Connect with us

Finance

What We Can Learn From Renewcell’s Financial Struggles

Published

on

What We Can Learn From Renewcell’s Financial Struggles

Ordinarily, I subscribe to the belief that in sustainability discussions, opinions are redundant; we should lean on the science. But, yesterday a conflation of both was enlisted in an outcry for answers as to why Renewcell, fashion’s leading textile-to-textile recycling technology, had filed for bankruptcy. The science (and resulting technology) is solid; the route to profitability less so. And it’s the latter that really matters.

Yes, Renewcell’s advanced textile recycling process works—I saw it with my own eyes at the inaugural launch in Sweden of their first (and now painfully numbered) Renewcell 1. But I wondered, from inception, how a facility in Sweden could help fashion brands—Renewcell’s target customer—to solve the problem they seemed to care about most: recycling post-consumer waste. ‘Old jeans turned into new jeans’ was effectively the technology’s strap line, and a fair one in terms of the company’s ambition and technical potential. But the reality was that their advanced chemical recycling process—like all others of its kind—requires a highly specific waste input (at least 95% cotton, at the time I visited Renewcell 1); a need best met by post-industrial (off-cut waste) on factory floors in manufacturing countries, not discarded clothes from consumers.

My (curiosity-led and objective) question to Renewcell, Circ, Infinited Fiber and other similar technologies has always been: ‘since you require homogenous waste of a specific composition and quality, and in large and consistent volumes—conditions currently best met by post-industrial waste streams—why are your technologies in Europe and the U.S. where those needs cannot be met?’ And, ‘why aren’t you in the textile supply chain in Asia, alongside the factories who can provide your waste input, and purchase your recycled output?’ Why, I still wonder, is the hopes of textile-to-textile recycling hinged on fashion brands in the Global North with other priorities, who procure products from the supply chain in the Global South? Why isn’t the advancement of textile technologies being integrated into the supply-chain, since brands procure and sell finished goods, not fibres?

The answers have often been a combination of these: ‘the investors are investing here [in the global north]’; ‘the brands are here, so we’re here’, or ‘we can achieve our lowest carbon footprint here due to renewable energy’. Sweden offers abundant renewable energy, and that was certainly a factor for Renewcell. However, last week I revealed that India’s rapid transition to renewable energy will soon answer that need, but I guess we may never know if the overall business case for Renewcell stacks up there.

And here we come to the central challenge I observe with advanced chemical recycling technologies setting up shop outside of manufacturing hubs and outside of readily available feedstock reserves: absent infrastructure and supply chain integration. It’s a fact that the majority of the world’s textiles and clothes are made in Asia. Around half of all textiles are made in China. It’s also a fact that consumption in the Global North’s mature fashion markets is stagnating (as examined astutely by researcher Lutz Walter). Conversely, markets in Asia are set for rapid growth in step with the expanding middle class, particular China and India. India is the most promising hope for textile circularity, but this success depends on the viability for each stakeholder along that supply chain. This requirement for a ‘business case’ has been somewhat ignored in the commentary following Renewcell’s bankruptcy filing, where the financial faltering was reportedly due to ‘a lack of orders from brands’. This reluctance to place orders points to the absence of a business case for Renewcell’s recycled ‘Circulose’ fibers in the competitive and price-driven textile supply chain.

Advertisement

Renewcell’s business model placed the onus on brands to order its recycled ‘Circulose’ dissolving pulp, which is much like pieces of cardboard that are shipped to textile spinners in Asia, rehydrated to release the fibers and then mixed with other fibers like cotton. The combined fibers are then spun into yarns, before being sent to textile mills to be made into fabrics. Relying on brands to prioritise this manner of materials sourcing is about as far removed from their business expertise and motivations as you can get; precious few brands buy any fibers at all—most don’t even know where their fabrics are made, let alone their origin of the fibers that went into them. Instead, brands typically rely on their nearest (tier 1) garment manufacturers to source textiles on their behalf, and to handle all the costings to make the economies of scale and unit pricing work, on the brand’s behalf.

Consider this: a brand facing today’s tough economic outlook can either commit far in advance to sourcing a more expensive (but lower environmental impact) ingredient for future spinning into textiles in a volatile market, or, they can continue to ask their garment suppliers to source the ready-made cheaper equivalent in final textile form at the time they need it. The mistake here is to assume that if the science and tech stacks up, and the output is of high quality and low impact, it will succeed off the back of brands’ commitment and storytelling to consumers. In fact, a business case for buying the fiber must exist, and one that isn’t at odds with brands’ upholding their fiduciary duty to maximise profits for shareholders; the absence of orders for Renewcell’s Circulose indicates that this business case does not currently exist. And this is not only a shame and a sadness for the brilliant Renewcell team members, but also its supply chain—the factories and waste handlers in Bangladesh, Turkey and Kenya, who had agreements to sell and ship their waste to Renewcell, but now must search for another market for it, hurting their livelihoods.

Where there is an existing supply chain—end-to-end—there is infrastructure and operational data to evaluate the business case for textile-to-textile recycling technologies, without relying on sustainability storytelling, and hoping that planetary good will will trump economics and profit maximisation. Currently, without environmental imperatives driving decision-making, the only other ones are financial. A new, low impact material cannot rely on realignment of corporate morality in order to compete with, or displace, incumbents—this harsh truth is critical.

Advertisement

Experts in countries like India and Bangladesh who are sourcing fibers, spinning yarns, knitting and weaving fabrics and making garments at fixed unit prices in fluctuating markets, on behalf of brands, are likely best placed to evaluate and integrate new recycling technologies. There is already a well established mechanical textile recycling supply chain in India’s, for example, and the business case for building out advanced chemical recycling beyond this would be evaluated and demonstrated as a function of demand, volumes, technical feasibility, Capex and projected revenues within the textile economy that exists. This seems a logical next step for advanced recycling of textiles (and one I will evaluate in my next article).

Hopefully the next phases of textile-to-textile to recycling will be catalysed in the heart of the supply chain in Asia, where recent waste analysis by Fashion for Good and Canopy, and the establishment of India’s Re-START Alliance, shows hope for expansion of a viable circular textiles economy.

Advertisement

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

Finance

Homegrown Music Festival looks to right finances, hire new leadership

Published

on

Homegrown Music Festival looks to right finances, hire new leadership

DULUTH — The Duluth Homegrown Music Festival is seeking both new operational leadership and a solution to financial filing issues that caused the organization to lose its federal tax-exempt status, which it has not held since 2022.

The organization is currently operating as a taxable nonprofit, confirmed Don Ness, the former Duluth mayor who serves as president of Homegrown’s

board of directors.

Ness and the board are working to discern whether there might be any outstanding tax liabilities in the wake of an apparent filing lapse.

“It’s a serious matter that requires diligence to do things right, and to correct past oversight, and to make sure that we are in full compliance with all tax and regulatory requirements,” Ness said. “The board is 100% committed to that course of action.”

Advertisement

As the Duluth Monitor first reported, Homegrown had its federal tax-exempt status revoked in 2022 after failing to make required financial reports for three years. The Monitor also reported that Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office has notified the organization it may be in violation of state law requiring the proper registration of soliciting charities.

Don Ness, executive director of the Ordean Foundation, speaks at Ordean East Middle School in 2025.

Clint Austin / Duluth Media Group file photo

“All but one of us have been on for less than a year,” Ness said of the current board members. “We’ve been committed to saying, ‘hey, we need to improve the points of accountability.’”

The organization will also require new operational leadership. Co-directors Cory Jezierski and Dereck Murphy-Williams resigned earlier this month, after leading Homegrown through four successful festivals.

Advertisement

“My contract ended at the end of May, and I knew a few days later that I did not want to continue in that position,” Jezierski said. “Simply put, it was the best thing for my mental health. It’s a job that requires many, many hours and a lot of work, and it can be very stressful as well.”

Person with long green hair stands outside a bar window
Onlookers stop and watch the band Damien outside of Blacklist Brewing during the 2023 Duluth Homegrown Music Festival.

Amy Arntson / Duluth Media Group file photo

Murphy-Williams did not respond to an interview request for this article, nor did preceding Homegrown director Melissa LaTour. According to LaTour’s

LinkedIn profile,

Advertisement

she was Homegrown director from 2016 to 2022.

Jason Beckman, a recent president who is no longer serving on the board, responded to a News Tribune email but did not provide an interview availability before this article went to press.

Ness does not believe the reporting lapses were due to any ill intent. He praised Jezierski and Murphy-Williams for their success managing festival operations. “They cared deeply about the festival,” he said. “It’s amazing to see that our community continues to support this really unique and special festival.”

“Those guys run a hell of a festival,” said Scott Lunt, festival founder and a current board member. “I think they needed help with bookkeeping.”

musician performs at music festival show
Scott Lunt performs with Father Hennepin at The West Theatre during the Homegrown Music Festival in 2024.

