Quora Answer: How are Investors Reacting to Reports That Indonesia May Raise Its Fiscal Deficit & Debt-to-GDP Ratio Ceilings?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “How are investors reacting to reports that Indonesia may raise its fiscal deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio ceilings?”

Badly.  Indonesia is reportedly considering raising its statutory fiscal deficit ceiling above the current 3 per cent of GDP limit — and potentially relaxing the debt-to-GDP ceiling as well.  The investor community’s reaction has been swift, unambiguous, and visible in every asset price the country owns.

The Jakarta Composite has fallen 40 per cent in 2026 — the world’s worst-performing major equity market.  The rupiah is approaching its record low of 18,190 against the dollar.  Global funds have withdrawn a net US$4.9 billion from Indonesian equities this year — on track for the worst year ever recorded.  Moody’s has changed Indonesia’s sovereign credit outlook to negative.  MSCI has proposed reclassifying Indonesia from emerging market to standalone status — a double downgrade that would place Southeast Asia’s largest economy alongside Argentina, Lebanon, and Ukraine.

The proposal to raise the fiscal ceiling is not a bold policy innovation.  It is the government acknowledging that it has already breached the spirit of the existing framework and would prefer to change the rules rather than change the behaviour.

The Current Framework and Why It Exists

Indonesia’s fiscal deficit ceiling of 3 per cent of GDP was enshrined in Law Number 17 of 2003 on State Finance — a hard-won institutional constraint adopted in the aftermath of the 1997 to 1998 Asian financial crisis that nearly destroyed the Indonesian state.  The law also requires that the national debt not exceed 60 per cent of GDP.

These constraints were not arbitrary.  They were the product of a specific historical lesson: that Indonesia’s pre-crisis fiscal framework had allowed the accumulation of liabilities — through state enterprise debt, contingent obligations, and off-balance-sheet exposures — that became sovereign obligations when the crisis hit.  The 1998 collapse required an IMF bailout, the fall of the Suharto regime, and a decade of painful fiscal consolidation.

The 3 per cent ceiling was the institutional memory of that lesson.  Indonesia’s public debt is currently 39 per cent of GDP — well within the 60 per cent ceiling but rising.  The fiscal deficit in Q1 2026 reached Rp240.1 trillion — more than double the Rp99.8 trillion of the same period in 2025.  The trajectory is not sustainable.  The proposal to raise the ceiling is not a response to a changed economic environment.  It is a response to a government that has spent beyond the existing constraint and needs a larger one.

The Prabowo Administration’s Policy Record

Prabowo Subianto assumed the presidency in October 2024.  The economic record of his administration’s first two years is instructive.  The flagship policy is the free school meals programme — a commitment to provide free nutritious meals to all Indonesian schoolchildren, estimated to cost Rp71 trillion annually at full implementation.  The programme is politically popular.  It is also, in an economy already running a structural deficit, fiscally reckless.  The IMF, in its Article IV consultation published in early 2026, flagged the programme as a source of fiscal risk.  The World Bank issued similar concerns.  The administration proceeded regardless.

The Danantara sovereign wealth fund — launched on 24^th February 2026 with US$20 billion in initial capitalisation drawn from state-owned enterprise dividends — adds another layer of fiscal complexity.  The SOEs whose dividends capitalise Danantara are simultaneously being asked to fund their own operational development, to serve the government’s developmental mandates, and to generate the commercial returns required to sustain their dividend payments.  Danantara’s assets are excluded from oversight by the BPK — Indonesia’s supreme audit agency — removing the primary independent accountability mechanism over US$20 billion in public capital.

The combination of expanded social spending, a poorly governed sovereign wealth fund, and a deteriorating fiscal position has produced the market reaction visible in every Indonesian asset price in 2026.

The Conflict of Interest

The structural problem with the Prabowo administration’s economic management is not merely policy incompetence.  It is the fundamental conflict of interest between the president’s private commercial interests and the governance reforms that Indonesian markets require.

Prabowo’s personal wealth is estimated at US$1.6 billion, built through business interests in mining, plantations, and defence contracting.  The opacity of corporate structures, the inadequacy of market enforcement, and the use of state procurement relationships that MSCI identified as investability problems are not abstract governance failures.  They are the operating environment in which politically connected Indonesian conglomerates — including those with presidential connections — have thrived.

The market reforms required to address MSCI’s concerns — transparent ownership structures, enforced trading rules, genuine regulatory independence, credible action against connected parties — are the reforms that would constrain the competitive advantages that the existing system provides to politically connected businesses.  The Prabowo administration is in the position of being asked to reform a system from which it benefits.  This is not a novel political economy problem.  It is a well-documented one.  The outcomes it produces are equally well-documented.

The OJK’s announcement of penalties linked to trading violations involving Dian Swastatika Sentosa, Barito Renewables Energy, and Petrindo Jaya Kreasi — released within hours of the MSCI announcement — demonstrated that the regulator had this information and chose to act on it only under external pressure.  The enforcement that markets had been requesting for years arrived as crisis management rather than routine supervision.

The MSCI Reclassification and Its Consequences

MSCI’s proposal to reclassify Indonesia from emerging market to standalone status is the most significant institutional signal the Indonesian market has received since the 1998 crisis.  The proposal bypasses the intermediate frontier category — a double downgrade that MSCI explained as reflecting the severity of Indonesia’s investability problems.

The financial consequences are quantifiable.  Mirae Asset Sekuritas Indonesia estimates US$3 billion in passive outflows from funds tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.  UBS estimates total passive outflows of approximately US$4 billion, with active investors potentially withdrawing a further US$15 billion.  At current market capitalisation levels, US$19 billion in forced and discretionary selling on a market that has already lost 40 per cent of its value in 2026 is not a manageable correction.  It is a structural de-rating.

The standalone classification would place Indonesia alongside Argentina, Lebanon, Palestine, and Ukraine.  The company Indonesia would keep in that classification is instructive.  Argentina has experienced nine sovereign defaults and is in a permanent state of fiscal crisis.  Lebanon has experienced a complete banking system collapse.  Ukraine is fighting an existential war.  These are not peer comparators for Southeast Asia’s largest economy — or at least they should not be.

MSCI will announce its final decision by the end of June 2027.  Indonesia has eight months to demonstrate that its market meets the investability standards that emerging market classification requires.  The proposal to raise the fiscal ceiling during this consultation period is, from a signalling perspective, the wrong message to send.  It tells MSCI — and the investors whose concerns MSCI is representing — that the government’s response to institutional pressure is to seek more fiscal flexibility rather than to address the governance failures that produced the pressure.

The Comparison

The 1997 to 1998 Asian financial crisis produced structural reform in Indonesia.  The fall of Suharto, the establishment of independent regulatory institutions, the adoption of the fiscal framework that the current administration now proposes to relax — all of these were outcomes of a crisis severe enough to force genuine change.  The 2026 crisis is not yet that severe.  The government retains access to domestic financing.  The rupiah has not collapsed to the levels of 1998.  The banking system remains functional.  The crisis is serious but not existential — which means the pressure for genuine reform is real but not yet overwhelming.

History suggests that Indonesian institutional reform occurs when the alternative is collapse rather than when the alternative is merely deterioration.  The current trajectory is deteriorating rather than collapsing.  The reforms announced will be sufficient to maintain the appearance of responsiveness without threatening the interests that require protection.  The proposal to raise the fiscal ceiling is consistent with this pattern.  It addresses the symptom — the constraint is being breached — by removing the constraint rather than addressing the behaviour that is breaching it.

Investors have noticed.  The Jakarta Composite, the rupiah, the sovereign credit outlook, and the MSCI classification proposal are all expressing the same assessment: the Prabowo administration’s fiscal and governance trajectory does not warrant the confidence that emerging market classification implies.  Raising the ceiling does not change the trajectory.  It merely makes more of the trajectory visible before the next alarm sounds.

---

Terence Nunis | Executive Chairman, Equinox Zenith | Author, The 1% Playbook: The Billionaire Cheat Code

Shari’ah Compliance is Branding, Not Ethics

The HSBC Islamic Global Equity Index Fund — the United Kingdom’s largest “shari’ah-compliant” fund, in which most halal pension schemes in Britain are invested — purchased more than US$100 million worth of shares in companies linked to the Israeli military in the first half of 2026.  The Shari’ah Committee issued its compliance certificate.  Nobody objected.

What US$100 Million in Shari’ah-Compliant Investing Purchased

1.        US$38.3 million in Palantir Technologies — whose data analytics and surveillance systems operate under a partnership with the Israeli Ministry of Defence established in 2024.

2.        US$35.7 million in RTX — the world’s second-largest arms company, whose subsidiary Raytheon collaborates with Israeli arms giant Rafael on Iron Dome interceptors.

3.        US$17.6 million in Rolls-Royce — which produces engines for Merkava tanks deployed extensively in Gaza, and for Israeli naval vessels through its German subsidiary MTU.

4.        US$20.3 million in Analog Devices — which supplied critical components to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest defence contractor.

5.        A further position in BAE Systems — Britain’s largest arms manufacturer, producing components for F-35 fighter jets used by the Israeli Air Force.

The Shari’ah Committee reviewed this portfolio.  It issued its annual compliance certificate.  The fund continued operating under its “Islamic investing” branding, promising to deliver “better outcomes for society as a whole.”  Allahu Akbar!  The society in question may have views on what “better outcomes” means.

What Shari’ah Screening Does

Shari’ah screening in its conventional form excludes specific categories of business activity: interest-bearing financial instruments, alcohol, pork, pornography, gambling, and weapons manufacturing — with “weapons” defined in the dominant screening methodologies as companies deriving more than 5 per cent of revenue from defence contracts.

The threshold is the problem.  RTX is the world’s second-largest arms company.  It clears the 5 per cent threshold in the sense that 5 per cent is its floor, not its ceiling.  Palantir is a technology company.  Its revenue from Israeli military contracts — divided against total revenue — may not trigger the screening threshold.  Analog Devices is a semiconductor company.  Its components reach Elbit Systems through supply chain relationships that the screening methodology does not trace.

The screening methodology asks: what does this company do primarily?  It does not ask: what does this company’s product do when it reaches its end user?  The Merkava tank engine is not excluded because Rolls-Royce earns more revenue from civilian aviation than from tank engines.  The surveillance system that identifies targets is not excluded because Palantir earns more revenue from commercial analytics than from military contracts.

This is the architecture of the compliance system.  It was designed to exclude industries.  It was not designed to trace consequences.  The whole system has the appearance of religiosity but not the values the religious supposedly espouse.

The Historical Precedent of Compliant Contradiction

This is not the first time the mechanics of shari’ah screening have produced results that Islamic ethics would not recognise.  In the years following the 2008 financial crisis, shari’ah-compliant funds held significant positions in major Western banks — institutions whose primary business involved interest-bearing lending at industrial scale — on the basis that non-interest revenue streams brought them below the exclusion threshold.  Goldman Sachs appeared in shari’ah-compliant indices.  The institution that packaged and sold the mortgage-backed securities that nearly collapsed the global financial system was compliant, because its trading revenue included enough non-interest income to clear the filter.

Muhammad Taqi al-‘Utsmani — one of the most authoritative voices in contemporary Islamic finance, who chairs or has chaired the shari’ah boards of numerous major Islamic financial institutions globally — stated publicly in 2007 that 85 per cent of swukuk structures being issued were not shari’ah-compliant.  He was making a legal argument about financial structures.  The HSBC fund raises a moral argument about consequences.  Both point to the same conclusion: the apparatus of shari’ah compliance, as industrialised by the global Islamic finance industry, has been decoupled from the ethical framework from which it derives its name.

The Performance Problem

The ethical failure compounds a financial one.  Shari’ah-compliant funds do not merely invest in ethically compromised companies.  They also, on average, underperform their conventional equivalents — and charge their investors more for the privilege of doing so.

The HSBC Islamic Global Equity Index Fund carries an ongoing charge of 0.40 per cent annually.  The HSBC MSCI World ETF — a conventional equivalent — carries an ongoing charge of 0.15 per cent.  The Muslim investor pays 0.25 percentage points more annually for the shari’ah-compliant version.  On a £50,000 pension pot, that is £125 per year in additional charges.  Over a 30-year accumulation horizon, compounded at 5 per cent, that is £8,600 in foregone retirement capital — paid for a compliance certificate that did not prevent US$100 million flowing into the Israeli military supply chain.

The performance picture is worse.  A 2020 study published in the Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, examining shari’ah-compliant funds across multiple markets over 15-year periods, found that they underperformed conventional benchmarks by an average of 0.7 to 1.2 percentage points annually after fees.  The underperformance is structural, not incidental.  Shari’ah screening excludes financial services companies — banks and insurers — which constitute 15 to 20 per cent of global equity indices by market capitalisation and have historically been among the strongest long-term compounders.  Screening also excludes tobacco — which, whatever its social costs, has produced some of the highest dividend-adjusted returns in equity market history.

The S&P 500 Shari’ah Index has underperformed the S&P 500 in most of the rolling 10-year periods since its inception.  The MSCI World Islamic Index has underperformed the MSCI World Index in most of the rolling 5-year periods since inception.  The screening that reduces the investable universe does not add return.  It removes it.

The technology sector partially compensates — shari’ah funds have benefited from their heavy technology weightings, since most technology companies pass screening criteria easily.  This effect has been pronounced since 2020, when technology dominated global equity returns.  It flatters the performance comparison during the period of technology outperformance and will reverse when the technology cycle turns — as my AI debt cliff analysis suggests it eventually will.

The Muslim investor who chose a halal pension is paying a higher fee for a smaller investment universe that has historically underperformed the market, with no guarantee of genuine ethical compliance, as demonstrated by US$100 million flowing into the Israeli military supply chain under a compliance certificate.  This is, by any objective measure, a poor financial product.

The Certification Industry

The shari’ah compliance industry is, at its core, a certification business.  Fiqh scholars sit on advisory boards.  They receive fees — sometimes substantial fees — for reviewing structures and issuing compliance opinions.  A 2019 study in the Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research found that the top twenty jurisprudence (fiqh) scholars globally held between them 621 board positions across Islamic financial institutions.  A single scholar —Nizham Muhammad Swalih al-Yaquby — held positions at more than 50 institutions simultaneously, generating fees that multiple analyses estimated in the millions annually.  The concentration of certification authority in a small number of highly compensated scholars creates the same capture dynamic that credit rating agency fees created in the structured finance market before 2008.  The rating agencies rated the structures that the banks that paid them wanted rated.  The fiqh scholars certified the products that the institutions that paid them needed certified.

AAOIFI — the Accounting and Auditing Organisation for Islamic Financial Institutions — has published standards representing attempts to maintain substantive compliance requirements.  The gap between AAOIFI standards and market practice has widened consistently since the industry’s commercial expansion began in the 1990s.  The expansion required compliance.  Compliance was provided.  The standards bent toward commercial requirements rather than commercial requirements bending toward the standards.

The HSBC Shari’ah Committee that certified the Islamic Global Equity Index Fund is not an aberration.  It is the system functioning as designed — reviewing a passive index fund against screening criteria that the index methodology satisfies, and issuing a certificate that the methodology has been followed.  Whether the methodology captures what Islamic ethics actually requires is a question the certification process does not ask.

The Theological Dimension

Classical Islamic jurisprudence has a principle that shari’ah screening ignores with systematic thoroughness: sadd adz-dzara’i’ — the blocking of means.  The principle holds that an action that is technically permissible but leads to a prohibited outcome must be treated as prohibited, because permitting the means while prohibiting the end is incoherent.  Investing in a company that manufactures engines for tanks used to kill civilians is not made halal by the fact that the company also manufactures engines for aircraft.  The engine in the tank is still in the tank.  The investment that funded its production is still in the supply chain.  adz-Dzara’i’ — the means — leads to the prohibited outcome regardless of the revenue percentage it represents.

The mainstream shari’ah screening methodology does not engage with sadd adz-dzara’i’ because engaging with it would make much of the global equity market un-investable under Islamic ethics — which would make the Islamic finance industry as currently constituted commercially non-viable.  The commercial requirement produced the theological outcome.  The principle was set aside.  The certificate was issued.

Furthermore, the classical principle of hisbah — the obligation to prevent harm and enjoin what is right — places a positive duty on Muslim investors to actively avoid contributing to oppression.  Passive indexing inside a compliant methodology discharges no such duty.  It outsources the ethical question to a screening algorithm and declares the investor’s conscience clean.  The classical tradition does not recognise this outsourcing as adequate.  The conscience is not clean because the algorithm said so.

Mohammed Afzal Khan, Labour Member of Parliament and vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, described the fund’s Palantir position as “a complete affront to Islamic finance practices.”  He is correct in spirit and incomplete in scope.  It is not an affront to Islamic finance practices as currently constituted — it is entirely consistent with them.  It is an affront to Islamic ethics, which is a different and more important category.

The Vanity Economics

The global Islamic finance industry manages US$4 trillion in assets as of 2025, according to the Islamic Finance Development Report.  It has grown at 10 per cent annually over the previous decade.  It employs thousands of scholars, compliance officers, structurers, and advisers.  It generates substantial fee income for the institutions offering shari’ah-compliant products.

The Muslim investor at the centre of this industry — the pensioner in Birmingham, the saver in London, the family in Manchester who chose the halal pension option — is paying above-market fees for below-market returns while their capital participates in the supply chains they specifically sought to avoid.

The industry’s growth is not driven by performance.  It is driven by identity.  The Muslim investor who chooses a halal fund does so because they wish their investment to reflect their faith.  The industry provides a label that satisfies this desire at a price premium.  The label does not guarantee that the desire is satisfied — as US$100 million in Israeli military supply chain exposure demonstrates.

This is the definition of a vanity project: a product whose primary function is the satisfaction of its purchaser’s self-image rather than the delivery of the outcome it claims to provide.  The vanity project charges a premium for this self-image satisfaction.  It underperforms the market.  It fails to deliver even the ethical outcome it promises.  The Muslim investor who understands this will approach the halal label with the same scepticism they would apply to any marketing claim — examining what is actually certified, by whom, against what criteria, and with what financial interest operating in the background.

The Alternative

The alternative is not comfortable, but it is more defensible.  The Muslim investor who wishes their capital to avoid the Israeli military supply chain, alcohol, tobacco, interest-bearing instruments, and all the other categories their faith identifies as prohibited needs to engage with the investment directly — examining specific holdings, specific supply chains, and specific consequences — rather than delegating the ethical question to a compliance algorithm and a certificate.  This requires more effort.  It may produce a smaller investable universe.  It may produce lower returns.  These are genuine costs.  They are the costs of genuine ethical investing rather than the costs of a branding exercise that delivers neither ethics nor competitive returns.

Imam Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali — Hujjat al-Islam, the Proof of Islam — devoted substantial sections of Ihya’ ‘Ulum ad-Din to the question of halal earnings.  His framework was not a screening algorithm.  It was a continuous, personal, effortful engagement with the question of whether one’s capital and one’s conscience were aligned.   He did not suggest that paying a scholar to certify an index fund discharged this obligation.

The label is not the ethics.  The certificate is not the conscience.  The compliance is not the compliance.  The HSBC fund proved it.  The Shari’ah Committee certified it.  The Muslim pensioner paid for it.  And the industry will continue, because the premium is profitable and the vanity is real.

---

Terence Nunis | Executive Chairman, Equinox Zenith | Author, The 1% Playbook: The Billionaire Cheat Code

A Policy Critique: Asia’s SWF Direct Investing Trend & Its Consequences for Singapore’s PE Market

The private equity industry has spent three decades building a remarkably comfortable business model.  Raise a fund.  Charge a 2 per cent management fee regardless of performance.  Take 20 per cent of profits when things go well.  Raise another fund.  Repeat until retirement.

Asia’s sovereign wealth funds have noticed.  They have decided they would rather keep the fees.  The consequences for Singapore’s deal flow — and for the broader PE ecosystem that Singapore has spent twenty years cultivating — deserve a serious examination rather than the breathless coverage that has treated this as simply another sign of sophistication.

The Scale of the Pivot

GIC manages US$936 billion.  Temasek Holdings reported a net portfolio value of S$518 billion as of March 2026.  Between them, Singapore’s two sovereign wealth funds deployed US$45 billion through direct equity partnerships, according to Boston Consulting Group research on sovereign wealth fund strategies.  The 2026 Sovereign Wealth Fund Annual Report documented GIC co-investing alongside every other major sovereign fund across 29 transactions totalling US$55.5 billion.

These are not opportunistic departures from a fund commitment model.  They are a systematic institutional pivot that has been underway for the better part of a decade.  Temasek Holdings’ response has been structural.  In the year to March 2026, Temasek absorbed Pavilion Capital — an investor in Asian PE funds and co-investments — into Seviora Capital, its external fund management platform, bringing Seviora’s assets under management to over US$72 billion.  Altrium Private Equity Fund III closed at US$526 million in June 2026.  Altrium Co-Invest Fund II had its first close at US$210 million in July 2026.  These are not the numbers of an institution hedging its bets.  They are the numbers of an institution building the infrastructure to do this permanently and at scale.

The economics are straightforward.  A sovereign wealth fund investing through a PE fund pays a 2 per cent annual management fee on committed capital and surrenders 20 per cent of profits above the hurdle rate.  A direct investment or co-investment pays neither.  At GIC’s scale, eliminating that fee drag is not a rounding error.  It is billions of dollars annually that stay in Singapore rather than enriching a general partner in Hong Kong or New York.

GIC manages 80 per cent of its portfolio in-house.  The institutional capability to absorb direct deal flow exists.  The question was never whether GIC could do direct investing.  The question was whether it was worth the organisational investment to build the origination and deal execution infrastructure at scale.  The answer, apparently, is yes.

The Fundraising Backdrop: A Market Already Under Severe Stress

The sovereign wealth pivot does not land in a healthy fundraising environment.  It lands in the worst PE fundraising market since the 2008 financial crisis.  Global closed-end PE fundraising fell from a 2021 peak of US$1.8 trillion to US$616 billion in 2025 — a decline of 66 per cent from peak to trough, according to McKinsey Global Institute data.  This was the fourth consecutive year of decline.  Asia-Pacific fundraising suffered a 49 per cent year-on-year decline in 2025 to US$49 billion, vastly underperforming North America, which managed an 8 per cent increase to US$432 billion in the same period.

The capital that did flow went to an increasingly small number of managers.  The top 300 fundraisers — representing 2 to 3 per cent of the global PE market by count — amassed a record US$3.6 trillion over the five years to end-2025, according to Moonfare analysis.  The minimum commitment to make that list was US$2.8 billion.  The top 10 US funds alone captured 45.7 per cent of all US PE capital raised in 2025, up from 34.5 per cent the year before, according to PitchBook data.  Around 70 per cent of LP commitments in 2024 and 2025 went to existing GP relationships, up from 60 per cent five years earlier, per Preqin data.  Of every US$100 of institutional PE capital committed, US$10 to US$15 was available to a manager without an established LP base.

For first-time managers in North America, fundraising fell 36 per cent from US$11.3 billion in 2024 to US$7.2 billion in 2025.  The venture capital total fell below US$100 billion for the first time since 2015.  The 2025 Preqin data showed 578 new funds closing — down from 906 the year before.

Singapore’s own numbers are even more sobering.  Singapore recorded just one final close in the venture space in 2025, versus 10 the prior year and 21 in 2023.  Debut vehicle closes fell from seven in both 2024 and 2023 to effectively a single reported close in 2025.  Southeast Asia recorded 10 PE fund closes in 2025, raising US$4.6 billion — with Axiom Asia Private Capital Fund VII accounting for US$1.2 billion of that single-handedly.  Remove Axiom and the headline number looks less impressive.

Total PE deal value in Southeast Asia fell 43 per cent year-on-year in 2025, according to EY data, with exit proceeds declining 47 per cent to US$4.4 billion across just 33 deals.  Average deal size fell from US$356 million to US$267 million.  Singapore captured 74 per cent of that regional deal value — but 74 per cent of a shrinking market is still a shrinking market.  Into this already constrained environment, Asia’s largest sovereign wealth funds have chosen this moment to become direct competitors for the same deal flow that the remaining fund managers are trying to close.

What GIC and Temasek Holdings are Doing to the Market

The standard narrative presents the sovereign wealth pivot as a positive signal — sophisticated capital, long-horizon conviction, validation of the asset class.  This narrative is correct as far as it goes.  It does not go far enough.  For the mega-cap global sponsors — KKR, Carlyle, Blackstone, TPG — the sovereign wealth pivot creates a paradox that is uncomfortable to acknowledge.  GIC and Temasek Holdings co-investing alongside them rather than through them means those sponsors receive capital and deal access, but not management fees.  The LP relationship has been repriced.  For TPG’s US$5.3 billion Asia Fund VIII, half the capital came from re-up investors who oversubscribed their allocation requests.  The brand still attracts capital.  The terms are simply worse than they were a decade ago, and the trajectory is not reversing.

For mid-market and emerging managers, the situation is more serious.  When GIC writes a direct cheque into a deal, it does not need a GP to intermediate.  When Temasek Holdings sources a transaction through its internal teams, the transaction does not become a fund commitment.  Every deal that the sovereign funds execute directly is a deal that does not generate management fees, does not contribute to a GP’s track record, and does not appear in a fund’s portfolio returns.

The constraint is not merely capital allocation.  It is deal origination.  In Southeast Asia, private equity deal origination is a relationship-dependent activity.  The GPs who built proprietary deal flow over decades did so through local market presence, family office relationships, and sectoral expertise.  Singapore-based managers, including Asia Partners, Quadria Capital, Creador, and Northstar, have all cited single-family-office-driven proprietary sourcing as a 2024 to 2026 deal flow advantage.  GIC and Temasek Holdings, with their combined global networks and institutional relationships, are now competing for the same proprietary origination channels.

The GP who was previously a trusted intermediary — sourcing deals, managing them operationally, and returning capital to the sovereign fund as LP — is now a potential competitor for the same mandate.  This is not an existential threat to the established managers.  It is an existential threat to anyone who was planning to become an established manager.

The Policy Problem

Singapore has spent two decades positioning itself as Asia’s premier asset and wealth management centre.  The MAS Asset Management Survey 2024 recorded 1,298 licensed fund management firms at year-end, employing an estimated 7,500 to 9,000 investment professionals.  The 13O and 13U tax incentive schemes under the Income Tax Act have attracted hundreds of family offices and fund management entities, each employing qualifying investment professionals at salaries above S$120,000 per annum.

This ecosystem depends, at its foundation, on the existence of a viable independent GP community.  Fund managers need investors.  Investors need fund managers.  The flywheel operates only if both sides have a reason to participate.  When the largest institutional investors in Singapore’s backyard pivot to direct investing, the flywheel slows.  When fundraising falls to multi-year lows simultaneously, the flywheel risks stopping altogether for anyone outside the top tier.

The MAS has proposed a Long-term Investment Fund framework to allow retail investors access to private market funds — a sensible initiative that broadens the LP base and creates new capital pools for managers.  It does not, however, address the structural shift in institutional LP behaviour.  Retail capital, however welcome, cannot substitute for the anchor tickets that institutional LPs provide.  A first close requires credibility.  Credibility requires institutional names on the cap table.  Institutional names are increasingly writing direct cheques rather than fund commitments.

The policy implication is not that Singapore should discourage GIC and Temasek from direct investing.  These are Singapore’s reserves, and maximising returns is the mandate.  The policy implication is that the MAS and EDB should actively accelerate the development of the conditions under which an independent GP community remains viable: deeper secondary market infrastructure, sector-specific fund support mechanisms, and an explicit programme to attract new institutional LP capital — pension funds, insurance companies, endowments — that does not already have the internal capability to invest directly.

Singapore’s PE sector staged a 60 per cent deal value rebound in 2024, according to Ashurst data.  That rebound was driven by infrastructure and energy transactions, not by the broad-based mid-market activity that constitutes the backbone of a healthy PE ecosystem.  Infrastructure and energy deals are large, capital-intensive, and dominated by the same sovereign and institutional players that are crowding out mid-market managers elsewhere.  The rebound did not democratise the market.  It concentrated it further.

Who Survives and Who Does Not

The GPs who survive this structural shift are not the ones who were best at asset gathering.  They are the ones who built something the sovereign funds cannot replicate internally without building an entire team from scratch.  Quadria Capital closed Fund III at US$1.07 billion in May 2025 — 60 per cent larger than Fund II, exceeding its US$800 million target, with new backers from West Asia and India.  It raised that capital in the worst fundraising environment in a decade because it offered dedicated, operationally intensive healthcare private equity exposure in South and Southeast Asia.  No sovereign wealth fund has the internal bench depth to replicate that mandate without a multi-year build.  Sector focus at sufficient depth is the only defensible moat against a counterparty with effectively unlimited capital and a long-horizon mandate.

Axiom Asia Private Capital, the fund-of-funds and co-investment platform, closed Fund VII at US$1.2 billion in 2025 — still viable because it offers institutional LPs access to a curated portfolio of underlying Asian PE managers, including co-investment rights, that the LPs cannot assemble themselves without a dedicated team.  The value proposition is curation, not origination.

The GPs who are struggling are the generalists — broad-based, multi-sector, mid-market buyout funds without a differentiated thesis, a proprietary sourcing network, or an operational value-creation capability that justifies the fee load.  These managers are asking institutional investors to pay for something that GIC and Temasek Holdings can now do in-house at lower cost.  The institutional investors have noticed.  Around 70 per cent of LP commitments in 2024 and 2025 went to existing relationships.  Of every US$100 of institutional PE capital committed, US$10 to US$15 was available for a manager without an established LP base.  First-time fund closes collapsed 36 per cent in North America alone in 2025.  In Singapore, the venture fund final close count fell from 21 in 2023 to one in 2025.

The consolidation is not an accident.  It is a rational response by institutional allocators to a market where direct investing has become viable for the largest players, fundraising cycles have lengthened from 12 to 24 months on average, and the distribution overhang from legacy funds continues to constrain LP appetite for new commitments.

The Uncomfortable Conclusion

Asia’s sovereign wealth funds are not leaving the PE ecosystem.  They are rewriting their position within it — from paying customer to co-principal.  This is rational capital management.  It is also a structural compression of the independent GP market, occurring at the moment when that market is at its most vulnerable in a decade.  Singapore has built its asset management centre on the premise that capital and talent would cluster here because the regulatory environment was stable, the deal flow was accessible, and the institutional infrastructure was world-class.  Two of those three premises remain intact.  The deal flow accessibility is under structural pressure from the very institutions that Singapore’s reputation was built around.

The GPs who have not noticed this shift, who are still running the fundraising playbook of 2018 and hoping that the cycle turns before their current fund deploys, are about to discover that the cycle has not merely turned.  The model has changed.  The sovereign funds are not their anchor LPs anymore.  They are their competition.  Recognising that distinction — and building a business that does not depend on the goodwill of the largest direct investors in Singapore’s market — is the only viable strategic response.  Everything else is optimism dressed up as a fundraising strategy.

---

Terence Nunis | Executive Chairman, Equinox Zenith | Author, The 1% Playbook: The Billionaire Cheat Code

Tailored Insurance in the HNW Family Office: Three Value Propositions

The Cercle: Future of Finance, Singapore Family Office Forum gathered 60 family office principals, sovereign allocators, and institutional leaders at the Fullerton Hotel on 6^th October 2026.  The conversation covered AI-driven quantitative funds, Bitcoin structured products, and bilateral lending platforms.  Insurance was not on the agenda.  It should have been.

The forum identified three structural challenges that family offices face with increasing urgency: wealth erosion through real estate misallocation, disputes over wealth division among heirs, and complex cross-border tax liabilities.  A fifth-generation Dubai family office principal outlined a three-step deal filter — why should we not do it, should we do it, and lastly, how much?

That filter applies to insurance with more clarity than it applies to most of the direct deals being sourced.  The answer to “why should we not do it” for a properly structured insurance instrument within a family office is almost always nothing.  The answer to “should we do it” is almost always yes.  The answer to “how much” is the only question that requires calibration.

The forum’s central theme — the “3L” framework of lifestyle, legacy, and liquidity — is also the architecture of a well-structured insurance programme.  Lifestyle requires accessible capital.  Legacy requires succession planning.  Liquidity requires instruments that convert illiquid estates into accessible cash at the transfer event.  A single properly structured IUL policy addresses all three simultaneously.

The family offices at the forum are sophisticated enough to co-invest in frontier technologies and source direct deals from secondary markets.  They are less systematically sophisticated at deploying the instrument that protects the capital base that funds it all.

The Three Exposures

The forum touched on tax complexity as a specific challenge — one Dubai-based family office spans nine nationalities and 22 residency jurisdictions, requiring constant adaptation to changing trust regulations and UBO disclosure rules.  This is the most visible dimension of a tripartite exposure framework that every HNW family office carries.

Currency exposure affects every family that holds assets across multiple jurisdictions in different denominations.  A Singapore dollar-denominated insurance policy held by an Indonesian family with US dollar income and UAE dirham property creates currency mismatch risk.  A yen-denominated estate plan for a Japanese family with US equity holdings creates a different version of the same problem.  Currency movements between the premium commitment date and the death benefit payout date materially alter the real value of the succession instrument.

Political exposure is the risk that the legal and tax framework governing the family’s assets changes materially — either in the jurisdiction of asset holding or in the patriarch’s country of residency.  The Indonesian family that moved capital to Singapore following Prabowo Subianto’s election and the subsequent fiscal deterioration — the Jakarta Composite Index has fallen approximately 32 per cent year-to-date — made a rational political risk management decision.  The capital they moved needed to be structured in instruments that do not create reverse political exposure in Singapore.

Tax exposure is the most technically complex of the three and the one that the Dubai family office’s nine-nationality, 22-jurisdiction footprint illustrates most vividly.  FATCA, CRS 2.0, and the OECD’s Global Minimum Tax framework have collectively eliminated most of the offshore structures that previously insulated HNW families from multi-jurisdictional tax claims.  The instruments that remain effective are those with economic substance in credible jurisdictions — and Singapore-domiciled insurance within a properly structured trust is one of the most defensible.

Value Proposition One: Currency-Neutral Succession

The gap: an Indonesian family holds US$30 million in Singapore equities, US$20 million in Indonesian property, and US$10 million in UAE commercial real estate.  The patriarch’s estate plan is denominated in Singapore dollars.  Indonesian property values are denominated in Indonesian rupiah — which has fallen to 1998 crisis levels.  The UAE assets are denominated in UAE dirhams, which are pegged to the US dollar.  The Singapore dollar policy proceeds need to service estate obligations in three currencies simultaneously.

The structure: a US dollar-denominated Private Placement Life Insurance policy, held within a Singapore common-law trust, with the premium commitment sized to the US dollar liquidity requirement at the transfer event.  PPLI is the institutional-grade instrument at this scale — minimum premium typically US$1 million, held within a policy wrapper that is itself an investment vehicle, allowing the family to direct the investment strategy of the underlying assets rather than accepting the insurer’s standard fund menu.

PPLI held within a Singapore trust provides several simultaneous currency risk management functions.  The death benefit is denominated in US dollars — the de facto reserve currency that denominates most of the family’s cross-border obligations.  The underlying investment portfolio within the PPLI can be denominated in multiple currencies, providing natural hedging against the family’s specific currency exposure profile.  The policy loan facility allows the family to access US dollar liquidity within the policy without triggering a tax event in any jurisdiction where the family has reporting obligations.

The tax position: under the proposed MAS update to the Designated Investment list, the PPLI held within the Singapore SFO’s fund vehicle qualifies for Section 13O or 13U tax exemption.  The investment returns within the policy — regardless of the currency of the underlying assets — are exempt from Singapore income tax within the fund vehicle.  This eliminates the Singapore-side tax drag on the currency management function.

The data: PPLI has historically provided after-tax returns approximately 1.5 to 2 percentage points above equivalent taxable investment vehicles over twenty-year horizons, according to studies from the American College of Financial Services.  At a US$10 million premium commitment, the twenty-year tax equivalent advantage — before the Singapore SFO exemption — exceeds US$3 million in additional accumulated value.

Value Proposition Two: Political Risk Insulation

The gap: the family’s primary wealth was built in a jurisdiction whose political environment is deteriorating.  The capital has been moved to Singapore.  The Singapore legal and tax framework is stable.  But the family’s ongoing business income — generated in the politically exposed jurisdiction — continues to flow through structures that are vulnerable to expropriation, regulatory change, or currency controls.

This is not a hypothetical scenario.  Indonesian HNW families have been moving capital to Singapore at an accelerating pace since the Prabowo administration’s fiscal trajectory became clear.  Taiwanese families have been establishing Singapore SFOs in anticipation of scenarios that their government declines to state publicly.  Gulf families — responding to the progressive introduction of corporate and personal income taxes across the GCC — have been establishing Singapore structures to hold capital generated in an environment of increasing fiscal opacity.

The structure: a Singapore-domiciled Jumbo IUL held within a Singapore discretionary trust, with the trust settled and funded before the political risk event crystallises.  The timing is critical.  A trust settled and funded in stable conditions, with economic substance and a legitimate Singapore nexus, is substantially more defensible against subsequent claims from a politically exposed jurisdiction than a trust settled in response to a specific crisis.

The IUL within the trust provides political risk insulation through three mechanisms.

First, the policy proceeds are owned by the Singapore trust, not by the individual.  A government that freezes the individual’s personal assets in the politically exposed jurisdiction cannot reach assets held by a Singapore trust that was settled on arm’s-length conditions before the crisis.

Second, the policy’s cash value is held by the Singapore-licensed insurer — AIA Singapore, Prudential Singapore — on the trust’s behalf.  It is not held in a bank account that can be frozen, a brokerage account that can be seized, or a property that can be expropriated.  Life insurance policy cash values sit in a legally distinct category in Singapore law.

Third, the policy loan facility allows the family to access capital from within the Singapore structure without remitting funds from the politically exposed jurisdiction — maintaining the separation between the protected Singapore assets and the exposed home-jurisdiction assets.

The historical precedent: Iranian families who had established Swiss insurance structures before the 1979 revolution preserved capital that families who had not taken this step lost entirely.  The instrument class — life insurance held within a trust in a stable jurisdiction — has the longest documented track record of any political risk management tool available to private wealth.

Cerulli Associates data shows that cross-border capital flows into Singapore SFOs from Indonesia alone exceeded US$4 billion in 2025.  The capital is moving.  The question is whether it is being structured correctly once it arrives.

Value Proposition Three: Tax Architecture for Multi-Jurisdictional Families

The gap: the Dubai family office spanning nine nationalities and 22 residency jurisdictions is not an extreme case.  It is an increasingly common one.  CRS 2.0 — the enhanced Common Reporting Standard that expanded automatic exchange of financial account information between 120-plus countries in 2024 — means that every financial account this family holds in every participating jurisdiction is reported to every tax authority that has a claim on any family member.

The structures that previously managed this complexity — offshore trusts in Caribbean jurisdictions, opaque holding companies in Delaware or the BVI — have been progressively dismantled by the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting framework, the Global Minimum Tax, and the UBO disclosure requirements that the forum identified as a constant compliance burden.

The structures that remain effective are those with economic substance in credible jurisdictions, transparent beneficial ownership that can be disclosed without creating additional tax liability, and legal frameworks that treat the instrument favourably regardless of the tax authority examining it.  A Singapore-domiciled insurance policy within a Singapore common-law trust meets all three conditions.

The Singapore trust is a transparent structure — the beneficial owners are disclosed, the trust is registered with the relevant Singapore authorities, and the economic substance is real.  There is no offshore opacity to defend.  The Singapore legal framework is internationally recognised and respected.  No tax authority examining a Singapore trust holding a Singapore-domiciled insurance policy will find a legally indefensible arrangement.

The tax treatment within Singapore is favourable — particularly under the proposed Section 13O and 13U exemptions.  The death benefit proceeds paid to the trust are not subject to Singapore estate duty, which was abolished in 2008.  The policy cash value growth is tax-exempt within the SFO framework.  The trust distributions to beneficiaries in multiple jurisdictions may create individual tax obligations in those jurisdictions — but the Singapore side of the structure does not amplify or create those obligations.

The structure: a Singapore common-law trust with a professional corporate trustee — not a family member — as the sole or lead trustee.  The professional trustee provides the independent substance that tax authorities increasingly require to accept that a trust has a Singapore nexus rather than being a shell arrangement managed from elsewhere.

The trust holds a Participating Whole of Life or Jumbo IUL policy issued by a Singapore-licensed insurer.  The policy’s premium commitment is structured over a defined period — seven to ten years — to allow the premium payments themselves to be managed across multiple jurisdictions’ tax years in a manner that minimises any individual jurisdiction’s claim on the capital being committed.

The policy’s cash value is reported to CRS-participating jurisdictions as held by the Singapore trust — not by any individual family member.  This does not eliminate the reporting obligation.  It does mean that the reported value is an asset of the trust, not of any individual, which changes the tax analysis in most jurisdictions that do not tax trust assets until distribution.

The Collective Firepower Dimension

The forum’s discussion of “collective firepower” — family offices pooling capital for direct deal access — has a direct parallel in insurance.  Multiple family offices co-investing in a single large-scale insurance structure — a reinsurance co-investment vehicle, for example, or a catastrophe bond structure accessible only at institutional premium levels — can access instruments and terms that individual family offices cannot access alone.  This is the insurance market’s equivalent of the direct deal co-investment model that the forum identified as an emerging trend.

Elizabeth Noelle Reno, founder of The Cercle and organiser of the event, described the model as “taking the behaviour of co-investing within the family office world and applying it to frontier technologies.”  The same behaviour, applied to insurance structuring, allows family offices to access institutional-grade reinsurance returns, catastrophe bond yields, and mortality risk instruments that generate non-correlated returns — uncorrelated to equity, to fixed income, and to the direct deal investments that constitute the rest of the portfolio.

Insurance-linked securities — catastrophe bonds, mortality bonds, longevity swaps — are an asset class that generated 12 per cent returns in 2023 and 10 per cent in 2024, with near-zero correlation to global equity markets.  Access typically requires a minimum commitment of US$1 million to US$5 million per instrument.  A collective family office vehicle with US$20 million to US$50 million in aggregate commitment can access this market at terms that no individual family office could negotiate independently.

The collective firepower framework that the forum identified as a trend in direct equity deal access applies equally to the insurance market — and the returns, the correlation profile, and the institutional access it provides make it one of the most compelling underutilised opportunities in the Singapore family office ecosystem.

The Summary

The 3L framework — lifestyle, legacy, liquidity — is the architecture of a family office insurance programme.  Lifestyle requires accessible capital: the policy loan facility delivers it.  Legacy requires succession planning: the trust-held death benefit delivers it.  Liquidity requires instruments that convert illiquid estates: the properly sized Jumbo IUL delivers it.

The three exposures — currency, political, and tax — each have a specific insurance instrument that addresses them with greater legal defensibility, greater tax efficiency, and greater structural permanence than most of the alternative structures being discussed in direct deal forums.

The family offices gathering at the Fullerton Hotel to discuss AI funds, Bitcoin products, and secondary market deal sourcing are sophisticated enough to deploy these instruments.  The evidence from the forum suggests that most of them have not yet done so.

The instruments are available.  The Singapore regulatory framework is moving to support them.  The tax exemption is coming.  The only remaining question is why so few family offices are asking the right financial services consultant the right questions.

---

Terence Nunis | Executive Chairman, Equinox Zenith & Red Sycamore | Author, The 1% Playbook: The Billionaire Cheat Code