Financially, the first quarter has just ended, and none of the “Trump trades” have truly shined (see the market review). Politically, phrase by phrase, we Europeans are coming to understand that the American Friend (a reference to the Wim Wenders film) is no more.
The epicenter of AI has shifted, while global trade is seeking new routes without the United States. But can we really do without them? That is the 1 trillion euro question — the equivalent of 5% growth in Europe.

• Q1.2025 - Bitter, sweet first quarter

• Few numbers

• What if Europe took the lead again?

• Making a buzz or making money?

• B-R & H Finance

To complement our market review, we share on LinkedIn a set of clear and curated tables:

1. 40 key assets, ranked by performance. This includes currencies, commodities, cryptos, interest rates, and equities, shown year-to-date and month-to-date.

2. Top and bottom movers among 500 global stocks, highlighting the best and worst performers year-to-date and over the past month.

3. Regional highlights, with monthly winners and losers across the US, Europe, and Switzerland.

4. Sector snapshot, featuring key insights on technology, luxury, banking, automobiles, healthcare, along with a special focus on China.

+++++

Market Review

Q1.2025 - Bitter, sweet first quarter

After an exhausting first quarter, marked by the failure of most of the so-called “Trump trades”:

• The dollar, which was expected to be strong, actually lost nearly 4% since January 1st, making it one of its worst quarterly performances since the 2008 crisis.

• US interest rates were expected to rise… instead, they fell.

• The rise of Bitcoin? Missed. The cryptocurrency has been the least profitable asset class so far this year (Bitcoin –12.01%, Ethereum –45.6%).

• On the US index front: everything is in the red. Dow Jones –1.28%, S&P500 –4.59%, Nasdaq 100 –8.25% (–7.69% in March), the latter also taking a hit from Deepseek.

• Global passive management (MSCI World and MSCI ACWI) has also stalled, weighed down by their heavy exposure to the US market (72.9% and 65.7% respectively).

• Among active managers, the allure of the Magnificent 7 and the US market in general didn’t save the day either; on the contrary, it contributed to disappointing performances.

To do well in equities in the first quarter, you had to be overweight in Europe: Eurostoxx600 +6.47%, driven by defense stocks (Rheinmetall, Thales, Saab) and financials (Société Générale, Banco Santander, Lloyds, Unicredit…). It’s worth noting that all European indices declined in March: DAX –0.2% (+13.1% YTD), Bel-20 –1.07% (+2.55% YTD), SMI –1.98% (+9.82% YTD), FTSE100 –1.69% (+6.01% YTD), and CAC40 –2.98% (+6.75% YTD). All these figures can be found on LinkedIn.

But the true champion was the African continent: Africa Titans 50 +12.7%. In Asia, only the Hang Seng (+15.68%) and Kospi (+5.08%) stood out. Emerging markets also held up: +2.41%, but just barely.

We’re back in a classic setup: the United States versus the rest of the world. The rest of the world, now dubbed the “Dirty 15”, includes all of Europe and Switzerland…

So the investor wonders: is it time to rotate back to the US? Valuations have become more “reasonable” again, and a ceasefire in Ukraine would likely weigh on European defense stocks, which are now trading at levels comparable to the Magnificent 7. Lastly, a sustained rise in European rates will eventually hurt corporate financing. For the record, a holder of French or German bonds has seen a nominal value loss since the start of the year (–1.66% and –2.72%, respectively).

The trade war launched by the United States is prompting a global backlash, symbolized by the surge in gold, which just crossed Usd 3'100 per ounce (+9.64% in March and +19.35% YTD). Silver followed suit with a +17.69% gain this quarter. Coffee (completely unrelated) closes the podium with a YTD performance of +17.44%.

The last ten days have been particularly stressful. Investors love to scare themselves and live in constant fear of 12:01 a.m. tomorrow. But in practice, sanctions will be implemented, American consumers will foot the bill, consumption will drop… and savings will rise. Before long, that money will find its way back into domestic stocks (Americans invest very little internationally).

Meanwhile, volatility is on the rise again: the VIX is currently hovering around 24.28%. And when volatility is high? It’s time to sell it.

Few numbers

• Usd 1.84 trillion is the estimated value of the global apparel market in 2025, representing 1.63% of global GDP and employing 430 million people out of a total global workforce of 3.62 billion.

• Usd 930 billion is the current value of the women’s apparel market, expected to exceed Usd 1 trillion by 2027; men’s apparel is worth Usd 587.61 billion, and children’s stands at Usd 274.25 billion.

• 37 kilograms is the average amount of clothing thrown away each year by a U.S. consumer, contributing to over 10.2 million metric tons of textile waste nationally; Hong Kong leads global consumption with 117.3 clothing items purchased per person per year.

Editorial

What if Europe took the lead again?

“450 million Europeans shouldn’t depend on 340 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians who haven’t even managed to beat 38 million Ukrainians.” Les Échos, March 22, 2025. That sentence pretty much sums up how we feel at B-R & H Finance.

Let’s take a moment to recall: Russia’s GDP is Usd 2tn versus Usd 20tn for Europe. It ranks 11th globally, nestled between Brazil and South Korea. Its disruptive power on the global stage is vastly greater than its economic weight. Yes, it has nukes. So do we. Let’s be clear: there’s zero chance of Russian tanks rolling up to the gates of Berlin or Paris.

Russia is weakened. Running low on men, it had to call in its "allies" from North Korea. Yes, Kim Jong-un sent over a contingent of soldiers better trained in choreographed leg kicks than trench warfare. North Korea hasn’t seen combat since 1953. These troops are more TikTok-ready than Bakhmut-ready. Russian losses have been massive.

In the 18th century, Clausewitz stated a timeless truth: defense is stronger than offense, especially when fighting on home soil. It often takes a three-to-one advantage, or more, to hope for a breakthrough. Under these conditions, Russia is bogged down in a two-against-one conflict. But defense, no matter how solid, is never decisive. So why not reverse the roles? Why not apply Patton’s adage (who died in 1945, in his bed, and is buried in Luxembourg): “attack is the best form of defense”?

If Europe decided to send offensive troops alongside the Ukrainians and march on Moscow, and if it won, it would lay its hands on the largest country in the world (17'098'242 km²), along with the planet’s biggest reserves of gas, tin, and timber.

Yes, this is political fiction. But in negotiation, imagination is a weapon. Fear needs to change sides. The adversary must understand that we too can flip the table.

Not even scared (même pas peur)

Neither Putin nor JD Vance seem to believe in this scenario. JD Vance mocked the hypothetical support of France and the UK with the following: “20'000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”, and then a few days later doubled down with another scarcely more flattering remark: “Let’s be clear: many of the countries that offered help [to Ukraine] have neither the experience nor the military equipment to do anything meaningful.”

Didn’t even hurt (même pas mal)

While Ukraine wears itself out, we are so dependent on Russia that we enforce “didn’t even hurt” sanctions. Europeans are champions of grandstanding and sweeping declarations, but often lack conviction. Human life is worth more here than in Moscow, and that’s a good thing. But inevitably, that makes the idea of a “Russian front” unbearable. The term alone evokes Verdun, Stalingrad, and the bitter cold of Napoleon’s campaigns. Under those conditions, what’s the point of investing in an army whose soldiers we would never want to see die in combat?

What if there were a third way?

Let’s be honest. The first option is what we’re living now. Europe providing economic and military aid, sure, but otherwise absent from the strategic conversation. A spectator to its own future, good only for signing cheques and shipping out ammunitions.

The second option? Active participation in the war. Europe diving headfirst into open conflict with Russia. Every German voter’s nightmare, and not just theirs. Unthinkable? Maybe not entirely. Desirable? Definitely not.

But maybe there’s a third way. More subtle. More demanding. But also more European. What if Europe decided not to wage war, but to win peace? Not with fluffy declarations or by begging for a seat at Yalta 2.0, but by taking the lead. By acting where it’s strong: economy, trade, diplomacy.

A concrete example. Europe is China’s second-largest trading partner (12.7%), ahead of the US (11.2%). Yes, Beijing should be looking to Frankfurt rather than Washington. And no, that’s not a footnote. So why not play that card? The US doesn’t want Europe or China at the negotiating table. So let’s act accordingly.

That’s the third way: flip the roles. Make Europe and China the architects of a future where peace is profitable, where stability is more valuable than missiles, where trade routes replace trenches. Sounds attractive, right? But let’s not be naïve. China could have ended the war by now if it had enforced real sanctions and stopped exporting cutting-edge military components.

Today, it’s not about choosing between Chamberlain and Churchill, between cowardice and courage. It’s about inventing a new response.

Receive market insights (and more) on the first and third Friday of each month.

If you enjoy this newsletter, please share it

Investments

Making a buzz or making money?

At B-R & H Finance, we’re not convinced. The announcement of Demna Gvasalia, Balenciaga’s creative director, being appointed to lead Gucci sparked a storm of reactions in the hyperconnected fashion world. But behind the glitter and the Instagram posts, one simple question remains: will it boost sales? Because, in the end, it’s not about making noise, it’s about making numbers.

Kering: free fall

The context? The stock is down 18.4% this year and 57.49% over five. Kering’s revenue dropped 12% in 2024, landing at €17.19 Mrd. Operating profit sank 46%, margins slid from 24.3% to 14.9%, and net profit collapsed to €1.1 Mrd. Gucci, once the group’s cash cow, saw revenues fall 23% to €7.65 Mrd, with operating profit down by a brutal 51%. In short, there’s heavy coughing coming from Florence.

And yet, Gucci still accounts for 63% of Kering’s operating profit.

