An RTO can help private shareholders avoid much of the time, expense and tedium of an Initial Public Offering (“IPO”). Hence, the process is sometimes referred to as a “backdoor IPO” or a “backdoor listing”.
Quite often, the publicly traded company involved in a reverse is an inactive “shell” corporation. A merger of the public and private entities allows the private company to shift its assets and operations into a public entity with relative ease.
The first part of this article will compare the pros and cons of an IPO versus an RTO; then we will provide some statistics on the prevalence of RTO’s in Europe and North America; finally, we will finish by illustrating with some concrete examples.
A, Pros and Cons of IPO vs RTO
An RTO can typically be accomplished for a fraction of the cost of an IPO. The process of listing a company and taking it public requires hiring an underwriter, extensive disclosure, due diligence process undertaken by an underwriter, filings with stock exchange and fees paid to stock exchange. The underwriting process usually provides a certain comfort to investors that securities purchased are of a certain quality.
Given that an RTO is a somewhat short-circuited process, without underwriter, investors have less comfort as to the quality of securities purchased. This may result in securities trading at a discount. While a traditional IPO may require months or years to complete, an RTO may be completed within weeks1.
B, Prevalence of RTO’s
Reverse mergers initially gained popularity in the US over-the-counter (OTC) markets in the 1980’s. Despite more publicity given to US RTOs, back-door listings are a global phenomenon. In Australia RTO’s are frequent in the mining industry. In Hong Kong, RTOs are popular in the real estate development sector2.
RTOs are a popular mechanism for going public in Europe as well, especially in the UK and Sweden. According to a study3 which examines 224 reverse takeovers in Europe between 1996 and 2015, there were 167 private and 154 public companies involved in RTO transactions. (Please note that the number of public and private entities involved in RTO’s are not necessarily the same in a given country or region, given that there are many cross-border transactions). Exhibit 1 – European RTOs 1996-2015: Distribution by Country4
|Country||Private firms||Public firms|
|Isle of Man||–||2|
|Industry||No. of firms||Percentage|
|Consumer products and services||24||10.71%|
|Media and entertainment||24||10.71%|
|Energy and power||11||4.91%|
|Government and agencies||1||0.45%|
C, Examples of RTO’s
The Exhibit below provides examples of concrete RTO’s during 2019. Exhibit 3 – Selected recent RTOs in Europe6
|Stock Exchange||Public Company||Private Company||Date of Transaction||Country of operation||Sector|
|AIM||Polemos Plc (Digitalbox Plc)||Digitalbox Publishing||28 February 2019||UK||Media|
|Nasdaq First North||Indentive AB (Artificial Solutions International AB)||Artificial Solutions Holding ASH AB||28 February 2019||Sweden||Software & Computer Services|
|AIM||Chaarat Gold Holdings||Kapan Mining Ltd||04 February 2019||Armenia/ Kyrgyzstan||Mining|
A reverse takeover might be considered an option for a company that has already decided that it would like to do an IPO, as an accelerated and cheaper route to a public vehicle. However, for those owners of private companies that have decided against an IPO for reasons of expense, delays, risks and effort, RTO might warrant a fresh look.
2 A comparative analysis between IPOs and reverse takeovers: Evidence from Europe by Vasileios G. Oikonomou, Antonios I. Tsianakidis
4 A comparative analysis between IPOs and reverse takeovers: Evidence from Europe by Vasileios G. Oikonomou, Antonios I. Tsianakidis
6 Allenby Capital Limited, Mynewsdesk