Moonpig boss unexpectedly steps down
The chief executive of Moonpig, the online greetings cards business, has stepped down after seven years, catching the City and his leadership team unawares.
The company's share price dropped by 9 per cent on Thursday as the market digested the unexpected news of Nickyl Raithatha's departure, which was delivered alongside the annual results.
Raithatha will serve out his 12-month notice period to ensure a smooth transition. 'It has been a great time in a business that I love and I want to leave on a high,' he said. 'I feel like I'll be able to do that with good momentum, good trading and a rock solid team. I'll miss it, but it should be a really strong platform for someone to come in and build on.'
The card retailer's reported profit before tax dropped 93 per cent to £3 million because of a £56.7 million charge representing a loss in value for its experiences division. It bought the Buyagift and Red Letter Days businesses from Otium Capital for £124 million in 2022 to cash in on what it saw as a shift from physical gifts towards experiences such as afternoon tea at Harrods or a day driving supercars on the Top Gear test track.
The unit, which marked the company's first acquisition since its £1.2 billion IPO in 2021, struggled as lower consumer confidence and economic challenges pushed down spending on gifts.
The company's ebitda earnings were £96.8 million, up 1.3 per cent, slightly above analyst expectations of £94 million. Its revenue of £350 million, up 2.6 per cent from the year before, was at the bottom end of the guidance, due to a slower second half with consumers less willing to pay for extras, such as choosing a larger card or adding a more expensive gift.
After the end of the financial year, sales growth bounced back with Moonpig's strongest Father's Day yet, the company said.
• Moonpig launches AI-driven handwriting tool
'There's a lot of uncertainty in the world so people are holding back,' Raithatha said. 'The good news for us is that we have managed to start growing gifting meaningfully, despite that consumer pullback, which we're really proud of internally.'
Moonpig was founded in 2000 by Nick Jenkins, a former commodity trader who named his company after his school nickname. Raithatha launched Moonpig on to the London stock market during the pandemic, one of a clutch of companies that went public in 2021, at a price of 350p with a £1.2 billion valuation, only to see its share price plummet when the lockdowns ended. It has never quite recovered.
On Thursday, the shares retreated another 22½p, or 9.2 per cent, to close at 221p.
Analysts at Peel Hunt described Raithatha's departure as 'more of an eyebrow raise than a shock. Nickyl has been an impressive figurehead and Moonpig has progressed well under his leadership'.
RBC said: 'Whilst the resignation of Raithatha will be a key talking point, we focus on the business's performance. The group has delivered a 6 per cent adjusted PBT [profit before tax] beat in 2025, with growth at the core Moonpig brand now back in double-digit growth.'
Reflecting on his tenure, Raithatha said: 'If you live and die by share price, you can become very depressed very quickly. I look back at the last seven years and we have quadrupled revenues, we have quintupled profits, the workforce is six times bigger and we have entered new countries.
'The fact that we've got 12 million customers, they're more loyal, they're more engaged. It means the strategy has worked pretty consistently over that time. The IPO was obviously a pretty big highlight which put Moonpig on the map.
'We've obviously come off the highs from a share price perspective. But the business is bigger, more profitable and faster growing than it was at the IPO. From our perspective we're delivering for customers and that should translate to delivering for shareholders.'
On Thursday morning when Nickyl Raithatha explained to Moonpig staff in a company 'all-hands meeting' that he was leaving, they were taken aback by the news. His leadership team are, by all accounts, still processing it.
Heart emojis filled the screen on the video call as staff expressed digitly that they were genuinely sorry to see him go.
After celebrating Raithatha's seven-year 'Mooniversary', as it is cloyingly called internally, with a Moonpig card, he felt it was time to explore pastures new.
Those who know him are not surprised. At just 42, the young chief is extremely ambitious and was unlikely to be celebrating Mooniversaries for the rest of his life.
His parents were among the Ugandan Indians forced to flee Idi Amin's regime in 1972. Raithatha grew up helping in his father's pharmacy. After a degree at Cambridge, he went on to cut his teeth at Goldman Sachs and then, while the financial crisis took hold, left to do an MBA at Harvard.
This planted the seed of working in business, which is where his career swerved away from the more staid world of banking, into tech and start-ups. He founded Finery, a fashion retail business, which he sold to Touker Suleyman of Dragons' Den.
Moonpig was not an obvious next step and growing the business has not been straightforward. The share price has not kept pace with the growth of the company and been a constant disappointment to investors. However, he has gained a lot of experience along the way and quite a network: his chairwoman is Kate Swann, the former boss of WH Smith.
While he has not decided what he wants to do next, it will be related to the worlds of tech and digital. 'I'm still early in my career, I've got plenty of time and capacity to take on new challenges and try new things,' he said. In this rapidly accelerating era of AI there is no shortage of tech excitement in the business world. No doubt the headhunters are already knocking.
And it'll be the end of people singing 'Mooooooonpig dot com' at him.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
With this surrender to Leftist rebels, Starmer's days as PM are numbered
It is now clear that Keir Starmer is making major concessions to his belligerent MPs to save his political career. A series of compromises have drastically diluted his landmark welfare Bill. This is not just a personal defeat. Starmerism, the final line of defence between the far-Left and the levers of power, is on the brink of collapse. Rachel Reeves and her Treasury colleagues will conclude Britain has little choice but to continue pursuing mass migration and increasing taxation. Spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence will become hopelessly unrealistic; even 3 per cent will be out of reach. All this is aside from the moral gravity of the failure to break the cycle of benefits dependency, or the impact it will have on those who study, strive and work hard to provide a better life for their families. Spending on welfare has ballooned in recent years. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. By the end of the decade the country could be spending as much on disability benefits as it currently does on transport, policing and social care put together. The pool of workers is shrinking, whilst spending rises inexorably. In the end, this country will go to the wall. Starmer's reforms didn't go far enough; the IFS estimates that the benefits bill would still rise by £8 billion by 2030. Yes, this row – the row that could derail Starmer's premiership – would not even come close to cutting the overall cost. A benefits surrender risks destroying the trust of the markets, triggering a Truss-style meltdown, not immediately but inevitably. Labour came into power on the promise of 'change'. When Reeves hiked taxes by £40 billion in a single fiscal event, she insisted she was 'fixing the foundations'. The Government has sought to distance itself from the 'fantasy' economics now being advanced by Reform UK. How can it reconcile this with a benefits climbdown, coming in the wake of all the other about-turns on other cuts? How can it claim to be taking 'tough' decisions for the 'greater good'? Labour's far-Left, fresh from derailing Starmer's reforms, will surely make the case for a shift towards socialist populism. If Labour cannot see off Nigel Farage through the successful pursuit of deep reform, then, according to some Labour MPs, the next best thing is to try and match his immigration populism with economic populism. Wealth taxes, pensions tax raids, second home levies – all will be on the table. A failure to push through benefit cuts will above all be a moral calamity. Britain is becoming a country that mollycoddles 'takers' whilst clobbering the 'makers'. Citizens who attempt to improve their lives are being dragged down, through excessive taxation, the neutering of private enterprise or the destruction of the private school system. We learnt this week that more than seven million people are now estimated to be higher rate taxpayers, a jump of more than two-fifths since just 2022-23. The permanently inactive are exalted as 'vulnerable' and 'deserving', a status that renders them untouchable. Serial welfare recipients are relentlessly given the benefit of the doubt, yet the self-employed and those with assets are treated by the system as potential tax dodgers. We should of course cushion the most vulnerable in our society. We should also make the distinction between the respectable working class and the dysfunctional underclass. On a recent trip to the North East, residents from one rough estate told me of the local children who aspire to become drug dealers and believe that their future is not determined by their own decisions but rather merely by 'luck'. Their parents are too proud to visit the estate's work support charity but are at ease tapping benefits from an impersonal bureaucracy. Those like Diane Abbott who preach that 'there is nothing moral about cutting benefits' should be made to conduct an in-depth tour of these places. They would see the destructive impact of uncontrolled welfarism on the integrity of families, the self-respect of adults, and the dreams of children. Starmer's failure was not inevitable. Labour could have made a solid centre-Left case for reform. It should be possible to cut benefits while also treating genuinely disabled people with greater humanity, not least by bringing back rigorous in-person assessments. It could have glanced at this week's British Social Attitudes Survey, which found that less than half (45 per cent) of people support more spending on benefits for disabled people who cannot work. Nearly a third now agree it is too easy to claim disability benefits. And there is rising evidence that benefits cuts can actually be a vote winner. After a brief softening of public opinion during the Covid lockdown, polling expert James Frayne has recently picked up on a hardening of attitudes to welfare and a growing perception that benefits do not reach the working class. Rather than hiding behind Old Left platitudes about the 'dignity of work', Starmer could have spoken bluntly about the phenomenon of people claiming benefits based on false beliefs and statements about their mental health. The Prime Minister's failure to articulate these truths only serves to embolden his opponents. As one told me: 'I've heard no minister explain why the budget of the United Kingdom should be balanced on the backs of disabled people. And if you can't make the argument maybe you're doing the wrong thing.'
BBC News
25 minutes ago
- BBC News
PM 'agrees' benefit changes deal with Labour rebels
The government is expected to announce a deal shortly with Labour rebels on its planned benefits changes. Multiple sources tell the BBC existing claimants of the Personal Independence Payment (Pip) will continue to receive what they currently get, as will recipients of the health element of Universal Credit. It is also expected that the support to help people into employment will be fast forwarded so it happens concessions amount to a massive climbdown from the government, which was staring at the prospect of defeat if it failed to accommodate the demands of over 100 of its backbenchers. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Opposing reforms that are a step in the right direction is bad politics
What do you do as a parliamentary opposition when the Government is doing something you know you should support? The Conservative Party has faced this issue twice this week. The first is on Labour's feeble attempt to slow the increase (not make a cut) in health-related welfare spending. How that will play out is unresolved as I write. Kemi Badenoch recognises the reputational risks of voting against, so she has made an offer to back Sir Keir Starmer – but on conditions: further spending cuts and no tax increases this autumn. It's clever tactically. Starmer clearly can't accept the conditions. And his refusal allows a vote against the Government and, potentially, the death of a flagship Bill. That's the job of an opposition, isn't it? Well maybe. Yes, it certainly makes things awkward for Starmer. But it makes things awkward for the Tories too. For a political party, principles are as important as tactics, especially perhaps if you are trying to reinvent yourselves in the public mind after the political mush of the last 14 years. Sometimes it's possible to be too tactical, too clever. The fact is the welfare bill has to come down. Maybe Labour is not going about it exactly as we would. But it is still the right thing to do. Fiscal responsibility is supposed to be a Conservative thing. So when Labour is taking a Conservative approach to something, maybe the party should back them? A similar problem is presented by the Planning Bill, which had its Second Reading in the Lords this week. Less is at stake in the short run, for the Bill will certainly go through. But the underlying politics are if anything more significant. Labour's Bill is certainly imperfect. It is best characterised as driving the current system to work better: more meaningful plans, less power for local councillors to block, less scope for legal challenge. It has a novel approach to nature protection: essentially making developers pay to restore nature somewhere, but not necessarily on the exact spot where development is taking place. My suspicion is that this is not going to deliver the boost Labour wants. The current system hasn't delivered the target of 300,000 homes a year since the late 1970s. Indeed, since the financial crash, it's only once delivered more than 200,000. Our restrictive controls-based system, with its presumption against building, very likely just can't do it, however streamlined it is. Moreover, although Labour hates it when you mention it, any house building is to a very large extent building for migration. Net immigration is going to be, best case, towards two million under this Government, so at least 125,000 homes every year will be needed simply to accommodate future arrivals. While that's the case, it's going to be very difficult to get political consent to build more – and rightly so. So what is the right political response to this situation? Do Conservatives resist Labour's Bill, arguing that it undermines local democracy and risks the countryside, or support, recognising their approach is imperfect? At the moment the party is doing neither. Instead it is trying to side-step the choice by saying it wants 'more homes, but the right homes, in the right places'. That allows it to sound sympathetic to the policy aims while raising all sorts of difficulties in practice, and (not by chance) to accommodate very different perspectives within the party. But there are risks here: not just that Conservatives get on the wrong side of the argument, but that voters can't see the guiding principle that's being applied, perhaps can't even tell whether we are actually supportive or hostile at all. Once again: when trying to establish a clear profile, maybe this is less than ideal. I know where I stand. Like it or not, and unless you are prepared to engage in what is euphemistically called compulsory 'remigration', which I am not, the population is what it is, and we need to build more houses. That requires both reducing immigration right down to zero for a prolonged period and a serious reform to the current planning system, more like the radical Robert Jenrick proposals from 2021, sadly junked as the Conservative Party entered the early stages of its nervous breakdown. Indeed we might need to be even more radical than that in places like London within the M25. That's obviously not going to happen under Labour, but it is what a post-2029 government on the Right should aim to do. So we shouldn't do things which are inconsistent with it now. Labour's Bill is an imperfect half measure, but it still goes in the right direction. There is no future for the Right in echoing the voice of nimby councillors and the green and Lib Dem blob, determined as they are to stop development or hamstring it with green regulation. The appeal of the Right must instead be to aspiration, to those who want to own a home (and dare I say it more than one?) and get on in life. The Conservative Party at least can't get back in the game without this. Now would be a good time to start.
