Matthew Ruesch is the co-founder and managing partner at Broad Creek Capital, where he is responsible for firms strategy, investor relationships and overseeing the firm’s investment activities. He spoke with Crain Currency about why U.S. family offices are increasingly viewed as a safe and strategic destination for foreign capital, how European investors are reassessing risk and structure and which U.S. sectors are drawing the most durable long-term interest.
You mentioned strong interest from European and international investors in U.S. family offices. What is driving that shift right now?
I think it helps to step back and look at what is happening more broadly in the markets right now. We are seeing several major shifts happening at the same time. There is a geopolitical transition underway, alongside a broader economic transition, and together those forces are creating uncertainty. That uncertainty is translating into volatility.
In that context, many European investors are thinking more deliberately about diversification. They’re not looking to allocate exclusively to any single market. That said, there’s still a broad recognition that it’s very difficult to construct a long-term growth portfolio today without meaningful exposure to the U.S.
If growth is a priority over the next decade, the U.S. remains central to that conversation. What’s changing is how investors want to access it. Rather than allocating broadly, many family offices are becoming more selective and are gravitating toward investing alongside U.S. family offices they trust, where capital is deployed with a clear understanding of risk and alignment of outcomes.
In environments like this, whom you invest with matters as much as what you invest in.
Recent news suggests some European investors are reassessing their U.S. holdings due to political and policy uncertainty, including potential tariff risks and geopolitical tensions. How do you reconcile that caution with the broader interest you’re seeing from European family offices?
There is a real reassessment underway. Some of it is rational because of policy uncertainty, geopolitics, tariffs. Some of it is emotional. When the headlines stack up, it’s hard not to question exposure.
But when European family offices step back and look at the alternatives, the picture becomes more complicated. At scale, there are very few markets that offer the depth, growth and reinvestment capacity the U.S. does today.
So what we’re seeing isn’t a wholesale shift away from the U.S. It’s a more careful approach to how capital is allocated there. Investors are less willing to accept broad exposure and far more focused on structure, downside protection and who they’re partnering with on the ground.
In that sense, the reassessment is real but it’s leading to more discipline and selectivity, not total abandonment.
So what are the major challenges or considerations that come up for foreign investors when working with U.S. family offices?
A few things come up consistently. There are always tax considerations. European family offices often face very specific constraints when investing outside their home market, particularly in the U.S., so structuring certainly matters.
Then there’s also the question of local market familiarity. Most family offices have a broad understanding of the U.S., but the real work is understanding how capital behaves region by region. So a fair amount of time is spent translating how regional dynamics and capital structures actually work on the ground.
Currency is another factor that’s often underestimated. Even when the dollar is weaker, many long-term investors still want USD exposure given the relative strength of U.S. growth fundamentals and reinvestment opportunities. The question becomes how to hedge their exposure. The goal isn’t to make an FX call, it’s to make sure good assets stay good over time.
Which U.S. sectors are foreign investors most focused on right now and why?
The past year was a period of adaptation; Investors were trying to make sense of shifts in the U.S. market and have become much more disciplined about separating signal from noise.
So there’s no question that sectors like AI and technology are attracting enormous attention, particularly in early stage and growth equity, where innovation is moving quickly. But that level of excitement has also made many long-term investors more aware of how dependent some strategies are on timing and sentiment.
As a result, we’re seeing family offices approach U.S. exposure with a bit more balance. They’re comfortable allocating to innovation, but they increasingly want core exposure in sectors where demand isn’t up for debate.
That’s where residential housing stands out for us. In the U.S., the supply-demand imbalance is structural, not cyclical. It doesn’t eliminate volatility, but it gives investors something far more durable to underwrite when markets get noisy.
You mentioned residential housing as a durable, cycle-resilient strategy compared with more headline-driven areas like AI. Are foreign investors currently favoring these durable strategies, or do they still allocate heavily to the headline sectors?
What we’re seeing is not necessarily an either-or. Many family offices are allocating to headline sectors, but they’re doing so more selectively and often at the margins. For core allocations, there’s a clear tilt toward strategies where the returns are driven by structural demand rather than narrative momentum.
So in practice, that means durable strategies often form the foundation of a portfolio, while more thematic investments sit around the edges.
Which factors make the U.S. an attractive market for foreign investors right now? Are they focused on growth, policy consistency, market depth or something else?
Policy consistency is a key consideration because that’s a challenge in this current environment. But broadly speaking, from a European perspective, the U.S. is where investors are seeking growth.
It continues to offer a combination of scale, innovation and reinvestment capacity. While the policy noise right now is certainly real, investors are beginning to look through it and see that the U.S. still offers clearer visibility on long-term growth than most alternatives. That’s especially true in real assets, where private capital can operate with a degree of flexibility and depth that’s difficult to replicate elsewhere.
For many families, the decision is less about short-term policy headlines and more about where long-term fundamentals remain intact.
From a European perspective, what do U.S. family offices do differently than their European counterparts — not necessarily better, just differently?
I wouldn’t frame this as better or worse, but more about differences in tempo and tolerance for change.
U.S. family offices tend to operate in a faster, more dynamic environment. Capital moves quickly, markets reprice often and there’s a greater willingness to act when opportunities appear. That creates more volatility, but it also creates more optionality.
European family offices often place a stronger emphasis on preservation, governance and continuity. Decisions may take longer, but they’re typically made with a very long time horizon in mind.
I think what’s interesting is that in today’s environment, those differences are becoming complementary. The most effective cross-border partnerships combine U.S. decisiveness with European discipline. Speed with judgment.
What indicators or developments tend to push an investor from hesitation to committing capital?
In private markets, conviction usually takes time. When capital is illiquid, investors want to feel comfortable that the fundamentals will hold up over several years, not just in the current environment.
What tends to move people from hesitation to commitment is getting comfortable that demand is structural, not just a product of the cycle. They want to see enough history and enough evidence today to believe that even if conditions change, the core drivers are still there.
In our experience, once investors believe in the long-term U.S. theme and feel good about the partner executing it, the decision gets a lot easier. At that point, they’re not trying to time the market. They’re backing something they expect to hold up over time.
When you see a foreign family finally commit, is it usually because they have conviction in a specific strategy, or because they have comfort with the partner running it? Which matters more in practice?
For large family offices, access usually isn’t the limiting factor. They see a wide range of deals and strategies across markets. What they’re really deciding is where to place conviction and trust. Strategy matters because they need to believe the fundamentals are sound, but most sophisticated families can find exposure to almost any theme they want.
What ultimately drives commitment is comfort with the partner running it. Investors want to know how decisions get made when conditions change, how risk is managed and whether interests stay aligned over time. In practice, conviction in the strategy opens the door, but confidence in the partner is what gets capital deployed.
Looking ahead, what changes could shift foreign investors’ interest in U.S. family offices over the next few years?
I think there are a few factors that could drive more investor enthusiasm for the U.S. First, over time, there will probably be broader recognition that the dynamics in the U.S. are more resilient and compelling than most other Western markets. Right now, there has been a near-term recoil because of the volatility we discussed.
Second, selectivity will continue to increase. Even if the policy environment remains noisy, foreign family offices aren’t waiting for perfect clarity. They’re refining how they gain U.S. exposure by placing more emphasis on structure, downside protection and working with partners who have demonstrated they can operate through cycles.
In that sense, uncertainty doesn’t reduce the relevance of U.S. family offices. It tends to concentrate long-term capital around fewer platforms and fewer strategies that investors believe can compound through disruption