Family & Trends

Tell me who owns you and I will tell you who you are

by Bernardo Bertoldi

 (Adobe Stock)

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

By whom a company is possessed matters, familyandtrends believes has much more importance than is normally said and thought.

Broadly owned companies are, almost always, listed on a financial market and owned by a large number of investors whose objective is to maximise the risk-return ratio on the efficient frontier defined by the Nobel Prize winner Harry Markowitz. Decisions are made by CEOs (delegated by other directors nominated by shareholders) with the objective of maximising the return for investors. Companies with 'closed' capital can be owned by employees or customers, e.g. cooperatives or mutuals, by the professionals working in them, e.g. professional firms or partnerships, by charities or non-profit organisations, e.g. foundations, by groups of blood relatives, e.g. family businesses. In this case ownership is 'exclusive', not everyone can buy shares, the owners and not the managers have authority over important decisions, always the owners decide on the objectives to be achieved, which are not always the maximisation of financial returns.

Loading...

Each form of ownership has advantages and disadvantages: listed companies are under pressure for short-term results but can raise capital and exchange shares to grow through acquisitions; 'private' companies have less pressure in the short term which often helps them to have better results and more consistent visions over time on the other hand they are extremely weak when some relevant owner fails.

Ownership is also important because it determines the long-term strategy of the company. The statement is strong and will turn the noses of many strategy purists, especially the 'porterians': let us use the case of two beautiful luxury companies to reason about it: Hermès and LVMH.

Hermès went public in 1993 but has never exploited the advantages of the listing: it has not made capital increases or acquired 'paper for paper' competitors, it does not give any weight to investors' expectations so much as never declare budgets or prospective financial results in meetings with analysts. To make it clear that the market is worthless is one of the few, perhaps the only, listed company in the form of a limited partnership per share: Emile Hermès SAS with one share appoints the board of directors of the listed Hermès International. It listed for a (usually) misguided reason for entrepreneurial families: to liquidate a branch of the family; it was, in this case, a mistake that twenty years later risked the loss of ownership to LVMH itself. The type of ownership allows Hermès to remain tied to the founder Thierry's DNA: extreme craftsmanship, focus on a few product categories, little or no glitzy marketing, slow production, slow growth, slow business development. In the words of the founder's great-grandson and promoter of the Hermès we know today, Jean Louis Dumas: 'luxury is what can be repaired'.

LVMH went public in 1984, when Henry Racamier, a member of the family that historically owned Louis Vuitton, was looking for capital to build a vertically integrated company from production to design to shop ownership. When Henry Racamier, husband of one of Gaston's daughters and grandson of the founder Louis, joined the company in 1977, it was in crisis: it controlled the design of the famous LV brand, but not production, and had delegated marketing to distributors in exchange for a licensing fee. Racamier observed that it was the retailers who made most of the profits and that he had to vertically integrate the business if he wanted to return to profit: to invest in production and open shops he needed capital quickly, the company's crisis did not allow this to be done self-financed and quickly. In 1984, the merger with the listed Moet Hennesy continued this design and widened access to market capital to acquire other brands with which to feed the network of shops created to take over the distribution margin.

Racamier's model attracted the attention of a young man from a Parisian real estate family who had just returned from the US: distribution had to do with shop locations, something naturally in the real estate business. The young man was Bernard Arnault: he replicated the model by buying Boussac, a bankrupt textile company that owned the Christian Dior brand, and began to vertically integrate the group, withdrawing all production licences and bringing quality back up to luxury standards. Arnault employed his real estate skills by opening Dior boutiques around the world, but went further: he took direct control of marketing, using bolder designs, big advertising campaigns and glitzy events. With the cash generated, he went on to first acquire designers by taking them away from other fashion houses and then directly take over family-owned luxury companies when they had moments of weakness due to the death of the founder or internal ownership tensions. In 1988, Arnault began buying shares in LVMH: after promising to back Racamier, he allied himself with other shareholders and obtained enough votes to take over as president. LVMH's approach can be summed up in the words of Bernard Arnault: "The only way to succeed in luxury is to maintain desirability."

Both approaches have been very successful, both the luxury that is constantly evolving to keep the consumer's attention and the luxury that is such because it needs to be repaired, have a customer base; but neither would be possible without the big difference in the two ownership models. This, if possible, increases the responsibility of entrepreneurial families who want to be good owners of their companies.

Bernardo Bertoldi (Professor of Family Business Strategy - University of Turin - bernardo.bertoldi@unito.it)

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti