JDD : Alstom : 45 years on, the TGV at a turning point



**45 years on, the TGV at a turning point**
*Le Journal du Dimanche, 27 September 2026, by Humbert Angleys*

**Anniversary and track record.** The first TGV entered commercial service between Paris and Lyon on 27 September 1981, five days after François Mitterrand inaugurated the line. Paris–Lyon dropped to about two hours once the high-speed line was completed in 1983. Since then, some 3 billion passengers have used the TGV, including 168 million in 2025.

**The delayed TGV M.** The fifth-generation train (TGV M, developed as the "TGV of the future") was originally promised for 2024, then pushed to 2025, spring 2026, autumn 2026, and now "from autumn 2026." It has run more than a million test kilometres since May. Its selling points: 20% lower energy use, modular interiors and up to 740 seats, 20% more than its predecessor.

**Chronic under-supply.** François Delétraz, outgoing head of the national passenger association Fnaut, calls under-supply the TGV's main problem, arguing SNCF deliberately cut capacity about a decade ago to improve profitability. The TGV M won't fully fix it: Delétraz says even if it were running today, supply would still fall short, and it will take five years before travellers can reliably find tickets.

**Infrastructure limits.** SNCF Réseau expects traffic to grow 25% between 2024 and 2033 and has identified 25 sections at risk of saturation. The ageing network needs massive renewal, which Transport Minister Philippe Tabarot calls a priority and essential to meeting French demand. Former minister Dominique Bussereau, who delivered a report in July on regional TGV services, counters that the high-speed network itself is not saturated, citing spare capacity on Tours–Bordeaux. SNCF CEO Jean Castex noted that €60 billion of renewal and modernisation spending has been deferred since 1980, and that the state long underinvested, relying on SNCF profits to fund new lines at the expense of everyday lines.

**The French model.** Bussereau defends the TGV's distinctive feature: unlike the Shinkansen, it was designed to leave high-speed lines and serve the classic network (e.g. 300–320 km/h out of Paris, then 100 km/h into an Alpine valley). Nearly 180 domestic destinations remain served. Delétraz agrees the TGV improves metropolitan links but says it worsens the problem of regional coverage, pointing to cuts in Paris–Lorraine service, though some routes such as Lyon–Nancy have returned.

**Competition and funding.** Open access erodes the profits SNCF once used to cross-subsidise loss-making routes, as newcomers target the most lucrative markets. Bussereau's mission proposes productivity gains, modulated track access charges, regional planning criteria in slot allocation and possibly an operator-funded solidarity fund. In Brittany, the region co-funds extensions beyond Rennes, offset partly by fewer regional TER trains. Bussereau also warns France's third city, Toulouse, cannot be left outside the European high-speed network, as the Bordeaux–Toulouse line is not yet built. Delétraz nonetheless refuses to call the TGV a damaged jewel, saying it is mostly underused: it became a cash machine when it should be a passenger machine.

**Sidebar: new entrants.** Five years after launch, Trenitalia carried 1.8 million passengers in 2025 and expanded its offer, though it does not expect to be profitable in France before 2026. Velvet has its licence and targets Paris–Bordeaux in 2028, then Rennes, Nantes and Angers. Le Train has secured capacity on Paris–Bordeaux and Paris–Rennes. Delétraz criticises Trenitalia for an airline-style, point-to-point model poorly connected to regional trains; Bussereau urges patience, as competition took time to deliver in aviation.

>>> The WSJ's Sam Goldfarb (26 Sep) frames the debate in one line: "Investors pa

The WSJ's Sam Goldfarb (26 Sep) frames the debate in one line: "Investors panicked in 1994, cheered in 2016." With the 10-year at 5.18%, its highest since 2007, and the S&P 500 still up 12.6% since the Iran war began on 28 February, here is our read.

1. A real-rate shock, not an inflation scare. Since 27 Feb the 10-year is up 121bp, of which 113bp is the real yield (2.85%, highest since 2008). Inflation breakevens barely moved. Three borrowers are competing for the same savings: the Treasury (net interest now above $1tn a year), the AI hyperscalers, and a world repricing its own debt (German Bunds at 17-year highs).

2. AI has flipped from self-funded to externally funded. Alphabet bought back $28bn of stock in H1 2025 and none in H1 2026; in June it raised $49.6bn of new equity. Meta stopped buybacks and borrowed $24.9bn. Capex builds capacity, which buybacks never did, and faster growth is the only painless exit from the US debt arithmetic. But capex lifts rates before it lifts growth.

3. History: the macro rhymes with 2006 (oil shock, Fed hiking, housing rolling over), the market structure with 1999 (ten AI-linked names are 40% of the S&P 500). The difference with 1999 is earnings: 19x forward, with Q3 EPS expected +29%. And it is not 2022: credit spreads are tighter than before the war.

4. The US will not "collapse". A credibility crisis looks like yields up, dollar down, gold up. We see the opposite: since the war began the dollar is +3.4% and gold -18%. The risks are dated: Iran after the 3 Nov midterms (the WSJ reports Trump expects to resume bombing after the vote), the 11 Dec funding deadline, and any hyperscaler bond deal that struggles.

5. Own earnings, not duration. Favour AI that funds itself (Microsoftpple) over debt-reliant AI (Oracle, CoreWeave); energy and US LNG as insurance (ConocoPhillips, EOG, Cheniere); large-cap pharma and biotech on M&A (Merck, AbbVie, IBB rather than XBI); front-end Treasuries; gold as the tail hedge. Avoid utilities, homebuilders, REITs and small caps. Moderna (+574% YTD) is a clinical re-rating, not a macro trade: the binary is the full melanoma data at ESMO on 24 Oct.

Scenarios to year-end (our probabilities): base 55%, index flat to +5%; bull 25% (Iran deal, Brent towards $80), +8 to +12%; bear 20% (escalation or an AI funding accident), -10 to -15%.

Verdict: constructive, conditionally. Stay invested, rotate, and watch the dollar and hyperscaler credit, not the S&P, for the turn.

Chart attached. For professional investors only; not investment advice.


Best regards,
Laurent Chekroun

>>> ABVX | UEG 2026 abstract: obefazimod week 44 maintenance by prior a


ABVX | UEG 2026 abstract: obefazimod week 44 maintenance by prior advanced therapy (AT-IR) and JAK failure

The UEG Week 2026 programme now carries the full abstract of the ABTECT maintenance subgroup analysis (Danese et al.), to be presented orally on Tuesday 20 October, 12:20 CEST, in the session "Looking into the future: Novel therapeutics in IBD (Part 2)". The table is circulating on X this morning.

Link to the abstract and full data table:

What is new and what is not
The totals reconcile exactly with the 1 June topline (clinical remission at week 44: 50.8% on 25 mg and 51.3% on 50 mg vs 10.4% on placebo). The novelty is the split: 41% of the 580 maintenance patients were AT-IR (238) and 59% AT-naive (342), plus a JAK-failure subset and a breakdown by number of prior advanced-therapy failures, none of which had been disclosed so far.

Key figures, week 44 (25 mg / 50 mg vs placebo)
- AT-IR, clinical remission: 34.2% / 42.2% vs 6.9% (delta +28.0 / +33.1 pts, p<0.0001)
- AT-IR, endoscopic remission: 23.7% / 38.9% vs 5.6%
- AT-IR, HEMI: 34.2% / 48.9% vs 6.9%
- AT-naive, clinical remission: 61.5% / 59.0% vs 12.5% (delta +48.1 / +45.1 pts)
- AT-naive, endoscopic remission: 53.0% / 55.2% vs 12.5%
- JAK-failure patients, clinical remission: 28.6% (4/14) / 33.3% (5/15) vs 0% (0/16), p=0.019 and p=0.038
- By line of therapy, clinical remission on 50 mg ranges from 33% to 48% across 1, 2, 3 and 4+ prior advanced-therapy failures

Our read
1. Positive and consistent. The effect holds in the refractory population with a very low placebo rate, and the drug works after JAK failure, a segment the market leader upadacitinib, itself a JAK, cannot address by construction.
2. A clear dose logic emerges. In AT-naive patients 25 mg and 50 mg are equivalent; in AT-IR patients 50 mg separates on the mucosal endpoints (endoscopic remission 38.9% vs 23.7%). This supports filing both doses, as management intends: 25 mg as a front-line maintenance dose, 50 mg for refractory patients.
3. Benchmark. On the overall population, maintenance remission is in line with upadacitinib (Rinvoq 15 mg / 30 mg: 40.4% / 53.6% vs 10.8% at week 52) and endoscopic remission is materially higher (41.5% / 47.7% vs roughly 24% / 26%). Cross-trial comparison, with the usual caveats.

