AI is not a hype – it is reshaping the economy

• 

  Susan Niederhöfer
  Chefredakteurin

FOMO stands for “fear of missing out”: have you noticed signs of it among your customers?

FOMO is undoubtedly present, but its character has changed. Unlike in previous market phases, our clients currently show no signs of blind hysteria. It is no longer a question of having “any” kind of AI stock in the portfolio. FOMO has become more differentiated. Institutional investors are now asking very specific questions: where are the structural bottlenecks arising? Who controls the infrastructure? Who monetises productivity? It is less about missing out on the short-term hype and more about underestimating a long-term productivity cycle. This is precisely where the difference lies compared to the speculative exaggerations of previous years.

In recent weeks, we have seen some surprising developments on the capital markets: long-standing growth guarantors from the tech sector have been overtaken by AI providers and lost their market capitalisation. How have you explained this to your clients?

We explain the surprising shifts in market capitalisation – in particular the rotation away from established growth guarantors and towards stocks in the AI infrastructure and energy sectors – along the value chain. AI is not just a software upgrade, rather, it is developing into a capital-intensive industry. Hyperscalers are investing hundreds of billions in data centres, chips, networks and energy. Capital is thus migrating from office space to server farms and from labour to hardware. In such an environment, valuation premiums inevitably shift. Companies without a strong “moat” come under pressure, while providers of energy, semiconductor design, network infrastructure or security-critical software are structurally upgraded. This is less about a disruption of the entire tech industry and more about a redistribution of economic rents within the sector.

After the bust of the big internet and telecommunications bubble in the early 2000s, many investors lost confidence in capital market products. Is your impression that this is also the case following the significant losses in value suffered by tech companies?

In our view, comparisons with the bust of the internet and telecommunications bubble in the early 2000s are too simplistic. Back then, there was a lack of cash flow, profitability and robust business models. Today, however, we are seeing real productivity gains, rising revenues per employee and robust earnings growth. The global economy is growing solidly, labour markets are stable and companies’ capital bases are strong. What we are currently seeing is not a crisis of confidence in capital market products, but rather a phase of valuation normalisation and risk differentiation. Investors are not questioning the business models themselves, but rather the multiples.

Did you have the opportunity to prepare your customers for this development, or were you taken by surprise by events?

We were prepared for this development, if not in terms of its exact timing, then certainly in terms of its structure. We emphasised early on that it is not the capex itself that is decisive, but rather the return on investment. Investments are visible and spectacular. Monetisation, on the other hand, is not. That is precisely where the valuation risk lies.

Accordingly, we made an early decision to differentiate more clearly between infrastructure, “powering AI”, and highly valued application software within our Margaris No. 1 Artificial Intelligence Index and adjusted our positioning accordingly. At the same time, we reduced the the weighting of the technology sector in the overall portfolio from overweight to neutral and upgraded energy. We also recommended hedging strategies against corrections of 10% to 15%.

Our base scenario has always been constructive, but with rotation – “bullish with a small b”. This is precisely the choppy transformation we are currently experiencing.

In your opinion, to what extent were the price losses caused by herd behaviour? Or, are the effects based on actual facts and fundamental KPIs? verursacht? Oder basieren die Effekte –

There is no single cause responsible for the price losses. Some of them can clearly be linked to herd mentality and position reduction. Even companies with excellent figures saw “sell the news” reactions, as expectations and positioning were extreme. At the same time, fundamental factors cannot be ignored. Valuation premiums were high, hyperscalers’ investments are increasingly under ROI scrutiny, and interest rate movements are having a significant impact on long-term cash flow valuations. The current phase is therefore less a collapse of the AI thesis than a disciplining by the capital market.

Are safe havens back in demand since the onset of the “tech sector weakness”? And which underlyings would you specifically recommend to your clients at present?

As far as demand for safe havens is concerned, we are seeing selective reallocation. However, this is not a panic-driven flight, but rather a tactical reallocation. Industrial metals such as copper are considered mission critical for electrification, grid expansion and data cen-tres. Silver is benefiting both from uncertainty and industrial demand. Energy remains structurally relevant, even though our base scenario assumes more moderate oil prices in the medium term. European banks and industrial stocks are becoming more attractive thanks to fiscal policy stimulus and favourable financing conditions.

In the technology sector, we currently see particularly attractive opportunities in oversold quality companies with strong moats. This is precisely where our NextGen Software Moat Index comes in. We invest specifically in established software companies that are deeply integrated into business-critical processes, have high switching costs and enjoy structural competitive advantages. The recent uncertainty triggered by AI has put many of these stocks under pressure across the board, as the market feared that AI could replace traditional software.

However, we are convinced that AI will not replace powerful software platforms, but rather expand them. Companies with deeply rooted data sets, regulatory integration and workflow-critical infrastructure use AI as an additional layer of monetisation and productivity. The moat is therefore not weakening, but getting stronger. We are actively exploiting precisely this mispricing – structural strength with cyclically depressed valuations.

Your company also offers products that are approved for public distribution. Do you see this as a conflict of interest, or is the simultaneous coverage of public distribution and active consulting and sales rather an opportunity when markets are volatile and customers are uncertain?

We do not see the combination of public distribution and active advisory services as a conflict of interest, but rather as a strategic advantage. In volatile markets, professional investors need transparency in structuring, flexibility in risk management, and access to tailor-made solutions. Thanks to our ability to act as both an issuance platform and a strategic advisor, we can translate market assessments directly into implementable structures. This integration creates efficiency and clarity, especially in times of increased uncertainty.

What will prevail: AI or tech?

Ultimately, we believe that the question “AI or tech?” is misguided. AI is not a separate sector, but rather an evolutionary stage of technology. Not all tech companies will benefit from AI, but strong platforms with structural moats will be strengthened rather than replaced by it. The real winners will be those who control infrastructure, data, energy or distribution. AI is not a short-term trend, but a productivity cycle. It will expose weak business models, but make strong ones even more dominant.

Our conclusion is clear: we are not experiencing a bubble, but a realignment. Capital is becoming more selective, valuations are becoming more rational and competitive advantages are becoming more differentiated again. In such an environment, it is not the loudest narrative that wins, but the most resilient business model.

Thank you for the interview, Mr Porfiri!

__

Maurizio Porfiri
Chief Investment Officer at Maverix Securities AG

He is a financial expert with over 25 years of experience in international markets. He began his career in 1993 at Swiss Bank Corporation. This was followed by positions at BNP Switzerland, Goldman Sachs and Thomas Weisel Partners, where he served European and Swiss institutional investors and specialised in technology and growth stocks. From 2010 to 2020, he headed the Advisory Desk at BNP Paribas Wealth Management Switzerland, developing innovative solutions for high-net-worth clients. Today, as Chief Investment Officer at Maverix Securities AG, he shapes the company’s investment strategy.