The debate over Arm's listing location has sparked controversy among financial and political commentators. Following its skyrocketing share price in the US, questions have arisen regarding the UK government's decision, particularly under Theresa May's leadership, to allow one of the country's corporate jewels to list outside of the UK. Critics, including @thekrazykobra, argue that this decision reflects the need for UK reform, suggesting that the government missed an opportunity to retain a valuable asset. However, others defend the decision, stating that forcing Arm to list on the LSE would not have been beneficial and that the government's role should not involve punishing successful companies by restricting their access to capital markets. The discussion also revisits Arm's history, noting that its previous listing in London, before being acquired by SoftBank, was part of the challenges it faced.
okay then selling them to moscow is alright. moscow is not a conflict zone. https://t.co/SbfMdWt0mH
Did the FT forget that Arm was listed in London before SoftBank bought it? And that being listed in London was part of the problem that led to it being acquired? https://t.co/0tJiBSgvAE
Why would punishing Arm by forcing it to list in London be considered a good thing? The May government actually got something right by not insisting on that. https://t.co/ShwbkUFNIG
Not imposing a listing venue for Arm was absolutely the right choice. The role of the government should not to punish successful companies and deny them access to capital just because the LSE has two thumbs up their ass. Disappointing to see this suggestion in the FT. https://t.co/U6A1GX8mcO
Did Theresa May’s govt let the listing of one of the UK’s corporate jewels slip from the country? @thekrazykobra thinks so as he explains in this column on Arm and what it’s skyrocketing share price in the US tells us https://t.co/U4Nlu7pTnu https://t.co/mtaGha1IkR
Skyrocketing Arm share price shows need for UK reform https://t.co/IsrNBhXgHu | opinion