Connect with us

Finance

The true cost of being cancelled: Stars face financial ruin after being embroiled in scandal – but who has a buffer of cash and assets to fall back on if they never work again?

Published

on

The true cost of being cancelled: Stars face financial ruin after being embroiled in scandal – but who has a buffer of cash and assets to fall back on if they never work again?

Cancel culture is now so virulent and dangerous that stars are even buying insurance to protect themselves from financial and reputational ruin.

And no wonder, because MailOnline can today reveal how stars such as Phillip Schofield are losing millions each year after being sent into the celebrity wilderness.

One star whose work has dried up amid allegations of sexual impropriety claims to be £10million worse off – with just £320 left in one business, down from £432,583.

Exclusive analysis of publicly-available company accounts reveal how stars’ earnings have fallen off a cliff since leaving the public eye due to various scandals.

Mr Schofield’s long career means that while his gigantic earnings from This Morning, Dancing on Ice and advertising deals have vanished, he still enjoys the cushion of millions of pounds in cash and assets including several properties.

Advertisement

Gino D’Acampo has built up a nest egg of around £6million from his ITV work and book deals over the past five years – but with no new shows on the way his earnings will take a hit of around £1million-a-year if the work runs out.

And for fallen stars like Gregg Wallace and Wynne Evans, their financial future could be bleak unless they can get their own careers back on track, especially without the comfort blanket of a BBC salary.

Noel Clarke, who was cancelled in 2021 and is fighting for his reputation in the High Court in a high-profile libel case with The Guardian newspaper, faces near-complete financial ruin if he loses the case.

Phillip Schofield is losing an estimated £1.4 million-a-year since quitting his job as This Morning presenter in June 2023.

The star, 62, left the show having admitted to having an affair with a junior colleague and then quit ITV altogether, leaving behind a host of well-paid presenting gigs.

Advertisement

He was earning £730,000 for the This Morning presenter role with Holly Willoughby but also picked up a reported £45,000 an episode for Dancing on Ice, which runs for 10 episodes per year.

Presenting other shows like British Soap Awards, BBC game show The Cube, and an ITV series called How To Spend It Well all added to his lucrative annual earnings.

Away from the screen, Schofield has built up a cache of valuable assets, including properties.

Schofield admitted to a relationship with a much younger male colleague (pictured centre) and having lied about it to bosses – as well as his loved ones

Advertisement
Phillip and Stephanie Lowe married in 1993 and raised two daughters, Molly, right, and Ruby, left. His daughters are also huge supporters - Molly is his publicist

Phillip and Stephanie Lowe married in 1993 and raised two daughters, Molly, right, and Ruby, left. His daughters are also huge supporters – Molly is his publicist

He sold a flat he was said to have used to entertain his lover for £1million last year, making a loss of £250,000 on what he paid for it.

He also owns a mansion in Henley-on-Thames outright, which is thought to be worth at least £5million.

In 2020 he picked up £1.2million for a book deal for his autobiography Life’s What You Make It.

Accounts for his two companies show they had assets of £3million in May 2023, soon after he quit This Morning. 

Advertisement

Fistral Productions, for his TV work, held £2.137million in the year he quit This Morning. His wife Stephanie Schofield is listed as a co-director.

He also has a company called Fistral Property, with assets of £900,000. Mrs Schofield is also a co-director.

Potential loss: £1.4 million-a-year 

Gino D’Acampo 

Gino D’Acampo has seen the value of his company rocket by an average of £979,000-a-year for the last five years and is now worth just under £6million.

But it means he could now stand to lose £1 million a year – or potentially more – if his career had continued to blossom at the same rate.

Advertisement

He lives in a £1.25million house in Hertfordshire, with wife Jessica, who is a director of his companies and the mother of his three children.

In February, ITV pulled all Gino D’Acampo’s shows from its upcoming schedules.

The TV chef, 48, has been accused of ‘sexually inappropriate’ behaviour spanning 12 years while filming his hit food and travel programmes. He denies the claims.

Mr D’Acampo has faced accusations including using sexualised and aggressive language on TV sets including ‘Gino’s Italian Express’, ‘Gordon, Gino and Fred’s Road Trip’ ‘Gino’s Italy: Secrets of South’, ‘Like Mamma Used to Make’ and ‘Emission Impossible’. 

ITV then changed its schedules to ensure he will not appear on our screens. But many of his shows remain available on its ITVX streaming service. 

Advertisement

The new series of Family Fortunes, the iconic family gameshow hosted by Gino, was due for broadcast in early 2025 but has also been canned by ITV. 

Gino is the host of Family Fortunes. Episodes have been pulled and the new series canned

Gino is the host of Family Fortunes. Episodes have been pulled and the new series canned

The Italian star (centre), 48, who regularly appeared on ITV's This Morning (pictured) when Schofield was a co-host, has been 'cancelled' following multiple allegations of sexually inappropriate and intimidating behaviour

Gino D’Acampo, pictured with Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield, honours his promise to cook naked on This Morning if they won at the 2011 NTA Awards. Gino has become known for stripping off on screen

Gino D'ACampo and wife Jessica

Gino D’ACampo and wife Jessica

Gino ‘said and did whatever he wanted’ while working for ITV – as his alleged victims insisted they were ‘too afraid’ to make complaints at the time. 

Advertisement

Sources told MailOnline that ITV began to ease out Gino in the wake of the scandal that engulfed the BBC over MasterChef’s Gregg Wallace, especially after Phillip Schofield’s bitter exit from This Morning.

But amid questions about why they didn’t raise incidents spanning 12 years, most of the women told ITV News they were ‘too afraid’ to make complaints about D’Acampo because they were self-employed and feared being ostracised in TV.

After a bumper few years, Gino’s company has seen its value increase by between £500,000 and £2.06million each year between 2019 and 2024. 

It currently has £2million in cash in the bank. The company is now worth £4.9million.

MailOnline estimates that his total net worth is £5.7million.

Advertisement

Potential loss: £979,000-a-year

Gregg Wallace 

Gregg Wallace had been earning an estimated £400,000-a-year from his Masterchef role, which, as is suspected, will now be lost if he does not return to TV.

The former MasterChef host, 60, stepped down from hosting the BBC show with Jon Torode in November after multiple complaints of inappropriate behaviour on set.

Before his big break, the star used all his Cockney charms to create an appealing TV persona – ‘the fat, bald bloke off the telly who likes pudding’, as he once styled himself.

But he initially made his living as a greengrocer, although market traders he once worked alongside have claimed they were the ones left counting the cost of his success. 

Advertisement

With his six-figure BBC salary on hold, Gregg has a separate fitness business on the side called Showme.fit which is currently worth £108,663. 

There is also a new health and food business, whose accounts are not yet available.

Ex-MasterChef judge Gregg Wallace was spotted for the first time in February after not being out in public since November 28, 2024

Ex-MasterChef judge Gregg Wallace was spotted for the first time in February after not being out in public since November 28, 2024

Wallace co-hosted Masterchef for 17 years alongside John Torode (left)

Wallace co-hosted Masterchef for 17 years alongside John Torode (left) 

But he stepped back amid an investigation into his conduct over a period of 17 years

But he stepped back amid an investigation into his conduct over a period of 17 years

Advertisement

He also has £32,000 held in his company Lobster Enterprises Ltd, where his TV money is paid into.

George Allan’s Greengrocers, the company Wallace founded in 1989, was built into a business with a £7.5million turnover.

But last year a former manager claimed Gregg left behind £1.5 million in debt – and a host of disgruntled ex-colleagues – when the firm went under in 2000. 

In his 2012 autobiography, Life on a Plate, Wallace acknowledged: ‘We were owed millions and we owed millions to wholesalers in the market’.

He also described how he ‘didn’t have to pick up all the bills personally’ after Gregg Allan’s failed, since it was a limited company, and hit back at the idea that fame had resulted in a loss of focus on his part.

Advertisement

‘Many of the traders had joined forces and said they refused to employ me,’ wrote Wallace. 

‘It wasn’t fair but they blamed me for George Allan’s closure. They thought I’d got too fancy and big for my boots, being on telly now, and I let it all go to pot.

‘Nothing could’ve been further from the truth, though. It’s always the way: the last one out to turn off the lights, gets the blame.’

