Author: Malte

AI can accelerate bad decisions too

Published 27. September 2026 By Malte

A weak process can become faster without becoming better. Automating it may increase the speed at which its weaknesses affect customers. The case for artificial intelligence therefore begins with understanding the task, rather than celebrating the tool.

For leasing businesses, potential applications include document handling, data checks and analysis. Whether those applications create value depends on the quality of the information, the suitability of the task and the ability to verify results. Time saved is only part of the calculation.

FINMA addressed governance and risk management for artificial intelligence in its supervisory guidance 08/2024. The leadership question is straightforward: who owns an application when its recommendation is wrong, and who has the authority to respond?

Putting a person at the end of a process may not provide effective oversight. That person needs information, competence and time to challenge the output. If the workflow encourages automatic acceptance, a formal review step may offer less protection than it appears to provide.

I would start with a problem. Define the desired result, the errors that matter and the conditions requiring intervention. Compare the application with an existing process. A useful test should reveal weaknesses before they become repeated decisions affecting customers or the balance sheet.

External dependencies deserve attention too. What happens if the provider changes the model, cannot explain a result or becomes unavailable? Swiss financial businesses should understand how operations continue and which responsibilities remain inside their own organisation.

As a CEO, I can delegate tasks. I still need to ensure that the process has accountable owners and a workable response to failure. A purchase agreement with a technology provider does not resolve those management questions by itself.

The strongest case for adoption includes an account of its limits.

Which AI supported decision could you explain and correct today if challenged?

A register cannot exercise judgement

Published 26. September 2026 By Malte

Transparency may not improve when information is stored in one more place. A register can make relevant ownership information accessible. Its value still depends on the quality of the data and the responsibilities surrounding it.

Switzerland’s new transparency legislation and revised anti money laundering legislation take effect on 1 October 2026. Transitional periods for registration begin then. Entry into force should therefore not be confused with a requirement that every affected entity already be registered on that day.

For implementation, I would focus on a few operational questions. Who obtains information about beneficial ownership? Who keeps it current? Who examines differences between company documents and register information? A process becomes fragile when everybody assumes that another participant has answered those questions.

A discrepancy deserves clarification. Its meaning depends on the facts, and the required next steps depend on the applicable duties. Treating every difference identically can produce activity without improving understanding. Ignoring differences would be equally unhelpful.

Swiss SMEs need requests they can understand and fulfil without unnecessary repetition. If several departments ask for the same document because responsibilities are unclear, the burden grows while the information may remain unchanged. Coordination is a contribution to proportionate implementation.

I would also distinguish possession of data from understanding of control. A name in a record is useful only when the relevant relationship is clear for the task at hand. Updates should preserve that understanding when circumstances change.

As a CEO, I would judge the process by whether it produces more reliable knowledge of ownership and control, with a clear route for resolving uncertainty. The number of forms completed is a weak measure of that achievement.

Good implementation gives each important information item an owner inside the organisation.

Who in your business is responsible for keeping such information accurate, rather than collecting it?

Circular economy and the life cycle

Published 25. September 2026 By Malte

Most procurement processes end with the purchase. The life cycle only begins there.
We optimise purchase prices with great care, negotiate discounts, compare offers and haggle over percentage points. We largely leave everything that follows to chance: operation, maintenance, spare-parts supply, return, recycling and documentation.
That backfires twice. Commercially, because the purchase price is the smaller part of total cost for many assets, certainly for vehicles and IT and also for energy-intensive machinery. And from a regulatory perspective, because evidence of whereabouts, recovery and materials is increasingly required, even from companies that are not themselves subject to reporting obligations. [Evidence: status of Swiss circular-economy rules, for example the revised Environmental Protection Act]
There is another development many SMEs have not yet considered: the availability of raw materials and spare parts is no longer guaranteed. Anyone planning to operate equipment for ten years depends on someone else having planned for those same ten years.
This is an underestimated side effect of usage models. Financing with a defined term and return point forces the company to consider the final phase. When the agreement is signed, it must determine the condition in which the asset will be returned, who will inspect it and what happens next. Purchasing rarely creates this discipline by itself: there, the process ends with an entry in the fixed-asset register, while return becomes a disposal problem fifteen years later.
Two goals often portrayed as competing can therefore be combined. Equipment that enters a refurbishment process after defined use is more sensible economically and ecologically than equipment that operates inefficiently for five years too long and ends as scrap. The residual value is not a side effect but a variable that can be negotiated when the agreement is signed.
The objection is valid: this works only if a secondary-use market exists. It does for IT, vehicles and standard machines, but not for specialist solutions. That distinction is also useful when classifying the company’s assets.
An IT service provider leases work equipment with planned return and renewal.
An honest question: do you know where the devices you used five years ago are today?

Comments closed

The SNB is holding at zero. The more interesting question is: for how much longer?

Published 24. September 2026 By Malte

The Swiss National Bank has left its policy rate unchanged at 0%. That was hardly a surprise. What matters more is what is changing beneath the headline rate.

Inflation stood at 0.8% in August. The SNB now expects inflation of 0.7% in 2026 and 0.8% in both 2027 and 2028. At the same time, the Swiss economy is proving more resilient than expected. For 2026, the central bank forecasts growth of between 1.5% and 2%.

There is another factor that matters almost as much to the SNB as inflation: the Swiss franc has weakened.

That changes the debate.

Only a few months ago, the question was whether Switzerland might return to negative interest rates. Banks are increasingly asking the opposite question: when might the SNB raise rates again?

ZKB sees no need for action in 2026. But the combination of stronger growth, a weaker franc and higher inflation risks has shifted the balance. A window for higher rates could open in 2027. Current market commentary cites ZKB as seeing gradual rate increases potentially starting from March 2027.

UBS also sees the interest-rate cycle moving upwards. It expects two increases, in March and June 2027. But the second part of its analysis is just as important: a significant part of this move is already priced into capital markets.

Raiffeisen is more cautious. Underlying inflationary pressure remains moderate, giving the SNB room to wait. But here too, the market increasingly expects a departure from the zero-rate policy next year.

What can we conclude?

Not that rates are about to rise.

But that the direction of the debate has changed.

Switzerland remains a low-interest-rate country. The SNB itself continues to forecast price stability, and its inflation forecast is based on a policy rate remaining unchanged at 0% throughout the forecast horizon.

But the asymmetric debate of recent years is slowly disappearing. Negative rates are no longer the dominant scenario. At the same time, a return to significantly higher interest rates is not the base case either.

The most interesting scenario may therefore lie somewhere in between:

Switzerland could leave the era of zero interest rates without leaving the era of low interest rates.

For companies and investors, that distinction matters more than it may initially seem.

Because capital markets do not wait for the SNB’s next decision. They start pricing it in beforehand.

Sources:

SNB – Monetary policy assessment, 24 September 2026
https://www.snb.ch/de/publications/communication/press-releases-restricted/pre_20260924

ZKB – Interest rate and economic forecasts
https://www.zkb.ch/de/private/hypotheken-immobilien/rechner-hilfsmittel/prognosen.html

ZKB – Swiss GDP and interest-rate outlook
https://www.zkb.ch/de/private/blog/private/anlegen/markt-trends/wir-erhoehen-die-schweizer-bip-prognosen.html

UBS – Global rise in interest rates: Implications for Swiss investors and mortgages
https://www.ubs.com/global/en/wealthmanagement/insights/marketnews/article.3784639.html

UBS – Current Swiss interest-rate outlook
https://www.ubs.com/ch/de/services/mortgages-and-financing/mortgages/interest-rates.html

Raiffeisen – Interest-rate developments and SNB outlook
https://www.raiffeisen.ch/rch/de/wissen/wohnen/zinsentwicklung.html

SRF/AWP – Economists’ reactions to the SNB decision
https://www.srf.ch/news/wirtschaft/geldpolitische-lage-snb-belaesst-leitzins-bei-null-prozent

Liquidity beats ownership

Published 24. September 2026 By Malte

Ownership is not a value in itself. It is tied-up capital that expects to be respected.
In many Swiss SMEs, the phrase “we own it” still stands for solidity. That is historically understandable and emotionally relatable. From a business perspective, however, it is becoming increasingly expensive.
Every franc tied up in a machine is a franc that is not available for inventory, sales or digitalisation, and cannot fund the pay rise that retains a skilled employee.
In an environment where banks assess applications more selectively, attach greater weight to collateral and take longer to make credit decisions, the role of liquidity changes fundamentally. [Evidence: current survey of lending to SMEs, for example by the SNB or the SME Barometer] It is no longer merely a comfort but a strategic buffer.
A company with liquidity can accept a major order at short notice, reconfigure a supply chain, absorb a supplier’s price increase or acquire a competitor. A company that has tied its liquidity up in fixed assets may have to decline, even though its balance sheet looks healthy.
That is the uncomfortable part of this debate: a solid balance sheet and the operational ability to act are not the same thing. We measure the former carefully and the latter hardly at all.
The objection is familiar and should be taken seriously: over the full term, use often costs more than ownership. True, if the calculation considers only the purchase. It changes once we include what happens to the capital released and what a missed order costs. And it changes again for assets that are needed for only one technology generation.
The decisive question is therefore operational, not ideological: for which assets does ownership pay us back, and for which are we paying only for a sense of comfort?
A trades business leases service vehicles and keeps funds available for spare parts, wages and short-notice customer projects. That is not ideology. It is capital allocation.
How much of your equity is currently standing on the factory floor and not working?

Comments closed

Energy efficiency protects margins

Published 23. September 2026 By Malte

Energy efficiency has a marketing problem. It is too often presented only as a climate issue.
For a company, it begins with something simpler: cost management.
In September 2026, SECO continued to identify high energy prices as a significant risk to the Swiss economy. SECO
The Swiss Federal Office of Energy also points out that economically attractive efficiency measures remain underused in Swiss companies. It explicitly links higher energy efficiency with stronger competitiveness. SFOE
This matters particularly in industry. An older machine may still operate reliably. But if it consumes substantially more energy per unit, it carries a permanent cost disadvantage. That disadvantage moves with the energy price.
This is the strategic value of efficiency. A company cannot control the electricity or oil market. It can decide how much energy is needed for each unit of output.
Energy efficiency therefore resembles an operational hedge. A new machine may reduce energy consumption, maintenance and scrap at the same time. Its investment calculation should include all those effects, not just the purchase price.
If the upfront investment is the obstacle, financing over the useful life can place the instalment alongside the recurring efficiency gain.
The cleanest ESG measure may be the one a CFO would approve even without the ESG label.

Comments closed

Investing without the reflex to own

Published 22. September 2026 By Malte

Doing nothing is also an investment decision. Just without a return.
One sentence has been heard remarkably often in meetings this year: “We will wait a little longer.” It sounds prudent. Most of the time, it is an unspoken bet that uncertainty is a temporary condition rather than the operating temperature of the coming decade.
The reasons are real. Growth forecasts are being revised downwards, the path of interest rates remains difficult to read, and tariffs and trade policy can change calculations overnight. [Evidence: current KOF or SECO forecast]
But the bill for waiting never appears in an investment proposal. It shows up elsewhere: in maintenance budgets that grow a little every year; in electricity costs per unit produced; in scrap rates that no one questions because they are considered part of the machine; in downtime accepted as “normal”; and in orders that are never quoted because capacity is lacking.
These costs have an awkward characteristic: they are diffuse. A six-figure investment proposal is reviewed, challenged and postponed. The same amount, spread over four years of repairs, energy losses and foregone contribution margins, never reaches a meeting.
The underlying error goes deeper. We treat investment as a risk and waiting as a neutral position. It is not. Waiting is a position with costs; they are simply recognised later, under different account codes.
This does not mean that every investment is right today. The case against a major investment is often justified. But the alternative to “renew everything” is not “do nothing”. It is to invest selectively where the bottleneck lies and align the financing structure with the uncertainty.
A manufacturing SME does not have to replace its entire machine fleet. It can lease an energy-efficient key machine that reduces scrap and power consumption, with predictable instalments instead of a major capital outlay.
The more honest question is therefore not: Can we afford this investment? It is: How much longer can we afford the old machine?
Who among you has worked through this calculation properly and been surprised by the result?

Comments closed

Preparing for uncertain times

Published 20. November 2022 By Malte

Technology accelerator Y Combinator (early investor in Stripe, Dropbox, AirBnB and many more) sent a message to all companies in their portfolio last year. The advice can be adopted for most companies this year as well.

Greetings YC Founders,

During this week we’ve done office hours with a large number of YC companies. They reached out to ask whether they should change their plans around spending, runway, hiring, and funding rounds based on the current state of public markets. What we’ve told them is that economic downturns often become huge opportunities for the founders who quickly change their mindset, plan ahead, and make sure their company survives.

Here are some thoughts to consider when making your plans:

No one can predict how bad the economy will get, but things don’t look good.
The safe move is to plan for the worst. If the current situation is as bad as the last two economic downturns, the best way to prepare is to cut costs and extend your runway within the next 30 days. Your goal should be to get to Default Alive.
If you don’t have the runway to reach default alive and your existing investors or new investors are willing to give you more money right now (even on the same terms as your last round) you should strongly consider taking it.
Regardless of your ability to fundraise, it’s your responsibility to ensure your company will survive if you cannot raise money for the next 24 months.
Understand that the poor public market performance of tech companies significantly impacts VC investing. VCs will have a much harder time raising money and their LPs will expect more investment discipline.
As a result, during economic downturns even the top tier VC funds with a lot of money slow down their deployment of capital (lesser funds often stop investing or die). This causes less competition between funds for deals which results in lower valuations, lower round sizes, and many fewer deals completed. In these situations, investors also reserve more capital to backstop their best performing companies, which further reduces the number of new financings. This slow down will have a disproportionate impact on international companies, asset heavy companies, low margin companies, hardtech, and other companies with high burn and long time to revenue.
Note that the numbers of meetings investors take don’t decrease in proportion to the reduction in total investment. It’s easy to be fooled into thinking a fund is actively investing when it is not.
For those of you who have started your company within the last 5 years, question what you believe to be the normal fundraising environment. Your fundraising experience was most likely not normal and future fundraises will be much more difficult.
If you are post Series A and pre-product market fit, don’t expect another round to happen at all until you have obviously hit product market fit. If you are pre-series A, the Series A Milestones we publish here might even turn out to be a bit too low.
If your plan is to raise money in the next 6-12 months, you might be raising at the peak of the downturn. Remember that your chances of success are extremely low even if your company is doing well. We recommend you change your plan.
Remember that many of your competitors will not plan well, maintain high burn, and only figure out they are screwed when they try to raise their next round. You can often pick up significant market share in an economic downturn by just staying alive.
For more thoughts watch this video we’ve created: Save Your Startup during an Economic Downturn

Best,

PS: If for whatever reason you don’t think this message applies to your company or you are going to need someone to tell you this in person to believe it… please reassess your beliefs on a monthly basis to make sure you don’t drive your company off a cliff. Also, remember you can always reach out to your group partners.

Comments closed