Hubbis, in exclusive partnership with Janus Henderson Investors, is pleased to present the third edition of the Asia Private Wealth Investment Sentiment Survey. The project captures how leading CIOs, gatekeepers and senior advisers across private banks, independent wealth firms and family offices are positioning high net worth and ultra-high net worth client portfolios for the remainder of 2025 and into 2026.
As in previous years, the survey goes beyond a snapshot of market views. It explores how advisers are adjusting portfolio construction, risk appetite and thematic exposures as inflation, monetary policy, technological change and geopolitical tension continue to shape the environment for capital preservation and long-term growth. This year’s survey combines structured questions with extended open responses – 318 records in total – providing qualitative and quantitative insight into recession risk, equity valuations, diversification away from the US dollar, the balance between active and passive strategies, the role of AI, cash positioning and next-generation engagement.
The write-up is organised into chapters mirroring the survey’s open questions, each integrating the relevant multiple-choice findings and, in this third year of collaboration, highlighting where attitudes have shifted or remained consistent since the first edition.
We hope you enjoy the output.
Key Findings from the 2025 Survey
Soft Landing Optimism, Tempered by Valuations and Inflation
Advisers remain cautiously constructive on global equities. Respondents cite earnings resilience, supportive monetary settings and the possibility of a soft landing as the main positives for markets. Inflation is expected to continue normalising, with any measured easing cycle benefiting both equities and fixed income.
The headwinds are familiar: elevated US valuations, sticky inflation risks, fiscal pressure and persistent geopolitical tension. Respondents also flag narrow market breadth, with performance concentrated in AI-related leaders.
Closed responses reinforce this balance. Only 12.5% of advisers describe clients as very concerned about equities, and 87.5% see no genuine recession risk in the United States or Europe in 2025—marking a firmer soft-landing conviction than in 2024, when views were more dispersed.
Risk Appetite Tilted Back Toward Growth
Capital preservation remains a defining instinct, but the 2025 responses show a measured shift toward growth. Around 62.5% of advisers describe clients as moderately adventurous, using equities and alternatives to participate in structural themes while relying on high-quality fixed income, cash and gold as stabilisers.
The tone is less defensive than in 2024: wealth protection is pursued through diversified risk budgeting, not by moving to the sidelines.
The 60/40 Model Returns as a Flexible Framework
The 60/40 balance continues to regain relevance, though as a starting point rather than a rule. Some respondents maintain the structure while yields are elevated; others favour adaptations such as reduced traditional fixed income and increased allocations to alternatives, gold or crypto.
Model portfolios cluster tightly: typically 40–50% equities, 30–40% fixed income, a modest cash allocation and the remainder in alternatives and gold. This confirms the move to a modernised, multi-asset version of 60/40 consistent with the evolution seen in 2024.
Alternatives, Private Credit and Gold Are Now Mainstream
Alternatives have moved decisively into the core of medium-risk portfolios. Respondents highlight private credit, infrastructure, hedge funds and gold as key sources of yield, diversification and stabilisation—particularly given stretched valuations in public markets.
This reflects how industry thinking, including Janus Henderson’s emphasis on securitised fixed income, has filtered into broader portfolio construction. Alternatives are now fundamental rather than supplementary.
Active and Passive as Complementary Tools
Advisers describe a pragmatic blend of active and passive strategies. Passive is used for broad market exposure—especially in efficient markets such as US large-cap equities—while active managers are favoured for emerging markets, small caps, healthcare, technology and navigating dispersion or corrections.
The long-running “active versus passive” debate has effectively ended; integration now defines portfolio construction.
Artificial Intelligence: Megatrend and Practical Tool
AI remains a central structural theme. Respondents view it as transformative, driving demand for semiconductors, infrastructure and long-duration growth opportunities. At the same time, advisers warn against chasing high-valuation segments indiscriminately, focusing instead on enablers and companies with strong cash-flow potential.
The internal use of AI has also grown, with advisers applying it to data analysis, risk assessment and narrative generation—a notable maturation from earlier editions.
Cash Used Tactically, Not Defensively
Some clients continue to hold elevated cash, supported by attractive money-market yields and the desire for dry powder. Others report no change in liquidity levels, particularly where portfolios already include diversified alternatives.
The shift from 2024 is clear: cash is now a tactical tool rather than a defensive endpoint.
Next Generation Involvement Growing Gradually
Next-generation participation continues to rise, especially around major liquidity events, estate reviews and when encouraged by the senior generation. Engagement remains uneven but more embedded than in earlier editions, reflecting broader governance maturity across Asian private wealth households.
Connecting 2023, 2024 and 2025
Across three editions, a clear arc emerges:
- 2023: Focus on navigating high-for-longer rates and tight credit spreads; rising interest in securitised credit.
- 2024: Defensive tone; modernising the 60/40 model; greater reliance on alternatives and selective active management.
- 2025: Adjustments have become standard practice – alternatives are core, 60/40 is flexible, risk appetite has stabilised, and AI is both a theme and a tool.
Advisers have moved from reacting to a regime shift, to redesigning portfolios for it, to expressing a more confident soft-landing stance while keeping valuations, inflation and geopolitics firmly on the radar.
Chapter 1
Market Outlook and Recession Risk
At a Glance: Respondents express a cautiously constructive view on global equities for the remainder of 2025 and into 2026. Earnings resilience, supportive monetary settings and the possibility of a soft landing are highlighted as the main positives for major stock markets, while elevated valuations, sticky inflation and geopolitical tension continue to form the core of the downside risks. The multiple-choice findings reinforce this balance of views. Only one eighth of respondents describe clients as very concerned about equity markets, with most indicating that clients are somewhat concerned and a small minority not worried. The outlook for recession is similarly measured. Seven eighths of respondents do not expect a recession in the United States or Europe in 2025. Collectively, the responses point to a modest but meaningful shift towards confidence, although framed by an ongoing awareness of the structural challenges that still shape the investment landscape.
Consensus View
The survey reveals a broadly constructive tone, shaped by the belief that a soft landing remains achievable in major economies. Respondents point to a stable earnings outlook, declining inflationary pressure and still supportive monetary policy as the key reasons why equities can deliver again in the coming year. Concerns persist around valuations and the durability of inflation, but these are seen as risks to be managed rather than decisive barriers to participation.
Compared with the 2024 edition, where views were more dispersed and many advisers were preparing for a range of potential downside scenarios, the current sentiment is firmer and more clearly anchored in a soft landing base case. That said, caution has not disappeared. Valuation sensitivity, geopolitical uncertainty and the narrow leadership within equity markets continue to inform portfolio construction.
Qualitative Commentary
The 2025 responses present a relatively unified view that global equities continue to offer opportunity, although selective exposure and risk calibration remain critical. Several respondents emphasise earnings resilience across major markets and the possibility that central banks can engineer a controlled slowdown rather than a recession. A more stable inflation trajectory is widely cited as a reason for confidence, with the expectation that any measured easing cycle would support both equities and fixed income.
This optimism is tempered by clear concerns. Valuations in the United States remain a recurring theme, particularly in segments driven by artificial intelligence enthusiasm. Respondents highlight the narrow breadth of the current rally and the concentration of returns among a small group of mega capitalisation technology companies. The risk that inflation proves sticky, or that fiscal deficits begin to exert market pressure, is also flagged. Aside from macro considerations, geopolitical uncertainty continues to be viewed as a potential catalyst for volatility.
These open responses align closely with the multiple-choice findings. 12.5 percent of respondents identifies clients as very concerned about equity markets over the next twelve months. 62.5 percent of respondents describe their clients as somewhat concerned, while 25 percent indicate that clients are not worried. This distribution suggests a measured tone, where caution exists but does not translate into alarm or full risk aversion.
Views on recession risk reinforce this positioning. 87.5 percent of respondents do not expect a recession in the United States or Europe in 2025, marking a notable strengthening in conviction compared with the 2024 findings. Last year, while many felt that recession fears were overstated, inflation and policy uncertainty still sat prominently at the front of mind. This year, respondents appear more confident that the global economy can avoid a hard landing, even if the path ahead remains uneven.
Recession Expectations for 2025
How respondents view recession risk in the United States and Europe:
- 87.5% do not expect a recession in 2025
- 12.5% believe there is still a risk of recession
Some respondents point to structural forces that could still create challenges. These include the impact of higher funding costs on indebted sectors, potential policy missteps by central banks and unresolved geopolitical tensions. Others note that narrow market leadership increases vulnerability to shifts in sentiment or earnings disappointments within a handful of large technology companies.
Overall, the prevailing tone combines cautious optimism with heightened awareness of the pockets of fragility that remain. Respondents appear committed to maintaining exposure to growth opportunities while incorporating valuation discipline and diversification to protect against macro shocks.
Chapter 2
Market Tailwinds and Headwinds
At a Glance: The 2025 survey responses highlight a balanced but cautiously constructive outlook for major stock markets. Respondents identify stable earnings, moderating inflation and a supportive, if gradual, shift in monetary policy as the main tailwinds for global equities. These drivers are reinforced by confidence that a soft landing remains achievable in major economies. The headwinds are equally clear and centre around elevated valuations, narrow market breadth and persistent geopolitical risk. Concerns also arise from the concentration of returns within a small group of large capitalisation technology companies, alongside uncertainty over whether inflation can continue to ease without renewed volatility. Collectively, the responses point to a market environment where opportunities remain, but where selectivity, valuation discipline and diversified positioning are viewed as essential.
The Emerging Narrative
Respondents broadly agree that the fundamental backdrop for equities has improved compared with last year. Earnings resilience across major markets is seen as a stabilising anchor, while expectations of a measured easing cycle support both equity and fixed income sentiment. Several respondents note that inflation appears to be on a more predictable trajectory, reducing the risk of abrupt policy tightening and allowing investors to reassess cyclical and thematic exposures with greater clarity.
Despite these constructive elements, the narrative is far from one sided. Elevated valuations, particularly in the United States, continue to temper enthusiasm. The dominance of a small number of AI-driven technology companies is repeatedly cited as a structural vulnerability. Geopolitical uncertainty, including tension across key trading blocs, also remains an unresolved source of downside risk. This combination results in a pragmatic consensus: the environment is improving, but complacency would be misplaced.
Compared with the 2024 edition, the tone is more assured. Last year, respondents voiced a wider range of potential downside scenarios, with heightened concerns around inflation, war and monetary missteps. This year, while none of these risks have disappeared, the centre of gravity has shifted towards cautious optimism supported by clearer macro signals.
Interpreting the Forces at Play
Client Concern Levels About Equity Markets (2025)
How respondents characterise clients’ outlook for the next 12 months:
- 12.5% describe clients as very concerned
- 62.5% describe clients as somewhat concerned
- 25% say clients are not worried
Respondents point to several core forces shaping the near-term outlook for major equity markets. The most frequently mentioned tailwind is earnings resilience. Despite ongoing macro uncertainty, corporate results in leading markets have generally exceeded expectations, reinforcing confidence in both cyclical and structural growth sectors. Stable or improving earnings provide a foundation for equity participation even when valuations appear stretched.
Another positive driver is inflation, which is described as moderating or stabilising in many regions. Respondents note that the disinflation trend reduces the likelihood of renewed aggressive policy tightening. A more predictable rate environment is viewed as beneficial for both equity valuations and fixed income returns, particularly if central banks proceed with a measured easing cycle rather than abrupt cuts.
A number of respondents also highlight the long-term opportunity presented by artificial intelligence and related technological innovation. While valuation sensitivity is a recurring caution, the theme is widely acknowledged as a powerful structural force supporting investment in semiconductors, infrastructure, power systems and productivity enhancing software.
On the headwind side, valuations in the United States stand out as a dominant concern. Respondents emphasise that several segments of the market appear expensive, especially those tied to artificial intelligence enthusiasm. The narrow breadth of the market is a repeated theme, with investors wary of the fact that a small cohort of technology leaders has driven a disproportionate share of recent gains. This concentration is seen as a potential vulnerability if earnings growth slows or sentiment shifts.
Geopolitical tension continues to feature prominently in the list of risks. Respondents mention ongoing conflict, uncertain trade relations and shifting global alliances as factors that could introduce volatility or disrupt supply chains. Fiscal deficits and the potential impact of higher funding costs on indebted sectors are also cited as underlying sources of fragility.
Views expressed in the open responses are consistent with the associated multiple-choice findings. The distribution of concern in the survey results indicates neither euphoria nor fear, but rather a measured recognition that markets are supported by improving fundamentals while still exposed to valuation, policy and geopolitical risks.
Overall, the commentary across respondents suggests that 2025 presents a landscape of opportunity framed by vigilance. The ability to identify durable growth sectors, balance cyclical exposure with structural themes and maintain discipline around valuation appears central to how advisers are guiding client portfolios through the evolving market environment.
Chapter 3
Portfolio Construction and the Role of the 60/40 Framework
At a Glance: Respondents continue to see the traditional 60/40 model as a useful reference point for portfolio construction, but not as a rigid rule. The prevailing view in the 2025 survey is that balanced portfolios remain relevant, particularly while yields are elevated, yet the composition of the fixed income sleeve, the tactical leeway within equity allocations and the structural inclusion of alternatives have all evolved. Suggested model portfolios cluster within a relatively narrow range, indicating broad agreement on the balance between growth participation and capital preservation, even if the exact interpretation of the 60/40 mix varies between practitioners.
The Shape of Portfolio Thinking in 2025
The 2025 responses present a clear message: the 60/40 concept has regained credibility, but it has done so in a more flexible and modern form. Respondents generally view it as a stable anchor rather than a prescriptive formula. Many emphasise that the model works as long as yields remain attractive, because high quality fixed income can once again perform a stabilising and income-generating role. Others note that in periods when bond yields compress, the traditional split loses relevance, making space for alternatives, cash and satellite positions across themes such as artificial intelligence and energy transition.
Compared with the 2024 edition, where respondents had already begun rehabilitating the model after years of doubt, this year’s narrative shows greater confidence. Last year, advisers acknowledged that 60/40 could still be used if adapted carefully. This year, they appear more comfortable treating it as a starting point, then customising around risk appetite, thematic conviction and client-specific liquidity needs.
How Respondents Are Building Portfolios Today
The model portfolios shared for a medium risk client demonstrate consistency across the responses, with modest variations that reflect differing macro views and personal conviction rather than fundamental disagreement. Most respondents propose approximately forty percent to fifty percent in equities, thirty percent to forty percent in fixed income, a meaningful but not excessive allocation to cash, and the balance in alternatives and gold. Equity exposure tends to favour the United States and Asia, with selective thematic tilts in areas where respondents see durable earnings growth or structural drivers.
The fixed income component is viewed through a more differentiated lens than in the classic 60/40 era. Several respondents emphasise shorter duration exposure, high quality credit, or specific segments such as securitised fixed income for income and diversification. Others see value in extending duration selectively as yields soften, suggesting that the bond sleeve is now treated as a more active and segmented part of the portfolio rather than a monolithic allocation.
Alternatives remain firmly embedded in these proposals. Respondents cite private credit, infrastructure, hedge funds and real assets as diversifiers and yield enhancers that can complement both equities and fixed income. Gold features prominently as a strategic allocation, reflecting its perceived role as a hedge against policy uncertainty, currency fluctuations and geopolitical events.
This balance shows an important shift from two years ago. In earlier editions of the survey, many advisers were increasing alternatives in response to tight credit spreads, volatile rates and concerns that traditional fixed income could not deliver both income and protection. In the 2025 responses, alternatives are no longer described as compensating for something missing in public markets. Instead, they are treated as a structural component of portfolio design, used alongside fixed income rather than instead of it.
Adviser Views on the Modern 60/40 Framework (2025)
How respondents view the relevance of the traditional 60/40 model today:
- 75% say the 60/40 framework remains relevant if adapted
- 12.5% say it is no longer relevant
- 12.5% express uncertainty or no firm view
Positives and Trade-offs Within the Framework
Respondents highlight several reasons why a balanced framework still makes sense for medium risk investors. Elevated yields provide a clearer justification for maintaining meaningful fixed income exposure. A more stable inflation backdrop supports selective duration risk. Equity markets continue to offer growth through earnings resilience and technological innovation, even if valuations at the index level remain an ongoing concern. Alternatives help smooth the path between these two major asset classes, offering uncorrelated income streams and reducing dependence on any single source of returns.
The trade-offs are equally acknowledged. Equity valuations in the United States remain a concern, particularly where enthusiasm for artificial intelligence has driven multiple expansion. The durability of inflation is still questioned. There is also ongoing debate around the reliability of fixed income as a shock absorber if inflation fails to settle or if fiscal concerns begin to exert upward pressure on yields. Respondents also remain alert to the concentration risk created by narrow market leadership within global equities.
These considerations reinforce why respondents prefer a flexible interpretation of the 60/40 structure. It is understood as a balance between opportunity and caution, not a formula to be applied mechanically. The 2025 findings suggest that advisers are willing to lean into equities or fixed income as conditions change, while keeping alternatives as a stabilising force for income and diversification.
Evolution From the First Two Editions
Viewed across three years of survey findings, there is a clear progression in thinking.
In the earlier phase, during the first edition, respondents were grappling with a high for longer rate environment, narrower credit spreads and uncertainty about the ability of bonds to provide downside protection. Alternatives were rising, but their role was still framed as supplemental.
In the 2024 edition, advisers were reintroducing the 60/40 concept with caution, beginning to modernise it through segmentation of the bond sleeve and selective inclusion of private assets. Risk appetite was more defensive, and capital preservation was widely prioritised.
The 2025 responses indicate that the modernised balanced framework is now established practice. The portfolio blueprints provided by respondents show a coherent, nuanced structure that blends public markets, private credit, infrastructure and gold within a medium risk philosophy. Respondents appear more assured in applying this approach, reflecting greater clarity in the macro backdrop and more experience navigating the new rate environment.
The overarching message is that 60/40 is not back in its original form. Instead, it has evolved into a flexible, multi-asset model that advisers interpret through the lens of yield opportunities, valuation discipline, structural themes and the diversification benefits of alternatives.
Chapter 4
Allocations to Alternatives
At a Glance: The 2025 responses reaffirm that alternatives have shifted decisively from optional diversifiers to core components of medium risk portfolios. Respondents describe increased adviser emphasis on private credit, hedge funds and infrastructure as stabilisers and income sources in an environment where public market valuations remain stretched. Gold continues to feature prominently as a strategic hedge. The findings reflect continuity with the 2024 edition but indicate that alternatives now play a more integrated, portfolio shaping role.
The Expanding Role of Alternatives
Alternatives remain a dominant theme in the 2025 survey, with respondents consistently citing them as an essential complement to traditional equity and fixed income holdings. The qualitative responses emphasise three drivers.
First, advisers are positioning for late cycle dynamics. Several respondents note that while equities still offer upside through earnings resilience and soft landing optimism, valuations in major markets create the need for assets that can provide uncorrelated return streams or income that is less sensitive to multiple compression.
Second, the environment for private credit and infrastructure continues to strengthen. Respondents highlight income stability, floating rate characteristics in certain instruments and the appeal of hard asset exposure. They also point to the relative predictability of cash flows compared with public credit markets, where spreads remain tight.
Third, alternatives are increasingly being used to moderate volatility. Hedge funds, in particular, are mentioned as useful in smoothing return profiles and managing downside risk, especially in periods when equity markets rotate sharply between themes.
This represents a clear evolution from earlier survey editions. In the 2024 report, advisers were already signalling larger allocations to alternatives, but the tone still suggested optionality and selective enhancement. The 2025 narrative, by contrast, frames alternatives as fundamental building blocks within the risk budget.
What Respondents Are Prioritising
Across the responses, a consistent set of preferences emerges.
Private credit is repeatedly highlighted for its yield characteristics and perceived resilience relative to public credit. Respondents reference its ability to act as a counterbalance when traditional fixed income offers limited real returns.
Hedge funds appear more frequently this year, with respondents citing macro, multi strategy and market neutral approaches as particularly valuable in navigating valuation risk and geopolitical uncertainty.
Infrastructure is emphasised as a source of long-term income, with some respondents pointing to its inflation linked characteristics and role in supporting stable portfolio cash flows.
Gold continues to be treated as both an insurance asset and a strategic diversifier. Concerns around fiscal deficits, geopolitical tension and the sustainability of global disinflation reinforce its inclusion in medium risk allocations.
Real estate appears in more measured terms. Respondents generally treat it as part of the overall portfolio rather than a distinct satellite exposure. The focus is on quality and stability rather than aggressive capital appreciation.
This pattern aligns fully with the direction observed in 2024 but demonstrates greater integration. The tone this year reflects not just intent to allocate but implementation and conviction.
Alternative Allocations – 2025 Adviser Sentiment
On whether advisers are encouraging clients to increase allocations to alternatives:
- 75% plan to increase allocations to alternatives
- 12.5% expect no change
- 0% expect decreases
- 12.5% provided no response
Among advisers increasing allocations, the areas of greatest interest:
- 25% highlight hedge funds
- 25% highlight private credit
- 12.5% highlight private equity
- 12.5% highlight infrastructure
- 12.5% cite other strategies
- 12.5% provided no response
Connections to Broader Industry Thinking
The 2025 findings also echo several themes that have featured in Janus Henderson’s own recent commentary. The firm has placed sustained emphasis on the appeal of securitised fixed income within a high for longer environment, particularly collateralised loan obligations and agency mortgage-backed securities. These instruments offer higher quality collateral and diversification benefits relative to traditional corporate bonds.
While respondents do not reference securitised assets explicitly, their repeated comments about tight credit spreads, desire for resilient income and preference for high quality yield map naturally onto this broader industry research. The survey therefore suggests that the conceptual shift towards more sophisticated income sources has filtered through to wealth managers in Asia.
What Has Changed Since 2024
The 2024 edition framed alternatives as the first major adjustment advisers were making in response to persistent volatility and the uncertain inflation path. That trend has unquestionably solidified.
This year, alternatives are spoken of not as enhancements but as integral to the medium risk architecture. They are used to capture income, provide diversification and manage event risk. Respondents now describe them as baseline components rather than differentiators.
If the first edition of the survey captured advisers beginning to rethink the public market dominated portfolio, and the second edition documented widespread intent to rebalance, the 2025 findings show that these allocations are now firmly embedded.
Chapter 5
Active and Passive: Complementary Tools in a More Nuanced Market
At a Glance: The 2025 findings confirm that advisers are adopting a blended approach to active and passive strategies, treating both as essential components within client portfolios. Passive solutions continue to serve as efficient building blocks for broad market exposure, particularly in highly liquid and information dense markets. Active management is increasingly used to navigate dispersion, identify thematic opportunities and manage risk during periods of instability. Respondents describe a pragmatic, situational approach rather than a philosophical divide.
A Shift from Debate to Integration
A striking feature of the 2025 responses is the absence of any ideological tension between the two approaches. Advisers now regard active and passive strategies as tools to be combined rather than competing frameworks. The prevailing tone is one of practicality. Passive solutions are used where markets are efficient, fee sensitivity is high or broad beta exposure is required. Active management is employed where expertise, security selection and tactical flexibility can add value.
This marks a subtle but important progression from the 2024 report. Last year, respondents noted a slight tilt towards active management as a way of navigating volatility, but the underlying narrative still referenced the long running debate on whether passive flows were overtaking active demand. In the 2025 edition, that debate is noticeably absent. Integration, not comparison, defines the discussion.
Where Passive Fits Best
Respondents describe passive strategies as the foundation for core exposures, especially in the large capitalisation United States equity market, where information is widely disseminated and competition among market participants is intense. Passive instruments are valued for their low cost, transparency and ability to capture long term market performance without the need for frequent adjustments.
They are also used to implement broad regional or thematic allocations when clients require liquidity and simplicity. Several respondents highlight that passive strategies remain the most cost-effective way to anchor diversified portfolios, particularly where the objective is to maintain stable beta.
Active vs Passive – Relative Importance (2025)
On how advisers ranked the importance of active and passive solutions:
- 37% ranked active management as more important
- 25% ranked passive management as more important
- 38% viewed both as equally important
Where Active Management Still Matters
Consistent with the 2024 findings, respondents continue to see meaningful roles for active managers, particularly in markets and sectors where dispersion is high or where specialist expertise can exploit inefficiencies.
Emerging markets are cited frequently as a space where active selection can add value by navigating governance risk, structural differences and idiosyncratic economic cycles. Small capitalisation equities also feature prominently, with respondents noting that research coverage is thinner and opportunities for bottom-up selection are greater.
In sectoral terms, healthcare and technology stand out. Respondents highlight the complexity of these sectors, the importance of understanding product cycles and regulation, and the potential for active managers to differentiate between long term winners and short-lived momentum trades.
Several respondents also emphasise the value of active management during market corrections. Active approaches are seen as better suited to protecting downside, rotating exposures and expressing high conviction views when macro conditions shift abruptly.
A More Sophisticated Blended Model
While the blended model was already visible in the 2024 report, the 2025 responses describe a noticeably more structured application. Advisers are no longer simply combining active and passive; they are assigning more explicit roles to each.
Passive strategies provide stability, cost efficiency and broad market access. Active allocations are used to gain exposure to themes, manage risks around valuations and geopolitical uncertainty, and concentrate capital in areas where skill is most likely to be rewarded.
This results in portfolios that are both more resilient and more adaptive. Rather than defaulting wholesale to one approach, respondents describe a tiered structure in which passive forms the backbone and active overlays are applied with discipline and purpose.
How Thinking Has Evolved Since 2023 and 2024
The evolution across the three survey editions is clear.
In the first edition, advisers were still grappling with the implications of post pandemic volatility and questioned whether passive flows would continue to reshape global allocations. In the second edition, they leaned slightly towards active managers to help navigate macro uncertainty and to capture selective opportunities.
In the 2025 edition, active and passive are not framed as rivals but as complementary instruments within a coherent design. Respondents view both as essential and describe an increasingly professionalised approach to blending them. The emphasis is no longer on choosing between them but on knowing where each is most effective.
Chapter 6
Artificial Intelligence: From Market Megatrend to Practical Toolkit
At a Glance: Artificial intelligence has moved beyond the exploratory phase described in last year’s survey. Respondents now regard artificial intelligence as both a structural driver of long-term market opportunity and an increasingly practical tool within the wealth management process. Enthusiasm remains high, but advisers also emphasise valuation discipline and a more mature understanding of where the theme can deliver sustainable returns.
Artificial Intelligence as a Structural Growth Engine
The 2025 findings confirm that artificial intelligence remains one of the most influential themes in global markets. Respondents describe it as transformational in scope, with some likening its impact to the arrival of the internet. Capital continues to flow into companies that enable or deploy artificial intelligence, and the demand for compute power, data infrastructure and energy capacity is expected to remain exceptionally strong.
This year’s commentary suggests that advisers increasingly view artificial intelligence not as a single sector but as a multilayered ecosystem. They differentiate between the foundational enablers, such as semiconductor manufacturers and data centre operators, and the second wave of beneficiaries that integrate artificial intelligence into products, logistics and service models. This reflects a more nuanced appreciation of where the longest duration opportunities may lie.
Significance of AI in Investment Decisions (2025)
On how respondents characterise the importance of artificial intelligence in shaping their 2025 investment advice:
- 12.5% describe AI as “very significant”
- 12.5% express “cautious participation”
- 12.5% view AI as “gaining significance”
- 62.5% describe AI as a major structural investment theme
A Clearer Distinction Between Excitement and Exuberance
Compared with the 2024 edition, respondents in 2025 speak with greater caution about valuations. They recognise artificial intelligence as a long-term megatrend but warn that certain segments of the market have moved too quickly. Several respondents note that investor enthusiasm has concentrated performance within a narrow group of mega capitalisation technology companies, increasing vulnerability to earnings disappointments or shifts in sentiment.
Advisers therefore stress the importance of avoiding broad thematic chasing and focusing instead on companies with strong balance sheets, defensible competitive positions and demonstrable cash flow potential. The emphasis is on identifying genuine long-term winners rather than following short term momentum.
This discipline marks a shift from the earlier phase of the cycle. Two years ago, the dominant concern was determining which companies might emerge as leaders. In 2025 the focus has shifted to execution, pricing power and real-world scalability.
Artificial Intelligence Inside the Wealth Management Process
A second major thread in this year’s responses is the growing use of artificial intelligence within advisory firms themselves. Respondents reference artificial intelligence driven tools for narrative drafting, risk analysis and data interpretation. These tools are seen as enhancers rather than replacements for human judgement, allowing advisers to focus on higher value tasks while increasing efficiency and idea generation.
Some respondents describe the ability of artificial intelligence systems to assist with stress testing, cross checking documentation and identifying patterns across large datasets. This is broadly consistent with the wider uptake of automation and artificial intelligence across financial services and represents a notable expansion compared with the 2024 edition, where the internal use case was only beginning to appear.
Balancing Opportunity and Restraint
The combined commentary portrays artificial intelligence as a theme that is now woven into both market analysis and workflow architecture. Respondents remain highly constructive on its long-term potential, while acknowledging the need for valuation discipline and selective exposure.
Goldilocks positioning is apparent. Too little exposure risks missing transformational growth. Too much exposure risks overpaying for it. Advisers describe the objective as gaining participation in the structural upside while managing concentration risk and ensuring that artificial intelligence allocations enhance, rather than distort, the portfolio’s overall risk profile.
How the Artificial Intelligence Narrative Has Evolved
The evolution across the three editions of the survey is clear.
In the earliest edition, artificial intelligence was portrayed primarily as a high conviction theme offering long term structural upside. In the 2024 report, artificial intelligence gained prominence within sectoral preferences, but many respondents were still assessing the extent to which it would reshape earnings and market leadership.
By 2025, artificial intelligence has matured into both a megatrend and a core tool. Advisers speak confidently about the long duration opportunity while showing greater sophistication in how they assess valuations, enablers, second order beneficiaries and the practical applications of artificial intelligence within their own organisations.
Artificial intelligence is therefore no longer an abstract opportunity. It is a practical and strategic feature of the modern wealth management landscape.
Chapter 7
Cash, Liquidity and Deployment Behaviour
At a Glance: Cash balances remain elevated for some clients in 2025, although the reasons have evolved since the previous survey edition. Respondents describe cash as a tactical tool rather than a defensive endpoint, with clients using liquidity to capture opportunities during market dislocations, benefit from attractive short-term yields and retain flexibility while the macroeconomic picture continues to settle.
Liquidity as a Decision-Making Tool
The 2025 responses indicate that cash is increasingly being held with purpose rather than hesitation. Around half of respondents describe clients as deliberately holding liquidity to take advantage of potential corrections, volatility spikes or repricing events across public markets.
Respondents emphasise that clients are not withdrawing from risk. Instead, they are using cash as part of a broader risk budgeting strategy. The focus is on optionality, timing and being able to respond to valuation changes across equities, fixed income and alternatives.
The Role of Yield in Cash Allocations
Short-term yields continue to influence cash positioning. Approximately 25 percent of respondents explicitly highlight that compelling income from money market instruments and short-dated deposits is encouraging some investors to maintain elevated liquidity.
The ability to earn meaningful returns on cash is cited as a reason why some investors are comfortable keeping liquidity high, even while maintaining a constructive view on equities and other risk assets. This marks a continuation of a trend first visible in the previous edition, although the tone in 2025 is more neutral and tactical rather than defensive.
Not All Clients Are Increasing Cash
A meaningful minority of around 37.5 percent of respondents indicate that cash levels have not changed significantly for many clients. This is particularly true where portfolios already incorporate diversified elements such as private credit, gold and other alternatives.
This variation echoes the 2024 findings, but the split this year appears to be driven more by portfolio design than by investor caution. Respondents note that clients who have adopted modernised versions of the 60/40 framework, or who have meaningful alternatives exposure, often see less value in maintaining excess cash.
Client Cash Positioning (2025)
On how clients’ liquidity levels have changed over the past year:
- 50% report clients holding more cash tactically
- 37.5% report no significant change in cash levels
- 12.5% say clients consistently maintain elevated liquidity
A Shift from Fear to Preparedness
The most important narrative shift between 2024 and 2025 lies in how respondents describe investor psychology. Last year, cash accumulation was frequently framed as a defensive stance against a long list of macro uncertainties. In the current edition, liquidity is framed more positively as a strategic resource. The underlying message is that investors are not retreating from risk but preparing to deploy it more carefully.
This reflects the broader themes of the 2025 survey. A constructive outlook on markets, combined with valuation sensitivity and selective risk taking, naturally increases the relevance of tactical liquidity. Cash is therefore no longer a symbol of hesitation. It is a practical element of a more refined risk management approach.
Positioning Cash Within the Medium Risk Framework
The qualitative responses make clear that cash is still an important part of the medium risk portfolio architecture, but not in a dominant way. It features as a stabiliser, a source of immediate liquidity and a tool for opportunistic deployment.
Respondents emphasise balanced allocations, where cash complements equities, fixed income and alternatives. This approach is consistent with the updated medium risk model portfolios described elsewhere in the survey, which typically include a modest but meaningful cash allocation rather than the elevated levels seen during the earlier phases of the inflation and interest rate cycle.
How Cash Thinking Has Evolved
The progression across the three editions of the survey highlights the changing role of liquidity.
In the earliest edition, cash was overwhelmingly a safety asset in the face of high inflation and volatile rate expectations. In the second edition, it became a reflection of caution, with many clients choosing to wait for improved clarity. In the 2025 edition, cash is more clearly positioned as a tactical and opportunistic component that allows clients to act decisively in a soft landing environment.
The evolution mirrors the broader shift across the survey’s themes. Greater confidence, refined diversification and modernised risk budgeting all reduce the need for extreme defensive cash positions. Liquidity still matters, but it now serves strategy rather than fear.
