Billionaire H&M founding family speeds up share purchases
The family's Ramsbury Invest holding company, primarily owned by Sweden's richest man Stefan Persson, bought 42.75 million H&M shares in the first half of this year, according to the Swedish financial regulator, with the most recent transaction on Monday.
That is a faster pace so far than in 2024, opens new tab, when Ramsbury Invest purchased 56.85 million shares over the year as a whole, and in 2023, when the family bought 55.65 million shares.
"As the family owns more shares they have a higher dividend to reinvest which would support increased share purchases," said Deutsche Bank analyst Adam Cochrane, who expects the family to take H&M private by 2030.
The Persson family and its related companies owned more than 64% of H&M's shares at the end of May, according to the company's website.
H&M referred Reuters' questions about the share purchases to a spokesperson for Ramsbury Invest, who declined to comment on the stake-building or on the possibility of the company being taken private.
"I think they will, in due time, take it private - the question is, is it now, or in ten or 20 years?" said Peter Magnusson, portfolio manager at Cicero Fonder in Stockholm.
The family would likely need to find external financing or partners to buy the whole company, Magnusson added.
H&M's market value is around 187 billion Swedish crowns ($19.7 billion).
Investment bankers expect more publicly-listed retailers to go private, since U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs have dented share prices and driven market volatility. H&M's share price is down 9% since the start of this year.
H&M was founded by Erling Persson in 1947, and his son Stefan took over as CEO in 1982, staying in the role for 27 years before handing over to his son Karl-Johan Persson in 2009.
In 2020, H&M got its first chief executive from outside the family, with Karl-Johan becoming chair.
($1 = 9.4806 Swedish crowns)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - AI dooms the billable hour – and Big Law earnings
LONDON, July 2 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Artificial intelligence promises to save time for white-collar workers. If true, that could be bad news for companies that bill clients by the hour. Law firms, auditors and other professional-services outfits might find ways to mitigate the financial hit. But there's no getting around the fact that automation risks devaluing part of the pricey service they're offering. The 'billable hours' model dates to Reginald Heber Smith, a legendary managing partner of Hale and Dorr between 1919 and 1956, who 'pioneered the rationalization of the modern law firm', as described, opens new tab by its descendant White Shoe outfit WilmerHale. At heart, billing by the hour means getting staff to meticulously track the time spent on projects so that they can invoice clients accordingly. Beancounters and tax advisers at groups like Deloitte are also heavy users of so-called timesheets. About 82% of U.S. law firm partners' work is charged by the hour, Thomson Reuters Institute research shows, while such revenue makes up 65% of income at U.S. audit firms, according to, opens new tab the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. Rates can be eye-popping. The most senior partners at elite firms, like Kirkland & Ellis or Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, can bill up to $3,000 an hour. The rate for junior lawyers can be $400, according to LexisNexis's Sean Fitzpatrick, or sometimes much more at White Shoe firms. It's normal, opens new tab in Big Law to charge out juniors at multiples of their salaries, which can be a nice earner for the top partners. But AI, particularly so-called AI agents which work autonomously, are now threatening to undermine the time-honoured practice. Goldman Sachs analysts estimated, opens new tab in a 2023 report that 44% of legal tasks in the United States could be automated. It might sound like a good thing that an AI agent could draft a non-disclosure agreement in minutes, or instantly synthesise board minutes for an audit. Yet a perverse outcome of the billable hour structure is that being more productive, all else equal, can mean generating less revenue. According to American Bar Association guidelines, opens new tab published in July, lawyers can only charge for actual time spent on tasks, even if AI allows them to perform them faster. Compounding the problem is the fact that professional-services firms may face a chunky upfront IT bill to get the new software up and running. Only one-third of tax firms surveyed, opens new tab by Thomson Reuters reckon they can directly pass on generative AI investment costs to customers, implying that developing or buying slick new AI agents will initially eat into profit margins. There are no painless ways to respond to this double whammy. One extreme option, in theory, would be to let AI agents replace a big chunk of the junior