The Freetrade Acquisition Paradox
A Platform Built for Retail Investors Leaves Its Own Retail Investors in the Cold
The recent acquisition of UK fintech Freetrade by IG Group for £160 million hides a striking irony. A company whose mission was to democratize investing access for retail investors (in the public markets) has ended up embodying one of the fundamental tensions in fintech: the gap between democratization promises and investor protection realities. What should have been a straightforward success story has instead sparked an intense debate about who really benefits when fintech “democratization” meets venture capital dynamics.
The Numbers Tell a Story
On paper, Freetrade’s journey looks great, as they had just reported their first profitable half-year in Freetrade`s six-year history. The company demonstrated strong fundamentals with £27.5 million in annual revenue, £2.1 million in adjusted EBITDA, and over £2 billion in assets under administration.
For early investors who got in during round one, the exit delivered a 15x return. However, the animated conversations provoked by Seb Johnson`s Linkedin post and a bit of digging deeper, indicate a more complex picture.
The Valuation Rollercoaster
Freetrade’s acquisition price of £160 million represents a dramatic drop from Freetrade’s peak valuation of £650 million in 2021, and even from its 2023 £225 million valuation. This decline isn’t just about numbers — it reveals fundamental questions about how fintech companies are valued and funded.
A Tale of Two Investor Classes
Perhaps the most contentious aspect of the deal is the stark difference in outcomes between different classes of investors. The news outlets are reporting that:
- Series B3 shareholders will receive £2.60 per share
- Series B1 shareholders will receive £2.08 per share
- A Ordinary and B Investment shareholders will receive just £1.19 per share
This structure apparently, has left many retail investors, particularly those who invested in Crowdcube since 2019, facing significant losses. Meanwhile, some institutional investors like Molten Ventures are reportedly securing a 30% return despite investing at the peak £650 million valuation — a disparity enabled by liquidation preferences.
The Crowdfunding Conundrum
This outcome has sparked intense debate about the role of crowdfunding. As one investor noted in the LinkedIn discussion, “They would have nothing to sell if it weren’t for crowdfunding keeping the business going. Now they are just disregarding the crowd and selling out.”
The situation raises several critical questions:
- Should companies be allowed to offer such different terms to different classes of investors?
- How do crowdfunding platforms adequately protect their retail investors from such disparities?
- How transparent are the risks of liquidation preferences to retail investors?
Reflections
While Freetrade’s acquisition is a milestone for UK fintech, it also serves as a wake-up call. Deeper discussions are needed about how to structure future private investments to better serve all stakeholders. After all, Fintech has been about democratization that goes beyond just plan access or reduced fees. Private markets remain opaque. Transparency around Seniority seems to be lacking.
The tension between democratic access to investment opportunities and investor protection remains unresolved. As the fintech sector continues to mature, finding this balance will be crucial.
The market for secondaries for private companies has woken up in Fintech land. The FreeTrade acquisition brings to the forefront basic issues that need to be resolved. We are in the 3rd decade of the 21st century after all, we remain stuck to this level of opaqueness.
📌 Subscribe to my YouTube Channel with my insights and industry leader interviews. New video every Wednesday: https://www.youtube.com/EfiPylarinou
📌 Twitter: https://twitter.com/efipm
📌 Apple Podcast 👉 https://buff.ly/3P1Cp1Z
📌 Spotify Podcast 👉 https://buff.ly/3xPyWaV
📌 Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/efipylarinou/
📌 TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@efiglobal
