In a market where wealth managers rely on similar strategic asset allocation frameworks, differentiation increasingly lies in how firms’ source, construct, and position investment solutions. While tools may be comparable, it is the underlying mindset that determines whether an advisory practice can consistently deliver through evolving market conditions. At the recent Malaysia Wealth Management Forum 2026, hosted by Hubbis in Kuala Lumpur, an investment advisory panel chaired by Alex Ng, Managing Director and Head of Intermediary, Asia Client Group at Janus Henderson Investors, examined how firms are constructing portfolios, sourcing products, and scaling advice across client segments. Wilson Han, Senior Vice President and Head of Wealth Management and Bancassurance at AmBank, set the tone for the discussion with a direct and conviction-led account of how the bank is positioning client portfolios, why an outcome-driven approach offers a genuine edge over conventional risk-based models, and how the discretionary landscape in Malaysia is evolving as different client segments demand different levels of control.

Key Takeaways


Geopolitical volatility is being treated as opportunity rather than obstacle, with AmBank positioning client portfolios to capture potential upside from market dislocations rather than retreating to defensive positioning.
An outcome-driven advisory model differentiates from conventional risk-based approaches, focusing on the return and risk profile the client is trying to achieve rather than defaulting to standard strategic asset allocation frameworks.
Product sourcing starts with identifying gaps, both in the broader market and within the bank’s own platform, before selecting underlyings across active, passive, and derivative strategies.
ETFs and buffer ETF structures are gaining traction, offering clients downside protection with measured upside participation in a format that sits outside the traditional active fund wrapper.
Discretionary mandates have a clear role but limited traction with individuals, with stronger demand emerging from corporates and government-linked entities, while the next generation of investors increasingly wants a degree of hands-on involvement in portfolio decisions.

 

Volatility as Opportunity

Han opened the panel by framing the current market environment in terms that were notably more opportunistic than defensive. While acknowledging the geopolitical risks that have defined much of the year, including oil price movements and regional conflict, he argued that these should be viewed through the lens of portfolio positioning rather than avoidance.

“When we look at past market events, these dislocations have not been prolonged. We therefore view them as opportunities to position portfolios.,” Han said.

The bank’s approach has been to remain nimble, adjusting portfolio underlying in response to market movements rather than holding to a static allocation. Han noted that this positioning had delivered results. “So far we have captured quite good results through this process,” he said. “This is where we differentiate ourselves in the market by using a more outcome driven approach, rather than a typical” risk-based approach.

His conviction that markets would return to a positive trajectory by year end underpinned the bank’s willingness to lean into dislocations rather than sit on the sidelines. “By year end, markets will move back to the right trajectory. That’s the view we have,” Han said.

Sourcing Products by Identifying Gaps

When Ng asked how banks are selecting and positioning products today, Han described an approach that begins not with what is available, but with what is missing.

“When we’re just sourcing for products, we are a bit different than the markets,” Han said. “We look at it from a different perspective, to say, where’s the gap? Where’s the gap in the markets? Where’s the gap within our bank platform?”

The process starts with defining the outcome the bank wants to drive for its clients, encompassing both potential return and potential risk. From there, the team works backwards to identify which underlyings can deliver that outcome, remaining open across the full spectrum of active management, passive strategies, and derivative-based solutions.

Han pointed to ETFs as an increasingly important part of the toolkit, specifically buffer ETFs, which are gaining traction with Malaysian investors. “Buffer ETFs embed different perspective into the whole underlying compared to traditional assets,” he said. These structures offer clients downside protection combined with capped but meaningful upside, a middle ground that traditional active funds do not easily replicate.

The broader philosophy is to avoid defaulting to standard allocation models. “We believe that a lot of banks actually have been using SAA or TAA on principle,” he said. AmBank’s approach is to build proprietary models for different purposes, tailoring the assessment framework to the specific outcome being targeted.

The Discretionary Question

When Ng raised the topic of discretionary portfolio management, asking whether it represents the natural evolution of personalized advisory, Han offered a nuanced view that reflected the practical realities of the Malaysian market.

He acknowledged that discretionary mandates have a clear place in the landscape, particularly for ultra high net worth individuals and corporate clients who prefer to delegate investment decisions entirely. But he was candid that individual uptake remains limited.

The reasons, he suggested, are partly generational. Second-generation clients tend to want a degree of control over their portfolios. “Some want to have certain controls back to the portfolios,” Han observed. “Some say it’s fine, I don’t need to have that full control.”

The more promising opportunity for discretionary, Han argued, lies with corporates. “We do see opportunity, especially for corporates for this country,” he said. Government-linked corporations and local corporates that invest within a Malaysian asset class mandate represent a natural fit for discretionary management, while clients without geographical constraints tend to favour a more global construction.

Han also raised a practical challenge of investing in private assets in Malaysia, noting that layered costs will have a drag on performance.  “When we actually wrap a private asset, that’s something that we are mindful about,” he said, A strategy that delivers double-digit gross returns may end up offering only single-digit net performance once wrapping costs, hedging, and fees are accounted for.

“Post that everything is single digit. So, that’s the key difference,” Han said. The economics of wrapping, he suggested, represent a structural barrier to making private asset offerings as attractive in Malaysia as they are in markets with more direct access to global instruments.

An Outcome-Driven Philosophy

Across his contributions, Han returned consistently to the principle that advisory should be organized around outcomes rather than conventional frameworks. A risk-based model asks what level of volatility the client can tolerate and builds a portfolio to match. An outcome-based model asks what the client is trying to achieve and identifies the instruments and strategies best suited to deliver that result.

The difference is visible in how AmBank approaches market dislocations. Where a risk-based framework might trigger a defensive rebalancing, an outcome-based approach evaluates whether the dislocation represents an opportunity to accelerate progress towards the client’s target. Han’s willingness to position portfolios into volatility rather than away from it is a direct expression of this philosophy.

For AmBank, the approach appears to be delivering results. Han’s confidence in the bank’s proprietary model was evident throughout, and his practical observations on product gaps, ETF innovation, and the structural constraints of discretionary management offered a window into a bank building its advisory capability around a distinctive and internally consistent investment philosophy.