BlackRock, Fidelity Investments, and Capital Group: The Asset Managers With the Best Brand Building

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Canva

Brand building has become a valuable factor for the competitiveness of international asset managers. According to the annual Global 100 Asset Management Marketing Report, prepared by BCG, BlackRock, Fidelity Investments, and Capital Group are the top three investment firms with the strongest brands, followed by T. Rowe Price and Aviva Investors.

Brand Building Becomes a Key Competitive Factor for Asset Managers

Brand building has become a key asset for international asset managers seeking to strengthen their competitiveness. According to the annual Global 100 Asset Management Marketing Report, published by BCG, BlackRock, Fidelity Investments, and Capital Group are the top three investment firms in brand strength, followed by T. Rowe Price and Aviva Investors.

“The Global 100 2025 shows that the asset management sector continues to go through a period of profound change. It’s clear that many managers are facing existential questions. How can we scale? Should we consider inorganic growth? How do we incorporate artificial intelligence into our business practices and marketing without losing what makes us unique? How do we breathe new life into a stagnant brand? It has never been more important for senior marketing leaders to make data-driven decisions in executive-level conversations,” the report’s authors state.

The report finds that 45% of firms are experiencing stagnation or decline in brand recognition, a figure that, while not as high as in previous years, still indicates that nearly half of executives are failing to create brand value. “This is clearly a challenge for a sector that relies on visibility and whose strategy, for many firms, is focused on reaching new audiences—especially retail clients and wealth groups,” the report notes. The global share of voice (SOV) has also declined by 5% compared to two years ago, signaling increased competition for media coverage.

Among firms focused exclusively on private markets, 88% had below-average media perception, and over 75% received clearly negative sentiment. “Among major players, Blackstone and Apollo scored only 4/10 in media perception. Top private market players like Blackstone appear to have become ‘lightning rods’ for the sector, attracting ten times more search interest than similarly sized firms outside the private equity space,” the report says.

The report also highlights slow progress in paid media strategies. 39% of firms still lack a permanent paid search strategy, only a slight improvement from 43% in 2023. 85% of firms had no sustained presence in paid media in 2025, compared to 80% in 2023, indicating stagnation in paid media adoption.

Using the Peregrine Frame analysis model, the report finds that most firms cluster around 16 recurring key message areas, with client focus, ESG criteria, and research-based investing being the most common. Over 90% of firms list client focus among their top three core messages, suggesting that messaging often gravitates toward consensus rather than differentiation. “In a sector where consolidation is accelerating and the competitive landscape remains intense, brands need to be bolder in their positioning,” the report warns.

The report emphasizes that brand positioning is not superficial; it is material and deeply linked to bottom-line outcomes. “Peregrine’s analysis shows a strong correlation between high category authority (message distinction and niche dominance) and AUM growth, and the reward is exponential.” Firms with low authority are not only less likely to achieve significant AUM gains but are also more prone to AUM losses. 27% of firms with low scores saw their AUM decrease, compared to less than 10% among firms with high scores.

The combined forces of retailization and the rise of active ETFs are reshaping the asset management landscape, making visibility among emerging audience segments a key driver of competitiveness. At the same time, margin pressure is intensifying, placing cost control at the top of the corporate strategic agenda, according to BCG’s analysis.

However, the impact on decision-making varies by firm type and market niche. Alpha generators—such as alternative asset managers and active firms—are focusing on talent attraction and retention while strengthening their corporate narrative around the uniqueness of their human capital. This trend is particularly visible in large multi-strategy managers. In contrast, beta factories—large managers with heavy exposure to passive strategies—are emphasizing operational efficiency, scale, and technology as the core of their value proposition. For distribution powerhouses and solution providers, brand is becoming an increasingly important factor at the decision-making level.

The central challenge, BCG concludes, is to transform marketing leadership into AUM leadership, thereby solidifying a firm’s position in an increasingly competitive and diversified market.

Goldman Sachs Acquires Venture Capital Firm Industry Ventures

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Goldman Sachs Group Announces Agreement to Acquire Industry Ventures, a Leading Venture Capital Platform Investing Across All Stages of the VC Lifecycle

Goldman Sachs Group has announced an agreement to acquire Industry Ventures, a leading venture capital platform that invests across all stages of the venture capital lifecycle. Currently, Industry Ventures manages $7 billion in assets under supervision and, since its founding in 2000, has made more than 1,000 primary and secondary investments.

According to David Solomon, Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, Industry Ventures was a pioneer in secondary venture capital investments and early-stage hybrid funds—areas that, in his view, are growing rapidly as companies remain private longer and investors seek new forms of liquidity.

“Industry Ventures’ trusted relationships and venture capital expertise complement our existing investment franchises and expand opportunities for our clients to access the world’s fastest-growing companies and sectors,” stated Solomon.

For his part, Hans Swildens, founder and CEO of Industry Ventures, added:

“We believe the venture capital market is at a key inflection point, as technology and artificial intelligence transform the world. By combining Goldman Sachs’ global resources with Industry Ventures’ venture capital expertise, we are uniquely positioned to meet the growing needs of entrepreneurs, private tech companies, limited partners, and fund managers, while driving the growth of this essential economic engine.”

As part of the agreement, all 45 employees of Industry Ventures are expected to join Goldman Sachs. Hans Swildens, along with senior executives Justin Burden and Roland Reynolds, will be named partners of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. The transaction will include an initial payment of $665 million in cash and stock at closing, as well as additional contingent compensation of up to $300 million, also in cash and stock, subject to Industry Ventures’ future performance through 2030. The deal is expected to close in the first quarter of 2026, pending regulatory approval and customary conditions.

Key Details of the Transaction

According to both companies, Industry Ventures will be integrated into Goldman Sachs’ external manager platform, the External Investing Group (XIG), which manages more than $450 billion in AUS across traditional and alternative strategies. In private markets, XIG is a leading player in co-investments, alternative manager strategies, its secondaries platform Vintage Strategies, and its GP stakes business Petershill GP Stakes.

This acquisition brings attractive technology investment capabilities to benefit Goldman Sachs’ global client base and diversifies its $540 billion alternatives investment platform, which spans growth equity, buyouts, real estate, infrastructure, life sciences, sustainability, and private credit.

To understand this transaction, it is worth noting that Goldman Sachs AM has been a limited partner in Industry Ventures’ funds for over two decades, offering its strategies to clients for more than ten years. In addition, Petershill Partners has held a minority stake in the firm since 2019. With this deal, Goldman Sachs will acquire 100% ownership of Industry Ventures. As highlighted, the acquisition will strengthen the bank’s ability to offer comprehensive solutions to entrepreneurs in the tech sector, supported by its leading position in TMT (technology, media, and telecommunications) investment banking and its strong global wealth management platform.

Industry Ventures Profile

Industry Ventures has been a pioneer in various segments of venture capital, from offering secondary liquidity solutions and seeding emerging VC funds to co-investing in high-growth early-stage companies and participating at the intersection of venture capital and tech buyouts.

The firm holds one of the broadest portfolios of venture capital partnerships in the U.S., with investments in over 800 venture capital and technology funds and collaborations with more than 325 managers as a limited partner, liquidity provider, and strategic co-investor.

The Fed’s Structure Under Review: What Are the Implications for Investment?

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Canva

President Trump’s Pressure to Cut Interest Rates in 2025 Has Dominated Headlines. However, in My View, There Are Several Reasons to Anticipate a Significant Shift in the Structure, Responsibilities, and Processes of the Federal Reserve Next Year. These changes could affect the central bank’s independence and its ability to set effective monetary and supervisory policy, ultimately influencing the value of the dollar, long-term bond term premiums, and the multiples at which equities trade.

Personnel Policy

Moderation in the Fed’s interest rate decisions will only be viewed positively if data supports it; otherwise, the dollar could depreciate and long-end yields could rise, as the market would price in higher inflation and less confidence in monetary policy. In other words, government pressure to cut rates in the short term may come at a cost if the Fed deviates from its usual playbook.

That playbook, moreover, only works if those implementing it are equally effective. A change in the Fed chair was already expected in May 2026, but now, with the president’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Board of Governors, it is likely that most of the seven members will be Trump appointees: a possible replacement for Cook, in addition to Michelle Bowman, Christopher Waller, and the newly added Stephen Miran. The governors are part of the 12-member FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee — responsible for setting interest rates), along with the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and four other rotating regional Fed presidents who serve one-year terms. Although there are 12 regional presidents, only the New York Fed president holds a permanent seat on the FOMC.

The composition of the Board in 2026 will matter for three key reasons:

  1. The terms of the 12 regional presidents expire on the last day of February 2026, and the Board will decide who fills those posts for the next five years. It is plausible that a Board aligned with Trump could block the reappointment of a more hawkish regional president, or at minimum, influence the thinking of those seeking reappointment.

  2. The Board, not the FOMC, is responsible for banking regulation, although this responsibility could change, as explained below. Therefore, Trump’s ideas about deregulation could gain traction in a newly configured Board.

  3. The Board has the final say over the discount rate, the rate at which financial institutions can borrow directly from a Federal Reserve Bank; this rate acts as the ceiling for the federal funds rate.

Potential Interference in Fed Tools

As appointments unfold in the coming months, several areas should be monitored where the Fed’s authorities and tools could change:

Interest on Excess Reserves: One area of bipartisan agreement is the desire for the Fed to stop paying interest on excess reserves that banks are required to hold. Could we see a tiering of these payments starting next year, as scrutiny of the Fed increases? This would bring the Fed closer to the practices of other central banks and eliminate controversy around payments to commercial banks — including foreign ones — instead of to the Treasury.

Quantitative Tightening (QT): QT may conclude in 2026 when reserves reach a level that begins to affect market liquidity. So far, the Fed has reduced its balance sheet through QT, initially by trimming repo operations and more recently the Treasury General Account, without affecting bank reserves. It is worth recalling that earlier this year, the Fed significantly slowed its reduction of Treasury securities to prolong the process and ease the impact on liquidity. An independent Fed would likely consider equating the Treasury General Account with Treasury bill holdings and may be interested in shortening the duration of its fixed-income portfolio over time. But this is another area where personnel changes could be decisive, with implications for the composition and size of the Fed’s balance sheet.

Supervisory Powers: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently highlighted the need to reduce the Fed’s role as the “chief regulator of U.S. finance,” a role he believes has yielded disappointing results since it was expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, Bessent has advocated transferring banking supervision to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

Implications for the Dollar, Fixed Income, and Equity Markets

Any change in the Fed’s powers and policies can have wide-ranging consequences, particularly in the following areas:

U.S. Dollar Liquidity: Currency swap lines — agreements in which the Fed exchanges dollars for foreign currencies with other central banks — are gaining importance globally. While the Fed has been a reliable source of dollar liquidity during times of global stress, the upcoming appointment of a new chair has raised concerns among other central banks about a potential shift. The Trump administration argues that such liquidity is a favor to allies, not an obligation. In response, proposals have emerged to allow central banks with large dollar reserves to lend to each other instead of relying on the Fed. If this materializes, in a crisis, those banks might liquidate their dollar reserves — invested in U.S. Treasury securities — destabilizing the debt market and forcing the Fed to act as buyer of last resort or to cap repo rates.

Yield Suppression: Bessent and other administration members have repeatedly emphasized the need for Treasury and the Fed to “row in the same direction” to redirect the economy. The implicit message is that it may be necessary to lower yields at some point to boost domestic production and reduce reliance on China — a strategy that would require continued fiscal spending and higher federal debt. Fiscal discipline can only come from the bond market and an independent Fed that bases its policies on the economy, not the Treasury’s needs. But if the Fed’s independence is constrained by those promoting more spending, bond markets may demand higher term premiums. Over time, in the event of a recession, a compliant Fed would likely be called upon to step in and cap interest rates to reduce the cost of public debt.

Higher term premiums could also weigh on equity valuation multiples, by increasing uncertainty around the institutional framework of U.S. monetary and fiscal policy. The possible outcome: Fixed income and equity market participants could react negatively to any signs of a diminished Fed ability to fight inflation. Greater inflation volatility is typically negative for long-term asset returns.

Beyond Interest Rates: A Question of Institutional Control and Long-Term Efficiency

If the administration increases its influence over the Fed, scrutiny over resource allocation, research agendas, and staffing decisions at the central bank is likely to rise. Criticism over staff size and daily operations could also lead to higher turnover at the institution. Additionally, efforts to audit the Fed may resurface, reinforcing demands for accountability. If realized, all these factors could significantly impact the Fed’s decision-making process and its ability to act independently and swiftly in times of crisis.

While markets tend to focus on short-term interest rate decisions, a broader issue is at play related to the regulation, supervision, and operation — the architecture — of central banks, with much wider implications, which I will continue to monitor closely in the coming months.

Opinion Column by Juhi Dhawan, Macro Strategist at Wellington Management

Thornburg Partners With Capital Strategies Partners to Expand Its Distribution in Italy and the Middle East

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Photo courtesy

Thornburg Investment Management has announced a new strategic partnership with Capital Strategies Partners to serve institutional and wholesale investors in Italy and the Middle East. Through this collaboration, Thornburg IM will expand its international presence and offer investors in both regions access to its range of UCITS funds, including its flagship strategies: Equity Income Builder Fund, Global Opportunities Fund, and Strategic Income Fund.

