When families start discussing where to base a family office, the conversation usually goes straight to tax.
That is understandable. Tax matters. Regulation matters. Costs matter.
But if you make this decision through that lens alone, you risk solving for efficiency while creating friction everywhere else.
Because choosing a family office location is not just an administrative decision.ย It is an operating model decision. A talent decision. A governance decision. In many cases, it is also a family harmony decision.
Hence, I recommend not beginning with the question, โWhich jurisdiction is best?โ Begin with the question, โWhat does our family office actually need to do well in order to fulfil its purpose?โ That sounds obvious, but many families skip this step. They compare locations before they are clear on the purpose of the office itself. First, define the objectives, guiding principles and what the money is actually for, then assess whether a location can support that purpose.
From there, I would work through the location decision in three layers.
Layer one: The fundamentals
Any serious evaluation should cover the basics:
- regulation and legal framework
- tax regime
- access to talent
- political and economic stability
- access to professional services and infrastructure
- reputation and transparency
- immigration and residency considerations
- culture, living standards and connectivity
These are not box-ticking exercises. They shape how your family office will function day to day. But fundamentals alone are not enough. Two jurisdictions can both look strong on paper and still lead to very different outcomes in practice. That is where layer two comes in.
We rounded up a few companies that you might find interesting.
Layer two: The real-world trade-offs
This is the part families often underestimate.
Should the office be close to the family, or close to the assets? If your holdings are concentrated in one part of the world but family members live across several others, there is no perfect answer. There is only a trade-off. Proximity to assets can improve oversight, access and responsiveness. Proximity to family can improve trust, engagement and decision-making.
Then there is deal flow. If you want direct access to certain asset classes, being physically present in the right ecosystem can matter more than many assume. A family office with a strong focus on venture, growth equity or specialist real estate will often benefit from being close to the networks, founders, managers and advisers who actually drive opportunity.
The same goes for talent. The best family office professionals are selective. If you already know who you want to attract, their preferences matter. A location may look ideal in theory, but if your preferred CEO, CIO or COO does not want to live there, the model breaks quickly.
And then comes the most overlooked question of all: what does the family actually want?
Where do they want to live? Where do the next generation see themselves? What kind of environment fits the familyโs values, habits and ambitions? These answers are central to whether the chosen location will endure.
That is the truth many spreadsheets miss. A family office can be brilliantly structured and still feel wrong if the location does not fit the people it is meant to serve.
Layer three: The operating model behind the location
This is where the conversation gets more strategic. A location is not just a pin on a map. It is part of your wider operating design. For some families, one physical hub still makes complete sense. For others, it does not.
Larger family offices are using multiple locations or satellite presences to better reflect investment needs and personal realities of oftentimes larger families. That makes sense. One place may be best for governance, another for investing, and another for family residency.
But multi-location models also add complexity. More entities. More coordination. More governance. More cost.
So before expanding geographically, get very clear on why each location exists. Every office should have a role. If it does not, it probably should not be there.
This leads to one final thought that I believe deserves more attention: not every family office of the future needs to be built around a large, traditional headquarters.
Final thoughts
In some cases, the better model may be a virtual family office with a mostly remote team.
That can bring real advantages:
- access to a broader and often better talent pool
- less dependence on one local labour market
- lower fixed-cost infrastructure
- more flexibility as family needs evolve
- an operating model that is naturally more scalable
- the possibility to hire best-in-class partners for everything the office does
Of course, this only works if governance, cybersecurity, data flows, reporting routines and decision rights are designed properly. A virtual setup is not an excuse for looseness. In fact, it requires more discipline, not less.
But done well, it can be a powerful answer for families who want high-quality capability without building a heavy physical structure in one single location.
That may be the bigger shift here. The question is no longer only, โWhere should our family office be?โ It is also, โHow physical does our family office really need to be?โ
Because the best family office location is not the one with the lowest tax rate, the nicest brochure or the strongest marketing story.
It is the one that best supports your purpose, your family, your employees, your assets and your way of workingโฆ.and do not forget the next generation in this. If they are not on board, you might have to start all over again and that is an easily avoidable cost.
Get it wrong, and location becomes a source of friction for years. Get all of that right, and the location becomes an enabler.