The Mack Podcast: Hunter Guice on Building a Family Office Direct Investment Program
When it comes to compensation, start with the “why,” not “how much.”
"Define the goal behind building a direct program before touching compensation numbers.” - Hunter Guice, Partner
Hunter Guice, partner at Botoff Consulting, joined The Mack Podcast alongside two family office M&A attorneys to discuss how families structure compensation for direct investment teams — and where these programs tend to go wrong. Drawing on nearly 20 years of compensation consulting experience, Hunter offered a grounded, hands-on perspective of a space that is still evolving.
Key points from the conversation:
Start with intent, not numbers. Before designing any comp plan, Hunter emphasizes understanding why a family is building a direct program in the first place — that clarity is what creates real alignment down the line.
Carried interest remains the preferred choice. While other incentive structures can approximate the same economics, carried interest (carry) as compensation continues to make it the vehicle top investment talent expects.
Vintage-based structuring is the emerging norm. Rather than carry on individual deals, most families are pooling multi-year deployment periods into vintages, with careful thought given to netting and built-in liquidity points.
Comp philosophy often traces back to the family's origin. Families with an investing background lean toward leveraged, upside-heavy packages; those from operating businesses often prefer more balanced structures — even as total compensation converges near similar market benchmarks.
Most breakdowns come from a lack of documentation and testing. Handshake agreements and unmodeled plans are, in Hunter's experience, the most common source of later disputes.
The full episode covers governance, retention, and where family office direct investing is headed next.