Reuters : Trump to use CFIUS to restrict Chinese investments in strategic areas,

Trump to use CFIUS to restrict Chinese investments in strategic areas, White House official says

WASHINGTON, Feb 21 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump will sign a memorandum on Friday that will direct the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to restrict Chinese investments in strategic areas, a White House official said.

The national security memorandum is aimed at promoting foreign investment while protecting U.S. national security interests from threats posed by foreign adversaries like China, the official told Reuters.

"China is exploiting our capital and ingenuity to fund and modernize their military, intelligence, and security operations, posing direct threats to United States security with weapons of mass destruction, cyber warfare, and more," the official said.

Under the directive, the United States will establish new rules "to curb the exploitation of its capital, technology, and knowledge by foreign adversaries such as China to ensure that only those investments that serve American interests are allowed," the official said.

The official also said the Trump administration will consider new or expanded restrictions on U.S. outbound investment to China in sensitive technologies, including semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum, biotechnology, aerospace and more.

WSJ : Trump Should Opt for Jefferson Over Jackson

Trump Should Opt for Jefferson Over Jackson
Political change doesn’t require a crude persona or disregard for constitutional norms.

Peggy Noonan summarizes the political tensions created by the seventh president’s exercise of executive authority (“Trump, Jackson and the Politics of Crisis,” Declarations, Feb. 15). Yet left unsaid is the mess Andrew Jackson bequeathed his successors in the years leading to the Civil War. Those mostly undistinguished men failed tests of peaceful westward expansion, treatment of native inhabitants and resolution of the slavery question.

Like Mr. Trump, the roughhewn Jackson claimed his mandate from the frustrations of the “common people.” Mr. Trump once bragged that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without consequence. Jackson did shoot and kill someone in a duel. The voters didn’t care. But political change doesn’t require a crude persona or disregard for constitutional norms. The Jeffersonian Revolution of 1800 expanded democracy and reduced central-government overreach.

If they could speak to us, every president who served more than four years might warn about the second-term curse. While Mr. Trump may avoid it, his reputation will be more secure if he emulates Thomas Jefferson rather than Andrew Jackson.

Geoffrey Evans Moore

San Diego

Ms. Noonan refers to the “rabble mob,” people from all walks of life who showed up in Washington in 1829 when Jackson was sworn in as president. In his own observation that day, Sen. Daniel Webster said: “Persons have come from five hundred miles to see General Jackson and they really seem to think that the country has been rescued from some dreadful danger.”

That allusion to the threat of “some dreadful danger” isn’t dissimilar to Mr. Trump’s warnings that, “if we lose this election, we won’t have a country anymore.” It sounds to me as if there was a precursor to the MAGA movement nearly 200 years ago—along with the same skeptics who didn’t understand the message. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Barbara Fotine Atkins

North Las Vegas, Nev.

Alan Dershowitz makes several good points in his Feb. 13 letter “The Echoes of Jefferson in Trump’s Presidency,” but we shouldn’t overread the similarities. While Jefferson agreed to purchase the Louisiana Territory without prior congressional approval, he nevertheless adhered to the Constitution’s provision that the president “shall have Power . . . to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”

Mr. Dershowitz also writes that he “railed against the judiciary for taking too much power.” It wasn’t so simple. Upon becoming president, Jefferson sought to remove many of the “midnight judges” that President John Adams had installed with the Judiciary Act of 1801. His attack, then, wasn’t so much on the judiciary as it was against his predecessor.

Finally, Mr. Dershowitz notes that Jefferson “imposed trade restrictions on foreign countries.” Jefferson ordered an embargo on trade with France and Britain because both nations were engaged in the Napoleonic Wars. Britain would impress American seamen into the Royal Navy to augment its ranks. Jefferson’s action was a way of preventing that practice and maintaining American neutrality, a precedent set by George Washington.

President Trump may do well to emulate Jefferson, but he’s not there yet.

FT : Ukraine to sign critical minerals deal ‘in the very short term’, US claims

Ukraine to sign critical minerals deal ‘in the very short term’, US claims
National security adviser Mike Waltz tells conference that ‘economic partnership’ will be ‘good’ for Kyiv

US national security adviser Mike Waltz has said that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will sign a critical minerals deal with the US in “the very short term” and that the war in Ukraine will end “soon”.

“Under Trump, this war will end and it will end soon,” Waltz told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland on Friday. “He is the president of peace.”

Waltz said Zelenskyy wanted to develop critical minerals with US investment and claimed the Ukrainian leader would agree to a deal with Washington, although he did not provide details of the terms.

“Here’s the bottom line, President Zelenskyy is going to sign that deal, and you will see that in the very short term,” said Waltz.

“And that is good for Ukraine. What better could you have for Ukraine than to be in an economic partnership with the United States? . . . What better could you have for Ukraine to stop the killing?”

WSJ : Why Is Warren Buffett Hoarding So Much Cash?

Why Is Warren Buffett Hoarding So Much Cash?
Investors are poised to study the Berkshire Hathaway chairman’s annual letter for insights about the stock market

Warren Buffett is known for picking stocks. These days, he is increasingly picking cash.

The mountain of cash and Treasury bills at the famed investor’s company, Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B -0.30%decrease; red down pointing triangle, rose above $300 billion in the third quarter—easily a record and its highest as a percentage of company assets in data going back to 1998, according to Dow Jones Market Data.

Holding lots of cash is standard practice for Berkshire, but the scale of the recent buildup has raised eyebrows among some observers of the Omaha, Neb., conglomerate.

They are preparing to parse Buffett’s annual letter to shareholders on Saturday for clues about how the Berkshire chairman and chief executive is thinking about the stock market and any opportunities he might see for investing the cash. Berkshire’s annual report, which includes the letter, will show how much cash the company held at the end of 2024.

“The issue is, what are they going to do with all this cash?” said Steven Check, chief investment officer of Check Capital Management, who has attended Berkshire’s annual meetings since 1996. “This is as extreme as I can recall.”

Berkshire generates cash from its stable of operating businesses, which range from insurance to rail, from utilities to candy, as well as from its investments. Recently, the company’s investing moves have involved selling a lot of stock. Berkshire was a net seller of equity securities in the past eight reported quarters, and a regulatory disclosure of its U.S. stock positions in December suggests the selling extended to a ninth period.


Buffett’s storied reputation means his company’s trades are watched like those of few investors. When Berkshire sells, it can spark worries that the outlook for stocks is poor. Financial advisers at Edward Jones have voiced their concerns to James Shanahan, a senior equity research analyst at the firm who covers Berkshire.

“I hear that from our advisers: Why should we be buying stocks if Warren Buffett’s not buying stocks?” Shanahan said.

Close observers of Berkshire think about the rise in cash this way: Within the company’s hunting ground of large, high-quality businesses in industries Buffett understands, prices have risen too high for the stock picker to feel confident an investment would lead to worthwhile returns for Berkshire and its shareholders.

Buffett and his deputies are searching for bargains while stocks trade at records. The S&P 500 notched its latest all-time high Wednesday and has advanced 4% in 2025 after two years of annual gains above 20%. The broad U.S. stock index recently traded at 22.4 times its projected earnings over the next 12 months, above a 10-year average of 18.6, according to FactSet.

At Berkshire’s most recent annual meeting, in May, Buffett weighed in on the company’s tower of cash: “We’d love to spend it, but we won’t spend it unless we think we’re doing something that has very little risk and can make us a lot of money.”

“We only swing at pitches we like,” he added later in the session. “It isn’t like I’ve got a hunger strike or something like that going on. It’s just that things aren’t attractive.”


If Buffett did find a company that looked appetizing, he might well have the cash to buy it in full. Based on its third-quarter report, Berkshire could easily pay the market price of all but the biggest U.S. companies, with ample cash to buy a household name such as Deere, United Parcel Service or CVS Health.

Buffett watchers tend to say the drumbeat of stock sales doesn’t amount to a call on the overall market. Rather, they say, it has resulted from case-by-case determinations that individual companies’ prospects don’t merit the price at which other traders are willing to take the shares off Berkshire’s hands.

One reason behind the cash buildup is Berkshire’s extensive sales of Apple stock, which has traded in recent years at much richer valuations than when Buffett’s company was establishing its position from 2016 through 2018.

Berkshire slashed its stake in the iPhone maker for four consecutive quarters starting in late 2023, reducing its ownership of Apple from nearly 6% to 2%, according to FactSet. Berkshire held off on further Apple sales in the fourth quarter, and the consumer-electronics company remained its largest stockholding at the end of 2024 with a market value of $75 billion.

The move to lighten a position that had grown to an outsize share of Berkshire’s stock portfolio is seen by some observers as part of the 94-year-old chief executive’s efforts to smooth the transition when his designated successor, Greg Abel, eventually takes the reins.

“Some might say that this is housekeeping, that he’s cleaning everything up and getting ready to hand over the company,” Shanahan said. “He would want to give Greg Abel a good starting point and not have any legacy problems.”

Also contributing to the climb in cash: Stock buybacks have ground to a halt, with Berkshire repurchasing no stock in the third quarter for the first time in several years. The company says it can buy back stock whenever Buffett “believes that the repurchase price is below Berkshire’s intrinsic value, conservatively determined,” as long as its holdings of cash and Treasury bills wouldn’t fall below $30 billion.

Berkshire’s stock has rallied to start the year, with both Class A and Class B shares closing at records this week. The company’s market value passed $1 trillion for the first time last year.

And the cash pile itself is making money. Berkshire reported $8 billion in interest and other investment income in its insurance operations in the first nine months of 2024, along with $3.8 billion in income from dividends.

Berkshire’s streak of net stock sales has coincided with a climb in the overall market. Since the end of the third quarter of 2022, the S&P 500 has risen around 70%.

But longtime shareholders don’t seem too anxious about missed opportunities. They say they trust Buffett to decide how to use Berkshire’s hoard. Nor are they clamoring for the company to release cash through a dividend.

“We own Berkshire to see the capital be reinvested,” said Darren Pollock, portfolio manager at Cheviot Value Management. “We own it for the hope that the big whale will come along and they’ll be able to snare it. That just is taking a long time, obviously.”

Le Figaro : «En se faisant l’idiot utile de Poutine, Trump pourrait mener l’Amér

«En se faisant l’idiot utile de Poutine, Trump pourrait mener l’Amérique à l’autodestruction géopolitique»

ENTRETIEN - Le docteur en géopolitique et directeur de recherche à l’Institut Thomas More, Jean-Sylvestre Mongrenier, souligne la difficulté de comprendre le comportement du président américain, pris dans «la fiction géopolitique d’une toute-puissance américaine».

Jean-Sylvestre Mongrenier est historien, docteur en géopolitique et directeur de recherche à l’Institut Thomas More.

LE FIGARO. - Vivons-nous un changement de monde et une rupture d’alliances, avec le début brutal et si difficile à lire de la présidence Trump ? Comment comprendre ce moment dans l’histoire longue de l’Amérique ?

Jean-sylvestre MONGRENIER. - Les propos répétés de Donald Trump, ces derniers jours, donnent une idée de l’objectif qu’il vise, un « Nixon in reverse », c’est-à-dire faire le contraire de ce que Nixon et Kissinger avaient réussi au début des années 1970 : retourner la Chine populaire contre l’URSS. Le président américain et ceux qui lui murmurent à l’oreille prétendent retourner la « Russie Eurasie » contre la Chine populaire. Poutine et ses hommes exploiteront cette illusoire grande manœuvre diplomatique qui affaiblira les alliances américaines, voire les détruira. On peine à voir quelque chose de semblable dans l’histoire américaine.

En 1867, la vente de l’Alaska par la Russie aux États-Unis avait pour toile de fond une certaine hostilité partagée à l’encontre du Royaume-Uni : aux États-Unis, l’héritage des deux guerres d’Indépendance (1776-1783 ; 1812-1814) était encore vif ; l’Empire russe, en raison de sa défaite dans la guerre de Crimée (1853-1856), préférait voir l’Alaska américain plutôt qu’anglais (le Canada était un dominion britannique). Mais cette proximité russo-américaine n’alla pas plus loin. Par la suite, il y eut la Grande Alliance de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, à l’issue de laquelle les services soviétiques avaient largement pénétré le système américain…

Justement, divers analystes expliquent le retournement actuel par une pénétration de certains cercles de la droite américaine par des agents russes, ou au minimum la propagande du Kremlin. Qu’en pensez-vous ?

De fait, il est difficile de faire la part entre la manipulation extérieure, l’ignorance et la cupidité. Il semblerait que Russia Today ait joué le rôle de rabatteur pour Fox News, Donald Trump sélectionnant ensuite ses équipes à partir du spectacle offert par cette chaîne.

On n’est pas face à un isolationnisme, mais plutôt à un activisme de puissance impériale dont les nouvelles élites sont persuadées d’avoir été abusées par leurs alliés et ne croient plus aux alliances comme vecteur d’influence et de prospérité. C’est pourquoi Trump menace ses alliés et amadoue ses ennemis ?

L’isolationnisme américain est un fait psychologique qui ne s’est pas véritablement traduit par une politique cohérente, même au XIXe siècle. Alors que l’Angleterre tenait la mer, interdisant toute intervention des puissances européennes dans l’« Hémisphère occidental », les États-Unis étendaient leurs possessions territoriales au-delà des Appalaches (la conquête de l’Ouest), ainsi que leur pouvoir dans l’océan Pacifique. En 1898, les îles Hawaï, Guam et les Philippines passèrent sous la souveraineté des États-Unis, entre autres territoires insulaires. Bref, la « Destinée manifeste » n’était pas une proclamation d’isolationnisme.

Il reste que les vues de Donald Trump ne sont guère aisées à saisir. Il semble pris par une fiction géopolitique, celle d’une toute-puissance américaine qui l’autoriserait à sacrifier alliés, partenaires et amis (au sens politique du terme). Une hubris qui pourrait mener au pire, au regard des intérêts géopolitiques américains. Inflation égotique ? La science politique et la théorie des relations internationales ne prennent pas assez en compte le rôle des personnalités, que l’on voudrait dissoudre dans des « structures » ou moyennes comportementales. Quelque chose en Trump relève de la psychologie des profondeurs. On peine à voir la rationalité stratégique de cette grande manœuvre. S’agirait-il d’une forme de millénarisme comme il s’en produit à certains âges de l’histoire ?

Sur la question de l’Ukraine, il se comporte en Ponce Pilate, qui décide de tout mais se lave les mains de l’avenir, laissant aux Européens la responsabilité de garantir un accord de paix auquel ils n’auraient pas été associés… Quant à l’Ukraine, elle est sommée de céder. Yalta ou Munich ?

La conférence de Yalta, en février 1945, entérina le rapport des forces sur le terrain, Roosevelt et Churchill ne disposaient que d’une faible marge de manœuvre : les troupes soviétiques étaient alors à 70 kilomètres de Berlin ; toute l’Europe centrale et orientale était occupée. À Munich, en septembre 1938, Anglais et Français avaient abandonné la Tchécoslovaquie, l’invasion allemande des Sudètes n’entraînant pas immédiatement de guerre : dans le cas présent, la guerre est en cours et la Russie n’est toujours pas victorieuse. Voici trois ans que l’armée ukrainienne résiste dans cette guerre de haute intensité. Avec succès. L’armée russe contrôle moins du cinquième du territoire ukrainien. Elle n’a pu acquérir ni la suprématie aérienne, ni le contrôle de la mer Noire. Dans le domaine du cyberespace, la Russie n’a pas infligé le « KO » initial redouté. L’Ukraine est donc invaincue. Son éventuel lâchage par les États-Unis, pour en finir au plus vite et se lancer dans une mirifique OPA sur la Russie, n’aurait guère de précédent historique.

La confiance entre Américains et Européens semble durablement détruite. L’historien russe Vladimir Pastoukhov disait hier que « L’Amérique a quitté la gare Europe et est déjà à Saint-Pétersbourg » … Êtes-vous d’accord ?

En politique extérieure, Trump semble se comporter comme l’« idiot utile » de Poutine, mais j’espère que le cours des événements démentira ce jugement. Marco Rubio, que l’on voyait comme un « reaganien » soucieux de « clarté morale », sera-t-il l’idiot utile de Trump ? Quant au « terminus » de Saint-Pétersbourg, rappelons que l’Administration Clinton avait tenté une politique de « Russia first » avant de se heurter à la force des choses : pour mémoire, la « doctrine de l’étranger proche » fut énoncée en 1992, bien avant l’élargissement de l’Otan aux pays d’Europe centrale et orientale. Après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, George W. Bush tenta de ranimer la flamme de la Grande Alliance. Un sommet énergétique américano-russe fut alors organisé à Saint-Pétersbourg. En vain. Avant d’accepter l’idée d’une négociation avec les États-Unis, Poutine a pris soin de réaffirmer ses alliances avec la Chine populaire, l’Iran, la Corée du Nord. Il est convaincu que les équilibres de puissance basculeront vers l’Asie et il compte se jouer de Trump, qui est en position de demandeur. L’objectif de la Russie est de prendre le contrôle de l’Europe, ce qui renforcera sa puissance et rééquilibrera les rapports de force dans l’alliance sino-russe.

C’est un retour au jeu de grandes puissances, de grands fauves, comme au XIXe siècle ? Chine, Russie, États-Unis… 

De tels jeux n’ont jamais cessé, mais la puissance n’est pas un objectif en soi : elle ne vaut que par le champ des possibles qu’elle ouvre. Quant à l’idée d’un partage du monde entre ces trois puissances, avec leurs zones d’influence respectives, elle laisse dubitatif. Voilà trente ans que le pouvoir russe cherche à contrôler l’Eurasie post-soviétique, sans véritable succès. Voyez le Caucase ou l’Asie centrale. Trois ans après l’« opération militaire spéciale » de février 2022, l’armée russe n’a ni pris Kiev, ni détruit l’État-nation ukrainien, ce qui était l’objectif déclaré. Si une Europe unie prend le relais des États-Unis, l’Ukraine résistera encore. Quant aux États-Unis, la grande manœuvre de Trump consiste à menacer ou molester leurs principaux alliés et partenaires géopolitiques. En Amérique du Nord (Canada, Mexique) comme en Europe. Quid de la zone d’influence américaine ? Qu’en sera-t-il demain en Asie-Pacifique ? Abandon de Taïwan ? Guerre économique et commerciale contre le Japon et la Corée du Sud ? Trump ouvre la voie à la Chine, confortée dans l’idée spenglerienne de la « fin de l’Occident ».

«La Chine est nerveuse de voir Trump et Poutine se parler»: Pékin aux aguets face au cavalier seul russo-américain : http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/la-chine-est-nerveuse-de-voir-trump-et-poutine-se-parler-pekin-aux-aguets-face-au-cavalier-seul-russo-americain-20250220

L’Europe, dont les nations sont drastiquement affaiblies sans que l’Union ait réussi à s’y substituer, est-elle condamnée à l’impuissance ? La défense de l’Ukraine et de l’Europe, plutôt que « la défense européenne » si chère aux Français, ne peut-elle pas être la grande cause du sursaut ?

Il faut vouloir et espérer un regroupement de quelques puissances européennes, une masse critique capable de soutenir l’Ukraine, bouclier de l’Europe : l’armée ukrainienne fixe des forces russes qui ne sont pas disponibles pour d’autres agressions. En matière de défense de l’Europe, une première étape consistera à prendre les Américains au mot et à européaniser l’Otan. Cela suppose beaucoup plus de moyens financiers, plus de capacités militaires et d’officiers européens dans les états-majors de l’Otan. À l’avenir, le commandant suprême des forces alliées de l’Otan (Saceur) devrait être un officier général européen (français ? britannique ?). Un tel effort serait soutenu à la fois par le budget de l’UE, des emprunts communs, la Banque européenne de reconstruction et de développement, voire une banque de la défense d’envergure paneuropéenne. Il importe en effet de concevoir des structures larges, au-delà de l’UE, pour y associer le Royaume-Uni, la Norvège et l’Ukraine. En somme, une « Europe géopolitique » : de l’Atlantique au bassin du Don, de l’Arctique à la mer de Sicile. À terme, cet ensemble paneuropéen pourrait être coiffé par un Conseil de sécurité continental, composé de cinq ou six puissances majeures renforcées par des membres temporaires dudit conseil (par rotation). Ainsi serait édifié un pilier européen au sein du monde occidental, alors que le leadership américain risque de faire défaut.

En misant sans prudence et sans discernement sur l’extrême droite européenne, Trump, Musk et Vance ne vont-ils pas préparer un grand retour de Poutine dans la politique européenne en alliance avec ces mêmes partis qui, excepté Meloni et le PiS polonais, sont plutôt anti-atlantistes ? En se mêlant de cette bataille idéologique, l’Amérique pourrait-elle finalement céder sa place géopolitique à la Russie ?

Cette « révolution trumpiste » donne le sentiment de vouloir détruire, au prétexte de construire quelque chose de beaucoup plus beau et grand, bien entendu. Il ne s’agit pas d’un conservatisme raisonné, ou d’une renaissance, mais d’une forme de révolution nihiliste. Tout cela en se référant à un âge d’or mythique. En vérité, ce processus révolutionnaire pourrait tourner à l’autodestruction géopolitique. Espérons que l’équilibre des pouvoirs du système politique américain permettra de tempérer ces violents emportements.

TechCrunch : 6 new tech unicorns were minted in January 2025

6 new tech unicorns were minted in January 2025

Despite a still tight venture capital market, new unicorns are still being created every month.

Using data from Crunchbase and PitchBook, TechCrunch tracked down the newly VC-backed startup minted unicorns so far this year (as of the end of January). These include healthcare companies like Hippocratic AI and satellite space companies like Loft Orbital.

This list will be updated throughout the year, so check back and see the powerhouses raising this year!

January

Kikoff — $1 billion: This personal finance platform last raised an undisclosed amount that valued it at $1 billion, according to PitchBook. The company, founded in 2019, has raised $42.5 million to date and counts Female Founders Fund, Lightspeed Venture Partners, and basketballer Steph Curry as investors.

Netradyne — $1.35 billion: Founded in 2015, this computer vision startup raised a $90 million Series D valuing it at $1.35 billion, according to Crunchbase. The round was led by Point72 Ventures.

Hippocratic AI — $1.6 billion: This startup, founded in 2023, creates healthcare models. It raised a $141 million Series B, valuing it at $1.64 billion, according to Crunchbase. The round was led by Kleiner Perkins.

Truveta — $1 billion: This genetic research company raised a $320 million round valuing it at $1 billion, according to Crunchbase. Founded in 2020, its investors include the CVCs from Microsoft and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Mercor — $2 billion: This contract recruiting startup raised a $100 million Series B valuing it at $2 billion. The company, founded in 2022, counts Felicis, Menlo Ventures, Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, and Anthology Fund as investors.

Loft Orbital — $1 billion: Founded in 2017, the satellite company raised a $170 million Series C valuing the company at $1 billion, according to Crunchbase. Investors in the round included Temasek and Tikehau Capital.

FT Thames Water receives £7bn bid from Hong Kong’s CK Infrastructure

Thames Water receives £7bn bid from Hong Kong’s CK Infrastructure
Deal would require debt-laden utility’s bondholders to take significant writedowns

Hong Kong’s CK Infrastructure has made a preliminary £7bn bid to take a majority stake in Thames Water, while indicating that it would require the troubled utility’s bondholders to take significant haircuts.

CKI, part of CK Hutchison group, submitted the non-binding offer to take over Thames Water earlier this month, according to two people familiar with the matter.

While CKI indicated it would be willing to inject £7bn of equity to fix the utility’s broken balance sheet, its interest is contingent on bondholders in Thames Water’s near-£20bn debt pile agreeing to take significant writedowns, the people added.

CK Hutchison’s majority stake in Northumbrian Water could also prove a sticking point. The group is not keen to dispose of its 75 per cent stake in the other regional water monopoly, the people said, which may cause issues with competition regulators. 

Thames Water received several non-binding bids earlier this month, including a rival £4bn bid from US private equity firm KKR. The UK’s largest water utility is looking to raise billions of pounds in equity while negotiating a debt restructuring with its lenders in a bid to avoid insolvency.

Thames Water declined to comment. A representative for CKI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

WSJ : The Wild Economics Behind Ferrari’s Domination of the Luxury Car Market

The Wild Economics Behind Ferrari’s Domination of the Luxury Car Market
Limiting production is helping to make its sportscars coveted — and the company the most valuable auto maker in Europe

With a list price of $3.7 million, Ferrari’s new “hypercar” was revealed to the public in October with a twist: It wasn’t available for sale.

All 799 units of the low-slung, high-haunched F80 model—the most expensive production vehicle in Ferrari’s history—had been promised to top customers like Luc Poirier.

The Montreal real estate entrepreneur already owns 42 Ferraris. He said he felt “lucky” to be allowed to buy yet another.

“To be chosen by Ferrari for one of their hypercars is a true milestone for any collector,” he said.

Money isn’t enough to buy a top-of-the-range Ferrari. You need to be in a long-term relationship with the company.

By leveraging the rabid fandom of its customers through a business model based on uber-scarcity, the storied Italian company is enjoying a new golden age. Following an almost tenfold increase in the stock since its initial public offering almost a decade ago, Ferrari is now worth $90 billion, making it the most valuable car company in Europe—despite delivering just 13,752 vehicles last year.

Volkswagen, which sold more than 9 million cars last year, has a market capitalization that is roughly $40 billion lower. Most of Europe’s auto industry is plagued by a weak domestic market, a costly transition to electric vehicles and new competition from China.

Like Tesla, which became the most valuable U.S. carmaker by attracting a tech-company valuation, Ferrari has won the European prize by channeling similarities with a more reliable peer group: French handbag makers.

“We are not—we are not—an automotive company,” said Chief Executive Officer Benedetto Vigna in a recent interview in Maranello, the city in northern Italy where Ferrari is based. “We are a luxury company that is also doing cars.”

At the time of Ferrari’s IPO, in 2015, many analysts were skeptical that a luxury business model would work for a carmaker.

Former CEO Sergio Marchionne used to draw comparisons with Hermès—a parallel now widely accepted. The French fashion house limits supply of its coveted Birkin handbag, leading to waiting lists at its stores and a huge resale market. Customers buy all manner of other Hermès baubles to move up the list.

Ferrari’s blossoming into a luxury leader has restored the fortunes of founder Enzo Ferrari’s son, Piero Ferrari, and Italy’s Agnelli family, which took control of the company decades ago through its Fiat brand. In the IPO, both families retained stakes that are now worth billions of dollars.
Another group that has profited from its Ferrari investments: savvy collectors. Most cars are famously depreciating assets—including most standard Ferraris. But the value of rare Ferraris has soared in recent years.

A well-preserved example of the previous-generation Ferrari hypercar, dubbed LaFerrari, fetches $3.8 million, according to Hagerty, a specialist auto insurer based in Traverse City, Mich. When the model was released in 2013, in a production run of 499 units, the list price before options was $1.4 million.

LaFerrari was the company’s first roadworthy hybrid, combining a 12-cylinder “V12” engine with an electric motor to deliver what was then Ferrari’s most powerful production car. The F80 builds on that hybrid tradition, which originated on the Formula One racetrack more than 15 years ago, to deliver even more horsepower—1,200, five or six times that of your average family car—through an eight-speed, twin-clutch automatic transmission. With big butterfly doors and a tiny cockpit, the F80 wears its racing heart on its sleeve.

Although Ferrari relies on the potential investment return as well as the emotional appeal of flagship models to keep collectors hooked, it disapproves of what it calls “speculation” in its products.

Last spring, a Houston real-estate broker bought one of Ferrari’s much-hyped Purosangue models, the company’s first four-door vehicle. The list price is close to $460,000 but can approach $1 million with add-on features. When the broker flipped it, the dealership that had sold him the car sued, saying that he was in breach of a contract giving it right of first refusal for 12 months after the sale, according to the plaintiff’s petition. They recently settled without disclosing terms.

Playing Ferrari’s game
Anyone with a few hundred thousand dollars to spare can buy a regular Ferrari as long as they are willing to wait a couple of years. While the standard models aren’t subject to strictly limited runs, the company still lives by Enzo Ferrari’s scarcity dictum: “Ferrari will always deliver one car less than the market demands.”

Limited-edition Ferraris are even scarcer, and you can’t just walk into your local showroom and buy one. These range from special versions of regular models to the design-oriented “Icona” and, most exclusively, once-in-a-decade hypercars like LaFerrari and the F80.

Such models help keep orders flowing for the company’s entire product range even though they account for a fraction of deliveries—just 7% last year. Collectors had on average bought 10 new Ferraris before qualifying to buy LaFerrari or an Icona, which means icon in Italian, according to Hagerty.

Ferrari says that making the cut isn’t just about the number of cars in the garage of a “Ferrarista,” as it calls its fans.

“What we try to measure is: What is your interaction with Ferrari?” said Enrico Galliera, the company’s longtime commercial director.

The process of establishing a formal—albeit secret—hierarchy of clients started when Ferrari set about selling LaFerrari more than a decade ago.

Previously, dealers could choose which clients got which cars, a system that could be abused to reward friends and family. Galliera centralized control in Maranello.

He also noticed that some collectors who hadn’t bought a car recently were on the potential list. That led to the company’s first rule: To get a LaFerrari, customers needed to have bought a Ferrari within the past three years, as well as own a certain number of vehicles.

Since then, the algorithm has grown more sophisticated, Galliera said, to include the events customers attend, whether they take part in Ferrari’s racing program, whether they have had heritage models restored in its classic-car workshop, and many other variables.

“We track everything,” he said.

Some of the company’s erstwhile fans have tired of playing the game.

Jan Otto, who bought his first Ferrari in the 1980s after receiving an inheritance, got frustrated when he failed to “get on the ladder” for the Ferrari Enzo, the hypercar that preceded LaFerrari. The retired entrepreneur, who set up a business in Florida offering supercar test drives, no longer owns the brand.

“Even though I had bought five or six Ferraris and several marquee Ferraris over the decades, I couldn’t find a dealer that was willing to sell me one,” he said. “I hadn’t quite been as vigilant with my purchases or as aggressive as others.”

Others are happy to cycle through standard models to keep the invitations coming.

Roberto de Silvestri, a collector based in Monaco, said he buys standard Ferraris to drive around the famous switchbacks above his home. He typically then trades them for the company’s more exclusive models to keep—and drive mainly at events like the invitation-only Cavalcade, an annual drive around a scenic part of Europe.

“If it’s a limited edition, of course you have to use it,” he said, “but more carefully.”

Other car brands, particularly those with racing heritages like McLaren, Bugatti and Lamborghini, also create limited-edition models for collectors that come with six- and seven-figure price tags. But those brands haven’t matched the scale of Ferrari’s success at turning a cult following into profit and market value.

When Porsche launched its IPO in 2022, it leaned heavily into comparisons with Ferrari, but the stock has fallen by almost a third since its debut amid challenges in China and a botched electric-vehicle strategy. With 310,718 cars shipped last year, the German sports car maker is too big to keep Ferrari-style wait lists except for a few models.

At the other extreme, smaller supercar brands struggle to deliver as steady a stream of new vehicles as Ferrari, leading to cash crunches. Aston Martin’s shares have lost more than 95% of their value since its 2018 IPO. Bahrain’s sovereign-wealth fund took full control of McLaren last year after a period of heavy losses.

Ferrari’s luxury-sector aspirations face challenges, too. Unlike a maker of timeless handbags, the company has to outdo itself with each new vehicle to please its fans and keep orders flowing.

A tougher luxury market over the past year may have made that harder. Some secondhand Ferraris have fetched bigger discounts than usual following aggressive price increases under Vigna, putting investors on guard.

Yet the stock has revved back to record highs since the company reported results this month. One crucial detail Ferrari disclosed: The order book now covers production through the end of 2026.

To keep its all-important wait list topped up, Ferrari and its dealers work hard to attract buyers for the regular cars even as they bat away interest in ultraexpensive ones.

A favored tactic of James Champion, Ferrari brand manager for H.R. Owen, the carmaker’s London dealership, is asking existing Ferraristi to bring friends or business contacts to events.

“The whole Ferrari ethos,” he said, “is around community and being part of the Ferrari family.”