Andersen Iberia has launched the Miami Hub, a strategic base through which the firm will coordinate advice for Latin American, Spanish, and international clients—including high-net-worth individuals, family businesses, investors, and corporations—with business interests spanning Spain, Latin America, the United States, and other markets.
With this initiative, Andersen Iberia reinforces its positioning as a strategic partner for clients operating internationally, drawing on its experience in cross-border transactions and the coordination of specialized teams in tax, wealth planning, real estate investment, family enterprise, and business law.
José Vicente Morote, Managing Partner of Andersen Iberia, emphasized that this opening comes in response to growing demand from the firm’s clients: “An increasing number of companies and high-net-worth individuals are asking us for advice that isn’t limited to a single jurisdiction, but rather understands their operations, tax position, and legal risks across different countries from a global perspective. With the Miami Hub, we respond to that need by offering a physical and operational benchmark that strengthens our value proposition as an integrated firm.”
The Miami Hub is led by Jorge Martínez Alemán, Counsel at Andersen, who brings a solid track record in tax and wealth advisory for family businesses and high-net-worth individuals. Holding a degree in Business Administration and Management from the University of Valencia, he completed his training with a Master’s in Taxation and a Master’s in International Taxation at the CEF (Center for Financial Studies). Beyond his specialization in international tax law, he holds extensive experience in real estate transactions in Spain and tax planning for athletes. Ranked by the Chambers High Net Worth guide for 2023, 2024, and 2025, he is an active member of the Spain-United States Chamber of Commerce in Miami, Florida.
Miami Hub: A Multidisciplinary Team Serving Transatlantic Operations
Andersen’s Miami Hub provides companies, investors, and family offices with interests in Europe, Latin America, and the United States with coordinated advisory services that combine business vision, technical expertise, and international reach.
As highlighted by the firm, when a matter requires it, the Miami Hub will work in close coordination with local teams and advisors, thereby ensuring a tailored response to the specific needs of each transaction and jurisdiction. To achieve this, it relies on the backing of Andersen Iberia’s teams in Spain and Portugal, allowing it to offer deep knowledge of the legal, regulatory, and tax frameworks applicable to transatlantic operations.
Added to this is the know-how of Andersen Global, which boasts a presence in 185 countries and over 50,000 professionals worldwide. Specifically, in Latin America, the firm operates in 18 countries, while in the U.S. it has 30 offices and 2,500 professionals.
In this way, the Miami Hub supports clients in structuring and executing cross-border investments, corporate transactions, and wealth management projects—helping identify opportunities, anticipate risks, and provide the legal certainty required for decision-making in an increasingly complex global environment.
The most recent letters from Larry Fink, Chairman and CEO of BlackRock, and Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, to their respective boards of directors share a distinction not seen in previous years; both reveal two different strategies, but an underlying point of agreement: the old investment roadmap is no longer sufficient to explain where growth will come from in the years ahead. This marks a major transformation of the investment ecosystem for the coming decades. Fink writes from the perspective of the world’s largest asset manager, proposing that the future of investing lies in connecting public and private markets, technology, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, and a much broader participation of retail savers. Dimon, for his part, writes from the largest U.S. bank, yet with a vision that also points toward integrating banking, wealth management, private markets, ETFs, digital assets, and AI.
They are not proposing the exact same thing. However, both are arriving at a similar conclusion: the investment of the future will not be organized around a single asset class, but around an ecosystem. And the numbers show this is not just rhetoric. BlackRock ended June with a record $15.3 trillion in assets under management (AUM) after attracting $321 billion in net inflows during the first half of 2026, $192 billion of which arrived in the second quarter. Flows were broad-based, originating from ETFs, private markets, active fixed income, and systematic equity strategies. In parallel, revenue from technology services and subscriptions grew 13% year-over-year, driven by Aladdin and multi-product solutions.
JPMorgan Asset & Wealth Management is not far behind. It closed 2025 with $7.1 trillion in client assets, up from $5.9 trillion reported a year earlier. Its alternative assets reached $560 billion, up from $504 billion in 2024 and just $221 billion in 2015. Furthermore, the division logged $553 billion in client asset flows in 2025—a record crowned by its 22nd consecutive year of positive net inflows. The scale of both businesses helps illustrate the magnitude of the shift underway.
Fink: Investing No Longer Means Just Buying Stocks and Bonds
Larry Fink’s 2026 letter, titled Growing with Your Country: Thoughts from a Long-Term Optimist, stems from a concern that might seem distant from portfolio management: the world is moving away from the globalization model that dominated past decades. Europe is raising defense spending, the United States is seeking to rebuild industrial capacity, and emerging markets are developing domestic energy sources. At the same time, artificial intelligence is driving the need to construct data centers, power grids, semiconductors, and new computing capabilities. Fink’s central point is that this transformation requires vast amounts of capital. In his view, banks and governments can no longer fund the investments needed by the new economy on their own. Capital markets will have to assume an increasingly larger share of that burden.
Here lies a fundamental shift in BlackRock’s vision. For decades, the firm’s growth was primarily associated with institutional fixed income, index funds, and later, iShares ETFs. Now, Fink is describing a significantly broader enterprise: a platform intent on operating across equities, fixed income, ETFs, private markets, infrastructure, private credit, digital assets, technology, and data. This evolution is reflected even in the structure of its acquisitions. BlackRock closed deals for HPS Investment Partners, Preqin, and ElmTree in 2025, following its 2024 acquisition of Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP). The result is a platform that bridges public markets, private markets, and technology.
And the target is quantified: BlackRock aims to achieve $400 billion in cumulative net organic fundraising in private markets by 2030. Its infrastructure platform already features GIP’s flagship fund, which raised $25.2 billion, while private credit recorded nearly $20 billion in net inflows in 2025. It is no coincidence that Fink places private markets at the core of this transformation. BlackRock already manages $3 trillion for insurance, wealth management, and outsourcing clients, holds roughly $700 billion in general account assets for insurers, and has over $30 billion in retail private market assets. The strategy is to expand these investments into client segments that long remained concentrated almost exclusively in traditional stocks, bonds, and funds.
This move is particularly significant because it means the line between public and private markets is beginning to blur within portfolio construction. BlackRock explicitly acknowledges this in its 2026 private markets outlook: investors are increasingly combining public and private assets to gain exposure to artificial intelligence, infrastructure, and other major structural themes, as private markets evolve into an ecosystem more integrated with public markets. However, the transformation Fink envisions does not stop at private assets; his letter introduces a second revolution: the digitization of financial ownership.
The BlackRock CEO suggests that with tokenization, a single digital wallet could eventually hold ETFs, tokenized bonds, digital currencies, and fractional stakes in assets historically out of reach for retail investors, including infrastructure projects and private credit funds. In other words, it is not just what people invest in that is changing, but also the infrastructure through which investments are bought, held, and traded. This is an important distinction. While ETFs democratized access to diversified portfolios, the next phase envisioned by BlackRock could democratize access to assets that previously required large minimum investments, sophisticated structures, and institutional relationships.
And that is where Aladdin comes in. BlackRock’s technology platform is no longer just an internal risk management tool. Technology and subscription revenues grew 13% in the second quarter of 2026 as the company continues to position Aladdin as a core piece of its multi-product offering. BlackRock is thus attempting to simultaneously become an asset manager, a private investment originator, a distributor, a technology provider, and an operator of financial infrastructure.
Dimon: The Bank Also Wants to Become an Investment Platform
Jamie Dimon arrives at a similar conclusion from a different starting point. In his shareholder letter, published on April 6, 2026, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase acknowledges that competition no longer comes solely from other banks; it also comes from asset managers, fintechs, digital platforms, blockchain, stablecoins, and other forms of tokenization. JPMorgan’s response, Dimon notes, is to invest and move quickly, embedding artificial intelligence into virtually everything it does. His description of JPMorgan is revealing: an institution that must continue enabling clients to store money, move money, invest it, raise capital, and manage investments—but through technologies and products that are altering how those activities are performed.
In 2025, JPMorgan generated record revenues of $185.6 billion, net income of $57 billion, and a return on tangible common equity (ROTCE) of 20%. Yet perhaps more telling for its strategy is that during that year, the bank extended credit and raised capital totaling $3.3 trillion for clients, moved nearly $12 trillion daily across more than 120 currencies and 160 countries, and held over $41 trillion in assets under custody. In short, JPMorgan is not attempting to adapt to the new economy merely as a portfolio manager. It is seeking to control much of the various plumbing through which capital flows. On the subject of AI, Fink and Dimon converge once again. For both, artificial intelligence is far more than an opportunity to buy tech stocks.
Fink contends that AI is reshaping the very nature of investing. The combination of large datasets, systematic models, machine learning, and human oversight is driving a management model capable of analyzing thousands of securities simultaneously and with discipline. BlackRock has spent four decades building data and tech capabilities for this purpose. Dimon is even more direct. In his letter, he asserts that AI will affect virtually every function, application, and process at JPMorgan, and that its adoption could unfold much faster than previous technological shifts. Furthermore, the bank is spending heavily to build this infrastructure. JPMorgan has slated a technology budget of approximately $19.8 billion for 2026. Its Asset & Wealth Management division utilizes tools like SpectrumIQ to integrate research, data, and risk across some 90,000 securities and 22 million documents, cutting the time between manual research and actionable insights by 80%.
