The ‘Multi-Family Office’ label provides firms with pricing power and marketing leverage, but the reality often remains ‘investment management + value-added services’. There is no mystery.

Clients should choose rationally: If you genuinely require family succession planning, tax structuring, or cross-border asset management, a capable MFO can deliver great value. However, if you simply seek wealth management or fund investments, there is no need to chase the ‘MFO halo’.

A name upgrade should be matched by professional capability: A trustworthy MFO should possess a skilled team and transparent services, not just rely on rebranding and charging higher fees.

Ultimately: Assess any financial service provider based on expertise and your needs, rather than being swayed by impressive branding.