Ultra-high-net-worth families are pouring money into estate security technology but leaving critical gaps in governance, training, and coordination that expose them to rising threats, including AI-driven attacks, according to new research from risk management firm Presage Global and household management platform Nines.
The survey, conducted among more than 100 estate managers, family office executives, chiefs of staff, and residential security professionals, covers families ranging from under $50 million to above $10 billion in net worth. It reveals that family resistance is the top barrier to better security, cited by 49% of respondents, far ahead of cost at 28%. Among households that have improved security, 60% did so only after experiencing an incident at their own property; just 19% acted based on regular risk assessments.
“The primary obstacle to effective estate security does not appear to be budget, technology, or the threat landscape,” said Edward V. Marshall, founder and CEO of Presage Global. “In most cases, the resources and tools already exist. A significant and consistent constraint is governance, formalization, and integration.”
Wealth amplifies risk. Families with a net worth above $1 billion reported a 51% financial-loss incident rate, compared with 32% for those below $100 million. The wealthiest tier also showed the widest gap between how rigorously they protect their businesses versus their homes: 44% of $1 billion-plus families said their business security arrangements are significantly more rigorous than their residential equivalents. This disconnect mirrors broader challenges in wealth transfer success, where trust and governance often lag behind asset logistics.
Fragmented security coordination is closely tied to financial loss. Households operating with disjointed teams, separate vendors, and ad hoc arrangements reported a 62% incident rate, versus 25% for those with fully integrated security operations. All of the $1 million-plus losses in the survey came from fragmented households. Despite this, 88% of estates manage security in silos.
Training remains a critical weak point. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they have received no formal annual security training, and only 4% consider current training levels adequate. House managers and estate managers—roles with the most direct daily access to families—reported the highest rates of zero formal training, at 73% and 69% respectively. This gap persists even though 65% of respondents named AI-powered attacks as a top emerging threat. Only 7% of respondents provide formal cybersecurity training to family members.
The insider threat picture is similarly concerning. Three in four respondents said they never refresh background checks after the initial hire, and 52% do not require non-disclosure agreements for non-family members with property access. Checking only some staff is nearly as risky as checking none: households that screen all staff report a 27% incident rate, compared with 50% for those that check only some.
“Families are reactive when it comes to their security just like they are with every other aspect of their homes and lifestyle,” said Jacco de Bruijn, co-founder and CEO of Nines. “They have the resources, but don't prioritize structure and governance because ‘these are just our homes’ or ‘we're private people, that won't happen to us.’”
The report’s authors argue that the fix is less expensive than most families assume. Households with centralized documentation, access management, and controlled permissions reported that 92% would face minimal disruption if a key staff member departed, compared with just 35% for those with none of those building blocks in place. The families with the lowest incident rates were not the biggest spenders but those that had moved from reacting to incidents to anticipating them. Advisors working with UHNW clients may find parallels in estate planning as a retention tool, where proactive governance can strengthen client relationships.
