Walk into the private banking floor of any Indian bank and you will be told you are entering a "family office". The room is panelled, the relationship manager is senior, the brochures are heavier than at the retail desk. Behind the choreography, however, the economics are unchanged: the institution earns from the product, not from the advice. The family pays in spread, not in fee.
This is not a moral indictment. Distribution is a legitimate business. The problem is one of category confusion. The Indian phrase "family office" has come to describe two profoundly different things — a distributor running a high-end shelf, and an advisor sitting on the family's side of the table — and most clients cannot tell them apart at the first meeting.
Three tells of a product shelf in family-office clothing
The cleanest way to know which kind of advisor you are sitting with is to ask three questions, and to listen carefully to how they are answered.
1. "How are you paid, and by whom?"
A genuine multi-family office is paid only by you — typically as a flat retainer, an asset-based fee, or a project fee — with full disclosure of any rebates received from third parties. A distributor, however well-intentioned, is paid by the product manufacturer. Hybrid models exist, but they require the family to read the disclosure carefully.
2. "What share of the assets you recommend are manufactured or distributed by your group?"
If the answer involves the firm's own AIFs, PMS, insurance products, or structured products, the advice and the manufacturing are not separated. This may not produce bad recommendations, but it means a particular kind of conflict is permanent.
3. "Will you put your investment policy statement in writing, before any product is recommended?"
Real advisors lead with diagnosis and architecture. Distributors lead with product. The order of operations is the simplest test of all.
The category will normalise eventually — but not yet
The Indian wealth-management industry is roughly twenty years younger than its Western equivalents, and the SEBI Investment Adviser Regulations 2013 — which formally separate advice from distribution — are barely a decade old. Genuine fee-only multi-family offices in India still number in the dozens. Most consequential families either work with one of these, or do without and try to coordinate the four or five distributors they have collected over the years.
The latter is more common than is admitted. It is also more expensive than it appears: every distributor is paid in spread, and every spread compounds over the family's lifetime.
What independence buys you, in plain language
Independence does not mean better returns; investment return is mostly a function of asset allocation, not of advisor pedigree. What it buys is something subtler — advice that does not have a second motive. The recommendation to do nothing for a year. The willingness to argue against an in-vogue product. The patience to spend three months on a will rather than three weeks on a portfolio.
These are unglamorous outputs. They tend to compound over decades. Most families discover their value only when something has gone wrong, and the conflicted advice cannot be unwound.
A note for the family that is choosing
If you are interviewing advisors, the most useful exercise is to put the same scenario to two or three of them — say, the post-IPO deployment of ₹100 crore — and to read the proposals carefully. The product-led firm will arrive at a portfolio. The advisor-led firm will first ask why ₹100 crore is being deployed, what the rest of the family balance sheet looks like, what the tax position is, and whether the answer to the question is even "deploy".
The first conversation will feel productive. The second will feel slow. The second is almost always more useful.
We send only when there's something worth saying — typically once or twice a month.