LG H&H Sells Avon North America to Regent for $6 Million: What the Price Actually Measures
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
LG Household & Health Care agreed on 24 August 2026 to sell The Avon Company, its entire North American Avon business, to Stratford Worldwide, an affiliate of the investment firm Regent, for a reported USD 6 million. LG H&H paid USD 125 million for the business in April 2019 and subsequently lent it a further USD 205.5 million, which it is now converting to equity. The price is not evidence that direct selling has failed — Mary Kay announced an expansion of the same model three days earlier — but evidence that the Avon brand was never a single asset, and that what each buyer actually paid for was the selling operation underneath the name.
How much did LG H&H lose on Avon North America?
Set the sale price against what the business cost.
LG H&H agreed to buy Avon's North American operation in April 2019 for USD 125 million. It then lent the unit a further USD 205.5 million, and as part of this transaction it is converting the entire loan to equity — no cash moves, and no change in ownership stakes. Seoul Economic Daily reports the unit has been loss-making every year since 2021.
No filing adds those two figures together, so treat the total as mine rather than the company's: roughly USD 330 million in, USD 6 million out. Under two per cent.
The Korea Herald notes that the exact sale price is only fixed at closing, which is expected on 1 September 2026.
Does the Avon sale prove direct selling is dead?
No, and this is where most of the commentary goes wrong.
Start with the channel, because it is the easiest variable to exonerate. Three days before the LG H&H filing, on 21 August, Mary Kay announced an acceleration of exactly the model LG H&H is walking away from — My Shop, a cloud-first platform giving its Independent Beauty Consultants personalised online storefronts wired into the company's e-commerce, payment, fulfilment and social media capabilities. It launched in the United States and Germany in 2025 and reached Canada, Mexico and Spain this summer.
Whatever is wrong at Avon North America, "people selling beauty products to people they know" is not it.
Nor did LG H&H mistreat the model. The joint release describes it as having supported Avon North America through product innovation, digital and operational capability, and "ongoing modernization of the Social Selling business model."
And the buyer is explicit about what it wants. Michael A. Reinstein, Regent's founder, chairman and chief executive: "Our job now is to put the scale of the combined business behind better products, sharper execution and a stronger earning opportunity for the people who sell them."
Read where that sentence lands. Not on the brand. On the sellers.
What did LG H&H actually buy in 2019?
Not "Avon".
It bought New Avon LLC — one geographic slice of a business already cut apart three years earlier, when Avon's North American and international operations separated in 2016. The seller was no Avon parent handing over the family jewels; the controlling stake came from Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that had held it since the split. The former parent, Avon Products, later filed for Chapter 11 in Delaware in August 2024, citing pandemic pressures and a mass of talc litigation.
So: a single territory's operating company, carrying a name it shared with entities it did not control, in a category where the real asset — a standing network of independent representatives and the relationships each of them personally owns — is not transferable and not ownable in any conventional sense.
Who owns the Avon brand now?
More than one party, and that is the whole point.
Eight months ago the other slice moved too. Natura &Co completed the sale of Avon International to Regent on 31 December 2025 — widely reported as a January 2026 acquisition — for a nominal one pound, leaving behind a secured credit facility of USD 25 million available until December 2026. Russia was excluded and remains for sale.
And Natura kept Latin America outright. As Premium Beauty News records, "the Avon brand and all of its operations in Latin America, including intellectual property rights, remain the property of the Natura group."
Sit with that. The Avon brand is not one asset with one owner. Its Latin American rights belong to a Brazilian group. Everything else has just been consolidated under a private investment firm, acquired in two pieces, from two different sellers, eight months apart, at a nominal pound and at roughly USD 6 million.
An asset that fragments like that was never a single store of value. It was a label sitting on whatever selling operation happened to be underneath it in each market, and the price in each case tracked the operation, not the label.
Why does Regent want Avon at these prices?
Because Regent is buying something LG H&H could not use.
Regent is not paying for a name it could have licensed; it is buying seller networks and putting them under one roof. On closing, expected on 1 September, the reunified business will be led by Lisa Siders, currently chief operating officer of Avon International and Regent's operating partner for Avon. An operator, not a brand executive.
Recognition, then, is not equity. It becomes equity only in the hands of someone who also holds the mechanism that turns a name into a transaction — and who is in the business of running that mechanism. LG H&H is not. Its stated reason for exiting is to concentrate on brands like Dr. Groot and Belif, which reach customers through retail and digital channels. That is a coherent company. It simply had nothing useful to offer a business whose distribution is people selling to people they already know.
What does this mean for Korean beauty brands?
A great many Korean brands are being valued as though the name is carrying the business.
It generally is not. The business is carried by a buyer at a retailer, a platform's search ranking, a distributor's book, an algorithm — mechanisms the brand does not own, cannot move and in most cases cannot even audit. That is a workable position, right up to the moment somebody wants to buy you, or the mechanism changes hands.
The number to keep is not USD 6 million. It is the ratio: roughly USD 330 million in, USD 6 million out. That is the price of discovering, seven years late, that a name and the machine underneath it are two different assets, and that you only bought one of them.
Comments