This article – the first part of a two-part overview – takes on “myths” in how the family offices sector is presented and marketed.

The following four commentaries – carried in two parts this week - come from Aymeric Erulin (pictured below), partner and head of operations at Westwick Melrose & Cromwell, or WMC Partners Ltd. The organisation works with family offices and is based in London. 

The article addresses some of the challenges, and “myths” in how the family offices sector is presented and marketed today. The topics are a supposed “war for talent”; the myth of an “ideal” family office structure; the arguments about what to outsource and what to provide in-house; and questionable trend of so-called exclusive family office “clubs”. 

In the opinion of this news service, WMC’s comments are particularly timely. The family office sector has grown rapidly – and that attracts a lot of attention. According to Deloitte, for example, there were more than 8,000 at the end of 2024. With any growth there can be challenges, including how a sector is perceived and marketed. To state the obvious, the workings of this often discreet and privacy-focused industry can arouse suspicions from those unfriendly to holders of significant wealth, leading to political attacks and calls for regulation. Another is that financial and other service providers might pester them with real or alleged solutions to actual or manufactured problems. In such an environment, those who set up and run family offices need to be very clear about what family offices are for, their limits and place in the wider economy.

We are grateful to WMC Partners for this insightful content, and we hope it stimulates conversations. The usual disclaimers apply to views of outside contributors. To comment, email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesley@clearviewpublishing.com

Aymeric Erulin

Here is the first half of the article. 

The war for talent: a manufactured family office myth
If you spend five minutes at any family office event or going through your LinkedIn newsfeed, you will hear about the growing "war for talent". The narrative is always the same: family offices are supposedly losing a desperate battle against private equity and hedge funds for the best professional minds.

Let me be blunt. After 30 years in the trenches, I can tell you this "war" is a phantom.
 
It is a self-inflated myth probably fuelled by second-tier recruitment agencies seeking to penetrate the discreet family office space. By over complicating the hiring process, they justify their fees and inflate salary expectations for junior analysts who haven't even seen a full market cycle yet.

Don’t get me wrong; for senior high-stakes leadership profiles, top-tier executive search firms dedicated to families are vital. I have been working for years with excellent, quiet firms that do this brilliantly. Guess what: these are not the ones fuelling this “noise.” They continue finding the people needed to run family offices, ticking all the boxes, discreetly.

However, slowly but surely, seasoned family office executives are starting to echo this noise. They’ve read the same “talent shortage” headlines so many times that it is now percolating in their thinking even though they haven’t experienced it. In turn, they will put unnecessary pressure on principals for them to treat every new hire as if it were a NASA launch.

If you are a family member or SFO executive in the process of hiring, let me take the temperature down.

Recruit for the flag, not the CV
In family offices, there is one rule when recruiting: you recruit for the flag, not the resume. You do not necessarily want the "brightest" if they are also the most restless.

You want the individual who will put the family’s interests before their own. Technical knowledge is a commodity; you can always buy hard skills or hire a consultant to fix a temporary skill weakness while investing in your new hire training. Trust, however, is non-transferable and integrity cannot be outsourced.

Prioritising character over an MBA might look old-fashioned, but the most successful offices were built on dedication. Trust is the only currency that does not devalue during a downturn. I’ve seen plenty of "geniuses" jump ship at the first sign of trouble because of the impact on their yearly bonuses, while the loyal builders stayed to fix the mess.

FOs are desirable
I have never seen a well-run family office struggle to find candidates. Most FO executives have inboxes overflowing with bankers and consultants looking for a seat at the table.

Now, recruiting is a difficult exercise. It takes time and energy. It always has, it always will.
If an SFO is struggling to hire, it is very often because they have agreed to fight on the VC/PE fund’s turf. Let’s remember that we offer what the rest of the financial world has lost:

-- The ability to create wealth over generations, not quarters; 
-- Investment with genuine purpose and impact; 
-- Working with inspiring entrepreneurs and teams; 
-- Long-term stability without the threat of getting fired after a bad quarter on the
S&P 500; and 
-- A different [challenge] every day, [FOs are] close to the action and decision-making.

People are lining up to work for single family offices. The challenge isn't finding them – it's filtering out mercenaries to find gifted stewards, [finding] people good at what they do, [who are] trustworthy, and who will share the family’s values.

The mercenary trap: salaries and bonuses
This "war" narrative is artificially driving up base salaries and pushing for bonuses indexed on assets under management (AuM). This is a mistake.

If someone joins you primarily for a "market-leading" bonus, they will leave the moment a higher bidder appears. That is the definition of mercenary spirit, and it is toxic to a family operation.

