Family members running family offices are paid less than the professionals they hire

On 29 September 2026, RBC and Campden Wealth published the 2026 North America Family Office Report. It draws on 155 responses from single family offices and private multi-family offices across the Americas: 123 in the United States, 21 in Canada and 11 elsewhere in the region. The families behind them are worth from $100 million to more than $10 billion, with an average operating net worth of roughly $2.25 billion.

The family discount

The pay figures are the part offices will read first. Reporting on the survey, Family Wealth Report records a median total compensation of $721,000 for non-family chief executives against $460,000 for chief executives who are members of the family, a difference of 44%. The pattern repeats one level down: non-family chief investment officers take a median $575,000, family member CIOs $350,000. It reverses for the operating role, where family member chief operating officers earn $450,000, some $75,000 more than outsiders in the same seat.

Median operating cost across the respondents came to about $2.75 million, which offices expect to rise by 5% this year.

The survey does not explain the gap, and there are several plausible readings. Family members may take part of their return through ownership rather than salary. They may also be appointed for reasons other than a competitive market for the role, which is precisely the argument for benchmarking the pay in the first place.

Liquidity as the test of a fund

Eighty-six per cent of the offices invest in private markets. Direct investments now average 45% of that book, ahead of funds at 36%, a reversal of the previous year’s ratio. Deal sourcing is not the whole reason. Nearly one in five private markets investors tried to exit a fund position this year, and 47% of those could not complete the exit as expected.

Beth Francis, managing director at RBC’s Enterprise Strategic Client Group, put the consequence plainly in the report: a manager’s willingness to be candid about exit timelines is itself information about the manager, and offices are moving to direct investments because they want control over when capital comes back.

Optimism, and the operational worry underneath it

A year ago these offices expected an average annual return of 5%. This year 84% expect direct private equity to match or beat last year’s result, and 85% named artificial intelligence as their leading investment pick for the next twelve months. Adam Ratner, Campden Wealth’s director of research, noted in the release that patient capital is not immune to the fear of missing out.

The operational findings run the other way. Cybersecurity and data breaches are now the top near-term concern at 59%, against 16% a year earlier, and the same proportion reported phishing attempts. Half the offices have an incomplete succession plan or none at all.

What it means for family offices

An office that pays its hired chief investment officer $575,000 and the family member in the same role $350,000 has set two different prices for one job, and the difference will be visible to everyone in the building. Where the family intends the next generation to run the office rather than employ someone to run it, the pay structure is part of the succession plan, not separate from it.

The exit figures matter for a different reason. A commitment that cannot be realised on schedule turns into a call on the balance sheet at the wrong moment, which is what pushes families towards direct deals, secondaries and shorter pacing. Advisers should expect the questions to arrive together: fund liquidity terms, cash planning, and who will be in the chair to manage both.

One caveat. The sample is North American, skewed to the United States, and drawn from Campden’s membership and RBC’s client base, so the figures describe a large, already professionalised segment rather than the market as a whole.

Sources: RBC and Campden Wealth (press release); Family Wealth Report.