While this may be the case for some institutional investors, it’s not always as clear-cut. Regulations aside, there is a perception that Main Market companies are more highly esteemed than those on AIM. The AIM rules set no minimum “free float” limit, in contrast with the Main Market’s 25 per cent but AIM companies with very restricted public ownership can suffer significant reduction in liquidity. On paper the UK corporate governance regime does not apply to AIM companies – but in reality, businesses which expect to be taken seriously by institutional investors still need to show that they are more or less compliant. Other supposed advantages of AIM are more intangible in practice. Given you are seeking to secure investment from fewer than 100 shareholders with an AIM float, a firm will only need to produce a simpler, less costly “AIM Admission Document”. The requirement that companies should have three years of trading history does not apply to AIM, shareholder approval is only needed for the largest transactions, and financial disclosure and reporting requirements are less demanding. It is commonly accepted that AIM is less regulated than the Main Market. >See also: AIM for growth businesses looking to scale up is still an option So clearly, the AIM market remains a strong option for young businesses looking to float. In its 27 years of existence, it has raised some £123bn for 3,922 companies of all shapes and sizes, with 3,226 of those being UK-based firms.īetween January and April 2021, there were 21 new issues, with total money raised for the period amounting to £2.07bn. Despite this, AIM established itself as the preferred route for younger companies wanting to go public.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |