In this episode, 10 Family Office Myths exposed (and debunked).
Welcome back and Happy New Year on the Wealth Actually podcast. I’m Frazer Rice. We have a fun show today where we talk about 10 myths in the family office space. Mark Tepsich, who runs the family office governance practice at UBS is here as we dish into the ideas and concepts that are misunderstood in the family office world.
Summary
This conversation delves into the complexities and myths surrounding family offices, exploring their structure, governance, and the unique challenges they face in wealth management. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the specific needs of families and the role of family offices in managing complexity and preserving wealth across generations. It also addresses common misconceptions about family offices, including their necessity, governance, and their relationship with institutional investors.
Takeaways
Family offices are established to manage complexity in wealth.
Not all family offices are the same; each has unique needs.
Governance frameworks are essential for effective family office management.
Many family offices outsource functions rather than internalizing them.
The myth that 85-90% of family offices shouldn’t exist is false.
Shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves is a debated concept in wealth preservation.
Family offices need to adapt to the evolving needs of families.
Investment functions in family offices are often secondary to administrative roles.
Family offices are driven by complexity rather than just size.
The future of family offices may involve more direct investment opportunities.
Chapters: Family Office Confidential
00:00 Understanding Family Offices: Myths and Realities
02:02 The Complexity of Family Office Structures
04:37 Debunking Common Myths About Family Offices
06:17 The Role of Outsourcing in Family Offices
07:54 Generational Wealth: The Shirt Sleeves Myth
10:51 Flexibility vs. Permanence in Family Offices
12:48 Governance and Decision-Making in Family Offices
15:49 Investment Functions in Family Offices
18:05 Size vs. Complexity in Family Offices
20:09 Family Offices vs. Institutional Capital
21:19 The Aspirational Nature of Family Offices
23:30 The Relationship Between Family Offices and Institutions
25:36 Technology in Family Offices: Current Trends
29:03 Family Offices and Private Equity: A Comparative Analysis
Myths
- 85-95% of FO’s should not exist vs. “there is no such thing as a family office’
- Family office internalize everything
- A Family Office Anchored by an operating business is the same that is one funded solely by liquidity event
- Shirtsleeves to Shirtsleeves is myth
- Family offices are designed to be permanent’
- Family Offices don’t need high end (almost SOX) like governance
- Family Offices are driven by net worth (no, by complexity)
- Family Offices are built on a robust investment function (no, it”s complexity management- often rooted in bookkeeping and accounting)
- Family Offices are like institutional Capital (no, many more motivations than pure returns- including whimsy and the knee-jerk ability to override the IPS)
- Family Offices are the right result for a career (they could be, but it is extremely unlikely- a lot of things have to be “just right” and there is little to know patience for development
- Family Offices make great wealth clients (very much depends on the function and the product- they can be difficult consumers)
- Family office tech is best – in – breed (No and it probably never will be)
- Family offices shun Large institutions (Surprisingly, no- needed for deals, expertise, and most importnatly financing and introductions)
Keywords
family offices, wealth management, governance, investment strategies, family dynamics, myths, financial planning, family wealth, complexity management, family governance
Transcript: Family Office Myths Busted
Frazer Rice (00:04.462):
Welcome board, Mark.
Mark Tepsich:
Hey, Frazer, good to see you again. Appreciate the opportunity.
Frazer Rice:
Likewise. So let’s get started first. We’re going to go into some of the myths around family offices. But you really participate in kind of an interesting subset of that in terms of helping families design and govern them. What exactly does that mean on a day-to-day basis for you?
Mark Tepsich:
Yeah, good question. So, you know, it means a couple of things, right? So if you think about a family office, you have families that are at the inception point, right? Where things are getting too complex for them. They need to set up some sort of infrastructure. And it’s really like, what is a family office? What can it do for me? What are the pros, cons, and trade-offs? Where do I start? What’s the infrastructure, the systems? Who do I hire? How do I structure a compensation? So you’ve got families maybe coming at it.
From post liquidity event, maybe coming at it from, we need to lift up, lift out this embedded family office out of the business to, hey, we’re an existing family office. We’ve got, you know, we’re evolving, right? The family’s growing, their enterprise is changing, the world around us is changing. People are leaving the family office, the next gen’s getting incorporated into the family office in some way. We’ve got some questions that could be, how do we engage the next generation through the family office?
Mark Tepsich (01:21.614):
How do we make decisions, communicate around our shared assets and resources, which could be a portfolio, maybe even a business, or hey, how do we come together and hire? What is this profile of this person look like? Who should we hire and not hire? What’s the structure of their compensation, carry co-investment, leverage co-investment? What’s the tech stack look like across accounting, consulting, reporting? Now, how do we insource and outsource?
So it’s sort of. I like to call it organizational capabilities. So, you know, sometimes it’s soup to nuts, like starting from zero, other times it’s, we’ve been around for a long time, but we have a couple of questions. So that’s kind of my day to day. And, you know, I’ve been living this really since 2008 pre-global financial crisis.
Frazer Rice
So we’re going to go into, I think, some of the craziness of the family office ecosystem where we have people who wear many hats, people who wear masks, some people who are jokers and other people who are really good technicians and provide a lot of great insight. One of the things you were talking about is that the different types of mandate can be different. And I think maybe one of the first myths we should tackle is the
The bromide that if you’ve seen one family office, you’ve seen one family office, which is thrown around at every family office conference and everybody chuckles for a minute and then it sort of washes away and no one cares anymore. What do you think about that statement?
Mark Tespich (03:19.006):
So I don’t necessarily think it’s true. And here’s what I mean. Let’s make an analogy to this, right? A business needs certain core infrastructure to just operate, right? And using accounting back office, you know the inflows, the outflows, you know, if you’re make a decision, these are the steps you have to go through. And so a family office, right?
It needs to incorporate that, but it needs to incorporate it with the family and the family enterprise that is existing for that family, right? So, yeah, each family office is different because each family is different, but that’s like saying you’ve seen one business, you’ve seen one business, right? The strategy could be, the culture could be different, but, you still need some core operating infrastructure. And again, there’s accounting infrastructure, and that’s the basics, right? So there’s a curl of truth, but largely I think that it is false.
Well, and at the same time, yes, families are different, but in general, families are trying to get to the same place, which is, know, they want to steward the wealth. They want to make sure it benefits the family and the other constituencies.
And they want to make sure that it’s preserved over time. And those functions, you know, it’s very infrequent. You’d find the functions not there. And so how you get from A to B may be different, as you said, but there are a lot of universal truths to setting one of these things up.
Frazer Rice
So one of the other myths that we’ve come across is the idea that 80 to 90 percent of family offices shouldn’t exist. is, people and families set these up for, let’s call it the wrong reasons. Maybe it’s fear of missing out, maybe it’s great cocktail party chatter, maybe it’s an overdiagnosis of their needs. What do you think about that?
Mark Tepsich
Again, false. know, family offices are largely a function. They largely exist because there’s a market scale here. And what I mean by that is when you look under the hood at a family office, you’ve got basics of an accounting firm. You’ve got basics of an investment slash wealth management firm. You’ve got the basics of a legal slash tax firm. And then you’ve got essentially everything in between. And when you look at professional service firms out there,
They can’t provide all of those under one roof, whether compliance or regulatory reasons. But the other reason is because no business model out there can really scale the complexity that each one of these families has. So yeah, you could outforce a lot of this stuff, but at the end of the day, family offices often exist because of a market failure. so, false, 85 to 90 % of family offices should exist.
Frazer Rice (05:41.164)
One of the other things, I’ve been around enough of these getting set up, is that the family office, if we get into sort of a technical structure, such that you set up a structure so that you’re able to deduct the expenses related to administering the wealth around that, that’s a valid reason to do things in addition to the organizational component. So I agree with you that there’s, to say that they shouldn’t exist is sort of belying the notion that these functions should take place internally. And I think you spoke to that. And I guess that gets to another myth, which is that family offices should internalize all of these functions. You just talked about it a little bit, that that’s not a great business model either.
Mark Tepsich
No, mean, yeah, so, you know, 85 to 90 % of family members out there, you just use that statistic, outsource a fair amount of things, right? And what that means is let’s just use tax counsel, for instance, right? This is something that these issues exist in every family office, they exist for every individual, but at the end of the day, should you have, you know, a tax counsel in-house in a family office that’s only doing, you know, income tax advisor work? Probably not.
For 95 % of family offices because the frequency just isn’t there, right? So, you if you look at general councils alone, right? So they should have a broader mandate than income tax. should have well-transferred estate planning. Every family has those issues, but do they have the frequency to warrant bringing that individual, that professional and the rate, the cost? Probably not. a lot, you know, most family offices outsource a fair amount of whether it’s investment management, manager selection and due diligence. So false. Most fair amount offices do outsource a fair amount.
Frazer Rice (07:31.374)
One the things, this is one of my favorite controversial topics in the family office ecosystem of vendors that are out there is this notion that shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves is a myth. that the, and for those who don’t know what that means is, know, the first generation has generated the wealth, the second one enjoys it. And then the third one for a variety of reasons is ill-equipped to carry the wealth forward. And then everyone kind of goes back. It transcends culture. It’s lily pad to lily pad.
You know, there’s a British version and a Russian version and whatever version. But the advice ecosystem around this is such that there’s a lot of debate about the statistics that have, quote unquote, proven that. And I can listen to that and say, yes, those may be very narrow. But there is a myth out there that shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves is a myth. Maybe you have some comments on that.
Mark Tepsich
Man, this is a tough one. I will say this will probably be the toughest one. So I think once a family becomes wealthy, right? And you can kind of define that as, the wealth, meaning the financial wealth will last a few generations with really out, with really nobody working, right? Let’s just define it that way. It’ll last a couple of generations if you make some not dumb decisions, we’ll call it.
I think such as the financial markets today, right, as long as you’re diversified, you will stay wealthy. Does that mean you are going to have the same amount per capita over time? Maybe not, right? So if you look at it today, is a nuclear family of four, and you look at it 50 years from now, and the family is 30 people, right? I don’t know what the growth rate would have to be on those assets.
So I think the family will remain wealthy whether they remain, you know, on a per capita basis, right? That’s a different story. I think what this is missing, however, I think the numbers kind of overshadow what this is getting at. I think when you look at it, when you take a step back, that first generation wealth creator, right? Will the family continue to be builders and entrepreneurs down the road?
Frazer Rice (09:50.26)
That I think that’s the question. Will they continue to kind of reach their full potential? I think that is that should be the focus. I’m going to punt on this one. I think it’s TBD and it’s there’s no set answer. I think the idea that the returns, To get back to your point is that as you go from generation to generation, the complexity increases, I’d say geometrically. Whereas the assets in many ways are going to be designed to increase linearly. And so at some point it may be 14 generations down the line when you’ve got 300 people that you have to take care of, are those assets gonna be in place to be able to support the level of living that people expected in generation one, two, and three?
I think that’s the equation we’re all trying to fight. And so I’d say while Shirt Sleeves to Shirt Sleeves isn’t necessarily a prophecy, it’s definitely something that has to be addressed. So I’m gonna say that the fact that Shirt Sleeves to Shirt Sleeves is a myth, I think that’s the myth.
Mark Tepsich
So that’s where I draw my line in the sand there. think there’s an equation you constantly have to fight. Okay, so here’s another one. Family offices are designed to be permanent. I happen to think that they start out trying to be permanent, but in actuality, they really have to be more flexible and flex with the needs of the family, even at the first or second generation.
Yeah, I would agree. Often they’re established for a good reason, right? That reason is complexity. Whether that complexity continues to exist for the family is a different story, right? You might have a business being sold. The family might just say, “hey, we don’t need to do all these direct investments, these alternate investments. Let’s just keep it simple, keep it passive.”
I don’t think they’re designed to be permanent. I think families don’t really think about that too much. They want to exist for probably the existing generation that’s leveraging it and they wanna transition it, to your point, be flexible over time. But I don’t think anyone like a business, right? If you think about a business, the business generally speaking, it’s meant to exist in a perpetuity. That’s why you have a business, right? It’s not a sole proprietorship, but a family office, I think it’s TBD, right? So, you know. I don’t think anyone’s setting up a family that will say this is going to exist a thousand years from now. And I think if they came out and said that, think that it would add question and motivations.
Frazer Rice
Maybe we may be welcoming the Martians, we may be speaking Mandarin. There’s a thousand things that could happen in between here and then, that’s for sure. Here’s a myth that I think you and I are both going to agree is one, which is that family offices, for the ones that we think are going to try to persist, don’t demand necessarily Sarbanes-Oxley or high-end governance.
Mark Tepsich
I think as family offices mature, meaning as the family evolves, they do need some sort of decision-making framework. Especially if they’re going to really come together and act like somewhat of an institution. What I mean by that is, under the hood of a family office or under the hood of a family, let’s say there’s 10 family members. Let’s say there’s 20 to 25 trusts within that.
You know, you could come together and pull your assets, right? And pull your resources. That’s part of the reason for having a family office. And so you just have a larger pool of capital. When you’re doing that, you do need governance. Okay? But if you’re gonna have, it’s just like, hey, we’re gonna have our separate portfolios. We’re not gonna come together and have pooled investment vehicles. You might not need an investment company, okay?
And there might be good reasons to have an investment committee. In fact, many the investment committees I see, they’re not like college endowments where, we got eight people or nine people on here. We need to agree at least have five people to agree to allocate to this manager or change the allocation or change the IPS, depending on where that authority resides.
I often see many investment committees for families, hey, we’re just collaborative in nature. We’ll get together. We’re going to have a meeting and talk about different strategies. Different advisors, things we should be doing. But if they’ve always had to agree at the family business level, they might not wanna have that same construct in the family office slash investment portfolio.
If they’ve always struggled, know, come into agreement at the family business, now they’re gonna like, hey, we’re gonna recreate this dynamic. don’t have a binding construct. In fact, we ran a report, it’s coming out hopefully in the next couple of weeks. on family enterprise governance and a component obviously is the investment committee.
70 % of the investment committees out there are advisory in nature, meaning they don’t make binding decisions. They take it back to the trustees or whoever the authority is and they say, hey, here’s what we think, right? So individual family investors, whoever that is, co-trustees, it’s a, okay. So I do think governance is important, but it depends on what you mean by that, right?
Should there be an IPS in place? I 100 % think that each family investor should have an IPS in place. The biggest mistake I see there is, hey, we’ve got this shared pool of capital. We’ve got 50 trusts. We’ve got one single IPS, right? I think that is a big mistake. don’t think that’s good governance. So it really depends on what you mean, but I think, yes, there should be some decision-making framework that you’re following. Otherwise, what exactly are you? Adhering to it, right? Like, what is your framework? What is your decision making tree?
Frazer Rice (15:53.902)
On top of that, possible myth. Family offices are built on a robust investment function.
I mean, yes, there are some that are like that, right? You know, there’s a big names out there, MSD, Pritzker, so on and so forth. Those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Most family offices, 85 to 90 % are formed to manage the complexity, right? So again, otherwise you’re gonna have all these outsourced providers and that just doesn’t make sense when you’re trying to make a decision, because you need all the different parts to come together.
They’re often built as administrative functions first, rather than, we’re gonna go start the next, you know, a private equity firm. that’s false.
Frazer Rice
The, as I like to say, probably to the boredom of a lot of people who talk to me a lot is that a lot of these really are built on a bookkeeping or an accounting spine. You’ve got to manage the inflows and outflows of everything and keep track of what you have or else you can have a great investment function, but things are going to spill all over the place.
Mark Tepsich (17:30.872)
I’ll never say, yeah. mean, and that actually goes back to good governance, right? So I always say, it’s not provocative. I’ll say, listen, this is not a provocative answer, but you need to create that first. And most of the people that are considering this rate are business owners. So they’ll intuitively get that. In fact, that function might exist somewhere at the business, but it’s really not organized. And without that function, like, it’s hard to make a decision, right?
If you’re going to allocate 20 % of your portfolio, to private equity drawdown vehicles. got cap calls, capital commitments, distributions, like that needs to be budgeted and forecasting, right? So a lot of these families will have, one nuclear family can have three to four homes, 10 bank accounts, 20 entities. It’s not like a single piggy bank that you could take cash out of and move it every which way, right? Those are owned by different vehicles, different trusts, different assets and things like that, so.
Frazer Rice
Here’s a myth that I espouse which is Family offices and whether you have one or not is driven solely by size whether you have five billion or two hundred million or something like that that if you aren’t a certain size you shouldn’t have one and if you’re Of a certain size you must have one.
Mark Tepsich
That’s a myth. It’s driven by complexity first. I’ve seen, I’ve spoken to people that are worth two to $3 billion. It’s concentrated in a few stocks, meaning like they were early stage employees, right? They’re still in it. They’re getting a healthy dividend at this point. Guy talked to couple years ago. He had two homes, two cars, probably 95 % of his network was tied up into two separate securities that were probably traded.
And he’s like, I don’t think I need a family office. You want to know what one was, what it could do from. And I’m like, listen, if you don’t have the complexity, it probably doesn’t make sense. Okay, if you can make a decision within whatever framework you have, whatever complex you have. Now, the other, you know, there is a cost factor to it, right? It gets easier to start a family office, meaning hire a couple of people, if you’ve got the… asset base for it to make sense on a cost perspective. So most of the time it’s driven by complexity, but cost does become a factor, right? If you’re worth a hundred million dollars, you’re to go hire 10 people. That probably doesn’t make sense.
Frazer Rice (19:28.342)
Right. Well, on top of that too, if you, and there’s a sort of the difference between a family office driven by a liquidity event and meeting that’s, that’s all you have versus a family office that’s tethered or sorry, a family business that’s tethered to it, that is also generating cash flows to help pay for things that that’s a big part of the decision. Because if you’re hiring people, you know, a CIO minimum, absolute minimum is probably $500,000.
They’re going to need people, you know, you’re looking at at least 3 million. just to get the thing up and running before you start figuring out what you actually have to do. And so the concept that the size is going to dictate completely, it underscores sort of that cost component that you described there.
Frazer Rice
This is an interesting one and I like this concept to talk about. Family offices are like institutional capital as investors.
Mark Tepsich
Again, myth, there are some, again, there are some that are like institutions. They have the size and the sophistication. Oftentimes you see them, they’re former PE or hedge fund founders, right? That just aren’t doing any more of it. They made their wealth in the financial ecosystem, in the markets. And so they’re very sophisticated. But by and large, I mean, they’re sort of quasi-institutional, right? So I’ve seen multi-billion dollar family offices that
Again, they’re more of the administrative hub rather than, we’re gonna be splashing around and playing in the markets and using a lot of leverage and doing a lot of control equity investments. So by and large, it’s the myth. 85 to 90 % are institutional-like. They are there to fill a need and that need is complexity management.
Frazer Rice
Here’s one on a different angle, which is family offices are the goal for people in the wealth management industry to work for, meaning family offices are a great aspiration for people who work in the industry and that that’s universal.
Mark Tepsich (21:34.35)
Myth, I think it’s an option. I think it’s interesting. I think it is a growing opportunity for folks that work in, you know, maybe wealth management or investment management or the financial ecosystem. But you didn’t, again, family has been around for a long time, but they’ve really only became, you know, kind of popular post global financial crisis with the rise of PE because of ZERP. You know,
I’ll talk to a lot of people that are like in the hedge fund ecosystem looking for a change, right? And I say like, listen, like these opportunities for you are out there, but it depends on the family. It depends on their compensation philosophy as on the culture that you’re going to have to live within. There’s a lot of key man risk. Is it an opportunity? Yes. But again, it is, it is family office by family office.
Frazer Rice
I tell people too, it’s for people who are used to having lots of clients or lots of institutional support that is going to be a shift. It’s different to have one client. It’s different to have a scenario where the business of a family office, the business model of that particular family office can change on a dime. And if you don’t share the last name of the family you’re working for, you could be in a tough spot.
Mark Tepsich
Yeah, “we’re gonna build out a sustainability impact portfolio. We’re gonna build out, we’re gonna have a direct investment initiative. We’re gonna allocate whatever, a few hundred million dollars to it.” That person, that professional gets there and then a year or two or three years goes by and the strategy changes because a family member too had to change a heart. And then it becomes, okay, why am I here? Where am I gonna go now? So again, they could be great opportunities. I had a great experience.but it really just depends on the family.
Frazer Rice (23:26.894)
Here’s one, and you’ve got UBS over your shoulder there, so this is dramatic foreshadowing in some ways, but I think it bears talking about. It’s that family offices shun the large institutions, and that they want it bespoke, they want something peculiar all the time. What do you think about that?
Mark Tepsich
No, I mean, it goes back to the earlier myth that, you know, basically we’re saying family office should, family office do outsource a lot, right? So again, most family offices are five to eight people, right? I call it family office island, meaning you’re there on the island and you’re like, what is going on outside of the island or off of the island? You know your island really well, right? You know the family, know all the facts inside and out, but they are, I mean, there’s a reason why all these institutions, including UBS, has built out the resources to cater to family offices, right? I’m the perfect example. They brought me on to help our clients build family offices, right?
They would not do that if it was gonna cannibalize their business. So they could be great clients and other times it’s like, hey, we’re very insular and we’re gonna keep everything close to the vest. Again, it’s family office to family office. But by and large, they’re great wealth clients.
Frazer Rice
No, and they also, you know, they need institutions to partner with of size, whether it’s at custody or lending or any number of other functions that are out there. Sometimes, you know, the RIA space is such that, you know, they try to be all things to all people and the appeal of being in, you know, the billionaire space.
It takes a lot of people and a lot of effort and frankly a different business model to deal with that and to just sort of wander in and say we’re great and we can do these things. I think that’s a short road for a lot of institutions.
Frazer Rice (25:17.602)
Again, like we are brutally honest too. And I’ll, and here’s what I mean by that. Well, like we’re rated a lot of things, but I’ll say like, listen, there’s things that we can’t do for you. We can’t be your accounting back office, right? Like we just don’t offer that. We don’t have it. We’ve got a couple firms that would do that. They’re pure plays on it. So they’ve got to be good at it. but you know, use the various institutions for what they’re good for. They’re, know, again, that’s why you’ve got a family office. You can kind of pick or choose and be agnostic as to what you’re using them for.
Frazer Rice
If we wind down here a couple of last ones: The tech that family offices rely on is going to be best in breed.
Mark Tepsich
I, listen, I have this power station all the time with family office meeting, like what, what, you know, what tech providers should we be looking at? Listen, family office have grown in, right over the past 10, 15 years that there’s not a question. they’re historically, right. had to use in a family office, had to take basically institutional tools, try to repurpose them for the family office and they just, they’re just kind of clunky, right? The family office is still a cottage industry.
If you’re trying to sell the family offices, you’re selling the two firms with five to eight employees, right? So the tools are going to continue to get better. But in my opinion, they’re always going to lag the institutional tools and kind of sophistication. But that’s also because institutional tools are very kind of narrow and deep, whereas the family office tech tools, you’ve got the accelerated reporting, but it needs to link to the accounting.
That’s an issue. And so the family of standard day is left with like a bunch of disparate fragmented systems that have a challenge talking to each other. With that said, AI, I’ve been talking to a lot of these sort of mom and pop shops, I’ll call them. They’re firms that are trying to incorporate AI to break down these walls. So it’s not fragmented disparate systems. I use the analogy of it’s like jailbreaking an iPhone. I don’t know where this is gonna be in a couple of years, but I think the tools are going to continue to improve. But again, you’re probably not going to take a family office tech tool and deploy it at institutional scale. So if that answers your question, I guess it’s a measure.
Frazer Rice
First of all, I think it’s going to take a long time before something, quote unquote, replaces Excel, which is still a powerful tool that is flexible and does what it says it’s going to do. And people use it sometimes at their own peril to be the underpinning of everything. the one thing I would add is that the mom and pop software components, I think, have a lot of great ideas. The total market to sell into that, though, does not necessarily make for a great software business.
As you say, to get those tools that are specific and required at the family office level to be profitable, you got to figure out a way to sell that into something bigger. I’m not sure there is anything bigger.
Mark Tepsich (28:49.358)
Yeah, I mean, you’d be better selling it to, you know, small businesses, right? So, I mean, the tools are going to get better, but there’s been a lot of interest recently in the past couple years. I don’t think, I think most of them are not going to survive. I don’t want to say there’s only going to be a couple winners, but on the Consolidated Reported Front, I really think there’s only going be a couple winners because you need scale.
And again, family office, if you’re looking to make a decision, you’re like, well, okay, well,
5,000 users use Adapar and 50 use this other platform. So which one are you gonna choose? You don’t wanna onboard to the one that has 50 and then three years down the road, they’re out of business, or there’s fold or something like that. So with scale comes a little bit of security that at least you know that a lot of other people are using. You could point to that.
Frazer Rice
Last question. Family offices will rival PE firms in terms of influence in the investing market?
85 to 90 % will not rival PE firms. That’s not what they’re set up for. That’s not the goal of most family offices. Again, it’s complexity management. Will some rival PE firms? Yeah. But again, you… Listen, I’ve seen some family office go out there and raise their party capital. When they do that, they’re not a family office anymore. They might have a component in there, but they’re private equity firms.
What you’re getting at is private equity firms are raising a fund every couple of years. Can a family office do that? No, because once they do that, they will be a private equity firm. So PE by and large has an infinite capital source, as long as they are good at what they do, right? So with that said, you know, there’s a lot of entrepreneurs that are are post liquidity events have played in the direct investment space, they really wanna do it. They’re still young, right?
They’re billers, operators created. They wanna do it from a different vantage point. They’re coming to a realization: “that w”We need to start a fund.” I really love that story because again, they’re founders and operators. They didn’t come from the financial ecosystem first to do this. So I think they’re putting a different spin on PE. I think it’s great for the PE industry as a whole, by the way.
And I think, if you’re a founder or a business owner, you might have an easier time taking an equity investment from somebody like that, who’s known in that specific industry that they made their money in, who’s had to make payroll. And they probably have a different timeline than normal PE that’s looking to flip every three to five years.
So I think as an investor, I think that would be an interesting investment opportunity, right? And so it’s like, okay, well, part of my PE allocation, you know, This might look interesting. I hesitate to make, you know, I’m not an investment person, so.
Frazer Rice
Great stuff. Mark, how do people find you and reach out?
Mark Tepsich
I’m on LinkedIn. I would attempt to just spell my name with my email address at ubs.com, but it’s very lengthy. You just hit me up on LinkedIn. But, Frasier, I appreciate the time. This was great.
Frazer Rice
I’ll have that in the show notes and as a final parting, we sort of listen to people say, the family space is getting loud. I’m not sure it is. I think the vendors are more loud than the family offices are. I don’t know what your experience is there.
Mark Tepsich
100%, the family members themselves are still quiet. You don’t see them out there on LinkedIn. It is the ecosystem to your point around them that is getting loud, right? It’s LinkedIn. It’s like, you know, every time I’m on there, it’s like somebody’s got something to say about families, which is good. Again, if you think about every boom in history, they attract people, right? You could say the same thing about AI, right?
But again, it’s become loud, but that’s the industry. It’s not the family offices themselves.
Frazer Rice
Great stuff. Thanks, Mark.
Mark Tepsich
Thank you, Frazer. Appreciate it.
MORE ON FAMILY OFFICE DESIGN WITH ED MARSHALL