Swatch Group has issued an open letter addressed to Morgan Stanley and its annual “Swiss Watcher” report, produced with LuxeConsult. The heart of the querelle: the data is allegedly wrong and has the potential to damage the credibility and the way Swiss watchmaking is told, interpreted and perceived by investors, retailers and collectors.
Let’s find out more about it!
The knot of numbers
In its 2025 report, Morgan Stanley outlined a complex scenario for some of Biel Group’s brands. According to published estimates, Omega would slip from No. 3 to No. 5 worldwide in terms of sales. Several of the group’s brands would have lost market share. Longines would have become a “loss-making” brand, and Tissot would have seen sales decline by -5 percent.
Swatch Group’s open letter, published Feb. 27
Swatch Group responded with diametrically opposite figures. Longines reported a net profit of 16.6 percent in 2025. Tissot would grow by +3 percent. Reconstructions on Hamilton (according to Morgan Stanley 95,000 units sold at an average retail price of CHF 2,014; for Swatch, the units would be more than three times higher and the average price one-third or CHF 741) and Mido (the average price estimated in the report to be CHF 2,131 would be more than double the reality, CHF 969) were also said to be inaccurate.
Swatch Group’s open letter, Summary
Differences of this magnitude go beyond a physiological statistical divergence; they completely alter the narrative. A brand described as loss-making is perceived differently than one that maintains double-digit margins. In an industry where reputation and trust directly affect distribution and positioning, the representation of numbers takes on real weight.
An “opaque” sector
The affair highlights something known to insiders: Swiss watchmaking is, by nature,“opaque.”
Private brands such as Rolex, Patek Philippe, and Audemars Piguet choose to keep financial statements confidential. Listed groups, including Richemont and LVMH, report results without systematically providing individual brand breakdowns, and Swatch also follows this practice.
Into this information vacuum come reports such as Morgan Stanley’s. They are sophisticated analyses, based on models, customs data, interviews, observation of retail prices and distribution networks. They are estimates, not audited financial statements.
And here an interesting nuance emerges. It’s legitimate for an independent analyst to produce an estimate. But it’s equally understandable for an industry group to react if it believes that estimate is misleading. The problem arises when the two narratives diverge substantially and there is no neutral ground for verification.
Perception, market, and responsibility
In its letter, Swatch Group speaks explicitly about statements that could undermine the trust of customers and retailers and hints at the possibility of legal action. This is an important passage.
A report like the “Swiss Watcher” is not an academic document relegated to a few insiders. It has become over the years a kind of unofficial ranking of Swiss industrial power. When a brand is described as loss-making, the echo spreads quickly.
Here, in our view, further reflection arises. The luxury industry thrives on perception. Perception influences distribution, distribution influences demand, demand influences price. In such a sensitive ecosystem, even an estimate can have real consequences.
At the same time, however, we cannot ignore the fact that the financial market needs analytical tools. Without independent reports, the entire industry would remain shrouded in an even thicker fog.
Who talks about the industry
The basic question remains: who holds the authority to talk about the industry?
Companies own the actual data, but they choose what to make public. Analysts, while lacking direct access to internal numbers, provide a comparative view that allows them to read the entire industry with consistency.
As long as transparency remains partial, the watchmaking narrative will continue to be the result of estimates, interpretations, and counter-narratives. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s a dynamic that is typical of high-private sectors, requiring balance and a critical sense from all involved.
A final reflection
Morgan Stanley has not yet responded publicly, Swatch is considering legal action, and other analysts, such as Swiss bank Vontobel, are publishing different figures on Omega, showing how much reconstructions can vary.
But beyond the 2025 figures, this affair affects everyone; it’s a reminder to the entire watchmaking ecosystem.
Perhaps this “clash” could be an opportunity. A chance to rethink the relationship between brands, analysts, and the public. More transparency would mean less speculation, but it would also mean giving up a certain aura of mystery that has historically been part of the industry’s appeal.
And so the question remains. Do we want a more transparent industry, even at the cost of discovering that some myths are less solid than we thought?
After all, in the world of watchmaking, time has always been a matter of perspective.
Are you looking for the perfect gift? Explore our online store and discover the entire collection signed IWS – Italian Watch Spotter!
For all real-time updates on the world of watchmaking follow us on Instagram and visit our Youtube channel.
