Confidential Inquiries for Principal Investors, Family Offices, and the People Who Know Them
The real read on someone doesn't come from their own account of themselves. It comes from people who dealt with them directly and have nothing to gain from the answer. That's the conversation I have.
What This Work Is
Confidential inquiries across four areas:
Leadership and team diligence. Before backing a management team or committing capital, principal investors and family offices need an honest read on how that person operates—under pressure, in transition, when governance intensifies, and when interests diverge. The answer lies with former colleagues, counterparties, people who managed or were managed by them, and people who were present when it counted.
Counterparty and co-investor inquiries. Before partnering, committing to a club deal, or entering a co-investment, my clients want an independent read on how a prospective co-sponsor or counterparty has behaved in previous relationships—how they handle governance disagreements, how they treat partners when interests diverge, and whether their operating style is compatible with a principal's or sponsor's approach to ownership.
Source of wealth and principal authentication. Before onboarding a client, committing to a co-investment, or entering a significant partnership, private banks need confidence that the account of who someone is—and how they built what they built—holds up to scrutiny from people who were close to it. This is the layer that open-source research and database checks cannot reach.
Pre-hire reference inquiries. Before a family office or wealth manager makes a consequential internal appointment—a CIO, COO, head of direct investing, or a senior advisor with direct access to the family's capital and private affairs—the diligence bar should be higher than for a portfolio company hire, not lower. This work surfaces what structured references won't.
How It Works
Every engagement combines formal structured references with informal back-channel reach. The formal process establishes the record. The informal conversations—with people who weren't put forward and have no reason to be diplomatic—surface what formal processes consistently miss.
Conversations are peer-level and non-attributed. Findings are delivered as a concise written readout for a small decision group: what is directly observed, what is uncertain, and what should inform the decision.
If I've Reached Out to You
Your name came up in connection with someone I'm conducting an inquiry on—and your vantage point, at the time and in the context that matters, appears directly relevant.
I'm asking for fifteen to twenty minutes—what you observed directly and how they're regarded by people who know them well.
The conversation is confidential. Your name does not appear in any output. If it becomes clear your vantage point doesn't map closely to the relevant period, we can end the call. If a question feels uncomfortable, we skip it.
What you share reaches only a small group making a consequential decision. Most senior people have been in situations where they wished someone had asked these questions before a decision became expensive to unwind. This is that moment for someone else.
Contact
Conor Hourigan (London)
+44 7839 258066
