Blaming BREXIT?
Starts the IPO in the summer then decides BREXIT uncertainties might be an issue.
Where's he been for the past 3 years to miss all the BS on every channel, I'd like a holiday there.
The chief of UKFast has said he expects to postpone his web-hosting and cloud services firm's planned flotation on the London Stock Exchange because of – what else? – Brexit. The Manchester-based outfit hired investment bank GCA Altium in the summer and was plotting a course to IPO before the year was out with the aim to raise …
Uncertainty. Your office could be hit by a meteor tomorrow - that's uncertainty. Plan for no deal and you'll be ready for everything, there's no uncertainty here. If you can't IPO in the event of no deal then you can't IPO because there's something fundamentally wrong with your business plan.
This stuff isn't difficult the terminally incompetent are making it difficult from random bloke on the street through business all the way up to senior levels of government.
We know what the "worst" (best) case looks like, plan around it.
From the article: ...not giving businesses the predictability they always say they crave
While that statement is undoubtedly true, I had a conversation with another family member who holds a managerial role in a UK distributor for an EU manufacturer. (Just to be clear the family member is not at "board" level; neither is the UK business FTSE 100 or 250 IIRC)
Said person repeated the "certainty" mantra and I asked in response about what certainties the business (or UK businesses in general) would provide in return for the greater certainty of a future trading status with the EU. The answer was revealing; it amounted to "none whatsoever", and "it doesn't work that way".
So if said family member's comments were generally accurate the conclusion I was unable to avoid was that "business" wants handing conditions that suit it while not recognising any need for any sort of quid pro quo.
Sorry British Business; it isn't all about you.
Your family member was right: it doesn't work that way. The uncertainty regards matters of finance rather than of trade. If Company A can sell more stuff to Compagnie B but can't finance the expansion required to support it (extra manufacturing gear, warehouse space, more lorries, more drivers, etc), then the trading opportunity may as well not exist.
What certainty do they want? For things to stay the same.
What certainties can they provide if that happens? They might not bugger off to the EU or go bust.
Should there be much more to it than that?
" They might not bugger off to the EU or go bust."
And when either one starts happening in any significant numbers, there will be an exodus of skilled people, leaving the (mostly unskilled, unemployable) brexiters to wallow in their own shit.
Britain's economy, the new Albania.
I'm not greatly surprised at the downvotes I attracted with my earlier post.
Just remember your downvotes when your job is outsourced to somewhere cheaper overseas or some other change disadvantageous to your current employment takes place.
Never mind; you can always console yourselves with the knowledge that the change was "good for the business".
This must be the worst possible time to plan something as complex as an IPO. I wouldn't take a go/no-go decision on anything this complex until April at the very earliest. We may be deep in the shits by then or a lot may have been avoided at the last minute, in any case at least you will know for certain whether you are deep in the shits or not. It's the uncertainty that is killing investment.
In this time of uncertainty the only certain thing is that shares in firms that do international removals will be a good bet to rise after 12th Dec as large parts of EU businesses based here leave in their droves. All their non UK resident staff will toddle off home leaving a rump to close down the business in an orderly manner including making sure that the last person out really does turn the lights off.
$1 == £1 is very much on the cards as is a 1000 point drop on the FT100 and 30% of house prices in a couple of months.
That is my optomistic forceast. You really don't want to see the pessimistic one.
Pssssttttt Going cheap, large car plants in Swindon, Oxford, Ellesmere Port, Derby and Sunderland for sale. Available Jan 1 2020. any offers? (workforce not included)
This post has been deleted by its author
Well there is the vote on Dec 11.
If the Gov lose they have no authority so sign the Deal with the EU so unless something changes its a hard Brexit come March.
If they do lose something else will probably happen but we don't know what that is, yet.
I'm stockpiling Popcorn...
Agreed, 11 December is a key date.
It is fairly asymmetrical, though. If the Government's deal is approved we'll have some idea of what will happen on 30 March, not 100% clarity but quite a bit. If it doesn't pass anything can happen.
"If it doesn't pass anything can happen."
I am not so sure anything can happen. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a revocation of the invocation of article 50 isn't allowed unilaterally. And by now a couple of other EU countries are ready to hit that with a veto. If that is true, remaining isn't possible.
@ A.P. Veening
"It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a revocation of the invocation of article 50 isn't allowed unilaterally. And by now a couple of other EU countries are ready to hit that with a veto. If that is true, remaining isn't possible."
We can only hope. Uncertainty is painful (and unnecessary) but that is the choice of the gov (I dont even blame the EU for that it is entirely our gov).
@A P Veening
I am not so sure anything can happen. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a revocation of the invocation of article 50 isn't allowed unilaterally. And by now a couple of other EU countries are ready to hit that with a veto. If that is true, remaining isn't possible.
If the ECJ rules that the UK can unilaterally pull the A50 notification and the EU can't do anything about it (in fact, some of the negotiators have said that it's their opinion that it can be pulled right up until a minute before the UK leaves the EU) then the question of a veto doesn't come into it, because there's no veto to be had.
The ECJ could rule that we can just revoke Article 50. But I'm pretty sure they won't. The wording isn't clear, but A50 has a mechanism for delaying it that involves unanimity of the Council of Ministers and says that with or without a deal the deadline is 2 years otherwise. Surely the intent of that is quite obvious?
It would be perverse to allow 2 years of negotiations and then just go back to square one. Plus it would be an asymetric decision, which the UK could take with no choice for the other governments. Particularly as there's still a large number of voters in the UK who want to leave, so there's no guarantee that this won't happen again in a few years time.
I'll cautiously add to this as IANAL (and this is an active court case). The CJEU could choose to give more than a simple "yes/no" response to the question "Can the UK's TEU A50 notification be revoked unilaterally?". They could add conditions to avoid the very thing you mention - a country (e.g. the UK) making yoyo notifications to extend indefinitely the apparently fixed 2 year term specified in A50. I think the lawyers for the EC made this very point in the hearing on Tuesday (27 Nov). That said they did suggest the notification was revocable so it comes down to whether it could be done unilaterally, or whether it would require agreement from the EU27 (and whether that would need to be unanimous or whether QMV would be acceptable). I'd note that one of the lawyers suggested that what's happened to the UK in the time since the TEU A50 notification would be deterrent in itself against yoyo notifications.
The court could decide to say "Yes [it can be unilaterally revoked] but if you do revoke you don't get to make another TEU A50 declaration again".
Alternatively the court could troll HMG by stating the original A50 notification was invalid so revocation isn't necessary. (See icon).
It's also worth noting that to get a respojse from the CJEU in 5 working days (27 Nov to 4 Dec for the Advocate General's opinion, final judgement a week or so later), indeed from any higher court, is light speed in legal terms!
"And by now a couple of other EU countries are ready to hit that with a veto"
I'm sure that they'd change their minds in return for losing all those special deals that Thatcher and Tony Blair negotiated.
The real fun part is that whilst Brexiters keep rabbiting on about "reverting to WTO rules" you have to BE a WTO member to do that and Britain hasn't been one since 1974. It won't be anytime soon either, given that the USA, Canada, Australia. New Zealand have all sensed blood in the water and blocked the UK's application(*), whilst Burkina Faso saw an opportunity for revenge over the UK refusing visas for their trade delegation about 18 months ago and added their veto too.
(*) AU and NZ were badly shafted when Britain joined the EEC in 1974, tore up existing trading agreements and caused their export markets to shrink by 75% overnight. Unemployment in some areas of New Zealand heavily dependent on agricultural exports to the UK went to over 60% and didn't recover until the early 1990s. Revenge is best served ice cold and they're enjoying this.
@ Alan Brown
"you have to BE a WTO member to do that and Britain hasn't been one since 1974."
Is there seriously a person left in this country who still believes that crap or are you just saying it hoping someone will fall for it? We are a WTO member, that is not in question nor debate. It hasnt legitimately been so at all at any point.
May is currently saying that any economic forecasts that predict a bad result are unreliable while her forecasts that predict success and wealth are trustworthy. You can doubt this all you like but the fact is she's quite accurate ... look how well David Cameron is doing. BREXIT has worked out really well for a few people.
Being UK focused probably means that all their (current and prospective) customers are in the UK. His suppliers might not be, though. I bet that he has to pay a bunch of his suppliers in dollars or euros so he could be vulnerable to foreign exchange problems it things get rapidly worse.
Also, if the UK were to fall into recession or suffers from drops in spending then even being fully UK focused could still be a risk.
“The chief of UKFast has said he expects to postpone his web-hosting and cloud services firm's planned flotation on the London Stock Exchange because of – what else? – Brexit.”
There's this thing called the Internet which allows you to site your infrastructure anywhere on the planet. These Brexit scare stories and similar are designed to create a political environment for a second vote, which I predict won't go pro-EU, but they'll be an even bigger exit vote, I'll bet money on it.
"There's this thing called the Internet which allows you to site your infrastructure anywhere on the planet."
Even more, you can place the machines anywhere and the system administrators on the other side of the world. A lot of big cloud companies placed the data centres in Europe claiming they wanted to protect customer privacy, but then the administrators work via remote console from Asia.
However to pay lip service to the GDPR or to the government security requirements the physical location of the machine still matters.