Make Texture a preferred source on Google to support us
Add Texture to GoogleWith more than half of its market value evaporated since its 2015 peak, the markets have taken a dim view of H&M. The Persson family, however, seems to be following a different line of reasoning. While the Swedish group struggles to boost sales, its long-standing shareholders are buying back shares and consolidating their position. This discrepancy raises a question that goes beyond the stock price alone: Could H&M’s recovery continue outside the stock market? No decision to delist has been announced. But behind the successive purchases, a clash is emerging between two timelines: that of quarterly earnings and that of an industrial dynasty.
Business recovery remains the top priority
Before it is a matter of capital control, H&M is a retailer facing a difficult business challenge. Declining consumer spending is weighing on its operations, while competition is coming from various directions. Shein is exerting pressure through extremely low prices and online sales. Inditex is the other major rival in this landscape. For the Swedish group, the challenge is therefore not limited to attracting customers again; it must strengthen the brand without losing sight of profitability.
This is precisely the mandate entrusted to Daniel Erver, who has led the group since January 2024. The reported figures do not yet indicate a recovery. Revenue fell by 1% in the first quarter and then stagnated in the second. For the third quarter, for which results are pending, analysts anticipate only modest growth. The trend remains fragile: the halt in the decline does not yet signal a return to solid growth.
This challenge highlights the significance of the Perssons’ move. They are increasing their stake in a company whose recovery is still in the making. Their purchases can be seen as a vote of confidence; however, they do not, on their own, provide a solution to the brand’s difficulties. Whether H&M remains publicly traded or not, consumers will still need to be won over.
One family, three generations, and a strengthened majority
The connection between H&M and the Persson family spans three generations. Erling Persson founded the company. His son Stefan, often cited as Sweden’s richest man, primarily controls Ramsbury Invest, the holding company responsible for acquiring shares. Karl-Johan Persson, Stefan’s son and the founder’s grandson, currently chairs the group. In this context, the capital increase does not stem from the arrival of a new investor: it extends a family history already deeply rooted in the company’s leadership.
The scale of the change, however, is worth noting. At the start of 2021, the family and its affiliated entities held 49.5% of the capital. By the end of August, their stake had risen to over 68%, according to data published by the company. According to documents filed with regulatory authorities, Ramsbury Invest has acquired 36.8 million shares since the beginning of the year.
These figures bring into sharp focus a trend that might otherwise appear subtle when viewed through individual purchases alone. The family’s stake has increased by more than 18 percentage points since the beginning of 2021. It is no longer simply a matter of maintaining a dominant position: the Perssons’ shareholding is expanding significantly, and with it, the question of what the future holds for the other shareholders.
Has the stock market become too restrictive a framework?
The stock’s decline of more than 50% from its 2015 peak inevitably fuels questions about the value of remaining publicly traded. However, it does not indicate any intention to delist. A declining share price and a family buying more shares are two facts; the existence of a delisting plan remains, at this stage, mere speculation.
Peter Magnusson, a portfolio manager at Cicero Fonder in Stockholm, offers a possible explanation. In his view, the markets’ repeated negative reactions could prompt the family to prefer a framework in which it would have greater freedom to pursue long-term strategies. He himself expects the company to go private. His reasoning focuses less on a financial transaction than on the possibility of choosing a different management horizon.
This interpretation gets to the heart of the matter. Restoring profitability and strengthening a brand do not necessarily follow the rhythm of quarterly earnings reports. But leaving the market would not make the business challenges go away. It would change the framework within which decisions are made and their results assessed. The distinction is crucial: control over the timeline does not guarantee a turnaround.
Specific expectations, no announcement of a delisting
At Deutsche Bank, analyst Adam Cochrane goes so far as to suggest that the family might delist H&M by 2030. This timeline gives the scenario concrete form, without elevating it to the status of a roadmap. It remains an analyst’s forecast, not a commitment by the controlling shareholders.
The official position remains much more limited. When asked about the matter, H&M referred questions to Ramsbury Invest. The holding company’s spokesperson did not comment on the possibility of a delisting. He reiterated the Perssons’ confidence in the company, their long-term commitment, and their pattern of gradually increasing their stake.
This same series of purchases therefore allows for two interpretations: the continuation of a family investment or the gradual preparation for a full takeover. For now, Ramsbury maintains only the first interpretation. The second is gaining traction in the eyes of several observers as the family’s share of the capital increases.
For minority shareholders, the decisive factor will be the price
Small shareholders view this development from a different perspective. Sverre Linton, legal director of the Swedish Shareholders’ Association, finds it difficult not to see this as a move toward the gradual acquisition of the entire company. His analysis brings the debate back to those who have no say in either the pace of the family’s purchases or the group’s strategic direction.
In his view, their interests would be served by two outcomes: a turnaround convincing enough to support the stock price, or a cash offer from the family at a satisfactory level. He believes that many shareholders might be willing to accept such a proposal under the current circumstances. However, there is no basis for inferring a price, nor even the existence of discussions regarding an offer.
A legal threshold now provides context for the situation. Under the Swedish regulations described, a shareholder holding 90% of a company can require the buyout of the remaining shares. With more than 68%, the Perssons have not yet reached that point. The gap between their current stake and this threshold matters just as much as the purchases they have already made. For minority shareholders, the next concrete step will be to see whether their stake continues to shrink in the face of the family’s acquisitions, or whether a buyout offer will finally put a price on the exit scenario.