Archive

April 19, 2025

Browsing

Shareholders of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton voted on Thursday to allow Bernard Arnault to remain at the helm of the company until the age of 85, extending the reign of the man who built the world’s most valuable luxury goods empire.

The move, approved with more than 99% support, raises the maximum age limit for the group’s chairman and chief executive from 80 to 85.

This marks the second such amendment in recent years.

In 2022, LVMH lifted the retirement threshold from 75 to 80.

With Thursday’s vote, the board has further solidified Arnault’s position at the top, even as investors grow increasingly uneasy over the absence of a clearly communicated succession plan.

A meticulously constructed empire

Bernard Arnault, 76, has led LVMH since 1989, steering it through decades of aggressive expansion, blockbuster acquisitions, and surging demand for luxury goods.

From the takeover of Christian Dior and Louis Vuitton to the $16 billion acquisition of Tiffany & Co in 2021, Arnault has crafted a 75-brand empire that spans fashion, jewellery, wine, spirits, hospitality, and more.

His hands-on leadership style—inspecting store layouts, micromanaging deals, and ensuring consistent brand storytelling—has helped deliver exceptional shareholder returns.

According to LSEG data, LVMH has generated an average total return of 13% per year under its leadership, far outpacing the 3% return of the STOXX 600 over the same period.

Yet the very qualities that have made LVMH a success are now sources of concern.

Investors worry that Arnault’s immense influence means that his sudden departure could trigger a sharp decline in LVMH’s share price.

At the same time, the company’s heavy reliance on a single individual introduces significant long-term risk.

The family behind the façade

All five of Arnault’s children are now deeply embedded in the group’s leadership structure.

Delphine Arnault, 50, serves as CEO of Christian Dior and is widely seen as a leading candidate.

Antoine Arnault, 47, oversees communications, image, and sustainability, and chairs Loro Piana.

The younger siblings—Alexandre, 33, Frédéric, 30, and Jean, 26—hold key roles at Tiffany & Co, TAG Heuer, and the watches division, respectively.

Each child holds a senior position, and four of them sit on LVMH’s board. But despite their prominence, Arnault has offered no public indication of who will eventually take over.

The family’s involvement gives the appearance of a tightly managed succession-in-training, yet no formal plan has been communicated.

“The market has long priced in the ‘Arnault premium,’” said a Paris-based luxury analyst.

“But that also means there’s enormous key-man risk. Investors want to know what LVMH looks like in a post-Arnault world.”

Opaque planning fuels uncertainty

Some shareholders have begun to question the group’s lack of transparency.

Two investors told Reuters Breakingviews that they are unaware of any formal emergency or long-term succession plan.

LVMH’s most recent governance report only briefly references a “review of succession planning,” offering no further detail.

In 2022, changes were made to LVMH’s controlling structure to ensure long-term family control.

Arnault restructured the family holding company, Agache SCA, stipulating that the five children would share equal ownership through Agache Commandité.

The shares cannot be sold or transferred for 30 years, nor can they pass outside the family or their direct descendants.

This arrangement effectively guarantees that LVMH will remain under family control for the foreseeable future, but it does not answer the central question of who will lead.

Key decisions in Agache now require unanimous agreement from all five siblings—a setup that could prove cumbersome or fractious in time.

Lessons from luxury rivals

LVMH’s opaque approach to succession contrasts with other family-led luxury firms.

François Pinault, founder of rival group Kering, passed his holding company to his three children in 2001.

In 2005, his son François-Henri Pinault formally took charge as CEO at age 42, providing clear continuity for investors and the business alike.

By comparison, LVMH has opted for incremental changes that extend Bernard Arnault’s grip on the company without offering the market a clear view of what comes next.

“Succession isn’t just about naming a CEO,” said Irina Curbelo, co-founder of Percheron Advisory. “It’s about preserving the essence of the brand empire, and ensuring that family governance doesn’t turn into a bottleneck.”

No imminent change, but longer-term risks remain

Despite growing concerns, few doubt Arnault’s ability to continue leading LVMH in the short term.

He remains mentally sharp, fully engaged, and evidently trusted by the board and shareholders.

But with the latest age-limit amendment pushing any handover potentially another decade away, governance questions are unlikely to fade.

As the luxury industry becomes more competitive and globally complex, the stakes of an unclear succession only grow.

The question facing LVMH now is not just who will succeed Bernard Arnault, but when, how, and whether the group will be prepared when the moment inevitably arrives.

The post As LVMH extends Arnault’s reign, succession concerns still linger: here’s why investors worry appeared first on Invezz

Harvard’s brewing conflict with the Trump administration could come at a steep cost — even for the nation’s richest university.

On April 14, Harvard University President Alan Garber announced the institution would not comply with the administration’s demands, including to “audit” Harvard’s students and faculty for “viewpoint diversity.” The federal government, in response, froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts with the university.

According to CNN and multiple other news outlets, the Trump administration has now asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. If the IRS follows through, it would have severe consequences for the university. The many benefits of nonprofit status include tax-free income on investments and tax deductions for donors, education historian Bruce Kimball told CNBC.

Bloomberg estimated the value of Harvard’s tax benefits in excess of $465 million in 2023.

Nonprofits can lose their tax exemptions if the IRS determines they are engaging in political campaign activity or earning too much income from unrelated activities. Few universities have lost their non-profit status. One of the few examples was Christian institution Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption in 1983 for racially discriminatory policies.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told the Washington Post that the IRS started investigating Harvard before President Donald Trump suggested on Truth Social that the university should be taxed as a “political entity.” The Treasury Department did not reply to a request for comment from CNBC.

A Harvard spokesperson told CNBC that the government has “no legal basis to rescind Harvard’s tax exempt status.”

“The government has long exempted universities from taxes in order to support their educational mission,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement. “Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission. It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation. The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.” 

The federal government has challenged Harvard on yet another front, with the Department of Homeland Security threatening to stop international students from enrolling. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program is administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which falls under the DHS.

International students make up more than a quarter of Harvard’s student body. However, Harvard is less financially dependent on international students than many other U.S. universities as it already offers need-based financial aid to international students in its undergraduate program. Many other universities require international students to pay full tuition.

The Harvard spokesperson declined to comment to CNBC on whether the university would sue the administration over the federal funds or any other grounds. Lawyers Robert Hur of King & Spalding and William Burck of Quinn Emanuel are representing Harvard, stating in a letter to the federal government that its demands violate the First Amendment.

Harvard, the nation’s richest university, has more resources than other academic institutions to fund a long legal battle and weather the storm. However, its massive endowment — which has raised questions during the recent developments — is not a piggy bank.

Harvard has an endowment of nearly $52 billion, averaging $2.1 million in endowed funds per student, according to a study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, or NACUBO, and asset manager Commonfund.

That size makes it larger than than the GDP of many countries.

The endowment generated a 9.6% return last fiscal year, which ended June 30, according to the university’s latest annual report.

Founded in 1636, Harvard has had more time to accumulate assets as the nation’s oldest university. It also has robust donor base, receiving $368 million in gifts to the endowment in 2024. While the university noted that more than three-quarters of the gifts averaged $150 per donor, Harvard has a history of headline-making donations from ultra-rich alumni.

Kimball, emeritus professor of philosophy and history of education at the Ohio State University, attributes the outsized wealth of elite universities like Harvard to a willingness to invest in riskier assets.

University endowments were traditionally invested very conservatively, but in the early 1950s Harvard shifted its allocation to 60% equities and 40% bonds, taking on more risk and creating the opportunity for more upside.

“Universities that didn’t want to assume the risk fell behind,” Kimball told CNBC in March.

Other universities soon followed suit, with Yale University in the 1990s pioneering what would become the “Yale Model” of investing in alternative assets like hedge funds and natural resources. Though it proved lucrative, only universities with large endowments could afford to take on the risk and due diligence that was needed to succeed in alternative investments, according to Kimball.

According to Harvard’s annual report, the largest chunks of the endowment are allocated to private equity (39%) and hedge funds (32%). Public equities constitute another 14% while real estate and bonds/TIPs make up 5% each. The remainder is divided between cash and other real assets, including natural resources.

The university has made substantial portfolio allocation changes over the past seven years, the report notes. The Harvard Management Company has cut the endowment’s exposure to real estate and natural resources from 25% in 2018 to 6%. These cuts allowed the university to increase its private equity allocation. To limit equity exposure, the endowment has upped its hedge fund investments.

University endowments, though occasionally staggering in size, are not slush funds. The pools are actually made up of hundreds or even thousands of smaller funds, the majority of which are restricted by donors to be dedicated to areas including professorships, scholarships or research.

Harvard has some 14,600 separate funds, 80% of which are restricted to specific purposes including financial aid and professorships. Last fiscal year, the endowment distributed $2.4 billion, 70% of which was subject to donors’ directives.

“Most of that money was put in for a specific purpose,” Scott Bok, former chairman of the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC in March. “Universities don’t have the ability to break open the proverbial piggy bank and just grab the money in whatever way they want.”

Some of these restrictions are overplayed, according to former Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro.

“It’s true that a lot of money is restricted, but it’s restricted to things you’re going to spend on already like need-based aid, study abroad, libraries,” Bok said previously.

Harvard has $9.6 billion in endowed funds that are not subject to donor restrictions. The annual report notes that “while the University has no intention of doing so,” these assets “could be liquidated in the event of an unexpected disruption” under certain conditions.

Liquidating $9.6 billion in assets, nearly 20% of total endowed funds, would come at the cost of future cash flow, as the university would have less to invest.

Harvard did not respond to CNBC’s queries about increasing endowment spending. Like most universities, it aims to spend around 5% of its endowment every year. Assuming the fund generates high-single-digit investment returns, spending just 5% allows the principal to grow and keep pace with inflation.

For now, Harvard is taking a hard look at its operating budget. In mid-March, the university started taking austerity measures, including a temporary hiring pause and denying admission to graduate students waitlisted for this upcoming fall.

Harvard is also issuing $750 million in taxable bonds due September 2035. This past February, the university issued $244 million in tax-exempt bonds. A slew of universities including Princeton and Colgate are also raising debt this spring.

So far, Moody’s has not updated its top-tier AAA rating for Harvard’s bonds. However, when it comes to higher education as a whole, the ratings agency isn’t so optimistic, lowering its outlook to negative in March.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

President Trump on Friday said that career government employees working on policy matters for the administration will be reclassified ‘Schedule Policy/Career,’ – or at will employees – and will be fired if they don’t adhere to his agenda.

‘Following my Day One Executive Order, the Office of Personnel Management will be issuing new Civil Service Regulations for career government employees,’ the president wrote on Truth Social Friday afternoon. 

He added, ‘Moving forward, career government employees, working on policy matters, will be classified as ‘Schedule Policy/Career,’ and will be held to the highest standards of conduct and performance.’

This comes as the Trump administration continues to fire federal employees in an effort to shrink the government. 

The administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) estimated the rule change in Trump’s executive order ‘Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce’ would affect around 50,000 employees or 2% of the federal workforce, the White House said in a Friday memo. 

The regulations for civil service employees ‘with important policy-determining, policy-making, policy-advocating, or confidential duties’ will now be considered ‘at-will’ employees, ‘without access to cumbersome adverse action procedures or appeals, overturning Biden Administration regulations that protected poor performing employees.’ 

Trump added in his post: ‘If these government workers refuse to advance the policy interests of the President, or are engaging in corrupt behavior, they should no longer have a job. This is common sense, and will allow the federal government to finally be ‘run like a business.’ We must root out corruption and implement accountability in our Federal Workforce!’ 

The White House said the ‘rule empowers federal agencies to swiftly remove employees in policy-influencing roles for poor performance, misconduct, corruption, or subversion of Presidential directives, without lengthy procedural hurdles.’

The employees aren’t required to personally support the president, but ‘must faithfully implement the law and the administration’s policies.’

The proposed rule won’t change the status of affected employees’ jobs until another executive order is issued, the White House said. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS