Brazil’s first round on October 4 produced a result that the country’s markets had not fully priced, and sent the presidency to a runoff on October 25. On Monday, October 5, the Ibovespa closed 7.70 percent higher at 206,911.89 points, a record and the largest one day gain since March 2020. The dollar fell 4.12 percent to 5.001 reais. Long dated interest rate futures fell by roughly 120 basis points. Foreign investors bought a net 10.06 billion reais of Brazilian equities, about 2 billion dollars, the largest single day inflow on record. By October 9 the index had set another record at 209,067 and the real had strengthened below 4.99. On October 13 a poll showing a race within the margin of error took 1.04 percent off the index. This paper takes no view on the candidates or their programmes. Its subject is how capital markets have priced the vote, and what that pricing should and should not mean for the allocation of private wealth.
For the private banks, wealth managers, family offices and offshore advisers who serve Brazilian families, the eleven days between now and the runoff will be filled with requests to act. Some clients will want to lock in the rally; others will want to dollarise ahead of an uncertain result; still others will want to delay commitments until the picture clears. This paper argues that the election is a legitimate reason to manage liquidity and currency exposure carefully, and a poor reason to change a long term allocation, least of all a private markets allocation whose capital will be deployed across several political cycles.
The paper makes four arguments. First, the market’s behaviour since October 4 is consistent with what academic research predicts about elections: volatility is concentrated around the vote, it is priced in options, and in two round Latin American races it peaks after rounds that were both hard to forecast and decisive in settling who governs. The present setup has one unusual feature, which is that prices have moved decisively toward one outcome while polls describe a close race, and that makes the risk over the next eleven days asymmetric regardless of anyone’s preferences. Second, the variables that will govern Brazilian private wealth over a multi year horizon were largely fixed before the vote: the 2023 law that ended tax deferral on offshore holding companies and exclusive funds, the 2025 income tax reform that began taxing dividends in January, a policy rate of 13.75 percent with real rates near 9 percent, and gross public debt of 82.9 percent of GDP. Third, the most consequential of those variables is carry, and the evidence shows that Brazilian diversification abroad has historically followed the policy rate rather than any strategic plan. Fourth, private markets commitments are the worst place to express an electoral view, because vintage dispersion is large, skipping vintages is costly, and the record of investors who time their entries is consistently poor. Section I describes the market reaction. Section II reviews the research on elections and asset prices. Section III sets out the structure that will not change on October 25. Section IV addresses carry and concentration. Section V turns to private markets. Section VI addresses the offshore desk. Section VII converts the argument into questions.
Nearly Fifteen Thousand Points in One Session
The scale of the October 5 move is best understood in context. The index gained 14,797 points in a single session, traded R$103.3 billion, and touched an intraday high of 209,605.70, the highest in its history. It closed the day up 11.04 percent for October and 28.42 percent for the year. The currency, which had closed at 5.2133 reais per dollar on the Friday before the vote, closed at 5.001, its first close below five since May. In the futures market the contract for January 2027 fell by about ten basis points, while contracts for 2029, 2031 and 2035 fell by roughly 104 to 124 basis points. In other words, the market made almost no change to its expectations for monetary policy over the next few months and a very large change to the premium it demands for holding Brazilian duration over the next decade. That is the signature of a repricing of fiscal risk, not of near term inflation.
The buyer was overwhelmingly foreign. The record 10.06 billion reais of foreign equity purchases on October 5 exceeded the previous single day record by roughly a fifth, and foreign investors added a further amount over the following sessions, bringing October inflows to between 12 and 14 billion reais depending on the measure and the treatment of share offerings. Domestic investors were positioned very differently. Brazilian equity funds had suffered net outflows of around 10.9 billion reais in the year to date, and equities represented 7.6 percent of local fund assets against a historical average of 10.2 percent, according to sell side estimates. The private banking segment had been moving the same way: in the first half of 2026, according to ANBIMA, direct equity holdings of private clients fell 1.5 percent while their holdings of government bonds rose 56.9 percent. The rally of the past ten days was, for the most part, something that happened to Brazilian private wealth rather than something it participated in.
The professional reaction inside Brazil was instructive. The country’s multimarket hedge funds gained an average of 1.7 percent on October 5, and the ANBIMA hedge fund basket had its best day in more than six years, according to reporting on the industry. Several managers were reported to have maintained puts and put spreads expiring before the runoff as protection against a reversal. That is the posture of investors who believe a rally has moved ahead of the evidence: long the outcome the market is pricing, and paying for protection against the one the polls still describe as possible.
The divergence between prices and polls is the central feature of the present moment. A survey published on October 13 showed a race within the margin of error, and the index fell. Prediction markets, which are bets rather than polls, assigned a much higher probability to a single outcome on the same day. Advisers should not adjudicate between these signals, and this paper does not. The point is narrower. When prices have moved substantially toward one outcome, the distribution of possible market moves on October 26 is no longer symmetric. A confirmation of the outcome the market is pricing is likely to produce a modest further move. A surprise relative to that pricing is likely to produce a large one. That asymmetry is a property of market pricing, not of the candidates, and it is the only electoral fact that belongs in a portfolio conversation.
Brazil’s own history illustrates both directions. In 2002 the real lost more than half its value over the year, reaching a nominal peak of 3.99 per dollar on October 10, and the country drew on a 30.4 billion dollar stand by arrangement with the International Monetary Fund approved that September. In 2014 the Ibovespa rose about 4.7 percent on the day after a first round that surprised the market, and fell more than 4.6 percent in midday trading on the day after a runoff that went against that pricing. In 2018 the index rose 4.57 percent and the dollar fell 2.40 percent after the first round. In 2022 the index rose 5.5 percent and the dollar fell 4 percent after a first round that was closer than polls had suggested. In each case the first round moved prices sharply, and in at least one case the runoff reversed the move within three weeks.
What the Research Says About Elections and Prices
The academic literature on elections and asset prices is unusually consistent, and it supports both the intensity of the present moment and its brevity. Jędrzej Białkowski, Katrin Gottschalk and Tomasz Wisniewski, studying national elections in 27 OECD countries, found that the country specific component of index volatility can roughly double in election week, and that the shock is larger after narrow margins of victory, changes in political orientation, and failures to form a clear majority. Bryan Kelly, Ľuboš Pástor and Pietro Veronesi showed that equity options whose life spans a national election are more expensive than comparable options that do not, which means political risk is priced explicitly in the cost of protection, and that this premium is larger when the economy is weak. In a related paper, Pástor and Veronesi showed that investors demand a premium for bearing political uncertainty and that such uncertainty makes stocks both more volatile and more correlated with one another.
The research most directly relevant to Brazil comes from Daniel Carnahan and Sebastián Saiegh, who studied two round presidential races in five Latin American countries between 1999 and 2018. They found that financial volatility is greatest in the days immediately after rounds that are both unpredictable and decisive, in the sense of settling who will govern, and that learning the winner has no measurable effect on volatility when the outcome was predictable. Brazil’s runoff is decisive by construction. Whether it is unpredictable depends on whom one asks: polls describe a close race, while prices and prediction markets describe a likely result. If the result matches the pricing, the research points to a contained reaction. If it does not, the conditions for the largest volatility the study identifies are in place.
Two further findings matter for the private markets investor. Brandon Julio and Youngsuk Yook, studying 48 countries between 1980 and 2005, found that corporate investment falls by an average of 4.8 percent in election years, as companies defer capital expenditure until the outcome is known. Jonathan Brogaard, Lili Dai, Phong Ngo and Bohui Zhang found that uncertainty around United States elections is associated with lower stock returns, higher volatility and weaker local currencies across 50 other markets, with the effect strongest where foreign ownership is high. The first finding means that the operating companies inside a private markets portfolio, and the companies a general partner is trying to buy, behave differently around elections, and then revert. The second means that a Brazilian investor’s exposure to political uncertainty does not end at Brazil’s border: the currency in which a family holds its reserves, and the share of its local market owned by foreigners, determine how much of someone else’s election it also absorbs.
The common thread is that elections create a concentrated, priced and largely transitory burst of uncertainty. The research does not say that elections are irrelevant to long term returns; policy outcomes plainly matter. It says that the uncertainty itself resolves on a known date, that options markets charge for bearing it, and that the investor who reorganises a long term portfolio in the weeks before the resolution is paying the highest price for information that will be free shortly afterward.
The Structure That Does Not Change on October 25
For the families that make up Brazil’s private banking segment, defined by ANBIMA as clients with more than R$5 million invested, the decisive changes of the current cycle have already happened. They are fiscal and legal rather than electoral, and they are now in force.
The first is Law 14,754 of December 2023, which ended the deferral that had made offshore holding companies the default structure for Brazilian wealth held abroad. Since January 2024, profits of controlled offshore entities are taxed at 15 percent annually on the basis of the entity’s balance sheet at December 31, rather than when funds are distributed to Brazil. The same law brought exclusive funds into the semi annual come cotas regime, at 15 percent for long term funds and 20 percent for short term ones, and offered an optional update of asset values at an 8 percent rate. Receita Federal figures cited by the law’s rapporteur put revenue from the offshore and exclusive fund provisions at roughly 20.7 billion reais in 2024. Whatever the final accounting, the economic effect is settled: holding assets abroad through a corporate wrapper no longer defers tax, and the choice of structure is now driven by governance, succession and reporting rather than by timing of taxation.
The second is Law 15,270, signed on November 26, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026. It imposes a 10 percent withholding tax on dividends paid by a single company to a single individual above 50,000 reais in a month, introduces a minimum income tax on total annual income above 600,000 reais that rises linearly to a full 10 percent at 1.2 million reais, and applies a 10 percent withholding to dividends paid to non residents, with exemptions for foreign governments, sovereign funds and foreign pension funds and a credit mechanism where combined corporate and personal taxation exceeds statutory ceilings. Income from tax exempt instruments, including real estate and agribusiness credit notes and receivables certificates, is excluded from the minimum tax base. Companies anticipated the change: Brazilian dividend distributions reached a record 350.6 billion reais in 2025, including 81.5 billion reais in December alone, 40.9 percent more than a year earlier, and a further amount was approved in 2025 for payment in later years under the law’s transition rule.
The third is the status of tax exempt credit. A provisional measure in 2025 that would have taxed the income from these instruments lapsed in October of that year after the Chamber of Deputies removed it from the agenda, and the instruments retain their exemption. Their eligible collateral had already been narrowed by the National Monetary Council in February 2024. The combination of continued exemption and exclusion from the new minimum tax base explains much of the behaviour of private wealth over the past two years: according to ANBIMA, individuals held 1.43 trillion reais in tax advantaged instruments at the end of 2025, and private clients held 43 percent of them.
Taken together, these three changes describe a private wealth system that has been pushed toward sovereign duration, exempt credit and, increasingly, onshore private markets, and away from offshore deferral and dividend income. The question for October 25 is not whether the next administration will reverse that system on its first day; changes to income taxation are possible under either outcome, but they would arrive through legislation over quarters, negotiated with a Congress that has itself changed shape. A family that restructured its holdings in 2024 and 2025 restructured against rules that are now law. The runoff changes the probability of future amendments; it does not change the current regime.
The fiscal arithmetic is similarly indifferent to the result. Gross general government debt reached 82.9 percent of GDP in August, according to the central bank, the highest level since March 2021, with a nominal deficit of 9.48 percent of GDP over twelve months and an interest bill of 8.86 percent of GDP. On its own broader definition, the International Monetary Fund projects gross debt at 97.8 percent of GDP in 2026, rising toward 105 percent by 2031 without further measures, and its July Article IV consultation recommended a binding debt anchor and comprehensive spending limits. Whoever governs from January inherits the same starting point. The 120 basis point fall in long rates on October 5, and the partial reversal on October 13, show how sensitive the Brazilian term premium is to shifts in perceived fiscal risk, in either direction, and how quickly the market revises its estimate.
- Carry Is the Real Incumbent
If one variable has governed the allocation of Brazilian private wealth more than any election, it is the policy rate. The central bank held the Selic at 15 percent from June 2025 to March 2026, and has since cut it five consecutive times, most recently to 13.75 percent on September 16. Twelve month inflation stood at 4.58 percent in September. The market consensus captured in the central bank’s Focus survey expects the Selic at 13.25 percent at the end of 2026 and 12 percent at the end of 2027. A Brazilian family earning close to 9 percent a year in real terms on sovereign paper, with a substantial share of its credit income exempt from tax and from the new minimum, has had very little reason to look elsewhere.
The data confirm that it has not. A study by researchers at Fundação Getulio Vargas, published in September, found that Brazilian residents hold only 6.3 percent of the assets they declare to the tax authority outside the country. Brazilian funds investing abroad, which accounted for 15.1 percent of fixed income, equity and multimarket fund assets in July, received net inflows of 31.6 billion reais in 2020 and 2021, when the Selic was at its historic low, and suffered net outflows of 33.3 billion reais between 2022 and May 2026, when it was above 10 percent. The correlation between flows into those funds and the policy rate over the period was negative 0.68. The central bank’s census of Brazilian capital abroad counted 25,208 individual declarants holding 245.4 billion dollars at the end of 2024, a significant sum that is nonetheless concentrated in a small number of families and structures.
The pattern is rational from the perspective of carry, and it carries a cost that the election has made visible. A Brazilian family’s operating business, real estate, human capital and financial portfolio are typically all denominated in reais and all exposed to the same fiscal variable. On October 5 that single variable moved the equity market by 7.7 percent, the currency by 4 percent and the long end of the yield curve by more than a percentage point, in the same direction, on the same day. On that occasion the move was upward. The correlation is the same in either direction, and an election is simply the clearest demonstration of it. The academic case for diversification has always rested on this point rather than on any forecast. Kenneth French and James Poterba showed more than three decades ago that home bias implies expectations of domestic outperformance that investors would struggle to justify. Peter Christoffersen and co authors found that while diversification benefits across developed markets have shrunk, emerging market investors still gain meaningfully from diversification, particularly in sell offs. John Campbell, Karine Serfaty de Medeiros and Luis Viceira found that the dollar, the euro and the Swiss franc have historically tended to appreciate when global equities fall, which makes them natural reserve currencies for an investor whose domestic assets are cyclical.
The relevance to the present moment is that the cost of diversifying is falling, and will continue to fall under either electoral outcome if the consensus path for the policy rate is broadly right. As one of the FGV authors put it, the lower the Selic, the greater the advantage of investing abroad. The election does not change that logic. It changes, at the margin, the speed at which rates fall and the level at which the real settles. A family that waits for a particular result before diversifying is, in effect, making a currency call on the outcome of a vote; a family that diversifies on a schedule as carry declines is making an allocation decision. The two look identical on the day of execution and very different five years later.
There is one further consequence of carry that matters for offshore structures. A Brazilian investor who holds a dollar asset through a vehicle that hedges the currency back into reais earns, before costs, approximately the difference between Brazilian and United States short term rates on top of the asset’s dollar return. With the Selic at 13.75 percent and the federal funds range at 3.75 to 4 percent after the Federal Reserve’s September increase, that differential is close to ten percentage points. Hedged structures are therefore attractive to clients who want global assets without dollar exposure, and the hedge itself requires periodic cash settlement that an illiquid underlying asset cannot provide. Whether a client wants global assets, the dollar, or both is a question the election tends to blur and the adviser should keep separate.
Private Markets Do Not Keep an Electoral Calendar
Brazilian private wealth has begun to move into private markets in earnest. ANBIMA reported that private clients’ holdings of FIPs, the local private equity fund format, rose 31.5 percent in the first half of 2026, with positive net inflows in every month, and attributed the growth to demand for diversification into alternative and less liquid assets. Individual investors’ holdings of FIDCs, the receivables fund format, more than doubled in 2025 to 51.9 billion reais. Local feeders into global evergreen private equity programmes, some hedged back into reais, began to appear in 2025. For offshore advisers, the corridor’s demand for dollar private markets exposure through semi liquid funds, feeders and listed wrappers has been one of the most consistent themes of the past three years. The question this election raises is whether clients should pause, accelerate or reshape that build out in the weeks around the vote. The evidence suggests they should do none of these.
The first reason is the timing mismatch. A commitment made to a drawdown fund in October 2026 will typically be called over three to five years and returned over seven to twelve. An evergreen subscription made this month will be invested by the manager over the following quarters and held across several cycles. The election will be resolved before the first capital call. Any view a client expresses about the outcome through the timing of a private markets commitment is a view about a variable that will be known long before the capital is at work.
The second reason is the magnitude of vintage dispersion relative to anything an investor can forecast. Robert Harris, Tim Jenkinson and Steven Kaplan found that buyout funds have outperformed public markets by 20 to 27 percent over a fund’s life, or more than 3 percent a year, and that returns for a given vintage fall as more capital is committed to the asset class. Steven Kaplan and Antoinette Schoar documented large dispersion across funds and found that funds raised in boom periods were less likely to raise a successor, consistent with weaker performance. David Robinson and Berk Sensoy found that funds raised in hot markets perform worse in absolute terms, though much of the shortfall disappears once performance is measured against public markets on a risk adjusted basis. The consistent message is that the conditions of the private markets cycle, particularly the volume of capital competing for deals, matter far more to vintage returns than the political events of the commitment year. Industry modelling cited by one institutional adviser suggests that skipping a single vintage can leave a private equity allocation 2 to 4 percent underweight for five years or more, while avoiding the three weakest vintages between 2000 and 2020 would have improved returns only modestly.
The third reason is the documented cost of timing. Brad Barber and Terrance Odean, in a study of 66,465 households, found that the most active traders earned 11.4 percent a year against 16.4 percent for the average household and 17.9 percent for the market. Geoffrey Friesen and Travis Sapp found that the timing decisions of equity fund investors reduced their returns by 1.56 percent a year. Morningstar’s 2026 edition of its annual study of investor returns found that over the ten years to December 2025, fund investors earned 8.7 percent a year while the funds themselves returned 9.9 percent, a gap of 1.2 percentage points, and that the gap was widest, at 1.6 points, in alternative funds. The investor who buys and sells around events, in other words, captures less of the asset’s return than the asset produces, and the effect is largest in exactly the category of product the wealth channel is now building out.
There is a fourth, more subtle consideration. The Julio and Yook finding implies that operating companies defer investment around elections and then catch up. For a general partner, that means a temporary slowdown in local transaction activity followed by a period of pent up deal flow. For a limited partner, it means that the year of an election is often a reasonable year in which to commit to a manager who will deploy capital over the years that follow. The research does not support treating elections as a buying signal. It does undermine the instinct to treat them as a reason to wait.
The Offshore Desk Between Rounds
For advisers in Miami, New York, Houston and the other centres of the United States offshore business, and for their counterparts at private banks and independent firms in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, the next eleven days call for a specific kind of discipline. The task is to separate requests that are legitimately about liquidity and currency from requests that are disguised changes of allocation, to handle the former carefully, and to hold the latter to the same standard as any other strategic decision.
Liquidity and currency are the legitimate territory. A client who wants a larger dollar reserve ahead of an uncertain result is making a defensible decision about the currency of near term spending and contingency capital, and it can be implemented in liquid instruments and reversed at modest cost. A client whose Brazilian equity holdings have risen sharply in ten days may have breached a rebalancing band, in which case the rebalancing policy, rather than a view on the runoff, should determine the trade. A client with private markets commitments should know the expected schedule of capital calls over the next twelve months and the currency in which each will be funded, so that a sharp move in the real in either direction does not force the sale of other assets at a poor moment.
Structure is the second area that deserves attention, and it is not new. Since 2024, a private fund position held through a controlled offshore entity has formed part of a balance sheet whose profits are taxed annually in Brazil. How the entity accounts for unrealised gains in private fund positions, how often those positions are valued, and how distributions and capital calls flow through the structure all affect the client’s annual tax outcome. Families that adapted their structures quickly after the 2023 law may not yet have reviewed how those structures interact with a growing private markets allocation, a dividend tax that began this year, and a minimum income tax whose base excludes some instruments and not others. Nothing in this paper is tax advice, and the treatment of any specific structure depends on its facts and should be reviewed with qualified counsel. The point is that the client conversation most worth having this month is about the structure, and the election is a useful occasion to have it.
Commitment pacing is the third. For clients already building a private markets allocation, the right response to the election is to continue the established schedule. For clients beginning one, the research favours spreading commitments across several vintages and managers, which naturally diversifies away from the conditions of any single year, including this one. Where the client is choosing between a dollar commitment and a reais hedged feeder, the decision should rest on the client’s long term currency needs and on the liquidity required to service the hedge, not on a forecast of the exchange rate on October 26.
Communication is the last. Brazilian families hold strong and diverse political views, and so do the professionals who serve them. The adviser’s role is not to share a view on the candidates, but to describe what each outcome would likely mean for the client’s specific assets, to make clear which parts of the portfolio are exposed to the result and which are not, and to document why the portfolio is positioned as it is. A client who has been shown, in advance and in writing, how the portfolio is expected to behave under both outcomes is far less likely to demand a change on the morning after.
Questions for the Next Eleven Days and the Next Five Years
The argument of this paper reduces to a set of questions that advisers, private banks and family offices can put to themselves and to their clients before October 25, and that remain useful long after it.
On exposure, ask what share of the client’s total wealth, including the operating business, real estate and future income, is ultimately exposed to the Brazilian fiscal variable that moved every local asset on October 5. Ask whether the financial portfolio diversifies that exposure or adds to it.
On currency, ask what the client’s spending and obligations will be in dollars, reais and other currencies over the next five years, and whether the reserve currency of the portfolio matches them. Ask whether any request to dollarise this month is a change to that long term plan or a temporary adjustment that should be sized and reversed accordingly.
On carry, ask what the client’s allocation would look like with the Selic at 12 percent, the market’s expectation for the end of 2027, and at 10 percent. If the answer is materially different from today’s portfolio, ask whether the transition should be scheduled now rather than triggered by an event.
