
How do the world's wealthiest families invest?
UBS, a financial services firm, captured the views of 317 family office clients.
The average net worth of participating families was US$2.7 billion, with their family office teams managing US$1.1 billion each.
Attitudes to risk, governance practices, running costs, staffing and succession planning are all covered.
However, it's where they put their money that interests me most.
At a very high level, the average asset allocation (which is the mixture of different asset classes, like shares and bonds) isn't too dissimilar from that of a managed fund (in the growth category) or an individual investor with a comparable risk profile.
There are some key differences though, with the most obvious being the 33 percent allocation wealthy family offices have to alternative assets.
There's no official definition of what this category includes, but it's generally thought to be anything outside of the traditional investment classes – shares, bonds (otherwise known as fixed income) and cash.
Real estate is often included in alternatives (it represents 11 percent of family office portfolios), but I'm going to focus on the other components as many New Zealanders already have a real estate exposure.
The rest of the alternative assets bucket includes private equity, private debt, hedge funds, art and antiques, gold, commodities and infrastructure.
Private equity represents the lion's share of this, at almost two thirds of the alternative assets and 21 percent of the total asset allocation.
Private equity means holdings in unlisted businesses, as opposed to listed equities anyone can buy on the sharemarket.
This offers the potential for higher returns, as well as a much wider range of investment opportunities.
Fees are higher for these types of investments, while complexity and a much larger minimum investment need to be considered too.
Private equity can also be very illiquid, meaning you can't sell your holding quickly or easily if you need to.
None of these are likely to bother the typical family office, and an extended investment horizon is usually a feature of their approach.
A key advantage the uber-rich have is the ability to take a much longer-term view.
They think and invest in a truly intergenerational manner, which means their approach is probably closer to that of the NZ Super Fund than an individual investor.
The other 12 percent is spread across the remaining alternatives, with private debt and hedge funds the biggest at 4 percent apiece.
This 33 percent allocation to alternative assets comes at the expense of listed equities, which average a 30 percent weighting.
Add these together and you're close to the 70 percent weighting that the average growth fund has to equities.
Beyond that, the family offices have 19 percent in traditional fixed income or bonds and 6 percent in cash, close to our managed fund averages of 13 and 9 percent (according to sorted.org.nz).
The big difference is the hefty weighting to alternatives, which is dominated by private equity but also includes the likes of gold, infrastructure and private credit.
For those looking to take a leaf out of this book, these types of assets aren't nearly as unattainable as they once were.
There are diversified alternative asset funds available across the local market, managed by global specialists and structured in a tax-efficient manner for New Zealand investors.
While few of us have billions to invest, we can still learn from those who do – especially when it comes to thinking long term and looking beyond traditional markets.
Disclaimer: This information is general in nature and should not be regarded as specific investment advice. Craigs Investment Partners do not accept liability for the results of any actions taken or not taken upon the basis of this information, or for any negligent mis-statements, errors or omissions. Those acting upon this information and any recommendations do so entirely at their own risk. Craigs Investment Partners did not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any particular person in the preparation of this information. This information does not constitute a representation that any investment strategy or recommendation is suitable to your individual circumstances or otherwise constitutes a personal recommendation. Craigs Investment Partners recommend seeking advice from a licensed financial adviser about your financial situation and goals before acquiring any financial products or making any investment decision. To talk to one of Craigs Investment Partners' financial advisers, please call 0800 272 442. Craigs Investment Partners Limited is a NZX Participant firm. The Craigs Investment Partners Limited Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement can be viewed at craigsip.com/tcs. Visit craigsip.com.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Xero board faces ‘first strike' over CEO's $26m pay package
It came weeks after Xero backed itself to crack the North American market with an almost $4 billion buy of payments startup Melio, and arguably at a time when shareholder confidence was essential. Against this backdrop, Xero was paying US$15.2m ($26.1m) to chief executive Sukhinder Singh Cassidy. It also paid a US$14.4m sign-on bonus to US-based chief financial officer Claire Bramley, who joined in February. According to Australian media, under standard Australian Securities Exchange rules, the vote would count as a formal strike against Xero's board. Those rules held that a vote of 25% against a resolution was counted as a so-called 'first strike'. A second such vote would mean the board could be tossed out in a re-election. However, Xero being a New Zealand-domiciled company meant that it was not governed by the 'two-strike' rule, meaning the ballot was more theoretical than it was a reality. Even if the ballot was symbolic, investors had registered the depth of their discontent. Xero's chair, David Thodey, at one time CEO of Australian telco Telstra, said the company needed to pay more than Australian salaries to lure top talent over those packages on offer from higher-paying US companies. Three 'jobs' in one package Meanwhile, Cassidy viewed the acquisition of the previously unprofitable Melio deal as a critical value to Xero's nascent North American offering, enabling it to scale. Cassidy was referring to Xero's 3x3 strategy, which was to combine three 'jobs' – accounting, payroll and payments – into a single package and win market share in Australia, the UK and North America. Xero has made good progress in Australia and the UK, but the much larger promise of the North American market has so far proved elusive. Other resolutions, including the re-election of directors Brian McAndrews, Susan Peterson and Thodey, achieved almost unanimous shareholder support.


NZ Herald
11 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Should you quit Spotify, Substack? Why some Kiwis are leaving the popular platforms
Green MP Tamatha Paul and journalist David Farrier are among high-profile New Zealanders quitting billion-dollar platforms Spotify and Substack over concerns including spending on weapons, the use of AI and a lack of content moderation. In June, Spotify chief executive and co-founder Daniel Ek announced that through


Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Leadership Rumour Laughed Off As Willis And Sepuloni Clash
You can listen live to RNZ's political panel on Morning Report at 8am every Wednesday. Analysis - Finance Minister Nicola Willis' seven interruptions in 30 seconds is a targeted attack on Labour's rumoured capital gains tax policy reminiscent of Sir John Key's "show me the money" moment. But the strategy this early is not the slam dunk Key's jibe - less than a month before the 2011 election - was hailed as by columnists. Speaking on Morning Report' s political panel, opposite Labour's deputy Carmel Sepuloni, Willis interrupted her opponent to ask - six times - how Labour would pay for its promises, with a distinct seventh interruption half way through for good measure. Labour's promises at this point are, however, only promises to reveal policy at some point including a tax policy before the end of the year, which could explain how other promises would be paid for. This takes some sting out of the Finance Minister's criticism, but also leaves Labour without an effective way to combat it. The panel started with host Ingrid Hipkiss asking about Willis' recent trip to London. "If we're really quiet, Carmel, do you think we'll be able to hear the gentle whispers coming that we may be speaking with New Zealand's next prime minister?" she said, referring to a social media post by a former gossip columnist Willis had laughed off the previous day as coming from "an exuberant fan". Sepuloni was quick to emphasise the rumour of division, saying "the conversations around rolling the leadership really ramped up" during the London trip last week. Willis again laughed the suggestion off, saying a leadership spill was "not on the cards" and suggesting that while plenty were quick to criticise, "every now and then, there's a fan who's just as exuberant in the other direction, and that's all there is to it". She said the trip had been "fantastic" and allowed her to speak lenders the government was borrowing from, and "they can see that we're a sensible government, doing the right things to manage the public finances, they back our plan". Sepuloni said Willis needed to recognise "much of that debt has actually been built up under her watch". "They decided to give out tax cuts that they were told were unaffordable and give tax breaks to places like landlords, 2.9 billion to landlords, tax breaks to the tobacco industry. I think New Zealanders are questioning the priorities of this government." Hipkiss asked Sepuloni the inevitable question about what Labour would do, leading to the following exchange with Sepuloni talking over Willis' interjections: Sepuloni: Our priority would certainly be on what I've mentioned already. We need support Willis: How would you pay for it? Is the question. Sepuloni: need support for New Zealanders to get into work.... Willis: How would you pay for it? Sepuloni: Well, we certainly wouldn't be giving tax breaks.... Willis: How would you pay for it? Sepuloni: ... value of 2.9b ... Willis: so you wouldn't give tax relief to people struggling. Sepuloni: to landlords, our focus would be on work ... Willis: How would you pay for it? Sepuloni: ... and jobs. We wouldn't have been pausing and ... Willis: How would you pay for it? Sepuloni: ... and ending up with 18,000 fewer jobs in the ... Willis: How are you going to pay for it? Sepuloni: ....construction industry. It's about choices Nicola, and your government have made choices that are completely out of step with what New Zealanders want. Willis: Okay so she gave a long answer, and this is exactly Labour's problem. They want to promise everyone everything, and they will not front up with how they want to pay for it, because the way they want to pay for it is putting new taxes on an economy that is already struggling. Factual errors The discussion soon veered back to the coalition's approach, with Willis again highlighting the crackdown on local councils' spending and the government's "concerns" about keeping food prices under control. "The last government attempted some reforms in that area. It's pretty clear they're not delivering enough. So we are working hard on what the next steps are," she said. Sepuloni came in with an interjection of her own - Labour's frequent refrain that the government has been unable to find a single family receiving the maximum $250 a fortnight from the FamilyBoost scheme. Willis had to rework the scheme after it was revealed to be less effective than expected. "This was a government that promised thousands of families $250 extra a fortnight through their FamilyBoost scheme and now they can't identify one family who have received it," Sepuloni said. "I am just going to correct a factual error there," Willis said, "because there are more than 60,000 families that have received a cheque - money into their bank account." "Everyone who has applied has received their full entitlement, and actually now there's a human reality to that I saw at Parliament a couple of weeks ago, an Uber driver, he stopped me, he said 'I want a photo with you, because that family boost money has made such a difference to my family'." It was unclear what "error" Willis was referring to: many families are receiving some funding but no evidence has been forthcoming of any families being eligible for the maximum amount under National's tax policy from the last election. "I'm glad you had another exuberant fan," Hipkiss observed, "let's move on to teachers and correcting factual errors". Public Service Minister Judith Collins corrected herself on Tuesday after claiming last week striking teachers were earning an annual salary of "about $140,000", far more than what most would earn. "It's actually really disappointing that we've got a government who have been pointing the finger at our teachers and blaming them for going on strike when actually this is off the back of them having their pay equity claims pulled, and now what we're seeing is that they've been offered a 1 percent [annual] increase," Sepuloni said. "We're just saying 'look (secondary teachers' union) PPTA, represent your workforce fairly, come and do your job which is negotiate with us, let's strike a deal," Willis replied. "We value teachers very, very much. They are going to be the key to us lifting educational achievement in our schools. They're going to be the key to getting a replacement to NCEA working and we want to negotiate with them to get a fair deal." Collins last week billed the strikes - taking place today - as a "political stunt". On Tuesday she said it was a case of mixing her messages up a bit.