2Jour Gazette | Special Edition (13): LVMH 2025 Annual General Meeting. What Else Was Said (and Meant), Apart From Confirming Jonathan Anderson in Dior Men.
- Maryna Borysenko
- Apr 22, 2025
- 22 min read
Updated: Feb 27
The LVMH Annual General Meeting took place on April 17, 2025. Apart from the pretty much expected approval of bylaw changes, which open the way for Bernard Arnault, the long-standing leader of the group, to stay at the helm of LVMH until he is 85—9 more years—the other most talked-about theme was the confirmation of the widely circulating rumor about Jonathan Anderson, ex-creative director of Loewe, moving to Dior. With nuances, though.
I listened to the webcast (oh, twice), watched it carefully to catch the emotions behind the words (a widely ignored aspect), reviewed the documents related to the meeting published on the official LVMH website, and analyzed all the things I heard (and saw) at the meeting.
This article brings together not only the key points raised during the Annual General Meeting—but also dives into the nuance behind the carefully worded statements, the tone of delivery, and even the body language on stage. From Bernard Arnault’s vision for LVMH’s future and the Group’s shifting focus toward high-end clientele, to PR breakdowns of how LVMH handled tough questions—from the Dior labor scandal to U.S. tariffs, succession planning, and creative leadership at Dior—this is a detailed look at both what was said and how it was said.
Enjoy! x
CONTENTS
Executive summary (exclusively for Executive and CEO plan subscribers).
LVMH 2025 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING STRUCTURE
1. Opening remarks (by CEO Bernard Arnault).
2. Financial performance presentation (by CFO Cécile Cabanis).
3. Performance overview (by CEO Bernard Arnault).
3.1. Group's achievements in 2024.
3.2. Strategic insights.
3.3. Overview by sector: Fashion and Leather Goods, Cosmetics, Wines and Spirits, Jewelry and Watches, Selective Retailing.
4. Human resources report (by Head of HR Maud Alvarez-Pereyre).
4.1. Employee initiatives.
4.2. Training programs.
4.3. Diversity and inclusion efforts.
5. Environment & sustainability presentation (by Antoine Arnault, LVMH Image & Environment).
5.1. Sustainability strategy.
5.2. Carbon reduction efforts.
5.3. Biodiversity initiatives.
6. Auditors' Report
6.1. Financial statement certification.
6.2. Review of company accounts.
7. Q&A Session: Written and live shareholder questions with responses from leadership team.
8. Voting on Resolutions.
8.1. Financial approvals.
8.2. Director appointments.
8.3. Compensation policies.
8.4. Bylaw amendments.
Because the meeting focused on the 2024 results, it was largely based on the LVMH 2024 Annual Results Report, which I previously analyzed here. Another document that was mentioned a couple of times in the meeting materials was the LVMH 2024 Universal Registration Document. It’s a substantial piece—almost 500 pages—which I browsed through. It definitely gives a more complete picture of the policies, plans, and actions taken in the context of the stated goals. That said, when it comes to individual brands, the information is still as vague as ever. My intention to create a piece on e-commerce practices based on this document (similar to the article on Essilor-Luxottica) remained just that—an intention—since the descriptions are limited to general wording.
General wording was used in the presentations by CFO Cécile Cabanis, Head of HR Maud Alvarez-Pereyre, and Antoine Arnault, Head of LVMH Image & Environment—either echoing what was said during the FY2024 presentation or mentioned in the URD. That’s why we won’t go over these parts.
TONE GRANDEUR: PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW BY BERNARD ARNAULT
Instead, let's start with Bernard Arnault’s speech. Of course, he went over a planned agenda while giving a performance overview. What makes it different is that he, as the leader of the group, sets the tone.
He focused on the Group’s most iconic brands, reminding the audience of the numerous exhibitions held throughout 2024 and the dazzling shows staged in various corners of the world. Among the noteworthy facts he shared:
Louis Vuitton New York new store delivers over twice the revenue of the previous store;
One Dior lipstick sold every 1.5 seconds worldwide;
Sephora was purchased for €100M, and now generating €16bn in revenue and €1.6bn in profit;
Loro Piana annual revenue is around €3 bn, with the ambition to grow to €7–10 bn.
The state of luxury: cyclical, structural or fundamental crisis?
Bernard Arnault sharply rejected the growing skepticism from numerous analysts and publications regarding the luxury industry—doubt that has now become too widespread to ignore. He dismissed claims of a "structural crisis" in the sector, calling such assertions unfounded and overly pessimistic, and described the current industry challenges as cyclical—a view echoed by Jean-Jacques Guiony, former Group CFO, during the FY2024 results presentation earlier in January.
Bernard Arnault also emphasized that the crisis is not fundamental. He noted that people are talking about a crisis after unprecedented growth post-COVID and expressed his confidence in the long-term potential of the luxury market, viewing current changes as an opportunity for adaptation, not a crisis indicator.
I’ll side with the skeptics. The current crisis is both cyclical and structural, with certain signs of becoming fundamental.
What do these terms really mean?
A cyclical crisis is a temporary downturn, part of the normal rhythm of economic ups and downs. In this context, luxury group leaders often refer to the unstable political environment. Bernard Arnault, for instance, mentioned that while the Group’s January performance looked promising during the FY2024 results presentation, subsequent political developments—particularly in the U.S.—shook that optimism. As a result, LVMH’s core sector, Fashion and Leather Goods, posted a -5% organic decline in Q1 2025 YOY. Another major factor cited is the crisis in China, triggered by the collapse of the property market. Asia—especially China—stands on equal footing with the U.S. as a key luxury consumption hub.
A structural crisis means the system needs serious change to stay relevant. This refers to operations, logistics, and the business model as a whole. One of the biggest challenges LVMH faces—one that’s hard to manage at their scale—is control over the supply chain, the omnichannel experience, and, of course, e-commerce. The latter, the Group had virtually denied until recently. While I now observe some shifts, they feel slow and lack strategy.
The deeper issue mirrors Bernard Arnault’s tone: while major events like exhibitions, shows, and global presentations are executed at the highest level with meticulous attention, the subtle, media-invisible details are treated as secondary (I'll publish an example based on the latest Dior collection catalog shortly). Yet these “invisible” details are exactly what define the customer’s real experience. And that’s what makes them, though quieter, possibly the most important.
A fundamental crisis strikes at the very core values or reasons an industry exists—it questions its long-term purpose. In the case of luxury, I believe it’s still too early to call the crisis fundamental, but it’s impossible to ignore the growing skepticism around its perception. This includes a polarized society where people are increasingly cautious with their purchases and financial decisions; it also encompasses quality concerns and labor-related controversies—whether at Dior, Loro Piana, or more recently, Van Cleef & Arpels and Chanel—which cast doubt not only on individual brands, but on luxury as a concept.
And then, there’s the deeper cultural question: the meaning of luxury is beginning to fade. Fashion was created by the wealthy, in a class-based society, to distinguish themselves from the poor. The poor, in turn, spent centuries imitating fashion to pass as part of the elite—and sometimes, that imitation helped them climb the social ladder. Today, your status isn’t read by your clothing but by your digital footprint. So—what’s the point of luxury? That’s an existential question. I’ll unpack it further in my upcoming article series LUXONOMICS, launching on May 13.
The situation with COVID was a different story altogether. If we accept that, on the one hand, luxury is a way to present oneself to society, and on the other—a desire to satisfy personal preferences in the context of style and fashion—then the sharp decline during that period, as well as the equally sharp rebound (in some cases up to +40% YOY growth), is explained by context. Customers weren’t traveling; their ability to show themselves to the world was limited. That period saw the rapid rise of e-commerce as a dominant sales channel, an unprecedented spike in interest in loungewear and home goods, a drop in lipstick demand in favor of high-end fragrances, and a clear decline in clothing and accessory sales. A textbook structural crisis—or rather, a shift—which ended with the lifting of all physical movement restrictions.
Whereas today, we are witnessing structural and partially fundamental signals that demand a different kind of response.
From aspirational to affluent: away from volume-led growth
Interestingly, Bernard Arnault himself touched on the topic of aspirational and affluent consumers—those aspiring to enter the world of luxury and those who already belong to it in a modern context—while discussing the two key factors shaping LVMH’s current strategy.
The first is the long-term growth of the global luxury customer base. He emphasized that more and more people around the world are both interested in and capable of entering LVMH stores and buying its products. This expansion is driven not just by geographic growth, but by rising living standards across countries. He sees this as the core reason behind LVMH’s success over the past 30–40 years—and the most important guiding principle for the Group’s future.
The second factor is more challenging: inflation and rising interest rates. Arnault noted that if inflation persists, rates could continue to rise rather than fall, which directly impacts the aspirational customer segment—those entering the world of luxury for the first time. This group has more limited means and is more affected by economic shifts than the affluent segment, which remains more stable.
As a result LVMH is reassessing its priorities. The Group is leaning toward focusing on the highest-end products. Even if this segment grows more slowly, it offers greater long-term desirability and sustainability.
In an effort to reassure that everything is under control, Bernard Arnault used a vivid metaphor of a "growth button." He noted that if LVMH wanted a quick +10% return, they know exactly how to do it and could achieve it almost instantly. But:
We press a button that would immediately generate 10% growth tomorrow morning... We know what to do to generate 10% growth. It's easy. But we mustn't, mustn't do that.
This, he emphasized, is a deliberate choice. The Group refuses to chase short-term volume at the expense of brand integrity and long-term desirability. The market, he pointed out, is no longer the same as it was 20 years ago, and LVMH must adapt accordingly.
Mr Arnault highlighted the diversity of the Group’s brand portfolio as its strength: from fully developed maisons like Louis Vuitton to a range of fashion houses with significant room for future growth. Growth is possible—but only when it aligns with long-term value, not when it risks diluting what makes its maisons exceptional.
I agree with these statements partially. Scale does indeed complicate growth—especially when we’re talking about luxury, a niche and exclusive category by definition (in economics, this is known as the scale effect). However, this narrative is now starting to feel somewhat… manipulative? When groups were reporting +15% or even higher growth, it was positioned as unquestionably positive—a result of smart strategy and clear goal-setting.
The issue is that the sharp increase in revenue over the past 5–7 years has been driven not so much by growth in the number of consumers—or, even better, growth in single client spending tied to item quantity—but by aggressive price hikes. In other words, this is a question of revenue quality—and its foundation.
This very approach has become one of the key reasons behind the current crisis—whether cyclical, structural, or fundamental.
Loro Piana: growth potential vs. brand preservation
There were also two notable excerpts in the speech. The first came while reflecting on how quality and growth should coexist. Here, Loro Piana was mentioned as an example of a brand that embodies LVMH’s most important values. He called it:
[...] probably the brand in the world that offers the finest quality across a whole set of products.
Because it is smaller in scale, Loro Piana currently shows faster growth than many of its larger, equally high-quality peers. But that, according to Arnault, must be handled carefully. The risk of “trivializing” the product—even the best products—comes when growth is pursued too aggressively:
To have the best quality, we must avoid trivializing the products.
He acknowledged that managing this balance is a difficult exercise, especially for brands with strong recognition and high potential. Loro Piana is one such brand: with 90–95% of its customer base being affluent (according to Bernard Arnault, and here I am so tempted to see the breakdown of client spending by sum), it continues to gain market share. He noted that while the brand currently generates around 3 billion in revenue, there is potential to reach 7, 8, 9, or even 10 billion.
Still:
That's not the purpose. The goal is to offer unparalleled quality, and then growth will follow at a more or less fast pace.
Is Bernard Arnault being entirely honest when he says growth isn’t the priority? In its effort to attract a new audience, the brand—under the leadership of Damien Bertrand—has significantly expanded its product offering and slightly modernized its designs (which, based on numerous reviews I’ve read and heard, was received with mixed reactions by loyal customers).
Alongside organic growth driven by this strategy, aggressive marketing may also have played a role. For example, this winter the brand took over all the windows of Harrods, one of the world’s most elite department stores. Not long ago, an exhibition celebrating the brand’s 100th anniversary opened in Shanghai—a project that had been in preparation for nearly two years. It was titled If You Know, You Know—a viral meme phrase that likely plays to a younger audience.
This kind of marketing, on the one hand, has little in common with the core affluent audience, as described by Bernard Arnault. On the other hand, it may be seen as an attempt to expand.
The latest news in the context: Damien Bertrand, CEO of Loro Piana since 2021, is appointed Deputy CEO of Louis Vuitton as of June 10th, 2025 and will become a member of the LVMH Executive Committee in January 2026. Damien will report to Pietro Beccari, Chairman and CEO of Louis Vuitton.
Frédéric Arnault, who is currently CEO of LVMH Watches, in charge of Hublot, TAG Heuer and Zenith. is appointed CEO of Loro Piana as of June 10th, 2025. Frédéric will join Loro Piana as of March 26th for a period of transition with Damien Bertrand. He will report to Toni Belloni, Chairman LVMH Italy.
Exclusivity on the management table: the luxury growth dilemma
Another telling moment was what was on the table—literally. On the Group management table stood... a hot air balloon. Of course, it wasn’t just a decorative piece—it was a clock designed by L’Epée 1839, a brand making high-end mechanical clocks, which are designed and produced entirely in-house. This brand was added to the LVMH portfolio in June 2024. This type of acquisition has become increasingly common among luxury giants, who are actively expanding their offerings and production capabilities in the watchmaking segment, seeking full control over the process, including by acquiring existing craftsmanship facilities. L’Epée 1839 had previously collaborated with Louis Vuitton and Tiffany & Co., releasing clock models for both brands.
I've asked on this occasion that I should have on my desk The Louis Vuitton Montgolfière Aéro table clock—the balloon, the hot air balloon. That's an extraordinary clock, you can show it,
— said Bernard Arnault from the podium, turning to Cécile Cabanis, who was seated to his left.
Be careful. It's heavy. It's a timepiece, a clock that's mechanical, with a quite extraordinary mechanism that you wind up, and it will run for over eight days. [...] There's a very long waiting list of many years, manufactured by a very small crafts workshop.
Well, not only heavy—but also pricey: the Louis Vuitton official website lists this piece at £49,000.
This moment is significant because, on one hand, it reflects Bernard Arnault’s own creative vision—something I’ve written about in the context of the Group’s 2024 results presentation. On the other hand, it highlights the eternal dilemma in luxury: growth, which inevitably brings larger volumes of production and sales, erodes exclusivity. At LVMH, this trade-off is clearly understood—and, as we’ve seen, the choice they make is quite clear.
Challenging Rolex: LVMH bets on Tag Heuer
A quick note on Tag Heuer—probably the brand within the watch division that the Group is betting on the most, at least judging by the level of activity around it. LVMH established a 10-year partnership with Formula 1 last year. The ambition is high. According to Bernard Arnault, the goal is:
"to compete in terms of size with the current market leader in watchmaking," —referring, without naming it, quite clearly to Rolex, which was replaced as the official F1 timekeeper after 10 years.
To reach this goal, LVMH is:
Planning investments in facilities and watchmaking movements;
Viewing the F1 partnership as a long-term opportunity for growth and development.
Q&A: PRE-SCRIPTED RESPONSES
The next block was the Q&A session. Some of the written questions were addressed by the Group in this document, while others were read aloud by Stéphane Bianchi. His career within the Group has been quite rapid. In 2018, he joined LVMH as CEO of TAG Heuer and of the Watchmaking Division. In 2020, he was appointed CEO of the Watches and Jewelry Division. In 2024, he was appointed LVMH Group Managing Director, with responsibility for the strategic and operational management of the Group’s Maisons. He also oversees the Regional Presidents and the Digital and Data Transformation of the Group and is Chairman of the LVMH Executive Committee.
He touched on two topics that, despite the public resonance, LVMH has barely commented on. While the answers were pre-recorded and simply read out by Mr. Bianchi, they clearly demonstrated the Group’s communication approach (which I’ve written about extensively in the aforementioned publication).
Dior labor scandal: delayed response and outcome
The first topic concerned the scandal involving Dior. As a reminder, last year both Dior and Armani were under scrutiny from the Italian watchdog, which detected poor working conditions in the production chains of both brands. According to media reports, a workshop on the outskirts of Milan violated safety standards, and workers—mostly immigrants—were even sleeping on-site to spend as much time as possible working.
It was a communication failure for LVMH. Although the story initially surfaced in the spring, a second wave of discussion erupted in July. The only comment from an official Group representative came at the end of July, during the presentation of the half-year results. The response by then-CFO Jean-Jacques Guiony was nearly perfect from a PR perspective—except for one thing: it was too late. By that point, public opinion had already solidified. One of the brand’s bestsellers, the Dior Book Tote, took the biggest hit. According to reports in the press and on social media, that very model—priced at over £2,500—was being produced on the outskirts of Milan for just €57. Even though Jean-Jacques Guiony refuted this information, it was already too late.
Commenting on this incident, Stéphane Bianchi noted the following, regarding "Dior and the issues in Italy involving one of its subsidiaries”:
Dior itself was not being challenged;
There were two subcontractors, one of them indirect, responsible for partial assembly of men’s leather goods, accounting for less than 0.3% of Dior’s production in Italy;
These subcontractors violated labor laws and LVMH own code of conduct. This was deliberately hidden from LVMH.
As soon as LVMH became aware of “the seriousness of these violations”, the following actions were taken:
Dior worked directly with the Italian authorities;
Immediately halted all orders with the implicated suppliers;
Implemented production monitoring measures;
Ensured complete transparency.
The Italian Justice Department, on its part, decided to terminate the liquidation process early and acknowledged Dior’s efforts to strengthen its monitoring systems.
Mr. Bianchi’s response is quite solid in terms of crisis communication. To make it even stronger, it would have been optimal not to emphasize the brand’s (and group's) unawareness of what was happening behind its back—that signals lack of control and/or weakness. It would also have helped to be more transparent and specific about the steps taken to prevent such situations from recurring in the future. Ideally, of course, such communication should be timely—but it is what it is.
I don’t know for certain whether the brand was aware of what was happening, and I remain pragmatic: big business will always look to save costs. But equally pragmatically—it’s clear that the existence of such practices in luxury production undermines its perception and damages the business in the medium and long term. If such situations become known to management—or worse, to the public—then silence and delayed reaction bring serious reputational risks from a communications standpoint.
The logic of executive turnover
Another issue that LVMH did not comment on was the numerous changes in top-level executive management. Mr. Bianchi mentioned four of them, although I believe there were more (I wrote about some of them here). The answer was perfect. Judge for yourself:
LVMH has been recognized for stable management and top management, which is a key factor of its success. Employee loyalty is a distinctive mark of this company. In 2024, there were four departures from the executive committee [...] and four new appointments [...].
He also pointed out the following:
The four executives who left each spent more than 20 years in the company, which reflects the stability and commitment of executives;
These leaders were replaced by people already working within the company;
The changes reflect the Group’s ability to provide enriching career opportunities;
They represent a generational transition to prepare for future challenges.
So, the changes were presented as a natural, planned process of leadership renewal, maintaining the company’s core values and strategic continuity.
Off the record, one might consider that such changes could be fully or partially the result of behind-the-scenes games, rivalries, and competition within the company in a negative context. Personally, I tend to think that this is inevitable in an office with 15+ top-level people—especially when large amounts of money are involved. That’s why this kind of answer is the most a public comment should include—without adding broader context, even if such context exists. Emphasizing that these changes are part of a plan serves to reassure shareholders about the company’s stability. Any additional details are only appropriate if there are publicly available facts, and those facts must be loud and well-founded enough to justify a response.
U.S. tariffs and operational outlook
The next question that was read concerned U.S. tariffs and the actions the Group plans to take in response. As per the answer, LVMH, “like all players,” currently lacks visibility on this matter. As tariffs have been suspended for a period of 90 days, the Group “certainly hopes that this transition period will make it possible for states to negotiate and arrive at a possible positive outcome.” What exactly is meant by “positive outcome” was not specified, but I can assume it refers to either the complete cancellation of tariff increases or at least exemptions for certain product categories.
At this point, the effects are uncertain. It was noted that the U.S. accounts for 25% of LVMH’s revenue, and for now, the Group’s maisons operating in the U.S. have sufficient inventory to absorb the initial impact.
Among the possible measures mentioned:
Increasing production capacity in the U.S. (recently, Reuters published a piece pointing out that while some facilities already exist in the U.S., the quality of manufacturing there remains a concern due to the lack of artisanal expertise);
Potential price adjustments (Hermès, for example, announced during its Q1 2025 earnings presentation that it will increase prices in the U.S. starting this May).
Overall, the message was that LVMH intends to prioritize long-term brand desirability and product quality over "short-term concerns."
The tariff issue is a much broader story, and one that definitely warrants a dedicated article. Its evolution depends heavily on diplomacy and lobbying efforts. For now, it’s a situation to keep a close eye on—but as it stands, we definitely can’t predict what Donald Trump may decide tomorrow.
LVMH succession planning
The last question was the one labeled taboo theme in the Group—succession. Stefano Branchi acknoledged that "while they not be disclosed publicly, there are plans, both in the short term, the medium term and sudden events in terms of succession." He also said that the structure of Financiere Agashe was changed "to make the family control over the group more sustainable and transparent." Without details he mentioned there will be a single vote on the controlling shareholders on all issues, referring to LVMH as "a family company where principles of meritocracy, excellence and experience apply to all."
Those were the most uncomfortable questions—the kind LVMH usually avoids at all costs. Clearly aiming to avoid any message disruptions, the answers to these particular questions were prepared in advance, before the live part of Q&A session. This approach reflects not so much preparedness as it does the Group’s style of communication (or, I'd rather say, its lack). Still, not all uncomfortable questions were anticipated.
Q&A: REAL-TIME PRESSURE
Tension around Dior creative leadership
One attendee asked what made the entire panel visibly uncomfortable. It was the very question that had already made headlines in major fashion outlets. Before we dive into the substance, I recommend watching the video at timecode 1:22:48.
I was wondering who would take over from Kim Jones, who will be now moving to the art direction of the men's department. Do we have names—anybody will?
The reactions spoke volumes. Jérôme Sibille pretended to take notes. Stéphane Bianchi glanced quickly at Bernard Arnault seated next to him, scratched his face, removed the glasses, and adjusted his jacket. Cécile Cabanis pursed her lips and repeatedly looked toward the Group’s CEO.
As is well known, Kim Jones stepped down from his role in January of this year. Shortly after, Jonathan Anderson left his position as creative director at Loewe.
The next men's fashion show of Christian Dior will take place in June, and it will be Jonathan Anderson, who will be designing that
—answered Mr Arnault briefly. And making it clear that the topic was closed, he immediately asked:
Other questions?
It was Jonathan Anderson who was rumored to take the role of creative director at Dior—not just for menswear, but for womenswear as well. According to rumors (and there are now so many that I’ve stopped tracking them), Maria Grazia Chiuri, the current creative director of Dior Woman, is expected to present her final show for the brand in May, after which an announcement of her departure is supposed to follow.
I’ve heard that her exit isn’t exactly smooth. What follows is strictly gossip: apparently, she is employed as a regular staff member rather than as an external contractor, which is typically how relationships between brands and designers are structured. Because of this, it’s reportedly quite difficult to terminate her under French labor law, and she herself doesn’t want to leave. Moreover, she has allegedly filed a claim for breach of contract. Largely due to these legal complications, there has been no official announcement about Jonathan Anderson’s appointment—neither for Dior Woman nor, notably, for Dior Man. According to the same rumors, he has already been working inside the Dior ateliers for some time, developing collections.
So clearly no one really wanted to answer this question—but had to. In such cases, watching body language and facial expressions is key. Beter to freeze and calmly shift your gaze to the speaker. Or at the very least, instruct the cameraman to focus on the person the question is addressed to.
After Bernard Arnault’s brief comment, Jonathan Anderson quietly took the initiative and updated his Instagram bio with a single word: Dior.
Louis Vuitton repair strategy (poorly framed)
LVMH communication gap also came through in the response to a question about "maintenance and repairs on products." Mr Arnault delegated the answer to Pietro Beccari, CEO of Louis Vuitton (I recently made a PR breakdown of his comments on launching Louis Vuitton Beauty in an article for the Financial Times). Beccari gave a rather scattered introduction, saying that Louis Vuitton products are designed to last for decades, and that it’s “rather unique” for an item to need repair, because “the products will last,” and “there are no discounts.” Still, if needed, Louis Vuitton does offer a repair service, and, as he added, “you can walk into any of our shops, and if you need a metal part or a spare part…”
We have workshops, we have little factories where we have a repair service. [...]This is not something like a profit center. This is something we invest to develop customer loyalty.
And although most of the repairs are free of charge, there are some that do come with a fee, although, as was noted, "they don’t generate a profit and do not cover the cost of the investment. This is a cost center that we believe is an investment in the future."
What’s wrong with that answer? It sounds like a justification, not something the brand is proud of. It’s cluttered with noise that has little to do with the context. These kinds of questions should never catch off guard. The answers should be sharp, prepared in advance, and delivered with clarity.
EU–U.S.negotiations, critisized
Another interesting moment came when Bernard Arnault responded to a question about U.S. tariffs—this time, a question that hadn’t been pre-scripted. One of the attendees asked two things: what his thoughts were on whether "American brands will be able to offset the loss of market share for French and European brands", and a second question regarding the Group’s financial reserves and potential M&A activity.
In response to the first, Bernard Arnault expressed frustration with the EU and particularly with France’s bureaucratic approach. He referred to the United States as "our American friends" and expressed hope for "finding the possibility of creating a free trade area between Europe and the United States". He also noted that Europe is held back not because it’s led by political power, "but by a bureaucratic power that spends its time ducking behind regulations that are imposed, unfortunately, on all member states—and which France, at times, tends to add to unnecessarily, further complicating regulations and considerably penalizing our sectors of activity".
He reiterated his hope "to arrive at a free trade area with the world’s largest market, which remains the United States, and to ensure that this can, once again, generate a climate of trust and mutual trade". If this does not happen, he added, it may lead to "necessarily increasing our U.S. production to avoid customs tariffs".
This comment included phrases like "if Europe can’t negotiate intelligently", "it’d be the fault of Brussels", and "European states must strive to master that negotiation and not leave it in the hands of bureaucrats".
The issue with such statements is that they significantly weaken the EU’s negotiating position—especially when coming from one of the biggest businesses not just in France, but in Europe and in the world. They certainly don’t help in dialogue with Donald Trump. That’s why, any commentary in this context should remain neutral with regard to the countries involved—limited to expressing hope that the matter will be resolved on mutually beneficial terms. It’s clear that preferences and strategic discussions are taking place behind closed doors; large business and politics are inseparable by default.
Responding to the second question—regarding whether the Group’s accumulated financial reserves would allow it to pursue more M&A activity by acquiring struggling brands—Mr. Arnault remarked that the Group already has a large number of brands in its portfolio. Therefore, any M&A opportunity would need to be "really attractive". He concluded by saying that, without a specific case in mind, he had nothing further to add on the topic.
Failure is off the record
There was also a question—perhaps the most classic one asked at any job interview: "What are the three best ideas that were defining for the success of the Group, and the three worst decisions that you were able to correct?"
When it came to the worst decisions, Bernard Arnault joked:
Better forget about the bad decisions.
Still, I would like to believe that lessons are learned from them. Speaking of the best ones, he mentioned the following:
You buy a stake in smaller businesses, and so you can grow them faster
—something I had already heard in his conversation with Oxford students.
The ability to find the right people, including creators,
— here he referred to the creative directors of the Group’s leading brands.
APPROVED
After the Q&A session, the meeting moved on to the voting on resolutions. The two key ones concerned increasing the age limits set in the Group’s bylaws: for the CEO, from 80 to 85 years old, and for the Chairman of the Board of Directors, from 75 to 85. Both positions are currently held by Bernard Arnault. (More details about the proposed bylaw changes I wrote about here.)
The vote to raise the age limit for the Chairman of the Board of Directors went through without comment. But right before the final vote on the second resolution — the one to raise the age limit for the CEO — Bernard Arnault made a brief remark following the reading of the proposed changes:
One of my friends proposed to investors well known, whom I won't mention" [Aut.: clearly referring to Warren Buffett], suggested to put 100 years [...]. The vote is open.
—he said with a smile, drawing smiles from the panel. A few seconds later, barely holding back emotion, he confirmed:
Approved.
***
The stock price remained stable after the meeting. Earlier in April, it had fallen drastically following Donald Trump’s announcement about EU tariffs. Overall, LVMH’s share price has declined by 23.31% since the beginning of the year and by 45.98% over the past two years, as of today, 22 April 2025.
REFERENCES
2Jour Gazette | Special Edition (11): LVMH (based on LVMH 2024FY results presentation).
