2025 set a new all-time high for M&A activity among RIAs, with 276 completed transactions totaling $796.4 billion in acquired assets. This surpasses the 233 transactions and $669.8 billion in acquired assets recorded in 2024, according to data from the latest report published by Fidelity. “For the first time since we began tracking the market in 2015, acquired assets for the year exceeded three-quarters of a trillion dollars, representing a 19% increase year over year and more than double the total recorded in 2023,” the asset manager highlights.
According to the firm, an analysis of the transactions makes it clear that firm leaders are not growing simply for the sake of growth. Instead, firms are evolving into more sophisticated organizations, as their executives recognize the need to “fish in bigger ponds in order to compete at scale.” “Adjacent acquisitions, such as tax planning, CPA capabilities, and ultra-high-net-worth services, are gaining increasing prominence as firms work to build comprehensive fiduciary platforms. RIAs are shifting from a narrow focus on gathering assets under management to a more strategic view of M&A as a tool to expand and diversify their service models,” the report notes in its conclusions.
Reaching record levels
Since 2020, transaction volume has increased by 111%, while acquired assets have more than quadrupled. According to Fidelity’s report, this momentum is clearly reflected in the activity trend, which mirrors the upward trajectory of U.S. equity markets over the same period. “Despite the increase in overall volume, median deal size has remained notably stable, within a range of $400–600 million. The exception was 2021, when near-zero interest rates drove an accelerated pace of transactions amid strong FOMO (fear of missing out). This stability is reflected in a flat median trend line, with 2025 closing at a median deal size of $508 million,” the document explains.
According to the asset manager, an analysis of transactions exceeding $1.0 billion in acquired assets shows a similar pattern. “While quarterly snapshots may suggest increases or declines in activity around the $1.0 billion threshold, more than a decade of data provides a broader and more reliable perspective. That long-term view makes it clear that the RIA M&A market remains strong and balanced, with steady demand among firms of all sizes, both above and below the $1.0 billion AUM threshold,” they add.
Broker-dealer market
One noteworthy data point is that the broker-dealer sector recorded five M&A transactions totaling $315.0 billion in acquired assets. The report explains that the sector’s more concentrated market structure, stricter capital requirements, and demanding regulatory environment “continue to keep transaction activity relatively contained.”
In light of this data, the report’s authors ask why the broker-dealer M&A market is quieter than that of RIAs. The answer is clear: it is a more concentrated sector, as the number of firms continues to decline. According to FINRA, the 3,378 broker-dealer firms in 2022 decreased to 3,249 in 2024, a 4% drop. Meanwhile, Fidelity’s report recorded 17 broker-dealer acquisitions during that period.
“It is possible that the broker-dealer sector will continue moving toward greater consolidation, as regulatory requirements, technological expectations, and client needs become increasingly difficult for smaller firms to manage on their own,” the report states.
Tensions in the Middle East finally erupted this weekend after the United States and Israel launched attacks against Iranian military targets and the conflict began to escalate and spread across the region. As a result, oil rose to a seven-month high and markets opened the session with losses.
In the view of Christian Schulz, chief economist at AllianzGI, markets are facing a significant shock, but one that is not yet destabilizing. “The immediate implication is a repricing of tail risks, with a potential rise in oil prices, a decline in risk assets, and a rally in safe-haven assets. However, much will depend on whether the conflict expands into broader regional or domestic instability,” the expert explains.
According to Adam Hetts, global head of multi-asset at Janus Henderson, there are other key market transmission channels to monitor if the uncertainty generated by this conflict persists. In his view, greater uncertainty dampens investor sentiment, which may broadly affect risk assets globally. “This would likely make developed market sovereign bonds, including U.S. Treasuries, and safe-haven currencies more attractive. In a prolonged period of uncertainty, rising oil prices could generate global inflation fears, which in turn could reduce the likelihood of the U.S. Federal Reserve cutting interest rates, something currently expected for later this year,” he notes.
Impact on markets
According to Schulz’s forecast, markets will demand a higher risk premium, at least temporarily, until there is greater clarity about Iran’s internal stability and the intentions of its geopolitical partners. “In broader financial markets, U.S. Treasuries, the U.S. dollar, and gold could appreciate, while equities could experience a sharp correction, although potentially short-lived,” he adds.
Looking, for example, at the gold and silver markets, the performance of perpetual futures over the weekend showed a very typical upward reaction. “This further reinforces the bullish tone in markets, but restraint by indirectly involved countries and the limited risk of an oil crisis should cap price increases. Although they provide stability to a portfolio during periods of heightened financial market volatility, the geopolitical playbook suggests that buying gold and silver on the day of a geopolitical escalation is unlikely to be a profitable strategy,” notes Carsten Menke, Head of Next Generation Research at Julius Baer.
By contrast, Jeffrey Cleveland, chief economist at Payden & Rygel, reminds that despite the severity of the geopolitical backdrop, it is advisable to avoid hasty conclusions: not every political escalation necessarily translates into a lasting macroeconomic crisis. In fact, he points out that, historically, geopolitical crises tend to trigger immediate, but often short-lived, reactions in markets. “Initial uncertainty fuels volatility and corrections, but once the situation stabilizes, even without a full resolution of the conflict, investors tend to absorb the event and refocus on economic fundamentals. In this sense, periods of weakness can become buying opportunities, especially for those with a medium- to long-term horizon,” Cleveland notes.
In his view, the true macroeconomic transmission channel would be energy, and in particular potential prolonged disruptions to oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic hub for global crude trade. In addition, for this expert, another factor to consider is the differing sensitivity of asset classes: “Geopolitical tensions tend to affect equities more intensely, increasing volatility and temporarily compressing valuations, while fixed income, especially high-quality bonds, tends to benefit from safe-haven flows.”
Anthony Willis, senior economist in the Multi-Asset Solutions team at Columbia Threadneedle Investments, shares Cleveland’s view and goes a step further: “Rising oil prices will likely amplify inflation risks in developed economies, just as new CPI releases begin to influence interest rate expectations. Higher energy costs may also threaten the disinflationary trend observed in several markets and could place renewed pressure on central banks to reassess the timing and magnitude of rate cuts.”
In this regard, Samy Chaar, chief economist at Lombard Odier, argues that the risk of an oil shock would not only affect the U.S. and its growth and inflation outlook, but the broader economy as well. “Real GDP growth in the U.S. would slow, and the Fed’s task of balancing its dual mandate would become more difficult. For other economies, especially in Asia and in emerging markets in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, the second scenario would justify further downward revisions to real GDP growth and upward revisions to inflation due to their high dependence on external energy imports,” he notes.
On oil prices
It should not be forgotten that oil is a barometer of geopolitics, and its reaction has been clear following the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. Although oil has traded mainly in the USD 60–70 range over the past 12 months, prices have already exceeded USD 70 and are expected to continue rising at the start of trading on Monday. For Adam Hetts, these moves are significant, but not yet particularly concerning in the broader context of investment implications.
“A continued rise to USD 80 would be consistent with the June 2025 conflict, and USD 90 with April 2024, when global markets were largely able to look through the price increases as the conflicts were resolved relatively quickly. Taking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 as a reference, that conflict pushed oil prices above USD 100 for a prolonged period, with brief spikes above USD 120. Current oil prices reflect a limited and relatively short-lived conflict,” Hetts explains.
In the view of Norbert Rücker, Head of Economics and Next Generation Research at Julius Baer, in the coming weeks we will see the usual pattern of a brief spike in oil and gas prices, though he believes it will be more intense this time. “This pattern could be prolonged by the complications associated with a regime-change mission, or shortened by Iran’s military exhaustion. In this base scenario, over the next few months, oil prices will depend on whether Iran experiences a disruption to its exports and, if so, whether compensation comes from producing countries or from the U.S. shale business. Assuming a combination of both, we raise our three-month oil price forecast to USD 60 per barrel. We maintain our neutral view on oil and shift our view on European natural gas to neutral from cautious,” he states.
And the role of the Strait of Hormuz
In this context, experts’ attention is once again focused on the Strait of Hormuz. Although Schulz considers its imminent closure unlikely, its stability is key to the global energy market. It is important to recall that if it were closed, global oil production could fall by 20%. “OPEC+ decided to increase supply by 206,000 barrels per day, and spare capacity (just under 3 million barrels per day) could, in theory, offset the loss of Iranian exports (1.6 million), while OECD inventories are within normal ranges. However, preventing oil prices from exceeding USD 100 per barrel depends on the reopening of Hormuz,” notes Paolo Zanghieri, senior economist at Generali AM.
According to Zanghieri, a partial disruption through sporadic attacks on vessels and the mining of the strait could push prices to USD 90 or higher. “Direct attacks on Gulf oil facilities would significantly raise prices, but would also strain Iran’s already fragile regional relationships and irritate China,” he adds.
By contrast, in Rücker’s view, the most feared scenario is not its closure, but severe damage to the region’s key oil and gas infrastructure. “So far, either Iran has not attempted to attack the region’s key oil and gas infrastructure, which would be surprising, or it has not succeeded. Such an attempt would trigger a forceful response, draw regional powers, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, into the conflict, and likely could not be sustained over time. Therefore, the most feared scenario, a disruption of oil and gas supply with economic impact, would require severe infrastructure damage, rather than the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, something that should have occurred in the early days of the conflict,” argues the Julius Baer expert.
The private credit default rate (PCDR) of Fitch Ratings in the U.S. increased to 5.8% for the trailing twelve months (TTM) through January 2026, up from 5.6% in December 2025. This marks the highest rate since its inception in August 2024.
The PCDR consists of two components: the Model-Implied Credit Opinion (MCO) default rate and the Privately Monitored Rating (PMR) default rate. In January, the MCO default rate increased from 4.5% to 4.7%, and the PMR default rate rose from 9.2% to 9.4%.
Fitch recorded 11 PCDR default events in February, nearly double the 2025 monthly average of 5.9. This approaches the peak of 13 default events recorded in November 2025.
Default activity spanned 10 sectors, two of which were broadcasting and media. Nine new unique defaulters emerged, with two repeat defaulters completing the 11 default events. Of the 11 default events, seven involved the introduction of payment-in-kind (PIK) interest in lieu of cash interest, three were related to distressed maturity extensions, and one resulted from an uncured payment default.
In the 12-month period through January, 74 unique defaulters generated 89 events. Interest payment deferrals and the introduction of PIK in lieu of cash interest drove 60% of defaults. Distressed maturity extensions accounted for 27%, and uncured payment defaults represented 6%. The remaining 8% involved bankruptcies, liquidations, and debt-for-equity swaps or out-of-court restructurings in which sponsors exited their investments.
Healthcare services providers remained the sector with the highest number of unique defaulters in the 12-month period through January 2026. Fitch’s sector outlook for healthcare services providers in 2026 is “neutral.” Positive demand growth supports a stable operating environment; however, stricter eligibility rules and redeterminations under the 2025 Medicaid Act are expected to reduce enrollment and increase the number of uninsured individuals.
