Sam 

Good afternoon everyone and welcome. I'm Sam Fibreiro. Excuse me. President and CEO of Canada Life Investment Management and Senior Vice President of Wealth Solutions at Canada Life. 

Thanks for joining us everyone for today for our 2026 Market Outlook. It’s great to be kicking off the new year with you all. 

As we jump into 2026, the investment landscape is shaped by at least three characteristics, among others, economic resilience, rapid technology innovation, and shifting global alliances.  

But 2026 also brings some uncertainty. Recent geopolitical events, global GDP growth looks a little flat, and soaring AI investment has sparked debate about a possible bubble. So, thriving in this environment means thinking differently. And that's exactly what we're gonna talk about today in our session.  

Now, I wanna get through a couple of housekeeping items to help you get the most out of today's event. I wanna encourage you to ask questions throughout the session. And we do have a question-and-answer period near the end of today's meeting, but you'll see instructions for logging into Slido on your screen. Feel free to submit your questions and vote on others. And this is gonna help us prioritize what matters most to you. And we will all try to address as many questions during the Q&A portion at the end of the session.  

Now, for advisors who are joining us live, CE credits certificates will be sent out in the coming weeks. And for those of you who attend the full session, obviously that will be provided. And for Quebec advisors, a CE quiz will appear on screen after the session ends.  

Now, let's dive into the heart of today's discussions. We're entering 2026 with markets that continue to evolve from resilient, what I would call economic signals to acceleration of innovation and global realignments. There's also a lot to unpack and even more to consider as we position for the year ahead.  

Now, whether you're looking into managing risk, identifying new growth opportunities or simply sharpening your perspective, today's insights will help you stay informed and adaptable.  

Now, I'm thrilled to be joined by three outstanding industry veterans and speakers who bring deep expertise and unique perspectives to today's conversation.  

The first we're gonna welcome is Leonie MacCann. She is the head of client investment solutions at Keyridge Asset Management, formerly Irish Life Investment Management.  

Secondly, will we be joined by Jack Manley executive director and global market strategist at JP Morgan Asset Management.  

And finally, we have Corrado Tiralongo, chief investment officer at Canada Life Investment Management. Welcome to all of you and thank you for being here. 

Okay, so let's get the ball rolling. In 2025, a small group of companies and themes drove significant share of market returns. And so, the question is, do you expect this concentration to persist in 2026? Jack, I'm gonna start with you. What's your perspective on that point? 

Jack 

Yes, it's a question that comes up a lot when I'm having conversations with clients, but I think it's interesting actually to take a step back here and assess the statement right from the beginning, which is that in some ways, this is a very concentrated market and what happened in 2025 was a very concentrated experience. 

In other ways, it was actually quite a diversified experience. You know, we think about what's happened for the better part of the last 15 years. It has been marked by a period of really profound, pronounced US equity market exceptionalism. That was the only thing that worked in portfolios for a very long time.  

Last year changed that story, right? Stocks were up; the bonds were also up. The US was up, but most of the rest of the world actually did even better than the States. The TSX, for example, outperformed the S&P 500 by its widest margin since 2009. The only global equity market or major global equity market that underperformed the States was India.  

Last year was actually quite a diversified year from a performance perspective, if you were a global investor. And that diversified nature of that performance was pretty unusual. But when you think about those individual countries, regions, that's where you do start to see some real concentration, right? You look at the European equity market, for example, aerospace and defense companies doing most of the heavy lifting over there. You look at the Canadian equity market, for example, gold miners making up about 75% of the material sector, which alongside the financial sector accounting for two thirds of the performance out of that market last year.  

You'll get what happened in the United States. And of course it's been the MAG 7 for a very long time. It's technology, it's AI more broadly. So, I just think it's very interesting to point out that it's not quite a paradox, I guess, but sort of mixed messages here in terms of how the market worked in 2025. On one hand, quite concentrated. On the other hand, more diversified than it's been in a very, very long time.  

Now to your actual question, right, Sam, which is like, do I think this is going to continue into 2026? I think it will. I think all those things that I just mentioned have legs, they have durability, they have the potential to carry through this year. But my guess is that they flow through this year in sort of a diminished state at a lesser extent than what we saw in 2025.  

The first thing I would point out here, and this is somewhat controversial, I would say, it's not something that you hear a lot in the investment management space. It's not something you hear a lot, frankly, at JP Morgan. I do not believe that US equity exceptionalism is dead. I think it is still very much alive and well. And while last year's outperformance of XUS markets made a lot of sense for a lot of reasons, we should not mistake it for the start of some sort of paradigm shift.  

I think these foreign markets can compete in a way that they hadn't for a long time. And so I expect better than typical performance out of Europe or Canada or Japan or certain EMs over the course of 2026. But I don't think we're going to see another blowout year where the US underperforms.  

And then when you're looking at the US equity market, AI is such a big theme, basically a monolith, not just in the US equity market, but even in the US economy. It's gonna be very, very difficult to assume that market leadership is gonna turn completely on its head over the course of this year.  

That said, we are moving in the right direction. You can debate as to how relevant the concept of the MAG7 is right now in 2026. It wouldn't surprise me if it kind of goes the way of FAANG and we have a new acronym or a new name for the winners over the course of this year. But in 2023, the Magnificent Seven accounted for over 60% of the S&P 500's return. In 2024, just a little over 50% of the S&P 500's total return. And in 2025, a little under 50% of the S&P 500's total return. We're moving in the right direction.  

So, AI continuing to be, I would say the driving force in US equities, still a lot of concentration, but less concentration than what we had seen last year or the years before it. 

Sam 

Yeah, well said, Jack. Obviously, we're seeing some of those regional differences. 

As Jack suggested, we've got some diminished results and we're also understanding that we're going in the right direction. Corrado, what are you seeing when it comes to equity evaluations? 

Corrado 

Thanks, Sam. 

So, I would concur much of what Jack said here, with regards to market concentrations and performance, there's a couple of charts that we can show just to illustrate Jack's point. 

Here, the concentration is not just a narrative, it's actually measurable. And here we show a chart which shows the effect of number of stocks, which are at a level not seen since the 1960s. So, this in itself is not an issue. Markets wax in terms of the number of stocks participating. However, the decline in diversification highlights a certain fragility in markets. 

As Jack pointed out, in the next slide, seven stocks drove half of the performance of US equities or more. 

And that is a result of the economic benefits of AI. Those are real, but the valuation premiums are becoming stretched. 

Valuations are elevated and the equity risk premiums is low, but they're not at extremes. The area's most directly tied to AI are not just pricing and strong earnings, but the expectation that these earnings will continue in a straight line, which from our perspective creates fragility.  

But when you look beneath the surface, earnings remain good, but the gap between the leaders and the rest of the market is widened. That tells me two things heading in 2026. First, the fundamental story for AI remains intact and it's still in its early phase. 

Economic benefits are real, but second, the valuation premiums have expanded to levels where even small disappointments could lead to sharp market reactions. 

In the next chart, what we see here is the valuation difference between the MAG7 and the rest of the market.  

So, areas where US market is at a premium to the rest of the world, but much of that premium is within those seven stocks. So, you know, the, so that's something to highlight. There are opportunities as the diffusion of AI occurs across the US market. There are benefits and it diffuses into higher earnings and higher earnings delivery across the rest of the market. So, you know, these are positives, but we recognize some of the negatives across the board, the market concentration, and the high to a single theme.  

Across the world, if we turn to the next chart, what we see here is that continued theme where the US equities outperform and that US exceptionalism has resulted in US markets becoming much more expensive and rightfully so than the rest of the world.  

So, these are both opportunities and also portfolio construction decisions. You need to be aware where valuation makes sense. However, you know, valuation itself is not a great timing indicator. 

Sam 

Now, that's great, Corrado. And obviously we'd like to get to Leonie as well, who's across the pond. Corrado, you're talking a little bit about the fact that there's concentration at a high level. We have a seven-stock story that's driving half of the performance, and you just shared with us the regional price earnings ratio across the market.  

Leonie, from your perspective, do you see this concentration continuing and are there any additional risks or opportunities you would like to highlight for 2026? 

Leonie 

Yeah, Sam, I think, look, the two guys Corrado and Jack have outlined quite clearly that there is concentration in the market. There's no argument really against it. And they've highlighted how much return the magnificent seven have contributed to the S&P 500.  

But if you'd take the top 10 stocks of the S&P 500, so that's the MAG seven and Tesla, Berkshire Hathaway, and JP Morgan, and the additional three, they have accounted over the last year for about a third of the revenue growth of the index and about two thirds of the capex growth.  

So, it's not just that they're delivering and contributing and producing the most of the returns, but they're also producing the majority of the growth. So, the concentration is on both sides.  

Do I think you're gonna continue to see concentration? I would agree with you, Jack. I think you will see continued concentration, but to a lesser extent. I think you're gonna see a more broadening out of this AI theme. I think you're gonna see greater adoption of AI. We're already starting to see that. And also, as productivity gains come through as well, you see that benefit other industries and sectors.  

I also think you're going to see investors be a lot more discerning when it comes to assessing AI and the capex spending. They want to see who the winners and losers are, and I think you'll see that play out more in the market.  

Now we're already seeing that to some extent, right? If you look at Oracle and Palantir, they've been punished heavily recently where the market feels they're overstepping on their capex or questioning profitability. 

Meta also got punished in recent results by the market, whereas Alphabet got rewarded as they were showing profitability.  

So, I think you're seeing a bit more of a healthier discernment coming into the market. And if you look at the top performers in the S&P 500 last year, it wasn't the MAG 7. It was Sandisk, it was Western Digital, and it was Micron, and they substantially outperformed the MAG 7.  

So, the best performer of the MAG 7 last year was Alphabet. They returned 66%. Sandisk returned 567%, Micron 248%. So, you are seeing, it's still concentrated in that AI theme. Don't get us wrong, it definitely is there, but you are starting to see a bit more broadening out, whereas before it was all about those seven stocks.  

So you asked Sam, what is the big risk? Well, I think the big risk, the question that everyone is asking is, are we in a bubble or are we not in a bubble? Now I think the first thing to note is, the only way you know if you're in a bubble is if it bursts, because there's no real definitive way of knowing if you're a bubbler to the burst. Alan Greenspan famously said that bubbles were only perceptible after the fact. And unfortunately, that is true.  

But as investors and as an asset allocator, it is important to be trying to assess, are we seeing bubble-like conditions in the market? So, let's think about that for a second. 

Over-concentration, yes, we are seeing over-concentration in the market, and around the AI theme. Is there a narrative of euphoria or optimism around these industry or asset class at the center of a potential bubble? Arguably, yes, there is a lot of optimism around AI. And also, you're seeing that kind of circular revenue and circular deals, kind of behavior that might flag red on a bubble sign, as well as that strong euphoric narrative.  

On the other hand, though, and Corrado, you've just talked to this as well, while we are seeing high valuations, they're not as high as the levels that you would have seen in the dot-com bubble. So, if you take the US technology sector right now on a forward earnings basis multiple, it's trading at about 28 times, versus a peak in the tech bubble of about 59 times. If you take Nvidia's forward earnings PE ratio, it's currently at about 25 times. If you looked at the peak of the dot-com bubble, Cisco was on 85 times, Oracle was on 90 times. So, we're not there right yet. 

And it's also, when you think about AI versus previous technological revolutions, it is anticipated that AI is gonna have a much bigger boost to productivity and a much bigger impact on growth.  

So, regardless of whether or not we're in a bubble, as I said, we won't know unless it bursts, I think there are a lot of good reasons to think that the trade in AI has further to run this year. As you'll see that greater AI adoption, you'll see the more broadening out of the theme, and more use cases coming through.  

But I do think you'll see more winners and losers, and the market will be more discerning. Given that huge capex spend that you're seeing, they're going to want to start to see profits coming through and seeing cases of a return on that investment. 

So key risks of whether the so-called bubble bust, I think it's whether you see some kind of exogenous shock to the AI optimism and competence, whether that's a kind of a deep seek moment, or whether it's inflation to pop that bubble, that's a risk.  

What does this all mean? What can you do? Well, I'm always reminded by Peter Lynch's infamous quote that more money has been lost on the sidelines waiting for a downturn than has actually been lost in the downturn itself. If you look back to the dot com bubble in 1997, that was when economists first called it. If you had stepped out of the market at that point, you'd have missed out on about 30 to 40% returns. So I think the most important thing is to stay invested but be a bit more disciplined and diversified in terms of how you're investing, just to try and reduce any potential risks that are out there. So I think there's lots of opportunities but be cognizant of the risks. 

Sam 

Yeah, Leonie, very, very good advice and guidance, I think for everyone who's on the webinar today.  

We talked a little bit about the small companies and the themes that drove the significant share of market returns. I think right now would be a good time to perhaps shift a bit to global factors. I think there's some consistency among all of our guests today.  

So I wanna focus on, I guess in 2025, it was marked by what I would call significant geopolitical trade and disruptions, including tariff shocks and persistent tensions. Leonie, you mentioned a couple of the shocks that may impact some of that concentration and where we see potential bubbles, if there are any.  

But I wanna look ahead and what's your outlook for these factors and how they might impact the markets themselves. These are things I think that may help. And Leonie, let's begin with you because you've got basically an international perspective and we'll move to North America with Jack and Corrado. 

Leonie 

Yeah, and first, Sam, I don't think you're alone in describing them as significant shocks last year, definitely a remarkable and a memorable year.  

But when I think about the geopolitical backdrop, I do think we've entered into a new era, a new geopolitical era, one where self-sufficiency and resilience are taking greater priority of policymakers as risk management is really taking precedence over efficiency. As ultimately, policymakers are faced with a real risk that the allies of today could become tomorrow's adversaries. 

And what you're seeing then is this change in focus that self-sufficiency and resilience are core to it. Now, this does undoubtedly create a level of political uncertainty, but it also creates opportunities.  

So what does this new era of self-sufficiency mean for markets? Well, I think increasingly globally, you're seeing markets try and price in this structural shift in terms of how capital gets allocated. You're seeing a greater focus and investment on critical areas in technology, defense, and energy. Now, I think the structural shift has been largely underpinned by that strategic rivalry you've been seeing between the US and China for global dominance. And themes are already starting to emerge.  

So there's three key themes that I would call out that we're seeing already. The first is defense. So European have announced a defense rearmament and Germany alone have announced an 800 billion spending package on defense. This isn't just in Europe. We're seeing it in the US announcing increase in defense. We're seeing it globally, Canada as well, and other countries. And you're seeing, as you mentioned, Jack, in Europe, there's been concentration in returns around defense. It's been one of the best performing sectors in Europe on the back of that.  

The second theme I would call out is gold. Gold has just had a record year. It's best annual year performance in almost three decades last year. It was up some 60%. 

A large part of that increase has been, and part of the driver of it, has been a central bank buying spree as they've been trying to diversify their reserves away from the US dollar. So gold is seen as a liquid, non-dollar, non-sanctionable asset.  

The third theme then that I would call out is nuclear. As we've seen this race for AI dominance accelerate, we're also seeing an increasing need for reliable and scalable energy. And because of this, we're seeing a renewed interest in nuclear energy. And we're already starting to see both governments and the AI hyperscale start to act on this.  

So for example, Google last year announced a collaboration with the Kairos Energy to roll out a number of advanced nuclear projects in the US. You've seen the US government and the Chinese government as well as other governments look to increase their nuclear capacity on the back of this.  

So in this new era, I think undoubtedly, you're gonna see more winners and losers and as even more themes start to emerge.  

Ultimately, how do businesses and investors navigate this environment? What I think adaptability and foresight are gonna be key. I think you will still see some globalization continue of course, but I think you'll start to also see new alliances emerge around those critical sectors of energy, technology and defense. But ultimately, I think those that can get that balance right of national security with selective international collaboration are the ones that are gonna do best in this new geopolitical backdrop. 

Sam 

Leonie, that's very helpful. Jack, I'm gonna go to you now. 

You're gonna look a little bit closer to home. Obviously, we're looking at the impact in the North American markets. Leonie talked a little bit about some of the themes. We included defense, gold and nuclear. Nuclear being obviously a reliable and scalable energy strategy, but there is potential for new alliances despite the fact that we had globalization.  

Jack, what's your take on the impact in North America? 

Jack 

Certainly. Well, I think first of all, Leonie did a wonderful job of laying out some of these big macro global themes. And I think they are just as relevant to the North American outlook and North American clients as they are to some of the other regions where they might be directly taking place. So I'm not gonna really do anything necessarily to add to that or to spin it in any way.  

What I'd rather do is zoom out a little bit and make the comment, right? That all these things that Leonie talked about are directly stemming from, directly or indirectly, I should say directly or indirectly stemming from massive policy change emanating out of Washington. We are sort of entering into a new world order. Things are being completely turned on their heads as a result of this current US administration.  

And when I speak to clients about policy change more broadly and about this administration more broadly, I always like to remind people for better or for worse, whether you like him or you don't like him, this is a four-year term and we are only about a year in.  

Think about how much has happened just over the past 12 months. There's a lot more room to run when it comes to policy change. We are going to continue to hear about things like trade and tariffs. In fact, the CUSMA is up for renegotiation in just a few months. That's going to be a big headline that will impact both the United States and of course, Canada.  

But even more broadly, right? Trade tariffs have the potential to be modestly inflationary, particularly in the United States, maybe in Canada to some extent.  

We are going to continue to hear about immigration policy. Obviously, a lot of headlines about that recently, some of them rather sad, but in general, massive changes to immigration policy in the United States resulting in a really restricted supply of labor.  

Now, if you look at last week's US jobs report, I think you can get a really good glimpse into how the US economy is responding to a lot of these aggressive shifts in immigration policy.  

The demand for labor is down a lot because things are awfully confusing right now. It's very difficult for businesses to make big long-term investments and that includes hiring more people. But the supply of labor is even more constrained. The country is running out of workers. And as a direct result of that, you see a three-month moving average on payroll gains in the US trending into negative territory. And yet the unemployment rate actually moved lower. We are below 4.5% on the unemployment rate in the United States.  

So this combination of warmer inflation, a hotter than expected labor market as a result of policy changes that we've been talking about for 12 months, that's gonna have an impact of course on Fed policy when we think about how interest rates will evolve over the course of the year.  

But even outside of those things that we've already been talking about, there are other things worth mentioning, right? We know that this administration ran on a platform of significant regulatory shift. A lot of which we have yet to see, particularly in the financial services side of the world. I imagine we're gonna see more of that this year.  

We have the one big beautiful bill having been passed back in July of last year. Pretty comprehensive changes to the American tax code for households and for corporations.  

Something that's really interesting that I don't think gets as much airtime as it should. All of those changes, or at least the ones on the household side, retroactive to the start of last year. But the Internal Revenue Service in the United States not updating their withholding guidance until the start of this year.  

So as Americans start to file for their taxes, they are looking at a bumper crop tax refund season. One of the biggest that we've seen in decades, probably twice in terms of average tax return, what you've seen over the past 20 years. That is money flowing directly into pocketbooks that's gonna go and turn around and get spent. Because Americans are really, really good at spending money. It's something we do better than almost anybody else. So you have that policy tailwind hitting.  

We have midterm elections coming up later this year where the Republicans are expected to lose their edge at least in the House of Representatives. We have a very narrow red majority across both chambers of Congress and in the White House. That's likely going to change come November. It means that some of these policy changes might get front run into this year, knowing that the composition of government in the future might look a little bit different.  

So it's the things that we were talking about last year, certainly those will persist. They'll continue to be things that drive headlines. But there is a lot more coming. And when I think about the outlook for 2026, whether it's the United States or frankly in Canada, these are going to be economies, markets, headlines that are driven overwhelmingly by policy. Whether that's fiscal policy, monetary policy, immigration policy, whatever it might be, a policy is going to be the name of the game when it comes to some of the driving forces, at least behind the relative performance of these countries. 

Sam 

Yeah, Jack, you touched on policies and I'm wondering if we can actually just stay there and I'm gonna stick with you here. 

We're hearing a lot about Chairman Powell in the news for a whole bunch of reasons. And I think it's a good time to turn to monetary policy at this point. We have central banks cutting rates in 2025. And the question is how do we see monetary policy evolving in 2026? Jack, I wanna stick with you, understand your thoughts and then Corrado start thinking about maybe some of the implications this could have for our portfolio construction. Jack. 

Jack 

Certainly. So the first thing that I think is worth pointing out here is that while the attacks on Chair Powell, including this threat of indictment that we saw over the weekend, aren't particularly good for Fed credibility or Fed independence, it is not so easy to make the Fed politically dependent as what you may expect given some of these headlines.  

It is important to remember, first of all, that monetary policy in the United States is set by committee. It is the Federal Open Market Committee. The chair of that committee is typically the chairman of the Federal Reserve. So Powell holds both of those seats. And in order for a change to monetary policy to be passed through into the system, you need seven of the 12 members of the FOMC to vote in favor of that change.  

Now, historically speaking, members of the FOMC have been deferential to the chair. The chair says something, and the rest of the committee will generally vote in his or her interests, but they do not have to.  

And so we might end up seeing Powell leave sooner than expected because of some of this legal action over the weekend. I don't think that's actually the case. Either way, he is out of his role come May of this year. There will be a new sheriff in town.  

That does not mean though, that the trajectory of monetary policy is going to turn on a dime. You have not replaced enough members on the FOMC to get a sort of administration friendly stance on monetary policy. And so ultimately, I think the impact of any sort of hiccups around Powell, any sort of headlines around Powell is just confusion around the messaging as opposed to actual changes in the trajectory of rates.  

What that means in my opinion, is that with the Fed laid out back in December of last year through their latest stock plot is somewhat accurate. They called for one cut this year, one cut next year. We're expecting actually something closer to two cuts this year. So 50 basis points lower on the federal funds, right? Moving us closer to what Mackleman and the BOC did over the course of the last couple of years with much more aggressive kind of front running monetary policy easing.  

But the bigger question right now, I would say for the administration certainly, but also for consumers is what happens to all the other rates along the curve, right? Because banks borrow from the federal reserve, but nobody else does. And when you look at those consumer sensitive interest rates, things like auto loan rates or credit card APRs, or the rates that you pay on mortgages.  

And something really interesting I think to point out here is that when the Fed started cutting rates in September of 24 through the end of last year, the federal funds rate is down 175 basis points. But auto loan rates are down by less than half of that. Credit card rates are down by less than a quarter of that. 30-year fixed rate mortgage rates have not budged barely at all over that time period.  

Consumers are not really feeling the benefit of a softer rate environment on the shortest end. Banks are that interest margins look good, but consumers are not benefiting from that just yet.  

So the big question I would say this year is beyond what the Fed does, is it one cut? Is it two cuts? I'm not sure. Frankly, I don't think it matters that much. It's what happens to the rest of the curve. Are we going to start to see some downward pressure there?  

And frankly, from my perspective, unless treasury gets directly involved, and this is something we've been hearing about more and more where they decide to cut issuance on the longer end of the curve, they restrict access, they drive prices lower by bidding demand higher. I have drive yields lower rather by bidding demand higher. I have a very hard time imagining 30 year mortgages, the rate they're moving meaningfully lower over the course of this year, or credit card APRs moving meaningfully lower over the course of this year.  

So a steepening yield curve in the US with longer yields actually being relatively firmly anchored despite the fact that the Fed continues to lower interest rates, probably through the first half of this year. 

Sam 

Yeah, no, well said Jack. And obviously we all want to have that crystal ball and trying to understand what happens there. But at the end of the day, there are implications to the portfolios that we manage and Corrado, what are some of the, I guess, implications that this could have for portfolio construction and what are you seeing? 

Corrado 

Sure, Sam. If we turn to the global policy rate side. So I would frame the impact of monetary policy on portfolio construction in three ways. First, we believe we're moving into a world where interest rates are continuing to fall, but not quickly. Inflation has moderated, but it's not yet a target in many markets. And wage dynamics remain pretty firm in several regions. That limits the scope for any aggressive easing.  

Second, this lower and more measured easing cycle affects equity style exposure. Lower rates remain supportive for quality and growth. But as we talked about the narrow market breadth, it kind of reinforces the importance of diversification across regions and factors. 

Third, I think income-oriented assets begin to look more attractive on a relative basis. Credits and infrastructure investments offer stable cash flows. And long-term bonds now provide a better balance than they did years ago, even though the yields are gonna be influenced on a short term by fiscal and political events.  

So in summary, I think we should expect easing to sort of flatten out, I think the ballast provided by fixed income by rates falling is gonna be highly moderated. We should be looking at yields as more of a stable cash flow going forward. 

Sam 

Leonie, I wanna maybe circle back to you and talk a little bit about income generating strategies.  

We have a number of people on the call who obviously work with clients and clients included on the call who are probably looking at things like their future pension and income strategies. Jack talked a little bit about, it's all the other rates, for example, the consumer sensitive rates. 

Corrado's talking a little bit about some of the global policy rate paths. So, these are just things that we should start thinking about from an income generating strategy. I'll pass it over to you. 

Leonie 

Yeah, no, thanks, Sam. And maybe just to add one thing to what you were saying, Jack, around those other consumer sensitive rates and thinking about mortgage rates and which are set by longer rates as well in lots of countries. We're seeing, you're saying it's up to the treasury, they might act there, but we're already seeing Trump try to bypass that and the administration with Trump ordering Bernie May and Freddie Mac to buy mortgage bonds, which is definitely an interesting development as that's a role that would have traditionally maybe been reserved for the Fed and as well as looking at where the institutional buyers can buy single family homes.  

So there's some activity happening there around the edges as well, which I think it'd be interesting to see how that develops through this year.  

But sorry, Sam, to get back to your question about how does this impact in terms of income generating strategies. I think the main challenge for investors when it comes to income is trying to deliver sufficient income from traditional assets.  

So really in this period post the global financial crisis, we saw that low-interest rate environment. And that was on the back of quantitative easing, low inflation, low-rate environment.  

You only have to go back to 2019 and we had 17 trillion worth of negative yielding bonds. That was 30% of the public fixed income market.  

Thankfully today we have zero negative yielding bonds given really since in this post COVID environment and that inflation shock we saw in the aggressive rate hiking cycle, we have come back to what is considered a more normal rate environment, exactly to your point, Corrado, that you're starting to get an income from fixed income assets.  

But it's not back at the levels where you've seen historically, much higher than where we were in a much better place, but not where it has been if you look at longer term averages.  

So if you were to take the kind of global public fixed income universe right now, 90% of that is yielding 5% or lower. 

If you were to take the Canadian 10 year yield, it's currently at around 3.4%. If you were to look at its average yield over the last 35 years, that would have been 4.5%. 

Go to dividend yields and equities, global developed market equities yielding about 1.5%, 1.1% on the S&P 500, and about 2.5% on Canadian equity, so a bit higher. So it's really difficult from those assets to deliver a sufficient level of income. 

So you have seen over time, people have gone up the risk spectrum. So looking to allocate to riskier fixed income assets like high yields to supplement that, and that can work really well in a diversified portfolio, but you have to be competent of the risk.  

So what you have seen and are seeing is an evolution of the type of income generating strategies that are available to investors. And seeing investors in a portfolio start to blend those traditional income sources with non-traditional income sources.  

So these are things like core writing strategies, going outside public markets into private credit and private infrastructure, where you can get attractive income levels and look to manage that risk and different liquidity constraints if you're able to take on inequality in a disciplined and robust manner. 

You're muted there, Sam. 

Sam 

Oh, thank you very much, Leonie. I was just clearing my throat again. 

I would like to remind everyone on the call that we do have a market outlook report. If you are interested, you can obviously speak to your regional sales directors who can provide that market outlook report.  

For those of you who are investors and the investing public, you can absolutely contact your financial advisor for that information.  

Now, I do wanna talk a little bit about the fact that rates have played and will continue to play a role in shaping some of the strategies, but I do wanna speak of strategies. And another area that's gaining momentum is alternative investing. And alternatives have gained traction as investors are seeking diversification or specific outcomes amid some volatility. 

Jack, I wanna go to you and ask if you could talk a little bit about the growth in demand for alternatives and what you see for this asset class going forward. 

Jack 

Absolutely, Sam. I mean, that is another one that's coming up so often in conversations right now. And as I mentioned to some folks on the pre-call before we kick things off, I'm right now at JP Morgan's big annual training meeting. We're down in Florida right now. So much focus being paid to alternatives as a strategic focus in 2026. It is taking the industry by storm in a big way.  

And I would say there are a lot of reasons why alternatives make sense right now, but some of the biggest, most easily identifiable ones to the fact that it is getting harder and harder to be a public market investor.  

And one of the things that I hear so much from clients when I speak to them about their outlook on portfolio returns is that they feel like they're in a really precarious situation because their clients have been spoiled. I mean, what else would you call 18% total return out of the S&P last year, 25, 26, the year before that, 26, 27, the year before that, all these people think that they're geniuses because they were shooting fish in a barrel. And at some point with where valuations are right now, you have to project softer returns. Doesn't have to be two or 3%, but is it gonna be 25% annualized as far as the eye can see? No, it's harder and harder to find that alpha and investors, I should say, are concerned about what happens when the pendulum swings perhaps in the other direction.  

Another problem we are facing right now, Leonie, I think did an excellent job of summing it up, is that it's harder to find income nowadays. I mean, for the first time in a while, Corrado, to your point, there is income to be found in fixed income, but it's not like where it was 30, 40, 50 years ago. And the unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of the return that you're gonna be getting out of at least high-quality bonds is going to be coming from whatever the coupon happens to be at the time that you buy it. That's the way this stuff works as long as you hold these instruments to maturity. Income is tough to come by whether you're looking at stocks or at bonds.  

And then finally, correlations, right? I mean, that's a pretty difficult situation to handle. Stocks and bonds are supposed to move in opposite directions. That's the whole idea behind a 60-40 portfolio. The 40 is zigging when the 60 is zagging. It's your insurance policy, your ballast, whatever it is that you wanna call it, but it hasn't really been the case for these past five, six years.  

And perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, but look, stocks and bonds ultimately moved in the same direction in 2020 and 2022 and 2023 and 2024 and in 2025, right? Not a lot of places to hide in public markets.  

And so when we're having conversations internally about how we're trying to communicate why alts and which alts and when alts to our clients, someone, not me, I don't remember who it was, but they came up with a really hefty, nifty sort of mnemonic device here, which is to say that when you are facing challenges in portfolio construction, alternatives can come to your aid. 

AID. The A is for alpha, the I is for income, and the D is for diversification.  

Some or all alternatives can solve for some or all of those problems. When you add on top of the fact that the environment is ripe for alts, that there's been massive technological advancement in the space to make these things more liquid, to reduce account minimum, sort of democratizing the world of alternatives, increasing global investor access to the alts universe.  

When you think about some of the bigger, more significant policy changes that have happened in the United States, for example, where defined contribution plans are now allowed to hold alternatives, or at least are no longer disincentivized from holding alternatives, that opens up a whole new landscape.  

Alts as a concept is becoming bigger and bigger, and now is a really good time to be having that conversation. So when I think about alts, the first thing I talk about is really conceptual alts. And that to me, Sam, is how we're thinking about the alts landscape right now. 

Sam 

Yeah, I like the way you framed it using the acronym aid, alpha income diversification. I wanna go to Leonie and talk a little bit about perhaps how you're using alternative solutions like derivative strategies and real assets to help deliver specific outcomes within your portfolios. 

Leonie 

Yeah, I think, you know, when you think about a portfolio, you're always faced with this challenge of trying to balance return, income, and risk. And whichever one you focus on more on, will be dependent on what a client specific outcome is, and that can vary across portfolios.  

But ultimately, there will be times when your income or your return component is going to be challenged by the failing market environment. And how do you navigate that? Well, key to that is diversification.  

So when I think about portfolio construction in a multi-asset portfolio, I think absolutely traditional assets play a core role, right? You still need equities for long-term growth. Equities are proven to be the best driver for long-term growth. It's the reality, you have to take risks to deliver growth.  

I think traditional fixed income still plays a role because of the income and diversification characteristics that they bring into portfolio. But these assets won't work in all environments. And to your point, Jack, thinking about correlations, yes, in a perfect world, you've got that negative correlation and they do exactly what you want them to do, but there are environments when they don't.  

Think of 2022, equities were down, fixed income was down. What was up? Alternatives. So diversification is gonna be key in a portfolio to navigate those environments.  

And what we're doing is we're increasingly looking to utilize those traditional asset classes you see in a multi-asset or balance fund and bring in alternatives. So we're big believers in diversification. And anyone who I've spoken to before, they get sick of me saying the word diversification, but we really do believe in deep diversification because it does have that important role.  

So we always have had an allocation to alternatives, but we're increasingly looking to allocate to some derivative based strategies that we can give you quite cost-effective exposure to an alternative return premier, but also to private markets and real assets. So looking at allocations to private credit, obviously private credit has been in the news a bit this year, but we think a lot of those risks are overdone and they're quite idiosyncratic to specific funds and specific fraud events. But it highlights the importance of knowing what you're investing in and knowing what segment of the market you want to invest in.  

We also like private infrastructure as well. So where we have portfolios that can accommodate illiquidity and to your point, Jack, you are seeing a lot of innovation in terms of accessing these illiquid assets in a more liquid manner. We're looking to bring those in. And where there is more income requirements, some of those derivative based strategies and using options can be a really effective tool. 

Sam 

Yeah, that's very helpful, Leonie. You gave us another three powerful words, return to income and risk, all in a backdrop of diversification. Corrado, I'm gonna go to you for the last formal question. Like to go to the Q&A in a moment, but how do alternatives and alternative investments actually fit into your approach from an asset allocation perspective? 

Corrado 

Well, thanks Sam. Well, picking up off the back of Jack and Lione, like they both said it very well. 

Our intention of the reason we use alternatives is really to build more resilient portfolios, especially during environments where traditional long only fixed income inequities become much more correlated during periods of stress.  

So picking up on those other points that everyone pointed out, the first is diversification. We use alternative strategies to help reduce overall volatility because different assets, whether it's real estate or infrastructure or certain alternative strategies behave differently from equities and bonds. 

The second is really return enhancement. Leonie mentioned private credit. That continues to provide attractive yields, but you need to be selective and disciplined in allocating to it.  

Third is risk management. As Leonie pointed out, tools like derivatives, managed futures and other defensive alternative strategies help us shape the portfolio behavior during periods of uncertainty. 

But the point for us is to be intentional in the allocation. We don't add alternatives for complexity. We add them as a defined tool within the broader asset mix. 

Sam 

Yeah, that's helpful, Corrado. I like the way you packaged the very end of that. It's intentional allocation. And I think that's very important for our listeners today.  

I'm actually gonna now start moving over to the Q&A portion of our call.  

I do wanna thank you, Corrado, Leonie and Jack for sharing what I would call very valuable insights today. We've covered a lot from market concentration to geopolitical dynamics, to monetary policy alternatives, and how do we leverage that within the portfolio from an asset allocation perspective, especially as we enter into 2026.  

I think these perspectives really highlight the importance of staying agile and thinking strategically in a very changing market. I think at Canada Life, I can comfortably say that that's exactly what we're aiming to support through solutions like our risk-managed portfolios, our enhanced equity income strategies, our growing suite of ETF funds, and trying to help investors navigate some of that volatility and capture some of the income opportunities and stay diversified, some of the things that even Leonie pointed out in our income strategies.  

But I do wanna change things over and turn things over to our audience. You can contribute and continue to submit your questions through Slido, as I shared with you at the being of the session today. And I would encourage you to vote on others that you'd like to prioritize. And we're gonna do our best to get through as many as we can over the course of the next 15, 20 minutes.  

So I'm gonna just now take a quick look and just see what questions are there. As you can see on the right-hand side of your screen, there's a number there that actually keeps a tally of our votes. And I'll just quickly read it off the screen.  

It says, "A lot of people are asking if the excitement around AI has become a bubble. Based upon the data that you are watching, do you think that we are in a bubble territory? What indicators would you be paying attention to as we move through 2026?"  

Now, Leonie, you touched upon the fact that we don't know until it actually bursts, but maybe you could provide a little more insight and then I'll encourage Corrado and Jack to jump in. 

Leonie 

Perfect, yeah, look, I think it's the question, obviously on everybody's minds, we're seeing a lot of narrative around it. And look, I think it's actually positive that a lot of people are questioning and talking about whether we are in a bubble as that kind of suggests that the euphoria and over-optimism isn't at the levels that maybe you would have seen or you might see in previous bubbles.  

So firstly, I think that's kind of a positive development. Thinking about signs and things to be looking out for indicators, I like to think and have seen a lot of people talk about the four O's of a bubble, over-valuation, over-ownership, over-investment, and over-leverage. Over-valuation, as we've talked about already in this webinar, you are seeing high valuations. 

They're not as high as the previous dot-com bubble and you are seeing valuations based on actual earnings instead of zero earnings and predicting earnings into the future like you did in the dot-com bubble. But valuations are high, but I would say valuations are high across the whole market in the US. That's not necessarily a good thing, right? But it's not just in one sector. 

Over-ownership, this is how much money is flowing into the hot new thing or the industry or asset at the center of a potential bubble and what that increasingly positive narrative is. I mean, there is a lot of ownership just in terms of you're seeing concentration and you are seeing households in the UK seeing very high levels of investing and wealth in stocks given the gains that you've seen in stock markets. You are seeing about the US holds a record 52% of their wealth in stocks in terms of US households. That is above the peak in 2000 and it is above the levels that you see in the likes of Europe or Japan. But the US does have a history of greater investment and more financial literacy around the 401(k)s and so forth. Something to keep an eye on.  

Over-investment, obviously we're seeing a huge amount of capex being spent into the AI theme right now. Largely that's been funded though from cashflow and it is in line with what you'd expect given the huge spend needed for this technology but also bearing in mind the huge impact and productivity gains that you can expect from AI. So something to keep an eye on there.  

Over-leverage, this is one where we aren't seeing over-leverage, right? If you think about that capex spending, as I mentioned, a lot of that to date has been from cashflow. Yes, we are seeing some of the hyperscale's become net debtors and starting to use the debt market but the level of leverage in the system is much lower than what you've seen previously. Household balance sheets are strong so a corporate balance sheet. Actually, where all the leverage is in government debt globally, not in the AI sector.  

So there are things that I would be looking out for but as I said, what do you do? I think stay invested but bring in more diversification. We've all talked today about different ways in which you can diversify and how you can build to Corrado's point a more resilient portfolio but I think there's more to lose than trying to step out of the market and time a bubble as that's incredibly difficult. Instead, I try and get that balance right of having exposure to what is a very strong growth driver but also diversifying to build a resilient portfolio. 

Sam 

Leonie, it's very helpful to use the word over and then add the next point that you're making to try and understand and navigate some of these.  