Points the bears will raise
- Sustained remission in AT-IR patients is not significant (p=0.69 and p=0.09) on very small numbers (13 to 23 patients per arm) with an unusually high placebo rate (3/13).
- In the line-of-therapy cuts, several subsets are not significant, including 1 prior failure (p=0.28 and p=0.06) and 25 mg in 4+ failures (delta 0.0). Sample sizes are 9 to 41 patients per arm, and all p-values are nominal.
- The induction gap versus Rinvoq is unchanged: fewer patients enter maintenance.

Market angle
The maintenance data landed in the upside case most sell-side scenarios were built on before the June readout, yet the ADS closed at $91.06 on Friday, some 27% below the $125 July offering price, with the debate focused on skin cancer and labelling. This abstract does not address that debate, but it strengthens the positioning argument for later lines and post-JAK use, which matters for both the launch case and strategic interest. The next catalysts are the UEG presentation on 20 October and the NDA submission targeted for Q4 2026.

Source: UEG Week 2026 programme, abstract "Efficacy of obefazimod in phase 3 ABTECT-Maintenance trial: results of 44-week therapy in subsets of patients with and without prior inadequate response to advanced therapies", Danese S. et al.

Best regards,

Laurent Chekroun

WSJ : New Boeing 737 MAX Software Glitch Could Disrupt Navigation Feature Aerosp

New Boeing 737 MAX Software Glitch Could Disrupt Navigation Feature
Aerospace giant working on procedure for pilots and software fix; FAA investigation could affect approval of new plane model

  • Boeing identified a 737 MAX software glitch that could cause an automated navigation feature to fail in a certain landing scenario.
  • Southwest and United Airlines told Boeing they don’t want new 737 MAX planes equipped with the flawed software, some industry officials said.
  • The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the issue, which could affect the certification of Boeing’s newest 737 models.

Boeing has identified a 737 MAX software glitch that could cause an automated navigation feature to fail, prompting concerns about a potential safety risk while planes are landing.

The glitch, which Boeing BA 0.65%increase; up pointing triangle acknowledged, hasn’t been publicly disclosed. It emerged from a cockpit software update and can occur when flight crews alter their planned flight path following a missed approach. In a certain scenario, pilots may have to fly manually without some autopilot functions. That, some industry officials said, could overwork pilots while they are already busy, at low altitude and possibly dealing with situations like bad weather.

The aerospace giant, airlines and regulators have been assessing the glitch and whether it poses a flight safety issue.

Boeing notified 737 MAX operators in late August about the glitch, saying that it didn’t pose a safety risk, according to a company document viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The company said it was working with airlines on a procedure to allow pilots to re-enable the automated navigation feature if needed, and also devising a software fix.

“We shared information with operators that reinforced existing pilot procedures for safely handling such cases,” Boeing said. “Our engineers are working on a software update to permanently address the issue.”

Southwest Airlines and United Airlines have told Boeing that they don’t want to receive new 737 MAX planes equipped with the flawed software, and instead requested an earlier version of it, according to industry officials.

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the new 737 MAX issue and will take action if needed, a senior agency official said.

The stakes are high for the American plane maker because its 737 MAX has a checkered safety record and it has been working to restore trust with regulators, airline customers and the flying public.

The narrow-body aircraft is the latest variant of Boeing’s bestselling passenger jet and a major driver of company revenue. But it was grounded for nearly two years after a pair of fatal crashes. The accidents led to intense scrutiny that delayed FAA approvals for newer versions of the jet.

It wasn’t immediately clear how many 737 MAX jets might be flying with the flawed software. Boeing said it was working on an accurate count; airlines aren’t required to inform the company if they upgrade their software. There are 2,422 of Boeing’s 737 MAX 8 and 9 models currently flying around the world, according to aviation-data firm Cirium.

Airlines including Alaska, American, Southwest and United operate 737 MAX aircraft, but they said none of their planes are flying with the flawed software. Industry officials said Boeing advised airlines they can revert to an older software version.

The software issue could complicate airlines’ plans to fly Boeing’s newest 737 models, the MAX 7 and MAX 10, according to government and industry officials.

