TL;DR: UOB Private Bank has publicly argued that performance fees on alternative investments are a natural evolution for private banks, not a conflict of interest. As family offices in Asia deepen their allocations to private markets — with some Singapore-based single-family offices now committing 30–40% of investable assets to alternatives — the fee debate has direct governance implications for how principals structure mandates with their banking partners.

Key Takeaways

• UOB Private Bank has stated it is "only logical" for private banks to charge performance fees on alternative investment products, signalling a broader industry shift in fee architecture.
• Family offices allocating above 20% to alternatives should review mandate structures to ensure performance fee arrangements are transparent and aligned with net-of-fee return targets.
• Singapore's Variable Capital Company (VCC) framework is increasingly used by family offices to house alternative sleeves, making fee governance a regulatory as well as fiduciary matter.
• The move toward performance fees mirrors long-standing practice in institutional asset management and reflects the growing complexity of private bank alternative offerings.
• Principals should seek independent advice when evaluating whether performance fee structures at private banks genuinely align incentives or simply add a layer of cost.

Why Is UOB Private Bank Raising the Performance Fee Question Now?

UOB Private Bank's public position — that charging performance fees on alternative investments is "only logical" — arrives at a moment when the alternatives market in Asia is expanding at a pace that is reshaping private bank business models. Regional private banks have historically relied on retrocession-based revenue from fund distribution, but as family office clients grow more sophisticated and demand direct access to private equity, private credit, real assets, and hedge funds, the economics of that model are under pressure. Performance fees offer private banks a way to participate in the upside they help generate, rather than collecting flat distribution margins regardless of outcome.

The timing is also shaped by regulatory momentum. Singapore's Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has tightened rules around retrocessions and fee disclosure under the Financial Advisers Act amendments, nudging private banks toward fee models that are easier to justify to clients. A performance fee, properly structured with a high-water mark and a clearly defined benchmark, is in many respects more transparent than an embedded retrocession that clients rarely see itemised. UOB's framing of the shift as "logical" is a deliberate recast of what critics might otherwise read as a revenue grab.

What Does the Data Say About Family Office Alternatives Allocation?

The context for this debate is a material shift in how Asian family offices are deploying capital. According to data cited across multiple 2024 and 2025 industry surveys, single-family offices in Singapore and Hong Kong are now allocating between 25% and 45% of investable assets to alternatives, with private equity and private credit accounting for the largest share of that increase. For a family office managing SGD 500 million, that translates to SGD 125–225 million sitting in illiquid or semi-liquid structures — a meaningful pool on which performance fees could compound significantly over time.

Hong Kong-domiciled family offices operating under the Hong Kong Monetary Authority's (HKMA) family office incentive framework have similarly increased their alternatives exposure, partly because the city's open-ended fund company (OFC) structure, like Singapore's VCC, provides a tax-efficient wrapper for holding private market assets. When performance fees are layered on top of management fees already charged at the fund level, the total expense ratio for an alternatives sleeve can reach 3–4% annually in a strong vintage year — a figure that demands rigorous scrutiny at the mandate level.

How Should Principals Evaluate Performance Fee Arrangements?

For family office principals, the critical question is not whether performance fees are legitimate in principle — they are, and UOB is correct that they align incentives in a way that flat fees do not — but whether the specific terms being offered are fair and well-structured. A performance fee without a high-water mark is a red flag. A performance fee benchmarked against an index that is easy to outperform in a rising market tells you little about genuine alpha generation. Principals should insist on hurdle rates that reflect the illiquidity premium they are forgoing, typically in the range of 6–8% for private equity and 5–7% for private credit.

Governance frameworks within family offices should also be updated to reflect the new fee environment. Investment policy statements (IPS) that were written when private bank mandates were predominantly fee-based on AUM will need to be revisited to include provisions for performance fee approval, reporting cadence, and clawback mechanisms. The VCC structure in Singapore, which allows for segregated sub-funds, offers a practical vehicle for ring-fencing alternative allocations and applying distinct fee terms to each sleeve — a structure that several multi-family offices in Singapore are already using to manage exactly this complexity.

Is This a Broader Industry Shift or a UOB-Specific Position?

UOB Private Bank is unlikely to be alone in this direction. DBS Private Bank, Julius Baer, and several Swiss private banks with significant Singapore and Hong Kong books have all expanded their alternatives platforms over the past three years, and the economics of running those platforms — sourcing deals, conducting due diligence, managing co-investment pipelines — are not sustainable on distribution fees alone. Performance fees allow private banks to build dedicated alternatives teams whose compensation is tied to client outcomes, which in theory produces better alignment than a relationship manager incentivised purely on AUM growth.

The risk, as several independent family office advisers have noted privately, is that performance fee structures can create pressure to take on more risk than a family office's investment policy warrants, particularly in a competitive vintage year when private banks are keen to demonstrate their alternatives capabilities. Principals who sit on investment committees should ensure that risk parameters are set independently of fee incentives, and that any performance fee arrangement is reviewed by an adviser with no financial interest in the outcome.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a performance fee in the context of private bank alternatives mandates?

A performance fee is a charge levied by a private bank or investment manager on the profits generated above a defined benchmark or hurdle rate. In the context of alternatives mandates — covering private equity, private credit, hedge funds, or real assets — it is typically structured as a percentage of gains (commonly 10–20%) above a pre-agreed threshold, often combined with a high-water mark to ensure clients are not charged fees on recovered losses.

How does Singapore's VCC structure affect performance fee governance?

Singapore's Variable Capital Company (VCC) framework allows family offices to establish umbrella structures with segregated sub-funds, each of which can carry distinct fee arrangements. This means a family office can house its private equity allocation in one sub-fund with a performance fee structure and its private credit allocation in another with different terms, providing granular fee transparency and governance. MAS requires VCC managers to be licensed or exempt, adding a regulatory layer of oversight to fee practices.

Are performance fees at private banks the same as those charged by fund managers?

Not necessarily. Fund-level performance fees are charged by the underlying manager of a private equity or hedge fund and are embedded in the fund's terms. Private bank performance fees are an additional layer charged at the advisory or mandate level for the bank's role in sourcing, structuring, or managing access to those investments. Principals should map out all fee layers — fund management fee, fund performance fee, private bank advisory fee, and private bank performance fee — to calculate the true total cost of an alternatives allocation.

What governance steps should family offices take before agreeing to performance fee mandates?

Principals should ensure the investment policy statement explicitly addresses performance fee approval thresholds, require independent legal or advisory review of any performance fee terms, insist on high-water marks and clearly defined benchmarks, and establish a reporting cadence that allows the investment committee to monitor fee accruals in real time. For family offices using a VCC or OFC structure, fee terms should be documented at the sub-fund level and reviewed annually alongside the overall alternatives allocation review.

🍾 Evaluating whisky casks as an alternative allocation? Whisky Cask Club works with family offices across APAC on structured cask portfolios.