Key Takeaways
- • Firmus's planned ASX IPO failed because it could not secure its reported $44 billion valuation in public markets, according to the Australian Financial Review (AFR).
- • The column argues that governance concerns often cited against tech listings on the ASX, namely dual-class shares and remuneration not linked to performance, were not the obstacle in Firmus's case, since the company had neither.
- • Valuation gap between private and public markets is the core issue: a company valued at one level privately may not command the same value on the ASX.
- • Firmus reportedly still believes it can achieve a valuation close to $44 billion in private markets or offshore, per the column.
Summary
A column in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) examines why Firmus's initial public offering plan on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) collapsed. The column argues that the frequently cited obstacles for technology and growth companies listing in Australia, dual-class share structures (which are banned) and executive remuneration packages not tied to performance (which investors widely dislike), were not factors in Firmus's case. The company had neither feature, yet its IPO plan still failed.
According to the column, the central problem was valuation. Firmus could not obtain its $44 billion valuation in public markets. The company reportedly believes it can still secure a valuation close to that level in private markets or offshore, illustrating the column's point that a company worth one amount in private markets is not necessarily worth the same in Australia's public markets.
The piece frames this as part of a broader pattern in which private-market funding options reduce the pressure to list. Publisher context from related coverage in the same domain echoes the theme that growing private capital pools and high private-market valuations can deter public listings, though that supplemental material does not address Firmus directly and is not relied upon for the specifics above.
The column's headline, "Apples v oranges," points to the mismatch between private-market valuations, which are set through negotiated rounds, and public-market prices, which are set through trading and disclosure requirements. For institutional investors and fund managers, the episode underscores that headline private valuations may not be a reliable guide to what a company could achieve on public exchanges.
According to the column, the central problem was valuation. Firmus could not obtain its $44 billion valuation in public markets. The company reportedly believes it can still secure a valuation close to that level in private markets or offshore, illustrating the column's point that a company worth one amount in private markets is not necessarily worth the same in Australia's public markets.
The piece frames this as part of a broader pattern in which private-market funding options reduce the pressure to list. Publisher context from related coverage in the same domain echoes the theme that growing private capital pools and high private-market valuations can deter public listings, though that supplemental material does not address Firmus directly and is not relied upon for the specifics above.
The column's headline, "Apples v oranges," points to the mismatch between private-market valuations, which are set through negotiated rounds, and public-market prices, which are set through trading and disclosure requirements. For institutional investors and fund managers, the episode underscores that headline private valuations may not be a reliable guide to what a company could achieve on public exchanges.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.