“The partnership with Capital Strategies Partners represents an important milestone in our ongoing international expansion. Italy and the Middle East are important and growing markets for Thornburg IM, and we believe that Capital Strategies’ deep local knowledge, established relationships, and proven expertise make them the ideal partner to connect investors with Thornburg’s differentiated investment solutions,” said Jonathan Schuman, Head of International at Thornburg IM.

In this regard, Thornburg IM continues to strengthen its distribution network across Europe, Asia, and Latin America. The addition of Capital Strategies also reinforces the firm’s commitment to providing exemplary service to its clients. This agreement broadens Thornburg IM’s global reach and reflects the firm’s mission to deliver independent, research-driven, and disciplined investment solutions that help investors achieve their long-term financial goals.

“We are excited to partner with Thornburg IM. Their track record in managing high-conviction global equity and multi-sector credit strategies complements the evolving needs of institutional and professional investors in our regions. We look forward to bringing Thornburg’s expertise to our clients in Italy and the Middle East,” added Daniel Rubio, Founder and CEO of Capital Strategies.

According to Riccardo Milan, Head of Italy at Capital Strategies, the country continues to show strong demand for research-based global strategies. “Thornburg IM’s disciplined investment approach and ability to combine performance with risk management will be highly relevant for institutional and wholesale clients in Italy,” he noted.

Finally, Paolo Svetlich, Head of Sales at local Middle Eastern partner FMP Capital, added: “The Middle East is experiencing growing interest in high-quality international strategies. By partnering with Thornburg, we can offer our professional clients differentiated solutions aligned with their long-term objectives.”

“The Obesity Market Could Exceed $150 Billion in Size”

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

LinkedIn

While technology stocks continue to attract investor interest, there is one sector that continues to deliver positive returns yet remains overlooked: healthcare. “It’s a sector that has been out of favor for several years now, and this situation became even more pronounced over the past twelve months,” explains Dan Lyons, co-manager of the Global Life Sciences strategy at Janus Henderson. Lyons notes that the sector is currently trading at its lowest level in the past 25 years.

Funds Society sat down with Lyons in October 2024 to discuss the team’s outlook at the time, when the U.S. presidential election was still a month away. Since last November, the manager acknowledges that concerns around regulation and drug pricing have weighed on a “substantial portion” of the sector. On top of that, tariff announcements have added another layer of complexity for these companies, many of which operate multinational businesses. All of this has led to outflows from the sector, putting pressure on valuations. “We could call it a perfect storm of negativity for our sector,” concludes Lyons.

Throughout the conversation, the manager repeatedly emphasizes that the core of their investment process lies in identifying the most innovative companies in the health segment and then determining whether they are trading at attractive valuations. Within the sector, biotech firms are generally the innovation leaders: “Two-thirds of the industry’s pipeline comes from biotech. Last year, over 80% of new launches came from the biotech industry,” Lyons illustrates, explaining why the Global Life Sciences strategy typically has a structural overweight in this segment. The manager anticipates further innovation in 2026, citing medical advances in early treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, cardiovascular conditions, and new therapies for pancreatic cancer.

It is worth noting, however, that due to the inherently riskier nature of their business, biotech companies also tend to suffer the most in uncertain markets. This has happened again: the sector plunged 50% between November 2025 and April 2024, although it has since rebounded sharply. “It has been a challenging environment for our portfolios,” the manager admits. Still, he prefers to see the glass as half full, interpreting the sector’s recovery as a sign that the market may be starting to believe “the regulatory environment might not be that bad after all.”

How Has the Portfolio Rotated in 2025?

It’s been a year of two halves. In the first half, we rotated toward companies in earlier commercial stages and, to some extent, scaled back our enthusiasm for early-stage development firms that weren’t being properly rewarded for taking on risk.

As we enter the second half of the year, we’re seeing that the market is more willing to take on risk. The context of interest rates has also helped, with the first rate cuts. As a result, we are now slowly increasing our exposure again to early-stage development companies. We’re also excited about companies in the late-stage development phase with solid access to capital. These are firms developing new drugs for rare diseases, such as Avidity or Dyne.

Last Year You Were Very Bullish on Obesity Treatments. Do You Still Hold That View?

We remain very bullish on the potential size of this market opportunity. We believe the obesity market could exceed $150 billion. There is more than enough room to capture even a 10% market share.

We’ve seen leadership, particularly from companies like Eli Lilly, consolidate even further. The next-generation product it launched last year, ZepFound, is capturing three-quarters of new patients—it has become the preferred choice for people starting obesity treatment. And we believe the market could open up even more now that they’re able to launch the drug both in the U.S. and globally, making it more accessible.

Last year, Eli Lilly also reported positive phase 3 data for an oral drug using the same mechanism, called Orfoglipron. So during 2026, we’ll see the launch of an oral option, which will help expand access and somewhat democratize the market, as it won’t require cold chain storage.

We are playing this theme both through large companies like Eli Lilly and smaller biotechs, such as Medcera, which we hold in the portfolio. They were in early-stage development of a similar drug to Eli Lilly’s, and they were acquired by Pfizer, which will now lead the remaining trials.

Innovation Is the Compass of Your Research Process. Where Is It Pointing in 2025?

It’s truly been a year of tremendous breakthroughs. In this uncertain environment, we’ve focused heavily on companies that have recently received drug approvals and have successfully delivered those treatments to patients despite the regulatory noise. Many of these companies are seeing spectacular new drug launches. One example is Madrigal, which launched a drug called Rosdifra (also known as MASH) for fatty liver disease. It’s the first of its kind, and it’s on track to become a blockbuster, since many patients in the U.S. suffer from this condition, which is a major cause of liver transplants. If this disease can be treated early and transplants avoided, it results in huge savings for the healthcare system and better outcomes for patients.

Another example is Verona (VRNA), a UK-based biotech that developed a new type of medication for COPD, a nebulized therapy that’s gaining strong market traction. It’s a new area meeting an unmet need. The company was just acquired by Merck for over $10 billion. In the case of Verona and Madrigal, we’re talking about market opportunities between $5 billion and $10 billion.

Another emerging market is autoimmune diseases, where companies like Argenx are active. It already has a drug with $4 billion revenue potential. But this is on a different scale—it’s like the NVIDIA of the healthcare sector.

So, Do You Anticipate More M&A in the Healthcare Market?

Yes, because big pharma needs additional revenue and is looking to biotech companies to get it. Firms like Pfizer or Bristol-Myers are losing patent exclusivity and seeing sales fall. They need to bring in these new products. Across the industry, we estimate they have around $1 trillion in spending power, which allows them to engage in many deals to build their product pipelines.

We are already seeing this reflected in our portfolios, with more big pharmaceutical companies becoming comfortable with the regulatory and pricing environment, as they are starting to deploy capital. We’ve seen over five of the companies in our portfolio involved in M&A activity in the second half of the year.

What Impact Could the Big Beautiful Bill Have on the Pharmaceutical Sector?

We’ve come from several years of expanding healthcare coverage, with more people gaining access to healthcare services. This law has started a period of contraction, reducing access to some of those services. There’s a lot of work to be done in Congress to avoid that, because it’s extremely unpopular to remove a benefit people already enjoy. But in percentage terms, the contraction is relatively small, and I believe it’s very manageable.

The law also includes some positive aspects that have helped the sector. For example, for companies developing orphan drugs for rare diseases: under the previous IRA law, these producers faced the risk of future price caps, and the current legislation has corrected that.

You Have Kept Some Underperforming Companies in the Portfolio. Why?

When we hold companies going through challenges, as we have with United Healthcare, we always assess whether the valuation still looks attractive and whether the original compelling element of their business model remains. We also evaluate if they can return to more normalized margins. In United Healthcare’s case, we believe the return of the former management team can fix the situation, which is why we not only held the position but slightly increased it.

We’ve had similar experiences with another portfolio name—a company developing a vaccine for a market estimated at $7 billion that we believe will become the market leader. But due to controversy around vaccines and the anti-vaccine stance of Robert F. Kennedy, the company’s valuation is heavily depressed. We’ve held onto our investment because we don’t believe that market is going away.

Asia-Pacific: The Largest UCITS-Holding Region After Europe

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Canva

Within the European fund industry, the acronym UCITS enjoys great popularity and trust—but what about beyond Europe’s borders? The reality is that, according to aggregated data from the ECB, it is estimated that out of the €21.5 trillion held in UCITS and AIFs domiciled in the EU, €9.7 trillion corresponded to domestic funds. This means that €11.8 trillion are in the hands of investors outside the EU member states.

According to the latest report published by the European Fund and Asset Management Association (Efama) and prepared with exclusive data from Broadridge’s Global Market Intelligence (GMI) to analyze international UCITS distribution trends, thanks to the European passport regime, those €11.8 trillion are divided into two segments. On one hand, there are funds domiciled in EU countries and held by investors located in another member state, which reached €6.1 trillion at the end of 2024. On the other hand, there are those funds domiciled in the EU and held by investors located outside the EU, which reached €5.7 trillion.

“Over the past decade, the net assets of cross-border funds have grown considerably faster than those of domestic funds. While the assets of domestic funds increased by 83%, the assets of cross-border funds held in another EU country grew by 145%, and cross-border funds held outside the EU grew by 133%. Interestingly, in the past two years, the growth rate of cross-border funds outside the EU has outpaced that of intra-European cross-border funds, underscoring their increasing relevance on a global scale,” the report reveals.

