Here is information for those who have invested in Desentum: “Desentum, a Finnish biomedical company developing a novel immunotherapy for allergies, announces positive results from a clinical study of its DM-101PX birch allergy vaccine. The short ten-week treatment period was safe and well-tolerated in birch-allergic patients and induced a very strong and long-lasting allergen-specific IgG4 response. The antibodies generated by the treatment effectively inhibited IgE-mediated basophil activation caused by the birch allergen, suggesting that the immune response induced by DM-101PX protects against allergy.”
“The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study tested three ascending dosing regimens in 30 adult, birch-allergic patients, each receiving ten subcutaneous injections of either DM-101PX or placebo over ten weeks. No serious adverse events were observed.”
Profits from the sale of an unlisted company are not tax-free. Dividends, on the other hand, are. If the company goes public, dividends become taxable. Regarding capital gains, the treatment does not change. Of course, you can start valuing the shares at fair value in the financial statements, whereas it’s more difficult when unlisted.
Ugh… I just noticed that Singa’s first convertible bond (VVK) matured in 9/2024.
My personal life has been such since autumn due to a divorce that I haven’t had time to follow investments, and I haven’t received any info from Singa either.
Can someone shed some light on what’s going on with it?
So I didn’t do anything in the autumn, was the convertible bond (VVK) extended, or did they convert into shares, or what?
Why would this be interesting? The company has decades behind it. It has supplied its solutions to Finland’s largest industrial companies such as Metsä Group, Outokumpu, SAICA Group, and Stora Enso. The company has a broad ownership base with 210 owners. One would think that everything that could be shown has already been shown?
The company is seeking financing to strengthen its working capital. In plain terms, the cash register is empty. Lowell can tell us that the company has one open payment default. In addition, there are numerous resolved payment defaults.
The growth target presented by the company is ambitious, even though the company has grown by an average of about 6.7% per year from 2012 → 2024.
I doubt the quality of the container handling patents. Stacking containers in that manner is not a common practice, nor does it seem to be patentable as such. There also doesn’t seem to be any evidence of demand for container handling. I strongly doubt whether an existing problem has been solved. Ports are very skilled at optimizing these goods flows and container stacks.
The current owners are apparently not interested in financing this any further. I assume they have been offered a directed issue, debt instruments, or something similar that they have not accepted.
Fundraising is also expensive, “6.11.2024 Share issue 0.89” if less than half a year ago the share price was 89 cents and now 112… A modest 25% increase in this time, and knowing the company’s situation, one can only wonder. Springvest seems to have overshot now and taken on a higher-risk target to keep the issue going.
I’m personally interested in the company’s software side.
2. Warehouse management software and digital twin. Pesmel’s own Material Flow WMS software combines warehouse, dispatch, and production logistics into an integrated whole. Warehouse utilization can be predicted up to a month ahead.
A key part of the software is a digital twin (Digital Twin), with which the capacity and functionality of the high-bay warehouse can be optimized already before construction and during the operational phase. The company has developed the software itself and fully owns its intellectual property rights.
Every now and then I check Invesdor to see if there are interesting companies to spice up the portfolio. Often these are bad deals, because the best companies get funding from professionals, but sometimes slightly more unusual cases come up that may not fit into a professional’s portfolio. I consider this STIL company, seeking a few million, exceptionally promising:
So, it is a simple, high-margin medical orthotic device for living with tremors. Production itself does not require many resources, and scaling can be achieved with small capital, for example, by utilizing 3D printing.
Sales are made through distributors and have started well. As a proper startup should, they are aiming for very rapid growth through distributors in both the EU and, a little later, the United States, while also seeking to expand the device’s use cases and develop a next-generation product. Sales started in Germany at the end of 2024, and Belgium and Italy will soon open as markets, so growth is to be expected.
The pre-money valuation of 10 million is perhaps a bit high, but with this kind of revenue growth rate, it’s not impossibly bad. Next year, additional funding will likely be sought, but based on good growth figures, I believe the valuation can be raised again then, and the probability of a downround is not very high in my opinion.
An interesting venture indeed, I’ll read it again during Easter and then look into it.
Growth was projected to be substantial during next year, and the assumption there is access to reimbursement coverage. A slight doubt arises, and it could easily be delayed by a year or two, but I really can’t say anything definitive about the process. Well, the relationships might already be in place or forming.
On the other hand, it was a nice addition that even an ordinary person can get into the scope of privilege; in my opinion, this hasn’t come up in all cases.
