In an environment marked by the return of inflationary pressures, the rise of AI and geopolitical reshuffles, Michaël Lok believes that the markets are entering a new cycle. Here, he discusses the consequences of this change of regime for asset allocation, the growing strategic role of emerging markets and the profound changes underway in the technology industry.
Are investors underestimating the macroeconomic risks associated with energy prices and persistent inflation?
Yes, probably. Our central scenario for 2026 was still largely based on the continuation of the trend that began in 2023, i.e. gradual disinflation, lower interest rates and clear central bank support for the economy and the markets. In recent months, however, we have seen a fairly marked change in the direction of inflation, with a less favourable oil scenario.
At this stage, we believe that the market is still underestimating the macroeconomic implications of this development, particularly in Europe. The first half of the year was marked above all by a form of indifference to macroeconomic risks. Investors remained focused on earnings and the momentum of AI, which may be justified in some segments. But the second half of the year could be more complicated, particularly for Europe, which remains the most vulnerable region because of its energy dependence and relative industrial fragility.
This is already evident from the fact that, for several weeks now, European equities have been at a virtual standstill, while US technology, buoyed by the prospects offered by artificial intelligence, , continues to show very strong momentum. This divergence reflects a certain underestimation of European macroeconomic risk.
You present AI and energy security as two major forces in the recomposition of portfolios. Apart from the obvious winners in tech, which market segments are still undervalued in this new investment cycle?
In pure technology, the flows are now so powerful and the growth dynamic so rapid that the very notion of valuation is becoming almost secondary. In fact, we argued very early on that there was no technology bubble in the traditional sense of the term, precisely because the major players are now generating massive profits, which was not the case during the 2000s cycle.
On the other hand, we believe that there is still significant potential in the entire energy and utilities ecosystem. The development of AI implies gigantic energy consumption, which automatically creates a structural need for infrastructure, production and energy security.
This is particularly true of what we call "power demand". We believe that alternative energies, network infrastructures and certain segments linked to the energy transition still offer significant reserves of value. These are themes that we are looking at over the long term, over three to five years, and not as short-term tactical bets.
In a world marked by geopolitical fragmentation and the return of inflationary pressures, how should long-term investors rethink the role of emerging markets within a diversified portfolio?
We believe that emerging markets are gradually entering a new phase. For a long time, they were used mainly as a quasi-mechanical diversification pocket in global portfolios. Today, their role is becoming much more strategic.
The rise of AI, new energy infrastructures and the need for natural resources are profoundly changing the place of certain emerging countries in the global value creation chain. Investors therefore need to look beyond the traditional major markets and diversify their exposure further.
We have therefore strengthened certain positions in Asia, notably in Taiwan and South Korea, which now play a central role in semi-conductors, technological infrastructures and AI-related production chains. In China, we are more constructive than we were a few years ago, even if visibility remains limited. After a very cautious post-Covid period, we have gradually returned via Chinese technology, and then via more domestic segments. As for India, it remains a strong structural theme, even though we have slightly reduced our positions to rebalance the overall allocation to emerging markets.
Overall, we now see the emerging markets as direct beneficiaries of this new long cycle combining technology, energy and geopolitical reconfiguration.
With gold remaining one of your key strategic allocations, do you think we are entering a phase of deeper transition, marked by a global financial system less dominated by the dollar?
The debate about de-dollarisation has been going on regularly for several years, particularly in the current geopolitical context. But in reality, there is still no credible alternative to the dollar as the world's reference currency.
That said, we believe that dollar risk should now be moderated in portfolios. With this in mind, gold and the Swiss franc are two highly effective hedging instruments against a structural weakening of the dollar over the long term.
We are talking here about secular themes. The appreciation of the Swiss franc has been an observable trend for more than twenty years, and gold follows a similar logic. Even if the recent rise in interest rates has temporarily stabilised gold, we remain structurally very positive on the yellow metal for the next few years. We believe that this fundamental trend will continue.
In an environment increasingly shaped by industrial policy, energy sovereignty and the technology game, what major changes have you made to your long-term strategic allocation?
The main change in recent years has been the integration of a genuine tactical layer to complement the traditional strategic allocation. We retain a long-term, diversified approach built on solid fundamentals, but we have developed tools that enable us to respond much more quickly to exogenous shocks.
In concrete terms, we have greatly enhanced our ability to use tactical overlays and derivatives to absorb certain market risks. This allows us to temporarily reduce portfolio exposure when visibility becomes insufficient or when a geopolitical or macroeconomic shock suddenly occurs.
The aim is obviously not to over-react or to 'trade' all the time, but to have the capacity to intervene extremely quickly when necessary. Today, we have virtually eliminated inertia in asset allocation. We no longer have a static 60/40 portfolio, where we simply wait for the markets to normalise.
At the same time, we continue to integrate alternative strategies and hedge funds capable of providing different return profiles and strengthening the overall diversification of portfolios.
What new dynamics will the new CEO of Apple have to deal with in the consumer technology sector?
For a long time, we thought that the major technological balances had stabilised. Apple dominated its ecosystem, the social networks had found their leaders and the major platforms seemed to be firmly established. But generative AI is changing all that.
We now believe that we have entered a new secular cycle of twenty to thirty years, with a profound reshuffling of the cards. But this time, unlike the Internet cycle of the 2000s, the major players already have colossal revenues and investment capacities.
For Apple, the question is essentially one of business model. The group remains extremely powerful, but it no longer appears to be the main driver of the major technological breakthroughs associated with AI. This is a major change compared with the last twenty years.
Conversely, certain players such as Microsoft have taken a very visible lead in these new uses. Above all, the sector is evolving extremely rapidly. Every three or six months, new models or new players emerge. Today, everyone is talking about Anthropic and Claude, whereas these names were virtually absent from discussions just a few months ago.
The challenge for Apple will therefore be to remain central in an environment where value is gradually shifting from hardware to models, data and software orchestration capabilities.