themarker.com
Global Family Offices Increase China Investments Despite Trade War Risks
A UBS survey of 317 global family offices reveals that many plan to increase China investments despite global trade war threats; however, American family offices are an exception, indicating no such plans. The survey, conducted between January 22 and April 4, 2025, highlights a shift towards developed markets and precious metals for risk hedging.
- How do the investment strategies of American family offices differ from those in other regions, and what factors contribute to this divergence?
- While 70% of surveyed family offices cited global trade wars as their primary concern, a significant shift in asset allocation is occurring. Many are increasing exposure to developed markets to capitalize on economic volatility, with allocations to equities in developed markets rising from 26% in 2024 to a projected 29% in 2025. This strategic shift highlights a hedging approach amidst global economic uncertainty.
- What are the key findings of the UBS survey regarding family office investment strategies towards China and other markets amidst global economic uncertainty?
- A UBS survey of 317 single-family offices globally reveals that despite the threat of global trade wars, many plan to increase investments in China. The survey, conducted between January 22 and April 4, 2025, showed that over one-third of Middle Eastern family offices and 39% of those in Asia-Pacific intend to boost exposure to mainland China, exceeding the global average of 18%.
- What are the main risks and challenges that family offices foresee in emerging markets, and how are they adapting their investment strategies to mitigate these risks?
- American family offices stand out, with all surveyed indicating no plans to increase China exposure. This contrasts sharply with the global trend, suggesting a divergence in investment strategies based on geopolitical concerns. The increased allocation to developed markets and the use of precious metals as hedging tools reflect a cautious approach to risk management in a volatile global environment.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline (which is missing in the provided text) and introduction could emphasize the global trend of increased investment in China, potentially downplaying the concerns of US family offices or the risks involved. The article focuses on the actions of wealthy investors, which might overshadow the impact on ordinary people and the potential risks for those involved in the global economy. The sequencing of information could highlight the positive aspects of increased investment before discussing potential risks.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral and factual, presenting statistics and findings from the UBS report. However, phrases such as "giant leap" or similar descriptive terms that go beyond the facts to convey optimism could be seen as implicitly positive towards investment in China and negative towards any risk associated with doing so. More neutral language could be employed.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the perspectives of family offices and their investment strategies, potentially omitting the viewpoints of smaller investors or the broader economic consequences of these investment decisions. The impact of these investment decisions on the economies of the countries involved is not discussed. Further, there's little analysis of the potential risks associated with increased investment in China, beyond the general mention of trade wars.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between US family offices, who are hesitant to invest in China, and those from other regions who are more inclined. The reality is likely more nuanced, with varying levels of risk aversion among family offices worldwide. The framing ignores the potential diversity of opinion within each region.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights that high-net-worth individuals are adjusting their investment strategies in response to global economic uncertainty. While not directly addressing inequality, their actions of diversifying investments and hedging against risks could indirectly contribute to reducing inequality by potentially promoting more stable economic growth and mitigating the impact of economic shocks on vulnerable populations. Increased investment in developing markets could also stimulate economic growth and job creation in those regions, indirectly benefiting less wealthy populations.