Photo courtesyGuillermo Veiga, Chief Information Officer at Capital Group
Capital Group, a global active investment management firm, has announced the appointment of Guillermo Veiga as Chief Information Officer. He will join the firm in November to replace Marta Zarraga, who will retire at the end of the year. Veiga will relocate to California from Singapore, where he currently serves as Group Chief Information & Operating Officer at Standard Chartered Bank.
“Technology, data, and artificial intelligence play an increasingly important role in how we deliver investment excellence, serve our clients globally, and grow our business,” said Rob Klausner, Chief Operating Officer at Capital Group. “Guillermo brings an exceptional combination of deep technological expertise, operational leadership, and a track record in global transformation. His journey leading large, complex organizations makes him the ideal leader to drive Capital’s long-term strategy and position us for the opportunities ahead.”
Born in Uruguay and raised in Spain, Guillermo began his career as a hands-on technician and has held senior management positions in Europe and Asia at Amazon Web Services, Cisco, and Banco Santander, combining deep technical mastery with solid operational experience.
“I was drawn to Capital Group’s long-term commitment to its people and culture, as well as its client-focused mindset,” said Veiga, adding that “Capital Group is at the forefront of technology, and I am excited about the opportunity to help lead the company through a period of global expansion, at a time when data and artificial intelligence have an increasing capacity to transform how we work.”
Globally oriented exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are capturing increased attention from institutional and retail investors across Latin America and the U.S. offshore market. The surge in activity for these products is driven by strong returns in traditional cross-border equity markets (especially in the U.S.), their inclusion and promotion on Latin American stock exchanges, and their low cost and liquidity, according to The Cerulli Report, titled “Latin American Distribution Dynamics 2026: Seizing on New Distribution Opportunities in a Shifting Investment Landscape.”
As of March 2026, they detailed, Latin American pension funds and local (onshore) investment vehicles held $195 billion in cross-border ETFs. Of that total, Mexican Afores and investment funds accounted for nearly half, while Chilean and Colombian AFPs contributed approximately $85 billion of the remainder.
“Demand for ETFs is forcing traditional active managers to fight on yet another front. Active managers considering entering the ETF space should evaluate active ETF structures under UCITS regulations as a way to compete with passive products without directly cannibalizing their existing, higher-fee active fund ranges,” says Thomas Ciampi, Director of Latin Asset Management, Cerulli Associates’ strategic partner for Latin America.
He notes that the transition toward target-date and lifecycle pension structures in Mexico and Chile may still generate additional opportunities for traditional active management products, as well as for alternative and private market vehicles.
Alternative assets have evolved from a niche institutional product into a fundamental component of high-net-worth (HNW) portfolios in Chile, Peru, and Colombia, representing a total addressable alternative market of between $60 billion and $120 billion across these three countries. Global platforms have significantly lowered access minimums, moving from requiring direct commitments of $5 million to $10 million down to amounts as low as $100,000 or $250,000 through feeder structures.
At the same time, pension systems across the region added approximately $350 billion in assets in 2025, closing the year at $1.1 trillion and reversing the $118 billion loss from the previous year. Mexico’s Afores led this recovery, backed by a 22% gain in local currency linked to mandatory increases in employer contributions, while conservative election results in Chile and Colombia eased short-term concerns regarding potential structural threats to the AFP pension model.
Regional investment fund AUM surpassed $2 trillion for the first time, marking a 31% increase over the previous year’s $1.6 trillion. However, much of this gain stemmed from the depreciation of the U.S. dollar rather than organic growth. Local currency asset increases ranging between 11% and 35% translated into even larger dollar-denominated gains, led by increases in Peru (41%) and Colombia (35%).
As Washington tightens scrutiny over visas, revokes entry authorizations, and prepares to cancel up to 200,000 B1/B2 visas for individuals who applied for asylum, a category created to attract foreign capital is beginning to acquire a new dimension among high-net-worth families.
The EB-5 program is not a shield against U.S. immigration policy, but it offers something that other pathways do not necessarily combine: a route to permanent residency tied to a productive investment. For family offices and wealth management advisors, migratory mobility is thus beginning to be incorporated into the map of wealth diversification.
In this new scenario, the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program is gaining relevance—a federal investment-based immigration program that allows foreign investors (and, under applicable rules, their spouses and unmarried children under 21) to apply for permanent residency if they meet the investment and job creation requirements set by U.S. law.
And here is an important clarification: EB-5 is the name of the program and of the Employment-Based Fifth Preference immigration category. In everyday language, people speak of the “EB-5 visa,” but legally it is an immigration category that can lead to permanent residency, not a temporary visa like the B1/B2. USCIS notes that Congress created the program in 1990 to stimulate the U.S. economy through foreign investment and job creation.
The Numbers and Data Speak for Themselves
How much has this federal program benefited the U.S. economy? The data is telling. Although the most comprehensive historical data on the aggregate economic impact of EB-5 corresponds to the 2016–2019 period, more recent metrics show that the program regained momentum following the 2022 reform.
A study conducted by Fourth Economy for Invest in the USA (IIUSA), based on USCIS data and inputs from Regional Centers, estimated that between 2016 and 2019 the program mobilized $17.5 billion in direct EB-5 investment.
When incorporating complementary funding that accompanied those projects, total economic investment reached approximately $75.2 billion. The study also calculated a contribution of roughly $184 billion to U.S. GDP, the creation of nearly 1.7 million jobs, and around $14.5 billion in tax revenue.
The most interesting signal for today’s market lies in post-reform metrics. According to IIUSA’s analysis of fiscal year 2025, 6,660 EB-5 petitions were filed—the highest volume recorded since the new legislation took effect. Since the passage of the reform, an estimated 14,500 petitions have been submitted, while capital inflows associated with the program reached about $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 alone, bringing cumulative post-reform capital to nearly $12 billion.
In other words, the market is not merely reacting to the 2026 immigration environment; the EB-5 program was already regaining strength as an international capital attraction mechanism, and current events have the potential to shift the demand profile.
These data points are relevant because today, for business owners, investors, and high-net-worth families, the conversation has moved from a relatively simple question—where to invest in the United States?—to a climate of heightened immigration scrutiny, raising a broader question: how to maintain a long-term relationship with the United States, not only through capital, but also through a structure encompassing residency, business, education, and wealth?
The distinction is critical as the U.S. narrows the filter across various visa categories. This is where concepts like “Wealth Mobility” consolidate: for a high-net-worth family, diversification no longer means solely splitting a portfolio across equities, fixed income, private equity, real estate, private credit, or alternative assets; it can now also mean diversifying jurisdictions. Wealth can be distributed across Mexico, the United States, Europe, and other markets. Welcome to the new landscape.
The New Immigration Crackdown
U.S. immigration policy has presented complex challenges for some time, but the most recent signal arrived this week.
The Trump administration is preparing to revoke the B1 and B2 visas—used primarily for business and tourism—of up to 200,000 foreign nationals who applied or are currently applying for asylum after entering the U.S. on a visitor visa. If executed, it would mark the largest mass visa revocation in U.S. history.
This measure joins an intensifying review of immigration authorizations. The State Department has indicated that more than 175,000 visas have been revoked since the start of the current administration, under a process covering terms of authorization violations, crimes, fraud, and other reasons linked to security or immigration compliance.
In this context, the Mexican case adds a political dimension to the debate. Reuters reported that the U.S. had revoked at least 50 visas of Mexican politicians and officials as part of its crackdown on cartels and their alleged allies.
For business families and large estates, this signal does not necessarily mean the U.S. is closing its doors to foreign capital. However, the message is clear: the relationship with the United States will be increasingly contingent on compliance, source of funds traceability, the foreign national’s activities on U.S. soil, and the authorities’ ability to re-examine previously granted authorizations.
The difference between a temporary visa and an investment-based immigration category thus becomes particularly salient.
EB-5: Capital in Exchange for a Migration Pathway
The EB-5 program features a key characteristic distinguishing it from most immigration alternatives: its core requirement is directly linked to investment and job creation in the United States. Currently, the minimum investment amount is $800,000 when made in a Targeted Employment Area—generally designated rural areas or areas of high unemployment—or in an eligible infrastructure project. In all other cases, the minimum is $1.05 million.
The investor must commit capital to a U.S. commercial enterprise and demonstrate the creation or preservation of at least 10 permanent full-time jobs for U.S. workers, according to applicable rules.
A significant portion of the market operates through Regional Centers—entities authorized by USCIS to promote qualifying projects. The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 substantially reformed this segment, introducing stricter oversight, transparency, and integrity rules. USCIS, for example, must audit each designated Regional Center at least once every five years.
The reform also created specific visa set-asides: 20% for rural projects, 10% for high-unemployment areas, and 2% for infrastructure projects, leaving 68% for the unreserved category.
This makes EB-5 particularly compelling for wealth analysis: it is not simply paying for residency. Capital must be committed to an investment meeting specific conditions, and the immigration outcome depends on both the investor and the project satisfying regulatory criteria.
The program is neither a guaranteed financial product nor a purchase of residency, and that distinction should lie at the center of any conversation between a family office and a potential investor.
Investor Interest Skyrockets
Given current U.S. immigration policy conditions, signals and metrics indicate a substantial increase in demand for these programs.
“For years the question was simply where to invest in the United States. Today that conversation is much broader,” explains Juan Carlos Eguiarte, Country Manager of BAI Capital in Mexico. Business owners, executives, and families are also asking where to develop businesses, where their children will study, how to diversify wealth, and what structure can enable a long-term family project.
BAI Capital reports an approximate 10% increase in inquiries from Mexican investors regarding EB-5-linked wealth strategies in recent months. (This represents a firm commercial indicator rather than an official public statistic for Mexican demand.)
While the absence of consolidated public statistics for Latin America warrants prudence regarding regional totals, global market composition is well established: historically, China and India have led demand, followed by Asian markets like Taiwan, South Korea, and Vietnam, while in Latin America, markets like Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico stand out.
For wealth advisors, beyond the absolute number of applicants, another phenomenon matters more: the increasing sophistication of families considering international mobility as part of their wealth strategy.
There is also a currency dimension. EB-5 places capital in the U.S., but the decision by many families to hold a growing share of assets and activities in U.S. dollars reflects a broader currency and geographic diversification logic.
According to IMF figures, the U.S. dollar accounted for 57.13% of allocated global foreign exchange reserves at the end of Q1 2026, compared to 20.03% for the euro and 1.99% for the renminbi.
For a Latin American family office, the discussion is not merely “investing to obtain a visa.” It encompasses investing in dollars, accessing U.S. assets, establishing a business platform, diversifying jurisdictions, and simultaneously building a potential pathway toward permanent residency. This perspective prevents viewing EB-5 as a simple real estate transaction with a visa component attached.
EB-5 Is Not Immunity
Growing enthusiasm must be weighed against reality: EB-5 offers no immunity from U.S. immigration tightening; in fact, recent developments require an extra dose of caution.
The State Department announced a temporary pause in processing immigrant visa applications worldwide to train consular officers on new evaluation criteria regarding economic self-sufficiency and public charge grounds. While non-immigrant visas (like tourist visas) are unaffected, permanent immigration categories are included, introducing operational uncertainty at a sensitive moment.
This means EB-5’s relative advantage should not be confused with a guarantee of immediate processing. The September 2026 Visa Bulletin shows a favorable situation for Mexico, with the EB-5 unreserved and reserved categories listed as “Current.” Conversely, China and India face significant backlogs in the unreserved category.
For Mexico, current availability is advantageous, though subject to shifting demand. The State Department warns that higher EB-5 demand could lead to retrogression in priority dates or category unavailability if annual caps are hit.
For family offices, risk analysis does not end with project selection; investor due diligence is equally critical. The program requires proving the lawful source of funds and passing background checks. The 2022 Integrity Reform raised standards for Regional Centers and intermediaries.
For Latin American families with complex corporate structures, trusts, dividends, business sales, or inherited assets, constructing a clear, documented audit trail for the invested capital is essential. For a wealth manager, this means the conversation can simultaneously involve investment advisors, immigration attorneys, tax specialists, estate planners, and compliance officers.
Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) face even higher scrutiny regarding source of funds, corporate structures, ultimate beneficial ownership, and potential links to sanctioned entities or individuals.
In a context where the U.S. is increasingly using immigration tools to target individuals linked to corruption, organized crime, drug trafficking, or national security threats, asset traceability becomes even more relevant.
The Mexican case demonstrates that immigration risk can affect even individuals who, until recently, considered their ability to travel to the U.S. virtually permanent. Reuters has documented that visa revocations of Mexican officials extend beyond a single political party as part of a broader U.S. strategy against alleged ties between officials and criminal organizations.
For high-net-worth families, the lesson is not necessarily to seek a new visa, but rather that international mobility must be planned before an immigration or reputational issue arises. The true appeal lies in wealth architecture, representing perhaps the market’s greatest transformation.
EB-5 can be attractive because it connects three elements typically studied in isolation: capital, residency, and family strategy.
An $800,000 investment should not be evaluated solely on capital recovery prospects. A family office must assess project structure, investor waterfall priority, available guarantees, exit timeline, job creation, Regional Center track record, developer experience, and real estate or operational risks.
Simultaneously, it must examine the immigration dimension: investor eligibility, source of funds, family structure, visa availability, processing times, and conditions for securing and maintaining residency.
In other words, EB-5 transforms investment selection into a multidimensional wealth planning decision, making it particularly relevant for family offices.
Mexico Facing a New Generation of Wealth Mobility
Mexico features an additional characteristic: economic proximity to the U.S. gives mobility an importance extending far beyond residency.
For a Mexican family with companies selling into the U.S., children studying at American universities, dollar-denominated financial assets, and real estate in the country, permanent residency adds a structural layer to an existing U.S. exposure.
An option for children to study; for a family member to build a business; to establish a corporate base; to hold a portion of wealth in another jurisdiction; or simply to secure greater flexibility in the future. That optionality holds value for family wealth, but carries costs and risks that must be evaluated.
The Paradox of the New EB-5
Current U.S. immigration dynamics present a paradox. On one hand, Washington tightens entry conditions, revokes visas, and increases scrutiny over foreign nationals. On the other, it maintains a program explicitly designed to attract foreign capital, fund economic activity, and create domestic jobs. EB-5 sits precisely at that intersection.
The U.S. may seek lower unauthorized migration and greater control over entries, but retains strong incentives to attract international private capital into job-creating projects. The program’s future is unlikely to involve indiscriminate access.
Instead, the market points toward a more institutionalized, documented, and demanding immigration investment landscape. For sophisticated Latin American wealth, this favors families with transparent governance, consistent tax documentation, and robust compliance structures.
From a Visa to a Wealth Strategy
The discussion around EB-5 is shifting away from being exclusively migratory. For wealth managers, asset managers, tax attorneys, and family offices, it forms part of a broader conversation: how to design wealth structures capable of operating across multiple jurisdictions and regulatory scenarios.
Traditional diversification aimed to mitigate risk across asset classes; modern diversification adds jurisdictional risk management.
The United States remains one of the primary destinations for global capital. The U.S. dollar maintains its central role in international finance, and the American market continues to offer unmatched depth across equities, bonds, private equity, venture capital, real estate, and private credit.
Because the relationship with the U.S. is becoming more complex, families wishing to maintain a presence there require more sophisticated structures. In this context, EB-5 can serve as a key component of wealth architecture for a new generation of Latin American families.
Not as a backdoor around immigration enforcement, but paradoxically because it is one of the few U.S. pathways that explicitly ties stay authorization to productive investment, job creation, and formal federal review.
The conclusion for the wealth management market is clear: mobility is no longer just about where a family lives. It is also about where they can invest, operate, study, build businesses, and preserve wealth. As the U.S. raises the cost of immigration uncertainty, the capacity to select jurisdictions acquires distinct structural value within private wealth management.
Photo: Fortune Live Media. The Most Important Investment Lesson in the World for Warren Buffett is...
Warren Buffett’s 96th birthday, this August 30, comes at a symbolic moment: after handing executive leadership of Berkshire Hathaway to Greg Abel in early 2026 while remaining as chairman, the market is asking how much of his legacy survives beyond his direct management. The answer, to a large extent, is already written: for more than seven decades, Buffett not only generated historic returns, but also trained—directly or indirectly, through his annual shareholder letters—entire generations of fund managers who today oversee portfolios around the world.
Buffett learned to invest from Benjamin Graham, his professor at Columbia and later his boss at Graham-Newman. Graham’s school—enshrined in The Intelligent Investor—was based on buying companies trading well below their book or liquidation value, almost regardless of the quality of the business. He applied that approach in his early years managing his partnership, but over time—and under the influence of Charlie Munger—he evolved toward what he himself described as preferring a wonderful company at a fair price over a fair company at a wonderful price.
Characteristics of the “Buffett Touch”
Durable competitive advantages (moats). It is not enough for a stock to trade cheap; the company must have a barrier that protects it from long-term competition, such as a brand or a patent.
Pricing power. Buffett repeated on more than one occasion that the most important question in evaluating a business is whether it can raise prices without losing customers to competitors. It is the thermometer he uses to measure the strength of a moat.
Consistent and predictable earnings. He prefers “boring” and understandable businesses with stable profitability track records over high-growth but unpredictable bets.
Capital protection above all. His two most cited rules—”Rule No. 1: Never lose money” and “Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No. 1″—summarize an obsession with the margin of safety: buying at a sufficient discount so that a miscalculation does not destroy capital.
A horizon of at least a decade. According to Buffett, his “favorite holding period is forever.” In practice, he evaluates each investment as if he were going to hold the entire company for ten years or more, forcing him to think like an owner rather than a short-term speculator.
An Exported Model: From Omaha to the Rest of the World
Buffett’s influence, and his approach, directly inspired the birth of the European and Latin American value school. Spain, for instance, is the market with the highest concentration of value management firms outside the U.S. Speaking with Funds Society, Javier Ruiz, Chief Investment Officer at Horos AM, addressed a fundamental question: when choosing a company, what do you look for first, the price or the business?
“We do not believe they can be separated from one another. There are optically cheap companies that are not investable because they do not meet our core investment principles. For us, it is essential to understand a business and the sector in which it operates, that it has a solid and sustainable competitive position, a healthy financial profile, and a management team that performs well, both operationally and in managing the capital generated by the company. If all this is not met, we will not invest in a company no matter how cheap it is trading,” he noted.
Asked about holding periods in the portfolio, the manager indicated: “At Horos, investments coexist where we have never fully divested alongside others that have been in the portfolio for ten years, together with others from which we might divest in a few months because their share price has reflected our investment thesis very quickly. Logically, the primary reason to divest from a company is a reduction in its potential relative to other alternatives.”
Regarding the most common mistake for novice investors, Ruiz pointed out: “Possibly placing an excessive focus on valuation and not as much on understanding what lies behind that valuation. To know if we are buying cheap, a lot of time must be spent understanding the qualitative side of the investment.”
In Mexico, the most literal name in the local segment is Value Operadora de Fondos. But the Buffett philosophy also permeates larger firms like GBM (Grupo Bursátil Mexicano), which, without defining itself as a pure value manager, applies it as a guiding principle of the firm. As Andrés Olea, Financial Product Sales VP at GBM, explained to Funds Society, the search for value is in the company’s DNA: “At the firm level, it is indeed with a very long-term vision and looking for value: caution, good people, values, ethics, expanding its competitive advantage, but ensuring it is durable and not ephemeral due to haste.”
That logic translates explicitly to the wealth management unit: “In advisory, we have a methodology called ‘Invierte con Propósito’ (Invest with Purpose), which aligns closely with creating value over time and staying invested over time, rather than jumping in and out and executing tactical moves.”
As a concrete example in the Mexican market, Olea mentioned Grupo Aeropuertos del Sureste (ASUR) and highlighted that although it is experiencing short-term noise due to lower tourism and fleet renewals, “the quality of the company, its management, and the valuation at which it trades present a very good opportunity for those willing to wait a bit longer.”
Regarding the most common error for beginner investors, Olea is emphatic: “The worst mistake is overconfidence and thinking one can get rich quickly. The best way to build wealth, as Buffett did, is with compound interest on your side and the discipline to save. If you want to get rich off the next AI stock or the next bitcoin, you can make mistakes. So, I would say be patient and let working capital do its magic. Rather than trying to get rich through asset selection, trying to get rich through a long-term methodology with discipline is the path.”
In Argentina, meanwhile, there is no dedicated value boutique like in Spain or Brazil, partly due to the limited depth of the local equity market. The most common route for an Argentine investor wishing to replicate the Buffett philosophy remains indirect: buying CEDEARs of Berkshire Hathaway or companies within its portfolio, trading in pesos on the BYMA. This was explained by Sergio González, CFA, Head of the Investment Office at Cohen Aliados Financieros, and Martín Mejía, Analyst at the Investment Office at Cohen.
The choice of this route, more than a preference, responds to a regulatory constraint: “We do not consider setting up a local fund with that criteria because regulatory issues make it impossible. In Argentina, mutual funds (FCIs) cannot hold more than 25% of the fund in CEDEARs. For that reason, it is not possible to construct a local fund with the same criteria as the portfolio to invest toward the same objective as Warren Buffett,” they told Funds Society.
On the feasibility of sustaining a position “forever” in a context of high macroeconomic and exchange rate volatility, González and Mejía nuanced the literal application of that doctrine: “When talking about local companies, it is very difficult to have a client stay invested or hold a position for a long time. Logically, there are cases where it can be successful, but at the same time, the multiple variables affecting the Argentine market make it very risky.”
The solution again lies in CEDEARs: “We do believe we can build long-term positions through the purchase of CEDEARs under the logic of value investing. In this way, the investor hedges against exchange rate shifts and maintains long-term investments in international market companies,” they concluded.
Alternative investment firms are underinvesting in the management of compensation and carry programs at a time when competition to attract and retain specialized talent is intensifying, according to the 2026 Alternatives Compensation & Carry Survey conducted by Allvue Systems in collaboration with Major, Lindsey & Africa (MLA).
The report reveals a growing gap between the strategic importance firms place on talent and their operational readiness to manage compensation and long-term incentive programs. Half of the surveyed companies admit that they do not administer compensation with the same level of rigor applied to other critical business functions, a situation that could put the retention of experienced professionals at risk.
Only 11% of firms state that their carry administration capabilities are ahead of their peers, even as investment professionals increasingly demand greater transparency regarding how their contributions translate into economic incentives.
“This year’s survey highlights a growing risk for private market firms. The management of carry and compensation is not receiving the necessary attention at a time when talent is increasingly mobile and demanding,” noted Richard Change, Head of FirmView at Allvue Systems.
According to Change, asset managers and general partners seek to understand the relationship between their contribution and their remuneration, and firms that fail to communicate this clearly will lose ground to those that do. “Integrating compensation and carry into a single, transparent view is a key factor in attracting talent and enhancing performance,” he added.
For her part, Allison Rosner, Managing Director in MLA’s In-House Counsel Recruiting Practice, emphasized that in hiring processes for senior executives in the alternative assets sector, compensation goes far beyond salary and bonus.
“Candidates increasingly evaluate how firms structure, communicate, and align long-term incentives with the value they contribute to creating,” Rosner explained.
A Growing Gap in Employee Experience
The study shows that many firms have yet to achieve the level of transparency, education, and visibility that employees expect regarding compensation and carry programs.
Fewer than half of the surveyed companies provide Total Rewards Statements (TRS)—documents that consolidate information on salary, bonuses, carry, and co-investments.
Furthermore, only 36% admit to investing in education and training programs on carried interest-linked compensation, while barely 24% offer formal mechanisms to gather feedback on their carry programs.
The study also points out that merely 16% of firms consider employee feedback a relevant factor in compensation decisions.
Another challenge is the widespread use of discretionary carry: 56% of firms acknowledge relying on this mechanism to some degree. This implies that, for many participants, outcomes depend largely on individual judgment rather than clearly defined parameters, which can raise concerns about the consistency and fairness of allocations.
Manual Processes and Lack of Data Limit Program Evolution
The research identifies major operational shortfalls that hinder the modernization of compensation and incentive systems.
58% of firms still use Excel spreadsheets to manage carry, a practice that can limit their ability to deliver consolidated, up-to-date information to employees. In terms of compensation planning, only 18% of companies consider themselves leaders relative to their competitors, while more than half cannot confirm that their practices are data-driven. Likewise, 42% admit they do not have clearly defined salary bands by function or professional level.
As firms expand participation in carry programs and develop more complex compensation structures, these operational limitations become harder to manage. Reliance on manual processes reduces the ability to make transparent, consistent, and well-founded decisions.
Competition for Talent Will Shape Incentive Trends in 2026
Alternative investment firms anticipate that several factors will continue to shape their compensation and carry programs over the coming year.
Among the primary challenges identified are:
Intensifying competition for talent across firms and investment strategies.
Rising expectations among professionals regarding communication and transparency.
The difficulty of generating returns and aligning incentives with effort and performance achieved.
The report concludes that, in an environment marked by higher labor mobility and growing professional expectations, firms that enhance their compensation, communication, and carry administration processes will gain a competitive edge in attracting, motivating, and retaining key talent.
Actively managed mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the United States regained some ground between July 2025 and June 2026, but continued to trail the average of comparable passive funds, according to the results of Morningstar’s US Active/Passive Barometer. This semi-annual report compares the performance of active funds against passive funds to help investors assess the likelihood of active management success across different asset classes, based on recent trends and long-term track records.
The semi-annual edition reveals that actively managed mutual funds and ETFs recovered somewhat between July 2025 and June 2026, though they still lagged behind the average of their passive peers. “Just over 40% survived and outperformed their asset-weighted passive composite index, representing a 7 percentage-point increase over the previous year,” the study notes.
Equities
U.S. equity managers posted an upward trajectory, logging a 38% success rate in the year through June 2026—a 4 percentage-point increase from the prior year. Small-cap and mid-cap active managers led the improvement, recording success rates of 49% and 47%, respectively, while large-cap managers (27%) weighed on overall U.S. equity success rates.
International equity fund managers held steady with a 44% success rate over the 12 months through June, matching the previous year’s figure. Diversified emerging markets active funds recorded the second-highest success rate across all categories in the study at 70%, reflecting a 35 percentage-point surge year-over-year.
The report notes that challenges persisted for global large-blend active funds—which hold both foreign and domestic stocks—despite a slight rebound in success rates. Only one-third of global large-blend managers outperformed their passive benchmark over the 12 months through June 2026; however, according to Morningstar, this marks a 7 percentage-point improvement compared to the previous year.
Fixed Income
Active fixed income managers enjoyed a strong first half. Success rates jumped 22 percentage points to reach 52% over the 12 months through June 2026. Active intermediate-core bond managers led the pack with a 66% success rate, while active corporate bond managers saw their success rate surge to 34%, up from just 4% in 2025. The fixed income group’s 10-year success rate of 45% beat every other category group analyzed in the report.
Active real estate funds saw success rates climb 36 percentage points to 61% over the 12 months through June 2026, recovering from a difficult stretch for active managers a year earlier.
Track Record
The long-term success rate of actively managed funds versus passive peers rose by 4 percentage points over the past 12 months. Still, only 25% of active strategies survived and outperformed their passive counterparts in the 10 years through June 2026. Long-term success rates were highest among fixed income and real estate funds, and lowest among U.S. large-cap equity strategies.
The distribution of 10-year excess returns for surviving active funds relative to the average passive peer varied by category. For U.S. large-cap funds, it tilted negatively, indicating that the performance penalty for choosing an underperforming manager outweighed the reward for selecting a winner. The opposite held true in the intermediate-core bond category, where excess returns skewed positive over the past decade.
Investors picked active funds wisely. Over the last 10 years, the average dollar invested in active funds outperformed the average active fund’s return in 16 of the 20 categories analyzed, indicating a clear investor preference for cheaper, higher-quality strategies.
Lower-cost active funds succeeded far more often than their higher-cost counterparts. Over the 10 years through June 2026, 33% of active funds in the cheapest quintile of their respective categories outperformed their average passive peer, compared to just 20% for the most expensive funds.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent disclosed in an appearance on Monday that the department could increase its bond buyback capacity by conducting market purchases that might exceed $4 billion. This measure comes after a surge in real yields pushed up long-term borrowing costs on U.S. debt, a movement suggesting markets are concerned about the fiscal and inflationary outlook.
Total U.S. federal debt recently surpassed $40 trillion. Experts explain that the high U.S. fiscal deficit will likely require an increase in Treasury bond issuances, coming at a time of fierce competition with planned long-term corporate debt offerings from major technology companies.
Libby Cantrill, Head of Public Policy at PIMCO, recalls that the Treasury has been conducting this operational process for some time. Since May 2024, it has carried out regular Treasury buybacks for various reasons, primarily “to support Treasury market functioning by buying older, less liquid bonds (‘off-the-run’) and generally re-issuing newer, more liquid ones (‘on-the-run’).” This program operated on a schedule published on the agency’s website. “It is clear that Bessent’s announcement represented a departure from that regular and predictable approach,” she notes.
However, considering that this program is “relatively small” and “is not quantitative easing (QE),” the expert emphasizes that buybacks do not fundamentally alter market conditions. Cantrill explains that long-term Treasury yields have risen for several reasons, including stronger U.S. economic growth, a heavy debt burden, a surge in corporate bond issuances tied to artificial intelligence, and persistent inflation concerns linked to energy costs. She also points out that yields are only high “when compared to recent history, and not necessarily when compared to very long-term averages.”
In summary, Cantrill concludes that while buybacks at the long end of the yield curve can technically lower yields—since higher demand leads to higher prices and lower yields—the underlying reason why Treasury yields are elevated “is not going to change in the short term.”
Focus on Reducing Financing Costs
UBS comments that this measure “highlights the importance that the U.S. government places on reducing long-term financing costs.” For investors, according to the firm, the fundamental question now is “how to respond, if at all, to rising yields.” Their baseline scenario remains that yields should fall as inflation moderates. “Over the longer term, initiatives that lead to financial repression and artificially lower yields should be favorable for equities, while gold would be another beneficiary of this scenario,” the firm notes.
Joseph Purtell, Portfolio Manager at Neuberger Berman, also focuses on falling inflation—and the resulting shift in monetary policy expectations—as the primary driver for lowering long-term yields. While he also mentions the relevance of significant fiscal consolidation, he considers it “more difficult in the short term.” Consequently, he continues to see value in the short end of the U.S. Treasury curve, particularly in 2- to 5-year maturities, which offer “both positive carry and potential price appreciation should the Fed keep rates on hold for the remainder of the year.”
To be sure, Purtell does not believe the current level of yields is inherently problematic for real economic activity or credit conditions, as corporate earnings have been strong and credit spreads remain well behaved, even if not at historical tights. However, he cautions that a steady rise in yields, especially if the adjustment happens rapidly, increases the risk of a sharp tightening in financial conditions that could weigh on real activity. Still, he does not view that as the current situation.
Meanwhile, David A. Meier, Economist at Julius Baer, points out that this move aligns with a broader policy trend favoring lower borrowing costs and “raises concerns about politically motivated initiatives aimed at capping interest rates ahead of the midterm elections.” He adds that in earlier times, “one would have expected the Federal Reserve, rather than the Treasury, to attempt to ‘manipulate’ rates downward.” Regarding investment strategies, he notes that “this development fits with our long-term bearish outlook on the U.S. dollar.”
Juan Francisco Clemenza, Director of Advisory Services at Insigneo
Insigneo has appointed Juan Francisco Clemenza as Director of Advisory Services, joining the executive team with immediate effect and reporting directly to Chairman and CEO Raúl Henríquez.
In his new role, Clemenza will lead the strategy and scale of Insigneo’s advisory business, focusing on evolving its investment frameworks, strengthening portfolio capabilities, and driving scalable wealth solutions across global markets.
“I am thrilled to welcome Juan Francisco to our executive leadership team,” said Raúl Henríquez. “His deep industry knowledge and proven leadership will significantly enhance our wealth management capabilities, particularly within advisory services, ultimately strengthening Insigneo’s overall value proposition.”
Clemenza brings nearly two decades of experience in portfolio management, investment solutions, and advisory platform development. He joins Insigneo following 15 years at Citi, where he most recently served as Managing Director and Head of the Citi Wealth Investment Lab for Latin America, overseeing an investment team serving approximately 1,800 ultra-high-net-worth clients across asset allocation, risk management, private markets, and alternative investment integration. He began his career at Bloomberg as a data analytics specialist, holds a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Columbia University, and graduated cum laude in Electrical Engineering from Universidad Simón Bolívar.
“I am excited to join Insigneo at such a pivotal stage of its growth,” stated Clemenza. “Insigneo has built a distinctive wealth management platform, and I see immense opportunity to build upon that foundation by strengthening our investment frameworks, portfolio capabilities, and tools to deliver sophisticated, scalable solutions to our clients.”
According to the firm, the appointment highlights Insigneo’s ongoing commitment to investing in its core advisory capabilities across the Latin American and U.S. offshore wealth management space.
As U.S. public debt surpassed the $40 trillion mark for the first time in history, long-term U.S. yields have reignited alarms over the cost of financing debt, in a potentially explosive cocktail that has raised red flags across financial markets, given that interest expenses have already become one of the fastest-growing budget items for the federal government. Markets remain on edge, awaiting the press conference by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, scheduled for today at 14:00 ET.
“Forty trillion dollars of debt does not in itself represent a macroeconomic tipping point,” says Christian Scherrmann, Chief U.S. Economist at DWS. “However, this figure clearly illustrates the extent to which U.S. fiscal policy has strayed from its historical path. In the long run, what will matter is not only the absolute level of debt, but also what proportion of economic output must be allocated to servicing it,” the expert warns.
In this context, the Federal Reserve maintains a restrictive stance, and the Treasury intervened last week to curb the rise in yields. According to analysts, the signal to markets is clear: money will no longer be as cheap or abundant as it was over the past decade. Put another way, the U.S. financial market is sending a signal that stock markets still seem unwilling to hear: the long-term cost of capital is taking on a life of its own.
An increasingly uncomfortable combination
While major equity indices continue to show resilience, the U.S. Treasury bond market—considered the benchmark for pricing virtually every financial asset in the world—is facing an increasingly uncomfortable mix of high inflation, massive government financing needs, strong capital demand for artificial intelligence and infrastructure, and doubts surrounding the future path of interest rates.
Tensions reached a notable milestone on August 19, when the Department of the Treasury announced that, starting in September, it will double the maximum size of its long-term bond buyback operations, raising them from $2 billion to at least $4 billion per operation for securities with maturities between 10 and 30 years.
The market reaction was immediate. The 30-year Treasury yield, which had topped 5.3% last week, fell about 10 basis points following the announcement, while equities and gold advanced. The move was significant because it came after long-term rates reached levels not seen since before the 2008 financial crisis. DWS notes, however, that “markets continue to offer few signs that investors are fundamentally questioning U.S. solvency,” given that demand at Treasury auctions remains solid, U.S. CDS spreads recently fell to 38 basis points, and even repeated sales by foreign investors—for example, during interventions on the Japanese yen—have failed so far to disrupt market balance. “Markets are signaling higher financing costs, but not a crisis of confidence,” the firm asserts.
However, money market specialists consulted by Funds Society point out that the most important message does not lie in the temporary drop in yields. It lies in why Washington felt the need to act.
It was not the Fed, but it was an intervention
The operation announced on August 19 was not a bond purchase by the Federal Reserve, nor was it a new quantitative easing (QE) program. It was a Treasury decision within its debt buyback program, originally designed to improve market liquidity.
The Treasury buys specific off-the-run bonds trading in the secondary market and, in doing so, helps free up balance sheet capacity for primary dealers and improve liquidity in specific segments of the curve.
Wednesday’s decision significantly increased the size of those operations for long maturities. The distinction is crucial: while the Fed controls monetary policy and financial system liquidity conditions, the Treasury manages the government’s financing needs. Nevertheless, both end up influencing the same variable: the price of money. And that is where one of the major market stories for the second half of 2026 emerges.
The Fed is not cutting rates
At its July 28–29 meeting, the U.S. Federal Reserve maintained the federal funds rate target range at 3.5% to 3.75%, a decision approved by a 9 to 3 vote.
The three dissenters—Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari, and Lorie Logan—wanted to hike the rate by 25 basis points. In other words, a section of the Committee felt that the inflation problem justified additional tightening.
However, there is another particularly important element to understanding the bond market. The Fed continues to operate under an ample reserves regime. Its guidelines permit open market operations and, when necessary, purchases of Treasury bills and potentially other Treasuries with maturities of up to three years to maintain an ample level of bank reserves.
This means that the Federal Reserve is not engaging in QE in the traditional sense, as experts explain to Funds Society, but nor is it allowing bank liquidity to contract in a disorderly manner—a distinction that is highly relevant. Last week’s intervention should be understood more as market “plumbing” than a radical shift in monetary policy. But even that “plumbing” is acquiring enormous importance.
In this sense, the current strategy can be understood as a balance between two objectives. On one hand, the Fed wants to prevent bank reserves from falling too low and causing friction in the money market.
On the other hand, it does not want to return to the massive balance sheet expansion used during the pandemic and other crisis episodes. The Fed has indicated that it can use purchases of Treasury bills and, if necessary, other short-term securities to ensure that the system maintains sufficient reserves.
Furthermore, it maintains standing repo and reverse repo operations. Repo operations allow liquidity to be provided against high-quality collateral, while reverse repos temporarily absorb liquidity. The New York Fed explains that these operations form part of the mechanisms used to keep the federal funds rate within the range established by the FOMC.
Therefore, it would be incorrect to interpret any Fed liquidity operation as an automatic return to monetary expansion. In reality, the Fed is trying to manage liquidity without necessarily expanding its balance sheet aggressively again.
The problem is at the long end of the curve
According to analysts, this is the section that should concern investors the most. The Fed directly controls short-term rates, but it does not set the 10-, 20-, or 30-year Treasury yield.
Those rates depend on expectations for inflation, growth, fiscal deficit, bond supply, international demand, and the term premium. And that is precisely where pressures are emerging.
The 30-year Treasury reached over 5.3% last week, as the market faces a massive supply of U.S. public debt. At the same time, U.S. inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target. The July minutes note that inflation remains elevated and that energy-related price increases are complicating the outlook.
