This Is the New Investment Moment for Latin America

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Canva

Global investors, policymakers, and business leaders gathered in Miami during the sessions organized by the FII Institute to analyze how capital is shifting across regions, sectors, and technologies in a period marked by geopolitical and economic changes and shocks.

One of the main conclusions was the key role that Latin America is playing in the reconfiguration of global capital flows. At the center of the debate on its role are nearshoring, infrastructure, energy, and human capital as key drivers of long-term growth.

In this context, participants highlighted Latin America’s transformation into a safe haven and a growth engine, with abundant natural resources, expanding capital markets, and increasing geopolitical relevance. “This is the moment to move from fragmentation to alignment, from hesitation to action. The new Latin American order will not be defined by speeches, but by decisions, alliances, and investment,” said Richard Attias, Chairman of the Executive Committee and Acting CEO of the FII Institute.

Capital in motion

Among the most notable themes during the event were strong capital inflows into key markets such as Brazil, Latin America’s role in global food and energy security, and the need to invest in infrastructure and education to unlock long-term returns.

“We are moving away from viewing social investment as a cost and recognizing it as the foundation of economic growth, because addressing early childhood, health, education, and sanitation is what truly shapes a country’s future,” said María José Pinto González Artigas, Vice President of Ecuador.

Throughout the sessions, three messages were consistently emphasized: capital is shifting toward new geographies, including Latin America; it is increasingly focused on long-term resilience and real-economy impact; and it is moving rapidly, driven by geopolitics, technology, and energy transitions.

They also agreed that in a world where disruption is the “new normal,” capital is being repositioned. “As global leaders continue their conversations in the coming days, the focus remains the same: how to align capital with opportunity and how to turn that movement into measurable impact,” noted the FII Institute.

Energy, infrastructure, and the next investment cycle

When it comes to turning challenges into opportunities, Venezuela and the new opportunities in its technology sector took center stage. Speaking remotely, Delcy Rodríguez Gómez, Acting President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, highlighted that the country is welcoming more than 120 energy companies from the United States, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Europe amid legal reforms. According to her, Venezuela’s hydrocarbons law and broader legal reforms have been designed to provide the legal certainty investors need.

Another clear area of opportunity is infrastructure. According to experts participating in a panel on the topic, discussions in this sector are focused on the challenges that energy and electricity supply constraints pose for nearshoring, as well as the rapid expansion of industrial infrastructure and data centers. Participants also highlighted the role of tourism, logistics, and cultural infrastructure in generating long-term returns.

In this regard, Manfredi Lefebvre d’Ovidio, Chairman of the World Travel & Tourism Council, emphasized the importance of Miami and investment partnerships for Latin America’s success: “Global public-private collaboration is essential for Latin America’s success, and Miami is proof of that. Most flights from Europeans traveling to Latin America pass through Miami.”

The Conflict in Iran Delays the Thesis, but Does Not Deactivate It

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Pixabay CC0 Public Domain

One more week, market attention remains focused on energy prices and fears of a possible stagflation. The verdict remains one of contained concern, without panic, as the conflict in Iran has increased volatility but has not severely damaged the performance of risk assets.

The macroeconomic situation is different from the one that preceded the 2022 energy crisis. In addition, the world is now 60% less dependent on oil than in the 1970s, which mitigates the structural impact.

That said, the historical threshold for real damage is clear: oil needs to more than double to trigger a recession or a bear market. In the case of WTI, that implies sustainably exceeding $140 per barrel, an outcome that is possible but not yet the base case. If energy spending were to double, it would absorb approximately 7% of U.S. disposable income, slowing consumption and weakening the Republican bloc ahead of the midterm elections.

Iran cannot win militarily, but it can keep oil prices elevated long enough to force a shift in Washington’s stance. Trump, under pressure from a largely anti-war public, the proximity of legislative elections, and an affordability crisis directly affecting his electoral base, has strong incentives to resolve the conflict quickly. Markets are pricing in a favorable outcome, but a deterioration in the situation could generate a further correction, not necessarily a bear market, but an episode uncomfortable enough to precipitate a resolution.

In recent days, we have received clear signs of a conciliatory stance from Trump, but Iran continues to play cat and mouse. The new deadline set by the U.S. president to reach a preliminary agreement expires on April 6.

Moreover, the macroeconomic similarity to the First Gulf War discourages abrupt changes in portfolio composition. In 1990–91, the U.S. economy was already losing momentum before Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. In 2026, the pattern is repeating: before the attacks on Iran, the economy was already feeling the impact of intermittent tariffs, weak hiring, and inflationary pressures that, although easing, had not disappeared. In fact, Greenspan had already been cutting rates for a year when Iraq invaded Kuwait, just like Powell, who had also begun easing before the Iranian conflict, reducing rates from 5.25%–5.50% to around 4.25%–4.50% between the second half of 2024 and early 2025.

The rate cuts implemented by the Fed in the second half of 2025 and the fiscal stimulus from the OBBBA plan are acting as buffers against the effects of the war on the economy. If the crisis is resolved within a reasonable timeframe, the boost to equities could be just as strong: from the lows of October 1990, the S&P 500 surged 26% in just three months, quickly recovering pre-conflict levels.

The outlook for the fixed income market points in the same direction. In 1990, Greenspan paused rate cuts when inflation expectations rose due to higher oil prices, and Treasury yields increased accordingly. However, the deterioration in the labor market and the recession forced a resumption of cuts, and by the end of that year, Treasury yields were below pre-conflict levels.

Europe: a less burdensome starting point than in 2022

Although logic suggests comparing the Iranian conflict with the 2022 energy crisis, the starting point is substantially different. When Russia invaded Ukraine, eurozone inflation was already մոտ 6%. Today, with headline inflation at 1.9% and wage growth below 2%, the ECB has insufficient justification to raise rates.

Energy prices should be treated as a temporary supply shock, not as structural inflationary pressure. Tightening monetary policy in this context would repeat Trichet’s 2011 mistake and hinder an economy already hit by gas prices, tariffs, and Germany’s manufacturing crisis. The market is pricing in 76 basis points of hikes in 2026, which may create opportunities in the short and intermediate parts of the curve.

That said, it is worth remembering that, unlike the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate, the ECB’s sole objective is to keep inflation close to 2%. If oil spikes or stabilizes above $100, the memory of Trichet’s mistake may fade among Governing Council members.

The references from the 2022 episode are clear: equities and cyclical currencies do not bottom out until energy prices peak. In the meantime, the energy sector outperforms the market, defensives outperform cyclicals, and the dollar appreciates against major currencies.

The Strait of Hormuz is also the main transit route for helium and fertilizers, among other commodities that are difficult to substitute in production processes, introducing additional risks to food inflation and the global supply chain. This uncertainty particularly penalizes more open economies, such as those in Europe.

Before the subprime crisis, 79% of S&P 500 earnings came from cyclical sectors. Now, 57% comes from growth industries, making the U.S. index more defensive.

Currency markets: dollar strength and gold to the downside

The EUR/USD has corrected since the start of the conflict, confirming that the dollar’s role as a safe-haven asset remains intact despite downgrade concerns. As long as uncertainty persists, the relative strength of the U.S. currency will remain in place. The dollar is also a trending currency, and the breakout above its 200-day moving average provides technical support for this view.

However, the appreciation has fully erased the premium the market had assigned to EUR/USD following the tariff announcements on Liberation Day, although uncertainty around Trump’s trade policy remains high. Long-term models point to a somewhat overvalued dollar, and speculative investors have already closed their short positions on the greenback. Additionally, the market has shifted from expecting fed funds to end 2026 at 3% to seeing them anchored at 3.75%. The announcement of a truce would force a rapid reassessment of these expectations.

Contrary to what might be expected from a safe-haven asset, gold has fallen 14% in the month of March. The strength of the dollar, the sharp rise in real interest rates, and technical overbought conditions explain the move. However, the proximity of a truce (which would entail a reversal of these negative forces), the structural shift toward geopolitical multipolarity, and the procyclical turn toward expansionary fiscal policies maintain gold’s appeal as a diversifying element in multi-asset portfolios.

Funds Society Hosts Its First Funds Society Leaders Summit in Miami

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Photo courtesy

With the support of CFA Society Miami as a partner, Funds Society is organizing the first edition of the Funds Society Leaders Summit in Miami. This is a meeting aimed at leaders in the asset and wealth management industry, created by and for the industry.

The Funds Society Leaders Summit will take place next April 21 at 10:00 am at the AKA Brickell Hotel in Miami, a sophisticated urban retreat located in the Brickell financial district, overlooking Biscayne Bay.

The event, designed in collaboration with CFA Society Miami, will feature top-level speakers and experts in key areas such as asset management, private banking, family offices, pension funds, and insurance companies, who will analyze the main challenges and trends currently shaping the industry.

The program will combine roundtable discussions with dedicated networking spaces and will conclude with a keynote session, followed by a cocktail at Casa Zeru, offering the perfect setting to exchange insights and continue expanding professional networks.

The event will include participation from panelists who are leading figures in the industry, such as Raúl Henríquez, CEO and Chairman of Insigneo Financial Group; Santiago Ulloa, Founder, Managing Partner and CIO of WE Family Offices; Jesús Valencia, Market Director – Florida International Market at UBS; and Rocío Harb, Director & Brand Manager at IPG Investment, among others.

Participating in the Funds Society Leaders Summit

The event is not only endorsed by CFA Society Miami, but also supported by Janus Henderson, M&G, Muzinich & Co, Capital Group, Fidelity, State Street Investment Management, Thornburg, and VanEck.

Places are limited, so if you have not yet registered, we encourage you to do so as soon as possible, as capacity is restricted. If you are interested, please contact this email: elena.santiso@fundssociety.com. 

“The Growth of Revenue Linked to AI Is Real and Quantifiable”

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Photo courtesyAnita Patel, Investment Director at Capital Group.

“High valuations are not automatically a sign of excess.” This is stated by Anita Patel, Investment Director at Capital Group, referring to the fact that they reflect the strength of the U.S. economy and corporate earnings. In addition, the expert holds cautiously optimistic forecasts on AI, pointing to the magnitude of investment linked to the wave of productivity that this technology will bring, which she considers structural.

With this idea as a guiding thread, Patel goes on to explain how to interpret the current market environment, the changes in the structure of the equity market, and the main risks for the remainder of the year.

Are U.S. equity valuations justified?

U.S. equities are trading at elevated levels, and valuations in some segments, especially in large companies exposed to AI, are demanding. The S&P 500 stands above its historical valuation averages, and the largest technology companies trade at around 34 times forward earnings, compared to approximately 22 times for the overall market.

That said, high valuations are not automatically a sign of excess. They reflect strong earnings growth, a resilient economy, and the volume of investment associated with the current productivity wave driven by AI. Revenue growth linked to this technology is real and quantifiable: semiconductor companies generated more than $400 billion in sales last year, the highest figure on record, while leaders such as NVIDIA more than doubled their year-over-year revenue amid the race among cloud providers to secure computing capacity.

Is AI in bubble territory?

The volume of capital deployed points to structural demand rather than speculative enthusiasm. Hyperscalers have invested more than $400 billion annually in chips and data centers, with Microsoft, Meta, and Alphabet signaling increases in capex for 2026. Many companies also indicate that they will remain capacity-constrained well into 2026, demonstrating that demand for AI computing continues to exceed supply.

Although there are pockets of overheating, especially in private AI startups or early-stage infrastructure projects, the listed market has already begun to differentiate between profitable leaders and more speculative names. Since the end of 2025, several prominent AI stocks have moved sideways while the broader market advanced, suggesting normalization rather than a bubble.

Outside the technology sector, valuations are much more attractive, especially in utilities, healthcare, financials, and some industrial segments, where earnings growth has been solid and multiples are closer to their historical averages.

This dispersion reinforces the appeal of diversified and actively managed approaches such as the Capital Group Investment Company of America (LUX) (ICA) fund, aimed at building broad portfolios across different sectors of the economy. In fact, these areas have begun to outperform the market in recent months, as investors seek sources of return beyond large technology companies.

Regarding corporate earnings, do they show a healthy trend? Which areas are stronger or more vulnerable?

Corporate earnings show a healthy tone. The United States recorded its tenth consecutive quarter of growth in the fourth quarter of 2025, with an increase of 13% and a broad majority of companies beating expectations, reinforcing the strength of the corporate cycle.

This growth is widespread and not limited to large technology companies. Sectors such as financials, industrials, materials, real estate, healthcare, utilities, and consumer discretionary have delivered solid results, supported by firm demand, improvements in supply chains, and increased investment amid lower tariff uncertainty.

The aerospace and defense sector is experiencing a multi-year upcycle driven by global travel demand and a high order backlog. GE Aerospace, for example, has recorded strong growth in both orders and margins, supported by the normalization of bottlenecks and the weight of recurring aftermarket revenue.

The healthcare sector has also stood out: companies such as Eli Lilly advanced more than 40% in the fourth quarter of 2025, driven by the success of their drugs and promising pipelines.

Among the more vulnerable segments are some consumer discretionary companies exposed to rising tariff-related costs and pressure on lower-income households, as well as part of the software sector, where AI-based programming tools are putting pressure on traditional revenue models.

Overall, however, the resilience of earnings across sectors remains one of the key pillars supporting current valuations. For strategies such as ICA, based on bottom-up stock selection rather than concentration in a few growth names, this breadth of earnings opens multiple avenues for return generation.

Market breadth has been limited by the weight of the “Magnificent 7.” Has anything changed? Should we expect greater dispersion?

Market breadth has improved significantly in recent months. After several years in which a small group of large technology companies accounted for most of the returns, broader market participation is now evident.

Equal-weight indices such as the S&P 500 Equal Weight have outperformed the traditional S&P 500 since October 2025, and sectors such as healthcare, industrials, materials, and energy have led gains, while many AI-related stocks have taken a breather.

This shift is driven by two factors: more reasonable valuations outside the top decile of the market and stronger earnings growth across the broader corporate landscape.

A relevant data point is that only two of the “Magnificent Seven” were among the 100 best-performing stocks in the S&P 500 in 2025, marking a shift from previous years and showing that investors are rediscovering the broader universe of opportunities. In addition, more than 60% of index constituents are trading above their 200-day moving average, another indicator of improved breadth.

As spending on AI is analyzed more rigorously and investors focus on fundamentals and return on invested capital, dispersion is likely to increase both across sectors and within them, an environment traditionally favorable for active management.

What lesson should investors draw from the volatility of 2025? What risks do you anticipate for 2026?

The main lesson of 2025 is that volatility does not equal vulnerability. The year began with trade tensions and recession fears, but the U.S. economy proved resilient, inflation moderated, and equity markets rebounded strongly. The S&P 500 closed with a return of 18%, underscoring the importance of staying invested even during periods of high uncertainty.

Looking ahead to 2026, a more stable environment is expected, although geopolitical developments will remain a factor to monitor. Inflation is projected to approach 2.5%, interest rates are expected to trend downward, and consumption should continue to be supported by unusually large tax refunds, which could inject between $100 billion and $200 billion into households as early as the summer.

Corporate earnings continue to show strength, and real GDP growth of around 2.5% is expected, with upside potential if productivity gains from AI accelerate.

However, risks remain: potential changes in tariff policy, the capital intensity of AI infrastructure deployment, which could pressure margins if end demand slows, and the proximity of the U.S. midterm election cycle, historically associated with higher volatility. It is also important to monitor public debt dynamics, which exceed 120% of GDP, as well as rising financing costs.

Even so, the fundamentals of the U.S. market, high corporate profitability, deep capital markets, leadership in AI, and a resilient consumer, remain intact. For long-term investors, 2025 has reinforced the importance of diversification, downside resilience, and disciplined active management, which are core pillars of ICA’s investment approach across market cycles.

Boreal Transforms into Mora Capital Group After Growing 39% in Three Years

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Photo courtesyJoaquín Francés, CEO of Mora Capital Group Miami

Boreal Capital Management Miami begins a new phase and is renamed Mora Capital Group Miami, explicitly incorporating into its name the surname of the founding and owner family of the MoraBanc Group, while maintaining the independence and autonomy that have historically characterized the firm.

This brand change comes after recording growth of 39% in just three years and responds to the objective of strengthening its identity and highlighting a track record of more than 70 years in private banking. The entity preserves its boutique model, based on close, personalized service and a differentiated product offering.

The new name represents a natural evolution in the firm’s development and takes place at a time of strengthening for the MoraBanc Group, currently immersed in a phase of expansion in the markets in which it operates. Under this new brand, which does not imply changes in financial activity or in the relationship with clients, the entity strengthens its value proposition and brings together its three business areas in the United States: Mora Capital Management, Mora Capital Securities, and Mora Capital Lending.

Mora Capital Management encompasses advisory and wealth management activities, the core of the business in Miami. For its part, Mora Capital Securities acts as a broker-dealer specialized in intermediation services, execution, and access to markets and financial products. Finally, Mora Capital Lending constitutes the private financing platform designed to meet the liquidity needs of sophisticated investors.

Joaquín Francés, CEO of Mora Capital Group Miami, states that “this brand change is a natural evolution of our firm and marks the beginning of a new phase. It represents progress toward a model that allows the integration of more services thanks to synergies with the MoraBanc Group, while maintaining the essence that defines us. Our boutique positioning remains the differentiating axis: a close way of working, specialized and focused on delivering real value to each client.”

He also adds that this new phase strengthens the solidity and trust built over time and prepares the entity to face the future with a more comprehensive and coherent offering.

Gold, Currency Hedging, and Risks: What Has Changed?

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Canva

The behavior of the dollar since the beginning of the year and the uncertainty surrounding the market have led investors to analyze how the traditional safe-haven assets they turn to have changed and which is now the best option for their portfolios. Only financial advisors and asset managers can answer the latter question, but for the former we can find an interesting reflection in the Global Investment Returns Yearbook 2026, published by UBS, which analyzes 126 years of market performance.

Undoubtedly, when discussing safe-haven assets, gold is first on investors’ list, as it is perceived as a clear hedge against inflation. However, according to the UBS report, the relationship between gold and inflation is weak. “Of the 28 years in which inflation exceeded 3%, we observe that gold returns were negative in 13 of them,” they note.

As shown in the chart above, gold has been more effective at outperforming inflation over the long term. “The red line indicates that, since 1900, the real price of gold in dollars has increased 5.2 times, which is equivalent to an annualized return of 1.3%. In the 54 years following Bretton Woods, gold’s annualized real returns were higher: 4.7% (U.S.), 5.8% (UK), and 4.3% (Switzerland),” the report notes.

Currency Hedging

Regarding currencies, investors have historically considered the U.S. dollar, the Swiss franc, and the Japanese yen to be the most reliable “safe havens.” However, over the past three months, a broad debate has emerged about whether the U.S. currency could lose this status. As a result, investors have paid more attention to how to hedge currencies.

On this point, the UBS report notes that institutional investors tend to hedge at least part of their portfolios. “In general, non-U.S. (non-USD) investors tend to hedge more and with higher hedge ratios, and bond investors hedge more than equity investors,” the report states.

The question is whether such hedging is worthwhile. According to the report’s conclusions, on average, currency risk added around 6% to total risk, whether focusing on equities or bonds, although currency risk contributes proportionally more to the risk of bond portfolios. “This may explain the greater prevalence of hedging in fixed income portfolios,” UBS adds.

Which Risks Dominate?

If we think about today’s markets, there is a clear consensus that geopolitics has become the main risk they face, but has this always been the case? According to the UBS report, the reality is that, historically, economic risks have outweighed geopolitical risks. “In many cases, investors would be right to ‘look beyond the noise’ of geopolitics. Using a simple regression of future global equity returns against an index of geopolitical threats, we find no relationship, whether looking one month ahead or one year ahead. However, geopolitical risk, whether related to armed conflicts or trade conflicts, clearly matters when extreme events occur with a significant economic impact on major nations. World War I, World War II, and the 1973–1974 oil shock were geopolitical events that led to three of the six worst episodes for major global equity markets since 1900,” the report concludes.

Fortunately, these types of events are relatively rare; therefore, economic risk has historically been even more important for investors. According to UBS’s analysis, of the four largest bear markets in peacetime, three were triggered by economic factors, while the 1973–1974 market crash was sparked by geopolitics but unfolded as an economic crisis.

Diversification: The Conclusion That Holds?

Investors believe that risk can be reduced through diversification, which is why they know that being insufficiently diversified entails high costs. However, diversification is becoming more difficult. By the end of 2025, concentration in the U.S. equity market had reached its highest level in at least 100 years, while correlations have also increased between developed and emerging markets, and between equities and bonds.

Despite these challenges, UBS argues that diversification remains valuable. Its analysis of the past 126 years shows that, when currency risk was hedged, investors in the vast majority of markets achieved better results by investing globally rather than solely in their domestic market. “Diversification between equities and bonds also likely helps reduce maximum drawdowns. Since 1900, equities and bonds have at times lost more than 70% in real terms; however, a 60:40 mix of equities and bonds has never fallen by more than 50%,” the report concludes.

UCITS and ELTIFs: The Acronyms That Build Bridges Between Miami, LatAm, and Luxembourg

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

allianzgi modelo operativo inversion
Photo courtesySerge Weyland, CEO of the Association of the Luxembourg Fund Industry (ALFI).

UCITS funds have established themselves as one of the European Union’s most successful financial exports, with a global presence spanning more than 70 countries outside the EU. After European investors, Asian and Latin American investors are the largest holders of this type of vehicle. Why funds listed in Europe?

In the opinion of Serge Weyland, CEO of the Association of the Luxembourg Fund Industry (ALFI), the country’s central location in Europe, its strong regulatory framework, the investor protection it offers, and its discretion, though not a lack of transparency, are the main advantages investors find when choosing a product listed in Luxembourg or, more broadly, in Europe. “These conditions are not found in other jurisdictions or in other offshore investment centers such as, for example, the United Arab Emirates or Singapore. Although it is true that more and more countries and regions are developing regimes similar to that of the European fund industry,” he acknowledges.

For Weyland, the European hub, led by Luxembourg, has proven its validity, having successfully weathered recent global and financial crises. “The nearly 40-year track record of UCITS and AIFMD vehicles through the dot-com bubble, the 2008 crisis and subsequent sovereign debt crisis, and COVID-19 has shown that we are dealing with a robust regulatory framework. In addition, the coordinated work of supervisory institutions ensures consistency in the regulatory approach and in how systemic risks are managed. This reassures international investors, and this is also why institutional investors in Latin America have long trusted European products and, in particular, Luxembourg funds,” emphasizes the CEO of ALFI.

Latin American Investor and US Offshore

According to Weyland, a clear example of this trust in the European framework in recent years is the interest of Chilean pension funds. Following this trend, he notes that new jurisdictions such as Argentina, Brazil, and Peru are beginning to look at passported funds listed in Europe.

“We also see that many private banking and institutional investors in Latin America who used U.S. ETFs are moving away from these ETFs to switch to European-listed funds because they are easier to manage from a tax perspective. So I think there are many reasons why, for high-net-worth families and private investors in Latin America, the UCITS and AIFMD framework offers confidence, probably more than some of the more recent regimes in other financial centers,” he argues.

From the perspective of US offshore investors, Weyland acknowledges that using Miami as a financial hub creates a direct connection with Europe and, specifically, with Luxembourg: “Historically, this type of investor used UCITS and alternative funds, and now we are seeing a return to Luxembourg. I think another factor has come into play. After the 2008 crisis, the country’s rating remained strong, something that did not happen in other European jurisdictions. We have never lost the triple A, and international investors place great value on being in a solid and financially strong country,” he states.

