us-business

Will U.S. government investment in tech slow the gears of innovation? getty Recently, Intel announced an agreement with the United States government. Under terms of the agreement, the U.S.government will make an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock. When discussing the U.S. government’s direct ownership stake in a public company, one encounters a complex and potentially perilous set of realities. On the surface, it might sound like a stabilizing force — after all, the government could be seen as a partner, backstop, or protector for a strategically important business. However, if history teaches us anything, it’s that when governments directly intervene in competitive technology markets, unintended consequences almost always follow. The Washington Post has an article titled, “The Government’s Intel Stake is antithetical to American greatness.” The New York Times reported that “The deal could face a challenge from shareholders or others concerned about its legality. The CHIPS Act may not allow the U.S. government to convert grants into equity, lawyers and bankers who have studied the law said.” Although some CEOs, such as Satya Nadella of Microsoft, highlighted the benefits to the country and the broader technology ecosystem, others, like Michael Dell of Dell Technologies, emphasized the need for a robust U.S. semiconductor industry. However, several other CEOs I spoke with — who requested anonymity — expressed serious reservations, with some outright rejecting the deal. They feared it would set a dangerous precedent, allowing government intervention in tech companies’ operations and potentially restricting their ability to innovate freely. The deal has also drawn criticism from analysts and commentators. Concerns include the potential for harm to Intel’s international sales, as the company itself noted in a regulatory filing, given that a significant portion of its revenue comes from outside the U.S. Critics have also questioned the risk of government favoritism towards Intel and view the deal as an unprecedented intervention in the economy. Some analysts have pointed out that the investment, made at a discount, appears to favor government interests over those of shareholders. The reality is that a government stakeholder distorts fair competition. Public companies thrive when markets dictate their success. If Washington D.C. owns a slice, the perception — and sometimes the reality — is that this company now has a privileged position. Competitors, whether domestic or international, suddenly view the market as rigged. This risks slowing industry innovation, as rivals may reduce investment if they feel the playing field is permanently tilted. This also creates conflicts of interest between public shareholders and government priorities. Shareholders want growth, efficiency, and profitability. Governments, however, are motivated by national security, political agendas, or regional job protection. Suddenly, business decisions are no longer purely strategic — they’re political. That tension can compromise product roadmaps, R&D investments, and long-term competitiveness in favor of short‑term political wins. This one scares me the most. Influencing companies to design for political gain is counterintuitive to any tech company’s visions and goals. There is also a chilling effect on global business relationships. Today’s tech companies are profoundly globalized — in their supply chains, sales, and partnerships. If a foreign partner views the U.S. government as a co-owner of a rival tech company, they may be hesitant to engage, fearing political leverage or hidden agendas. In an era of fragile geopolitics, this could weaken a company’s position internationally. The most dangerous element, though, is the precedent. If we normalize federal ownership in publicly traded firms, we are telling the market that private risk and innovation are no longer the ultimate drivers of progress — political interests are. In the long run, that undermines the very spirit of entrepreneurial capitalism that made American tech dominant in the first place. Technology flourishes most when agility, creativity, and competitive forces are allowed to run free. The government’s role should be to create guardrails — such as infrastructure, regulation, and policy frameworks — rather than to sit in the driver’s seat of competitive business. Once those lines blur, the cost to innovation, trust, and global competitiveness can be profound. Disclosure: Intel, Microsoft and Dell subscribe to Creative Strategies research reports along with many other high tech companies around the world. Read More

Jamel Toppin for Forbes Did you catch my latest story on Uncle Nearest founder Fawn Weaver fighting for control of her Tennessee whiskey brand? A federal judge placed it under receivership earlier this month over defaulting on $108 million in loans, which gives an independent individual the legal power to make sure Uncle Nearest’s creditor Farm Credit Mid-America, a cooperative bank, gets repaid, which could include selling assets like real estate or through restructuring. Founded in 2017 by Weaver, Uncle Nearest was created to celebrate the formerly enslaved Nearest Green, who taught Jack Daniel how to make whiskey. The decision has created a major crossroads for the 8-year-old business, which Weaver had intended to bequeath to the descendants of Green. My story includes details from Uncle Nearest’s 2024 annual report as well as its 2024 consolidated financial statements, which I obtained. Readers have found the details illuminating as many clamor for more information as to what’s going to happen to Uncle Nearest. JAMEL TOPPIN FOR FORBES In an Instagram post, Weaver, who is under a gag order, said the team remains “unshaken and unmoved” by the lawsuit: “I’m a steady leader. Unflappable. This is a blip on the radar. What we’re building is so much bigger than the current news cycle—so don’t be concerned or dissuaded,” she wrote. “Distributors and partners often buckle under this kind of news cycle. Ours are doubling down—because you’re standing 10 toes down with us.” In legal filings, she and her husband Keith have called the allegations “lies.” I had previously written about Weaver in a magazine story for Forbes’ 2024 edition of America’s Richest Self-Made Women list. Weaver debuted with a net worth of $480 million, thanks to an Uncle Nearest valuation of $1.1 billion. In that profile, she made her ambitions for the distillery clear, even as critics warned that she was expanding too fast. “I’m going to build it large as hell,” she said of Uncle Nearest. “When I pass it on, I don’t want it to be a $10 billion company. I want it to be a $50 billion company.” But as the brand’s financials weakened along with the spirits market downturn, Weaver did not make the 2025 list. Weaver has “shed light on a story that has helped us seek a more complete history of distilling’s legacy,” Drew Hannush, the author of The Lost History of Tennessee Whiskey, told me. “She is a force of nature. I just think she had some things get in her blind spot. Hopefully she can course correct,” he added. “She has been very out front about getting that story to the public, and so if you lose that voice, I don’t know how it survives without her as the face of the brand.” And since my story was published, there’s more that has transpired: The judge ruled against Uncle Nearest and the Weavers, who asked to start settlement mediation, and instead decided that the receivership would continue. The judge also appointed a receiver, and chose the suggestion of Uncle Nearest, not the bank’s. We’ll find out more soon, and I’ll share the news with you as soon as I have it: I know there are a lot of readers out there who care about what happens to Uncle Nearest. In the meantime, I’m wishing you a relaxing Labor Day Weekend! — Chloe Sorvino This is Forbes’ Fresh Take newsletter, which every Wednesday brings you the latest on the big ideas changing the future of food. Want to get it in your inbox every week? Sign up here. Featured Story Former Whiskey Unicorn Uncle Nearest Is Struggling To Survive After Defaulting On $108 Million In Loans Jamel Toppin for Forbes Founder Fawn Weaver may lose control of her cult Tennessee whiskey distillery after a judge mandates a receivership—unless a white knight investor bails her out. The Feed People shop at a grocery store in Brooklyn on May 13, 2025 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images The Case For Public Grocers: In this Civil Eats op-ed by Raj Patel and Errol Schweizer, the case is made for public grocery stores—not as an ephemeral progressive concept, but as a model that’s already working well in many places, including every branch of the military. These public grocers serve an estimated 1 million Americans daily, with prices discounted often as much as 30% compared to conventional retail. And as someone who shops at the publicly subsidized Essex Market (to fill in from what I get from my CSA) in New York City’s Lower East Side, I can personally attest to the access and food security that this market provides me and my neighbors. “Government-run, nonprofit grocery systems can better respond to food-price inflation, corporate consolidation, and inequality.” Patel and Schweizer conclude: “If the private market cannot or will not deliver affordable, nutritious food to all its citizens—and it has proven that it won’t—then the public sector must.” Supporters of the Make America Healthy Again movement are seen at a news conference on removing synthetic dyes from America’s food supply, in Washington, D.C. on April 22, 2025. Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images Food Dyes Watch: Then there’s this deep dive from the Wall Street Journal on Ferrero’s $3.1 billion acquisition of Kellogg, and how, according to public filings, after assessing Kellogg’s financial and political MAHA-related issues, Ferrero cut its deal offer by about $75 million. As Jesse Newman and Owen Tucker-Smith write: “Executives at big processed-food makers are trying to determine how much of what Kennedy and MAHA want will actually happen … Their challenge is to balance his push for what he sees as healthier food with their need to make products that consumers will buy. Some companies have assembled special teams to navigate MAHA, drawing up lists and ‘heat maps’ to track ingredients coming under scrutiny, and assessing which ones they might have to remove or label. Executives have compared dealing with MAHA to battling the mythical Hydra—cut off one head and two more spring up.”

Alien: Earth Credit: Hulu Alien: Earth continues to be a show I wish I loved, but keep having a hard time enjoying. The show’s production value remains (mostly) quite good, and a few of the performances are spellbinding. Babou Ceesay’s Morrow is a gripping antagonist. Timothy Olyphant’s Kirsh is a captivating synth whose motivations remain unclear. But the extended Peter Pan metaphor drags the whole thing down. If it had been a subtle parallel that audiences had to work out on their own, it could have been quite brilliant. Instead, the whole thing is shoved in our faces relentlessly. Most of the Peter Pan characters are even given those character’s names. Wendy, Nibs, Curly, Slightly, Toodles, Smee. Morrow is very obviously Captain Hook and Boy Kavalier, the techbro “genius who isn’t actually all that smart”, is quite obviously Peter Pan himself. They live on a research island called Neverland. Kavalier reads from the book, either to the children-in-adult-synth-bodies called the Lost Boys, or to record an audio book. Kirsh is outside the fold, as are the various scientists and other adults at the facility; Arthur Sylvia and his wife, Dame Sylvia; Atom Eins, Kavalier’s advisor; the various guards. Are they pirates? Or do you have to be on Morrow’s side to be a pirate? But the only adults in Peter Pan are pirates, so . . . Much of the tension the show tries to create is undermined by this Peter Pan framing and by the goofiness of the kids in adult bodies. Watching adults behave like children is inherently unserious. The lack of basic safeguards on these hybrids is also perplexing. Morrow continues to manipulate Slightly and even though Kirsh ends up listening in, he doesn’t inform Boy Kavalier or Prodigy security. One would think that some basic security protocols would be in place beyond a synth playing detective. Do they really not have security monitoring everything these kids do and say? Alien: Earth Credit: Hulu Then there’s Nibs, who we saw going a bit crazy last week and who has now decided she’s pregnant. She’ll hear nothing to the contrary, and grows increasingly angry during her conversation with Dame Sylvia. At one point, she snaps and leaps over the coffee table, grabbing the older woman by the throat. If this were Westworld, Dame could just say “Cease motor functions” or some other code word to stop her, but they have no safeguards built in here at all. She has to surreptitiously call for security, and even then only two guards show up. Given her super speed and super strength, I think Nibs would make short work of the pair. We can handwave this all away by pointing out that Boy “Peter Pan” Kavalier isn’t actually that smart at all. He sent his wildly expensive hybrids into a dangerous situation without care. He brought back extremely dangerous alien specimens and has barely done anything to keep them locked down. And he misatributes a quote by Arthur C. Clarke to Isaac Asimov at one point: “Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic,” he tells Wendy when urging her to use her newfound ability to hear the aliens to reproduce their speech at a frequency the rest of them can hear. (It’s surely no accident that the scientist protesting Kavalier’s actions is named Arthur, a fitting pairing to Toodles choosing to ditch his “code name” in favor of Isaac). But Boy Kavalier being a parody of the “tech bro” stereotype is not a very interesting or compelling characterization. If anything, it’s too on-the-nose. It’s also incoherent. At times, Kavalier is played as a type of Willy Wonka figure, but without any of Wonka’s cleverness. Besides, in a world where five corporations rule everything, a single CEO would have built a massive bureaucratic structure around himself. There would be security measures in place regardless. The problem here is they’re trying to make Neverland feel a bit like Jurassic Park, but it’s not. Prodigy, unlike John Hammond’s InGen, is a vast and powerful corporation. Then there is the sheep that the eyeball alien possesses. Here, the show abandons both its grasp of subtlety and its special effects acumen. The CGI during this scene was laughably bad, and completely ruined the moment for me. What could have been a really terrifying and unsettling scene, especially as the dead-eyed sheep stares ominously back at them, becomes just another goofy moment. A better scene takes place later, when Wendy and the newly hatched Xenomorph snake baby chitter back and forth to one another. Alien: Earth Credit: Hulu I continue to find most of the scenes involving Wendy and her brother, Joe Hermit, quite dull. He’s basically just a plot device at this point, a bargaining chip for Kavalier and Kirsh to use with Wendy. Wendy herself is a mildly interesting protagonist, but she seems less like a real character to me and more like a plot vessel. She’s the Chosen One, but perhaps a corruptible one now that she seems to have taken a liking to the aliens. In a TV landscape that produced Westworld’s Dolores, I’m having a hard time really latching onto Wendy as a hero to root for. So it is Kirsh and Morrow who continue to hold my attention. And the cinematography. There are some really cool moments in Episode 4 where scenes rapidly crossfade between one another, revealing just how much Kirsh is watching and listening in on what everyone is doing. The problem I’m having is that I want to like all of this but I just can’t bring myself to really get invested in the story. There’s some cool setup going on, some really palpable tension between Kirsh and Boy Kavalier, and it’s keeping me invested enough in the story to keep watching, but I’m constantly thrown out off by the Lost Boy stuff and the preposterousness of it all. Morrow should not have this easy a time at infiltrating Prodigy vis-a-vis naive children. Dame Sylvia should

CDC Director Susan Monarez Ousted From Role Less Than A Month After Appointment Pequeño is a breaking news reporter who covers tech and more. Aug 27, 2025, 06:03pm EDT Topline Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez is out as the health agency’s leader, the Health and Human Services Department said Wednesday, just weeks after she was sworn in. The HHS announced Monarez’s removal Wednesday evening. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images) Getty Images Key Facts The HHS said Monarez is “no longer” the CDC’s director, thanking her for her “dedicated service to the American people.” This is a developing story. Check back for updates. LOADING VIDEO PLAYER… FORBES’ FEATURED Video Read More

Topline Cracker Barrel will return to its “Old Timer” logo, the American restaurant chain announced Tuesday, reverting to the previous logo after a minimalist redesign received widespread backlash, including from President Donald Trump. Cracker Barrel announced it would move on from its traditional logo last week. (Photo by Paul Weaver/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Key Facts Cracker Barrel thanked customers in a tweet for providing opinions on its new logo, adding, “We said we would listen, and we have. Our new logo is going away and our ‘Old Timer’ will remain.” Cracker Barrel added its restaurants are “about serving up delicious food, warm welcomes, and the kind of country hospitality that feels like family,” touching on the Southern feel critics accused it of abandoning with its new logo. The company’s new logo solely featured its name and removed the old logo’s barrel and Uncle Herschel, the man leaning on the barrel, who was set to continue being featured in menus and Cracker Barrel stores despite the change, according to the chain. Cracker Barrel’s return to its old logo comes after days of backlash from critics and just hours after Trump said it “should go back to the old logo” and “admit a mistake based on customer response (the ultimate Poll).” Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We’re launching text message alerts so you’ll always know the biggest stories shaping the day’s headlines. Text “Alerts” to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here. Crucial Quote “Congratulations ‘Cracker Barrel’ on changing your logo back to what it was. All of your fans very much appreciate it,” Trump said in a Truth Social post Tuesday, encouraging the company to “Make lots of money and, most importantly, make your customers happy again!” Trump earlier in the day said “They got a Billion Dollars worth of free publicity if they play their cards right. Very tricky to do, but a great opportunity.” How Did Cracker Barrel’s Stock React? Cracker Barrel shares boomed 5.7% in after-hours trading Tuesday. The stock price dropped more than 7% last Thursday as the backlash intensified into a cultural flashpoint, though the redesign announcement had been made two days earlier. Key Background Cracker Barrel said when revealing its new logo it was “rooted even more closely to the iconic barrel shape and word mark that started it all,” referring to the company’s original text-only brand from 1969. Right-wing figures like Donald Trump Jr. and lawyer Rogan O’Handley blasted the new logo, with the president’s son agreeing with a post from another user who said Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Felss Masino “scrapped a beloved American aesthetic and replaced it with sterile, soulless branding.” Cracker Barrel, which is in the process of remodeling some locations with more modern aesthetics, initially defended its decision to change the logo, saying it was a “call-back to the original” and Uncle Herschel “remains front and center in our restaurants and on our menu.” Further Reading Trump Says Cracker Barrel Should ‘Go Back To The Old Logo’ As Company Rebrand Sparks Backlash (Forbes) Read More

