Criticism for Exchange scheme
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.CITY advisers are questioning the practicality of Stock Exchange proposals for a new, deregulated securities market before the details have even been published.
The proposals, designed to make it easier and cheaper for small companies to raise capital, are expected to be unveiled by the Exchange this week.
The advisers say the scheme is unworkable, claiming that companies will still need brokers to advise on marketing their issues. They also claim few institutions will be prepared to invest in companies that have not taken legal and accounting advice.
Under the Stock Exchange's plan, the details of which were leaked to the press last week, the only requirement companies would have to meet for a listing on the alternative investment market would be to submit one year's audited accounts to the Exchange. They would not be required to appoint a sponsor, submit profit forecasts or have prospectuses vetted by the Exchange. Nor would they have to issue interim results. Investors would have to rely on directors' representations.
John Gregory, director of corporate finance at the broker, Beeson Gregory, raised a note of caution about the plans: 'The new proposals could lead to sub-standard information being given to investors if there isn't somebody there with experience to develop the prospectus. One should not rely on directors.'
Neil Austin, a corporate finance partner with the accountants, KPMG Peat Marwick, said: 'Take the absence of a working capital report. No broker is going to put his reputation behind a company if he can't be certain it won't run out of cash in three months' time.
'We also have to avoid inviting the scam merchants to put out fraudulent prospectuses. One bad collapse and the publicity surrounding it could discredit the entire market.'
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments