Dan Neidle Profile picture
Jul 13, 2022 30 tweets 13 min read Read on X
Nadhim Zahawi founded YouGov, but took no shares in it. A Gibraltar company, Balshore Investments, did instead. Zahawi says this wasn't tax avoidance, but was his father injecting capital into the business.

Here's my hunt for evidence. A very lengthy thread:
I'll start with my conclusion. Only three possibilities:

1. I am missing something.

2. Balshore did provide capital, but this was omitted from all of YouGov's accounts and filings, and not even picked up during the IPO.

3. Zahawi is lying, and this was tax avoidance.
Here's the first YouGov share issuance from 2000

Neil Copp provided £287,500 of capital & got 15% of the shares

Balshore provided no capital and got 42.5%

The same deal as Stephan Shakespeare - one of the founders

Zahawi, the other founder, got nothing.

Why? ImageImage
But perhaps the form is wrong and Balshore did provide capital. Let's look at the accounts.

Here's the balance sheet from two months after that share issuance.

No sign of any equity capital other than Copp's. Image
Startups often make mistakes, and Companies House filings and accounts can be wrong. This is generally picked up as a company matures... particularly if it's planning an IPO (which is the path YouGov was on).

YouGov did just that...
... Two years later, YouGov filed a late form showing Shakespeare & Balshore acquied more shares back in 2000. But for "nominal" value - only £7k each

This wasn't a capital injection - just (typical) cheap shares for founders.

Balshore wasn't a founder. Why did it get this? ImageImage
More share issuances in the next few years.

The wonderful Peter Kellner got involved, so got shares for free. As did Roland Berger & Partners (consulting firm): ImageImage
Small freebie shares dished out to employees and consultants (including @JamesDuddridge). Again, perfectly normal for a startup:

(the last page is missed out, due to Twitter's four image limitation, but it's not interesting) ImageImageImageImage
Chime Communications then acquired 27,500 shares for the (bargain) nominal price of 10p each. There's a good reason for that - we'll come to it later. ImageImage
27 November 2001. More consultants get to buy cheap shares: ImageImage
Then Peter Kellner gets to buy more shares at the cheap but eccentric price of 6.1p each. Then the same a few months later. ImageImageImageImage
... and more Kellner - catching up somewhat with the original founders. He's paying a bit, but it's not what you'd call capital. ImageImageImageImage
August 2003, and another consultant pays nominal 1p each for some shares: ImageImage
There are now a lot of shareholders. At this point, founders often want to preserve their power to direct the organisation and take "special" shares.

That happens here: Shakespeare, Zahawi, Kellner each get two special shares (with Shakespeare's giving one of his to his wife): ImageImage
Start of 2005 - another consultant gets shares for 1p each: ImageImage
And that takes us up to the April 2005 IPO.

At this point I count £113,630 of share capital, £312,711 of share premium.

None of that was from Balshore. Image
That is broadly consistent with the Jan 2005 balance sheet - except it shows £370,767 of share premium.

I can't see where the additional £58k comes from, but it's hardly a significant amount of capital, and it wasn't Balshore (as they haven't received any shares since 2000). Image
What about the creditors? Could Balshore have provided loan finance and that's how it got the shares for free?

Back in the year Balshore got its shares, there were £91,459 of "other creditors". Could that be it? ImageImage
The £91k is still there in the next few years, but there's no corresponding entry in Balshore's accounts. Image
It's possible Balshore's accounts are wrong, and the £91k was a loan from Balshore.

But it's credible (and wouldn't have been legal) for Neil Copp to pay £287,500 cash for a 15% stake, but Balshore to *lend* £91k and get a 45% stake.
There was some debt funding, from Chime Communications. Which explains why (way upthread) they got cheap shares. Image
So to conclude this very lengthy thread: Zahawi is saying that Balshore got a 45% stake in YouGov because it provided capital to YouGov.

There is zero evidence of any capital from Balshore
(except, just about possibly, a £91k loan - but that wouldn't justify a 45% stake).
I see only three possibilities:

1. I am missing something. What?

2. Balshore did provide capital, but this was omitted from all of YouGov's accounts and filings, and not even picked up during the IPO.

3. Zahawi is lying, and this was tax avoidance.
If the answer is 1 or 2 then Zahawi should prove it by pointing us towards some actual evidence, and not just making assertions in background briefings to journalists.
For anyone wanting to go hunting:

Here are all the pre-IPO 88(2) forms in one place: taxpolicy.org.uk/assets/pre-IPO…

Here are the 2000 accounts: taxpolicy.org.uk/assets/yougov_…
Here's the Jan 2005 balance sheet: taxpolicy.org.uk/assets/yougov_…

And all the Companies House filings are here: …te.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/036073…
My full analysis is here: taxpolicy.org.uk/zahawi
I've compiled this thread into a blog post for those who find that more convenient: taxpolicy.org.uk/2022/07/13/zah…
Obviously I would be delighted if @nadhimzahawi or his team would get in touch and explain their position. My DMs are open and my email address is at taxpolicy.org.uk.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dan Neidle

Dan Neidle Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DanNeidle

Nov 29
There's a lot of confusion at the moment about business rates, not helped by the answer being spread across six different Budget documents.

The short version: no small business will see an increase of more than 15% next year.

The long version:
The history here is a mess. Business rates are based on the market rent for a property. But this is usually way out of date.

During covid, with business fallen off a cliff, business rates were on the pre-covid, high, valuations. Result: disaster.

So: emergency relief schemes.
Then in 2023, business rates were revalued. But the valuation date was 2021 - just after Covid. So historically low rents -> lowish business rates.
Read 13 tweets
Nov 28
We’ve mapped the mansion tax.

You can see who's paying - which constituency, which postcode - and how many "mansions" are near you.

Full interactive map here 👇 Image
The map:

More info and instructions below.taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/11/27/man…
You'll be extremely unsurprised to see that the vast majority of the tax comes from London/Southeast

Shoutout to Poole - the only exception actually visible on this chart (the interactive version on the website reveals all the details when you touch/move the mouse over) Image
Read 13 tweets
Nov 27
It's time to be nice about the Budget.

The council tax surcharge is a good policy. Very compromised/imperfect, but still good policy.

This is why: Image
It's just not right that council tax is a serious tax for someone renting a modest flat, but inconsequential to someone in a £5m penthouse.
And don't say "they use the same local services". Council tax is only slightly about local services. Mostly it's funding social care. Image
Read 16 tweets
Nov 27
Weird that the Budget is so "back-loaded", with very few tax rises next year, and then massive effects from the threshold freeze in 2030

Why? Image
One answer is that this is a bit of an illusion. The chart shows the very large threshold freeze effect from this Budget, but no the almost-as-large threshold freezes from previous Budgets.

Still true to say the tax rises from this Budget are back-loaded. So this is no answer.
The boring answer: because this is the tax/time profile she needed to hit her headroom target within the OBR's projections.

But I don't really think she started with spending, then saw the OBR projections, then cut the tax cloth to fit.

It's more fundamental
Read 7 tweets
Nov 26
Bad news for anyone thinking of responding to the consultation on the new electric vehicle duty.

The consultation opens today, and closes last March. Image
Image
Time-travel aside, the second hand car market will become *slightly* more complicated, as you'll need to take into account whether the car you're buying has a "surplus" or "deficit" of EV duty. Image
This doesn't feel great to me. Would be better to let owners/dealers make a "catch up" payment at the point of sale so buyers are getting a VED "clean" car.
Read 8 tweets
Nov 26
Budget thread.

Basically this is it: Image
The "fiscal creep" we've seen in the last six years has probably been the greatest tax increase from a single policy in history.

Now we get more. Image
It's a rubbish way to increase tax, but politicians think the public complains more about the sensible alternative (an increase in rate).
Read 37 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(