Family offices pursuing real estate as a core portfolio strategy typically choose among three main approaches: buying stabilized assets, funding ground-up development, or providing credit to property operators, according to an editorial published by Realberry that draws on a recent webinar with the firm's CFO and vice president of tax and equity.

Development projects are most often executed through direct partnerships with sponsors. REITs rarely pursue ground-up construction, and private equity funds cap their development exposure, leaving many family offices to structure bespoke joint ventures and club deals that offer higher control and tailored risk-return profiles, the piece explains.

Family offices tend to underwrite opportunities based on equity multiple and cash-on-cash yield rather than internal rate of return, Realberry notes. The approach reflects longer holding periods and a strong preference for current income over mark-to-market gains.

Governance, tax planning, and intergenerational objectives shape decisions to acquire stabilized assets, fund developments, or provide credit to real estate operators, the editorial states. Families weigh those structural considerations alongside return metrics when selecting which route to pursue.

The choice between the three strategies turns on risk tolerance and the family's operational capacity. Direct ownership of stabilized properties demands asset management and hands-on oversight. Development partnerships require sponsor diligence and construction-risk underwriting. Credit positions carry different exposure to market cycles and borrower performance.

The editorial does not cite specific transaction volumes or dollar allocations. It focuses instead on the strategic framework families use to evaluate property investments and the structural reasons direct partnerships have become more common for development deals.