Single family office makes sense when the wealth is sizeable, often in excess of $150 million. Otherwise the costs might be more than the benefits”
legacy and the family wealth.” As family offices mature, governance standards become better with more professionals brought in to lead. India has, in Rajan’s view, seen some great examples of families that have professionalised operations of the companies they promoted and successfully segregated ownership and management. She cites the example of Asian Paints which has unrelated promoter families or that of the Burman family (of Dabur) and the Murugappa family apart from a few others. Rajan therefore reminds that the need for a family office is linked to the purpose that the promoters want it to serve. As is apparent, the focus of the families cited above would be more around the dealing with , continuinity of the family legacy and responsibly managing family wealth. Whereas others, such as Sunil Kant Munjal or the Patni family for instance, who exited an operating business and have investible funds would want the family office to be an investment platform.
One of the big problems with family businesses in