Research into practice. Judgment into stewardship.
A disciplined reading path for families who govern capital. Each attributed research edition sits beside an original practical companion, with a separate passage agent for each work.
Family-office research is complemented by relevant studies of family businesses, capital markets, property and financial decisions. Each article states the setting actually studied. An application to a family office is an editorial inference, not a claim that every original study sampled family offices.
This AI-assisted analysis uses a Chinese household finance paper to demonstrate how source-quality checks change practical conclusions. A regional lottery-sales proxy is not an individual risk diagnosis, and internal reporting tensions prevent unqualified reuse of some claims. The proposed exposure review focuses on actual assets, contracts and decision records.
A European survey and hypothetical renewable-energy choice experiment links collective environmental motivation with lower money discounting and policy acceptance. This AI-assisted companion proposes separate records for financial underwriting, environmental objectives and stakeholder participation. It does not convert a survey-derived discount rate into an investment hurdle rate.
Adjacent evidence for family-office oversight and financial decisions; no directly studied family-office sample. Deadline discipline: separating risk framing from the time available to decide
AI-assisted editorial analysis. The source compares risky monetary choices presented as stated probabilities with choices learned through sampling. In the description experiment, time pressure interacted with whether outcomes were gains or losses: participants took fewer risky loss choices under pressure, while the increase for gain choices was a nonsignificant trend. The experience experiment found no overall time-pressure effect on risk taking, although some interactions occurred at particular probabilities and payoff levels. It did find less information sampling under pressure. A family office should therefore avoid the simple slogan that rushed people always take more risk or always become conservative.
Crystal Reeck; O’Dhaniel A. Mullette-Gillman; R. Edward McLaurin; Scott A. Huettel
PLOS ONE · 2022-12-16
Adjacent evidence for family-office oversight and financial decisions; no directly studied family-office sample. Risk conversations across domains without turning personality into a portfolio rule
AI-assisted editorial analysis. The source examines 304 adults recruited from the Duke University and Durham community. Participants completed a forty-item DOSPERT risk questionnaire and a task involving choices between certain payments and probabilistic gains. The analysis found that a domain-general component of questionnaire responses predicted measured financial risk premiums more strongly than the investing-specific component. This is useful evidence that a conversation limited to investment vocabulary may miss relevant attitudes. It does not show that recreational behavior determines a suitable asset allocation or that a general score measures a family’s financial capacity to lose money.
Ibrahim Filiz; Jan René Judek; Marco Lorenz; Markus Spiwoks
PLOS ONE · 2023-02-21
Adjacent evidence for family-office oversight and financial decisions; no directly studied family-office sample. Warranted reliance on algorithms: make performance and consequences visible
AI-assisted editorial analysis. The source reports an experiment with 143 students at a German university. Participants chose between a human expert and an algorithm in one of six framed service scenarios. The algorithm was assigned a seventy percent success probability and the human expert sixty percent, with the same monetary incentive across scenarios. Participants were less likely to select the algorithm in scenarios perceived as more serious. This provides a useful question for family-office technology governance: does the perceived gravity of a task alter willingness to use a tool even when its performance information is held constant?
Alin Marius Andries; Daniela Balutel; Iulian Ihnatov; Silviu Gabriel Ursu
PLOS ONE · 2020-02-04
Adjacent evidence for family-office oversight and financial decisions; no directly studied family-office sample. Governance is not a target score: connect oversight to the risks an enterprise can carry
AI-assisted editorial analysis. The source studies large nonfinancial listed companies across ten countries using data from 2004 through 2009. It reports an inverted-U relationship between a composite corporate governance index and a measure of investment risk, followed by positive associations between instrumented risk and growth in sales or assets. The reported turning point of approximately 0.61 belongs to that index, sample and model. It is not a recommended governance score for a family office, and it is not evidence that reducing safeguards will increase returns. The paper is most useful as a prompt to examine how oversight shapes both protection and decision capacity.
A proposed family-office credit review separates repayment capacity from board reputation, translates the source variables carefully and tests conflicts between controlling owners and creditors.
Adjacent evidence for AI oversight: university-associated participants predicting educational performance, not family offices, investment professionals or portfolio decisions.
A proposed governance protocol for measuring whether human review improves an automated workflow. Drawing on an experiment in educational performance prediction, it separates adoption, confidence, correction activity and decision quality. The source did not study family offices or investment performance.
This expansion has added 208 works toward the requested 4,000: 2,000 source editions and 2,000 practical companions. The 104 works already in the journal are excluded from that target.
5.2% of the requested expansion published.
Article-specific license, metadata and source checks are recorded separately from human peer review. New practical companions are AI-assisted editorial analyses; no independent human peer-review acceptance is asserted. Recorded independent human acceptance for the new companions: 0. Source authors, original journals, publication dates and existing DOIs remain unchanged.
1,778 further metadata-screened leads are retained for investigation. Potential sources only. Publisher/version rights, full text, quality, retraction and related-version checks remain to be completed. They do not count as published articles or agents.
Checked DOI, source-version DOI and normalized title in available repository catalogs. Live submissions and all earlier review queues were not fully available; platform-wide novelty is not claimed.