SpaceX CEO Elon Musk characteristically fanned the flames, declaring that SpaceX will someday shuttle private citizens to the moon, Mars and beyond. The IPO quickly became the largest in history. With dreams of making money in a galaxy far, far away — or at least beyond earth’s atmosphere — investors also poured capital into a host of space-related ETFs.

Sceptics couldn’t be blamed for having doubts about tourism on Mars. But the space economy is no Jedi mind trick. It’s already generating real-world opportunities for astute investors.

“It would be a mistake to write this off as science fiction,” says Michael Beckwith, equity portfolio manager. “The declining cost of getting into orbit will expand some businesses and open doors to others that were unimaginable a couple years ago. Some will materialise quickly; others will take much longer.”

The question for investors: how do you distinguish between mere fantasy and tangible opportunities that can generate value before the next time Halley’s Comet next flashes by?

Here are six opportunities for investing in the space economy.

1. Space is not one, but many markets

Space is not a single market, but a constellation of existing and potential markets.

The gateway to these opportunities is a space travel ecosystem that starts with rocket manufacturing and launch but also includes ground infrastructure and satellite development. This layer of infrastructure serves as a doorway to other businesses, such as satellite communications, Earth observation, logistics, navigation and defence systems.

“Most of the revenue opportunities are in these downstream businesses, not in launch,” explains equity analyst Andrei Muresianu, who covers US telecom, cable and media companies.

Further cost reductions in launch make other businesses feasible, including the placement of AI data centres in space, which could happen in the next five to 10 years. Further down the road, companies are also exploring the potential for zero-gravity manufacturing, space travel and mining.

“Space may be like The New World when Europe explored it 500 years ago,” Muresianu adds. “First there was extraction and one-way trade, then colonisation, manufacturing and eventually a self-sustaining society.”

In total, space represents a $630 billion economy and is expected to grow to $1.8 trillion by 2035, according to the World Economic Forum.

2. Launch costs are plummeting

Once rare and costly, rocket launches are now routine. SpaceX, which launched its 100^th mission of 2026 in August, has dominated launch, accounting for 90% of the total payload taken into orbit, up from about 5% a decade ago.

State-sponsored efforts in China rank a distant second globally in terms of launch payloads. Other companies that have active launch programs include Rocket Lab, United Launch Alliance (ULA), Relativity Space and Blue Origin.

SpaceX has come to dominate the launch business by  making rockets partly reusable. This breakthrough and other advances drove down the cost to reach low Earth orbit from $54,000 per kilogram in the days of the Space Shuttle to $2,700 per kilogram today. This kickstarted commercial opportunities previously economically unfeasible and spawned dozens of new companies.

SpaceX is now testing its next generation rocket, Starship, a fully reusable orbital launch system capable of carrying as much as 100 to 150 metric tons to low Earth orbit, versus about 23 tons for today’s Falcon 9 rocket.

“Starship could be the railroad to the next space economy,” Muresianu says.

3. AI in space is no longer science fiction

The pieces are already in place for orbital data centres to move from the realm of science fiction to reality.

Early demonstrations have already shown that graphic processing units and other hardware can operate in orbit. And companies are beginning to test space-based inferencing and edge computing. To be sure, data centres in space still face challenges, including latency to Earth and the possible effects of radiation. But the key to making them commercially viable is driving down the launch cost.

“Today’s economics make it difficult to launch large networks into space, but if Starship achieves its cost targets and payload capacity, orbital data centres could become a new layer of AI infrastructure,” Beckwith adds. “And space-based systems offer potential advantages compared with earthbound data centres.”

Data centres on Earth are becoming increasingly expensive as hyperscalers run into bottlenecks in the form of scarce land, power and cooling resources. They also face growing opposition from elected officials and local populations.

“In space, data centres could have access to abundant solar power, avoid competition for water and land and face no community resistance,” says equity investment analyst Zach Alexander, who covers the US aerospace and defence industries.

4. Satellite service is coming to your smartphone

Satellite connectivity has already emerged as one of the most promising growth markets in telecommunications. With more than 6,000 satellites in low Earth orbit, SpaceX’s Starlink dominates the sector. Other providers include Amazon Leo (formerly Project Kuiper), AST SpaceMobile and OneWeb. These networks are well suited to providing broadband service to rural regions, aircraft, ships and developing markets where infrastructure is expensive or impractical, but they are less competitive in more populous markets with extensive infrastructure.

Today satellite networks represent only a fraction of the multibillion-dollar global broadband market. However, declining launch costs and advances in satellite development could help these companies expand their market share.

“Satellite broadband is already scaling rapidly and could become a roughly $40 billion market by 2030,” Muresianu says. “But the game changer for satellite communications companies is direct-to-device (D2D) services that allow ordinary smartphones to connect directly to satellites.”

D2D connectivity is still early in its development, with commercial deployments only beginning. As next-generation satellite constellations improve capacity, speed and coverage, satellite operators could capture a growing share of both the broadband and wireless markets.

5. National security priorities will boost the space economy

Not since the Cold War has geopolitical competition been so focused on the stars.

The US, China and other governments increasingly view space-based defense systems as critical to national security. “It could very well be the key battlefield between superpowers,” Alexander says.

In the US, NASA has long-term plans to build a new space station and a permanent base on the Moon. And in August, SpaceX launched NASA’s $4 billion Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope into orbit for cosmic exploration.  Separately, the US Space Force is seeking to double its budget to $70 billion in its fiscal 2027. Much will be invested in satellite communications, intelligence gathering, surveillance and navigation systems.

President Trump has also identified the Golden Dome missile defense system as a key priority for the remainder of his term. Golden Dome plans include upgrading missile tracking and response capabilities to respond to advanced hypersonic missiles and other threats.

“The system is expected to rely heavily on space-based sensors, communications networks and potentially orbital interceptors,” Alexander says. “This effort will involve a number of companies, including most major defence contractors.”

For example, in July the Space Development Agency awarded L3Harris a $955 million contract to build 18 missile-tracking satellites equipped with infrared sensors to detect and track hypersonic and ballistic missiles. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and RTX are among the companies developing space-based missile interceptors.

6. Space manufacturing and travel are not out of the question

Zero-gravity manufacturing of cancer treatments and flights from San Francisco to Tokyo in under 45 minutes may sound outlandish, but as launch costs fall even further and orbit becomes more routine, they become more feasible. And space offers unique physical conditions that cannot be replicated on Earth.

“Space has no dust or rain, heat radiates away, energy is free and unlimited and waste disposal is a minimal expense,” Muresianu explains. “Microgravity changes how crystals form and fluid moves, transforming the way chips, fibre and pharmaceuticals are made, to name a few examples.”

But don’t expect these developments to take place in the next five or 10 years, Muresianu concludes. “I think it’s more realistic to think of these as opportunities in 10 to 30 years.”

By Zach Alexander, equity investment analyst, Michael Beckwith, equity portfolio manager & Andrei Muresianu is an equity investment analyst.

The post Final frontier: Six reasons to explore the space economy appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Alexandra Haggard

Companies worldwide paid a record US$827.3 billion in dividends in the second quarter of 2026, up 7.9% from a year earlier, according to the latest Dividend Watch, part of the Capital Group Global Equity Study^[1]. Core growth, which adjusts for exchange rates, special dividends and other technical factors, was 7.5%, ahead of forecast.

The second quarter is the seasonal high point for global dividends and dividends paid in Q2 2026 alone were larger than the entire annual total as recently as 2011. Growth was also broad-based, with 88% of companies globally increasing dividends or holding them steady, with median growth of 6.0%.

Alexandra Haggard, Head of Product, Europe & Asia at Capital Group, said: “Global dividends accelerated in the second quarter of 2026, with strong growth across most regions and sectors and large increases from some of the world’s biggest companies. The AI boom is no longer just driving markets and boosting share prices. It is now also helping to drive record cash returns for shareholders globally. Active managers like Capital Group are well placed to identify companies across sectors and regions sharing in stronger earnings growth, resulting in record dividend payouts.  In this uncertain environment, active management can help uncover resilient dividend-paying companies that offer investors a dependable source of income, while still participating in long-term corporate growth.”

Sector trends

The fastest growth came from the technology sector, where core payouts rose 26.3% year-on-year in Q2. The AI boom is driving strong profit growth across the global semiconductor supply chain which is feeding into shareholder payouts, with half the sector’s increase coming from the global leader in the US. Technology is on track to become the second-largest dividend-paying sector after financials in 2026 for the first time.

Financials remain the dominant dividend-paying sector for now, by a large margin. Firms raised payouts by US$26 billion (+10.1%) and made the most significant contribution to Q2’s record. Meanwhile, the mining recovery gathered pace with payouts up 15.1%.

Regional trends

Australian companies paid a total of US$5.6bn (A$8bn) in Q2 2026, representing topline growth of 20.1% and core growth of 8.2% on the prior comparative period. Q2 is dividend low season in Australia with just a handful of companies in our index paying a dividend. The largest contributors to our index in Australia included mining groups, financial sector groups and global biotech and biopharmaceutical groups. A stronger Australian dollar helped boost the aggregate topline growth rate.

Geographically, Japan and the wider Pacific region delivered the strongest dividend growth globally, supported by improving corporate profitability, governance reforms and continued shareholder-focus among listed companies.

Q2 marks the seasonal high point for dividends in Europe, accounting for 36% of total dividends paid in the quarter (compared to 21% over the full year). Modest core growth of 3.6% was held back by cuts in the automotive sector, but robust payouts from banks and financial institutions helped offset this weakness, as the sector’s strong recovery increasingly supports European shareholder income.

The U.S. delivered robust growth with core growth reaching 8.7%, while emerging market growth lagged at 4.7%, mainly owing to reductions in the Middle East.

Outlook

The outlook remains positive. Capital Group has upgraded its 2026 global dividend projection to US$2.23 trillion (from US$2.20 trillion), representing topline growth of 6.4% and core growth of 6.0% (up from 4.7%). The main drivers of the upgrade includes stronger-than-expected special dividends, a weaker US dollar and the changed dividend policy of a large U.S. semiconductor company.

Read the report.

The post Capital Group Global Equity Study: Global dividends surge 7.9% to record US$827 billion in Q2 2026 as AI boom lifts payouts appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Shannon Ward

The global high-yield bond market is undergoing a fundamental shift in credit quality that has left its former “junk bond” reputation increasingly disconnected from reality, according to Capital Group fixed income portfolio manager Shannon Ward.

Ms Ward, who has invested in high-yield markets for three decades, said the quality of the market was the highest she had seen, with around 55% of the high-yield universe now rated BB – the highest sub-investment-grade rating – and only around 10% sitting in the lowest CCC category.

“In all my time investing in high yield, I have never seen this market with a higher quality than it has today,” she said.

“Most of the market is now double-B rated and almost investment grade, while there is very little exposure to triple-C.”

This shift is challenging traditional perceptions of high-yield investing at a time when investors can earn yields of around 7–8% from selected issuers.

Ms Ward said the improvement in credit quality partly reflected a change in how lower-quality corporate borrowers finance themselves. More highly leveraged borrowers that historically would have issued high-yield bonds have increasingly turned to leveraged loans and private credit markets.

At the same time, corporate risk appetite has become more conservative, with many companies using strong free cash flow to reduce debt rather than increase leverage.

While high-yield credit spreads remain below long-term averages, Ms Ward said the strength of corporate fundamentals and the absolute yields available to investors continued to make the asset class attractive.

Recent corporate earnings, revenues and cash flows remained solid, while the refinancing market remained open to companies across the credit-quality spectrum, keeping the pool of potential defaults relatively low.

Capital Group Fixed Income Investment Director Haran Karunakaran said the upshot for investors is that high yield has become a much more resilient asset class.

“Most strikingly, high-yield’s beta to equities has fallen from historical levels of 0.3-0.4 (non-crisis periods) to currently under 0.1 (see chart below). And this is while delivering almost 10% p.a. over the last 3 years.”

“The combination of these structural changes in high-yield markets, solid corporate fundamentals and high all-in yields, countering historically tight credit spreads, leaves us moderately constructive on the sector. It’s certainly not the time to go “all in” on high-yield risk, but equally staying out of the market could be costly in terms of foregone returns,” he said.

Ms Ward continued: “The macro backdrop looks very solid and risk-taking attitudes just haven’t been there.

“You have companies that are using their free cash flow to pay down debt.”

The high-yield market has also become shorter duration as companies have increasingly issued five-year rather than eight or 10-year debt, reducing investors’ exposure to movements in government bond yields.

Ward said tight spreads meant investors should retain capacity to increase exposure when periods of market volatility created better entry points, rather than necessarily maintaining maximum allocations.

For financial advisers, Ms Ward said one of the most important implications was to reconsider the traditional perception of high yield as simply the “junk bond” end of fixed income.

The combination of improved credit quality, shorter duration, strong corporate fundamentals and yields of around 7–8% meant high yield could play a role between traditional defensive fixed income and more return-seeking assets.

“The high-yield market should not be thought of as junk bonds. It’s a really well-functioning, diverse way that good-quality companies finance themselves. Many have no aspiration to be investment grade. This means that for investors, it’s a liquid, transparent way to earn returns of around 7% – 8% right now.

The post High yield sheds its ‘junk bond’ past as credit quality reaches historic highs appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The challenge is to understand and to recognise that geopolitics has moved from the margins to the core of markets.

Key takeaways

• The global system is becoming more fragmented and policy-driven, leading to more uneven and less predictable market outcomes.
• Geopolitical risk is now persistent, showing up not just in shocks but through ongoing volatility, bottlenecks and disruptions to how goods, capital and energy move.
• For investors, the priority is resilience: diversifying more deliberately, understanding where risks concentrate, and positioning for a wider range of outcomes shaped by policy.

The global operating system is being re-wired. Strategic rivalry is back, self interest is back, and the institutions built to manage a more cooperative world are visibly straining. None of this is sudden — the pressures have been building since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) — but their impact on markets is becoming harder to ignore. This paper outlines the forces behind this transition, how they are playing out across major powers and regions, and what they mean for portfolio construction in a more fragmented global system.

Part I – The structural transition

Across modern history, world orders have followed a familiar pattern: initial stability, gradual weakening, crisis, and eventual renewal. The 20th century offers a clear illustration, as periods of stability gave way to crisis and renewal.

The post-Cold War system has followed a similar pattern — not through a single break, but through a structural shift compounded by a series of shocks.

China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001 marked an important inflection point in a broader process of global integration. As trade barriers fell and economies became more connected, production networks expanded rapidly across borders. The scale and speed of that shift brought clear benefits, but also changes that were not always fully anticipated¹.

Over the following two decades, factories moved, supply chains stretched across borders, and production increasingly migrated to lower-cost countries. Many communities benefited from globalisation, but others saw jobs disappear and wages come under pressure. Governments began asking whether they had become too dependent on foreign suppliers for critical goods and technologies². This broader evolution sits at the heart of the current re-wiring.

Compounding this structural shift are events that challenged assumptions about stability and security which have further weakened the post-Cold War framework. The rise of non-state threats such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda drew sustained Western military engagement that produced mixed outcomes, eroding the perception of the United States as a reliable security guarantor. Russia’s military action in Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022 demonstrated that borders that many assumed were settled could still be challenged by force. And more recently, contested episodes across the Western Hemisphere, the Arctic and the Middle East have shown how economic tools — tariffs, sanctions, investment screening — are increasingly used to pursue strategic objectives in lieu of, or alongside, traditional diplomacy³. Politics has grown more polarised, and the trust that underpinned the liberal order has deteriorated. Institutions such as the United Nations (UN) and WTO have struggled to bring countries together when crises emerge.

Taken together, these pressures have contributed to a gradual erosion of the post‑Cold War order.

Part II – Where we are now: A more contested and decentralised global landscape

The most recent transition is showing up in three important ways. First, the institutions designed to manage cross-border challenges are weakening. Second, the balance of global power is changing. And third, competition is increasingly moving into the economic domain, where states can exert pressure through trade, finance, technology and the systems that connect them.

Shift 1: Institutions are weakening and coordination is harder

The institutions that once anchored the global system are under strain. Governments are becoming more focused on jobs, security and resilience at home — often at the expense of cross-border cooperation. As a result, multilateral organisations such as the UN and WTO are finding it harder to coordinate responses or enforce rules. This is not just a shift in alliances, but in how the system functions. Instead of waiting for global agreement, countries are increasingly working through smaller coalitions and regional partnerships. The result is a system driven less by agreed rules and more by influence, bargaining power and changing partnerships.

Shift 2: Conflict is moving into the economic domain

Countries are competing in different ways. Rather than escalating into direct conflict, major powers are increasingly using tariffs, sanctions, export controls and restrictions on investments to shape outcomes.

At the same time, this competition is increasingly expressed through control over the networks that move goods, money and technology. Ownership of supply still matters. But increasingly, real leverage lies in controlling how that supply moves. Recent examples include gas flow to Europe, critical mineral restrictions and export controls. These show that economic pressure is now often applied by controlling key networks and relationships rather than disrupting supply altogether.

History reinforces the pattern. From wartime rationing to the control of shipping routes, states have long used bottlenecks as instruments of power.⁵ The result is that economic systems themselves have become arenas of competition.

Shift 3: Power is spreading

Global power is shifting — but not toward a new centre. Instead, it is spreading across multiple regional blocs. Major powers are consolidating influence, while smaller states are asserting more autonomy and aligning selectively. Relationships are becoming more flexible, and countries are working to reduce dependence on any single system, whether in trade, technology or finance. In practice, this shows up in efforts to diversify supply chains, payment systems and transport routes. The result is a world that is becoming more regional, with different centres of influence pursuing different priorities.

Part III – How major powers and regions are repositioning

Countries are responding to the same underlying shift, but not in the same way. So, the question isn’t simply who is doing what. The more useful question is: What are they trying to achieve? How are they going about it? Where are the pressure points? And where might those pressures create risks or opportunities for investors?

That’s the lens we apply in the table below. Rather than cataloguing every player, it focuses on four simple questions for each: what’s the objective, what’s the approach, what are the constraints, and why does it matter for markets.

There are a few common themes we can take away:

• Core system drivers: The US and China still sit at the centre of global markets, but policy changes, supply chains and technology competition are playing a bigger role in shaping outcomes.
• How shocks flow through markets: Russia and the Gulf states tend to affect markets mainly through energy prices, commodities and geopolitical tensions.
• Where diversification comes from: The EU, Japan and India offer different sources of return, driven more by local policy, reforms and regional growth.

Part IV – Investment implications

In today’s environment, investors face not just higher risk, but a broader set of potential scenarios. Three implications follow.

Takeaway 1: Geopolitical risk is no longer episodic

As international coordination becomes harder and competition plays out in economic channels (Shifts 1 and 2), geopolitical tensions are increasingly lasting longer and affecting markets through multiple channels. Markets have historically treated geopolitics as short-lived shocks. Today, the more important variable is duration. When tensions persist, costs accumulate through supply delays, tighter financing conditions, and higher required returns. While markets often price the initial shock quickly, historically, they have often been less effective at pricing the duration. For investors, this means reassessing exposures that rely on stable cross-border trade, financing, or policy assumptions, as well as concentrations that depend on a quick easing of tensions. Investors should not assume geopolitical shocks will be short-lived or quickly reverse themselves. Ongoing monitoring should focus on the duration of sanctions, tariffs, and export controls; whether trade and transport disruptions are becoming persistent; and signs that financing conditions or risk premia are adjusting beyond the initial shock.

Takeaway 2: Risk sits in bottlenecks, not just supply

Competition is increasingly expressed through control over the flow of goods, capital and technology, rather than outright supply disruption (Shift 2). Across sectors such as energy, semiconductors, critical minerals, and infrastructure, even limited disruption at key transit points can raise costs and create lasting disruption.

For investors, this means looking beyond supply and demand to understand dependence on key transport routes, infrastructure hubs, suppliers, access to funding and other critical networks.

Ongoing monitoring should focus on shipping patterns, insurance costs, and freight disruption as indicators of stress in trade networks, alongside export controls, investment restrictions, and other limits on the movement of goods, capital, or technology. Investors should also watch for evidence that chokepoints are creating persistent cost pressure rather than one-off disruptions.

Takeaway 3: Policy divergence is driving return dispersion

Policy divergence is no longer a background condition; it is increasingly shaping cost structures, market access, capital flows and strategic support across countries and sectors (Shift 3 and Part III). Reducing dependence is becoming a policy objective in its own right, even when it comes with higher costs. Over time, this is likely to contribute to greater variation in inflation, growth and corporate profitability across countries and sectors.

For investors, this means looking more closely at how businesses are exposed to government decisions. Companies that depend on highly globalised, lowest cost supply chains may face greater challenges, while those aligned with national priorities could benefit from public investment, incentives or regulatory support. Country and sector selection may therefore become more important.

Monitoring should focus on government initiatives aimed at strengthening domestic industries, securing critical supplies and encouraging local production, as well as signs that economic policies are becoming more differentiated across major economies.

Part V – Geopolitics has moved from the margins to the core

We are entering a period that no longer fits neatly within the frameworks investors have relied on for decades. It is a world less unified, less predictable, and at times less efficient. It is a world where cooperation cannot be assumed, and where policy choices carry greater weight.

But this is not a world without structure. Even as the old order evolves, new patterns are emerging, shaping how countries act, how markets adjust, and how risk moves through the system. For investors willing to look closely, those patterns offer something valuable: not certainty, but clarity of direction.

The challenge, then, is not simply to react. It is to understand and to recognise that geopolitics has moved from the margins to the core of markets. And in that environment, the advantage will not come from predicting every outcome, but from the discipline to study what is changing, to test assumptions against evidence, and to invest with a long-term perspective. Because for research based investors, insight is built over time, and it is that depth of understanding that enables portfolios not only to adapt, but to endure as the system continues to evolve.

By Andy Budden, investment director

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.25 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.25 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: General (0.25 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Economic Environment (0.25 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———–

References:
[1] Autor, Dorn and Hanson (2016), “The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade,” which examines how large trade shifts can have uneven and long-lasting effects across regions and workers.
[2] These developments reflect tensions highlighted by Dani Rodrik, who argued that deep economic integration would eventually clash with domestic priorities, leading to political backlash and more sovereignty-driven policy. Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far? Institute for International Economics.
[3] Aiyar, Ilyina and others (2023),“Geoeconomic Fragmentation and the Future of Multilateralism,” IMF Staff Discussion Note, which explores the growing use of economic policies to pursue strategic objectives and the risks this poses to global integration.
[4] Source: US Department of the Treasury press release, 28 February 2022.
[5] Olson, M. (1963). The economics of the wartime shortage: A history of British food supplies in the Napoleonic War and World Wars I and II. Duke University Press. His analysis shows how wartime pressures led states to manage supply through rationing, stockpiling and control of trade routes— illustrating how critical systems and bottlenecks can become instruments of power.
[6] The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, with a significant share of global oil and LNG trade passing through it. Limited alternative routes mean that even temporary disruption can delay supply, increase shipping costs and affect global energy prices. See International Energy Agency (IEA), Strait of Hormuz; U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), World Oil Transit Chokepoints.
[7] Includes: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, United Arab Emirates
[8] Sources: IMF (2023),“Currency Usage for Cross-Border Payments,” IMF Working Paper No. 2023/072; Carnegie Endowment (2023),“The Difficult Realities of the BRICS’ Dedollarization Efforts—and the Renminbi’s Role”; ECB (2025),“Global trade invoicing patterns.”

Risk factors you should consider before investing:
– This material is not intended to provide investment advice or be considered a personal recommendation.
– The value of investments and income from them can go down as well as up and you may lose some or all of your initial investment.
– Past results are not a guarantee of future results.
– If the currency in which you invest strengthens against the currency in which the underlying investments of the fund are made, the value of your investment will decrease. Currency hedging seeks to limit this, but there is no guarantee that hedging will be totally successful.
– Some portfolios may invest in financial derivative instruments for investment purposes, hedging and/or efficient portfolio management.
– Depending on the strategy, risks may be associated with investing in fixed income, derivatives, emerging markets, sustainability-related investments and/or high-yield securities; emerging markets are volatile and may suffer from liquidity problems.
Statements attributed to an individual represent the opinions of that individual as of the date published and may not necessarily reflect the view of Capital Group or its affiliates. This communication is intended for the internal and confidential use of the recipient and not for onward transmission to any other third party. This communication is of a general nature, and not intended to provide investment, tax or other advice, or to be a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. All information is as at the date indicated and attributed to Capital Group unless otherwise stated. While Capital Group uses reasonable efforts to obtain information from third-party sources that it believes to be accurate, this cannot be guaranteed. In Australia, this communication is issued by Capital Group Investment Management Limited (ACN 164 174 501 AFSL No. 443 118), a member of Capital Group, located at Suite 4201, Level 42 Gateway, 1 Macquarie Place, Sydney, NSW 2000 Australia. All Capital Group trademarks are owned by The Capital Group Companies, Inc. or an affiliated company. All other company names mentioned are the property of their respective companies. © 2026 Capital Group. All rights reserved.

The post CPD: Positioning portfolios for the next world order appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Guillermo Veiga

Capital Group, the world’s largest global active investment manager, announced the appointment of Guillermo Veiga as Chief Information Officer. He will join the company in November, succeeding Marta Zarraga, who will retire at the end of the year. Guillermo will relocate to California from Singapore, where he currently serves as Group Chief Information and Operations Officer at Standard Chartered Bank.

“Technology, data and AI play an increasingly important role in how we deliver investment excellence, serve clients globally and scale our business,” said Rob Klausner, Chief Operating Officer, Capital Group. “Guillermo brings a rare combination of deep technology expertise, operational leadership and global transformation experience. His track record leading large, complex organizations makes him the right leader to help advance Capital’s long-term strategy and position us for the opportunities ahead.”

Born in Uruguay and raised in Spain, Guillermo began his career as a hands-on technologist and has held senior leadership roles across Europe and Asia at Amazon Web Services, Cisco and Banco Santander, pairing deep technical fluency with strong operating experience.

“I was drawn by Capital Group’s long-term commitment to its people and culture paired with its client-centric mindset,” said Guillermo. “Capital is on the cutting edge of technology, and the opportunity to help lead during a period of global expansion for the company, amid the growing ability of data and AI to transform ways of working, is exciting.”

The post Capital Group announces appointment of new Chief Information Officer appeared first on AdviserVoice.

That means investors in some index funds may be holding unintended risks in their portfolios, since market capitalisation-weighted funds, which weight companies based on their market value, are not as broadly diversified as many expect. The following four charts help put today’s market concentration in perspective and underscore the need for greater diversification.

1. Today’s market is among the most concentrated in history

“We are living through an extraordinary market environment,” says chief investment officer Martin Romo. Today’s market concentration stands out, with the top 10 companies approaching 40% of the S&P 500 Index.

We have seen this before. Similar levels of concentration emerged in Japan’s 1980s boom and the US Nifty Fifty era. Specifically, in 1964, the top 10 stocks reached 39% of the S&P 500 Index. The largest holdings included AT&T, General Motors, ExxonMobil, IBM and Texaco — diverse businesses from a range of sectors.

Markets have long rallied around compelling investment themes

Today’s concentration differs from the 1960s because many of the largest companies, including NVIDIA, Microsoft, Amazon and Micron Technology, are tied to a single theme: AI investment. As a result, semiconductor stocks, for example, could decline in tandem if demand for chips drops. “This is precisely what we have seen during the early July pullbacks in the market, which were led by companies such as SK Hynix and Sandisk,” according to Brady Enright, equity portfolio manager.

Prior episodes of intense concentration eventually broke down, often painfully, before returning to more balanced levels. That does not mean a market crash is imminent, nor are we predicting one. Concentration is not a timing tool, but it is a reminder that trees don’t grow to the sky.

As investors crowd into AI-related stocks, some high-quality businesses have been left behind. “These are companies with growing profits, strong dividends and durable franchises,” Enright says. “Many are trading at discounts to their historical valuations of 20% or more. Examples include Royal Caribbean, Procter & Gamble and Citigroup.”

2. AI concentration is a global phenomenon

Market concentration is not limited to the US. The seemingly insatiable demand for specialised chips has catapulted technology companies in South Korea and Taiwan to new highs. The top 10 firms in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index account for 41% of its total market capitalisation, with just three — SK hynix, Samsung Electronics and TSMC — making up 29%.

Worldwide demand for computer chips has fueled market concentration

Meanwhile, global markets continue to offer other attractive opportunities, particularly in Europe and parts of Asia, where valuations remain compelling. “In my view, there are real bargains outside the US today, and often they can be found among world leaders in their industries,” says Steve Watson, an equity portfolio manager. “They just happen to be domiciled in other countries. They include UK-based drug giant AstraZeneca and China-based Tencent, the largest gaming company in the world.

“I am also sifting through the artificial intelligence wreckage for companies that may have been unfairly hit by fears that easy-to-use AI applications will impair their business,” Watson continues. “Those include large software companies like Germany’s SAP, as well as companies in the online travel space, including China’s Trip.com and Spain’s Amadeus IT Group. These are AI enablers, in my view, not ‘AI roadkill.’”

3. US GDP heavily relies on AI spending

Concentration risk extends beyond the top 10 stocks in the US index to the broader economy. The data centre build-out has supported US growth, with AI-related investments contributing nearly 1% to real GDP in the first nine months of 2025, or 39% of overall growth during that period, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve.

Thus, company earnings and the broader economy may be more vulnerable to an AI-induced slowdown. “The growing profit pools are all driven by the same physical build-out of data centres,” Enright says. “Chipmakers have grown the most because roughly 50% of data centre-related costs are tied to semiconductors, but companies that provide heating and air conditioning, electricity, water treatment and transformers are also enjoying strong tailwinds.”

AI drives large parts of the global economy

According to Enright, the next chapter of the story may be about beneficiaries outside of the capex boom. “I’m focused on identifying companies that can use AI to gain a competitive advantage they haven’t had historically. Within industries such as financials and healthcare, I expect certain companies will use AI in ways that will help them grow faster or become more profitable relative to competitors.”

4. AI fatigue is hitting the bond market

Another corner of the AI boom showing signs of strain is the US corporate bond market. “The tsunami of bond deals has weighed on the debt prices of high-profile companies including Meta, Amazon and SpaceX,” says Damien McCann, fixed income portfolio manager. Today, hyperscalers including Alphabet and Meta account for roughly 4.8% of the Bloomberg US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index, an increase of 78% from a year earlier.

AI-related companies have flooded debt markets

“The sheer volume of deals tied to AI underscores the importance of diversification in fixed income, particularly because bond prices tend to have more downside risk than upside potential,” McCann says. “I’m evaluating these opportunities one by one. Some hyperscalers offer attractive yields relative to their strong cash flows and credit ratings, but I’m more selective when it comes to certain newer project financing structures.”

Despite the surge in issuance, McCann remains constructive on the broader credit market. “Strong corporate earnings, healthy consumer spending and a resilient labour market provide a supportive backdrop for credit. I don’t believe AI-related borrowing will derail that picture, but it reinforces the value of maintaining exposure across investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, securitised credit and emerging markets.”

A call to rebalance and diversify

The market concentration in AI reveals some of the trade-offs tied to investing in index funds. “There is a common misperception that index funds somehow are safer for most investors,” says Jody Jonsson, vice chair of Capital Group. “Passive funds are cheaper on average. But cheaper is not the same as safer, nor does cheaper equate to better investor outcomes.”

Romo adds: “This is not an argument against owning the companies driving the artificial intelligence era. Many are extraordinary businesses with durable prospects. The point is, at today’s weights and valuations, the benchmarks — and the passive strategies following them — increasingly assume one set of outcomes will dominate.”

A more balanced approach calls for investors to review their risks, both intended and unintended. According to Romo: “The winners of this current period will need to be both bold and humble. Bold enough to own great companies when the fundamentals justify it. Humble enough to recognise that no single theme, however powerful, should dictate the shape of portfolios. Bold enough to differ from the benchmark when risk and reward call for it. Humble enough to know that being different can be uncomfortable but necessary, especially when a narrow market continues to rise.”

By Martin Romo chair and chief investment officer, Brady Enright, equity portfolio manager,  Steve Watson, equity portfolio manager, Damien McCann, fixed income portfolio and Jody Jonsson, vice chair.

————

Statements attributed to an individual represent the opinions of that individual as of the date published and may not necessarily reflect the view of Capital Group or its affiliates. This communication is intended for the internal and confidential use of the recipient and not for onward transmission to any other third party. This communication is of a general nature, and not intended to provide investment, tax or other advice, or to be a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. All information is as at the date indicated and attributed to Capital Group unless otherwise stated. While Capital Group uses reasonable efforts to obtain information from third-party sources that it believes to be accurate, this cannot be guaranteed. In Australia, this communication is issued by Capital Group Investment Management Limited (ACN 164 174 501 AFSL No. 443 118), a member of Capital Group, located at Suite 4201, Level 42 Gateway, 1 Macquarie Place, Sydney, NSW 2000 Australia. All Capital Group trademarks are owned by The Capital Group Companies, Inc. or an affiliated company. All other company names mentioned are the property of their respective companies. © 2026 Capital Group. All rights reserved.

The post Four charts that expose market concentration risk appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Katharine Dryer

Global companies have now generated enough profit to exceed their entire stock market value from the start of 2014, showing that strong earnings growth has repeatedly justified rising equity valuations over the past decade^[1], according to Value Watch – part of the Capital Group Global Equity Study^[2].

The Equity Study assesses global companies’ market value^[3] by how long it takes for companies to earn back their value in actual profits, addressing a central question for investors today: are current valuations supported by the profits companies are likely to deliver?

The world’s 1,600^[4] largest listed companies were collectively worth US$35.3 trillion at the start of 2014. Between 2014 and 2025, they generated US$36.7 trillion in cumulative profits, effectively earning back their entire 2014 market value in under twelve years.

At the beginning of 2014, global equities traded on a price-to-earnings ratio of 15.9 times. On a static basis, investors would have expected to wait until 2029, almost sixteen years, for cumulative profits to match the starting valuation. Instead, strong earnings growth shortened that period by around four years. Companies generated profits more quickly than implied by their starting valuations.

The same pattern can be seen over other periods. It took 13 years for companies to earn back their US$24.9 trillion 2010 valuation. More recently, companies have already earned back 45% of their US$54.7 trillion 2020 pre-pandemic value, suggesting the 12-13 year payback mark is on track to be repeated. Moreover, one in seven companies have already earned back their entire 2020 valuation.

Katharine Dryer, Equity Asset Class Lead, Europe and Asia at Capital Group, said: “A company’s valuation depends not only on the multiple investors pay, but also on whether future profit growth can justify it. Over the past decade, strong earnings growth has repeatedly supported higher market valuations. Today, global equities are valued at US$113.8 trillion, or around 21 times expected 2026 profits, raising the hurdle for investors. Starting from higher valuations, growth must do more of the work — but companies that deliver can still justify demanding multiples.

“For active investors like Capital Group, it is not about avoiding higher valuations, instead, our portfolio managers and analysts are focused on where growth is durable and still being underestimated. In a market where outcomes become more sensitive to earnings delivery, active management can add value by identifying between companies that meet earnings expectations and those that fall short. Active managers play a critical role in price discovery, valuation discipline and the provision of long-term capital across market cycles. That role is essential to healthy public markets — for investors, issuers and all market participants.”

Geographical divergence

Geographical differences mainly reflect the sector mix, though country-specific dynamics are relevant too.

US companies earned back their 2014 market value in 12 years – despite a high starting valuation led by strong profit growth.

In Europe, recent recovery for energy and financial companies enabled the region to catch up after slow growth in the 2010s, with payback achieved over the 13 years since 2013.

The Australian market is dominated by cyclical industries – especially banking and mining. One fifth of Australian companies in Capital Group’s index^[4] have not yet made profits equal to their 2010 market value, which has held back the average. Australian companies earned back their 2012 market value of $US786 billion in 14 years. High profits during the commodity boom of 2021-2022 enabled Australian mining companies to achieve more rapid payback than the wider market and while the cycle turned against them in 2023 and 2024, it is now looking more favourable again. By the end of April 2026, combined market value of Australian companies had risen to US$1.4 trillion.

Read the report. 

———

Notes:
[1] Figures are in nominal US dollars; however, adjusting for inflation adds just one year to the ‘real’ payback period.
[2] The Capital Group Global Equity Study is a comprehensive exploration of the world’s major equity markets, examining how companies generate, grow, and return value to shareholders. The Value Watch is published annually and this first edition looks at why companies are worth what they are, showing the connection between company profitability, profit growth, and market capitalisation. It looks at the world’s largest 1,600 companies and calculates the Equity Payback Period – how long it has taken for a company to ‘earn back’ its market value in profits. It shows how this differs from one sector to another and across different regions of the world. And it reveals how many expensive companies are often expensive for a reason, while investors may have to wait a long time for many apparently cheap companies to complete their Equity Payback Period.
[3] The Value Watch looks at how long it actually takes for companies to earn back their value in realised profits. We call this the ‘Equity Payback Period’. Unlike the traditional price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio which reflects expectations about future earnings, this measure looks backward, focusing on the profits companies truly generated in the years that followed. This is not a portfolio construction tool or a description of how Capital Group investors value individual companies. It is a simple, retrospective way to illustrate the relationship between market value, profits, growth expectations and valuation discipline. By focusing instead on realised outcomes, the Equity Payback Period can provide a more grounded way to assess how valuation expectations have translated into reality.
[4] An index of companies tracked by Capital Group in the Value Watch report.

The post Capital Group study reveals global companies have now earned back their US$35 trillion 2014 market value appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Jamie Sinclair

Capital Group, one of the world’s largest and most experienced active investment managers, with US$3.4 trillion¹ of assets under management, has appointed Jamie Sinclair as Head of ETFs for Europe and Asia-Pacific.

Based in London, Jamie will be responsible for building and leading Capital Group’s active ETF business across Europe and Asia‑Pacific. He joins from BlackRock, where he spent more than a decade in senior leadership roles, most recently as Head of iShares Product Distribution for EMEA.

Scott Davis, Head of ETFs, Capital Group, said: “We are pleased to welcome Jamie Sinclair to Capital Group. Jamie brings extensive experience in ETF distribution and a strong understanding of clients’ needs across Europe and Asia‑Pacific. With more than fifteen years in the industry, his leadership will be instrumental as we continue to expand in the region.”

Jamie Sinclair, Head of ETFs for Europe and Asia‑Pacific, Capital Group, said: “I am delighted to join Capital Group at an exciting time for the business. The firm stands out for its long‑term investment approach, strong research culture and commitment to serving clients, and I look forward to partnering with colleagues to support its growth across Europe and Asia-Pacific.”

Capital Group offers a suite of 25 active ETFs and 8 ETF model portfolios in the U.S. It is the third largest active ETF issuer in the U.S. market, accounting for 7.4% of the active ETF industry². The firm has four active ETFs in Canada.

The post Capital Group appoints Jamie Sinclair as Head of ETFs for Europe and Asia-Pacific appeared first on AdviserVoice.

In football, sustained success comes down to infrastructure: youth development systems, competitive domestic leagues and coaching depth that allows the system to function beyond individual stars. In investing, the differentiators are structurally similar.

Key takeaways

• A 48-team football World Cup gives more nations a seat at the table — but not on equal terms. The same is true in markets.
• Emerging markets as a category tells you less than it used to. Meanwhile, Italy — four-time World Cup winners — have now missed three consecutive tournaments. In football and in markets, reputation can outlast reality by years.
• More qualifying pathways mean more competition, not more winners. That is true for nations on the pitch and for issuers in portfolios. Broad exposure to a bigger field is not the same as better diversification.

The 2026 football World Cup will be the largest in history. For the first time, 48 nations will compete, up from 32, and it will be co‑hosted across three countries: the United States, Canada and Mexico.

This expanded format creates more qualifying places, particularly for regions that have historically been under‑represented and introduces additional routes into the tournament.

Global capital markets have followed a similar path. The MSCI Emerging Markets equity index now covers 24 countries, up from 10 at launch, and its share of global market capitalisation has more than doubled since 2000. The bond market has expanded too. Local-currency emerging market (EM) debt markets have grown significantly over the past decade and EM government borrowing in dollars has risen sharply, with new issuers joining the field alongside familiar names.

Wider access does not mean equal access – in football or in markets

In the World Cup, the path to qualification varies enormously by confederation. Lower-ranked nations must enter in preliminary rounds, playing many more matches just to reach the stage where more established teams begin.

In markets, the parallel holds. Many EM economies that borrow in dollars do so at significantly higher costs than their developed market peers, with less liquidity and greater dependence on foreign investor flows. Local-currency markets have deepened but still face operational and transparency challenges that limit participation.

This asymmetry runs deeper than pricing. Many EM economies now have stronger fundamentals than developed markets — faster growth, lower debt-toGDP ratios and younger workforces. Yet they continue to face a structural penalty in how global markets treat them. EM equities continue to trade at a significant discount to the US on forward earnings, one of the widest valuation gaps in two decades, while EM corporate credit quality has been steadily rising.

Policy flexibility tells a similar story. During the pandemic, developed market governments were able to cut interest rates to near zero, launch large-scale asset purchase programmes and deploy enormous fiscal stimulus. Many EM economies faced the same shock but could not respond on the same scale. Currency fragility, inflation risk and dependence on external financing meant rate cuts were smaller, fiscal support more constrained and recovery slower and more uneven.

The good news is that many EM economies have used the past decade to strengthen their foundations. Central bank credibility has improved, exchange rate flexibility has increased, and local-currency bond markets have deepened – all of which helped absorb the most recent Federal Reserve tightening cycle with far less disruption than in the past.

But the playing field remains uneven, and the cost of a policy misstep is still higher for an EM economy than a developed one.

Old labels tell you less than they used to

Argentina, Brazil and Mexico may be emerging market economies, but in football terms, they are anything but emerging. Meanwhile, some of the world’s richest nations have rarely threatened at a World Cup. Italy is an instructive case – four-time World Cup winners, joint second in the all-time rankings, yet this is the third consecutive World Cup they have missed, unprecedented for a former champion. Their elimination came on penalties against Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country making only its second World Cup appearance and barely visible in global capital markets.

The same is true in economics. India’s economy is projected to grow several times faster than Germany or the UK this year. Emerging and developing economies now account for close to half of global GDP, up from a quarter at the turn of the century, and have contributed the majority of global growth over the past two decades. The label ‘emerging’ says very little about the underlying strength of the economy – or the quality of the investment opportunity.

What separates the stronger teams — and stronger investments?

In football, sustained success comes down to infrastructure: youth development systems, competitive domestic leagues and coaching depth that allows the system to function beyond individual stars.

In investing, the differentiators are structurally similar. At the sovereign level, what matters is credible institutions, sound policy frameworks, manageable debt levels and growth models suited to the current environment. The economies that have invested in institutional quality, human capital and fiscal discipline are in a fundamentally different position to those that have not.

Those that have deepened their domestic capital markets – building local investor bases through pension funds, insurance companies and sovereign wealth vehicles – have reduced their dependence on external flows and are better positioned to weather global shocks.

At company level, the same logic applies. A well-governed company in an emerging market – with a clear competitive position, disciplined capital allocation and exposure to structural growth – can offer a more compelling risk-return profile than a household name in a slower-growth developed economy.

Corporate governance standards across emerging markets have improved meaningfully over the past decade, and EM corporate bond credit quality has been steadily rising since the pandemic. Conversely, a dominant company whose competitive advantages are eroding – through disruption, regulation or misallocation of capital – may look strong on headline metrics long after the foundations have shifted.

The discipline is not just to identify what has been strong, but to ask whether the conditions that made it strong still hold.

Investment takeaways

1. Past strength is not a forward-looking indicator

As outlined, Italy are four-time World Cup winners but have now missed three consecutive tournaments. Their decline was not sudden — it reflected years of underinvestment in infrastructure, youth development and institutional renewal, masked by a reputation that took longer to fade than the foundations beneath it.

Economies and companies follow similar patterns. A strong sovereign credit rating can coexist with slow-moving fiscal deterioration for years before markets reprice it. A company with a dominant market position can see its competitive advantages erode long before it shows up in headline earnings. Markets have repeatedly punished investors who mistook historical dominance for inevitability.

2. A wider field raises the cost of complacency

With more teams and more qualifying pathways, competition arrives from more directions. The global investable universe has expanded — more economies, more issuers, more markets to access. But wider participation has not produced more uniform outcomes. The range of outcomes across economies remains wide, and at company level, the gap between winners and laggards within the same sector or region has grown too.

In that environment, broad exposure carries a hidden cost. In equities, index level allocations increasingly mean holding large positions in companies and markets whose earnings growth is under pressure, alongside a smaller set that is genuinely well-positioned. In fixed income, owning the whole field means lending to sovereigns and corporates whose credit paths can be very different.

3. Diversification means understanding how economies and companies are wired, not where they sit on a map

A portfolio can span multiple regions and still be concentrated in the same underlying risks — sensitivity to dollar funding conditions, exposure to a single commodity cycle, or dependence on global manufacturing demand. The same applies at the company level: two banks in different countries may look similar on a balance sheet but face entirely different regulatory, currency and credit environments.

The more useful lens is economic and business profile: what drives growth, how policy is managed, where external vulnerabilities lie, and how an economy or company is connected to global capital.

A manufacturing-led economy in Southeast Asia may have more in common with Mexico than with a commodity exporter next door. A well-run company in a frontier market may offer better risk-adjusted income than a lower-yielding name in a slower-growth developed economy. Diversification built on these foundations is more durable than diversification built on a map.

By Jeremy Cunningham is an investment director

——–

Disclaimer:
Risk factors you should consider before investing:
– This material is not intended to provide investment advice or be considered a personal recommendation.
– The value of investments and income from them can go down as well as up and you may lose some or all of your initial investment.
– Past results are not a guide to future results.
– If the currency in which you invest strengthens against the currency in which the underlying investments of the fund are made, the value of your investment will decrease. Currency hedging seeks to limit this, but there is no guarantee that hedging will be totally successful.
– Depending on the strategy, risks may be associated with investing in fixed income, derivatives, emerging markets and/or high-yield securities; emerging markets are volatile and may suffer from liquidity problems.
Statements attributed to an individual represent the opinions of that individual as of the date published and may not necessarily reflect the view of Capital Group or its affiliates. While Capital Group uses reasonable efforts to obtain information from third-party sources which it believes to be reliable, Capital Group makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information. This material is of a general nature, and not intended to provide investment, tax or other advice, or to be a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. It does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before acting on the information you should consider its appropriateness, having regard to your own investment objectives, financial situation and needs. In Australia, this communication is issued by Capital Group Investment Management Limited (ACN 164 174 501 AFSL No. 443 118), a member of Capital Group, located at Suite 4201, Level 42 Gateway, 1 Macquarie Place, Sydney, NSW 2000 Australia. All Capital Group trademarks are owned by The Capital Group Companies, Inc. or an affiliated company in the U.S. and other countries. All other company and product names mentioned are the trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies. © 2026 Capital Group. All rights reserved.

The post A wider pitch: lessons from the largest football World Cup in history appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Mike Gitlin

Capital Group, one of the world’s largest and leading active investment managers¹, today announces plans to establish its first office in the Middle East, in the UAE’s Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM). The firm expects the Abu Dhabi office to formally open later this year, subject to regulatory approvals.

This is a landmark step in Capital Group’s long-term strategy to accelerate growth globally. It reflects the firm’s conviction in the Middle East Region, the UAE and Abu Dhabi as a rapidly evolving and strong financial ecosystem, supported by Abu Dhabi Investment Office (ADIO).

The planned Abu Dhabi location will be Capital Group’s 35th office worldwide, reflecting the firm’s consistent approach to establishing local capabilities that are closely connected to its global platform. As in other markets, the intent is to build steadily over time, aligned with client needs and Capital Group’s long-term investment culture. 

H.E. Ahmed Jasim Al Zaabi, Chairman of Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), said, “We are pleased to welcome Capital Group to ADGM as more leading global financial institutions choose Abu Dhabi as the base for their long-term regional expansion. Their decision underscores the value investors place on regulatory certainty, strong institutions and a stable environment for sustainable growth. With a robust legal framework and access to deep, long-term capital, ADGM is built to support global firms operating at scale. Capital Group’s presence further strengthens Abu Dhabi’s role as a bridge between international capital and regional opportunity, and as a place where enduring partnerships are formed with confidence.”

Mike Gitlin, President and CEO of Capital Group said, “We take a long-term and deliberate approach to building our global footprint, and we move only when we have high conviction. This is one of those moments. Establishing a presence in Abu Dhabi demonstrates our commitment to being closer to our business partners across the Middle East as well as our intent to explore further investments in this dynamic region.”

Capital Group is relocating Benno Klingenberg-Timm, Head of Institutional for Europe and Asia, to take on the additional responsibility of head of its Abu Dhabi office. Klingenberg-Timm commented, “The UAE has established itself as a leading global financial centre, reflecting the strong growth dynamics of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the broader region. The Middle East is important both as a market in its own right and as a natural gateway connecting Europe, Asia and Africa.”

Capital Group’s expansion into Abu Dhabi reflects ADIO’s commitment to create a future-facing financial services ecosystem led by ADIO’s FinTech, Insurance, Digital and Alternative Assets (FIDA) platform.

Fatima Al Hamadi, Head of the FIDA Cluster, said: “Through the FIDA cluster, ADIO is building an integrated financial ecosystem that brings together innovative solutions, digital capabilities and advanced regulatory frameworks, reinforcing Abu Dhabi’s position as a leading global financial centre. Capital Group’s expansion in Abu Dhabi reflects the strength and attractiveness of the emirate’s ecosystem for global institutions with long-term ambitions. It also underscores our commitment to enabling strategic investments and enhancing integration across global markets, contributing to sustainable growth and a future-ready economy.”

———

Notes:
[1] Data as of 31 December 2025. Source: Capital Group.

The post Capital Group announces plans to open first office in the Middle East appeared first on AdviserVoice.