Family offices are marching into 2025 with supreme confidence, overweighting technology at levels that would make even Silicon Valley blush. Goldman Sachs reports that 58 percent plan to tilt further into tech while only a tiny minority prepares to reduce exposure. AI remains the gravitational center of their portfolios, attracting capital through public equities, private markets and the expensive infrastructure required to power data-hungry models. Yet beneath this polished narrative of conviction lies a pattern of structural vulnerabilities that could catch many of these offices off guard.
The first sits in the complacency around geopolitical and political risk. The majority sees geopolitics as the top threat, but their portfolio behavior signals the opposite: allocations barely move, hedging activity lags and in the Americas more than a third takes no action at all to prepare for tail events. This is not resilience; it is inertia disguised as long-term thinking. A decade of rising markets conditioned investors to treat every shock as a dip to be bought. The danger is that the next shock may not behave like the last, particularly when global trade patterns fracture, tariff regimes harden and power blocs drift apart. My own view is that portfolios heavily concentrated in US tech and AI infrastructure are far more correlated to geopolitical tensions than many admit. Concentration creates fragility, even when wrapped in optimism.
The second vulnerability is the rapid expansion of AI-related bets without a parallel investment in internal analytical capacity. Family offices typically operate with lean teams, often fewer than five people overseeing billions. They deploy capital across increasingly complex private markets, venture deals, infrastructure projects and secondaries - all while attempting to evaluate AI investments that even specialized funds struggle to price. Short staffing becomes a silent risk amplifier. Without deeper technical due diligence and better internal tooling, their ability to distinguish hype from genuine innovation erodes. The report itself shows that AI is used mostly for surface-level tasks such as data processing, but far fewer offices use it for idea generation, risk oversight or portfolio optimization. Capital is modern, but processes are old.
A third vulnerability hides inside the tax architecture of family office portfolios. Tax policy is not static; governments facing deficits, aging populations and rising defense spending are increasingly targeting the very structures family offices rely on. Technology-heavy portfolios are especially exposed because jurisdictions are beginning to consider new frameworks for taxing digital value creation, data flows and intangible assets. Cross-border private equity holdings face growing scrutiny as countries tighten transfer-pricing rules and re-evaluate treaty benefits. Add to that the rising appetite for global minimum taxation, wealth taxes at the regional level and stricter reporting for offshore entities and the assumption that tax optimization remains a predictable, controllable lever becomes questionable. Many offices still rely on planning approaches designed for a world that no longer exists. When tax frameworks shift faster than portfolios, unrealized liabilities accumulate quietly until they become unavoidable.
The fourth vulnerability is the misplaced faith in private markets’ timeless outperformance. Allocations to private equity remain high even as distributions slow and exits stretch out. Family offices often view their illiquidity tolerance as a competitive advantage, but tolerance is not the same as protection. When liquidity freezes, the absence of forced sellers does not eliminate risk; it merely delays recognition. Many respondents justify their allocations with a belief in “patient capital,” yet private markets have quietly become more synchronized with public markets through financing cycles and valuation marks. The idea that these assets insulate investors from volatility looks increasingly like a psychological comfort rather than a financial truth.
Solutions require sharper discipline. More diversification across geographies (real diversification, not nominal box-ticking) would reduce political and currency concentration. Internal teams need to grow not in headcount but in capability, adopting AI systems not only for operational productivity but also for scenario testing, downside modeling and cross-asset pattern detection. Family offices should treat geopolitical risk as a portfolio variable rather than as background noise. Their tax strategy must shift from optimization to resilience, with contingency planning for taxation of AI-driven business models, more aggressive stress-testing of cross-border structures and forward-looking modeling that accounts for plausible regulatory tightening. And the cult of private markets needs recalibration: pacing commitments, using secondaries strategically and introducing more transparency around duration and liquidity expectations.
The story of the modern family office is often told as one of freedom: no external investors, no quarterly performance anxiety, no rigid mandates. Yet freedom without friction can breed overconfidence. The survey shows conviction; the market shows uncertainty. The tax authorities show increasing ambition. The gap between these forces is where risk accumulates. The offices that will thrive are not those that double down on fashionable themes, but those willing to expose their blind spots and address them before the next wave of volatility does it for them.
References: