London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I don't want to re-type what I have already written but the key points around revenue generation (fundraising being a function of NOMAD status not the other way round), reputation, staff retention are all absolutely material to its NOMAD status. A GCSE business student being given a case study which explained what a NOMAD did and was given the last annual report of Arden would know that loss of NOMAD is a total contradiction of the Board's view as laid out in their 11th April RNS. It is disingenuous at best and deceit at worst.
Completion of the Acquisition will therefore mean that following the Change of Control, Arden will no longer be able to provide Nominated Adviser services. Although this is a significant change, the Board of Ince believes that Arden's reputation is primarily built around its ability to raise money for its clients and provide other broking and advisory services, and therefore the loss of its Nominated Adviser licence should not materially impact Arden's brand and ability to engage new clients nor its ability to provide fund raising and corporate broking services. The strategic rationale for the Acquisition as set out in the Scheme Document and announcement of 26 October 2021, which focuses on expanding the Enlarged Group's client base and deal flow, fundamentally remains the same.
I am not following your thought thread here.
If it was the board had not consider the possibility of the loss of Nomad status prior to April 6th, clearly that is not the case as among other things it was a condition precedent for closing and it was also a risk factor in the scheme document. If it is something else you are going to need to be a bit more explicit to help me understand the change you are seeing.
You will read from the RNS today that a "significant change has occurred" re Arden takeover. There is something more sinister than just the disingenuous suggestion around revenue. The messaging of the RNS suggests that the loss of NOMAD status was not considered by the board before April. The FT wrote on this in October, two days after the announcement.
Whereas on the 11th of April, Ince took an altogether different view, despite being in knowledge of the same facts. My very basic analysis, which has secured consensus acceptance on this message board with regards to significant loss of sticky revenue, staff retention and reputation is at total odds with the disingenuous statement from the 11th of April. How can it be remotely compatible with their statutory obligations to publish honest, truthful and comprehensive messaging around the material impact of the acquisition? The idea the board only 'considered' the impact, five months later after the FT article is indicative of either a disingenuous RNS or a board more fit to run a communal bath than a PLC.
One more point: Arden Partners are so proud of their staff turnover vis a vis the findings that I have published, they have removed the team page altogether from their website.
**** TODAYS RNS
Although this is a significant change, the Board of Ince believes that Arden's reputation is primarily built around its ability to raise money for its clients and provide other broking and advisory services, and therefore the loss of its Nominated Adviser licence should not materially impact Arden's brand and ability to engage new clients nor its ability to provide fund raising and corporate broking services. The strategic rationale for the Acquisition as set out in the Scheme Document and announcement of 26 October 2021, which focuses on expanding the Enlarged Group's client base and deal flow, fundamentally remains the same.