I do wanna go to Corrado because we have a lot of great questions that are coming in. Jack, I'm gonna hold you for the next one.  

But Corrado, there is a question on, if you had a million dollars right now to invest over the next 10 years, would you deploy the full amount into the market all at once or slowly over a certain time period? 

Corrado 

I think that's really an investor preference thing. And are we talking about fully into equities or is it a balance strategy? I think we tend to have a regret situation where we choose to do one thing and the outcome may or may not been exactly what we preferred. I think, and also to me, what I often say is where people are unsure that an uncertain and want to avoid that regret is to set up a policy and say, I'm going to invest that $1 million into an appropriate asset allocation over a set time period.  

So let's say over the next 12 months, divide the million by 12 and automatically put a pack in. And that minimizes that regret and it minimizes trying to time when to put money in. 

Or trying to time the market as we all know, that's a very difficult thing to do. So that would be my recommendation. 

Sam 

Yeah, no, very, very helpful Corrado. There's always a discipline that all of us have spoken a little bit about throughout the past hour. And that's that discipline of having perhaps an investment policy statement where you have guidelines and a structure and it is a preference. There's as we move forward.  

Jack, I do want to get to the next question because this is a little bit closer to where you reside on a day-to-day basis. And that is specific to the current US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. He is set to retire in mid 2026 and likely being replaced by someone more aligned with the current administration. What impact could that have on inflation dynamics and financial markets, Jack? 

Jack 

Yeah, so first of all, as a quick aside, Leonie, I can scarcely imagine a more thorough, comprehensive answer to the AI bubble question. I'm going to remember those four O's. I thought that was stupendous.  

But when I think about this question about Powell and how we might see monetary policy evolve over the course of this year and what that may do to certain major indicators like inflation, like financial markets, I did mention earlier that the composition of the FOMC really is going to preclude any significant changes to monetary policy, even if J. Powell's replacement is more aligned with the current administration.  

I should also mention, right, as part of that framework conversation, that the Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress, which means it can only be dissolved or altered through another act of Congress.  

And while the Republicans in Congress have been able to pass through aggressive policy change, particularly on the budget side of things, it's because the budget reconciliation process does not require a supermajority, just a simple majority of senators to vote to avoid that filibuster. That is not the case for any potential change to the Federal Reserve. You would need 60 votes to get the composition of the Fed adjusted. And I can scarcely imagine most Republicans voting to change the way that the Federal Reserve operates, let alone Democrats changing how the Fed operates.  

So I do think that that Fed independence is more or less cemented despite the attacks on the Federal Reserve and on the personal attacks on J. Powell.  

That said, when it comes to how this might impact financial markets, you know, of course, headlines of what we saw over the weekend inject uncertainty into the equation and markets hate uncertainty. And so there's always turbulence, there's always volatility.  

But the thing that I think is a little bit more pointed here when it comes to answering this question is that while monetary policy is decided by a committee and you need 7 out of 12 votes to make any change to monetary policy and the trajectory of monetary policy is unlikely to change because of that, the chair of the FOMC is still the face of the operation.  

And when you're thinking about, you know, press conferences and testimonies in front of Congress and speeches at Jackson Hall and things of this nature, it's always Powell leading the charge, right? Other Fed governors or presidents might have their own time in the sun, but Powell is overwhelmingly the face of the Federal Reserve and the face of monetary policy in the United States.  

And one of the things that the Fed has realized over the past 15, 20 years is that forward guidance is perhaps a more impactful tool than changes to rates themselves.  

Like when every time the Fed cut rate throughout the course of this rate cutting cycle, not a single one of those cuts was a surprise. They were all telegraphed months, if not quarters in advance. Everybody knew they were coming. By the time it actually happened, it was merely a formality. And a lot of that has to do with the unified front that the Federal Reserve through J-PAL presents to the market.  

Now, what I could see happening is let's say in May, Powell turns out, there is a new Powell, whoever that may be. This individual is more sympathetic to the administration's agenda. They go to their following meeting and the committee opts to not lower interest rates because inflation has stuck around a little bit more than they would have liked. The labor market's still pretty tight. Growth is still pretty reasonable. They don't see a need to lower interest rates. And so the majority don't vote for that cut.  

The chair then gets up in front of the press and says, look, today the FOMC voted to not lower interest rates, but I think all these guys are a bunch of idiots. And the economy is heading into the toilet, and we should have cut by 50 basis points or 75 basis points and everything's falling apart. That kind of mixed messaging, that like fighting in front of the kids is the last thing that the market needs at a time where there is so much other uncertainty swirling around out here.  

So again, while I don't think we're gonna see meaningful changes to the trajectory of monetary policy, the way that monetary policy decisions are communicated might change a lot. And losing that unified front could itself be a source of volatility in financial markets in the back half of this year. So something to pay attention to as a potential risk to the equity market outlook. 

Sam 

Yeah, thank you very much, Jack. We're gonna keep going here. We've got about nine minutes left on the Q and A. Obviously we're using a popularity process where you can vote. You're welcome to obviously vote and or add your own question to the Slido screen. 

Leonie, I'm gonna come back to you. The question here is about how we're hearing about a possible recession and perhaps people have slightly different definitions. There is a very specific definition of recession that you could perhaps share. But what are your thoughts on this?  

And the question is perhaps that this listener is feeling, maybe Canada has one, but he highly doubts that the USA will have a recession. What are your thoughts? 

Leonie 

Yeah, so I think the official definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, right? That's the formal recession.  

There's also what people feel in their day to day and how their lives are being impacted as well. So not every, there's the formal definition and then there's almost the vibes recession that's out there as well.  

You know, when I think about our outlook for 2026, I would describe myself as cautiously optimistic. So I think global growth will continue to be resilient and it will be led by the US this year. So I think we're well positioned for further upsides in equity markets, maybe not as strong as what we've seen given the high valuations, but I think you still see resilient growth this year.  

Why do I think this? Well, there's a lot of fundamental structural forces that are supportive of growth. So, you know, if you think about it, profit growth is strong. Earnings are continuing to accelerate globally. Earnings growth is expected to be well, 15% this year and next year globally, US slightly higher, around 16% this year. Business investment continues to be robust and household balance sheets are healthy.  

So when I look at the US right now, it looks fine. And then you've got fiscal and monetary policy that should keep things rolling for the rest of this year. And Jack, you outlined very clearly about the extent of that fiscal policy, particularly because of the one big beautiful bill measures coming through. So that's anticipated that that could add an extra, you know, around 100 billion in disposable income to consumers in the US.  

Added to that, the US administration are talking about a $2,000 check to individuals to offset the impact of tariffs. Whether that comes through or not is to be seen.  

So barring some kind of accident, I think the economy will be fine in the US here this year, but there are risks. So what could that accident be? Well, if you saw a bursting of an AI bubble, if you saw a pickup in layoffs or a leap up in inflation. So fiscal stimulus can be inflationary. So while higher inflation isn't my base case, it's a persistent risk in the background and all those good things that I just talked about, if you see high inflation, they all go away, all bets are off. So not my base case that you see higher inflation, but it is a risk to keep a mind on. Hence the cautiously optimistic.  

Now, one thing I would just nuance that with, that's my view for 2026, right? It's much harder to have a longer term view, but it is really important to try and see. And as an asset allocator, be conscious of what are the near term opportunities and risks are, but also look through to what are some of the longer term drivers and how do you position for that? 

I do think there are some risks building for US exceptionalism. I still think the US continues to grow, but I think you are seeing risks that could cause relative headwinds for US exceptionalism.  

So what are those risks? Well, you're increasingly seeing isolationist policy coming out from the US administration. Global trade uncertainty and that greater focus on self-sufficiency, that new geopolitical era I spoke of, can and will likely lead to impact on global trade. And there's also the potential over the kind of medium to longer term for China and other regions to catch up on that AI race.  

So over the kind of five plus year, we are starting to think about what's that right regional mix and potentially not removing or significantly reducing, but maybe tempering some of that US exposure.  

So no, I don't think there's going to be a recession in the next year, but I think it's getting that balance right of near term opportunities and keeping in mind on what potential risks are out there. 

Sam 

Yeah, Leonie, that's a great backdrop. We have a few minutes left. I'm going to go to one last question and we'll try it a slightly different way, team. I'll ask you the question and you have the opportunity to answer yes or no, and we'll go across the panel.  

Jack, I'll start with you. Do you think that the US stocks at S&P 500 has run its course? Yes or no? 

Jack 

Very clear, no.  

Sam 

Okay, and a follow-up question. Corrado, Leonie, I'm coming to you next. Will we see stronger returns in Canada and or emerging markets or the next couple of years or even decades? Yes or no? 

Corrado 

Decades hard to look at that far, but I think Canadian equity returns are going to be a laggard relative to the US. 

Sam 

Okay, and Leonie, you got the whole package deal. You get a yes and a no and a yes and a no. First question, US stocks at S&P 500 run its course? 

Leonie 

Yes, no, sorry, no for the first one and yes for the second one. Nearly got that wrong there.  

So just the caveat, because I do think the US further to go in the US stocks, but given some of the risks, I think the relative outperformance of the US versus the rest of the world won't be to the same extent that we've seen historically. So I think you'll see a bit of a catch up there. I think the US still leads, at least particularly in the near term. So it's kind of a no and a yes. I got that order right again. 

Sam 

A no and a yes, okay, so we had consistency. We will actually act, all three of you, I answered it very quickly.  

I'm going to try and sneak in one more question. We're down to getting down to the wire here. I'll throw it up for grabs. Whoever would like to take it.  

How much is Canada's natural resources sector going to be impacted in regards to the American policy changes? Who would like to jump on that? 

Corrado 

So Sam, can I answer this? Is this related to Venezuela's oil replacement or Canadian oil sands?  

Okay, so I'll answer, it could be a long answer, but I'll answer it this way. We've got two minutes. Okay, I think the death of the Canadian oil sands is greatly exaggerated, right? 

I think we need to separate between Venezuela's oil being a substitute and a displacement in practice. So for one thing is that there's three constraints. So one is it is a substitute, right? They're both heavy oil and they're close substitutes for many US refineries.  

However, there's three constraints for limiting that it's going to be a displacement risk. One is timing and execution. Years and years of neglect in Venezuela require massive amounts of investment.  

Ristad, which is a Norwegian energy consulting firm estimates between 150 and 250 billion of investment over the next 15 years to take production from 1 million barrels to 3 million. 

Second, we already have a pipeline that flows into the Midwest and that pipeline to those refineries not built for rapid substitution. 

And in the refineries on the Gulf Coast are currently operating at 90% capacity. So there needs to be a build out there.  

And the last thing is competitiveness. Estimates are that oil in Venezuela costs between 65 and $85 to extract. And at oil prices that are $60 for WTI and we project to go lower this year, it isn't really a great investment for those oil companies looking out to say, is this where I want to invest in the near future? Given the current operating plans and the current oil prices. 

Sam 

Okay, so we're down to, I guess we got a couple of seconds left. I'm just gonna let Jack or Leonie just add to that and a few seconds for each. Jack, anything to add? 

Jack 

Beyond the energy story, which I think Corrado covered very nicely, the timber side of things continues to be complicated given the administration's push on home building and furniture or cabinetry.  

The one interesting thing that I always think about Canada is the amount of uranium that is produced in your country and how important the uranium that you produce is to power plants, which are a key portion of the power story when it comes to growing out AI. So perhaps an ace up the sleeve while other issues persist over the course of this year. 

Sam 

Okay, well put. Leonie, you have the last word, anything else to add? 

Leonie 

I don't think I have much more to add than that, unfortunately. Just Canada obviously has huge natural resources and huge amount of energy capacity that it's looking to try and build strategic relationships again into that kind of strategic alliances around that national resiliency and selective collaboration.  

You're already seeing Canada look to look to other allies and diversify away from the US. It was interesting actually just given the issues in Venezuela and that naturally cutting off China's access to Venezuelan oil, you actually saw it quite a jump up in inquiries around Canada suppliers from China, seeing an increase in that on the back of that.  

So, I think just in terms of when you think about global energy supply, there's opportunities there for Canada. 

Sam 

Okay, all right, good way to end the conversation. I'm gonna stop there. I do wanna respect everyone's time.  

There's a couple of surveys at the back of this and a few CE credit exercises.  

I do wanna thank from the bottom of my heart on behalf of everyone who was able to join us, thank you to Leonie, Corrado and Jack. Your perspectives today were very helpful.  

It's clear that navigating 2026 will require adaptability and we hope today's discussion has sparked ideas to provide some clarity and just think about some of the things you need to do in the year ahead.  

To everyone who joined us, thank you for being part of today's event. Whether you're an investor or an advisor or simply just curious about the evolving market landscape, we appreciate your time and engagement.  

And just a quick reminder for our Quebec attendees, the CE quiz will appear on your screen shortly after the session ends. And before you go, we'd love to hear your feedback. A short survey will appear on the screen. Please take a moment just to let us know your thoughts on today's events, how we can keep making improvements.  

And we look forward to welcoming you back for our next Market Connect. That's happening March 17th. And until then, take care and all the best in 2026.