Barrons : White House Wants Crypto Rules as a Matter of National Security

White House Wants Crypto Rules as a Matter of National Security

The Biden administration is preparing to release an executive action that will task federal agencies with regulating digital assets such as Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a matter of national security, a person familiar with the White House’s plan tells Barron’s.

The national security memorandum, expected to come in the next few weeks, would task parts of the government with analyzing digital assets and assembling a regulatory framework that covers cryptos, stablecoins, and NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, this person said.

“This is designed to look holistically at digital assets and develop a set of policies that give coherency to what the government is trying to do in this space,” the person said.

The State Department, Treasury Department, National Economic Council, and Council of Economic Advisers would be involved in the initiative.

The White House National Security Council would also be involved, the person said, since crypto has economic implications for national security. Along those lines, the administration would instruct agencies to work on harmonizing regulations of digital assets between countries.

“Because digital assets don’t stay in one country, it’s necessary to work with other countries on synchronization,” the person said.

The White House wouldn’t issue recommendations. Agencies would be given three to six months to come up with proposals, and the White House would act as a policy coordinator.

White House officials declined to comment.

Bloomberg earlier this month reported on the White House’s plan.

The White House aims to bring order to the haphazard approach that the government is now using to regulate crypto, the person said. Various agencies oversee the industry, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. But there’s no consensus on matters such as whether some tokens should be registered as securities, or how to oversee exchanges, stablecoins, and high-yield lending products.

Congress has held multiple hearings on cryptos in recent months, exposing partisan divides between Republicans and Democrats on how to regulate the industry.

The Biden administration is also urging Congress to draft rules. The White House released a report on stablecoins in November, recommending that Congress act promptly to regulate the industry.

The Federal Reserve has also weighed in on digital currencies. The Fed released a report on a central-bank digital currency, or CBDC, earlier in January that laid out the pros and cons of digitizing the dollar. The report said that the Fed could start work on the project with support from the White House and Congress. A Treasury Department spokesman called the report an important step forward in discussions about a CBDC.

Other countries are ramping up scrutiny of crypto, seeing it as a matter of national economic security. Russia’s central bank and finance ministry said this week that Bitcoin mining and trading activity should be more tightly regulated. Russian President Vladimir Putin called on regulators to form a unanimous opinion on regulating the space Wednesday.

FT : Oaktree risks showdown with Beijing over Evergrande debt

Oaktree risks showdown with Beijing over Evergrande debt
LA-based asset manager has a secured loan to one of ailing Chinese developer’s star projects

Oaktree Capital is risking a showdown with Beijing over control of one of ailing property developer’s Evergrande’s most prized projects in mainland China.

The Los Angeles-based asset manager has a secured loan to a sprawling tourism resort on the Yellow Sea coast called “Venice” that would allow it to take control of the land in the event of a default, according to a letter to investors and a person close to the matter.

A move by Oaktree to seize the Venice development could have a profound impact on the wider restructuring of Evergrande, the property developer that has scrambled to reassure its creditors since its finances started to unravel last year.

Evergrande announced on the Hong Kong stock exchange on Wednesday that it “aims to come up with a preliminary restructuring proposal in the next six months”.

If Oaktree moves to seize control over the land it could face a difficult fight in the mainland Chinese courts over an asset that is strategically important to both Evergrande and Beijing, due to its vast size and because ordinary Chinese citizens have bought homes there.

The Venice project, which has been in development for more than a decade, embodied the meteoric ambitions of Evergrande, which has racked up more than $300bn of debt to fund its rapid expansion.

The resort has a “platinum seven-star hotel, nine centres (for international conferences, catering, health, sports, badminton, tennis, business, children and entertainment), a bar street and a food street”, according to the local government website for the area. It also has a residential area that covers 66m sq ft, which includes homes and schools.

On Tuesday, Oaktree took control of a vast plot of land in Hong Kong called “Project Castle” after Evergrande defaulted on a loan. The move threw into turmoil a plan to restructure Evergrande’s $20bn of offshore debts as it was a crucial piece of collateral in a planned deal for bondholders.

Lending in mainland China is considered far riskier than in Hong Kong because of the difficulty foreign creditors have in navigating the labyrinthine local court system and claiming security on assets.

While many US distressed debt funds refuse to lend against assets on the mainland for this reason, others have been coaxed into this riskier form of Chinese lending because of the dearth of opportunities in more mainstream debt markets.

In letters to its investors last year, Oaktree said that the Venice loan was made at “about mid-60s see- through LTVs” — meaning that the size of the debt is just over 60 per cent of the asset’s overall value — and that it benefited from “substantial” protections that included claims on the “underlying properties”. The letter did not disclose the size of the loan.

According to a local government website for the province where the development is located, about two hours drive from Shanghai, 30bn yuan ($4.7bn) has been invested in the project.

“In addition to structuring our investments with priority claims on the underlying assets, we structured our Venice financing with a guarantee from Evergrande’s listed company,” the 2021 investor letter continued, in an apparent reference to the Hong Kong-listed entity China Evergrande Group.

Oaktree founder Howard Marks, a former acolyte of “junk bond king” Michael Milken, has a reputation as one of the savviest specialists in distressed investing, where hedge funds try to extract profits from the debts of troubled companies.

Oaktree last year closed its $16bn “Opportunities Fund” — one of the largest ever funds focused on lending to troubled companies — and has made an aggressive push into investments related to China. The US fund last year lent €275m to a holding company that also owns Italian football club Inter Milan, which is majority owned by Chinese retail giant Suning, helping cover liquidity needs.

Evergrande’s debt restructuring will be the biggest in China’s history and a politically sensitive process for a company whose rapid growth made its chair and founder Hui Ka Yan China’s richest man as recently as 2017. Tens of thousands of ordinary Chinese citizens hold investments in the company and have bought its homes.

FT : Do Tesla robots dream of infinite planetary resources?

Do Tesla robots dream of infinite planetary resources?
Robot slaves will have to compete with cheap human labour, not the other way around.
Elon first revealed Tesla’s plans to create robot helpers last August, in a theatrical display using, err, humans. Given the electric car maker’s notoriety for announcing products, only to see them delayed by up to half a decade, FT Alphaville thought it would be a while until the project got off the ground.

But on Tesla’s latest earnings call, following better than expected fourth quarter results, Elon said the most its important development work this year will be on the robot -- christened “Optimus”. Cybertruck be damned.

JP Morgan’s analysts note Tesla’s pivot from carmaker to robot maker could have a significant impact on its wider automotive plans.

From a note out overnight:

This implies that the Roadster and Semi (originally slated for launch in 2020) and the Cybertruck (originally slated for launch in 2021) will be delayed until at least 2023, including as the firm prioritises development instead on a humanoid robot concept that will serve as an “incredible buddy like C3P0 or R2D2” with a personality that evolves to match its owner while also solving the economy’s labour shortage problem. The robot, dubbed “Optimus”, was said on the call to be the most important product development work taking place at Tesla this year, given its “potential to be more significant than the vehicle business over time over time” even as Rivian, Ford and General Motors deliver battery electric pickups to customers.

We don’t know if Elon Musk, Technoking of Tesla, is a fan of the show Caprica, a spin off prequel series of the re-imagined (and highly superior) Battlestar Galactica, where humans create robots which then decide to obliterate humanity.

But we presume he must at least be familiar with the genre. His numerous public declarations about how superhuman AI could be very bad for humans, certainly suggests as much.

So why then is Musk accelerating the mechanical takeover of the planet by ploughing head first into personal robot manufacturing?

We can only hope it’s because he feels it’s essential to get ahead of “bad guy” competition, i.e. those who might wish to programme robots for destructive rather than buddy purposes. Perhaps he thinks that by being first to market he can be sure robots are endowed with fundamentally benign protocols a la the Three Laws of Robotics in the Asimov novels. (Though, if you read the Asimov novels you’ll know even these laws can potentially be undermined or hacked.) Elon, presumably, doesn’t think his own motivations can be hacked or corrupted either.

Whatever the case, there’s a bigger conceptual problem with developing robotic slaves to fill a labour shortage, or avoid unionisation. And it’s not the obvious economic one everyone is worried about. In a new robot-powered economy, displaced menial labour would eventually adjust to human-touch services, such as care or therapy, or simply making TikTok videos. There would always be jobs. Just different, and potentially more frivolous ones. (Who could have conceived of a social media manager in the 1980s?)

Who will be the cheaper serf?
The bigger issue is how robots will compete over resources with their meat-bag equivalents. Who will be the cheaper serf to hire will be the ultimate consideration. And it’s not at all clear it will be the robot.

Elon’s mechanised robots will, we presume, be made of scarce rare metals and commodities. The fact they will be rolled off a production line fully primed with intelligent software may compensate for some of that cost. Even so, it will be to tough compete with the cheapness and abundance of humans.

Robots will still need to be powered by electricity, lubricated with oils, cared for and maintained. They will still need reboot, downtime or maintenance time like their human equivalents.

Humans, on the other hand, are compromised of the planet’s most abundant resources (oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen). They are also capable of self-replication without a manufacturing plant. That means they will always be fundamentally cheaper and easier to make. Yes it may take 16 years to grow a functioning human worker, but the pipeline is solid, with stock continuously being replaced if not added to. (Though the fact Elon feels the human replacement rate is in trouble, could be another influence over his thinking.)

Decommissioned humans, meanwhile, can also be recycled far more efficiently than robots. From ashes to ashes.

Elon’s fans might counter that the whole of point of Optimus is to liberate the world’s poorest from their daily grinds.

But while that is in theory a fine goal, it’s very possible that without a significant leap in material science to overcome resource constraints, the effort might actually end up making things worse. Any shortage of multitasking humanoid robots at all, and it’s clear they’ll continue to compete with humans for service positions in, say, elite human households.

The only rational reason to go head first into a robot slave economy is if the full cost of creating and maintaining a robot slave will be cheaper and friendlier for the planet (in terms of resource consumption) than that of a human.

For a true dystopia, consider what might happen if a competitive robot industry were to develop. To keep costs down and to optimise the use of planetary resources, manufacturers would eventually turn to biology. This could see robots emulate our own human bioengineering to the point they become indistinguishable from humans. Competitive forces might then encourage the growing of robot slaves in labs. Or in controlled self-replication hubs. There these robots would be pre-loaded with software that ensures they love their owners and would never hurt, revolt or try to displace them.

The only difference between them and us would be their allegiances, their aspirations and their willing subservience to their masters. At least, for as long as their programming didn’t get corrupted or hacked.

>>> A 19-year-old built a flight-tracking Twitter bot. Elon Musk tried to pay hi

A 19-year-old built a flight-tracking Twitter bot. Elon Musk tried to pay him to stop.
‘I’ve put a lot of work into it, and $5k is just really not enough.’


“Can you take this down? It is a security risk.”

That’s how Elon Musk opened a conversation with 19-year-old Jack Sweeney over Twitter DM last fall. He was referencing a Twitter account, called @ElonJet, which tracks the movements of his private jet around the world.

It was a late-night message, coming in at 12:13 a.m. Sweeney’s time, but the college freshman didn’t lose any sleep. His reply, nearly seven hours later: “Yes I can but it’ll cost you a Model 3 only joking unless?”

@ElonJet is one of 15 flight-tracking accounts Sweeney has created, run by bots he’s programmed to parse the data and tweet every time a chosen plane takes off or lands. Each one follows a high-profile person, almost all in tech, including Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. But Musk’s tracker is the most popular, with nearly 83,000 followers.

The account's popularity appears to have scared Musk. “I don’t love the idea of being shot by a nutcase,” he told Sweeney in their DM conversation.

The conversation continued for a few more messages. Musk asked Sweeney how much he made off the Twitter accounts, which Sweeney said was no more than $20 a month. Then Elon Musk made his own offer: $5,000 to delete the account and help the billionaire keep “crazy people” from tracking his location. Sweeney told Musk to add another 0. “Any chance to up that to $50k? It would be great support in college and would possibly allow me to get a car maybe even a Model 3.”

Musk said he’d think about it. But so far, he hasn’t paid Sweeney a dime, and the account is still running. Sweeney says he’s okay with getting ghosted. He’s benefited a lot from @ElonJet and the other accounts, he said: He's gained social media followers, learned how to code and even scored a part time job at UberJets as an application developer. Better yet, the self-described Elon Musk “fan” got to have a conversation with a man he’s looked up to for years.

Though the Twitter accounts haven’t led to any dangerous incidents so far, at least according to Sweeney’s knowledge and information available online, Musk does have a point. Celebrities getting ambushed at airports — by fans, by people who want to sell their autograph, paparazzi, stalkers and the like — is certainly a thing. And Musk and other tech CEOs have become bona fide celebrities in recent years. (Protocol contacted SpaceX’s media team to ask whether there had been any violent incidents or threats — one of the only remaining ways for the press to contact Musk after he dissolved Tesla’s PR team last year — but got no response.)

But Twitter bots don’t get starstruck. They’ve just gone on parsing the data Sweeney’s told them to. The 15 bots use FAA information when available — the administration keeps track of when and where planes depart and land, as well as their intended path. However, Musk’s plane and many others are on the LADD block list, which removes identifying information from the data.

Even blocked planes aren't truly private, though. In these cases, Sweeney uses data from the ADS-B transponders present on most aircraft which show a plane’s location in the air in real time as charted on the ADS-B Exchange. Parsing this information is like a logic puzzle: Sweeney’s bots can use a plane’s altitude, combined with how long ago the data was received, to determine when it is taking off or landing. They can then cross-reference latitude and longitude with a database of airports to determine where the plane is leaving or headed. And though Sweeney’s bots can’t pull from blocked FAA data to figure out where a plane plans to go, they can cross-reference the real-time ADS-B data with another website that posts anonymized versions of the FAA flight plans. This allows the bot to match the plane it is tracking in real time to the anonymized FAA flight plans and determine each plane’s intended destination. This information is all entirely public, and can be used to track most private aircraft.

It’s a loophole in high-profile security that has only flown under the radar because one needs a lot of industry-specific knowledge to know all this data was available and public, and to understand how to parse it. Sweeney had that context: His father works in the airline industry, and Sweeney has been tracking planes since he was a child. Like many young boys, he says he would try to identify types of planes as they flew across the sky, often checking his guesses against what he could find in online flight tracker apps.

Once Sweeney explained to Musk where he was finding the data, the entrepreneur was surprised by how accessible it all was. “Air traffic control is so primitive,” he said.

The most recent DM Musk and Sweeney exchanged was last Wednesday, when Sweeney said he’d prefer an internship over payment in return for deleting the account. Musk hasn’t opened the message, Sweeney says, but he’s not offended. In fact, he thinks he knows why Musk went silent: “I think he’s on vacay in Hawaii if you check ElonJet.”

>>> US Gapping down

Gapping down
In reaction to earnings/guidance
:

  • FLWS -20.8%, LC -18.2%, TER -16.3% (also increases dividend by 10%, expects to buy back $750 mln of stock in 2022), MTSI -9.6%, SAP -6.6%, XEL -5.5%, SIMO -5.1%, LRCX -5%, EW -5%, HCA -4.2%, INTC -3.1% (also raises dividend by 5%), IP -2.9%, PTC -2.6%, CACI -2.2% (also acquires ID Technologies for $225 mln), MCD -2%, NOC -1.7%, RJF -1.4%, MKSI -1.3%, TSLA -1.3%, SHW -1.3%, ALK -1.2%, JBLU -0.8%

Other news:

  • EPZM -25.3% (prices offering of 56666667 shares of common stock at $1.50 per share)
  • ZYME -11.3% (prices offering of 9.16 mln shares of common stock at $8.00 per share)
  • RMO -7.3% (files for $350 mln mixed securities shelf offering)
  • SPPI -7% (to be removed from S&P SmallCap 600)
  • HCA -4.2% (to build five new hospitals in Texas)
  • CUE -3% (reports two objective responses in first interim update from study of CUE-101 and KEYTRUDA)
  • WTS -2.5% (will move from S&P SmallCap 600 to S&P MidCap 400)
  • GPS -1.9% (will move from S&P 500 to S&P MidCap 400)
  • CI -1.9% (CNC and CI had preliminary discussions about takeover of CNC but talks did not lead to serious negotiations according to Bloomberg)
  • UP -1.7% (acquires Air Partner for $107 mln)
  • CASA -1.2% (CFO to resign to attend to family issues reaffirms FY21 guidance)

Analyst comments:

  • GATO -5% (downgraded to Hold from Buy at Canaccord Genuity)
  • IPG -2.5% (downgraded to Underperform from Neutral at BofA Securities)
  • CRTX -2.4% (downgraded to Mkt Perform from Mkt Outperform at JMP Securities)
  • MT -2% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Goldman)
  • PAGS -1.5% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Goldman)
  • WPP -1.4% (downgraded to Underperform from Neutral at BofA Securities)

>>> US Gapping up

Gapping up
In reaction to earnings/guidance
:

  • HZO +12.5%, NOW +10.6% (also names new COO), XM +9.9%, LEVI +8.8%, STX +8.2%, CALX +7%, MEOH +7%, XLNX +6.7%, FLEX +6.3%, AVT +6.1%, TSCO +4.8%, LSTR +4.7%, STM +4.5%, BX +4%, WOLF +3.6%, MTH +3.5%, DB +3.2%, VLY +3%, SLM +2.7% (also to acquire Nitro College; also approves new $1.25 bln share repurchase program), ROK +2.2%, URI +2%, VLO +2%, CNX +1.8%, BLL +1.7%, TROW +1.5%, AOS +1.4%, DOW +1.3%, MUR +1.2%, LVS +1.1%, WHR +0.9%, MSCI +0.8%, ARAY +0.7%

Other news:

  • GLPG +13.1% (names new CEO)
  • ATRA +8.8% (enters into strategic manufacturing partnership with Fujifilm)
  • TWNK +8.3% (to be added to S&P SmallCap 600)
  • ATAI +7.6% (announces strategic collaboration with Dalriada Drug Discovery)
  • EEFT +7.5% (to be added to S&P MidCap 400)
  • SRRA +5.7% (prices offering offer 4074075 shares of common stock at $27.00 per share)
  • CNC +4.4% (CNC and CI had preliminary discussions about takeover of CNC but talks did not lead to serious negotiations according to Bloomberg)
  • NFLX +4.4% (Pershing Square and Bill Ackman announce that firm has acquired 3.1+ mln NFLX shares over last few days)
  • CMP +4.1% (will move from S&P MidCap 400 to S&P SmallCap 600)
  • NRXP +3.3% (publication of initial findings of BriLife vaccine-produced antibodies against Omicron variant)
  • MRNA +2.8% (announces first participant dosed in phase 2 study of Omicron-specific booster candidate and publication of data on booster durability against omicron variant)
  • JACK +2.6% (will move from S&P MidCap 400 to S&P SmallCap 600)
  • BLL +1.7% (names new CEO)
  • DKNG +1.7% (Mobile Sportsbook to launch in Louisiana on Friday)
  • MRO +1.6% (increases dividend)
  • UPST +1.5% (in sympathy with LC earnings report)
  • DDOG +1.5% (receives FedRAMP moderate impact level authorization)
  • GLNG +1.4% (provides update on Cool Co)
  • NDAQ +1.2% (enters into $325 mln accelerated stock repurchase agreement)

Analyst comments:

  • CLNE +6% (upgraded to Outperform from Underperform at Evercore ISI)
  • DLO +2.7% (upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Goldman)
  • ALB +1.9% (upgraded to Buy from Hold at HSBC Securities)
  • GLW +1.5% (upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Goldman)

>>> To No One’s Surprise, Chanel Increases Prices Again In 2022

We’re all just settling into the new year, and the last thing we want to hear is that another price increase is happening at Chanel. The very active Chanel rumor mill, verified by sales associates around the country, shared the news of Chanel’s upcoming 2022 price increase. The date of the increase will be January 15th, which nearly coincides with the launch of 22P collections being released on the 18th. This marks the fourth price increase from the fashion house in the last 12 months.

Which Chanel Bags Will See An Increase?
The silver lining is that majority of the highly coveted Classics, which already have been hit with multiple price increases last year, will continue retailing at their current prices.
The bags that will be impacted include the Chanel Coco Handle, Chanel Business Affinity, and Chanel Boy Bag with Handle. The Wallet-On-Chain, Mini Flaps, and Chanel 19 bags will be unaffected by this price increase.
The three handle styles will see a spike of 8-12%.

We have received the prices so far from forum members who spoke with their sales associates and are listed below. Stay tuned for more information, and as always, check the Chanel Price Increase thread on PurseForum for the latest rumors and information!

Recent Price Increase History
In the last 12 months, Chanel increased their prices three times. This latest increase marks the fourth increase in that time frame. The January 2021 price increase saw price hikes for the majority of styles, including Classic Flap bags, with an increase of about 4-7%.

Business of Fashion : The Unlikely Return of Accessible Luxury

The Unlikely Return of Accessible Luxury
As spending patterns shift, a new generation of mid-market American labels are thriving by offering value-conscious products with a point of view. Can they scale like the titans that came before them?

  • In the US, companies like Jenni Kayne, Loeffler Randall and Clare Vivier are experiencing triple-digit sales growth, thanks to smart distribution and unique product
  • While the pandemic only widened the income gap, it also forced many consumers to change the way they shop, with wealthier buyers happy to trade down for products with a sharp point of view
  • Brands are also taking advantage of consumer frustration with the rising costs of high-end luxury goods

When Los Angeles-based Jenni Kayne founded her namesake label in 2002, she was just 19 years old and set on designing the sort of fashion line that you’d find at then-cool stores like Fred Segal or Barneys New York. Throughout the 2000s, she staged runway shows and presentations at New York Fashion Week, establishing herself as a maker of California cool-girl separates but never really breaking through. By 2013, the line was generating only $3 million a year and was heavily dependent on wholesale partners to reach customers.
But the same year, Kayne, whose business is backed by her father, billionaire investor Richard Kayne, made a pivot that few might have expected from a laid-back California designer, whose label was often pegged as a vanity project. She hired retail executive Julia Hunter, a former investment banker who went on to work at Louis Vuitton and J.Crew, to help expand the label.
After seeing Kayne’s cream-washed house in Architectural Digest, Hunter knew a focus on the designer’s Californian-meets-Scandinavian aesthetic — which would sweep the home decor market over the next decade — could set the brand apart.
By 2018, after cutting ties with nearly all multi-brand retailers, lowering prices and re-merchandising Jenni Kayne’s four stores to include less third-party product, sales reached $8 million. By 2019, after adding more stores, they were $24 million, hitting $50 million in 2020, as the loungewear and home categories picked up after the pandemic struck. Last year, sales rose to $104 million, and are expected to exceed $150 million in 2022. The business is profitable.

And Jenni Kayne isn’t the only label of its kind that’s thriving. The American “accessible luxury” market, occupying a space once squeezed between fast fashion and the very high-end, is now on an upswing after years of decline.
Since its emergence in the early 2000s, the category has catered to middle class shoppers trading up. But over the past decade, income disparity — the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer — made it less attractive when compared to cheaper options. While the pandemic only widened the gap, it also forced many consumers to change the way they shop: as life priorities changed, so did fashion priorities.
“Over [the pandemic], people did switch to wanting fewer, better things,” said Karla Martin, a managing director at Deloitte, adding that the rise in online shopping meant that many consumers were also “exposed to brands they may not have seen in stores.”
The market has also benefited from wealthier buyers happy to trade down for products with a sharp point of view. Some of the once-struggling leaders in the category — including Coach and Michael Kors — used the pandemic to reset, focusing more on profitability and distinctive designs, and less on sales volume driven by discounts. At Tapestry-owned Coach, for instance, revenue was $1.1 billion in its most recent quarter, ending in October 2021, up 27 percent from the same period in 2020 and 15 percent from 2019.
Inflation Backlash
Brands are also taking advantage of consumer frustration with the rising costs of high-end luxury goods — up, in some cases, nearly 20 percent during the pandemic alone. This value-conscious mindset has, in some cases, presented an opportunity for lower-priced labels that are held in a higher regard than fast fashion.
New York-based shoe line Loeffler Randall’s under-$400 heels — in particular, those topped with pleated bows — have been a late-pandemic hit. In 2021, sales at the brand more than doubled, reaching close to $30 million, and are on track to near $50 million in 2022, while remaining profitable. Co-founders Jessie Randall and Brian Murphy, who launched the business in 2004, said that $395 is their sweet spot, and while challenging to maintain from a cost perspective, is worth the extra planning.
“It’s not the cheapest, but it’s the nicest materials,” Randall said.

A look from Co's Spring/Summer 2022 collection, shot at Richard Neutra’s VDL House in Los Angeles.(Krisztián Éder)
Stephanie Danan, co-founder of California-based minimalist label Co, said that maintaining below-luxury prices has aided in the growth of its Essentials collection, which launched in 2018 and now makes up 60 percent of the business.
“Our customer is not this kind of super luxury-obsessed person, more somebody who is conscientious about how they’re spending their money,” she said. “They buy art and travel and buy their own real estate. They’re not waiting in line on Rodeo Drive.”
Amy Smilovic, the founder and creative director of New York-based label Tibi, said that she and her team price items based on how much they, as working professionals, would feel comfortable paying.
“We are at a place right now where we are doing pricing intuitively,” she said. “How much value is in it? How good does it make you feel? That means shoring up our business in every other area so that we can be flexible.”
“It’s that price-value thing,” added Elizabeth von der Goltz, Matchesfashion’s chief commercial officer, who carries Co. “For us, it’s brands that have a great design aesthetic, and that we’ve given the stamp of approval in terms of quality, fit and make.”
Point of View
Lower prices alone aren’t enough, however. Accessible luxury labels have often copped styles from true luxury lines instead of designing new things. And yet, history shows that the most successful, long-lasting brands are best known for their original creations, from Coach’s Bonnie Cashin-designed handbags to Tory Burch’s Reva flats. More recently, the runaway success of Telfar’s under-$300 embossed shopper has proven that a fashion item can still have genuine cultural cachet without being expensive.
Clare Vivier, the designer behind the made-in-California label Clare V. has dug into to the Frenchness of her brand — married to a Parisian, she speaks fluently and spends summers in the Loire Valley — using her colour-rich, adventurous-but-not-untouchable aesthetic to spread a sense of “joie de vivre” with $385 pastel-painted, snake-embossed cross-body bags and trucker hats screen printed with illustrations that say things like, “liberez les sardines,” inspired by the fish of the Ile de Re.

She remains the majority owner of the business, which is profitable and generates upward of $20 million a year — doubling since 2015 — with 70 percent of sales coming from direct channels.
Distribution Smarts
Clare V.'s sales have doubled since 2015.(Clare V.)
As with high-end luxury goods, accessible luxury brands are relying more and more on direct-to-consumer channels, but they’re going about it differently than their large-scale predecessors, which have spent the last few years pruning store counts.
Jenni Kayne, for instance, has opened 13 stores thus far on a path to 50 (with some dedicated to home goods only), but they are small — around 1,500 square feet — and they start making money in less than six months. (Hunter said that customers that have shopped in-store at least once spend six times more over a lifetime than an e-commerce-only shopper, although online sales make up 70 percent of the business.) The retail expansion across the US has allowed the company to broaden the location of its customer base as well. Three years ago, 75 percent of sales were coming from California, now it’s only 25 percent. Today, wholesale — a partnership with Nordstrom — makes up just 3 percent of the business.
Not every company thinks going totally direct is right for them — opening physical stores and online marketing requires upfront capital — but controlling distribution is crucial. At Co, a focus has been on managing excess inventory in a way that is not damaging to the brand.
At the height of the pandemic, as many retailers stopped paying for orders, Danan and co-founder Justin Kern launched Co Archive, an Instagram shopping account where they release past-season items, one at a time, in a drop-like fashion.
“It looks good, it looks on-brand and helps us tap into a younger, even more aspirational customer,” Danan said. In 2020, the additional revenue — more than a million dollars worth of goods — also allowed them to avoid pandemic-related staff layoffs.
For Some, Bigger is not Better
Many of today’s most promising mid-priced labels are diminutive in size compared to the market leaders, although some believe they can reach that level of mass appeal.
Jenni Kayne’s Hunter said that she expected that it would hit $400 million in sales over the next three years, thanks to the launch of new sub-brands — including the skincare line Oak and the expansion of home, its fastest-growing category — with an eye on becoming a publicly traded company valued at $1 billion to $2 billion.
Loeffler Randall co-founder and designer Jessie Randall in her New York City store.(Loeffler Randall)
While perhaps not as lofty, Loeffler Randall, too, sees expansion in the brand’s future, especially in retail after opening its first store in New York’s NoLita neighbourhood in 2021. Last year, the company also took on its first investor, the Kemmons Wilson family office, whose minority stake will help fuel more store openings, although that cash currently remains untouched.
However, the kind of investment needed to drive extreme growth may not be as easy to come by as it once was.
“We looked at doing a private equity raise, but people are wary of apparel for a lot of reasons,” Hunter said, adding that while it’s nice to maintain control over the business — several senior-level executives have been granted equity in the business — they do see opportunity to fundraise, either through a private investor or a public offering.
Other brands, though, would rather stay smaller than they once were in the hopes of also staying nimble. Pre-Covid, Tibi was interested in selling off at least a chunk of the company as the business accelerated. But now, after shrinking its wholesale presence and streamlining operations during the pandemic, Smilovic would prefer to focus on less on overall growth and more on meaningful growth. Full-price sales, for instance, increased 235 percent in 2021 — but she’s less concerned with the top-line number.
“We’ve really reprioritised,” she said. “Cashflow is now totally different, and we’re no longer walking this tightrope.”