Over the past year I’ve heard a new phrase in client meetings.
“Tech bros.”
It’s usually said half-jokingly. But not entirely joking.
Behind it sits something more serious. A discomfort about where power sits in the modern economy, and what happens when a handful of individuals control companies with products used by billions of people.
This isn’t about disliking innovation. Most of the people I work with are deeply pro-innovation. They run hospitals, engineering firms, research teams. They use these technologies every day.
The question is different.
When I invest in global sharemarkets, what am I actually funding?
For some, the concern centres on political funding and influence. When founders or executives publicly back political movements or candidates, shareholders are indirectly tied to that activity. It may align with your views. It may not. Either way, your capital is part of the story.
For others, it’s about labour practices. Gig workers. Warehouse conditions. Contractor models. Business models that rely on squeezing workers or suppliers to keep margins high.
For others again, it’s privacy and influence. How much personal data is collected. How it is used. Whether online platforms amplify extreme or misleading content because it drives engagement and advertising revenue.
And then there is governance. In some of these companies, founders hold special voting rights that give them far more control than ordinary shareholders. Even if you own shares, your vote may carry very little weight. Boards are in place, but real power can remain tightly held by one person or a very small group.
These companies can be enormously profitable and still raise legitimate questions about power and responsibility.
What has surprised many people is how concentrated mainstream portfolios have become. In an earlier piece I wrote about US exposure, we looked at how a small number of mega-cap American companies now dominate global indices. When you buy “the market”, you are often buying a significant position in a handful of names whether you realise it or not.
That concentration is part of what is driving this unease.
The assumption tends to be that if you reduce exposure to some of those companies, you reduce your exposure to technology and growth more broadly.
In practice, that hasn’t been our experience.
The current AI and digital transformation cycle runs through a much wider ecosystem:
· Semiconductor designers and manufacturers building the chips that power AI.
· Data centre infrastructure providers.
· Business software companies that help hospitals, logistics firms, and manufacturers run more efficiently.
· Cybersecurity firms protecting increasingly digital systems.
· Renewable energy and grid infrastructure required to power expanding data demand.
· Medical technology companies using machine learning to improve diagnostics.
A disciplined portfolio can participate in that broader technology stack without being heavily exposed to founder-dominated mega-caps.
Recently we reviewed a client’s portfolio after exactly this conversation. They were uneasy about exposure to certain large US technology companies. When we analysed the underlying holdings, and after exiting one global manager, their direct exposure to those specific companies was close to zero.
The portfolio still retained meaningful exposure to global innovation and digital growth.
This is about alignment.
If you are comfortable owning those companies, that is a perfectly valid investment decision. Markets function because investors see things differently.
But if you are uneasy, your portfolio does not have to ignore that. There are other ways to structure global exposure.
Your values do not require you to step away from growth. They simply shape how you choose to access it.
The phrase “tech bros” may be flippant. The underlying issue is not.
Capital flows shape power. As investors, you have more agency than you may realise.
