The results, published on 26 June, are the company's first since it downgraded its London Stock Exchange listing in favour of a primary Nasdaq debut, according to City AM. They offer a detailed look at what it actually costs a high-growth fintech to relocate its centre of gravity from London to New York.

Revenue grows, but costs grow faster

Wise's top line expanded by nearly a fifth to $2.5bn, fuelled by a 21 per cent increase in customers to 19 million, according to the company's annual results. By most measures, the commercial engine is working. Cross-border payments volumes continue to climb, and the firm is adding users at a pace that would be the envy of most financial services operators.

But the cost base told a different story. Total costs rose just shy of 40 per cent to $1.9bn, growing at roughly twice the rate of revenue, the results show. Pre-tax profit fell from $717.5m to $660m.

The breakdown is striking:

  • Transaction expenses rose 36 per cent to $514m, driven by the expanding customer base.
  • Technology investment jumped 38 per cent to $434m, reflecting new engineering hires and expanded cloud infrastructure.
  • Marketing and sales costs surged 62 per cent to $172m.
  • General and administrative costs climbed 40 per cent to $382m, partly due to the establishment of a new Jersey parent entity.

No single line item explains the margin compression. Instead, every major cost category accelerated simultaneously, a pattern that raises questions about operating discipline during a period of rapid international expansion.

The price tag of leaving London for Nasdaq

Wise completed its primary listing on the Nasdaq on 11 May, according to City AM, having first announced plans for the switch in June 2025. At the time, the company said the move would "provide a potential pathway to inclusion in major US indices," as reported by City AM.

That ambition came with a tangible bill. The firm spent $473.4m on share repurchases ahead of the Nasdaq debut. Its Employee Share Trust purchased 35.9 million shares from the open market to eliminate shareholder dilution from historic share options before the transition, the results show.

The creation of a Jersey-domiciled parent company, required to facilitate the listing shift, contributed to the 40 per cent jump in G&A costs. Legal, advisory, and structural expenses associated with maintaining dual regulatory compliance across two jurisdictions added further overhead.

For UK observers, the listing migration is more than a corporate finance exercise. Wise had once been speculated as an eventual FTSE blue-chip candidate, according to City AM. Its departure underscored a broader pattern of homegrown technology firms choosing US capital markets over the LSE, joining a list that includes ARM Holdings and Flutter Entertainment.

The implicit argument from companies making this move is that deeper US liquidity, higher analyst coverage, and index inclusion justify the transition costs. Wise's latest numbers put a price on that thesis. Whether the long-term valuation benefits outweigh a near-$500m buyback bill and structurally higher administrative costs remains an open question.

Belgian AML probe adds regulatory risk

Compounding the cost pressures is a fraud investigation opened by Belgian prosecutors, as reported by City AM. The probe centres on whether roughly €500m (£432m) in transactions processed through Wise's European operations breached anti-money laundering laws.

Investigators are examining whether Wise accounts were used to funnel illicit proceeds from fraud, corruption, and drug smuggling, according to City AM. The inquiry spans criminal requests across more than 30 European countries and focuses on the firm's Brussels-based European operations. It does not directly target Wise's three million UK users, the report noted.

Wise has not been charged, and the investigation remains at a preliminary stage. But the regulatory overhang is significant. AML enforcement actions across European financial services have intensified in recent years, and any adverse finding could carry material financial penalties, operational restrictions, or reputational damage in key markets.

For a company already absorbing elevated compliance and administrative costs from its listing migration, the timing is unwelcome. The probe adds a layer of uncertainty to a cost structure that is already expanding faster than revenue.

What the numbers mean for UK fintech ambitions

Wise's results illustrate a tension familiar to many scaling fintechs: the gap between commercial momentum and profit delivery. A 21 per cent increase in customers and a 20 per cent rise in revenue would, in isolation, represent a strong year. But when costs grow at 40 per cent, margins compress, and the narrative shifts from growth to sustainability.

The company signalled confidence in its cash generation by announcing a new share buyback programme expected to exceed $500m, according to the annual results. That is a substantial commitment for a firm whose profit just declined, and it suggests management views the margin squeeze as a transitional cost rather than a structural problem.

The fintech revealed plans for the listing change in June 2025, where it said the move would "provide a potential pathway to inclusion in major US indices."

For UK founders and finance directors watching from the sidelines, the Wise case study is instructive. Pursuing a US listing is not simply a matter of ringing the bell at Times Square. It involves corporate restructuring, significant share buybacks to manage dilution, higher ongoing administrative costs from dual-jurisdiction compliance, and the distraction of managing a complex legal and regulatory transition.

None of this means the decision is wrong. US markets offer genuine advantages in liquidity, analyst coverage, and institutional investor access. But the costs are real, they are front-loaded, and they show up in the profit and loss account at precisely the moment a company might prefer to be demonstrating operating leverage to a new investor base.

Wise's next financial year will be the first full period with the Nasdaq listing in place and the transition costs largely absorbed. Whether margins recover or the elevated cost base proves sticky will determine how the market judges the trade-off. For now, the numbers tell a clear story: moving from London to New York is expensive, and the bill arrives before the benefits do.