Patek Philippe cashing out ??? Richemont/LVMH on high alert ?

[msolace]

Originally Posted by carlhaluss

Well, I have only the one Patek. My grail Gondolo small seconds. ....

When I do buy a watch, I feel as though I buy into a company as well, not monetarily, but emotionally. While I realize that makes little sense to most, it is what my heart dictates.

[msolace]

Hope these beauties don't shoot through the roof pre / post company sale
(Sorted in the order of most coveted --> least)

[teo]

Look at what happen to Panerai if sold to wrong company. The vintage models also drop in value.

[AK797]

The timing is propitious, Patek's brand equity has never been higher and things could change in the coming difficult years. Now would be a good time to cash out but I only seeing the Sterns doing this as a last resort and TS's timing has never been very good so I don't think this is planned but forced if it does happen.

[RussW]

The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced it’s going to happen (but desperately hoping it doesn’t). Looking at some recent releases such as 5524, 5168 and 5968 - not typically Patek, and might not have gone down well if introduced by a new owner. Released by Patek though and it widens Patek’s appeal to new buyers, of both the watches and the company.

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by tom2517

I don't know, it's hard to say.

I remember back in the day the "purists" would say they have no interest in watches made by companies not started by a watch maker or makers, no in house movement, no rich history, and etc. But I see some of them now are quite enamored with RM, a company founded by a businessman, no history, and out source his movements.

Now I see people saying if Patek is bought by a conglomerate they wouldn't buy it anymore, well who knows, maybe they will come out with something people will desperately want and then you see people come up with all kinds of excuses to justify it.

For me a good watch is a good watch, as long as Patek makes good products, I don't care who owns it.

I agree. Patek would be fine under new ownership. The kind of companies that could and would entertain buying Patek would probably be better at managing the brand than TS to be honest. He hasn’t exactly been Steve Jobs.

Originally Posted by htc8p

How about this version: Chinese buys up Patek and moves to China

Very Possible

The chinese are too smart for that. They know if they did that it would destroy Pateks marketability in the US and possibly Europe which are huge markets for the brand. Without the Swiss prestige the brand would be worth much less.

[msolace]

Originally Posted by soundserious

How quickly we forget the cautionary tale of Panerai.

Panerai oh how hast thou fallen from grace, NOT!
Panerai was a total basket case, right from day 1, and bound for failure..
They truly believed the pipe dream of becoming as successful as Rolex by just marketing the brand under the guise of running on Rolex's movement.

[msolace]

More conundrum:
Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, a respectable news media outlet reporting,

Is Swiss watchmaker Patek Philippe really up for sale?

Revolution Watch closing in on the story as well:

https://www.revolution.watch/is-pate...e-not-so-fast/

[msolace]

"........ Watch brands change hands like trading cards, that’s just business, but Patek Philippe isn’t just any watchmaking company, it’s practically watchmaking royalty – not the type starring in drunken stories on tabloid pages, but royalty that is admired with old school reverence from a bygone era. It’s one of the oldest family-owned watchmaking companies in the business, competing in a rarified strata of the watchmaking industry dominated by huge luxury conglomerates. Family is central to the Patek Philippe magic, not least for how its ads immortalised the (Patek Philippe) wristwatch as no mere accessory but a precious heirloom we do not own, but serve as custodians, passing it from one generation to the next. Much of this will be lost in translation were Patek Philippe to be sold to some faceless corporation, conglomerate or foundation."

[AAP8]

Originally Posted by msolace

More conundrum:
Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, a respectable news media outlet reporting,

Is Swiss watchmaker Patek Philippe really up for sale?

Revolution Watch closing in on the story as well:

https://www.revolution.watch/is-pate...e-not-so-fast/

Problem here is that Revolution Watch is just playing the counter point - its the one most watch people want to hear.

Sadly if this is true - we will not know until the day it is announced, because unless Rolex is the purchaser, the others will have to announce to investors as a matter of law in the US and EU.

If it is a false rumor, Patek has no reason to kill it, as it will just die on its own.

[brandrea]

Rolexphilippe
Swatchpatek
Richtek

There may be others

[Peterandwatches]

Being part of a conglomeration has its benefits too. I look at the AP Code and wonder if their process was just too insular. There are some nice elements, but it’s extremely divisive.

I look at JLC, and they’ve done a great job of diversifying from the Reverso. Some of the Master Controls and Geos are quite popular. I would assume there were some synergies at play.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by AK797

The timing is propitious, Patek's brand equity has never been higher and things could change in the coming difficult years. Now would be a good time to cash out but I only seeing the Sterns doing this as a last resort and TS's timing has never been very good so I don't think this is planned but forced if it does happen.

Agree, sell when you can get the most cash (right now before the next downturn). Plus Patek has not really done anything that special in many years. If anything, they've been just rock-and-rolling the same old movements and are now reduced due to other companies that are making a better, more innovative products.

[msolace]

Robb Report covers the story as well:

https://robbreport.com/style/watch-c...e-2839325/amp/

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[daveo5]

The key word is might happen. If and when it does then I’ll be interested


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[oldin]

I wonder what happens to the price of each Patek after sales

[Mrngrz46]

Originally Posted by oldin

I wonder what happens to the price of each Patek after sales

Everyone can get nautilus and out of production pieces will drop value 50%.....

Like Depeche Mode says: dream onnnnn dream oooonnnn

[msolace]

Originally Posted by oldin

I wonder what happens to the price of each Patek after sales

Pre-company-sale Pateks would shoot through the roof... while the current production line pieces (post-sale) would dwindle in the pre-owned market.
Exclusivity goes down the drain.. making them no different than Omega, TAG Heuer, TISSOT.. etc

[kitsgq]

Agreed.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[jbk45]

So let's say PP sells to a conglomerate and changes nothing about their marketing/product/distribution strategy. Would the sheer optics of an M&A move really be enough to impact their business in the way some are claiming here, without any outward/obvious/meaningful change to their product/marketing/distribution? The sheer fact that they're no longer "independent" would turn buyers off in droves and drive down the value/desirability of their brand?

I know the luxury market can be fickle but this seems like an extreme overreaction. While exclusivity is a big driver in the behind the value of PP, the manufactured scarcity of in-demand models i.e.Nautilus is also alienating many current potential customers and those who will soon have the means to purchase their product. I believe this strategy is a bigger threat than the brand perception post-sale.

This strategy may have been effective during the last few years of plenty but I do not believe it will be sustainable over the long-term. It will be interesting to see how PP (and Rolex/AP, for that matter) navigate the next economic and if/how their marketing/distribution strategies change as a result.

[Mrngrz46]

In few words, space X will use a propulsion for the ship to MARS n.4 x 5980 plus 2 5711 to balance the thrust.
Just waiting the announcement for Patek philippe to be sold

[msolace]

Originally Posted by jbk45

So let's say PP sells to a conglomerate and changes nothing about their marketing/product/distribution strategy. Would the sheer optics of an M&A move really be enough to impact their business in the way some are claiming here, without any outward/obvious/meaningful change to their product/marketing/distribution? The sheer fact that they're no longer "independent" would turn buyers off in droves and drive down the value/desirability of their brand?

I know the luxury market can be fickle but this seems like an extreme overreaction. While exclusivity is a big driver in the behind the value of PP, the manufactured scarcity of in-demand models i.e.Nautilus is also alienating many current potential customers and those who will soon have the means to purchase their product. I believe this strategy is a bigger threat than the brand perception post-sale.

This strategy may have been effective during the last few years of plenty but I do not believe it will be sustainable over the long-term. It will be interesting to see how PP (and Rolex/AP, for that matter) navigate the next economic and if/how their marketing/distribution strategies change as a result.

First & foremost, a conglomerate IS and will always be a conglomerate. The sole purpose of its existence is to maximize the capitalization of its products.. no matter what those Harvard economists try to tell you otherwise.
Take Lange for example; Richemont would never let Lange produce its own range of sports models. Why would they? They have IWC for that. There's absolutely no incentive for them to do that (one reason being, their market segments would overlap one another). On the other hand, independent watchmakers can roll out as many product lines as they wish and not have a care in the world (Rolex: Sub, DayDate, Sky-Dweller, Cellini. Patek: Calatrava, Nautilus, Perpetual Calendars). This ultimately gives them the freedom to churn out a broad range of products in their portfolio... And all the while, Lange is stuck with their classics line just because their head Honcho says & tells them to do so.

Collectability & desirability :

I'm not representing or speaking for anyone on this matter, but I'd like my watches to be manufactured independently if I'm going to be dumping 10s, 100s of thousands of dollars of my hard-earned money for them. Or else, why even bother? .. you could grab a TISSOT or a Grand Seiko for much less, if you're looking for decent Swiss quality (yes I know Seiko is Japanese, but you get the point) without the hefty price tag.

And look at how Vacheron, IWC and Jaeger Le Coultre fare in the pre-owned market. Losing 35%~50% off of MSRP is considered pretty "normal". You almost never see this level of depreciation befall upon Patek or Rolex. How do you justify collecting pieces that are dear to you, knowing beyond any reasonable doubt, you're going to take a huge hit somewhere down the road, when you decide to unload them for a rainy day..? (eg. Why buy a Rembrandt now for $500 million having full knowledge of the fact that in 60 years, it's going to be worth $1 million?)
If the end doesn't justify the means, why do you even bother in the first place?

That being said, I feel the glory days of luxury watches are nearing the end, with more and more luxury brands becoming commodity names (eg. IWC, Cartier, Omega, Bvlgari). Eventually, one or two will emerge as the torchbearer(s) of the horological podium .. And till that day comes, we can all, in a self-aggrandizing kind of way, be proud of our life achievements when gazing into our precious, little watch boxes.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[66Berret]

Mere speculation. not buying

[SDDS]

Originally Posted by msolace

First & foremost, a conglomerate IS and will always be a conglomerate. The sole purpose of its existence is to maximize the capitalization of its products.. no matter what those Harvard economists try to tell you otherwise.
Take Lange for example; Richemont would never let Lange produce its own range of sports models. Why would they? They have IWC for that. There's absolutely no incentive for them to do that (one reason being, their market segments would overlap one another). On the other hand, independent watchmakers can roll out as many product lines as they wish and not have a care in the world (Rolex: Sub, DayDate, Sky-Dweller, Cellini. Patek: Calatrava, Nautilus, Perpetual Calendars). This ultimately gives them the freedom to churn out a broad range of products in their portfolio... And all the while, Lange is stuck with their classics line just because their head Honcho says & tells them to do so.

Collectability & desirability :

I'm not representing or speaking for anyone on this matter, but I'd like my watches to be manufactured independently if I'm going to be dumping 10s, 100s of thousands of dollars of my hard-earned money for them. Or else, why even bother? .. you could grab a TISSOT or a Grand Seiko for much less, if you're looking for decent Swiss quality (yes I know Seiko is Japanese, but you get the point) without the hefty price tag.

And look at how Vacheron, IWC and Jaeger Le Coultre fare in the pre-owned market. Losing 35%~50% off of MSRP is considered pretty "normal". You almost never see this level of depreciation befall upon Patek or Rolex. How do you justify collecting pieces that are dear to you, knowing beyond any reasonable doubt, you're going to take a huge hit somewhere down the road, when you decide to unload them for a rainy day..? (eg. Why buy a Rembrandt now for $500 million having full knowledge of the fact that in 60 years, it's going to be worth $1 million?)
If the end doesn't justify the means, why do you even bother in the first place?

That being said, I feel the glory days of luxury watches are nearing the end, with more and more luxury brands becoming commodity names (eg. IWC, Cartier, Omega, Bvlgari). Eventually, one or two will emerge as the torchbearer(s) of the horological podium .. And till that day comes, we can all, in a self-aggrandizing kind of way, be proud of our life achievements when gazing into our precious, little watch boxes.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

very well said

[gccmd]

While they not have the same prestige as PP, it seems to me like Rolex has the best corporate structure/business model. The Rolex Foundation is going to be around for a long time into the future with virtually no chance of a buyout ever happening. I think the Foundation pays very little or no tax because it is a charitable trust. PP does not have that luxury and it’s another one of the reasons it could succumb to a sale especially in the next economic downturn.
Personally, I hope PP stays independent.

[RHJ]

Originally Posted by gccmd

While they not have the same prestige as PP, it seems to me like Rolex has the best corporate structure/business model. The Rolex Foundation is going to be around for a long time into the future with virtually no chance of a buyout ever happening. I think the Foundation pays very little or no tax because it is a charitable trust. PP does not have that luxury and it’s another one of the reasons it could succumb to a sale especially in the next economic downturn.
Personally, I hope PP stays independent.

Indeed!

May be also the Sterns should set up a foundation like HWF for saving the brand. I think it is the only way to escape from capital investors.

[ct.matt]

Originally Posted by RHJ

Indeed!

May be also the Sterns should set up a foundation like HWF for saving the brand. I think it is the only way to escape from capital investors.

I have no clue why they haven't already done so. When I learned about the HWF, my appreciation for Rolex only grew stronger, irrespective of whether it's a tax scheme.

[odeon]

So the motto must be revised to it that you ever actually own Patek Philippe, the next generation merely look for the money.
:)