The world’s wealthiest families are no longer satisfied with managing their affairs from a single center. Over the past 15 years, the dominant model has shifted from a single vertical wealth management structure, one family office, one jurisdiction, one set of advisors, towards a multi-hub architecture in which different family members oversee different jurisdictions in different markets. The implications for how advisory firms position themselves, where they find their people, and how they capture deal flow are profound. At the recent Habbis Independent Wealth Management Forum in Hong Kong, Yan Mrazek, Founder and Managing Partner of M/HQ, drew on his firm’s experience advising over 400 single family offices globally to map the ongoing structural developments in the way ultra-high-net-worth families manage their assets. Speaking at the third panel of the day, Mrazek offered a perspective based on years of work in jurisdictions ranging from Hong Kong to the Middle East, arguing that the multi-hub model is not a temporary response to geopolitical uncertainty, but a permanent shift in the way sophisticated families consume wealth management, and that it demands a fundamentally different approach from the advisor industry.
key takeaways
- Single-vertical model is outdated: The most sophisticated families have moved from a single family office in one jurisdiction to multi-hub structures spanning two or three centres, each with a different investment mandate.
- Deal flow follows geography: Families (particularly multi-generational ones) are expanding their geographic footprint by establishing a presence in a range of markets to take advantage of opportunities that would not reach their home jurisdiction, or would reach them too late.
- Structures should reflect multi-hub approach: As families expand across multiple jurisdictions, their governance and structural architecture is being built to support distributed operating models across different markets, advisors and investment sectors.
- Customers want human beings driven by technology: As the relationship model has shifted from remote advisors through representative offices to a demand for skilled advisors physically present in key jurisdictions where clients operate, technology is acting as an enabler rather than a substitute.
- Place of custody is becoming secondary: Families are increasingly comfortable working with multiple custodians in different jurisdictions, while aligning advisory, governance and investment functions around the jurisdictions most relevant to each family office vertical.
- Multi Hub Family Advisors are reshaping the landscape: The shift toward multi-hub family office structures is creating opportunities for advisors in select wealth centers, as families seek specialized assistance across multiple jurisdictions and investment sectors.
From one domain to many
Mrazek’s central thesis was built on a pattern he has observed in hundreds of family office programs over the past decade and a half. The traditional model, in which a single family office operates out of one jurisdiction and manages the entire family’s wealth from that base, is giving way to something more distributed and more discreet.
“What we have seen over the last 15 years is an evolution from what is often a single vertical wealth management strategy, from a single family office to a multi-hub strategy,” he explains.
This change is not just about opening additional accounts at different booking centres. It is about creating separate operational verticals, each with its own investment mandate, its own deal flow and in many cases led by its own family member.
“As families become multi-generational and more sophisticated, what you increasingly see is the first generation of the family, focusing on the jurisdiction and area of origin,” Mrazek said. “And another member of the family, perhaps of a different generation, is taking charge of a second or third vertical that is in a different market, with a slightly different investment approach, to capture the deal flow that would not necessarily come in the jurisdiction or region of origin or would come very late.”
This is not diversification in the sense of traditional portfolio construction. It is an organizational strategy designed to ensure that family capital is positioned to reach opportunities where they arise, with the speed and local knowledge needed to act on them.
new normal
Mrazek was clear that this multi-hub model represents what he called “the new normal,” and he framed it as a direct opportunity for the advisory community.
“This is an opportunity for all of us,” he said. “Maybe you don’t talk to the epicenter in Hong Kong, but you talk to the new family office in Abu Dhabi or somewhere else around the world.”
The competitive landscape for advisory firms is no longer defined by presence in any one financial centre. Families operating in multiple jurisdictions will seek out advisors in each, creating new points of entry for firms that may have no connection to the family’s primary office.
Structures should follow the same logic
Mrazek was keen to emphasize that the multi-hub approach should not be limited to custody and asset management. He argued that the same logic should apply to legal structures as well.
“There is a consensus on the panel of a custodial, multi-hub approach that makes sense from asset advisors, and we didn’t talk about a currency risk approach,” he said. “We believe families should look at their structures the same way.”
As families adopt multi-hub operating models, their structural framework, choice of trust jurisdiction, residence of holding companies, location of foundations, should be designed to support that architecture from the beginning rather than retrofitted after the fact.
human element, selectively deployed
One of the most pointed observations offered by Mrazek relates to changing expectations about how advisory relationships are conducted. The old model, in which a client was content to deal with a representative office or a remote consultant visiting from time to time, is no longer sufficient.
“The way clients consume asset management has changed big time,” he said. ”In the past, people did not want their bankers to travel to their jurisdiction… They were very happy to deal with a representative office and communicate with someone abroad. I think that’s changed.”
His suggestion was not that every advisory firm should strive to become a global operation, but rather that firms should be “selectively global”, establishing a presence of skilled people in the jurisdictions most important to their client base.
“The customer wants to see and touch a human being driven by technology,” Mrazek said. “And this happens because of the multiple presence of skilled people in key jurisdictions.”
The phrase “powered by technology” is instructive. Mrazek was not arguing against the use of digital tools or AI in the advisory process. Rather, he was making the case that technology enables human advisors to work more effectively in different jurisdictions, but does not replace a client’s fundamental expectation of interacting face-to-face with a trusted individual.
Custody is not the center of gravity
Mrazek also challenged a widely held belief about the relationship between custody location and consultant presence. In their experience, clients do not need their asset manager to be in the same jurisdiction where their assets are custodial. What matters is that the advisor is physically present where the client works.
“You don’t need to have your asset manager in the same country where you are detained,” he said. “It is not good enough.”
However, they noted an observable pattern. “Our clients operate in one jurisdiction, structure in the same, deal with the asset manager in the same and often have multi-custody from there,” he said. “I think this will become the new model.”
The difference is important. Families are consolidating their operational, structural and advisory relationships into one jurisdiction while distributing custody across multiple centres. For advisory firms, winning operating relationships in a given jurisdiction holds strategic importance, even if custody is located elsewhere.
Positioning for a multi-hub future
Mrazek’s contribution painted a picture of an industry in structural change. The families his company advises are not reacting to short-term geopolitical events; They are building sustainable multi-hub architectures that reflect a sophisticated understanding of where opportunities arise and where risks are concentrated.
For Hong Kong, the implications are clear. The city’s proximity to Greater China, the depth of its capital markets and the sophistication of its advisory ecosystem position it as a natural anchor within the multi-hub framework. But it is unlikely to be the only anchor. Those companies that will succeed will be those that understand this and build their capabilities accordingly, whether through partnerships, selective international expansion, or ecosystem collaboration.
The single-jurisdiction model served the industry well for decades. But as Mrazek explained, the families at the top of the wealth pyramid have moved on. The consulting firms that serve them should do the same.