The most compelling cases for independent wealth management are rarely made in the abstract. They are made in the detail of specific client situations, where the flexibility, expertise, and alignment of an independent firm translate into outcomes that a larger institution could not have delivered. For firms operating at the intersection of multiple jurisdictions, tax regimes, and family dynamics, the ability to navigate complexity is not a selling point but a baseline requirement.

At the recent Hubbis Independent Wealth Management Forum in Hong Kong, Jessica Cutrera, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Leo Wealth, provided a detailed and practice-led perspective on how independent firms can differentiate through genuine specialisation. Speaking on the opening panel of the day, Cutrera addressed portfolio construction, the build-versus-outsource question, and the specific demands of serving Asian families with US tax connections. Her contributions were grounded in operational reality, drawing on client examples that illustrated both the risks of poor structuring and the value of early, informed intervention.

Key Takeaways


The Best Portfolio Is Individualised, Not Modelled: Good portfolio construction in 2026 starts with a client’s specific timeframe, tax jurisdiction, and family objectives, not with a standard allocation template.
Portfolios Must Not Be Static: Lives change, tax parameters shift, and currency exposures evolve. Firms that treat portfolio construction as a one-time exercise will underdeliver.
Transparency Across Advisers Is Essential: Many Asian families work with multiple banks and advisory firms simultaneously. Without consolidated analytics, the risk of duplication and misalignment grows.
Build What Clients Need, Outsource What Others Do Better: The decision to develop capabilities in-house should be driven by client demand and competitive advantage, not by a desire to control every function.
Cross-Border US-Asia Tax Is a Distinct Specialism: Serving Asian families with US connections requires deep technical expertise that cannot easily be outsourced or approximated.

 

Portfolio Construction as a Living Process

When Ng asked the panel what a good portfolio looks like in 2026, Cutrera’s response centred not on asset allocation or market outlook but on process and philosophy.

The starting point, she argued, is the ability to understand each client’s individual circumstances and to construct a portfolio around those parameters rather than fitting clients into a pre-existing model. “The best portfolio is really one that caters to that individual client’s needs and has been thoughtfully constructed around all of these different parameters,” she said.

But Cutrera was equally emphatic about what happens after a portfolio is built. In her experience, private banks are prone to treating portfolio construction as a transactional event. “Lives are not static,” she observed. “It’s frequently appropriate to make at least minor adjustments to reconsider a client’s needs.”

For families in Asia, where international footprints are common, this ongoing attention is essential. Tax parameters change, currency exposures shift, and regulatory requirements evolve. A portfolio well constructed at inception can become misaligned within a year if no one is monitoring these variables.

Cutrera also raised transparency as a structural challenge. It is not unusual for a family in Asia to work with multiple banks, external asset managers, and multi-family offices simultaneously. Without consolidated data and clear analytics across all of these relationships, the risk of duplication, gaps, or conflicting positions increases. “If you don’t have transparency and good analytics and data and understanding of what a client is doing across their portfolios, across their advisors, you’re not going to get the right outcomes,” she said.

Build Versus Outsource: Starting with the Client

The panel’s discussion on whether to build capabilities in-house or rely on external partners drew one of Cutrera’s most detailed contributions. Her framework was straightforward: the decision should be driven by what clients need, not by what the firm wants to own.

She cited family mediation as an example. While qualified external mediators are available in Hong Kong, Cutrera found they lacked the contextual understanding of Leo Wealth’s clients. “They don’t know our clients the way we do. They’re not able to understand the background so quickly,” she explained. The decision to bring mediation in-house was driven by the belief that better client knowledge would produce better outcomes.

Other functions, particularly legal work, were deemed better left to external specialists given the regulatory complexity and depth of expertise required.

Cutrera also highlighted an area where Leo Wealth built capability because no adequate external option existed: cross-border US-Japan tax advisory for greater China clients who prefer to communicate in Mandarin. “That I couldn’t accurately outsource, but I found there was a need for it,” she said. The example illustrates a broader principle: where a firm identifies a client need that the market is not serving well, there is both a service rationale and a commercial opportunity in building the capability internally.

She also emphasised the value of collaboration within the independent wealth community. Through organisations such as the Family Office Association in Hong Kong, firms share operational insights and, in some cases, refer work to competitors who have developed stronger capabilities in specific areas. “Part of how you determine what you should build in-house and what you should outsource is learning from what other firms have done,” Cutrera noted.

The US-Asia Nexus: A Case Study in Complexity

When Ng invited Cutrera to share a specific example of Leo Wealth’s cross-border expertise, her response illustrated the depth of complexity that independent firms must navigate and the consequences of poor early advice.

Cutrera described a PRC management team that had built a successful technology business headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Over 15 years, the senior principals, most of whom were originally from Beijing, had taken either US green cards or passports. Their children had attended school in the US and taken jobs in California. The company was preparing for an IPO.

The problem, Cutrera explained, was structural. When the principals originally set up their shareholding, before taking US status, they held their shares through BVI and Cayman vehicles. One principal had subsequently split holdings between spouse and children. The advice they received at the time, roughly 20 years ago, left them believing they were fully tax-compliant.

They were not. When Morgan Stanley began preparing the IPO and asked the principals to confirm their tax compliance, Leo Wealth was brought in, initially to review estate planning. The firm discovered that the family’s US tax position was materially non-compliant despite their genuine intention to comply. The result was a delay to the IPO and significant remediation work.

But Cutrera was careful to frame the situation in terms of opportunity as well as cost. Leo Wealth identified several avenues to improve the family’s position ahead of monetisation. Certain transactions could eliminate the California tax liability that the children had accumulated. One principal, who already held another passport, could expatriate his US status before the IPO, saving millions of dollars.

“There’s some really interesting opportunities to support what on the surface looks very much like Asian families with unique US connections,” Cutrera said. The case underscored a point she had made earlier in the discussion: the majority of Leo Wealth’s US-connected clients are not American expatriates but Asian families with at least one member who has taken a US passport or green card, or who has invested heavily in the US. The complexity is cross-border by nature, and the advisory response must be equally so.

Specialisation as Strategy

Cutrera’s contributions returned to a consistent theme: the independent model is strongest when it is built around specific client needs rather than broad aspirations. Whether in portfolio construction, capability development, or cross-border tax advisory, the firms that deliver the most value are those that start with the client’s situation and work outward. For Leo Wealth, that means maintaining deep expertise in US-connected advisory for Asian families, building in-house where the market falls short, and remaining willing to refer work elsewhere when another firm can do it better.