\Private markets are entering a new growth phase, as strong investor demand and expanded access for retail investors reshape how capital is raised, structured, and distributed, according to new research by State Street Corporation.
The fifth annual Private Markets Study from State Street, titled “Resilience Meets Opportunity,” shows that demand in private markets remains exceptionally resilient, even against a backdrop of geopolitical uncertainty, inflationary pressures, and market volatility. Only 7% of firms expect to reduce their allocations, while half plan to increase their exposure, reinforcing the role of private markets as an essential component in long-term portfolio construction.
Retail Participation
At the same time, the sector is undergoing a structural shift toward retail investor participation as firms broaden access through wealth management channels. Specifically, more than 84% of asset and wealth managers already offer or plan to offer private market strategies to retail investors, demonstrating that retail access has moved from a long-term ambition to a core component of industry strategy.
“The private markets story is defined by resilience on one side and reinvention on the other. Demand remains strong, but bringing private markets to a broader investor base at scale is fundamentally reshaping how the industry operates. Success will depend on who can manage complexity and deliver consistent results to a much broader set of clients,” explains Joerg Ambrosius, President of Investment Services at State Street.
According to the firm, while expanding access to retail investors remains the primary opportunity, firms are taking a more measured approach regarding the pace of growth. The report notes that around 43% of organizations now expect retail-oriented vehicles to account for at least half of private market fundraising within the next three years (down from 56% in the previous year’s survey), reflecting a more realistic view of distribution and operational challenges. Demand is driven mainly by diversification and return potential, as well as access to key investment themes.
Capital Allocation Trends
The study also points to a clear shift in where capital is directed. Findings indicate that artificial intelligence and AI infrastructure rank as the top investment theme globally, underscoring the role of private markets in financing long-term structural growth across economies.
“Even in a more uncertain environment, private markets are increasingly where investors access the most important long-term growth trends, serving as a critical source of return and diversification. AI, infrastructure, and other structural opportunities are reinforcing the role of this asset class as a core allocation in portfolios. Firms will need to keep adapting to meet demand from a broader range of investors,” comments Donna Milrod, Chief Product Officer at State Street.
As firms scale their private market strategies toward retail investors, operational complexity emerges as the ultimate hurdle while asset and wealth managers adapt to serve a larger, more diverse client base. In this regard, nearly eight out of ten respondents cite liquidity management as a key challenge, with specific pain points including redemption management, cash forecasting, and liquidity stress testing as firms adjust to more dynamic investor flows. Regulatory compliance, reporting, and investor servicing are also intensifying as firms expand beyond their institutional client bases.
“Democratization is raising the bar for how private markets are structured and supported. Delivering these strategies at scale requires more than product innovation. It demands the operational, data, and infrastructure capabilities needed to deliver transparency, manage liquidity, and meet the expectations of a very different investor base,” clarifies Scott Carpenter, Global Head of Alternatives at State Street.
The Distribution Channel
The study highlights a clear consensus on distribution: wealth management platforms are viewed as the primary channel to access private markets, whereas defined contribution structures remain a secondary route for most firms. According to State Street, this reflects both investor suitability considerations and the role of financial advisors in navigating more complex investment structures.
Furthermore, the survey reveals that institutional investor demand for private markets remains remarkably resilient despite ongoing market and geopolitical uncertainty. “Demand is driven primarily by return expectations and diversification benefits, reinforcing the role of private markets as an essential allocation in long-term portfolio construction,” the report notes.
Taken together, the findings point to an industry entering a more demanding phase where growth, resilience, and innovation must be matched with operational discipline and scalability. Private markets are no longer defined solely by access. Instead, competitive advantage is shifting toward firms that can offer agile liquidity frameworks, transparency, and performance at scale.
Venezuela is leaving behind, at least partially, one of the greatest financial isolations in Latin American history. The gradual easing of United States sanctions is no longer limited to the oil sector.
Washington and Caracas began opening spaces for financial services, debt advisory, banking operations, and certain transactions linked to PDVSA, creating the conditions for the country to attempt a return to international capital markets.
The move is particularly relevant for fixed-income investors. Venezuela and its state oil company, PDVSA, have accumulated around $60 billion in defaulted bonds, while the total amount of obligations potentially involved in the restructuring could range between $200 billion and up to $240 billion when overdue interest, bilateral loans, corporate claims, and arbitration awards are added.
Calculations by analysts consulted by international agencies indicate that bond claims alone, including past-due interest, could reach about $102 billion.
The regulatory shift began taking a concrete financial shape on May 5, when the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License 58, which allows certain legal, financial, and consulting services related to an eventual restructuring of Venezuelan and PDVSA debt. The license, however, did not yet authorize the payment or settlement of debt nor direct negotiations between Caracas and its creditors.
That nuance is fundamental for markets because Washington did not open the Venezuelan market all at once; rather, it began removing one of the main regulatory obstacles so that a financial resolution could be reached.
Bond Market, First to React
The reaction of Venezuelan bonds shows the extent to which investors were awaiting a normalization of the financial situation in Venezuela after years of isolation.
When the United States authorized certain operations with PDVSA in March, the Venezuelan sovereign bond maturing in 2031 rose to 50.25 cents on the dollar, while the PDVSA 2027 advanced to 35.35 cents, according to LSEG data cited by Reuters.
The movement was not a simple reflection of better oil prospects. The market began discounting the possibility of an orderly restructuring and, above all, that Venezuela could once again generate sufficient income to support some form of recovery for creditors.
By mid-July, the Venezuela 2031 bond reached trading levels around 56 cents on the dollar, although it later pulled back toward the 54–55 cent range. Market records show that the instrument was well above its levels from the beginning of the year.
The signal is clear: the market is assigning a much higher value to debt that for years was virtually a frozen asset.
The next step was Caracas’s decision to formally initiate the restructuring of its external debt and that of PDVSA.
The Venezuelan government announced a process in May that it described as “comprehensive and orderly,” aiming to reduce the burden of accumulated obligations. In parallel, it hired Centerview Partners as financial advisor to lead the process.
The decision was received positively by markets, but it also opened a much more complex debate: what is Venezuela actually worth?
The absence of updated financial information is one of the main obstacles. Reuters noted in July that Venezuela had gone years without publishing complete debt statistics and that the universe of obligations could reach $240 billion, well above previous estimates of between $150 billion and $200 billion.
The problem is not only the size of the debt, but also its composition.
Venezuela owes approximately $25 billion to bilateral creditors; about $8.69 billion corresponds to the Paris Club, and between $13 billion and $15 billion are estimated to be obligations owed to China, according to estimates cited by Reuters.
Added to this are nearly $4 billion owed to multilateral banks such as CAF and the Inter-American Development Bank, along with over $20 billion in arbitral and judicial claims.
The complexity increases due to corporate obligations: Repsol has indicated that Venezuela owes it around 4.55 billion euros, while ENI reported about $3.3 billion in overdue accounts from PDVSA as of the end of 2025.
An Opportunity for Distressed Debt Funds
For the asset management industry, the Venezuelan case could become one of the most interesting distressed debt operations of the decade.
The reason is simple: there is an enormous volume of debt trading at deep discounts, a country with the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and a geopolitical shift that is progressively reducing entry barriers to the financial system.
However, an exceptional set of risks also exists: the true magnitude of the debt, the quality of financial information, legal uncertainty, creditor claims, the status of Citgo, PDVSA’s production capacity, and the possibility that the restructuring process will drag on. In other words, Venezuela is becoming investable again before becoming normal again.
That nuance may be the key for specialized managers. The opportunity lies not necessarily in buying Venezuelan debt as if it were traditional emerging market debt, but in evaluating recovery scenarios, creditor hierarchy, collateral, underlying assets, and the probability of normalization.
Private banking is also watching the return with interest, and the financial reopening is starting to alter the positioning of Venezuelan banking as well.
Private entities such as Banesco and Banco Nacional de Crédito continue operating in the local foreign exchange market and publishing financial information during 2026, while the banking system adapts to an environment of greater foreign currency usage and an eventual normalization of international financial relations.
In this sense, there is evidence that international banking is laying the groundwork: JPMorgan and Jefferies evaluated visits to Caracas amid growing investor interest in the economic recovery and debt restructuring, although both banks declined to comment publicly on their plans.
However, it seems the story still has several chapters left to unfold—at least that is also what some relevant global actors are saying.
The True Return Will Come When the Primary Market Returns
The biggest change for Venezuela will not be that its existing bonds rise in price. It will be that the country can issue new debt again under normal conditions, and it appears that moment is still far off.
The removal of secondary sanctions or the authorization of operations on existing debt can improve liquidity and the pricing of old instruments, but a full return to the primary market requires much more, including factors such as: reliable statistics, audits, a credible macroeconomic framework, a restructuring accepted by creditors, legal recognition of obligations, and a demonstrable capacity to pay.
The resumption of relations with the IMF and the World Bank constitutes another relevant component. Both institutions resumed relations with Caracas in April after several years of interruption, opening the door for technical assistance and eventually the use of approximately $5 billion in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) that Venezuela holds unutilized.
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva warned, however, that Venezuela still faces a “very difficult road” to recover macroeconomic and financial stability.
U.S. regulatory development reflects precisely this gradual nature.
OFAC maintains numerous restrictions on Venezuela and its state entities. Even after the new licenses, not all debt, equity, PDVSA asset, or sanctioned entity operations are authorized.
A particularly important example is the PDVSA 2020 bond with an 8.5% coupon, backed by an equity stake in Citgo. OFAC has issued specific licenses for certain operations related to this instrument, showing that Washington is advancing through specific exceptions and permits rather than an immediate, general elimination of the sanctions regime.
That mechanism has a direct consequence for investors: regulatory risk remains priced in.
For this reason, even though Venezuelan bonds have left their lows behind, they cannot yet be treated as conventional emerging market debt.
Oil Is the Key to Capital Markets
Venezuela’s recovery largely depends on its ability to convert its massive oil reserves into cash flow.
Reuters reported in July that oil companies and refiners are resuming direct deals with PDVSA as sanctions ease. Phillips 66, Valero, Reliance Industries, and Tipco Asphalt are among the companies that have resumed or prepared direct purchases of Venezuelan crude, while Chevron, Repsol, and Eni expand operations linked to Venezuela.
Currently, Venezuelan oil production stands at around 1.2 million barrels per day, according to Reuters, with expectations of reaching 1.37 million toward the end of 2026.
For debt markets, that evolution is crucial. Higher production means more external revenue, greater fiscal capacity, and, potentially, a source of resources to sustain a restructuring.
Yet a risk remains: that markets discount an oil recovery too quickly when it actually requires investment, infrastructure, technology, and legal stability.
Stepping Out of the System’s “Shadows”
Venezuela’s own monetary authority has described the shift as an opportunity to return to the international financial system.
Luis Pérez, interim president of the Central Bank of Venezuela, told Reuters in May that restructuring the Republic and PDVSA’s debt would allow the country to be brought “out of the shadows” of the global financial system.
Pérez also maintained that the United States plays a central role in lifting restrictions and highlighted the rapprochement between the Venezuelan central bank and the U.S. Treasury. Washington had previously authorized the Central Bank of Venezuela to conduct certain operations with foreign entities.
The statement is significant because it reflects the shift in perception within Caracas: lifting sanctions is no longer seen solely as a diplomatic or oil matter, but as the necessary condition for rebuilding financial channels that allow for debt refinancing, attracting investment, and eventually returning to the international capital market.
Perhaps the most important shift is that Venezuela is ceasing to be exclusively a geopolitical problem and becoming an investment thesis once again.
The gradual lifting of sanctions has reactivated bond prices, put PDVSA back on the radar of international investors, and set off a race among banks, distressed funds, financial advisors, and creditors to determine how much can be recovered from a debt load that could top $200 billion.
However, the market is also sending a message: the first stage of normalization may yield huge profits for those who bought debt at crisis prices, but the second—rebuilding a functional Venezuelan capital market—will require something far more difficult than an OFAC license. It will require trust, and the price of that trust cannot be measured entirely in monetary terms.
That trust must be built through financial transparency, predictable legal rules, sustainable oil production, and a debt restructuring that creditors consider credible.
For now, Washington has opened the door and investors are already entering the foyer; but Venezuela’s true return to Wall Street still depends on Caracas demonstrating that it can once again become an issuer, not just a distressed asset.
Photo courtesyMabrouk Chetouane, Global Head of Market Strategy at Natixis IM Solutions.
Mabrouk Chetouane, Global Head of Market Strategy at Natixis IM Solutions, believes that the cyclical decoupling observed during the first half of the year between the United States and the eurozone will likely continue for the remainder of the year. Specifically, the expert expects U.S. GDP growth to hover around its potential rate (2.4%), while eurozone growth will struggle to exceed an annual average of 0.7%.
In his view, the pressure exerted by the exogenous supply shock associated with the Middle East conflict on energy prices continues to weigh on the European economy and business activity. Without a doubt, the big question is what we can expect between now and December. We asked Chetouane about this in our latest interview at Funds Society.
What factors do you think will drive the markets during the second half of the year?
We identify three key factors that will mark the evolution of financial markets in the second half of the year. First, geopolitical factors will continue to cloud the outlook for risk assets. Although investors have largely grown accustomed to an environment characterized by the proliferation of conflicts, any escalation will translate into a new surge in market volatility.
Second, monetary factors will play a decisive role in shaping monetary and financial conditions and, consequently, the performance of equity markets. Finally, corporate earnings growth will be the determining variable in whether stock markets can continue to advance.
How will these factors influence the positioning of investment portfolios?
Logically, a resurgence of hostilities would cause renewed tension in energy markets, bond yields, and currency markets, although it would not necessarily trigger a significant correction in financial markets. Conversely, an easing of tensions in the Middle East—coupled with the absence of new conflict flashpoints globally—would present a favorable scenario for capital markets.
The monetary factor is probably the most unpredictable. Central banks have abandoned forward guidance, leaving greater room for monetary policy surprises. This new environment could increase capital market volatility and significantly raise the cost of capital.
How do you think portfolios should be adjusted for the rest of the year?
We believe that upward pressure on bond yields will persist during the second half. In this context, it is appropriate to reduce portfolio duration by increasing allocations to liquidity or high-yield corporate debt. Although equities—especially the technology sector—will continue to experience episodes of volatility and short-term rallies, we believe stock markets will remain supported by solid corporate earnings growth. Therefore, we maintain an overweight position in equities, particularly in markets driven by growth companies.
What factor do you consider the market is overlooking that, in your opinion, will be relevant?
Generally speaking, the market is aware of the main risks that could impact its functioning. However, at present, it is ignoring the domestic political factor in the United States. The approach of the midterm elections could become a major source of division within American society and ultimately disrupt the behavior of financial markets.
What can we expect from Warsh’s Fed, and what implications will it have for investors?
The arrival of the Federal Reserve’s new leadership marks a clear break from the approach adopted in recent years. By abandoning forward guidance, Kevin Warsh favors a more discretionary strategy regarding monetary policy, which may generate greater uncertainty among investors regarding the institution’s future decisions. The reduced visibility stemming from this new governance model will, de facto, translate into increased uncertainty, which is expected to trigger greater volatility in capital markets and a higher risk premium, particularly in sovereign bonds.
Global asset managers face growing pressure to transform their business models or risk falling behind in a sector where client expectations are being profoundly redefined. This is the warning from the study “An Expanding Mandate: A Systems Level Framework for Asset Management,” jointly produced by WTW’s Thinking Ahead Institute (TAI) and the CAIA Association. The report argues that traditional approaches, focused exclusively on returns relative to a benchmark index, are losing relevance in an environment increasingly shaped by interconnected risks, structural shifts, and rising client demands.
The research highlights a widening gap between firms adapting to this new reality and those continuing to operate under legacy frameworks. The report calls this new approach “systems-level investing,” a model that recognizes that long-term investment outcomes depend on the health and resilience of the broader economic, social, and environmental systems in which markets operate.
While firms generally acknowledge the importance of major structural themes such as geopolitics, artificial intelligence, or the convergence between public and private markets, the research indicates that many are not yet able to respond to them in an integrated manner—a capability that will be decisive for future success.
In contrast, some large asset owners—including sovereign wealth funds and pension plans—are adopting increasingly integrated approaches, with a greater emphasis on real-world outcomes and long-term resilience, and they expect the same from the asset managers they appoint.
The study also reveals that, despite intense industry rhetoric surrounding artificial intelligence, asset managers are not investing in AI at the pace public perception suggests. Five-year projections show that firms intend to keep human capital investment at the forefront, while technology spending increases only marginally. This finding underscores the need to balance the push for AI with other priorities such as talent, governance, and decision-making.
A Return to the Traditional Model
In this landscape, the portfolio management sector is undergoing strategic repositioning and accelerated consolidation. Although these trends stem from multiple factors, firms slower to evolve their capabilities and business models could find themselves more exposed to these pressures as client expectations continue to shift.
Therefore, the Thinking Ahead Institute and CAIA Association urge leaders in the asset management industry to rethink how success is defined within their organizations, strengthen their ability to make decisions in a more interconnected environment, and develop the talent and cultures necessary to operate effectively in a more complex world.
“Asset management is running out of room to maneuver with traditional approaches. In a world defined by interconnected risks, structural changes, and growing client demand, benchmark-only thinking is no longer enough. Firms need to adopt a more integrated, systemic view to remain relevant,” notes Marisa Hall, Director of the Thinking Ahead Institute.
In the view of Brenda Szymanowski, Investments Director at WTW Spain, many asset managers remain attached to models built for a simpler context. “The reality, uncomfortable as it may be, is that relevance is already being quietly but decisively redistributed by asset owners toward those who have transformed their organizations for this new reality,” she comments.
Finally, for John Bowman, CEO of CAIA, the era of training in technical skills within investment management has definitively given way to lateral and cross-disciplinary thinking. “Geopolitical fragmentation, technological disruption, demographic shifts, and the growing convergence between public and private markets demand a broader view, capable of connecting dots across different disciplines. This report highlights why systems thinking is becoming a strategic necessity for investment organizations seeking to stay relevant, resilient, and aligned with the evolving needs of asset owners,” he maintains.
The United States has replaced temporary tariffs with new duties ranging between 10% and 12.5% targeting 60 countries, which account for 99% of its goods imports. Far from signaling a relaxation of tariff policy, this move highlights Washington’s determination to maintain strong trade protection while preparing new measures, as highlighted by Coface economists.
Washington Maintains Tariff Pressure
According to Coface, the expiration of temporary tariffs established under Section 122 does not represent a retreat in U.S. trade policy. These tariffs expired on July 24, but they have been replaced by new duties ranging from 10% to 12.5%, based on Section 301, applicable to 60 countries representing 99% of U.S. goods imports. This transition highlights Washington’s determination to maintain a high level of tariff protection despite legal hurdles encountered in recent months.
“The immediate impact on the average level of customs duties is expected to be limited: the new measures do not automatically add to already existing tariffs and do not significantly alter the average rate applied to U.S. imports. Nevertheless, they demonstrate the U.S. administration’s ability to adapt its instruments and continue advancing its trade strategy,” Coface analysts add.
A Stronger Legal Basis
Section 301 has already been used by the United States to impose tariffs, notably against China during the first Trump administration. Unlike the framework based on IEEPA, whose solidness was questioned due to the lack of explicit authorization to impose tariffs, Section 301 provides the White House with a stronger and more clearly established legal basis.
However, this increased legal foundation does not rule out the possibility of future challenges. To justify these duties, Washington argues that affected countries lack effective mechanisms to prohibit or control imports resulting from forced labor. Importing companies could challenge this rationale, particularly given that it applies to a very broad group of trading partners.
“This decision is not simply a technical renewal of existing tariffs. Above all, it demonstrates Washington’s intention to convert a contested regime into a more sustainable tariff framework. For businesses, the message is clear: the risk of U.S. tariffs remains high, even when a measure is on the verge of expiring,” explains Marcos Carias, North America economist at Coface.
New Tariffs on the Horizon
The new tariffs between 10% and 12.5% restore a common tariff framework for a large portion of U.S. imports, but they do not fully restore the previous regime. That regime also included additional surcharges targeting specific countries or products. It is precisely this second layer of measures that Washington could seek to reinstate in the coming months.
A new investigation under Section 301 is already underway, focusing this time on the structural overcapacity of 16 economies, including China, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Vietnam, Mexico, and several Southeast Asian countries. While both the timeline and tariff levels that could result from this probe remain unknown, this procedure could allow Washington to target its measures more specifically against certain economies.
Other sector-specific investigations are also being conducted, particularly in aerospace, drones, medical equipment, robotics, industrial machinery, wind turbines, critical minerals, and polysilicon. Here again, it is not possible to predict with precision what measures might be adopted, but these investigations confirm that U.S. tariff policy remains in full evolution.
Canada: An Example of Escalating Trade Pressure
The pressure being exerted on Canada illustrates this dynamic. The United States has announced new 50% tariffs on Canadian imports valued at $20 billion—equivalent to 5.2% of Canadian exports to the U.S.—set to take effect on August 19, 2026.
At first glance, this measure appears designed as a leverage tool in North American trade talks. Its macroeconomic impact would remain limited should it come into force, but it confirms the increasingly frequent use of tariffs as an instrument of economic and diplomatic pressure.
Digital assets are entering a “mature institutional phase,” with sector development reflecting the growth of private markets, according to a new report by Nickel Digital Asset Management (Nickel). Based on a global survey of institutional investors and wealth managers together managing over $14 trillion in assets, the report reveals that 91% plan to increase their digital asset holdings over the coming year.
Furthermore, 65% place digital assets among their top five asset classes for risk-adjusted returns over the next five years. This figure surpasses the 61% who opted for private equity and the 53% who selected European equities and commodities in the report titled *The Next Stage of the Digital Assets Investment Revolution*.
Market Evolution and Asset Allocation
Nickel believes the study—conducted across the U.S., U.K., Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, Brazil, and the United Arab Emirates—demonstrates that the evolution of digital assets mirrors the development of private markets as a whole. Looking at the alternative asset class data, 58% of institutional investors and wealth managers view digital assets as part of their allocation to alternative asset classes. Meanwhile, data for the standalone sector indicates that the remaining 42% classify them as a standalone sector.
The research for the report also revealed that pension funds and wealth managers are among the investor profiles likely to lead the adoption of digital assets over the next two years. Around 69% of professional investors surveyed believe that pension fund investment will increase dramatically, while 60% hold the same view regarding wealth managers. The Nickel report also examines a wide range of other topics, such as digital asset corporate treasuries, crypto IPOs, ETF launches, tokenization, and the appeal of careers in the crypto sector.
“We conduct regular research across the sector, and it is clear that institutional investors are no longer debating whether digital assets should be part of their portfolios, but rather how to access them in a controlled manner with proper risk management. For this adoption to continue, stronger regulation and greater transparency will be required to alleviate lingering concerns around operational risk and market integrity. Nevertheless, digital assets are advancing into a more mature institutional phase, where growth will be driven less by speculative flows and more by disciplined strategic allocations,” notes Anatoly Crachilov, CEO and founding partner of Nickel Digital.
Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Portugal, Italy, and Greece are the jurisdictions with the best residency programs for high-net-worth individuals and investors, according to the 2026 Global Residency Programs Index produced by Global Citizen Solutions (GCS). “We built the index around five weighted pillars: quality of life, procedure, mobility, investment, and compliance and credibility, because no single number tells the whole story of a residency program. For that very reason, quality of life carries the greatest weight among all the pillars in our model, tied with procedure,” explains Laura Madrid, Lead Researcher at the Global Intelligence Unit at Global Citizen.
The Top Five, at a Glance
According to the firm, Switzerland’s edge comes from a perfect score in Compliance & Credibility, paired with near-elite quality of life, top-tier mobility, and a strong fiscal profile. It ranks among the safest and most politically stable countries in the world; the trade-off is one of the highest costs of living, offset by exceptional healthcare, world-class schools, and a family-friendly culture oriented around the outdoors across four distinct Alpine seasons.
Second place is occupied by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a region that stands out in fiscal matters. It offers zero personal income tax and a comparatively low entry threshold, available through routes such as real estate investment. Added to this is strong mobility and one of the lowest-crime environments in the world, alongside a large international expat community and family-oriented infrastructure. Its Golden Visa offers only a renewable residency status, as Emirati nationality is reserved for exceptional cases nominated by the government and is not something an investor can work toward.
In third place, Portugal’s Golden Visa offers a high quality of life, near-maximum mobility thanks to a full EU/Schengen passport, and a pathway to citizenship of between seven and ten years depending on nationality. According to the GCS study, it can be obtained through a qualifying investment fund (minimum of €500,000 in a private equity or venture capital fund investing in Portuguese companies), a cultural donation (starting at around €200,000), a contribution to scientific research, or an investment tied to job creation. “It remains Europe’s best value-for-money option, with a moderate cost of living, a mild Atlantic climate, and a welcoming culture for families relocating from abroad, making it the highest-ranked route in the EU,” they indicate.
Italy achieves fourth position thanks to its process and the strength of its passport, rather than its price. Its Investor Visa offers a fast and flexible menu of qualifying investments (government bonds, corporate shares, startups, or a philanthropic donation), combined with strong mobility within the EU. According to analysts at the firm, that combination offsets a costlier and less tax-efficient entry.
Finally, Greece is, by a wide margin, the fastest-processing program in the index, combined with strong mobility. Its Mediterranean climate, welcoming culture, and relaxed, community-centered lifestyle make it a great choice for families prioritizing sunshine and hospitality. Of the top five, it is the only one where real estate remains the primary route—with the threshold for qualifying property raised to €800,000 in prime areas as of September 2024—though an alternative investment in startups is now also available.
The Americas: North, South, and Central
The U.S. EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program (83.9) and the E-2 Treaty Investor visa (82.6) remain solid options, but both fall outside the global top 10 this year, sitting in 27th and 32nd place, respectively. Canada’s Quebec Investor and Provincial routes round out the global top 10 in 10th place (88.6), boasting quality-of-life scores among the highest in the Index—a relevant comparison for Americans weighing a move within the region.
Additionally, Panama, Costa Rica, Brazil, Mexico, Paraguay, and the Dominican Republic offer accessible, lower-cost residency with fast processes and strong lifestyle appeal, though none scores high enough to reach the top global tier.
“Some of this year’s fastest programs are found in Latin America: the Dominican Republic can process applications in as little as 45 to 90 days, Costa Rica and Mexico require only a light, ongoing connection to the country, and Brazil combines an eight-month timeframe with a fast track toward naturalization. For a growing number of our clients, overseas residency is not simply a financial instrument; it is a life decision. Cost and compliance matter, but so does how one actually lives day-to-day in a new country: the schools, healthcare, and community. That is precisely what this year’s Index was built to capture: destinations like Italy, Portugal, and Greece top the table because of the combination of their strengths, and because of how good daily life actually feels,” notes Patricia Casaburi, CEO of Global Citizen Solutions.
August—a summer month for Europe—has begun with volatility in financial markets coexisting with risk appetite. “The momentum from the final stretch of the previous month was led by the tech sector on Wall Street, whose solid earnings offset inflationary rigidity. Despite this, the S&P 500 recorded a slight monthly dip for the second consecutive month, standing 2% below its all-time highs, while the Fear and Greed Index positioned itself at 39/100. Regarding energy, the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) fell to 308 million barrels, its lowest level since 1983, and pushed crude oil to its largest monthly gain since March,” notes Felipe Mendoza, market analyst at EBC Financial Group.
For this expert, in the coming weeks we will see a two-phase volatility scenario: “A first half of August dominated by technical adjustments, profit-taking, and pressure toward fixed-income assets, followed by a second half of the month where Nvidia’s guidance and the digestion of inflation data could reactivate the bullish trend toward the final quarter of the year.”
In his view, the main risk to this projection is concentrated in the military escalation with Iran, the contradictory narrative surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, and its potential repercussions on global crude oil supply. Given this context, two asset classes take center stage: gold and the dollar.
Gold: From All-Time Highs to Readjustment in Six Months
Attention on gold stems from its start to the year as one of the most attractive and top-performing assets, only to close out the first half of 2026 by registering a significant correction. “Gold has experienced a remarkable trend reversal during the first half of 2026. After reaching an intraday all-time high of $5,595 per ounce on January 29, prices suffered a sharp correction and, at the time of writing in early July, are trading below the level at which they began the year. Although the magnitude of the correction has unsettled investors, we consider it a healthy readjustment rather than the end of the structural bull market,” explains Nitesh Shah, Head of Commodities and Macroeconomic Research at WisdomTree.
According to his analysis, the extraordinary valuation premium generated during the 2025–26 rally has largely unwound, leaving gold much closer to its estimated fair value. “We anticipate that gold’s next phase will be determined primarily by macroeconomic fundamentals, rather than exceptional investor demand,” he clarifies.
For Shah, now that valuations have normalized, their outlook turns back to the macroeconomic variables that historically have accounted for most of the variation in gold prices. “Gold could face intermittent short-term headwinds as markets continue to reassess the outlook for U.S. monetary policy. The latest forecasts from the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and the accompanying communications were interpreted as a sign that the Fed would adopt a somewhat more hawkish stance, leading futures markets to price in rate hikes as early as September,” the WisdomTree expert points out.
Consequently, according to current consensus forecasts, the firm’s model points to a recovery reaching $4,563 per ounce by the second quarter of 2027, “although sensitivity analysis shows how different macroeconomic scenarios could substantially alter that trajectory,” Shah adds.
Macroeconomics and the Dollar Outlook
These reflections on gold are connected to the behavior of the dollar. As Shah acknowledges, a large part of gold’s weakness during 2026 can be explained by the appreciation of the U.S. dollar. “The dollar strengthened to reach its highest level in over a year, driven by the relative energy security of the United States during the conflict with Iran, outperforming many other currencies typically considered safe havens,” he recalls.
Looking ahead to the remainder of the year, most experts agree that the short-term macroeconomic outlook remains positive for the dollar. “U.S. economic activity has held up better than that of other major economies, but inflation remains persistent and the market has had to price in a tighter Fed path. This movement in relative yields has already contributed to the dollar breaking above its previous trading range and is, broadly speaking, consistent with our central scenario of riding dollar strength through the end of 2026,” argues David Rees, Head of Global Economics at Schroders.
In this regard, Schroders’ baseline forecast projects the dollar to rise throughout 2026 before easing slightly in 2027. “Our assumptions for year-end 2026, published at the time, were: GBPUSD at 1.21, EURUSD at 1.07, USDRMB at 7.09, and USDJPY at 167.8. Our working hypothesis for year-end 2027 anticipates the dollar giving back part of those gains—reaching 1.27, 1.12, 7.03, and 162.5, respectively—as weakening inflationary pressures provide relief to a hawkish Fed, and a shift toward a more forward-looking policy agenda reinstates rate cuts in 2027,” Rees notes.
Furthermore, according to Rees, more broadly speaking, if the euphoria in U.S. markets comes to an end, there are good reasons to believe the dollar could suffer the consequences. “A weaker dollar carries significant implications for all investors globally. These range from immediate portfolio impacts to longer-term effects on asset returns as economies, sectors, and individual companies adapt to a lower-value dollar,” he indicates.
The World Cup ended just a few weeks ago. Fans celebrated the champion, the cameras stopped rolling, and brands began preparing for the next sports season. From the capital markets’ perspective, however, the most interesting match is just getting started.
What remains once the competition ends isn’t just the sporting results. Broadcasting contracts, sponsorship agreements, brand licenses, commercial rights, and other assets capable of generating income for years to come all remain in place. The relevant question for asset managers and financial institutions is no longer how much money sports move, but what characteristics that income must have to become an asset with value for the capital markets.
The answer marks an important distinction. The market doesn’t finance the excitement a club or tournament generates; it finances the capacity of certain economic rights to produce identifiable, predictable, and legally protected cash flows.
The transformation of sport into a global industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars has been closely tied to the development and protection of intangible assets. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) notes that trademarks, copyright, and broadcasting rights are essential tools for protecting and commercializing the economic value of sport through licensing, merchandising, and commercial agreements.
This evolution is also reflected in the numbers. The world’s 20 highest-earning football clubs generated a combined €12.4 billion during the 2024/2025 season, according to the 2026 edition of the Deloitte Football Money League. Of that total, €5.3 billion came from commercial activities, €4.7 billion from broadcasting rights, and €2.4 billion from stadium-related revenue.
Figure 1. Distribution of revenue among leading football clubs (2024/2025)
Source: Deloitte Football Money League 2026
Beyond their sheer size, these figures reveal a fundamental point: modern sport has significantly diversified its revenue sources. This diversity doesn’t automatically turn that income into financeable assets, but it does broaden the universe of economic rights worth analyzing from a capital markets perspective.
When a revenue stream becomes a financial asset
From an asset manager’s perspective, the real value doesn’t lie in the stadium, the crest, or a team’s popularity. It lies in the quality of the cash flow.
The methodologies developed by agencies such as Fitch Ratings to evaluate transactions involving sports franchises, leagues, and facilities show that the analysis centers on certain revenue streams’ capacity to support financial obligations.
Broadly speaking, several attributes increase a revenue stream’s appeal for potential financial structuring.
These attributes help explain why two sports organizations with similar revenue levels can have completely different financial profiles. A multi-year broadcasting contract with a high-quality counterparty offers very different stability than income tied exclusively to ticket sales or sporting performance.
The role of asset securitization
This is precisely where securitization becomes relevant.
Far from creating value on its own, asset securitization makes it possible to structure certain economic rights and turn them into financial instruments backed by future cash flows. In other words, it converts income that would be received over time into financing capacity today.
For sports organizations, this can offer an alternative way to finance infrastructure, refinance debt, develop new business lines, or accelerate growth projects without relying exclusively on traditional bank financing.
That said, a transaction’s viability depends less on the organization’s fame and more on the quality of the underlying cash flows, the legal structure, and the protection mechanisms built in for investors.
A practical case: Inter Milan
These concepts stop being theoretical once you see them applied to a real transaction. One of the most illustrative examples is Inter Media and Communication S.p.A, the company created to manage certain broadcasting and commercial revenue for FC Internazionale Milano.
More than just financing a football club, the transaction shows how certain economic rights can be organized through a structure designed to give investors a clearly identifiable repayment source. In 2017, the company issued €300 million in senior secured notes aimed at institutional investors. It followed up in 2022 with a new issuance of €415 million, with proceeds used mainly to refinance existing debt and strengthen the group’s financial structure.
What makes this transaction interesting isn’t just its size. The structure was backed by identifiable income from broadcasting and sponsorship contracts, managed through specific collection and protection mechanisms for noteholders. This approach partially ring-fenced those cashflows from the rest of the club’s operating activity and gave investors greater visibility into the repayment source.
The case shows that the capital markets don’t simply finance a prestigious sports brand. They finance structures backed by economic rights whose stability and traceability can be objectively analyzed.
A lesson that goes beyond sport
The sports industry is an excellent laboratory for understanding a broader capital markets trend.
Increasingly, economic value is concentrated in intangible assets capable of generating recurring income: content, intellectual property, commercial contracts, or exploitation rights. Securitization offers a tool for channeling part of that value into the capital markets through structures designed to turn future cashflows into financing today.
Sport illustrates this shift with particular clarity. Not because it’s an exceptional industry, but because it shows how markets no longer look only at physical assets, but at the capacity of certain economic rights to produce stable, structurable cashflows.
The World Cup may be over, but it leaves behind a lesson that goes beyond sport. As industries generate a growing share of their value from contracts, intellectual property, and other economic rights, the challenge for the capital markets shifts from identifying physical assets to understanding the quality of the cashflows those assets can generate.
In that context, securitization represents much more than a financing alternative. It’s a tool that connects certain income-generating assets with investors seeking identifiable, structured, and transparent cash flows.
Markets don’t invest in the excitement of sport; they invest in the quality of the cashflows that excitement can generate. Perhaps that’s the main financial lesson the World Cup leaves behind: The match ends on the pitch, but the real economic value continues long after the final whistle.
About FlexFunds
For more than 15 years, FlexFundshas worked alongside asset managers and financial institutions to design solutions that facilitate access to the capital markets through investment vehicles built to international distribution standards.
The evolution of industries like sports shows that financial structuring and securitization continue to expand the possibilities for turning certain economic rights into financing and investment solutions. Understanding the nature of the underlying cashflows and selecting the right structure is a key element for the success of this type of transaction.
To learn more about FlexFunds’ asset securitization program, visit www.flexfunds.com or contact our team of specialists.
The formula for preserving a major fortune has remained almost infallible and has been passed down through generations for decades: real estate, family businesses, stocks, bonds, and liquidity. Diversification has been important, but wealth tends to stay close to what the family knows and directly controls. However, the generation of “new rich” is altering this equation.
Millennial and Gen Z heirs, as well as new entrepreneurs who have built their fortunes around technology, venture creation, and financial assets, are incorporating a much broader mix of investments: private equity, private credit, venture capital, digital assets, artificial intelligence, infrastructure, gold, and thematic strategies.
This phenomenon is already beginning to transform the wealth management industry. Furthermore, the shift is happening at an exceptional moment: the world is entering a wealth transfer of historic proportions. The Capgemini World Wealth Report 2025 estimates that $83.5 trillion in wealth will be transferred to new generations by 2048. The study analyzed the opinions of 6,472 high-net-worth investors, of which 5,473 belong to the so-called next-gen categories.
The scale of this movement is so massive that it is no longer just about who will inherit the money. The question the financial industry is beginning to ask is what this new generation will do with it. A series of emerging trends, if consolidated, could dominate the coming decades. Here are some of them.
The First Shift: Less Dependence on Stocks and Bonds
One of the most revealing studies for understanding the generational gap comes from Bank of America Private Bank. Its 2026 study found that 67% of young investors—Gen Z and Millennials aged 21 to 45—believe that traditional stocks and bonds are no longer sufficient to achieve above-average returns. The contrast with older generations is striking: young investors allocate around 15% of their portfolios to alternative investments and 13% to cryptocurrencies, whereas older generations maintain a significantly higher proportion in traditional stocks.
Furthermore, 88% of wealthy young investors state that they will likely increase their exposure to alternative assets over the next few years, compared to just 15% among boomers and older generations. But this trend did not appear overnight. In BofA’s previous study from 2024, young investors allocated 17% of their portfolios to alternatives, compared to 5% among those over 44. In stocks and bonds, the ratio was virtually inverted: 47% for younger investors versus 74% for older ones.
The takeaway for asset managers is clear: diversification no longer simply means combining stocks, bonds, and cash. For the new high-net-worth investor, diversification also means exposure to private companies, infrastructure, digital assets, real assets, and technological trends.
Crypto Assets Leave Curiosity Status Behind
Among wealthy individuals of the new generations, one of the most obvious differences from their predecessors emerges. In 2026, 58% of young investors surveyed by BofA already own cryptocurrencies, up from 49% in 2024. Moreover, 92% say they either own them or are interested in doing so. Even more telling: 29% identify cryptocurrencies as the top wealth-creation opportunity for young investors. This does not mean the new rich have abandoned prudence.
In fact, the behavior of high-net-worth individuals demonstrates something more interesting: digital assets are evolving from a fringe bet into a potential component of a much broader wealth architecture. The family office landscape itself confirms this transition. The UBS Global Family Office Report 2026, based on 307 family offices across more than 30 markets with an average family wealth of $2.7 billion, found that 44% of family offices with cryptocurrency exposure now consider these assets part of their strategic allocation.
The invested proportion remains generally small, around 1%, but the conceptual shift is significant: crypto assets are no longer necessarily viewed as an exception, but as a potential asset class within the wealth architecture.
From the Family Property to the Global Portfolio
There is another particularly key distinction among younger wealthy generations: the traditional Latin American wealth model was tightly bound to family businesses, real estate, and domestic assets. However, the new investor holds a far more global perspective. Research published in June 2026 by the CFA Institute on Latin American family offices concludes that these vehicles are evolving from structures focused primarily on wealth preservation into strategic wealth platforms, driven in part by younger generations seeking diversification, private markets, and better risk-adjusted returns outside the traditional family businesses.
This shift is particularly relevant for Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, and Chile; the research indicates that a large portion of major fortunes in Latin America remains in the first or second generation. This means the wealth professionalization process is far from complete. But the new generation is introducing another variable: global exposure.
Travel, international education, professional experience in other markets, and engagement with new technologies are broadening the investment universe that heirs consider viable. In Mexico, for instance, this can translate into a mix of a local family business, an international financial portfolio, alternative investments, offshore structures, and direct stakes in global companies. The family wealth is not necessarily abandoned—it is given a second layer.
And within the concept of legacy lies one of the most important nuances of the story. It would be a journalistic mistake to portray the younger generations as investors eager to liquidate their parents’ legacy to buy cryptocurrencies or tech stocks; on the contrary, evidence points to something far more sophisticated.
The CFA Institute research on Latin America notes that the shift among young heirs is not simply a preference for monetizing wealth over preserving legacy. Rather, it represents a search for more options and greater diversification. In other words: the old rich ask, “How do I preserve what I built?” while the new rich ask, “How do I preserve this while using it to build something new?”
AI Becomes the New Arena of Competition
Artificial intelligence is perhaps the clearest example of how new generations think in terms of structural themes rather than purely financial instruments. The UBS Global Family Office Report 2026 shows that family offices are increasing their interest in artificial intelligence, infrastructure, energy, and resources. In Latin America, 61% of family offices plan to adjust their strategic asset allocation during 2026, with artificial intelligence, infrastructure, and energy/resources standing out as the top three investment trends.
This data is significant because it proves that the transformation is not limited to young investors alone. The influence of the new generation is beginning to filter through to the institutional structures of the families themselves. The family office thus becomes a laboratory where two philosophies coexist: capital preservation and the pursuit of the industries that will drive the next wealth cycle. Yet paradoxically, while younger individuals seek higher risk and new asset classes, traditional investors retain an advantage that younger generations still need to develop: accumulated experience.
Family wealth is often built around decades of entrepreneurial knowledge, relationships, productive assets, and the ability to weather different economic cycles. Therefore, the model that seems to be emerging is not a total replacement of one generation by another, but rather a hybridization. The old rich bring preservation, discipline, experience, and wealth governance. The new rich contribute technology, globalization, alternatives, speed, and new information sources. The result can be a far more sophisticated portfolio.
Herein lies what is likely the greatest risk for the wealth management industry: it is not that younger generations are less interested in wealth, but that they want to participate in decisions earlier. The UBS Global Family Office Report 2026 reveals a paradox: although families recognize the importance of preparing heirs, only 27% have a structured process to educate and prepare the next generation for future responsibilities. Furthermore, only 35% have a formal succession plan for the family office itself.
The consequence can be wealth fragmentation: an heir might retain the family business while moving financial investments to a different institution. They might also use a family office for one portion of their wealth, a digital platform for another, a specialized manager for private equity, and an offshore institution for international assets. The client who once concentrated virtually their entire wealth relationship within a single institution can now split it across multiple providers—presenting one of the greatest challenges for traditional private banking.
The New Wealth Map
This generational transition is, moreover, taking place over an ever-expanding wealth base. The UBS Global Wealth Report 2026 estimates that personal wealth worldwide increased by 10.8% during 2025, marking the highest growth rate since 2017. Additionally, the number of US dollar millionaires grew by nearly one million people, equivalent to over 2,600 new millionaires every day. Consequently, the potential market for the new generation of managers consists not only of heirs to great fortunes, but also an increasing number of individuals who built their wealth outside traditional sectors.
Technology, entrepreneurship, private equity, startups, fintech, artificial intelligence, and capital markets are giving rise to new fortunes that do not necessarily share the financial culture of previous generations. That is where the true “new rich” emerges—and it is not solely the inheriting child. It is also the tech entrepreneur, the startup founder, the executive awarded company stock, the investor who built financial wealth, or the entrepreneur who exited their business.
In the end, the gap between the old rich and the new rich may be smaller than it appears, as both seek to preserve and grow their wealth, pursue diversification, aim to protect their families, and require efficient tax, estate, and structural planning.
The key difference lies in what they consider a solid portfolio and how they define wealth preservation: for the previous generation, preserving meant primarily avoiding loss, whereas for the next generation, preserving can mean maintaining purchasing power, diversifying globally, and staying invested in the industries creating future wealth.
Thus, rather than a battle between “old rich” and “new rich,” what is unfolding is a transfer of power within the wealth architecture. And that transfer is only just beginning. The next major battle for the wealth management industry will not merely be about managing more assets—it will be about becoming the trusted advisor to a new generation that intends to manage its wealth in a radically different way.
