Strong IPO trend in the Nordic region in 2025 – how to build trust ahead of a future listing

An initial public offering (IPO) is usually the first time a company raises funds publicly and is listed on the stock exchange. The main reason for conducting an IPO is to raise capital to expand the business, but there may also be other reasons, such as the founders wanting to sell the company.

According to PwC's Nordic IPO Watch H1 2025, Sweden accounted for 11 of a total of 16 IPOs in the Nordic region during the first half of 2025. The total market value on the first day of trading amounted to EUR 2,167.2 million, which is three times higher than in the first half of 2024 (EUR 690.6 million). Four of the five largest IPOs in the Nordic region were carried out in Sweden, with Asker Healthcare at the top with EUR 821.1 million.

PwC emphasises that lower inflation and interest rates are contributing to increased optimism for the second half of the year, even though macroeconomic uncertainty remains. The Nordic region, and Sweden in particular, is moving from an IPO dip in 2023 to a strong comeback in 2025. Companies planning to list in the near future need to consider both timing and market climate, but many also need to increase their preparedness with new resources in areas such as IR and legal.

IPO timing

Timing is important for an IPO and is not just a matter of reading market indicators, but also of coordinating internal readiness with external conditions so that the launch takes place when the company is ready and the market is receptive.

1. Market conditions and sentiment

Investor sentiment is strongly influenced by macro indicators such as interest rates, inflation and geopolitical stability. PwC shows that IPO values can vary significantly: IPO revenues in the EMEA region fell by 46% in the first half of 2025 compared to 2024, while both North America and Asia contributed positively to the global trend. Timing therefore involves an active choice to postpone or accelerate the IPO based on how the macro picture develops, in order to maximise valuation and access to capital.

2. The company's preparations and narrative strength

Building up the company's financial, legal and communicative readiness well in advance of the listing date pays off in the long run. Internal preparations often begin 12-18 months before the actual IPO, in accordance with many recommended timeline models. This includes developing a clear equity story, establishing stable internal processes and reporting routines, clarifying the company's ESG work and increasing transparency around its operations, which ensures that the company is ready when an IPO window opens.

3. Coordination of external communication

Commitment to an IPO is often driven by expectation. Strategic communication should be launched in stages, combined with early narrative and leadership training, followed by broader media exposure before the roadshow and then a focus on activities on the listing day itself. If momentum is lost, for example through uncertain communication from unprepared management, the company risks leaving money on the table as the IPO may be perceived as weak.

4. The risk of bad timing

A stressful listing, inadequate due diligence and a half-finished prospectus often lead to a significantly lower valuation. At the same time, waiting too long can mean missing the right window, both in terms of investment risk appetite and interest. PwC, for example, warns that H1 2025 delayed several listings, despite rising sentiment in Q2.

Why communication is important in the IPO process

An IPO is much more than a capital market initiative; it is a reputation-driven moment where strategic communication is fundamental to success. To clarify communication efforts throughout the IPO journey, you can use the communication schedule below as a starting point and set up activities and sub-goals for each period:

• 12-24 months before IPO: Build a strong narrative, define mission, vision and values, and provide media training for CEO/CFO.

• 6-12 months before IPO: Intensify visibility via media, podcasts and LinkedIn, and begin preparations for roadshows, Q&A simulations and IR collaboration.

• 3-6 months before IPO: Refine pitch materials, press releases and internal/external messaging ahead of the listing.

• On IPO day: Act quickly, secure top media exposure and communicate expectations regardless of whether the share price rises or falls initially.

Delayed communication can leave the company unprepared when the IPO fever hits, and depending on how the company communicates, it can affect both the outcome of the first day of trading and long-term brand value.

IPO´s that went wrong

WeWork

When WeWork announced its IPO plans in August 2019, the market was prepared for a spectacular listing. The company was then valued at around $47 billion, having raised over $12 billion from investors during its build-up phase. However, once the prospectus was made public, enthusiasm and interest cooled. Investors reacted with scepticism when the company reported an operating loss of more than $1.4 billion in the first half of 2019. The long and expensive leases and high fixed costs were clearly evident in the S-1 documents.

Experienced investors and analysts were critical, pointing out that WeWork marketed itself as a technology company, even though most of its costs consisted of real estate, operations and maintenance. This structure lacked scalability and had a tight cash flow. At the same time, information emerged about extensive internal conflicts of interest: CEO Adam Neumann made large luxury purchases, such as a private jet, and sold the patent for the "We" trademark to himself for $5.9 million. In addition, he had issued so-called super-voting shares with 20 votes per share to himself in order to retain power in the company, which created a corrosive image of both governance and integrity. Inadequate crisis management and a lack of transparency exacerbated the problems.

When investors expressed concerns about the sustainability of the business model and customer churn during a recession, WeWork and its advisors attempted to downplay the issues rather than proactively address them. There was a lack of a credible communication strategy and a clear narrative to reassure the market. As a result, the IPO was withdrawn in September, just weeks after the documents were made public. Neumann was forced to step down as CEO that same month, and the company's valuation plummeted to just over $10 billion, representing a decline of nearly 80 per cent compared to the intended IPO price.

What went wrong?

• An unclear narrative without a credible business model: The prospectus focused more on grandiose visions than concrete financial forecasts. Investors could not see how the company would become profitable.
• Agency problems in governance and low transparency: Adam Neumann's dominance via super-voting shares and internal transactions created crises of confidence. The company did not communicate effectively or in a timely manner when criticism came from investors and analysts.
• Failed crisis communication and defensive approach: Instead of openly addressing sceptical questions, the company chose to downplay serious objections, which gave the impression that the company was unable to withstand criticism.

• Banks that fuelled expectations: Investment banks involved in the IPO process, such as JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, competed for the assignment and provided Neumann with overly optimistic valuation frameworks, rather than setting realistic expectations.

This case effectively illustrates how dangerous it is to go public without a clear, credible narrative, a strong control structure and a robust communication plan that includes both crisis management and responses to potential outcomes.

Snap Inc.

When Snap Inc. went public on 2 March 2017, they were met with short-lived enthusiasm as the company was valued and priced at $24 billion, equivalent to $17 per share, and rose nearly 44 per cent at the IPO.

But the success was superficial. After the IPO, major structural problems came to light: the company generated annual net losses of nearly $500 million despite strong revenue growth, and share trading was dominated by non-voting shares. The founders retained control through super-voting shares, even after listing.

The market's initial enthusiasm quickly faded. Within three months, the share price had fallen back to the IPO level, despite initially trading at over $27. During the summer, the price bottomed out at around $13, representing a decline of just over 50 per cent from its peak.

What went wrong?

• Excessive hype and unclear narrative: Snap was marketed as a company of the future, a "camera company" with billion-dollar growth, but the prospectus and initial quarterly reports revealed that the business model was based solely on advertising revenue with strained margins. Investors' expectations came from other social media companies such as Facebook, with its strong cash flow and scalable business model, something that Snap did not have.

• Control issues and governance: Only Class A shares without voting rights were offered to the public, while the founders controlled the voting capital through Class C shares. This created an agency problem that investors initially overlooked, but which quickly escalated into another negative factor.

• Lack of transparency: CEO Evan Spiegel later admitted that he underestimated the importance of "explaining the Snap story" to Wall Street, which highlights the importance of balancing transparency and compliance.

• The IPO came before the company was ready: Although the stock rose initially, Snap was financially weak and had not yet proven its long-term profitability. Interest rates, competition (mainly Instagram), and the lack of a stable cash flow quickly made themselves felt. The IPO window opened while the company still needed to stabilise its fundamentals.

This case clearly shows how an IPO can go wrong if the narrative and governance are not established in good time, and how timing, i.e. launching IPO readiness in line with internal strengths and the external market, is a critical factor.

Consider this

Whether you are already a listed company or a company considering an IPO, it is important to continuously work on your reputation, external communication and meeting market expectations in a positive way. Here are some tips for success:

• Ask yourselves why you are listed or why you want to be listed. For example: Do you want to generate returns for shareholders? Do you want to raise capital? Or do you want to facilitate trading in your shares?

• Align your communication efforts with market rhythms and sentiment.

• Shape the equity story, transparency and credibility within ESG and corporate governance.

• Ensure a continuous and coordinated plan for IR and PR, including robust procedures and a crisis management plan.