Luxury's split between winners and losers is only getting wider
If sales at these companies undershoot already weak forecasts, the shares may extend this year's drop that has wiped out market value of as much as 175 billion euros (205 billion dollars). While the outlook for luxury shares is crucial for Europe's stalled equity market rally given the weight of these companies, investors have to be more selective about the stocks they pick.
'It's not going to be one-tide-lifts-all-boats for the sector,' said Stefan-Guenter Bauknecht, a senior portfolio manager at DWS. 'It really depends on the category and how the brand is perceived in the category. And the VIP certainly helps.'
One striking example of the sector's divide is LVMH versus French peer Hermes International SCA. Sales at LVMH's key Fashion & Leather Goods division are expected to have dropped 7.8% in the second quarter, according to analyst estimates. The company reports after the bell on Thursday. Hermes, which has been an example of how companies can thrive on selling the highest-end items, is expected to report revenue growth of 12% at its leather goods division. Its results are due on July 30.
In the case of the Louis Vuitton and Tiffany & Co. owner, the stock has lost roughly half of its value over the past two years, losing its crown of Europe's biggest stock, with investors increasingly worried about an unprecedented demand slump in China. Hermes shares, on the other hand, are weathering the broader industry pullback. After a 160% jump since the end of 2020, the stock is little changed this year versus a 7% drop in Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s basket of luxury shares.
In the current economic context, pricing power is critical, said Helen Jewell, Europe, Middle East and Africa chief investment officer at BlackRock Fundamental Equities. 'The challenge for investors has been some of the names that we thought had greater brand strength, and it turned out they actually didn't,' she said, adding that there could be some buying opportunities after the selloff in the sector 'but you do need to be selective.'
For the sector as a whole, the difference is stark between now and the 2021 to 2023 boom times, when investors were rushing to snap up any European luxury shares as they reaped the profits from shoppers on a post-pandemic spending spree. But with China's sluggish economy putting a dent into demand for pricey handbags and watches, investors are buying shares in the brands that can captivate consumers and selling the ones that can't.
Among this year's winners, shares in Burberry have surged more than 30%. The UK fashion brand is gaining traction with its turnaround plan and winning new customers through its outwear push.
To some investors, luxury valuations are still too high overall even after this year's plunge in a number of stocks. The industry has an average forward price-earnings ratio of 27, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That's a near 85% premium to the broader market and above the long-term premium from the past 10 years.
'This is a sector that is fully exposed to tariffs and fully exposed to the weaker dollar,' said Roland Kaloyan, head of European equity strategy at Societe Generale SA. 'It's going to be quite difficult, so I stick to my underweight.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
an hour ago
- LeMonde
Tariffs: EU hands Trump a political win to avoid trade chaos
Suddenly, Donald Trump leaned toward Ursula von der Leyen and extended his hand, praising, with his signature superlatives, "the biggest deal ever made." Up to that point, the European Commission president had remained still in her large green velvet chair, but she accepted the handshake. That gesture closed, on Sunday, July 27, dozens of hours of sometimes bewildering negotiations between the European and American delegations, culminating in the meeting held in the ballroom of the sprawling Turnberry golf resort, owned by Trump, on Scotland's west coast. The suspense lasted until the very last minute. At the start of the meeting, the Republican, claiming to be "not in a good mood," still estimated the odds of reaching a deal at 50%. The agreement was clinched just five days before the August 1 deadline he had previously set, after which European exports would have faced punitive tariffs of 30%. Faced with two evils, the 27 EU member states chose what they saw as the lesser: an unbalanced compromise favoring the US rather than risking a full-scale trade war with unpredictable consequences. The choice was of "stability over total unpredictability," European Commissioner for Trade Maros Sefcovic explained on a flight from Brussels to Glasgow. While German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni welcomed the agreement without much enthusiasm, it was Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever who best summed up the mood among European leaders: "This is a moment of relief, but not of celebration." French Minister for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad, meanwhile, recognized the deal would bring "temporary stability" but called it "unbalanced."
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
Monthly rents in European city centres: 2020 vs 2025
As rent prices across the bloc keep climbing, the biggest jump in costs over the past five years was detected in Southern and Eastern Europe. This is according to a recent Deutsche Bank report, which scrutinised 67 cities worldwide and 28 in Europe. According to Eurostat, house prices increased by 27.3% between the first quarters of 2020 and 2025, while rents rose by 12.5% from June 2020 to June 2025. But this report indicates that rent increases in city centres were significantly greater than this average. So, as of 2025, which European cities have the most expensive rents? Where are rents the most affordable? And which cities have seen the largest increases since 2020? Athens is the cheapest, London the most expensive In 2025, the monthly rent for a three-bedroom flat in the centre of 28 cities in Europe ranges from €1,080 in Athens to €5,088 (or £4,278) in London. European cities can be grouped into three categories based on rent levels: After London, the most expensive places to rent in Europe are Zurich, Geneva, and Amsterdam, all above €3,800. Swiss cities are the priciest, with rents over €4,250. Dublin, Luxembourg, Paris, Copenhagen, and Munich also have high rents, all above €3,000. These cities are major financial, political, or international centres, driving strong demand for housing. Several well-developed cities have mid-range rents between €2,000 and €3,000. Milan, Edinburgh, and Lisbon are on the higher end of this range. Madrid, Stockholm, Berlin, Frankfurt, and Barcelona are a bit more affordable, with average rents around €2,500. Birmingham, Brussels, Vienna, and Prague are closer to €2,100. These cities offer relatively lower living costs compared to the top tier. Only five European cities have average rents below €2,000. In addition to the lowest, Athens, they include Budapest (€1,225), Istanbul (€1,614), Warsaw (€1,881), and Helsinki (€1,928). These figures show that Western and Northern Europe have the highest rents. Strong economies, high living standards, and housing shortages are key factors in these cities. Southern and Central Europe have more mixed rent levels, while Eastern and Southeastern Europe remain the most affordable. When non-European countries are included in the report, New York stands out as an outlier with average rents of €7,676 ($8,388), while Cairo is the cheapest at just €377. Average salaries in the city centres of Dubai and Sydney exceed €4,000. This makes them more expensive than most European cities. Rents in Toronto, Seoul, Tokyo, Moscow, and Shanghai fall into the mid-range at around €2,500. Rents for a one-bedroom apartment in the centre Rent for a one-bedroom dwelling mostly follows the same pattern as three-bedroom. However, some cities change places in the ranking. The price ratios are also different. Still, London (€2,732 or £2,297) remains the most expensive in Europe, while Athens (€595) is the cheapest. In general, one-bedroom apartments cost about half as much as three-bedroom ones. This share rises to 64% in Oslo and 62% in San Francisco, but drops to 37% in Seoul. That's why San Francisco surpasses London in one-bedroom rent prices globally. Where rents increased the most The report shows figures in US dollars, but we converted them to euros for a fairer comparison. Changes may differ when viewed in local currencies. Between 2020 and 2025, monthly rent for a three-bedroom apartment in city centres across Europe increased by between 3% in Helsinki and 206% in Istanbul. In general, Southern and Eastern Europe experienced the strongest rent increases. Lisbon (81%), Prague (73%), and Edinburgh (71%) followed Istanbul, each with rises of over 70%. Rents also rose significantly in Spain—by 65% in Barcelona and 59% in Madrid. Athens and Warsaw were the other two European cities that saw just over 50% increases. Rent changes vary by apartment size For a one-bedroom apartment in the city centre, the highest and lowest rent increases across Europe between 2020 and 2025 were still seen in Istanbul (191%) and Helsinki (18%). The increase in Helsinki was higher compared to that for a three-bedroom flat (3%). In some cities, the rent increase was higher for three-bedroom apartments—such as Istanbul (15 percentage points more), Prague (23 pp), and Amsterdam (10 pp). Other cities saw greater increases for one-bedroom flats, including Milan (20 pp) and Warsaw (10 pp). 'Big cities, bigger housing costs' shows how housing prices can vary significantly within a country. For example, housing in London is 50% more expensive than the UK average. Income levels matter when discussing rent affordability. 'Europe's cities ranked by rent-to-salary ratio' article compares average incomes with rental costs.
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
On defence, France and Germany are inching closer but remain far apart
Germany is becoming more French - and vice versa - when it comes to defence but big differences in the state of their public finances and strategic thinking mean the so-called Franco-German engine is unlikely to be able to power a big shift in the way the EU as a whole does defence. "From a longer historical point of view, the degree of convergence (between the two countries) is arguably higher than it has been for, I would say, decades," Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank, told Euronews. Both capitals see Russia as their biggest long-term threat, and both have pledged to pour hundreds of billions of euros into their military and defence industrial base. In Berlin, this has been dubbed a "Zeitenwende" (or historical turning point) while Paris said its latest military programmation law is "the ultimate strategic move". This convergence was driven by Russia's ongoing full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which brought back conventional war to European soil, Donald Trump's return to the White House, which has put in doubt continued long-term US commitment to Europe's security, and a change of leadership in Germany. The new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, "basically took what I can only describe as a Gaullist stance", Kirkegaard said, by saying that "Europe needs to prepare for a future without a US security guarantee". 'France is converging with Germany' Yet one example of how this rapprochement in defence remains a laborious process came last week when France's Emmanuel Macron and Merz sought to diffuse tensions over a joint €100 billion project to develop a sixth-generation fighter jet. At the core of the dispute is the demand by France to secure 80% of the workshare for the new Future Combat Air System (FCAS), negating previous agreements that it would be split equally between the two countries and Spain, which is also part of the project. The French demand, however, "should not be as surprising as it seems", Rafael Loss, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), told Euronews, given that one of the major differences between France and Germany is how differently they view their military and the purpose they serve. The armed forces in France are part of the national foreign policy - as recent deployments in the Sahel attest - with the country's overseas territories and its possession of the nuclear weapon adding to its global perspective. "That's why the French military is much more comfortable with acting unilaterally or outside of EU, NATO contexts (than Germany's), and this then extends to the kinds of capabilities that the French armed forces prefer acquiring," Loss said. "Everything that relates to the French nuclear deterrent has to work when France is alone. And that means that FCAS, which is supposed to replace the Rafale fighter bombers going forward in carrying French nuclear weapons, French military and political leadership will not accept a situation where they're dependent to produce this capability because the nuclear deterrent depends on that capability." "French industry will need to be able to produce this aircraft by themselves if push comes to shove. They're willing to cooperate when strategic orientations align, but ultimately they have to produce everything independently of others. And again, that's something that many in Germany and across Europe haven't quite realised," he added. Still, Loss continued, "France is converging with Germany" with the "realisation that for the sake of European security, it needs to show that it invests in its partnerships and relationships with Europeans, especially those on the eastern flank". 'A big wasted opportunity' But the other major hurdle for the two to advance a common defence agenda at the EU level is the stark difference in their respective fiscal space. Germany's debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio stood at 62.3% in the first quarter of the year. France's was at 114.1%, well above what the bloc's rules mandate (60%). This structural divergence means that as European countries aim to significantly ramp up their defence spending and military capabilities to deter a possible Russian attack towards the turn of the decade, Germany can afford to invest heavily in defence, while France cannot. For instance, Germany has asked to make use of a proposal by Brussels to loosen fiscal rules for defence spending, something France, which is targeted by an excessive deficit procedure, cannot do. France, which has consistently invested in defence over the last few decades, has less ground to cover, so to speak, but the sums advanced by the German government (including a €500 billion fund to boost the military and the country's infrastructure) should mean it catches up quickly. But their public finances also "fundamentally place them on different sides of negotiating tables" at the EU level, Kirkegaard said. The European Commission has put forward a plan to rearm Europe that it hopes will prompt member states to invest up to €800 billion before 2030. But most of that money is expected to come from member states' coffers, which in the case of France, are quite depleted. Given the scale of the task ahead, the Commission has been asked to come up with "innovative" financing options for defence. Macron has called for one of those options to be joint EU borrowing, something Germany has flat-out rejected. For Kirkegaard, this means that the crisis ushered in by Russia's war on Ukraine, is "a big wasted opportunity" for the bloc. "This crisis, the war in Ukraine, will not lead to materially more EU institutional or fiscal integration. It will lead to an expansion of the EU with Ukraine and maybe other countries but that's a different type of change to the EU and that's also very different than the last many big crises we've had," he said.
