The third panel at the Hubbis Investment Forum – Singapore 2026 followed an investment idea from the chief investment officer (CIO) view into the client’s portfolio. The route is neither automatic nor uniform. It begins with a governed strategic framework, passes through security or manager selection, and ends with a recommendation shaped by the client’s objectives, liquidity, existing exposures and willingness to stay invested.
Public and private markets create different implementation problems, but the panel returned to the same test: each position must have a clear role in the whole portfolio. Long-term principles can help investment teams look beyond market noise, while stress tests and drawdown analysis make the consequences tangible for clients. Access, pricing, manager capacity and redemption terms then determine whether an attractive idea can be implemented responsibly.
Chair: Arjan de Boer, Managing Director, Head of Private Banks Coverage for Asia-Pacific, Financial Institutions Group Asia-Pacific, Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank
Panellists
Jean Chia, Managing Director, Global Chief Investment Officer, Bank of Singapore
Aishwarya Kunal, Executive Director, Head Investment Advisory, InCred Global Wealth
Eddy Loh, CIO, Group Wealth Management, Maybank
Sean Low, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer, Golden Vision Capital
Key Takeaways
A CIO view becomes useful only after it is translated into an accessible investment that suits the client’s objectives, risk capacity, liquidity needs and behaviour.
Strategic asset allocation provides the long-term foundation, while tactical decisions respond to valuations, market conditions and changing risks.
A whole-portfolio framework judges public and private assets by the role they play together, rather than treating each product or asset class as a separate decision.
A differentiated view does not require permanent contrarianism. Repeatable principles and a long horizon can support both consensus and non-consensus positions.
Private-market implementation depends on access, deal size, price, manager capacity, due diligence and the ability to hold an asset longer than expected.
Income and resilience remain important client needs, but distribution targets, private-credit returns and limited-liquidity structures require careful explanation.
Portfolio data, stress tests and maximum-drawdown analysis give advisers a factual basis for challenging concentration, hedging decisions and familiar client preferences.
The Investment View Starts with Governance
The institutions used different organisational models, but began in much the same place. Strategy, portfolio construction, fixed-income, equity, fund-selection and alternatives specialists contributed to an investment committee or CIO process. The house view combined long-term strategic asset allocation (SAA) with tactical asset allocation (TAA) reflecting current valuations and market conditions.
One private bank had also revised its SAA process to use robust optimisation. Instead of building a portfolio around a single set of expected returns, volatility and correlations, the method tests a range of plausible assumptions. Its tactical process had become more risk-based, reducing dependence on a precise forecast and placing greater weight on how exposures behave together.
The point was not to eliminate judgement. A framework gives specialists a common language and relationship managers a coherent explanation. It also supports a change of course when the evidence no longer backs the original call. As one panellist acknowledged, “We do not get every call right. Sometimes the answer is to cut the loss and work out how the portfolio recovers.”
Every Holding Must Compete for Capital
The discussion moved from asset-class forecasts to the Whole Portfolio Approach (WPA), adapted for private wealth from the institutional Total Portfolio Approach (TPA). Public equity, bonds, private assets and derivatives are not separate silos. Each investment is assessed by its objective, risk, liquidity and interaction with the rest of the portfolio.
This is particularly relevant for multigenerational wealth. Short-term events still matter, but the investment office may be working towards objectives measured in decades. That horizon helps the team distinguish a lasting economic force from a popular trade without turning every market debate into a binary decision.
Private credit illustrated the approach. Concern about underwriting, liquidity or crowded areas need not rule out the entire asset class. It may justify a smaller allocation, tighter manager selection or a different exposure. The same discipline applies when a familiar bond position appears safe but leaves the client exposed to duration or unable to meet a required real return.
A House View Need Not Be Contrarian
Panellists recognised the echo chambers around widely held market views. Remaining within consensus can feel professionally safer, while taking the opposite position merely to appear distinctive is no more useful. What matters is a consistent process and whether the conclusion advances the client’s long-term objective.
Artificial intelligence (AI) was cited as a structural theme on which a consensus position could still be justified. China provided the counter-example. When the market was widely described as uninvestable, one investment team moved overweight in 2024 after weighing valuations, fundamentals and Asia’s diversification value. The position was presented as an internal house view, not proof that non-consensus calls always succeed.
A theme can be sound while the entry point, instrument or allocation size is wrong. Advisers can explain why the firm may participate selectively, wait for a better price or avoid concentration even when the broad thesis remains intact.
Private Markets Add an Execution Test
A public-market allocation can usually be expressed through a liquid security. Private markets require another layer of work. The preferred company, sector or manager may be unavailable, an oversubscribed fund may have no capacity, or a seller may demand a far larger ticket. Sourcing and execution therefore shape the opportunity set alongside the macroeconomic view.
One private-markets participant put the distinction plainly: “Having the view is less than half the job. If you cannot find and execute the deal, the view is of limited use to the client.” The investment team may need to locate a seller, aggregate demand, negotiate terms or reject an accessible asset because it is not the exposure originally sought.
Holding periods require conservative assumptions. An investment made before an initial public offering (IPO) may remain private when the IPO window closes. Clients should be able to hold for three to five years and judge it on fundamentals rather than an assumed exit date. A strong sourcing network does not remove valuation, liquidity or execution risk.
The Client Determines How the View Is Used
A multi-family-office perspective added another layer. Advisers can compare several banks’ house views with their own analysis, yet no external view transfers directly into a portfolio. The recommendation depends on the family’s aims, existing assets and likely response when an investment moves against it.
The access to a family’s wider circumstances can improve that judgement. Liquidity needs, business interests, existing private investments and prior behaviour may all change the appropriate position. A participant described the CIO view as “a North Star, not an instruction that every client must follow in the same way.”
Relationship managers sit at the junction between research and implementation. They need enough command of the argument to explain a recommendation, handle disagreement and offer a credible alternative. Forcing the house view may damage trust; clear evidence gives the client a better basis for deciding.
Income and Resilience Continue to Attract Capital
Across client segments, the most persistent demand was for income and resilience through weaker markets. One regional banking group had developed conventional and Shariah-compliant multi-asset solutions. The latter can combine Shariah-compliant equities and sukuk, financing certificates whose returns are linked to assets or economic activity rather than conventional interest.
Some clients had been drawn to an income level of approximately 6% during supportive markets. This was an objective or distribution level, not a guaranteed total return. Depending on the terms, a distribution may come from income, realised gains or capital. The harder test is whether it remains sustainable during a drawdown.
Private-credit specialists were targeting higher returns in niches including fintech lending, and one platform reported annualised investor returns above 10% with periodic interest payments. The figures were self-reported and did not establish an expected return for every loan or private credit as a whole. Manager quality, underwriting, diversification and recoveries remain central.
Semi-Liquid Funds Require Precise Language
Private-debt funds may offer periodic redemptions, but the label semi-liquid can create the wrong expectation. Liquidity is conditional on notice periods, available cash, redemption queues and the manager’s right to impose a gate or suspension. The underlying loans can remain illiquid even when the fund provides a regular dealing window.
One panellist warned, “Semi-liquid does not mean that half the capital is always liquid. If a gate is imposed, the investor may not be able to redeem when expected.” The practical question is whether the duration of the assets is aligned with the lock-up and redemption promises made to investors.
Specialist private debt can diversify a portfolio and generate cash flow, particularly when clients are wary of expensive equity markets or interest-rate risk in bonds. It is not an absolute-return substitute for cash. Credit losses, legal structure, manager selection and limited transparency must be weighed alongside the headline yield.
Risk Protection Is Hardest to Sell in Rising Markets
When markets are rising, clients may see little reason to spend part of the return on protection. If the rally continues, the hedge premium looks wasted. After a drawdown, its value is clearer, but protection may be more expensive and the portfolio has already absorbed the loss.
This behaviour complicates product-led and self-directed portfolios. Suitability controls can flag a concentration limit, yet a client whose strategy has recently worked may dismiss the warning. Advisers have to connect a hedge or diversification proposal to a risk the client recognises, rather than present a generic rule.
Currency comparisons in private debt require the same care. Instruments from the same issuer may offer similar coupons in Singapore and US dollars, and a currency hedge can sometimes improve the all-in return. The gap is not risk-free: costs, tenor, liquidity, ranking and legal terms can alter the result.
Portfolio Data Makes Risk Personal
Stress tests, concentration analysis and maximum-drawdown simulations can change the conversation. Applied to the client’s holdings, they show potential losses under a defined scenario and where apparently different investments respond to the same risk factor. This can be valuable even for sophisticated ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) clients.
The evidence gives advisers firmer ground on which to challenge a preference. As a panellist observed, “Once clients can see the drawdown in their own portfolio, the discussion becomes less about competing opinions and more about the facts in front of them.” The adviser can then ask whether the exposure is deliberate, whether the client has enough liquidity and what alternative could preserve the intended objective.
AI can support that work by processing more portfolio and market data, but its value depends on accurate inputs and sound interpretation. The final task remains human: connecting the house view with the client’s objectives and setting an allocation that can survive a full market cycle.
**
Disclaimer: This article summarises a panel discussion and reflects information available as at 23 September 2026. It is for general information only and is not tax, legal, financial, investment or other professional advice or a recommendation. It may not apply to individual circumstances, products or jurisdictions. Hubbis accepts no liability for reliance on it. Readers should obtain independent professional advice before acting.