1. What is an “MFO”?

• Origins: In Europe and America, a Family Office originally referred to an internal organization set up by ultra-high-net-worth families (Single Family Office) specifically responsible for handling family succession, investment management, philanthropy, taxation, etc. Later, Multi-Family Offices (MFOs) emerged to serve multiple families simultaneously, allowing several families to share costs while enjoying professional team services.
• Upgraded Packaging: In Asia, especially in the last decade, “MFO” has become a highly upscale label for marketing and positioning. Previously, similar models might have been called “investment advisors” or “EAMs,” but “family office” immediately sounds high-end and private, satisfying clients who want “premium services,” thus becoming rapidly widespread.

2. Multi-Family Offices and Insurance Business are “Inextricably Linked”

2.1 Doubling as Insurance Brokers, Dual Roles

Many self-proclaimed “MFOs” actually also hold insurance broker or agent qualifications. Why?

• Insurance plays a very important role in family wealth management (e.g., using large life insurance policies for family succession, tax planning, etc.).
• When MFOs include insurance services, clients can handle various protection and financial needs in one stop, while MFOs can collect substantial commissions from insurance companies.

The problem is that double charging naturally creates conflicts of interest:

• They may favor promoting certain policies with higher commission rates, which may not necessarily be the most beneficial for clients.
• If clients aren’t clear about the actual rebate situation, they can easily be led by the MFO.

2.2 Not Just Insurance: Other Common Conflicts

Beyond insurance, some MFOs have rebate agreements with fund managers and structured product providers, or earn kickbacks through frequent trading. While claiming to be “independent third parties,” they may actually be pushing products with the highest commission levels. This kind of conflict of interest means MFOs may not be truly objective and neutral.

3. Why is the “MFO” Packaging Still Popular?

1. One-stop Service: Many high-net-worth clients don’t want to go back and forth dealing with policies, taxes, investment allocations, and setting up family trusts… One-stop solutions are very convenient. MFOs typically advertise “all-inclusive” services—insurance, investment, family succession, all in one.
2. Satisfying the “Prestige” Mindset: The name “family office” sounds prestigious, like having a private butler team. Clients may only need basic investment management and insurance, but the MFO brand brings a sense of “status elevation.”
3. Trust Follows Long-term Cooperation: If an MFO has established a long-term relationship with clients, clients usually don’t want to seek other providers—partly because they’re reluctant to compare, partly because they fear the hassle, and ultimately prefer to continue buying insurance products from the MFO.

4. Do MFOs Have Positive Value?

Although conflicts of interest are indeed concerning, this doesn’t mean all MFOs operate in a black box. Some genuinely capable MFOs bring several benefits to clients:

1. Professional Teams and Resource Integration: Truly sizeable and serious MFOs will have investment research, tax lawyers, trust experts, insurance specialists, and talents from different fields to help clients handle multi-faceted wealth issues in one go, such as cross-border asset allocation, immigration planning, etc.
2. Reduced Single Family Office Costs: If clients cannot afford the high expenses of setting up their own Single Family Office, they can consider joining an MFO to share professional teams and operating costs.
3. More Comprehensive Perspective: An institution familiar with insurance, funds, family trusts, and corporate structure arrangements can design solutions with a more comprehensive vision, avoiding fragmented approaches that may create loopholes.
4. Transparent Operations: Many MFOs are quite forthright and will clearly explain to clients the commission percentages they receive from insurance companies and fund companies. Clients know how they charge and can decide whether they accept it.

5. How to Distinguish Professional and Truly Transparent MFOs?

1. Clarify the Fee Structure
   • Do they collect both asset management fees and commissions from insurance or other products?
   • What are the commission percentages? Will they favor promoting certain products due to high rebates?
2. Request Comparisons with Other Quotes
   • For the same insurance or investment, it’s best to ask several insurance brokers or independent advisors for prices.
   • If the fees differ significantly, be cautious about whether the MFO is deliberately pushing expensive products.
3. Review Team Background and Actual Cases
   • Genuine MFOs will have lawyers, tax professionals, investment advisors, and other professionals on staff.
   • If they only hire a few nominal consultants, or mainly focus on sales without much professional research capability, consider whether it’s worth paying for the “family office” gimmick.
4. Self-Needs Assessment
   • If you only want to buy simple insurance or create an investment portfolio, you may not necessarily need to pay extra for a multi-family office “wrapper.”
   • If you truly have more complex needs like family succession, taxation, and cross-national asset allocation, find an MFO with high transparency and a truly capable team to save you time and energy.

6. Conclusion: See the Essence, Then Decide Whether to Buy

In today’s wealth management market, “Multi-Family Offices (MFOs)” indeed give people a sense of elite and top-tier one-stop service, but they often become a focal point due to “multiple fees and conflicts of interest.” Ultimately, whether they call themselves “family offices,” “EAMs,” or “investment advisors,” they still make money by managing client assets and collecting various service fees or commissions. Knowing this, there’s no need to blindly trust the packaging.

• If you truly need a comprehensive team: Finding an MFO with sufficient capabilities, clear information disclosure, and a genuinely capable team can indeed help you handle complex issues like investments, taxation, insurance, and family trusts, saving time and worry.
• If you only want to make a single investment or buy insurance: Finding an advisor with reasonable fees and fewer frills, or directly approaching an insurance company, might be more suitable. You don’t necessarily need to pay for the “MFO” halo.

Most importantly, clarify how they charge, check for hidden commissions, and assess whether they have genuine professionalism. As long as you have sufficient information and remain rational, you won’t be manipulated by high-end packaging or potential conflicts of interest. After all, “MFO” is just “old wine in new bottles”—ultimately, whether you choose it depends on whether you’ve recognized its true nature.