Luxury Institute News

January 15, 2013

Tiffany Deal Whispers Buoy Value After Earnings: Real M&A

By Tara Lachapelle and Cotten Timberlake
Bloomberg
January 14, 2013

In the eye of the investor, Tiffany & Co. (TIF)’s blue-boxed gifts are so alluring to potential suitors that not even the worst earnings stretch in at least a decade has put a dent in its valuation.

Even though the $7.6 billion company has missed profit estimates in four straight quarters and said last week that analysts’ fiscal 2014 projections were too high, the jewelry seller fetches 18.6 times earnings, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s only 0.4 point lower than the multiple in March, when the shortfalls started, as takeover speculation helps support the shares, Ariel Investments LLC said.

LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA (MC), PPR SA and Cie. Financiere Richemont SA could all boost their earnings by adding the company to their current stable of luxury brands, according to ISI Group and the Luxury Institute. Ariel says a buyer would have leeway to expand Tiffany in the U.S., Asia and Europe. A purchase at current prices would be the biggest of a retailer since Coles Group Ltd. more than five years ago, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

“Sooner or later someone will make a run at Tiffany,” Howard Ward, the chief investment officer for growth equities at Gamco Investors Inc., wrote in an e-mail. Gamco, which oversees about $37 billion, owns shares of the company. “It is a trophy property,” he added. “There are some obvious foreign luxury brand companies that would be interested.”

Swatch Group AG today said it agreed to buy the Harry Winston watch and jewelry brand for about $1 billion, adding a luxury label in the Swiss watchmaker’s biggest acquisition ever. Shares of Tiffany advanced 1.6 percent to $61.25 today.

Takeover Speculation

Mark Aaron, a spokesman for New York-based Tiffany, said the company doesn’t comment on speculation, when asked about the retailer’s takeover prospects. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Michael Kowalski said in a 2011 interview with the Financial Times that Tiffany has been the subject of deal speculation “probably since we went public in 1987.” He added that his shareholders would be “best served” by the company remaining independent.

Representatives of LVMH, PPR (PP) and Richemont declined to comment.

Tiffany shares plunged 4.5 percent, the biggest drop in six weeks, on Jan. 10 when the company said earnings for the fiscal year ending this month will be at the low end of its forecast after holiday sales growth slowed in the Americas and Asia. Tiffany also projected earnings in the fiscal year ending in January 2014 of about $3.39 to $3.49 a share, compared with the $3.80 average of analysts’ estimates, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Not Suffering

The company had already missed analysts’ income forecasts for four straight quarters, the longest stretch in at least a decade, the data show. Still, Tiffany’s price-earnings ratio hasn’t suffered much, only falling to 18.6 from 19 on March 19, the last close before its first profit shortfall. The valuation has held up even as Tiffany’s market capitalization dropped from last year’s peak of $9.3 billion.

The Tiffany brand may be alluring to potential acquirers, according to Tim Fidler, a Chicago-based money manager at Ariel Investments, which oversees about $5 billion including the retailer’s shares. In the luxury jewelry industry, Tiffany has the best-known brand among affluent consumers surveyed by the Luxury Institute. Despite falling short of earnings projections since early last year, the company’s fiscal 2013 revenue is forecast to be $3.8 billion, up $1.1 billion from three years earlier, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Tiffany’s Consistency

“There aren’t many companies in the public markets today on the retail side that you can argue have all the positive attributes with the consistency that Tiffany has demonstrated,” Fidler said in a phone interview. “A lot of the big, European houses would love to own a brand of this type.”

Tiffany said this month that it signed a 20-year agreement to keep selling jewelry by Elsa Peretti, which accounts for about 10 percent of its sales. The accord lets Tiffany retain exclusive rights to the designs, which include “Diamonds by the Yard” and iconic heart- and bean-shaped pendants.

By renewing the deal, Tiffany removed an impediment that could have deterred suitors from considering a purchase of the company, Omar Saad, a New York-based analyst at ISI, wrote in a Jan. 8 note. He said Tiffany “would be a highly attractive asset to the large luxury conglomerates,” and argued that LVMH, PPR and Richemont could all boost earnings by purchasing it. Milton Pedraza, the CEO of the Luxury Institute, a New York- based research and consulting firm, agreed that those three European companies could fuel growth with Tiffany.

High Ranking

“Tiffany continues to have a high brand ranking and prestige,” Pedraza said. “Is it an interesting acquisition opportunity for somebody? Yes, presuming they will do something better and more interesting with it.”

Francesco Trapani, head of Paris-based LVMH’s watch and jewelry unit, said in November that he expects more consolidation in the industry. While the world’s largest maker of luxury goods always has “a window open on M&A,” the company won’t pay “stupid prices,” Trapani said. LVMH bought Bulgari SpA, the Italian jewelry maker, in 2011, and it also sells products including Louis Vuitton bags and Dom Perignon champagne.

PPR of Paris is reorganizing to focus on luxury, sports and lifestyle brands as it seeks to lift sales to 24 billion euros ($32 billion) by 2020 from 12.2 billion euros in 2011. The owner of the Gucci brand has said acquisitions will account for about 20 percent of that goal.

Coles, Wesfarmers

Richemont, the second-biggest luxury goods company, owns brands including Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels.

A deal for Tiffany at current prices would be the largest takeover in the retail industry since Wesfarmers Ltd. purchased Coles for $15.8 billion in 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Because Tiffany’s management knows it’s running an “iconic” brand, it may command a takeover price higher than acquirers are willing to pay, said Brian Yarbrough, a St. Louis- based analyst for Edward Jones & Co. Tiffany shares would be trading above $90 if they were meeting their historical relationship to forecast profit, he said. The company, which ended last week at $60.28, may seek something similar in a sale, he said.

“For a public company, it’s going to be hard to pay that kind of a premium and have it not be dilutive,” Yarbrough said in a phone interview. “Management is going to be very hesitant to sell down here when the business is struggling and not firing on all cylinders. There are reasons why buyers could be interested, but it’s all going to come down to price.”

‘Very Few’

The most likely buyers are the global luxury conglomerates that would buy Tiffany for strategic reasons and that “can afford to pay the most,” said Oliver Chen, an analyst at Citigroup Inc. in New York.

Tiffany is “an extremely attractive asset as an American brand,” Chen said. “They are one of the very few,” he added. “There is an opportunity for incremental product innovation, and Tiffany has an extremely attractive global presence and global awareness.”

Ariel’s Fidler estimated that Tiffany’s value to a buyer is in the “high $70s to low $80s,” based on past acquisitions by strategic buyers in the industry, a discounted cash flow analysis and the current valuations of its peers.

“Obviously if someone is interested in the company, much like management, you always want to listen,” Fidler said. “There’s enormous value at this company and it’s not hard to get to a number substantially higher than the current stock price for a potential transaction.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-01-14/tiffany-deal-whispers-buoy-value-after-earnings-real-m-a.html

 

May 23, 2012

Pentamillionaires Pick Best Brands in Luxury Jewelry; Graff, Asprey and Mikimoto Take Top Honors in Luxury Institute Survey, but Tiffany Proves Most Popular

(NEW YORK) May 23, 2012 — Ultra-wealthy U.S. shoppers with at least $200,000 per year in household income and minimum net worth of $5 million rank U.K.-based Graff Diamonds highest among 22 luxury jewelers in the 2012 Luxury Brand Status Index (LBSI) survey by the independent and objective New York-based Luxury Institute. LBSI scores comprise respondents’ evaluations of each brand’s products, customer service experience and reputation.

With the top overall LBSI score of 7.98 out of 10, Graff ranks first on brand reputation and product quality considerations, scoring highest in evaluations of materials and craftsmanship.

Graff is also the brand that pentamillionaires are most likely to deem worthy of charging premium prices, followed by fellow U.K. jeweler, Asprey, and Japanese pearl specialist, Mikimoto. Asprey (7.82) and Mikimoto (7.77) also rank second and third, respectively, in overall LBSI scores.

Top luxury jewelers serve an exclusive clientele. Just 1% of pentamillionaires have purchased one of Graff’s diamonds in the past 12 months, 3% have shopped Asprey and 4% have purchased from Mikimoto. Tiffany & Co. is the most popular luxury jeweler: 13% of ultra-wealthy shoppers made a blue box purchase in the past year; 75% plan to buy Tiffany goods in the coming year.

“Quality in craftsmanship and materials are primary considerations for any luxury goods brand, but especially so in jewelry,” says Luxury Institute CEO Milton Pedraza. “The top-ranked jewelers also pay attention to delivering an outstanding customer experience to create true brand value and a competitive advantage.”

Survey participants reported average income of $682,000 and average net worth of $14.6 million.

About Luxury Institute (www.LuxuryInstitute.com)
The Luxury Institute is the objective and independent global voice of the high net-worth consumer. The Institute conducts extensive and actionable research with wealthy consumers about their behaviors and attitudes on customer experience best practices. In addition, we work closely with top-tier luxury brands to successfully transform their organizational cultures into more profitable customer-centric enterprises. Our Luxury CRM Culture consulting process leverages our fact-based research and enables luxury brands to dramatically Outbehave as well as Outperform their competition. The Luxury Institute also operates LuxuryBoard.com, a membership-based online research portal, and the Luxury CRM Association, a membership organization dedicated to building customer-centric luxury enterprises.

December 2, 2010

Supreme Court deals blow to luxury claims against online counterfeit sales

By Peter Finocchiaro
Luxury Daily
December 1, 2010

Luxury brands hoping for greater legal support for combating the sale of counterfeit goods online were dealt a blow as the United States Supreme Court declined to hear Tiffany & Co.’s trademark infringement lawsuit against eBay to effectively place the onus of counterfeit enforcement on brands.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that manufacturers are responsible for reporting cases of trademark infringement to eBay. The ruling will make it harder for luxury brands to combat counterfeiting online as sites that allow third-party sales account for tens of billions of dollars in commerce each year, according to one legal expert.

“What the Supreme Court has done by refusing to hear the appeal is place the onus on brands as opposed to Web sites hosting or providing counterfeit sales, “said Mark Rosenberg, intellectual property attorney at Sills Cummis & Gross PC, New York.

“The Appeals Court decision basically says that if eBay is not aware of the infringement, they cannot be held liable for the counterfeiting, which is relatively simplistic,” he said.

“EBay has not affirmative duty to see what’s going on – it’s silly.”

Court ruling
Tiffany originally filed its suit against eBay in 2004, seeking damages for the sale of counterfeit goods on the auction site.

A U.S. district court found that  eBay could not be held accountable because it did not intentionally induce anyone to infringe upon Tiffany’s trademark and because it lacked specific knowledge of infringement by any seller, according to Andy Lustigman, attorney at law and principal of The Lustigman Firm, New York.

Sills, Cummis & Gross’ Mr. Rosenberg said that eBay could conceivably develop an algorithm to detect suspicious items for sale based on the presence of keywords such as “faux” or “replica.”

However, the court ruling stops short of mandating such screening tactics.

EBay would likely lack the expertise to determine the presence of a counterfeit even if it did inspect every good on its site, according to Mr. Lustigman.

Therefore, the trademark holder has  to report infringement in order to legally oblige a Web site hosting such sales to remove the item in question.

EBay has argued that Tiffany’s legal challenges were not motivated by the threat of counterfeiting on the Web site, but by the prospect of legitimate branded items generating revenue for merchants in the second-hand market.

The online auction brand also noted that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the trail court found that it exceeds legal requirements for fighting the sale of counterfeits on its Web site.

How to counteract counterfeits?
Web sites that allow third-party sales such as eBay and Amazon account for tens of billions of dollars in commerce each year.

Which begs the question: How can luxury manufacturers protect their brand equity and minimize the impact of counterfeit sales on such Web sites if the law places the burden of enforcement in their hands?

One solution is to do the actual grunt work of policing the sites in question and proactively investigate potential cases of infringement and counterfeiting.

“Luxury goods marketers must be vigilant in policing Internet sales of their products and to notify the parties that are facilitating the transactions of counterfeit products,” Mr. Lustigman said.

“Brands should be signing up for product alerts on major Internet sellers such as eBay, and inspecting the listings to determine if a product advertised appears to be genuine, taking into account the description, country of origin, quantity being offered, the distribution channel and other similar indicia,” he said.

“If a brand becomes aware that a product being listed in counterfeit, it should affirmatively notify the Internet seller of the infringement.”

However, another solution could be to increase the brand’s visibility and commerce presence on the Internet.

The issue of counterfeiting and trademark infringement arose in the first place in part because luxury brands have been so slow to adopt strong digital positions, according to Milton Pedraza, CEO of the Luxury Institute, New York.

By expanding out their presence on the Internet with fully realized ecommerce strategies, while leveraging channels such as social media to galvanize brand advocates against countefeiting practices.

“Luxury brands should be aggressive online,” Mr. Pedraza said. “It’s good for combating counterfeiting, [as well as] great commerce and what consumers want.”

http://www.luxurydaily.com/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-luxury-claims-against-online-counterfeit-sales/