logo
‘Wolf in cashmere': Billionaire's luxury empire is facing a crisis

‘Wolf in cashmere': Billionaire's luxury empire is facing a crisis

The Age3 days ago
LVMH's market value has fallen by more than a quarter over the past year, to less than €250 billion. Hermes, a luxury brand Arnault tried and failed to buy, and has eyed with envy ever since, has taken LVMH's crown as the most valuable company in the industry, despite generating only €15 billion in sales last year.
Adding insult to injury, the Arnault family, which has topped France's rich list since 2017, has also been dethroned by the Hermes clan. Can Arnault turn the ship around?
Loading
LVMH can't blame the economic environment for all its woes. It raised prices enormously in the post-COVID 'revenge shopping' boom, irking some customers. The price of Louis Vuitton's Speedy 30 canvas tote bag has more than doubled since 2019, for example, while the average price of personal luxury goods in Europe has increased by just over 50 per cent, according to HSBC, a bank. Only a handful of designers, including Chanel and Gucci, have raised prices more.
A series of scandals have also damaged the image of some of its brands. Moet Hennessy, LVMH's drinks division, has recently faced accusations of sexual harassment, bullying and unfair dismissal by former employees (which it denies).
On July 14, an Italian court placed Loro Piana, an LVMH label that sells cashmere sweaters for more than $US1000 ($1500) a piece, under judicial administration for using suppliers that allegedly violate labour rights. Dior faced similar investigations last year. LVMH's response has been half-hearted: 'Transparency, control and management of this whole ecosystem can sometimes prove a bit difficult,' it said recently.
Arnault is attempting to steer towards calmer waters. New bosses have been put in charge of the booze, watches and retailing units. The appointment of Jonathan Anderson as the new creative director of Dior has been cheered by fashionistas.
Some investors, however, worry that the companies' problems are deeply rooted. One concern is that decades of pushing fancy clothing and accessories not just to the super-rich but also the merely well-off has made LVMH's brands more vulnerable to economic cycles and dented their image of exclusivity.
Even Louis Vuitton, the company's crown jewel, has not been immune. Analysts at HSBC term the brand 'schizophrenic' for its attempt to peddle entry-level products like chocolate and make-up alongside ultra-pricey handbags and luggage.
Loading
The outlook for Moet Hennessy is more worrying still. As profits have shrunk, the division has announced thousands of job cuts. Analysts point out that young consumers aren't drinking as much as older generations, and when they do, they tend to shy away from spirits such as cognac, which make up a big chunk of LVMH's booze business. The wine and spirits division now contributes less than 10 per cent of LVMH's operating profits, down by roughly half over the past decade.
By contrast, Hermes, which has remained focused on selling fashion to the exceedingly wealthy, has continued growing handsomely. Its market value as a multiple of its net profit is now more than twice as high as for LVMH.
Brunello Cucinelli, another purveyor of ultra-luxe fashion, is valued at a similar multiple to Hermes. If Louis Vuitton were to be valued at such a multiple, it alone would be worth significantly more than the entirety of its parent company.
That has led some to call for LVMH to break itself up. On July 25, reports emerged that it was exploring a sale of Marc Jacobs, a fashion label founded by a former creative director of Louis Vuitton.
A bolder move would be jettisoning the troubled drinks business. Diageo, owner of tipples from Guinness to Johnny Walker, already controls a third of Moet Hennessy and has in the past expressed interest in taking the rest of it off LVMH's hands. The British company is currently grappling with its own slump in profits and recently parted ways with its chief executive, but analysts speculate that it could make a deal work by selling off its beer business at the same time.
Arnault, aged 76, is navigating all this while making plans for a transition at the helm. He clearly intends to keep the enterprise under family management. All five of his children work in different corners of his empire under the tutelage of experienced executives.
His daughter, Delphine, who has been tasked with turning around Dior, is his eldest and the only of his offspring on the executive committee of LVMH, making her the most likely candidate to succeed her father. Yet, there are other possibilities. In February, Alexandre was parachuted in as the deputy head of Moet Hennessy. In March Frederic was put in charge of Loro Piana.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Its sibling is unmistakably Melbourne, but does Harriot have the same pulling power?
Its sibling is unmistakably Melbourne, but does Harriot have the same pulling power?

The Age

time2 hours ago

  • The Age

Its sibling is unmistakably Melbourne, but does Harriot have the same pulling power?

Previous SlideNext Slide Is there a more Melbourne restaurant than Tipo 00? Others certainly are deserving of the title, but as an example of what we do best, it's hard to argue that Andreas Papadakis' 11-year old flagship isn't a contender for the prize. Its vintage shopfront location on Little Bourke Street is unmistakably Melbourne. Its menu of gorgeous pastas and small plates eloquently reference our city's Italian heritage. Even the style of service – friendly, efficient, no-nonsense – has a distinctly Melbourne vibe. The same cannot be said for Harriot, the newest restaurant from Conferre Group, which owns Tipo along with Osteria Ilaria, Figlia and Grana – all restaurants with a strongly Italian identity. Take Harriot's setting – a new fit-out in the bottom of 555 Collins Street, the 35-storey office tower on the corner of King Street. Step through the door into the orangey-beige room, and the lo-fi luxe of the space is soothing but placeless. (It shows its sexier side at night when the room gets its glow on.)

Its sibling is unmistakably Melbourne, but does Harriot have the same pulling power?
Its sibling is unmistakably Melbourne, but does Harriot have the same pulling power?

Sydney Morning Herald

time2 hours ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

Its sibling is unmistakably Melbourne, but does Harriot have the same pulling power?

Previous SlideNext Slide Is there a more Melbourne restaurant than Tipo 00? Others certainly are deserving of the title, but as an example of what we do best, it's hard to argue that Andreas Papadakis' 11-year old flagship isn't a contender for the prize. Its vintage shopfront location on Little Bourke Street is unmistakably Melbourne. Its menu of gorgeous pastas and small plates eloquently reference our city's Italian heritage. Even the style of service – friendly, efficient, no-nonsense – has a distinctly Melbourne vibe. The same cannot be said for Harriot, the newest restaurant from Conferre Group, which owns Tipo along with Osteria Ilaria, Figlia and Grana – all restaurants with a strongly Italian identity. Take Harriot's setting – a new fit-out in the bottom of 555 Collins Street, the 35-storey office tower on the corner of King Street. Step through the door into the orangey-beige room, and the lo-fi luxe of the space is soothing but placeless. (It shows its sexier side at night when the room gets its glow on.)

'Lawyers' picnic' looms over right to work from home
'Lawyers' picnic' looms over right to work from home

