By Morten Suhr Hansen
If you had invested broadly in global markets at the beginning of 2024 and held your position through the end of 2025, you would have achieved a total return of around 45%.
If, instead, you had placed your money in Denmark’s C25 index? Your return would have been roughly zero. This is not a marginal difference. It is a structural gap.
The explanations are familiar when you ask Danish equity analysts: sector composition, concentration in a few large stocks, dependence on Novo, headwinds at Ørsted, global uncertainty. All true.
But one dimension is rarely mentioned in the Danish debate: the absence of large subscription businesses.
Capital markets have fallen in love with recurring revenue
Looking at the world’s 10 largest companies by market value, most today are fundamentally subscription-based or heavily driven by recurring revenue: Microsoft. Apple. Alphabet. Amazon. Meta. Even Nvidia is moving toward software, platforms, and AI ecosystems with ongoing revenue streams.
This is no coincidence. Capital markets reward:
- Predictability
- Scalability
- Lifetime value
- Ecosystems
- Continuous value creation
In other words: relationships over transactions.
When earnings become recurring, the quality of cash flow improves. When customers remain in the ecosystem, valuation multiples increase. When LTV/CAC aligns, growth becomes more valuable. This is subscription economics translated into capital market logic.
So what about Denmark?
There is not a single pure-play global subscription company in the C25. Yes, we have banks and insurance with recurring elements. But we lack global platforms built on membership, ecosystems, and continuous value creation.
Denmark is strong in industry, pharma, energy, and shipping. World-class in many areas. But largely built on product and project logic. Transactional value creation. That makes us vulnerable.
When cycles turn and individual projects are hit, the impact flows directly into the index.
The situation contrasts sharply with what we see across the Øresund. Last week, Sweden’s Spotify delivered strong Q4 results for 2025. The stock rose more than 20% in a single day. This was not just a good quarter. It was proof of a well-oiled company with strong, stable subscriber growth and expanding profitability.
Spotify is not a streaming brand. It is a subscription engine. And the market reacts instantly when that engine performs.
These are precisely the types of companies that have lifted global indices in recent years.
Could the C25 think differently?
Let’s take three examples from the C25 – not as criticism, but as perspective:
1. Vestas
What if wind turbines were increasingly delivered as performance-as-a-service? Energy output, uptime, and optimization as a subscription rather than primarily capex sales. More data. More software. More relationship.
2. Maersk
Already in motion. From shipping to an integrated logistics platform. The question is how far the model can be extended toward subscription-based supply chain solutions, where customers buy access — not just container space.
3. Coloplast
A strong product company. But what if the company leaned further into patient relationships, services, data, and memberships around the full treatment journey? Less product — more lifetime relationship.
The point is not that everyone should become Spotify. The point is that relational revenue creates resilience.
Subscription is not a trend
I have said it before, but it bears repeating:
- Subscription is not a marketing discipline.
- Subscription is not a pricing model.
- Subscription is not a digital gimmick.
It is a structural way of organizing value creation.
And the capital markets have already voted. When the C25 lags behind global markets, it is not only about macro cycles. It is about how we build companies.
Denmark has the talent. We have the technology. We have global experience.
But we still lack the first Danish global subscription giant in the C25.
The question is not whether it will emerge. The question is: who will dare to build it?
