Family offices ditch hedge funds for direct deals and control
A former Goldman Sachs managing director now runs money for a single family in Vancouver, screening mid-market software deals that would have been routed through a fund three years ago. The family pays her well, gives her discretion, and expects her to say no to everything but the best opportunities. She does not charge 2 and 20.
This is what the shift away from traditional fund structures looks like at ground level. Family offices established in the last five to ten years are pulling capital out of hedge funds and, increasingly, private credit vehicles, redirecting it toward direct stakes in private companies where they control the terms, the timeline, and the governance. The change is not philosophical. It is economic.
The fee problem has teeth
A hedge fund charging 2% annually on assets under management and 20% of gains above a hurdle drags heavily on long-term compounding. For a family office managing $200 million, that structure can cost $4 million a year in management fees alone before performance carry. Direct investing eliminates both layers. The family still pays for legal work, due diligence, and operational oversight, but those are one-time transaction costs, not recurring drags on the entire pool of capital.
Fee sensitivity has led many offices to hire former institutional investors directly. A senior vice president from a Tier 1 private equity firm, offered better work-life balance and long-term incentives tied to actual deals rather than AUM growth, often makes the move. The family gets domain expertise without the fund wrapper. The executive gets to stop pretending that managing $8 billion is better than managing $300 million well.
What they are buying into
Direct investments are clustering in technology, healthcare, and sustainable infrastructure, sectors where families often have legacy operating knowledge. A Toronto-based office that made its wealth in industrial distribution now takes minority stakes in logistics software companies, bringing both capital and specific insight into how the product will perform in real supply chains. That combination is harder to replicate through a blind pool fund.
The other advantage is patience. A traditional private equity fund has a ten-year life with pressure to exit by year seven. A family office writing a $15 million check for 25% of a business does not face that constraint. If the company performs, the family can hold the position indefinitely. If it underperforms but the thesis remains intact, there is no limited partner screaming for liquidity. The capital is genuinely long-term, which changes what kinds of businesses make sense to buy and at what price.
The risks they are taking on
Concentration is the trade-off. A fund holding thirty companies absorbs the failure of any single portfolio company as a 3% loss. A family office holding six direct positions absorbs the same failure as a 16% loss. One bad deal matters structurally.
There is also adverse selection risk. The best mid-market opportunities are often competed for by established funds with proprietary networks and speed of execution. Family offices without deep sector relationships risk seeing only the deals that top-tier firms passed on. That risk is real but not insurmountable, the families hiring former GPs are specifically buying access to those networks.
Private credit, despite recent attention, is falling out of favor with some of these newer offices. The appeal was yield and seniority in the capital structure. The problem is capped upside. A direct lending vehicle might return in the high single digits to low double digits over a credit cycle. A direct equity stake in the right company can return many multiples of the original investment. For families no longer optimizing for income but for generational wealth compounding, credit looks like the wrong tool.
The hedge fund allocation, once a default position for liquid alternatives, is now optional. Newer family offices are treating it as a legacy structure their parents used, not a requirement.
A former Goldman Sachs managing director now runs money for a single family in Vancouver, screening mid-market software deals that would have been routed through a fund three years ago. The family pays her well, gives her discretion, and expects her to say no to everything but the best opportunities. She does not charge 2 and 20.
This is what the shift away from traditional fund structures looks like at ground level. Family offices established in the last five to ten years are pulling capital out of hedge funds and, increasingly, private credit vehicles, redirecting it toward direct stakes in private companies where they control the terms, the timeline, and the governance. The change is not philosophical. It is economic.
The fee problem has teeth
A hedge fund charging 2% annually on assets under management and 20% of gains above a hurdle drags heavily on long-term compounding. For a family office managing $200 million, that structure can cost $4 million a year in management fees alone before performance carry. Direct investing eliminates both layers. The family still pays for legal work, due diligence, and operational oversight, but those are one-time transaction costs, not recurring drags on the entire pool of capital.
Fee sensitivity has led many offices to hire former institutional investors directly. A senior vice president from a Tier 1 private equity firm, offered better work-life balance and long-term incentives tied to actual deals rather than AUM growth, often makes the move. The family gets domain expertise without the fund wrapper. The executive gets to stop pretending that managing $8 billion is better than managing $300 million well.
What they are buying into
Direct investments are clustering in technology, healthcare, and sustainable infrastructure, sectors where families often have legacy operating knowledge. A Toronto-based office that made its wealth in industrial distribution now takes minority stakes in logistics software companies, bringing both capital and specific insight into how the product will perform in real supply chains. That combination is harder to replicate through a blind pool fund.
The other advantage is patience. A traditional private equity fund has a ten-year life with pressure to exit by year seven. A family office writing a $15 million check for 25% of a business does not face that constraint. If the company performs, the family can hold the position indefinitely. If it underperforms but the thesis remains intact, there is no limited partner screaming for liquidity. The capital is genuinely long-term, which changes what kinds of businesses make sense to buy and at what price.
The risks they are taking on
Concentration is the trade-off. A fund holding thirty companies absorbs the failure of any single portfolio company as a 3% loss. A family office holding six direct positions absorbs the same failure as a 16% loss. One bad deal matters structurally.
There is also adverse selection risk. The best mid-market opportunities are often competed for by established funds with proprietary networks and speed of execution. Family offices without deep sector relationships risk seeing only the deals that top-tier firms passed on. That risk is real but not insurmountable, the families hiring former GPs are specifically buying access to those networks.
Private credit, despite recent attention, is falling out of favor with some of these newer offices. The appeal was yield and seniority in the capital structure. The problem is capped upside. A direct lending vehicle might return in the high single digits to low double digits over a credit cycle. A direct equity stake in the right company can return many multiples of the original investment. For families no longer optimizing for income but for generational wealth compounding, credit looks like the wrong tool.
The hedge fund allocation, once a default position for liquid alternatives, is now optional. Newer family offices are treating it as a legacy structure their parents used, not a requirement.
Sources
Read Next
GIC rates stall as bonds retreat: why deposit accounts still lag
Why Your Employer's Life Insurance Probably Covers Less Than You Think
August Sales Fell 6.9%: What CREA's Numbers Actually Reveal About Buyer Hesitation
Canada's Resource Advantage: What Global Investors Are Betting On in 2026