Swiss Had Good Exchange With US on Currency, SNB Says
Switzerland has had productive talks with the US on the central bank's currency interventions, Swiss National Bank President Martin Schlegel said, rejecting the suggestion that the country manipulates the franc's exchange rate.
'We are no currency manipulator,' he said in Lucerne on Friday, adding that 'we had a constructive conversation with the US authorities' on the topic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
37 minutes ago
- Forbes
A European Perspective: Why Digital Sovereignty Concerns Us All
Prof. Dr. Dennis-Kenji Kipker is a cyber security expert and works as Scientific Director of the getty There are countless definitions of what constitutes digital sovereignty: Some define it politically, and others define it technically. Then, there are legal and sociocultural attempts to define it. And that makes sense, because digitalization affects all areas of life, society and the economy. That is why this article will not attempt to define the entire possible spectrum of digital sovereignty, because that would be boring. Instead, my aim is to identify specific reasons for the lack of digital sovereignty to date and consider how we can work together to find a way out of this dilemma. Here are just two examples of a lack of digital sovereignty: When President Donald Trump announced that he will make changes to the transatlantic data protection agreement between the EU and the United States—and we in the European Union had to consider what consequences this could have for our economy—I do not believe that is digital sovereignty. Or, when Vice President JD Vance stated in February 2025 that the European Union is digitally overregulated—and the EU Commission then considered reducing European data protection by reforming the GDPR—I do not believe that is digital sovereignty, either. To me, sovereignty therefore means being able to decide freely whether and how to digitize—so that the greatest possible added value can be achieved for everyone, regardless of foreign interference. And digital sovereignty is not just an abstract end in itself: It helps companies in the EU use the best possible IT products at an efficient business price. On the other hand, U.S. companies also benefit from EU digital sovereignty. In a free, sovereign market, it is also easier for startups and scale-ups abroad to build a business case in the EU. Unfortunately, we in the EU are still too far away from this ideal, at least at present. But why is this the case? It's a long story, because a lack of digital sovereignty didn't happen overnight or in just a few years. No, to answer this question, you have to go back almost 30 years in the history of European technology development. The best example of this for Germany is the mobile phone market. Immediately after the start of the cell phone boom in the 1990s, the country began to rely on outsourcing IT development. This ultimately resulted in the closure of Siemens Mobile, a formerly big-name mobile developer in the country. As a result, while companies were initially able to rely on suppliers from abroad, decades later, they became dependent on these same suppliers. And the consequences of this can be felt by everyone today: the European smartphone market has long since ceased to be dominated by European manufacturers, as was the case with cell phones just a few decades ago. This worked well for many years because the credo of the European digital economy and others was always that globalization is the way forward. In the last decade in particular, a lot has been digitized and networked with the expansion of mobile 5G connections, and more and more computing capacities have been outsourced to the global cloud without hesitation. However, the global turnaround that began with Covid-19 in 2020 and that has since continued with political unrest and tension have made this difficult. The insight is clear: While we trusted in digital globalization all those years ago, it is now a question of digital trust. Digitalization without trust is no longer sustainable in these times. Regionalization instead of globalization has therefore become the credo of our decade—and this also includes regaining the digital sovereignty we gave up. But that is, of course, easier said than done. We've had decades to lose our digital sovereignty, but we have been confronted with the global turnaround at such a rapid pace that it will be extremely difficult for us to establish digital sovereignty from now on. But this is where the circle must close. Digital sovereignty affects us all, and therefore, everyone can make a contribution. It's not just about us as the European Union investing more in the development of our own digital economy by supporting startups and scale-ups with targeted funding. It's even more important to get young people interested in training in STEM subjects. And ultimately, it's about how we as states, as individual companies and as individual consumers purchase IT. In this very concrete business context, in order to achieve digital sovereignty and technological resilience, it is first necessary to carry out a risk analysis. What technology do I use? In which areas do I most use it? To what extent are my processes dependent on it, and from which manufacturers does it come from? On the other hand, U.S. manufacturers, for example, should also ask themselves these questions, as the increasing regulatory requirements for cybersecurity as part of digital sovereignty also offer new business opportunities. Where EU-compliant products are offered, European companies can also integrate them more easily into their IT infrastructure. Because of this, ideally, digital sovereignty is a win-win situation for everyone. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
TechCrunch
44 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
An investor makes a case for funding sex, drugs and other socially taboo products
Impact investor and advisor Christian Tooley posed a simple question to the audience at SXSW London last week: What if investors put aside societal prudence for profit? Tooley was mainly referring to vice clauses, the restrictions that limited partners place on venture firms to guardrail their investments. Some of these no-no sectors often include products dealing with sex, substances like psychedelics, gambling, and tobacco, and such limitations are usually imposed by large institutional investors, who don't want to invest in products that are at best controversial and at worst potentially harmful. Tooley feels investors are missing out on innovation by keeping away from these so-called vices, especially where sex and substances are concerned. 'Returns can be financial, cultural, and systemic,' Tooley told the crowd. 'Sex is high volume, consumer-facing, with lower upfront capital needs. Substances have moderate-to-long ROI but higher payoffs.' He argued that such clauses are really more about bowing to the social stigma around these topics, even though some startups could be bringing about positive health and social benefits, in addition to being lucrative. The sex tech market, for example, is expected to hit nearly $200 billion by 2032, he said. Over the years, the industry has received small but steady amounts of venture capital funding, a few hundred million at best. Specialized investors and firms, notably Vice Ventures, have sought to back more companies but there hasn't been an onrush, especially from mainstream investors, to follow its lead. Even OnlyFans, despite earning billions in revenue, struggled to find investors because of its association with pornographic content. 'Entire industries are underfunded not because they lack merit, but because they challenge comfort,' Tooley later told TechCrunch Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW As an investor, Tooley has backed products such as Polari Labs, a tool that promises to improve anal sex, and linq, a company touting to provide a safer way to send nudes. It's not surprising that large institutional investors steer away from such categories, as many of them are endowments and pension funds looking to avoid legal uncertainty and reputational harm. Some investors who passed on OnlyFans were worried about minors possibly being on the platform. Regarding substances, cannabis is a good example here, because it is only legal on a state-by-state basis. There are legal, regulatory, and tax uncertainties that could come with backing what is, in most cases, a criminalized product. With less competition from institutional funds, Tooley says vice investing can be a particularly good opportunity for smaller LPs, family offices, and progressive funds. 'If you only focus on the perceived controversy, you miss the innovation and often, the returns, too,' he added. Tooley said it is important to address the stigma around investing in areas that may be beneficial but are currently shunned. Tooley, for example, noted that it was considered controversial to talk openly about matters like menstruation. Today, we have venture-backed companies like unicorn period tracker Flo, femble, and WomanLog. Tooley imagines a world where more investors back taboo companies leading to better sexual health tools; psychedelic therapies with more cultural nuance, and biohacking relevant to queer and trans bodies. 'We don't just need funders comfortable with risk,' he said. 'We need ones deeply uncomfortable with the status quo.'
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Compliance Playbook For US Companies In Response To Europe's CSRD
James Felton Keith is CEO at Inclusion Score Inc. and Labor Economist at Keith Institute. His latest book is #DataIsLabor. As Europe tightens the screws on corporate accountability through the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), many American business leaders may assume this legislation is a foreign affair. It's not. U.S. companies with European operations—whether through subsidiaries, branches or major supply chains—will be swept up in the CSRD's broad reporting requirements. And the clock is ticking. Having already started and phasing in through 2028, the CSRD will apply to over 50,000 companies, including thousands of U.S.-based firms. This includes if your company is publicly listed in the EU, has more than €150 million in EU revenues and at least one EU subsidiary or branch or is a large private company doing business in the EU. In other words, you can be subject to CSRD compliance, even if your headquarters is in New York, Houston or Silicon Valley. Compliance is not just about carbon disclosures. It demands a comprehensive environmental, social and governance (ESG) narrative—validated by third-party audits and reported in a digital format aligned with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Social impact, particularly around human capital and workforce inclusion, is a major pillar. This is where I think many U.S. companies will stumble. American firms often lag behind their European counterparts in measuring and managing workforce equity in a systematic and certifiable manner. To communicate effectively across international borders, companies and governments are turning to the ISO-30415:2021 standard on diversity and inclusion, which provides a clear framework that supports the social reporting requirements of the CSRD. It breaks diversity and inclusion into four business functions: 1. Governance 2. Human resources 3. Product delivery 4. Supplier diversity These all mirror the key dimensions the CSRD asks companies to assess. Among the four, product and supplier diversity is typically the least developed, particularly across the S&P 500 and S&P Europe 350. Overall, though, I find that none of the four DEI categories are being effectively integrated into or conveyed through companies' operational risk management framework or personnel. This is not just a regulatory issue, but an insurance risk management cost. This is a global issue, and it is important to note that Lloyd's syndicates are using the ISO-30415 standard for DEI to segment underwriting of employment and professional insurance lines as grievances and lawsuits rise. According to a recent analysis by Bank of Montreal (BMO) and the Swiss Re Institute, the social inflation rate—the trend of rising insurance claims costs driven by increased litigation—is not expected to slow in 2025, posing a threat to insurer profitability and overall market stability. Under normal conditions, social inflation rates are about 3.7%. However, rates averaged about 7% between 2017 and 2023. For companies under CSRD scrutiny, this means focusing on audit-readiness for social impact statements, maturity models for continuous improvement and workforce data collection and analysis frameworks that can stand up to European regulators. My previous article explores the shift toward systematic DEI management through the adoption of ISO standards. To be clear, the ISO standard is the first and only global consensus on intentional equity and inclusion, designed as a risk management tool for complex organizations—particularly those operating across state and international borders. Companies should seek certification of both individuals and organizational silos in the standard to communicate their maturity to both insurers and regulators. In my experience, people often assume that there have been many "DEI" standards, but that is not the case. What we're seeing instead is the emergence of an industry focused on managing people alongside technology as central to the future of work. The ISO 30415 standard, in particular, is currently being adopted by a range of national and international regulators, including the French Association for Standardization (AFNOR) in France, the British Standards Institution (BSI) in the United Kingdom, the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) in Canada, the Colombian Institute of Technical Standards and Certification (IconTec) in Colombia and the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States. The ISO-30415 Diversity and Inclusion Service Management Forum currently offers certification in more than 100 countries and in four languages. The list of those who will be impacted within the United States is extensive and include: • Big tech (e.g., Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Google) with large European footprints • Pharmaceutical and healthcare companies (e.g., Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Abbott) with global clinical trials and EU sales • Financial services firms (e.g., JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citibank) with EU branches or listings • Multinational manufacturers and energy giants (e.g., General Electric, ExxonMobil, Ford, Caterpillar) • Retail and consumer goods companies (e.g., Procter & Gamble, Nike, Coca-Cola, McDonald's) selling to or sourcing from the EU If your company does over €150 million in revenue in Europe, has EU-based subsidiaries or trades in European markets, you're on the hook, and you will need a social accounting system to demonstrate compliance. Failing to comply with CSRD means more than reputational damage. It could lead to legal penalties, investor pressure and contractual barriers to market access in the EU. On the other hand, companies that take proactive steps to align with ISO-30415 stand to gain: • A competitive edge in global procurement and investment • A clear internal roadmap for DEI implementation • The ability to future-proof their workforce reporting in line with international standards As European regulators shift sustainability from voluntary to mandatory, American businesses must shift diversity and inclusion from a moral initiative to a measurable business function. I believe the ISO-30415 standard is the best tool to get there—and the CSRD is the reason you can't wait. Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
