Expand the Market Through Quality is the proposal put forward by LarrainVial and Invesco. This approach underpins the strategic partnership both firms have established for LatAm and the U.S. offshore market, which they recently celebrated in the financial heart of Miami at an event sponsored by S&P Global. The event featured Rhett Baughan, Head of U.S. Offshore Distribution at Invesco; Andrés Bulnes, Partner and Global Head of Distribution at LarrainVial; Manuel González, Index Investment Strategy Specialist at S&P Dow Jones Indices; Paul Jackson, Global Market Strategist and Global Head of Asset Allocation Research at Invesco; and Joseph Nelesen, Head of Specialists, Index Investment Strategy at S&P Dow Jones Indices.
In front of more than 150 members of the investment community, professionals from both firms discussed the main market trends and the future of investing, reaching a clear conclusion about how their partnership fits into the current industry landscape: only by joining forces through quality in education, product innovation, and market access will it be possible to expand markets. “Our agreement with Invesco reflects our commitment to our third-party distribution business, a strategic pillar of our business. It represents a long-term commitment to connecting global asset managers with institutional and private wealth clients across Latin American markets and the U.S. offshore market,” said Andrés Bulnes, Head of Institutional Distribution at LarrainVial.
According to Bulnes, the partnership is allowing the firm to move into a new phase that represents its natural evolution, with innovation at its core. “It strengthens our ETF capabilities, deepens our integration, and accelerates our ability to deliver differentiated, best-in-class investment solutions to investors. None of this would be possible without the strong leadership and alignment between our teams and those at Invesco,” Bulnes added.
Within the firm’s team, commercial efforts in the U.S. offshore market are led by María Elena Isaza and Julieta Henke, Managing Directors and Co-Heads of Sales for U.S. Offshore Distribution at LarrainVial, who in just seven years have helped grow the firm’s distributed assets to 13 billion dollars. They are joined by Alejandra Saldías, who will play a key role in designing the firm’s ETF sales strategy as Head of ETF Sales LatAm and U.S. Offshore, with the goal of extending LarrainVial’s ETF positioning in Latin America to the U.S. offshore market. At the same time, Rhett Baughan, Head of U.S. Offshore Distribution at Invesco, works in close coordination with the LarrainVial team to strengthen client relationships and broaden the reach of the firm’s offering in this segment.
Currently, LarrainVial manages 65 billion dollars in assets and operates across the Americas with more than 900 professionals, combining local expertise with global standards. “For more than 18 years, we have built a relationship based on discipline, execution, and consistent growth. Today in Latin America, we distribute more than 9 billion dollars in Invesco mutual funds and 16 billion dollars in its ETFs. In addition, our U.S. offshore business has grown over the past seven years to reach 13 billion dollars in assets, positioning us as a relevant distributor in this segment,” the LarrainVial executive noted.
Brown Brothers & Harriman (BBH) has released its latest survey of managers on the global ETF industry. This 13th edition of the survey comes at a “turbulent moment,” according to the report, marked by “geopolitical tensions; a turbulent news cycle and a complex regulatory environment.” In short, “uncertainty abounds,” but “the ETF space is an area where optimism prevails,” according to the survey results.
The responses from the 325 ETF managers surveyed, 100 from the United States, 125 from Europe and another 100 from Greater China, suggest that demand for ETFs continues to grow even in a mature market, due in part to “the adoption of ETFs by new markets and channels.” In the short term, as the study reveals, global investors plan to adopt a balanced approach to secure income while also seeking protection against potential declines and volatility.
Almost all investors surveyed (96%) expect to increase their exposure to ETFs over the next 12 months, a percentage that has remained stable since February 2025. The appeal remains global, as investors in the United States are the most likely to increase their positions in exchange-traded funds (98%), followed by those in Greater China (95%) and Europe (94%).
However, a more detailed analysis of regional differences indicates varying levels of maturity in the ETF market. In the United States, the percentage of investors planning to significantly increase their exposure to exchange-traded funds this year was almost cut in half compared with 2025. Europe and Greater China also recorded small declines in plans to significantly increase ETF exposure. However, widespread increases were observed among those planning to slightly increase allocations (by less than 10%). No investor indicated plans to reduce exposure.
Points of Interest
In particular, over the next 12 months investors plan to invest in dividend/income strategies (33%), sector or thematic equity exposure (28%) and defined outcome ETFs (26%). As caution remains the priority, 20% also plan to acquire money market exchange-traded funds, which offer safety and liquidity with modest yields.
To a lesser extent, commodities are also on the menu. Despite the surge in precious metals in 2025, only 17% plan to increase their exposure to commodities, “a view that may be supported by the sector’s volatility in early 2026,” according to the study.
Preferences vary by region. In the United States, investors’ preferred option is defined outcome ETFs (37%), which also rank highly (54%) among the exchange-traded funds they are most likely to use to manage volatility over the next 12 months. However, dividend/income ETFs are the top priority in Europe (42%) and Greater China (27%).
Protection Against Downside Risk
Market volatility is a major concern in 2026 as investors face rising geopolitical tensions.
Globally, the preferred option for managing volatility over the next 12 months is low-volatility equities and defensive ETFs covering sectors such as utilities and consumer staples (57%).
Art is increasingly seen as an alternative asset in diversified portfolios, not only because of its potential returns but also because of its “hedonic” dimension, which means that, on average, high-net-worth individuals allocate around 15% of their wealth to it. And demand is growing. Elisa Hernando, founder and CEO of the art advisory ArteGlobaL, explains in this interview with Funds Society the importance of having expert advice, because not all artists appreciate in value, and the asset is not as transparent as others. She discusses this with us on the occasion of the opening of the ARCO fair in Madrid.
Has art gained prominence as a diversifier in investment portfolios?
Yes, it is increasingly considered an alternative asset within a diversified portfolio. But it is always worth remembering something important: not all works or all artists increase in value, so having information and expert guidance is essential.
Art also has something that other assets do not: a hedonic dimension. In other words, it provides enjoyment, knowledge, and cultural experience in addition to potential financial return. In fact, some studies suggest that high-net-worth individuals allocate on average around 15% of their wealth to art.
Beyond consulting firms… do financial institutions feel increasingly “compelled” to advise their clients on art?
Rather than compelled, I would say it is a growing demand from their own clients. As wealth becomes more diversified, more alternative assets appear, and art begins to form part of those conversations.
The art market remains complex and relatively opaque, so advice helps bring greater transparency and supports more informed decision-making.
How are clients evolving in their appetite for investing in art? Is there greater sophistication?
Yes, there is growing interest in understanding the market before making a purchase. Buyers ask more questions, compare options, and want information. We also see mixed motivations: some approach art out of cultural interest or a desire to learn, while others prioritize potential appreciation, although it is common for several motivations to coexist.
There are very diverse profiles, from newcomers to major investors. Do they all seek advice?
Advisory services can be useful for both profiles, although for different reasons. For those starting out, because the market can be overwhelming and they need guidance to filter options and understand pricing. For more experienced collectors or high-net-worth individuals, because they seek coherence in their collection and want to evaluate opportunities.
In a highly volatile environment, can art serve as a safe-haven asset like gold?
Art can preserve value in certain segments and over long time horizons, but it is less liquid than other assets. That is why I always stress that the selection of the work, knowledge of the artist, and expert guidance are key.
Tokenization is beginning to reach the art world. Do you think it will be adopted on a large scale?
Technology can help improve accessibility or transparency, but we are still at very early stages. In fact, the share of NFTs in auctions was only 0.1% in 2023, far from the speculative peak of 2021. We will probably see further developments, but value in the art market remains closely tied to the work, the artist, and the cultural context, not only to the technological format.
You are an advisor to the First Collector program of Fundación Santander, which marks its 15th anniversary at ARCO. What assessment do you make?
The assessment is very positive. Since it was created in 2011, we have advised more than 1,000 people on purchasing art at ARCO. The objective has always been the same: to help those who want to start collecting to do so with criteria and without fear, supporting them in their first acquisitions.
Do you think art will increasingly become part of investment portfolios? What expectations are there for ARCO this year?
Interest exists and will probably continue to grow, but always with the understanding that art requires knowledge and a long-term perspective. ARCO is also a good place to buy because there is a selection process for galleries and visitors can access a great deal of information before making a decision.
Within the framework of its 2025 strategic review, Allfunds has decided to focus on its core platform and distribution business, exiting Allfunds Tech (WebFG) and the Luxembourg ManCo business, as well as restructuring MainStreet Partners. This decision coincides with two milestones: the closing of a record year, its assets under administration grew by 17.1%, and the recommended acquisition of Allfunds by Deutsche Börse Group.
According to the firm, this simplification will allow it to concentrate resources on synergistic, profitable, and scalable areas, strengthening the group’s financial profile over the long term. “2025 was a year of strong results and a clear strategic refocusing. €1.76 trillion in AuA, 18% growth in net flows, a 74% increase in alternatives, and an improvement in the EBITDA margin to above 65%, all achieved while making clear strategic decisions to concentrate Allfunds on its core strengths. The result is a more compact and agile Allfunds, with an unwavering commitment to our clients and partners, and we are already delivering results in our focus areas. The recommended acquisition by Deutsche Börse Group announced in January reflects the value we have built, as well as the strength and quality of our franchise. We are confident the combination will bring together complementary capabilities and market reach,” said Annabel Spring, CEO of Allfunds, following the presentation of the company’s preliminary results for the 2025 financial year.
Strategic review
Allfunds launched its strategic review in 2025. The company refers to it as “Strategic Review 2025,” whose objective was to redefine priorities and focus on more synergistic, profitable, and scalable businesses, primarily its core platform and distribution capabilities.
“The guiding principle of our review is to drive growth and create solid value for clients and shareholders by focusing on businesses that are truly synergistic, profitable, and scalable, and by partnering with leading specialists when this helps us deliver better solutions and service. The result is that we are realigning around what we do best: our core platform and our distribution capabilities,” the firm explains.
As a result of this review, Allfunds has decided to exit the Allfunds Tech (WebFG) and Luxembourg ManCo businesses and to restructure MainStreet Partners. According to the company, by divesting or restructuring these businesses, “we simplify the Group, focus on what truly differentiates Allfunds, and improve both our financial profile and our long-term value creation potential.”
In addition, the firm notes that in the case of WebFG and ManCo, the conditions are met for their classification as “non-current assets held for sale” under IFRS 5, and they have been valued at the lower of their carrying amount and fair value less costs to sell.
By contrast, in line with the objectives of its strategic review, Allfunds has signed key partnership agreements with Waystone and MSCI, which will enhance, respectively, Management Company services for Allfunds’ global clients and access to MSCI’s data and enhanced analytics capabilities delivered through the platform.
Business development in 2025
During the past year, Allfunds also maintained its focus on client onboarding during the fourth quarter, adding 16 distributors and 15 asset managers. In total, in 2025 the Group added 90 asset managers and 64 distributors, driven by clients replacing in-house solutions and adopting open architecture.
In terms of growth, the development of its alternatives business was particularly significant. By December 2025, total AuA in alternatives had grown by 74% year-on-year to €33.8 billion, while distribution AuA reached €18.4 billion, an exceptional 83% year-on-year increase.
According to the firm, demand from asset managers continues to accelerate and Allfunds now offers access to 213 alternatives managers. “We already work with the most prominent names in the alternatives segment: KKR, Blackstone, Apollo, Ares, Carlyle, BlackRock, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Franklin Templeton, and many others. Interest in private market funds is growing among distributors, with existing clients increasing their allocations. Importantly, we are seeing new distributors join Allfunds specifically to access alternatives and then expand across our entire platform, strengthening long-term client relationships and validating our model. This places our business in an excellent strategic position,” the firm notes.
Finally, Allfunds announced that it has successfully completed the pilot phase of its ETF platform, validating its core capabilities and confirming its readiness for the next stage. “In 2026 we expect the platform to enter a fully operational model, while development continues and its functionalities are further expanded,” the company said.
In the face of the conflict in the Middle East, investment firms are urging investors not to rush and to wait for events to unfold. Their first message is to pay close attention to the duration and scope of the conflict, as these will determine the magnitude and persistence of price movements in commodities, equities, and other risk assets.
For now, they explain that we have seen a rise in oil and gas prices, greater interest in safe-haven assets, and an increase in uncertainty. “Markets are adjusting to higher geopolitical risk, but they are not yet positioning for a prolonged regional war. Whether this changes will depend less on the attack itself, which has already reshaped the political landscape in Tehran, and more on what happens next: how the succession unfolds, how far Iran chooses to respond, and whether energy flows from the Gulf remain secure in the coming days,” says Talha Khan, political economist at Capital Group.
Duration and scale of the conflict
To reassure investors, Khan notes that energy markets tend to recover quickly from geopolitical shocks. In fact, since 1967, none of the major military conflicts involving Israel has had a lasting impact on oil prices, with the exception of the 1973 Arab–Israeli war.
“Today’s global oil system is more flexible than during previous Gulf crises. Non-OPEC supply, particularly U.S. shale, can respond more quickly to price incentives. Strategic reserves exist as a buffer. The energy intensity of GDP is lower than in previous oil shocks. These factors do not eliminate vulnerability to a disruption in the Gulf, but they reduce the likelihood that a brief confrontation will turn into a structural energy crisis,” Khan argues.
Similarly, Banca March acknowledges that it is maintaining its current strategy, as it also believes the conflict will be short-lived. “At the regional level, the markets most affected are European and Asian ones, which are more energy dependent. However, the conflict has erupted at the end of winter in Europe and during a period of milder temperatures in Asia, implying more contained seasonal demand in the coming weeks,” they note.
Messages for investors
Putting themselves in investors’ shoes, Enguerrand Artaz, strategist at La Financière de l’Échiquier (LFDE), acknowledges that escalation risks must be closely monitored, but stresses the importance of avoiding negative overreactions to these events.
“It is worth remembering that, in the vast majority of cases, European and U.S. equity markets post positive performance between one and three months after the start of an armed conflict. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain rationality and discipline in this environment,” he says.
A second reflection for investors comes from Tobias Schafföner, Head of Multi Asset at Flossbach von Storch, who believes the current context reinforces the philosophy of diversifying across asset classes, as well as within each asset class.
“In our view, investors would do well to prepare, at least implicitly, for scenarios that are often overshadowed by major market themes. Recently, the market has focused primarily on artificial intelligence (AI), ignoring potential risks beyond this theme,” Schafföner argues.
In his opinion, when overlooked risks materialize, safe-haven assets such as gold and, no less importantly, the U.S. dollar come to the forefront.
“Precious metals have always been an integral part of our multi-asset portfolios. For this diversification reason, we do not fully hedge our dollar exposure. The liquidity position also follows the diversification principle and is therefore large enough to take advantage of investment opportunities as they arise,” he says.
Finally, Sonal Desai, CIO of Fixed Income at Franklin Templeton, believes investors should not lose sight of the next steps by central banks. In the short term, higher oil prices should raise inflation expectations and lead to a less accommodative stance by the Federal Reserve (Fed), the European Central Bank (ECB), and other major central banks.
“The U.S. dollar is likely to strengthen temporarily, reflecting both a downward revision in expectations for Fed rate cuts and the fact that the U.S. economy is far less vulnerable to an oil shock than the rest of the world. In addition, U.S. Treasuries could receive safe-haven inflows, although given the inflation risk, I do not expect a sustained rally in the long end of the curve. Emerging markets will be put to the test, especially oil-importing countries, which are more vulnerable,” Desai says.
Let’s talk about opportunities
In this context, Artaz stresses that the sharp declines seen in certain stocks and market segments may offer opportunities to strengthen positions in high-quality companies at attractive prices or to initiate positions in firms whose valuations previously seemed too high.
“We are also maintaining the protection strategies initiated in recent months in certain funds, particularly in our diversified funds,” he adds.
For Nitesh Shah, Head of Commodities and Macroeconomic Research at WisdomTree, companies that are intensive in physical assets and have low obsolescence risk, such as utilities, infrastructure operators, energy producers, and transport companies, could show greater resilience.
“These companies are less exposed to rapid technological disruption and often provide essential inputs for energy systems and defense supply chains. On the first trading day after the escalation, oil outperformed gold. However, the fact that Brent has not sustainably exceeded $80 per barrel suggests that high inventories are acting as a temporary buffer. If the conflict persists or expands, risk premiums would likely rise, with gold reflecting geopolitical stress more markedly in the coming weeks,” Shah notes.
Rethinking long-term investing
Against this backdrop, the BlackRock Investment Institute (BII) goes a step further, arguing that a new approach to portfolio construction is needed.
“Traditional strategic asset allocation is no longer sufficient in an environment dominated by structural megaforces. It is essential to regularly reassess the main investment theses and focus on the underlying economic drivers,” they argue.
In their view, the new conflict in the Middle East, the correction in the technology sector, and Nvidia’s results illustrate how structural megaforces are reshaping markets in real time.
“Although they are widely recognized, the scale and direction of their long-term impact remain uncertain. Since there is no single long-term scenario, it makes sense to review investment theses more frequently and prioritize economic fundamentals over traditional asset labels. On a strategic horizon of at least five years, we overweight high-yield corporate debt and infrastructure investment,” they conclude.
The conflict in the Middle East is evolving rapidly. According to experts from international asset managers, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would lead to a scenario with higher upside inflation risks and a likely negative impact on global growth. For now, what we are seeing is that markets, in general, have been adjusting to elevated uncertainty rather than suffering dislocations.
Specifically, oil and natural gas prices surged on Monday. Brent futures rose about 9% to trade around $79 per barrel, while WTI, the U.S. benchmark, advanced nearly 8% to $73 per barrel on Monday morning. In addition, in Europe, natural gas prices climbed 40%, given the region’s high dependence on LNG shipments from the Middle East.
“U.S. equities initially fell by around 1%, but later recovered and closed almost flat, while European markets dropped more than 2% due to their greater energy dependence on the Middle East. U.S. Treasury bonds have experienced significant selling due to inflation concerns associated with the surge in oil prices,” summarize analysts at Maximai Investment Partners.
In the view of Raphael Thuïn, Head of Capital Markets Strategies at Tikehau Capital, market behavior suggests that U.S. intervention on Iranian soil had been partially anticipated by investors. “While the possibility of a more prolonged conflict cannot be ruled out and uncertainty remains significant, several factors are currently moderating the risk of a more sustained escalation,” he notes.
The Importance of Hormuz
To understand this scenario, it is necessary to step back and consider what the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would mean. Approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day and nearly one-fifth of the world’s LNG supply pass through Hormuz. Therefore, if the strait remains blocked for a significant period of time, the consequences for prices will be non-linear.
“A partial slowdown lasting one or two weeks can be absorbed through inventory drawdowns and delayed shipments. A total or near-total closure lasting a month or more would require demand destruction at levels that could push crude oil into triple-digit prices and European natural gas prices toward or above the crisis levels seen in 2022. The relationship between the duration of the disruption and prices is not proportional—it accelerates. Each additional week of closure worsens the problem, as storage reserves are depleted, refinery production cuts occur, and it takes time to mobilize replacement cargoes from outside the region,” explains Hakan Kaya, Senior Portfolio Manager at Neuberger Berman.
For Jack Janasiewicz, Portfolio Manager at Natixis IM Solutions, the situation remains uncertain and the key factor will be the duration and scope of the disruption in the oil supply chain. “The longer this situation persists, the greater the probability of a prolonged rise in oil prices. However, we see few indications that this will happen. The government has little interest in prolonging the conflict,” he acknowledges.
Natural gas deserves special mention, as its prices have surged despite minimal damage to energy infrastructure and despite the natural gas market entering the spring season. According to Norbert Rücker, Head of Economics and Next Generation Research at Julius Baer, news about the shutdown of Qatar’s main liquefaction and export plant, along with preventive production cuts in the Middle East, fueled fears about energy supply security, mainly in Europe and Asia.
“Qatar is among the three largest suppliers of seaborne natural gas, and a prolonged disruption would be truly concerning. We do not know what portion of the facility remains offline, but the drone attack apparently did not cause significant damage. This, among other factors, helps explain the surprisingly contained reaction of oil prices to the events in the Middle East,” he explains.
Beyond Oil
In his view, the natural gas market appears more vulnerable to attacks in the Middle East, given that supply comes from a smaller number of facilities. “Historically, natural gas has also been a more nervous, emotional, and volatile energy market than oil. Memories of the energy crisis remain fresh. However, the broader picture of a wave of LNG (liquefied natural gas) putting downward pressure on prices remains intact, even though it is currently overshadowed by geopolitics. It is unlikely that the surge in natural gas will translate into higher electricity prices in Europe,” adds Rücker.
Beyond oil and gas, roughly 15% of global maritime trade and 30% of container traffic that passes through the Red Sea toward the Suez Canal are also at risk. In this regard, Mohammed Elmi, Senior Portfolio Manager for Emerging Market Debt at Federated Hermes, believes that a significant disruption, such as the one seen during last year’s Houthi attacks, could weigh on global growth and reinforce stagflationary pressures.
“Beyond oil, the Gulf’s energy advantage supports large-scale nitrogen fertilizer production, accounting for about 10% of global supply and serving key markets such as India and Africa. Disruptions could push soft commodity prices higher,” he adds.
Economies That Would “Suffer”
As Elmi notes, historically instability has often benefited GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain) economies due to rising oil prices.
“The key will be how markets balance higher crude prices with rising regional risk premiums. If the conflict drags on, Middle East risk premiums could adjust significantly. Spillover to emerging markets outside the Middle East appears limited, although second-round effects could put pressure on weaker regional economies such as Egypt, Pakistan, and potentially Turkey,” Elmi says.
Looking at the United States, according to Fed analysis, a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices is estimated to add approximately between 0.2% and 0.4% to overall U.S. CPI inflation and slightly reduce GDP growth.
Tensions in the Middle East finally erupted this weekend after the United States and Israel launched attacks against Iranian military targets and the conflict began to escalate and spread across the region. As a result, oil rose to a seven-month high and markets opened the session with losses.
In the view of Christian Schulz, chief economist at AllianzGI, markets are facing a significant shock, but one that is not yet destabilizing. “The immediate implication is a repricing of tail risks, with a potential rise in oil prices, a decline in risk assets, and a rally in safe-haven assets. However, much will depend on whether the conflict expands into broader regional or domestic instability,” the expert explains.
According to Adam Hetts, global head of multi-asset at Janus Henderson, there are other key market transmission channels to monitor if the uncertainty generated by this conflict persists. In his view, greater uncertainty dampens investor sentiment, which may broadly affect risk assets globally. “This would likely make developed market sovereign bonds, including U.S. Treasuries, and safe-haven currencies more attractive. In a prolonged period of uncertainty, rising oil prices could generate global inflation fears, which in turn could reduce the likelihood of the U.S. Federal Reserve cutting interest rates, something currently expected for later this year,” he notes.
Impact on markets
According to Schulz’s forecast, markets will demand a higher risk premium, at least temporarily, until there is greater clarity about Iran’s internal stability and the intentions of its geopolitical partners. “In broader financial markets, U.S. Treasuries, the U.S. dollar, and gold could appreciate, while equities could experience a sharp correction, although potentially short-lived,” he adds.
Looking, for example, at the gold and silver markets, the performance of perpetual futures over the weekend showed a very typical upward reaction. “This further reinforces the bullish tone in markets, but restraint by indirectly involved countries and the limited risk of an oil crisis should cap price increases. Although they provide stability to a portfolio during periods of heightened financial market volatility, the geopolitical playbook suggests that buying gold and silver on the day of a geopolitical escalation is unlikely to be a profitable strategy,” notes Carsten Menke, Head of Next Generation Research at Julius Baer.
By contrast, Jeffrey Cleveland, chief economist at Payden & Rygel, reminds that despite the severity of the geopolitical backdrop, it is advisable to avoid hasty conclusions: not every political escalation necessarily translates into a lasting macroeconomic crisis. In fact, he points out that, historically, geopolitical crises tend to trigger immediate, but often short-lived, reactions in markets. “Initial uncertainty fuels volatility and corrections, but once the situation stabilizes, even without a full resolution of the conflict, investors tend to absorb the event and refocus on economic fundamentals. In this sense, periods of weakness can become buying opportunities, especially for those with a medium- to long-term horizon,” Cleveland notes.
In his view, the true macroeconomic transmission channel would be energy, and in particular potential prolonged disruptions to oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic hub for global crude trade. In addition, for this expert, another factor to consider is the differing sensitivity of asset classes: “Geopolitical tensions tend to affect equities more intensely, increasing volatility and temporarily compressing valuations, while fixed income, especially high-quality bonds, tends to benefit from safe-haven flows.”
Anthony Willis, senior economist in the Multi-Asset Solutions team at Columbia Threadneedle Investments, shares Cleveland’s view and goes a step further: “Rising oil prices will likely amplify inflation risks in developed economies, just as new CPI releases begin to influence interest rate expectations. Higher energy costs may also threaten the disinflationary trend observed in several markets and could place renewed pressure on central banks to reassess the timing and magnitude of rate cuts.”
In this regard, Samy Chaar, chief economist at Lombard Odier, argues that the risk of an oil shock would not only affect the U.S. and its growth and inflation outlook, but the broader economy as well. “Real GDP growth in the U.S. would slow, and the Fed’s task of balancing its dual mandate would become more difficult. For other economies, especially in Asia and in emerging markets in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, the second scenario would justify further downward revisions to real GDP growth and upward revisions to inflation due to their high dependence on external energy imports,” he notes.
On oil prices
It should not be forgotten that oil is a barometer of geopolitics, and its reaction has been clear following the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. Although oil has traded mainly in the USD 60–70 range over the past 12 months, prices have already exceeded USD 70 and are expected to continue rising at the start of trading on Monday. For Adam Hetts, these moves are significant, but not yet particularly concerning in the broader context of investment implications.
“A continued rise to USD 80 would be consistent with the June 2025 conflict, and USD 90 with April 2024, when global markets were largely able to look through the price increases as the conflicts were resolved relatively quickly. Taking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 as a reference, that conflict pushed oil prices above USD 100 for a prolonged period, with brief spikes above USD 120. Current oil prices reflect a limited and relatively short-lived conflict,” Hetts explains.
In the view of Norbert Rücker, Head of Economics and Next Generation Research at Julius Baer, in the coming weeks we will see the usual pattern of a brief spike in oil and gas prices, though he believes it will be more intense this time. “This pattern could be prolonged by the complications associated with a regime-change mission, or shortened by Iran’s military exhaustion. In this base scenario, over the next few months, oil prices will depend on whether Iran experiences a disruption to its exports and, if so, whether compensation comes from producing countries or from the U.S. shale business. Assuming a combination of both, we raise our three-month oil price forecast to USD 60 per barrel. We maintain our neutral view on oil and shift our view on European natural gas to neutral from cautious,” he states.
And the role of the Strait of Hormuz
In this context, experts’ attention is once again focused on the Strait of Hormuz. Although Schulz considers its imminent closure unlikely, its stability is key to the global energy market. It is important to recall that if it were closed, global oil production could fall by 20%. “OPEC+ decided to increase supply by 206,000 barrels per day, and spare capacity (just under 3 million barrels per day) could, in theory, offset the loss of Iranian exports (1.6 million), while OECD inventories are within normal ranges. However, preventing oil prices from exceeding USD 100 per barrel depends on the reopening of Hormuz,” notes Paolo Zanghieri, senior economist at Generali AM.
According to Zanghieri, a partial disruption through sporadic attacks on vessels and the mining of the strait could push prices to USD 90 or higher. “Direct attacks on Gulf oil facilities would significantly raise prices, but would also strain Iran’s already fragile regional relationships and irritate China,” he adds.
By contrast, in Rücker’s view, the most feared scenario is not its closure, but severe damage to the region’s key oil and gas infrastructure. “So far, either Iran has not attempted to attack the region’s key oil and gas infrastructure, which would be surprising, or it has not succeeded. Such an attempt would trigger a forceful response, draw regional powers, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, into the conflict, and likely could not be sustained over time. Therefore, the most feared scenario, a disruption of oil and gas supply with economic impact, would require severe infrastructure damage, rather than the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, something that should have occurred in the early days of the conflict,” argues the Julius Baer expert.