The Advertiser

time14 hours ago

  • The Advertiser

'Lawyers' picnic' looms over right to work from home

An Australian-first plan to legislate the right to work from home could become a "lawyers' picnic", experts warn. The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation in 2026 to create a right for employees to work from home two days a week. The laws are yet to be drafted but the right is slated to apply to all Victorian public and private sector workers who can reasonably do their job from home. Carve-outs in the Fair Work Act allowed for protections under state anti-discrimination laws, employment lawyer Daniel Victory said. But how wide the state Labor government cast the net could open the proposed laws to legal challenge, particularly from the private sector. "The broader they make the right the greater the possibility of a challenge," Mr Victory told AAP. Employers trying to "squeeze" staff to return to the workplace after the COVID-19 pandemic was a major "bone of contention", Maurice Blackburn's principal lawyer of employment and industrial law in Melbourne said. He described working from home as a "fact of life" and said enshrining it as a right would help make it a "cultural norm" for businesses to reflect. Industrial relations laws are set by the federal government and regulated by the Fair Work Commission. Section 109 of the constitution dictates that if a state law conflicts with a Commonwealth law, the latter prevails. Joellen Riley Munton, an expert in labour law at the University of Technology Sydney, noted the commission assessed working-from-home clauses in awards and enterprise bargaining agreements. "It would be a very easy thing for someone who objects to the state law to just say 'I only have to abide by the federal laws'," Professor Munton told AAP. "That will be the obstacle for the effectiveness of any Victorian law." Former Fair Work Commission vice president Graeme Watson agreed the proposed right, if as general as initially described, was headed for a clash with federal laws. If Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act was chosen as the vehicle to legislate the right, he said the laws would have to establish what discrimination they were guarding against. "Then you're proceeding into a bit of maze," the King & Wood Mallesons strategic counsel told AAP. "It's either going to be clearly invalid or likely unworkable, but probably both." Mr Watson said arbitration existed for disputes over flexible work arrangements and argued a need to change that remedy had not been demonstrated. He compared the proposal to Victoria's wage theft laws, which were subject to High Court challenge before their repeal after the Albanese government instituted federal legislation. "This is a lawyers' picnic," Mr Watson said. "Why are you creating all this work for lawyers?" She defended her claim Liberals across the country were "drawing up plans to abolish work-from-home and force workers back to the office". Opposition Leader Brad Battin denied it was a touchy subject internally after Peter Dutton backflipped on ending working from home for public servants during the Liberals' disastrous 2025 federal election campaign. The state Liberal leader is waiting to see the detailed legislation before the party decides its stance. Senior federal minister Tanya Plibersek said the Albanese government wasn't going to give its Labor colleagues' plan a "tick or a cross" when asked if it would step in to overrule the state. An Australian-first plan to legislate the right to work from home could become a "lawyers' picnic", experts warn. The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation in 2026 to create a right for employees to work from home two days a week. The laws are yet to be drafted but the right is slated to apply to all Victorian public and private sector workers who can reasonably do their job from home. Carve-outs in the Fair Work Act allowed for protections under state anti-discrimination laws, employment lawyer Daniel Victory said. But how wide the state Labor government cast the net could open the proposed laws to legal challenge, particularly from the private sector. "The broader they make the right the greater the possibility of a challenge," Mr Victory told AAP. Employers trying to "squeeze" staff to return to the workplace after the COVID-19 pandemic was a major "bone of contention", Maurice Blackburn's principal lawyer of employment and industrial law in Melbourne said. He described working from home as a "fact of life" and said enshrining it as a right would help make it a "cultural norm" for businesses to reflect. Industrial relations laws are set by the federal government and regulated by the Fair Work Commission. Section 109 of the constitution dictates that if a state law conflicts with a Commonwealth law, the latter prevails. Joellen Riley Munton, an expert in labour law at the University of Technology Sydney, noted the commission assessed working-from-home clauses in awards and enterprise bargaining agreements. "It would be a very easy thing for someone who objects to the state law to just say 'I only have to abide by the federal laws'," Professor Munton told AAP. "That will be the obstacle for the effectiveness of any Victorian law." Former Fair Work Commission vice president Graeme Watson agreed the proposed right, if as general as initially described, was headed for a clash with federal laws. If Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act was chosen as the vehicle to legislate the right, he said the laws would have to establish what discrimination they were guarding against. "Then you're proceeding into a bit of maze," the King & Wood Mallesons strategic counsel told AAP. "It's either going to be clearly invalid or likely unworkable, but probably both." Mr Watson said arbitration existed for disputes over flexible work arrangements and argued a need to change that remedy had not been demonstrated. He compared the proposal to Victoria's wage theft laws, which were subject to High Court challenge before their repeal after the Albanese government instituted federal legislation. "This is a lawyers' picnic," Mr Watson said. "Why are you creating all this work for lawyers?" She defended her claim Liberals across the country were "drawing up plans to abolish work-from-home and force workers back to the office". Opposition Leader Brad Battin denied it was a touchy subject internally after Peter Dutton backflipped on ending working from home for public servants during the Liberals' disastrous 2025 federal election campaign. The state Liberal leader is waiting to see the detailed legislation before the party decides its stance. Senior federal minister Tanya Plibersek said the Albanese government wasn't going to give its Labor colleagues' plan a "tick or a cross" when asked if it would step