FINANCIAL TIMES: Brands look to the east to ease pain of credit crunch

FINANCIAL TIMES | RICHARD MILNE

One in four bankers at Lehman Brothers, the investment bank, owns three to five luxury watches, according to Allegra Perry, the bank's luxury goods analyst.

It is statistics like that which make the luxury goods industry boast about its potential and at the same time worry about the impact of the financial crisis.

The credit crunch is likely to answer the question: are luxury goods companies subject to the same consumer pressures as other retailers or are they in a sector of their own catering to the super-rich?

Luxury goods companies have traditionally been hard hit in economic downturns. Already evidence is amassing that after a difficult Christmas for many, the new year has not started as positively as some expected. The Gucci brand provided the first real sign on Thursday when its like-for-like sales growth in the first quarter reached only 2.4 per cent (in reported terms it was even down 3 per cent).

That comes after Bulgari, the Italian jewellery company, warned of soft sales in March. But it contrasts with solid figures from Richemont, LVMH and Hermès.

"The luxury goods sector is impacted by the financial crisis but to a much lesser extent than normal retail. The traditional, high-end brands will do well. The more accessible ones will struggle more," says Rogerio Fujimori, analyst at Credit Suisse.

Gerard Aquilina, head of international private banking at Barclays Wealth, says there is no sign whatsoever of a slowdown of spending among the ultra-wealthy - perhaps it is even the opposite. Gucci's best-performing brand Bottega Veneta is its most expensive.

More of the super-rich are coming from emerging markets in the Middle East, Asia or eastern Europe.

That in turn means those luxury goods companies most exposed to these regions seem to have the best chance of avoiding the slowdown. LVMH, for instance, more than tripled its revenues in Vietnam last year while Richemont is seeing growth across Asia.

In contrast, those companies most exposed to developed markets such as the US and Europe will feel the most pain.

Francesco Trapani, chief executive of Bulgari, told the FT last month: "We are seeing a pretty soft business in the US and in some important European countries . . . [But] almost all of Asia is going extremely well and counterbalancing [that softness]."

Robert Burke, a former luxury retail executive who now heads the Robert Burke Associates consultancy, says brands which cannot offer the consumer anything special will suffer particularly. "Product is paramount. The true luxury shopper is going to be more discerning than in the past," he says. "They are going to buy fewer things and more selectively and that means second-tier and less sophisticated luxury companies will suffer."

Industry watchers are divided as to who will suffer most. Luxury stores in the US report sales declines across the spectrum - not just with aspirational buyers but also very affluent customers.

However, names such as Chanel and Prada seem the most secure. Mr Fujimori points to two other issues that play a role on luxury goods as well as the economy: tourism and currency. Anecdotal evidence suggests that wealthy tourists are not just heading to the US to buy, taking advantage of the weak dollar, but also to London because of the weak pound.

Ms Perry underlines that the strength of the euro leaves companies with the dilemma of either raising prices and thus lose sales or not pass on the full impact of the currency, which will affect margins.

FINANCIAL TIMES: Deal appetite mounts in luxury sector

FINANCIAL TIMES | RICHARD MILNE

Wealthy individuals used to be content buying a luxury watch or boat. Now they are looking at buying the company as well.

Luxury goods analysts say the sector could see another wave of deals as ultra-wealthy individuals and investors from Asia and the Middle East increasingly seek out companies to buy.

"You can buy a yacht but you can also now buy your yacht builder. That is something we are seeing more and more of as it is an interesting market for ultra high-net worth people and their friends," said Gerard Aquilina, head of international private banking at Barclays Wealth.

Robert Burke, the head of a US luxury goods consultancy, said: "We help bankers screen companies and we have never been busier than in the past few weeks.

"We are seeing a lot of interest from places like Korea and the Middle East, and also from rich individuals for smaller deals. That is very new."

LVMH, the world's largest luxury goods group, this week unveiled its first acquisition for some time as it bought Hublot, the upmarket watchmaker, leading some analysts to predict increasing merger and acquisition activity from companies too. Mr Burke said: "Before it was only seen that the likes of LVMH and Gucci were buying luxury goods groups but this time it will be broader just because that it where the money is."

Few companies have openly said they are for sale but analysts say attempts to buy some of the big name fashion houses are likely. "All the potential target companies say they are not for sale but I think we will still see some approaches," said Allegra Perry, analyst at Lehman Brothers.

She said she expected the big companies only to get involved if share prices continued to drop.

The increase in interest in luxury acquisitions comes amid the first signs of the financial crisis hitting the sector. Gucci unveiled weaker-than-expected sales this week and many analysts are predicting a shake-out could take place as the lower-end and more aspirational brands suffer more than traditional, exclusive names.

Analysts point to Mulberry and Burberry - and even to Gucci - as brands that could come under threat, while top-end brands such as Hermès and Chanel are more likely to escape.

"The higher the prices for the products, the more insulated the company will be. The more accessible brands will suffer more," said Rogerio Fujimori, analyst at Credit Suisse.

Mr Burke, a former senior executive at luxury retailer Bergdorf Goodman, said: "There is going to be a major shake-out of the companies. When times gets tough the aspirational luxury buyer gets pinched out first."

FINANCIAL TIMES: From gangsta rappers to classic chic

FINANCIAL TIMES | ELIZABETH RIGBY

Tommy Hilfiger is reclining in a deep sofa in a private room at Claridges Hotel in London trying to weigh up which is his preferred Hilfiger pin-up: Is it Paris Hilton, the poster girl of Hollywood’s brat pack, or Lauren Bush, the archetypal all-American girl?

“You can never control who wears our clothes,” says the immaculately dressed fashion entrepreneur. “But we feel that with our European-influenced approach, the sophisticated and higher level of quality and fashion somehow reaches the type of people who represent the brand very well.”

A decade ago, Mr Hilfiger may have given a very different answer. Back then, the label he launched in 1984 had turned into a mega-brand on the back of celebrity endorsements from edgier stars such as Snoop Dogg, the gangster rapper.

But its success as the favourite and most fashionable label with America’s youth was short-lived.

By the early noughties, through a mix of changing tastes and competition from newer brands such as Abercrombie & Fitch, the business was struggling. Profits fell from $123m in 2001 to $85m in 2005.

The solution was radical: Hilfiger, which had a far more chic image outside of its home market, was taken private in a management buy-out by its European team, led by Fred Gehring, now chief executive, and backed by Apax Partners. The headquarters were moved from New York to Amsterdam and Mr Hilfiger, who remained creative director, dropped streetwear for classic chic.

The positioning of Europe became the positioning for the rest of the world. “Fred started Tommy Hilfiger in Europe 12 years ago, and he positioned the brand on a much higher level,” explains Mr Hilfiger. “He put clothes only into very sophisticated, better specialist stores.”

Turning round an all-American brand from the vantage point of Amsterdam is a novel – and high-risk – idea. But Mr Hilfiger, kitted out in a pristine pin-striped suit, complete with brown suede desert boots, says he had little choice but to turn to the European team.

“Decisions were being made that were not necessarily the best for the business, and it was very frustrating,” he says, looking back. “Tommy Hilfiger was struggling, it was public and decisions were made to do certain things that were not healthy for the business.”

He is about to go on but is cut short by Mr Gehring. “I don’t think you should go into that,” he says.

Mr Gehring says he has “redefined” America over the past three years. “We have shrunk the business and traded it up. We have a position now where there is a significant level of demand and a much lower level of supply.”

The fashion label has signed an exclusive wholesale deal with Macy’s to stock Tommy Hilfiger Sportswear. This is the classic casual line – navy wool jersey dresses paired with riding-style burgundy boots – that Mr Hilfiger showed on the catwalk at the Lincoln Center in New York. It is aimed at 25- to 45-year-old Americans, who have a household income of at least $75,000.

Street wear is over, with the old US “baggy jeans” collection replaced with Europe’s Hilfiger Denim. This line is targeted at 18- to 24-year-olds and competes with the likes of Diesel, Replay and G Star.

It is an “unusual” rebranding exercise, says Robert Burke, founder of Robert Burke Associates, the New York luxury consulting firm. “It is always more difficult to trade up than trade down in any brand. I think that Tommy Hilfiger and his team are repositioning in Europe first because they have a better chance trying that in Europe,” he says.

The next stage is to introduce Tommy Hilfiger stores into the US. Of 550 shops around the world, only six are based in the US. In November, the company plans to open a flagship on Fifth Avenue in New York for conservative, affluent urbanites. It will open up to 10 stores a year for “several years”.

“Our own brand is positioned in a different way [now],” says Mr Hilfiger. “Ten years ago it was positioned with a lot of red, white and blue and a lot of logos and you would look at these street kids wearing the clothes as billboards.”

Now Tommy Hilfiger – as modelled by Ms Bush – represents something very different. “The brand had been known for its streetwear and now it is not as much on people’s radar, which is probably a good thing when they go about repositioning,” says Mr Burke.