Markets keep advancing despite the macro, UBP explains why, Robeco builds a hedge.

Reading across two award-winning managers this month, one pattern stands out: the managers Alpha Research rates highest are not debating whether markets are wrong. They are debating why markets are right, and positioning for what comes next.

House View #1 — UBP

UBP, double winner of the Asset Allocation Awards, opens its June 2026 House View with a striking observation: technology accounted for 76% of global equity gains in the second quarter to date. According to the report, “earnings are growing faster than share prices”, a direct rebuttal to bubble concerns. UBP maintains its long-term overweight on US equities and technology, while raising its conviction on utilities, upgraded to 4/5 as structural beneficiaries of the AI cycle through rising electricity demand and data centre expansion. On gold, UBP makes a meaningful tactical step: it cuts its view from 4/5 to 3/5 while keeping its strategic view at maximum 5/5. Exchange-traded fund (ETF) flows have stagnated, price action has been range-bound, and a stronger US dollar (USD) reduces near-term upside. The split conviction, tactically cautious, strategically committed, sits at the centre of UBP’s current positioning logic.

UBP House View, June 2026↗

House View #2 — Robeco

Robeco, nominee for the Asset Allocation Awards, frames the same world very differently in its June 2026 Multi-asset Market Outlook. Its portfolio is explicitly barbelled: long equities through the US and emerging markets, long government bonds, and now underweight commodities, including oil, as a Gulf conflict resolution approaches. The portfolio moved underweight commodities as “oil should fall on a Gulf conflict resolution.” Robeco also increased investment grade (IG) hedging, given credit spreads are back near post-financial crisis lows. The barbell structure implies Robeco is less convinced the earnings narrative alone can carry markets.

Multi-asset Market Outlook, June 2026↗

What It Means for the Consensus

Both managers are positioned for a Hormuz resolution, but through opposite hedges. UBP adds equity and dollar exposure; Robeco adds government bonds and cuts commodities. Watch for next month: if the resolution arrives without a meaningful growth impulse, the government bond leg of Robeco’s barbell starts to look prescient. If earnings continue to outpace prices, UBP’s equity conviction gets vindicated. Either way, the split between these two award winners is itself a signal, the easy consensus trade is behind us.

Editor’s Note

House Views tracks how the winners and nominees of the Asset Allocation Awards, organised by Alpha Research, think and position. Not to predict markets, but to understand how investment views evolve before the consensus catches up.

This week, the same macro backdrop produced two genuinely different portfolios, which is itself the most useful signal.

I read the allocation reports of 13 nominated managers every week. This week, for the first time in months, three of them moved in the same direction, and disagreed sharply on what to do next.

What struck me reading these three reports back to back: the language around risk is getting sharper, but the positioning isn’t moving. Pictet upgrades. Federated holds. Northern Trust warns. Nobody sells.

Pictet Asset Management Sectors Award nominee ↑ Equities upgraded to overweight

Pictet makes its most decisive move in months. The trigger: earnings beating consensus forecasts by the largest margin in over four years. Simultaneously, bonds are downgraded to underweight, rising energy costs build the case for tighter monetary policy. Few managers this week have moved as cleanly in both directions at once.

Barometer: In earnings we trust, June 2026↗

Federated Hermes Fixed Income Award winner → Equities held at +6% overweight

Federated Hermes maintains its six percent overweight in equities and a five percent underweight in fixed income. The rationale is pointed: overcoming walls of worry often leads to healthier and higher equity returns. On duration, the firm is comfortable with its modest long bias, expecting the Fed’s rate-cut cycle to eventually push yields lower. A more dovish read than Pictet’s, and a more patient one.

PRISM: Effective Asset Allocation, 27 May 2026↗

Northern Trust Asset Management Asset Allocation Award nominee ⚠ Constructive, but tone is the most cautious

Northern Trust publishes the sharpest structural warning of the three. The rally is framed explicitly as powerful yet increasingly fragile: the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index is up 63% year-to-date, while breadth has narrowed sharply. Natural resources are trimmed toward neutral; global listed infrastructure stays overweight. The equity stance remains constructive, but the language does not.

Investment Perspective: Narrow But Powerful, 28 May 2026↗

What it means for the consensus

Pictet’s upgrade from neutral to overweight is the clearest directional signal this week. If other panel managers follow, and the reasoning on earnings strength is broadly shared, an upward revision to the consensus equity weight becomes harder to resist. Watch bonds: two of three managers are now explicitly negative on fixed income.

Three managers independently flagged AI-driven market concentration as a risk this week. None of them reduced equity exposure because of it. Recognising a structural risk and acting on it are two different decisions. That gap is worth watching.

House Views tracks how the winners and nominees of the Asset Allocation Awards, organised by Alpha Research, think and position. Not to predict markets, but to understand how investment views evolve before the consensus catches up. 13 nominated managers. 4 allocation award winners. Tracked weekly.

Of the 68 reports behind the June Consensus, not a single house raised its equity allocation because of geopolitical calm, and yet the consensus score climbed to its highest level in months.

The data shows not a blind rally but a selective repositioning. The total number of recommendation changes fell from 87 to 67, markets moved, strategists did not. Those who did move, moved more often up than down: 36 upgrades against 31 downgrades. The net equity score rose from 0.596 to 0.635, still in the top 30% of all observations since 2012. If there was ever a month for “Sell in May” to show up in the data, this was it. It didn’t.

Two formal movers

Two categories shifted position. Corporate Bonds dropped from Neutral to Underweight. Energy dropped from Overweight to Neutral, notable, because the Hormuz closure was pushing oil prices higher at the same moment strategists were scaling the sector back. That gap between price and positioning suggests broad consensus on the temporary nature of the energy shock. Not a structural regime change, a peak.

Below the surface

The movement is not in the headline category but in the rotation beneath it. Within equities, positive momentum is almost entirely driven by US equities. Emerging Markets remain the preferred region. Europe is the only region with net negative revisions. Within fixed income, High Yield rises in relative attractiveness now that Corporate Bonds sit one tier lower. Emerging Market Debt remains the undisputed favourite. Cash is creeping higher from a very low base, not a flight, but a signal worth tracking.

The two dominant themes across the reports explain the apparent contradiction. Hormuz raises inflation expectations and pressures bonds. AI supports earnings growth at technology companies and keeps equity markets near record levels. Both themes are pulling simultaneously, in opposite directions, and the consensus absorbed that without changing course.

The other camp

Raiffeisen is the only house explicitly underweight equities. Amundi takes a different route: by adding duration and tilting toward credit, they arrive at a net overweight on bonds. Two houses, two deviations, two internal logics, but neither forms a broad counter-current. The consensus is not unanimous, but it is cohesive.

What to watch

The consensus direction shifts if inflation expectations rise structurally on the back of a prolonged Hormuz closure, the point at which a temporary energy shock becomes a permanent bond headwind.

Two forces, one consensus. Hormuz compresses bond room while AI expands equity earnings, and sixty-eight strategists absorbed both without flinching. The signal for June is the same as it was for May: risk on, selectively. The question is not whether the consensus holds, but which force blinks first.

The 68 sources behind the June Consensus

This consensus does not come from a model or a survey. It comes from 68 investment teams who publish their tactical positioning every month, asset managers and banks with a 3 to 12 month horizon. The June Consensus is based on reports collected through the end of May. Below is every source, with a direct link to the publication. If you want to see what lies behind the signal, this is where it starts.

1. Aberdeen Investments The Investment Outlook

2. Allianz Global Investors Multi Asset Tactical View

3. Amova AM Balancing Act Monthly Insights: Global Multi-Asset

4. Amundi Global Investment Views

5. Arab Bank Investment Strategy

6. Aviva Investors House View

7. Barclays Multi-asset portfolio allocation

8. Bendura Investment Outlook

9. BlackRock Weekly market commentary

10. BNY Investments Vantage Point

11. Candriam Monthly Coffee Break

12. Citibank GIC Asset Allocation

13. Columbia Threadneedle Tactical Asset Allocation Outlook

14. Degroof Petercam - Indosuez Monthly House View

15. DWS Investment Traffic Lights

16. Erste Group Global Strategy

17. Federated Hermes Where We Stand

18. Fidelity Global Asset Allocation Insights

19. Fisch Asset Management Monthly Update

20. Franklin Templeton Allocation Views

21. Generali Investments Market Compass

22. Hang Seng Bank Investment Outlook

23. HSBC AM Investment Monthly

24. ING Investment Office Maandbericht Beleggen

25. Invesco Uncommon Truths

26. J. Safra Sarasin Cross-Asset Weekly

27. Janus Henderson Multi Asset Quarterly

28. JP Morgan AM Global Asset Allocation Views

29. Kempen Asset allocation outlook overview

30. L&G IM Outlook

31. Loomis Sayles Investment Outlook

32. Mackenzie Investments Blue Book

33. Merrill Capital Market Outlook

34. MFS Global Market Pulse

35. Morgan Stanley The Beat

36. Neuberger Berman Asset Allocation Committee Outlook

37. Ninety One Multi-Asset Strategy Quarterly

38. Northern Trust AM Investment Perspective

39. Nuveen Global Investment Committee

40. OFI Asset Management Panorama

41. PGIM Outlook & Review

42. Pictet AM Barometer

43. PineBridge Investment Strategy Insights

44. Raiffeisen Anlageguide

45. RBC The Global Investment Outlook

46. Robeco Monthly Outlook

47. Russell Investments Asset Class Dashboard

48. Schroders Our Multi-Asset Investment Views

49. SEB House View

50. Societe Generale House Views

51. Standard Chartered Global Market Outlook

52. Sys Group Asset Allocation Insights

53. T. Rowe Price Global Asset Allocation

54. UBP House View

55. UBS Macro Monthly

56. UniCredit The Checkpoint

57. UOB AM Quarterly Investment Strategy

58. Vontobel Investors’ Outlook

59. Voya Multi-Asset Perspectives

60. VP Bank Our View

61. Wellington Multi-Asset Outlook

62. Wells Fargo Asset Allocation Strategy

New to this? Sixty-eight of the world’s largest asset managers update their portfolios every month — this article distils their collective direction into one signal. Right now that signal points toward equities, even as oil prices rise and bond markets come under pressure.

Markets have recovered from their March lows. Equities are back near all-time highs. Yet four major asset allocators share a quiet unease: the recovery is running ahead of the facts. The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed. The debate is no longer about the initial shock, but about duration, second-round effects, and who pays the bill.

Amundi

In its May 2026 Global Investment Views, Amundi, nominee for the Asset Allocation Awards, marks a meaningful shift: what in March appeared a one-off shock is now “an ongoing, longer reality that could eventually turn out to be a macro-financial shock.” Central banks are holding to “disciplined optionality.” Rate cuts have been pushed to 2027.

Pictet Asset Management

Pictet Asset Management, also a nominee, titles its Barometer “calm after the storm”, but that calm is conditional. Global liquidity is growing at 7.4%, a full percentage point above trend. That justifies upgrades to overweight for both US equities and emerging market local currency government bonds. “Our risk allocation remains selective: we would like to avoid reliance on a single macroeconomic or geopolitical development.”

Robeco

Robeco, nominee for the Asset Allocation Awards, goes beyond tactics in its Multi-asset Market Outlook. The central thesis: energy security has permanently broadened from access to oil into domestic generation and storage. Europe, with only six weeks of critical jet fuel supply, is the most exposed. European duration is being priced too hawkishly.

T. Rowe Price

T. Rowe Price, nominee, neutralises its underweight on US equities in its Global Asset Allocation: The View From Europe via “America’s market moat”: stronger earnings, AI leadership, energy self-sufficiency and fiscal support. Simultaneously, it deepens its underweight in European equities. “Inflation risks represent a potential market blind spot, given uncertainty around the persistence of the energy supply shock.”

What It Means for the Consensus

Three of four managers independently upgrade the US and reduce Europe, a convergence that reads as an early signal. Whether others follow may reveal as much about conviction as about calendar. Twelve years of Asset Allocation Consensus data suggest strategists move together in May more than they admit.

New to this? House Views tracks how the winners and nominees of the Asset Allocation Awards, organised by Alpha Research, think and position. Not to predict markets, but to understand how investment views evolve before the consensus catches up.

I have spent more time this year arguing about AI than actually using it, and that tells me something.

The debate has two camps. Believers and sceptics. What strikes me is not the divide itself, but what the sceptics are actually testing. One prompt. Minimal input. Then disappointment when the output is thin. That is not a fair test of AI. That is a fair test of a bad question.

The way I think about it: AI is an iteration process. The more context you give, the more specific your framing, the more rounds of refinement you run — the better the output. By the fourth or fifth exchange, you are no longer talking to a tool. You are inside a dialogue that sharpens your own thinking. Whether that counts as AI performance or human performance is a question I have not resolved.

That is the lens through which I read three recent developments.

ABN Amro Investment Solutions (Citywire Selector, paywalled) CEO Marguerite Bérard stated that the firm has been running an AI portfolio since last year and uses AI to influence investment decision-making. The details remain limited — portfolio construction, manager selection, allocation support or a combination is not specified. But the signal matters precisely because it comes from a large institutional platform, not a technology vendor with a product to sell.

In The Self-Driving Portfolio, Andrew Ang, Nazym Azimbayev and Andrey Kim describe an AI-native architecture built around roughly fifty specialised agents. Some generate Capital Market Assumptions. Others construct portfolios, challenge conclusions, vote on alternatives and test robustness. A meta-agent rewrites prompts and code based on observed outcomes.

The authors make one observation that stopped me: the most binding constraint in institutional asset management is not data availability or model sophistication, but the finite bandwidth of human decision-makers.

That sentence reframes the entire debate. The question is not whether AI is smarter than an allocator. The question is whether AI can expand the bandwidth of the allocator who already knows what matters. That is a tool question, not a replacement question.

Danny Wall (Founder, CEO & CTO @ OA Quantum Labs | Angel Investor for AI and Quantum Projects) recently described a forecasting architecture where independent agents continuously challenge each other’s conclusions and learn from errors. One prompt would never surface that, iteration might.

Three signals. One direction. The conversation is moving from productivity tools toward portfolio construction, forecasting and allocation support. Not there yet — but closer than it was.

That still leaves the question I cannot answer.

The iteration process clearly improves AI output in research and analysis. What I cannot yet answer is whether that same logic translates to the allocation decision itself, where the input is not a prompt but a portfolio, and the output is not a paragraph but a weight.

Is the asset allocator who iterates five times with AI making a better decision? Or just a more elaborate one?

New to this? Every week I test whether AI can improve the way professional investors decide where to put their money, and the honest answer is that the quality of the question matters more than the quality of the tool.

The signal

69 strategists and CIOs weighed in on global equities in April: 61.5% are overweight, 1.9% underweight. The net score stands at 0.596, the lowest reading of 2026.

No strategist writes in their report:

I am selling in May because that is simply what one does. Yet they do it, on average, year after year.

Markets have no seasons, but the people who comment on them clearly do. On average, strategists and CIOs follow the “Sell in May” narrative, not as a conscious decision, but as a behavioural pattern that becomes visible across twelve years of data.

The consensus on global equities fell from 0.62 in January to 0.596 in April 2026: a consistent downward move, timed precisely toward the moment the adage says to step aside. No freefall, but the direction is unmistakable. And the timing is striking.

Our Asset Allocation Consensus (AAC) data over 2013–2025 make the pattern visible: optimism on global equities declines consistently from 43.8% in January to a low of 29.4% in November, a drop of nearly 14 percentage points across the year. The summer half-year averages 34.3%, the winter half-year 38.3%. Four percentage points, modest but consistent across twelve years.

Academic literature supports the effect. A study by Zhang and Jacobsen, published in the Journal of International Money and Finance (2021), analysed 62,962 monthly observations spanning 323 years and found that November through April outperforms May through October by an average of 4 percentage points, visible in 89 of 114 countries. What the AAC data add is a different dimension: not only does the market follow this pattern, so do the people whose job it is to interpret it. The analysis was conducted on global equities, measured via the MSCI ACWI Index.

But the classic adage cracks at one point. “Come back on Halloween” assumes November is strong. The data do not support that: November averages 0.294, the weakest month of the entire year, lower than every summer month except August and September. The winter half-year is carried by December, January and February. Not by November.

The other camp

One asset manager moved in the opposite direction in April: VP Bank upgraded from underweight to neutral, as shown in Our View in April dated 14 April 2026. That is not a wave, but it is the only contrarian signal in a dataset of 69 reports. Those who see the summers of 2024 and 2025 as counter-evidence, global equities rose 11% and 23.5% respectively in those periods, will find a fellow traveller in VP Bank. One voice, but a deliberate one.

What to watch

If the consensus score falls further in May and global equities nonetheless close positive, the behavioural pattern of strategists and the market outcome will have definitively parted ways. The effect would be more psychology than signal. The same analysis applied to US or European equities will follow if there is sufficient interest: let us know in the comments.

No strategist writes it down. No report concludes: we are turning cautious because May is approaching. But the data write it down, twelve years running, month after month, consistent and collective. “Sell in May” may no longer be a market effect. It is a mirror effect: markets behave as strategists expect, and strategists expect what they have always expected. To understand markets, you first need to understand the people who interpret them.

New to this? Global equities means listed companies from all major markets combined, and every month we measure how many professional investors want more or less exposure to them. If that number falls in May, the question becomes: are they responding to facts, or to an old saying?

The Strait of Hormuz has been closed for two months. Yet markets are not pricing in a structural energy crisis, and the winners of the Asset Allocation Awards 2026 are positioning accordingly. The reports underpinning this edition were published between 2 and 29 April 2026 and form the direct input for the Asset Allocation Consensus that Alpha Research published on 7 May.

UBP — Overall Award & Asset Allocation Award

In the House View of April 2026, UBP significantly raised its cash position and partially hedged equity exposure through options, funded by reductions in equities, fixed income and gold. Within equities, conviction shifted toward energy (upgraded to 4/5) and European defence; Consumer Discretionary was downgraded to 2/5. On fixed income, UBP shortened duration from 4.5 to 3.5 years and reduced exposure to AT1s, high yield and EM local currency bonds. The Fed is expected to remain on hold until 2027, supporting the dollar. Stagflation is not the base case, but the risk rises the longer the conflict continues.

ING Investment Office — Equities Regions Award

The May 2026 Monthly Investment Update shows an unchanged positioning: ING IO maintains a neutral weighting for equities and fixed income. Emerging markets remain overweight, earnings growth of an expected 45% in 2026, valuation around the long-term average. Japan remains underweight given full energy import dependency. IT equities retain the overweight: valuation has fallen below the long-term average, earnings growth remains above average. Energy stays underweight: futures for end-2026 are more than $30 below the spot price, a market-implied signal that the shock is temporary.

Invesco — Equities Sectors Award

The Strategic Sector Selector of April 2026, subtitled Approaching late cycle?, contains nine sector shifts in a single quarter. Upgrades: basic resources (underweight to overweight), construction & materials and utilities (both to overweight), consumer products & services and technology (both to neutral). Downgrades: chemicals, travel & leisure and retailers (all three to underweight) and banks (to neutral). The logic: markets are tilting toward late cycle. Invesco is moving with them, away from the consumer, toward commodities, infrastructure and defensive value. Technology retains favour through margins and cash generation, not through AI sentiment.

Federated Hermes — Fixed Income Award

In Where We Stand of 15 April 2026, Federated Hermes maintains a 5% underweight on fixed income. High yield is underweight: spreads have tightened beyond pre-conflict levels, the Fed is on hold and stress in private credit is building. EM bonds underweight, fundamentals sound, but the risk compensation remains insufficient. TIPS back to neutral after taking profit on a prior overweight. Treasuries overweight as counterbalance. The core logic: no reason to add risk without the spread to justify it.

Northern Trust Asset Management — 21 nominations in 11 years

“As a global economy, we are less dependent on oil than we once were, and more dependent on chips. Technology is the key driver now, not oil like it once was.” Gary Paulin, Chief Investment Strategist International at Northern Trust Asset Management, speaks on behalf of an investment committee that has collected 21 nominations at the Asset Allocation Awards over eleven years, an average of nearly two per year. That institutional track record gives his views weight as a counterpoint to the prevailing market consensus.

In the Investment Perspectives, Paulin supports his macro thesis with three structural arguments. Energy efficiency per unit of GDP has fallen by more than two thirds since the 1970s. Inflation breakevens have barely moved despite the oil shock. And oil futures are in deep backwardation, the market itself is not pricing in a structural disruption. Those three signals point in the same direction: the geopolitical risk premium on energy is temporary, not structural. And those who believe that are positioned differently from the consensus.

Paulin is direct about the implications: “In a world where the range of possible outcomes increases, it is important that we do not just ask what could go wrong, but also ask what could go right.” He observes a structural negativity bias among large asset owners, reacting too heavily to negative headlines while underestimating positive outcomes. His response is not optimism but discipline: systematically weighing both sides of the outcome distribution.

Northern Trust Asset Management has translated that view into concrete portfolio decisions. While being overweight real assets generally, and infrastructure especially, after a quarterly return of approximately 20% in natural resources, profits were taken and the position reduced. At the same time, the underweight in global real estate was brought back towards neutral, an anticipatory move ahead of further rate normalization once the geopolitical risk premium fades. Those who view the oil shock as temporary are buying rate-sensitive assets now. Northern Trust Asset Management has already made that call.

Bottom line

Four winners, four categories, one shared thesis: markets do not expect a structural energy crisis. The futures say it, the breakevens say it, and Northern Trust Asset Management says it most forcefully. Those who believe it are buying rate-sensitive assets now. Those who do not are holding cash, just like UBP.

Heading into May, 61.5% of CIOs and strategists are overweight equities. Only 1.9% are not.

THE NARRATIVE

Four shifts dominate the April consensus. Pacific ex-Japan drops from overweight to neutral, the region has delivered what it needed to deliver. Inflation Linked Bonds move from underweight to neutral, driven by the inflationary pressure the energy shock brings with it. Consumer Discretionary falls to underweight: the consumer is holding back spending as long as energy prices remain elevated.

The most pronounced move is Energy. In March, the sector moved from underweight to neutral. In April, Energy stands at overweight, year-to-date return approximately +33%, in euros and dollars nearly identical. The sector is no longer as dominant as in previous cycles, but the direction is unmistakable: higher oil prices translate directly into higher revenues, and American energy producers combine that price advantage with lower transportation costs than Middle Eastern competitors. Dividends and buybacks at record levels further reinforce shareholder value creation. The classic dilemma for anyone who missed the move: the consensus is already riding momentum, but the de-escalation risk is real, a ceasefire and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz could trigger a sharp correction in energy prices.

Emerging Markets Equities remain the most attractive equity region without interruption, since July 2025, with two brief exceptions when the US was fractionally more attractive in November 2025 and February 2026. Historically, EM now sits in the top 5% of attractiveness over fourteen years. Emerging Market Debt has been the most attractive fixed income category since June 2025. The conversation with Valentijn van Nieuwenhuijzen on EM and EMD as the most attractive asset classes, conducted earlier this year, still holds. The data have only strengthened the case since.

The broad preference for equities rests on three pillars: AI-driven earnings growth spreading from technology into industrials, utilities and energy, with estimated S&P 500 earnings growth of 15–19% for 2026; a resilient US macro environment with a strong labour market and productivity gains; and broadening market leadership as equal-weight S&P 500 and small caps begin to close the gap on the Magnificent Seven. Valuations have pulled back from the 95th to the 73rd percentile after the correction: not a bargain, but no longer extreme either.

THE OTHER CAMP

Two structural risks deserve attention. The Shiller CAPE stands at approximately 32x, historically consistent with roughly 4% annual returns over ten years, regardless of what the quarterly earnings print says. At the same time, the correlation between equities and bonds has turned positive as a result of the energy shock: bonds are no longer fulfilling their role as a portfolio buffer at precisely the moment that matters most. J. Safra Sarasin goes a step further as a contrarian, standing underweight energy on the argument that the market has already priced in most of the good news and that risk/reward at current levels is unattractive.

WHAT TO WATCH

If the Strait of Hormuz reopens within three weeks, the narrative supporting Energy collapses, and the consensus direction may turn faster than the data currently suggest.

The train is moving, and 61.5% of CIOs are on board. Those still on the platform are weighing momentum against the one scenario that ends the journey abruptly: a ceasefire, a reopened Strait, an energy price that falls as fast as it rose. The consensus is right more often than not. But trains that have already travelled 33% rarely stop at the moment everyone decides to board.

New to this? Energy stocks are rising because a blocked shipping route in the Middle East is pushing up the oil price, and higher oil prices mean higher profits for energy companies. The question dividing 69 reports this month: is this the beginning of a longer ride, or the final stop?

Four of the most successful asset managers in the world, selected through eleven editions of the Asset Allocation Awards on the basis of their ex-ante positioning over a rolling 36-month period, agree on one thing: the Strait of Hormuz is the single most important macro variable of this moment. Where they diverge is on what comes next, and that divergence may be more telling than the consensus itself.

Hormuz as transmission mechanism

The Strait handles roughly 20% of global energy flows. Since late February, Brent crude has risen 58% and natural gas 65%. The immediate market response was mechanical: risk-off positioning, hard hits to European and Asian equities, and a sharp repricing of energy-intensive sectors.

The inflationary arithmetic is well established. UBP, winner of both the Asset Allocation Award and the Overall Award at the 11th Asset Allocation Awards, lays out the transmission in their March 2026 House View: a $10 oil move adds between 0.2 and 0.5 percentage points to inflation, and oil at $100 per barrel translates to approximately 1.4 additional percentage points. The growth side mirrors it: a 10% energy increase reduces output by around 0.35 percentage points, and oil at $100 shaves a full percentage point from growth.

That combination — inflation up, growth down — is the textbook definition of stagflation.

Where the consensus splits

The inflation outlook divides the field. Invesco, winner of the Equities Sectors Award and the asset manager most attuned to cross-asset transmission, argues in their March 2026 edition of Uncommon Truths that the shock is temporary. Historically, a 50% oil rise adds roughly one percentage point to CPI, and breakeven inflation expectations have barely moved, suggesting markets are not yet pricing in structural damage.

ING Investment Office, winner of the Equities Regional Award, takes a harder line in their April 2026 Monthly. That regional discipline shapes their Hormuz analysis directly. In a year when virtually every major allocator tilted toward the US, ING explicitly chose neutral on North America at two quarterly junctures. That same discipline now plays out in their energy read: Brent +40%, gas +65%, Europe and Asia hardest hit, sector by sector. Their stagflation framing is not abstract. It is regionally grounded.

UBP and ING agree: the stagflation risk is real and not automatically self-correcting. The key variable for both is whether Hormuz reopens. If it does not, Invesco’s temporary thesis collapses.

The credit blind spot

Here is what the inflation debate obscures. None of these three asset managers, with one exception, has translated the macro deterioration into explicit credit risk. The stagflation scenario implies lower growth, compressed margins, and rising input costs for leveraged companies. The logical endpoint is wider spreads and higher defaults. Yet that step is largely absent from the analysis.

Federated Hermes is the exception. It is no coincidence that they won the Fixed Income Award at the 11th Asset Allocation Awards, in a year when the rate environment showed more movement than the preceding three years combined. Their March 2026 edition of Where We Stand is already defensively positioned: underweight both high yield and investment grade, with an explicit flag on credit problems among speculative borrowers. That is not scenario analysis. That is a position.

In a credit cycle, the distance between diagnosing and positioning is rarely academic. The three asset managers that built the stagflation case most precisely are now the asset managers slowest to act on its credit implications. Federated did not build a framework. Federated acted. When the credit cycle turns, that timing advantage will not be subtle.

The market remains in the early phase of a credit cycle that has not yet turned. Spreads are technically tight. Default rates are not yet rising. But the conditions that precede credit deterioration are accumulating. Stagflation, margin pressure, and reduced earnings visibility are the three variables that historically precede a turn. Invesco’s counterweight, stable breakeven expectations, suggests systemic stress has not arrived. If Federated’s positioning proves premature, that signal will move first.

The question allocators should be asking

The Strait of Hormuz is the ignition point. Oil is the transmission mechanism. Equities have repriced. The question that remains underpriced is whether this macro shock runs long enough and deep enough to produce the credit cycle that current spread levels do not yet reflect. That is not a macro question. It is a positioning question.

Four asset managers read the same data. Only one acted on all of it.

This analysis is based on the March 2026 editions of each publication. Updated positioning from all four asset managers with April data will be incorporated in our May 1st review.

New to this? The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway in the Middle East through which one-fifth of the world’s oil passes, and right now it is largely closed, which means higher energy prices, slower growth, and rising pressure on company finances across your portfolio.

The consensus of 72 asset managers remains broadly constructive. Equities are overweight, bonds underweight, and overall positioning still points toward growth. But beneath that stable surface, four signals are shifting simultaneously, and they all point in the same direction.

Cash as an early warning system

The most striking signal is not in what is being overweighted, but in what is quietly being built up. Cash positions are recovering sharply: the percentage of overweight positions doubles from 5.4% to 11.1%, while underweights decline from 54.1% to 50.0%. Cash remains formally the least popular asset class. But the move is unmistakable. A growing group of allocators is building liquidity buffers, not as a strategic choice, but as protection against uncertainty they cannot quantify.

Avoiding duration, hedging inflation

That uncertainty has a name: inflation. Within fixed income, Inflation Linked Bonds shift from neutral to overweight, while Government Bonds slide further. More than half of all asset managers, 50.9%, are now underweight government bonds. The reasoning is sharp: higher energy prices driven by geopolitical tensions fuel inflation expectations, forcing central banks into caution and delaying rate cuts. Long duration becomes a risk, not a buffer. Spreads over duration: that is the implicit choice embedded in this consensus.

Energy: the market doesn’t believe its own prices

Brent is above $112. The energy sector rose +12.54% in March and stands at +40.94% year-to-date in euros. Yet Energy shifts only from underweight to neutral in sector allocation. The explanation lies in the futures market: one-year forward delivery prices $94.8, three-year forward prices $75.7. The market expects current energy prices to be temporary, and the consensus follows that judgment. Betting heavily on energy now means betting against the forward curve.

America wins by standing still

The fourth shift is the quietest. America climbs from third to second in regional equity allocation, not because conviction on America increases, but because Japan and Pacific ex Japan give up overweight positions. Emerging Markets retains its lead with 63.6% overweight recommendations, but America benefits as a relative safe haven: less exposed to the oil shock, less vulnerable to the geopolitical turbulence hitting Asia and Europe harder.

One theme, four moves

Four signals, one conclusion: the consensus repositions without changing course. Equities remain the core, but the edges are being reinforced. Cash up. Duration out. Inflation hedged. Energy normalised. The portfolios still run on growth, but the hands are moving toward the emergency brake.

New to this? Large asset managers adjust their portfolios monthly based on what they expect markets to do, these four shifts signal that professionals worldwide are quietly getting more cautious, even if they’re not saying so yet.

I spent six weeks looking for an investment committee that made an allocation decision based on AI output. I did not find one.

The filter

The research window ran from 1 March to 15 April 2026. The criteria were strict and cumulative: AI had to be embedded in the allocation decision itself, not in the research preceding it. The decision had to be owned by a CIO, head of asset allocation, or investment committee. And the implementation had to be live in an existing mandate — no pilots, no proofs of concept. No single case met all three conditions.

This is the second research round. The first window ran from January to February 2026, applying identical criteria. The outcome was the same.

Two rounds. Identical method. Identical result. That is not a single observation. That is a pattern forming.Zero cases. A clean result.

The near misses

Several came close. A large pension fund embedded neural networks in scenario analysis and generated equity-buy signals during a stress period. A sovereign investor applied AI to improve predictive signals and tilt portfolios. A global asset owner used AI for risk monitoring and to support early divestment decisions.

These are not experiments. They are real implementations. But they sit one layer below allocation policy: they inform decisions, they do not make them.

Where AI is live

The contrast is sharpest in publicly listed strategies. Robeco launched the NextGen Global Small Cap ETF in March 2026, an active strategy using machine learning to detect non-linear relationships in return drivers and dynamically adjust signal weights at the level of individual stocks. M&G announced the Global Maxima Equity UCITS ETF in December 2025, built on a machine learning model trained on data from more than one thousand companies across twenty-five years.

Live portfolios. Trackable. Real. But they operate inside equity sleeves. They do not alter SAA frameworks. They do not revise capital market assumptions. They do not redefine allocation policy.

The decision boundary

AI is present in security selection, portfolio construction, and risk monitoring. Absent in allocation mandates, investment committee decisions, and strategic allocation frameworks. That boundary is not technical, it is institutional. An investment committee must be able to defend an allocation decision to a board, regulator, and client. That requires ownership: someone who puts their name to the answer. A model that autonomously determines what percentage goes to equities cannot provide that accountability. Until committees can delegate that responsibility, the decision remains human, regardless of the quality of the AI output.

The inputs are improving: better signals, sharper scenario analysis, more granular risk modelling. The decision itself has not yet shifted.

To change that, three things need to be visible: explicit AI integration in mandate language, adoption at investment committee level, and evidence of capital being reallocated as a direct result of AI output. None of these appeared in this window.

Result: no allocation impact found. Implementation expanding.

The boardroom is always last. In investment management, last is not a detail. Last is a decision.

New to this? Asset allocation is the decision that determines how much of a portfolio goes into equities, bonds, or other assets, and right now, that decision, the most consequential in the investment process, remains beyond the reach of AI.

41.2% overweight, 50.0% neutral, 8.8% underweight. The plurality was in the overweight column, and the thesis beneath it just broke.

Seventy-two reports. Commodities rank second in the investment consensus, directly behind equities. Sentiment has been more positive than this only 14.4% of the time since 2012. That consensus was built on an accelerating global economy: February 2026 PMI data showed the strongest global growth since May 2024, the best manufacturing figures since December 2021, and China growing at its fastest pace since May 2023.

Then the Strait of Hormuz closed.

Since February 28, 2026, the macro foundation beneath that consensus no longer exists. The Strait carried roughly 20 million barrels per day in 2025, approximately one fifth of global oil consumption and over a quarter of worldwide seaborne oil trade. That flow has now fallen to less than 10% of pre-conflict levels. Brent peaked at $126 on March 8 and was still trading around $107 on March 21, more than 50% above its pre-war level. The IEA described this as the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. Gulf states have collectively curtailed more than 10 million barrels per day. This is not a geopolitical risk premium at the margin. This is a structural supply shock.

Three tension arcs, not two

Until Hormuz closed, the commodity story ran on two axes: dollar direction and Chinese growth momentum. A third arc has now emerged that overshadows both, for as long as the strait remains closed.

The first arc is Hormuz and shipping stress. This extends well beyond crude. Global LNG supply has fallen roughly 20% due to Gulf disruptions, with Qatar as the largest casualty. More than 30% of global urea trade and around 20% of ammonia trade normally transits the Strait. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have suspended their Middle East routes. The IEA launched the largest emergency reserve release in its history: 400 million barrels. A significant buffer, not a structural solution.

The second arc is the dollar. A rising DXY while oil prices climb creates an unusual regime: the dollar no longer brakes commodity prices, it signals flight to safety while supply-driven upward pressure runs independently. A weakening dollar from here becomes an additional tailwind on top of Hormuz.

The third arc is China PMI. Higher oil prices and disrupted supply chains weigh on industrial activity globally, and that pressure is now visible in the data. Copper fell 9.4% since the outbreak of the conflict, to $12,081 per metric ton on March 23. Global inventories surpassed one million metric tons for the first time since 2003. The strongest growth figures in years offered no protection once growth fears took over.

Two scenarios for energy

The bull case is straightforward: the supply shock persists, Brent stays structurally above $100, and gold moves in tandem as a geopolitical and stagflation hedge. Goldman Sachs projects an average Brent of $110 through Q2, with a worst-case of $135 if the Strait remains closed through June.

The bear case is de-escalation. A diplomatic opening or partial reopening quickly removes the risk premium from oil. At that point, DXY and China PMI reclaim dominance, and the story shifts back to structural metals and gold.

Three sleeves, three drivers

The commodity overweight is now a basket of conflicting micro-regimes. Three explicit sleeves are required.

The energy sleeve is driven by Hormuz, shipping stress, inventories, and production decisions in a disrupted market. The upside is substantial. The downside on de-escalation is equally abrupt. Futures implementation carries additional roll costs in a heavily backwardated market.

The metals sleeve tells a different story. Copper fell 9.4% in less than a month. Inventories sit at their highest since 2003. The bull case for industrial metals requires a stabilising China and falling energy prices. As long as Hormuz remains closed, both conditions are under pressure.

The gold sleeve has the strongest simultaneous support: geopolitical uncertainty, stagflation risk, central bank demand, and a dollar caught between two forces. Gold is currently the most coherent position within the commodity basket.

The question for an allocator is not “commodities or not.” It is which sleeve, in what proportion, and with what exit scenario, because the three drivers are now moving in three different directions at once.

The map was wrong. The positions are real.

Those who were overweight on electrification and mining underinvestment are now also long a geopolitical supply shock. Those are two different positions sitting in one sleeve, and the map that got them here will not get them out. The energy sleeve no longer rewards patience, it rewards timing. The metals sleeve needs China, not Hormuz. Gold does what gold always does when everything grinds at once: it works.

On April 1, the new Asset Allocation Consensus is published. The numbers will shift. More interesting is where the arguments move, which allocators have already repriced Hormuz, and who is still working from the old map. The strait opened this story. The data will tell us how many saw it coming.

how many saw it coming.

New to this? The Strait of Hormuz carries one fifth of the world’s oil, and right now it is largely closed. That single fact is now the dominant force behind every commodity in your portfolio, more than China, more than the dollar.

Seventy percent of the asset allocation reports published in 2025 did not need to be read. The question is which thirty percent was worth your time.

That is precisely the question Alpha Research began answering in 2016 with the first edition of the Asset Allocation Awards. This year, in the eleventh edition, we assessed a record 72 reports. Five winners remained.

How winners are determined: recommendations are assessed over a rolling 36-month period, alongside consistency of publication and argumentation, and breadth of asset classes covered. Scores are based on ex-ante positioning relative to ex-post market results. No subjective jury, no popularity vote.

Asset Allocation Award: UBP

UBP wins two awards simultaneously this year. It is the seventh time in eleven years, and five of those six previous occasions combined the Overall Award with the Asset Allocation Award. The pattern has become a defining characteristic. Their monthly House View runs to more than twenty pages and scored highest in the asset allocation category this year, ahead of strong competitors including J.P. Morgan Asset Management, Robeco and Northern Trust AM.

The distinguishing factor: UBP takes explicit positions across asset classes, with a clear time horizon per recommendation. There is no room for the strategic ambiguity that characterises many competing reports. That makes their recommendations testable. And the results speak for themselves.

Fixed Income Award: Federated Hermes

Six pages. That is all Federated Hermes needs to win the Fixed Income Award in a year when the rate environment showed more movement than the preceding three years combined.

The compactness is not a limitation. It is the product. No commentary requiring further commentary, no frameworks explaining other frameworks. The view is there, the position is alongside it, and the argumentation fits within a single read on a morning commute. For a time-pressed allocator, that is no small achievement: insights that are immediately actionable, without working through twenty pages first. Their coverage of Inflation Linked Bonds was accurately positioned in a quarter when the market significantly underweighted that segment. Precision, packaged in format.

Equities Regional Award: ING Investment Office

ING Investment Office ranks among the most consistent asset managers in the universe with 18 all-time nominations. But consistency is often confused with caution, and that is a misreading here.

A neutral recommendation sounds uneventful. In practice, it is one of the hardest positions to maintain. In a year when virtually every major allocator tilted toward the US, ING explicitly chose neutral on North America at two quarterly junctures. No underweight, no overweight. A deliberate refusal to move with the consensus. Both times, correctly. This is someone else’s money. Whoever understands that knows not losing is not a half-hearted strategy. It is discipline, and discipline has a price here.

Equities Sectors Award: Invesco

After six nominations, Invesco takes the award this year. Their publication Uncommon Truths combines sector views from the US and Europe into one consolidated global allocation, an approach most competing asset managers do not apply, as it requires additional position-taking per region.

That integration advantage proved decisive this year. Sector rotation in Europe played out differently from the US in 2025. Those analysing both markets separately missed the correlation. Invesco did not.

Overall Award: UBP

The Overall Award combines performance across asset allocation, regional equities and fixed income. UBP scored within the top five in all three categories this year. That breadth-and-depth profile has occurred only twice in eleven years of award history.

Monthly publication, explicit positions, demonstrable results. Three characteristics that rarely converge. This year, they did, at one asset manager.

Follow them

Five reports. Three criteria. Eleven years of data. The conclusion is the same every time: the asset manager who maintains independent judgment when consensus moves the other way does not win spectacularly, but does win. Consistency is not a style preference. It is a return driver, and this year, once again, the only one that counts.

New to this? Asset allocation is the decision that determines how an investor distributes capital across equities, fixed income and other categories, and that choice historically explains more than eighty percent of the performance difference between portfolios. These five reports are the best-documented guide to exactly that decision.

The asset allocation consensus for March 2026 barely moves. Just 51 view adjustments, down from 69 the month before. The only meaningful change: Corporate Bonds shifts from underweight to neutral. Otherwise: stillness.

That stillness is a good moment to hold the Consensus up against the ASR Asset Allocation Survey from February 2026, “Asset Allocators More Constructive: due to stronger, longer growth and benign monetary policy.” Two sources, different architecture. The Alpha Research Consensus aggregates the monthly TAA reports of 72 asset managers worldwide, from Amundi to Wellington, measuring each asset class on a scale from -1.00 to +1.00.

The ASR survey captures direct opinions from 284 CIOs and strategists at institutional investors, collectively responsible for $13.4 trillion in assets under management. To make both sources comparable on a single scale, the ASR implied probabilities have been transformed using the Alpha Research Consensus method: (Very Likely + Likely) minus (Unlikely + Very Unlikely), divided by 100. The result runs from -1.00 to +1.00, identical to the Consensus scale. The transformation is my own analytical step, the comparison is not a reproduction of ASR output.

The table below shows where they agree and where they diverge.

*ASR score based on Real Assets beat Treasuries and Treasuries beat Cash respectively. Scale runs from -1.00 to +1.00: above +0.20 overweight, below -0.20 underweight, in between neutral.

Where both sources agree

The areas of agreement are strong and broadly supported. Equities scores +0.75 at ASR against +0.655 in the Consensus: both sources point unambiguously to a risk-on baseline. Emerging Markets stands at +0.68 at ASR and +0.561 in the Consensus, the highest regional score on both sides. Commodities confirms the same directional signal: +0.61 versus +0.324. The arguments overlap: a weaker dollar, attractive valuations, stronger world trade.

Where the scores diverge

The first significant difference sits with America. ASR strategists score US outperformance versus non-US at -0.51: a pronounced negative conviction. The Consensus has America at +0.422, down from first to third place but still overweight. The direction is the same, the intensity differs sharply. Buy-side strategists are considerably more negative on the US than the TAA reports of asset managers suggest. The implication is direct: if buy-side conviction at -0.51 proves correct, current allocator positioning at +0.422 has further to fall.

The sharpest break sits in credit. ASR scores Corporate Bonds at +0.35 and Government Bonds at +0.35. The Consensus stands at -0.167 and -0.298 respectively. Those are opposing positions on the same scale. Buy-side strategists are constructive on investment grade credit and government bonds as carry instruments. TAA allocators are not. This is not a difference in tone. It is a measurable difference in position.

What the table does not show

What the table cannot show deserves a separate note. The ASR survey measures not only what professionals prefer, but also what they actively exclude. Recession risk scores -0.77. Higher Fed Funds -0.76. A stronger dollar -0.60. These are the strongest positions in the entire survey, and they sit at the bottom. The Consensus has no equivalent: TAA reports measure positive direction, not the active rejection of the bear case. Placing both sources side by side produces a fundamentally more complete picture of where professional capital is positioned and where it is deliberately not. For anyone building a macro view, that is the more valuable half of the information.

Conclusion

The Consensus measures what asset managers do. The ASR survey measures what strategists think. On equities and Emerging Markets the two track closely: scores of +0.75 versus +0.655 on equities, +0.68 versus +0.561 on EM. In credit they diverge, measurably and concretely. Corporate Bonds at +0.35 at ASR, -0.167 in the Consensus. Government Bonds at +0.35 at ASR, -0.298 in the Consensus. Two sources, the same scale, opposing positions. Strategists treating bonds as a carry instrument, allocators staying underweight: consistently inconsistent, until the market decides.

Two reports, the same direction. One credit market that still has to choose.

New to this? The asset allocation consensus aggregates the monthly recommendations of dozens of major asset managers worldwide to show where professional sentiment stands. Add a direct buy-side survey alongside it, and you see not only where the market is moving, but also what professionals are deliberately betting against.

Asset allocation is the boardroom at the top of the building. AI has entered through the front door, but it is still working its way up the floors.

Almost every recent article about AI in investing focuses on research, tools or workflow. Almost none address allocation itself. That gap is not accidental. It reflects how technology moves through investment organisations: first into instruments, then into process, and only later into policy. The boardroom is always last.

Governance first, models second

The CFA Institute report Explainable AI in Finance identifies a problem every allocator recognises immediately. AI models can be powerful, but investment committees will not use them if they cannot explain the output. Transparency is not a technical preference. It is a governance requirement.

For allocators this is not abstract. Strategic Asset Allocation, ALM and risk budgeting depend on models that must survive scrutiny from boards, regulators and clients. A model that cannot be explained will not survive an investment committee, regardless of its predictive accuracy. Explainability is the price of entry.

What AI cannot carry

The Human Advantage in an AI World (Asia Asset Management) argues that the real edge in an AI-driven world may still be human judgement. Not because humans process data better. They do not. But because investment decisions involve context, responsibility and accountability that cannot be cleanly delegated.

This is precisely where allocation differs from the rest of the investment process. Security selection can be automated. Rebalancing rules can be codified. But a policy decision about how much risk to take, against which liabilities, under which assumptions about the future, requires someone to own the answer. AI can inform that decision. It cannot carry it.

The risk hiding in the workflow

A Forbes piece by the Finance Council takes the broadest view: AI as both opportunity and threat. Firms are deploying AI for research, monitoring, portfolio analytics and client reporting. The same technology introduces model risk, operational risk and governance challenges.

For asset allocators, this tension is familiar. Every new model changes the workflow before it changes the portfolio. The danger is not that AI will get allocation wrong. The danger is that it reshapes the surrounding process so gradually that allocation assumptions go unexamined through an entire ALM cycle, across multiple policy reviews, before anyone notices the ground has shifted.

The door at the top

Taken together, the message is consistent and slightly uncomfortable.

AI adoption inside investment management is accelerating. The change is real, the tools are improving and the workflow is shifting. But allocation itself remains largely untouched. Not because it will stay that way, but because organisations move policy last: after the tools are proven, after the research is trusted, after the committees are ready.

Models move first. Processes follow. Policy waits.

AI has entered the building. It has improved the research, sharpened the tools and restructured the workflow. Floor by floor, it is working its way up. But the boardroom, where allocation policy is made, defended and owned, remains untouched. Not forever. Just last. And in investment management, last is not a detail. Last is a decision.

From reports to consensus

Each month, the Asset Allocation Consensus is built from the ground up. Before anything is aggregated into a model or ranking, the starting point is what strategists actually write.

This page brings together the 72 most recent asset allocation reports used for the February 2026 Consensus, published on 1 March 2026, representing EUR 65.8 trillion in assets under management. All reports are no older than six months, making this one of the broadest input sets since the start of the Consensus in 2012.

These documents are the primary sources, CIO views, house outlooks, tactical updates, and cross asset frameworks in their original form. The value is not any single report, but the patterns that emerge across them.

Fewer changes, weaker conviction

Compared with the previous month, changes were limited. In total, 51 recommendation changes were recorded, down from 69 in the prior update. Downgrades slightly outnumbered upgrades across asset classes, suggesting some cooling in conviction rather than a clear shift in regime.

Only one consensus change occurred at the asset class level. Corporate Bonds moved from Underweight back to Neutral.

Regional shifts below the surface

Within regions, rankings changed more than recommendations. Emerging Markets equities moved to the top position, Pacific ex Japan rose to second, while US equities dropped from first to third. Under the surface, the relative attractiveness of the US weakened, even though overall equity positioning remains positive.

Still risk on, but watching closely

At the total allocation level, the signal remains risk on. Equities and commodities stay overweight, while cash is at an all time low. Fixed income positioning is mixed, but not defensive.

These reports were written before the escalation in the Middle East in early March and before energy prices moved sharply higher. That makes the next update especially interesting, not only for the recommendation changes, but for how strategists adjust the arguments behind them.

Source reports

Below are the source documents used in this month’s Asset Allocation Consensus.

1. Aegon AM Global House View

2. AllianceBernstein Strategic Investment Outlook 2026

3. Allianz Global Investors Multi Asset Tactical View February 2026

4. Amundi Global Cross Asset Investment Strategy February 2026

5. Arab Bank Investment Strategy Q1/2026

6. Aviva Investors House View 2026 Outlook

7. AXA IM Multi-Asset Investments Views

8. Barclays Market Perspectives February 2026

9. Bendura Market Outlook February 2026

10. Berenberg Horizon Handout

11. BlackRock Weekly market commentary

12. BNP Paribas AM Monthly Market Viewpoint

13. BNY Investments Vantage Point

14. Candriam Monthly Coffee Break

15. Citibank GIC 2026 Q1 Macro Investment View

16. Columbia Threadneedle Tactical Asset Allocation Outlook

17. Degroof Petercam - Indosuez Monthly House View

18. DWS Investment Traffic Lights

19. Erste Group Global Strategy 1Q 2026

20. Federated Investors Where We Stand

21. Fidelity Global Asset Allocation Insights - February 2026

22. Fisch Asset Management Monthly Update - February 2026

23. Franklin Templeton Allocation Views February 2026

24. Generali Investments Market Compass February 2026

25. Hang Seng Bank 1Q Investment Outlook 2 Jan 2026

26. HSBC AM Investment Monthly February 2026

27. ING Investment Office Maandbericht Beleggen

28. Invesco Quarterly Global Asset Allocation 2026 Outlook

29. J. Safra Sarasin Cross-Asset Weekly February 2026

30. Janus Henderson Multi Asset Quarterly

31. JP Morgan Global Asset Allocation Views 1Q 2026

32. Kempen Asset allocation outlook overview February 2026

33. L&G IM Outlook

34. Mackenzie Investments Blue Book

35. Merrill Capital Market Outlook February 2026

36. MFS Global Market Pulse

37. Morgan Stanley The BEAT for Q1 2026

38. Neuberger Berman Asset Allocation Committee Outlook 1Q 2026

39. Ninety One Multi-Asset Strategy Quarterly

40. Northern Trust AM Investment Perspective

41. Nuveen Global Investment Committee

42. OFI Asset Management Panorama

43. Pictet AM Barometer Ferbuary 2026

44. PineBridge Investment Strategy Insights February 2026

45. Raiffeisen Anlageguide February 2026

46. RBC The Global Investment Outlook

47. Robeco Monthly Outlook Februari 2026

48. Russell Investments Asset Class Dashboard

49. Schroders Our Multi-Asset Investment Views

50. SEB House View

51. Societe Generale House Views February 2026

52. Standard Chartered Global Market Outlook February 2026

53. Sys Group Asset Allocation Insights February 2026

54. T. Rowe Price Global Asset Allocation February 2026

55. UBP House View February 2026

56. UBS Macro Monthly

57. UniCredit Monthly Outlook February 2026

58. UOB AM Quarterly Investment Strategy

59. Vontobel Investors’ Outlook February 2026

60. Voya Multi-Asset Perspectives February 2026

61. VP Bank Our View February 2026

62. Wellington Multi-Asset Outlook February 2026

63. Wells Fargo Asset Allocation Strategy February 2026

64. Wilmington Trust Capital Perspectives

The past weeks I spent more time reading AI research than allocation reports.
That contrast is becoming interesting.

New models appear every month.
Allocation frameworks adjust slowly.
Formal policy barely moves.

Over the past weeks I searched for work that could realistically influence allocation decisions.
Not trading models.
Not product marketing.
Research that could affect Tactical Asset Allocation (short-term tilts), Strategic Asset Allocation (long-term policy weights), Capital Market Assumptions (expected return models) and ALM (asset-liability management).

Scope of the search:
1 January 2026 – 12 March 2026.
Focus on models that change inputs used by allocators, not just execution.

Four findings stood out.

First, Amundi AIP (Dynamic asset allocation: its relevance and signals for 2026)
This is not a paper but a production allocation platform.
Machine learning is used to classify macro regimes, model correlations and generate scenario-based portfolio weights.
The system distinguishes multiple historical regimes going back more than a century and uses those classifications to bias portfolio construction toward or away from risk.
The important point is not the technology.
Allocation inputs are already partly model-driven before a committee ever meets.

Second, AQR 2026 Capital Market Assumptions.
Strategic allocation still depends on expected return estimates.
The latest update shows how valuation models, macro data and long-horizon statistics are combined in systematic frameworks rather than judgement alone.
The result is not a new allocation rule, but a different starting point.
Return expectations for traditional balanced portfolios remain well below long-term historical averages, which directly affects how much risk allocators can justify taking.

Third, LSTM-based risk budgeting research (Nature).
Neural networks were used to model time-varying risk across multiple asset classes.
Compared with static risk parity, the dynamic approach reduced drawdowns during stress periods without increasing turnover.
That matters because many Strategic Asset Allocation models still assume stable correlations that disappear exactly when risk rises.

Fourth, LightGBM tail risk modelling (SSRN).
This work focuses on predicting extreme losses instead of average volatility.
The models improved detection of regime shifts before large drawdowns, allowing earlier reduction of portfolio risk.
For allocators this is directly relevant to ALM, stress testing and downside control.
Better tail estimates can change how much risk a portfolio is allowed to carry.

Taken together, the pattern is clear.

AI is not rewriting allocation policy.
It is rewriting the inputs used to justify that policy.

The sequence is predictable:

• risk models change first,

• return assumptions next,

• tactical signals after that,

• and formal allocation policy last.

For practitioners this is familiar.
Mandates do not change because a model improves.
They change when the evidence becomes too strong to ignore.

The evidence is accumulating faster than committees are moving.

Research is moving.
Frameworks are evolving.
Policy is slow.

The next question is not whether AI can improve allocation inputs.
It already does.

The real question is which of these models will be the first to influence an actual allocation decision, and what it will take before a committee is willing to follow.

Every year the Asset Allocation Awards start with the same question: which asset managers have been the most consistent in their allocation recommendations?

This year, after analysing 72 asset allocation reports over a 36-month horizon, the shortlist is ready.

Across five categories, 25 nominations are awarded each year. Making the shortlist already places a report among the most consistent allocation frameworks in the market.

But the nominations tell a larger story, not just about this year, but about who has been consistently getting allocation decisions right over time.

A decade of nominations

Over the past ten years, 247 nominations have been awarded across the five categories.

Looking back over that period reveals something striking: a relatively small group of asset managers appears again and again.

Source: Alpha Research - Asset Allocation Awards

Together these 11 firms account for 60.3% of all nominations over the past decade.

For investors navigating dozens of strategy publications, this observation is useful. Following this relatively small group of asset managers already narrows the field considerably compared with analysing the entire universe of 72 reports.

But historical consistency does not guarantee future nominations, and every year the shortlist changes.

The 2026 shortlist

This year’s nominations highlight both continuity and change.

Several historically strong names appear again, but there are also shifts in momentum. Some long-time nomination leaders appear less frequently this year, while others move to the front of the shortlist.

Source: Alpha Research - Asset Allocation Awards

One name clearly stands out.

UBP leads this year’s shortlist with four nominations, appearing in almost every category. ING Investment Office and J.P. Morgan Asset Management follow with three nominations each.

The strong showing from ING Investment Office also moves the firm up to second place in the all-time nomination ranking, reinforcing its long-term consistency.

J.P. Morgan Asset Management, meanwhile, returns prominently to the shortlist after a period with fewer nominations.

Nominations by category

Asset Allocation

Nominees:

• UBP

• Federated Investors

• J.P. Morgan Asset Management

• Robeco

• Northern Trust AM

This category reflects the broadest allocation decisions across asset classes and often sets the tone for the overall positioning in multi-asset portfolios.

Fixed Income Allocation

Nominees:

• Federated Investors

• UBS

• Candriam

• Invesco

• Amundi

The shortlist combines established fixed income strategists with firms whose allocation views have recently ranked strongly in the model portfolios.

Equities Regional Allocation

Nominees:

• ING Investment Office

• T. Rowe Price

• J.P. Morgan Asset Management

• UBP

• L&G IM

Regional allocation remains one of the clearest ways strategists express macro views, from positioning between the US and Europe to shifts toward Japan or Emerging Markets.

Equity Sector Allocation

Nominees:

• Invesco

• UBP

• ING Investment Office

• Pictet AM

• Candriam

Sector allocation highlights how strategists position within equity markets themselves. The shortlist includes both global investment houses and managers known for strong thematic or sector-driven frameworks.

Overall

Nominees:

• UBP

• ING Investment Office

• UBS

• T. Rowe Price

• J.P. Morgan Asset Management

The Overall category rewards consistency across multiple allocation dimensions. Appearing here typically requires strong performance across several individual categories.

The final step

The shortlist now defines the contenders.

With four nominations across the five categories, UBP enters the final stage of the awards with the strongest position. Several other firms remain close behind, particularly ING Investment Office and J.P. Morgan Asset Management.

But nominations alone do not determine the outcome.

In the final article of this series, we will reveal which asset managers ultimately receive the Asset Allocation Awards.

When the first Asset Allocation Awards were presented, the idea behind them was already several years old. Investors had been asking me the same question long before that: who is actually the best asset allocator?

When Alpha Research started analysing asset allocation reports from asset managers in 2012, the first Asset Allocation Consensus quickly emerged. By combining the views of dozens of strategists, it provides an overview of how the market as a whole is positioned.

For many investment committees, this is valuable information. Comparing a portfolio with the market consensus immediately shows whether it is positioned more defensively or more aggressively than the broader market.

But almost immediately a second question followed: if we know the consensus, which asset managers actually make the best allocation decisions?

Answering that question turned out to be more complicated than expected.

Measuring forecasts is harder than it looks

An asset allocation recommendation is not a simple buy or sell signal. Strategists typically work with relative positions such as overweight, neutral, or underweight. In addition, recommendations are made across different categories such as regions, sectors, or fixed income segments.

For that reason, in the early years I had many discussions with investors, CIOs and quantitative specialists about how allocation recommendations could be measured in a fair and consistent way. The objective was to develop a methodology that would be as objective as possible while remaining practical to implement.

This process ultimately led to the first Asset Allocation Awards in 2016.

Since then, the Awards have become an annual moment to review the quality of allocation recommendations from asset managers.

A growing universe of reports

When Alpha Research started collecting asset allocation publications, around forty reports were followed. Over time that universe gradually expanded.

By 2020 the number had grown to around fifty publications. In 2024 it reached sixty. Today Alpha Research analyses 72 asset allocation reports from international asset managers.

For investment committees this represents a large amount of information. At the same time, it creates a practical challenge: which reports are the most valuable to follow?

The Asset Allocation Awards aim to help answer that question.

How the model works

To make allocation recommendations measurable, Alpha Research translates the recommendations from asset allocation reports into model portfolios.

Within each category, five sub-asset classes are used, which are equally weighted in a neutral situation. The neutral benchmark therefore consists of a portfolio in which each sub-asset class has a weight of 20%.

When an asset manager recommends an overweight position in a sub-asset class, the weight is increased to 25%. When a position is underweight, the weight is reduced to 15%.

The portfolio is then normalised so that the total allocation always equals 100%, ensuring that no leverage is introduced. In this way, the model portfolio reflects the relative allocation view of an asset manager.

The performance of these model portfolios is then ranked and compared with the neutral allocation.

Within each category, an equal-weighted structure is deliberately used. The goal of the analysis is not to replicate the structure of the market, but to measure whether relative allocation decisions add value.

In a market-weighted index such as the MSCI ACWI, the United States currently represents roughly 60% of the index. As a result, allocation decisions regarding the US can dominate overall outcomes.

Using an equal-weighted structure ensures that smaller regions such as Japan or Emerging Markets play an equally important role in the analysis. This makes it easier to observe whether allocation recommendations for these segments add value.

The exact composition of sub-asset classes differs by category. In Regional Equities, for example, regions such as the United States, Europe, Japan and Emerging Markets are used, while in Fixed Income segments such as government bonds, investment grade, high yield and emerging market debt are included.

For a fair comparison, reports must contain a sufficient number of recommendations. Therefore, only categories with at least four out of five sub-asset classes receiving a clear allocation recommendation are included in the analysis. If a report contains too few recommendations, that category is excluded from the ranking.

Time horizon and consistency of the universe

The analysis is conducted over a 36-month period.

Asset allocation decisions often take time to be reflected in market performance. In the data tracked by Alpha Research, rankings over shorter periods tend to fluctuate more strongly. A three-year horizon therefore provides a more stable view of the quality of allocation recommendations.

During this period, changes in the universe of reports are also taken into account. If an asset manager stops publishing a report for an extended period, that report may be removed from the analysis. Conversely, new reports are only included once sufficient historical observations are available to allow for a meaningful comparison.

This approach helps ensure that rankings are based on consistent and comparable data.

Award categories

The Asset Allocation Awards are presented in five categories:

• Asset Allocation

• Regional Equities

• Equity Sector Allocation

• Fixed Income Allocation

• Overall

The Equity Sector Allocation Award was introduced in 2017 and will be awarded for the tenth time this year. The other categories have now been running for eleven years.

Clarity and consistency of reports

In addition to performance, Alpha Research also evaluates the clarity and consistency of the reports themselves.

An allocation report must provide clear signals. Many asset managers use arrows, plus/minus signs or colour coding to indicate positions. This makes recommendations easy to interpret.

When recommendations are expressed only in text and require interpretation, it becomes more difficult to measure them consistently. In such cases a report may be excluded from the analysis.

The regularity of publication also matters. If a report does not appear for an extended period, its comparability with other publications may be affected.

From consensus to selection

The Asset Allocation Consensus shows how the market as a whole is positioned. That information is valuable, but it remains an average of many different views.

The Asset Allocation Awards add a second perspective. By measuring the quality of allocation recommendations over multiple years, a shortlist of asset managers with a demonstrated degree of consistency emerges.

For investors, this can help quickly identify which reports are worth following. In an environment where investment committees have access to dozens of strategy publications, this can result in a meaningful time saving. Instead of monitoring a large number of reports, investors can focus on a smaller group whose allocation recommendations have historically ranked well.

In the next article, we will look at which asset managers have been nominated for this year’s Asset Allocation Awards.

This week’s tactical asset allocation question

Four of the past five calendar years, High Yield delivered the strongest returns within fixed income. It outperformed government bonds, investment grade, and emerging market debt.

The recurring objection was simple, spreads were too tight.

In practice, the higher coupon compensated for valuation risk. Carry dominated caution.

The question now is whether that regime persists, or whether late cycle dynamics erode the income advantage.

Consensus positioning

Within the Asset Allocation Consensus, positioning remains broadly neutral. As of 1 March, 25.4 percent of strategists are overweight High Yield, 45.8 percent neutral, and 28.8 percent underweight.

The net positioning score, defined as overweight minus underweight, moved only marginally from -0.017 on 1 February to -0.034 on 1 March. In other words, the debate has intensified, but positioning has barely changed.

Within fixed income preferences, Emerging Market Debt (EMD) ranks as the most attractive segment, followed by Inflation Linked Bonds. High Yield shares third place with Corporate Bonds, while Government Bonds remain the least attractive.

Fixed income attractiveness ranking based on Asset Allocation Consensus

This distribution reflects the same tension visible in the data: attractive carry, but limited valuation buffer.

One regime, two outcomes: Carry dominates, until growth turns

In a resilient growth regime, attractive all in yields and contained defaults allow carry to compound. Spread compression is not required for acceptable returns.

In a late cycle regime, tight spreads offer limited protection. Rising real yields lift refinancing costs. Earnings cyclicality becomes the binding constraint.

The regime call, growth stability versus deceleration, determines whether High Yield behaves as income or equity beta.

At a glance

• US High Yield OAS 295 basis points, well below historical average
• Euro High Yield OAS estimated 310 to 340 basis points, also compressed
• US Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) expansion, but cooling momentum
• Eurozone PMI improving, led by Germany
• US default rate 3.7 to 4.8 percent, forecast 3.8 percent with wide uncertainty band

March 2026 Positioning Snapshot

1. Spreads

US ICE BofA High Yield OAS stands near 295 basis points. The 5 year average is around 350 basis points. The current level sits roughly 55 basis points below average and near the 300 basis point threshold widely viewed as very tight.

Euro High Yield spreads are estimated between 310 and 340 basis points, versus a 10 year average near 400 to 430 basis points. Valuations are compressed across both regions.

At these levels, the buffer against macro disappointment is thin.

2. Growth signal

US Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Manufacturing PMI rose to 52.6 in January, then eased to 51.2 in February. Services PMI declined to 52.3. Expansion continues, but momentum softens and tariff related pull forward may distort the signal.

Eurozone composite PMI reached 51.9, with manufacturing at 50.8. Germany returned to expansion. France remains marginally below 50.

No region signals contraction. The US shows cooling momentum, Europe shows tentative recovery.

3. Default structure

The trailing 12 month US High Yield bond default rate stands near 3.7 percent, versus a longer term average around 3.4 percent. Leveraged loan defaults remain higher near 5.9 percent. Moody’s baseline forecast projects speculative grade defaults near 3.8 percent by end 2026, with a wide range between 1.7 and 8.3 percent.

By rating bucket, BB defaults remain near 1 to 2 percent, B near 3 to 4 percent, and CCC materially higher. Stress concentrates in the weakest cohort, not the index core.

Defaults are elevated but not accelerating.

The key takeaway for allocators

Spreads are tight. Growth has not broken. Defaults are contained but uncertain.

That mix argues for discipline, not expansion.

High Yield

3 Supports, Why Carry Still Anchors Returns

All in yields remain attractive relative to recent history. Even without further spread tightening, yield to worst can support mid single digit total returns over a 6 to 18 month horizon.

Default rates remain near historical averages. Broad credit stress is absent.

Balance sheets improved during the refinancing window of prior years. Near term maturity walls remain manageable.

In a stable growth regime, time supports returns.

4 Constraints, Why Tight Spreads Limit Margin

High Yield OAS trades well below medium term averages. That leaves little cushion against volatility.

A sustained PMI decline below 50 would pressure leveraged issuers. Growth deceleration transmits quickly through earnings.

Higher real yields increase refinancing costs and tighten financial conditions.

The weakest rating bucket already shows stress. A broader spread would reprice quickly.

Carry versus Recession Risk

2 Conditions for the Bull Case, Why Income Dominates

If PMI stabilizes above 50 and real yields plateau, carry remains the primary driver of return. Default rates near baseline projections allow spreads to remain compressed without repricing.

Under that regime, High Yield functions as an income anchor.

3 Triggers for the Bear Case, Why the Cycle Overrides Yield

If PMI rolls below 50 and default rates trend higher, spreads must widen. At 295 basis points, repricing potential is asymmetric.

The critical interaction is rising defaults alongside tight spreads. That combination historically precedes abrupt spread widening.

Under that scenario, High Yield behaves like equity risk.

Allocation Stance: Neutral

Spreads near 295 basis points do not justify an overweight. Growth does not justify an underweight.

Carry compensates for current risk, but does not warrant risk expansion.

Position Neutral until spreads widen meaningfully or growth momentum reaccelerates.

Debate this in the comments

A → Carry still compensates

At 295 basis points, US High Yield still offers mid single digit return potential if defaults stabilize near 3.5 to 4 percent. PMI remains above 50. Stress is concentrated in the CCC bucket.

Under that scenario, carry offsets tight spreads. A modest overweight remains defensible.

B → Asymmetry dominates

295 basis points sits 55 basis points below the 5 year average. The margin for error is thin. If PMI weakens or defaults migrate from CCC into B, repricing will not be gradual.

Downside resembles equity risk. Upside remains limited by compressed spreads. Neutral may already assume too much stability.

The decisive question

Is 295 basis points adequate compensation for late cycle uncertainty, or does it only work if growth remains intact?

What indicator would make you move from Neutral to Overweight or Underweight?