Following the imposition of a 39% tariff rate on exports from Switzerland to the US taking effect from 7 August, analysis has started being published on the real-world implications for Swiss companies and particular sectors, which could be of concern for investors.
Certain brands may be less affected; Statista estimates over 35% of Nestle’s global sales were in the US in 2024, but that the company also has a significant local manufacturing presence, which would offset the tariff pressures.
However, others are under significant pressure, with business association Economiesuisse warning on 7 August that the tariffs “severely impair the international competitiveness of our companies in the US market, jeopardize long-standing trade relations, and put thousands of jobs at serious risk. This significantly increases the economic risk for Switzerland as a business location.”
Karsten Junius, chief economist at J. Safra Sarasin Sustainable Asset Management, commented: “Switzerland, unlike other advanced economies, has failed to negotiate a trade deal with the US, even after its president and vice-president travelled to Washington this week. It has been treated much worse than the EU despite the seemingly solid relations with the US and a widely held belief that not being a member of the EU is economically advantageous for Switzerland.”
“The tariff rate of 39% it faces now exceeds by far any worst-case scenario it had considered up until last week. It is clear that this would make many Swiss manufacturing companies uncompetitive in the US market and drive out production to neighbouring EU countries. Producers of non-essential goods like luxury watches will suffer in particular as potential buyers might postpone purchases in expectation of lower tariffs at a later stage. Food products are another important export category. While clearly essential in nature, there are many substitutes from other countries that face lower tariffs and most likely lower production costs.”
Mark Dowding, BlueBay CIO, RBC BlueBay Asset Management, commented: “Switzerland has found itself the centre of unwanted attention, with the country subject to the highest US tariffs of any developed market nation, at 39%. However, the greater significance relating to the stance on Switzerland could portend towards what can be expected with respect to upcoming tariffs, on the pharmaceutical sector. RBC BlueBay thinks an announcement of a section 232 tariff is probably due in the next couple of weeks and this could be the driver of some market volatility, in an otherwise quiet month.”
As noted by the US Congress: “Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended) allows the President to impose restrictions on goods imports or enter into negotiations with trading partners if the U.S. Secretary of Commerce determines, following an investigation, that the quantity or other circumstance of those imports “threaten to impair” U.S. national security.”
“To date, the second Trump Administration has launched nine new Sec. 232 investigations. Some Members have indicated support for the President’s use of tariffs as a tool for pursuing the administration’s economic goals. Others have argued that tariffs negatively impact the economy and that Congress should restrict presidential authorities over trade. Congress may consider whether to bolster, curb, or increase oversight of the President’s use of Sec. 232.”
Outlook for gold
Charles-Henry Monchau, CIO Syz Group, commented on the implications for the gold trade involving Switzerland as a source of processed bullion.
“The United States has recently imposed tariffs on gold imports, specifically targeting one-kilogram and 100-ounce gold bars, which are common forms for delivery in US futures markets. This policy shift was formalized in a July 31, 2025, US Customs and Border Protection ruling, reclassifying these gold bars under a customs code that is subject to tariffs—contrary to previous exemptions.”
“The new tariff rate is as high as 39% on affected gold bar imports from certain countries, with Switzerland—a major refining hub for London’s larger 400-ounce gold bars—expected to be the most impacted.
“Traditionally, large gold bars (400-ounce format) are traded in London, then shipped via Switzerland for recasting into the smaller kilo bars favoured in the US, making the tariff particularly disruptive to established supply chains.
“The policy does not make clear whether London-origin 400-ounce bars, if sent directly, are currently subject to tariffs, but most industry analysis suggests that one-kilogram and 100-ounce bars, regardless of their original source, are now covered by the US tariff regime if imported into the United States.
“In summary, there are now substantial tariffs on gold bars (especially kilo and 100-ounce bars) imported into the US, even if they transit through London or Switzerland. The rule does not differentiate between bars exported directly from London or those refined elsewhere, as it is based on the classification of the bar itself at import.”
Picking up the thread, Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at UK investor platform Hargreaves Lansdown noted that US gold futures contracts have hit record highs above $3,500: “Gold’s panic ascent shows that even safe haven assets are not immune to the volatility unleashed in the confusion of the tariff age.”
“The US Customs and Border Protection agency ruling that one kilo and 100-ounce bars would not be exempt from tariffs is a shock move, and the sharp divergence between spot prices and futures demonstrates the wave of surprise pulsing through the market. This is a particular blow to Switzerland which is the biggest player in the gold refining market, given a 39% tariff rate on its exports to the US.
“If there is follow through and no intervention, this could threaten New York’s dominance in the gold futures market given prices are risen sharply compared to other trading centres. As we’ve seen multiple times before, there could still be back tracks and revisions, but it’s another shot of unwelcome volatility, in a market which has been seen as a refuge of relative safety.
“But it’s also a reminder for investors to remain wary. Investing in gold is far from a one-way bet. It’s often risen in times of economic or political crisis, it has also a history of losing its lustre. After a strong run in the ’70s and early ’80s, it took over 23 years to get back to its 1983 high.”