The result is a difficult equation: more debt + higher issuance + above-target inflation + strong capital demand for AI and infrastructure = upward pressure on long-term rates.
The market is starting to demand a premium
For much of the past decade, investors grew accustomed to a world of ultra-low rates and abundant liquidity. That environment allowed equity, real estate, and private asset valuations to expand significantly.
Now the landscape is changing. An investor purchasing a 10- or 30-year Treasury is not only evaluating whether the Fed will cut or raise rates at its next meeting. They are also asking how much risk is involved in lending money to the U.S. government over decades.
That question increases the so-called term premium—that is, the additional yield investors demand to hold long-term debt given uncertainty surrounding inflation, growth, deficits, and economic policy.
And if that premium continues to rise, the Fed could lower short-term rates and still find that the rates that truly matter for much of the economy remain high. That is why the Treasury’s move is so important.
The Treasury’s announcement has a relatively small immediate effect compared to the overall size of the Treasury market, which stands at around $31 trillion. But its importance does not lie solely in the $4 billion per operation; in fact, that figure is also modest—what is truly important is the signal.
In practice, the powerful U.S. Treasury is telling the market that it is not indifferent to excessive turbulence at the long end of the curve.
“Policy makers do not have to be passive observers. When pressure emerged at the long end of the curve, the Treasury showed it has tools and is willing to use them,” commented Brian Levitt, Chief Global Market Strategist and Head of Strategy & Insights at Invesco. According to Levitt, the Treasury’s announcement reinforces something he has long believed: “The U.S. government is unlikely to sit idly by and allow a disorderly debt crisis to unfold if it has mechanisms to help address it.”
Paradoxically, the U.S. administration needs to keep the cost of financing its massive debt under control, while at the same time the Fed needs to maintain a sufficiently restrictive stance to combat inflation. There are signs that the problem may grow: according to a note published by DWS on Friday, August 21, if current borrowing trends persist, total U.S. Treasury debt could reach $50 trillion by 2029.
The Treasury wants to prevent long-term rates from spiking, whereas the Fed does not want to give the impression that it is bailing out the bond market. These are objectives that may align at times, but they are not exactly the same.
The real risk
The real risk is that equities could continue rising while the bond market deteriorates for a period of time.
However, that divergence cannot widen indefinitely because a higher long-term Treasury rate means, among other things: higher financing costs for corporations; higher mortgage rates; higher borrowing costs for governments; lower valuations for growth equities; higher cost of capital for infrastructure projects; pressure on private equity; higher return hurdles for private credit; and a higher discount rate for virtually all financial assets.
That is why the behavior of the Treasury is particularly relevant for investment funds, asset managers, wealth management, and family offices. It is not simply a matter of deciding whether to buy or sell bonds. It is a matter of determining what price every financial asset should carry in a world where long-term Treasuries are once again demanding significantly higher yields.
There is also a variable that sets this cycle apart. The U.S. economy is entering a phase of massive investments in data centers, semiconductors, energy, power grids, and technology tied to artificial intelligence, meaning the government is not the only major seeker of capital.
This competition can help keep financing costs elevated even if the Fed eventually begins cutting short-term rates; the problem, therefore, may not be purely monetary—it may be structural.
What does it mean for investors?
For portfolio managers, the scenario forces a review of a premise that dominated much of the past decade: that a drop in Fed rates would necessarily trigger a broad-based bond rally.
Today, that premise might not hold true. If short rates fall but long rates remain elevated due to deficits, inflation, debt supply, and capital demand, the yield curve could behave very differently than expected.
The Fed is keeping its benchmark rate at 3.50%–3.75%, retains tools to guarantee an ample supply of reserves, and has not reactivated a policy of massive asset purchases. At the same time, the Treasury has just increased its long bond purchases to improve market conditions. The combination leaves an open question for the coming months:
Can the United States keep inflation under control, finance a debt exceeding $40 trillion, and simultaneously fund the gigantic investment cycle in artificial intelligence without causing the long-term cost of capital to remain elevated?
The answer will be decisive not only for Wall Street, but will also define the returns investors worldwide will demand in the coming years, experts warn.
The competition for Latin American money is acquiring a new dimension, shifting toward a much scarcer asset: talent capable of understanding the region’s new investor and accompanying them in a market changing at an unprecedented speed. It is no longer just a matter of who has the best funds, who charges the lowest fees, or who offers access to international markets.
In recent months, international asset managers, private banks, independent wealth management platforms, and firms specialized in services for family offices have accelerated the hiring and mobility of executives with regional experience, knowledge of private markets, institutional distribution, global investments, and ultra-high-net-worth management.
The phenomenon is no coincidence. The Latin American investor is changing at the same time as the industry’s architecture.
Large family fortunes have increasingly greater international exposure. Pension funds seek to expand their investment universe toward private assets and global markets; traditional managers compete with independent platforms; ETFs modify product distribution; artificial intelligence begins to transform analysis and client relationships, and the boundaries between asset management, wealth management, private banking, and family offices are becoming less and less clear.
The result will likely be a new investment ecosystem in Latin America. And the institutions trying to build it are already fighting for the people who will have to lead it. Talent moves to where the growth is
One of the most recent examples occurred in January, when Capital Group named Patricia Hidalgo as Managing Director and Head of Latin America. Hidalgo arrived from J.P. Morgan Asset Management, where she spent more than a decade and held, among other roles, the position of Head of Alternatives for Latin America. Before that, she had worked at CitiBanamex in Mexico.
Her new responsibility has special relevance because Capital Group is not only seeking to expand its distribution among institutional investors and intermediaries. The firm expressly pointed out that its strategy includes deepening relationships with pension fund administrators in Mexico, Chile, and Colombia, as well as central banks and sovereign wealth funds.
The move shows where the industry is looking: alternatives, institutional investors, distribution, and regional knowledge are converging into the same executive position. It also shows another element of the new competition: major asset managers are not necessarily looking for talent exclusively within their own organizations. They are fishing in the open market.
Hidalgo is precisely an example of that mobility, an executive moving from one of the largest global asset management platforms to another with an explicit mission to accelerate its Latin American presence.
From global banks to independent platforms
Another move that occurred this summer is even more revealing for the wealth management segment. In July, Insigneo added Juan C. Londoño and Felipe Quintero as Senior Vice Presidents. Both arrived from Merrill Lynch, where they built a joint career over 15 years advising business families and investors from Colombia, Mexico, Central America, and the United States. The deal has a significance that goes beyond the two appointments.
The firm itself highlighted that the executives bring experience in global investment strategy, private banking, and global wealth management. In other words, they carry not only technical knowledge but also relationships, deep understanding of families, and accumulated experience in various jurisdictions. That asset is increasingly valuable.
