What will happen to the Valentino fashion house after the death of Valentino Garavani

On January 19, at the age of 93, Valentino Garavani, the founder of the Valentino fashion house, passed away. His death closes an era in the history of haute couture, but it also raises a far more pragmatic question—one that matters not only to the fashion industry, but to investors and analysts as well: what happens to a fashion house after the death of its creator?

The luxury sector of the past several decades offers enough precedent to identify a clear pattern. McQueen, Armani, Saint Laurent, and Balenciaga have all passed through this moment—and each time, the market responded not to the loss itself, but to how fully the brand had already been transformed into a business.

Alexander McQueen: a brand inside a portfolio

When Alexander McQueen died in 2010, the Alexander McQueen brand was already under the control of Gucci Group, later renamed Kering. Financially, it was a relatively small asset: according to industry estimates, annual revenue at the time did not exceed £100–120 million, and the business remained loss-making due to high production costs and heavy reliance on runway spectacles.

There was no meaningful reaction in the stock market. Kering shares in 2010 moved in line with the global recovery following the 2008–2009 financial crisis, and McQueen’s death was not identified by analysts as a risk factor. For investors, the brand had already been fully absorbed into the group.

In the years that followed, the situation changed dramatically. Under Sarah Burton and subsequent management, McQueen’s revenue grew to an estimated €600–700 million by the early 2020s, and the brand became operationally sustainable. It is a telling case: after the founder’s death, McQueen became more profitable than during his lifetime, precisely because the business was freed from dependence on a single personality.

Giorgio Armani: death as a moment of monetisation

Armani presents the opposite scenario. Giorgio Armani retained full control of Giorgio Armani S.p.A. until the end of his life, consistently rejecting an IPO or the admission of external shareholders. Despite its scale, the group remained privately held for decades, generating €2.3–2.5 billion in annual revenue, with EBITDA margins in the 12–14% range.

The absence of an IPO meant the brand had no market valuation. Its capitalisation existed only on paper. Armani’s death marked the point at which the business gained, for the first time, the possibility of being valued by the market—through minority stake sales or a potential public listing.

For investors, this is a rare case where the death of a founder does not diminish a brand’s value, but rather creates the opportunity to crystallise it. Armani shifts from a cultural institution into a potential public asset—and that transition is precisely what makes it attractive to capital.

Saint Laurent: when death does not move the numbers

The Yves Saint Laurent fashion house was sold to Gucci Group in 1999. By the time Yves Saint Laurent died in 2008, the brand had already operated as a corporate asset for nearly a decade. Financially, YSL was solid but not dominant, with estimated revenues of €400–500 million, and it was regarded as important—but not core—within the group.

Saint Laurent’s death had no discernible impact on Kering’s share price. In 2008, the stock moved entirely in response to the global financial crisis, not fashion-industry events. The brand’s true financial importance emerged later: under Hedi Slimane, YSL’s revenue more than doubled, surpassing €1 billion by 2015, significantly improving margins across the group.

This case is crucial for financial analysis: markets respond to strategy and growth rates, not biography. Saint Laurent the man died—but Saint Laurent the business grew stronger without him.

Balenciaga: a brand that died—and was rebuilt

Cristóbal Balenciaga died in 1972, and with him the fashion house effectively disappeared. The business was closed, revenues dropped to zero, and the brand ceased to exist as an economic entity. It is a rare case in which, after the founder’s death, there was no asset left to analyse.

Balenciaga’s revival began only decades later, within a corporate structure that eventually became part of Kering. Real financial success arrived in the 2010s: analysts estimate that Balenciaga’s revenue grew from less than €200 million at the start of the decade to €1.5–2 billion by 2022, making it one of the fastest-growing brands in the group.

For the market, the message is clear: Balenciaga’s financial success is entirely unrelated to the life or death of its founder. The brand exists as a pure investment product, with heritage functioning primarily as a positioning tool.

Valentino: an asset already separated from its founder

Against this backdrop, Valentino appears exceptionally well prepared for the present moment. By the time of Valentino Garavani’s death, the brand had long ceased to belong to its founder. The controlling stake is held by Qatar-based Mayhoola for Investments, while Kering owns 30%, acquired in 2023 for approximately €1.7 billion, with an option to purchase the remaining shares.

Valentino is a large-scale business. In 2022, revenues reached approximately €1.4 billion, with EBITDA of around €350 million. In 2024, amid a broader slowdown in the luxury market, revenue declined to roughly €1.31 billion, while EBITDA fell by about 22% to €246 million. The decline is painful—but not critical for a brand of this size.

What matters more is that Valentino Garavani’s death does not alter the ownership structure, strategy, or financial model of the house. Valentino already operates under the rules of institutional capital. Its valuation is driven by demand dynamics, margins, and its ability to adapt to market cycles—not by the presence or absence of its founder.