Mark Carney’s Davos speech provides a timely framework for considering geographic concentration, as recent data suggests portfolios with lower sensitivity to US equities have begun to outperform their more US-dependent peers.
At last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, most of the attention inevitably went to US President Donald Trump. But in a speech delivered on 20 January (here*) Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney set out a more consequential clear and sobering view of the world economy. His argument was simple and precise: tariffs are leverage, supply chains are coercion, and great powers have stopped pretending that economic integration serves mutual benefit. For investors, this is not abstract geopolitics but a call to fundamentally redesign how we think about geographic concentration, currency risk, and the assumption of permanent US market dominance.
What makes Carney’s remarks particularly relevant for UK investors is how starkly they contrast with the way many multi-asset portfolios are positioned. Whilst Carney was articulating the case for strategic diversification and reduced US concentration, a simple analysis of typical investor portfolios - using the IA Mixed Investment 20–60% Shares sector as a lens - provides a troubling picture of how the industry is positioned. When we examine the distribution of such portfolios’ beta to the S&P 500 index (i.e. the US market) over time, we see very little strategic movement. Funds that carried high US beta two years ago still carry high US beta today. Those positioned with lower correlation haven't materially shifted their posture either. Funds that carried high US beta two years ago largely still do; those with lower beta remain unchanged. The sector has drifted with market conditions, but there is little evidence of deliberate, strategic repositioning.