Leading teams An executive’s guide on developing the talent who will secure your company’s success. by Rachel DuRose August 27, 2025 Beth Goody Summary.    Leer en españolLer em português Post When Target announced in August 2025 that COO Michael Fiddelke would assume the company’s top spot in early 2026, attention quickly turned to his remarkable journey with the retail giant. Over two decades at Target, Fiddelke climbed from finance intern to the C-suite.   Read more on Leading teams or related topics Employee retention, High potential employees, Leadership and managing people and Leadership development Post Read more on Leading teams or related topics Employee retention, High potential employees, Leadership and managing people and Leadership development Read More

Generative AI by Elisa Farri and Gabriele Rosani August 27, 2025 HBR Staff/VioletaStoimenova/Getty Images Post Summary.    Leer en españolLer em português Post We were recently invited to a workshop on AI strategy, led by the company’s head of AI—let’s call him Marc. The session brought together members of the organization’s internal AI community to discuss the AI strategic priorities. Everyone in the room was well-versed in AI, and the day was filled with discussions, brainstorming, and planning. Post Read more on Generative AI or related topics Collaboration and teams, Meeting management, Teams and AI and machine learning Read More

August 27, 2025 Mark Mortensen, a professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD, discusses the research on “multiteaming”—when employees work not only across multiple projects, but multiple teams. It has significant benefits at the individual, team, and organizational levels. Among them: multiteaming saves money. The cost—stretched employees—is hard to see. And that is where the tension, and the risk, lies. Mortensen is the co-author, with Heidi K. Gardner, of “The Overcommitted Organization” in the September–October 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review. Key episode topics include: collaboration and teams, leading teams, business management, organizational restructuring Listen to the original HBR IdeaCast episode: How to Fix “Team Creep” Find more episodes of HBR IdeaCast Discover 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles, case studies, podcasts, and more at hbr.org Read More

And where does Elon Musk come in? EchoStar (NASDAQ: SATS) landed on a lot of investors’ radars on Tuesday after the satellite communications stock skyrocketed almost 75%. The catalyst for the huge jump, that saw the stock price go from about $30 per share at Monday’s close to around $52 per share on Tuesday afternoon, was a deal it made with AT&T (NYSE:T). EchoStar may not be all that familiar, but its brands are. The company owns Hughesnet satellite internet, Dish Network satellite TV and Sling TV, and Boost Mobile phone service. In this deal with AT&T, it sold 50 MHz of nationwide spectrum to AT&T for approximately $23 billion. Spectrum is basically the wireless airwaves that the company uses for its wireless phone brand, Boost Mobile. The deal is a relief for investors, and an opportunity, as it provides EchoStar with some much-needed cash to pay down some of its $30 billion in debt. EchoStar has a debt-to-equity ratio of 159%, which suggests that its growth is being funded mostly by debt. But perhaps even more importantly, the deal helps satisfy concerns by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). No more trouble with the FCC The FCC has been concerned with EchoStar for not fully deploying its spectrum to build out its 5G network. In May, according to Fierce Network, the FCC launched an investigation into EchoStar and why it hasn’t used all of its spectrum. Elon Musk, the owner of Starlink, an EchoStar rival, had complained to the FCC about EchoStar not using its spectrum to meet the FCC’s buildout requirements, according to Fierce. So, this sale of spectrum licenses to AT&T should help to resolve the FCC’s concerns. “EchoStar and Boost Mobile have met all of the FCC’s network buildout milestones,” Charlie Ergen, co-founder and chairman at EchoStar, said. “However, this spectrum sale to AT&T and hybrid MNO agreement are critical steps toward resolving the FCC’s spectrum utilization concerns.” EchoStar and AT&T create hybrid network As part of the deal, EchoStar and AT&T are creating a hybrid mobile network operator (MNO) relationship.  Through this hybrid MNO infrastructure, Boost Mobile subscribers will continue to receive service from the company’s cloud-native 5G core connected to AT&T’s nationwide network. In addition, while primary connectivity will be provided by AT&T, Boost Mobile subscribers will continue to have access to the T-Mobile network. Further, the company will begin decommissioning elements of its own radio access network (RAN). But customers will see no service interruptions. “This transaction puts our business on a solid financial path, further facilitating EchoStar’s long-term success, and enhancing our ability to innovate and compete as a hybrid network operator,” Hamid Akhavan, CEO and president of EchoStar, said. The proceeds from the deal will be used to pay off debt and fund EchoStar’s operations and growth initiatives. Akhavan added that the company will continue to evaluate strategic opportunities for its remaining spectrum portfolio. EchoStar stock is up 123% year-to-date. But it has a median price target of $28, which suggests a 45% decline. However, I would expect to see price target upgrades after this deal. This looks like a great deal for EchoStar on several levels, but after a 75% surge in stock price, it might be best to let the dust settle a bit before considering a buy. VALUEWALK LLC is not a registered or licensed investment advisor in any jurisdiction. Nothing on this website or related properties should be considered personalized investments advice. Any investments recommended here in should be made only after consulting with your personal investment advisor and only after performing your own research and due diligence, including reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the issuer of any security. VALUEWALK LLC, its managers, its employees, affiliates and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about the advice provided on this website or what is otherwise advertised above. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. The Company disclaims any liability in the event any information, commentary, analysis, opinions, advice and/or recommendations provided herein prove to be inaccurate, incomplete or unreliable, or result in any investment or other losses. Read More

Swiss Central Bank (SNB) Vice Chairman Antoine Martin said on Wednesday that the bar is higher for the central bank to move interest rates into negative territory than it would be to cut rates if they were still above zero, Reuters reported on Wednesday.  Forex market interventions may be necessary to ensure price stability.Current Swiss franc value is more down to Dollar being weak than stronger Franc.The bar for taking rates into negative territory is higher than it is for cutting rates when above zero.Past experience shows negative rates have worked.However, they create more challenges for banks, investors, households.We don’t see risk of deflationary developments.Inflation dynamics in Switzerland should not be dramatically disrupted by recent dollar movements.We currently have no reason to increase or reduce gold holdings.Bitcoin does not meet our criteria for assets. Swiss Franc FAQs The Swiss Franc (CHF) is Switzerland’s official currency. It is among the top ten most traded currencies globally, reaching volumes that well exceed the size of the Swiss economy. Its value is determined by the broad market sentiment, the country’s economic health or action taken by the Swiss National Bank (SNB), among other factors. Between 2011 and 2015, the Swiss Franc was pegged to the Euro (EUR). The peg was abruptly removed, resulting in a more than 20% increase in the Franc’s value, causing a turmoil in markets. Even though the peg isn’t in force anymore, CHF fortunes tend to be highly correlated with the Euro ones due to the high dependency of the Swiss economy on the neighboring Eurozone. The Swiss Franc (CHF) is considered a safe-haven asset, or a currency that investors tend to buy in times of market stress. This is due to the perceived status of Switzerland in the world: a stable economy, a strong export sector, big central bank reserves or a longstanding political stance towards neutrality in global conflicts make the country’s currency a good choice for investors fleeing from risks. Turbulent times are likely to strengthen CHF value against other currencies that are seen as more risky to invest in. The Swiss National Bank (SNB) meets four times a year – once every quarter, less than other major central banks – to decide on monetary policy. The bank aims for an annual inflation rate of less than 2%. When inflation is above target or forecasted to be above target in the foreseeable future, the bank will attempt to tame price growth by raising its policy rate. Higher interest rates are generally positive for the Swiss Franc (CHF) as they lead to higher yields, making the country a more attractive place for investors. On the contrary, lower interest rates tend to weaken CHF. Macroeconomic data releases in Switzerland are key to assessing the state of the economy and can impact the Swiss Franc’s (CHF) valuation. The Swiss economy is broadly stable, but any sudden change in economic growth, inflation, current account or the central bank’s currency reserves have the potential to trigger moves in CHF. Generally, high economic growth, low unemployment and high confidence are good for CHF. Conversely, if economic data points to weakening momentum, CHF is likely to depreciate. As a small and open economy, Switzerland is heavily dependent on the health of the neighboring Eurozone economies. The broader European Union is Switzerland’s main economic partner and a key political ally, so macroeconomic and monetary policy stability in the Eurozone is essential for Switzerland and, thus, for the Swiss Franc (CHF). With such dependency, some models suggest that the correlation between the fortunes of the Euro (EUR) and the CHF is more than 90%, or close to perfect. Read More