Pixabay CC0 Public DomainAuthor: JerzyGórecki, Pixabay
U.S. government measures aimed at changing the country’s eating patterns provide a significant boost to companies that form part of the supply chains of so-called “real food” and those engaged in product reformulation. The new guidelines emphasize protein, dairy products and quality fats, tighten the nutritional criteria to be applied in schools and change the conditions for the use of food assistance benefits.¹
This measure marks a major shift in the direction of nutrition policy. By prioritizing “real food” in its new dietary guidelines, the government makes clear its intention to redirect the national diet toward alternatives to ultra-processed foods, favoring unprocessed or minimally processed, nutrient-dense foods.
This policy shift has far-reaching implications for investors, as in practice the government is seeking to steer both consumer behavior and the billions of dollars allocated to institutional food purchasing.
In our view, as institutions and consumers adapt to these new nutritional criteria, companies that already have capabilities in “real food” supply chains and product reformulation technologies could benefit disproportionately from the new regulation.
A Radical Shift from the Nutrition Policy of Recent Decades
To fully understand the scale of this change, it is necessary to go back to the original food pyramid published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1992.
Those guidelines prioritized refined carbohydrates over nutrient-rich proteins and healthy fats. They were based on a daily intake of between six and eleven servings from the grain group, such as bread, rice and pasta. Fats and oils were relegated to very moderate consumption.
The 2025–2030 U.S. guidelines mark an almost complete reversal of this trend. In the new “inverted pyramid” framework, foods from the grain group have been moved to the bottom, while quality proteins, whole dairy products and healthy fats take center stage in a balanced diet.
This shift falls within a broader mandate from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Americans to “eat real food.”² Among the most significant aspects of the new policy are the following:
The new guidelines recommend a daily intake of between 1.2 and 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight.
The government has declared “war on added sugar,” replacing the vague recommendation of “10% of total daily calories” with a strict limit of no more than 10 grams of added sugar per meal. In addition, it states that added sugar is not part of a healthy diet for children under four years old.
The new guidelines endorse fat sources from unprocessed or minimally processed foods, such as whole dairy products, eggs and red meat, as essential components of a nutrient-rich diet.
The Scope of the New Guidelines
Although consumption trends often take years to change, the impact of the new guidelines will be felt immediately due to nutrition policy. The guidelines are not mere recommendations: they constitute a mandatory framework that determines how billions of dollars in public food spending must be allocated.
Before ultimately influencing broader U.S. market standards, the most significant ramifications of the new guidelines are likely to be seen directly in two key areas:
School nutrition: the guidelines determine the menus of around 30 million students. Currently, ultra-processed foods account for nearly two thirds of caloric intake among those under 18. We anticipate a revision of federal school meal standards that prioritizes quality protein and whole dairy products and sets strict limits on added sugars.
Public assistance: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program currently serves 42 million low-income Americans, 78% of whom also receive healthcare coverage through Medicaid. The government therefore has a clear financial incentive to change the conditions governing the use of food assistance benefits to prevent them from being spent on unhealthy products associated with obesity and other health problems.
The United States accounts for nearly 30% of global food spending, so this policy shift could have a significant impact on investment opportunities in the global food sector.
This does not mean that the new guidelines reflect global scientific consensus on healthy eating. In fact, the inclusion of certain elements, such as the recommendation to consume red meat and animal fats, mostly saturated, is highly controversial. Nevertheless, we believe they could accelerate the transition toward healthier, more nutrient-rich diets that is already underway.
Structural Beneficiaries of the Shift Toward “Real Food”
In our view, the new guidelines enhance investment opportunities in five specific areas:
Quality protein. We believe that the notable increase in recommended protein intake will benefit high-quality aquaculture and dairy producers, which also aligns with growing health and wellness awareness and the increasing penetration of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. In our view, leading farmed salmon producers are well positioned, as the new guidelines explicitly endorse the consumption of omega-3-rich fish.
Fresh produce. The new pyramid prioritizes fruit and vegetables, which could favor market-leading producers in this segment.
Herbs and spices. The new guidelines encourage Americans to reduce sodium and added sugar consumption, meaning herbs and spices could become valuable allies in adding flavor to “real food.” Spice and seasoning companies may benefit.
Fermented foods and gut health. For the first time, U.S. federal guidelines explicitly endorse the consumption of fermented foods such as kefir,sauerkraut and miso. We believe leaders in the yogurt sector and in specialized starter cultures and enzymes are well positioned to benefit from this focus on microbiome health.
Reformulation. Food manufacturers face the difficult task of removing added sugars from existing products. To address the technical challenge of complying with the new, stricter limits while maintaining taste, many manufacturers are partnering with specialized ingredient suppliers and food reformulation companies.
A New Direction for U.S. Food Policy
The new guidelines from the U.S. Department of Agriculture signal a new direction for the U.S. food market. Given their potential to reshape the allocation of food spending in the country, these changes are not insignificant for the global food sector, nor for those who invest in it.
By prioritizing minimally processed foods and tightening nutritional criteria in a market currently dominated by ultra-processed products, we believe the new guidelines could strongly favor leading providers of products and services that enable healthier diets.
iShares, Amundi, Vanguard, Invesco, and Xtrackers outpaced their rival ETF issuers in 2025 thanks to strong asset-gathering momentum and new launch activity, according to the new ranking published by ETF Stream. The study, titled ETF Issuer Power Rankings 2025, concluded that the trio of U.S. asset managers recorded significant relative progress compared with their competitors in the European listed ETF market.
The report reached this conclusion based on its own methodology, which evaluates five metrics over a 12-month period: flows (absolute and relative in 2025); trading (cumulative volume and volume relative to the number of ETPs); revenues (absolute fee income and revenue relative to the number of ETPs); activity (number of ETP and strategy launches); and presence (absolute flows by product class).
According to the report, the world’s largest asset manager, BlackRock, tops this issuer ranking for the first time after not only surpassing its own results from previous years, but also recording in 2025 more net inflows and higher trading volume in its European ETF business than its next four competitors combined.
To highlight some of the figures that explain its leadership, iShares recorded net inflows of $92.8 billion in equities and $36.1 billion in fixed income, comfortably more than double those of its closest competitor and around 40% higher than the amounts it posted in each category last year. “Its leadership extended across most segments, with particularly wide gaps in ESG, emerging markets and commodities, where it added $26 billion, $12.1 billion and $7.7 billion in net new assets, respectively,” the report notes.
It also left virtually no front uncovered, with 36 new launches spanning from active core building blocks to collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) and corporate crossovers, quantum computing and AI themes, new ways of weighting U.S. and global equities, and its long-anticipated entry into cryptoasset exchange-traded products (ETPs).
The New York-based manager’s cumulative trading volume in 2025, at $1.84 trillion, marked a notable increase from $1.47 trillion the previous year and was more than three times that of the next most liquid issuer. “It remains to be seen whether its 2026 initiatives in more active launches and more targeted exposures can maintain the same growth pace on an already colossal scale,” the report states.
From second to fifth place
Following iShares’ lead is the European firm Amundi. Europe’s largest asset manager climbed the ranking again after adopting an offensive strategy in low-cost core products and in its retail offering, while also outlining a plan to establish a meaningful presence in the European active ETF and white-label segments. “The launch of its low-fee core range and the expansion of its well-established synthetic replication platform supported $33.9 billion in equity ETF inflows, alongside demand for its well-positioned country-sector strategies, including its European banks product. The firm also recorded $16.9 billion in fixed income strategies, led by strong investment in exposures such as short-duration euro corporate debt,” the report states.
Looking ahead to this year, a shift in focus will see the firm join players such as State Street and DWS in supporting third parties entering the market by offering capital markets support, alongside plans to develop its own in-house active ETF range and a more granular fixed income offering.
Notably, after Amundi, third and fourth place in the ranking are once again occupied by U.S. firms: Vanguard and Invesco. According to the report, Vanguard, founded by Jack Bogle, reached the podium for the first time after ending a three-year drought without launching European ETFs, undertaking ambitious retail distribution initiatives and cutting fees on its core offerings. The Pennsylvania-based manager recorded significant net inflows, attracting $31.7 billion in new money during 2025—the third-highest figure among all issuers—despite ending the year with a limited range of just 40 products.
For its part, Invesco broke into the top five after posting the second-largest inflows in the smart beta and commodities segments, which, together with market performance, drove 44.6% growth in assets under management in its European ETP business.
Rounding out the top five is another European firm: Xtrackers by DWS. “The firm showed strong traction, with the fourth-largest inflows and the third-highest cumulative trading volume, reaching $472.3 billion. However, outflows in certain segments meant that its solid $31 billion in net new assets were less impressive in relative terms compared with the $39 billion in inflows that its European Xtrackers business had gathered the previous year,” the report notes. Like Amundi, the German manager benefited from partnerships with third parties. Specifically, it launched an ETF of ETFs in collaboration with Zurich Insurance and two active equity ETFs based on AI together with DJE Kapital.
Industry trends of the year
“While core indexed exposures continue to account for the bulk of scale in European ETFs, the past year has been characterized by issuers racing to lead the market in active ETF launches, retail distribution and third-party ETF-as-a-service offerings,” explains Jamie Gordon, editor of ETF Stream.
According to the report, other leading ETF providers in Europe made notable strides in asset gathering and strategic initiatives, ranging from new partnerships with neobrokers to capitalize on the growing weight of retail investors to launching full ranges of active ETFs for the first time. “Many even began to ‘rent out’ their capabilities to allow new managers to enter the format for the first time,” they add.
It also notes that competition in the nascent European active ETF segment is intensifying, with new entrants gradually eroding the dominance of market leader J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Nordea and Robeco, which narrowly missed inclusion in this year’s ranking, both ranked among the top 25 issuers by net new asset inflows in their new ETF businesses.
Looking ahead, future-oriented themes experienced a revival driven by defense after two years of net outflows, enabling specialists such as VanEck, WisdomTree and Global X to improve their position compared with last year’s ranking.
In light of these findings, Pawel Janus, co-founder and head of analytics at ETFbook, believes that European ETFs continue to show strong structural growth, reflected not only in rising assets under management but also in accelerating product innovation and an increasingly broad issuer landscape. “The market’s competitive dynamics are evolving rapidly, especially with the expansion of active ETFs and increasingly specialized strategies. In this environment, scale alone is no longer enough. Issuers must differentiate themselves through innovation, distribution strength and operational excellence,” Janus concludes.
Photo courtesyMarlen Lopez, Senior Wealth Advisor and Founding Partner of Excelsis Global Private Wealth.
The vision of Marlen López, Senior Wealth Advisor and Founding Partner of Excelsis Global Private Wealth, on the offshore U.S. advisory industry has been shaped by her experience at major firms, her entrepreneurial journey, and her ability to interpret the trends that have defined this business.
López began her career at JPMorgan Chase, where she learned how to build strong, lasting client relationships, developing a skill that would become the backbone of her professional path. However, it was during the Great Recession, when she transitioned into a new role as a financial advisor, that her career reached a turning point.
“My transition to Merrill Lynch during this period of intense market instability represented a transformative challenge. I took on the responsibility of supporting families and high-net-worth clients as they navigated economic uncertainty, refining my ability to design resilient wealth strategies and build deep, trust-based relationships,” López recalls.
The Courage to Be Entrepreneurial
Although she later continued her professional development at firms such as Wells Fargo Advisors, it was not until 2021 that, together with four other independent global wealth management teams, López brought her project, The Lopez Private Wealth Group, into the creation of Excelsis Global Private Wealth, in partnership with Sanctuary Wealth.
“The relationship I had cultivated with the founders of Sanctuary Wealth during my time at Merrill Lynch was key to this transition. Their confidence in our mission and vision allowed us to collaborate in developing an independent, boutique model designed to exceed the expectations of our high-net-worth clients. Sanctuary Wealth not only shares our philosophy, but also provides a comprehensive platform that includes products, technological innovation, and operational support, allowing us to focus on delivering truly personalized, world-class service,” she explains.
Regarding her business decisions, López’s assessment is clear: “The Lopez Private Wealth Group represents the commitment to excellence that has always guided me. Our mission is to deliver top-tier financial expertise, personalized service, and innovative strategies that create value at every stage of life and across every generation of the families we serve.”
An Environment of Consolidation
That mission remains unchanged, even within a business landscape marked by strong consolidation, increasing sophistication, and a redefinition of the advisory model. In her view, these three dynamics are unfolding simultaneously and intertwining to shape a new era in the wealth management industry.
“Consolidation is reflected in the rise of independent models and RIAs, which offer advisors greater autonomy and competitiveness. More advisors are migrating toward models that allow them to operate with greater independence and control over their practices, whether by partnering with platforms like Sanctuary Wealth, which offer flexibility without sacrificing access to high-level tools, or by building their own models from the ground up,” she states.
For López, sophistication is evident in the growing demand for comprehensive, highly personalized services similar to those of family offices—once reserved exclusively for the ultra-wealthy and now extending to a broader client base. “Finally, the redefinition is being driven by demographic, technological, and cultural shifts, such as the generational transfer of wealth, which requires advisors to adapt to new expectations around personalization, advanced technology, and human connection in order to retain key assets,” she adds.
Industry Trends
Over the years, she has observed a significant shift in the profile of offshore clients, driven by a combination of geopolitical uncertainty and generational change. “One of the most notable trends we see is the increasing sophistication of clients, with a clear focus on multigenerational wealth planning. This evolution is largely due to geopolitical instability in many of the countries we serve, which has heightened demand for expert guidance to navigate the uncertainties clients face daily, not only in their home countries, but globally,” she explains.
At the same time, she notes that as these challenges have intensified, so too has the need for robust portfolio strategies that provide clients with a sense of security and peace of mind. “In times of uncertainty, clients are highly focused on protecting their wealth and ensuring the long-term financial stability of their families. They rely on us as trusted advisors to help them build and safeguard their wealth in ways that address not only what is within their control, but also mitigate risks arising from external factors beyond their reach.”
Another significant shift has been the emergence of a younger, more technologically savvy generation stepping into leadership roles within the families they serve. “The evolving profile of offshore clients reflects a combination of global uncertainties and generational transformation. This has amplified the need for knowledgeable and adaptable expert teams capable of guiding clients through these complexities,” she affirms.
Within this broader industry transformation, the strength of the client relationship remains a cornerstone of successful business practices, particularly in the offshore market. In López’s view, trust, transparency, and ongoing education are critical components in building and sustaining that bond.
“While platforms and technology can enhance efficiency, streamline processes, and provide valuable insights, human connection and the ability to genuinely understand and address a client’s needs are irreplaceable. These relationships are cultivated through consistent communication, delivering on commitments, and honesty, qualities that foster loyalty and long-term partnerships. It is the fusion of people-centered values with platform-driven capabilities that creates a dynamic and impactful client experience,” she emphasizes.
Looking Ahead
When asked what she expects from the industry in the coming years, her message is clear: wealth management will undergo significant evolution driven by personalization, technology, and shifting client expectations. “Clients, regardless of their wealth level, demand highly personalized services similar to those offered to ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) individuals. Advanced technology, including AI, predictive analytics, and digital platforms, will streamline operations, but human connection and ‘white-glove’ service will remain irreplaceable,” she argues.
As she notes, a key development, highlighted by Adam Malamed, CEO of Sanctuary Wealth, is the democratization of the family office experience: “Firms will expand access to high-level holistic services, such as multigenerational planning, family governance, and financial advisory, making them available to a broader range of clients.”
She also underscores that significant intergenerational wealth transfers highlight the need to connect deeply with future wealth holders, aligning services with their values, such as interest in ESG investing. In this context, she maintains that firms that cultivate a strong cultural identity and entrepreneurial flexibility will attract both advisors and clients, ensuring resilience and growth in a competitive environment. “To thrive, firms must embrace innovation while prioritizing relationship-building, constantly evolving to meet client needs. Those that fail to adapt risk losing relevance in this transformative era,” López insists.
Her main conclusion regarding the offshore business is that “while it faces challenges such as geopolitical uncertainty stemming from trade tensions, changes in immigration policies, and perceptions of protectionist measures by the United States toward Latin America; as well as strict regulation (KYC/AML) requiring longer and more complex processes to ensure global compliance and combat illicit activity; and tax complexities related to withholding taxes, succession laws, and legal structures that may be confusing for foreign investors—it remains highly attractive to Latin American investors seeking refuge, diversification, and growth in a stable, secure environment with access to liquid markets and unique opportunities.”
She emphasizes that “to capitalize on these opportunities, clients and advisors must adapt to changing conditions, prioritizing transparency, regulatory compliance, and delivering an innovative, highly personalized approach that responds to modern market demands.”
