Pim Poppe: Tech away?

January 13, 2026

_{This column was originally written in Dutch. This is an English translation.}

By Pim Poppe, Managing Partner at Probability & Partners

Have you read the DNB report ‘Risks for Financial Institutions due to Exposure to Tech Shares’? I have. Today. The report was published just before Christmas and may therefore not have received the attention it deserves. I have given the report some thought and it is worth taking a moment to consider it.

The DNB report can be compared to our own reflections on the subject of “tech allocation in geopolitical times”. What are the differences and similarities?

The role of tech companies in society in general and their valuations in particular have been the focus of attention at Probability since August 2024. Since then, we have regarded the game surrounding tech companies as an integral part of geopolitical dynamics. Tech companies are instruments, victims, weapons, and both winners and losers in geopolitical struggles. That is why we started building scenarios around tech shares some time ago. We believe it is important for insurers, pension funds and other asset managers to consider tech in their asset allocation. The DNB report provides a good reason to bring this topic back into the spotlight and address it.

Relevant?

I agree with DNB: the valuation of tech stocks is relevant for pension funds and insurers. Yes, tech stocks are volatile. Yes, they are vulnerable to interest rate fluctuations, geopolitical fragmentation, innovations, and antitrust cases. Tech companies are highly valued and dependent on future profit expectations, making them vulnerable to setbacks in profit growth. A separate analysis of tech shares, weightings and risks is indeed appropriate in our view.

Has the weighting become too high?

Yes, the weighting of tech in portfolios is striking and has become worryingly high, both in global indices and in US indices, but, more importantly, in the actual portfolios of Dutch pension funds and insurers as well. The added value of the DNB report is that it goes into detail about the actual portfolios of Dutch pension funds and insurers. What is also remarkable is that more than half of the portfolios of several pension funds consist of tech shares. This was an eye-opener for me. Yes, the weightings of tech in equities have increased and deserve attention. According to DNB, attention should be paid to an abrupt correction. That seems sensible to me.

Just a thought. If tech shares now fall to the level of two or three years ago, will the world end? This idea offers an opportunity for an interesting exercise: reverse your current portfolio through history and see if you can bear the loss.

Upward risk?

What DNB does not describe is the possible upward risk and FOMO (fear of missing out). This risk is not mentioned. In our GPR sessions with pension fund boards, we see that FOMO arguments play a role. It is often said that if we had reduced our tech holdings a year and a half ago, we would have missed out on significant price gains. That is, of course, a valid point, and even now, prices may continue to rise and reducing holdings may lead to opportunity loss. So, looking ahead, there is also a tech FOMO.

Another argument for upside risk is the cooperation between the US government and tech companies. It seems that Trump, with his “America First” philosophy, wants to support tech companies, including in antitrust cases and consumer protection in Europe. This is a geopolitical power game in which companies and governments are working together. If the Trump-Tech coalition succeeds, even greater profits await tech companies. How this geopolitical game will play out remains uncertain. But further outperformance by tech cannot be ruled out.

Risk appetite?

DNB states: “It is essential that financial institutions” exposure to tech shares remains within their defined risk appetite.' I don't quite understand this. We are not aware of any pension funds with a risk appetite that says anything about exposure to tech stocks. It is simply not there. As far as we are concerned, an intermediate step is needed. It is essential that financial institutions' exposure to tech stocks is limited in a well-considered manner by their risk appetite.

Scenarios?

It is still too early to say whether AI will actually lead to real productivity gains. Opinions on this are divided. There are both believers and sceptics. It could well be that 2026 will be the year of truth in the real economy. Will companies really work more efficiently thanks to AI? If not, tech stocks will take a hit. If so, the even more important question is who will benefit from this efficiency gain: shareholders, customers or employees.

Conclusion

The DNB report is important. We advise all pension funds and insurers to read the DNB report and incorporate it into their risk management and asset allocation. We do have a few additions. First, despite high valuations, also take into account the upside risk. Second, supplement the risk appetite and limits with restrictions on tech weightings. Thirdly, work with scenarios. And fourthly, keep the risk management framework up to date.

More columns by Pim Poppe