The transformation also reaches advisory services. Connect Coach uses 25 specialized AI agents to deliver personalized ideas to JPMorgan advisors and has generated one million customized insights for roughly 5,000 users across the Global Private Bank. Thus, artificial intelligence is beginning to serve a dual purpose: it helps identify investments while simultaneously changing how they are distributed and advised upon. JPMorgan’s strategy in private markets is especially significant because it demonstrates that this shift is not confined to BlackRock. Dimon notes in his letter that JPMorgan is expanding its private market capabilities, while Asset & Wealth Management increases its exposure to alternatives and ETFs.
The $560 billion figure in alternative assets at JPMorgan AWM by year-end 2025 represents an increase of roughly $339 billion compared to 2015—more than triple the level of a decade ago.
Yet JPMorgan is not abandoning traditional active management; it is modernizing it. The firm reported that 83% of its long-term active fund assets outperformed their peer median over the ten-year period ending in 2025. At the same time, it turned active ETFs into one of its main growth engines: ending 2025 with $250 billion in active ETF assets and $65 billion in flows, ranking first in the industry in both metrics, according to the company. The firm expects the active ETF market to grow from roughly $2 trillion in 2025 to over $6 trillion by 2030. This creates an interesting paradox: the new architecture does not eliminate traditional instruments; it integrates them. The ETF does not vanish before the private market; active management does not disappear before AI; and the financial advisor does not fade away before automation. All become building blocks of a more complex portfolio.
Moving Away from Thinking in Isolated Assets: BlackRock Mexico
The perspective of Sergio Méndez, Country Head of BlackRock Mexico, is particularly helpful for understanding this transformation from a Latin American standpoint. During the presentation of the Investment Outlook for the Second Half of 2026, Méndez noted that “technological change is paramount” and that AI is shaping markets. However, his argument goes beyond simply betting on tech companies. In a conversation with Funds Society, Méndez explained that AI requires building an entire scaffold of infrastructure, energy, capital, and talent to make its growth sustainable. Here lies one of the most relevant ideas for understanding where asset management is heading.
Méndez argued that it is no longer enough to speak about specific assets or companies, but rather about a “total portfolio,” where commodities and metals earn a place alongside fixed income and equities. The phrasing is telling because it aligns with the paradigm shift visible—albeit from different angles—in both Fink and Dimon: first identify the major themes and risks of the new economic regime; then build the portfolio; and finally decide which financial vehicle to use. In Mexico, this vision takes on an added dimension. Méndez noted that BlackRock sees opportunities in technology, energy, and logistics—including rail and ports—and that the expansion of AI will surge the demand for infrastructure capable of supporting tech growth.
This is no minor coincidence. The investment thesis ceases to be simply “buy tech” and becomes far broader: invest in everything that enables technology to exist and scale. That includes data centers, power generation, grids, digital infrastructure, minerals, logistics, semiconductors, credit, and private equity. In that context, Mexico fits into a larger global trend: the nearshoring of supply chains and the need for infrastructure investment to sustain an increasingly digitized economy.
The Other Major Shift: From 60/40 to the “Total Portfolio”
The most significant consequence of these shifts may well be seen in portfolio construction. The traditional model based on stocks and bonds is not disappearing, but it is ceasing to be sufficient as a representation of the full opportunity set. BlackRock is proposing a framework bridging public and private markets. JPMorgan is blending active ETFs, fundamental management, alternatives, private banking, and customized solutions. Meanwhile, the market is introducing structures capable of delivering these investments to clients who previously lacked access.
At BlackRock, for example, the firm launched a portfolio solution alongside Partners Group that integrates private equity, private credit, and real assets within a single vehicle for wealth management clients. JPMorgan is pursuing a similar goal from another angle. Its Separately Managed Account (SMA) infrastructure, combined with tools like 55ip and OpenInvest, enables tax transitions, systematic tax-loss harvesting, and the construction of portfolios aligned with individual preferences. By year-end 2025, it managed $434 billion for SMA investors across roughly double the accounts it had in 2021; customization thus becomes another core pillar of the new architecture. It is not just about offering more assets—it is about assembling them differently for every client.
The Risk: Democratization Can Also Amplify Losses
However, this transformation is not strictly a story of opportunity. Dimon himself introduces a particularly relevant warning regarding the growth of private credit. In his letter, he estimates the leveraged private credit market at approximately $1.8 trillion, compared to $1.5 trillion for the U.S. high-yield market and $1.7 trillion for the syndicated leveraged loan market. His warning is clear: when the next credit cycle arrives, losses could be higher than expected, and not all market participants possess equal capacity to originate and manage credit. He also cautions that products sold to retail investors require greater transparency, higher standards, and fewer conflicts of interest.
This is likely the primary tension of the new model. Major managers want to broaden access to private markets, but the closer those assets get to retail investors and retirement savings, the higher the demands for liquidity, transparency, valuation standards, governance, and investor protection. Fink acknowledges this from another angle when discussing tokenization: financial modernization requires clear rules, buyer protection, counterparty risk standards, and digital identity framework. Financial democratization, therefore, does not simply mean allowing more people to buy more assets. It means building an infrastructure capable of doing so without shifting risks previously confined to sophisticated institutions onto retail investors.
Two Giants, One Structural Shift
A comparison between Fink and Dimon leads to an intriguing conclusion. BlackRock is striving to become a platform connecting public markets, private markets, technology, data, and distribution. JPMorgan is striving to become a comprehensive financial platform where banking, investing, payments, private markets, ETFs, wealth management, and artificial intelligence operate as interconnected components of a single system. One originates from asset management; the other from banking. Yet both are moving toward the exact same destination.
The next decade of investing may be less defined by the question of “stocks or bonds?” and much more by questions like: What infrastructure does AI require? Who will fund the energy transition?Where will private capital reside? Which economies hold critical resources? Which markets will benefit from geopolitical fragmentation?How will public and private assets be combined? How much of a portfolio can be automated? How will risk be personalized? And how can an everyday saver access opportunities historically reserved for institutions? The answer being built by Fink and Dimon suggests that the individual asset will cease to be the center of the conversation, replaced by the total portfolio—backed by technology and designed around major structural forces.
This does not mean ETFs, equities, or bonds have lost their relevance. In fact, flow data from both institutions in these assets demonstrates the opposite. It means they will now have to coexist with private credit, infrastructure, real assets, alternatives, digital assets, systematic strategies, and new forms of advisory—in other words, a “total portfolio,” as defined by Sergio Méndez, head of BlackRock Mexico. The deepest transformation, then, lies not in any single product, but in the overall architecture. Both institutions are betting that the asset manager of the future will not simply be the one
Photo courtesyMatthew Bartolini, Global Head of Research Strategists at State Street Investment Management
Plain-vanilla, low-cost ETFs and active ETFs can play complementary roles in portfolios to maximize returns. That is the view of Matthew Bartolini, Global Head of Research Strategists at State Street Investment Management, who analyzes the latest investment flows into exchange-traded funds in an interview with Funds Society. Bartolini believes that long-term demand for core ETFs is widespread, adding that looking ahead, “any further fee reductions will likely depend on scale, operational efficiency, and asset growth.”
In the first half of 2026, inflows into ETFs exceeded $1 trillion, putting annual inflows on track to top $2 trillion. During this period, one out of every two dollars invested in ETFs (49%) went to low-cost ETFs—the category of funds upon which the ETF industry was built.
Investment inflows into low-cost ETFs remain exceptionally solid despite the surge in actively managed ETFs. What is driving this continued interest in these products?
Core low-cost ETFs remain foundational building blocks in portfolio construction for investors. They offer transparent, diversified exposure to key asset classes and market segments at a very low cost, making them effective strategic allocations within portfolios.
Their combination of broad market exposure, operational simplicity, and cost efficiency continues to resonate across a wide range of investors. These attributes also contributed to the State Street S&P 500 SPDR Portfolio ETF (SPYM) being selected as a default investment option within the new “Trump Accounts” program, expanding ETF adoption to a new generation of investors.
It is worth noting that this long-term demand is widespread. Advisors, institutions, model portfolio providers, and retirement-focused investors are increasingly turning to low-cost ETFs as efficient tools for portfolio construction, implementation, and long-term wealth accumulation.
How are low-cost ETF providers adapting their product lineups to this environment marked by the boom in active management?
The surge in active ETFs has not diminished demand for low-cost, plain-vanilla ETFs. Investors increasingly view them as complementary tools: low-cost ETFs provide efficient market exposure as the core of the portfolio, while active ETFs are used to pursue specific objectives, such as income generation, risk management, or alpha generation.
Regarding our solutions within our ETF lineup, the goal is to ensure we have a robust platform that includes both low-cost and active exchange-traded funds, enabling complementary uses. And that aligns with how investors construct their portfolios.
For instance, a typical portfolio might use broad-market, low-cost equity and fixed income ETFs as a foundation, then overlay active strategies to generate income, manage risk, seek alpha opportunities in less efficient markets, or execute a specific, granular thematic investment thesis.
The reality is that investors are increasingly adopting both active ETFs and low-cost index-based ETFs, deploying each for the function it performs best within the portfolio. In some cases, we see low-cost index exposures being used actively to build more customized allocations that align with a portfolio’s risk tolerance or a broad macroeconomic outlook.
This is most prevalent in fixed income, where strategies exist that break down overall macroeconomic betas into different maturities within U.S. Treasury or U.S. corporate bond markets to balance yield and duration profiles with greater precision.
Is there scope in the industry to continue reducing ETF fees?
Many core beta exposures are already priced exceptionally low, although the industry continues to see periodic fee reductions. Looking ahead, any further fee reductions will likely depend on scale, operational efficiency, and asset growth.
Which types of low-cost ETFs are currently generating the greatest interest among investors?
Broad equity exposures have captured the lion’s share of low-cost flows year-to-date. Seventy percent of low-cost flows in 2026 have gone toward equity exposures (+$381 billion), with 70% of that total (+$291 billion) funneled into low-cost ETFs focused on U.S. equity markets.
This trend reflects the efficiency of broader equity markets and investors’ ongoing desire to access core market beta at a low cost. It also helps explain why active managers tend to focus on areas where they believe there are greater opportunities to generate alpha—for example, ex-U.S. markets.
The picture is somewhat different in fixed income. Active fixed income ETFs have captured a larger share of flows than would be expected based on their market share of assets under management, with active fixed income attracting approximately 42% of flows versus 31% of assets.
The opposite is true for low-cost fixed income ETFs, which account for 57% of flows despite comprising 69% of fixed income ETF assets. This suggests that investors are increasingly turning to active managers to help enhance yield opportunities while managing interest rate, credit, and macroeconomic uncertainty across bond markets.
Ardian, the global private markets investment firm, has announced the signing of a share purchase agreement under which Assurances du Crédit Mutuel (ACM) and Wafra, two existing shareholders in its capital, will increase their respective stakes in the company. As part of this transaction, AXA will sell its 10% holding in Ardian, subject to customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals.
Following this investment, ACM’s stake in Ardian will rise to 23%, while Wafra will also expand its investment after acquiring an initial minority stake in 2025. Both shareholders will increase their positions by exercising pre-emption rights available to them as existing shareholders. Meanwhile, Ardian’s employees will remain the primary shareholder group, controlling approximately 40% of the firm’s capital.
Concurrently, AXA will continue its long-standing relationship with Ardian as one of the primary investors in its funds. The transaction is expected to close between late 2026 and early 2027.
“AXA has been our partner since day one, when Claude Bébéar asked me to create a private equity firm in 1996 and Ardian—then AXA Private Equity—was born. I am delighted to see that this 30-year partnership will continue to strengthen through AXA’s renewed trust in our strategy through its investments as a client, alongside the growing support of our diversified international shareholder base,” explained Dominique Senequier, founder and CEO of Ardian.
Mark Benedetti, co-CEO of Ardian, highlighted: “Opportunities to acquire shares in Ardian arise very rarely, and demand consistently exceeds supply. The increased stakes from ACM and Wafra, together with AXA’s ongoing commitment as one of our major clients, represent a strong endorsement of the business we have built over the past three decades and our current position as a global investment firm with $200 billion in assets under management. We look forward to continuing to create sustainable value for all of our shareholders.”
Finally, Patrick Thomas, Chairman of the Supervisory Committee at Ardian, added: “We are pleased to see the continued commitment of our existing shareholders through this agreement. The transaction further strengthens our international shareholder base while preserving the long-term governance model and corporate culture that remain the foundation of Ardian’s success.”
The reactivation of the naval blockade and the sudden escalation of military tension in the Strait of Hormuz have shattered expectations of a short-term agreement with Iran, immediately rattling financial and institutional markets. According to the latest Middle East Weekly Tracker report published by Natixis Corporate and Investment Banking (CIB) and authored by economists Alicia García Herrero and Jeremy Ji, the surge in war risk is already translating into sharp upward pressure on oil, widespread losses across Gulf equities, and rising sovereign risk premiums.
Impact on Equities and Institutional Investment Flows
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) stock markets have reacted downward to the return of geopolitical uncertainty. Dubai equities in particular recorded a decline of around 1.5% in the week prior to July 15, penalized by their high commercial, tourism, and financial exposure to physical disruptions in the Strait.
Furthermore, the Natixis CIB report notes a detrimental shift in cross-border capital behavior. As stated in their report: “Foreign flows remained mildly negative, with a net outflow of $11 million from Dubai and Saudi equity markets last week. With the blockade back, these capital outflows are more likely to increase rather than reverse.”
Crude at $85 and Stress in Credit Markets (CDS)
The paralysis of this key maritime route for international trade has driven commodities significantly higher. Brent crude futures scaled to $85 per barrel on July 16, reacting to the U.S. Navy’s re-establishment of the blockade on Iranian ports and the closure of Hormuz decreed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
In the fixed income and credit derivatives markets, 5-year Credit Default Swap (CDS) spreads for GCC nations have widened noticeably. Analysts at the French institution highlight that Bahrain continues to be the sovereign adjusting upward most rapidly—increasing its cost of hedging against default—due to its status as host to U.S. bases, which directly exposes it to absorbing Iranian retaliation.
Graph taken from the Natixis Report. Source: Natixis, Bloomberg, and LSEG
Activity Collapse in the Real Economy
The physical impact of the conflict is already fully quantifiable in freight transport data compiled by Natixis. Daily vessel traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has suffered a severe collapse, plummeting to just 12 commercial ships on July 13, compared to the 25 recorded barely a week earlier. Conversely, scheduled and monitored flights at Dubai and Doha airports show minimal variation, confirming that, for now, direct economic damage remains almost exclusively concentrated in maritime transport.
The report details a succession of critical events occurring between July 11 and July 16, 2026, including direct attacks on United Arab Emirates tankers and targeted bombardments by allied forces. For the firm, political resistance to withdrawing troops from conflict zones and the lack of consensus over the control of shipping routes will keep any definitive short-term agreement completely stalled, shaping a volatile landscape that global fund managers and emerging market investors will need to monitor closely in the coming weeks.
Graph taken from the Natixis Report. Source: Natixis
The battle between exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and traditional mutual funds long ago ceased to be a competition over performance. Today, the real battleground is costs, and on that field, ETFs are expanding an advantage that is beginning to redefine the global asset management business.
Figures show that competitive pressure has pushed expense ratios for numerous ETFs to historic lows, to the point where some products charge merely between 0.02% and 0.03% annually. There are even ETFs with a 0% management fee, used by some managers as a tool to attract new clients toward other higher-margin services.
The consequence is visible in investment flows. While ETFs continue to capture the vast majority of new money entering the industry, mutual funds continue to lose ground, especially among institutional investors, financial advisors, and new generations of savers who consider cost to be one of the primary determinants of long-term performance.
A Difference of a Few Basis Points That Moves Trillions
Fee reductions may seem marginal to an individual investor, but when managing a portfolio over decades, a few tenths of a percentage point represent thousands of dollars in additional wealth.
Precisely for this reason, the industry is experiencing a true price war. According to Morningstar, the asset-weighted average cost of U.S. investment funds continues to decline and sits at historically low levels, driven primarily by the growth of passive vehicles and low-cost ETFs.
For example, the market’s largest index ETFs currently charge remarkably low fees:
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO): 0.03%
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV): 0.03%
SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF (SPLG): 0.02%
Even certain ETFs specialized in fixed income or international markets have significantly reduced their fees over the past five years to compete for asset volume. In contrast, the average cost of many active mutual funds continues to range between 0.50% and over 1.00% annually, depending on the strategy and market, although competitive pressure has also forced numerous managers to lower their rates.
Investment flows clearly reflect where investor preference is shifting. According to ETFGI, the global ETF industry already manages more than $17 trillion in assets, setting new historic highs during 2026.
In the United States, the world’s largest market, assets exceed $15.7 trillion, while net inflows continue to break records. In contrast, although the mutual fund industry remains considerably larger in managed assets, much of its recent growth stems from market appreciation rather than new capital inflows. Investors are prioritizing cheaper, more liquid, and more tax-efficient vehicles.
Major Managers Can Charge Less… Because They Manage So Much More
Paradoxically, the price war is strengthening the world’s largest managers. Firms such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street have managed to convert massive growth in assets under management into economies of scale that allow them to keep lowering fees without sacrificing corporate profitability.
BlackRock currently manages around $13 trillion, Vanguard exceeds $11 trillion, while State Street Global Advisors hovers around $5 trillion. Combined, these three giants manage nearly $29 trillion, an unprecedented concentration in the history of asset management.
This massive scale makes it possible to operate products with extremely low fees while continuing to generate growing revenues thanks to the overall volume managed.
Active Funds Respond with New Strategies
As a consequence of this war and the pressure on fees, traditional managers are being forced to modify their value proposition. More and more managers are shifting their growth toward segments where price competition is lower: private markets, private credit, infrastructure, real assets, alternative strategies, and personalized wealth management.
At the same time, many firms are converting former mutual funds into ETFs—a trend that has accelerated since 2023 and continues to gain momentum in the United States due to the operational and tax advantages of the ETF format.
The War Has Just Begun
Various analysts believe that the pressure on fees will continue to intensify. The growth of index investing, the expansion of automated management, the rise of artificial intelligence applied to portfolio construction, and investors’ increasing sensitivity to costs will continue to favor ETFs.
For active mutual funds, the challenge no longer consists solely of outperforming benchmark indices, but of demonstrating that the added value of active management justifies paying several times more in fees.
In an industry where managing trillions of dollars has become a business of ever-narrowing margins, the great paradox is that never before has so much money been managed while charging so little. And, for now, ETFs are winning that battle.
Tax optimization is rapidly becoming the new battleground for wealth manager differentiation. After decades spent trying to improve their stock-picking capabilities, managed account sponsors have largely decided that it is time to take tax optimization seriously, according to The Cerulli Report—U.S. Managed Accounts 2026. For the second consecutive year, “enhancing tax management capabilities” stands as the single most important priority for platform sponsors by a wide margin. In fact, 76% of sponsors identify tax management capabilities as a key focus of development, followed by 42% who cite the incorporation of illiquid product options.
“The implementation and adoption of tax management capabilities is likely to have a more obvious and profound impact on client portfolios,” states Scott Smith, senior director. “While stock selection is weighed down by the reality that ‘past performance is no guarantee of future returns,’ tax optimization capabilities offer a far more reliable source of post-tax alpha,” Smith emphasizes.
With several firms offering integrated optimization features and the consolidation of unified managed household (UMH) platforms becoming a reality, platform sponsors that have failed to make significant strides in tax optimization face a severe competitive disadvantage. Regarding where firms stand in this environment, the director warns: “Firms in this position must evaluate their current status and immediately implement a platform development strategy before advisors and clients begin transferring their assets to providers that allow them to maximize their post-tax net worth.”
Looking ahead, wealth managers will need to ensure that tax optimization capabilities are so seamlessly integrated into advisor workflows that choosing not to adopt them becomes the more costly path. “Advisors who are resistant to change may jump on the bandwagon once they realize it is the path of least resistance; moreover, their clients will benefit and potentially gain a clearer understanding of the value their advisors bring,” Scott concludes.
AEW, an affiliate of Natixis IM, has announced the appointment of Bianca Kraus as Head of Investor Relations Europe, effective July 1, 2026. Bianca is based in Munich and will report to Vanessa Roux-Collet, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of AEW in Europe.
As highlighted by the firm, Bianca joined AEW in 2019 as Head of Investor Relations for Germany, and since 2023 she has been leading the company’s investor relations for the entire DACH region, where she was responsible for building and maintaining relationships with institutional investors and consultants in Germany, Austria, and German-speaking Switzerland. Bianca has raised capital for AEW’s global platform, securing segregated account mandates on behalf of institutional investors and raising capital for the manager’s flagship funds.
In her new role, Bianca will lead AEW’s European investor relations team, supervising capital raising and client servicing for the firm across Europe. Bianca will work in close collaboration with Vanessa Roux-Collet to execute AEW’s European growth strategy, while ensuring continuity of service for existing clients.
Bianca joined AEW from BNP Paribas REIM Germany, where she served as Head of Client and Fund Relations, and brings nearly 30 years of experience in real estate investment management, having spent the last fifteen years in executive roles within investor relations.
Vanessa Roux-Collet, CEO of AEW in Europe, commented that investor relations are an integral part of their business strategy and that Bianca has played a fundamental role in creating and consolidating strong relationships with institutional investor clients over the last seven years. She noted that Bianca’s promotion to Head of Investor Relations Europe is a natural step, and expressed enthusiasm for working with her to ensure continued exemplary client service and to focus on growing the business.
Bianca Kraus, Head of Investor Relations Europe at AEW, added that after leading AEW’s investor relations in the DACH region over recent years, she is excited to expand her responsibilities across Europe alongside their top-tier team. She stated that the firm has a clear growth strategy that leverages expertise across key conviction themes where they possess deep knowledge and can offer clients attractive investment opportunities.
Mexico’s AFORE pension funds have more regulatory capacity than ever to invest in alternative assets. The challenge is no longer capital availability—it is the supply of institutional-quality investment opportunities capable of absorbing long-term pension capital. This shift has important implications for both Mexico’s private markets and international alternative asset managers, particularly those active in private equity, secondaries, private credit, infrastructure, real estate, and other private market strategies. Under the current regulatory framework, AFOREs may allocate up to 30% of their portfolios to structured assets. The framework has evolved significantly over the past two years.
While the original 20% allocation remains predominantly internationally oriented, regulators approved an additional 10% allocation in October 2024 with a much stronger domestic focus. In practice, this means that roughly two-thirds of the total capacity remains available for international investments, while approximately one-third is intended to support local opportunities. The objective is to strengthen financing for the Mexican economy while preserving the global diversification that AFOREs have developed over the past decade. If successful, the new framework could channel additional capital toward infrastructure, energy, real estate, private credit, and other sectors capable of generating long-term economic growth.
As of April 2026, AFOREs managed approximately US$500.2 billion in assets. They held roughly US$39.3 billion in private equity investments at market value, representing 7.8% of assets under management. When unfunded commitments are included, my own estimates suggest total exposure to alternative assets reaches approximately 16.6%—already approaching the original 20% regulatory threshold. The challenge, however, goes well beyond expanding regulatory limits.
AFOREs need more than attractive projects. They require institutional investment platforms with experienced management teams, strong governance, proven execution capabilities, proven exit track records, and the operational scale necessary to deploy hundreds of millions of dollars efficiently. In today’s more selective environment, demonstrated liquidity generation and realized returns have become just as important as the underlying investment opportunity. The same discipline applies to international investments. Over time, AFOREs have increasingly concentrated commitments with global managers that possess institutional-scale organizations, deep investment teams, and long-established track records.
Paradoxically, although regulatory capacity for alternative investments has expanded, actual portfolio allocations have not followed the same path. Combined exposure to CKDs (Mexico’s domestic private markets vehicles) and CERPIs (vehicles primarily used for international private market investments) declined from approximately 8.9% of portfolios in December 2024 to around 8.3% by the end of April 2026.
More importantly, the composition of those investments has changed considerably. In 2024, allocations were almost evenly split between domestic and international strategies. Based on my estimates as of March 2026, international exposure has increased from approximately 4.5% to 5.3%, while domestic exposure has declined from about 4.4% to roughly 3.0%. This shift should not necessarily be interpreted as a growing preference for international assets. Rather, it reflects the limited availability of domestic investment opportunities capable of absorbing institutional capital at scale.
Since 2024, issuance of Trust Stock Certificates (CEBURs) has accelerated, broadening access to private equity strategies for insurance companies, private banks, and other institutional investors through exchange-listed vehicles. These instruments complement the investment structures traditionally used by AFOREs—namely CKDs and CERPIs—and reflect the continued evolution of Mexico’s private markets ecosystem.
Ultimately, Mexico has largely addressed the regulatory side of the equation. The next stage will depend on whether the domestic private markets ecosystem can consistently generate investment opportunities with the scale, governance, quality, and risk-return profile required by institutional investors. Regulation can create investment capacity, but only a robust pipeline of institutional-quality opportunities will translate that capacity into higher allocations to Mexican alternative assets.
Opinion column by Arturo Hanono, Senior Advisor in Mexico for Alpine Capital Advisors
Pirate stories of buried treasure in remote places have captured the imagination for centuries. Americans who have worked in Spain and Spaniards who have worked in the United States might not be digging holes on tropical islands, but they could also be sitting on a treasure that has gone unnoticed.
That treasure is the retirement pensions to which we might be entitled in the United States or in Spain. We might think that we haven’t contributed to Social Security for enough years to qualify for a pension in the United States (generally 40 credits, equivalent to about 10 years of work). Or we know that we haven’t worked long enough in Spain to access a pension (normally at least 15 years of contributions). Fortunately, this does not mean that the contributions we have accumulated are left “abandoned” on a deserted island. Thanks to a treaty between the United States and Spain known as the Social Security Totalization Agreement, we can combine contribution periods from both countries to meet the minimum eligibility requirements.
Best of all, the Totalization Agreement works in both directions. We can use contributions made in Spain to qualify for Social Security benefits in the United States, or use contributions made in the United States to access benefits in Spain. When a professional career spans both countries, it is easy to fall short of the minimum requirements in each. The agreement resolves this issue by allowing work periods to be added together so those years are not lost. In a way, it is a modern-day treasure map.
Both Spain and the United States review the combined contribution record to determine whether we meet eligibility criteria. However, just as pirates divided their loot according to a strict code, Social Security benefits are also distributed under very precise rules. Each country pays its portion separately:
United States Benefits: The United States can take into account contribution periods in Spain to help us meet minimum eligibility requirements. If we gain entitlement through this mechanism, the benefit will be proportional and calculated solely on the basis of our work history in the United States.
Spain Benefits: Spain can credit contributions made in the United States to help us meet the minimum required period and will subsequently pay a proportional pension based exclusively on contributions made in Spain.
This does not mean that both systems merge into a single benefit. Each country pays exclusively its own corresponding share. Contributions are combined solely to establish eligibility, not to increase the payout amount. Contribution periods are not transferred from one country to another; they remain within the system where they were generated and are simply recognized by the other state.
In other words, while contributions can be aggregated to satisfy eligibility thresholds, the actual amount of each benefit will depend solely on the years worked in each respective country. For example, if we have worked 6 years in the United States and 11 years in Spain:
The U.S. benefit will be calculated solely on those 6 years of U.S. contributions.
The Spanish pension will be based exclusively on the 11 years of contributions made in Spain.
Each country will pay its proportionate share: we will not receive an extraordinary windfall, but neither will we lose the contributions we worked so hard to accumulate. The key lies in ensuring we meet the minimum thresholds—at least 6 U.S. credits (roughly one and a half years of work) and at least one year of contributions in Spain—to be eligible for the treaty’s provisions when the time comes.
We may never find a pirate chest filled with gold doubloons, but if we have worked in both Spain and the United States, we may uncover a treasure that is just as valuable. Thanks to the Totalization Agreement, our “hidden treasure” is not buried under the sand: it has been built over years of hard work and, with the right map, is completely within our reach.
