I don't understand the recent Rolex SS craze/shortage. What am I missing?

Poor Tiffany. Can't catch a break.

Discontinuing your most popular hype models worked great for Patek and AP

coming to a Snoopy near you!

Oh, no- it’s not discontinued…..

Keep saying it long enough and often enough, and when they do discontinue it, you can finally proclaim "I told you so!" 😀

I'm going to suggest that the percentage of enthusiasts has likely never been any more than what you just quoted...and is likely much less now as it has always been.

I wear Snorkels for status.

You are quoting a very old post, but you seem quite certain of yourself despite the fact that everything on the internet suggests the opposite. Do you have any proof that they pay corporate taxes?

Without having access to their books, no one can say anything absolutely definitive about either conclusion.

But basics give some color.

Most European countries (Swiss included I assume) permit such a foundation to define almost any purpose to the foundation. Take a guess what a family owned corporation may state as the purpose of the foundation they are establishing to hold their shares of a company.

Rolex SA and it’s corporate affiliates are owned by the foundation. Generally speaking, the corporate profits of the company would be taxable at the corporate level, while the dividends attributable to the stock owned by the foundation would be subject to whatever “tax exemption” regime.

As a private, family-owned, corporation the owner basically avoided whatever inheritance and personal tax may have applied at the time of creation, and now continues to receive somehow “tax exempt” distributions from the corporation.

That said and despite how things generally work, since the Rolex corporations themselves are one of if not the largest employer in the country, there’s no telling what sort of corporate level tax incentives (or look-the-other-ways) the government might allow.

Almost any sophisticated family-owned corporation in a similar posture will have some such structure. I’d be surprised to learn that the Stern family dont hold Patek in some approximation of such a structure.

(As an aside: part if the confusion though seems to stem from folks’ translations/assumptions about the colloquial words “charitable,” “trust,” “non-profit,” etc. which probably have little relevance to the legal concepts being utilized under Swiss/European law.)

Yeah you got a lot of bad info there. Why does a non profit not have to make money? Your making a huge assumption there... Its also not a family trust, at least not in the way you think. It has a board that runs it and they are not family, nor does the trust pay the family members which would be a violation of the non profit laws.

They can be putting away money year after year into savings, and still be a non profit...

As an attorney with considerable experience in asset protection and foreign trust law, I can tell you that charity generally has very little to do with a Swiss charitable trust.

Since I was curious, I took a glance around and (in short - so likely also too simplified), I don’t find any proof that the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation is a tax-exempt entity (fully or partially), but a good bit of info that suggests people could be confused by it.

Some salient bits of Swiss law (from the armchair), which - once oriented to - sort of draws into question all the reiterated comments about a “non-profit,” etc.

1. Switzerland has no legal entity equivalent of a “trust” (though by The Hague Trust Convention recognize trusts established under foreign jurisdictions)

2. Switzerland instead has (basically) foundations or associations

3. We know Rolex SA and it’s subsidiaries are owned by the “Hans Wilsdorf Foundation” (which we assume is established under Swiss foundation law)

4. A foundation may be set up for a wide range of purposes, from management of a company to an ecclesiastic or charitable focus; founders are free to define the purpose of the foundation as they see fit

5. There is no legal concept of "charity" under Swiss law; the concept corresponding to the notion of charity is the tax law concept of "public utility"

6. Not all Swiss foundations fulfill a “public utility”; it depends on whether the foundation pursues certain purposes and complies with certain oversight requirements

7. Foundations that are not a “public utility” are taxed on both their net profit and capital, though at a rate lower rate (4.5% at federal level) than the standard corporate tax (~8.5% at federal level)

8. Conversely, foundations formed “exclusively to serve a public utility purpose” can be exempt from all profit and capital taxes; a foundation that combines commercial purposes with its purposes of public utility can have a partial tax exemption

9. If a foundation benefits from a tax exemption it must comply with the requirements on an ongoing basis; so, the Swiss tax authorities verify compliance when the entity files its annual tax return with audited accounts to the tax administration.

10. Additionally, the Swiss Supervisory Authority of Foundations has monitoring an compliance authority over foundations, with foundations providing an annual report including an annual activity report, an audit report (from an external and independent auditor), and the accounts of the foundation.

11. The requirements to be fully or partially tax exempt are - on paper - sort of esoteric and meaningless, and alone I don’t think could possibly tell us anything about the status of the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, but to roughly boil down the elements of qualification:

• must be a Swiss company

• the entity must pursue a public utility purpose (which include activities of a charitable, humanitarian, health, ecological, educational, scientific or cultural nature) and of general interest (aimed at an unrestricted circle of beneficiaries)

• that purpose must be pursued “effectively” (basically a diligence and legitimacy standard)

• there be a lack of “self-interest,” which practically speaking entails for example the members of the foundation board/or executive committee not be remunerated (though in the canton of Geneva, the practice of the tax administration allows a remuneration for time spent, so long as it does not exceed the one paid for attendance of official commissions in Geneva)

At this point, I looked around to find any evidence that the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation was either completely or partially tax exempt, in fact. That it is a Swiss “foundation” alone does not determine that tax status. It is not necessary, for reasons outlined above, that a Swiss foundation be a “public utility” (fully or partially) at all - it could simply be a foundation, that happens to perform charitable missions (like almost any public-facing corporation), but that does not qualify for or cooperate with the tax exemption status requirements and monitoring.

A few seemingly authoritative sources cited what *used* to be the foundation’s stated statutory “mission” (but one source suggests the mission statement has been changed in recent years, and is currently unknown): “to support The Geneva Watchmaking School, the Industrial Arts department at The School of Decorative Arts in Geneva, the Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences at the University of Geneva, the Swiss Watchmaking Research Laboratory in Neuchâtel, etc., [as well as to] provide allowances for maintenance, education and assistance for the nieces and nephews of the founder and their descendants.”

I’m not a Swiss lawyer, but that last bit about upkeep of descendants seems to possibly run a bit counter to the apparent requirements for complete tax exempt status?

Having sorted only this much, I’m left mostly needing some proof that the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation is, in fact, fully or partially tax-exempt.

And otherwise, now when I see assertions about Rolex being a “non-profit,” or a “charity,” etc., I can’t help but think there’s a possible misunderstanding or mythology being propagated.

Which isn’t to say the foundation doesn’t do (even a lot of) “charitable” work (many corporations do). The foundation’s website is styled as that, in that it accepts grant proposals, and describes the (topical) distribution of its giving:





I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the foundation is a full or partial tax exempt entity as a “public utility.” But I’m also interested to see any proof of it.

When there is that proof, it alone doesn’t say much about how the foundation’s money is spent, ultimately.

Since they are discontinued I assume they will continue to go up. It's crazy though. I don't like it.

I check in from time to time. When I see that @cvalue13 has posted my brain hurts from too much data. I’m just here to hate on Rolex.