Interest in Alternative Funds

From the European fund industry, and particularly from Luxembourg, there is a focus on ensuring that ELTIFs achieve the same “recognition and success” as UCITS among these investors. In fact, Weyland believes that another strength of this jurisdiction is the wide range of alternative funds it has developed. “We now have €5 trillion in UCITS and €3 trillion in alternative investment funds in Luxembourg, and of those €3 trillion, a large portion of the assets are, of course, institutional assets in different types of vehicles. Many are in LPs, but also increasingly in vehicles such as ELTIFs, which can also be used for broader distribution, although volumes are still relatively small compared to the rest,” he states.

According to his analysis of the industry, large family offices or larger private investors have invested in Luxembourg through partnership vehicles, RAIFs, or the reserved alternative investment fund regime, or SIF, a specialized investment vehicle.

“I think that has been Luxembourg’s strength: being able to offer a ‘tool kit’ of funds and fund structures that can be tailored to the needs of a global investor base. Luxembourg funds are currently distributed in more than 70 countries, which positions us as the number one domicile in the world for global distribution. That agility in finding new tools to make investors’ lives as easy as possible sets us apart,” he asserts.

Brazil: Yet to Be Conquered

Up to this point, everything highlights what Luxembourg offers and what international investors value, but what barriers does the industry face? In Weyland’s view, one of them is Brazil: “We know that Brazilian investors can now invest abroad, but they remain very focused on domestic allocation. They have $2 trillion in funds domiciled in Brazil, but this is also linked to the high interest rates of their central bank, which are still between 12% and 14%. For them, it is easier to invest locally in domestic bonds offering that level of return than to direct money to global markets where that same level of return is not always achieved. However, we believe that diversification will also reach these markets.”

By contrast, he acknowledges that the strong trend toward digitalization in the country’s financial services could help open the development of new investment platforms to products listed in Europe. “Many of these platforms are brokerage platforms, which favor direct investment in equities and bonds. In my opinion, funds are also gaining ground on these platforms, as are ETF share classes,” he concludes.

Larry Fink: “Long-Term Investing Works a Kind of Civic Miracle”

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

fondo infratech gvc gaesco
Photo courtesyChairman and CEO of BlackRock.

Larry Fink, Chairman and CEO of BlackRock, has published his annual letter, where he reflects his main insights after a year of conversations with clients, policymakers, and business leaders from around the world. His starting point has been to acknowledge that no one is sure “how to navigate at this moment,” but in the face of this uncertainty, he believes that the next phase of global growth will depend on expanding participation in capital markets so that more people can benefit from the value being created.

“We live in a world where information moves instantly, and reactions arrive just as quickly. At times, it can seem like an environment driven by dopamine, in which the constant flow of stimuli rewards short-term impulses. But speed can distort perspective and crowd out long-term thinking. To be fair, in financial markets all this short-term activity serves a function,” he notes at the beginning of his letter, adding: “staying invested has mattered far more than timing the market.”

His main reflection is that the vast majority of wealth has gone to those who owned assets, not to those who earned most of their income from labor. “Since 1989, one dollar invested in the U.S. stock market has multiplied its value more than fifteen times compared to a dollar tied to the median wage. And now artificial intelligence threatens to repeat that pattern on an even larger scale, concentrating wealth among the companies and investors best positioned to capture it. This is where much of today’s economic anxiety originates: in a deeper sense that capitalism works, but not for enough people,” he argues.

A “Civic Miracle”

Faced with this reading of reality, Fink maintains that, at its best, long-term investing works a kind of “civic miracle”: “When people invest their savings—over decades, not days—capital markets put that money to work, financing companies, infrastructure, and jobs. And when that cycle happens in your own country, your future and that of your nation become linked. You help finance its growth. And that growth helps finance yours. My belief in this civic miracle is obviously shaped by my work. But I do not speak only as CEO of BlackRock: that conviction reflects decades of experience seeing how investing can help more people participate in economic growth.”

For this reason, his proposal for this “difficult moment to navigate” is to maintain the pattern behind the “civic miracle”: invest for the long term so that citizens’ wealth compounds at the same time as economies. “That is what this moment is about: expanding that opportunity. Ensuring that more people can have a stake in their country’s growth. Because today too many are left out. Therefore, the starting point must be helping people build basic financial security. And that is beginning to happen,” he adds.

Now, how does growing with your country translate in practice? In his view, everyone faces this question, though in different ways. “In the United States, it starts with early wealth-building accounts and a long-overdue conversation about Social Security. In India, one billion smartphones are becoming gateways to capital markets. In Germany, a change in the pension system could help deepen European capital markets. In Japan, a single regulatory change helped bring ten million new investors into the market in three years,” he notes.

Fink goes a step further and explains why he believes that growing with your country has never mattered more: “The world is reorganizing around self-sufficiency, and that is expensive. The enormous wealth created over recent generations went mostly to those who already owned financial assets. And now AI threatens to repeat that pattern on an even larger scale. Each of these forces, on its own, would already be reason to rethink how we invest. Together, they reinforce one conclusion: if we want more people to participate in future growth, we have to make long-term investing easier, broader, and more accessible.” After this positive message, the CEO of BlackRock also highlights a real risk that artificial intelligence could widen wealth inequality if ownership is not expanded at the same time.

AI and the Labor Market

Throughout his letter, Fink refers to the disruption generated by AI but focuses on the labor market. “It is an enormously important issue, and one that goes beyond economics. Work provides income, purpose, and dignity,” he argues, explaining that AI will transform productivity and jobs just as in previous historical moments.

“In the short term, there are indeed roles for which demand is clearly strong and that are well paid: skilled trades, especially those that build the physical infrastructure of AI, such as data centers, electrical systems, and power grids. In the United States, employment of electricians is growing at a rate three times higher than the national average. Many of these jobs pay well above the average wage, in many cases with six-figure incomes. And this is also happening in many Western economies,” he states in his letter.

His analysis goes further, acknowledging that the question is how to ensure more people can access these jobs: “The skills gap is real and requires sustained investment in training and vocational learning (…) But the problem goes beyond training. For decades, many societies have equated success with a university degree and a white-collar career. As technology reshapes parts of that landscape, we need a broader conversation about opportunity, dignity, and the value of different types of work. What are we going to do about it? It is a conversation worth having.”

BlackRock’s Positioning
Regarding BlackRock’s response in this context, Fink states that “our global and integrated platform allows us to meet our clients’ portfolio needs, across all asset classes in public and private markets, in all regions and through both active and indexed strategies, all supported by our Aladdin technology.”

In this regard, he highlights that the firm entered 2026 from a position of strength: record inflows, double-digit organic growth in base fees in the fourth quarter, a new high of $14 trillion in assets under management (AUM), and a unified, integrated platform aligned with the current opportunity set. “We help clients navigate change and invest with confidence, creating durable value for them and for you, our shareholders,” he adds in his letter.

Looking ahead to the company’s ambitions for 2030, Fink notes that they have built a strong foundation across the pillars of their platform: ETFs, Aladdin, whole portfolio solutions, fixed income, and liquidity management. He also highlights progress in organic developments in structural growth categories, including digital assets, active ETFs, model portfolios, and systematic equities.

“Looking toward 2030, we aim to exceed $35 billion in revenue, with 30% or more coming from private markets and technology. We expect that revenue growth to be supported by our targets of 5% or higher organic base fee growth and low-to-mid teens growth in technology ACV. Our goal is to nearly double adjusted operating income from 2024, along with adjusted operating margins of 45% or higher across the market cycle. We already have industry-leading margins, and we see room to expand them thanks to the growth trajectory of fee-related revenues in private markets and our highly scalable core businesses,” he concludes.

What Are Markets Pricing In and What Are They Saying About the Conflict with Iran?

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Canva

The conflict in the Middle East has shifted from being perceived as something temporary, calculated, and priced in to being seen as a conflict with greater duration and impact on the energy market. Investor sentiment is changing, as reflected in Bank of America’s global fund manager survey for March. Its results show an increase in liquidity, but without a decline in equities despite concerns about Iran.

The main conclusion is that the conflict and developments in private credit are putting an end to the excessive optimism of recent months in the fund market. According to the Investment Strategist team at BofA, led by Michael Hartnett, “the fund market in March is bearish enough to sell oil above $100/barrel, sell DXY above 100, buy GT30 at 5%, and buy SPX at 6600.” However, they believe positioning is far from the extremely bearish levels seen at recent lows in risk assets.

Optimism and risks

According to the survey, optimism about global growth falls to a net 7% from 39%, inflation expectations rise to a net 45% from 9%, and optimism about rate cuts is at its lowest since February 2023. “But no one is considering a recession; the probability of a hard landing is just 5%, compared to 46% expecting no landing and 44% expecting a soft landing,” BofA notes.

In the view of Diego Franzin, head of portfolio strategies at Plenisfer Investments, part of Generali Investments, in the short term market developments will continue to depend mainly on news related to the conflict with Iran. “Interest rate developments already reflect expectations of a renewed rise in inflation and a possible response from central banks, as policymakers remain very aware of the monetary policy mistake made in 2022, when they waited too long to raise rates after inflation began to accelerate,” he notes.

However, the Plenisfer Investments expert warns that the macroeconomic backdrop differs significantly from that of 2022: “Growth momentum is weaker, fiscal capacity is significantly more limited in most developed economies, and the initial levels of both interest rates and inflation are different.”

In terms of risks, in March geopolitics and inflation replaced the AI bubble as the main tail risks. Notably, 63% say private capital/credit is the most likely source of a systemic credit event, making clear which other market investors are watching.

Implications for the investor

This sentiment and market outlook in March has translated into a rotation of positions, moving from booming sectors, such as banks, to stagflation sectors, such as consumer staples. “In general terms, covering of short positions in the US dollar has been moderate, investors maintain long positions in commodities (most since April 2022) and retain large overweight positions in equities, especially in emerging markets (most since February 2021), Japan (most since May 2024), banks, and industry, in sharp contrast to a significant short position in consumer discretionary stocks (the largest underweight since December 2022),” explain BofA.

For Franzin, risk assets still appear to be pricing in, to some extent, a relatively benign scenario. “The prevailing view among equity investors remains that the conflict will be short-lived and will have limited economic repercussions. In our view, however, the potential repercussions of the conflict come at a time when the global economy is already facing a number of structural vulnerabilities, increasing the risk of a stagflation scenario. In this context, assets that have been penalized mainly by positioning dynamics—among them some emerging markets such as Brazil—could be among the first to outperform once the flow of news begins to stabilize,” he notes.

From the perspective of Yves Bonzon, Chief Investment Officer (CIO) of Julius Baer, the current market correction offers an opportunity to initiate or increase exposure to asset classes supported by structural trends. “Emerging market bonds denominated in local currencies and Chinese equities stand out, including those linked to AI. Chinese equities benefit from continued signaling from Beijing in favor of a controlled and sustained equity bull market, implying government intervention to mitigate disruptions and volatility. In addition, China remains the only market offering investors exposure to AI outside the US, with the added advantage of developing the technology in a notably capital-efficient way,” Bonzon argues.

Asset performance

According to Benoit Anne, Senior Managing Director and head of the Investment Solutions Group at MFS Investment Management, it is particularly interesting to analyze the performance of different asset classes since the start of the war with Iran. His analysis points to a significant shortage of defensive assets.

“Clearly, the price of oil has been the standout winner, rising more than 40% since the start of the crisis; and the US dollar has also increased, although more modestly. By contrast, gold, which had been a market star for some time, has declined by more than 5.5% since the start of the conflict. Duration has also performed poorly, with the UST index and the Bund index falling by around 2%, mainly due to upward pressure on government bond yields. Looking ahead, we face a highly volatile environment given the extreme level of geopolitical uncertainty,” he summarizes regarding the performance of the main market assets.

In his view, although the DXY index has risen by around 2.6% during this period, a sharp reversal in recent movements cannot be ruled out, although this will depend on the duration of the geopolitical crisis. “In this context, the price of oil has become the most important barometer of global markets. Only a couple of currencies have managed to appreciate against the dollar in the past two weeks, including the Colombian peso and, to a lesser extent, the Israeli shekel. All other major asset classes have declined, some quite significantly. Emerging market equities, eurozone equities, and emerging market local currency debt rank at the bottom of that list,” Anne concludes.

Investor Discipline, Key to Stabilizing Defaults in the Private Credit Market

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Canva

Private credit fund managers in North America expect conditions related to financial stress and defaults to stabilize and gradually improve over the next 12 months, according to an independent report commissioned by Ocorian, a provider of asset services in the United States and globally.

The study, conducted among private credit managers in the United States and Canada overseeing $1 trillion in assets under management, depicts a market that is neither complacent nor defensive, but increasingly disciplined as it matures and absorbs the effects of rapid growth.

More than four out of five managers (84%) expect the level of financial stress and defaults among borrowers to improve over the next year, while another 10% foresee conditions remaining broadly unchanged. Only a small minority (6%) anticipate a deterioration. The results suggest that managers consider current stress to be manageable and already reflected in lending standards, pricing, and portfolio monitoring.

Managers point to stricter structuring, greater interaction with borrowers, and increased selectivity as key elements of their outlook. Growing use of payment-in-kind (PIK) interest is expected, with 90% anticipating some increase over the next two years. Rather than being seen as a solution in itself, PIK is viewed as a cash flow management tool that can provide breathing room for borrowers, while requiring closer scrutiny and more active oversight from lenders.

At the same time, managers maintain a realistic view of the risks associated with the sector’s rapid growth. The global private credit market, estimated at around $3 trillion at the beginning of 2025 and projected to reach $5 trillion by 2029**, continues to attract capital, intensifying competition for assets.

Around 71% of managers report being very concerned about the risk that strong capital inflows may encourage aggressive lending, while the rest say they are fairly concerned. This lack of complacency reflects a heightened awareness of discipline in origination as a differentiating factor in an increasingly crowded market.

Managers are also aware of the opacity inherent in private credit markets, acknowledging that limited transparency can complicate valuation and risk assessment. However, respondents emphasize that this opacity is a long-standing characteristic of the asset class rather than a new vulnerability, reinforcing the importance of governance, reporting, and operational controls.

All managers surveyed said they maintain a high level of vigilance regarding sources of financial stress and default risk, with more than half (55%) stating they are very concerned. This concern is not framed as alarmism, but as an essential part of professional risk management in a market designed to price, monitor, and manage credit stress.

Vincent Calcagno, head of growth in the United States at Ocorian, noted: “While private credit managers are taking on risk, they are not ignoring it. The expectation of continued growth coexists with a realistic assessment of risks, valuations, and policy uncertainty. It is a market that is adapting, not retreating.”