IntermediateFamily Office Playbook4 min read3 Oct 2026

The Investment Memo Template Family Office Committees Actually Read

A one-page-first investment memo template for family office investment committees: eight sections, a scoring rubric and a pre-mortem that catches bad calls.

Short answer

A good investment memo fits the decision on page one: what we propose, why now, the variant view, the valuation range, the three biggest risks with triggers, position size and exit conditions. Supporting analysis follows as appendices. Add a pre-mortem (imagine it failed, then explain why) and a scored rubric so the committee judges every proposal on the same basis.

Key takeaways

  • Put the decision on page one. Committees read the first page closely and skim the rest.
  • Eight fixed sections make memos comparable across asset classes and authors.
  • A pre-mortem surfaces risks that an advocate writing the memo won't naturally look for.
  • Record the decision and the reasons, then review them against outcomes a year later.

Investment committees in family offices are usually small, senior and busy. They read the first page carefully, skim the middle and rarely open the appendix. Most memos are written the other way round: pages of business description first, with the recommendation buried at the end.

This template flips that order.

The eight sections

Investment memo structure
Investment memo structure01RecommendationPage 1What we propose, how much, at what price range, and the decision needed today.02Thesis in one paragraphPage 1Why this will work, stated so it could be proved wrong.03Variant viewPage 1What the market believes, what we believe instead, and the evidence that will settle it.04Valuation rangePage 1Bear, base and bull values with the single driver behind each, compared with the entryprice.05Risks and triggersTop three risks, each with a mechanism, a likely impact and a signal to watch.06Pre-mortemIt's two years from now and this lost 40%. The three most likely reasons.07Sizing and exitPosition size against the investment policy, and the conditions under which we sell oradd.08Sources and appendicesModel, filings, diligence notes, call notes. Every number in the memo traceable to here.
Sections 1–4 make up the first page. If the committee reads nothing else, it can still make the decision.

Page one, filled in

Example first page (hypothetical company)

Recommendation. Initiate a 3% position in ABC Specialty Chemicals between ₹780 and ₹850. Decision needed: approve allocation.

Thesis. Commissioning of the new plant shifts mix toward higher-margin specialty grades, lifting EBITDA margin from 14% to around 17% by FY28.

Variant view. Consensus models flat margins because it treats the plant as more of the same capacity. Customer approvals disclosed in the last two concalls suggest otherwise. Q3 realisation per tonne is the first test.

Valuation. Bear ₹610 (margins stay at 14%) · Base ₹840 (17%) · Bull ₹1,120 (19% plus new segment). Downside to bear about 22%; upside to bull about 44%.

The numbers here deliberately match the range example in our DCF guide: the memo summarises the model, it doesn’t replace it.

Score every memo the same way

A rubric stops the most persuasive author from winning by default. Each reviewer scores independently before discussion.

Scoring rubric: weights out of 100
Scoring rubric: weights out of 100Strength of variant view25Quality of evidence &sourcing20Risk/reward from valuationrange20Risks identified withtriggers15Management & governance10Fit with investment policy10
Suggested weights. The variant view carries the most weight because without one there's no reason to expect better-than-market returns. Adjust weights for private deals and fund allocations.

The pre-mortem

The author of a memo is an advocate. A pre-mortem gives everyone, including the author, permission to argue the other side. Ask each committee member to write, before the meeting, the single most likely reason the investment failed. Patterns across answers are often more useful than the risk section itself.

Illustrative: where pre-mortem answers tend to cluster
Illustrative: where pre-mortem answers tend to cluster0%10%20%30%40%34%Thesis driverdidn't happen22%Overpaid at entry18%Governance /promoter issue14%Liquidity at exit12%Macro / sectorshock
Illustrative distribution. The two biggest buckets point to the variant view and the valuation range, which is why both belong on page one.

Track decisions, not just returns

After the decision, record the outcome, the reasons and any dissent. Review a year later and ask two separate questions: was the reasoning sound, and was the outcome good? A good decision can lose money and a bad one can make it. Over time, a decision log shows a family office where its process is strong and where it is lucky.

For management-credibility evidence in the risk section, use a guidance-vs-delivery tracker. For where the memo sits in the wider process, see how family offices should organise research.

Frequently asked questions

What should an investment memo include?

A recommendation and position size, the thesis, the variant view versus consensus, a valuation range with scenarios, key risks with monitoring triggers, a pre-mortem, exit conditions, and sources. Detailed financial models and diligence notes belong in appendices.

How long should an investment committee memo be?

The decision summary should fit on one page. Total length depends on the investment, but many good memos are three to eight pages plus appendices. Length should come from evidence, not from description of the business.

What is a pre-mortem in investing?

It is an exercise where the team assumes the investment has failed badly at some future date and writes down the most likely reasons. Because it is framed as already having happened, it gives people permission to raise concerns that a normal risk section misses.

How should a family office record investment decisions?

Keep the memo, the committee's decision, the key reasons, any dissent and the conditions attached in one place. Review each decision against outcome after a set period, judging the quality of the reasoning separately from the result.