A survey of 100+ family office professionals reveals that governance, not money, is the real problem
Ultra-high-net-worth families are spending heavily on estate security technology but leaving critical gaps in governance, training, and coordination that are leaving them exposed to rising threats, including AI-driven attacks, according to new research.
With advisors increasingly taking a holistic approach in client relationships, understanding the very real risks associated with their homes and other property holdings is essential.
The findings come from a survey of more than 100 estate managers, family office executives, chiefs of staff, and residential security professionals representing families spanning the full UHNW spectrum, from under $50 million to above $10 billion in net worth. It was conducted by risk management firm Presage Global and household management platform Nines.
These families have the money to ensure that their homes are adequately protected but are often resistant.
Family resistance was cited as the top barrier to better security by 49% of respondents, well ahead of cost at 28%, but among households that have improved their security, 60% were prompted by experiencing an incident at their own property; only 19% acted on the back of regular risk assessments.
"The primary obstacle to effective estate security does not appear to be budget, technology, or the threat landscape. In most cases, the resources and tools already exist. A significant and consistent constraint is governance, formalization, and integration," said Edward V. Marshall, founder and CEO of Presage Global.
Wealth = greater risk
Families with a net worth above $1 billion reported a 51% financial-loss incident rate, compared with 32% for those below $100 million.
The wealthiest tier also showed the widest gap between how rigorously they protect their businesses versus their homes, with 44% of $1 billion-plus families saying their business security arrangements are significantly more rigorous than their residential equivalents.
Fragmented security coordination is closely associated with financial loss. Households operating with disjointed teams, separate vendors, and ad hoc arrangements reported a 62% incident rate, versus 25% for those with fully integrated security operations. All of the $1 million-plus losses in the survey came from fragmented households. Despite this, 88% of estates manage security in silos.
Insider training, risk
Training remains a critical weak point with almost two thirds of respondents stating that they have received no formal annual security training, while just 4% considering current training levels adequate.
House managers and estate managers, the roles with the most direct daily access to families, reported the highest rates of zero formal training at 73% and 69% respectively. This gap persists despite 65% of respondents naming AI-powered attacks as a top emerging threat. Only 7% of respondents provide formal cybersecurity training to family members.
The insider threat picture is similarly concerning with three in four respondents indicating that they never refresh background checks after the initial hire, while 52% do not require non-disclosure agreements for non-family members with property access.
Checking only some staff is nearly as risky as checking none; households that screen all staff report a 27% incident rate, compared with 50% for those that check only some.
"Families are reactive when it comes to their security just like they are with every other aspect of their homes and lifestyle," said Jacco de Bruijn, co-founder and CEO of Nines. "They have the resources, but don't prioritize structure and governance because 'these are just our homes' or 'we're private people, that won't happen to us.'"
The report's authors argue that the fix is less expensive than most families assume.
Households with centralized documentation, access management, and controlled permissions reported that 92% would face minimal disruption if a key staff member departed, compared with just 35% for those with none of those building blocks in place. The families with the lowest incident rates were not the biggest spenders but those that had moved from reacting to incidents to anticipating them.
