I think this very much depends on the size and number of relevant positions ā Ā£17ās not too bad on say Ā£10k+ but, as a proportion, itās obviously much more punishing on smaller amounts.
Your S&P solution seems a sensible one.
You may want to hold fire a little any way.
T212 will be launching a Sipp which should (hopefully) allow you to keep cash in USD, EUR etc, invest in non-Isa eligible stocks (eg TSM) and receive 0% withholding tax on US shares.
Iām planning to shuffle around some stocks from my 212 Isa and GIA to Sipp eventually, to minimise forex fees and tax, which may be something you want to bear in mind too.
Iām considering moving my Sipp away from FT in the interim as I donāt want to renew in March. Iām not sure where yet. InvestEngine would be ideal but I donāt think it accepts transfers yet.
I need to do more reading but Fidelity might be my best bet with a Ā£90 fee cap (I only hold one ETF) unless I can bag a bonus for switching elsewhere without being locked in too long.
For anybody else assessing their options, the table below is a godsend:
Imo @Viktor I think your response here has been tone deaf.
Some of us are moaning at being in profit, but I donāt think downplaying the timing of this, when youāve just managed to turn a profit is the way to go.
You talk about the need to expand and make an impact through securing additional funds. Could you have waited 6 months, show a stabilised profitability for the company and made more of an impact for investors that literally have at times been acting almost like employees of freetrade.
This all makes sense if the numbers now show freetrade in a loss position again and losing more customers than gaining new ones. Thatās the only way Iām looking at the valuation youāve managed to negotiate, and although Iāve been impressed with your honesty in the past, meeting you a number of times at meets, I canāt be impressed with your negotiating skills.
Especially as you also state that youāve had speculative approaches from companies who could have provided some financial input and partnerships which you can understand from an investors point of view would have been more palitable than a complete fire sale and drag along.
Its OK, customers are the focus, absolutely right. But would those customers have been dissatisfied with you partnering to grow the customer base with a partner and continuing to deliver the platform they already use? Perhaps not with the growth speed you wanted, but I understand, you were put in that position to just agree with the vcās to get them their money back and secure a position and options with a company that will put more money into to justify the opportunity for you.
Just a happy coincidence you became a millionaire in the process. The reason FT suffered is because you forgot it was the crowd that built the hype around the company, its also the crowd who lost interest and you failed. Enjoy your life on the beach
Iām so confused. I invested exactly Ā£5,000 in June 2022 and have āSeries B shares (NOMINEE)ā shares. I canāt understand if thatās Ā£1.19 or one of the other Bs.
If they are B3 at least breaking even
Please remember that making decisions in the heat of the moment can be dangerous and many times leads to actions we later regret . Itās okay to express your anger, but please avoid making any decisions until youāve had time to cool off, no matter how long it takes.
Thinking back over this shocking day, when I first saw the email in my inbox announcing the takeover, I was cautiously optimistic. I thought it could well be a low ball offer, in the region of the Ā£2.60 last price, but given the alleged improvement in the business it could be a bit higher. I was absolutely astounded when it was only <Ā£1.19.
The worst part is the predatory behaviour of the VCs. The liquidation preference is bad enough, but the fact that only those getting Ā£1.19 for their shares will be paying for the transaction costs for a transaction we did not vote for and the VCs did, is absolutely indecent.
Does the Ā£1.19 figure allow for any transaction costs?
Adam Dodds responding to a question re share classes in the Q&A for the 2021 raise:
āHi Mellorrr
There is no difference between the B2 and previous B shares. Apparently, itās just easier admin for the lawyers to create a new B class than issue more from an existing class.
Institutional shareholders do get 1x liquidity preference. To trigger the existing pref rights weād have to sell the business for less than the last institutional valuation (Ā£230m).
There are no bullshit terms imo, like anti-dilution or participating preference rights. Our VC terms are very clean in context.
That isā¦illuminating. I donāt think itās a coincidence the FT board and VCs have sold just before the intrinsic value of the business exceeds that threshold.
Asked chatgpt to exaplin the email. From now on Iāll just run anything legal or confusing material through chatgpt
This email explains some aspects of a share structure and investor terms in a business context. Hereās a breakdown of the key points:
B2 and B Shares:
The āB2ā shares and the earlier āBā shares are essentially the same in terms of rights and privileges.
The only reason for introducing a āB2ā class is for legal administrative easeālikely due to the lawyersā preference for managing new share issuance this way.
Institutional shareholders (e.g., venture capitalists or other large investors) have a 1x liquidity preference.
This means they are entitled to recoup their initial investment before any other shareholders receive proceeds from a sale of the business.
The liquidity preference would only be relevant if the business is sold for less than its last institutional valuation (Ā£230 million). This valuation serves as a benchmark for determining if the liquidity preference comes into play.
Clean Terms:
The terms of the investment are described as clean, meaning there are no additional clauses or mechanisms that would unfairly disadvantage other shareholders, such as:
Anti-dilution provisions: These protect investors from their ownership being reduced in future funding rounds.
Participating preference rights: These would allow investors to claim their preference amount and still participate in the distribution of remaining funds.
By not including these terms, the business is signaling that its agreements with investors are straightforward and fair.