For decades, a significant portion of Latin American wealth was served by major international banking institutions. Now, independent platforms are trying to challenge that business by offering open architecture, access to multiple managers, and greater flexibility to construct portfolios.
That explains why hiring entire teams has become a strategic tool; it is not simply a matter of hiring a good private banker. It is a matter of acquiring market knowledge, relationships, and distribution capacity.
Miami consolidates as one of the great battlegrounds
The transformation is also reinforcing Miami’s role as a financial platform for Latin American wealth. In July, M&G Investments added Vince León as Senior Sales Manager for its US Offshore and Latin America business. León, with more than 20 years of experience in investment distribution across the Americas, arrived from Voya Investment Management, where he was Senior Vice President and Senior Regional Director for US Offshore. He reports to Ander López, Sales Director for LatAm.
His work consists of engaging with financial advisors, private banks, large advisory platforms, and independent firms serving the US Offshore market. The strategic takeaway is clear: distribution is becoming a specialized competence.
The asset manager no longer needs solely a good portfolio manager. Now it needs people capable of translating a global offering of public and private assets to the specific needs of Latin American advisors, family offices, private banks, and institutional funds, and that ability cannot be improvised.
The phenomenon is even more important when viewed from the perspective of family offices. Large Latin American families are stopping thinking in exclusively national terms. Their portfolios increasingly incorporate assets denominated in different currencies and jurisdictions, from the United States and Europe to Asia, as well as private equity, private credit, infrastructure, and other alternative asset strategies.
Specialized analyses indicate that family offices are reacting to an environment of greater geopolitical and economic uncertainty through increased geographic and currency diversification, while boosting their interest in topics such as artificial intelligence, infrastructure, and energy. Daniel Bassan, then head of UBS in Brazil and Latin America, specifically highlighted the importance of these changes in strategic allocation.
The above alters the skills an advisor needs; the new wealth management professional will have to understand traditional investments, but also international structures, taxation, private markets, estate planning, succession, family governance, and, increasingly, technology.
The border between private banker, investment advisor, and family office specialist is starting to disappear; top executives are also moving because talent mobility is not limited to commercial positions.
In August, Daniel Bassan, who until then was CEO of UBS for Brazil and regional head for Latin America, was announced as the new Vice President of Santander Corporate & Investment Banking in Brazil, a position he will assume at the beginning of 2027. At UBS, his position as country chief for Brazil will be taken by Daniel Barros, who will also maintain his position as CEO of UBS BB.
The move is significant because it shows how major institutions are competing for executives capable of moving between different market segments: investment banking, institutional clients, corporate clients, and large wealth holdings.
In other words, Latin American financial talent is also becoming cross-functional; the most valuable executive is no longer necessarily the specialist who knows a single asset class perfectly. It is the one who understands how different financial businesses interact and can connect institutional capital, private markets, investment banking, and private wealth.
Pension funds fully enter the transformation
The transformation also reaches pension funds. In Mexico, for example, Afores find themselves in a scenario where greater capacity to invest in alternative assets requires professionals capable of analyzing private equity, infrastructure, private debt, and other instruments that traditionally had a much smaller share within portfolios.
The talent map already shows that specialization. Aurora Fadile Herrera, for example, serves as PM Director of Alternative Investments at Principal Afore México, where she participates in private asset strategy, including private equity, infrastructure, and private debt.
The relevance of these types of profiles will increase as Latin American pension funds seek to sophisticate their portfolios, because the challenge does not consist solely of having more resources to invest; in reality, it consists of having the internal capacity to select managers, negotiate structures, evaluate risks, manage liquidity, and monitor investments that can remain in the portfolio for many years.
That is why the competition for private market specialists will not be limited to international asset managers. It will also reach pension institutions themselves.
The new financial professional
All these movements point toward one conclusion: the profile of the professional required by the industry is changing. A decade ago, a good specialist could build their career around a specific asset class, region, or function. The new ecosystem demands a much broader combination.
Institutions will need people who understand a variety of specialized topics such as: private markets and alternative assets; ETFs, indexing, and passive management; international investment and multi-currency portfolios; artificial intelligence and data analysis; digital assets and tokenization; estate planning and succession; taxation and cross-border structures; family offices and family governance; institutional distribution and US Offshore; relationship management with high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth clients.
But there is something more important: they will need professionals capable of connecting all those disciplines. The technological revolution does not mean human talent loses value either. In wealth management, exactly the opposite can happen.
Technology can automate much of the analysis, generate information, and improve portfolio construction. But when it comes to managing a family fortune, structuring a succession, or deciding how to distribute assets across several jurisdictions, trust remains an asset that is difficult to replace.
Latin America, a magnet for talent
The movement of executives also reflects a broader reality: international institutions are seeing opportunities in Latin America. Raimundo Diaz, Executive Vice President, Americas at Vistra, recently explained that the firm created Vistra Latam to serve the region, integrating its global platform with the local experience of Biz Latin Hub, acquired at the end of 2025. The organization has around 550 people working in the region.
The firm identifies opportunities related to Latin American companies establishing operations in the United States, international companies arriving in the region, and families requiring structures to manage global wealth and operations.
The message is important because it demonstrates that growth is not occurring solely in asset management. An ecosystem around wealth is appearing: managers, private banks, family offices, fiduciary administrators, tax advisors, lawyers, technology platforms, and alternative investment specialists.
All compete for the same resource: professionals capable of connecting those pieces; talent will be a competitive advantage.
The Latin American financial industry is thus entering a stage where capital will remain indispensable, but not sufficient. An asset manager can have a competitive private credit strategy; a private bank can offer access to virtually any market in the world; a family office can have a sophisticated platform, and a pension fund can have growing resources to invest.
But they all need people who know how to use those tools; the hiring of Patricia Hidalgo by Capital Group, the arrival of Londoño and Quintero at Insigneo, the move of Vince León to M&G, and the leadership change starring Daniel Bassan and Daniel Barros at UBS and Santander are pieces of the same story.
In this sense, the battle for Latin American financial talent is just beginning; over the next few years, we will likely see more moves between asset managers, private banks, pension funds, family offices, and independent platforms. Hiring of specialists coming from technology, consulting, investment banking, and private markets will also increase.
The reason is simple: the business no longer consists solely of managing money, but of understanding where the money will be, how it will move, what products it will need, in which jurisdictions it will be located, and, above all, who will have the trust of its owners. That will be one of the main factors defining the winners of the new Latin American financial ecosystem.
