14 ms·

Bit of a downer for the UK to see them list in the US, I do understand they just want access to the most capital, but I find a shame LSE is not competitive for

Bit of a downer for the UK to see them list in the US, I do understand they just want access to the most capital, but I find a shame LSE is not competitive for this kind of thing.

blitzar 3y ago
You can not trade LSE stocks on zero commision US apps, thus you can not become a meme stonk.
tomatocracy 3y ago
I don't think it's about lack of capital but higher valuations. For reasons which don't seem to be well understood, investors on US markets seem to be willing to bid higher multiples than investors on UK and most other markets.
- kypro 3y ago
  More liquidity. No stamp duty on share purchases. Prices denominated in the world's reverse currency. Access to the largest market institutional investors.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  Markets are more accessible and more popular to retail. Retail is stupid. Case in point: Tesla.
TheFattestNinja 3y ago
I know this is probably not the cause, and maybe it's just me being a naive SJW, but in my view London's financial institutions lost 90% of their credibility capital recently not so much because of Brexit (which hit them too) but because of the whole LME Nickel trade rollbacks shenanigans. Yes I know LME != LSE, and I know it was a lose-lose situation, but they co-exist and as a person who is not into finance they share their credibility to an extent.
SilverBirch 3y ago
It's been a topic for quite a while that UK regulations mean pension funds don't invest as much in equities and as a result there's not a huge amount of liquidity available to dump into stocks on the London Stock Exchange. They are working on trying to fix this though (slowly).
- physicsguy 3y ago
  The irony of course is that this has been caused by regulatory induced de-risking of employer pension funds after a lot of them went bankrupt and left the government on the hook via the PPf
Sealy 3y ago
Sadly the UK has a long history of sending its own tech industry abroad... It begun with the invention of the computer as we know it... - Charles Babbage,"Father of the computer", British - Alan Turing, "Father of modern computer science", British Then there was Margret Thatcher who decided the internet was a fad and wasn't worth investing in internet infrastructure in the country. Where did the multi billion (if not trillion by now) industry end up? Silicon Valley and elsewhere.... Bravo UK... Bravo </sarcasm>
- farseer 3y ago
  Well you can't make all the right moves in history :) At least they got mercantilism right and built an effective navy to practically rule the world not so long ago.
- dazc 3y ago
  Thatcher was replaced by a guy called Blair who saw the internet as the future worth investing in. Sadly he found another cause to throw money at. The mistake Thatcher made was to open up the telecoms market to competition at a time when the legacy provider (BT) were starting to build a high speed internet highway/backbone. In hindsight, this could indeed be considered an error but looking how BT have fared since, perhaps not?
  - mattmanser 3y ago
    A lot more mistakes made by Thatcher than that. We're now in the absurd situation where 4 out of 6 power generating companies are foreign owned and the Japanese own our chip manufacturer. All because of her policies that originally envisioned that the share holding would be by the British public, not foreigners. And the latest scandal is that our water companies are dumping ridiculous amounts of sewage into our waterways while giving out huge dividends. And there's nothing anyone seems to be able to do about it.
    - dazc 3y ago
      We've had a few Prime Ministers since Thatcher, was her reach so powerful that she could prevent them from doing anything about this? I recall Blair saying he regretted not doing enough about energy security when he was in power, I don't recall him blaming Thatcher? Brown expands nuclear ambitions (2008): The prime minister said that with oil prices soaring, it was time to be "more ambitious" for nuclear plans... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7424158.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7424158.stm There has been a long history of failure, by both sides of the political spectrum.
DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
> Bit of a downer for the UK to see them list in the US I wonder to what extent the overarching business culture of the UK (which I'd categorise as being generally apathetical, if not hostile, to the engineering profession) might have anything to do with it. (...speaking as a former UK eng myself)
- highwaylights 3y ago
  Same. I think this is the correct answer.
  - DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
    It can't be - sentimentality rarely gets in a way of a business-deal this big. But it might explain why ARM themselves (whether employees or shareholders, regardless of country) might not put too much effort into staying in the UK, I mean.
- sapiogram 3y ago
  > which I'd categorise as being generally apathetical, if not hostile, to the engineering profession Any chance you could elaborate on this? Arm exists and is British, after all.
  - gswdh 3y ago
    I'm not sure what that poster was referring to, however in my experience (as a brit), is that the UK is replacing any kind of industry into a service economy aka. people buying shit they don't need. You see this in a number of ways like the physical replacement of industrial areas into shopping centres or the fact the UK can't manufacture rail locomotives - the place where they were invented... Having said this, there is still a reasonable amount of industry in the UK, the UK is by far the best country in the EU to buy engineering supplies but I think this is a remnant of the past. Most of the major engineering companies in industrial estates are Asian or American owned, now.
    - 3y ago
dvngnt_ 3y ago
at least you got healthcare or something
- slowmotiony 3y ago
  And you don't have one...? In that case I'd highly recommend you to get insured too.
  - dazc 3y ago
    Most people who can afford it do. We still come out and cheer for the national religion once in a while though since we are told repeatedly it is the envy of the world.
    - tchaffee 3y ago
      No the British news accurately reports on how bad it has become after over a decade of politicians defunding it. It's sad. When I left London a decade ago I had no reason to ever use my private insurance. NHS was excellent. Now I still use NHS when I visit but it not to the very high standards it used to be. And I have to sometimes use my private insurance. Everyone knows this and talks about it. I don't expect this to continue though. Most people want to return to a well funded and more functional NHS.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ricardobayes 3y ago
The business enviroment is a lot better in the US, a friend just started a company there, got an unsecured 80k line of credit at 1.5% on a fresh LLC. This kind of thing doesn't exist in the UK. I know people who couldn't even get a 5k overdraft after 2 years in business (and profitable).
- masklinn 3y ago
  Sounds like English banking has not changed much from 20 years ago, when I needed to spend 3 months in the UK, had to have a uk bank account to rent a flat, but needed an English residence to open a bank account.
  - mnahkies 3y ago
    In terms of personal banking it's definitely gotten easier for new comers with the likes of Monzo and Revolut - I had no problem opening account on arrival. From what I've heard the high street banks have improved a bit in this regard too, probably in response to the challenger banks taking market share. Finding a place to rent on the other hand is still difficult, particularly without a history of renting in the UK
  - noelwelsh 3y ago
    Consumer banking has radically changed. I can't comment on needing a residence to open a bank account to get a residence, because although I ran into the same issue when I first came here it's been a long time since that was a problem for me. In other aspect personal banking is much much easier. Many banks allow you to open accounts online, for example.
  - googamooga 3y ago
    Yeah, and to prove your English residence you have to provide a paper bill from a utility company (water or electricity) with your name and address on it. Which adds another 3 month as those utility bills are on a quarterly basis. Crazy stuff...
  - kranke155 3y ago
    That’s definitely changed. I had little issues with this in 2015 using a letter of proof of employment.
_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
Does it make a big difference where a stock is listed? ARM will still be headquartered in the UK.
- swarnie 3y ago
  Not particularly, London isn't exactly known for its share trading anyhow.
- DiscoDays 3y ago
  What does it mean that Arm is headquartered in the UK, practically speaking? What kind of a change would need to happen for, say, the Austin office to become the headquarter?
  - phatfish 3y ago
    If I remember one of the original conditions put on the acquisition of ARM by the UK gov was that HQ stays in the UK. So I doubt that will change. Can't say I'm familiar with the tangible benefits, but I assume is exposes ARM to UK law and regulation more than if the HQ was in another country. And retains some jobs in the UK. There must be some benefit for governments to make such a request.
kristopolous 3y ago
Is there more global access to the US market? Does capital flow with less friction to it? What about indexes? If they qualify for NASDAQ or some other major index, there's some "mandatory" investment that gets triggered by a bunch of funds that do index tracking. I would presume where you choose to list is kind of a flag of convenience, like it is in maritime. It's probably not as irrelevant as to where things actually happen as flying the Liberian flag or incorporating in Delaware but I'd bet it's close.
- Galanwe 3y ago
  > Is there more global access to the US market? Does capital flow with less friction to it? Yes, and yes. > What about indexes? If they qualify for NASDAQ or some other major index, there's some "mandatory" investment that gets triggered by a bunch of funds that do index tracking. NASDAQ is an exchange, not an index. The most prominent index on NASDAQ is the QQQ, the top 100 stocks,market cap weighted. But this is the big boy playground, the smallest stocks in QQQ should have at least $400B marketcap. ARM by the most optimistic estimation should be 1/10th of that.
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > The most prominent index on NASDAQ is the QQQ, the top 100 stocks,market cap weighted. QQQ is an index fund: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invesco_QQQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invesco_QQQ That follows the Nasdaq-100 index: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasdaq-100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasdaq-100 There are other funds that track it too from companies other than Invesco.
    - Galanwe 3y ago
      Right, right, you're 100% correct. To further explain, in most financial jargon, one often call an index by its (historically) most traded tracking fund. That is, the NASDAQ 100 is often called the QQQ, the S&P 500 is often called "spider" (SPDR), etc. But you're 100% right, in a comment about vocabulary, jargon has no place.
  - 3y ago
nelsonic 3y ago
Two reasons: NASDAQ values Tech higher than LSE and inclusion in the Nasdaq-100 will mean funds/indexes have to buy in which will boost the share price. This is the smart choice for Masayoshi Son to maximise ROI.
- glimshe 3y ago
  Masayoshi Son is desperately needing to make some smart choices after making some of the biggest investment blunders in history through the Vision Fund... I agree this one is the way to play it safe with what could be the best investment in his life.
fidotron 3y ago
It is worth noting when ARM was public before (starting in 1998) it was listed on Nasdaq and the LSE in order to access US capital.
LatteLazy 3y ago
Unstable currency. Unstable government. High tax. Questionable access to other markets. Questionable reliability when it comes to international agreements (which is pretty fucking vital to a company like AIM). It's sad (I'm a londoner) but the UK cannot blame anyone but our selves. We're just going through the national equivalent of a tantrum.
SillyUsername 3y ago
Well Mrs May f'ked that one up. It used to be on UK AIM (LSE) until she waved it through despite security interests and minor UK shareholders (i.e. me) not wanting to sell. Cue BoJo later grovelling to ARM once they actually realised they'd sold off one of the biggest UK IT companies and tried to get them back.
twen_ty 3y ago
Why would anyone want to do a major IPO like this in Brexit Britain?
nicechianti 3y ago
[dead]

Bit of a downer for the UK to see them list in the US, I do understand they just want access to the most capital, but I find a shame LSE is not competitive for this kind of thing.

blitzar 3y ago

You can not trade LSE stocks on zero commision US apps, thus you can not become a meme stonk.

tomatocracy 3y ago

I don't think it's about lack of capital but higher valuations. For reasons which don't seem to be well understood, investors on US markets seem to be willing to bid higher multiples than investors on UK and most other markets.

kypro 3y ago
More liquidity. No stamp duty on share purchases. Prices denominated in the world's reverse currency. Access to the largest market institutional investors.
3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
Markets are more accessible and more popular to retail. Retail is stupid. Case in point: Tesla.

TheFattestNinja 3y ago

I know this is probably not the cause, and maybe it's just me being a naive SJW, but in my view London's financial institutions lost 90% of their credibility capital recently not so much because of Brexit (which hit them too) but because of the whole LME Nickel trade rollbacks shenanigans. Yes I know LME != LSE, and I know it was a lose-lose situation, but they co-exist and as a person who is not into finance they share their credibility to an extent.

SilverBirch 3y ago

It's been a topic for quite a while that UK regulations mean pension funds don't invest as much in equities and as a result there's not a huge amount of liquidity available to dump into stocks on the London Stock Exchange. They are working on trying to fix this though (slowly).

physicsguy 3y ago
The irony of course is that this has been caused by regulatory induced de-risking of employer pension funds after a lot of them went bankrupt and left the government on the hook via the PPf

Sealy 3y ago

Sadly the UK has a long history of sending its own tech industry abroad... It begun with the invention of the computer as we know it... - Charles Babbage,"Father of the computer", British - Alan Turing, "Father of modern computer science", British Then there was Margret Thatcher who decided the internet was a fad and wasn't worth investing in internet infrastructure in the country. Where did the multi billion (if not trillion by now) industry end up? Silicon Valley and elsewhere.... Bravo UK... Bravo </sarcasm>

farseer 3y ago
Well you can't make all the right moves in history :) At least they got mercantilism right and built an effective navy to practically rule the world not so long ago.
dazc 3y ago
Thatcher was replaced by a guy called Blair who saw the internet as the future worth investing in. Sadly he found another cause to throw money at. The mistake Thatcher made was to open up the telecoms market to competition at a time when the legacy provider (BT) were starting to build a high speed internet highway/backbone. In hindsight, this could indeed be considered an error but looking how BT have fared since, perhaps not?
- mattmanser 3y ago
  A lot more mistakes made by Thatcher than that. We're now in the absurd situation where 4 out of 6 power generating companies are foreign owned and the Japanese own our chip manufacturer. All because of her policies that originally envisioned that the share holding would be by the British public, not foreigners. And the latest scandal is that our water companies are dumping ridiculous amounts of sewage into our waterways while giving out huge dividends. And there's nothing anyone seems to be able to do about it.
  - dazc 3y ago
    We've had a few Prime Ministers since Thatcher, was her reach so powerful that she could prevent them from doing anything about this? I recall Blair saying he regretted not doing enough about energy security when he was in power, I don't recall him blaming Thatcher? Brown expands nuclear ambitions (2008): The prime minister said that with oil prices soaring, it was time to be "more ambitious" for nuclear plans... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7424158.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7424158.stm There has been a long history of failure, by both sides of the political spectrum.

DaiPlusPlus 3y ago

> Bit of a downer for the UK to see them list in the US I wonder to what extent the overarching business culture of the UK (which I'd categorise as being generally apathetical, if not hostile, to the engineering profession) might have anything to do with it. (...speaking as a former UK eng myself)

highwaylights 3y ago
Same. I think this is the correct answer.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  It can't be - sentimentality rarely gets in a way of a business-deal this big. But it might explain why ARM themselves (whether employees or shareholders, regardless of country) might not put too much effort into staying in the UK, I mean.
sapiogram 3y ago
> which I'd categorise as being generally apathetical, if not hostile, to the engineering profession Any chance you could elaborate on this? Arm exists and is British, after all.
- gswdh 3y ago
  I'm not sure what that poster was referring to, however in my experience (as a brit), is that the UK is replacing any kind of industry into a service economy aka. people buying shit they don't need. You see this in a number of ways like the physical replacement of industrial areas into shopping centres or the fact the UK can't manufacture rail locomotives - the place where they were invented... Having said this, there is still a reasonable amount of industry in the UK, the UK is by far the best country in the EU to buy engineering supplies but I think this is a remnant of the past. Most of the major engineering companies in industrial estates are Asian or American owned, now.
  - 3y ago

dvngnt_ 3y ago

at least you got healthcare or something

slowmotiony 3y ago
And you don't have one...? In that case I'd highly recommend you to get insured too.
- dazc 3y ago
  Most people who can afford it do. We still come out and cheer for the national religion once in a while though since we are told repeatedly it is the envy of the world.
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    No the British news accurately reports on how bad it has become after over a decade of politicians defunding it. It's sad. When I left London a decade ago I had no reason to ever use my private insurance. NHS was excellent. Now I still use NHS when I visit but it not to the very high standards it used to be. And I have to sometimes use my private insurance. Everyone knows this and talks about it. I don't expect this to continue though. Most people want to return to a well funded and more functional NHS.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ricardobayes 3y ago

The business enviroment is a lot better in the US, a friend just started a company there, got an unsecured 80k line of credit at 1.5% on a fresh LLC. This kind of thing doesn't exist in the UK. I know people who couldn't even get a 5k overdraft after 2 years in business (and profitable).

masklinn 3y ago
Sounds like English banking has not changed much from 20 years ago, when I needed to spend 3 months in the UK, had to have a uk bank account to rent a flat, but needed an English residence to open a bank account.
- mnahkies 3y ago
  In terms of personal banking it's definitely gotten easier for new comers with the likes of Monzo and Revolut - I had no problem opening account on arrival. From what I've heard the high street banks have improved a bit in this regard too, probably in response to the challenger banks taking market share. Finding a place to rent on the other hand is still difficult, particularly without a history of renting in the UK
- noelwelsh 3y ago
  Consumer banking has radically changed. I can't comment on needing a residence to open a bank account to get a residence, because although I ran into the same issue when I first came here it's been a long time since that was a problem for me. In other aspect personal banking is much much easier. Many banks allow you to open accounts online, for example.
- googamooga 3y ago
  Yeah, and to prove your English residence you have to provide a paper bill from a utility company (water or electricity) with your name and address on it. Which adds another 3 month as those utility bills are on a quarterly basis. Crazy stuff...
- kranke155 3y ago
  That’s definitely changed. I had little issues with this in 2015 using a letter of proof of employment.