Consumer products recorded eight unique defaulters, the second-highest number over the past 12 months. The sector’s default rate increased from 11.0% in December 2025 to 12.8% and more than doubled from the 6.1% recorded in January 2025. Fitch expects weak consumer conditions to limit transaction volumes in the sector, particularly for discretionary goods, as highlighted in the U.S. Consumer Products Outlook for 2026.
Technology software, the third-largest PCDR sector by number of issuers, recorded only three unique defaults in the trailing twelve months (TTM) through January 2026. The sector’s default rate declined from 7.5% in January 2025 to 1.9%. Fitch expects risks for the software and cloud services industry to emerge primarily over the medium term, according to the Software and Cloud Services Outlook for 2026. While AI could lower barriers to entry for new competitors, the mission-critical nature and high switching costs of many enterprise software products continue to protect incumbent operators.
Pixabay CC0 Public DomainAuthor: JerzyGórecki, Pixabay
U.S. government measures aimed at changing the country’s eating patterns provide a significant boost to companies that form part of the supply chains of so-called “real food” and those engaged in product reformulation. The new guidelines emphasize protein, dairy products and quality fats, tighten the nutritional criteria to be applied in schools and change the conditions for the use of food assistance benefits.¹
This measure marks a major shift in the direction of nutrition policy. By prioritizing “real food” in its new dietary guidelines, the government makes clear its intention to redirect the national diet toward alternatives to ultra-processed foods, favoring unprocessed or minimally processed, nutrient-dense foods.
This policy shift has far-reaching implications for investors, as in practice the government is seeking to steer both consumer behavior and the billions of dollars allocated to institutional food purchasing.
In our view, as institutions and consumers adapt to these new nutritional criteria, companies that already have capabilities in “real food” supply chains and product reformulation technologies could benefit disproportionately from the new regulation.
A Radical Shift from the Nutrition Policy of Recent Decades
To fully understand the scale of this change, it is necessary to go back to the original food pyramid published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1992.
Those guidelines prioritized refined carbohydrates over nutrient-rich proteins and healthy fats. They were based on a daily intake of between six and eleven servings from the grain group, such as bread, rice and pasta. Fats and oils were relegated to very moderate consumption.
The 2025–2030 U.S. guidelines mark an almost complete reversal of this trend. In the new “inverted pyramid” framework, foods from the grain group have been moved to the bottom, while quality proteins, whole dairy products and healthy fats take center stage in a balanced diet.
This shift falls within a broader mandate from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Americans to “eat real food.”² Among the most significant aspects of the new policy are the following:
The new guidelines recommend a daily intake of between 1.2 and 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight.
The government has declared “war on added sugar,” replacing the vague recommendation of “10% of total daily calories” with a strict limit of no more than 10 grams of added sugar per meal. In addition, it states that added sugar is not part of a healthy diet for children under four years old.
The new guidelines endorse fat sources from unprocessed or minimally processed foods, such as whole dairy products, eggs and red meat, as essential components of a nutrient-rich diet.
The Scope of the New Guidelines
Although consumption trends often take years to change, the impact of the new guidelines will be felt immediately due to nutrition policy. The guidelines are not mere recommendations: they constitute a mandatory framework that determines how billions of dollars in public food spending must be allocated.
Before ultimately influencing broader U.S. market standards, the most significant ramifications of the new guidelines are likely to be seen directly in two key areas:
School nutrition: the guidelines determine the menus of around 30 million students. Currently, ultra-processed foods account for nearly two thirds of caloric intake among those under 18. We anticipate a revision of federal school meal standards that prioritizes quality protein and whole dairy products and sets strict limits on added sugars.
Public assistance: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program currently serves 42 million low-income Americans, 78% of whom also receive healthcare coverage through Medicaid. The government therefore has a clear financial incentive to change the conditions governing the use of food assistance benefits to prevent them from being spent on unhealthy products associated with obesity and other health problems.
The United States accounts for nearly 30% of global food spending, so this policy shift could have a significant impact on investment opportunities in the global food sector.
This does not mean that the new guidelines reflect global scientific consensus on healthy eating. In fact, the inclusion of certain elements, such as the recommendation to consume red meat and animal fats, mostly saturated, is highly controversial. Nevertheless, we believe they could accelerate the transition toward healthier, more nutrient-rich diets that is already underway.
Structural Beneficiaries of the Shift Toward “Real Food”
In our view, the new guidelines enhance investment opportunities in five specific areas:
Quality protein. We believe that the notable increase in recommended protein intake will benefit high-quality aquaculture and dairy producers, which also aligns with growing health and wellness awareness and the increasing penetration of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. In our view, leading farmed salmon producers are well positioned, as the new guidelines explicitly endorse the consumption of omega-3-rich fish.
Fresh produce. The new pyramid prioritizes fruit and vegetables, which could favor market-leading producers in this segment.
Herbs and spices. The new guidelines encourage Americans to reduce sodium and added sugar consumption, meaning herbs and spices could become valuable allies in adding flavor to “real food.” Spice and seasoning companies may benefit.
Fermented foods and gut health. For the first time, U.S. federal guidelines explicitly endorse the consumption of fermented foods such as kefir,sauerkraut and miso. We believe leaders in the yogurt sector and in specialized starter cultures and enzymes are well positioned to benefit from this focus on microbiome health.
Reformulation. Food manufacturers face the difficult task of removing added sugars from existing products. To address the technical challenge of complying with the new, stricter limits while maintaining taste, many manufacturers are partnering with specialized ingredient suppliers and food reformulation companies.
A New Direction for U.S. Food Policy
The new guidelines from the U.S. Department of Agriculture signal a new direction for the U.S. food market. Given their potential to reshape the allocation of food spending in the country, these changes are not insignificant for the global food sector, nor for those who invest in it.
By prioritizing minimally processed foods and tightening nutritional criteria in a market currently dominated by ultra-processed products, we believe the new guidelines could strongly favor leading providers of products and services that enable healthier diets.
iShares, Amundi, Vanguard, Invesco, and Xtrackers outpaced their rival ETF issuers in 2025 thanks to strong asset-gathering momentum and new launch activity, according to the new ranking published by ETF Stream. The study, titled ETF Issuer Power Rankings 2025, concluded that the trio of U.S. asset managers recorded significant relative progress compared with their competitors in the European listed ETF market.
The report reached this conclusion based on its own methodology, which evaluates five metrics over a 12-month period: flows (absolute and relative in 2025); trading (cumulative volume and volume relative to the number of ETPs); revenues (absolute fee income and revenue relative to the number of ETPs); activity (number of ETP and strategy launches); and presence (absolute flows by product class).
According to the report, the world’s largest asset manager, BlackRock, tops this issuer ranking for the first time after not only surpassing its own results from previous years, but also recording in 2025 more net inflows and higher trading volume in its European ETF business than its next four competitors combined.
To highlight some of the figures that explain its leadership, iShares recorded net inflows of $92.8 billion in equities and $36.1 billion in fixed income, comfortably more than double those of its closest competitor and around 40% higher than the amounts it posted in each category last year. “Its leadership extended across most segments, with particularly wide gaps in ESG, emerging markets and commodities, where it added $26 billion, $12.1 billion and $7.7 billion in net new assets, respectively,” the report notes.
It also left virtually no front uncovered, with 36 new launches spanning from active core building blocks to collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) and corporate crossovers, quantum computing and AI themes, new ways of weighting U.S. and global equities, and its long-anticipated entry into cryptoasset exchange-traded products (ETPs).
The New York-based manager’s cumulative trading volume in 2025, at $1.84 trillion, marked a notable increase from $1.47 trillion the previous year and was more than three times that of the next most liquid issuer. “It remains to be seen whether its 2026 initiatives in more active launches and more targeted exposures can maintain the same growth pace on an already colossal scale,” the report states.
From second to fifth place
Following iShares’ lead is the European firm Amundi. Europe’s largest asset manager climbed the ranking again after adopting an offensive strategy in low-cost core products and in its retail offering, while also outlining a plan to establish a meaningful presence in the European active ETF and white-label segments. “The launch of its low-fee core range and the expansion of its well-established synthetic replication platform supported $33.9 billion in equity ETF inflows, alongside demand for its well-positioned country-sector strategies, including its European banks product. The firm also recorded $16.9 billion in fixed income strategies, led by strong investment in exposures such as short-duration euro corporate debt,” the report states.
Looking ahead to this year, a shift in focus will see the firm join players such as State Street and DWS in supporting third parties entering the market by offering capital markets support, alongside plans to develop its own in-house active ETF range and a more granular fixed income offering.
Notably, after Amundi, third and fourth place in the ranking are once again occupied by U.S. firms: Vanguard and Invesco. According to the report, Vanguard, founded by Jack Bogle, reached the podium for the first time after ending a three-year drought without launching European ETFs, undertaking ambitious retail distribution initiatives and cutting fees on its core offerings. The Pennsylvania-based manager recorded significant net inflows, attracting $31.7 billion in new money during 2025—the third-highest figure among all issuers—despite ending the year with a limited range of just 40 products.
For its part, Invesco broke into the top five after posting the second-largest inflows in the smart beta and commodities segments, which, together with market performance, drove 44.6% growth in assets under management in its European ETP business.
Rounding out the top five is another European firm: Xtrackers by DWS. “The firm showed strong traction, with the fourth-largest inflows and the third-highest cumulative trading volume, reaching $472.3 billion. However, outflows in certain segments meant that its solid $31 billion in net new assets were less impressive in relative terms compared with the $39 billion in inflows that its European Xtrackers business had gathered the previous year,” the report notes. Like Amundi, the German manager benefited from partnerships with third parties. Specifically, it launched an ETF of ETFs in collaboration with Zurich Insurance and two active equity ETFs based on AI together with DJE Kapital.
Industry trends of the year
“While core indexed exposures continue to account for the bulk of scale in European ETFs, the past year has been characterized by issuers racing to lead the market in active ETF launches, retail distribution and third-party ETF-as-a-service offerings,” explains Jamie Gordon, editor of ETF Stream.
According to the report, other leading ETF providers in Europe made notable strides in asset gathering and strategic initiatives, ranging from new partnerships with neobrokers to capitalize on the growing weight of retail investors to launching full ranges of active ETFs for the first time. “Many even began to ‘rent out’ their capabilities to allow new managers to enter the format for the first time,” they add.
It also notes that competition in the nascent European active ETF segment is intensifying, with new entrants gradually eroding the dominance of market leader J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Nordea and Robeco, which narrowly missed inclusion in this year’s ranking, both ranked among the top 25 issuers by net new asset inflows in their new ETF businesses.
Looking ahead, future-oriented themes experienced a revival driven by defense after two years of net outflows, enabling specialists such as VanEck, WisdomTree and Global X to improve their position compared with last year’s ranking.
In light of these findings, Pawel Janus, co-founder and head of analytics at ETFbook, believes that European ETFs continue to show strong structural growth, reflected not only in rising assets under management but also in accelerating product innovation and an increasingly broad issuer landscape. “The market’s competitive dynamics are evolving rapidly, especially with the expansion of active ETFs and increasingly specialized strategies. In this environment, scale alone is no longer enough. Issuers must differentiate themselves through innovation, distribution strength and operational excellence,” Janus concludes.
The market for active bond ETFs has grown exponentially in recent years, with net investment inflows exceeding $270 billion in just the past two years. Total assets under management reached $490 billion at the end of January 2026, and active ETFs now represent one fifth of the total assets in bond ETFs. Firms have responded to this growing demand by launching more than 270 strategies over the past two years, and these new entrants account for a quarter of all active bond ETFs, according to a Morningstar study.
Given this “dizzying” pace of development, an investor may wonder whether an active bond ETF has a place in their portfolio. At Morningstar, they believe that while the investment merits of each ETF vary, “there are some important considerations that should guide investors in the right direction.”
The Price of Active Management
Active bond ETFs carry a premium compared with their passive counterparts: their average annual fee of 0.45% is higher than the 0.24% average for passive bond ETFs. Active managers also tend to charge more in riskier categories: the average fees for emerging markets or multisector active bond ETFs are nearly double those of corporate or ultrashort bond ETFs. “While these complex segments of the market offer greater upside potential, they can also expose investors to higher volatility and sharper drawdowns. A higher price does not always translate into greater management skill,” the firm notes.
In contrast, the difference in fees between active and passive ETFs is not uniform across all categories. Managing a bond fund is a costly task in riskier and more nuanced categories, such as emerging markets or high-yield bonds. As a result, investors do not face a significant increase in costs in these cases if they choose active management, as Morningstar explains.
On the other hand, cost compression among passive ETFs in safer and more straightforward categories, such as intermediate core and intermediate core-plus, makes it difficult for active managers to compete on fees. “Active ETFs in these categories must offer an even greater edge for the investment to be worthwhile,” the firm concludes.
More Risk, More Reward?
According to Morningstar’s Active/Passive Barometer, active bond managers are more likely to outperform their passive counterparts than active equity managers. Although their success rate hovers around 50% over longer periods, active bond managers have more tools at their disposal to generate excess returns.
A recent analysis by Eric Jacobson and Maciej Kowara, of Morningstar, explains why active bond managers find it easier to achieve better results. The study notes that indexed funds face limitations that active managers do not, and that they can gain an advantage simply by including asset subclasses that fall outside the scope of the indexes or by tilting toward certain risks, provided this is done prudently.
To keep an index investable, most providers limit the range to the most liquid, or most heavily traded, part of the bond market and exclude more complex securities, such as floating-rate bonds or convertibles. Market value weighting also tilts index portfolios toward the higher-quality segments of the market, typically Treasury bonds or higher-rated corporate bonds.
In many categories, active managers’ ability to achieve better results lies in their flexibility to take on more risk than an indexed portfolio typically allows. While they may benefit more when riskier bonds rebound, this can also cause many active portfolios to lag behind their indexed counterparts during stressed markets.
So far, the average active corporate bond ETF has remained close to its benchmark because managers have limited room to maneuver in this largely investment-grade category. However, in categories where managers have a broader range of asset subclasses to choose from—such as intermediate core and short-term—and greater flexibility in terms of credit risk—for example, intermediate core-plus—the situation is slightly different: the sharp decline in March 2020 and the subsequent rebounds during the 2021 recovery point to the higher levels of risk these managers take to outperform their benchmarks, according to the Morningstar study.
“For a conservative portfolio that uses bonds as a counterbalance, these sharp swings are likely too risky to justify their potential returns,” Morningstar notes, adding that investors can use a “well-constructed” active portfolio to achieve “greater benefits in these categories, but they must understand that these returns come with additional risk.” Therefore, active bond ETFs require “more frequent reviews and more thorough due diligence compared with many passive bond ETFs.”
The Advantage of Manager Selection
The firm notes that some segments of the bond market are better suited to active management: high-yield bonds and emerging markets bonds are two of them, “given their relatively lower liquidity and higher credit risk.”
However, choosing an active ETF in any of these categories does not guarantee success. The greater margin for error also makes it harder for active managers to avoid pitfalls. The chart shows the dispersion of excess returns of active bond ETFs relative to their respective category index over the past three years. “The range is narrow for relatively safer categories, such as ultrashort- or short-term bonds, but widens dramatically for emerging markets or multisector bond ETFs,” the firm notes.
The outperformance of active bond ETFs often comes with higher risk. A good active manager can ensure that investors are adequately compensated for it. Choosing an experienced management team with a consistent track record, especially during periods of market stress, should be beneficial for investors.
Photo courtesyMarlen Lopez, Senior Wealth Advisor and Founding Partner of Excelsis Global Private Wealth.
The vision of Marlen López, Senior Wealth Advisor and Founding Partner of Excelsis Global Private Wealth, on the offshore U.S. advisory industry has been shaped by her experience at major firms, her entrepreneurial journey, and her ability to interpret the trends that have defined this business.
López began her career at JPMorgan Chase, where she learned how to build strong, lasting client relationships, developing a skill that would become the backbone of her professional path. However, it was during the Great Recession, when she transitioned into a new role as a financial advisor, that her career reached a turning point.
“My transition to Merrill Lynch during this period of intense market instability represented a transformative challenge. I took on the responsibility of supporting families and high-net-worth clients as they navigated economic uncertainty, refining my ability to design resilient wealth strategies and build deep, trust-based relationships,” López recalls.
The Courage to Be Entrepreneurial
Although she later continued her professional development at firms such as Wells Fargo Advisors, it was not until 2021 that, together with four other independent global wealth management teams, López brought her project, The Lopez Private Wealth Group, into the creation of Excelsis Global Private Wealth, in partnership with Sanctuary Wealth.
“The relationship I had cultivated with the founders of Sanctuary Wealth during my time at Merrill Lynch was key to this transition. Their confidence in our mission and vision allowed us to collaborate in developing an independent, boutique model designed to exceed the expectations of our high-net-worth clients. Sanctuary Wealth not only shares our philosophy, but also provides a comprehensive platform that includes products, technological innovation, and operational support, allowing us to focus on delivering truly personalized, world-class service,” she explains.
Regarding her business decisions, López’s assessment is clear: “The Lopez Private Wealth Group represents the commitment to excellence that has always guided me. Our mission is to deliver top-tier financial expertise, personalized service, and innovative strategies that create value at every stage of life and across every generation of the families we serve.”
An Environment of Consolidation
That mission remains unchanged, even within a business landscape marked by strong consolidation, increasing sophistication, and a redefinition of the advisory model. In her view, these three dynamics are unfolding simultaneously and intertwining to shape a new era in the wealth management industry.
“Consolidation is reflected in the rise of independent models and RIAs, which offer advisors greater autonomy and competitiveness. More advisors are migrating toward models that allow them to operate with greater independence and control over their practices, whether by partnering with platforms like Sanctuary Wealth, which offer flexibility without sacrificing access to high-level tools, or by building their own models from the ground up,” she states.
For López, sophistication is evident in the growing demand for comprehensive, highly personalized services similar to those of family offices—once reserved exclusively for the ultra-wealthy and now extending to a broader client base. “Finally, the redefinition is being driven by demographic, technological, and cultural shifts, such as the generational transfer of wealth, which requires advisors to adapt to new expectations around personalization, advanced technology, and human connection in order to retain key assets,” she adds.
Industry Trends
Over the years, she has observed a significant shift in the profile of offshore clients, driven by a combination of geopolitical uncertainty and generational change. “One of the most notable trends we see is the increasing sophistication of clients, with a clear focus on multigenerational wealth planning. This evolution is largely due to geopolitical instability in many of the countries we serve, which has heightened demand for expert guidance to navigate the uncertainties clients face daily, not only in their home countries, but globally,” she explains.
At the same time, she notes that as these challenges have intensified, so too has the need for robust portfolio strategies that provide clients with a sense of security and peace of mind. “In times of uncertainty, clients are highly focused on protecting their wealth and ensuring the long-term financial stability of their families. They rely on us as trusted advisors to help them build and safeguard their wealth in ways that address not only what is within their control, but also mitigate risks arising from external factors beyond their reach.”
Another significant shift has been the emergence of a younger, more technologically savvy generation stepping into leadership roles within the families they serve. “The evolving profile of offshore clients reflects a combination of global uncertainties and generational transformation. This has amplified the need for knowledgeable and adaptable expert teams capable of guiding clients through these complexities,” she affirms.
Within this broader industry transformation, the strength of the client relationship remains a cornerstone of successful business practices, particularly in the offshore market. In López’s view, trust, transparency, and ongoing education are critical components in building and sustaining that bond.
“While platforms and technology can enhance efficiency, streamline processes, and provide valuable insights, human connection and the ability to genuinely understand and address a client’s needs are irreplaceable. These relationships are cultivated through consistent communication, delivering on commitments, and honesty, qualities that foster loyalty and long-term partnerships. It is the fusion of people-centered values with platform-driven capabilities that creates a dynamic and impactful client experience,” she emphasizes.
Looking Ahead
When asked what she expects from the industry in the coming years, her message is clear: wealth management will undergo significant evolution driven by personalization, technology, and shifting client expectations. “Clients, regardless of their wealth level, demand highly personalized services similar to those offered to ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) individuals. Advanced technology, including AI, predictive analytics, and digital platforms, will streamline operations, but human connection and ‘white-glove’ service will remain irreplaceable,” she argues.
As she notes, a key development, highlighted by Adam Malamed, CEO of Sanctuary Wealth, is the democratization of the family office experience: “Firms will expand access to high-level holistic services, such as multigenerational planning, family governance, and financial advisory, making them available to a broader range of clients.”
She also underscores that significant intergenerational wealth transfers highlight the need to connect deeply with future wealth holders, aligning services with their values, such as interest in ESG investing. In this context, she maintains that firms that cultivate a strong cultural identity and entrepreneurial flexibility will attract both advisors and clients, ensuring resilience and growth in a competitive environment. “To thrive, firms must embrace innovation while prioritizing relationship-building, constantly evolving to meet client needs. Those that fail to adapt risk losing relevance in this transformative era,” López insists.
Her main conclusion regarding the offshore business is that “while it faces challenges such as geopolitical uncertainty stemming from trade tensions, changes in immigration policies, and perceptions of protectionist measures by the United States toward Latin America; as well as strict regulation (KYC/AML) requiring longer and more complex processes to ensure global compliance and combat illicit activity; and tax complexities related to withholding taxes, succession laws, and legal structures that may be confusing for foreign investors—it remains highly attractive to Latin American investors seeking refuge, diversification, and growth in a stable, secure environment with access to liquid markets and unique opportunities.”
She emphasizes that “to capitalize on these opportunities, clients and advisors must adapt to changing conditions, prioritizing transparency, regulatory compliance, and delivering an innovative, highly personalized approach that responds to modern market demands.”
Statements and executive orders issued by U.S. President Donald Trump since the start of his term are having a direct negative impact on major U.S. defense companies, while, by comparison, European firms appear relatively better positioned.
According to WisdomTree, the measures promoted by the White House directly affect capital allocation and margins at leading U.S. military contractors, weighing on their share prices relative to their European peers. In Europe’s case, however, the effect is not so much an immediate boost as a relative advantage. Investors are increasingly valuing European companies more positively due to their lower governance risk and greater flexibility in returning capital to shareholders.
What Trump Has Done:
Trump has announced a temporary ban on dividend payments and share buybacks for U.S. defense companies until weapons production accelerates. He has also publicly criticized what he considers excessive executive compensation and has demanded new investments in industrial facilities. The president justifies these decisions by pointing to delays in the manufacturing, deployment, and maintenance of military equipment, and has warned that he is prepared to reshape how the military-industrial complex operates.
This new policy direction prioritizes increased production capacity, speed, and manufacturing volume over shareholder remuneration. As a result, cash flow visibility could decline and valuations of major U.S. defense companies could come under pressure.
Although demand for military equipment remains strong, the government’s confrontational tone toward management teams increases regulatory and governance risk in the United States, an element that, by comparison, enhances the appeal of European defense companies.
Trump Proposes a Record $1.5 Trillion Military Budget in 2027 and Reinforces the Position of European Defense
President Donald Trump has called for a U.S. military budget of $1.5 trillion in 2027, significantly higher than the $901 billion approved by Congress for 2026. While this has supported defense sector stocks, it has also generated skepticism among budget experts. Trump’s request for a record budget reinforces the view that the world is moving toward a more militarized, hard-power equilibrium, indirectly strengthening the bullish case for European defense, even as his capital allocation controls specifically target large U.S. contractors. At a macro level, it is further confirmation that the notion of a “peace dividend” has come to an end.
The proposal follows immediately after the operation in Venezuela and comes alongside threats to redirect procurement away from contractors that continue share buybacks instead of investing in factories, equipment, and capacity.
On one hand, a much larger U.S. budget is clearly positive for global defense demand, supply chain volumes, and the perceived durability of the cycle. On the other, Trump is explicitly tying this funding to conditions: restrictions on buybacks and dividends, and pressure on what he calls “exorbitant” executive pay. This creates a more restrictive governance and capital return environment for large U.S. firms than for most of their European counterparts.
Several major European defense companies could benefit from increased U.S. spending without facing the same constraints. These include BAE Systems, with exposure to naval systems, electronics, and munitions; Fincantieri, through its U.S. shipbuilding subsidiaries; Leonardo, in helicopters and electronic systems; Rheinmetall, expanding munitions and vehicles in the United States; and Safran, with aerospace and electronic defense exposure. This positioning allows them to tap into strong U.S. demand while maintaining the capital return flexibility typical of the European market.
This announcement comes amid a tense geopolitical backdrop, with several factors reinforcing the case for higher defense budgets in Europe. Peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine have stalled again, and recent Ukrainian advances around Kupiansk underscore that the conflict remains unresolved, with no clear dominance by either side. The persistence of these tensions supports expectations of sustained elevated budgets and order flows in the European defense sector for years to come, rather than as a temporary phenomenon.
Greenland/Arctic Flashpoint
Trump’s renewed threats and rhetoric regarding “options” around Greenland, including not ruling out the use of military force against the territory of a NATO ally, are being described as a potentially unprecedented challenge to NATO, raising the risk of confrontation within the alliance itself.
This Arctic dimension reinforces growing investment needs in surveillance, air and missile defense, naval assets, and Arctic-capable capabilities for Europe and the Nordic countries, adding yet another theater to Europe’s already crowded threat landscape.
How These Catalysts Reinforce Europe’s Defense Advantage Over the U.S.
Taken together, stalled peace efforts in Ukraine, tensions over Greenland, and the intervention in Venezuela validate Europe’s decision to secure significantly higher spending and localize critical capabilities, reinforcing the multi-trillion-dollar rearmament trajectory.
Combined with Trump’s restrictions on U.S. defense buybacks and dividends, these new catalysts further tilt the balance in favor of European contractors. They benefit from clearer capital return narratives, direct budgetary tailwinds from multiple theaters, and a growing premium on European strategic autonomy in the face of a more politically volatile U.S. security umbrella.
This material has been prepared by WisdomTree and its affiliates and is not intended to be used as a forecast, research, or investment advice, nor does it constitute a recommendation, offer, or solicitation to buy or sell securities or to adopt any investment strategy. The views expressed are as of the date of publication and may change as subsequent conditions evolve. The information and opinions contained in this material are derived from both proprietary and non-proprietary sources. As such, no guarantee of accuracy or reliability is provided, and WisdomTree, its affiliates, and their respective officers, employees, or agents accept no liability for errors or omissions (including liability to any person due to negligence). Any reliance on the information contained in this material is at the reader’s sole discretion. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.
Insigneo has announced a strategic agreement with Fund@mental, a global platform focused on enhancing investment decision-making through data-driven insights. According to the firm, this integration incorporates Fund@mental’s technology into Insigneo’s proprietary Alia platform, equipping all of Insigneo’s investment professionals with powerful tools to analyze funds, build portfolios, and develop client proposals.
The firm notes that this represents another step in its commitment to innovation, operational efficiency, and client-focused service. Following the integration, Alia users benefit from a more streamlined analysis and proposal development process. Insigneo’s investment professionals now have access to these enhanced capabilities through Alia, further reinforcing the firm’s technology-driven growth strategy.
“At Insigneo, we believe technology should enhance human potential, not replace it. Bringing Fund@mental into Alia aligns with our vision of a more agile wealth management ecosystem grounded in stronger analytics. This integration not only saves time for our investment professionals but also enables them to grow their businesses more efficiently,” said Javier Rivero, President and Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Insigneo.
The Fund@mental platform, designed by wealth managers for wealth managers, offers features such as real-time market monitoring, comprehensive fund evaluations, and integrated collaboration tools. Available in English and Spanish, it connects the global wealth management community with clarity and precision, helping professionals navigate increasingly complex investment environments.
“We are excited to collaborate with Insigneo, a leader in global wealth management. Our mission has always been to simplify investment decisions through transparent technology, and integrating with Alia expands that impact to a broader network of committed professionals,” said Gustavo Cano, Founder and CEO of Fund@mental.
Alia is Insigneo’s next-generation wealth management platform, designed to unify custody, trading, reporting, analytics, and operational tools within a single ecosystem. According to the firm, the platform reflects Insigneo’s strategy to modernize the way investment professionals manage their practices through integrated technology and more efficient workflows.
There is broad consensus that global economic growth will remain stable in 2026, although political uncertainty, particularly regarding the U.S., as well as geopolitical conflicts, will persist. In this context, the rating agency EthiFinance Ratings expects sovereign ratings to remain stable, especially due to continued access to markets, orderly debt management, and a monetary policy environment in the process of normalization. However, the agency warns that rating differences are becoming increasingly pronounced, driven by disparities in potential growth, political and institutional instability, and uneven fiscal trajectories.
These outlooks and reflections are relevant because, as Antonio Madera, Chief Economist at EthiFinance, notes, a rating is “that big elephant that is hard to move, but when it moves, it makes noise.” In his experience, specialized investors assign ratings the role they are meant to have, that of assessing solvency in a way that should remain stable throughout cycles and not be sensitive to them. “Unlike what happened during the sovereign debt crisis, when an acute solvency problem exacerbated by a financial crisis was signaled, in this case the perception is one of greater acceptance of ratings around the assigned levels,” he warns.
Divergences in Europe
In Europe, by country, the EthiFinance Ratings Sovereign Credit Map places Germany, the Netherlands, and the Nordic countries among those with the highest level of confidence in policy execution and fiscal preservation; while Portugal and Greece show that fiscal adjustments and structural reforms can reshape a sovereign profile; and France, Italy, and Spain face “challenging” fiscal positions, with high public debt and persistent fiscal deficits, although with differences among them.
According to his analysis, Portugal is a clear example of a country capable of moving from intervention to a balanced public finance position, a path that Greece also appears to be following, “although still with very worrying levels of public debt,” he adds.
Doubts About the U.S.?
Regarding the U.S., Madera acknowledges that Moody’s downgrade last year is not, in itself, a reason to question the country’s ability to meet its obligations in full and on time, in terms of default probability, the difference between AAA and AA is minimal, as it remains an extremely safe issuer. “Rather, it underscores that its current fiscal position, debt burden, external deficit, and institutional quality are no longer fully aligned with the level of excellence required of a AAA-rated country,” he notes.
Madera is confident that, just as he does not foresee an upgrade to the U.S. rating, he also sees no grounds for a further downgrade. However, he acknowledges a meaningful risk related to the institutional factor, an element that often goes unnoticed in developed countries but serves as the cornerstone underpinning their ratings.
“Political deadlocks over the debt ceiling, the inability to outline a clear fiscal path, and/or recurring threats to the Fed’s independence erode investor confidence and weigh on governance. Added to this is the fact that the U.S. rating rests in part on the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. While I have no doubt that the dollar will continue to play that role, geopolitical volatility and concerns about the fiscal outlook have nonetheless weakened it, prompting some investors to seek safer currency alternatives across the Atlantic. In this context, the path toward fiscal consolidation becomes even more essential,” Madera explains.
Faced with a lower U.S. rating, markets tend to magnify uncertainties, although in this specific case they have already priced in the likelihood that an upgrade will not materialize in the short or medium term. “Not belonging to the group of triple-A countries excludes certain institutional investors who require that rating threshold, although the shrinking number of countries within that select club is prompting a reassessment of investment policies,” he explains.
Based on his experience, what truly concerns him is the cyclical dimension driven by geopolitical uncertainty and declining confidence. “Among other effects, it directly increases the cost of debt and, consequently, erodes the fiscal buffer, something that undoubtedly exacerbates the imbalances mentioned earlier,” he adds.
Diversity in LatAm
In Madera’s view, Latin America occupies a significant place on the complex geopolitical chessboard that has taken shape in recent years, one on which the U.S. appears keen to maintain influence, as reflected in recent developments in Venezuela and threats of broader regional spillovers. “Amid this uncertainty, we see a positive development in the historic agreement between Europe and Mercosur, which opens access to a vast potential market for both sides and is likely to support economic growth in the region. Moreover, foreign capital flows may increasingly turn toward these markets, many of which require investment, in search of alternatives to the U.S.,” he highlights.
Overall, his outlook for the region remains stable, and he does not expect these risks or opportunities to materialize in the near term. “Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Brazil will continue to exhibit the strongest solvency levels in the region. However, they will not be immune, particularly Peru and Brazil, which face elections this year, as does Colombia, to a climate of institutional fragmentation, intensified by external pressures fueling polarization. In other countries across the region with dollarized economies, the effects may be mixed, both in terms of international trade and debt dynamics,” Madera notes.
When asked about the “overlooked strong ratings” in the region, he once again points to Chile, Uruguay, and Peru. “The first two stand out for their greater governmental stability and institutional quality, with Chile also benefiting from more balanced public finances. Peru, while broadly comparable, faces greater political tensions than the other two,” he concludes.
