Top firms turn backs on stock market listing and private equity cash

Print This Post

28 March 2014


Share prices: only 4% of FDs saw listing as suitable

The UK’s top law firms have become increasingly sceptical about listing on the stock market or taking on private equity investment, according to new research.

The poll of finance directors at the top 100 firms – conducted by Thomson Reuters – found that just 4% saw a public listing as a suitable means of funding a law firm – down from 12% last year – while there was a similar fall in relation to private equity, from 23% to 8%.

Instead the attractiveness of bank lending has surged, with all respondents this year describing it as an appropriate source of funding, compared to 85% last year. Just yesterday Irwin Mitchell announced that it had secured a £60m, four-year facility from three banks to finance its growth plans, while Linder Myers was able to refinance its debts to avoid administration.

Thomson Reuters said that as law firms are under pressure to maintain distributions to partners there is an acceptance that a sensible level of debt can allow those distributions to be maintained whilst the firm trades through a tough period.

At the same time, law firms are becoming more open to the possibility of using alternative forms of finance, such as asset finance or invoice discounting, with 67% now saying this is a reasonable option, an increase from 50% last year. It was the same story with forms of long-term debt, such as bonds, which was given the green light by 39% of finance directors, up from 23%.

Sam Steer, head of large law for Thomson Reuters, said: “The liberalisation of the legal market has enabled law firms to overhaul their ownership structures. But having considered all the new options, the largest firms are becoming less, rather than more, persuaded that taking on external investment through a stock market listing or private equity involvement is a suitable way forward.”

Thomson Reuters suggested that the recent collapse of RSM Tenon, which was the first accountancy firm to list on the London Stock Exchange, could be a factor behind the growing reluctance of many firms. This follows on from several other high profile failures of listed professional services firms, such as Numerica and Vantis.

“Our survey reveals that successful firms are cautious of the risks associated with such a fundamental change to the way fee-earners are incentivised and risks managed,” said Ms Steer.

“Many firms may struggle to see how external shareholders’ desire to squeeze value from the business can be aligned with the longer-term outlook they have always taken. Managing the transition from a partnership model to ownership by outsiders can be difficult.

“However, as the stock market recovers further, and the potential value of law firms increases again, we might see interest amongst partners to sell some shares revive.”

In the meantime, options like leasing or invoice discounting are “already providing a lifeline for some smaller firms”, she added. “We may see more of the large law firms use leasing to smooth the impact of major investment such as IT infrastructure.”



One Response to “Top firms turn backs on stock market listing and private equity cash”

  1. I am not surprised because Law Firms do not sell products but advice and as a result operate differently. Obvious and not necessarily appreciated is the methodology of venture capitalists. Partners need to understand the ethos behind VCs.
    Funds have a finite life and VCs must make profits and often you will have to operate the way they want subject to usual regulations. It is not easy.

  2. Eric Golding on March 28th, 2014 at 4:13 pm

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

The importance of being expert

Steve Rowley 3

I recently sat on a panel debate in Manchester, with the debate entitled – ATE insurers and sub-£250k claims. Whilst the title of the debate was probably written ahead of the government’s consultation paper to introducing fixed recoverable costs in lower-value clinical negligence claims, where £25,000 rather than £250,000 is being recommended, it nevertheless raised an interesting point on how after-the-event insurers can make premiums proportionate to damages, especially for cases worth less than £25,000.

April 26th, 2017