Audience Selected - Individual
Audience Selected - Intermediary
Audience Selected - Institutional

Chart of the Week: Bicycle Race – from leaders to laggards

For professionals only.  
Capital at risk.

Welcome to this week's 'Chart of the Week', where we share key insights to help keep you informed on what's happening in the markets.

2 MIN

While the World Cup and Wimbledon have been making more headlines, another globally famous sporting challenge is well underway, the Tour de France.

I cycle to work most days. It’s a time-efficient way to stay active. But with the recent spell of good weather, the roads have been much busier. Cyclists have come out in force, and at times the commute has felt like riding in the pack in a cycle race.

Inevitably that brings to mind the spectacle of the world’s most famous event on two wheels. The Tour de France represents three weeks of endurance, teamwork and tactical nous. And while the yellow jersey grabs the headlines, cycling is never just about one rider.

Each team is built on a mix of specialists. Climbers to conquer the mountains, sprinters to power through the flats and the support riders known as ‘domestiques’ who work behind the scenes to keep everything moving forward.

Another feature that stands out is the names on the jerseys. Sponsorship is everywhere. But if you look closely, many of the sponsors who once dominated the sport have disappeared. It’s a useful reminder. Success is rarely permanent. And just like in cycling, the decisive moves often come when the pace changes and a breakaway forms.

A shift in market leadership

We’ve seen that sort of shift in markets in 2026. The largest technology companies have dominated returns in recent years, supported by the buildout of artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure. The unprecedented levels of spending gave investors confidence that the tech giants would dominate the AI era.

This investment is continuing, but now the way it’s being funded is starting to matter more.

Our chart this week highlights the rise in bond* issuance by ‘Big Tech’ companies such as Amazon, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Meta, Microsoft and Oracle. Previously they used cash flows to invest for growth. However, such is the scale of their investment in data centres and other AI infrastructure they are now increasingly turning to borrowing. As our chart shows, in combination, the five companies have issued bonds worth $150 billion so far this year. That’s more than three times the total in the pre-AI surge borrowing peak in 2017.

We don’t believe this changes the potential long-term opportunity presented by these tech giants, but it does help to explain their subdued stock market performance this year. Investors have concerns about the huge spending and the levels of debt, which could mean additional risk if borrowing costs rise or AI enthusiasm dims. They want to see evidence this spending will translate into surging profits.

The breakaway

Many investors have preferred to own the companies benefiting from all the spending. As a result, a relatively small group of companies have driven the bulk of the returns from the US S&P 500 index year to date. These are the businesses providing the equipment AI relies on, such as semiconductors and memory hardware.

Key takeaway

The Tour de France is rarely won from the front early on. This year, markets have seen leadership shift as a breakaway has formed further down the supply chain. But what really matters is not just who is leading the race so far, but who is best positioned for what comes next.

Find out more about our multi-asset solution


This article is provided for general information purposes only and should not be construed as personal financial advice to invest in any fund or product. These are the investment manager’s views at the time of writing and should not be construed as investment advice. The opinions expressed are correct at time of writing and may be subject to change. Capital is at risk. The value and income from investments can go down as well as up and are not guaranteed. An investor may get back significantly less than they invest. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of current or future performance and should not be the sole factor considered when selecting funds.