Is a spreadsheet enough?

For the balance sheet, absolutely; families ran family offices on paper for a century. The spreadsheet's limit is the second discipline: projecting two careers, tax, pension rules and a mortgage forward thirty years is where hand-built models quietly go wrong, and where purpose-built simulation earns its place.

Does my pension entitlement really belong on the balance sheet?

Yes, and for most German employees it is the largest single asset they own: a claim on a regularly adjusted, lifelong income. Leaving it off the page is how households simultaneously feel poor on paper and undervalue the thing their payroll buys every month.

How often is too often?

Checking positions weekly is noise consumption, not review. The family office rhythm, quarterly to twice a year, exists because the meaningful inputs (salary, laws, life events) change on that timescale. More frequent looking mostly produces more frequent trading, which the research consistently prices as a cost, not a benefit.

Is this what a financial advisor does?

Sometimes. German advice comes in two economic models: commission-based, where the advice feels free and the products pay the distribution, and fee-based, where you pay directly. Knowing which model sits across the table tells you whose incentives shape the recommendation. The one-page picture and the simulated decision are, either way, worth bringing to the meeting rather than hoping to receive them there.

How wealthy families run their money, and what any household can copy

Strip a family office of its expensive extras and what remains are three disciplines that cost nothing: one consolidated picture of everything, decisions modelled before they are made, and a fixed review rhythm. The copyable core.

Families wealthy enough to employ a family office pay for many things ordinary households cannot copy: tax structuring, private deals, staff. But strip those away and the core of what a family office actually does every quarter is three disciplines that cost nothing to imitate: one consolidated picture of everything, decisions modelled before they are made, and a fixed review rhythm. The expensive part of wealth management turns out to be the least important part. Here is what the copyable core looks like.

This article is information, not financial advice. It describes practices, not products.

Discipline one: everything on one page

The first thing any family office produces for a new client is consolidated reporting: every account, property, company stake, pension entitlement and debt, in one statement, updated on a fixed schedule. Not because the rich forget their assets, but because scattered pictures produce scattered decisions. Most ordinary households have never once seen their complete position: the ETF depot lives in one app, the pension entitlement in an annual letter, the property value in a guess, the partner's accounts in another app entirely. The uncomfortable result is that a household with 60,000 euro of assets often has genuinely less overview than a family office client with 60 million, not less money knowledge. The copyable practice: a single household balance sheet, both partners included, pension entitlements included, revisited on a schedule. What gets measured on one page gets decided as one household.

Discipline two: decisions are simulated before they are made

Family offices do not evaluate a property purchase, a business exit or a gift to the children as isolated questions. Each decision is run against the family's whole projection: what does this do to liquidity in year three, to the retirement horizon, to the estate. The tool is unglamorous: a long-term cash flow and wealth model, assumptions written down, updated when life changes. Ordinary households make the same magnitude of decisions, a home purchase routinely moves half a lifetime's savings, with none of that machinery: the mortgage calculator sees the mortgage, the pension calculator sees the pension, and nobody sees the collision between them. The copyable practice: family offices refuse to evaluate a major decision in the tool built to sell the product; the decision is modelled against the whole household first.

Discipline three: a rhythm, not a mood

The third discipline is the least technical: reviews happen on a calendar, not when anxiety strikes. Quarterly or twice a year, the family sits with the one-page picture and asks the same questions: are we still on track, what changed in our life, what changed in the rules. The rhythm matters because both inputs drift constantly: careers, children, health on one side; tax law, pension law, contribution ceilings on the other. Germany alone adjusts pension values, insurance ceilings and family benefits every single year. A plan reviewed every few months bends; a plan reviewed never breaks silently. The copyable practice: the check-up is a calendar entry, not a mood, and treating a result of nothing changed as a valid, quick, reassuring outcome.

What does not transfer

Honesty requires the other list. Tax structuring across entities, illiquid private investments, professional discretionary management: these need scale, and imitating them at household size mostly produces fees. The industry reports show family offices themselves holding largely conventional portfolios of equities, bonds and real estate; the edge is discipline and consolidation far more than access. That is encouraging, because discipline and consolidation are free.

The check-up, without the family office

Miravel is, in effect, the three disciplines packaged for normal households: the whole household on one page, decades-long projections that big decisions can be tested against, and a product built around returning every few months to see whether you are still on track, because your life and Germany's rules both keep changing. The assumptions are visible, the numbers are reproducible, and where something is uncertain it is labelled, which is the same standard a good family office report holds itself to. The families with the most money have always looked at their finances this way. The look, at least, is now free to copy.

Sources

UBS Global Family Office Report 2024: ubs.com
Capgemini World Wealth Report: capgemini.com
Deutsche Rentenversicherung, annual adjustment of pension values: deutsche-rentenversicherung.de
Barber and Odean, "Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth", Journal of Finance 2000

Frequently asked questions

Is a spreadsheet enough?: For the balance sheet, absolutely; families ran family offices on paper for a century. The spreadsheet's limit is the second discipline: projecting two careers, tax, pension rules and a mortgage forward thirty years is where hand-built models quietly go wrong, and where purpose-built simulation earns its place.
Does my pension entitlement really belong on the balance sheet?: Yes, and for most German employees it is the largest single asset they own: a claim on a regularly adjusted, lifelong income. Leaving it off the page is how households simultaneously feel poor on paper and undervalue the thing their payroll buys every month.
How often is too often?: Checking positions weekly is noise consumption, not review. The family office rhythm, quarterly to twice a year, exists because the meaningful inputs (salary, laws, life events) change on that timescale. More frequent looking mostly produces more frequent trading, which the research consistently prices as a cost, not a benefit.
Is this what a financial advisor does?: Sometimes. German advice comes in two economic models: commission-based, where the advice feels free and the products pay the distribution, and fee-based, where you pay directly. Knowing which model sits across the table tells you whose incentives shape the recommendation. The one-page picture and the simulated decision are, either way, worth bringing to the meeting rather than hoping to receive them there.

Miravel is the financial check-up for normal households: the whole picture, the decades-long projection, and the rhythm of checking back every few months. Your data stays in your browser. Start free now.