In the coming months France will discuss lowering the retirement age back to 62 and if this goes through this could trigger a massive debt crisis in the EU zone which could impact the CHF and rates here.
My personal view : there’s a majority to bring back the retirement age back to 62 in the French parliament and we might see the return of QE during the course of 2025 as a result of that decision.
Don’t think it’s really part of budget. Markets are worried about the 2025 budget which will be a mess because of fragmentation (and probably won’t satisfy the EU requirements).
That’s what’s triggering the debt crisis, not the retirement age talks (which anyway don’t matter, 62 is some headline number for minimum age, you still need like 43y of contributions and unlike Switzerland’s AHV people don’t contribute during their studies so that makes it 64+ for most people (remember that France doesn’t do apprenticeship so nobody starts working before 20).
No it’s indeed not part of the budget, but I did not write that did I ? 
. This will be discussed as part of the agenda groups can fix: First time on 31.10 and most probably it won’t be voted because proposed by the far right and the second time end of November, this time proposed by the left.
So there’s no reason it would trigger a debt crisis, if this doesn’t roll up into the budget 
A lot of the pensions of former state employees is financed through debt and going back to 62 would cost around 16 billion yearly, increasing over the years of course ^^. The vote on the budget is one issue but this one is a topic of its own and in my opinion a bigger one than deciding what taxes they want to increase ^^.
There is no way it will pass. The idea won’t be welcome by the majority of the population especially after hearing.
The far left has no majority to votre this amendment.
Don’t you think this would be priced in already if it were most probably happening?
The way I understand ‘priced in’ is that it works on a statistical level. Say, there’s 75% chance of the retirement age being lowered, a 20% chance of status quo and 5% chance of the retirement age being pushed higher.
On that would be another layer attributing to each their consequences on the market (not every analyst may share the same view of the impact of a lowered retirement age, both in terms of direction and magnitude).
Then the markets adjust to the 100% reality once it is realized. In short: if we don’t have reasons to believe we know better than the market, then we should absolutely follow the aggregate analysis of all market participants. On the other hand, someone with a strong belief in a thesis may make money if they are right on it even if the market consensus was leaning in that direction (by harnessing the percentage of bets that didn’t concord with the realized reality).
Of course, one willing to trade on their beliefs must also accept that they can loose money/underperform the market doing so (which is often more likely, we have way less means to analyse the market than the big market participants have). I also like to remind myself that on the short term, the stock market is a voting machine: other elements can happen with more impact than the point of focus of the trading thesis, provoking big losses even if the thesis is right and could have provoked positive results on a longer trend.
The far right also campaigned on this, so assuming that’s something the left want it wouldn’t be hard to find a majority (but even if they agree on something they don’t seem to ever want to vote together).
Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if they lower it, but unless they also change the minimum number of years required, that has ~0 impact since most people don’t start working at 18 and even those likely have retirement gaps.