WWD : Chanel Squelches Speculation About Hedi Slimane, Men’s Wear

Chanel Squelches Speculation About Hedi Slimane, Men’s Wear
The French house issued a statement exclusively to WWD.

PARIS — Karl Lagerfeld, once dubbed “Hedi’s Slim Man” by WWD, is not about to welcome his designing friend into the house that Gabrielle Chanel founded.

In a statement issued exclusively to WWD, Chanel squelched ongoing speculation that it was plotting a move into men’s wear with Hedi Slimane.

“The house of Chanel has no projects with Hedi Slimane,” the company said, adding, “Chanel doesn’t work on the launch of a Chanel men’s wear collection.”

Ever since Slimane exited Saint Laurent in April 2016 at the expiration of his initial four-year contract as creative and image director, rumors have persisted that the designer could wind up at Chanel, given his long and close friendship with Lagerfeld and Lagerfeld’s penchant for Slimane’s rock ‘n’ roll-tinged designs.

In 2000 and 2001, Lagerfeld famously shed nearly 90 pounds after a low-fat regime that he followed primarily to be able to shimmy into the pencil-thin suits Slimane was designing for Dior Homme.

“It’s all about the clothes,” Lagerfeld told WWD at the time.

Chanel’s longtime couturier has since maintained a close rapport with Slimane, also an accomplished photographer like him.

Lagerfeld commissioned Slimane to shoot his portrait for the cover of the holiday issue of French Vogue that he guest-edited. And while he remains loyal to Dior Homme, Lagerfeld continues to wear jackets Slimane creates expressly for him with his name on the label.

Lagerfeld occasionally features men’s wear on the Chanel runway and has two signature men’s lines, but he has repeatedly said he’s more interested in wearing men’s clothes than designing them.

A men’s wear maverick who took up women’s wear during his explosive tenure at Saint Laurent, Slimane has yet to indicate his next career move and has resumed his pre-YSL career as a commercial and art photographer. He has also been embroiled in legal proceedings against YSL’s parent Kering over non-competition obligations and other issues.

Meanwhile, Lagerfeld is in the midst of designing Chanel’s cruise collection, to be paraded in Paris on May 3. He is also the designer of fur and ready-to-wear at Fendi.

>>> Centrale del Latte d’Italia could make bolt-on deals for fresh milk and yogu

Centrale del Latte d’Italia could make bolt-on deals for fresh milk and yogurt producers
05 APR 2017
Italian dairy producer Centrale del Latte d’Italia [BIT:CLI] is looking to accelerate its product diversification through opportunistic M&A, Chairman Luigi Luzzati said.
The EUR 117.7m-turnover company was formed on 30 September 2016 via a merger between Centrale del Latte di Firenze (Mukki) and Centrale del Latte di Torino & C. Studio Chiomenti and Banca IMI advised on the deal, while KPMG acted as auditor, as previously reported.
Although management is still focused on consolidating the companies’ production and organisational processes post-merger, M&A remains a key growth driver, Luzzati said. Acquisitions will be made to gain distribution and cross-selling synergies and to reinforce the company’s product offering, he said.
Centrale del Latte d’Italia would prefer add-on acquisitions, he said, noting that ideal takeover candidates will operate in the Italian dairy industry. The company will buy mid-size companies, easily funded with in-house cash, he said.
It is primarily interested in buying fresh milk producers, and could be a sector consolidator, he said. The company kicked off sector consolidation when Central del Latte di Torino bought Mukki, which was the biggest target available in the Italian market, he said.
Italy’s fresh milk market is highly fragmented, Luzzati said, as 18.3% in the hands of private labels. According to a company presentation on the sidelines of the recent STAR conference in Milan, Centrale del Latte di Italia has a 7.3% share of the fresh milk market, compared to Parmalat’s [BIT:PLT] 23% and Granarolo’s 21.7%.
Yoghurt producers are also desirable targets, Luzzati said, noting that Centrale del Latte di Italia is trying to reinforce its presence in this niche by launching new products every year, including last year’s soya yogurt.
Centrale del Latte di Italia is also looking to diversify, he said, and is strengthening its beverage offering, for example introducing new drinks this year made from rice, soya and oats, and vitamin-enriched yogurt drinks for children and the elderly.
Now that Centrale del Latte d’Italia operates on the same scale as Granarolo and Parmalat, it could consider acquisitions anywhere in Italy, he said. It owns Liguria-based Latte Tigullio, Centrale del Latte di Vicenza, Maramao Salads and Fruits in Casteggio, near Pavia, and 50% of Odilla chocolate company in Turin.
In 2016, Centrale del Latte d’Italia generated EBITDA of EUR 2.9m and negative EBIT of EUR 1.6m.

