LatAm archivos - Funds Society

BBVA AM Takes Another Step Forward in Asset Tokenization Alongside Hamilton Lane, Allfunds Blockchain, and Apex Group

Hamilton Lane, a private markets investment firm, has announced the launch of a new tokenized share class providing access to the Hamilton Lane Global Private Assets Fund (GPA), developed in collaboration with Allfunds Blockchain, the digital innovation division of Allfunds, and Apex Group. BBVA Asset Management has committed to participate as the first investor and initial exclusive distributor for institutional portfolios of this new tokenized share class.

According to the firms, the launch marks a significant milestone in the evolution of private markets accessibility, leveraging blockchain-based distribution models to deliver a more efficient, transparent, and flexible investment experience. The tokenized share class will be available through the Allfunds platform and supported by Allfunds Blockchain as the technology provider and Apex Group as transfer agent, enabling end-to-end digital subscription, administration, and servicing.

In addition, as part of the agreement, BBVA Asset Management will benefit from a three-month exclusive distribution period, reinforcing the asset manager’s commitment to innovation and its active role in exploring new digital distribution models for private market assets in Europe.

A New Milestone

With this launch, Hamilton Lane expands its track record of broadening institutional access to private markets through technological innovation and continues to play a pioneering global role in the tokenization and digitalization of private market products.

Hamilton Lane GPA is an evergreen fund designed to provide investors with diversified exposure to private markets through a single investment commitment.

“As part of our ongoing effort to expand access to private markets through technology, the launch of this tokenized share class brings the diversification benefits of private markets to investors in a more cost-effective, better, and faster way. Working with established partners such as Allfunds Blockchain and Apex Group has enabled us to deliver an efficient and scalable solution, and we are pleased to welcome BBVA as the first investor in this initiative,” said Victor Jung, Head of Digital Assets at Hamilton Lane.

For Ruben Nieto, Managing Director at Allfunds Blockchain, the project demonstrates how blockchain can deliver real and tangible efficiency improvements to the fund industry. “Our collaboration with Hamilton Lane and Apex Group enables a new digital operating model that simplifies distribution, enhances transparency, and ultimately benefits both managers and investors. We are proud to help bring this market milestone to life,” he said.

BBVA Asset Management emphasized its commitment to driving innovation in financial services: “This initiative reflects our conviction in the potential of tokenization to enable more efficient access to sophisticated investment opportunities. We are pleased to participate as the first investor and distributor of this new tokenized share class and to continue exploring digital solutions that can enhance the client investment experience.”

Finally, Peter Hughes, Founder and CEO of Apex Group, stated: “Tokenization is transforming the way investors access private markets. At Apex Group, we are building the digital infrastructure that enables this shift at scale. Working with leading partners such as Hamilton Lane and Allfunds is helping us deliver a more efficient and transparent model for investor access.”

Global Dividends Increased 8.2% to Reach 419 Billion Dollars

| By Marta Rodriguez | 0 Comentarios

Photo courtesyAlexandra Haggard, Head of Asset Class Services for Europe and Asia-Pacific at Capital Group

Global dividends started 2026 on a strong note, rising 8.2% to a record 419 billion U.S. dollars in the first quarter, driven by foreign exchange movements and significant one-off special dividends, according to the latest Dividend Watch report, part of the Capital Group Global Equity Study¹. The first-quarter underlying growth rate was 5.2% year over year, a more representative measure of dividend momentum that was also reflected in the average growth of dividends per share.

A shift in the commodities cycle made mining companies the main driver of first-quarter growth, following years of cuts caused by weak profitability. The sector accounted for one-fifth of the global increase during the quarter, with gold mining standing out in particular. The broader financial sector (+16.2%), semiconductors (+10.2%), software (+9.5%), and machinery (+8.9%) also recorded strong underlying growth.

The three sectors that paid the largest dividends during the first quarter—pharmaceuticals, banking, and energy—posted slower distribution growth than the broader market. Energy sector dividends rose only 3.1%, reflecting pressure on earnings prior to the oil crisis, as well as the impact of share buybacks, while banking sector distributions were held back by cuts in China, Brazil, and Sweden in particular. Pharmaceutical sector dividends increased 4.3% on an underlying basis; no company in Capital Group’s index² reduced its dividend, but some of the largest payers recorded only modest increases.

Regional Trends

Among the major regions, the fastest growth was recorded in Australia, India, the United States, and Canada, while the United Kingdom, Europe, and China lagged behind. Generally, in Japan, most of Asia and Europe, as well as in some emerging markets, dividend distributions are relatively limited during the first quarter, meaning local growth rates are less representative of what may be expected for the full year.

The Spanish dividend market started 2026 strongly, posting underlying growth of 13.7%, above the global average, during a seasonally quiet first quarter. Total dividend distributions reached 4.7 billion dollars (4.1 billion euros). The overall growth figure of 50.5% was driven by foreign exchange effects and supported by the addition of an Ibex 35 company to the index.

For the remainder of 2026, Capital Group has maintained its dividend forecast unchanged at 2.20 trillion U.S. dollars, representing year-over-year growth of 5.1%. However, the contribution from special dividends and foreign exchange movements remains greater than previously anticipated, implying underlying growth of 4.7%, slightly below the headline figure.

Alexandra Haggard, Head of Asset Class Services for Europe and Asia-Pacific at Capital Group, said: “What these trends highlight is that active managers with strong research capabilities are increasingly well positioned to identify companies with both the ability and commitment to pay and grow dividends over time. Over the last decade, global dividends have more than doubled, driven by rising corporate earnings and a growing culture of dividend payments across markets.

The start of 2026 has been encouraging, even amid heightened geopolitical uncertainty and ongoing cost and energy pressures. While these challenges increase costs for some companies, dividend-paying businesses can help provide stability to portfolios when markets become more volatile. In this environment, deep research and stock-selection capabilities are critical, and active managers are well positioned to identify those companies best placed to sustain and grow dividends over the long term.”

Christophe Girondel (Nordea AM): “As Mark Carney Said, If You Don’t Have a Seat at the Table, You’re on the Menu”

| By Marta Rodriguez | 0 Comentarios

In the view of Christophe Girondel, Global Head of Institutional and Wholesale Distribution at Nordea AM, the asset management business is moving faster than it may appear at first glance. “I like to recall Mark Carney’s famous quote at the World Economic Forum, where he said, ‘If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’re on the menu.’ So what we want is to have a seat at the table; that is our primary objective, and to achieve it we are developing our range of solutions,” he says.

We spoke with Girondel during his visit to Nordea AM’s Madrid office about how to maintain that “seat at the table” and how the fund distribution business has evolved in its two key markets—Europe and Latin America.

How do you see the relationship between asset managers and institutional distributors? What has changed over the course of your career, and what is the priority today?

Twenty years ago, your clients, distributors or intermediaries, were looking for the best possible product and were interested in finding the latest innovation. The question was: what is the next product that is going to work? The industry was searching for innovation; now we are in a phase of consolidation.

Distributors and intermediaries have become much more efficient players. They now build their own strategies, model portfolios, and discretionary portfolios, so their central question is how to construct their own portfolios. Another important factor is that many have realized that having the best product is not as important because products move in cycles. The priority is having a strong partner to work with—one that will still be there over the next ten years, regardless of market cycles, while providing solid services.

How does AI fit into this part of the business?

Artificial intelligence can essentially help analyze clients, identify trends, and manage information, but I do not believe it will ever connect with clients in the same way people do.

What matters to clients is having someone alongside them from the beginning of their analysis process on how to build portfolios, and in my opinion, that requires a very close relationship.

The firm operates in both Europe and Latin America. What are the differences between these two businesses and their distribution models?

They are very different. In Spain and the broader Iberian region, for example, everything is more structured around large institutions, whereas Latin America has a much larger presence of what we would call independent financial advisors and wealth managers.

Banks certainly play a role there, but it is less dominant than in Europe. As a result, the business model is somewhat different. In Latin America, you want to stay close to advisors and wealth managers spread across the region, and naturally also in Miami. There are a few key platforms where you want to be present, but then you also need to reach individual advisors and wealth managers directly.

In Europe, banks are at the center of the system, so product distribution happens through large banking institutions. In Latin America and Miami, distribution is driven by advisors and partnerships with local distributors.

In terms of products, what differences do you see between these regions when it comes to promoting one strategy versus another?

The product we are currently focusing on is our quantitative BetaPlus solution. The reason is simple: it works everywhere.

Markets have become highly concentrated, so clients do not want to take on excessive risk, which is why we are witnessing a resurgence of quantitative strategies. Honestly, four years ago nobody was interested in them, even though it is a product we have always offered and where we manage around 80 billion. Now, quantitative strategies have become a focus for everyone.

Speaking of differences, in Europe we do see greater interest in fixed-income strategies because clients do not want to take on too much risk. We are trying to help clients understand that they need uncorrelated strategies, including within fixed income.

From a thematic perspective, we are also seeing strong interest in a strategy focused on Europe’s empowerment, where we already have 900 million euros invested. The strategy invests in companies that benefit from energy resilience and, naturally, includes exposure to defense.

Another theme we see beginning to revive is climate-related investing. The reason is that for a long time climate was viewed as a way to improve quality of life; now it is increasingly seen as an element of independence.

These strategies tend to be more diversified and long term. Do you think the long-term investing narrative has lost ground amid the ETF boom?

I think it has.

The industry has reached a level of maturity where investors distinguish between holding an investment and trading it. Investors can certainly look every day at how their defense ETF is performing, for example. But if you want to invest with a longer-term horizon, it is preferable to be in more diversified products.

In that context, active management also makes more sense relative to passive management. Active management ultimately means being invested in a strategy like our Europe empowerment strategy and saying, “Now is the time to be more exposed to this theme rather than another.”

Let’s talk about alternatives and private markets. How do you see them entering client portfolios? Is this just a trend or something structural?

At Nordea AM, we have built solutions that allow clients to gain exposure to private markets.

I think this is a very complex area because there is a risk that investors do not fully understand the illiquidity of these assets. It is true that redemption windows can be created, but investors must understand that these are illiquid assets.

This is particularly important for retail investors. For institutional investors, the shift has been much smaller because they were already invested in this asset class.

For both groups, one of the lessons I have learned throughout my career is that you cannot fake an asset’s liquidity; investors need to understand that it is illiquid. In this respect, I am pleased to see that many intermediaries and wealth managers are very aware of this and are doing a good job.

For this asset class, it is important that investors do not have a negative experience, so the best advice is to take the time to understand it thoroughly before investing.

Do you think private assets should represent a specific allocation within portfolios?

I do not know what the ideal percentage is.

When valuations were very low, private assets were highly attractive because they could generate very strong returns. When valuations are higher, it becomes more difficult.

I believe their role within portfolios is maturing, and investors are becoming increasingly selective.

Considering the trends and reflections we have discussed, what are Nordea AM’s objectives in this environment?

First, I would say that we are operating in an extremely competitive industry, so the focus must remain on our objective: staying close to our clients and growing our business alongside them.

This is important because I believe we are moving toward a future where clients will work with fewer asset managers. Our objective is to ensure that we have a “seat” with them.

I like to remember Mark Carney’s comment at the World Economic Forum: “If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’re on the menu.”

So what we want is a seat at the table—that is our main objective. To achieve it, we are continuing to develop our range of investment solutions, including those related to artificial intelligence and absolute return strategies.

From Maradona to Mbappé: 40 Years of Soccer Inflation

| By Marta Rodriguez | 0 Comentarios

When Diego Maradona joined SSC Napoli in 1984 for around 12 million dollars, the transfer was considered an unprecedented financial extravagance. Four decades later, the global soccer market moves figures that would have seemed unreal even to the great sports magnates of the 1980s.

The evolution of transfers in professional soccer reflects much more than a sporting change: it is the story of the financialization of the global entertainment industry. Local contracts and free-to-air television gave way to an ecosystem dominated by sovereign wealth funds, private equity, streaming platforms, global commercialization, and digital attention economies.

Today, soccer is an industry in which a single transfer market can exceed 13 billion dollars annually.

The Maradona transfer that broke the market

In 1982, Diego Maradona left Boca Juniors to join FC Barcelona for approximately 7.3 million euros, adjusted retrospectively. Two years later, his move to Napoli raised the world transfer record to nearly 12 million dollars.

The scale of that figure can only be understood in context. According to retrospective analyses by specialized media outlets and historical transfer databases, Maradona’s move was worth several times the average transaction value of the era.

In reality, the Maradona case marked the beginning of a new logic:

The soccer player as a global asset
The club as a commercial platform
The transfer as a strategic investment

Italian Serie A dominated the global soccer economy at the time. Italy concentrated industrial capital, growing television rights revenues, and financial capacity far greater than the rest of Europe. Clubs such as Napoli, Juventus, Milan, and Inter began an inflationary race that would redefine the market.

Television Changed Everything

The real economic explosion arrived in the 1990s with the expansion of satellite television and massive broadcasting contracts. The creation of the Premier League in 1992 marked a turning point. The new centralized model for audiovisual rights radically transformed the revenues of English clubs.

This phenomenon coincided with the commercial globalization of sports, the liberalization of the European market following the 1995 Bosman ruling, and the growth of multinational sponsors. Transfer fees began to rise rapidly: Alan Shearer broke records in 1996, Ronaldo Nazário surpassed the market once again in 1997, and from the 2000s onward, Real Madrid CF’s so-called “Galácticos” era turned transfers into global media events.

The case of Luis Figo in 2000 — from Barcelona to Real Madrid — not only broke financial records; it demonstrated how the commercial and political value of a transfer could be just as important as its sporting value.

Neymar and the Definitive Break

If Maradona inaugurated the modern era of the transfer market, Neymar’s move to Paris Saint-Germain in 2017 completely redefined the economic scale of soccer. The 222 million euros paid to Barcelona remains the largest transfer fee in history.

The deal had structural implications: it accelerated price inflation, altered valuation benchmarks, and consolidated the entry of state-backed and geopolitical capital into European soccer. From that point on, prices stopped growing linearly and began behaving more like highly speculative financial assets.

According to the CIES Football Observatory, transfer market inflation in Europe’s major leagues exceeded annual rates of 26% during certain periods over the last decade. The same observatory documented that clubs in Europe’s five major leagues increased their transfer spending from 1.5 billion euros in 2010 to more than 6.6 billion euros in 2019.

Mbappé and the New Financial Order

The figure of Kylian Mbappé symbolizes another important transition: the growing power of the player as an independent financial actor.

Although the French star was involved in one of the most expensive moves in history when he joined PSG, the real economic earthquake came years later with his essentially free transfer to Real Madrid.

The case highlighted a central transformation in the modern market: salaries, signing bonuses, image rights, loyalty bonuses, and agent commissions can now be more important than the transfer itself.

In other words, part of soccer’s inflation is no longer reflected solely in the transfer fee, but in much more sophisticated contractual structures. The growth of commissions has also become explosive. Recent FIFA reports show how payments linked to intermediaries and agents have become a structural component of the global soccer financial ecosystem.

Soccer as a Global Financial Asset

Soccer inflation cannot be understood solely as a sporting phenomenon. It is deeply linked to:

Global liquidity
The expansion of broadcasting rights
The entry of sovereign capital
Digital monetization
The international valuation of sports brands

Today, clubs such as Manchester City FC, Chelsea FC, Paris Saint-Germain, and Real Madrid CF operate as global platforms for entertainment, branding, and content. The CIES Football Observatory reported in 2025 that the 100 clubs with the most expensive squads in the world had accumulated investments exceeding 29 billion euros.

Financial concentration has also intensified. England currently dominates the global soccer economy thanks to the commercial strength of the Premier League. FIFA data show that English clubs once again led the world in both transfer spending and transfer income in 2025, with 3.82 billion dollars spent and 1.77 billion dollars received.

Is There a Bubble?

The major question within the industry is whether soccer is experiencing a structural bubble or simply a new phase of global appreciation. Supporters of the model argue that global audiences continue to grow, streaming will expand monetization opportunities, and premium sports brands continue to increase in value.

However, there are also signs of pressure from factors such as rising debt, dependence on television revenues, operating deficits, and increasing wage costs. The CIES Football Observatory itself has warned about the increasingly speculative nature of the transfer ecosystem.

At the same time, regulations such as UEFA’s Financial Fair Play seek to contain part of this escalation, although with limited success in the face of virtually unlimited capital inflows.

From Romanticism to Soccer Capitalism

The gap between Maradona’s soccer and Mbappé’s is not only economic—it is structural. In the 1980s, a record transfer represented an extraordinary exception. Today, the global player market operates under dynamics similar to those of highly competitive financial industries:

Asset valuation
Accounting amortization
Contractual engineering
Digital monetization
Global brand expansion

What began as a deeply local sport has evolved into one of the most sophisticated entertainment businesses on the planet. And while today’s figures may seem extreme, recent history suggests that soccer inflation has yet to find its ceiling.

J.P. Morgan Private Bank Adds a New Member to Its Miami Team to Cover Brazil

| By Marta Rodriguez | 0 Comentarios

LinkedIn / Karl Justa, banker and Associate at J.P. Morgan Private Bank

An internal move has brought Karl Justa to the J.P. Morgan Private Bank team dedicated to serving high-net-worth Brazilian clients. The professional assumed the roles of Associate and banker, according to an announcement made by the company on LinkedIn.

In her post, the U.S. investment bank’s VP of recruiting, Alezandra Hernández, detailed that Justa is joining the Brazil-focused team within the Miami office. From this new position, she noted, the banker will focus on serving the needs of the firm’s high-net-worth clients.

With this move, Justa continues to deepen a career spanning more than a decade in the wealth management industry. That trajectory has been linked to J.P. Morgan & Co. since 2023, when he joined as Vice President, according to his professional profile.

Previously, the banker worked in the private banking divisions of several firms. Between 2013 and 2017, he worked at Itaú Unibanco in São Paulo, where he reached the position of General Manager. Years later, between 2021 and 2022, Justa returned to the firm, this time as AVP and Personal Wealth Manager at Itaú USA.

He also worked at XP in Miami, serving in the Private Wealth Management area, and at HW Corp as C Manager.

J.P. Morgan Private Bank covers the Brazilian market from its offices in the United States — eight of which are located across different cities in Florida — and Switzerland. In Miami, the firm’s key figures include Alexandre Zanuto, Managing Director and Market Manager for Brazil; Thiago Caiuby, Managing Director and Head of Investments and Advice; and Carolina Cintra, Executive Director of Wealth Advisory.

Max Martin (Lombard Odier): “It Is Not a Revolution, It Is an Evolution of Methods”

| By Marta Rodriguez | 0 Comentarios

Photo courtesyMax Martin, Global Head of Philanthropy at Lombard Odier

It has been three years since our last meeting with Max Martin, Global Head of Philanthropy at Lombard Odier. On that occasion, Martin explained how philanthropy, social entrepreneurship, and impact investing were three paths that intersected within the financial planning of individuals, but also foundations. Today, he acknowledges that philanthropy has directly assumed its own role within the global capital structure.

According to his experience, over this period, both the way philanthropy is approached by foundations and by philanthropists’ portfolios — mainly among high- and ultra-high-net-worth individuals — has become more sophisticated, shifting its focus toward strengthening the fabric of the third sector and society itself. We took the opportunity during this interview with Martin to explore how philanthropy has evolved and how it aligns with financial planning in today’s environment.

How are foundations approaching their philanthropic activities?

If we start from the traditional foundation model — that is, those that invest their assets and then distribute them, for example through donations or direct grants to NGOs — we see a clear trend toward aligning their investment strategy with their foundational mission. In this regard, a substantial change has been that foundations are becoming increasingly ambitious and have moved from designing and implementing sustainable investment strategies to creating impact investment satellites directly connected to their mission. Some have gone even further and are analyzing how they can leverage their relationships with beneficiaries to innovate, for example, through financing tools. This trend is quite innovative in Europe, whereas in countries such as the United States it has existed since the late 1960s.

What role are foundations taking on?

These kinds of trends generate highly attractive impact, and foundations are seeking that impact. This translates into foundations becoming increasingly proactive and strategic regarding the issues they address. Above all, this trend shows that foundations are taking on a relevant innovation role within their fields, making available capital that otherwise would be very difficult and complex to direct or raise. Within this innovation, technology and AI are becoming key elements in the work and solutions foundations are launching. Beyond serving as engines of innovation, and given the current context, many foundations are focusing on building capabilities and strengthening the third sector itself. In other words, developing tools and providing support so that NGOs themselves can respond to emerging needs. We also see philanthropists increasingly being called upon by organizations to improve the quality and resilience of nonprofit institutions.

How are new generations affecting these foundations?

Generally speaking, the first conclusion when studying these new generations is that they also want to leave their mark, although in different ways depending on the region being analyzed. For example, in Switzerland, when they begin playing a role in their parents’ or family foundations, many maintain the same focus, but in terms of impact orientation, they develop new ways of collaborating and structuring themselves. In the United States, there is an effort to articulate the same family and parental values but within the mindset of the current generation. Another example is the United Kingdom, where an innovation-focused approach prevails, and alignment of interests is often not as much of a priority, or Singapore, where the focus is on using technology both to generate impact and to evaluate projects. The overall message is that we do see greater involvement from these generations, who want to be closer to the action, but there are significant generational and geographic differences in how issues are approached.

For me, the good news is that philanthropic commitment has not changed; on the contrary, more people are committed, and the causes being addressed are evolving alongside society and the broader environment. However, I do not believe we are witnessing a revolution in philanthropy. We are seeing an evolution of methods, integrating new possibilities for identifying beneficiaries and measuring the impact of projects and programs.

And how do these new philanthropic generations appear from the perspective of private banking?

The level of involvement, as we mentioned, is the same. The change is that the client’s approach now follows a process similar to a “decision tree.” There is a prior stage of analysis regarding what I want to do, how and to what extent I want to be involved, and what the right tool is. And for this last question, the answers are much more sophisticated and varied; that is why we see everything from philanthropists creating foundations to structures such as donor-advised funds. In my view, the determining factor is understanding that if someone wants to create an independent structure, they will need a certain level of capital and be willing to play a role in the foundation’s governing body. These aspects have not changed, but where we do see changes is in the themes being prioritized. Generally, these are issues that affect the client in a personal way; this also leads funders, in general, to become interested in specific institutions.

There is a considerable difference in how philanthropy is approached in Europe and the United States. What aspects would you highlight?

Without a doubt, they are very different. We begin from the premise that in the United States the presence of the State is smaller, meaning the role of the community and philanthropists is greater compared to Europe. As a result, the concept of the community foundation is deeply rooted in the U.S. The economy has also generated extraordinary fortunes and major entrepreneurs who have channeled their social contributions through foundations. Europe also has outstanding entrepreneurs, but the State has a larger presence, leading to a different philosophy regarding the “division of responsibilities.” Foundations tend to maintain a lower profile and are more discreet when it comes to setting agendas.

Another major difference between both regions is that in the United States we are seeing how polarization is affecting foundations, whereas in Europe there is more consensus and neutrality. Without question, each region has its own characteristics. For example, in Latin America, foundations are more focused on developing programs because civil society there comes from a different reality and has different needs.

Private Equity Deals in the Healthcare Sector Reached 190 Billion Dollars in 2025

| By Marta Rodriguez | 0 Comentarios

According to the Global Healthcare Private Equity Report 2026, published by Bain & Company, the global value of private equity deals in the healthcare sector reached a new record in 2025, with an estimated 191 billion dollars in transactions, surpassing the previous all-time high recorded in 2021.

The report notes that this increase was driven mainly by a sharp rise in deals exceeding 1 billion dollars, which offset the second-quarter slowdown caused by tariffs in North America and Asia-Pacific. Transaction volume also remained strong, with 445 announced acquisitions, the second-highest figure on record.

At the same time, divestments rebounded sharply to reach 156 billion dollars — the second-highest level in history — compared to 54 billion dollars in 2024, thanks to the return of sponsor-to-sponsor transactions following the post-pandemic lows.

According to Cira Cuberes, partner at Bain & Company, “The private equity market in healthcare delivered record performance last year, with a major increase in large-scale transactions and growth across all segments, led by biopharma and providers, and driven by activity in medtech. We also observed a strong recovery in divestment value following recent lows, signaling the return of exit activity as sponsors restart sales processes for strategic assets. Everything points to a very dynamic 2026, supported by high liquidity levels and a growing number of sponsor-owned assets approaching the end of their investment cycle.”

Sponsor-to-sponsor deals on the rise

The analysis highlights that, following the slowdown seen in 2023 and 2024, sponsor-to-sponsor transactions returned strongly in 2025, reaching record highs in both volume and value. More than 150 transactions are expected, with an estimated value exceeding 120 billion dollars.

Bain & Company also emphasized the increase in average deal size: more than 30 transactions exceeded 1 billion dollars, compared to just eight in 2024. In addition, public-to-private deals and carve-outs continue gaining prominence as alternative opportunities for investors, showing sustained growth since 2023.

Recovery after the second-quarter decline

The report indicates that global growth was sustained thanks to consistent activity in Europe and the recovery of North America and Asia-Pacific after the second-quarter slowdown. Transaction volume increased 39% between the second and third quarters, and the second half of the year closed 7% above the first half.

North America: momentum from large deals

According to the study, the region managed to overcome the second-quarter slowdown thanks to the rise in large-scale transactions. Through November 2025, 26 deals exceeding 1 billion dollars were recorded, compared to 14 during all of 2024, and more than 70% were sponsor-to-sponsor.

Total deal volume grew slightly compared to the previous year, although it remains below the historical peak reached in 2021. In divestments, 2025 closed with an estimated value of 90 billion dollars, well above the 35 billion dollars recorded in 2024.

Europe: biopharma leadership and major transactions

The analysis indicates that in Europe, deal value is expected to double compared to the previous year, reaching approximately 59 billion dollars. The biopharma sector led this growth, accounting for the five largest transactions in the region and representing 65% of total value.

Large-scale deals also returned strongly: around 15 transactions exceeding 1 billion dollars were recorded in 2025, compared to only three in 2023 and four in 2024. Total transaction volume also increased, surpassing the 2024 record and maintaining the upward trend that began in 2022.

Divestments rebounded significantly to approximately 53 billion dollars following the sharp decline of the previous year, driven mainly by large sponsor-to-sponsor transactions.

Asia-Pacific: broad-based strength

The report states that deal value in Asia-Pacific reached a record in 2025, surpassing the 2021 peak by more than 30% despite the second-quarter slowdown. The biopharma and provider segments remain the main drivers of healthcare private equity in the region, although medtech and healthcare IT also posted significant growth.

Japan, India, and Australia-New Zealand showed notable gains compared to 2024, while China doubled its previous year’s performance in both volume and value, although overall activity remains below historical highs.

Biopharma sector: concentration of value

The study notes that transaction value in the biopharma segment increased to around 80 billion dollars in 2025, up from 55 billion dollars in 2024, while volume is expected to grow nearly 20%, surpassing 130 deals. Since 2020, this sector has represented approximately 30% of total deal volume and at least 22% of global transaction value.

Europe led much of this momentum, with transaction volume rising nearly 40% and value increasing 70% compared to 2024. In North America, growth was more moderate: value increased 20%, while volume remained stable.

Providers: growth driven by technology

According to the analysis, transaction value in providers and related services rose 57% to approximately 62 billion dollars, while volume remained stable, reflecting larger deal sizes. Growth was led by healthcare IT and provider services, although investment focused exclusively on providers did not accelerate at the same pace.

Investors concentrated on technology-enabled assets such as analytics, workforce optimization, and platform solutions. Within this segment, healthcare IT deal value doubled in 2025 to an estimated 32 billion dollars.

Medtech: momentum in the post-Covid era

The report highlights that transaction value in medtech nearly doubled compared to the previous year, reaching approximately 33 billion dollars, while volume increased nearly 20% to around 88 transactions. The sector is gaining traction as investors identify opportunities to apply proven value-creation strategies focused on revenue growth, margin expansion, and multiple expansion while managing downside risks.

Three key trends for 2026

The analysis points out that healthcare technology has maintained an upward trend in both volume and value since 2023, reflecting sustained investor interest. Those focusing on specific value-creation levers — such as developing comprehensive pricing and packaging strategies or pursuing large-scale mergers and acquisitions to build synergistic platforms — will be better positioned to differentiate their offerings and achieve stronger exits in an environment of high valuations and intense competition.

In the pharmaceutical services market, despite historically being an attractive and large segment, recent challenges have led some investors to adopt a more cautious stance. Others have opted for a selective approach, prioritizing premium assets with strong operational improvement potential and business models more resilient to market volatility.

Meanwhile, although activity remains below peak levels from several years ago, interest in physician groups persists among U.S. investors. Leading platforms are differentiating themselves by moving beyond the traditional buy-and-build model toward integrated, clinician-focused approaches that improve quality of care. Those investing in next-generation models based on attractive trends such as pharmaceutical exposure or value-based care are expected to find compelling opportunities.

“We are optimistic about the evolution of the healthcare private equity market this year, especially because investor confidence in the market’s fundamentals has remained strong despite the difficulties experienced last spring. The strength of public-to-private deals and carve-outs, together with the return of sponsor-to-sponsor transactions, reinforces expectations of intense activity. Looking ahead, investors will need to clearly define their value-creation strategies to achieve standout returns in an environment where competition for assets remains extremely high,” concluded Cira Cuberes, partner at Bain & Company.

The Waltons and the Art of Preserving What Was Built

| By Marta Rodriguez | 0 Comentarios

In 1953, Sam Walton, best known for founding the world’s largest retail chain, did something that at the time almost no one noticed: he created Walton Enterprises and transferred 20% of the shares into a trust for each of his five children, keeping the remaining 20% for himself and his wife. He was not yet a successful businessman. But Sam was already thinking about how to protect what he was going to build.

That is estate planning. Not the outcome, but the early decision. The structure put in place before the wealth appears, on the surface, to justify the cost of creating it.

Today, the Waltons are one of the wealthiest families in the United States, with a fortune exceeding 200 billion dollars. And the relevant question is not how they got there, but why they are still there, four generations later, without the wealth having fragmented, diluted, or evaporated.

The answer has a name and surname. Or rather, several instruments with technical names.

The first is the irrevocable dynasty trust. Unlike a conventional trust, a dynasty trust is designed to last for decades without the assets becoming subject to estate taxes at each generational transfer. The Waltons used it, and the structure is so solid that, according to Bloomberg, none of the multiple divorces among Walton heirs managed to extract a single share from the trust.
The second instrument is the Charitable Lead Annuity Trust, or “CLAT” — also known as the “Jackie O. Trust” because of its pioneering use in the estate planning of the Kennedy family. The donor transfers assets into an irrevocable trust that, for a defined period, pays a fixed annuity to one or more charitable organizations chosen by the donor. At the end of the term, the remaining assets — plus all the appreciation accumulated during that period — are transferred to the heirs. The donor loses control over the assets from the moment they are contributed, but in return receives a tax deduction for the charitable contribution and allows a significant portion of the estate to pass to the next generation with a substantially reduced tax burden. The efficiency of the instrument depends largely on benchmark interest rates: the lower the rates, the greater the arbitrage opportunity. In the CLAT established by the Waltons in 2003, Bloomberg estimated that more than 2 billion dollars would pass to heirs tax-free. Two billion dollars. Tax-free. Legally.
The third instrument is what is now known in the estate planning world as the “Walton GRAT.” Through a Grantor Retained Annuity Trust, the grantor transfers assets — typically shares with high appreciation potential — into an irrevocable trust. For a defined period, the trust pays the grantor a fixed annuity. At maturity, if the grantor is still alive, the remaining assets — that is, all appreciation above the interest rate set by the IRS, known as the hurdle rate — are transferred to the beneficiaries without tax cost.

It is, essentially, an estate freeze: the original owner transfers the future appreciation of the asset without using up the lifetime gift tax exemption.

If the asset appreciates above the hurdle rate, the heirs receive that difference tax-free. If it does not, the assets return to the grantor. The only real risk is mortality: if the grantor dies during the GRAT term, the assets are reincorporated into the taxable estate, neutralizing the benefit.

In 1998, the Waltons refined this structure with very short-term GRATs — sometimes lasting just two years — designed to capture appreciation in Walmart shares during specific growth windows. The mechanism proved so efficient that the IRS spent years trying to block it. In 2000, Congress partially closed the loophole. But the Waltons had already passed through it, and the technique bearing their name remains today one of the most replicated instruments among ultra-high-net-worth families around the world.

4. The fourth element is Walton Enterprises, the single family office that manages the entire ecosystem. Based in Bentonville, Arkansas, it oversees more than 200 billion dollars in assets, coordinates the network of trusts and holdings, and functions as the backbone of family governance.

It is not a bank. It does not sell products. It has no conflicts of interest. It exists for one reason only: to ensure that Walton wealth remains Walton wealth.

What can be learned from all this?

Estate planning is not for when you are already wealthy. Sam Walton built his structure when Walmart was still a regional discount chain. The early decision is what makes the difference, because the most powerful instruments — the dynasty trust, the GRAT, the CLAT — require time to work. They are not last-minute solutions.
Trusts are not for hiding assets. They are for protecting them. From creditors, yes. From taxation as well — within what the law allows. But above all, from the inevitable fragmentation that occurs when a family grows and wealth lacks structure. The Waltons have dozens of heirs. Without Walton Enterprises and the trusts, the company’s capital today would likely be dispersed among hundreds of cousins who do not know each other. With the structure, it remains a company controlled by a family with a long-term vision.
Governance matters as much as the instruments. Trusts are the container. The rules about who decides, how benefits are distributed, who can be a trustee and who cannot, what happens in the event of conflict — that is the content. And it is what determines whether the structure endures or collapses at the first family crisis.
The same logic applies in any jurisdiction. The dynasty trust has equivalents in the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, and New Zealand. The CLAT and GRAT have variants across multiple civil law systems. Technical creativity is not limited to a single legal system. It is limited, instead, by a lack of planning.

The story of the Waltons is not the story of a family that found a shortcut. It is the story of a family that made structural decisions while it was still early, surrounded itself with the right advisors, and maintained the discipline to preserve the architecture over time.

What to Expect From the Change at the Fed: Four Views on a Warsh Presidency

| By Marta Rodriguez | 0 Comentarios

The U.S. Federal Reserve begins a new chapter this week with the arrival of Kevin Warsh as chairman of the central bank, bringing Jerome Powell’s eight years at the helm to an end. Powell will remain a member of the Board of Governors until January 2028, a decision that could influence the institution’s internal dynamics over the coming months.

This new phase comes at a delicate moment for the U.S. economy. Inflation remains elevated, while geopolitical tensions and rising energy prices linked to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East create the perfect backdrop for questions about when the next rate-cutting cycle will begin. In this context, several international asset managers agree that Warsh will bring his own style to the Fed, although views differ regarding the implications for monetary policy and markets.

More room for rate cuts

At Neuberger Berman, analysts believe the market remains focused on the central bank’s hawkish tone and is not clearly seeing the possibility of further rate cuts. The key idea is that Warsh views balance sheet policy and interest rate policy as complementary, meaning both tools can act simultaneously and gradual balance sheet reduction could occur alongside cuts to short-term rates rather than one happening at the expense of the other.

The asset manager’s hypothesis is that “the FOMC will remain in an easing cycle, with additional cuts bringing the policy rate to between 2.75% and 3.25% — broadly in line with the Fed’s own estimate of the neutral rate. In fact, market expectations of one or no cuts this year appear too conservative. Risks lean toward elevated inflation and delayed cuts, but the direction of travel is clear,” said Ashok Bhatia, CIO and Global Head of Fixed Income at Neuberger Berman.

For Vontobel, the main change will be in leadership style. “Warsh has openly expressed his desire to move away from the traditional consensus-based approach toward a more debate-oriented model,” said Michaela Huber, Senior Cross-Asset Strategist at the firm. The institution also emphasized that “Warsh made it clear he is a firm critic of forward guidance, arguing that it boxed the Fed into predetermined paths and reduced its ability to respond to real-time data. This approach could lead to a more dynamic (and perhaps unpredictable) Fed.” Warsh has also expressed confidence that advances in artificial intelligence could boost productivity and help contain inflation, creating room for lower rates.

“Warsh prefers trimmed mean or trimmed median inflation as the gauge to guide monetary policy. This could result in lower perceived price pressures than the indicator currently used by the Federal Reserve,” said Mickael Benhaim, Head of Fixed Income Strategy at Pictet Asset Management. This suggests interest rates could be lower under Warsh. “Currently, the trimmed mean inflation reading is 2.3%, more than 0.5% below the PCE indicator and the widest gap since the pandemic,” the expert noted.

The new Fed chairman has made it clear that he believes the current seven trillion dollars in government bond holdings are too large and has not hidden his intention to reduce them. “Over time, his preference for a smaller balance sheet, together with liquidity rules that encourage banks to hold more Treasury bills and fewer reserves, could create structurally higher term premiums on long-term debt and force private investors to hold fixed income with lower sensitivity to interest-rate changes,” the fixed-income strategist added.

Language and risks

At PIMCO, analysts believe the leadership change will affect the Federal Reserve’s language more than its decisions on rates. “Even so, we continue to expect that the next move will ultimately be a cut, and we still place the neutral interest rate at around 3%. However, the timing is uncertain. If the conflict with Iran and the energy shock prove more persistent, it could take longer for core inflation to moderate more clearly toward the Fed’s target, complicating the decision to ease monetary policy,” explained Tiffany Wilding, economist at PIMCO.

Finally, for eToro, a Fed led by Warsh will not necessarily imply more restrictive monetary policy, but it will represent a significant shift in how markets price risk. “A Federal Reserve under Warsh’s leadership would likely rely less on balance sheet expansion and signaling every move, and more on market valuation, private capital, and economic fundamentals. This points to a gradual transition toward a smaller and shorter-duration Fed balance sheet, with private banks playing a greater role in absorbing liquidity and government debt,” said Lale Akoner, Global Market Analyst at eToro.

This means that “short-term bonds could benefit from potential cuts once the energy crisis passes, while long-term bonds could see less upside potential if concerns about inflation and public debt keep yields elevated,” analysts at the firm explained. Financial companies, banks, and asset managers could therefore benefit, while highly leveraged and speculative growth companies may face more demanding market conditions.

Major Asset Managers Step on the Risk Accelerator

| By Marta Rodriguez | 0 Comentarios

Risk appetite has returned forcefully to global markets. The May Global Fund Manager Survey (FMS), conducted by Bank of America, shows a significant shift in institutional investor positioning, with fund managers increasing their allocation to equities at a record pace while reducing cash levels and deepening exposure to cyclical and technology sectors.

The move reflects a meaningful change in managers’ macroeconomic outlook, supported by more favorable expectations for corporate growth and a less restrictive monetary environment in the United States.

According to the survey, cash levels in portfolios fell from 4.3% to 3.9%, one of the sharpest declines in recent months, while BofA’s Bull & Bear indicator rose to 7.8 points, approaching levels historically associated with market overheating signals.

Optimism regarding corporate earnings is one of the main drivers behind the move. The report identifies a record jump in the number of managers expecting double-digit earnings-per-share (EPS) growth, in an environment where fears of a severe slowdown appear to be fading rapidly. Only 4% of respondents now anticipate a “hard landing” for the global economy.

Expectations of rate cuts by the Federal Reserve are also driving the repositioning. Only 16% of participants expect rate hikes through 2026, although concerns remain that the Fed could fall “behind the curve” on inflation. In fact, 40% of managers identify inflation precisely as the main tail risk for markets.

That concern is reflected particularly in the fixed-income market. Sixty-two percent of respondents expect the yield on the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond to reach 6%, compared to only 20% who foresee levels closer to 4%. This view helps explain why investors maintain one of the largest underweights in bonds since 2022.

Sector positioning also shows clear signs of concentration. Seventy-three percent of participants consider being long global semiconductors to be currently the most crowded trade in the market, amid continued enthusiasm surrounding artificial intelligence and the expansion of technology infrastructure linked to hyperscalers and data centers.

Paradoxically, those same technology segments are beginning to be perceived as potential sources of financial vulnerability. Thirty-four percent of managers identify AI hyperscalers as possible triggers of a significant credit event, second only to shadow banking, which tops the list at 42%.

The survey also reveals one of the most aggressive positions in cyclical assets since 2018. Managers show the largest overweight in technology since February 2024 and the fourth-highest historical exposure to commodities. By contrast, defensive sectors and consumer discretionary lag behind within global preferences.

Geographically, the survey also highlights the first underweight position in Eurozone assets since December 2024, while emerging markets continue benefiting from renewed flows into risk assets.

Despite the dominant optimism, the report itself warns about signs of complacency. From a contrarian perspective, strategists suggest that some investors may begin taking profits on long positions in equities, technology, commodities, and emerging markets, particularly if bond yields continue climbing.

The underlying message for markets is clear: Wall Street has returned to “risk-on” mode, but the sustainability of the rally will depend less on the growth narrative and more on the future path of inflation and long-term rates in the United States.