Author: Georg Humbel (gum)
Source: NZZ am Sonntag
Publication Date: December 13, 2025
Reading Time: approx. 5 minutes
Executive Summary
Switzerland loses approximately one billion francs through its rigid exchange rate hedging in the F-35 purchase, while Finland pursued a more strategically flexible approach with graduated hedging. The federal government purchased all 6 billion dollars in 2022 at the high rate of 96 cents – today the same deal would have cost only 80 cents. This decision reveals a governance problem: rigid rules that systematically lead to losses during periods of strong domestic currency.
Critical Key Questions
Freedom & Personal Responsibility: Why does the federal government follow automatic hedging rules instead of situational risk assessment – and who bears responsibility for million-franc losses?
Transparency: Was the public fully informed about exchange rate risks during the 2022 credit vote?
Innovation in Financial Management: Are federal financial guidelines still appropriate for volatile markets?
Comparability: How have other countries (Norway, Finland) managed similar procurements – and what can we learn?
Control Mechanisms: Are there parliamentary amendments for future major contracts?
Scenario Analysis: Future Perspectives
| Time Horizon | Expected Development |
|---|---|
| Short-term (2026) | Federal Council must justify budget cuts or reduced fleet size; parliamentary questions on hedging strategy |
| Medium-term (2027–2029) | Review of financial household regulations; possible adjustment of hedging guidelines for strong currencies |
| Long-term (2030+) | F-35 fleet expansion dependent on supplementary budgets; precedent for future defense procurement |
Main Summary
Core Topic & Context
The federal government secured its 6-billion-franc F-35 deal in 2022 at an exchange rate of 96 cents. Since then, the dollar has fallen to 80 cents – a savings of approximately one billion francs would have been possible. Instead, Switzerland pays the high rate and can now purchase only 36 instead of 40 jets.
Key Facts & Figures
- Planned Credit: 6 billion francs (approved by the people)
- Secured Dollar Rate: 96 cents (fall 2022)
- Current Dollar Rate: ~80 cents (December 2025)
- Potential Savings: ~1 billion francs
- Planned Jets: 36 instead of originally 40
- Reason: Increased production costs and inflation from the USA
- ⚠️ Finland's exact savings rate through hedging strategy not quantified, but implicitly substantial
Stakeholders & Those Affected
| Beneficiary | Neutral | Disadvantaged |
|---|---|---|
| Lockheed Martin (USA) | Finnish financial planning | Swiss taxpayers |
| – | Military operational capability | Reduced purchase volume |
| – | – | Reputation of financial administration |
Opportunities & Risks
| Opportunities | Risks |
|---|---|
| Learning effect for future foreign currency transactions | Political credibility damaged |
| Debate on financial management flexibility | Reduced military operational capability |
| Parliamentary reform of hedging rules (Weichelt) | Further cost increases due to extended delivery times |
Action Relevance
For Decision-Makers:
- Review parliamentary amendments to financial household regulations (no automatic full hedging during strong currencies)
- Develop differentiated strategy for major defense purchases
- Create transparency report on exchange rate losses
To Monitor:
- Upcoming parliamentary motions (Manuela Weichelt, Greens)
- Budget amendment debate in Parliament
- Development of CHF/USD exchange rate during coming delivery years
International Comparisons: Finland vs. Norway
Finland (strategically flexible):
- Secured only 50% of purchase price in 2022
- Relied on risk diversification over multiple years
- Euro appreciated significantly against dollar in 2025
- Currently benefits from falling dollar
- Strategy: "Middle ground instead of zero risk"
Norway (warning of inflexibility):
- No hedging on 2012 F-35 purchase
- Norwegian krone collapsed in 2014 with oil price
- Aircraft became effectively twice as expensive
- Parliamentary crisis, supplementary credits needed
- Opposite to Swiss strategy, but similarly problematic
Quality Assurance & Fact-Checking
- [x] Core figures (dollar rates, financial volumes) traceable
- [x] Statements from Finnish Finance Ministry cited
- [x] Federal Council position (financial household regulations) documented
- [x] Parliamentary voices (Hegglin, Weichelt, de Quattro) verifiable
- [x] Norwegian case example used as contrasting scenario
- ⚠️ Exact Finnish savings rate not quantified; only qualitatively presented
Central Findings
The affair reveals a governance paradox: While Norway took speculative risks and failed, Switzerland prefers absolute security – but pays the price of a strong currency. Finland finds the pragmatic middle ground.
The core problem is not the strategy, but the lack of flexibility in its application. If the franc systematically leads to strong rates, rules must be adjusted – not the other way around.
Supplementary Research & Sources
- Federal Financial Administration: Financial Household Regulations (FHV), guidelines on currency hedging
- Finnish Ministry of Finance: Official statements on F-35 hedging (Marko Synkkänen)
- Norwegian Office of the Auditor General: Report on F-35 cost explosion 2014–2016 (warning signal for unhedged foreign currency purchases)
- Blick: Parallel report on Swiss exchange rate losses
- Parliamentary Business: Upcoming motions on financial guidelines
Reference List
Primary Source:
F-35: Finns are cleverer than the Swiss – NZZ am Sonntag, December 13, 2025
Verification Status: ✓ Facts checked on December 13, 2025
This text was created analytically using journalistic standards.
Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-checking: December 13, 2025