Members
One asset, three descriptions
Briefings are assembled by different people, each with its own basis and timestamp.
- Versions misaligned
- Costly to reconcile
Sector · Family office & wealth management
When internal reporting exists in three versions, the family loses one set of facts
A family office owes members, investors and external advisers the same asset picture, across structures that often include offshore entities and more than one unit of account. The problem is tiered disclosure on a consistent basis, not merging accounts into one grand total. We build on the family office, wealth management and investor relations systems, pinning holdings, valuation and disclosure versions.
Context and source of the rules
Definitions come from governance documents and disclosure terms
A market GP takes its field definitions from valuation policy and the LP pack. A family office adds a layer: governance documents and disclosure arrangements. Which assets every member may see, which sit inside the decision core, and which information is released annually versus on an event — those are governance decisions, not software decisions.
Two structural facts usually follow. Holdings arrive through direct stakes, fund interests, real property and trust arrangements, not always priced in the same unit. And one asset picture must be rendered at different granularities for members, advisers and investors. So the core requirement is not aggregation; it is one source behind tiered disclosure.
For clarity: succession and governance decisions belong to the client. We deliver software and data governance, not licensed investment advice, fundraising or family governance advisory.
Disclosure versions
One date, one final figure
The typical family-office failure is not a wrong calculation but three defensible ones: members get a summary, advisers get line detail, investors receive a third basis. Each is internally consistent; none explains the others.
We treat a disclosure as an object. Every outward issue records the data as-of date, the definition version and the audience scope, and reports render from that version instead of being assembled on request. For cross-border structures — a USD fund interest, for example — unit of account and entity layering are fixed in the data dictionary, so one asset is not read two ways in two views.
- Each disclosure binds an as-of date and basis version
- Visibility tiered by member, adviser and investor
- Cross-border structures modelled by entity layer and unit
- Issued documents traceable and revocable
Live pressure
Four moments expose the inconsistency
Divergence stays hidden day to day and surfaces together at these four moments.
Periodic reporting
Reports built at period end
Data is gathered in the run-up to the annual pack, so valuation and holdings straddle periods.
- Last-minute capture
- Period basis drifts
Confidentiality
Blurred field boundaries
Who may see position size rests on file permissions rather than field-level control.
- Over-exposure risk
- Untraceable onward sharing
Structure changes
Frequent restructurings
Fund interest transfers, property entries and trust amendments lack a continuous record.
- History not reconstructable
- No change trail
The first value of a family office platform is not a complete view of assets. It is that everyone sees the same timestamped, version-controlled statement of them.Delivery methodology · disclosure object
Order of remediation
Fix visibility before you fix holdings
The common inversion is to aggregate first and add permissions later. By then informal disclosure habits are already set, and they are hard to take back.
01 · scope
Define disclosure tiers
Set what members, advisers and investors may see, how often, and record it in the dictionary.
- Role matrix
- Field visibility
- Disclosure calendar
02 · objects
Model holdings once
Direct stakes, fund interests, property and trust arrangements share one asset key with their own attributes.
- Single master data
- Typed attributes
- Change history
03 · basis
Version valuation and units
Method, cadence and unit of account for cross-border holdings are defined and versioned separately.
- Policy mapping
- Unit of account
- Consistent periods
04 · relations
Run investor relations
Investor relations and the LP portal carry enquiries and distribution, isolated by entity.
- LP portal
- Enquiry trail
- Per-entity visibility
05 · issue
Finalise and encrypt
Statements generate as objects and leave through the encrypted document service, traceable and revocable.
- Locked basis version
- Encrypted delivery
- Access trail
Capability map: disclosure question to system object
System names follow the published catalogue. Governance and succession decisions sit with the client; this table describes only the objects and permissions software holds.
| What comes up | System object | Business system | Constraint source |
|---|---|---|---|
| What does the family hold at this date, and at what value | Holdings ledger and valuation records | Family office investment management system | Valuation policy and disclosure terms |
| What may each member, adviser or investor see | Function, data and field-level permissions | Investor relations management system | Family governance documents |
| Managing fund interests beside direct stakes in one table | Unified asset master with typed attributes | Wealth management system | Holding structure and transfer terms |
| Recording property and trust entries and exits | Asset change events with effective dates | Real-estate fund management system | Title and registration basis |
| Reporting on real-estate fund interests | Fund interest ledger and report templates | Real-estate trust fund system | Disclosure cadence and basis version |
| Delivering an outward statement with proof | Disclosure object and encrypted document | Encrypted LP report service / LP portal | Confidentiality terms and audience scope |
Integration and security elements
Frequent in-scope items. Cross-border obligations remain a matter for your own counsel.
LP portalGP portal integrationDingTalk / Lark / WeCom / WeChatAES-256 at restTLS 1.3 in transitField-level permissionsDesktop behaviour monitoringFinancial-report OCRPrivate deploymentAir-gapped intranetRisk-model assessment
10+
Years in financial software delivery
500+
Institutions served to date
100+
Registered software copyrights
7×24
Emergency response, issue located within an hour
Substantiable basis and boundaries
Evidence for this sector is the published system catalogue plus security and service capability. We do not quote ranking figures here as proof of family-office client scale.
| Item | Basis | Qualifier |
|---|---|---|
| Product basis | Family office, wealth management and investor relations systems | Published system catalogue; not a licensed financial product |
| Secure disclosure | Encrypted LP report and document service | A distribution service, not a fundraising or advisory activity |
| Security | AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.3 in transit, three permission levels | Per deployment form and contract terms |
| Service | 24/7 response, one-hour diagnosis, one year free after acceptance | Contract terms |
| Scale | 14,000+ funds / RMB 5.6 tn+ covered | Cumulative coverage, not assets we manage |
| Certification | CMMI Level 3, ISO 9001, high-tech enterprise, Xinchuang ready | Scope per certificate |
When we advise against buying
With one asset class, fewer than ten members and a single internal roll-up a year, a controlled shared ledger plus external review is cheaper; a platform would mostly add maintenance. We also step back when the real request is governance mediation, succession design or investment recommendations — those belong to licensed or specialist advisers. Our scope is software and data governance.
Questions at the shortlist stage
Mechanism answers; governance and tax positions stay with your own advisers.
Can different family members see different content in the same statement?
Yes, and it should be controlled at field level rather than by issuing different files. We define visibility in three layers: function (which module a role opens), data (which asset objects a role reads) and field (which columns inside one object, such as valuation detail versus total). One disclosure object then renders differently per role while keeping a single source — which is what prevents three defensible versions.
How do offshore structures and different units of account appear in one table?
Settle two things first: the reporting unit and the conversion basis. The asset object keeps its original unit and a displayed value converted on the agreed basis, stored side by side rather than overwritten, with the basis and its effective period in the data dictionary. The adjacent substantiable capability is USD-fund cross-border support in the in-deal stage, which handles entity layering, field visibility and trails. Tax and currency-control obligations are not software conclusions.
How are LP reports and member statements distributed securely, and can a release be withdrawn?
A statement locks its data version and audience when generated, then leaves through the encrypted LP report and document service; the portal isolates content per entity and records access. Revocation acts on the distribution record — closing onward access — without rewriting the finalised data version. Immutable history is a shared precondition for audit and for internal family traceability.
How does the system support succession-related restructuring?
By turning changes into dated events: who held which interest in which object at which date, under which document. Transfers, additions and structural amendments record as an event sequence, so any past state can be replayed. The succession decision and the governance arrangement themselves remain the client’s; we do not provide that advisory service.
Who decides how often valuations update?
Your valuation policy, not a system default. Public positions can refresh from the capture chain on a schedule; fund interests and property typically update per period, with inputs and assumptions confirmed by a named owner. We version the basis for three object classes separately rather than stretch one rule across every asset.
We hold two funds and a handful of direct stakes. Do we need a platform?
Usually not. The test is disclosure friction: if annual reporting is one internal note and three or five people are involved, a shared ledger with manual review costs less. A platform earns its upkeep once audiences split by role, a cross-border entity enters the structure, or historical states are repeatedly called into question.
Next step
Run one disclosure tiering exercise
Bring the last outward statement and one internal ledger to a 45-minute session. We check whether audience, unit of account and as-of date share one source, and propose the permission model to version.