According to the report, one of the main drivers behind this growth has been the increase in net sales. As the figures show, cross-border funds—especially those marketed outside the EU—have consistently attracted greater investment flows compared to domestic funds and cross-border funds within the EU.

Asia-Pacific: Largest Holder

One of the conclusions presented in the report is that, as of the end of June 2025, the Asia-Pacific region accounted for 8.7% of cross-border UCITS holdings. Specifically, net UCITS assets in the region grew by 18% during 2024, although they declined slightly in the first half of 2025 (-4%).

“Over the past five years, cumulative asset growth has been 22%. This relatively moderate long-term growth reflects the impact of the sharp decline recorded in 2022, after which net assets took two years to fully recover. Net sales have generally been positive in recent years, with 2022 as the only exception,” the report explains.

Specifically, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Taiwan are the main Asian markets for cross-border UCITS. According to the report, following widespread redemptions in 2022, Singapore and Taiwan drove the regional recovery in 2023, recording net inflows of €9 billion and €4 billion, respectively.

In 2024, total net inflows into Asia-Pacific rose significantly to €34 billion, supported by continued strong demand in Singapore (€12 billion) and Taiwan (€6 billion), as well as a notable recovery in Hong Kong, where investors contributed €11 billion in new net investments. During the first six months of 2025, this positive momentum continued, with significant net inflows into Singapore and Hong Kong totaling €7 billion.

Geographic Overview

Looking at other regions, it is notable that the countries of South America and Central America accounted for approximately 3.3% of cross-border UCITS holdings at the end of the first half of 2025. According to the report’s data, as of the end of June 2025, Latin American investors held €246 billion in cross-border UCITS, excluding ETFs, and net assets fell by approximately 8.5% in the first half of 2025, after growing by 15% the previous year and 24% over the past five years.

“Total holdings remain below their 2021 peak. Net sales have been relatively weak in recent years, with two consecutive years of net outflows in 2022 and 2023. The market returned to positive territory in 2024, with net inflows of €4 billion, but so far in 2025, it has once again recorded net redemptions of €5 billion,” the document states.

Regarding the Middle East and Africa (MEA), the countries in this region accounted for approximately 1.2% of cross-border UCITS holdings at the end of June 2025. In the case of North America, the United States and Canada account for only 0.2% of cross-border UCITS holdings. “All of these are concentrated in Canada, since, although the United States is the largest fund market in the world—with total net assets exceeding €40 trillion in 2024—regulatory barriers effectively prevent the distribution of non-U.S. funds in that country,” the report explains.

It also highlights that U.S. fund managers widely use UCITS to market funds to investors outside the U.S., given that funds domiciled in that country cannot easily be marketed to international investors for tax and regulatory reasons. According to the report, it is also important to note that U.S. investors residing outside the U.S. do invest in UCITS, mainly through wealth managers in Latin America, offshore jurisdictions, or international regions.

Lastly, the offshore region represents 0.8% of European cross-border UCITS and includes several Caribbean countries and the Channel Islands, commonly defined as offshore financial centers, such as Bermuda, Curaçao, Guernsey, and Jersey. There is also an “unassigned international” region, as referred to in the report, which represents approximately 17.6% of cross-border UCITS assets that cannot be linked to a specific end-investor location.

Capital Strategies Partners Reaches a Distribution Agreement with ARK Invest

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Photo courtesy

Capital Strategies Partners has signed an agreement to distribute the investment products of ARK Investment Management (ARK Invest or ARK) in Spain, Portugal, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Brazil.

The asset manager highlights that ARK Invest, founded in 2014 by Cathie Wood, “has established itself as one of the most globally recognized asset managers, thanks to its exclusive focus on disruptive innovation.” Its strategies, centered on artificial intelligence, robotics, biotechnology, blockchain, and next-generation energy, position it as a reference for investors seeking exposure to the drivers of technological and economic change.

“We are very pleased to welcome ARK to our group of represented managers. Cathie Wood and her team bring a distinctive vision, aligned with our mission to offer investors innovative, high-quality solutions,” said Daniel Rubio, founder and CEO of Capital Strategies Partners, following the announcement.

For her part, Cathie Wood, founder, CEO, and Chief Investment Officer of ARK Invest, commented: “At ARK, our mission has always been to democratize access to the most relevant investment opportunities of our time, driven by disruptive innovation. We already work with investors in Europe and Latin America, and this collaboration with Capital Strategies strengthens our ability to expand that mission in Spain, Portugal, and other key markets in the region. This agreement allows us to empower more investors to participate in the technological transformations that are redefining the world, and to position their portfolios with a long-term growth vision.”

According to Stuart Forbes, Global Head of Distribution at ARK Invest, this agreement with Capital Strategies builds on their established presence in Europe and enables them to strengthen their reach in Latin America, especially in Chile, Peru, Brazil, and Colombia. “Thanks to their local expertise and trusted relationships, we can bring our research-based strategies to new investors and expand access to the disruptive technologies that will define the economy of the future,” he noted.

JP Morgan Private Bank Adds Justo Schiopetto as Banker in Miami

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Capital Strategies Partners y ARK Invest
LinkedIn

J.P. Morgan Private Bank announced the promotion of Justo Schiopetto to associate and banker for its Miami offices. The professional previously worked at JPMorgan Chase in Dallas, Texas, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Caterina Gomez, VP of JP Morgan Private Bank and Head of Market Business Management for Latin America Regions (excluding Brazil), published a welcome post on her LinkedIn profile, in which she reported that Justo Schiopetto has taken on the role of associate and banker “by joining our Latin America team in the Miami office.”

“Justo brings years of experience in wealth management,” Gomez added. From his new position, Schiopetto will serve the needs of the bank’s ultra-high-net-worth clients, according to the same post.

According to his professional profile on the social network LinkedIn, the new banker at JP Morgan Private Bank in Miami joined JPMorgan Chase in June 2021 as an Investment Banking Credit Analyst. Previously, he worked for three years at Cohen Aliados Financieros and was also a consultant – risk advisory at Deloitte Argentina, among other professional experiences.

Academically, he holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration and Management from UCA (Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina) and a Master’s in Finance from Universidad Torcuato Di Tella.

Revolution in Funds? The SEC Endorses Dual Structure with ETFs

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Citi rechaza oferta por Banamex
Pixabay CC0 Public Domain

A Regulatory Change in the United States Could Enable Asset Managers to Integrate ETFs and Mutual Funds in Their Portfolios, in an Industry Witnessing the Unchecked Growth of Exchange-Traded Funds

A regulatory change in the United States could enable asset managers to integrate ETFs and mutual funds in their portfolios, in an industry that is witnessing the growth—with no limits in sight—of exchange-traded funds. Experts consulted by Funds Society confirmed that the regulator seeks to modernize and simplify the structure of investment funds in the United States and indicated that it would be a positive move for retail investors. However, they also warned that it could benefit large-scale managers to the detriment of smaller firms.

At the end of last September, the SEC issued a statement titled “Back to Basics: Statement on Exemptive Relief for ETF Share Classes,” making public its intention to approve a request submitted by DFA (Dimensional Fund Advisors) to allow open-end funds (mutual funds) to simultaneously offer exchange-traded shares (ETFs).

“The Commission is taking a long-awaited step toward modernizing our regulatory framework for investment companies, reflecting the evolution of collective investment vehicles from being primarily daily redeemable funds to exchange-traded funds (ETFs),” stated Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda in that statement.

The proposed regulatory change targets the domestic U.S. market, and although the regulation has not yet been ratified, it holds transformative potential for the entire industry.

“As mutual funds and ETFs become more democratized, assets tend to shift toward ETFs, since traditionally fees are lower and taxes, without a doubt, are also much lower,” explained to Funds Society Gil Baumgarten, CEO of Segment Wealth Management, an RIA based in Houston, Texas.

“Reducing the barriers to converting open-end funds into closed-end ETFs through a share-class matching scheme—like the one proposed by Dimensional Funds—is positive for investors and will accelerate the trend of converting other mutual funds into ETFs if the SEC approves it,” he added.

It is expected that many other asset managers who have already submitted similar requests (more than 80, according to global law firm Ropes & Gray) will file similar amendments to align with the DFA model.

“The measure seeks to modernize and simplify the structure of investment funds in the United States, which until now have had to keep their traditional mutual funds and their ETFs separate, even though they often invest in the same assets and follow the same strategy,” said Jorge Alejandro Antonioli, Investment Development Manager at Supra Wealth Management.

“At the asset manager level,” he continued, “this creates duplicate costs, different legal structures, and lower operational and tax efficiency. With this measure, the SEC would allow, under an exemption regime at first, a fund to have two classes: one exchange-traded class (ETF) that investors can buy and sell during market hours and another non-traded class that operates with an end-of-day NAV as mutual funds traditionally do.”

Main Advantages

The regulatory change has benefits associated with greater liquidity, lower management costs, and access without investment minimums, noted the expert from Supra WM. “It is always good for retail investors to have more investment options; being able to access the same asset through two different financial instruments simply gives the retail investor more options, and that is always good,” said María Camacho, a market analyst with a recognized track record in the industry.

In her opinion, the issuance of active ETFs is becoming more common, and in this way one could access either a mutual fund or an ETF to obtain active portfolio management. “I firmly believe in the added value of active management and consider that if an advisor knows how to select good active managers, their client will achieve above-average results,” she added.

Baumgarten also believes the change should benefit retail investors. “It may not necessarily result in lower fees, although it’s possible,” he stated. ETFs offer better liquidity and a more favorable tax treatment than traditional open-end funds, and the tax-free exchange that would be offered through share class conversion would be highly beneficial for long-term shareholders, from his point of view.

From Supra Wealth Management, Antonioli noted that the SEC proposal could put downward pressure on the revenue earned by traditional firms and could pave the way for firms to adopt new billing models, such as fee-based schemes or the adoption of a fiduciary system.

The CEO of Segment Wealth Management assessed that if the regulation is approved, it will likely accelerate the disappearance of 12b-1 fees, more than directly affecting commissions. “Many mutual funds already offer no-load share classes,” he said. “Brokerages and fund companies are reluctant to give up 12b-1 fees, which are essentially a form of retrocession.”

Baumgarten explained that some ETFs “include nominal 12b-1 fees, but nothing comparable to what is typical in traditional open-end funds. This share class conversion will accelerate the end of the traditional open-end mutual fund model and will force most companies to adopt changes similar to those proposed by Dimensional Funds. This will hurt brokerages and the portion of the business that depends on commissions, as well as the IRS (U.S. tax authority), due to reduced tax collection.”

Camacho, for her part, admitted that downward pressure on fees “is a constant reality,” although she stressed that what matters is net return: “If there’s a manager who charges more than another but delivers better net-of-fees results, I will always prefer the more expensive one, because they deliver better outcomes.”

Some Industry-Level Risks

The reality is that the rule change could strengthen large firms with investments in infrastructure, technology, scale, and distribution, and conversely, could become a challenge for smaller firms, warned the expert from Supra.

“The implementation of the new measure by the SEC,” he added, “will constitute a regulatory and economic paradigm shift that will benefit managers with scale, technology, and operational muscle to sustain daily regulatory, compliance, and evaluation processes. At this point, I believe the regulation should take care to avoid creating ‘too big to fail’ giants and ensure appropriate conditions so that small or mid-sized managers with strong track records are not absorbed or driven out of the market.”

In the same vein, Camacho noted that “with technological and regulatory progress, we are increasingly seeing more concentration among asset managers, where good managers will always be able to attract more assets than poor managers, resulting in capital concentration among the best managers.”

“The shift toward the ETF structure has been underway for several decades,” stated Gil Baumgarten from Segment Wealth Management. The expert does not believe the rule will result in the disappearance of mutual fund companies, “but it will force them to convert their structures to ETFs and should promote consolidation. The smaller, less competitive firms already under pressure from investors’ preference for lower-cost index products will be the most affected. Many of them have probably been debating whether to offer ETFs for some time without taking action; this regulation will finally compel them to do so,” he concluded.

Vinci Compass Announces a Strategic Relationship With Ares Management

  |   By  |  0 Comentarios

Marcos Arteaga Fidelity International marketing
Photo courtesy

Vinci Compass announced a strategic relationship with Ares Management to expand access to Ares’ semi-liquid product portfolio for qualified and professional investors in Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico.

Ares’ semi-liquid solutions aim to provide core exposure to private markets, including Ares’ leading areas in private credit, private equity, real estate, infrastructure, and secondary market businesses. As part of this relationship, Vinci Compass will market Ares’ full range of semi-liquid solutions available in the region.

Ares is a leading global alternative investment manager offering clients complementary primary and secondary investment solutions across the asset classes of credit, real estate, private equity, and infrastructure. As of June 30, 2025, Ares’ global platform had over USD 572 billion in assets under management (AUM), with operations in North America, South America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East.

The firm manages approximately USD 50 billion in capital through its wealth channel and maintains one of the largest and most well-resourced private markets distribution platforms.

Vinci Compass is a global alternative investment platform with a strong presence in Latin America, operating in segments such as private equity, credit, real estate, infrastructure, forestry, equities, global investment products, and corporate advisory. Since its merger/full integration between Vinci Partners and Compass, the firm manages approximately USD 53 billion, with a presence in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay, in addition to offices in the United States.