Does that company structure raise any flags for you, or does it seem typical? Of course, this is a completely different venture with legitimate funding behind it, but as an analogy, cases like Fafa’s vaguely come to mind, where in the end you wouldn’t have owned any part of the business itself, etc. I don’t remember the case exactly anymore.
The company’s self-reported growth figures should probably be viewed with skepticism. At the same time, it is seeking compensation, opening new markets, negotiating distribution agreements, investing in production, and developing the next-generation solution. It’s perfectly normal for a startup to do so many things at once, but something always goes wrong in a hurry, and other players usually don’t operate at quite the same clock speed.
I haven’t familiarized myself with Dutch corporate law, but the segregation of crowdfunding investors’ ownership doesn’t seem like an exceptional structure. Of course, it would be good to see the terms on which other investors are involved, but this is how it is. The liquidation preference has largely been put in place to attract small investors. In practice, these companies either succeed in growing rapidly or they go completely bust, and the investor gets nothing if down rounds are reached. It would be a pretty tricky situation for the founders if all the money from a company sale went to small investors
The government intends to lower the listing threshold by fully utilizing the national flexibilities allowed by the EU. This is based on the EU’s Listing Act, which is a large legislative package. It is part of the broader development of the EU’s Capital Markets Union.
The government mentions three areas for which Finland plans to utilize the lightest regulatory option in national implementation. The first concerns the so-called free float, i.e., the minimum level of a company’s freely tradable share capital. In addition, relief is coming for prospectus drafting obligations and language requirements.
What problem would Freeloat solve? Who wants to go public without an offering and with only a couple of owners? Big owners selling is always a red flag in my eyes, and the company itself doesn’t benefit from this…
On First North, 10% is already in use, at least according to the article. For the main list, the requirement would be larger, a market capitalization of €500M, to ensure sufficient trading volume. So, following Sweden’s model:
Reportedly, Finland wants to keep the €50 million requirement, following the Swedish model. This limits the group of companies that can benefit from the change, because then a company must be worth at least €500 million to be able to list using ten percent.
For smaller companies, it is already possible to list with ten percent on the growth marketplace First North. Regarding the main market, there are no plans to change the requirement that shares must be owned by at least 500 different investors. First North already offers flexibility for this as well.
Larger family businesses now come to mind, where ownership is concentrated, e.g., Fazer could fit this description. I don’t know the ownership stakes in detail right now, but there’s probably no need to raise new capital
According to the new rules, an offering prospectus does not need to be prepared for offerings under €12 million. In Finland, the limit has been €8 million. In Sweden, it has been €2.5 million.
…
In the future, under certain conditions, an offering prospectus can be prepared solely in English.
Preparing an offering prospectus is a significant cost and workload. If it can be lightened, then smaller companies might become more interested in listing.
I would need help with the valuation of an unlisted software company. Is there anyone here who could provide an estimate?
Company:
Revenue 350M€
SaaS (Recurring contracts year after year) 265M€
Revenue growth over the last 10 years: 30%/year
Forecast for future revenue growth: 25%/year
Churn (annual customer attrition): 5% (so 95% continue using)
Profit: -20M€ (Growth at the expense of profit)
Personnel: 2000
Market leader in its field or at least top 3.
Operates quite globally, with customers and offices around the world (USA, Europe, Asia, Middle East)
More information is certainly needed for an accurate estimate, but can these figures provide a ballpark estimate?
When Pesmel built those automated warehouses about 5+ years ago for the company I was with, their absolute weakness was the software. It was clear that they didn’t have a grasp of the complexity of large enterprise information systems (especially ERPs), processes, and related operating procedures. Test environments were missing (other suppliers had functional test environments), and naturally, there were difficulties with integrations. They did work at a basic level, but ERP systems pose challenges for them, and handling integrations for testing and production was difficult.
But they could very well have caught up with others during this half-decade.
For reference, you can check valuations here: 2025 Private SaaS Company Valuations - SaaS Capital. Such industry champions still have 10x - 15x ARR (in practice, it’s calculated from revenue, and SaaS revenue is not separated), even though the average in the US is currently 8x. In Europe, it’s only 5x currently, although with significant fluctuation.
The Representative Council of KPY Cooperative decided at its ordinary meeting on May 7, 2025, to pay its members cooperative interest of nine cents per share for the financial year 2024, totaling approximately two million euros. The interest will be paid to the members on May 30, 2025.
Norsepower, a manufacturer of rotor sails, has an open offering. The company itself is in an interesting situation, as its first factory was completed in China at the end of last year and almost all of this year’s capacity is already sold. But what does the community think?
