As family property portfolios grow, so too does the question of management. Should assets be held and administered directly by family members, or should the family create a family office—a formal structure that centralises control, governance, and professional oversight?

In 2025, more families are exploring the family office model, particularly those with multi-generational portfolios or wealth that spans property, investments, and private equity. At the same time, many still prefer direct ownership, valuing control and simplicity over the formality of an office.

This blog explores the differences between the two approaches, how lenders perceive them, and what families should consider when deciding which route best supports their goals.

What is a family office?

A family office is, at its simplest, a professionalised entity that manages a family’s wealth. It can take many forms—from a small team overseeing property income and tax returns, to a fully-fledged organisation handling investments, succession planning, philanthropy, and cross-border structuring.

For property portfolios, family offices often centralise ownership through a holding company or trust. They handle financing, rent collection, compliance, and governance in a way that mirrors corporate structures.

By contrast, direct ownership usually means the family members themselves—or a small circle of advisers—manage the portfolio. Properties may be owned personally, through SPVs, or via simple company structures, but without the layered governance of an office.

Why families create offices in 2025

The rise of family offices is driven by three trends.

First, portfolio complexity has increased. Families no longer hold just a handful of buy-to-lets. Many now manage dozens of properties across regions, often alongside commercial units or international holdings. Informal management can struggle to cope.

Second, succession pressures are mounting. As discussed in Succession-Ready Estate Finance in 2025, lenders and regulators want assurance that heirs can manage debt responsibly. Offices provide continuity when generations change.

Third, lenders favour professionalisation. In 2025, private banks in particular are more comfortable lending to well-governed family offices than to loosely managed direct owners. Offices present themselves as stable, enduring clients, while individuals can appear less predictable.

The benefits of family offices

Family offices offer several advantages when managing property portfolios.

They create clarity. Ownership, governance, and decision-making are centralised. Minutes, constitutions, and reporting give lenders confidence that the family is organised.

They provide continuity. Offices are not tied to one person’s lifetime. If a founder passes away, the office continues to function, reassuring lenders and tenants alike.

They often deliver efficiency. Professional management can reduce costs, streamline financing, and secure better terms from banks.

As noted in Family Governance and Lender Confidence, structure itself has become a competitive advantage in finance. Family offices embody that advantage.

The drawbacks of family offices

Yet family offices are not without downsides.

They are expensive to run. Salaries for in-house accountants, lawyers, or investment managers can quickly add up. For families with £20–30 million in assets, this may be sustainable, but for smaller portfolios, the overheads outweigh the benefits.

They can feel distant. Some family members resent losing personal control, particularly if decisions are delegated to professional managers. Offices can also introduce bureaucracy, slowing down actions like refinancing or property sales.

And while lenders may appreciate the professionalism, they sometimes worry that offices focus too much on structures and not enough on personal guarantees. As explored in Personal Guarantees in Family Property Finance, lenders still expect individuals to carry accountability.

The appeal of direct ownership

Direct ownership remains compelling for many families. It allows for control—decisions can be made quickly, without layers of governance. Families often feel more connected to their portfolios when they manage them personally.

It also preserves privacy. Offices can make wealth more visible, particularly if they require regulatory filings. Direct ownership through SPVs or private structures often feels less exposed.

Finally, direct ownership avoids cost. For families with portfolios under £10 million, the expense of running a formal office often outweighs any financial benefit. In these cases, informal arrangements with trusted accountants and brokers can be more efficient.

Example scenario: two families, two approaches

Consider two families, each with a £25 million property portfolio.

The first chooses to professionalise through a family office. They hire a small team, create a holding company, and establish governance structures. Lenders respond positively, offering a £15 million facility at competitive terms, reassured by the office’s professionalism.

The second prefers direct ownership. The father remains sole director of multiple SPVs, supported by an accountant. When refinancing, the lender requests more documentation and applies stricter stress tests. Terms are less generous, but the family retains direct control.

Neither approach is wrong. The first maximises lender confidence; the second maximises family autonomy. The decision depends on values, priorities, and long-term strategy.

Intergenerational considerations

The choice between office and direct ownership often becomes more pressing during succession. Parents may prefer informal control, but children—especially those with careers outside property—may not want the burden of daily management. Offices can provide a compromise, maintaining professional oversight while freeing heirs from hands-on responsibility.

Alternatively, families where heirs are deeply engaged may prefer to retain direct ownership, ensuring decisions remain in family hands. In these cases, strengthening governance within SPVs—such as formalising guarantees or creating shareholder agreements—can satisfy lenders without moving to a full office.

This reflects a broader theme we highlighted in Debt Restructuring in 2025: portfolios thrive when ownership and liability are aligned across generations.

How lenders view the choice

From the lender’s perspective, family offices are usually easier to deal with. They provide professional documentation, consistent reporting, and clear points of contact. Private banks in particular are enthusiastic, seeing offices as natural long-term clients.

But lenders also value personal accountability. Even with an office, they will often insist on guarantees from individual family members. Offices that try to shield individuals entirely may face pushback.

Direct owners, meanwhile, can still secure strong lending—especially if they work with independent brokers who can package the case professionally. The key is transparency. Families who present well-prepared accounts, governance documents, and succession plans often secure terms comparable to those with offices.

The future: hybrid models

In practice, many families are now adopting hybrid approaches. They retain direct ownership structures but adopt elements of the family office model, such as formalised governance, reporting, or professional advisers. This gives lenders confidence without the full expense of an office.

Hybrid models may prove the dominant trend in 2025 and beyond. Families gain the best of both worlds: professionalism to satisfy banks, and flexibility to preserve autonomy.

The long-term view

Ultimately, the choice between family offices and direct ownership is not about right or wrong. It is about fit. Families with large, complex, or international portfolios may benefit from the stability and professionalism of an office. Those with smaller, more manageable holdings may prefer the simplicity and control of direct ownership.

What matters most is clarity. Lenders want to see that the family has thought about structure, governance, and succession—whatever form it takes. In 2025, structure itself is a signal of resilience.

How Willow Can Help

At Willow Private Finance, we work with both family offices and direct owners. For families exploring professionalisation, we can advise on how office structures interact with lending, from SPVs and holding companies to cross-border arrangements. For those preferring direct ownership, we help ensure governance is strong enough to secure competitive finance.

Because Willow is independent and whole of market, we can access lenders that specialise in family offices, as well as those who work comfortably with individual borrowers. Our goal is always the same: to align borrowing with family strategy, whether that means building an office or keeping control direct.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a family office compared to direct ownership?
A family office is a professional entity managing wealth, often via holding companies, trusts, governance, reporting. Direct ownership is hands-on control by family members (often via SPVs or simple structures) without formal office governance.

Why might lenders prefer family offices for property lending?
Because they show professionalism, governance, clear reporting, continuity, and neat documentation — reducing lender risk and improving confidence. (The blog notes private banks in 2025 “are more comfortable lending to well-governed family offices.”)

What are the main drawbacks of setting up a family office?
Cost, complexity, bureaucracy, and potential loss of direct control. For smaller portfolios, the overhead may outweigh benefits, per the blog.

Can direct ownership still secure good financing?
Yes — especially when the family presents rigorous governance, clear books, and succession plans. Lenders may impose stricter terms, but direct ownership remains viable for those wanting control.



What is a hybrid model in this context?
A structure combining features of both: retaining direct control but embedding formal governance, reporting, and office-style oversight to satisfy lender expectations without full office cost. The blog suggests this is becoming common in 2025.

📞 Want Help Navigating Today’s Market?

Book a free strategy call with one of our mortgage specialists.

 We’ll help you find the smartest way forward—whatever rates do next.