
Moet Hennessy woes test Alexandre Arnault's credentials
Moet Hennessy has traditionally served as a cash generator for LVMH, generating nearly US$6 billion in turnover in 2024. (LVMH pic)
PARIS : Bernard Arnault's son Alexandre has been handed a daunting task: reviving LVMH's worst-performing unit, the famed Moet Hennessy drinks business, in the midst of a tariff war.
If successful, the 33-year old could gain a leg up in the closely watched succession contest among five siblings to lead the US$280 billion luxury conglomerate headed by his father.
On Tuesday, Alexandre accompanied his father to Washington, where they attended the swearing-in of Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, broadcast on local channel Fox 5.
US President Donald Trump, who greeted the pair among others at the White House, was heard in the broadcast referring to the younger Arnault as 'the future' and a later meeting with them.
LVMH declined to comment on the meeting.
All five Arnault children hold management roles in the luxury empire which spans over 70 brands including fashion label Dior and jeweller Tiffany, though their 76-year-old father remains hands-on and has shown no sign of stepping down.
Delphine, 50, is CEO of Dior, while Antoine, 47, is head of group communications. Frederic, 30, recently took up the role of CEO of Loro Piana and Jeanne, 26, heads marketing for Louis Vuitton's watches business.
Alexandre, the third sibling, previously held a senior role at US jeweller Tiffany, joining Moet Hennessy in February as deputy to new CEO Jean-Jacques Guiony, a trusted adviser to Bernard who was LVMH's finance chief for two decades.
The asset-light division, which sells drinks through third-party distributors and whose initials make up half the LVMH name, has traditionally served as a cash generator for the group, generating nearly US$6 billion in turnover in 2024.
However, last year, as demand in both the US and China sagged, sales fell for the second consecutive year, while operating profit shrank by one-third.
Since champagne and cognac can only be produced in the eponymous French regions, they are subject to US tariffs on imports from the EU, currently fixed at 10% but due to rise to 20% in July.
Trump has threatened much higher tariffs of as much as 200% should the EU go ahead with plans to tax bourbon whiskey in an escalating trade dispute.
Reinvigorating the business will require both diplomatic and business acumen.
'The true test as a manager is how you manage events through tough times,' said Markus Hansen, portfolio manager at Swiss bank Vontobel, adding that it would be hard to replicate the success of Bernard Arnault.
Wealthy clients
In their first big internal announcement, Guiony and Alexandre said on April 30 they would cut staff at Moet Hennessy by 13% and concentrate marketing budgets on their biggest global labels, according to a video address seen by Reuters.
Alexandre told employees the situation was 'very difficult'.
'Their message seems to be candid,' said Frederic Merceron, labour representative for the Force Ouvriere union, adding that staff were still waiting to hear about concrete proposals to reignite sales.
Alexandre also told staff last week he would personally oversee one of the shrinking division's key assets: the Moet Hennessy Private unit that caters for the wealthiest clientele.
The unit, which has around 80 employees, offers exclusive experiences and personalised spirits blends for the ultra-rich.
It famously sold a cask of Ardbeg Scotch for 16 million pounds in 2022 to a private investor in Asia.
'We've decided to take this business unit… and make it its own entity, reporting to me directly,' Arnault said, according to the video.
The emphasis on high-end customers might help moderate the wider impact of tariff threats and flagging consumer demand that is causing the slowest luxury industry growth in a decade.
Moet Hennessy's larger base of middle-class clients, however, might be reluctant to splash out on a bottle of Moet if the price creeps above current levels of US$50 or US$60 per bottle because of tariffs, said HSBC analyst Anne-Laure Bismuth.
Hidden value?
A steady stream of profit from Moet Hennessy, which merged with Louis Vuitton in 1987, for years helped fund Bernard Arnault's acquisitions of brands including watchmaker Hublot and jewellery label Bulgari, and the opening of new stores.
Drawing on centuries-old winemaking techniques to sell products like Hennessy XO cognac, known for its curved bottles, and yellow-labeled Veuve Clicquot champagne, the division provided over 40% of group operating profit in the 1990s.
'This unit has been structural for the family, and has enabled the development of the group,' said Mathieu Devers, a representative from the CGT union at Hennessy, employed in the Cognac region.
While symbolically important to LVMH, which used the Moet & Chandon label in prestigious sponsorship deals for Formula 1 car racing and the Paris 2024 Olympics, the division's economic contribution to the group has diminished.
Wines and spirits last year accounted for just 6% of group operating profit, down from around 20% in 2015, according to figures from Bernstein analysts.
If spun off, the division could be valued at €14 billion (US$15.8 billion) once restructured, according to HSBC estimates.
Bernard Arnault, who famously tends to cling to his assets, has, however, dismissed the idea: 'Divestment is not on the agenda,' he said in January.
HSBC says a sharper focus on 'pure luxury' products such as fashion, leather, watches and jewellery would give LVMH a 'tighter, more coherent portfolio that the market might value more highly'.
For Alexandre and Guiony, the clock is ticking.
'Let's give them two years to show what they can do,' Bernard Arnault said after they took up their posts.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Malay Mail
13 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Trump's threat to cancel Musk's contracts exposes risks of US reliance on SpaceX
WASHINGTON, June 7 — SpaceX's rockets ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. Its Starlink satellite constellation blankets the globe with broadband, and the company is embedded in some of the Pentagon's most sensitive projects, including tracking hypersonic missiles. So when President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to cancel Elon Musk's federal contracts, space watchers snapped to attention. Musk, the world's richest person, shot back that he would mothball Dragon—the capsule Nasa relies on for crew flights—before retracting the threat a few hours later. For now, experts say mutual dependence should keep a full-blown rupture at bay, but the episode exposes just how disruptive any break could be. Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. Driven by Musk's ambition to make humanity multiplanetary, it is now Nasa's sole means of sending astronauts to the ISS—a symbol of post-Cold War cooperation and a testbed for deeper space missions. Space monopoly? The company has completed 10 regular crew rotations to the orbiting lab and is contracted for four more, under a deal worth nearly US$5 billion. That's just part of a broader portfolio that includes US$4 billion from Nasa for developing Starship, the next-generation megarocket; nearly US$6 billion from the Space Force for launch services; and a reported US$1.8 billion for Starshield, a classified spy satellite network. Were Dragon grounded, the United States would again be forced to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets for ISS access — as it did between 2011 and 2020, following the Space Shuttle's retirement and before Crew Dragon entered service. 'Under the current geopolitical climate, that would not be optimal,' space analyst Laura Forczyk told AFP. Nasa had hoped Boeing's Starliner would provide redundancy, but persistent delays—and a failed crewed test last year—have kept it grounded. Even Northrop Grumman's cargo missions now rely on SpaceX's Falcon 9, the workhorse of its rocket fleet. The situation also casts a shadow over Nasa's Artemis programme. A lunar lander variant of Starship is slated for Artemis III and IV, the next US crewed Moon missions. If Starship were sidelined, rival Blue Origin could benefit—but the timeline would almost certainly slip, giving China, which aims to land humans by 2030, a chance to get there first, Forczyk warned. 'There are very few launch vehicles as capable as Falcon 9 — it isn't feasible to walk away as easily as President Trump might assume,' she said. Nasa meanwhile appeared eager to show that it had options. 'Nasa is assessing the earliest potential for a Starliner flight to the International Space Station in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner's technical issues,' the agency said in a statement Friday to AFP. Still, the feud could sour Trump on space altogether, Forczyk cautioned, complicating Nasa's long-term plans. SpaceX isn't entirely dependent on the US government. Starlink subscriptions and commercial launches account for a significant share of its revenue, and the company also flies private missions. The next, with partner Axiom Space, will carry astronauts from India, Poland, and Hungary, funded by their respective governments. Private power, public risk But losing US government contracts would still be a major blow. 'It's such a doomsday scenario for both parties that it's hard to envision how US space efforts would fill the gap,' Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told AFP. 'Both sides have every reason to bridge the disagreement and get back to business.' Signs of a rift emerged last weekend, when the White House abruptly withdrew its nomination of e-payments billionaire Jared Isaacman — a close Musk ally who has twice flown to space with SpaceX — as Nasa administrator. On a recent podcast, Isaacman said he believed he was dropped because 'some people had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target.' The broader episode could also reignite debate over Washington's reliance on commercial partners, particularly when one company holds such a dominant position. Swope noted that while the US government has long favored buying services from industry, military leaders tend to prefer owning the systems they depend on. 'This is just another data point that might bolster the case for why it can be risky,' he said. 'I think that seed has been planted in a lot of people's minds — that it might not be worth the trust.' — AFP


Free Malaysia Today
14 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Trump-Musk showdown threatens US space plans
Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. (File pic) WASHINGTON : SpaceX's rockets ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. Its Starlink satellite constellation blankets the globe with broadband, and the company is embedded in some of the Pentagon's most sensitive projects, including tracking hypersonic missiles. So when president Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to cancel Elon Musk's federal contracts, space watchers snapped to attention. Musk, the world's richest person, shot back that he would mothball Dragon – the capsule NASA relies on for crew flights – before retracting the threat a few hours later. For now, experts say mutual dependence should keep a full-blown rupture at bay, but the episode exposes just how disruptive any break could be. Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. Driven by Musk's ambition to make humanity multiplanetary, it is now NASA's sole means of sending astronauts to the ISS – a symbol of post–Cold War cooperation and a testbed for deeper space missions. The company has completed 10 regular crew rotations to the orbiting lab and is contracted for four more, under a deal worth nearly US$5 billion. That's just part of a broader portfolio that includes US$4 billion from NASA for developing Starship, the next-generation megarocket; nearly US$6 billion from the Space Force for launch services; and a reported US$1.8 billion for Starshield, a classified spy satellite network. Were Dragon grounded, the US would again be forced to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets for ISS access – as it did between 2011 and 2020, following the Space Shuttle's retirement and before Crew Dragon entered service. 'Under the current geopolitical climate, that would not be optimal,' space analyst Laura Forczyk told AFP. NASA had hoped Boeing's Starliner would provide redundancy, but persistent delays – and a failed crewed test last year – have kept it grounded. Even Northrop Grumman's cargo missions now rely on SpaceX's Falcon 9, the workhorse of its rocket fleet. The situation also casts a shadow over NASA's Artemis program. A lunar lander variant of Starship is slated for Artemis III and IV, the next US crewed Moon missions. If Starship were sidelined, rival Blue Origin could benefit – but the timeline would almost certainly slip, giving China, which aims to land humans by 2030, a chance to get there first, Forczyk warned. 'There are very few launch vehicles as capable as Falcon 9 – it isn't feasible to walk away as easily as President Trump might assume,' she said. NASA meanwhile appeared eager to show that it had options. 'NASA is assessing the earliest potential for a Starliner flight to the International Space Station in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner's technical issues,' the agency said in a statement Friday to AFP. Still, the feud could sour Trump on space altogether, Forczyk cautioned, complicating NASA's long-term plans SpaceX isn't entirely dependent on the US government. Starlink subscriptions and commercial launches account for a significant share of its revenue, and the company also flies private missions. The next, with partner Axiom Space, will carry astronauts from India, Poland, and Hungary, funded by their respective governments. But losing US government contracts would still be a major blow. 'It's such a doomsday scenario for both parties that it's hard to envision how US space efforts would fill the gap,' Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the center for strategic and international studies, told AFP. 'Both sides have every reason to bridge the disagreement and get back to business.' Signs of a rift emerged last weekend, when the White House abruptly withdrew its nomination of e-payments billionaire Jared Isaacman – a close Musk ally who has twice flown to space with SpaceX – as NASA administrator. On a recent podcast, Isaacman said he believed he was dropped because 'some people had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target.' The broader episode could also reignite debate over Washington's reliance on commercial partners, particularly when one company holds such a dominant position. Swope noted that while the US government has long favored buying services from industry, military leaders tend to prefer owning the systems they depend on. 'This is just another data point that might bolster the case for why it can be risky,' he said. 'I think that seed has been planted in a lot of people's minds – that it might not be worth the trust.'


Malay Mail
a day ago
- Malay Mail
Trump announces new US-China trade talks in London amid tariff tensions
WASHINGTON, June 7 — US President Donald Trump announced yesterday a new round of trade talks with China in London next week, a day after calling Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in a bid to end a bitter battle over tariffs. The talks in the British capital on Monday will mark the second round of such negotiations between the world's two biggest economies since Trump launched his trade war this year. "The meeting should go very well," said Trump in a post on his Truth Social platform. The president added that US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would meet the Chinese team. The first talks between Washington and Beijing since Trump slapped levies on allies and adversaries alike took place in Geneva last month. While Trump had imposed a sweeping 10 percent duty on imports from most trading partners, rates on Chinese goods rocketed as both countries engaged in an escalating tariffs battle. In April, additional US tariffs on many Chinese products hit 145 percent while China hit back with countermeasures of 125 percent. Following the talks last month, both sides agreed to temporarily bring down the levels, with US tariffs cooling to 30 percent and China's levies at 10 percent. But this temporary halt is expected to expire in early August and Trump last week accused China of violating the pact, underscoring deeper differences on both sides. US officials have accused China of slow-walking export approvals of critical minerals and rare earth magnets, a key issue behind Trump's recent remarks. While Trump's long-awaited phone call with Xi this week likely paved the way for further high-level trade talks, a swift resolution to the tariffs impasse remains uncertain. — AFP