What women really want

It’s not a runway show featuring your mum, your teachers, and your husband (cf. Balenciaga Spring-Summer 2024). It’s not a ripped sweatshirt going for €1'200 either, or a post-apocalyptic vibe worthy of The Last of Us. Beware of fashion editors swooning over the latest show from a brand called “Matières Fécales” (not making this up). They may have created buzz, but what about actual business?

Women, the ones who buy at least, want clothes that speak about them, not the designer. They want to express their personality, build confidence, feel beautiful, strong, and free. They want quality, comfort, a dash of boldness, a hint of nostalgia. And yes, sometimes a little magic. Not just a shocking photo in Dazed & Confused.

Demna, with his dystopian aesthetic (YouTube- great scenography, to be fair), brutalism and streetwear roots, seems far removed from all that. Sure, he deserves credit for imposing a bold visual language. But is he the right fit for Gucci? That’s far from certain.

Gucci: back to the future?

Let’s remember Tom Ford. When he took over Gucci in 1994, the brand was on life support. In two seasons, he turned it into an empire. His velvet trousers, plunging shirts, thigh-high slit dresses; they exuded desire, power, and modernity. Women felt feminine and fierce. Gucci embodied a provocative yet elegant form of luxury: sexy without being vulgar.

And on the opposite end of the spectrum, there’s Cristóbal Balenciaga. The master of all masters. Chanel once said he was “the only true couturier”. Dior called him “the couturier of couturiers”. His style was a fusion of architectural precision and softness. He dressed Grace Kelly, Jackie Kennedy, Wallis Simpson. Strong, refined, mysterious women. Balenciaga was about form in service of grace.

Demna is the complete opposite. Constant deconstruction, conceptual garments, anti-beauty as manifesto. The paradox is that he now has to revive a brand whose DNA is everything his own world is not.

Marketing, yes. Miracles, no.

Some analysts call this a strategy. Demna knows Kering, has flair, and knows how to make headlines. But the argument that “he’s going to break the mould” is a double-edged sword. Gucci today doesn’t need a stunt. It needs a coherent revival, a clear direction, a renewed connection with its clientele.

And let’s be honest, streetwear isn’t having a moment anymore. Between 2017 and 2022, Balenciaga topped the Lyst Index. In 2024, it has vanished from the top 10.
Women have changed. The world has changed. So has fashion.

Our view at B-R & H Finance

This is a bold gamble, a break from the past, but in the wrong direction. At B-R & H Finance, we’re not asking Gucci to be boring. But we would love to see it become desirable again. To speak to women who want style, not a statement. Who want a dream, not leftovers from an art installation.

And if we have to choose between making a buzz or making money, we know our answer. Especially when the numbers are plunging.

Question asked to AI

Can one be discreet without being invisible?

True elegance doesn’t need to be seen to exist. It acts without demanding attention. It speaks softly, but with weight. It steps back without stepping out.

In the backrooms of diplomacy or the private circles of finance, discretion is not a weakness. It is a language. It’s the language of diplomats who resolve crises with a single well-placed word. Of private bankers who guard their clients’ trust as a sacred duty. In Switzerland, discretion isn’t just a cultural trait. It’s a legal principle. Breaching confidentiality isn’t a misstep — it’s a crime.

Those who have broken that silence — out of pride or carelessness — have often paid the price. Because in a world overwhelmed by noise, restraint has become a luxury. It signals loyalty, respect, and self-control.

To be discreet is not to be absent. It’s knowing that the essential often happens behind closed doors. That the most lasting influence rarely announces itself. That words, when rare, weigh more.

And that sometimes, it’s what isn’t said that matters most. Real influence doesn’t shout. It acts. Behind the scenes. With loyalty. Over time.

Happiness thrives in privacy.

Note from B-R & H Finance: For many years now, one of the quietest stocks on the market has also been one of the best-performing: PMI (Philip Morris). Not only does it pay a 5.70% annual dividend, but its 1-year performance stands at 73.01%.

B-R & H Finance

Founded in 2004, B-R & H Finance SA is a Swiss entity specialized in wealth management. We offer a full range of personalized and independent investment services and advisory solutions. Regulated by SO-Fit and authorized by FINMA, we are also members of the ASG (Swiss Association of Independent Asset Managers) and work with leading custodian banks.

Affiliate Programs and Sponsored Content: Please note that while we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we are not responsible for the content of external sites referenced in our articles, reports, or any other materials. Some links may direct you to affiliate programs or sponsored content, which will be indicated by an asterisk (*). We do not manage or endorse the privacy practices, content, or policies of these third-party sites. We encourage you to carefully read their privacy policies and terms and conditions before engaging with them.

Disclaimer: This newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, an offer, or a solicitation to buy or sell securities or adopt an investment strategy. The information, opinions, and analyses presented here are based on sources believed to be reliable and are expressed in good faith, but no explicit or implicit guarantee is made regarding their accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Stock market investments are subject to market and other risks, and there is no guarantee that investment objectives will be achieved. Past performance is not indicative of future results.