staff. Clients pay partners for their wisdom and personal touch, not the grunt work. The implication is that seniors could keep charging themselves out even if the rest of the firm becomes populated by faceless AI robots. And to the extent that some juniors spend time on work that can't be billed, agents could boost profitability. Associates, who are generally younger members of staff, are already shrinking as a proportion of law-firm headcount – to 40% in recent years compared with 45% from 2005 to 2009, according to Thomson Reuters, opens new tab. One problem with this option, other than its heartlessness, is that firms need a constant pipeline of juniors to repopulate the partnership. Who else will replace the old guard when they finally cash out to hit the golf course full time? It's also far from clear that the hallucination-prone software is ready for the big time, implying that a horde of associates may still be needed to check AI agents' accuracy. That points to a different solution: moving away from billable hours. It's already happened at the elite strategy consultancies like McKinsey & Company, Bain & Company and Boston Consulting Group, who often charge flat project fees tied to specific outcomes. Doing the same would flip the AI equation for law and accountancy firms: productivity improvements could boost margins rather than hurt them. There's a precedent in the legal world too: Allen & Overy in 2002 created a subscription-based business called Aosphere, whose lawyers give advice online to 1,200 clients. 'We don't even do time sheets', its website claims, opens new tab. Buyout shop Inflexion and Endicott Capital agreed to invest in the division in 2023 at an unspecified valuation, suggesting that the model may hold some promise. But it's a different type of service to advising on a complex deal or piece of litigation. The risk is that it will be tough to systematise pricing across the vast variety of projects. Doing so might be easier for beancounters, since audits can in theory share a common overarching process. But no two lawsuits, for example, are the same. Switching to a project-fee approach puts the onus back on professional-services firms to judge how many resources a clients' work will take. The bigger problem, however, is that automating tasks makes it harder to charge a margin. Under the classic law-firm model, for example, revenue gets split equally three ways between overhead costs, salaries and partner profit. The implication is that seniors should charge juniors out at a minimum of three times their pay. Yet clients may balk if Big Law tries to apply the same logic to an AI agent. Why should a White Shoe firm add a markup to software that it just bought from someone else? Corporate clients could argue that they could just get their own AI agents instead. It's a management challenge that Hale and Dorr's attorney mastermind Reginald Heber Smith would probably have relished. Solving it will require moving beyond the billable hour. Follow Karen Kwok on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Euro 2025 prize money: How much do teams win round by round?
Euro 2025 will offer record prize money of €41m (£34m) as Uefa confirmed an increase of 156 per cent from Euro 2022, but there remains a significant gap of almost €300m between men's and women's European Championships. Switzerland will stage the 16-team tournament following a record-breaking Euros won by hosts England in 2022, and Uefa are hoping to smash viewership figures and sponsorship revenues amid the wider growth of women's football in Europe. The total prize money available to teams at Euro 2022 was €16m, with England taking just over €2m by beating Germany at Wembley. The prize money on offer at Euro 2025 will be more than double what it was three years before, and the champions can win up to €5.1m when performance bonuses are added Uefa's executive committee also confirmed that participating teams will distribute between 30 to 40 per cent of their prize money to the players for the first time, in a move that mirrors the agreement made ahead of the Women's World Cup in Australia and New Zealand in 2023. Teams at Euro 2025, which includes first-team qualifiers Wales, are also guaranteed a participation fee of €1.8m - almost as much as England's winning-bonus from 2022. The compensation package on offer to clubs who contribute players to the summer tournament will also rise to €6m - an increase of €1.5m from 2022. The total prize money on offer at the 24-team men's European Championships in 2024 was €331 million, with the winners Spain taking home a maximum of €28.25m. Euro 2025 prize money (per team) €1.8m guaranteed (£1.53m) Additional Bonuses Group-stage win: €100,000 (£85,300) Group-stage draw: €50,000 (£42,650) Quarter-finals: €550,000 (£469,200) Semi-finals: €700,000 (£600,000) Winner: €1.75m (£1.49m)
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Charlie Bigham under fire for ‘greenwashing'
Retailers are duping eco-conscious shoppers by exaggerating their products' green credentials, an investigation has found. Consumer group, Which? found that three in five products advertised as environmentally friendly fell short of requirements set out by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Brands flagged by the investigation included posh ready meal retailer Charlie Bigham, and Italian vegan food company Mr Organic. Lasagne meals made by Charlie Bigham advertised on Ocado boast that they use 30pc less cardboard. However, Which? found no meaningful comparison to support the claim. Which? similarly accused Mr Organic of providing no proof of its claim that its canned chickpeas had 'zero air miles'. Mr Organic said it was in the process of removing the claim from its packaging as part of a wider rebrand, but that rolling out new labelling had 'taken time due to not wanting to throw away any old packaging for environmental reasons'. The advertising watchdog requires brands to be 'clear and unambiguous' when making eco-friendly claims, and that any comparisons made must be fair and meaningful. However, Which? claimed 86pc of products reviewed failed to meet at least one of the CMA's green principles. This was largely driven by brands boasting that their products were 'eco', 'sustainable' or 'environmentally friendly' in product descriptions, Which? said. Consumer law expert, Lisa Webb, of Which?, said ' shoppers were being let down by vague or unsubstantiated claims'. She added: 'Misleading green claims don't just waste people's money – they also erode trust and give an unfair advantage to businesses that cut corners. 'We want to see stricter enforcement so brands can't get away with having vague claims about sustainability on products, and eco-conscious shoppers can be confident in what they're buying.' Argos was singled out by the investigation over its Hey Duggee bean bag, which is advertised as 'environmentally friendly' without providing evidence for the claim. Which? also accused the retailer of misleading shoppers with its Chad Valley wooden puzzle set, which is advertised as 'kinder to the environment' without being clear what environmental aspects were being compared. The iPhone 15 Pro Max is billed by Argos as using 'more recycled materials', but Which? said the description failed to clarify whether this was in relation to previous iPhones or other smartphones on the market. An Argos spokesman said: 'We take our role as a responsible retailer very seriously and it's important to us that customers are able to make informed choices when they shop with us. 'We offer thousands of products, from hundreds of suppliers and are working to review all product descriptions.' The CMA requires that brands consider 'the full lifecycle of the product or service'; however, Which? said its investigation found that clothes retailers downplayed the environmental impact of using polyester – even if the material was recycled. The report gave the example of a pair of Adidas leggings advertised as being made of '85pc polyester', without making it clear to shoppers that even recycled polyester is not biodegradable. An Adidas spokesman said the 85pc composition was factually correct, and that recycled polyester contained lower carbon and could help to reduce emissions. Which? added: 'The description does not mention other significant issues that may be relevant to the product's lifecycle, such as the release of microplastics from recycled polyester, and that the source of recycled polyester is often from recycled plastic bottles, disrupting the bottle-to-bottle recycling loop.' A Charlie Bigham spokesman said the 30pc reduction in materials came from removing an additional cardboard flap. The company added: 'We believe great food deserves thoughtful packaging. That's why, 18 years ago, we introduced wooden trays, sourced from PEFC-certified poplar and designed to be oven-friendly, compostable, and reusable. 'Since then, we've continued to improve, from switching to energy-saving red clay ceramic pots to using plastic film made with 30pc recycled content and cutting plastic waste by 24 tonnes a year.' A spokesman for Ocado said: 'We work closely with our suppliers to ensure all the information they provide for our website is accurate. We also have a training programme and toolkits for our colleagues to make sure we're compliant and up to date with the evolving regulatory landscape.' An Adidas spokesman said: 'The example mentioned is on a third party website that is not operated by Adidas and the wording is not in line with our current marketing communication. 'However, it is factually correct and offers full information about the composition of the product material with 85pc recycled polyester and 15pc elastane. 'Recycled polyester has an environmental benefit since it is not made from virgin material, but from recycled plastic waste. Recycled polyester has a lower carbon footprint than virgin polyester and helps to reduce emissions.'