Chapter 8
Next Generation Engagement and Family Dynamics
At a Glance: Inclusion of next generation family members in portfolio and planning discussions continues to increase, although it remains uneven across Asian private wealth households. Engagement is strongest when prompted by major liquidity events or when the senior generation deliberately invites next generation participation. The overall trajectory is positive, but actual involvement still varies widely from family to family.
A Gradual but Clear Rise in Inclusion
Respondents describe next generation involvement as moderate and growing. Half of the sample describe inclusion as moderate, with a further 12.5 percent characterising it as active, and 37.5 percent still viewing participation as limited. Many note that younger family members are increasingly present in meetings, particularly when discussions revolve around estate planning, intergenerational wealth transfers or material changes in the investment strategy. This reflects a broader recognition that long term portfolio continuity requires earlier and more structured exposure to decision making.
Compared with the previous edition, the tone in 2025 is more confident. Advisers indicate that next generation participation is no longer an exceptional or symbolic gesture. Instead, it is slowly becoming part of routine wealth governance, especially within larger or more professionally organised families.
Where Inclusion Happens Most Naturally
The survey responses highlight several situations in which next generation engagement is most likely to occur.
First, major liquidity events, such as the sale of a business or the restructuring of a family asset, often trigger a broader family conversation. Advisers note that these moments create a natural opportunity to bring younger members into the dialogue, because the decisions being made have multi-generational implications.
Second, planned estate reviews and governance updates commonly involve next generation family members. Respondents describe these as productive entry points, where the focus is on long term objectives rather than day to day portfolio details.
Third, engagement increases when the senior generation explicitly requests it. In families with a clear succession mindset, advisers report that younger members are invited to participate early, often sitting alongside principals during discussions with investment teams or external specialists.
Where Inclusion Remains Limited
Despite the positive direction of travel, several respondents note that next generation involvement remains inconsistent across the region.
A number of families continue to adopt a highly centralised approach to investment decisions, with the founding generation retaining full authority. In such cases, next generation participation is limited to occasional updates, and advisers often sense reluctance to relinquish control.
Other challenges are more structural. Differences in investment philosophy between generations, geographic dispersion of family members and uncertainty about the long-term intentions of younger heirs continue to slow the pace of engagement.
These dynamics mirror the findings from the previous edition, although the current responses suggest that awareness of the importance of succession planning is higher than ever, even if formal involvement remains uneven.
Advisers as Facilitators of Generational Dialogue
37.5% of respondents describe a growing advisory role in bridging generational perspectives. Advisers are increasingly asked to frame discussions in a way that is relevant to both senior principals and younger members, ensuring clarity around risk, liquidity, long term growth and thematic exposure.
This role extends beyond investment guidance. Advisers often help families articulate shared objectives, define governance structures and create an environment in which next generation members can participate meaningfully without overwhelming the senior generation’s authority.
In this respect, the evolution of next generation engagement parallels the broader professionalisation of wealth management across Asia. As family offices and private wealth teams adopt more structured frameworks, intergenerational communication becomes a natural component of that process.
Three Editions Compared: A Slow but Steady Arc
Across the three years of this survey, next generation findings show a consistent arc.
In the earliest edition, involvement was described as limited and often symbolic. The focus was on identifying moments when younger members might be introduced to advisers, usually late in the decision-making cycle.
In the second edition, the narrative shifted to a more deliberate emphasis on early engagement, with families becoming more aware of succession risks and advisers reporting greater participation in planning discussions.
In the 2025 edition, inclusion is still variable but clearly more embedded. The shift from occasional involvement to a more structured role demonstrates the growing maturity of wealth governance in the region.
The message that emerges is clear. While next generation participation is not yet universal, it is increasingly recognised as essential to long term continuity. Advisers are playing a pivotal role in encouraging this transition and ensuring that family wealth strategies remain coherent across generations.
Conclusion
Bringing Three Editions Together
Across three editions of the Hubbis Asia Private Wealth Investment Sentiment Survey, in partnership with Janus Henderson Investors, a clear narrative has emerged. The story is not just one of shifting macro conditions, but of how Asia’s wealth advisers are learning to manage uncertainty as a permanent feature of the landscape rather than a temporary shock.
The first survey took place as markets were digesting a pronounced regime change in interest rates and inflation. The second explored how portfolios were being re-engineered for that environment. The 2025 edition shows those changes bedding in. Advisers now appear to regard higher nominal yields, persistent geopolitical tension and rapid technological change as structural features that must be incorporated into portfolio design, not anomalies that will simply fade away.
From Shock Management to Regime Management
One of the strongest threads across the three editions is the evolution from crisis preparedness to regime management. In earlier years, capital preservation dominated client conversations, with respondents focused on shielding wealth from higher rates, inflation and market drawdowns. In the latest survey, that defensive instinct is still present, but it is increasingly expressed through thoughtful risk budgeting rather than retreat.
The prevailing outlook for 2025 and 2026 is a soft landing, supported by resilient earnings and gradually normalising inflation, but tempered by concern around valuations, policy missteps and geopolitical tension. This sits broadly in line with Janus Henderson’s own public commentary, which emphasises a constructive but selective stance on risk assets, with an emphasis on balancing cyclical opportunity with respect for late cycle fragilities.
In other words, advisers are no longer designing portfolios for a single dominant macro scenario. They are building architectures that can absorb a range of outcomes, from successful disinflation and steady growth to renewed volatility in rates or geopolitics.
The Modern Medium Risk Portfolio
The survey findings show that the traditional sixty forty framework has not been abandoned, but it has been reinterpreted. Respondents still see a blend of equities and high-quality fixed income as the natural backbone for many high net worth and ultra-high net worth portfolios, particularly in an environment where yields are meaningfully higher than in the decade after the global financial crisis. At the same time, they are now more explicit about treating that mix as a flexible reference point rather than a rigid rule.
Model allocations in 2025 cluster around a similar range to the previous edition, with medium risk portfolios typically combining a substantial equity allocation with a sizeable fixed-income sleeve, complemented by cash and alternatives. The difference is that the language around these choices has matured. Respondents increasingly talk about segmenting fixed income into distinct building blocks, using duration, credit quality and securitised exposures to fine tune the balance between income, protection and correlation with equities, rather than treating bonds as a single homogeneous category.
This approach resonates with Janus Henderson’s recent focus on distinguishing between traditional corporate credit and securitised assets, arguing that higher quality collateralised loan obligations and agency mortgage backed securities can offer differentiated sources of income and diversification where conventional spreads look tight. The survey does not attempt to prescribe specific instruments, but it does show advisers thinking in a more granular way about the fixed income toolkit.
Alternatives, Private Markets and the Core of the Portfolio
If there is one area where the shift from 2023 to 2025 is most striking, it is the role of alternatives. What began as a search for incremental yield and diversification in a challenging rate environment has evolved into a more structural embrace of private markets, hedge funds, infrastructure and gold as integral components of multi asset portfolios.
Across the three editions, advisers have steadily moved from “considering” alternatives, to “increasing” allocations, to treating them as a mainstream pillar alongside listed equities and bonds. The 2025 responses suggest that private credit, infrastructure and selected hedge fund strategies are now widely seen as core, particularly for clients able to tolerate lower liquidity in exchange for differentiated sources of return.
This is consistent with broader industry research pointing to private markets as a foundational part of institutional and private wealth portfolios by the middle of the decade, with private credit and infrastructure singled out as key long-term drivers of value and diversification. The survey does not quantify those trends at a global level, but adviser commentary reflects the same logic: alternatives are now seen as essential to building portfolios that can cope with different inflation paths, policy regimes and growth outcomes.
Gold also stands out as a recurring theme, treated not as a speculative trade but as a strategic diversifier and potential beneficiary of policy uncertainty and currency debate. That positioning fits naturally alongside elevated cash balances that many respondents still maintain as dry powder for future dislocations.
Artificial Intelligence: Theme, Tool and Testing Ground
Artificial intelligence has become one of the defining themes of the 2025 edition. Respondents acknowledge its potential to reshape sectors, earnings dynamics and market leadership. They are also increasingly aware of its role as an internal tool for wealth managers, supporting data analysis, risk assessment and even aspects of client communication.
Here too, the survey findings sit closely with Janus Henderson’s published views that 2025 marks an important phase in the commercial deployment of artificial intelligence, with tangible productivity and margin impacts beginning to appear in corporate results, even as questions remain about valuations and the durability of early winners.
The responses show advisers trying to navigate the tension between recognising artificial intelligence as a multi decade structural force and exercising discipline around price, concentration and the real-world constraints that accompany the build out of data centres and power infrastructure. The theme is no longer treated as a short-term trade, but nor is it granted a free pass on valuation or risk.
The Human Dimension: Governance, Generations and Advice
Perhaps the most important continuity across all three editions is the emphasis on client psychology and family dynamics. Throughout the series, respondents have stressed that risk appetite is shaped as much by lived experience and emotion as by macro scenarios. The latest survey reinforces this point.
Clients remain cautious, but that caution is increasingly channelled through thoughtful conversations about risk budgets, drawdown tolerance and long-term objectives rather than simply moving to cash. Advisers are using periods of volatility as opportunities to revisit strategic plans, not just to discuss recent performance.
The evolution of next generation engagement is a clear example. In the earliest edition, involvement of younger family members was often limited and symbolic. In the second, respondents reported a greater focus on bringing successors into the room earlier. In the 2025 edition, participation is still uneven but more embedded, especially around major liquidity events and estate reviews. Advisers are playing a more active role in translating between generations and helping families articulate shared objectives and governance structures.
This human dimension has important practical implications. It suggests that portfolio construction is increasingly intertwined with conversations about legacy, control and family purpose. It also underlines why qualitative insights from the survey complement the quantitative questions so effectively: numbers alone do not capture the full context in which investment decisions are made.
Looking Ahead: Portfolios Built for Structural Change
Taken together, the three editions of the survey offer a compelling sketch of a trajectory.
Advisers have moved from reacting to a regime change in rates and inflation, to redesigning portfolios for that regime, to using those redesigned portfolios to express a cautiously optimistic view of the years ahead. Along the way they have embraced a more flexible interpretation of the sixty forty model, elevated alternatives and private credit to the mainstream, refined their use of active and passive strategies, and begun to integrate artificial intelligence as both an investment theme and a working tool.
The broader market environment appears to be moving in the same direction. Global outlooks for 2025 and 2026 from a variety of large managers point towards modest growth, inflation closer to target than in the recent past, and an increasing importance attached to structural drivers such as digital transformation, energy transition, infrastructure investment and the expansion of private markets. The survey does not attempt to forecast these variables itself, but it shows how Asia’s private wealth community is positioning client portfolios so that they can participate in these trends without becoming hostage to any single narrative.
The message that emerges from this third edition is therefore both measured and quietly confident. Asia’s wealth advisers are not ignoring the risks inherent in valuations, policy uncertainty or geopolitics. Nor are they treating the recent evolution in rates, inflation and technology as a temporary disturbance. Instead, they are building portfolios, governance frameworks and client relationships that can live with structural change.
For Janus Henderson Investors and Hubbis, the value of this project lies precisely in that evolution. Over three years, the survey has provided a window into how leading practitioners across the region think about risk, opportunity and responsibility in an environment that refuses to stand still. The 2025 findings suggest that those practitioners are increasingly equipped with the tools, the frameworks and the mindset required to help clients navigate whatever the next stage of the cycle may bring.
