Wealth Structuring Across Generations:
Governance, Continuity and Coordination

The transfer of wealth from one generation to the next is often approached primarily as a matter of succession: identifying the heirs, establishing their rights and putting in place the appropriate legal arrangements to ensure that assets are transferred in accordance with the owner's wishes.

For families with complex wealth structures, however, this represents only one part of a broader challenge.

Family wealth may encompass interests in operating businesses, holding companies, real estate, investment portfolios held across multiple banks, private market investments, insurance policies, cash holdings, loans, works of art and assets located in different jurisdictions.

Each of these components presents distinct considerations in terms of ownership, liquidity, financial returns, transferability and control.

Preparing for a generational wealth transfer therefore requires looking beyond the question of "who will inherit?" and addressing a range of other, often more complex considerations.

The estate represents a snapshot of the family's assets at the time the succession opens. Wealth planning and structuring, by contrast, concern the work undertaken before that moment, which largely determines how coherent, manageable and sustainable the overall wealth structure will remain over time.

Wealth Mapping

Every wealth planning process should begin with a comprehensive understanding of the family's assets.

The overall value of a family's wealth, considered in isolation, reveals relatively little. Two estates valued at 20 million may have fundamentally different characteristics: one may consist primarily of liquid financial instruments, while the other may be concentrated in a family business, real estate and unlisted shareholdings.

For each asset, it is therefore important to establish who holds ownership, through which company or legal structure it is held, where it is located, its economic value, the income or cash flow it generates, its degree of liquidity, any associated liabilities or guarantees, and who exercises decision-making authority. Consideration must also be given to contractual, corporate or regulatory restrictions that may affect its transfer, alongside numerous other factors depending on the nature of the asset and the overall wealth structure.

This assessment helps distinguish the nominal value of a family's wealth from its practical capacity to be transferred and subsequently administered.

The planning process therefore begins with a seemingly straightforward question: how is the family's wealth actually structured?

Ownership, Allocation and Liquidity: Three Dimensions of Wealth Structuring

A generational wealth transfer involves numerous considerations. Among these, three deserve particular attention: the control of strategic assets, the allocation of wealth among heirs, and the availability of liquidity both during and after the transition.

One of the more delicate aspects of succession planning is recognising that economic fairness does not necessarily require an identical division of assets.

The family strategic business, assets that are difficult to divide, and liquidity needs offer practical illustrations of these three challenges, demonstrating why the transfer of legal ownership alone may not be sufficient to preserve the continuity of family wealth.

Consider a family with three children whose wealth comprises an operating business, several properties and an investment portfolio. One child has been actively involved in the business for many years and is the natural successor to its management, while the other two have pursued different professional paths.

Allocating one-third of the company's shares to each child may appear to be the simplest and fairest arrangement. From an economic perspective, however, it could result in an ownership structure that is particularly difficult to govern.

Three shareholders with different financial needs, investment horizons and degrees of involvement may hold conflicting views on the allocation of profits, dividend distributions, future investments, borrowing or the eventual sale of the business.

Equal ownership does not necessarily translate into balanced governance.

An alternative arrangement might grant a larger shareholding, or controlling interest, to the family member directly involved in managing the business, while balancing the economic interests of the other heirs through real estate, financial investments, liquidity or other assets.

A company, after all, cannot be assessed solely on the basis of its asset value. It has employees, clients, suppliers, lenders, directors, ongoing investments and a fundamental need for continuity in decision-making.

Poorly structured succession arrangements may therefore have consequences extending well beyond the family itself.

In the context of a family business, at least four dimensions should be considered before ownership is transferred.

The first is leadership: who will be capable of effectively managing the business?

The second is ownership: who will hold the share capital, and in what proportions?

The third is control: which decisions will require ordinary or qualified majorities, or the consent of specific shareholders?

The fourth concerns the economic relationship with non-operating family members: what financial rights will they hold, and to what extent will they depend on distributions from the company?

These considerations are closely interconnected.

For instance, heirs who receive shares in the family business without taking an active role in its operations may understandably favour higher dividend distributions. The family member responsible for managing the company, by contrast, may prefer to reinvest profits to support future growth.

Both positions may be entirely rational from an economic perspective. Difficulties arise when these potentially conflicting interests have not been anticipated.

Depending on the circumstances, shareholders' agreements, provisions in the articles of association, different classes of shares, pre-emption rights, family holding structures and rules governing the composition of corporate bodies may help establish a clearer relationship between ownership and governance before the shareholding structure becomes fragmented.

The reform of Swiss inheritance law, which entered into force on 1 January 2023, also introduced greater freedom in the disposition of assets by reducing the statutory reserved share of descendants and abolishing that of parents.

The Swiss Federal Council has highlighted that this additional flexibility may also facilitate succession planning for family businesses.

Similar challenges may arise with assets that are less strategically significant but inherently difficult to divide.

These may include a particularly valuable property, an art collection, an unlisted shareholding, agricultural land, an illiquid investment or an asset of considerable sentimental importance to the family.

Dividing legal ownership may be relatively straightforward. Managing the consequences of shared ownership can be considerably more complex.

If four heirs jointly inherit a property, for example, they will eventually need to determine whether it should be retained, who may use it, how maintenance and operating costs will be covered, whether it should generate rental income, when further investments should be undertaken, and under what conditions one heir might acquire the interests of the others. They must also consider what happens if some wish to sell while others prefer to retain the property.

The succession may have successfully transferred ownership without necessarily resolving the challenges associated with its governance.

Fragmentation of legal ownership can create a degree of fragmentation in decision-making that is far more consequential than the economic value being distributed.

For this reason, certain wealth structures may benefit from preserving the integrity of individual assets while seeking an appropriate balance among heirs across the estate as a whole.

This makes realistic and regularly updated valuations particularly important, allowing the planning process to establish a considered balance between economic value, liquidity, risk, control and future prospects.

Liquidity introduces another essential distinction: the difference between the value of an asset and its actual financial capacity.

A family may hold substantial assets while having relatively limited liquidity immediately available.

This becomes particularly relevant when wealth is concentrated in operating businesses, real estate or private investments.

A generational transfer may give rise to a range of financial requirements, including professional fees, outstanding liabilities, potential tax obligations, asset maintenance, financing needs within portfolio companies, distributions to heirs or payments intended to balance different allocations of wealth.

Unless these requirements are anticipated, a family may find itself compelled to dispose of an asset under unfavourable economic conditions.

An effective planning process should therefore examine a number of scenarios:

- How much liquidity would be immediately available?

- How much might be required over the following twelve, twenty-four or thirty-six months?

- Which assets could be liquidated without compromising the integrity of the overall wealth structure?

- Which assets should be preserved, even in the presence of significant financial requirements?

The objective is not to maintain an unnecessarily high proportion of wealth in cash, but to ensure that a foreseeable event does not turn a planning challenge into a forced disposal of assets.

Preserving Operational and Decision-Making Continuity

One of the less visible risks within a complex family wealth structure arises when its functioning depends heavily on a single individual.

In many families, the founder is not simply the owner of the wealth, but also the central point of reference for information and decision-making.

They maintain personal relationships with bankers, asset managers, company directors, lawyers and tax advisers. They understand the origins of investments, the rationale behind particular shareholdings and the informal arrangements established over time.

As long as that individual retains full decision-making capacity, the structure may function effectively. The challenge emerges when they are no longer able to fulfil that role.

Preserving continuity therefore requires a gradual transition from knowledge held by an individual to an institutionalised framework that is accessible, documented and capable of functioning independently.

This may involve formalising investment principles, signing authorities and delegated powers, banking relationships, approval procedures, liquidity distribution policies, responsibilities within corporate bodies and relationships with advisers and asset managers.

Equally important is ensuring that wealth-related documentation is properly organised and that appropriate arrangements exist for the replacement of key individuals when necessary.

A well-organised wealth structure should remain operational even when the individual who previously served as its principal point of reference is no longer in that position.

As successive generations become involved, the number of individuals with an interest in the family wealth generally increases. This inevitably changes the nature of its governance.

The first generation may consist of a single individual responsible for virtually every decision. The next may comprise three siblings, while the following generation could include nine or ten family members with different professions, countries of residence, personal circumstances and objectives.

The challenge extends beyond the increase in numbers.

Risk appetite, individual financial circumstances, involvement in the family business, investment preferences and expectations regarding distributions may also vary significantly.

A structure that operated effectively under a single owner may therefore become unsuitable when ownership is shared among several family members.

The purpose of family governance is precisely to anticipate this evolution: to establish how future decisions will be made before those decisions must be taken in circumstances of disagreement or conflict.

The essential objective is to create a framework in which responsibilities, expectations and decision-making processes are sufficiently clear before significant differences of opinion arise.

Structures, Instruments and Jurisdictions

Effective wealth planning should not begin with the selection of a particular legal or financial instrument.

Holding companies, shareholders' agreements, wills, inheritance agreements, gifts, insurance policies, foundations and trusts may all serve valuable purposes in different circumstances.

None of these instruments, however, constitutes a strategy in its own right. Their suitability depends on the family's objectives, the composition of its wealth and the jurisdictions involved.

A trust, for example, may provide an appropriate framework where it is necessary to structure the relationship between ownership, administration and economic benefits over time. Similarly, a holding company may be used to consolidate shareholdings and establish clearer arrangements governing certain corporate rights.

The choice of instrument should follow from the overall wealth planning strategy, rather than define it.

Complexity increases further when family members and assets are distributed across multiple jurisdictions.

The wealth owner may reside in Switzerland, one child in the United Kingdom and another in the United States, while the family holds property in Italy, interests in companies established in different countries and investment portfolios with international banks.

In such circumstances, there may be no single jurisdiction governing every relevant aspect of the wealth structure.

An arrangement that operates effectively in the owner's country of residence may receive different legal or tax treatment in the country where one of the beneficiaries resides.

For international families, planning must therefore consider the wealth structure from all relevant legal and tax perspectives, rather than solely from that of the current owner.

The Swiss framework governing international succession has also undergone significant changes following the entry into force, on 1 January 2025, of the revised Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA).

The revised provisions are intended, in particular, to reduce conflicts of jurisdiction between Swiss and foreign authorities, thereby enhancing legal certainty in succession matters with international elements.

Among other matters, the reform addresses the jurisdiction of competent authorities, the choice of forum and the recognition in Switzerland of foreign succession decisions, measures and documents.

For families whose wealth extends across several countries, these developments further reinforce the importance of coordinating succession arrangements with the legal frameworks applicable in each relevant jurisdiction.

The residence of the wealth owner and beneficiaries, the location of real estate and the existence of shareholdings in foreign companies may all influence the jurisdiction of the competent authorities and the recognition of succession documents.

Planning must therefore consider not only which law governs the succession, but also how the arrangements established will be recognised and implemented across the jurisdictions concerned.

The Importance of a Coordinated Approach

Complex family wealth can rarely be organised effectively through a single area of professional expertise.

Lawyers address legal matters. Tax advisers assess fiscal implications. Notaries become involved where the formal requirements of a transaction demand their intervention. Banks act as custodians of financial assets. Asset managers make investment decisions within the scope of their mandates. Trustees administer assets held in trust, while company directors oversee the management of businesses.

The risk does not necessarily arise from a lack of professional expertise.

It may instead result from insufficient coordination between professionals who are individually highly competent.

A corporate decision may affect succession arrangements. A gift may alter the economic balance among heirs. A change of residence may give rise to different tax consequences. Adjustments to governance may influence access to liquidity. The disposal of an asset may disrupt the balance originally envisaged between beneficiaries.

For this reason, complex wealth structures benefit from the presence of a professional capable of maintaining a comprehensive perspective, without replacing the individual specialists involved.

An independent wealth adviser or Family Office can fulfil precisely this coordinating role.

Its involvement may begin with the mapping and ongoing monitoring of the family's overall wealth structure, encompassing banking relationships, corporate interests, real estate, investments, legal arrangements, professional advisers and principal financial flows.

On this basis, it can help coordinate banks, asset managers, lawyers, tax advisers, trustees, company directors and other relevant parties, while monitoring whether decisions taken across different areas remain consistent with the family's broader objectives and its generational succession strategy.

The intention is not to replace legal or tax advisers, asset managers or banks, nor to assume responsibilities that properly belong to them. Rather, it is to ensure that the family's wealth, its members and the professionals involved remain connected within a coherent decision-making framework.

This coordination becomes particularly valuable when decisions made in one area have implications for another.

The role of an independent coordinating adviser is therefore to preserve continuity of information, oversight and decision-making over time.

In the context of a generational wealth transfer, this function can be especially significant. It enables the next generation to inherit not merely a collection of assets, but a wealth structure that has already been documented, monitored and coordinated.

Conclusions

One final consideration deserves particular attention: generational wealth planning should not seek to preserve indefinitely the precise structure in which the founder originally accumulated and organised the family's wealth.

The next generation will inevitably face different circumstances and may have different priorities.

Wealth planning should therefore avoid creating a structure that is perfectly suited to today's circumstances but incapable of adapting to those of tomorrow.

An effective framework must provide sufficient stability to preserve continuity, while retaining the flexibility required to evolve alongside the family and its wealth.

The success of a generational wealth transfer cannot be measured solely by whether assets have been correctly transferred to the intended heirs.

The more meaningful question is what happens on the day after the transfer.

Addressing that question requires not only appropriate legal and wealth planning, but also ongoing coordination among the professionals involved, so that decisions taken across different areas remain aligned with the family's overall objectives.

For more complex wealth structures, it becomes particularly important to have a structure capable of maintaining a comprehensive perspective and bringing together the different areas of expertise, without replacing the individual professionals responsible for them.

Preparing wealth for the next generation ultimately means addressing these considerations before they become urgent, establishing a framework that can evolve alongside the family and its assets, while preserving continuity as individuals, circumstances and responsibilities change.

Sources:

• Swiss Confederation (SECO) — Family Succession;

• Swiss Federal Council — Revision of Swiss Inheritance Law, Effective 1 January 2023;

• BDO Switzerland (2024) — New Rules for International Matters of Succession;

• PwC (2026) — Succession as Strategy: How Family Businesses Can Harness Succession as a Driver of Continuity and Growth;

• Deloitte — Preparing for the Loss of an Owner: Estate Planning and Legacy Assessments for Family Business;

• Deloitte (2026) — Family Business Succession Planning and the Next Generation;

• UBS (2026) — Global Family Office Report 2026;

• IMD & Family Business Network (2025) — The Global Family Office Report: The Evolving Identities of Family Offices – A Family-First Lens;

• Deloitte (2024) — Defining the Family Office Landscape.