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?
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.
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?
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):
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)
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.
27 November 2001. More consultants get to buy cheap shares:
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.
... and more Kellner - catching up somewhat with the original founders. He's paying a bit, but it's not what you'd call capital.
August 2003, and another consultant pays nominal 1p each for some shares:
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):
Start of 2005 - another consultant gets shares for 1p each:
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.
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).
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?
The £91k is still there in the next few years, but there's no corresponding entry in Balshore's accounts.
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.
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.
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.
Mandelson's firm, General Counsel, covered-up Mandelson's relationship with Epstein.
Here's Global Counsel's CEO and co-founder, preparing to tell the press that Mandelson barely knew Jeffrey Epstein.
Who did he check that line with?
Jeffrey Epstein.
They're responding to this Telegraph story, the previous day, revealing that Epstein planned to meet a British Government Minister in New York on the weekend of 12/13 December 2009.
The Telegraph had picked up on a 2009 court application by Epstein to be released from house arrest so he could meet a senior British government figure in New York.
On 31 March 2010, Lord Mandelson's principal private secretary sent him a note of a meeting between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Larry Summers, US Treasury Secretary.
Lord Mandelson forwarded it to Jeffrey Epstein five minutes later.
This was a pretty detailed discussion. Epstein responded with suggestions as to how hedge funds should be taxed, and then detailed questions about the drafting of the new US rules ("may" vs "shall).
The next day, Lord Mandelson met Larry Summers himself.
Lord Mandelson's private secretary sent a note of the meeting to him at 1.22pm. Within two minutes, Lord Mandelson forwarded it to Jeffrey Epstein.
Who leaked this Number 10 discussion to Jeffrey Epstein? And are there consequences for the leaker?
It’s an internal discussion re. getting markets moving in the aftermath of the financial crisis. No doubt of great interest to Epstein and his financial market clients.
The name of the leaker is redacted. Could be any of Vadera, Pond, Heywood, Mandelson, or anyone they forwarded the email to.
I guess we'll never know the leaker's identity.
On a completely different subject, here's Peter Mandelson (a few months later) leaking an unrelated policy discussion to Jeffrey Epstein.
New Epstein emails show Peter Mandelson secretly advising JPMorgan’s CEO on how to fight Labour’s 2009 bankers’ bonus tax - even suggesting he “mildly threaten” the Chancellor.
Mandelson was Business Secretary at the time.
A year later, he was seeking work with JPM.
On 9 December 2009, Alistair Darling - then the Chancellor of the Exchequer - announced a one-off 50% tax on bankers’ bonuses.
On 15 December, Jeffrey Epstein asked Lord Mandelson if the tax could be amended so it applied only to cash bonuses (not the, much more valuable, non-cash elements such as share options).
Mandelson said that he was trying hard to amend the tax.