1. Large Single Family Office (SFO)
1.1. Highly flexible / nimble decision making
1.2. Alignment of client and shareholder objectives
1.3. Multi-disciplinary Competence
1.3.1. Executive Office / Partners
1.3.1.1. COO
1.3.1.1.1. RIsk management
1.3.1.1.2. Hiring
1.3.1.1.3. Infrastructure
1.3.1.1.4. Non-invesmtent tasks (Foundations etc)
1.3.1.2. CFO
1.3.1.2.1. Company structure
1.3.1.2.2. Familly wealth planning
1.3.1.2.3. Budgeting and reporting
1.3.1.2.4. Tax efficiency
1.3.1.3. CEO
1.3.1.4. CIO
1.3.1.4.1. Asset Class Managers
2. Multi-family office (MFO)
2.1. Pros vs SFO
2.1.1. Multi-disciplinary competence
2.1.2. Shared pool of resources
2.1.3. Better alignment of client and investment manager objectives
2.1.4. Greater purchasing power
2.2. Cons vs SFO
2.2.1. Typically hierachy of influence between founding families / Partners and additions
2.2.2. Whilst indepedent, larger ones typically designed to make a profit for founders / partners
2.2.3. More difficult to tailor towards individual family needs = convergence towards most common denominator and highly traditional investment set ups
2.2.3.1. Thus tendency to revert to full discretionary offering as most efficient at scale
3. Outsourced CIO (OCI)
3.1. Discretionary (mgmt fee % + Perf %).
3.1.1. Pros
3.1.1.1. Faster decision making
3.1.1.2. Aligned performance incentive
3.1.1.3. "Outsourced responsibility"
3.1.1.4. Greater tailoring vs PB discretionary, including Asset class carve outs etc
3.1.2. Cons
3.1.2.1. Higher cost
3.1.2.2. Limited to no tailoring below asset class allocation
3.1.2.3. No flexibility to adjust
3.2. Advisory (mtmt % or retainer fee)
3.2.1. Pros
3.2.1.1. Access to specialist resources
3.2.1.2. Highly tailored approach
3.2.1.3. Active risk mointoring and reporting
3.2.2. Cons
3.2.2.1. "inhoused Responsibility"
4. Private Banking
4.1. Advisory
4.1.1. Pros
4.1.1.1. Influence over portfolio
4.1.1.2. Lower cost structure
4.1.2. Cons
4.1.2.1. Relationship management led advisory
4.1.2.2. Requires active monitoring and engagement
4.1.2.3. Difficult to get access to high tier advice
4.1.2.4. Advisory biased and controlled by house view
4.2. Discretionary
4.2.1. Pros
4.2.1.1. Actively managed portfolio
4.2.1.2. Well diversified and designed to conserve wealth
4.2.2. Cons
4.2.2.1. Limited to no influence over allocations
4.2.2.2. Limited performance incentive