Estate Planning and Inheritance: How to Avoid Succession Disputes in a Global World

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Pixabay CC0 Public Domain

In addition to being a genius, the Texas-born billionaire entrepreneur, investor, aviator, engineer, film producer, and director Howard Hughes was a controversial figure due to his eccentricities and obsessions (he is often associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder). Within that context, one of the most notable aspects of his story was his death—aboard a plane in Mexico en route to Houston—surrounded by uncertainty about the exact moment of his passing. Above all, because following that event, which occurred 50 years ago—April 1976—a wave of legal disputes erupted over his fortune, estimated at $1.5 billion at the time—and $2.5 billion a few years later when, in 1983, it was divided among his 22 cousins. It stands as a paradigmatic example of the consequences of failing to leave a clear will at the time of death, something wealth management experts increasingly warn about.

“At his death in 1976, without a valid and recognized will, his fortune was left in legal limbo. For years, hundreds of people claimed inheritance rights, more than 30 false wills appeared—including the famous ‘Mormon will’—and one of the most complex succession battles of the 20th century unfolded. It was not until 1983, after years of litigation, that an agreement was reached to distribute the fortune among distant relatives, with a substantial portion allocated to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute,” recalls the case Berta Rabassa, lawyer and partner at BPP Legal, a firm integrated into Grupo Pérez Pozo. Beyond the extraordinary nature of the case, she argues, its lesson is deeply relevant today, “since the lack of planning can completely distort a person’s wishes regarding their own wealth.”

And not only their wishes—it can also add pain to pain: “It may sound cliché, but the ultimate goal is not to add pain to pain. When a family goes through a divorce, a death, or incapacity, there is already a certain level of suffering. If we add uncertainty, costs, and disputes associated with the lack of planning, we are introducing another layer of hardship to what that family is already experiencing,” says Martín Litwak, CEO of UNTITLED.

Greater risk in a global world

Moreover, the risk of not making a will and defining the beneficiaries of one’s wealth is even more evident in a globalized world with international activity. “In an increasingly globalized economy, where people live, invest, and establish ties across different countries, estate planning has ceased to be a domestic issue and has become a matter of international scope,” the expert notes, adding that it also represents “an unnecessary legal risk.”

What are the potential consequences? First, family uncertainty, experts say, but also exposure of the estate to complex, divergent, and sometimes clearly unfavorable regulations. “The consequences are not merely theoretical. They depend on the country where the person dies, the nationality of the deceased, the location of the assets, and the applicable international agreements. In this context, the absence of planning can result in significant financial losses, prolonged family conflicts, and, in extreme cases, direct intervention by the State as heir,” explain representatives from Grupo Pérez Pozo.

At the international level, the problem is exacerbated by differing regulations between countries: in the United States, for example, the absence of a will may lead to the application of intestacy laws of each state, with highly significant tax and estate consequences. In certain cases, especially when there are no clearly identified direct heirs, a substantial portion of the estate may end up in the hands of the State.

In other countries, such as France or Germany, there are strict forced heirship systems that limit freedom of disposition, while in the United Kingdom there is greater testamentary flexibility. Spain, for its part, combines elements of both models, with special protection for forced heirs, the expert explains.

Death in different countries

But what happens if a person without a will does not die in their country of origin? This is where conflicts of law arise, according to Rabassa. Which legislation applies when a Spanish national dies in the United States with assets in multiple countries? What happens if there are multiple wills executed in different jurisdictions? For Litwak, the consequences of dying in a different country (for example, being Spanish and dying in the Americas, or Latin American or American and dying in Spain, or a Latin American dying in the U.S.) are numerous and varied. First, if heirs do not have a deep understanding of the deceased’s assets, assets may be lost, he warns.

Second in importance is inheritance tax, which functions very differently from one country to another but can reach up to 40% of the estate if efficient planning is not carried out. “Third, I would include the delays involved and the fact that unplanned successions are public,” he explains. Finally, if a person does not assign their assets to heirs or beneficiaries through wills, trusts, etc., “it often happens that instead of receiving assets individually, they end up becoming ‘partners’ in certain assets, which is a recipe for problems when there are differences among heirs in terms of needs, wealth, urgency, and so on.”

Rabassa points to greater regulatory coordination in Europe, which can help in these cases: “The European Succession Regulation has represented an important step forward within the European Union, allowing, among other things, the choice of the applicable national law. However, outside this framework, coordination remains limited.”

For Litwak, “it is always good to have default rules that supplement the will of the parties and regulations that establish in a simple way how to enforce a document issued in a third country,” but in his view, the key issue in the Americas is awareness and education; “only then will it be possible for anyone who has an asset they do not intend to consume in the short term to plan.”

More discipline among large fortunes?

In general, experts say estate planning is not done correctly, but there is also greater discipline among larger fortunes. “In many cases, it is not done at all. And when a person or family does plan, they often make basic mistakes, such as not working with international advisors and assuming that the rules of the country in which they reside are the same as those of other countries where they have assets or heirs,” warns Litwak. Another very common mistake is failing to update estate planning after life events that change circumstances, such as relocation, divorce, or the birth of a new heir, he adds. And even when everything is done correctly, communication may fail, which is another fundamental aspect of wealth structuring, the expert concludes.

At the same time, although oversights persist, it is clear that over the past 20 years estate planning has become more widespread, with more people engaging in it, particularly among high-net-worth families. “In any case, it remains a minority practice in Latin America, as it is a region where it is very difficult to talk about money and the long term, for multiple reasons,” says Litwak.

The importance of planning

Grupo Pérez Pozo confirms how this reality contrasts with the lack of foresight among many individuals and business families, and argues that estate planning must be approached with a comprehensive vision, anticipating international scenarios and properly coordinating different legal systems. It is not only about drafting a will, they say, but about designing a strategy that protects wealth and ensures its transfer according to the owner’s wishes.

“The conclusion is clear: in a global world, it is not enough to have wealth; it is essential to plan its transfer. A will is not just a legal instrument, but a tool for foresight, security, and responsibility. It allows for the organization of wealth according to the testator’s wishes, reduces the tax burden, prevents conflicts among heirs, and, above all, provides certainty at a moment that is already delicate. Postponing this decision is, in reality, delegating it to others: to legislators, to courts, and ultimately to systems that do not always reflect personal wishes. In light of this, well-advised estate planning with an international perspective is not an option but a necessity. Because, ultimately, not making a will does not mean not deciding—it means letting others decide for us,” she concludes.

Capital Group Announces Plans to Open Its First Office in the Middle East

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Photo courtesyMike Gitlin, President and CEO of Capital Group

Capital Group has announced its plans to establish its first office in the Middle East, to be located in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) in the United Arab Emirates. According to the firm, the Abu Dhabi office is expected to formally open by the end of this year, pending regulatory approvals.

The asset manager added that this is a decisive step in Capital Group’s long-term strategy to accelerate its global growth. It also reflects the company’s confidence in the Middle East region, the United Arab Emirates, and Abu Dhabi as a strong and rapidly evolving financial ecosystem, supported by the Abu Dhabi Investment Office (ADIO).

The planned office in Abu Dhabi will be Capital Group’s 35th worldwide, demonstrating the company’s consistent approach to establishing a local presence closely linked to its global platform. As in other markets, its goal is to grow gradually over time, in line with client needs and Capital Group’s long-term investment culture.

“We are pleased to welcome Capital Group to ADGM at a time when an increasing number of leading global financial institutions are choosing Abu Dhabi as a base for their long-term regional expansion. Their decision underscores the value investors place on regulatory certainty, institutional strength, and a stable environment that supports sustainable growth. With a robust legal framework and access to abundant long-term capital, ADGM is designed to support global firms operating at scale. Capital Group’s presence further strengthens Abu Dhabi’s role as a bridge between international capital and regional opportunities, and as a place where long-term partnerships are built with confidence,” said Ahmed Jasim Al Zaabi, Chairman of Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM).

For his part, Mike Gitlin, President and CEO of Capital Group, added: “We take a deliberate, long-term approach when building our global presence, and only move forward when we have strong conviction. This is one of those moments. Establishing a presence in Abu Dhabi demonstrates our commitment to being closer to our business partners in the Middle East, as well as our intention to explore new investment opportunities in this dynamic region.”

Capital Group will relocate Benno Klingenberg-Timm, Head of Institutional Business for Europe and Asia, who will also assume responsibility for leading the Abu Dhabi office. Klingenberg-Timm commented: “The UAE has established itself as a leading global financial center, reflecting the strong growth dynamics of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the broader region. The Middle East is important both as a market in its own right and for its natural role as a bridge between Europe, Asia, and Africa.”

Capital Group’s expansion in Abu Dhabi reflects ADIO’s commitment to building a future-oriented financial services ecosystem, led by ADIO’s FinTech, Insurance, Digital, and Alternative Assets (FIDA) platform. Fatima Al Hamadi, Head of the FIDA cluster, stated: “Through the FIDA (Financial Investment and Digital Assets) cluster, ADIO is building an integrated financial ecosystem that brings together innovative solutions, digital capabilities, and advanced regulatory frameworks, reinforcing Abu Dhabi’s position as a leading global financial center. Capital Group’s expansion in Abu Dhabi reflects the strength and attractiveness of the emirate’s ecosystem for global institutions with long-term ambitions. It also underscores our commitment to facilitating strategic investments and enhancing integration between global markets, contributing to sustainable growth and a future-ready economy.”

Shanti Das-Wermes (MFS IM): “Since 2020, the Change in the Cost of Capital Has Been Underestimated”

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Photo courtesy

Throughout the day, Shanti Das-Wermes, Portfolio Manager at MFS Investment Management and lead manager of the Prudent Capital Fund, faces numerous reports, headlines, and analyses. As she acknowledges, her trick to isolate herself from the noise is to focus on the numbers, work hard, be willing to learn and change her mind, and to surround herself with people who have strong expertise.

This is her work mantra for managing the Prudent Capital Fund, a multi-asset vehicle with a portfolio concentrated in a variety of fixed income instruments and bonds, and which can invest in cash and derivatives to manage market exposure and downside risk. The strategy invests with a long-term approach, emphasizing absolute value rather than relative value. To discuss how to approach a multi-asset portfolio, the role these types of portfolios play today, and why they have fallen out of favor, we spoke with Das-Wermes in this interview.

What lessons from your professional career do you consider helpful in your role as a fund manager?

I have had several experiences throughout my career. I started in strategy consulting, then worked in private equity, and finally in public markets, from which I have learned to feel comfortable with the idea that you can be wrong. The current context requires us to think in terms of probability and to remain open to changing our minds. Additionally, for me, something consistent and universal has been the value of hard work and continuous learning instilled by my family. Thinking this way and having these values, I believe, is very helpful.

Of course, to this we must add relying on numbers and data to manage any fund. Many times, the market tells us one narrative, but the numbers show us a different one. A clear example of this is artificial intelligence (AI), where the numbers of many companies tell a somewhat different story from what the stock price or the rhetoric or the messages on social media might suggest.

In the current context, we talk about noise, geopolitical risks, stagflation, and even a possible energy or inflation shock. Do you think there is something the market is underestimating?

The structural change that I believe has been underestimated since the end of 2020 is the cost of capital. After all the monetary and fiscal stimulus, I consider this something the global market has underestimated. And this, obviously, led to serious repercussions in asset performance in 2022, when interest rates rose.

Another aspect that I believe is underestimated is the impact of structural changes on valuations. We are in a historical moment where decades seem to pass in just a few years, where all megatrends are moving very fast—technology, demographics, energy, artificial intelligence, wars—yet in some ways the market shows us that valuations imply a high degree of certainty about what may happen. I believe there is a great deal of uncertainty about how these structural changes will impact the economic, political, and market order.

How has the market environment and the way of building portfolios changed with the new interest rate environment and its outlook?

For our multi-asset portfolios, which are capital preservation funds, this has led us to focus on shorter durations in fixed income and to remain focused on companies without leverage and with pricing power in equities. For us, our philosophy of creating value in real terms remains very important, which, put simply, means generating a real return above the inflation rate in order to increase our clients’ purchasing power. To achieve this, we see it as necessary to be dynamic within the portfolio, both when selling assets and when adding new positions.

In the past 12 months, we have seen many launches of fixed income and equity strategies, but not multi-asset products. What can be said in defense of this type of vehicle in the current market context?

I believe the flexibility it offers to move between different asset classes is very relevant, and I say this from experience, not theory. With a multi-asset strategy, we can be much more dynamic and diversified. For example, in our fund, which has no constraints, we can move across markets, countries, or sectors where we see opportunities. Our job is simply to find those opportunities and take them wherever they are. And we do so in a concentrated way, which is very different from a typical multi-asset fund that may hold 300 or 350 stocks. We aim to hold around 20 to 40 positions.

When an investor includes a multi-asset fund in their portfolio, what role are they seeking for that fund within their overall investments?

It depends greatly on the client. Many of our distribution channels, of course, involve intermediaries, and the fund may serve the function of constituting the entire portfolio or, in other cases, be considered a somewhat more conservative position compared, for example, to equity funds that provide much higher beta; sometimes it may even be used to offset a more contrarian position. Without a doubt, this depends heavily on the client profile and the intermediary profile. For our mandate—and I do not think this is necessarily the same for all multi-asset funds—the strategy serves the function of capital preservation across different stages of the cycle.

Among all the assets in your portfolio, where do you currently see the best opportunities?

It is worth noting that the fund is positioned relatively conservatively, as we believe that current valuations imply low or possibly negative future returns. That said, one of our largest positions is in U.S. Treasury bonds, on the short end of the curve, since the base currency is the dollar, but also in mortgage-backed securities and corporate credit. In equities, we are finding opportunities in subsectors related to AI, within this context of winners and losers that has been shaping the sector. We also see other sectors that, cyclically, are in a position favored by AI, where it is interesting to take long-term positions, as well as some cyclical sectors such as chemicals or construction. In defense, we have also maintained our exposure, which began after COVID, particularly on the European side.

The Dollar Moves from the ‘Petrodollar’ Thesis to a Bullish Outlook

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Canva

During the first quarter of the year, the dollar showed a sideways/downward trend with volatility, especially in March. According to experts, we are witnessing a transition from a strong dollar—as seen between 2022 and 2024—toward a more neutral, and even weak, environment. In this regard, the first three months have resulted in a slight depreciation of the dollar and an open debate about its role as a global benchmark and its fundamentals.

“The obituary of the U.S. dollar has been written many times, with increasing frequency over the past year, but most of the catastrophic analyses of the currency focus on only one side of the equation and overlook the full picture,” laments Sonal Desai, CIO of Fixed Income at Franklin Templeton.

The Failed ‘Petrodollar’ Thesis

As a result of this connection, the “petrodollar” thesis has gained traction, arguing that the dollar’s dominance is sustained by oil trade being denominated in U.S. dollars, and that the shift of crude exports from the Middle East to Asia, along with the localization of Gulf defense spending, signals the beginning of the end of dollar hegemony. In Desai’s view, this perspective is notably simplistic: “It partially reverses the causal relationship. Oil-exporting countries have a strong self-interest in receiving payments in dollars because of what dollars represent: access to the deepest and most liquid capital markets in the world, supported by an institutional and legal framework that protects property rights and enforces contracts, and backed by a strong, dynamic, and innovative economy.”

According to the Franklin Templeton expert’s analysis, three pillars sustain this system: the scale and dynamism of the U.S. economy, institutional credibility, and unmatched market depth. “There is also no credible alternative; the euro lacks a unified large-scale safe asset; the renminbi operates under capital controls; and digital currencies may settle transactions but do not provide the store-of-value function required of a reserve currency,” Desai adds.

An Open Debate

She also argues that the data supports this view in areas such as reserves, payments, foreign exchange trading volumes, and the depth of the Treasury market—metrics not typical of a currency in decline. “Dollar weakness is cyclical, not structural, although its true vulnerability lies in U.S. fiscal policy. For investors, I maintain a constructive view on the dollar’s status as a reserve currency in the foreseeable future and would recommend staying agile at the margins and focusing on fundamentals. I believe investors should look at bilateral exchange rate movements rather than betting on the end of the dollar dominance regime,” she concludes.

However, Thomas Hempell, Head of Macro & Market Research at Generali AM (part of Generali Investments), is more critical and emphasizes that, in the short term, the evolution of the U.S. dollar remains closely tied to how the conflict in the Middle East unfolds. “It is not so much that the dollar has regained its role as a safe haven, but rather the effect of oil prices: when oil rises, the dollar now tends to benefit, as the United States has become a net energy exporter. By contrast, the euro and the yen are affected, as Europe and Japan import much of their energy, so rising oil prices worsen their trade balances and growth outlook,” he argues.

Outlook for the Dollar

Looking ahead, Hempell expects the dollar to weaken again if the war subsides soon and oil prices decline. He argues that global investors are likely to continue diversifying their portfolios away from the dollar, and that a conflict with Iran could even erode the system’s reliance on the petrodollar. “This maintains the medium-term upward trend of the euro/dollar pair, although to a lesser extent than we would have expected before the war, as energy prices are likely to remain structurally higher and the eurozone recovery will now be more moderate,” he explains.

Economists at BofA are also bearish on euro/dollar in the short term: “Our forecast for the end of the second quarter is 1.14, with downside risks.” Their thesis is that persistently high energy prices generate stagflationary pressures globally and a slower convergence of growth between the U.S. and the eurozone. In addition, the divergence between the Fed and the ECB that BofA economists expect later this year creates an interesting backdrop: on one hand, an ECB focused on preserving its inflation credibility versus a Fed prioritizing the labor market could support euro/dollar; on the other hand, they acknowledge that the outlook becomes more complex when analyzing forecasts in real terms.

“Beyond short-term factors, the dollar still faces potential downside risks from the U.S. labor market, private credit, and rising fiscal risks. In the longer term, the implications of the shifting geopolitical environment will continue to raise questions about optimal exposure to the dollar. We forecast euro/dollar at 1.20 by year-end, contingent on the Fed not raising rates, energy normalization, and gradual growth convergence between the U.S. and the eurozone,” they conclude.

Rick Rieder (BlackRock): “We Are in an Environment of Earning the Coupon, Capturing Carry, and Sleeping Soundly”

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Photo courtesy

Rick Rieder, Global CIO of Fixed Income at BlackRock, is one of the most respected and influential voices in the global asset management industry. Known for being a “data maniac,” as he himself admits, he oversees approximately $2.4 trillion (trillions in Anglo-Saxon nomenclature) for the firm, in addition to serving on Alphabet’s advisory board and UBS’s investment committee. His name was even mentioned as a possible candidate to head the Fed—at least, it was an option that appealed to the markets.

During his participation in BlackRock’s annual event for Latin American and US offshore investors in Miami, Rieder speaks with us. The room is spacious, a pleasant spring warmth filters through the windows, and his deep voice fills the space with comfort. The way he gestures with his hands reveals that Rieder is a methodical man; for that reason, we begin our interview by asking him about his working method.

How do you manage to isolate yourself from noise to do your work?

From my perspective, I am absolutely obsessed with data. I study it very intensely. I think there is too much focus on anecdotal information that is not very relevant, and it often creates inertia of biased information. I read a huge number of corporate earnings reports, which tell me what companies are doing with their inventories, why they are hiring staff, or what they are doing with capex. For me, that is the best source of information. I learn a great deal. In fact, I experience it like a game, like a treasure hunt: you read a report and look for clues. I also have monthly calls with clients, which I’ve been doing for 30 years, and I have my own process that involves reviewing about 1,000 charts and tables. Literally, I lock myself away to analyze them two days a month. All of that helps me piece together the puzzle, and I cannot do it without studying the data. Even though I have a great team that helps, I need to process it myself. Then I integrate all that information and build a view that is not always correct, but I need to go through that process.

As a result of that analysis, what differences have you identified between narratives and information?

We are seeing something we have never seen in this generation: an economy that works very well, but only with two engines. On the one hand, there is massive investment in technology, AI, and data centers, which is sustaining the economy and tech equity markets. On the other hand, there is a high-income cohort that is doing very well, even benefiting from high rates because they are net savers. The top 10% accounts for 23% of consumption, while the bottom 40% accounts for 22%. That is a huge distortion. Therefore, when you look at the economy as a whole, it appears strong—you can have nominal GDP growth of 5.5% or even 6%—but it is only functioning well on two fronts. The majority of the population is struggling, and that is why I have been quite clear regarding interest rates: they mainly affect those in a worse situation.

From all the information on corporate earnings, what relevant conclusions have you reached?

From bank earnings, I would highlight that M&A activity is real. It is clearly visible in the results: companies are becoming more strategic, making acquisitions to reduce costs and grow. Trading activity, especially in equities, has been very high, which makes sense in a volatile environment. Another point that I think has been greatly exaggerated is concern about private credit. During this earnings season, there was talk of stress, but I think it is often overstated by anecdotal stories. When you look at the results of major banks, the “mark-to-market” stress appears less severe than some interpretations suggest. As for technology, I am impressed by the figures. The market is pricing in explosive growth in the short term, but with caution in the medium term, because there could be technological changes that reduce demand. Personally, I think the market is being too conservative: demand has more runway than is being priced in.

Returning to your reflection on the distortion in economic growth, do you think there is an employment problem?

There is no job growth. In fact, excluding healthcare, we have lost 378,000 jobs over the past 10 months, which is surprising given an economy growing at that pace. We have an employment problem. From the outside, it seems the Fed does not need to do anything, but the reality is that the economy is not working well for most people. And we still have to see the real impact of artificial intelligence (AI), which has not yet arrived. It remains to be seen how all that technological efficiency will translate in companies that are already more efficient even before AI has its full impact. We have not yet seen that impact, and we already have no job growth. Some say it is not concerning because labor supply is lower due to immigration, but it is still a problem: there are not enough job openings.

We have read your analysis on the “weakness of the labor market” for young people. Is it a trend? Is it related to AI?

I think it is a disaster. The unemployment rate among college graduates is the highest in a generation, and youth unemployment (ages 16–24) is increasing. There are several factors: on the one hand, people over 55 are staying in the labor market longer, reducing vacancies, and on the other, we have the impact of technology and AI. I think it is a serious problem for young people and low-income groups. And it is ironic: older people, with higher incomes, benefit from high rates because they are savers, while young people are the ones with debt.

Let’s move to economic policy. What should we expect from the Fed? And regarding the deficit and interest rates?

I mean, first of all, the United States has too much debt, and almost all of it is in the short end of the yield curve. We rely on Treasury bills, and I think no company would manage its business like that. We need to reduce debt; otherwise, the dollar will remain under pressure. There are only two ways to do that: cut spending—which will not happen soon—or grow faster than the debt. This leads me to believe that the reason the Fed will cut interest rates is that a large portion of the country’s financing is short-term. They will have to wait a bit because of the impact of oil, but even so, I think they can make two cuts this year. If it were up to me, I would cut rates right now, regardless of oil or the potential impact on food. The longer we keep rates high, the more we worsen the debt problem.

As for the neutral rate that the market currently estimates, I do not think it is correct. I believe it is considerably lower than what is assumed, for two reasons: first, productivity is helping to reduce inflation, and second, the interest rate tool no longer regulates investment (capex) as it once did. Therefore, interest rates no longer significantly influence business investment, which is a huge difference compared to the past. In reality, rates mainly affect the housing market, low-income groups, and small businesses, which are the ones suffering the most. How could that not indicate that current rates are too restrictive? Moreover, they are not significantly reducing inflation. Therefore, I think they are restrictive precisely in the areas where it matters most.

That said, I have learned in my career that you must invest not based on what I would do, but on what they are going to do. It took me 20 years to understand that. I always thought: “this is a good idea, they will do it.” But the only thing that matters is what they will actually do. And I do not think they will cut rates now. I think they will wait one more meeting, analyze the data, unemployment will rise a bit, and then they will cut rates.

In this context of monetary policy, how do you interpret inflation?

There is a big difference between demand-driven inflation and supply-driven inflation. I think it is unfair to say we have an oil shock. I think we are facing a supply shock, and that shock, by itself, will already slow the economy. We do not need higher rates to curb it, as that will reduce consumption, especially among lower-income households. Today we are at core inflation close to 3%, and we believe it will fall to 2.5% by the end of the year. The Fed’s target is 2%, but that does not mean we need to get there next month. As long as it stays around 3% due to the oil shock, it will already have its effect.

Are you still very convinced about the rise of the fixed income cycle? Are we already there or has something changed?

We are in a golden age of fixed income. In five years, we will look back and say: my goodness, we could build portfolios with very attractive returns. Real rates are spectacular. You can build a portfolio with a yield of 6% or 6.25%. If inflation is at 3%, that is a very attractive real return. If you look at the 20 years prior to COVID, we had negative rates in Europe and Japan, and close to zero in the US. Now you can get 6% or more, and not with low-quality assets: you can use agency mortgages, AAA CLOs, AAA assets. When I say it is a golden age of fixed income, it is not because I think we will make a lot of money from rate cuts; it is more an environment of earning the coupon, capturing carry, and sleeping soundly. I think the Fed will act cautiously and that long-term rates will not fall too much.

Do you see value in the widening of corporate credit spreads?

I think public credit markets are simply fine; they are not exceptional. Securitized markets and emerging markets are more attractive in relative terms. I like places like Mexico and parts of Brazil, especially if you are willing to take currency risk—and I think you can, because I do not expect significant dollar appreciation. That is why emerging markets are more attractive than credit today. Securitized assets as well, since you can structure them yourself with better collateral. Securitization markets are in very good shape: commercial real estate, residential, asset-backed securities.

You mentioned emerging debt. In this case, the issue is the dollar, but do you like the Mexican peso?

I like the yield that Mexico offers. I do not have a strong view on the peso, but I do think the dollar will not appreciate much; it could even depreciate slightly. If we talk about the country’s debt, I think the administration is receptive to a weaker currency. So, in Mexico’s case, I think the peso against the dollar should remain stable and might even appreciate somewhat. But the important thing is that the yield is very attractive, as long as you are willing to take that risk. I use strategies in volatility markets, such as selling options on my positions, which allows me to generate even more return. Given that volatility in emerging markets, especially in currencies, is high, very attractive returns can be generated in places like Mexico.

For about three years now, BlackRock has made a significant innovative bet with the launch of iBonds. To some extent, you have been the “brain” behind these vehicles. Are you thinking about something equally revolutionary for the future in the fixed income world?

I think the big change in fixed income is that, for 30 or 40 years, fixed income was that 40 added to the equity portfolio in the classic 60/40. But in recent years it has been shown that it no longer works that way. From 2023 until now, every time the equity market has suffered, traditional fixed income indices have also fallen, because inflation affects both bonds and equities in the same way. The big evolution is that now people think about what to do with that 40 and whether they can build a source of income from it and manage it without taking excessive risks, in such a way that they can combine that income with equities and also with private assets.

What is needed is for fixed income to be stable. Traditionally, people thought they knew how interest rates would behave, but now it is different, and I think it will remain so in the coming years. Interest rates are still a useful tool, when they fall, equities rise and bonds also perform well, but that is not a good hedge nor does it create balance. It simply amplifies both positive and negative returns. The idea of managing a balanced and resilient portfolio has changed, and more and more tools and products are pointing in the same direction: helping investors generate income, which I will combine with equities, private equity, or other assets.

The Fed Heads Into Its Meeting With a Message of Continuity and Powell’s Farewell

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Photo courtesy

The Fed is expected to keep its benchmark interest rate unchanged at its meeting, despite pressure from the energy sector. According to experts, the information currently available to voting members of the FOMC does not allow for identifying any possible transmission effect of rising energy prices to core prices. So, what can we expect from this meeting?

According to Erik Weisman, chief economist, and Kish Pathak, fixed income analyst at MFS Investment Management, the overall message will be that monetary policy is in a good position to “wait and see” how growth and inflation prospects evolve. “As early as March 18, Chairman Powell downplayed economic projections, given the uncertainty related to the conflict. He is likely to reiterate that the outlook depends on the conflict. Although the uncertainty associated with the war in Iran has decreased since then, it remains very high. Nevertheless, the market will be very attentive to any change in tone regarding growth and inflation prospects,” they acknowledge.

What we do know for certain, as shown by the minutes of the March meeting, is that a minority view is emerging according to which rate hikes may be necessary to protect the inflation aspect of the mandate. “Chairman Powell may have to answer questions seeking to clarify what developments could tilt the FOMC in that direction. He will likely state that it is too early to make that judgment and that monetary policy is in a good position to balance risks on both sides of the mandate. This would be in line with most of the Fed’s communications since the March meeting,” say the experts at MFS IM.

Issues on the Table

For his part, Mabrouk Chetouane, Chief Markets Strategist at Natixis IM Solutions, believes that what is at stake in this meeting is twofold. “First, to anchor investor expectations regarding interest rates and inflation in order to avoid any undesired tightening of financial conditions; and second, to maintain a range of options available to address any type of scenario,” Chetouane notes.

In his view, this energy crisis could lead to a significant decline in aggregate demand. “We believe cyclical risks could materialize and that the Fed’s reaction function continues to place greater importance on economic activity and, consequently, the labor market. We maintain that the Fed could cut its benchmark interest rate by between 25 and 50 basis points between now and 2026, not to satisfy the wishes of the White House, but due to the need to support demand,” he adds.

Given this strong confidence that Powell’s Fed will opt for continuity, Marco Giordano, Investment Director at Wellington Management, recalls that central bank decisions will be determining factors for the global cycle in the coming quarters, as policymakers absorb this latest exogenous shock and act accordingly. “Throughout the month of March, central banks around the world chose to keep interest rates unchanged, citing rising geopolitical risks and uncertainty surrounding inflation prospects driven by energy prices,” he comments.

The Handover Arrives

Another of the most important aspects of the April meeting is that it will be Chairman Powell’s last press conference, if Kevin Warsh is confirmed soon. “He will likely be asked again about his decision to remain a Board member after the end of his term as chairman and how that decision could change if the Department of Justice investigation is closed. Most likely, he will repeat that he has not yet made a decision on the matter,” acknowledges Weisman.

What might a Warsh Fed look like? For Eiko Sievert, Head of Public and Sovereign Sector Ratings at Scope Ratings, if Kevin Warsh is confirmed as the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he is likely to advocate for interest rate cuts based on his view that AI-driven growth will not generate inflation.

“His appointment would point to a significant reduction in the intensity of supervision and a shift toward deregulation, as well as a more limited focus on the Fed’s dual mandate of ensuring stable prices and maximum employment. As a result, issues such as climate risk and social equity are likely to receive significantly less attention. Reducing the Fed’s balance sheet will be a priority, although implementation is likely to remain gradual to avoid undue market volatility,” Sievert emphasizes.

Finally, the expert sees it as likely that there will be changes in how the Fed communicates publicly, with less forward guidance on FOMC members’ expectations regarding future interest rates.

“With this background scenario, the June FOMC meeting will be subject to close scrutiny. Rate cuts carried out without data backing a decline in inflationary pressures would signal a weakening of the Fed’s independence,” he concludes.

The Fed Enters a “New Regime,” but What About Its Independence?

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Canva

After hearing Kevin Warsh before the Senate, during his confirmation hearing to chair the U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed), experts believe that not all the cards have been put on the table. In his speech, Warsh proposed a “regime change” at the institution, suggesting more than four FOMC meetings, collaborating with the Treasury to reduce the balance sheet, and using AI tools to review inflation models he considers imperfect.

Without a doubt, markets expected Kevin Warsh’s confirmation hearing to offer clues about the Fed’s next steps and, to some extent, it did. His key message was to assure that he would not be a “puppet” of President Trump and that the monetary institution must act without political pressure. He even denied having agreed on interest rate cuts with Trump, arguing that monetary policy decisions must be based on the economy and not politics.

“Let me be clear: the Federal Reserve must make independent decisions. I will not accept instructions from any elected official. My duty, if confirmed, will be to Congress and to the American people. I am also aware of concerns about potential conflicts of interest. I commit to fully complying with all ethical requirements and to divesting from the necessary assets to ensure the integrity of the office,” he assured.

In addition, he was critical of the institution: “In recent years, the Fed has faced extraordinary challenges. However, we must also recognize that there have been errors — in the assessment of inflation, in the communication of monetary policy, and in the management of its balance sheet — that must be addressed frankly.”

Regarding his plans, Warsh explained that his goal will be to restore clarity, discipline, and credibility in monetary policy. “This implies a firm commitment to price stability, a review of the Fed’s strategic framework, and a prudent and predictable reduction of the balance sheet.” And he concluded: “This is an important moment for U.S. economic policy. With the right approach, we can achieve a more stable, more dynamic, and more prosperous economy.”

Independence and balance sheet

For experts at Banca March, however, Kevin Warsh’s appearance unfolded as expected. “Democrats focused their interventions on questioning the candidate’s independence — highlighting the moment when Elizabeth Warren called him a ‘sock puppet’ — while the Republican bloc largely offered its support. Even Republican Thom Tillis expressed his backing, although conditional on the closure of investigations into the current Federal Reserve governor,” they note as the most striking aspect of his appearance.

That said, the main debate for experts is whether this “new phase” will be synonymous with independence. In the view of Laura Torres, chief investment officer at IMB Capital Quant, the market is now operating in a back-and-forth of statements that leaves little definition, high volatility, and uncertainty. “The diplomatic stalemate and the belligerent stance of the Trump administration have created a scenario where complacency is no longer an option. The Fed’s narrative also enters a phase of high volatility with the possible appointment of Warsh, who seems willing to break with the institution’s traditional independence to align it with the fiscal and tariff objectives of President Trump,” Torres criticizes.

From UBS Global Wealth Management, they believe that the Fed remains on track to further reduce interest rates, as cooling inflation and moderating growth should allow the U.S. central bank to act toward the end of this year.

“We maintain the view that the Fed should cut rates by another 50 basis points toward the end of this year. Greater easing should support equities and high-quality bonds in the medium term,” says Mark Haefele, chief investment officer (CIO) at UBS Global Wealth Management.

Regarding the balance sheet situation, Tiffany Wilding warns of the moral hazard arising from the progressive increase in the Fed’s balance sheet as a result of regulatory liquidity requirements in the U.S. financial system: “The growing holdings of Treasury bonds by the Fed needed to satisfy that demand may distort price formation in the market — including Treasury repo funding markets — and reduce liquidity in the public debt market,” Wilding explains.

The other key points

From Oxford Economics, they consider that Warsh will be a more dovish voice within the Federal Open Market Committee, will advocate for an aggressive reduction in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, and will seek to introduce significant changes in the institution’s communication strategy. However, they recall that the Fed chair cannot make these changes unilaterally, so they expect that Warsh’s need to build consensus will limit the scope of changes in policy or in how the Fed communicates.

Warsh stated on several occasions that a ‘regime change’ is needed at the Fed. He favors modifying the institution’s current communication strategy and opposes the use of forward guidance as a policy tool, as well as the publication of economic forecasts, which he considers an obstacle to flexibility because members of the Federal Open Market Committee ‘cling to those forecasts longer than they should.’ He also suggested that he might favor reducing the number of FOMC meetings to fewer than eight per year, which is the current schedule; the law requires the committee to meet four times per year. He also did not commit, if confirmed, to holding press conferences after every FOMC meeting, which has been the norm since 2019,” they explain.

Finally, the firm notes that Warsh’s selection “remains in limbo.” According to their forecast, it is expected that the Senate, controlled by the Republican Party, will confirm Warsh if his nomination is approved by the Senate Banking Committee. “However, we expect his candidacy to remain stalled in committee for some time. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina made it clear at Tuesday’s hearing that he will not support Warsh’s nomination until the Trump administration’s case against Powell is withdrawn. However, in an interview prior to the hearing, President Trump gave no indication that he would pressure the Department of Justice to drop the case. Given the narrow margin in the committee, the nomination cannot advance without Tillis’s support. This increases the likelihood that Powell will continue as chair beyond May 15, when his term officially ends,” they add.

From J. Safra Sarasin Sustainable AM, they acknowledge that, paradoxically, a delay in his confirmation could work in Warsh’s favor. “With inflation moving in the wrong direction, it is unlikely that the FOMC will cut rates in the short term. A prolonged process would leave Powell bearing the cost of inaction, thus preventing Warsh from having to confront Donald Trump prematurely at the start of his term as chair,” they conclude.

The Global ETF Industry Starts with Record Inflows but Lower Assets Under Management

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Canva

Global ETF flows grew by 35% during the first three months of the year, compared with the first quarter of the previous year. According to ETFGI, net inflows of $174.42 billion were recorded in March, bringing total net inflows for the year to a record $626.42 billion.

This means that global ETF assets stood at $20.08 trillion at the end of the first quarter, below the record $21.24 trillion reached in February 2026. “The global ETF industry remains highly concentrated, with iShares, Vanguard, and State Street SPDR ETFs controlling 58.3% of total assets. iShares leads with $5.43 trillion (27.1%), followed by Vanguard with $4.29 trillion (21.4%) and State Street SPDR ETFs with $1.98 trillion (9.9%). The other 991 providers each account for less than 5% of global ETF assets,” highlights Deborah Fuhr, managing partner, founder, and owner of ETFGI.

The destination of flows

According to ETFGI data, first-quarter net inflows, totaling $626.42 billion, are the highest ever recorded, surpassing the previous peak of $463.51 billion in 2025 and $397.51 billion in 2024. March therefore marked the 82nd consecutive month of net inflows into the global ETF industry.

In March, ETFs gathered $174.42 billion in net inflows globally. In terms of asset types, equity ETFs recorded net inflows of $54.12 billion in March, bringing the year-to-date total to $225.64 billion, above the $211.63 billion recorded through March 2025. Meanwhile, fixed income ETFs posted net inflows of $35.44 billion in March, taking the annual total to $119.17 billion, well above the $81.97 billion recorded in the same period of 2025.

Commodity ETFs, for their part, experienced net outflows of $9.83 billion in March; “however, on a year-to-date basis they have recorded net inflows of $16.62 billion, below the $21.91 billion reached through March 2025,” they note. Finally, active ETFs gathered $78.37 billion in March, lifting the annual total to $245.95 billion, significantly higher than the $144.51 billion recorded through March 2025.

The significant inflows can be attributed to the top 20 ETFs by net new assets, which together attracted $94.06 billion in March. “The State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF (SPYM US) alone recorded $16.83 billion,” ETFGI highlights.

Miami Consolidates Itself as the Epicenter of Global Wealth Management Amid Structural Disruptions

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Photo courtesyLuis Arocha (Capital Group); Rocío Harb (IPG); Catherine Lapadula (UBS) and Maribel Maldonado (Merrill Lynch)

In a context of profound transformation in the wealth management business, the panel “Challenges and Opportunities in Wealth Management” brought together international segment leaders in Miami to analyze the forces reshaping the industry, from regulatory pressures to demographic and technological changes.

Moderated by Luis Arocha, Business Development Manager at Capital Group, the panel stood out not only for the level of experience of its participants—Rocío Harb (IPG), Catherine Lapadula (UBS), and Maribel Maldonado (Merrill Lynch), but also for the consensus around a key point: the business is going through a structural, not cyclical, moment.

From the outset, Arocha framed the conversation within a broader trend: the geographic shift of financial power. “Twenty-five years ago, if you wanted to influence global wealth, you went to New York or Wall Street. Today, many of the key conversations about international capital and cross-border wealth are taking place in Miami,” he stated.

A more complex business: regulation, margins, and technological disruption

Catherine Lapadula, Managing Director and Market Executive International at UBS, outlined a challenging landscape marked by multiple simultaneous fronts. “The challenges are not only related to the market. They are structural, regulatory, and generational,” she noted.

From her perspective, increasing global regulatory pressure—with frameworks such as MiFID II, FATCA, or CRS—has significantly raised operational complexity. “International is not a hobby. It’s like pregnancy: you either are or you aren’t,” she warned, emphasizing that compliance will continue to intensify.

This is compounded by margin compression driven by transparency. “Wealth managers have to justify their fees. Price is the only issue in the absence of value,” she stated, highlighting that differentiation will come from service, advice, and tailored solutions.

Lapadula also pointed to the dual impact of technology: “Fintechs and robo-advisors are both an opportunity and a threat,” although she clarified that the ultra-high-net-worth segment will continue to demand highly personalized advice.

The feminization of wealth and generational transition

One of the panel’s most relevant points was the ongoing demographic shift. “For the first time in history, we have what we will call the feminization of wealth,” Lapadula stated. “Trillions of dollars will change hands over the next 10 to 15 years… and a large portion will go to women.”

The implication for the industry is direct: “If you’re not talking to the wife, the girlfriend, or the daughter, you’re missing out,” she warned, noting that communication and approach must adapt to new wealth decision dynamics.

Talent, compliance, and artificial intelligence

Rocío Harb, Director and Branch Manager at IPG, agreed that regulation remains one of the main challenges, especially in an environment of accelerated technological innovation. “The business evolves and regulation increases, and that is always a challenge,” she explained. In particular, she highlighted the integration of artificial intelligence under strict compliance frameworks: “Incorporating AI into our daily routine while continuing to comply with regulations will be a major challenge.”

This is compounded by competition for talent in a market like Miami. “There are wonderful institutions with talented people. For us, the focus is on ‘white-glove’ service and on growing advisors,” she noted.

AI and the risk of losing the human touch

From a more behavioral perspective, Maribel Maldonado, International Wealth Management Advisor at Merrill Lynch, focused on the client relationship in the era of artificial intelligence. “AI is intelligence on demand,” she said, anticipating more informed and demanding clients. However, she warned of a growing risk: “Dependence on AI is leading to a lack of personal touch.”

In this sense, she emphasized that the advisor’s value is not diluted but redefined: “Nothing is more important to clients than being able to trust you to help them interpret all these changes.”

Miami: from emerging market to structural capital hub

One of the clearest points of consensus was Miami’s role as a new nerve center for international wealth management. Maldonado traced the city’s historical evolution: “Miami went from being a small enclave to a global cosmopolitan center,” and projected that “it will be one of the 20 richest cities in the world in the not-too-distant future.”

Lapadula went further by describing a structural shift: “Miami is not just a trendy city. It is a reorganization of capital. Capital lives here, is managed here, and is capitalized here.”

This phenomenon responds to a “flywheel effect,” she explained: the arrival of wealth drives real estate investment, which attracts more capital and, in turn, wealth managers. “For the first time, firms are coming to where the clients are,” she noted.

Alternatives: from niche to structural component

In terms of investment, the panel highlighted the growth of alternative assets as a key differentiator. Harb explained that IPG bet early on this trend: “Our clients needed something beyond the 60/40 portfolio,” which led to the development of proprietary solutions such as IPG ALTS.

Maldonado reinforced the idea from a structural perspective: “In the United States, there are 200,000 companies and only 5,000 are publicly listed,” making the integration of private markets increasingly logical. She also emphasized the democratization of access: “Minimums have dropped considerably… we are going to see a clear movement in that direction.”

From UBS, Lapadula proposed a balanced “barbell” approach, combining real assets, high-quality fixed income, and private markets, with an emphasis on liquidity in a more volatile environment.

Work-life balance: an evolving challenge

The panel closed by addressing a cross-cutting issue: the balance between personal and professional life, especially in a historically demanding industry. Harb was direct: “Do we really balance? Maybe not,” acknowledging personal sacrifices, especially in early stages.

Lapadula summarized her approach in one phrase: “I delegate tasks, not time,” prioritizing key moments both personally and professionally.

For her part, Maldonado proposed a pragmatic formula based on three decisions: “Deal with it, Delegate it, or Discard it,” also highlighting that technology has expanded the possibilities for balance. The final consensus pointed to a broader cultural shift, where family and work dynamics are evolving toward a more collaborative model. “It’s a team sport,” Lapadula concluded.

Juan Alcaraz Dies, Founder of Allfunds and Key Figure in the Transformation of Global Fund Distribution

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Juan Alcaraz founder of Allfunds
Photo courtesy

Allfunds has announced with deep sorrow the passing of Juan Alcaraz, founder of the company and Chief Executive Officer for more than twenty years, whose strategic vision was instrumental in establishing the firm as the leading global fund distribution platform.

Alcaraz founded Allfunds more than twenty-five years ago and led its international expansion during a period marked by innovation, sustained growth, and the consolidation of the group as a key player within the wealth management industry. His leadership transformed the company into a global benchmark in the financial sector and in wealth management.

The company highlights his foresight, his commitment to business development, and his constant enthusiasm for driving new growth opportunities. His role was decisive in building an organization with a global presence and a leadership position within the fund distribution market.

Beyond his business career, Juan Alcaraz was recognized for his vocation for service, his approachability, and his commitment to the professional development of those who worked alongside him. His dedication to talent and the training of new professionals left a deep mark within the organization.

Likewise, Allfunds has underscored his involvement in promoting the company’s philanthropic culture. His continued support for charitable initiatives and his interest in strengthening corporate social responsibility were an essential part of his legacy, an area that, according to the firm, brought him particular enthusiasm and pride.

The Board of Directors, the management team, and all Allfunds employees have extended their condolences to the family of Juan Alcaraz, as well as to all those who shared in his professional and personal journey. The company thus bids farewell to one of the most influential figures in its history and one of the main drivers behind the evolution of fund distribution at an international level.