NY Post : Plaza Hotel penthouse back on the market at a $20M discount

British developer Christian Candy has knocked $20 million off the original asking price of his prized penthouse in the Plaza Hotel, which has just hit the market, again, for $39.7 million, according to the real estate website Streeteasy.com.

Candy, the brains behind London’s pricey One Hyde Park, can’t seem to work his magic on this side of the pond.

Candy bought his pricey penthouse triplex, which comes with an internal elevator and a walk-in wine cooler, for $25.9 million in 2012. The next year he tried to flip the four bedroom unit for $59 million but failed. It’s now back on the market following a broker swap and price drop with Sotheby’s International Realty top team, Brenda Powers and Elizabeth Sample.

The Real Deal first reported the price slash.

Candy isn’t the only big name who tried to flip but failed in the historic hotel, which is a national landmark and was once famously owned and run by President Donald Trump and his then-wife, Ivana.

Designer Tommy Hilfiger bought his four bedroom Plaza pad for $25 million in 2008 and tried to flip it later that year for $50 million. When that didn’t work, he upped the price to $80 million in 2013, then cut it to $75 million in 2015. It is now down to $68.95 million — and still for sale.

While some folks dream of 20th century buildings on Central Park, times change and the 19-story building is currently out of fashion. Today’s super rich prefer to buy on “billionaire’s row” in the super tall skinny buildings that cast shadows over Central Park.

But don’t write off the glorious 1907 Plaza Hotel too soon, experts say.

Long term bets remain with the Plaza, real estate experts say. Like its former owner, President Trump, the Plaza may rise in relevancy and power once again.

“This isn’t just a building, it’s the ultimate work or art. I was in love with it,” Trump once said.

Trump bought the building fo $407.5 million in 1998 and sold it for $335 million in 1995 to two groups: one run by Prince al-Walid bin Talal Abdulaziz al-Saud and the other run by Singapore developer Kewk Hong Png.

(ZH) Jamie Dimon Warns "Something Is Wrong" With The US

Jamie Dimon Warns "Something Is Wrong" With The US

While Jamie Dimon tried to maintain his traditionally optimistic outlook in his annual letter to shareholders, there was a distinct undertone of pessimism in the latest 45 page letter released earlier today, in which he writes that while the U.S. is "truly an exceptional country," probably stronger than ever before, he cautions that "something is wrong - and it's holding us back."
Here are the highlights from the gloomy passage reposted below in its entirety.
Dimon's letter notes that the economy has been growing much more slowly in last decade or two than in the 50 years before then, with real median household incomes in 2015 2.5% lower than they were in 1999 and the percentage of middle class households shrinking, yet not even someone as intelligent as Dimon can bring himself to fully admit that much if not all of it has to do with America's relentless debt binge, and the gargantuan debt load accumulated and carried by Americans, whether in the form of personal, student, auto debt, be it corporate debt which is at a record high, or, naturally, the sovereign debt which is on the distrubing side of 100% as a percentage of GDP.
Among other things, Dimon observes:
  • Over last 16 years, U.S. has spent trillions on wars when it could have been investing that money productively.
  • Since 2010, when the government took over student lending, direct government lending to students has gone from ~$200b to >$900b, creating dramatically increased student defaults, population that’s "rightfully angry" about how much money they owe, particularly since it reduces ability to get other credit.
  • Healthcare costs are essentially twice as much per person vs most other developed nations.
  • Labor force participation is too low.
Dimon also writes that the regulatory environment is "unnecessarily complex, costly and sometimes confusing;" says poorly conceived and uncoordinated regulations have damaged economy, inhibiting growth and jobs. He also says that he isn’t looking to throw out entirety of Dodd-Frank or other rules; "it is, however, appropriate to open up the rulebook in the light of day and rework the rules and regulations that don’t work well or are unnecessary."

Furthermore, the JPM CEO sees need for "consistent, transparent, simplified and more risk-based capital standards" and says that it’s clear banks have too much capital, and more of that capital can be safely used to finance the economy,
Finally, in the most amusing twist, Dimon sees "Too Big to Fail" as essentially solved and adds that taxpayers won’t pay if a bank fails as shareholders and debtholders are at risk for all losses. Just like in the case of Monte Paschi a few months ago, right?
We will certainly check back on that #timestamp in several years.
* * *
Here is the full excerpt from Dimon (link to full letter):
It is clear that something is wrong — and it’s holding us back.
Our economy has been growing much more slowly in the last decade or two than in the 50 years before then. From 1948 to 2000, real per capita GDP grew 2.3%; from 2000 to 2016, it grew 1%. Had it grown at 2.3% instead of 1% in those 17 years, our GDP per capita would be 24%, or more than $12,500 per person higher than it is. U.S. productivity growth tells much the same story, as shown in the chart [below].
Our nation’s lower growth has been accompanied by – and may be one of the reasons why – real median household incomes in 2015 were actually 2.5% lower than they were in 1999. In addition, the percentage of middle class households has actually shrunk over time. In 1971, 61% of households were considered middle class, but that percentage was only 50% in 2015. And for those in the bottom 20% of earners – mainly lower skilled workers – the story may be even worse. For this group, real incomes declined by more than 8% between 1999 and 2015. In 1984, 60% of families could afford a modestly priced home. By 2009, that figure fell to about 50%. This drop occurred even though the percentage of U.S. citizens with a high school degree or higher increased from 30% to 50% from 1980 to 2013. Low-skilled labor just doesn’t earn what it used to, which understandably is a source of real frustration for a very meaningful group of people. The income gap between lower skilled and skilled workers has been growing and may be the inevitable consequence of an increasingly sophisticated economy.
Regarding reduced social mobility, researchers have found that the likelihood of workers moving to the top-earning decile from starting positions in the middle of the earnings distribution has declined by approximately 20% since the early 1980s.
Many economists believe we are now permanently relegated to slower growth and lower productivity (they say that secular stagnation is the new normal), but I strongly disagree.
We will describe in the rest of this section many factors that are rarely considered in economic models although they can have an enormous effect on growth and productivity. Making this list was an upsetting exercise, especially since many of our problems have been self-inflicted. That said, it was also a good reminder of how much of this is in our control and how critical it is that we focuson all the levers that could be pulled to help the U.S. economy. We must do this because it will help all Americans.
Many other, often non-economic, factors impact growth and productivity.
Following is a list of some non-economic items that must have had a significant impact on America’s growth:
  • Over the last 16 years, we have spent trillions of dollars on wars when we could have been investing that money productively. (I’m not saying that money didn’t need to be spent; but every dollar spent on battle is a dollar that can’t be put to use elsewhere.)
  • Since 2010, when the government took over student lending, direct government lending to students has gone from approximately $200 billion to more than $900 billion – creating dramatically increased student defaults and a population that is rightfully angry about how much money they owe, particularly since it reduces their ability to get other credit.
  • Our nation’s healthcare costs are essentially twice as much per person vs. most other developed nations.
  • It is alarming that approximately 40% (this is an astounding 300,000 students each year) of those who receive advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and math at American universities
    are foreign nationals with no legal way of staying here even when many would choose to do so. We are forcing great talent overseas by not allowing these young people to build their dreams here.
  • Felony convictions for even minor offenses have led, in part, to 20 million American citizens having a criminal record – and this means they often have a hard time getting a job. (There are six times more felons in the United States than in Canada.)
  • The inability to reform mortgage markets has dramatically reduced mortgage availability. We estimate that mortgages alone would have been more than $1 trillion higher had we had healthier mortgage markets. Greater mortgage access would have led to more homebuilding and additional jobs and investments, which also would have driven additional growth.
Any one of these non-economic factors is fairly material in damaging America’s effort to achieve healthy growth. Let’s dig a little bit deeper into six additional unsettling issues that have also limited our growth rate.
Labor force participation is too low.
Labor force participation in the United States has gone from 66% to 63% between 2008 and today. Some of the reasons for this decline are understandable and aren’t too worrisome – for example, an aging population. But if you examine the data more closely and focus just on labor force participation for one key segment; i.e., men ages 25-54, you’ll see that we have a serious problem. The chart below shows that in America, the participation rate for that cohort has gone from 96% in 1968 to a little over 88% today. This is way below labor force participation in almost every other developed nation.
If the work participation rate for this group went back to just 93% – the current average for the other developed nations – approximately 10 million more people would be working in the United States. Some other highly disturbing facts include: Fifty-seven percent of these non-working males are on disability, and fully 71% of today’s youth (ages 17–24) are ineligible for the military due to a lack of proper education (basic reading or writing skills) or health issues (often obesity or diabetes).
Education is leaving too many behind.
Many high schools and vocational schools do not provide the education our students need – the goal should be to graduate and get a decent job. We should be ringing the national alarm bell that inner city schools are failing our children – often minorities and children from lower income households. In many inner city schools, fewer than 60% of students graduate, and many of those who do graduate are not prepared for employment. We are creating generations of citizens who will never have a chance in this land of dreams and opportunity. Unfortunately, it’s self-perpetuating, and we all pay the price. The subpar academic outcomes of America’s minority and low-income children resulted in yearly GDP losses of trillions of dollars, according to McKinsey & Company.
Infrastructure needs planning and investment.
In the early 1960s, America was considered by most to have the best infrastructure (highways, ports, water supply, electrical grid, airports, tunnels, etc.). The World Economic Forum now ranks the United States #27 on its Basic Requirements index, reflecting infrastructure along with other criteria, among 138 countries. On infrastructure, the United States is behind most major developed countries, including the United Kingdom, France and Korea. The American Society of Civil Engineers releases a report every four years examining current infrastructure conditions and needs – the 2017 report card gave us a grade of D+. Another interesting and distressing fact: The United States has not built a major airport in more than 20 years. China, on the other hand, has built 75 new civilian airports in the last 10 years alone.
Our corporate tax system is driving capital and brains overseas.
America now has the highest corporate tax rates among developed nations. Most other developed nations have reduced their tax rates substantially over the past 10 years (and this is true whether looking at statutory or effective tax rates). This is causing considerable damage. American corporations are generally better off investing their capital overseas, where they can earn a higher return because of lower taxes. In addition, foreign companies are advantaged when they buy American companies – often they are able to reduce the overall tax rate of the combined company. Because of this, American companies have been making substantial investments in human capital, as well as in plants, facilities, research and development (R&D) and acquisitions overseas. Also, American corporations hold more than $2 trillion in cash abroad to avoid the additional taxes. The only question is how much damage will be done before we fix this.
Reducing corporate taxes would incent business investment and job creation. The charts on page 36 show the following:
  • That job growth is highly correlated to business investment (this also makes intuitive sense).
  • That fixed investments by businesses and capital formation have gone down substantially and are far below what we would consider normal.
And counterintuitively, reducing corporate taxes would also improve wages. One of the unintended consequences of high corporate taxes is that they actually depress wages in the United States. A 2007 Treasury Department review finds that labor “may bear a substantial portion of the burden from the corporate income tax.” A study by Kevin Hassett from the American Enterprise Institute finds that each $1 increase in U.S. corporate income tax collections leads to a $2 decrease in wages in the short run and a $4 decrease in aggregate wages in the long run. And analysis of the U.S. corporate income tax
by the Congressional Budget Office finds that labor bears more than 70% of the burden of the corporate income tax, with the remaining 30% borne by domestic savers through a reduced return on their savings. We must fix this for the benefit of American competitiveness and all Americans.
Excessive regulations reduce growth and business formation.
Everyone agrees we should have proper regulation – and, of course, good regulations have many positive effects. But anyone in business understands the damaging effects of overcomplicated and inefficient regulations. There are many ways to look at regulations, and the chart below and the two on page 38 provide some insight. The one below shows the total pages of federal regulations, which is a simple way to illustrate additional reporting and compliance requirements. The second records how we compare with the rest of the world on the ease of starting a new business – we used to be among the best, and now we are not. The bottom chart on page 38 shows that small businesses now report that one of their largest problems is regulations.
By some estimates, approximately $2 trillion is spent on regulations annually (which is approximately $15,000 per U.S. household annually). And even if this number is exaggerated, it highlights a disturbing problem. Particularly troubling is that this may be one of the reasons why small business creation has slowed alarmingly in recent years. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the rising burdens of federal regulations alone may be a main reason for a falling pace in new business formation. In 1980, Americans were creating some 450,000 new companies a year. In 2013, they formed 400,000 new businesses despite a 40% increase in population from 1980 to 2013. Our three-decade slump in company formation fell to its lowest point with the onset of the Great Recession; even with more businesses being established today, America’s startup activity remains below prerecession levels.
While some regulations quite clearly create a common good (e.g., clean air and water), it is clear that excessive regulation does not help productivity, growth of the economy or job creation. And even regulations that once may have made sense may no longer be fit for the purpose. I am not going to outline specific recommendations about non-financial regulatory reform here, other than to say that we should have a permanent and systematic review of the costs and benefits of regulations, including their intended vs. unintended consequences.
The lack of economic growth and opportunity has led to deep and understandable frustration among so many Americans.
Low job growth, a lack of opportunity for many, declining wages, students and lowwage workers being left behind, economic and job uncertainty, high healthcare costs and growing income inequality all have created deep frustration. It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America’s institutions, including businesses, schools and governments – they are right to expect us to do a better job. Collectively, we are the ones responsible. Additionally, this can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked.
Our problems are significant, and they are not the singular purview of either political party. We need coherent, consistent, comprehensive and coordinated policies that help fix these problems. The solutions are not binary – they are not either/or, and they are not about Democrats or Republicans. They are about facts, analysis, ideas and best practices (including what we can learn from others around the world).

9to5.com : According to Milunovich (via CNBC), the iPhone 8 will still come at a

According to Milunovich (via CNBC), the iPhone 8 will still come at a premium compared to the current iPhone lineup, but not as much of a premium as once thought. He claims that the factory cost of the 64GB iPhone 8 will be $70 to $90 higher than the equivalent iPhone 7s Plus model (presumably the 32GB variant). Thus, Milunovich claims the device will come with a sticker price between $850 and $900 for consumers.
Currently, the 32GB iPhone 7 Plus comes in at $769 at full retail price, so a base price of $850 or even $900 is not that significant of a change for consumers. Furthermore, the price hike would further increase the average selling price of the iPhone, something that will surely please investors.
Milunovich expects the radically different iPhone 8 to see a “bulge of buying.” He specifically believes that the OLED iPhone 8 will account for 45 percent of shipments during fiscal 2018.
“Apple customers seem fine with paying more for products they feel are differentiated,” Milunovich noted, adding that the OLED model could account for 45 percent of shipments in fiscal 2018.
As for how the iPhone 8 is expected to compare to Samsung’s latest Galaxy S8 flagship, Milunovich says that despite the “display size disadvantage” to the Galaxy S8, the iPhone 8 will feature a variety of things that will set it apart.
“Apple’s top model will be at a display size disadvantage to Samsung’s Galaxy S8 Plus. We still think Apple will choose to price its top model relative to Samsung’s top model, but remain cautious on how much higher Apple could ultimately go on price given a smaller display,” Milunovich wrote.
“Offsetting this display size differential is the fact that the OLED iPhone could have features not included in the Galaxy S8 Plus, such as a front facing 3D sensing camera, embedded fingerprint sensor and higher quality facial recognition.”
The iPhone 8 is expected to be unveiled later this year. Keep up with everything we’re expecting the device to feature here.

FT : Wood Group foresees further Amec synergies

Wood Group is squeezing a bit more value from its forthcoming takeover of struggling rival Amec Foster Wheeler, saying it expects greater synergies than first announced last month.

In March the group agreed a £2.2bn all-share takeover offer of Amec, which provides services to infrastructure and renewable energy projects as well as the oil industry.

Wood Group had promised synergies of “at least” £110m a year — at a one-off cost of £190m — but it said on Wednesday these savings would be a least £150m. They will be made by measures such as closing offices and cutting roles where there is duplication.

>>> Unilever, Eurazeo, Glaxo, ACS, Nokia Enter Macquarie Top Picks

Unilever, Eurazeo, Glaxo, ACS, Nokia Enter Macquarie Top Picks
Macquarie says strategy has now positive exposure toward Defensive & Cyclical Value and Profitability, negative tilt toward Low Risk.
  • New top picks: Unilever, Eurazeo, Glaxo, ACS, Nokia
  • Keeps Orange, ThyssenKrupp, Royal Dutch Shell, Endesa, Peugeot, Land Securities from last month
  • Mentions combination of high earnings momentum and profitability for Unilever, Eurazeo
  • Cites attractive valuations for Nokia, ACS
  • Highlights combination of profitability, defensive value, low risk for Glaxo