Coordinated wealth and enduring legacy

This article has been reviewed by a Digital Journal editor and may be licensed for reuse.

Managing family wealth appears to be becoming an organizational question, not merely an investment decision. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projected that 176,800 Canadian families belonged to the wealthiest 1% by late 2024, with net wealth of at least $7.5 million each. As assets grow and generations multiply, families may need to decide who coordinates the decisions surrounding that wealth.

Wealthy families often have several ways to organize their financial affairs. Some may build an internal office dedicated to one family, while others work with a multi-family office that shares professional resources. A single structure is unlikely to meet every family’s needs. The decision often depends on the level of control, privacy, professional support, and coordination the family needs, as well as the infrastructure it can reasonably maintain.

A single-family office may provide families with greater control, although maintaining one can require substantial professional and operational resources. The 2026 J.P. Morgan Global Family Office Report, based on 333 single-family offices across 30 countries, found that average annual operating costs ranged from $875,000 for offices with $250 million or less in assets under supervision to approximately $6.6 million for those with more than $1 billion. 

Investment management is often only part of that infrastructure. Succession, governance, philanthropy, and family expectations can also influence which structure is more suitable. A family may need a strong portfolio process, but it may also need clear responsibilities and a reliable way to coordinate advisers.

Mark Rotstein, founder of Toronto-based EQ Partners Inc., approaches the debate from experience with both single-family and multi-family arrangements. He describes EQ Partners as a multi-family office that also advises a select group of single-family offices. In his view, the models should not be treated as rivals. The relevant question is which structure matches the family’s circumstances.

“As wealth grows, a family can approach a threshold where they are looking for more than the traditional advisor model,” Rotstein explains. He believes that need often emerges when tax planning, estate decisions, charitable giving, and preparations for the next generation begin to demand sustained coordination.

Rotstein does not view either model as suitable for every family. He believes a single-family office may appeal to those who prefer a dedicated internal structure. A multi-family office, he suggests, may offer another way to access professional support and outside specialists through shared resources. 

The value of that shared structure, in his view, lies partly in coordination. Published in My Business Magazine, Rotstein frames himself as a “specialist at being a generalist.” For Rotstein, the phrase explains a role focused on coordinating the different areas of a family’s financial affairs. 

The name ‘family-office’ alone reveals little about how a provider operates, he notes. Rotstein encourages families to ask how the office is paid, whether it sells financial products, where conflicts may arise, and how it selects outside professionals. They could also examine who retains decision-making authority, how information is protected, and whether the office can work constructively with advisers the family already trusts.

Generational differences may also shape what families expect from financial advice. Rotstein believes some younger family members may be more comfortable using digital platforms and AI to access financial information. When decisions involve succession, legacy, or family relationships, he suggests professional guidance may still have a role. In his view, these broader considerations could become increasingly relevant to the advisory relationship. 

From Rotstein’s perspective, no single asset threshold can resolve these questions. A family with substantial but relatively straightforward holdings may need less infrastructure than one with operating companies, trusts, property, charitable commitments, and members in several jurisdictions. He therefore recommends beginning with goals and constraints rather than selecting a fashionable model and attempting to fit the family into it.

“Pay attention to what is important to you and your family, and structure your planning around your own priorities, goals, objectives, and constraints,” he advises.