On structure, ask when the client’s offshore entities were last reviewed in light of the 2023 and 2025 laws, how private fund positions held inside them are valued and taxed, and whether the structure still serves its governance and succession purposes as the private markets allocation grows.
On private markets, ask whether the commitment pacing plan was set before the election and whether there is any reason grounded in the private markets cycle, rather than the political one, to change it. Ask how capital calls will be funded in each currency scenario. For hedged structures, ask how the hedge is settled and where the liquidity comes from.
On process, finally, ask whether the rationale for every change made between now and October 25 has been documented in terms that would still make sense to the client in October 2028.
None of this implies that the election is unimportant. The next administration will shape Brazil’s fiscal trajectory, its tax system and its place in global capital flows, and those choices will matter to every family discussed in this paper. The argument is that those consequences will unfold through legislation, monetary policy and markets over years, and that a well constructed portfolio is designed to be held through them rather than rebuilt for each. The market has spent the past ten days pricing a vote. Brazilian private wealth has a different job, which is to be positioned for the decade that follows it, whoever wins.
- Covington & Burling LLP. «Brazil’s First Round Election Results: Implications for Businesses and Investors.» October 2026. https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2026/10/brazils-first-round-election-results-implications-for-businesses-and-investors
- InfoMoney. «Ibovespa Hoje: Bolsa de Valores ao Vivo» (October 5, 2026 close, exchange rate and interest rate futures). October 5, 2026. https://www.infomoney.com.br/mercados/ibovespa-hoje-bolsa-de-valores-ao-vivo-05102026/
- InvestNews. «Estrangeiros Colocam Recorde de R$ 10 Bilhões na Bolsa Após 1º Turno» (B3 foreign flow data, as reported by Bloomberg). October 2026. https://investnews.com.br/investimentos/estrangeiros-colocam-recorde-de-r-10-bilhoes-na-bolsa-apos-1o-turno/
- CNN Brasil. «Copom Reduz a Selic» (September 16, 2026 decision). September 16, 2026. https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/economia/money/macroeconomia/bc-copom-selic-juros-setembro-2026/
- International Monetary Fund. «IMF Executive Board Concludes 2026 Article IV Consultation with Brazil.» Press Release, July 23, 2026. https://www.imf.org/en/news/articles/2026/07/23/pr26257-brazil-imf-executive-board-concludes-2026-article-iv-consultation
- ANBIMA. «Investimentos das Pessoas Físicas Crescem 6,4% e Somam R$ 9,1 Trilhões no 1º Semestre de 2026.» September 3, 2026. https://www.anbima.com.br/pt_br/imprensa/investimentos-das-pessoas-fisicas-crescem-6-4-e-somam-r-9-1-trilhoes-no-1-semestre-de-2026.htm
- Forbes Brasil. «Investimento no Exterior e Selic Alta» (FGV study of funds investing abroad and household assets abroad). September 17, 2026. https://forbes.com.br/forbes-money/2026/09/investimento-exterior-selic-alta/
- Trench Rossi Watanabe. «Brazil Enacts Law 15,270/2025, Which Taxes Dividends and Amends Personal Income Tax Rules.» Legal alert, November 2025. https://www.trenchrossi.com/en/legal-alerts/brazil-enacts-law-15270-2025-which-taxes-dividends-and-amend-personal-income-tax-rules/
- Carnahan, Daniel, and Sebastián Saiegh. «Electoral Uncertainty and Financial Volatility: Evidence from Two-Round Presidential Races in Emerging Markets.» Economics & Politics 33, no. 1 (2021): 109 to 132. https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecopol/v33y2021i1p109-132.html
- Kelly, Bryan, Ľuboš Pástor, and Pietro Veronesi. «The Price of Political Uncertainty: Theory and Evidence from the Option Market.» Journal of Finance 71, no. 5 (2016): 2417 to 2480. https://www.nber.org/papers/w19812
- Harris, Robert S., Tim Jenkinson, and Steven N. Kaplan. «Private Equity Performance: What Do We Know?» Journal of Finance 69, no. 5 (2014): 1851 to 1882. https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jfinan/v69y2014i5p1851-1882.html
- Ptak, Jeffrey, et al. «Mind the Gap 2026.» Morningstar, August 2026. https://www.morningstar.com/content/cs-assets/v3/assets/blt9415ea4cc4157833/blt852a4301adc2f5db/6a7373d51f7b5ae2da78e1e8/US_Mind_the_Gap_2026.pdf
