4 ms·

If the cofounder of ARM wanted it to stay a British owned company, why did they let it go public in the first place? And then did they make the same case when i

by dtwest 6y ago

If the cofounder of ARM wanted it to stay a British owned company, why did they let it go public in the first place? And then did they make the same case when it was bought by Softbank? "If you do not make Arm a British owned company again with a Golden Share for national economic security, history will remember you as the person who, when the chips are down, failed to act in the national interest." And then they blame this on the Prime Minister?

atarian 6y ago
I found an article from 2017, which mentioned "substantial opposition" from Houser against the sale to Softbank: https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/business-news/i-regret-selling-arm-says-13926432 https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/business-news/i-re...
azinman2 6y ago
I wondered the same thing. Isn't it already a Japanese company now via Softbank? Can the UK actually halt this transaction in any way?
- est31 6y ago
  Not a lawyer, but there is a UK legal entity with the Arm name still. It might be owned by Softbank but that doesn't change the fact that it's an UK company bound by UK laws.
  - wcerfgba 6y ago
    Correct, the company is registered in the UK: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02557590 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02557590
- inopinatus 6y ago
  Arm Ltd remains incorporated in the UK. Softbank did not strip or transfer the assets. The transfer of ownership is subject to UK law. Given the activities and size of the firm, the sale could be halted by ministerial intervention. That said, I think such intervention is unlikely. UK law on overseas M&A is very open. Britain has a long-standing policy of encouraging foreign acquisitions, since it encourages inward investment and keeps the City of London relevant and flourishing as a major financial center. Many members of the ruling parties have personal and financial connections therein, and the UK's fraught divorce from the EU elevates the risks to London's ongoing relevance, so the incentives are skewed in favour of this sale. The core of British trade policy is financial services i.e. invisible trade, not manufacturing, since competing on a playing field of physical scale (such as with manufacturing) is problematic for a small island nation. R&D is tolerated since it creates realisable value from (and for) the higher education sector, without dependence on a locally integrated manufacturing base. ARM itself is a microcosm of that strategy, designing chips but not making them; but by the same token, the value of that research was already fully realised by Softbank's acquisition.
ardy42 6y ago
> If the cofounder of ARM wanted it to stay a British owned company, why did they let it go public in the first place? It's possible they just didn't have the foresight. It's not unusual to take and action an not understand all the potential consequences. > "If you do not make Arm a British owned company again with a Golden Share for national economic security, history will remember you as the person who, when the chips are down, failed to act in the national interest." > And then they blame this on the Prime Minister? It seems pretty fair to me. If a plane crashes because the pilot is irresponsible and the copilot decides not to take action, it's reasonable to put some of the blame on the copilot. It seems like the Prime Minister is like a guy at the emergency controls who's the last one with an opportunity to change course.
blastonico 6y ago
He's got a lot of money and now demands the tax payers to re-buy it. Kinda funny.
mijoharas 6y ago
He had left the company long before it was sold to SoftBank, so didn't have a say in the matter. He did however campaign in the same way when it was being acquired by SoftBank.[0] [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36827769 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36827769

by dtwest 6y ago

atarian 6y ago

I found an article from 2017, which mentioned "substantial opposition" from Houser against the sale to Softbank: https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/business-news/i-regret-selling-arm-says-13926432 https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/business-news/i-re...

azinman2 6y ago

I wondered the same thing. Isn't it already a Japanese company now via Softbank? Can the UK actually halt this transaction in any way?

est31 6y ago
Not a lawyer, but there is a UK legal entity with the Arm name still. It might be owned by Softbank but that doesn't change the fact that it's an UK company bound by UK laws.
- wcerfgba 6y ago
  Correct, the company is registered in the UK: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02557590 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02557590
inopinatus 6y ago
Arm Ltd remains incorporated in the UK. Softbank did not strip or transfer the assets. The transfer of ownership is subject to UK law. Given the activities and size of the firm, the sale could be halted by ministerial intervention. That said, I think such intervention is unlikely. UK law on overseas M&A is very open. Britain has a long-standing policy of encouraging foreign acquisitions, since it encourages inward investment and keeps the City of London relevant and flourishing as a major financial center. Many members of the ruling parties have personal and financial connections therein, and the UK's fraught divorce from the EU elevates the risks to London's ongoing relevance, so the incentives are skewed in favour of this sale. The core of British trade policy is financial services i.e. invisible trade, not manufacturing, since competing on a playing field of physical scale (such as with manufacturing) is problematic for a small island nation. R&D is tolerated since it creates realisable value from (and for) the higher education sector, without dependence on a locally integrated manufacturing base. ARM itself is a microcosm of that strategy, designing chips but not making them; but by the same token, the value of that research was already fully realised by Softbank's acquisition.

ardy42 6y ago

> If the cofounder of ARM wanted it to stay a British owned company, why did they let it go public in the first place? It's possible they just didn't have the foresight. It's not unusual to take and action an not understand all the potential consequences. > "If you do not make Arm a British owned company again with a Golden Share for national economic security, history will remember you as the person who, when the chips are down, failed to act in the national interest." > And then they blame this on the Prime Minister? It seems pretty fair to me. If a plane crashes because the pilot is irresponsible and the copilot decides not to take action, it's reasonable to put some of the blame on the copilot. It seems like the Prime Minister is like a guy at the emergency controls who's the last one with an opportunity to change course.

blastonico 6y ago

He's got a lot of money and now demands the tax payers to re-buy it. Kinda funny.

mijoharas 6y ago

He had left the company long before it was sold to SoftBank, so didn't have a say in the matter. He did however campaign in the same way when it was being acquired by SoftBank.[0] [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36827769 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36827769