# Technology as Geopolitical Filter: Semiconductors, AI and Biotech as Forms of Power
In the older grammar of investment, technology was a sector. It sat between industrials and consumer discretionary, it had its own multiples, its own volatility, its own growth narratives. That grammar no longer describes what technology has become. In the multipolar order, technology is no longer merely a sector. It is a filter through which states read each other, a form of power that decides who produces, who permits, who is permitted, and on what terms capital may cross a border. Dr. Raphael Nagel (LL.M.) has argued in Der multipolare Investor that this shift reorders the work of the allocator more profoundly than any interest rate cycle. Valuation can move without any change in the underlying balance sheet. The reason lies outside the firm, in the architecture of power that has come to surround it.
## From Sector to Sphere of Sovereignty
For three decades, the assumption was that technology firms participated in a global market governed by roughly convergent rules. Capital flowed, components crossed borders, standards were negotiated in international bodies, and competitive advantage was a function of engineering and scale. The transformation of the last ten years has altered this premise in a manner that remains insufficiently processed by most portfolios. Semiconductors, artificial intelligence and biotechnology have moved from the category of tradable goods into the category of strategic capabilities. They are no longer distributed according to the logic of comparative advantage. They are distributed according to the logic of alliance, access and control.
This is the shift Dr. Raphael Nagel (LL.M.) describes when he writes that technology must be read not only as a product but as a form of power. A form of power is something a state will not willingly cede to a rival, even when the economic cost of retention is high. Semiconductors are such a form because they underwrite military, industrial and economic capacity at once. Artificial intelligence is such a form because it shifts productivity across every sector simultaneously. Biotechnology is such a form because it touches life expectancy, nutrition and the resilience of health systems. An investor who continues to price these fields as ordinary sectors is pricing the wrong object.
## Export Controls and the Architecture of the CHIPS Act
The American response to this recognition has been structural rather than episodic. The CHIPS and Science Act did not merely subsidise domestic production. It inscribed a geography into the semiconductor industry, tying public capital to location, to ownership structure and to the absence of certain counterparties. Parallel to this, the export control regime extended the reach of American jurisdiction into transactions that take place entirely outside the United States, provided they touch American intellectual property, American equipment or American software. This is not an incremental extension of trade policy. It is the establishment of a filter.
The filter operates on firms that never imagined themselves as geopolitical actors. ASML, the Dutch manufacturer of extreme ultraviolet lithography equipment, found its shipment calendar shaped by diplomatic negotiations in which it was not formally a party. Nvidia, whose accelerators had become the enabling layer of the current artificial intelligence cycle, had to reengineer product lines to comply with thresholds defined by national security authorities rather than engineering teams. ByteDance, whose ownership structure became the object of legislative attention on several continents, experienced valuation discussions that turned less on user growth than on the question of whose jurisdiction its data would ultimately inhabit. None of these cases can be understood through balance sheet analysis alone.
## Valuation Shifts Without Fundamental Change
This is the analytical point Dr. Nagel insists upon. In the multipolar world, a valuation can move substantially without any change in revenue, margin or cash flow. The trigger is a political decision external to the firm. An export licence is granted or withheld. An investment screening regime is extended to a new category. A listing venue becomes politically untenable. A supplier enters a sanctioned list. A customer is barred from a particular class of components. Each of these events rewrites the earnings path of a company without touching its operational performance in the prior period.
For allocators trained in fundamental analysis, this is uncomfortable. The tools that discount future cash flows assume a reasonably stable rule environment over the discount horizon. When the rule environment itself becomes the variable, the discount rate must absorb a category of risk that does not reduce neatly to volatility. It is closer to what the older literature called regime risk. The investor who does not assign an explicit premium to this dimension is, in effect, providing free insurance to the holder on the other side of the trade.
## Reading Technology as Power
To read technology as a form of power requires a different apparatus than sector analysis. It requires asking which capabilities a state is prepared to defend, which capabilities it is prepared to deny to a rival, and which capabilities it is prepared to build even at a cost that is not commercially justified. Semiconductor fabrication at advanced nodes is such a capability. Foundation models trained at the current scale, together with the compute infrastructure they require, is such a capability. Certain biotechnology platforms, including messenger RNA and the associated manufacturing base, have entered this category during the pandemic and have not left it since.
The reading extends to less visible layers. The equipment that produces the equipment. The software that verifies the chips. The specialised chemicals without which no fabrication line operates. The narrow set of firms that hold critical patents in gene editing. These layers constitute chokepoints, and chokepoints are where geopolitical filters are most effective. An investor who maps a technology portfolio only at the level of final products misses the layer at which power actually operates. The map must go deeper, into the tiers of suppliers, into the jurisdictions of intellectual property, into the national origin of the tooling.
## Consequences for European Technology Allocation
For European investors, the consequences are particularly sharp. Europe holds unusual strength in several chokepoints, most visibly in lithography, in certain automotive semiconductors, in pharmaceutical manufacturing and in parts of the industrial software stack. At the same time, Europe lacks a sovereign position in the layers that currently generate the largest valuation gains, particularly in foundation model development and in advanced logic fabrication. A portfolio built on European champions is therefore not automatically a portfolio insulated from the geopolitical filter. It is a portfolio that holds certain chokepoints and depends on others it does not control.
This asymmetry requires deliberate treatment. A European allocator cannot replicate the American industrial policy response, nor should the attempt be made through portfolio construction. What the allocator can do is identify the firms whose chokepoint position is durable, distinguish them from firms whose position is contingent on an alliance geometry that may shift, and size exposure accordingly. The allocator can also accept that certain American technology positions, however attractive their fundamentals, carry a jurisdictional risk that a European holder should not ignore. The same logic applies in reverse to Chinese technology exposure, where the filter operates from the opposite side. Neutrality is not available. Selection is the only remaining instrument.
## The Discipline of the Translator
Dr. Raphael Nagel (LL.M.) describes the modern investor as a translator of power, and nowhere is this translation more demanding than in technology. The translator must hold two languages at once. On one side, the language of engineering roadmaps, model architectures, clinical pipelines and capital expenditure cycles. On the other, the language of export control lists, investment screening statutes, alliance commitments and strategic doctrines. Neither language can be reduced to the other. The investor who speaks only the first will be surprised by valuation movements he cannot explain. The investor who speaks only the second will misread the underlying economics and pay too much or too little for positions whose fundamentals he has not understood.
The discipline of the translator is sobriety. It resists the temptation to moralise the filter, to treat American, Chinese or European measures as expressions of virtue or vice rather than as operating conditions. It resists equally the temptation to treat technology as pure power, as though engineering no longer mattered. Engineering still decides which firms survive within the filter. Power decides which firms are permitted to compete at all. The allocator who holds both observations in the same frame is prepared for a decade in which the distinction between sector and sovereignty will continue to erode.
The conclusion to which this reading leads is not a specific allocation. It is a change in the order of questions. Before asking what a technology firm earns, the allocator must ask in which regime it operates, which chokepoints it holds, which chokepoints hold it, and which political decisions, taken outside its control, can rewrite its earnings path without any change in its operations. These questions are not a supplement to fundamental analysis. They precede it, because they define the conditions under which fundamental analysis remains valid. Der multipolare Investor frames this reordering as the unavoidable task of an allocator in a world without a single order. Technology is the clearest case, because in technology the filter is most visible and most consequential. For European investors in particular, the task is neither to imitate the industrial policy of larger actors nor to withdraw into a defensive posture. It is to accept that capital allocated into technology is, by the nature of the field, allocated into a form of power, and to make that allocation with the precision such a field demands.
For weekly analysis on capital, leadership and geopolitics: follow Dr. Raphael Nagel (LL.M.) on LinkedIn →