in to overrule the state. An Australian-first plan to legislate the right to work from home could become a "lawyers' picnic", experts warn. The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation in 2026 to create a right for employees to work from home two days a week. The laws are yet to be drafted but the right is slated to apply to all Victorian public and private sector workers who can reasonably do their job from home. Carve-outs in the Fair Work Act allowed for protections under state anti-discrimination laws, employment lawyer Daniel Victory said. But how wide the state Labor government cast the net could open the proposed laws to legal challenge, particularly from the private sector. "The broader they make the right the greater the possibility of a challenge," Mr Victory told AAP. Employers trying to "squeeze" staff to return to the workplace after the COVID-19 pandemic was a major "bone of contention", Maurice Blackburn's principal lawyer of employment and industrial law in Melbourne said. He described working from home as a "fact of life" and said enshrining it as a right would help make it a "cultural norm" for businesses to reflect. Industrial relations laws are set by the federal government and regulated by the Fair Work Commission. Section 109 of the constitution dictates that if a state law conflicts with a Commonwealth law, the latter prevails. Joellen Riley Munton, an expert in labour law at the University of Technology Sydney, noted the commission assessed working-from-home clauses in awards and enterprise bargaining agreements. "It would be a very easy thing for someone who objects to the state law to just say 'I only have to abide by the federal laws'," Professor Munton told AAP. "That will be the obstacle for the effectiveness of any Victorian law." Former Fair Work Commission vice president Graeme Watson agreed the proposed right, if as general as initially described, was headed for a clash with federal laws. If Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act was chosen as the vehicle to legislate the right, he said the laws would have to establish what discrimination they were guarding against. "Then you're proceeding into a bit of maze," the King & Wood Mallesons strategic counsel told AAP. "It's either going to be clearly invalid or likely unworkable, but probably both." Mr Watson said arbitration existed for disputes over flexible work arrangements and argued a need to change that remedy had not been demonstrated. He compared the proposal to Victoria's wage theft laws, which were subject to High Court challenge before their repeal after the Albanese government instituted federal legislation. "This is a lawyers' picnic," Mr Watson said. "Why are you creating all this work for lawyers?" She defended her claim Liberals across the country were "drawing up plans to abolish work-from-home and force workers back to the office". Opposition Leader Brad Battin denied it was a touchy subject internally after Peter Dutton backflipped on ending working from home for public servants during the Liberals' disastrous 2025 federal election campaign. The state Liberal leader is waiting to see the detailed legislation before the party decides its stance. Senior federal minister Tanya Plibersek said the Albanese government wasn't going to give its Labor colleagues' plan a "tick or a cross" when asked if it would step in to overrule the state. An Australian-first plan to legislate the right to work from home could become a "lawyers' picnic", experts warn. The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation in 2026 to create a right for employees to work from home two days a week. The laws are yet to be drafted but the right is slated to apply to all Victorian public and private sector workers who can reasonably do their job from home. Carve-outs in the Fair Work Act allowed for protections under state anti-discrimination laws, employment lawyer Daniel Victory said. But how wide the state Labor government cast the net could open the proposed laws to legal challenge, particularly from the private sector. "The broader they make the right the greater the possibility of a challenge," Mr Victory told AAP. Employers trying to "squeeze" staff to return to the workplace after the COVID-19 pandemic was a major "bone of contention", Maurice Blackburn's principal lawyer of employment and industrial law in Melbourne said. He described working from home as a "fact of life" and said enshrining it as a right would help make it a "cultural norm" for businesses to reflect. Industrial relations laws are set by the federal government and regulated by the Fair Work Commission. Section 109 of the constitution dictates that if a state law conflicts with a Commonwealth law, the latter prevails. Joellen Riley Munton, an expert in labour law at the University of Technology Sydney, noted the commission assessed working-from-home clauses in awards and enterprise bargaining agreements. "It would be a very easy thing for someone who objects to the state law to just say 'I only have to abide by the federal laws'," Professor Munton told AAP. "That will be the obstacle for the effectiveness of any Victorian law." Former Fair Work Commission vice president Graeme Watson agreed the proposed right, if as general as initially described, was headed for a clash with federal laws. If Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act was chosen as the vehicle to legislate the right, he said the laws would have to establish what discrimination they were guarding against. "Then you're proceeding into a bit of maze," the King & Wood Mallesons strategic counsel told AAP. "It's either going to be clearly invalid or likely unworkable, but probably both." Mr Watson said arbitration existed for disputes over flexible work arrangements and argued a need to change that remedy had not been demonstrated. He compared the proposal to Victoria's wage theft laws, which were subject to High Court challenge before their repeal after the Albanese government instituted federal legislation. "This is a lawyers' picnic," Mr Watson said. "Why are you creating all this work for lawyers?" She defended her claim Liberals across the country were "drawing up plans to abolish work-from-home and force workers back to the office". Opposition Leader Brad Battin denied it was a touchy subject internally after Peter Dutton backflipped on ending working from home for public servants during the Liberals' disastrous 2025 federal election campaign. The state Liberal leader is waiting to see the detailed legislation before the party decides its stance. Senior federal minister Tanya Plibersek said the Albanese government wasn't going to give its Labor colleagues' plan a "tick or a cross" when asked if it would step in to overrule the state.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store