Clint Austin / Duluth Media Group file photo

Advertisement

By Jezierski’s account, issues with the festival’s tax status became apparent shortly after he became co-director. “We went to file taxes, they were rejected,” Jezierski said. “At that time we, of course, didn’t know why right away, but once we started pulling on that thread, we unraveled a whole lot of the problems that were going on.”

Jezierski said “it took a long time to try to get any sort of help” from the board, but said that by the time he and Murphy-Williams left the organization, “everything had been turned over to be reconciled” with a financial professional.

Ness, like Lunt, was deeply involved with Homegrown in its first decade but had not had an official role with the festival since then. After launching the festival in 1999 and running it on his own for several years, Lunt was “burnt out,” Ness remembered.

Light-skinned person wearing eyeglasses and vest gestures with arm while standing onstage near microphone. Light-skinned person playing guitar is visible in background, with enthusiastic fans at left.
Trevor Klueg of United Men Divide performs at Pizza Luce during the 2007 Duluth Homegrown Music Festival.

Derek Montgomery / Duluth Media Group file photo

Advertisement

After a transition period during which the festival was run in partnership with the Ripsaw newspaper, Homegrown established a nonprofit organization in 2006 with Ness as festival director. Ness subsequently stepped down when he was elected mayor in 2007.

By 2025, Ness was in his current position as executive director of the Ordean Foundation.

“I was approached by a couple of longtime music scenesters,” Ness recalled. “They said, ‘There are questions about (Homegrown’s) nonprofit status. There are questions about some governance issues. We’re concerned.’”

Ness agreed to join the board, and became president. The 2026 festival ran smoothly from an operational standpoint, but Ness found the financial reporting to be lacking.

Advertisement
music performances in arena during festival
Chicken-themed accessories were popular at Amsoil Arena during the 2026 Homegrown Music Festival. A chicken is the mascot of the festival.

Clint Austin / Duluth Media Group file photo

“The last board meeting that we had prior to the (co-directors’) resignations was intended to be an overview of the festival that was a month before,” Ness said. “I certainly felt very uncomfortable with how little financial information we were receiving.”

Lunt also joined the board in 2025, marking his first time serving in that capacity. He said the new board has been spending significant time addressing the accounting and reporting issues.

“Every year at Homegrown time I’m like, ‘I should get more involved,’ and then I don’t,” Lunt said. “Then this board thing came up, and it was kind of sold to me as, like, four meetings a year. I was like, ‘Oh, that’s perfect.’ And now we’re meeting weekly.”

Advertisement
Figures in gorilla and chicken suits dance on pavement on a sunny day, with an audience of children and adults looking on.
Guy the Gorilla dances with the Homegrown chicken at Homegrown’s Children’s Music Showcase at the Great Lakes Aquarium in Duluth in 2018.

Clint Austin / Duluth Media Group file photo

Although it’s unclear how the organization’s finances will look when the accounting and reporting issues have been fully addressed, along with any outstanding tax liabilities, both Ness and Lunt said they are confident the annual festival will continue without interruption.

“The organization will continue,” Ness said. “The festival will continue. Homegrown is in no danger in terms of its viability.” The financial documentation Ness initially received indicated budgeted revenues of about $140,000, against about $130,000 in expenses.

“Financially, I think we’re in a great spot. We have the money to hire the (financial) professionals, and we have (done so),” Lunt said. “We were hoping that we could get all this sorted out before it had to become more public.”

Advertisement

“We poured countless hours into this festival, and this is how it ends, with everyone talking about this,” Jezierski said. “It’s rough.”

“There’s a DIY ethos that is really at the core of Homegrown,” reflected Ness. “We’re throwing a music festival that isn’t waiting for some famous band from the East Coast to bless us with their presence. We are doing this on our own.”

music performances in arena during festival
Kaylee Matuszak, left, and Steve Solkela perform as Berserk Blondes at Amsoil Arena during the 2026 Duluth Homegrown Music Festival.

Clint Austin / Duluth Media Group file photo

That DIY spirit also means “you’re kind of passing wisdom down from person to person, and sometimes that’s imperfect.” Ness continued. “The ways that we do things evolve over time, because it’s not a buttoned-down corporate sort of thing. That can create its own set of challenges.”

Advertisement

“It’s self-supporting,” said Lunt about the festival. “It’s widely volunteer-run. You do need to pay a couple people, obviously, to keep track of some things, but it’s going to be strong into the future. It’s gone through its bumps before.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending