FT : Fresh CEOs start at Audemars Piguet and Zenith

Fresh CEOs start at Audemars Piguet and Zenith
Ilaria Resta and Benoit de Clerck talk about their priorities and the qualities of a good watchmaking boss

The beginning of this year saw two new chief executives start their tenure at venerable Swiss watch brands Audemars Piguet and Zenith.

At Audemars Piguet, the departure of longtime chief executive François-Henry Bennahmias at the end of 2023 has been rumoured for a couple of years and was confirmed 18 months in advance — giving the board of the family-owned company plenty of time to pick a new leader.

And its choice of Ilaria Resta, a former veteran of consumer goods group Procter & Gamble, suggests a change of style for the company, after a decade of maverick management and polarising watch launches, during which revenue and operating margin doubled.

Resta’s appointment is particularly noteworthy not just because female chief executives are still a rarity in the watch business, but also because she was an industry outsider. Her previous jobs at Swiss perfume group Firmenich, where she worked from 2020 until joining AP, and at P&G across sectors such as batteries and haircare, bear little connection to horology.

We meet in her large, bright office at the historic AP headquarters in the Swiss mountain village of Le Brassus, where she disguises her lack of horological experience with a series of well-rehearsed rhetorical questions.

“There is this concept of industries that are self-fulfilled by the same talents over and over again,” says Resta. “My view of business is exactly the opposite. I’ve been trained to be managing businesses no matter what they are. If you ask me, ‘Can you assemble a watch?’ Absolutely not. But I don’t need to. ‘Do I understand watchmaking?’ I’m learning to because you need to master the product. But I don’t need to know how to do it when I manage the company. My mission is to preserve the company for the next generations of the family.”

One of her first objectives was to reaffirm the company’s independence and establish a clear future mission for the business, which at the moment produces 50,000 watches a year. “This company wants to remain an independent family company operating with the same level of quality and watchmaking excellence they’ve done so far,” says Resta.

Indeed, her brief and her approach appear to be more philosophical and conceptual, rather than being gauged by financial metrics alone. And, while careful not to criticise her predecessor, she signals a clear change of pace by choosing not to focus primarily on growth.

“Companies that focus on growth instead of on the ‘muscles’ don’t have sustainable growth,” she says. “So, I believe that there are stages: companies grow, grow fast, stop, consolidate, regrow again.”

Resta argues that she brings relevant skills to the watch industry at a moment of structural change. Her perspective as an analytical and intelligent outsider entering the industry is that, historically, it has been a manufacturing business with many sub-suppliers.

She is committed to expanding the network of AP Houses — the brand’s 21-strong private club-like concept stores, the first of which opened in 2017 — with a new opening in Miami planned for the end of the year.

And the opening of a new AP House in Milan, last month, coincided with the announcement that musician John Mayer had been appointed as a “creative conduit” — a nebulous title indicating a loosely defined role as a liaison between brand and collectors.

Resta plans to make the brand more open. “The story behind this industry is so precious and rich,” she says. “We need to open up the stories to more people, people [who] don’t necessarily buy watches.”

Stories are also important to another freshman chief executive, Benoit de Clerck, who took over at Zenith in January. “I was flabbergasted by the richness of the brand,” he says. “Whenever I am at the manufacture in Le Locle, I roam around with the people in charge of heritage of the brand and I’m discovering treasures. “We have 1km of archives. But, at the moment, we don’t have the time and people to go through them. And this is something that I will definitely dig into in the next couple of years to capitalise on.”

After 25 years in the watch industry, de Clerck’s excitement at being given control of a brand is evident. “I moved to Zenith because I wanted to have the 360-degree view and all the touch points of the role,” he says. He joins the LVMH-owned brand from Richemont’s Panerai, where he was chief commercial officer. “When it comes to having people from, say, the car industry, or aeronautics in the watch industry, I embrace it,” says de Clerck. “It’s great to have other people from different industries joining the watch industry, because it enriches it. But you still need experts as well; you will always need knowledge and expertise.”

While de Clerck declines to give exact figures, he indicates that revenues are a little below SFr200mn ($220mn) and that annual production is about 20,000 pieces per year. “It’s not a big brand and it’s not a small brand,” he says. “It’s like an adolescent brand. That is the way that I describe Zenith.”

De Clerck is also discovering that, while it may be a relatively small business, the brand has a distinct character imparted to it by its historical role as a movement manufacturer.

“Chronograph movements, such as the famous high-frequency El Primero, are much more complicated to assemble and regulate than a simple three-hand movement.”

One of de Clerck’s main priorities is to improve the supply chain, to reduce the time it takes to manufacture watches. “We have a very inflexible supply chain,” he says, adding that integrating new technologies, including artificial intelligence, could be beneficial on that front.

“Manufacturing is another aspect. We produce a lot of parts of the movement in-house and we have around 40 engineers working on optimising existing calibres and working on new movement developments. This relatively high proportion of watchmakers and engineers was a revelation for me, and I want to make sure people know that Zenith will continue to be known for its movements.”

Clearly, his experience in the watch industry enables him to address such technical issues and identify where improvements can be made, but he believes that what won him the job was what he calls his “international aspect”. If nothing else — after having lived in the Middle East, America, Hong Kong and other Asian countries — he is a polyglot.

>>> US After Hours Summary: Quiet after hours session; HLIT -0.3% CEO to retire,

After Hours Summary: Quiet after hours session; HLIT -0.3% CEO to retire, concludes strategic review of Video business; MEI -4.2% CEO to retire

After Hours Gainers:

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: SAND +0.3%

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to news: BE +2.9% (to receive up to $75 mln in federal tax credits for Fremont plant), IPSC +2.1% (presents new preclinical data highlighting iPSC-derived cell therapy platform technology), REPX +1.8% (10% holder,bought 75000 shares worth ~$2.025 mln), NNBR +0.9% (announces $17.2 mln in new business awards in Q1), BKD +0.9% (reports March occupancy), PSTX +0.7% (stock offering by selling shareholder), HL +0.6% (reports Q1 production), CRDF +0.3% (presents preclinical data), NCLH +0.3% (announces new build order, featuring eight new vessels), ASR +0.2% (reports March traffic), LMT +0.1% (awarded a $272 mln modification to previously awarded MDA contract)

After Hours Losers:

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: MAXN -8.1%

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to news: VINC -58.4% (presents phase 1 data for VIP236), MEI -4.2% (CEO to retire), AMPY -1.6% (files for $250 mln mixed securities shelf offering), ELEV -0.9% (presents preclinical data for HER3-ADC Program), HLIT -0.3% (CEO to retire; names new CEO; concludes strategic review of Video business; guides Q1 revs in-line), CDE -0.2% (provides update on mine), CNS -0.1% (reports March AUM), PAG -0.1% (to expand its retail automotive operations into Australia)

>>> US Close Dow -0.03% S&P -0.04% Nasdaq +0.03% Russell +0.50%

Closing Stock Market Summary
The stock market had a mixed showing today on below-average volume at the NYSE. The major indices traded in relatively narrow ranges, ultimately settling little changed from Friday. There was not a lot of conviction on either side of the tape as participants look ahead to influential events later in the week.

The standout events include more inflation data in the form of the March Consumer Price Index on Wednesday and Producer Price Index on Thursday.

This morning's release of the New York Fed's Survey of Consumer Expectations did not move the market much. The one-year-ahead inflation expectation remaining at 3.0% for the third consecutive month. At the three-year-ahead horizon, expectations increased to 2.9% from 2.7% while expectations for the five-year-ahead horizon dropped to 2.6% from 2.9%.

There was also an element of hopeful anticipation in play today in front of first quarter earnings results from some big banks ahead of the open on Friday.

JPMorganChase (JPM 198.48, +1.03, +0.5%), Wells Fargo (WFC 57.79, +0.39, +0.7%), and Citigroup (C 61.73, +0.13, +0.2%), which are among the names reporting earnings, logged decent gains today.

Other bank stocks outperformed in sympathy. The SPDR S&P Bank ETF (KBE) gained 1.5% and the SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF (KRE) climbed 1.7%. The S&P 500 financials sector was among the top performers, rising 0.4%.

On a related note, strength in regional bank shares led to the outperformance of the Russell 2000, which closed 0.5% higher today.

Rising market rates did not dampen buying interest in stocks. The 10-yr note yield settled four basis points higher at 4.43% and the 2-yr note yield settled six basis points higher at 4.79%.

This price action was related in part to the market's ongoing recalibration of rate cut expectations, along with some hesitation in front of this week's Treasury sales. There is a $58 billion 3-yr note auction on Tuesday, a $39 billion 10-yr note auction on Wednesday, and a $22 billion 30-yr bond auction on Thursday.

There was no US economic data of note today.
  • S&P 500:+9.1% YTD
  • Nasdaq Composite: +8.3% YTD
  • S&P Midcap 400: +7.9% YTD
  • Dow Jones Industrial Average: +3.2% YTD
  • Russell 2000: +2.3% YTD

Looking ahead, Tuesday's economic data is limited to the NFIB Small Business Optimism at 6:00 ET.

(ZH) Here's What Will Push Oil Above $100/Bbl

Here's What Will Push Oil Above $100/Bbl

Back in early December, just after Powell's dovish pivot shocked everyone, many closet oil bulls like BofA's energy strategist Francisco Blanch, predicted that a dovish Fed would send oil back to $100. Unfortunately for him, oil did nothing and just one month later, as no oil buying had materialized, Blanch threw in the bullish towel and cut his oil price forecast by 11%, ironically bottom ticking to the dot oil just as it was about to soar by 20% in the next three months, an ascent which was capped with... Blanch raising his Brent oil price forecast.
To be sure, BofA wasn't the only one to predict $100 oil: two weeks ago JPMorgan commodity analyst Natasha Kaneva was looking at Russia's unexpected pivot to producing less oil than it was allowed, and wrote that "the shift in Russia’s oil strategy is surprising" and "at face value, and assuming no policy, supply or demand response, Russia’s actions could push Brent oil price to $90 already in April, reach mid-$90 by May and close to $100 by September, keeping pressure on the US administration in the run-up to elections."

In short, the fate of Biden's re-election was now in the hands of Putin if the Russian leader wanted to push up the price of oil back to triple digits by limiting output, and the only recourse Biden has - according to JPMorgan - was releasing another 60 million barrels of oil from the SPR (see full JPM note here).
But it increasingly appears that $100+ oil is inevitable, regardless of what Putin does or does not do, and as Bloomberg writes over the weekend, the odds of $100 oil are rapidly rising, because while the recent surge in po; above $90 just days ago was blamed on escalating military tensions between Israel and Iran, "the rally’s foundations went deeper — to global supply shocks that are intensifying fears of a commodity-driven inflation resurgence."
Consider: a recent move by Mexico to slash its crude exports is compounding a global squeeze, prompting refiners in the US (the world’s biggest oil producer) to consume more domestic barrels. At the same time, American sanctions have stranded Russian cargoes at sea, with Venezuelan supply a potential next target. Meanwhile, Houthi rebel attacks on tankers in the Red Sea have delayed crude shipments, and despite all the "turmoil", OPEC and its allies are sticking with their production cuts.
It all adds up to a magnitude of supply disruption that has taken traders by surprise. The crunch is turbocharging an oil rally ahead of the US summer driving season, threatening to push Brent crude, the global benchmark, to $100 for the first time in almost two years; in fact the last time oil was trading there, Joe Biden was draining the SPR to the tune of several million barrels per week. That’s amplifying the inflation concerns that are clouding US President Joe Biden’s reelection chances and complicating central banks’ rate-cut deliberations.
For oil, “the bigger driver right now is on the supply side,” said Amrita Sen, founder and director of research at Energy Aspects. “You have seen quite a few pockets of supply weakness, and demand overall on a global basis is healthy.”
According to Bloomberg, oil shipments from Mexico, a major supplier in the Americas, slid 35% last month to their lowest since 2019 as President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador tries to make good on promises to wean the country off costly fuel imports. The country’s exports of so-called sour crude — the heavy, dense kind that many refineries are designed to process — now stand to shrink even further as state-controlled oil company Pemex is now planning on cutting an additional 330 kb/d in May, Reuters reported citing sources.
That decision has roiled oil markets around the world. Mars Blend, a medium-density sour crude from the US Gulf Coast, has in recent days risen to a multi-year premium over lighter WTI, the national benchmark. Mars usually trades at a discount to WTI. Brent crude hit $90 a barrel on Thursday, the highest since October, and extended gains on Friday. JPMorgan said it could hit $100 by August or September.
Canadian Cold Lake oil priced at the Gulf Coast traded at the narrowest discount to WTI in almost a year. Key indicators for Middle Eastern medium-sour crude, such as Oman and Dubai contracts, are rallying too.
To be sure, it's not just Mexico's fault: back in February we first warned that long before hedge funds - all heavily short crude - realized what was coming, the physical market was screaming tightness with the Brent prompt spread exploding to a backwardation around 90 cents after tumbling to a multi-year low in late December.
And indeed, a closer look at oil supply showed that there was a clear drop off in production which would guarantee higher prices.
The sharp drop in output in early 2024 came before Mexico’s move, when we noted a sequence of supply disruptions both large and small: in January, a deep freeze ate away at crude output and inventories in the US at a time when they would normally grow, keeping stockpiles below seasonal averages through late March. Then, Mexico, the US, Qatar and Iraq cut their combined oil flows by more than 1 million barrels a day in March, tanker tracking data showed (Baghdad pledged to limit output to make up for non-compliance with prior pledges to OPEC+).
Also adding to the tightness, OPEC member the United Arab Emirates curbed shipments of its Upper Zakum, a medium-sour oil, by 41% in March compared with last year’s average, according to Kpler data. The state oil company is diverting more supplies of that crude to its own refinery, traders told Bloomberg. Though the cuts were expected and Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. is offering buyers another type of crude as a substitute, the decline in Upper Zakum exports is contributing to higher regional prices amid the broader OPEC+ curtailment.
Crude markets in Europe, meanwhile, were pressured higher by the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, which sent millions of barrels of crude on a detour around Africa, delaying some supplies for weeks. Disruptions to a key North Sea pipeline, unrest in Libya and a damaged pipe in South Sudan also contributed to the rally, while US sanctions have deprived Russia of tankers that previously transported its oil to buyers including India.
Making matters worse for Biden who is absolutely terrified of higher oil and gas prices, the supply pinch could become even more acute in the weeks ahead. That's because Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro is showing no sign of heeding promises he made to Biden and other "democracies" to move toward free and fair elections, in response the Biden administration could reimpose sanctions this month, although it most likely won't as it would mean an even lower approval rating for the outgoing US president, confirming once again just how malleable and laughable western "democratic" ideals are.
The plunge in supply - which we warned about two months ago, and which has materialized now - is a stark contrast from just a few months ago, when oil plunged to multi-month lows as US production climbed and Russian seaborne crude exports ratcheted higher despite sanctions, which have since been expanded. The US Energy Information Administration, after forecasting global inventories to remain unchanged this quarter, now predicts they’ll fall by 900,000 barrels a day. That’s the equivalent to the production from Oman.
Putting it all together, Goldman - which has turned decidedly less bullish on oil ever since the firm's iconic commodity analyst Jeff Currie quit last year - last night published a report (available to pro subscribers) in which it said that the market is finally pricing in "firm demand and geopolitical supply risks, which together have boosted positioning and valuation."
And while Goldman expects Brent to stay below $100/bbl in its base case in which the bank assumes:
  1. already solid demand,
  2. no additional geopolitical supply hit, and
  3. that elevated spare capacity will lead OPEC+ to raise production in Q3.
... the bank warns that "geopolitical impediments to OPEC’s ability/desire to deploy spare capacity could send Brent above $100." Needless to say, when it comes to "base case" forecasts from Goldman's research desk (not to be confused with the bank's terrific Sales and Trading desk), they virtually always end up being wrong, which is why $100 oil is now virtually guaranteed.
Goldman also listed other reasons why Brent could reach $100, including i) the Russia-Ukraine or Middle East conflicts may damage upstream, midstream, or downstream oil infrastructure, and ii) Iranian oil supply may decline on disruptions or under a potentially more hawkish US.
Below we excerpt from the Q&A attached to the Goldman report (the full note is available to pro subs in the usual place).
Q. Why have crude oil prices rallied?
Brent has rallied to $91/bbl because the market is now pricing in a firmer demand outlook and some geopolitical downside risks to oil supply, which together have boosted positioning and valuation.
Upgraded market expectations of oil demand have fueled the rally.
  • First, the IEA forecast of 2024 oil demand growth has crept higher on solid oil demand data outside China, and GDP upgrades.
  • Second, sentiment about demand in investor conversations has turned from bearish to constructive.
  • Third, oil prices have also risen after strong activity releases this week, including manufacturing surveys in China, the US, and India and US employment.
The geopolitical risk premium—the compensation investors demand for the risk that geopolitical shocks reduce oil supply—has also picked up following attacks on Russian refineries, and rising Iran-Israel tensions. That said, the cost of insuring against oil price spikes remains less elevated than in October 2023 and in 2022, because Middle East crude production remains unaffected by the war (Exhibit 1).
As the market is now pricing in firm demand and geopolitical supply risks and as oil demand for inflation hedging has picked up, measures of positioning and valuation have risen sharply. Net managed money in crude and refined products has surged by over 400 million barrels since December (Exhibit 2). Our pricing framework suggests that actual Brent 1/36m timespreads have shifted from significantly undervalued in December to now modestly overvalued based on our nowcast of OECD inventories and our assumption of a modest 0.4mb/d Q2 deficit.
And the punchline: Q. What could push Brent oil prices above $100/bbl?
We see only modestly bullish risks to our non-OPEC+ balance from firmer demand in Europe, and likely temporary softness in US supply. In contrast, we believe that lower OPEC supply for longer, for instance because of geopolitical impediments to OPEC’s ability and/or desire to deploy spare capacity, could send Brent above $100 for some time.
Specifically, we see upside risks to our 2023Q3 Brent forecast of $86/bbl in several potential geopolitical scenarios:
  • OPEC+ may extend the existing production cuts further in a context of increased tensions between the West and several key OPEC+ countries
  • The Russia-Ukraine or Middle East conflicts may damage upstream, midstream, or downstream oil infrastructure (as has happened to Russian refineries)
  • Iranian oil supply may decline on disruptions or under a potentially more hawkish US Administration
  • While highly unlikely, we estimate that an interruption of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz would lead oil prices to rise 20% in the first month and eventually double if the interruption persisted for several months
Translation: not just Putin, but all of OPEC+ now controls the outcome of the 2024 US election.

Le Monde : Reid Hoffman, « athée mystique » et gourou de l’intelligence artifici

Reid Hoffman, « athée mystique » et gourou de l’intelligence artificielle
Le cofondateur de LinkedIn invite l’Europe à davantage se positionner dans la course à l’IA opposant les Etats-Unis à la Chine, et dénonce la dérive libertarienne d’Elon Musk.

Le portrait pourrait classiquement commencer par le business : à 56 ans, Reid Hoffman fait partie de la « mafia PayPal », surnom donné à ces jeunes prodiges de la Silicon Valley, qui fondèrent avec Elon Musk et Peter Thiel la firme de paiement et firent le succès de la tech américaine des années 2000.

Cofondateur de LinkedIn en 2002, investisseur aux débuts de Facebook et d’Airbnb, venture capitaliste chez Greylock, ancien membre du conseil d’administration de la société d’intelligence artificielle (IA) OpenAI, Reid Hoffman est à la tête d’une fortune estimée par le magazine Forbes à 2,5 milliards de dollars (environ 2,3 milliards d’euros).

On pourrait poursuivre par la politique : à la différence de ses collègues libertariens, MM. Musk et Thiel, qui ont basculé aux confins de l’extrême droite, Reid Hoffman est un démocrate, qui fait tout pour s’opposer à un second mandat de Donald Trump : ainsi a-t-il contribué – en vain – à la campagne de son adversaire à la primaire républicaine Nikki Haley et financé – avec succès – le procès en diffamation intenté par l’ancienne journaliste du magazine Elle E. Jean Carroll, qui accuse Donald Trump de l’avoir violée.

Mais on a choisi d’engager la conversation par la philosophie, lors d’une rencontre d’une heure dans un hôtel chic au cœur de Manhattan, à New York. En ces temps de décollage de l’IA, Reid Hoffman estime que la technologie forge les générations et il fait partie de ceux qui veulent accélérer. « Quand on a inventé la machine à vapeur, on a créé la classe ouvrière et la classe moyenne. On ne veut pas retourner à la société de paysans. La génération qui grandit le fait avec l’intelligence artificielle. Les plus vieux s’inquiètent, mon Dieu, c’est neuf, c’est étranger. Les jeunes trouvent que c’est sympa, se disent : “Voyons ce que je peux en faire.” »

Lire aussi | Article réservé à nos abonnés Intelligence artificielle : « Sam Altman va-t-il réussir à maintenir le cap de la double mission d’OpenAI ? »

Dans un récent discours à l’université de Bologne (Italie), la plus vieille d’Europe, Reid Hoffman a comparé les temps actuels à la Renaissance, évoquant une « approche de la technologie profondément humaniste » : « Nous formons notre technologie qui, en retour, nous façonne et nous voulons le faire dans une direction qui nous rend plus humains. »

Bien sûr, les craintes sont évoquées. « Hollywood met toujours en scène l’homme contre la machine, et c’est toujours la machine la méchante », qu’il s’agisse de Terminator (1984), de James Cameron, avec Arnold Schwarzenegger, ou de HAL 9000, l’ordinateur d’IBM dans 2001 : l’odyssée de l’espace (1968), de Stanley Kubrick. Par le passé, l’innovation dérangea, tel le télescope de Galilée ou l’automobile, qui effrayait tant que « les gens agitaient des drapeaux orange à son passage ». Avant que les vertus de ces progrès ne soient exploitées.

« L’Europe qui essaye d’être arbitre »
Reid Hoffman, qui s’est amusé à écrire en 2023 un livre avec l’IA – Impromptu : Amplifying Our Humanity Through AI (« Impromptu. Amplifier notre humanité grâce à l’IA », Dallepedia LLC, non traduit) –, se décrit comme « athée mystique », car il reconnaît bien des mystères : « Les athées disent que le monde n’est que mécanique newtonienne. Clairement, le monde est plus intéressant que cela. Par exemple, on ne comprend pas la conscience. » Ce Californien a suivi un parcours éclectique qui fait de lui un personnage atypique dans la Silicon Valley.

Il raconte un séjour dans un internat progressiste du Vermont, Etat rural du Nord-Est : « Je suis allé à Putney School car ils essayent de former des êtres humains équilibrés. J’ai fait de la forge, du travail du bois, cela fait partie de moi. » Puis il étudie à la prestigieuse université de Stanford, en Californie, notamment en neurosciences. « J’en ai déduit qu’ils ne savaient pas bien ce qu’était le langage intelligent, je me suis dit que la philosophie aurait peut-être une réponse. Alors je suis allé étudier à Oxford [Royaume-Uni] et j’ai conclu que les philosophes ne savaient pas non plus ce qu’était le langage intelligent. Et que peut-être la meilleure façon d’y contribuer était de créer un logiciel. »

Dans l’aventure de l’IA, Reid Hoffman invite l’Europe à se mettre de la partie, notamment pour injecter son point de vue culturel. « Le monde et l’Europe seraient mieux lotis si l’Europe innovait aussi. » L’Amérique innove, le Vieux Continent régule, dit l’adage aux Etats-Unis. M. Hoffman répond par une cruelle plaisanterie : « C’est un peu comme s’il y avait un match de Coupe du monde de foot entre la Chine et les Etats-Unis avec l’Europe qui essaye d’être arbitre. Cela pose deux problèmes : d’abord, l’Europe ne peut pas gagner, ensuite personne n’aime particulièrement les arbitres. »

« Les Chinois ont deux ans de retard »
Reid Hoffman salue les projets français, en particulier la start-up Mistral AI, qui vient de signer un partenariat avec Microsoft. « Dans mes yeux d’Américain, ils sont très Français. » Pour lui, il est normal que ces jeunes prodiges aient fait leurs armes chez les géants de la tech américains pour apprendre. « Il n’aurait pas été possible de sortir seulement d’une université. » Côté allemand ? « [Il n’a] pas vu passer sur [s]es radars » un effort significatif en matière d’IA.

Le sujet, d’un point de vue américain, reste la concurrence avec Pékin. « On dit que la Chine pense en siècles. Ce n’est pas le cas dans la tech : ils pensent en semaines. C’est le seul endroit au monde où je trouve que la Silicon Valley va lentement. » Toutefois, la Chine a une sorte de défaut paradoxal, une faible capacité à la persévérance : « Ils pivotent très rapidement, mais ne s’engagent pas dans des projets de plusieurs années. » Pour l’heure, selon lui, en dépit de l’avance qu’ils ont sur les données, « les Chinois ont deux ans de retard » sur les Américains dans leur course à l’IA.

Ce retard s’explique aussi par les difficultés d’accès aux microprocesseurs, en raison des multiples embargos américains, tandis que Washington subventionne massivement cette industrie. « L’administration Biden veut être certaine que les Etats-Unis conservent leur avance dans ce domaine-clé », explique M. Hoffman, qui insiste sur l’impact de l’IA sur tout le tissu économique américain : « L’IA est notre seul espoir pour retrouver notre industrie manufacturière qui fit la classe moyenne. »

Dérive libertarienne d’Elon Musk et Peter Thiel
En revanche, il se dit réticent sur les logiciels open source, ouverts à tous, dans l’IA. « J’ai été au conseil de Mozilla [qui développe des logiciels libres] pendant onze ans [de 2005 à 2016], donc je suis très positif sur de nombreux sujets. Mais quand vous ouvrez des modèles à haute capacité, vous ne les donnez pas seulement aux journalistes, aux corps académiques, ce qui est bien. Vous le donnez aussi aux Etats voyous, aux terroristes, à des gens qui veulent attaquer l’écosystème de l’information ou la démocratie. Nous avons des vulnérabilités, je suis donc prudent. »

Vu les immenses capacités de calcul nécessaire, l’IA semble pour l’instant profiter aux géants de la tech (Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, Apple, Tesla) rebaptisés les « sept magnifiques ». « J’investis beaucoup dans les start-up », précise Reid Hoffman. Celles-ci se greffent sur les géants, appelés à se multiplier.

« Si les sept deviennent trois, alors oui j’ai un souci. Mais si les sept deviennent quinze, c’est un progrès. » Et de vilipender la politique antitrust de la concurrence de l’administration Biden conduite par la présidente de la Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, qui multiplie les procès contre les géants technologiques de la Côte ouest : « Je m’élève largement contre cette politique antitrust, car elle poursuit l’effondrement et pas l’expansion », accuse-t-il, dénonçant « un usage peut-être pas illégal, mais immoral d’une position d’autorité pour entraver autant que possible les grandes entreprises de la tech ».

De même est-il sévère sur l’attitude de Joe Biden, qui ouvrit les hostilités contre Elon Musk en ne le conviant pas à un sommet sur l’électrique à la Maison Blanche à l’été 2021 sous prétexte que ses usines étaient non syndiquées. « Elon a tendance à être bagarreur. Et quand la gauche a commencé à l’attaquer, il a riposté comme Robert De Niro dans Taxi Driver [1976]. Mais faire un sommet sur la voiture électrique à la Maison Blanche sans l’inviter, c’est risible, grotesque ! », déplore-t-il. Et de pointer que l’effet est aussi désastreux auprès de la communauté de la tech, qui constate que la Maison Blanche est dans un déni de réalité pour faire plaisir aux syndicats. Au fil des trimestres, Elon Musk dérive, persuadé que l’enjeu est de créer une IA antiwoke. « Personnellement, ce qui m’obsède c’est d’avoir, grâce à l’intelligence artificielle, un système médical accessible pour tout le monde sur son smartphone. »

Reid Hoffman critique aussi la dérive libertarienne de MM. Musk et Thiel, qui semblent croire qu’on peut se passer d’Etat. « Vous avez déjà essayé d’être entrepreneur en Afghanistan ? C’est difficile non ? C’est là que je romps les rangs avec mes camarades de PayPal car je pense que oui, le gouvernement, cela compte. »

Pour l’élection présidentielle de novembre, Reid Hoffman fait feu de tout bois pour empêcher un second mandat Trump. « Je ne suis pas intrinsèquement démocrate contre républicain. J’ai financé toute une série de candidats républicains, la dernière en date étant Nikki Haley », l’ancienne gouverneure de Caroline du Sud qui briguait l’investiture républicaine face à Donald Trump. Sans succès. Alors, clairement, il votera pour Joe Biden, dont le bilan national et international est selon lui sous-estimé. « Etre vieux ne signifie pas être non fonctionnel », explique-t-il, et Joe Biden, pour lui, n’est pas « non fonctionnel » : « Absolument pas. En décembre [2023], j’ai passé des heures à discuter avec lui, de choses qu’il ne connaissait pas comme l’intelligence artificielle. Pourquoi avais-je besoin de déjeuner avec lui ? J’avais besoin de savoir cela. »

FT : Labour denies plan for UK to rejoin EU customs union

Labour denies plan for UK to rejoin EU customs union
Shadow minister says party ‘committed to making Brexit work’ after report from political consultancy on realignment

Tensions within Labour over its policy towards the EU burst to the surface on Monday after the party was forced to deny a report that it planned to re-enter a customs union if it wins the general election.

The paper from the Eurasia Group political consultancy cited unnamed “senior Labour insiders” as saying the party would seek to revive a high-alignment deal, originally brokered by former prime minister Theresa May but rejected by parliament in 2019, in a bid to boost economic growth.

“[That] deal is a first-term ambition. A de facto customs union by another name. It is the first step of where we’d want to get to,” one of the insiders reportedly said, adding they were reflecting new internal thinking on the EU relationship within the Labour leadership.

They added that if the opposition party won an October election with a large majority, as current opinion polls suggest, then Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer would travel to Brussels as early as December to signal his desire for a “fundamental upgrade” of the EU-UK economic relationship.

Labour quickly denied the briefing, which was sent to Eurasia Group clients on Monday morning, insisting that the party was sticking to its “red lines” on the EU, which include remaining outside both the single market and a customs union.

Nick Thomas-Symonds, the shadow Cabinet Office minister who is expected to be put in charge of Labour’s promised re-engagement with Europe if the party wins power at the next election, said the party position had not changed.

“Labour has long been clear that we are committed to making Brexit work. We have set out clear red lines on the future of our relationship with the European Union: no return to the single market, the customs union or return to freedom of movement,” he added.

Forging a customs union with the EU would require unravelling other parts of UK trade policy, including the trade deals signed with Australia and the 11-member Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Labour has promised to improve the EU-UK trading relationship, but within those “red lines”, saying it will seek a veterinary agreement to reduce border frictions for food products, improve touring opportunities for musicians and boost reciprocal access for professionals.

However, internal critics of the party’s stance warn that these moves are too limited and will not be sufficient to deliver the other planks of the party’s policy platform, including an industrial strategy and being the fastest-growing economy in the G7.

Under May’s rejected deal, the UK remained in a de facto customs union with the EU and committed to high levels of regulatory alignments in areas including environmental and labour standards — a position Eurosceptics rejected as too close to the bloc.

Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at Eurasia Group, who authored the client note, said any move to structurally deepen economic ties would require Labour to take a more proactive approach than at present.

“They would need to make an early and clear move with Europe after the election, but also make an argument to the UK electorate about the benefits such an arrangement would carry for UK trade and investment and Labour’s growth agenda,” he added.

Brussels would potentially be open to such a proposal, a person briefed on the European Commission’s approach to the UK told the Financial Times, and it is monitoring what might be possible under a Starmer government.

“It would be a massive negotiation, but there would be openness from the EU side,” they added. “There’s been quite a lot of thinking on the possibilities here . . . but there will naturally be strings attached, whether financial, trade or on freedom of movement.”

Illustration of Rishi Sunak uses a butterfly net to chase question marks and Xs in the sky
Several other Brussels-based officials said they were open to a deal but sceptical that Starmer would want to make the necessary compromises.

A customs union is possible “if conditions are met” said one EU official, but they warned there would be no special treatment for the UK.

London “would be bound by the European Court of Justice and surrender sovereignty”, said a second official. “Every time we made a new trade agreement it would automatically apply to the UK,” they added.

The 27 member states are generally in favour of closer ties with the UK but remain wary of reopening deals struck after years of bruising negotiations. “We have moved on,” said another diplomat.