When investors weigh an allocation to European equities, many frame the decision as a directional call on eurozone growth. The composition of the market complicates that framing. Many of Europe’s largest listed companies generate a significant proportion of their revenue beyond Europe’s borders, and a number earn the majority beyond their home region altogether.
The investment case therefore rests less on the European economic cycle than on the global footprint of the businesses that list there. An allocation buys exposure to internationally diversified revenue streams in pharmaceuticals, industrial engineering, luxury goods, and energy technology, delivered through companies with decades of cross-border operating history.
Europe is also not one single economy. There are slower-growth markets, but also several healthier and faster-growing economies where the portfolio can be selective and where we are extracting alpha.
The doughnut economy
There is growth in Europe
GDP Growth Estimates (%)
| Country | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 |
|---|---|---|---|
| US | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.1 |
Slow growth core European countries
| Country | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 |
|---|---|---|---|
| UK | 1.4 | 0.7 | 1.2 |
| Germany | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
| France | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.1 |
| Italy | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
Higher growth European countries
| Country | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2.8 | 2.4 | 1.9 |
| Portugal | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
| Ireland | 4.7* | 2.4* | 2.8* |
| Greece | 2.1 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Cyprus | 3.8 | 2.3 | 2.7 |
| Sweden | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.2 |
| Poland | 3.6 | 3.5 | 2.8 |
| Bulgaria | 3.1 | 2.5 | 2.2 |
| Czechia | 2.6 | 1.8 | 2.4 |
Forecasts are an estimate of future performance based on evidence from the past on how the value of this investment varies, and/or current market conditions. Forecasts are not a reliable prediction of future returns. What you will get will vary depending on how the market performs and how long you keep the investment/product.
Source: GDP growth estimates from European Commission, as at 21 May 2026. * Ireland data shows Modified GNI as a comparative data point. Source: Bank of Ireland, March 2026.
European Equities – Revenue exposure breakdown
European equities have a balanced exposure to Europe and non-Europe
Non-European revenues have grown significantly over time
Less than half of European equity revenue derives from Europe
We spoke to Niall Gallagher, Lead Portfolio Manager of Jupiter European Select to discuss where European-listed companies actually earn their revenue, why the structure of the European market pushes them outward, how a concentrated portfolio can capture that exposure while managing portfolio risk, and what the distinction means for an investor constructing a globally diversified allocation.
European-listed companies generate a significant revenue abroad
The STOXX Europe 600 tracks 600 large-, mid-, and small-capitalisation companies across 17 European countries and covers close to 90% of the region’s free-float market capitalisation (STOXX, 2026). Its aggregate revenue is not, however, a proxy for European demand. On a weighted-average basis, roughly half of that revenue is raised outside Europe, according to FactSet GeoRev data cited by STOXX as at 31 March 2026.
If we look at the components of the index we can get granular. Novartis, the Swiss pharmaceutical group, generated close to 69% of its 2025 net sales outside Europe. Nestle draws its largest single share of sales from the Americas (48%). At LVMH, Asia and the Americas together account for more than half of revenue1.
For large European corporations, a globally distributed revenue base is the structural norm. An allocation to European equities, in substance, can be an allocation to globally diversified companies that happen to be domiciled and listed in Europe.
The structure of the European market pushes companies outward
The European single market is large by any absolute measure. The European Union counted 450.4 million inhabitants as at 1 January 2025 (Eurostat, July 2025). Yet for many multinationals, even a market of that size is insufficient to reach the scale and profitability that global leadership requires.
This is where European and American companies diverge. A large US technology, financial, or industrial company can achieve world scale while generating a substantial share of its revenue at home, because the domestic market is deep enough to support it. That option is less available in Europe. The practical consequence is that the international revenue base of many European companies is embedded in their supply chains, capital allocation, and customer relationships, which may make it more durable than a revenue mix chosen opportunistically.
Why is concentration potentially positive for your portfolio?
A common assumption holds that diversification requires owning hundreds or thousands of positions. In practice, a very broad index can accumulate factor exposures without intent. Momentum, high-beta names, or a handful of mega-caps can come to dominate its behaviour, so that an investor who believes they hold a diversified portfolio is in fact exposed to a narrow set of systematic risks spread across many tickers.
A concentrated portfolio approaches the problem differently. The academic literature is instructive: research by Meir Statman (1987)2 found that a well-diversified portfolio needs at least 30 to 40 stocks to capture most of the available reduction in stock-specific risk. A portfolio of that size can therefore diversify away the majority of idiosyncratic risk while remaining small enough for each holding to be understood, and for sector, country, and factor exposures to be set deliberately.
The distinction matters for how risk is managed. When a manager holds 30 to 40 positions selected through fundamental analysis, the portfolio’s tilts — whether toward value, smaller capitalisations, or specific industrial cycles — are visible and intentional. A very broad index may carry the same tilts, obscured by the number of holdings. A manager applying a disciplined concentration framework may use this transparency to model and control portfolio risk directly, rather than accepting the exposures a broad benchmark happens to produce.
Whether a concentrated portfolio ultimately exhibits lower volatility or better downside behaviour than a broad index is a function of manager skill and remains illustrative rather than assured. It is not a general property of concentration, and no such outcome should be assumed.
European industry is diverse enough that concentration need not narrow exposure
Concentration at the portfolio level need not imply concentration of economic exposure, because European industry is itself diverse. Germany leads in industrial machinery, automotive components, and chemicals. Switzerland is home to global leaders in pharmaceuticals and specialty ingredients; chemicals and pharmaceuticals accounted for around 52% of Swiss exports in 2024 (science industries)3. France is strong in luxury goods and aerospace. The Nordic region has developed depth in industrial technology, automation, and software. The United Kingdom hosts leaders in financial services, pharmaceuticals, and consumer goods. Italy specialises in premium and design-led manufacturing.
This breadth means that a portfolio of 30 to 50 European holdings can span several independent economic themes at once: the energy transition, through industrial and renewable-technology manufacturers; demographic ageing, through pharmaceuticals and healthcare; digitalisation, through automation and software; and global consumption, through multinational consumer and luxury companies. The natural variety of European industry allows a concentrated portfolio to remain diversified across drivers that actually move returns.
Investment implications
The most common case for European equities is cyclical: that valuations are inexpensive, or that the region is due a recovery. Arguments of that kind date quickly and depend on the accuracy of a macro forecast. The structural case is more durable. European-listed companies generate a large share of their revenue outside Europe, and that exposure can be held in a concentrated portfolio whose diversification comes from the underlying earnings streams rather than from the number of holdings or the breadth of geographic labels.
For an investor with conviction in global industrial growth, the energy transition, and infrastructure — themes that do not depend on European domestic performance — a considered allocation to quality European equities may offer more diversification than a mechanically broad one. In our view, the more important point is one of construction: diversification is better sourced from what companies do than from how many of them a portfolio holds.
On one hand, a concentrated European allocation may deliver genuine global diversification alongside intentional control of sector and factor exposures. On the other hand, concentration raises the importance of manager skill and security selection, and European-listed companies remain subject to currency movements, regulatory change, and shifts in global demand that no allocation can remove. Sizing the position to its role within a broader portfolio, rather than treating it as a directional bet on Europe, is the discipline that matters.
Diversification
From a portfolio perspective, Europe also offers useful diversification at a time when global equity exposure has become increasingly concentrated in a small number of US and Asian technology/AI names.
The European market is less concentrated, less dependent on the AI mega-cap trade, and still offers exposure to important structural themes such as electrification, semiconductor equipment, energy infrastructure and normalised banking profitability.
Tech dominates key markets – Europe is different
North America and Emerging Markets carry similarly elevated technology weights; Europe materially lower
Sector composition: IT & Interactive Media & Services vs Other
Key markets highly concentrated – Europe is different
Concentration is high and tech-led
Top-5 holdings dominate key market Indices and are overwhelmingly technology names; Europe is more diversified
| MSCI North America | MSCI World | MSCI Emerging Markets | MSCI Asia ex Japan | MSCI Europe |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA 7.6% | NVIDIA 5.8% | TSMC 15.6% | TSMC 17.4% | ASML 5.1% |
| Apple 7.1% | Apple 5.4% | Samsung 7.5% | Samsung 8.4% | HSBC 2.5% |
| Microsoft 5.3% | Microsoft 4.0% | SK hynix 5.9% | SK hynix 6.6% | Roche 2.1% |
| Amazon 3.5% | Amazon 2.7% | Tencent 2.7% | Tencent 3.1% | Shell 2.0% |
| Alphabet 2.9% | Alphabet 2.2% | Alibaba 1.9% | Alibaba 2.1% | Novartis 1.9% |
| Top 5 total 26.4% | Top 5 total 20.1% | Top 5 total 33.6% | Top 5 total 37.6% | Top 5 total 13.6% |
Boldened names are Information Technology and Interactive Media & Services companies.
Company examples are for illustrative purposes only and are not a recommendation to buy or sell.
Source: Bloomberg, as at 30.09.26.
Marketing communication. This document is intended for investment professionals and is not for the use or benefit of other persons, including retail investors.
Original source: Endowus. Reproduced with permission.
This article was originally published by Endowus and has been reproduced with permission. The original article is available here: European equities: a global diversifier | Endowus SG
Footnotes
1‘US Securities & Exchange Commission Form 20-F 2025’, Novartis
2 Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Volume 22, No.3, September 1987. “How Many Stocks Make a Diversified Portfolio” - Meir Statman.
3‘The science industries: driver for Swiss exports’, Swiss Biotech
.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/cq5dam.web.1280.1280.jpeg)
La fuerza del pensamiento activo: juicios independientes
Un rasgo clave del enfoque de inversión de Jupiter es que evitamos adoptar una «visión de la compañía»; en lugar de eso, preferimos dejar que nuestros gestores formulen sus propios juicios sobre la clase de activos en la que invierten. Por ello, es preciso señalar que las opiniones expresadas, incluidas las referidas a cuestiones medioambientales, sociales y de gobierno corporativo, pertenecen al autor o autores y podrían diferir de las que mantienen otros profesionales de la inversión de Jupiter
Important information
The Fund has not been registered under the United States Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, nor the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended. None of the shares may be offered or sold, directly or indirectly in the United States or to any US Person, unless the securities are registered under the Act, or an exemption from the registration requirements of the Act is available. A US Person is defined as (a) any individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States for federal income tax purposes; (b) a corporation, partnership or other entity created or organized under the laws of or existing in the United States; (c) an estate or trust the income of which is subject to United States federal income tax regardless of whether such income is effectively connected with a United States trade or business.