_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago

Does it make a big difference where a stock is listed? ARM will still be headquartered in the UK.

swarnie 3y ago
Not particularly, London isn't exactly known for its share trading anyhow.
DiscoDays 3y ago
What does it mean that Arm is headquartered in the UK, practically speaking? What kind of a change would need to happen for, say, the Austin office to become the headquarter?
- phatfish 3y ago
  If I remember one of the original conditions put on the acquisition of ARM by the UK gov was that HQ stays in the UK. So I doubt that will change. Can't say I'm familiar with the tangible benefits, but I assume is exposes ARM to UK law and regulation more than if the HQ was in another country. And retains some jobs in the UK. There must be some benefit for governments to make such a request.

kristopolous 3y ago

Is there more global access to the US market? Does capital flow with less friction to it? What about indexes? If they qualify for NASDAQ or some other major index, there's some "mandatory" investment that gets triggered by a bunch of funds that do index tracking. I would presume where you choose to list is kind of a flag of convenience, like it is in maritime. It's probably not as irrelevant as to where things actually happen as flying the Liberian flag or incorporating in Delaware but I'd bet it's close.

Galanwe 3y ago
> Is there more global access to the US market? Does capital flow with less friction to it? Yes, and yes. > What about indexes? If they qualify for NASDAQ or some other major index, there's some "mandatory" investment that gets triggered by a bunch of funds that do index tracking. NASDAQ is an exchange, not an index. The most prominent index on NASDAQ is the QQQ, the top 100 stocks,market cap weighted. But this is the big boy playground, the smallest stocks in QQQ should have at least $400B marketcap. ARM by the most optimistic estimation should be 1/10th of that.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > The most prominent index on NASDAQ is the QQQ, the top 100 stocks,market cap weighted. QQQ is an index fund: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invesco_QQQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invesco_QQQ That follows the Nasdaq-100 index: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasdaq-100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasdaq-100 There are other funds that track it too from companies other than Invesco.
  - Galanwe 3y ago
    Right, right, you're 100% correct. To further explain, in most financial jargon, one often call an index by its (historically) most traded tracking fund. That is, the NASDAQ 100 is often called the QQQ, the S&P 500 is often called "spider" (SPDR), etc. But you're 100% right, in a comment about vocabulary, jargon has no place.
- 3y ago

nelsonic 3y ago

Two reasons: NASDAQ values Tech higher than LSE and inclusion in the Nasdaq-100 will mean funds/indexes have to buy in which will boost the share price. This is the smart choice for Masayoshi Son to maximise ROI.

glimshe 3y ago
Masayoshi Son is desperately needing to make some smart choices after making some of the biggest investment blunders in history through the Vision Fund... I agree this one is the way to play it safe with what could be the best investment in his life.

fidotron 3y ago

It is worth noting when ARM was public before (starting in 1998) it was listed on Nasdaq and the LSE in order to access US capital.

LatteLazy 3y ago

Unstable currency. Unstable government. High tax. Questionable access to other markets. Questionable reliability when it comes to international agreements (which is pretty fucking vital to a company like AIM). It's sad (I'm a londoner) but the UK cannot blame anyone but our selves. We're just going through the national equivalent of a tantrum.

SillyUsername 3y ago

Well Mrs May f'ked that one up. It used to be on UK AIM (LSE) until she waved it through despite security interests and minor UK shareholders (i.e. me) not wanting to sell. Cue BoJo later grovelling to ARM once they actually realised they'd sold off one of the biggest UK IT companies and tried to get them back.

twen_ty 3y ago

Why would anyone want to do a major IPO like this in Brexit Britain?

nicechianti 3y ago

[dead]