The transcript of the following podcast was generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools and has not been edited. While we strive for accuracy, the AI-generated content may contain errors, inaccuracies, or outdated information. This content is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon for any specific decisions or actions. We do not accept any responsibility for any harm or damages that may arise from the use of this content. Users are encouraged to verify any information before relying on it. If you encounter any offensive or discriminatory content, please report it to us immediately.
Mike Miranda:
Welcome back to Beyond the Portfolio. I'm Mike Miranda. Today is November 24th, and we're bringing you Episode Two in our four-part 2026 Outlook series. If you missed part one, please take a listen where we discussed our outlook for fixed income and credit markets in 2026.
A couple months ago, we released a deep-dive episode focused entirely on private markets, and if you haven't listened to that one yet, I'd highly recommend it too. It sets a stage for today's conversation and gives great context for how this space continues to evolve.
Today, we're zooming out and asking a bigger question, what does a road ahead look like for private markets in 2026 and beyond? With so many powerful forces at play from exits and secondaries to AIs impact across the ecosystem to the unprecedented demand for infrastructure, this is a moment where understanding the themes beneath the headlines really matters.
I'm joined by two people who live and breeze this every day, Rod Larson, who leads our research team for wealth management and Arthur Diochon who leads our private markets team. Their perspectives are deeply complementary and foundational to how we're shaping our private markets outlook heading into 2026, so let's dive right in.
Rod, let's start with you. Now, there's so many forces and themes impacting private markets today, I want to take time to call out a few of these now. What's your perspective and how is this perspective influencing your 2026 outlook and beyond? Let's start maybe with a conversation about portfolio exits.
Rod Larson:
Yeah, thanks, Mike. Look, as we gaze into 2026, I think the most logical place to start is really by examining the current exit environment and how we think, ultimately, this exit environment could unfold in the new year and beyond. If we take a step back quickly, safe to say that exits really are what oiled wheels of the private markets machine.
Simply put, exits are the investment outcome. They come in the form of IPO, strategic sale, meaning another company buys a portfolio company a sponsor sale, meaning another private markets firm buys a portfolio company, most importantly, put money back into the investor pockets that they can then redeploy in the new private markets, funds or utilize in other capacities.
It's important note though, that the impact of these exits, it really is felt beyond just the return of capital to investors when you think about it. Exits allow private markets managers to raise new funds, capitalize on future opportunity sets on behalf of their investors and certainly themselves. Exits also allow company owners, operators, their employees to realize windfalls and wealth creation that they can then deploy in other ways. Exits also allow for strategic acquirers to fortify their product and service offerings to grow, market share or even diversify into new markets altogether.
These exits also allow larger private market funds to buy companies from smaller private market funds, thereby deploying capital on behalf of their investors and allowing smaller funds to return capital to their investors. Exits allow M&A advisors to earn fees. Exits allow lenders to generate new lending packages. The point of all this is to remind everyone of the benefits of private market exits extend well beyond just the general partners running of the funds and the limited partners investing in these funds.
So where are we currently with exits? Guessing, as many of you are all too aware, the exit environment over the past three-ish years has been a little bit slow, meaning all the benefits I just referenced are not happening at a rapid or expansive pace. This means that per Preqin, which is one of our data sources, we're currently standing at a two-decade high in both aggregated value of unsold companies, meaning companies that private market managers currently own and operate and the absolute number of these companies.
So we want to emphasize here that private markets really is the asset class of patience. No exits means longer fund lives, but remember, just because the exit environment is slow, this does not mean private markets managers or pencils down. They own and control these companies. They're working diligently with the company management teams to unlock value and enhance the businesses that hopefully position these companies well for a good outcome when the exit market frees up.
This backlog of companies waiting to be sold really can be viewed through the cliche of a dam waiting to break and once it does, all the benefits mentioned could be realized in a relatively short period of time. In 2025, we have seen some signs of exit life. 2025 data is not final, but as it stands, there has been a significant increase in the number of IPOs versus 2024. Over the first three quarters, there's been about 176 IPO exits versus 121 this time last year. You see proceeds from these exits up a touch over the same comparison period. So 33 billion in aggregate value versus 27 billion.
M&A in 2025, the deal activity by count has been relatively flat and muted, but Q3 has again showed some signs to life as a deal counted and necessarily pop, but deal value did. We saw a 56% increase in deal value from Q2 to Q3 and approximately 600 billion in deal value generated, which is the highest in about four years.
So looking ahead to 2026 and beyond, what's going to cause this dam to break? There's a few factors to call out rates. Obviously, private market managers, especially mega fund managers and strategic acquirers, very sensitive to rates as it raises or lowers their cost of financing. If rates drop, this should serve as a catalyst to M&A and a and exits. There's also been a gap in seller and buyer valuation expectation.
Some of this has been driven by policy and market uncertainty, notably the lasting effect of tariffs and their erratic policy swings. It's made it very difficult to value companies for buyers and sellers to come to agreement and managers don't want to sell companies that what they think is a discount just to realize and exit, hence these longer fund lives.
We're starting to see a narrowing of this gap reflected in the private market secondary space, which could indicate a similar for individual portfolio company sales. Dry powder has come down a little bit recently from historical highs, and I'll remind everyone, dry powder is the capital private market managers have raised from investors but is yet to be invested.
Midway through 2023, that figure stood it around roughly four and a half, 5 trillion now stands at a bit over 3 trillion. So managers are hungry to invest the capital. They're obligated to do so in a certain window at time, usually three to five years.
So in 2026, we see signs of potential exit thought. We hope it'll be accelerated through a potential combination of rate cuts or some combination of rate cuts, valuation expectations, narrowing, plenty of capital waiting to be deployed, and we want to encourage clients to continue with the programmatic private markets implementation plan, and most importantly, we're going to continue to do what we always do, is seek access to the best private market managers in the industry.
Mike Miranda:
All right, thanks, Rod. That's very, very helpful, and I really appreciate the perspective on where we stand there. Let's talk a little bit about secondaries and maybe bring Arthur in on this. It's obviously been very topical for us in the broader private market investor landscape for the last few years. Tell us how this has affected the opportunity set and our overall perspective.
Arthur Diochon:
Yeah, thanks, Mike. I appreciate the question, and I think Rod did a really great job of setting the groundwork here for why secondaries have set up to be such an interesting asset class. You have a whole bunch of investors out there who have made investments over the past years, and we're likely modeling, I'm going to be getting distributions back. They're going to be selling company X, Y, or Z, and that company is going to give me money so that I can reinvest it and continue to kind of grow my private portfolio.
That's stagnated a bit over the past three to four years with distributions coming back more slowly, which is really driven investors' desire to make allocations to strategies that have above average liquidity potential, meaning that they're going to return money with a higher degree of confidence earlier in the fund's life. That type of strategy with it in private equity is the secondary space. These are strategies that are going out and buying existing investments from investors or mature companies from private equity funds and building a portfolio out of that.So you're typically buying these investments further into their life, giving you greater potential of getting money back sooner.
If we look at it from the other side, moving from the investor lens now to the allocator lens and you think about these private equity firms, part of the reason these investors want this capital is that that, as Rod mentioned, they've had a harder time creating equity in their portfolio. So even the private equity managers now are saying, "We'd love to get some money back for our funds, and if I can't get my business acquired and I can't take it public, I might be more open to doing a secondary sale."
This has created a really nice environment. I think that most people who are steeped in the private market space are well aware of secondaries benefit, both from demand, from people looking to allocate as well as supply from the private equity firms who are looking to vend these deals to the secondary managers.
While we like this, we do flag a little bit of an air of caution too, because on the back of this, Rod was mentioning reducing dry powder, fundraising has slowed a little bit in the more recent years. Secondaries has kind of bucked this trend. They're one of the few asset classes outside of direct lending that really has shown positive fundraising momentum, meaning there's more money going in. The dry powder is relatively growing from a scale perspective within the secondary space and we just saw record deal flow this year.
So it's great to see that deals are getting done. It's great to see that money flowing into the space, but what old economics would tell me is that supply demand is probably more in balance than it may seem given the lack of liquidity, which means pricing is coming in and investors may not be getting the deal everywhere that they think they are getting. So our perspective on secondary is great tool. It's likely going to be a long-term portion of the private markets that helps create liquidity through both good and bad markets.
But right now, as much as we're excited about the opportunity set, going back to Rod's point of view is we are really laser-focused on who is the best in class, who has the most durable or return profile, who's not reliant on things like low-interest rates to drive returns. While we hope rates go down for the benefit that Rod mentioned, we don't know that they will. So we want a secondary strategy that's going to be durable through all climates.
What I would say is our outlook going to 2026 is secondaries have historically been a place that have generally driven pretty narrow returns, meaning the best and worst secondary managers typically more closely gathered than other parts of the market. I think with the fundraising and growth we've seen in secondaries, we might see a greater gap between the best and the worst secondary managers, which for us as analysts is exciting, but it does change the landscape and how we look at it for our core secondaries, we even be more choosy.
Then if we look to more niche opportunities like venture capital, secondaries or non-US oriented secondaries, we really want to make sure we're partnering with the right groups that are not just getting good prices but are also hopefully going to give good outcomes. So it's a little more complicated than just this is a great solution that people are excited about because of limited exits. We've seen the market react to that, and now in turn, we also need to react with our selection and our philosophy.
Mike Miranda:
That's very helpful, both of you. Great perspective so far. Obviously, Rod at the outset on where we see the exit landscape evolving in 26 and Arthur here on the evolution of the secondaries market. Let's maybe pivot to a discussion on AI we recorded a couple of weeks ago. The outlook for fixed income and credit, and AI is certainly impacting that space, right now, with supply, and in a couple of weeks we'll be recording an episode on our outlook for equities.
Obviously, AI is a huge driver for the equity space, but it is a driver for private markets as well. This topic of AI is obviously omnipresent. How are you tuning out the noise and the hype in order to isolate the areas of opportunity in private markets? Rod, maybe let's start with you first there.
Rod Larson:
Yeah, thanks, Mike. So I'm going to describe a little bit about how we're framing AI from a high level before I give way to Arthur to go a little more granularly. We've been struck by Sam Altman's recent quote. He says, "Are people overexcited about AI? Yes. Is it the most important thing to happen in a long, long time? Yes."
So we think that you can roughly extrapolate that sentiment into a question that we've been asking ourselves and you referenced it, Mike, how do you avoid the severe pitfalls of a bubble while ensuring exposure to the upside that'll survive the hype and be the lasting AI future?
Listen, we've been here before, I lived through Web 1.O, lived in the Bay Area where I'm from, worked for startups was paper rich until I wasn't. A massive amount of investment capital was required then, and it speculated that the amount of investment capital required to realize the AI potential is absolutely going to dwarf anything that we've seen to date. So this is exciting.
It's exciting because it creates investment opportunities for our clients and the parallels are informative. Take the search engine wars in the mid-'90s, was it better to concentrate your bets and excite at home? Was it better to spread your bets across AltaVista, Excite@Home, Yahoo, and some dark horse late entry named Google, and you invest in the tool makers, the tool distributors or those using the tools to better their business?
My kids and I think the younger professionals who work with me are tired of hearing me say this, but I'd remind everyone that every web-enabled service and social media idea and business that you see now is available in Web 1.0. What was missing was the infrastructure, the feasible business model, the handheld mobile devices, the bandwidth, the internet penetration, et cetera.
So as we're looking at AI now, we're drawing lessons at this stage of the AI opportunity evolution. We think it's wiser to sort of spread bets across the AI tools. The winners could arguably win on a scale like we've never seen and then more than compensate for where maybe we have exposure to the losers. The infrastructure could be volatile similar to fiber optics in the '90s, but the need in the demand is manifest for these data centers, the energy delivery, et cetera. It's important to identify the sectors and businesses employing AI to increase their top line and better their bottom line. It's customer service-focused, information processing-focused, et cetera.
So I'm going to close quickly on an anecdote and then let Arthur step in. To date, most VC-backed companies, the model used to be you just threw bodies at growth opportunities in order to scale quickly and to sort of demonstrate evidence of where AI's impact is already being fell. We had dinner with a friend this weekend who's a seed-stage VC, and unprovoked, he volunteered me that almost always portfolio company CEOs are demanding that the reports find AI solutions on a weekly basis, that accelerate revenues, that keep costs down and limit the need for bodies.
In other words, seed an early-backed companies clearly believe their fortunes are going to be accelerated by AI solutions, and funny enough, this could position these companies to self-finance and even reduce the need for any VC or institutional backing. I'm sure Arthur has plenty more of thoughts on this subject as we look into 2026.
Arthur Diochon:
Yeah, thanks for that. I appreciate that, and you did a great job of covering it all. I might cover a little bit about how we think about allocating in this space. You touched on it in a number of ways. I think when we think about VC dynamics, for us particularly as it relates to early stage VC but even VC writ large, is it is about accuracy over precision, for us, when we think about the space/.
What I mean by that is precision. Think of it like the price you pay for the asset. If you're very precise in the public market, you get an asset for a good valuation that can be very meaningful to your outcome. Whereas in venture capital, and I think, particularly, in the hottest trending sectors like AI is right now consuming I think something like 80% of the deal flow last I saw over the past 12 months, it becomes more and more about accuracy. It's about getting the right company at the right time, and you don't want to miss that company by quibbling over a couple of bucks, right?
In the moment, paying $5 for a company or $7 for a company seems like a great overpay if you pay 7 instead of 5. That being said, if the ultimate value of that company that we see in some early stage venture turns out to be multiple billions of dollars. That $2 call it overpaying quotation marks will be dwarfed by the outcome you get for your investors, and passing up that opportunity will potentially hamstring your funds.
So as we think about AI and how we're allocating to it is really about access, like you mentioned earlier, to who are the best groups, who have the best exposure to AI, because the most exciting AI names and those who are likely going to be most successful are going to be those who can partner with the best groups and blend that technology expertise with firm expertise to kind of enhance outcomes.
That's where we're spending a lot of our time, both in the early and the late stages, these managers that have that superior access to drive those differentiated outcomes. Because if you don't have that, I think now more than ever is a time where it's most risky to be a tourist in venture capital ,and particularly, in AI because I think a lot of the best names are being quickly gobbled up by some of the most prestigious managers with the greatest access to the space.
So that's something we're spending a lot of time on. We're thinking about call it more granular analysis. It's who are leading the AI trends from a company level perspective. Do our managers have access to that? We're spending a lot less time focusing on pricing. One thing I will say that's not directly related to AI that I think is core to how we approach the marketplace is it's not just about AI for us. We want to work with venture capital groups that have the ability to allocate outside of that thematic.
There are great opportunities that still exist in now unloved themes like blockchain and biotech, and the capital's less crowded there so you can actually afford it to be both precise and accurate. That's something we really value. It's we don't want to over index AI. Yes, we think it's transformational. Yes, we have views around how you can get allocations to it, but it's more than just about that. It is about how do we build a diversified venture portfolio that we think is going to be able to stand the test of time, understanding this is the highest risk portion of the market with the greatest outcomes when you're right and the most pain when you're wrong.
I would counter that you briefly mentioned data centers there. And I'd counter that on the data center allocation of we really like data centers and we're being very thoughtful about how we approach that space, but we're taking the angle of the opposite approach there. These are real estate or infrastructure assets that have very well-defined economics, and we are looking to de-risk them. We're focused on precision here. We're trying to pay the right price. We're trying to ensure we have low vacancy risks. We're trying to ensure our tenants are the right quality of tenants. We're trying to ensure the data centers are in places that make those data centers more resilient to market shocks and cyclicalities.
Those are what we're trying to do on the data center side. So when you think about AI as a theme on our platform and how we approach it, venture capital, we're much more focused on owning the right name and growing over time. Then on the data center side, we think about that like the picks and shovels where we want to be a little more precise in what we're doing and who we're working with.
Mike Miranda:
That's great, thank you both for the perspective on that. Let's maybe stick with you, Arthur, and dig a little deeper maybe on infrastructure beyond AI. So we talked about data centers, talked about energy. How are you looking at infrastructure even beyond AI and where does this factor into our decision-making for private markets?
Arthur Diochon:
Yeah, it's a good question. I think infrastructure right now, to our previous comment, everyone gets bogged down in the AI portion of it, and I think you definitely need exposure through data centers and other avenues, but infrastructure, when we think fundamentally what it's there to serve our clients to do is to create defensive allocations within the portfolio that are not cyclical.
Typically, you have regulated contracts or inflation indexed long-term in that nature and we continue to seek that out. Yes, we want the emergent themes, broadband for the Midwest within the US where there's less internet coverage than there is on the coast, appropriate data center and compute in markets like Europe and Asia that are underserved. We love themes like that, but we also still love high quality assets that are utilities, and the old planes, trains, and automobiles themes.
I think that's a really important part of the marketplace that when we're thinking about building a durable infrastructure portfolio that's designed to provide yield, whether that yield is paid out to our clients or not is dependent on the manager but provide steady cashflow within the portfolio, they continue to reinvest and grow and diversify their portfolio, that is what we really emphasize in the infrastructure space, and we think that's a key differentiator in how we approach the market in that we're not getting caught up in trying to turn infrastructure into private equity.
Candidly, we are very focused on infrastructure, continue to service that purpose within client portfolios and then enhancing around the periphery with opportunistic strategies, and if we want to venture further outside that, then we lead into special situations and private equity to further enhance. But for us, infrastructure is that Steady Eddy. I'm always hasn't used sports analogies, but think of it like you're single and double in baseball. That is our driving force here, regardless of it is in the AI thematic, which is obviously a higher growth or in the more conventional path.
Mike Miranda:
Fantastic. All right, well, let's close out with maybe one last perspective, and this is around performance. So considering the growth and evolution of private markets, how are we thinking about performance expectations going forward, and then how is this impacting our approach to investing? So Arthur, let's start with you, maybe, first.
Arthur Diochon:
Yeah, happy to cover this, and I think, at a high level, our view is that performance and private markets shouldn't markedly change. So maybe it takes up a percent or two, maybe it takes down a percent or two, but I think our view right now is we're likely going to spend the next 10 years in a similar relative performance place to public markets. I think what we do think is going to change is the range of outcomes around that. It's going to get a lot wider.
An interesting point that I heard from our chief market strategist, Carol Schleif, is that there's now more private equity firms in the world than there are McDonald's, and that gives you an idea about the amount of choice and the amount of people in the space. That doesn't mean there's not still good operators, and candidly, some of those good operators could benefit from some of the less good operators, but that does mean we need to be more selective, highly choosy, when it comes to this, because the winners actually could win to a greater degree than they ever have before because of information asymmetry because they're just more well-seasoned, invested in this marketplace.
We believe that there's a really high benefit to manager selection in the coming decade for private markets because of this kind of influx of new participants. But that also comes with risks, and it comes down to how do we think about putting managers on our platform for inclusion. We spend a lot of time synthesizing the data that we get. I've never met a manager who doesn't tell me that they're best in class. That's not to say that they're saying that they're best in class and they don't actually believe it. I think they all genuinely do believe it through their lens.
But what's best in class for our clients might not be the best in class solution that we're being presented. So we spend a lot of time digging through the nitty-gritty of how do these managers generate returns, what do we believe as a team, and what do we believe that future holds, and how do we distill that down?
I think maybe passing it to Rod, I think that's one piece that is maybe not as well understood by people who are venturing to this market for the first time. It's that the availability and clarity of data that we have is just not the same. You can pull up your Bloomberg and get a stock quote with a great deal of granularity very quickly. In private markets, that's just not available to you the same extent.
Rod and I always joke about old dog, new dog between the two of us, I'd be really curious to hear what, hopefully he doesn't take offense to me calling him this, but I'd be really curious to what the old dog thinks about this considering he's seen the evolution and kind of some of the risks and things to consider as exposure to private markets has really broadened out in the past couple of years.
Rod Larson:
Yeah, I know. Spot on, and actually, I very much embrace the old dog title, and I think Arthur was nailing one thing that I definitely want to emphasize that sort of truism in our industry, I'm going to change it slightly, which is that we've never had anything but a top quartile manager walk through our door. What that means is that they have a deck. That deck, they've manipulated the data in such a way that they can look top quartile or top quartile and enough.
So where we really come into play is by diving deep, dissecting those numbers, demanding the numbers, doing the attribution, et cetera. I think it's an important point and why both Arthur and I are emphasizing this is because especially as we have seen private markets becoming more and more of a target for general partners to expand their limited partnership base and the wealth expansion and just sort of how much more broadly family, family offices and ultra-high net worth individuals, high-net worth individuals are able to access the statistic class, candidly, it's going to be that much easier, I think, for a lot of these groups to sort of fool the public, if you will.
So remaining very vigilant and remaining very cautious is something that we would put out there. I think you also have to look at how might the manager behavior change, and this is something that we're constantly discussing is your LP base is no longer just a bunch of pensions, maybe even just five or six pensions all sitting on your limited partnership advisory committee that you can control. It's actually going to be a pretty well distributed group of people. So how is that going to change their behavior? If the wealth market is looking more for DPI distribution to paid capital as a metric, might they start to sell companies earlier than maybe they should on a buy and hold?
So these are things that we sort of loosely categorize in the pattern recognition of managers, manager, evolution, and then really sort of call it the story behind the numbers. It's also intangibles like talent flight. A lot of these mega funds are finding it harder to divest their portfolio companies. Their younger talent is looking at the math and they're saying, "Wow, I actually could go to a low-end market firm that tends to exit more rapidly, and I could make my riches that much quicker." So watching things like talent flight.
But I would absolutely end on this subject, and emphasizing what Arthur said, which is that performance will vary, but we absolutely hold in high conviction that private market performance still justifies that allocation.
Mike Miranda:
All right, that's fantastic. I really, really enjoyed your perspectives, both of your perspectives there on some of the intangibles and thoughts on the performance landscape. Let's maybe wrap up with some closing thoughts. So Arthur, over to you first. Maybe some closing thoughts on the space?
Arthur Diochon:
Yeah, yeah, I think I've hammered it a lot today on the call about really manager selection, I think, is key in this environment as more capitals float in. Who you work with, how you work with them is key. Rod touched on at the beginning, and I'd love to reiterate it now is planning is another key.
We can talk about the space ad nauseum where we think opportunities lie and that's great water cooler talk, but I think when we think about private markets, how you create long-term sustainable success is with a plan. It's not just about allocating now to AI and hoping for a good outcome. It's about building a diversified portfolio across all asset classes and all different types of technologies such that you have multiple holes dug in the ground.
I think about it, again, very similar to the public market portfolios of you don't just buy Bank of America and JP Morgan and say, "I'm good for US stock exposure." You build a diversified portfolio, and we really believe in that with private markets. I think you need to be more thoughtful here with how you deploy because it's a liquid that's planning becomes even more important, honestly.
ut that's a big closing thought for us, I think, or for me, when I think about how people should think about the space, as much as we love these market calls, we really do go back to the stick to your knitting, have a plan, follow that plan, and if you do that, it results, generally, in good outcomes.
Rod Larson:
Yeah, very much so. I mean, I think you're sort of seeing I think how Arthur and I compliment each other. My closing thought, Mike, would be a little more abstract as you might expect. I mean, look, I can't remember a time when so many large-scale opportunity sets have been in play as this relates to our day job. It makes things incredibly exciting, and we are absolutely dedicated to positioning our clients and their portfolios to benefit from these opportunity sets.
I think on the long car drives and on the plane rides, my mind can't help but drift a little bit to duality that these opportunity sets represent the massive potential for good that seems to be almost equally balanced by a massive potential for bad. There is no shortage of luminaries, pundits, ringing alarm bells along these lines. With AI in particular, and this is where I'm going to desperately try to justify my liberal arts education, you really can see the embodiment of Blake's tiger in the fearful symmetry this AI opportunity set represents.
If AI achieves half the potential that the Sam Altmans of the world think it will, there really is an almost divine miraculous beauty in that. But when you weigh the more menacing potential of AI, there really is a very dangerous, powerful coldness to that beauty.
So I worry a little bit, and if social media is any indication, I worry a little bit that, collectively, we're going to be a little too permissive with AI when we need to be vigilant and a little more governing. To put it really in more prosaic terms, will curiosity kill that cat?
So I realized this is not necessarily the most positive message to be sending right before Thanksgiving, so I'm going to close with a slightly more optimistic summary of it, which is my holiday wish for all of us really is that when we come together as a society to be good stewards of AI and that we fully exploit the benefits while trying to contain the detriments.
Mike Miranda:
All right, well thank you both. What a fun discussion. We covered a lot today in the private market space. We talked about exits, talked about secondaries, AI, infrastructure performance, and kind of even what you're both thinking about as we head into 2026.
What stands out to me is how your lenses create a well-rounded view of the opportunities and challenges ahead, that complementarity is a real advantage for our clients and for how we continue shaping our platform as we move into next year and even beyond.
As much as we packed in today, there's still so much more on the horizon. We're just getting started with our 2026 Outlook series. Next up is equities followed by a deep dive into capital markets and themes, and I have no doubt we'll be back for future private market focus episodes where we drill down into specific sub-asset classes, the team's 2026 weightings, and other areas where clients are looking for clarity.
I'm Mike Miranda. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time as we continue exploring the insights that shape portfolios, markets, and world beyond the portfolio.
Thank you for listening to Beyond the Portfolio. You could follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Until next time, I'm Mike Miranda.
For BMO disclosures, see episode description in your podcast player.