I suggest a more reasoned approach. Pay well, certainly, but do not be held to ransom by a recruiter telling you "that’s the market" for a junior profile. Furthermore, avoid the bonus fallacy. A family office bonus should reflect stewardship and legacy preservation, not a percentage of market performance.

When exceptional performance occurs, by all means, give significant bonuses, even those which double or triple annual salary. But keep it as a percentage of that salary, never a percentage of the assets. Performance is the result of many teams and external factors, not just the doing of the investment team alone. Furthermore, the team is not the one carrying the risk: the family is.

The traditional model works better than before
Without a doubt, the "war for talent" is a marketing bubble designed to make families feel anxious. The SFO model has been successful for centuries precisely because it ignores volatile trends. It privileges long-term hires and provides remuneration growing with time, skill, and experience; all three walking in lockstep, as anyone would guess.

Families do not need "warriors"; they need builders. They do not need "talent wars" – they need long-term alignment. If you focus on finding people who value the family legacy, you will find the war is over before it even started.

Second segment

There is no such thing as the ideal family office structure
In the world of wealth management, there is a persistent temptation to seek the "ideal" structure for a single-family office (SFO). Families are constantly presented with blueprints focused on tax efficiency, regulatory arbitrage, or sophisticated governance frameworks.

However, anyone having navigated the space for some time will know that the idea of a universal template simply does not work. A family office is a tool designed to serve a specific purpose. Because no two families share the same DNA, no two FOs will look the same, even if they share a lot of similarities. Families must resist "industry practice" pressures and place their own purpose at the centre of every structural decision.

The human factor
Tax optimisation is a component of wealth preservation, but it should never be the primary driver. A structure built solely on tax efficiency often ignores the practicalities of daily life.

Family members are not mobile capital units. They have a need for stability. For many, moving across the world for a tax gain is simply not an option. An "ideal" structure that forces heirs into a lifestyle they do not desire is, by definition, a failure. The FO exists to serve the family's common goals, not the other way around.

The trap of losing control
One of the most common recommendations for "ideal" structuring involves trusts or similar structures (Stiftungen, etc). These are excellent tools for tax-free portfolio growth, but they demand a heavy price: the surrender of legal ownership and direct influence.

For a passive asset manager-type SFO, this trade-off might be acceptable. For an active family, it is a strategic error. I doubt whether families like Mars or Michelin would want a board of trustees standing between them and the companies bearing their names.

They operate on the conviction that their leadership creates more value than any external board ever could. Before choosing an "optimised" structure, a family must decide if it wants to be a passive beneficiary or an active steward for the current and future generations. Those who believe they can beat a passive stock index, as they have one or multiple generations, will choose the latter.

Easy to build, hard to dismantle
When structuring is driven by technical optimisation rather than long-term purpose, the result is the "mille-feuille" effect: a complex, multi-layered pyramid of trusts, holding companies, and offshore entities.

On day one, the logic is rock solid. One layer eases dividends, another provides a veil-piercing firewall, the last one is bankruptcy proof… etc. But the world is not static.

Regulations evolve. Consider the common scenario where an heir moves to the US for university and stays for work. Suddenly, the long arm of the IRS renders that sophisticated Guernsey trust a toxic liability. 

In long-term structuring, two rules are absolute:

1. Less is better than more; 

2. The true test of a structure is not how it is built, but how quickly and at what cost it can be dismantled; and 

3. Beyond the technical headache, these structures are often "unity killers." When the protective walls of a trust become a cage, the legal struggle to unwind them triggers the very friction they were meant to prevent.

The Murdoch lesson
The public disputes within the Murdoch family highlight a critical lesson: a trust is not a recipe for peace. While marketed as tools for stability, they can become catastrophic for unity if they lock members into a vision they no longer share. I am quite sure Rupert Murdoch in 1999 did not expect that his irrevocable trust would eventually cost billions to pay out three of his children with differing political views.

A structure should never be viewed as a unifying factor; it is often a divisive wedge. The goal is to separate family unity from joint ownership. It is entirely possible for a family to remain united even if their paths diverge when it comes to specific assets. Unity is not uniformity.

Concluding thoughts
The only truly "ideal" family structure is one that remains flexible. Rather than seeking technical perfection, aim for a framework that prioritises human alignment.

My advice for those reviewing their structure:

-- Prioritise reversibility: Before implementation, ensure that there is a mechanism for future principals to adapt the structure to changing circumstances; 

-- Organise exit processes: Establish rational, pre-agreed mechanisms for members to separate their wealth without triggering emotional disputes or fire
sales; and 

-- Stay service-oriented: Treat the family office as a servant of the family’s shared project, not an end in itself.

The most successful families are not those with the most complex tax loops, but those who stay agile enough to adapt when the next generation decides to chart a different course.

The second half of this overview will be published later this week.