WSJ : How to Pass On Your Passwords When You Die

How to Pass On Your Passwords When You Die
Tech companies let you set up digital-legacy contacts who can, upon your demise, gain access to your accounts, password managers and other data

Just as you set up a living will or a power of attorney, it’s a good idea to set up your online accounts so that someone else can access them after you’ve passed on.

It’s no fun to think about a day when we’re no longer here, but facing reality can save work and heartache for relatives and heirs. If you haven’t set up digital-legacy contacts or other means to share accounts after your death, your heirs typically have to go through a lengthy process to gain access to your data. In some cases, such as with some password managers, there may be no way for heirs to gain access unless you take steps in advance.

“When you don’t personally set up who has access to your accounts, you’ll be leaving behind a big mess and a lot of stress for your family,” said Bill Gaggos, an estate-planning attorney in Troy, Mich.

Mr. Gaggos, who helps clients store their valuable documents online, says he saw the problem become more common during the pandemic, as people fell ill and died suddenly without granting anyone access to their online accounts.

Apple, Google and Facebook parent Meta Platforms are among the tech companies that provide digital-legacy tools to let users bequeath account access to others. They work by letting you designate who can download your data or access your profiles after your death. The legacy-contact tools typically don’t require you to share your passwords with your heirs, but you can also set up password managers to share your account credentials, and other private information, upon your death.

The catch is that you must enable the tools before you’re gone. You can set them up in your app and device settings, which we will walk you through. Here is how to ensure your loved ones have access to all the necessary accounts after your death.

Legacy Contacts
Apple, Google and Facebook users can set up legacy contacts in account settings. Such a designation doesn’t give heirs your passwords, but can grant them access to text messages, photos and other data in the event of your death. While making someone your legacy contact doesn’t automatically give them any access to your accounts while you’re alive and active, it’s always important to choose your designees wisely.

Meta provides a couple of options for Facebook accounts after death. You can select a legacy contact to look after your “memorialized” account, or choose to have your profile deleted after someone informs the company of your death. In both cases, the fastest way to notify Facebook is with a death certificate that your heirs upload. (You can’t set a legacy contact in Instagram to ensure your account is memorialized; your loved ones must upload a copy of your death certificate to the service to memorialize your profile.)

To add a legacy contact on Facebook’s mobile app, go to: Settings & privacy > Settings > Personal and account information > Account ownership and control > Memorialization settings > Choose Legacy Contact.

Google’s Inactive Account Manager setting lets you decide what happens to your data after you have stopped using your account for a certain period. You decide how long that is, such as three months or 18 months, and you choose up to 10 people that Google will email when your account reaches that inactive time limit. You also decide what data those people get access to, such as YouTube videos, photos, emails and other documents. They won’t be able to send emails from your account.

To set up the Inactive Account Manager, go to myaccount.google.com, scroll to More options > Make a plan for your digital legacy. If you don’t do this, your loved ones must upload a death certificate to close the account and receive any of its content.

Apple also has an option to add people as legacy contacts, who would be able to request access to most of what’s in your iCloud account.

You can set up legacy contacts on an iPhone by going to Settings, tap your name at the top then Password & Security > Legacy Contact. People you add are given an access key. After you die, they can go to digital-legacy.apple.com, log in with their iCloud account or provide other contact information and upload a death certificate. Once Apple’s staff reviews it and accepts the request, the contact can log in online or on an Apple device to view your call history, health data, Notes and iCloud backups. Legacy contacts won’t have access to passwords stored in your iCloud Keychain.

If you don’t designate a legacy contact, Apple requires a court order to give someone access to your Apple ID and data.

Password Managers
1Password, LastPass and some other password managers—which store your current logins and can generate unique, complex passwords for all accounts you link to the service—let you designate digital heirs who can access your account information.

1Password’s “shared vaults” are like shareable folders that only friends or family members with granted access can view. The service also lets users print out an Emergency Kit document with space for login information and a QR code that sends your heirs to 1Password’s website where they can sign into your account. Share it with your heirs or save it in a place where they can find it. On LastPass, you designate a list of people you trust and invite them to create an account. If something happens to you, your trusted contacts can request emergency access to your vault. You set a wait time, during which you can deny access to your emergency contacts if you’re still alive and capable of accessing your account. No death certificate is necessary. There is a wait time during which you can cancel false-alarm requests from your loved ones.

No matter the password-storage method you use, experts say you shouldn’t make it too difficult for your trusted contacts to know what accounts you have, and how to log in. It’s also important to share your phone passcode, because many accounts are now protected by two-factor authentication, often a code generated in apps or sent via text message. If you use a hardware security key such as Yubico’s Yubikey or Google’s Titan Key, make sure it’s in an accessible place.

Passkeys
Millions of people are poised to change how they log into accounts over the coming years as

Apple, Google and Microsoft begin to replace long, complex strings of characters with fingerprints, face scans or on-device passcodes. Such password-free technology is designed to be faster, easier and more secure than traditional passwords.

But those passkeys aren’t set up yet for sharing with heirs or next of kin. That limitation is part of the reason why password-free technology won’t become ubiquitous overnight, said Andrew Shikiar, executive director at FIDO (aka the Fast Identity Online Alliance), an industry organization working with Apple, Google and about 250 others to create password-free online authentication.

“Not only do consumers need to learn and embrace new behaviors, but their service providers also need to contemplate new back end identity and authentication policies,” he said. Such policies, including digital legacy, are outside of FIDO’s purview, Mr. Shikiar added.

Companies have some latitude in how they implement FIDO sign-ins. In the future, they could allow users to designate emergency contacts who can access your accounts through their own unique passkeys after verifying their identity. Alternatively, apps and websites may let you keep a traditional password as a backup.

And there’s still the old-fashioned approach. Jotting down a list of your accounts and passwords on a piece of paper and storing that in a fireproof safe—or even the freezer—with other important documents is one way to do it.

“Tell them to look for that little black box if anything were to happen to you,” Mr. Gaggos said.

WSJ : Cruise Lines Can’t Duck Their Debt

Cruise Lines Can’t Duck Their Debt
As the cruise industry recovers, debt that buoyed business during the pandemic now could sink stocks

Cruise ships, it seems, are like ducks—elegant and effortless above the water, fighting like crazy to stay afloat beneath.

On the surface, the industry is finally steaming ahead after over a year at bay: The world has reopened, occupancy limits have relaxed and bookings are at or above prepandemic levels. Carnival Corp., CCL 12.44%▲ Royal Caribbean Group RCL 15.77%▲ and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings NCLH 15.36%▲ are all eyeing a near-term return to profitability this year—a milestone they are hoping will reignite investor interest, with their shares down an average of over 45% over the past six months.

On Friday, Carnival said it was still on track to see profits in the current quarter on the basis of adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, sending shares of the entire sector up an average of nearly 15% on the day.

But for an industry just regaining its sea legs, the unfortunate reality is that it is sailing into a possible recession, with inflation and higher interest rates pinching an already cost-conscious consumer. Carnival, for example, also said Friday that cumulative advance bookings for the second half of the year are at lower prices compared with 2019 sailings, in part because of capacity increases—a change from higher prices on that basis as of March.

Tracking from multiple sell-side analysts shows weakening travel trends over the past few weeks, perhaps the first signs that economic pressures are beginning to damp what has been hyped as an especially strong summer travel season.

What is more, cruise companies are carrying boatloads of new debt taken out over the past two years to make ends meet. Despite a likely return to quarterly profits over the next few months, all major cruise lines’ debt-to-income ratios will soar to eye-popping levels in 2022 and are forecast to remain well above prepandemic levels even next year.

Earlier this month, a German shipping magazine reported that one of the world’s biggest cruise ships on order for Asia-based Dream Cruises could be scrapped before ever setting sail. Its parent company, Genting Hong Kong, ran out of cash earlier this year.

Such a scenario isn’t likely for U.S.-listed cruise lines which, thanks to significant pandemic fundraising, seem confident in their multibillion-dollar liquidity positions. But risks abound. Forecasts earlier this month from Truist’s Patrick Scholes show Carnival, which started the pandemic better-capitalized than peers, ending next year with a net debt to Ebitda ratio of around 4.6 times, versus 6.4 times for Norwegian and 5.5 times for Royal Caribbean. Spreads on Royal Caribbean’s credit-default swaps have more than doubled in six months, according to FactSet, even though occupancy was still significantly capped at the end of last year.

All that could be for good reason: As of the end of March, Royal Caribbean had roughly $8 billion in scheduled principal repayments through the end of next year, according to Truist—some 77% more than Carnival had at the time—despite Wall Street forecasting Royal Caribbean to earn over 30% less than its competitor on an adjusted Ebitda basis over the course of this year and next.

It isn’t all a result of the pandemic. Carnival, Royal Caribbean and Norwegian each have several ships on order for future delivery. Running hundreds of millions of dollars each, the majority of payment for these ships will come due upon delivery, according to UBS analyst Robin Farley. If only they could have waited for Genting to sink and taken that ship off the scrapyard.

The good news, according to Ms. Farley, is that, given early timing and the ability to leverage government subsidies from shipbuilding countries, U.S.-listed cruise companies were able to borrow significantly below current market rates to finance new ships. New builds will add capacity—helpful, assuming demand returns as hoped. They are also often faster, typically more fuel-efficient and can offer differentiating features such as roller coasters.

Based on each company’s latest quarterly report, Carnival had $7.5 billion in liquidity, including cash, short-term investments and borrowings available under the company’s revolving credit facility, to Royal Caribbean’s $3.8 billion, despite the fact that Carnival had fewer total ships on order as of last month.

Cruisers rarely venture below the waterline, but that is where investors should dwell.

New York Mag : Mike Novogratz on His Big Crypto Mistake and What’s Ahead for Bit

Mike Novogratz on His Big Crypto Mistake and What’s Ahead for Bitcoin
By Jen Wieczner

Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg via Getty Images
A little over a year ago, when I interviewed Mike Novogratz, a veteran hedge-fund manager and crypto billionaire, I asked him what he was excited about. The CEO of Galaxy Digital, a blockchain-focused investing firm, had a short list to tout that included “luna, my new favorite coin.” By January of this year, after luna’s price soared to $100, Novogratz had celebrated the cryptocurrency with a tattoo on his shoulder, depicting a wolf howling at the moon:


When I spoke with Novogratz this week — in the wake of the stunning $50 billion collapse of the luna cryptocurrency and its blockchain ecosystem — I reminded him of that earlier conversation and his plug of luna. “Yeah, erase that one,” he said ruefully. (To be fair, in our last conversation, around cryptocurrency’s peak last year, he did advise newly rich crypto investors to “be prudent, take some chips and buy yourself a house if you can afford it.”) The crypto crash, in luna and the industry more broadly, has burned Galaxy’s portfolio and, presumably, a chunk of Novogratz’s net worth. (In recent days, the price of bitcoin fell below $20,000 from a high of nearly $70,000, while ethereum — the second-largest cryptocurrency — fell under $1,000 after topping out at almost $5,000.) The wipeout led to mass casualties in crypto funds, spreading a dangerous contagion throughout the industry akin to what the financial crisis did to Wall Street in 2008. The pain is particularly severe in some decentralized finance, or DeFi, companies, such as Celsius, which lent out their crypto assets only to have to freeze withdrawals as investors came rushing back to pull out their money. Novogratz has been on Wall Street long enough to know how this happens, yet he admits even he took on too much risk. In an interview, he reflected on what happened this time around and what he might do differently ahead of the next crypto bubble and crash — because in crypto, there is always a next one not too far away.

A lot of people are saying, “We told you crypto was a scam.” Were they right?
You have to put things in perspective. If I told you at the beginning of the pandemic you could buy Zoom stock or bitcoin — today you would have doubled your money on bitcoin and you’d have made nothing on Zoom. So that’s what I think is hard for people to get their heads around. This has been a complete and total old-school ass-beating. But it’s important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater because we had a speculative mania in lots of asset classes. Bitcoin is not going away as a macro asset. Web3 is not going away. We’ll spend more time in the metaverse, therefore companies will sell digital assets, and for digital assets to have value, they have to be unique, and to be unique, they have to live in a blockchain.

Now, is crypto criticizable? Well of course it is because it’s such an amazing mechanism that if you own a token in an ecosystem, you benefit by more people buying into your ecosystem. And so it gets very tribal. I was loved by some ecosystems and literally despised by others. Because I’d say “Hey, I think this is overvalued,” and just making that comment was like a declaration of war against their mother. And so, to this day, I get trolled just for making what seemed like rational statements. And I don’t think tribalism leads to great investing decisions long term.

Does this crypto collapse feel different from what we’ve seen in the past — for instance, in 2018 or 2014? How are you making sense of this?
It’s like in Beauty and the Beast — “Tale as old as time.” In an asset bubble, which we obviously had, when it crashes, you always find far more and bizarre pockets of leverage than you had expected. And even though you kind of know there’s leverage in the system, when it breaks apart, you’re like, “Oh, there was gambling going on here?”

I’m hoping we saw the worst last weekend. I’d be more confident of that if I knew where inflation was going to be in the next two quarters. But if you had a sell order, you most likely sold — ethereum went down to $890, bitcoin went down to $17,900. And so I think now you’re going to see the triage you see after big crashes, where people are a little less risky or a lot less risky. And so in all likelihood, we have a big recession coming. And that’s not terrible for crypto, but it’s terrible for the economy. And it’s not good for the stock market.

You don’t think it’s terrible for crypto? Why not?
It’s not great for crypto, but crypto also needs a pause. The lead horse that pulls the sled in crypto is bitcoin. And bitcoin is one of the only scarce things we have on the frigging planet. If the Fed is going to have to pause its rate hikes because the economy slows down, and we know there are still inflationary pressures, crypto takes back off or bitcoin takes back off. And that fuels the rest of the industry.

Is there anything in crypto that you’re still worried about right now? We keep learning about new casualties of this contagion in crypto, like the hedge fund Three Arrows Capital, which seems to have imploded and created various cascading effects.
I think people have their arms around the worst situations, at least understanding where things stand. It will take a while for these things to be either put into bankruptcy or sold off. Just like after ’08, there was a whole industry of Lehman claims and buying broken hedge funds or the assets of broken hedge funds. That’s going to happen. But the biggest worry everyone had was that the largest stablecoin, tether, would collapse. And the best I can tell is that it doesn’t feel like it’s a category-five worry right now. Those guys, for lots of different reasons, seem pretty stable (though there’s not transparency there as much as we’d like — we’d love more transparency). But I’m hoping that we’re somewhere between 90 and 100 percent through the forced-liquidation game. It doesn’t mean you won’t have liquidations, but it’s forced liquidations that cause that sheer fear in markets, and that’s what we saw last weekend.

People been worrying about the specter of a potential Coinbase bankruptcy after a warning the company made recently. Do you see that as a threat?
They have a bunch of cash on their balance sheet. They have a burn rate that’s way too high. And so my guess is CEO Brian Armstrong will cut that burn rate over the next quarter or two pretty immensely. They have a great brand. I think their worst-case scenario is some big traditional finance guy comes and partners up or buys them. I think Coinbase is a foundational asset for the space. And so I’d be very surprised to see Coinbase not exist in some form. They’re going to most likely try to run it on their own. But if they can’t pull that off because the crypto winter gets too grim, I’m sure someone would step in and buy them.

What seems scary about this crash is that some of these companies or protocols that have collapsed were highly regarded in the industry. Luna, of course, but also Celsius, a multibillion-dollar company that offered consumers relatively generous interest payments in exchange for taking custody of their bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. Did you see this coming in any way?
I was worried about the macro environment. But I was hoping bitcoin would stay in the $30,000 to $50,000 range. We weren’t invested in any of the credit shops like Celsius. We had been invested in their competitor BlockFi, but we exited that over a year ago because I worried about that business model. We had at times been big investors. And in terra, we scaled back our holdings — that’s what we do with most positions when things kind of go to the sky. With hindsight, looking at luna, you can’t offer people 18 percent interest, as they did with Anchor, and not have the world all run into yours. And so they grew their ecosystem too fast — before they grew the rest of the use cases. And I think that’s one of the lessons of crypto. With this bull run, with the money printer goes brr — everything kind of went up. And the speculative mania that took place in baseball cards and fine wines and watches and tech stocks also happened in crypto. I think the speculative frenzy part is over for the time being. So it becomes a much more sober business of having to build shit that people use.

Is it over for DeFi, a decentralized financial system on the blockchain? Has the crash raised too many doubts?
In some ways, the regulators are going to lick their chops and say, “Oh my goodness.” But DeFi, for the most part, has worked. It just is worth a lot less. Where the big losses are, it’s really in this weird combination of CeFi (centralized finance) and DeFi. Celsius and BlockFi were black boxes that investors put their money in and then they did whatever they wanted with it. It wasn’t on-chain. You didn’t know what the leverage was unless you got under the hood. You didn’t know what their asset-liability mismatch was. They borrowed short and they lent long. Those are the two ways you die a sudden death in markets. You see financial services companies like the European banks in 2008, like Lehman Brothers, like Merrill Lynch, in bull markets take a bizarre amount of leverage and think they’re geniuses. And that’s what happened.

Luna and terra are a little different because it was completely transparent. So that was a combination of greed by the investors, and it was a very charismatic founder. The stablecoin was a peg based on bullishness, and when the market turned, the mechanisms to create that peg just didn’t withstand the pressure. But that was the biggest black eye because it was transparent. You’re going to have failures, but broadly, DeFi lending systems have worked — projects like Compound, Aave, MakerDAO, and Uniswap. But they’re going to have a whole lot fewer assets on them.

So is your experience with luna and this collapse going to change the way that you invest in the future?
The market will grade me. We did some things very, very well. If you look back on the last year, we sold crypto, we sold some private equity and some of our venture stuff. We took a lot of chips off the table, but we left a lot of chips on the table. And if I was that smart, I would have sold more. As a trader, it’s tough to not be tough on yourself. If you’re in the job I’m in for 30 years, you don’t like to lose. I think we get a good grade on having taken a lot of chips off the table, thinking that the Fed was going to get aggressive and that some valuations didn’t make sense. And I wish we’d done that more aggressively.

If you were to short crypto, it seems like this would have been a good time to make money. Did you short at all, or did you consider shorting?
We never got net short, or I would have a much bigger smile on my face. Our investors bought us to be long crypto. They also bought us to be good risk managers. And so there’s that tension. Like I said earlier, I wish I had been less long even though we did sell a lot. I’m positive there are some people out there and they will stay very quiet and make lots and lots of money being short crypto. You could have shorted Coinbase, you could have shorted futures — there are plenty of ways to do it. But we only use those tools to hedge our business. For companies like ours, it’s Let’s just make sure we have runway to survive and thrive over the next 18 months.

Is there anything you’re completely avoiding, like staked ether — a derivative of ethereum tokens that traded in ways people didn’t expect — or algorithmic stable coins, like the terra tokens that are now worth basically zero?
Well, so to be fair, we never really participated in algorithmic stable coins. We looked at them and we didn’t participate. We’re not in staked ETH. But I do think staked ETH is going to be a big business. And so my sense is we will be in that business. The mistake we made is we were still too long crypto assets — you’re never happy when you lose money. The mistake other companies in the space made is they took more credit risk than they should have.

You can look at the “GDP” of the crypto space as the total value of the coins plus the value of the public companies plus the value of private companies — it’s about a trillion dollars. I think the industry was built for at least a $2 trillion GDP, and so we’ll get back to $2 trillion. It’s going to take a while and then, in time, will be far, far higher than the old high.

So it’s kind of a crypto recession right now.
Yes, crypto is in a recession. The rest of the economy is also going to get a recession.

How severe do you think it will be and how long will it last?
I wish I had that crystal ball. My instinct is 18 months, maybe even a little shorter because I think the Fed is going to have to pause hiking rates by the fall, and I think that’ll get people comfortable to start building again.

Who do you blame for this crypto crisis we’re in?
You could blame the Fed. You could blame COVID, and you can blame the Russian war. I say all that kind of tongue in cheek. You put all those together and it just forced a much faster unwinding of the bubble. There are lots of people that took too much leverage, and they’re suffering immensely. BlockFi raised money at a $5 billion valuation last year; it basically just sold for zero. Celsius was valued at more than $3 billion and it’s in all likelihood going bankrupt. And so people that took too much leverage have paid the price already.

Is there a lesson in all of this?

But I do think it’s important for people to understand that the investments they make change in character; they change in valuation. Buying Tesla when it was $100 is a far different bet than buying it when it’s $1,300. And so we have too many people that kind of think, Oh, you buy a stock or you buy a coin, and it’s yours forever. They’re cheap at some levels, and they’re rich at some levels.

Business Of Fashion : The Next Threat to Fashion’s Supply Chain

The Next Threat to Fashion’s Supply Chain
This week, everyone will be talking about labour talks at US West Coast ports, and Nike’s outlook.

Trouble at the Ports
  • The pandemic’s supply chain snarls are starting to unwind, with shipping costs and delays easing
  • US West Coast port operators and dockworkers are negotiating a new labour contract; the current deal expires on July 1
  • A slowdown, and later a strike, paralysed West Coast ports in 2014 and 2015, disrupting distribution of apparel and other goods made in Asia

The news has been buried amid increasingly dire inflation reports, but fashion’s logistics nightmare appears to be easing. Container shipping costs are down by more than one-third from their peak last fall (though still more than double pre-pandemic levels), according to freight marketplace Freightos. But supply chain managers can’t breathe easy just yet. While the pandemic’s effects on garment factories and shipping are easing, labour strife at US West Coast ports is threatening to throw the crucial trans-Pacific trade route into chaos once again. Barring a last-minute breakthrough, unionised dockworkers at 29 West Coast ports from Southern California to Seattle will be working without a contract. Both labour and management say they’ll continue normal operations as they negotiate. But last time the two sides were at an impasse, in 2014, a months-long slowdown culminated in a strike the following February. Much like with Covid, the ripple effects on global supply chains lasted for months, with retailers struggling to keep shelves stocked and then facing a flood of out-of-season merchandise when ports worked through their backlog. In recognition of the high stakes, President Joe Biden met with representatives from the union and the ports in a visit to Los Angeles earlier this month, and recently signed into law a bill that aims to reduce ocean shipping costs.

The Bottom Line: It’s too soon to know whether the region’s ports will see a repeat of 2015 — labour negotiations regularly stretch past the previous contract’s expiration without serious disruption. However, brands should watch the talks closely, and dust off the stockpiling plans and alternate shipping routes they may have last used in 2015.

>>> London’s Prime Shopping Street Feels Lingering Effects of Pa

London’s Prime Shopping Street Feels Lingering Effects of Pandemic

Regent Street, London’s premier shopping thoroughfare, is struggling to shake off the lingering effects of Covid-19.

Store vacancy levels, at a record 12 percent, are almost twice what they were at the end of 2019, while asking rents for the best space on the street have fallen by more than 30 percent during the pandemic, according to Savills Plc.

Shoppers who stroll along the curving avenue, passing through Oxford Circus and Piccadilly in London’s West End, may notice the absence of familiar brands. J Crew, Brooks Brothers, Desigual and Zara Home all closed stores during the two years of on-again off-again lockdowns that battered brick-and-mortar retailers and accelerated a shift to online shopping.

“We aren’t out of the woods by any means,” said Simon Harding-Roots, managing director for London at The Crown Estate, which counts Regent Street among its £7.7 billion ($9.5 billion) of holdings in the capital.

“There’s work to be done to get vacancies back to pre-pandemic levels,” he said in an interview. “We’re well aware we’ve got some tough times ahead.”

The Crown Estate — which traces its roots to the Norman conquest in 1066 — owns a range of assets, from shops, offices and rural lands to the seabed around England. Now an independent company established by an Act of Parliament, its proceeds go to the UK treasury, which in turn sets aside a portion of the profits to fund the monarchy. It owns most of Regent Street along with Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, which has a 25 percent stake.

‘Stubbornly Down’
The number of visitors to the West End collapsed during the pandemic as shoppers stayed away. Now people are returning, but with many still working part of the week at home, real wages falling and tourism not yet recovered, the shopping district hasn’t bounced all the way back.

“Footfall is stubbornly down,” said Harding-Roots. “We’ve got to entice people back into London.”

Britain’s biggest rail strike in a generation — and the prospect of more labour unrest this summer — aren’t helpful. Nor is the exponential growth of e-commerce companies, like China’s Shein. Even Primark, which has steadfastly resisted moving online, said Monday it will start a trial selling children’s products through its website for in-store collection.

Purveyors of luxury goods have been hit as the government’s decision to abolish tax-free shopping in the UK sends the well-heeled to boutiques in cities like Paris, Madrid and Milan. Those hubs are gaining £5 million a week from high-earning British spenders who can make cheaper purchases on the continent, said Helen Brocklebank, chief executive officer at Walpole, which represents the UK luxury industry.

“Has Regent Street lost its iconic status? No not at all,” Brocklebank said. “But is there a fight for wallet share post pandemic? Yes absolutely.”

It’s not just Regent Street where the shine seems to have come off. Vacancies have been rising on neighbouring Oxford Street too, and rents have also fallen. More broadly, the problems affecting London’s prime shopping district are similar to those facing high streets across the UK. Chief among them: surging inflation, a shift to internet shopping and staffing shortages.

Retail leaders need to consider where best to invest money and many will think the digital world is a safer bet, said Peter Williams, the chairman of Mister Spex SE and former chair of Boohoo Group Plc. “Many will ask ‘do I really need to invest in a store on Regent Street, when the West End is not looking as good as it once did? Probably not.”’

Mixing It Up
That said, churn is hardly new in Britain’s dynamic retail industry. As some brands have left the area, others — like Uniqlo — have moved in. The Japanese clothing seller opened a new Regent Street store in April.

The Crown Estate is reviewing its retail properties to mix flagship stores with smaller shops and pop-ups. Its ownership of Regent Street as a whole gives it the flexibility to break up large retail spaces and vary the type of tenants, said Harding-Roots.

“It’s been around 300 years, it’ll be around another 300 years,” he said. “Global success stories want to be on Regent Street, still.”

Gymshark, the workout-wear brand, plans to open its first permanent store there. Skincare brand Aesop, apparel maker Armani Exchange and fashion label Marc Jacobs also have new shops in the offing.

Footfall has grown to 88 percent of pre-pandemic levels, higher than the West End’s average of 81 percent, according to the New West End company, which represents businesses in the area. The opening of the new Elizabeth Line at Bond Street station in the autumn may bring in more visitors.

Gymshark likens Regent Street to New York’s Fifth Avenue or the Champs-Élysées in Paris. It has a history of attracting the most exciting new brands, said Mitch Healey, who heads physical retailing and events at the company. Gymshark customers want to “hang out” and touch and feel products in real life, he said.

The sportswear brand had a pop-up store in Covent Garden in 2020 and the “data we gleaned from those 11 days of trading showed we were onto a good thing,” he said.

But for Superdry Plc, Regent Street has lost its appeal. The fashion brand closed its store last year in favour of a newly fitted-out flagship across three floors on Oxford Street.

While the tech gadgets of Apple Inc. and colourful toys of Hamleys of London Ltd. pull in customers at the upper end of Regent Street, there isn’t an anchor store at the bottom end to keep shoppers interested, Julian Dunkerton, CEO and co-founder of Superdry, said by phone. Department store Selfridges & Co. provides that attraction on Oxford Street, he said.

“You’ve got a real determined shopper on Oxford Street and you’ve got a sort of lost tourist at the bottom end of Regent Street,” he said. “You need a really strong flagship that is going to give people a reason to go.”

FT : How the fast-paced beauty industry left a tortoise like Revlon trailing

How the fast-paced beauty industry left a tortoise like Revlon trailing
Well-known mass-market brands are no longer enough in an industry now shaped by independents and influencers

In Revlon’s 1980s heyday, supermodels Cindy Crawford and Claudia Schiffer appeared in television and magazine advertising that promised to make women “unforgettable” with the brand’s bright red lipsticks.

Today, consumers scout out cosmetics on social media and a flood of buzzy independent brands fronted by celebrities like singer Rihanna and influencer Kylie Jenner that have sidelined the likes of Revlon. Saddled by high debts, the 90-year-old US group, which is majority owned by billionaire Ron Perelman, filed for bankruptcy last week.

The high-profile casualty shows how competitive and fast-paced the beauty sector has become, requiring heavy investment in digital marketing and product innovation to prevent brands from fading into irrelevance. Unlike other staples like food or household products where brands can survive decades with minimal tweaks, consumers’ desires in beauty evolve rapidly, often under the influence of culture, fashion and art.

“The indie brands are constantly taking risks and starting trends,” said Stephanie Wissink, an analyst at Jefferies. “It is as if the big established beauty companies are like a tortoise, who is racing not against one hare, but against hundreds of them.” 



Industry leaders L’Oréal, Estee Lauder and Shiseido have learned to thrive in this new landscape by playing on their global reach and scientific knowhow, and snapping up the most promising indie brands to stay relevant.

But the likes of Revlon and Coty have struggled because their cosmetics are more mass-market and they lacked scale in the fastest-growing category and market — skincare and China. Both were constrained by debts racked up from acquisitions, although Coty has made progress in paying it down so analysts say it is unlikely to suffer Revlon’s fate.

The Covid-19 pandemic pushed the less agile companies further on to the back foot, as lockdowns and mask wearing hit demand for beauty products while also sending more consumers online. Supply chains for everything from plastic to pigments have been snarled, another advantage for the bigger companies that carry more sway with suppliers.

Global make-up sales have not yet recovered to their 2019 levels, although some categories like skincare and luxury fragrances have done so, according to McKinsey data.

The strongest players L’Oréal and Estee Lauder have already exceeded their pre-pandemic sales, helped by their large presence in the booming Chinese market and strength in skincare with brands like Lancôme and La Mer. L’Oréal has predicted that its revenue growth will outpace the 4 to 5 per cent expansion of the global beauty market this year.

In contrast, sales at Revlon, Coty and Shiseido are still languishing at pre-pandemic levels.

Even the beauty industry’s winners have had a bad run on the stock market this year, as a combination of Covid-19 restrictions in China and fears of a global recession alarm investors. Estee Lauder is down 30 per cent, L’Oréal has fallen 22 per cent and Shiseido is off 18 per cent — all underperforming Dow Jones Industrial Average and global consumer staples indices. Coty has fallen 30 per cent this year, and Revlon has tumbled 38 per cent.



Although China has proved a boon over the past decade for some beauty companies, Beijing’s zero-Covid policy has curbed its attraction this year.

Estee Lauder in particular has been hard hit by recent lockdowns in China, triggering a profit warning in May. China accounts for about one-third of its sales and its main distribution centre is in Shanghai, the epicentre of the recent Covid-19 outbreak, leaving it unable to supply the rest of the country.

Given China’s role as the second-biggest cosmetics market after the US, Wissink of Jefferies said that China would continue to hang over the sector unless authorities shift away their strict Covid-19 policy.

But in Paris, a destination for Chinese tourists when travel was easier, there was little sign of a slowdown at the city’s high-end Bon Marché department stores this week where indie brands like Charlotte Tilbury vie for attention alongside mainstays Dior and Chanel.

A sales clerk who declined to be named said that it had been busy since international tourists were back and the wedding season was in full swing. “People want to indulge, so they’ve been snapping up beauty products that make them feel good,” the person said.

Elena Boulard said she had come to the store on the hunt for new lipstick and bronzer since she planned to go to the office more this summer after a long stretch working from home. “I haven’t bought make-up in a while and there is so much new stuff,” she said.

High-end beauty products have fared better emerging from the pandemic than cheaper brands. In the US, the “prestige beauty” market, which includes products sold via specialists like Ulta and department stores, grew robustly last year to $22 bln, or 7 per cent above 2019 levels, according to market researcher NPD.

Luxury fragrances, including new brands that offer bespoke blends for an individual, have also enjoyed a renaissance. “Consumers are trading up to treat themselves to a $300 bottle of perfume instead of the $80 one,” said NPD’s Larissa Jensen.

For Revlon, the nascent recovery has come too late. But its problems stretch back far longer: sales stagnated for much of the past two decades save for a bump in 2016 when Revlon bought Elizabeth Arden and it has posted losses for the past six years.

Analysts said Revlon’s brands did not keep up with changing consumers’ tastes, which began to emphasise self-expression and embracing flaws over unattainable beauty norms. Revlon’s weakness in skincare also meant it failed to benefit from that category’s boom.

A stretched balance sheet left the group unable to acquire indie brands to refresh its product lines. Following its bankruptcy court filing, the company will continue trading while it works out a creditor repayment plan.

The way beauty’s indie brands often emerge from unexpected places underlines the scale of the challenges a flat-footed Revon faced.

Take Half Magic, a brand started in May by Doniella Davy, a make-up artist who shot to fame by creating “emotional glam” looks for the actresses on the hit US television teen drama Euphoria. On TikTok, the hashtag #EuphoriaMakeUp, where people post videos of themselves putting on brightly coloured eye shadow, glitter, and neon face gems inspired by the show, has racked up 2.1bn views.

While Half Magic may well fizzle out, it is emblematic of how new brands and trends flourish on social media. To monitor the changes, big beauty companies have increased their spending on digital marketing both to advertise their brands and seize on trends when they emerge.

“If you want to run a successful cosmetics business nowadays, you have to pay an army of 20 somethings to be on TikTok and Instagram all day to monitor trends and engage with people about your brands,” said Iain Simpson, an analyst at Barclays. “It’s not a business you can run lean and mean with a lot of debt on it.” 

Coty chief executive Sue Y Nabi said in an interview that the group had “made a lot of progress” on using social media to renew its storied mass-market brands, which include CoverGirl and Max Factor. “Staying relevant is the most important thing,” she said, including jumping on consumers’ desire for so-called “clean beauty” products that strip out harsh chemicals or by using TikTok to attract Gen Z consumers.

An example of how Coty tries to refresh older names came with a recent launch of a new mascara under its Rimmel brand. It enlisted a UK TikTok influencer Olivia Neill to help design and promote the product called Thrill Seeker.

“It’s the first time we’ve done something like this,” said Nabi. “Companies like ours have learned how to create viral products just as the indie brands do.”

FT : How the fast-paced beauty industry left a tortoise like Revlon trailing

How the fast-paced beauty industry left a tortoise like Revlon trailing
Well-known mass-market brands are no longer enough in an industry now shaped by independents and influencers

In Revlon’s 1980s heyday, supermodels Cindy Crawford and Claudia Schiffer appeared in television and magazine advertising that promised to make women “unforgettable” with the brand’s bright red lipsticks.

Today, consumers scout out cosmetics on social media and a flood of buzzy independent brands fronted by celebrities like singer Rihanna and influencer Kylie Jenner that have sidelined the likes of Revlon. Saddled by high debts, the 90-year-old US group, which is majority owned by billionaire Ron Perelman, filed for bankruptcy last week.

The high-profile casualty shows how competitive and fast-paced the beauty sector has become, requiring heavy investment in digital marketing and product innovation to prevent brands from fading into irrelevance. Unlike other staples like food or household products where brands can survive decades with minimal tweaks, consumers’ desires in beauty evolve rapidly, often under the influence of culture, fashion and art.

“The indie brands are constantly taking risks and starting trends,” said Stephanie Wissink, an analyst at Jefferies. “It is as if the big established beauty companies are like a tortoise, who is racing not against one hare, but against hundreds of them.” 



Industry leaders L’Oréal, Estee Lauder and Shiseido have learned to thrive in this new landscape by playing on their global reach and scientific knowhow, and snapping up the most promising indie brands to stay relevant.

But the likes of Revlon and Coty have struggled because their cosmetics are more mass-market and they lacked scale in the fastest-growing category and market — skincare and China. Both were constrained by debts racked up from acquisitions, although Coty has made progress in paying it down so analysts say it is unlikely to suffer Revlon’s fate.

The Covid-19 pandemic pushed the less agile companies further on to the back foot, as lockdowns and mask wearing hit demand for beauty products while also sending more consumers online. Supply chains for everything from plastic to pigments have been snarled, another advantage for the bigger companies that carry more sway with suppliers.

Global make-up sales have not yet recovered to their 2019 levels, although some categories like skincare and luxury fragrances have done so, according to McKinsey data.

The strongest players L’Oréal and Estee Lauder have already exceeded their pre-pandemic sales, helped by their large presence in the booming Chinese market and strength in skincare with brands like Lancôme and La Mer. L’Oréal has predicted that its revenue growth will outpace the 4 to 5 per cent expansion of the global beauty market this year.

In contrast, sales at Revlon, Coty and Shiseido are still languishing at pre-pandemic levels.

Even the beauty industry’s winners have had a bad run on the stock market this year, as a combination of Covid-19 restrictions in China and fears of a global recession alarm investors. Estee Lauder is down 30 per cent, L’Oréal has fallen 22 per cent and Shiseido is off 18 per cent — all underperforming Dow Jones Industrial Average and global consumer staples indices. Coty has fallen 30 per cent this year, and Revlon has tumbled 38 per cent.



Although China has proved a boon over the past decade for some beauty companies, Beijing’s zero-Covid policy has curbed its attraction this year.

Estee Lauder in particular has been hard hit by recent lockdowns in China, triggering a profit warning in May. China accounts for about one-third of its sales and its main distribution centre is in Shanghai, the epicentre of the recent Covid-19 outbreak, leaving it unable to supply the rest of the country.

Given China’s role as the second-biggest cosmetics market after the US, Wissink of Jefferies said that China would continue to hang over the sector unless authorities shift away their strict Covid-19 policy.

But in Paris, a destination for Chinese tourists when travel was easier, there was little sign of a slowdown at the city’s high-end Bon Marché department stores this week where indie brands like Charlotte Tilbury vie for attention alongside mainstays Dior and Chanel.


Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.

A sales clerk who declined to be named said that it had been busy since international tourists were back and the wedding season was in full swing. “People want to indulge, so they’ve been snapping up beauty products that make them feel good,” the person said.

Elena Boulard said she had come to the store on the hunt for new lipstick and bronzer since she planned to go to the office more this summer after a long stretch working from home. “I haven’t bought make-up in a while and there is so much new stuff,” she said.

High-end beauty products have fared better emerging from the pandemic than cheaper brands. In the US, the “prestige beauty” market, which includes products sold via specialists like Ulta and department stores, grew robustly last year to $22 bln, or 7 per cent above 2019 levels, according to market researcher NPD.

Luxury fragrances, including new brands that offer bespoke blends for an individual, have also enjoyed a renaissance. “Consumers are trading up to treat themselves to a $300 bottle of perfume instead of the $80 one,” said NPD’s Larissa Jensen.

For Revlon, the nascent recovery has come too late. But its problems stretch back far longer: sales stagnated for much of the past two decades save for a bump in 2016 when Revlon bought Elizabeth Arden and it has posted losses for the past six years.

Analysts said Revlon’s brands did not keep up with changing consumers’ tastes, which began to emphasise self-expression and embracing flaws over unattainable beauty norms. Revlon’s weakness in skincare also meant it failed to benefit from that category’s boom.

A stretched balance sheet left the group unable to acquire indie brands to refresh its product lines. Following its bankruptcy court filing, the company will continue trading while it works out a creditor repayment plan.

The way beauty’s indie brands often emerge from unexpected places underlines the scale of the challenges a flat-footed Revon faced.

Take Half Magic, a brand started in May by Doniella Davy, a make-up artist who shot to fame by creating “emotional glam” looks for the actresses on the hit US television teen drama Euphoria. On TikTok, the hashtag #EuphoriaMakeUp, where people post videos of themselves putting on brightly coloured eye shadow, glitter, and neon face gems inspired by the show, has racked up 2.1bn views.

While Half Magic may well fizzle out, it is emblematic of how new brands and trends flourish on social media. To monitor the changes, big beauty companies have increased their spending on digital marketing both to advertise their brands and seize on trends when they emerge.

“If you want to run a successful cosmetics business nowadays, you have to pay an army of 20 somethings to be on TikTok and Instagram all day to monitor trends and engage with people about your brands,” said Iain Simpson, an analyst at Barclays. “It’s not a business you can run lean and mean with a lot of debt on it.” 

Coty chief executive Sue Y Nabi said in an interview that the group had “made a lot of progress” on using social media to renew its storied mass-market brands, which include CoverGirl and Max Factor. “Staying relevant is the most important thing,” she said, including jumping on consumers’ desire for so-called “clean beauty” products that strip out harsh chemicals or by using TikTok to attract Gen Z consumers.

An example of how Coty tries to refresh older names came with a recent launch of a new mascara under its Rimmel brand. It enlisted a UK TikTok influencer Olivia Neill to help design and promote the product called Thrill Seeker.

“It’s the first time we’ve done something like this,” said Nabi. “Companies like ours have learned how to create viral products just as the indie brands do.”

FT : Centrica pulls out of Bulb auction in blow to government

Centrica pulls out of Bulb auction in blow to government
Withdrawal by British Gas owner leaves just two potential bidders for failed energy group

Centrica, the owner of British Gas, has pulled out of the auction for failed energy provider Bulb, leaving the UK government struggling to achieve a competitive bidding process.

Bulb collapsed last November after natural gas prices soared and it failed to raise new money. The government stepped in to ensure its 1.6mn customers still received energy and had planned to sell the business by the end of July.

Centrica’s withdrawal leaves just two confirmed potential bidders — Octopus Energy, the fifth biggest supplier, and Masdar, an energy company from Abu Dhabi — according to people close to the deal. One option is that the two team up, with Masdar providing the cash, and Octopus, which has never made a profit, taking on Bulb’s customers, said one of the people.

Ovo, the sixth biggest energy company, has not ruled itself out of the bidding but the company announced thousands of redundancies earlier this year and is lossmaking, so would need to raise finance.

Closing bids are due this Thursday in a sales process that is being handled by Lazards.

Bulb’s insolvency is expected to cost the government at least £2.2bn, making it the biggest state bailout since Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008.

It is also racking up costs for consumers, with Bulb making an £886mn loss in the six months since nationalisation, according to reports from administrators released this week.

Scores of creditors, many of them small businesses, are owed £585mn and are unlikely to be paid. But Sequoia, an infrastructure fund, which is backed by Simple, Bulb’s parent company, is guaranteed to receive its original £55mn investment and has earned a £10mn dividend since November.

Interpath, the administrator to Simple, has charged £3.7mn, or £800 an hour for 4,646 hours, since Bulb collapsed. A further £2.5mn in legal fees, mostly to law firm Freshfields, has been partially paid and Lazards, which is handling the sale, is expected to receive £1.5mn 

Teneo, which is running the administration process, is expected to receive tens of millions of pounds.

Centrica’s decision not to proceed suggests the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is hoping the purchaser may take on more of Bulb’s liabilities than the energy group would have wanted. In addition, Centrica may have had a steer from the Competition and Markets Authority that, as the largest household energy supplier, the regulator would be unlikely to want it to increase market share.

The National Audit Office has criticised energy regulator Ofgem’s handling of the crisis, which has seen 30 suppliers including Bulb collapse in the past year.

Customers of all suppliers will pay at least £96 a year, some of which has already been added to energy bills, to cover the cost of the failed businesses. This excludes the cost of bailing out Bulb, which is currently paid by taxpayers but will eventually be added to customer bills.

Hayden Wood, chief executive and founder of Bulb Energy, is still being paid the same £250,000 salary he received before the company’s rescue, and the company has employed Simon Stacey, a former N-Power executive, as finance director on an interim basis.

Teneo, Interpath, Centrica, Octopus, Lazard and Bulb declined to comment and Masdar was unavailable for comment.

Barrons : Carvana Sought to Disrupt Auto Sales. It Delivered Undriveable Cars.

Carvana Sought to Disrupt Auto Sales. It Delivered Undriveable Cars.

Terri Burton wanted to do something special to mark her son’s high school graduation, so she bought him the car of his youthful dreams: a Volkswagen Golf GTI.

But the purchase was the start of a nightmare. Within months of getting the car, her son, who has autism, was stopped twice by police in their South Texas town because Carvana CVNA +10.06% (ticker: CVNA), the company that sold the car to Burton, hadn’t registered the vehicle in her name, she says.

It wasn’t until almost six months later that Burton learned the reason for the registration delay: Carvana couldn’t transfer the car’s ownership to her because the company—officially, at least—hadn’t owned the car.


Mark Ralston / AFP via Getty Images
Problems with the paperwork from Carvana’s earlier purchase of the car for resale were keeping it from getting official ownership, or title, to the vehicle, a Carvana customer-service agent explained in a tense phone call late last year that Burton, of Corpus Christi, recorded.

“It was horrible,” says Burton, whose son had panicked each time he was pulled over by officers suspicious of the temporary out-of-state license plates that Carvana had been issuing for the 2017 hatchback in lieu of providing permanent Texas ones. “This was my gift to my son, and they messed it up so bad.”

The Burtons were among thousands of families that purchased cars from Tempe, Ariz.–based Carvana during the pandemic, when the company thrived by taking on traditional dealers with a web-enabled, highly scalable approach to vehicle sales. Carvana’s used cars often arrive at customers’ homes with the same convenience as Amazon-delivered paper towels. Customers can also pick up cars from Carvana’s multistory glass towers, which are designed to dispatch vehicles like cans of soda from a vending machine and include ceremonial coin slots.

But as the economy has reopened, Carvana’s efforts to resume its torrid pandemic-era sales pace have been complicated by an inconvenient side effect of the growth: In its haste to seize market share from competitors, Carvana was selling cars faster than it could get them registered to their new owners.

Disgruntled Carvana customers have long shared their gripes about registration delays and other issues—including late deliveries, undisclosed vehicle damage, and missing accessories—on online message groups and to the media.

Barron’s interviews with Carvana customers and former employees shed light on why registrations were delayed and how state regulators have tried to address the issue. The reporting reveals a company scrambling to address the problem, at one point forming an ad hoc unit known as the “undriveable-car task force.”

Carvana says many of the delays involved internal paperwork problems, including errors on title documents, missing documents from buyers, and slow work by third-party registration services and state motor vehicle agencies.

In other instances, though, including Burton’s, Carvana sold cars before it had title to the vehicles, an action that is illegal in many states where the company does business.

Carvana said in a response to questions for this article that very few of its customers experienced registration delays, and that only a small number of these delays were the result of the company selling cars before it had title.

The company says its record should be viewed in light of the many purchases and sales it makes, and the challenges of operating during the pandemic. Carvana sold more than 425,000 cars to retail customers in 2021, up 74% from a year earlier.

“Carvana, like many dealers over the past two years, has in limited instances encountered challenges processing title and registration paperwork for its customers after the sale,” the company says. “In a very small percentage of a very small percentage of instances, customers did not receive permanent license plates or transferred title within the time frame set forth by the respective states.”

Interviews with state officials and former Carvana employees show the issue is wider-reaching than the company suggests.

Burton and other customers, meanwhile, are lining up to challenge Carvana in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania that alleges some of the company’s customers went years without being able to legally drive vehicles they paid for. The suit, for which class-action status is being sought, identifies about two dozen potential plaintiffs.

And state regulators across the U.S. have been subjecting the company to suspensions or increased oversight over registration delays and its practice of issuing multiple temporary license plates from states where it has dealer’s licenses, instead of promptly providing permanent ones.

Carvana insists the lawsuit has “no substantive merit.” Its attorneys have sought the suit’s dismissal, arguing the claims should be handled through arbitration under plaintiffs’ original sales contracts with the company. A judge in Easton, Pa., is deliberating on whether to let the case proceed.

Carvana says the regulatory issues focus on a relatively small number of sales from 2020 and 2021. “We’ve had productive conversations with regulators in all of those states and feel very confident about our operations going forward,” it says.

The scrutiny comes at a difficult time for Carvana, which has seen flagging sales, steep losses, and a stock that’s down more than 90% from an August 2021 peak.

Carvana CEO Ernie Garcia III has vowed to slash some $125 million in spending, including laying off around 2,500 employees, or about 12% of the company’s staff, in May. At the same time, Carvana is rushing to turn its recent acquisition of Adesa U.S., the country’s second-biggest car-auction business, into a new leg of growth.

The $2.2 billion purchase, financed with high-interest debt, gives Carvana a national network of parking lots and garages that it says will be used to recondition hundreds of thousands more vehicles each year for resale.

Carvana was founded in 2012 as an online-focused subsidiary of DriveTime, a used-car business owned by Garcia’s father, Ernie Garcia II.

The elder Garcia grew DriveTime out of an earlier used-car company, Ugly Ducking, which he purchased in 1991, the year after he pleaded guilty to a felony bank-fraud charge related to the implosion of Charles Keating’s Lincoln Savings & Loan Association.

Prosecutors accused Garcia II of posing as a borrower on a fraudulent mortgage from Lincoln that generated bogus profits for the bank in return for getting a loan for his own real estate business. He was sentenced to three years’ probation. Garcia and his real estate business later filed for bankruptcy.

Garcia III, the son, spun Carvana off into its own business with himself at the helm in 2014. He and his father remain the company’s largest individual shareholders. The younger Garcia soon began erecting the company’s trademark “vending machine” towers in cities throughout the country.

Carvana went public on the New York Stock Exchange in 2017. The initial public offering valued the company at roughly $2 billion.

From its earliest days, Carvana emulated West Coast tech companies that aimed to disrupt established industries with new, online business models.

CEO Garcia openly compared the company’s approach with that of Amazon.com AMZN +3.58% (AMZN), and its motto for employees—“Your next customer may be your mom”—echoes the e-commerce giant’s customer-centric business ethos.

There were also quirky, Silicon Valley–style workplace perks. For their one-year work anniversaries, some employees were given Allbirds BIRD +1.35% —the woven wool sneakers favored by West Coast tech entrepreneurs—marked with the car dealer’s logo, a halo hovering over a sedan.

Meanwhile, Carvana’s custom-built headquarters in a Tempe business park includes a room known as “the library” with leather chairs, a wood-paneled ceiling, and book-lined shelves that slide away to reveal a cocktail bar in a secret nook. It was largely stocked with bottles from Costco’s in-house Kirkland brand, one employee says.

But Carvana’s biggest similarity with the tech start-ups may be its willingness to burn through cash in a race to displace old-line incumbents and outpace potential competitors. In its quarterly earnings reports, Carvana repeatedly posted net losses, even as Garcia assured investors that the company was forging ahead on a path toward profitability.

“We wanted to build a paradigm-shifting company,” he told analysts in May 2018, about a year after the company’s initial listing.

A couple of years later, as the coronavirus pandemic began rewiring the economy, Garcia was delivering on that promise. Car buyers across the country found themselves flush with stimulus cash they could put toward down payments on vehicles. Carvana’s online model was a perfect fit for quarantines and concerns about in-person contact.

During the three months ended June 30, 2021, as the country muddled through a second spring in the pandemic’s grasp, Carvana posted its first, and only, net quarterly profit. By that August, Carvana’s stock traded at $377, giving the company a market value of more than $60 billion, larger than older publicly traded peers CarMax KMX +7.19% (KMX) and AutoNation AN +4.15% (AN) combined.

In January of this year, Carvana announced the sale of its one-millionth car, casting the event as a key milestone in its quest to become the country’s largest auto retailer. CarMax, the current No. 1 auto dealer, sold more than 924,000 cars to retail customers in its latest fiscal year.

“Carvana’s mission is to change the way people buy and sell used cars by creating a transparent, simple, and enjoyable customer experience,” the company said at the time. “The auto industry is fragmented—and that means there’s ample room to grow.”

Shortly after Carvana opened its 28th vending machine tower in early 2021 near the Las Vegas Strip—there now are 33—JD Decker, the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles’ chief lawman, was patrolling the desert metropolis when he stopped a car for driving with an expired temporary license plate from North Carolina.

The driver told Decker he’d been getting one temporary license plate after another from Carvana, and was waiting for the next one. He showed Decker a stack of expired temporary plates from around the country he’d burned through.

“He probably had about 10 different states represented,” Decker says. “He had the car for about a year and there was a problem with the title, so they just kept sending him temp tags from all over.”

Former Carvana employees say this was standard procedure by then: The company had started encountering delays in getting vehicles registered to its buyers, so it would use its dealer licenses across the country to issue temporary plates from multiple states to customers.

“You might end up with a Tennessee temporary plate for 45 days, then an Ohio temporary plate for another 30 to 45 days,” says a former senior member of the department at Carvana’s Tempe headquarters that responds to the most serious customer complaints, known as the executive resolution team.

“Customers would end up getting sometimes four to six different temporary plates from multiple states,” says the former staffer, who was laid off by the company after almost two years in April following a dispute over workplace accommodations for a disability. He asked not to be identified, citing ongoing litigation with the company over his dismissal.

Some of the sanctions levied by states in recent months cite the improper furnishing of temporary out-of-state plates. Carvana says it has “had a number of productive and helpful conversations with regulators across the country” on the topic of out-of-state plates and is “very confident in our processes going forward.”

By early 2021, Carvana was staffing up to deal with title issues. That’s when Thomas Hollingsworth joined what he was told was a newly formed titles department at the Tempe headquarters tasked with solving issues that were keeping cars from getting registered to their new owners.

Until he left the department for another role at Carvana that August, Hollingsworth—who has also since left the company—spent his days on the phone with banks, state motor vehicle departments, and former owners working to fix paperwork snags.

“I would come in at 7 a.m. and I would leave around 2:30 p.m., and the whole day was basically running through these titles,” he says.

During a period of heavy hiring that fall, Carvana established a new category of staffers called “paperwork specialists” to better manage the documents that flowed in and out of the company with the cars it bought and sold, says a former member of the auto dealer’s recruiting team.

The paperwork specialists were entry-level workers making $15 an hour who were sent out in the field after two weeks of rudimentary instruction, says the former recruiter, whose job was among those lost in the May layoffs and who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisal.

Carvana says it strongly disagrees with the recruiter’s characterizations on pay and training. “As a growing business with a novel model, we constantly create new roles and adjust existing ones,” the company says. “We’ve been fortunate to hire a number of great people in all roles.”

But Carvana’s sense of urgency surrounding the title-transfer issues may be most apparent in its formation of the undriveable-car task force in May.

Samantha Berger, another former member of the executive resolution team, says three of her colleagues were pulled aside for specialized vehicle-registration training early that month and given a “giant spreadsheet” of cars.

The cars were ones that Carvana had been keeping on the road with temporary plates that were now expiring, leaving them to languish, undriveable and parked outside new owners’ homes, says Berger, who wound up leaving the company days later, shortly before the layoffs.

Asked about the undriveable-car task force, Carvana says that its “internal teams have done an incredible job solving unprecedented business process challenges associated with a global pandemic in real-time.”

From his perch in Carvana’s titles department, Hollingsworth says he was able to see where the company’s process went wrong: Sometimes cars got sold off its lots around the country before document handlers in Tempe had time to finish getting the cars’ titles transferred to Carvana.

No states are known to have sanctioned Carvana over the practice of selling vehicles without holding title, but in multiple states where Carvana does business—including Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois—regulators say it’s illegal in most cases to do so.

While some traditional used-car dealers concede it isn’t unheard of to sell vehicles before holding title, most do so only sparingly, and only if they’re sure they’ll obtain title quickly enough not to cause registration delays for their buyers, according to Jonathan Chariff, CEO of the South Motors auto group in Miami. Florida requires dealers to possess a vehicle’s title, or some other evidence of ownership, before making a sale, a state motor vehicle department spokesman says.

Carvana says that “for a limited time period, Carvana offered a small percentage of cars for sale prior to receiving the paper certificate of title,” but that “when viewed in totality, the cars for which the paper certificate of title hadn’t arrived at time of sale were a very small percentage of Carvana’s sales.”

Furthermore, Carvana says it only sold cars without a title “in the states where such practice is permissible.” However, customers in states where it is illegal tell Barron’s that they learned from Carvana that it sold them cars without holding the titles.

Those customers include Burton, the Texas woman who bought the Volkswagen hatchback for her son.

Another Carvana customer, Melody Postoy of Glendale, Ariz., another state where the practice is barred, traded in her Lexus for a later model in late December. About 2½ months later, the last of the temporary plates Carvana provided her expired, leaving her unable to drive the car, she says.

She spent hours on the phone with customer-service agents who offered constantly shifting excuses for why Carvana had been unable to get her registered as the vehicle’s owner.

One agent attributed the problem to difficulties with title transfers across state lines. Postoy says this surprised her, since a vehicle history report she reviewed showed that the car had always been registered in Arizona.

In April, when Carvana agreed to reclaim the vehicle for a refund, the agent Postoy spoke with to arrange pickup offered a different excuse. “They told me they were having issues getting ahold of the title,” Postoy says.

When asked about such anecdotes in states where vehicles may not be sold without holding title, Carvana said it didn’t want to discuss specifics of its legal analysis.

Even in states where selling vehicles without title isn’t prohibited, registration delays have caused problems for Carvana’s customers.

One potential plaintiff in the proposed class-action suit, a hospital lab assistant in North Carolina named William Stalls, bought a 2012 Hyundai Sonata from Carvana in January 2021. Over the next 12 months, Stalls was issued temporary plates from Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Arizona, the lawsuit alleges.

While driving with one of those plates, police pulled him over for speeding and found in a database that the car was still registered to a prior owner, according to the complaint.

“Despite Stalls showing the officer his sale paperwork and explaining he was waiting for permanent tags from Carvana, Stalls was arrested and confined to jail for eight hours before posting bond,” according to the suit.

An attempt to reach Stalls was unsuccessful. Attorney Robert Cocco, who filed the lawsuit, declined to comment on the case. Asked about the Stalls case, Carvana reiterated that the lawsuit had no merit.

In February, a month after celebrating the sale of its first one million cars, Carvana disappointed investors with an earnings report that showed sales flattening in the fourth quarter of 2021 after their pandemic-era boom.

“It is an understatement to say a lot has changed about our environment,” Garcia said three months later in his employee letter announcing layoffs.

Inflation was squeezing consumer savings, car prices had soared, and the company was dealing with mounting debt as a result of its Adesa acquisition.

Carvana was also facing scrutiny from state motor vehicle agencies over the company’s failure to meet vehicle registration deadlines and the use of out-of-state permits by its customers.

Early this year, Pennsylvania officials suspended the company’s license to issue temporary permits at its two vending-machine towers in that state, in Philadelphia and near Pittsburgh, citing late document submittals, “improper issuance and verification of temporary Pennsylvania plates in other states,” and other violations, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation spokesman Diego Sandino said in an email.

The suspension at the Philadelphia location is active until August, Sandino says. The location near Pittsburgh is suspended for three months after it comes into compliance, which as of late May it hadn’t yet done.

The Pennsylvania actions came in response to “temporary technical operational challenges that have since been corrected,” Carvana says. “This does not impact our ability to sell cars in Pennsylvania.” The company is still able to issue temporary license plates in the state through a third-party licenser, it says.

Issues related to late title transfers and the use of out-of-state plates have also resulted in increased oversight in Illinois, where the company was forced to cease business entirely for about two weeks in May. A suspension in a North Carolina county ended in January, though the company remains on probation in another North Carolina county. Carvana’s license is also on probation in Michigan over registration issues.

“Carvana is confident in and proud of our current title and registration operations,” the company says. “We have productive conversations with regulators in every state where we operate and are very confident that our current operations are designed to meet state standards.”

Even Carvana’s home state of Arizona has clamped down on the company’s operations after officials there received more than 80 complaints about the company over a four-year period, says Arizona Department of Transportation, or ADOT, spokesman Bill Lamoreaux.

The complaints revolved around “such issues as missing, delayed, and altered title and registration documents, contract discrepancies, significant odometer discrepancies, and incomplete emissions at the time of sale,” Lamoreaux says.

Carvana often used temporary license plates from Arizona, according to customers and former employees. The state allowed car dealers to issue temporary plates even for sales that occurred in other states, according to Lamoreaux. Last month, Arizona canceled that program after discussions with Carvana, he says.

Lamoreaux declined to provide further details, citing open investigations into Carvana’s registration practices.

“ADOT tries to accommodate businesses like Carvana with their unique online business model as best we can,” Lamoreaux says. “But for consumer protection, we need to make sure that all car dealers operating in Arizona are following state laws.”