Why we need to light a bonfire of red tape in the City
We need to encourage more firms to list on the stockmarket. That should be easily achieved, says Matthew Lynn.
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
Twice daily
MoneyWeek
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Four times a week
Look After My Bills
Sign up to our free money-saving newsletter, filled with the latest news and expert advice to help you find the best tips and deals for managing your bills. Start saving today!
In between launching, scrapping and then relaunching the furlough scheme, unveiling another emergency support package and figuring out how to borrow another couple of hundred billion without anyone noticing, Chancellor Rishi Sunak is finally about to do something useful for the long-term strength of the City. The government is about to launch a review of the listing rules on the stockmarket, tasked with making floating a company more attractive. Lord Hill, a non-executive director of the Treasury, is being lined up for the job.
Action is clearly needed
Something needed to be done. The number of companies listed on the London market has almost halved over the last two decades. Over the last five years it has dropped from almost 2,500 to a little over 2,000. It is still falling and hardly any new businesses are joining (there were just ten Aim floats last year, and 26 on the main market).
This is not just a British issue. The same thing is happening on Wall Street and on most of the main European markets as well. The rise of private-equity and venture-capital firms means there are plenty of other ways to raise capital without all the hassle and scrutiny of a full listing, and the increasing burden of regulation has increased costs dramatically. At this rate, in another couple of decades there won’t be enough companies to have a FTSE 100 index anymore. We will have to go back to measuring the FT-30. That matters. If there aren’t any companies on the market, and if the few that remain date back decades, then ordinary people have no chance to share in the wealth a market economy creates.
MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
There is a case for change and there are two obvious places to start. First, ditch the corporate governance rules. Over the last 30 years we have introduced a new code for quoted companies to follow on average every two years. There are guidelines on when financial statements need to be published, and in what form, and when and how you can release them to the public. There are rules on who sits on the board, and how much they can be paid, and now there has to be the right number of women as well. Pay scales have to be monitored, and length of service. There is almost no decision a quoted company can make without having to check it complies with one of the codes.
And yet over that time there has been no noticeable improvement in the way companies are run or in the performance of the market. The FTSE is still trading at below the level it was at the end of 1999. Most investors would probably have been happy to be “protected” a little less if it meant the value of their portfolio went up.
Second, we should scrap minimum listing requirements. Lots of founders, and tech founders in particular, don’t want to give up control of their business. Why would they? They created it, and they almost certainly care about it more than anyone else. They mainly just want to cash in some of their shares, and they want some of the kudos and status that comes with a public listing. If they only want to sell 5% of the shares, and if they want to put some restrictions on them, then that should be fine. Sure, there is some risk for investors. But in return they will get a slice of some of the fastest growing companies around.
One rule to rule them all
In fact, we could strip the rules back to one very simple stipulation: a company has to be able to publish three years of audited accounts and financial statements, double checked by a genuinely independent accountant. It can show a profit, a loss, and any kind of balance sheet, and shareholding structure it likes, so long as it is open and transparent about it.
Beyond that, it should be up to individual investors whether they want to buy any shares in it or not. Once it is listed, it should have to publish those accounts once a year, and get them independently checked, but after that how it is run should be up to the shareholders and the board. And that should be it. We don’t need any further rules. We just need to sweep away the codes and regulations. Instead of a review, Sunak should just get on with that – because it is clear that two decades of intrusive regulation have not made the markets any better.
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.

Matthew Lynn is a columnist for Bloomberg and writes weekly commentary syndicated in papers such as the Daily Telegraph, Die Welt, the Sydney Morning Herald, the South China Morning Post and the Miami Herald. He is also an associate editor of Spectator Business, and a regular contributor to The Spectator. Before that, he worked for the business section of the Sunday Times for ten years.
-
How a ‘great view’ from your home can boost its value by 35%A house that comes with a picturesque backdrop could add tens of thousands of pounds to its asking price – but how does each region compare?
-
What is a care fees annuity and how much does it cost?How we will be cared for in our later years – and how much we are willing to pay for it – are conversations best had as early as possible. One option to cover the cost is a care fees annuity. We look at the pros and cons.
-
Three key winners from the AI boom and beyondJames Harries of the Trojan Global Income Fund picks three promising stocks that transcend the hype of the AI boom
-
RTX Corporation is a strong player in a growth marketRTX Corporation’s order backlog means investors can look forward to years of rising profits
-
Profit from MSCI – the backbone of financeAs an index provider, MSCI is a key part of the global financial system. Its shares look cheap
-
'AI is the real deal – it will change our world in more ways than we can imagine'Interview Rob Arnott of Research Affiliates talks to Andrew Van Sickle about the AI bubble, the impact of tariffs on inflation and the outlook for gold and China
-
Should investors join the rush for venture-capital trusts?Opinion Investors hoping to buy into venture-capital trusts before the end of the tax year may need to move quickly, says David Prosser
-
Food and drinks giants seek an image makeover – here's what they're doingThe global food and drink industry is having to change pace to retain its famous appeal for defensive investors. Who will be the winners?
-
Barings Emerging Europe trust bounces back from Russia woesBarings Emerging Europe trust has added the Middle East and Africa to its mandate, delivering a strong recovery, says Max King
-
How a dovish Federal Reserve could affect youTrump’s pick for the US Federal Reserve is not so much of a yes-man as his rival, but interest rates will still come down quickly, says Cris Sholto Heaton