Gregg founded George Allan’s Greengrocers in 1989 and built the company into a business with a £7.5 million turnover

Gregg founded George Allan’s Greengrocers in 1989 and built the company into a business with a £7.5 million turnover

In 2014 Gregg was forced to close his Wallace and Co restaurant in Putney, South West London and sell its parent company Wallace Cafes.

Advertisement

Since then he has relied on his £400,000-a-year MasterChef salary, which is now hanging in the balance.

Much of the earning pressure is now on his ShowMe.Fit app, which he advertises using his popular Instagram account. But it emerged last year that he borrowed £70,000 to keep it going.

It is currently worth £108,663, according to the accounts.

Lobster Enterprises Ltd, where his TV cash is paid into, paid tax suggesting it made a £400,000 profit. But it is worth £32,000, according to the latest accounts.

The shamed Masterchef star, 60, also set up Gregg Wallace.Health after he himself shed five stone, with the business offering recipes, advice from experts and frozen ready deliveries.

Advertisement

The website reads: ‘Ready to transform your health and feel your best? – no risks, just results. Cancel anytime’.

However in recent weeks fans who signed up have furiously taken to review bible Trustpilot and claimed they are being incorrectly charged and are struggling to get their money back.

One customer fumed: ‘What a scam. I cancelled my membership when they changed apps. However [it] managed to do an auto renewal of my membership and deducted an annual subscription for a non functioning App. Getting no reply on their email for a refund. Customer service terrible and would not recommend them’.

Potential loss: £400,000-a-year 

Noel Clarke 

Noel Clarke said that his work completely dried up the moment The Guardian story about his alleged sexually inappropriate behaviour was published.

Advertisement

In court papers he has detailed more than £10million in lost earnings since the article in April 2021.

One company he still runs called Astonishing Entertainment Limited, had assets of £432,583 in the 12 months up to the end of March 2021, when the allegation was made.

The same company now has just £320 according to the most recent accounts which cover the 12 months to the end of March 2024.

His company Unstoppable Film and Television Limited was bought by powerful TV production company ALL 3 Media, which was behind Fleabag, in 2018, but Clarke and business partner Jason Maza stood down in August 2021 after the Guardian claims were published. 

Noel Clarke arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice this week for his libel case against The Guardian

Noel Clarke arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice this week for his libel case against The Guardian

Advertisement

The company had assets of £3.3million in the months before the bombshell newspaper claims.

In court papers Clarke catalogued the earnings he was losing as a consequence of being cancelled.

They were a Sky TV show Bulletproof, series 4, where he lost his fee for acting in 10 episodes – £585,000, his fee for writing two episodes – £90,000 – his fee for directing two episodes – £90,000 – and anticipated royalties of £250,000.

The Guardian article came out midway through an ITV series Viewpoint which was immediately taken off the air.

But a second series had already been commissioned meaning he lost his fee – £270,000, anticipated royalties of an estimated £200,000.

Advertisement

Advanced plans for a Channel 5 TV show Highwater which would have begun shooting in winter 2021 meant he lost a producer bonus – in the region of £60,000.

A BBC TV show called Crongton was ‘greenlit’ was ditched and meant he would not get a producer bonus – in the region of £60,000.

Clarke is known for his role in Doctor Who as Mickey. He is pictured here alongside Billie Piper who played Rose Tyler

Clarke is known for his role in Doctor Who as Mickey. He is pictured here alongside Billie Piper who played Rose Tyler

Noel Clarke pictured as DC Martin Young in the ITV Series Viewpoint

Noel Clarke pictured as DC Martin Young in the ITV Series Viewpoint

A StudioCanal movie Something in the Water would have earned him a producer bonus in the region of £40,000.

Advertisement

He would also have earned a minimum salary from his ex production company Unstoppable Film and Television of £1.25million over 10 years not including raises or bonuses.

He also said the projected approximate value of shares in Unstoppable Film and Television, which he says has now been ‘wiped out’, would have been £7million.

Potential loss: £10million 

Wynne Evans

Wynne Evans has almost £1million in cash and assets sitting in the bank, his latest accounts reveal.

But he has had to step away from the public eye after making a lewd joke that saw him have to leave the lucrative Strictly Come Dancing tour this year. 

Advertisement

Evans, 53, who made a sick sexual comment about dancer and broadcaster Janette Manrara, has also been replaced in his BBC Radio Wales show. 

Wynne Evans Ltd handles the majority of his media earnings, including his Go Compare commercial work.

GoCompare has repeatedly refused to say whether they are going to sack Wynne from his role, which is believed to worth at least £200,000-a-year. 

Wynne Evans is said to earn £200,000-a-year as the face of Go Compare

Wynne Evans is said to earn £200,000-a-year as the face of Go Compare

The Go Compare star reportedly believes his reputation has been unfairly left 'in tatters' after he apologised for a vile remark aimed at tour host Janette Manrara, when footage emerged of the comment at the tour's press launch

The Go Compare star reportedly believes his reputation has been unfairly left ‘in tatters’ after he apologised for a vile remark aimed at tour host Janette Manrara, when footage emerged of the comment at the tour’s press launch

Advertisement

Accounts for year to end of May 2024, filed in February show he has cash and assets of £734,830 – down from £761,798 the year before. 

He paid £12,186 in tax.

It does not include what he was paid to be on Strictly and its live tour before he was forced to walk away from.

He owns a flat in Croydon bought for £198,000 in 2014. It is now worth an estimated £288,000. 

His ex-wife Tanwen Evans owns a home in Cardiff bought for £465,000 in 2013, now worth £875,000.

Advertisement

He has a management company which manages the flat in Croydon but it is dormant.

But he disbanded another company seven years ago and he is one of many director-board members of a Opera theatre called Grange Park Opera in West Horsley.

When the Go Compare and Strictly star discussed the house he moved into after his divorce he described it as ‘sad and derelict’, backing onto busy a railway track and saying it cost £500,000 to make it fit to live in.

Back in January, the opera singer, 53, stepped down from the Strictly Come Dancing live tour after coming under fire for making a vile remark aimed at host Janette Manrara [pictured with Katya Jones]

Wynne Evans ‘ lawyers have reportedly compiled a 30-page dossier to take to showdown talks with the BBC as he fights to keep his beloved radio job

Wynne previously revealed he hit 'rock bottom' at the end of his marriage to Welsh violinist Tanwen (seen together in 2011)

Wynne previously revealed he hit ‘rock bottom’ at the end of his marriage to Welsh violinist Tanwen (seen together in 2011) 

Advertisement

But pictures unearthed by MailOnline revealed that the stunning Edwardian villa was apparently in immaculate condition, with well presented rooms and gardens, packed with period features and in good condition.

And at more than £700,000 it was more than four times the then average property price for Cardiff.

In a recent interview discussing his 2015 divorce, the opera singer was bemoaning the state of the house in Cardiff which he bought after splitting from Tanwen and moving away from his two children.

He claimed the five-bedroomed house was ‘all he could afford’ and said he had spent £500,000 on improvements.

The house with three bathrooms in the leafy area was described at the time he bought it, in 2016, was certainly dated, and needed some modernising, but according to Evans it had ‘boarded-up windows’ and his then teenage children had to sleep in tents in their bedrooms during early visits. 

Advertisement

Potential loss: At least £200,000-a-year 

Finance

Robinhood Is Becoming a Full-Service Financial Platform. Is the Stock a Buy? | The Motley Fool

Published

on

Robinhood Is Becoming a Full-Service Financial Platform. Is the Stock a Buy? | The Motley Fool

Founded in 2013, Robinhood (HOOD +2.80%) changed the brokerage industry with its free trading model. Today, the broker’s product lineup has expanded well beyond stocks to include products like cryptocurrencies and prediction markets. With a focus on smaller investors, Robinhood is living up to its goal to “democratize finance for all.” But is becoming a full-service financial platform enough to make the stock a buy?

Robinhood is growing quickly

Although it was founded in 2013, Robinhood didn’t go public until 2021. In its first earnings release in the second quarter of that year, it had $102 billion in custody. In the first quarter of 2026, roughly five years later, that figure had grown to $307 billion, and it is now called total platform assets, given the broadening of the company’s business. The company has rapidly become a major player in the finance industry, building off its early success in attracting younger traders interested in stocks.

Image source: Getty Images.

There’s no question that management deserves a great deal of credit for what Robinhood has achieved. But that alone doesn’t make the stock worth buying. Notably, Robinhood is being afforded a premium valuation, with a price-to-earnings ratio of 45x, compared to P/Es of 39x for Interactive Brokers (IBKR +0.96%) and 18x for Charles Schwab (SCHW 2.97%). A growth investor may be able to justify Robinhood’s valuation, but a value investor likely wouldn’t be interested.

What’s going on with Robinhood’s customer base?

There’s another issue to consider here as well. With a focus on new investors, Robinhood may be taking on more risk than its long-established peers, such as Charles Schwab. This potential risk was highlighted in Robinhood’s solid first quarter 2026 results. Risk-taking is the big issue.

Advertisement

While Robinhood’s transaction-based revenue jumped 7% year-over-year in the quarter, that growth was largely driven by prediction markets, which boosted “other” revenue by 320%. Cryptocurrency-related revenue, however, fell by 47%. This is notable because it suggests that aggressive investors shifted to what is the current hot trading idea.

Robinhood Markets Stock Quote

Today’s Change

(2.80%) $2.95

Current Price

$108.15

The problem is that Robinhood has never lived through a deep market downturn, such as the dot-com crash or the bear market associated with the Great Recession. Until it has, it is hard to know what its customers will do when every market seems to be heading lower, and losses are piling up. In other words, what will its customers do when there’s no new hot investment idea to jump on? There is a very real possibility that fear drives less experienced investors to get out of the market and stay out. Risk-averse investors will likely want to wait for Robinhood to be stress-tested before buying it.

Robinhood is not a bad company, but it is still quite young

None of this is meant to suggest that Robinhood is a bad company. It has done incredible things in a very short period of time. But that short period of time is a problem because the vast majority of it has been good for the stock market and investing. Robinhood’s stock is expensive, and the company has yet to face a deep, prolonged market downturn. Only the most aggressive growth investors will likely be interested in it for now.

Charles Schwab is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Interactive Brokers Group. The Motley Fool recommends Charles Schwab and recommends the following options: long January 2027 $43.75 calls on Interactive Brokers Group, short January 2027 $46.25 calls on Interactive Brokers Group, and short June 2026 $97.50 calls on Charles Schwab. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Personal Finance: SpaceX IPO bends the rules | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Published

on

Personal Finance: SpaceX IPO bends the rules | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Elon Musk made history again this month with the largest public offering of a company in the history of the known universe. Space Exploration Technologies, better known as SpaceX, began trading June 12 on the Nasdaq exchange under the ticker symbol SPCX. In the first three days, the stock soared by 50%, blasting the rocketeer past Amazon into fifth place among America’s largest companies.

While the public liftoff was impressive for its size and the hype surrounding it, what truly set this transaction apart was how Musk used his leverage to succeed in changing the rules during the final countdown and advance his own interest at the expense of shareholders.

Space Exploration Technologies is a truly intriguing collection of assets with a history of big accomplishments and even bigger ambitions. At its core is Starlink, a profitable satellite internet and data transmission operation. In the offering document, Musk imagines a network of massive orbiting data centers, which is not entirely crazy and is likely to face less political opposition from nearby residents.

SpaceX also includes the familiar rocket launch enterprise and an artificial intelligence startup called xAI with its Grok AI assistant. While private investors and Starlink have provided operating cash flows to fund the space operations, SpaceX needs substantial additional funding to support its galactic expansion plans. That requires selling shares of this privately held company to the public in an initial public offering.

The process involves a syndicate of investment banks that facilitates the sale of shares held by the company’s founders or private investors at a specific price, the proceeds of which allow early investors to cash out and provide a large injection of capital. Once the shares are sold to public buyers, they change hands on a market exchange at a price determined by supply and demand.

Advertisement

The prospect of the largest initial offering ever ignited a frenzy of interest. It also allowed Elon Musk to leverage the buzz of a monster IPO to convince Wall Street to bend the rules.

To win the listing, the Nasdaq stock exchange agreed to substantial waivers of its own listing rules. While new companies must typically wait at least three months before they become eligible for inclusion in the popular Nasdaq 100 index, Nasdaq jettisoned this “seasoning” period and allowed SpaceX to enter the index after only 15 days. This tech-heavy index serves as the benchmark for over $1.4 trillion in fund assets that will now be required to sell other holdings to make room for SpaceX in their portfolios. Estimates range from $8 to $15 billion in forced purchases that will create artificial demand for the stock. It also means that many passive investors in retirement funds will end up owning the stock, like it or not.

Nasdaq also waived its own liquidity rules. Ordinarily, at least 10% of the company’s shares must be offered to the public, called the “float,” or percentage, of the total stock value that trades publicly. SpaceX floated only 4.3% of its stock, with private shareholders retaining 95.7%. Using some arithmetic legerdemain, Nasdaq created a “multiplier,” triple-counting the float for companies in the top 40 by total market value. Presumably for firms whose founders’ initials are E.M.

To its credit, S&P Global Inc. considered but ultimately refused to loosen its own standards for joining the S&P 500 index, concerned about the potential reputational damage. The S&P 500 is the benchmark for $20 trillion in assets and opted to retain its 12-month seasoning period as well as a four-quarter profitability hurdle. SpaceX may one day dock with the S&P 500, but the countdown has not started.

Aside from eliciting waivers and exceptions for index inclusion, SpaceX massively advantages its visionary but mercurial founder. In its surprisingly entertaining prospectus, the company boosted Musk’s control far beyond his ownership stake. The shares issued to the public are called Class A shares, and each carries one vote on matters of corporate governance. However, Musk’s stake resides in so-called Class B shares, each with 10 votes, giving Musk 84% voting control.

Advertisement

There are a few other little gems. The prospectus requires that any disputes between shareholders and the company must be settled privately through arbitration. Lawsuits, including the type of class action suits that tend to hold management’s feet to the fire, are expressly prohibited. And speaking of fire, Musk may only be fired by himself.

Some of these more restrictive provisions have been used before. For instance, in its initial offering, Google essentially pioneered the idea of multiple share classes that vested voting control with the founders. SpaceX propels contempt for shareholder rights into a higher orbit.

Separate from the structural disadvantage to public shareholders is the question of valuation. SpaceX lost nearly $5 billion in 2025 and another $4 billion just last quarter. The initial offering of loss-making companies is hardly new, especially in technologically emerging fields. SpaceX has reached the stratosphere.

With no profits to measure, a useful metric is the ratio of the total value of all the company’s stock divided by last year’s revenues, called the price to sales ratio. When the unprofitable Amazon went public in 1996, its total market value was three times its 1995 sales. Google’s 2004 offering priced at 15 times sales, Facebook at a hefty 28 times, and even Musk’s own Tesla launched at a multiple of 15 times sales. SpaceX cleared the tower at an otherworldly 95 times sales, soaring to 130 by the end of day two as the frenzy intensified. During the first full trading day, it comprised 75% of all stock purchases by individual investors. In the prospectus, Musk expatiates on his plan to colonize Mars. He’s halfway there.

There is no precedent for a public offering of this size, with such a long and speculative arc toward profitability and so few shareholder protections. SpaceX is a pure play wager on a precocious space cadet with interstellar aspirations astride a solid rocket booster. Enjoy the ride.

Advertisement

Christopher A. Hopkins, CFA, is a co-founder of Apogee Wealth Partners in Chattanooga.

Continue Reading

Finance

Financial adviser warns, ‘stay away from the hype’ of an IPO

Published

on

Financial adviser warns, ‘stay away from the hype’ of an IPO

BURLINGTON, Vt. (WCAX) – Initial public offerings, better known as IPOs, may seem like big investment opportunities, but a financial adviser is warning they could be a risky addition to your portfolio.

Dan Cunningham of the investment management company One Day in July, said he recommends that people stay away when a company starts selling initial shares on the stock market.

Most recently, Elon Musk’s SpaceX became the biggest IPO ever, but Cunningham said people shouldn’t get caught up in the hoopla.

“They generate a lot of excitement, but when you look at long term results, IPOs have not been a good investment. So we really try to encourage people to stay away from the hype. You are really betting on the future and taking an enormous amount of risk by buying IPO shares in many cases,” Cunningham said.

According to Cunningham, the good news is that, over the long term, the market and most retirement funds that mirror it will balance out.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 WCAX. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending