Christine Lagarde said to have discussed leaving ECB early to head WEF
Christine Lagarde
has discussed cutting short her term as
European Central Bank (ECB)
president to become chair of the
World Economic Forum (WEF)
, according to WEF founder
Klaus Schwab
.
Schwab, who left the WEF last month following misconduct allegations that he denies, said that practical arrangements – such as an apartment in Switzerland – had been made for Lagarde to take over the organisation before her tenure at the ECB ends in 2027.
Any move by Lagarde to accelerate her departure from the ECB could trigger a succession race for the EU's top monetary authority.
Schwab said Lagarde had been at the centre of a plan both had discussed for 'several years' for her to replace him as head of the WEF, the body behind the annual meetings of the business and political elite at the Swiss ski resort of Davos.
READ MORE
The latest conversation was in early April, when Schwab visited Lagarde in Frankfurt 'to discuss with her the leadership transition [at WEF] with myself remaining chair until she was ready to take over, at the latest, early 2027', he said in an interview.
Lagarde, who has been on the WEF board of trustees since 2008, has a non-renewable eight-year term at the ECB which runs until the end of October 2027.
Two people familiar with the matter referred to a mutual understanding about the timeline between both sides, which would have required Lagarde to leave at least 10 months before her term ends.
One of them said she had agreed to take on the role on the proviso she could first bring inflation in line with the ECB's medium-term 2 per cent target. But they added that Lagarde also expressed some reservations about her ability to leave the ECB early at various points during the conversations about her future.
An ECB spokesperson said: 'President Lagarde has always been fully committed to deliver on her mission and is determined to complete her term.' The spokesperson declined to comment further.
The WEF said it was 'not in any position to comment on possible confidential discussions that may have taken place between our former chairman and Madame Lagarde'.
The 69-year-old former IMF managing director and French finance minister would be the second ECB president after Wim Duisenberg to leave the Frankfurt-based institution early.
The ECB presidency, one of the highest-profile financial jobs in Europe, has historically been subject to high-stakes political bargaining between individual member states.
Schwab told the FT that an apartment in the WEF-owned Villa Mundi overlooking Lake Geneva had already been reserved for Lagarde, to give her 'somewhere to work as she took on more responsibilities and needed to be here'.
Responding to claims by a whistleblower that his family had made private use of parts of the Villa Mundi complex, he added that the apartment was not for him but Lagarde.
The WEF described his comments on the apartment as 'new information to us', adding that Villa Mundi was 'now being used by our staff and constituents'.
Several people familiar with the WEF succession cautioned that no formal agreement between the Geneva-based institution and Lagarde had yet been struck.
But two people with knowledge of discussions said the conversations between Lagarde and the forum about a leadership role had continued since Schwab's departure.
The 87-year-old said in early April he intended to step down as chair of the board of WEF trustees in January 2027. But he was forced out by the WEF board only weeks later, after the anonymous whistleblower made a series of allegations including that he and his family received inappropriate financial benefits from the organisation.
Schwab had been cleared of other misconduct allegations just weeks before the new complaint landed and has also rejected the latest allegations.
The WEF founder told the FT that he was concerned that the long-planned handover to Lagarde might be jeopardised, because of his own early departure last month and potential damage to the institution's reputation.
'My fear is that if this continues and hangs over the organisation without a solution, Christine Lagarde will not take up the position as chair,' he said. 'I don't want to lose her. I want to make sure what has been built here ... is not destroyed.'
The WEF, which has appointed former Nestlé chief Peter Brabeck-Letmathe as an interim chair, countered that it 'continues to operate from a position of strength', adding that it had record participation in recent events.
Davos has become a set-piece event for chief executives and heads of government and a moneymaking machine, with 440 million Swiss francs in revenue in 2024.
Lagarde could expect a doubling of her annual salary, which last year stood at €466,000, compared with about 1 million Swiss francs that Schwab made.
Since taking office at the ECB in 2019, she has steered the central bank through Covid-19 and a once-in-a-generation surge in inflation that followed pandemic lockdowns and Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Price rises have since come back under control, with Eurozone inflation remaining at 2.2 per cent last month and ECB staff forecasting it will return to target next year. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
Polls open in Poland for close-fought presidential election
Polls have opened in Poland for the second round of the presidential election, with the two candidates offering radically different visions for the country locked in a dead heat. The race pits the pro-European Warsaw mayor, Rafał Trzaskowski, backed by Donald Tusk 's politically-diverse governing coalition, against the historian and former amateur boxer Karol Nawrocki, endorsed by the populist-right Law and Justice (PiS) party that governed the country between 2015 and 2023. While the role of the Polish president is largely ceremonial, it carries some influence over foreign and defence policy and a critical power to veto new legislation. This can only be overturned with a majority of three-fifths in parliament, which the current government does not have. At stake is whether Tusk's government will be able to make progress on its electoral promises on the rule of law and social issues, including abortion and LGBTQ rights, after 18 months of difficult cohabitation with the opposition president, Andrzej Duda. READ MORE A Nawrocki win would prolong the current deadlock, making it difficult for the government to pass any major reforms before the 2027 parliamentary election. Prof Aleks Szczerbiak, who teaches east and central European politics at the University of Sussex, said: 'Tusk knows the stakes and that if Nawrocki wins, he's got a lame-duck administration for the next couple of years. And it will be worse than with Duda as Nawrocki will come in fresh, with a new mandate from what effectively turned into a referendum on the government.' In the final days of the campaign, both candidates sought to court voters of candidates knocked out in the first round and mobilise their supporters, with analysts stressing that less than 200,000 votes could decide the outcome of the race. Polls showed the difference between the two candidates to be within the margin of error, making it the closest election in Poland's post-1989 history. On Friday night, the country went into electoral silence, which forbids further campaigning and new polls. This left voters with little more than 24 hours to reflect on a brutal and polarising campaign. Trzaskowski, the Oxford-educated Warsaw mayor since 2018 who previously held ministerial posts and served in the European parliament, sought to project himself as a safe pair of hands to work with the government on implementing progressive reforms. However, his campaign faced difficulties because of close links to the unpopular Tusk government. He also had to defend himself against suggestions he is out-of-touch and elitist, and against allegations about foreign funding for online advertising promoting his candidacy. In turn, Nawrocki is new to politics. Since 2021, he has led the Institute of National Remembrance, a state research institute with public prosecution powers investigating historical crimes against Poland. Formally an independent but endorsed by PiS, he offers a new face to the party which is burdened by the polarising legacy of its eight years in power. He received public support from the US president, Donald Trump, and members of his administration, as well as the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán. But his campaign was beset with allegations of impropriety related to his past, including questions over his acquisition of an apartment from an older man and his admission that he took part in an organised fight between 140 football hooligans in his youth. A win for Nawrocki could also alter Poland's supportive position toward Ukraine. He repeatedly spoke about the difficult history between the two nations and declared his opposition to Ukrainian membership in Nato. The polls will close at 9pm local time (8pm in Ireland), with exit polls to follow. However, the race is expected to be too close to call, with the focus shifting to late polls and official results dripping in overnight. -Guardian
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
My mother's plan to leave her house to my sister and I could create more problems than solutions
My mother's will currently leaves her home equally to my sister and I. My mother has minimal alternative assets. My sister lives with my mum. I am wondering if the home is left jointly to myself and my sister and my sister buys me out, will she be liable for CAT on her portion of the inheritance? it is unlikely for my sister to be able to raise the funds to cover the market value of 50 per cent of the property . Although I myself have a sizeable mortgage and significant dependents, it is not in my interest to see my sister and her children homeless . Furthermore I have doubts on how practical it would be for my sister to vacate the property if it was needed to be sold to execute the will. READ MORE I am concerned that I end up with a large liability from an asset that, in reality, I have no access to or ability to sell. Is it possible to say during the probate period that I don't want 50 per cent of the property, can I just have 25 per cent, and if so what are the tax implications? Ms BW Families are complicated things – deeply intertwined, generally emotionally interdependent and, for all the familiarity, inevitably unique one from the other in subtle ways. And that's very much how it is here. Your mother's home is more or less the sum total of what she will leave behind and she is understandably keen that it should be shared between her two children. The fact that your sister lives there with her own family is, somewhat depressingly, no longer as unusual as we would like to think it should be. Bad luck in love, in business or in life means many of us are not as independent as we would have expected to be well into our adult lives. But it does certainly complicate things. There seem to be two distinct issues here – the initial inheritance and then how you two can find a workable solution. As of now, a person can receive an inheritance of up to €400,000 from their parents. Assuming neither of you inherited from your father or benefited from a valuable financial or other gift – something over the value of €3,000 in any one year – then you have the full inheritance tax-free limit to play with. So, as long as your mother's property is not worth more than €800,000, there should be no question of capital acquisitions tax (CAT), better known as inheritance tax, for either of you. [ Inheritance tax: How to avoid leaving your loved ones with a hefty bill Opens in new window ] If it is worth more than that, however, then you will have a tax liability – 33 per cent of anything above your personal limit. So if the property is worth, say, €950,000, your half share would be worth €475,000. You would pay 33 per cent tax on the €75,000 of value above your tax-free threshold – a bill of €24,750 each. Unless you both have ready access to that sort of cash, then you would be looking at having to sell the property and paying the tax owed. Your sister would have a net €450,000 to go and find a home thereafter and you would have your inheritance in cash of the same amount with no further tax owing on it. But let's assume the property is worth less than €800,000. What then? In simple terms, congratulations, you are joint owners of your mother's house. If you simply retain your interest in the house as an asset, there is no issue. When it is eventually sold, you will receive half the proceeds and your only 'liability' will be that any increase in value over the time you inherited it will be subject to capital gains tax – again at 33 per cent. There would need to be agreement between you and your sister, preferably in writing, that any running costs, regular maintenance, utility bills, local property tax etc would be met by her as they are her living costs, not yours. But what if your own financial circumstances dictate that you really need to get access to your inheritance or some of it? You say your sister would most likely not qualify for a mortgage to buy out your half: perhaps she could buy out a smaller portion, leaving you with reduced ownership of the property and some cash in hand. That would not leave her with any tax issues apart from a modest stamp duty bill. And, as it will be her family home, there will be no tax issues when she eventually sells it either. You could agree a staged purchase of your share over an extended period to make it more affordable to her. That would complicate things for you as each stage could trigger a capital gains charge if the gain on the portion being sold was greater than €1,270 in any one year. And there would also be stamp duty implications. Or you could agree to sell the house provided your sister is happy that her share of the sale proceeds would allow her to buy a home elsewhere or the wherewithal to raise a mortgage on a smaller home. How practical that is really depends on how much value there is in this current family home. In a world where you, understandably, do not want your sister and her family homeless, the realistic options are to sit on your inheritance and consider it an invested asset, get your sister to buy a portion of your share or agree to sell the property and use the proceeds for her to start again. You say your mother's 'current will'. I am assuming then that she is still alive. If this looks like becoming an intractable mess but you think your sister could raise enough to buy you out of a quarter share – and you are content that the inheritance will be lopsided according to your respective needs – you can always see if your mother is open to adjusting her will. Obviously, the choice is hers. [ Who gets the house: have you spoken to your parents about happens when they die? Opens in new window ] Can such cases end up in legal dispute? Yes, they can where one side wants to sell and the other refuses. But, really, the only winners in that scenario are the lawyers. Finally, on your suggestion that you might just say during probate that you only want a quarter of the house, not a half, I'm afraid that won't work. It is possible to 'disclaim' an inheritance – ie, say that you do not want it – but you cannot disclaim and then try to rewrite the will to say I don't want all of this, just some of this or a bit of that. If it is a bequest – ie, half the property has specifically been left to you by name – and you disclaim, it falls into the residue of the will. Now, it could be that you are one of the benefits of the residue, in which case you might have to disclaim again. Disclaiming a bequest and/or the residue would not prevent you accepting any other specific bequest that was made in your favour – such as for a favoured piece of art or jewellery, for instance. But it would rule you out of any benefit from any of the residue – including any of the house your mother intended to leave you half of. You cannot say, for instance, I would like only a quarter and not a half. There is one way this could work for you, depending on how your mother's will is worded. As it is, you and your sister are getting 50 per cent each of the house. Assuming that is by bequest, you can disclaim the bequest. Your share then falls into the residue – assuming there is a residuary clause in the will. There really should be in every will, if only to account for forgotten assets, but it is not always the case. Anyway, assuming there is a residue and it is again split evenly between you and your sister, she will get half of your half, leaving you with 25 per cent ownership. In terms of tax implications, whether it is a quarter or a half will have no effect as long as the value of what you receive is under €400,000. However, if this arrangement meant your sister got 75 per cent of the house and that portion was valued at more than €400,000, she would face a bill of 33 per cent of everything above that figure. That could, of course, force her to sell the house anyway which would defeat the object of the exercise. So you really do need to think this through carefully, and ideally get professional advice. The one thing you don't want is this gift from your mum leading to family discord. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street Dublin 2, or by email to with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Footage posted online captures Limerick drive-by shooting
As Dublin awaits Metrolink from the airport we examine why it is back in the news and why costs are being talked about again. Video: Dan Dennison