The FAA approved the MAX 7 for passenger service last month with the new software, the senior agency official said. Boeing Chief Executive Kelly Ortberg has said recently that he expects regulators to soon approve the MAX 10.

The software glitch poses a conundrum for Southwest. The Dallas-based carrier has been waiting years for the smallest version of the Boeing narrow-body jet, the MAX 7, and it has planned to start flying them next year.

Under federal regulations, newly produced aircraft must conform to the design approved during FAA certification. It wasn’t clear whether they could eventually be loaded with older software. Southwest said it was aware of the issue and is engaged with Boeing and the FAA.

U.S. carriers including Delta, United, American and Alaska have MAX 10 jets on order with Boeing. The senior FAA official said the outcome of the agency’s probe could affect the plane’s certification if regulators determine the glitch amounts to an unsafe condition that needs to be addressed.

Boeing said it learned of the glitch from one of its 737 MAX operators in November 2024, but the issue initially didn’t appear to meet the company’s criteria for a safety review. After Boeing later shared information with airlines and got more feedback, the company said it started a formal safety review this month and shared its results with the FAA.

In its fleet notice to 737 MAX operators in August, Boeing said it expected to issue more guidance by November and roll out a permanent software fix in early 2028. Boeing said it is working to accelerate both timelines.

Safety issues are often subjective, and there are differing industry views of the 737 MAX software glitch. The Canadian airline WestJet said: “This is not considered a safety issue, we have standard operating procedures and training to mitigate this type of event.”

GE Aerospace, which developed the software in question, said the company is working closely with Boeing and will support the FAA’s evaluation.

The new flight-software glitch offers a fresh test of how Boeing, U.S. regulators and airlines deal with emerging potential safety issues. Crashes of the 737 MAX in 2018 and 2019 killed 346 people.

In those crashes, a flawed Boeing flight-control system known as MCAS repeatedly pushed down the airplanes’ noses, and flight crews were unable to regain control of the jets before they entered terminal dives.

The crashes resulted in eventual Boeing fixes that added safeguards to the flight-control system. It also spawned efforts within the industry and the FAA to better understand how pilots with a range of experience, training and skills will respond to problems during flights.

WSJ : Stocks Are Defying Surging Bond Yields. Here’s What History Says Could Com

Stocks Are Defying Surging Bond Yields. Here’s What History Says Could Come Next.
Investors panicked in 1994, cheered in 2016. They’re now debating how to handle 2026.

  • U.S. bonds are experiencing a punishing selloff that has driven yields to roughly two-decade highs, while stocks have remained resilient.
  • Rising yields can hurt stocks by lifting borrowing costs to slow economic growth and by making safer, new bonds more attractive to investors.
  • Some investors expect stock resilience to continue due to AI spending, while others worry the Federal Reserve must raise rates until stocks fall.



U.S. markets seem a bit off to many observers lately: Bonds are in the grips of a punishing selloff, driving yields to roughly two-decade highs.

On the other hand, stocks are doing just fine.

The stock market’s resilience has been a surprising, and broadly welcomed, subplot in the transition to higher interest rates. Now investors want to know how long it can last.

Rising bond yields can hurt stocks in a couple of ways. They lift borrowing costs across the economy, slowing growth. They also mean investors can earn more by holding new bonds to maturity, making them think twice about owning much riskier stocks.

Bond selloffs are especially dangerous during times like now, when yields are rising because the Federal Reserve is lifting rates or about to do so. That is different from when the economy is doing well and yields are ticking higher just because investors expect rate increases sometime in the distant future.

Even then, market history is complicated. Squint, and one can find many examples supporting the arguments of bulls and bears alike. Stocks have withstood surging yields before—though their especially poor performance just four years ago continues to haunt investors.


The 1994 bond selloff is one of the most famous in history, and it began when the Alan Greenspan-led Fed raised rates that February.

That hike surprised investors because inflation was seen as tame; the Fed was only moving because it thought a strengthening economy could spur inflation in future. Investors didn’t wait to see how it played out, furiously betting on a series of rate increases that drove the 10-year Treasury yield up more than a percentage point in just 40 trading sessions. The rapid adjustment also drove down stocks, with the S&P 500 falling as much as 8% from the start of the bond selloff.

Stocks gradually recovered even as yields continued to climb, reflecting confidence that the rate hikes wouldn’t spur a recession and that a strong economy would continue to support corporate earnings.


Yields surged again in 1999. This time, though, the bond market was ahead of Greenspan. The 10-year yield rose around a percentage point in the months leading up to the start of another series of pre-emptive rate hikes. Stocks were choppy for months—but again recovered as dot.com mania swept through Wall Street and superseded concerns about the rise in borrowing costs.

The S&P 500 reached its dot.com peak on March 24, 2000, then tumbled 49% to its bear market low in late 2002.


By early 2006, surging oil prices were adding to inflation pressures. Yields jumped and the Fed raised rates, but stocks generally held firm until May when investors started growing more concerned about the economic outlook. Those fears initially drove stocks and yields down together, before yields started rising again in June.


The bond selloff of 2016 was a textbook example of how yields and stocks sometimes rise together. Rather than a threat to growth, rising interest rates were welcomed as a sign that the economy might finally be normalizing after years of sluggish growth following the 2008-09 financial crisis.

Yields and stocks got an extra boost from a surprise Republican sweep in the November elections, as investors bet that President Trump and the new Congress would spur growth and inflation by cutting taxes and regulations.


The bond selloff of 2022 was by some measures the worst in U.S. history. It was also a very bad year for stocks. Though Covid-spurred inflation arrived in 2021, investors had agreed with the Fed’s assessment that the period of rising prices was transitory. So when the Fed pivoted and started to raise rates aggressively, many scrambled.

2026
Investors are once again at a crossroads. Though yields have climbed and the Fed has already raised rates once, economic growth has stayed resilient—fueled by historic spending on artificial-intelligence infrastructure by tech companies that seem impervious to rising borrowing costs.

That strength has supported stocks, and many don’t see why it shouldn’t continue—especially if a deal can be struck between the U.S. and Iran that would lower oil prices and reduce inflation pressures.

Others are more pessimistic, arguing that the Fed might have to keep raising rates until stocks finally feel pain since the lofty market itself could be an obstacle to conquering inflation.

Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh is focused “on the overall financial environment and whether or not that is slowing demand,” said Meghan Swiber, senior U.S. rates strategist at Bank of America in an interview for a coming episode of WSJ’s Take on The Week podcast. “You look at equities, you look at risk assets, there is very little signal to the Fed right now that anything is slowing down.”

FT : Big companies warn lack of ‘AI openness’ could hit investment in Europe Mul

Big companies warn lack of ‘AI openness’ could hit investment in Europe
Multinationals evaluating countries’ approach to AI before making expansion plans, say executives

Multinational companies are starting to use countries’ “AI openness” to decide where to invest, threatening to put much of continental Europe at a disadvantage to the US.

Executives from companies across the financial services, industrial and tech sectors said they were analysing countries’ AI talent, infrastructure and regulatory environment when deciding where to expand their operations.

“Companies have choices about where they locate their next R&D programmes, manufacturing capacity and operational investments,” said Maria Cristina Bifulco, chief strategy officer of Italian cable giant Prysmian.

“If Europe does not create the right conditions, those investments risk moving to markets that combine AI-friendly policies with greater regulatory certainty, long-term security of demand and a clearer understanding of the strategic value of local production,” she said.

One big US bank said it used a traffic-light system to rank countries on criteria including whether their government had made AI use a priority and whether data protection rules allowed them to use company and client information for AI applications.

“We are less inclined to add headcount in countries we consider red for AI adoption,” said an executive from the bank. “There are certain countries in mainland Europe that fall into that category; we consider the UK greenish,” they added.  

The EU is trying to strike an increasingly difficult balance between boosting AI adoption while reducing its dependence on the US tech giants behind the technology. It was also the first large jurisdiction to impose legal guardrails on AI through its AI Act.

“On paper, the EU has gone further than any other major economy in regulating AI,” said Laura Houston, co-head of the tech practice at law firm Slaughter and May. “For a business deciding whether to build in Europe, the US or Asia, the cost and complexity of the EU model is naturally a key part of the equation.”

In contrast, the UK has taken a lighter touch to AI regulation, despite strong campaigning from the creative industries for tougher copyright protections.

Novo, the Danish maker of weight-loss drugs, chose London for its new AI co-innovation hub when it unveiled a partnership with Amazon Web Services last month to help with drug discovery.

“We go where the AI talent is and where we can operate responsibly,” said Anja Leth Zimmer, chief AI officer at Novo.

The EU also continues to struggle with difficulties in quickly building and deploying data centres, high energy prices, slower customer take-up of AI and smaller amounts of funding in comparison with the AI investments made in the US, said Zach Meyers of the Centre on Regulation in Europe think-tank.

A European Commission spokesperson said that Europe had “world-class industries with the highest-quality data to power industrial AI models” and that its AI gigafactories project would expand the bloc’s computing capacity.

The chief executive of Schneider Electric’s industrial software unit Aveva, Caspar Herzberg, said the company was still “evaluating the right AI criteria to include in investment decisions”. But Aveva planned to consider “AI maturity” when making investments, including countries’ AI readiness, openness and capabilities, he added.

Talent, computing power, the energy grid and frontier AI research were all part of the equation, Herzberg said. “This is an issue we see impacting investment planning going forward.”

FT : Armani to kick off stake sale talks with LVMH and L’Oréal Fashion company t

Armani to kick off stake sale talks with LVMH and L’Oréal
Fashion company to meet French groups and EssilorLuxottica in accordance with wishes of late founder Giorgio Armani

Armani is poised to kick off formal talks with the three potential investors anointed in the will of Giorgio Armani as it thrashes out a new strategy without the designer who kept an iron grip on the business for fifty years.

In the coming weeks Armani is scheduled to hold meetings with LVMH, beauty giant L’Oréal and eyewear group EssilorLuxottica over a possible sale of a minority stake, according to people familiar with the matter.

After fiercely guarding the independence of the Italian group for decades, Armani shocked the luxury industry a year ago by instructing his heirs to sell an initial 15 per cent stake within 18 months of his death.

However, people close to the trio of preferred suitors played down the chances of their making a substantial investment in the short term in a group with interests spanning fashion, haute couture, hotels, restaurants and home furnishings.

One option that has been discussed informally with Armani would see a 15 per cent stake divided among LVMH, L’Oréal and EssilorLuxottica, according to four people familiar with the matter.

“No one wants to jump on it but no one wants to let it pass. This way everyone gets to be around the table,” said one person close to the situation.

Armani retained tight control over the creative and commercial sides of the operation until shortly before his death last September. His passing, at the age of 91, plunged his business into a challenge familiar to many of Italy’s founder-led companies: turning a company built in the image of one individual into an institution capable of thriving without them.

Company veteran Giuseppe Marsocci was promoted to chief executive a month after Armani’s death. He has since been developing a new strategy with assistance from Boston Consulting Group. The aim of the work, according to people familiar with the project, is to refine the positioning of the group’s brands and devise ways of expanding in higher-margin categories like accessories.

The group’s family-heavy board, which Armani chaired, has been overhauled with the appointment of outsiders including former Gucci chief Marco Bizzarri and Yoox founder Federico Marchetti. Longtime company executive Leo Dell’Orco has been elevated to chair.

People close to Armani’s executives said they are also planning to streamline the structure of the group, which owns the Giorgio Armani and Emporio Armani brands, haute couture line Armani Privé, as well as hotels, restaurants and home furnishings.

On the creative front, the group this month appointed Dario Vitale, one of Italy’s most acclaimed designers, to reinvigorate the Emporio Armani brand, which accounts for almost a third of the group’s €2.2bn annual revenue.

His brief is to refresh Emporio — conceived as Armani’s younger, more experimental line — and give it a clearer identity.

“Emporio is where you can see most clearly what they are trying to do with the company,” said one person who has worked with the company. “They need to make it younger, clearer and more relevant but without losing what makes it Armani.”

Vitale, who was hired on the back of his success drawing younger luxury consumers to Prada-owned label Miu Miu, will also oversee Giorgio Armani’s push into accessories, an area Marsocci described as “a great opportunity”.

The upheaval internally has delayed formal talks over a stake sale, which were initially expected to take place in June but will now be held in late September or early October, according to people familiar with the matter.

They will be held against the backdrop of a protracted downturn in luxury spending. Armani’s revenues fell for a second consecutive year in 2025, declining 2.8 per cent to €2.19bn after a 5 per cent fall in 2024.

However, earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation rose 3.2 per cent to €153mn, helped by cost reductions and a stronger performance from Armani Privé.

Two of Armani’s preferred investors — EssilorLuxottica and L’Oréal — have longstanding commercial relationships with the group.

Ray-Ban owner EssilorLuxottica, which has a licensing deal with Armani until 2038, is unlikely to buy a large stake, according to people close to the situation.

The people said that the eyewear group was focused on expanding in medtech and in the US, with little appetite to own a luxury fashion house. Any investment would be motivated by chief executive Francesco Milleri’s willingness to support the Armani family, the people added.

Although L’Oréal has invested in fashion businesses, such as the French brand Jacquemus, it does not operate them and its priority is protecting its lucrative Armani licensing agreement, which runs until 2050, according to people familiar with its thinking.

LVMH has expressed its interest in being involved in the Armani minority stake sale process, according to people with knowledge of their position.

The people cautioned, however, that it was not an obvious fit with its portfolio, given that the group generated a significant share of sales at lower price points than LVMH’s core brands and had a portfolio weighted more towards fashion than high-margin accessories.

Longstanding personal ties between members of the Arnault family, which controls LVMH, and the late designer nevertheless remained an important factor, the people added.

Agreeing on a valuation may also be a stumbling block. People close to the group have floated a figure of about €10bn, while potential investors put its value at between €3bn and €7bn. Should none of Armani’s preferred suitors or any other acceptable buyers emerge, a stock market listing is a fallback option.

One person who has worked for the group said that beyond the numbers, the biggest shadow hanging over the talks would be that of the late designer himself.

“The challenge is not selling Armani,” the person said. “It is showing that Armani can grow without Giorgio Armani.”

FT : Swiss voters to decide fate of centuries-old neutrality A Yes vote would ba

Swiss voters to decide fate of centuries-old neutrality
A Yes vote would bar the country from co-operating with military alliances unless attacked

Swiss voters will decide on Sunday whether to impose a stricter definition of the country’s centuries-old neutrality in a referendum that threatens Bern’s efforts to deepen security and defence co-operation with its European neighbours.

The “neutrality initiative” was conceived by Christoph Blocher, the billionaire former government minister who has shifted the Swiss People’s Party further right. The party opposed Bern’s decision to join the EU in imposing sanctions against Russia in the wake of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Blocher and Pro Schweiz, a sovereigntist group opposed to closer ties with the EU, collected enough signatures to force a national referendum. The SVP is the only big political party that supports the proposal.

The initiative would enshrine “perpetual and armed” neutrality in the constitution and restrict the government’s freedom to decide what neutrality means in practice.

Switzerland would be barred from co-operating with military alliances unless it faced an attack or one was being prepared, and would be prevented from imposing sanctions unless they were approved by the UN.

Polls suggest the proposal will be rejected. A GFS Bern survey for public broadcaster SRG published this month found 63 per cent of voters opposed and 34 per cent in favour.

But the campaign has revived a much older argument over what Swiss neutrality actually means — and the considerable flexibility with which the country has historically applied it.

Neutrality developed over centuries as a pragmatic means of protecting a small confederation divided by language and religion from the wars of its larger neighbours. It also helped insulate those internal divisions from conflicts beyond Switzerland’s borders.

The policy ensured Switzerland remained neutral during world wars. But its conduct — particularly during the second world war — undermined the idea that Swiss neutrality was ever absolute.

Successive governments have instead interpreted the policy according to circumstance. Switzerland remains outside Nato and the EU, but has joined Nato’s Partnership for Peace, participated in international peacekeeping and imposed sanctions on other countries.

That room for manoeuvre is at the heart of Sunday’s vote. The government argues that imposing a stricter constitutional definition would remove the flexibility that has allowed Switzerland to adapt to circumstances.

The tensions came to a head after Russia’s invasion in 2022. Switzerland’s decision to largely adopt EU sanctions against Moscow was controversial domestically and prompted Blocher’s campaign. Critics argued that Bern had compromised its neutrality.

For many in Switzerland’s internationally exposed business community, however, following western sanctions was pragmatic given the country’s dependence on European markets and a global financial system dominated by the US dollar.

The argument has become more consequential as European security has deteriorated. Bern has sought closer co-operation with its neighbours on air defence, cyber security and military interoperability — precisely the sort of flexibility that could be constrained by the initiative.

Markus Mäder, Switzerland’s state secretary for security policy, told the FT this year that the country regarded itself as “an integral part of European security”.