NextFin News - Singapore's central bank is in talks with investment firms on cutting taxes for fund managers, a defensive move aimed at keeping portfolio-management talent and mandates from drifting to Hong Kong as the rival hub rolls out a broader tax exemption on the performance fees that pay for the industry's top salaries.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore is examining whether the concessionary rate under the Financial Sector Incentive for Fund Management scheme - currently 10 per cent on qualifying fee income, against the city-state's standard 17 per cent corporate tax rate - can be pushed lower still, with any savings expected to flow through to the compensation of the investment professionals actually running the money. The review comes as Hong Kong advances legislation that would exempt carried interest from tax for a majority of alternative asset managers, a change that strikes directly at the income line that drives relocation decisions.
The Trigger: Hong Kong Is Attacking the Paycheck, Not the Firm
Singapore is not cutting taxes because its fund industry is weak. It is cutting because the industry is strong enough to be worth fighting for, and because the price of standing still just rose.
The pressure is coming from a specific piece of legislation. On 12 June 2026, the Hong Kong government gazetted the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Preferential Tax Regimes for Funds, Family-owned Investment Holding Vehicles and Carried Interest) Bill 2026, which expands the city's unified fund exemption regime and extends the carried-interest concession to cover private credit, virtual assets and real estate funds in addition to hedge funds and private equity. The carried-interest reforms provide an effective tax exemption for carried interest and performance fees not only at the manager and general-partner level, but also for employees involved in relevant asset management activities.
"Competitive tax treatment for carried interest and performance fees is critical to reinforcing the city's status as a premier hub for private capital and alternative investments. These changes will only enhance Hong Kong's ability to attract global fund managers, talent, and capital," said Michael Bugel, Co-Head of APAC for the Alternative Investment Management Association, whose trade body worked closely with Hong Kong authorities to shape the proposals.
Carried interest - the share of investment profits that private equity, venture capital and hedge fund managers earn on top of management fees - makes up the bulk of senior investment professionals' annual pay. A full exemption on that income is a direct bid for the people, not just the assets. Fund executives have warned Singapore's regulator that Hong Kong's proposal is likely to prompt some firms to shift staff and operations across the strait, and the warning carries weight because investment teams can relocate far faster than the fund structures and licences built around them.
Singapore's response, still under discussion, is to deepen the concession on the fee income that fund management companies earn. By talking to firms now, MAS is trying to move at the same time as Hong Kong rather than chase lost ground later.
Why the 7-Percentage-Point Gap Matters More Than It Looks
On the surface, the arithmetic is simple. The FSI-Fund Management scheme already taxes qualifying fee income at 10 per cent. A further cut would narrow the gap between what a fund management company pays in Singapore and what it would pay in a jurisdiction running a zero-carry regime. But the transmission channel is not the corporate tax line - it is the compensation package.
A lower concessionary rate on fee income gives the management company room to pass savings through to the portfolio managers and senior analysts it is trying to keep. That is the point of the exercise: the tax cut is not a subsidy to the firm, it is a retention tool for the person. In a business where a single star manager can move a fund's entire book, the marginal after-tax dollar is the marginal retention dollar.
The backdrop is a record industry that Singapore has no interest in watching shrink. Assets under management in Singapore reached S$6.7 trillion at the end of 2025, up 10.1 per cent year on year, according to the central bank's annual asset management survey. The number of variable capital companies - the fund vehicle of choice for managers setting up in the city - rose to 1,406 as at 31 December 2025, from 1,200 a year earlier, spanning 3,443 sub-funds. More than half of total AUM sits in discretionary mandates, a detail MAS uses to argue that Singapore is a genuine centre for investment decisions rather than a booking location for assets managed elsewhere.
Two Tiers, One Problem: The Fund Pays Nothing, the Manager Pays 10
To understand why Singapore's move is defensive rather than aggressive, it helps to see the two tiers of the city's fund tax architecture. The fund vehicle itself - a variable capital company or limited partnership - typically pays no tax at all on its investment returns if it qualifies under the section 13O, 13OA or 13U schemes. The tax exposure sits one level down, at the fund management company that earns the management fee and, where permitted, the performance fee. That is the entity taxed under the FSI-Fund Management scheme, at the 10 per cent concessionary rate on qualifying income.
This split matters because it defines the limits of what a manager-level rate cut can achieve. The fund's investors are already tax-exempt at the vehicle level; cutting the management company's rate does not make the fund itself cheaper to run in a way that would stop an allocator from moving assets. What it does is widen the pool of after-tax cash available to pay the humans. Singapore is therefore conceding revenue not to protect the fund book, but to protect the team that generates it.
The design also explains the political economy. A targeted concession on fee income is cheaper for the treasury than a broad-based rate cut, and it is easier to condition on real activity - the FSI-FM scheme requires a minimum number of professional staff engaged only in fund management or investment advisory services. In other words, the tax break is tied to the very thing Singapore wants to keep in the city: local hiring.
Cyclical Weapon, Structural War
The right read is that the talent war is structural, but the tax lever is cyclical. The structural part will not revert: Asia-Pacific assets under management are projected to reach US$34.5 trillion by 2030, up from US$23.2 trillion in 2024, growing at a 6.8 per cent compound annual rate that outpaces North America's 6.2 per cent and Europe's 5.6 per cent, according to PwC's Asset and Wealth Management Revolution: Asia-Pacific 2026 report. Every major hub knows the prize is the region's next decade of wealth creation, not this year's fee pool.
Hong Kong is playing the structural game on several boards at once. The city housed an estimated 3,384 single family offices as at end-2025, up 681 over the previous two years, and it is simultaneously simplifying family-office rules, opening the door to cryptocurrency-related activity and floating looser mutual-fund rules. Tax is one instrument in a wider campaign to present itself as the more accommodating of the two hubs.
The tax cut itself is cyclical in the sense that it is a price competition that can be matched. If Singapore lowers its concessionary rate, Hong Kong can deepen its own concessions; if Hong Kong widens the carried-interest exemption, Singapore can follow. Tax rates converge toward the lowest credible option, and no one wins a race to the bottom on price alone. What does not converge quickly is the infrastructure that takes decades to build: regulatory predictability, the depth of local fund administration and legal talent, and the ease of actually operating a fund day to day.
Singapore's bet is that tax keeps the door open long enough for those structural advantages to do the work. That is a defensible strategy - but only if the tax offer is credible and the non-tax ecosystem keeps improving. The city is already putting money behind that ecosystem: under Budget 2026, the Equity Market Development Programme was expanded from S$5 billion to S$6.5 billion after a top-up to the Financial Sector Development Fund, channelling capital into strategies that invest substantially in Singapore-listed equities.
The OECD Constraint: How Low Can Singapore Go?
There is a hard floor under how far Singapore can cut, and it is set in Paris, not in Asia. Under the OECD's global minimum tax framework, large multinational enterprise groups are subject to a 15 per cent effective tax rate on profits in each jurisdiction where they operate. A concessionary rate pushed too far below that threshold triggers a top-up tax, often payable in the group's home country - which means the benefit of the cut leaks out of Singapore rather than staying with the firm or its employees.
This is the quiet discipline that separates Singapore's calculus from Hong Kong's. Hong Kong's carried-interest exemption works because it exempts a specific income stream at source; Singapore's manager-level concession must still clear the minimum-rate bar to be worth anything to a global group. The practical implication is that Singapore's room to manoeuvre is narrower than the headline 17-to-10 spread suggests. A cut from 10 per cent to, say, 5 per cent would hand most of the gain to foreign tax authorities via the top-up mechanism unless carefully structured. The concession that matters is the one that survives the minimum-tax test - and that is a more expensive instrument than it looks.
The Second-Order Effect: Tax Is the Opener, Not the Closer
The first-order effect of a lower FSI-FM rate is obvious: fund management companies pay less tax and can pay their people more. The second-order effect is what matters for the regional map. Tax competition between Singapore and Hong Kong forces every other Asian hub to pick a side - match the concessions and lose revenue, or hold the line and lose mandates.
There is a third-order expectation gap worth naming. The market read of "Singapore cuts fund manager taxes" is that Singapore is defending share. The less obvious read is that Singapore is signalling it will not let Hong Kong set the terms of the competition. A small additional rate cut is cheap for a government that runs consistent fiscal surpluses; the message it buys - that Singapore will respond in kind, quickly, to any Hong Kong move - is worth more than the foregone revenue. That is the real transaction: revenue for deterrence.
The Counter-Thesis: A Fee-Income Cut Does Not Fix a Carried-Interest Problem
The strongest case against this move is that Singapore is solving the wrong problem. The executives most likely to be lured by Hong Kong's carried-interest exemption are in private equity, venture capital and hedge funds - precisely the segments where performance fees dominate pay. A cut to the fee-income concession helps the management company's bottom line, but it does not touch the carried-interest line, which is where the real money sits. Hong Kong is attacking the compensation item that actually drives relocation decisions; Singapore, by contrast, is adjusting the rate on a revenue stream that matters less to the individuals being recruited.
There is also a fiscal and reputational constraint. Singapore has built its brand on substance over subsidy - a jurisdiction where managers locate because the rule of law, the talent pool and the operating environment are reliable, not because the tax bill is the lowest in the room. Deepening a targeted concession risks inviting exactly the kind of "harmful tax competition" scrutiny that the OECD's global minimum tax framework was designed to police. If the concessionary rate falls too far, Singapore trades brand equity for a marginal retention gain.
The counter-thesis has teeth, and it names the falsifying signal clearly: if, within 12 to 18 months of Hong Kong's bill taking effect, Singapore sees a measurable net outflow of licensed fund management companies or a sustained drop in new VCC incorporations - the count stood at 1,406 at end-2025, up from 1,200 - then the fee-income concession was insufficient and the carried-interest gap is the real battleground. At that point, Singapore would face a choice it has so far avoided: match Hong Kong's carried-interest treatment directly, or accept the loss of the highest-paid segment of the industry.
Who Benefits, Who Is Exposed, and What Comes Next
The immediate beneficiaries are the fund management companies already licensed in Singapore and the investment professionals they employ - the concession deepens, their after-tax compensation rises, and the retention case strengthens. The exposed are the smaller regional hubs that have been winning mandates on price alone; they will find that advantage eroded once the two leading centres begin under-cutting each other.
For asset allocators, the short-term implication is continuity: none of this changes existing licences, fund structures or tax positions overnight. Any change to the FSI scheme must go through the normal policy process before taking effect. For managers currently deciding where to locate a new team or launch a new fund, the two hubs are edging closer together on paper, which shifts the decision weight onto the factors that do not move with a tax notice.
Three signals will tell the real story. First, the enacted text of Hong Kong's bill and the final scope of its carried-interest exemption - the devil is in which asset classes and which managers qualify. Second, the quarterly VCC incorporation count and the net change in licensed fund management companies in Singapore - a sustained slowdown would be the first hard evidence that the tax response is insufficient. Third, MAS's next asset management survey: if discretionary mandates fall below their current majority share of AUM, the "genuine decision centre" argument weakens, and with it the premium valuation Singapore's stability commands.
Base case: Singapore announces a modest further cut to the FSI-Fund Management concessionary rate, keeps the carried-interest treatment unchanged, and pairs the move with incremental improvements to fund-vehicle rules. Hong Kong enacts its bill, the two hubs split the region's growth, and Singapore's structural advantages hold its share of discretionary mandates. Upside case: Singapore combines the tax cut with a broader simplification of its fund incentive framework - MAS has indicated it is looking to simplify the section 13O, 13OA and 13U schemes - and the package is read as a coherent, long-term commitment, pushing the VCC count beyond the 1,406 recorded at end-2025. Downside case: Hong Kong moves faster and deeper, and Singapore's fee-income concession looks like defending the wrong hill.
Singapore's tax cut is less a subsidy than a signal - a small payment for the right to keep competing on everything else. It will hold only if the rest of the ecosystem justifies the delay it buys.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
