This chapter presents a global overview of public equity markets for growth companies. It starts by providing a brief description of regional developments and describing existing markets and the growth companies listed on them. The chapter also looks at the capital that growth companies have raised on public markets and analyses the costs to access these markets.
Equity Markets for Growth Companies
Abstract
Growth companies, those that have moved beyond the start‑up phase and continue to expand, can play a key role in the economy. They contribute significantly to innovation, job creation and overall economic growth. Despite their importance, many growth companies face limited access to long-term financing. Their short financial history, lack of collateral and unstable cash flows often make them ineligible for traditional bank lending. As a result, they often rely on internal funding, which may not be sufficient to sustain their expansion. This leaves a significant financing gap that can be filled by market‑based financing instruments.
Equity financing, in particular public equity, can help bridge the financing gap while offering several advantages to growth companies. It offers risk‑sharing, patient capital essential to support innovative companies with uncertain prospects. Unlike debt financing, equity provides long‑term capital without the pressure of refinancing at maturity. Moreover, public equity strengthens a company’s creditworthiness, transparency and visibility both during and after the IPO.
While the definitions of “growth markets” and “growth companies” may vary across countries and regions, this report focuses on equity markets that cater to SMEs and growth-stage companies, which typically have more flexible entry requirements than main markets. Growth companies are defined as those listed on these dedicated markets.
The findings of this chapter draw on a new OECD dataset, developed specifically for this report, to map the global landscape of equity markets dedicated to growth companies. Relevant stock exchanges are identified either through responses to the OECD survey or, where survey data are not available, through explicit references in official documentation indicating a focus on smaller or growth companies. A detailed description of the methodology used to compile the dataset is provided in the Annex.
Since the 1990s, stock exchanges around the world have responded to the growing need for specialised platforms to support smaller and high‑growth companies. These segments typically offer lower listing requirements, greater regulatory flexibility and greater access to capital while maintaining investor protection.
North America
In North America, the development of market segments tailored to high‑growth companies began in the early 1990s. In the United States, the NASDAQ SmallCap Market (now called NASDAQ Capital Market) was launched in 1992 as a separate tier within the NASDAQ Stock Market. This market offers smaller companies, particularly in the technology sector, access to public equity with less stringent listing requirements than the main NASDAQ board. Canada followed suit in 1999 with the creation of the TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV). The TSXV was designed as a transitional platform for smaller companies, allowing them to raise capital and eventually graduate to the main market of the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). The Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE) was established in 2001 to meet the needs of start‑ups, offer lower cost of capital and maximise access to liquidity.
Europe
Europe’s approach to supporting SMEs and high‑growth companies began in the 1990s. In the United Kingdom, the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) was launched in 1995 as a segment of the London Stock Exchange (LSE). Designed specifically to support smaller companies, AIM offered a more flexible regulatory framework than the main market of LSE. The European Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation, a pan‑European market aimed at smaller, high‑growth companies, was launched in 1996. Although it was eventually acquired by NASDAQ OMX in 2003, it played a key role in fostering a dynamic investment environment for growth companies (Weber and Posner, 2000[1]).
In France, the Nouveau Marché was launched in 1996 as part of the Paris Bourse, providing a dedicated space for innovative companies. The merger of the stock exchanges of Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Portugal in 2005 resulted in the creation of Euronext, which launched Alternext in the same year to further support SMEs (Vismara, Paleari and Ritter, 2012[2]). Italy has also developed specialised markets for smaller companies. As part of Borsa Italiana, Mercato Ristretto (later renamed Expandi Market) was established as a market for SMEs in 1977, while Nuovo Mercato was launched in 1999 to serve high‑tech companies. However, Expandi Market was closed in 2009 and Nuovo Mercato in 2005. Following the merger between Borsa Italiana and the LSE, AIM Italia was launched, later renamed Euronext Growth Milan following its acquisition by Euronext.
In the early 2000s, the European Union (EU) also introduced new regulations to support SMEs’ access to financing. The Prospectus Directive (2003/71/EC) simplified the IPO process for SMEs in EU member states (European Commission, 2003[3]). Moreover, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) paved the way for the creation of Multilateral Trading Facilities (MTFs), which are alternative trading platforms outside of traditional exchanges (Meijer, 2009[4]). These regulatory changes promoted the creation of Euronext Growth and First North Growth Market. Euronext Growth has grown to become one of Europe’s largest markets for small and mid‑cap companies, offering flexible listing requirements and improved access to capital. Similarly, First North Growth Market, operated by Nasdaq Nordic Group, has become a popular venue for Nordic and Baltic growth companies seeking to raise capital.
Asia
Asia, with its rapidly expanding economies, has also recognised the need for specialised market segments for growth companies. Japan led the way, launching JASDAQ in 1963 as an over‑the‑counter market for small companies. By 1991, JASDAQ had evolved into an exchange‑like platform and was integrated into the Tokyo Stock Exchange in 2011, where it became part of the Standard Market and Growth Market. Singapore established the Stock Exchange of Singapore Dealing and Automated Quotation (SESDAQ) in 1987. SESDAQ was established to facilitate the listing of companies that would not qualify for the main board. In 2007, this platform was replaced by Catalist.
Korea followed suit in 1996 with the creation of KOSDAQ which became an important platform for high‑growth sectors. Meanwhile, Hong Kong (China) launched the Growth Enterprise Market in 1999 to provide an alternative listing venue for companies that did not meet the requirements of the main board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Malaysia was also a pioneer, launching MESDAQ in 1997, which was later rebranded as ACE Market in 2009. The Stock Exchange of Thailand established the Market for Alternative Investment (MAI) in 1999 to provide a platform for SMEs.
The 2000s saw further developments in Asia. The Philippines created its Small, Medium and Emerging Board in 2013 to provide smaller companies with easier access to capital markets. In the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”), the Shenzhen Stock Exchange launched ChiNext in 2009, a market focused on high‑growth and technology‑driven companies. More recently, the Shanghai Stock Exchange launched the Science and Technology Innovation Board (STAR) in 2019. In 2021, to support innovation‑driven SMEs in China, the Beijing Stock Exchange was launched, evolving from the National Equities Exchange and Quotations.
Other regions
Markets dedicated to growth companies have also been launched in Latin America and Africa. In Brazil, Bovespa Mais was launched in 2005 by BM&FBOVESPA, now Brasil, Bolsa, Balcão (B3), as a dedicated listing platform for growth companies. This was followed by the introduction in 2005 of Bovespa Mais Level 2, designed for companies wanting to commit to higher corporate governance standards, while still catering to smaller companies seeking access to public markets. In Chile, the Santiago Stock Exchange, in collaboration with the Chilean Economic Development Agency, initiated the ScaleX Santiago Venture Exchange in 2022, with the objective of facilitating financing options for growth‑oriented companies. In South Africa, the Johannesburg Stock Exchange launched AltX in 2003, a segment designed to help growth companies access public equity capital. While these markets are still at an early stage of development, they reflect a global trend towards the creation of equity markets designed to meet the financing needs of smaller and growth companies.
By the end of 2023, 59 jurisdictions worldwide had equity markets dedicated to growth companies (based on available information), while 109 had equity markets for large, established firms, commonly referred to as main markets. Growth markets list 16 247 companies with a total market capitalisation of USD 4 trillion. While the number of growth companies is about half that of companies listed on main markets, their market capitalisation is equivalent to only 4% of main market capitalisation. Asia is the most dynamic region, with over half of all listed growth companies and around 80% of their market capitalisation (Figure 1.1). This dynamic ecosystem for growth companies is in large part a result of the rapid development of equity markets for larger companies in the region, as the two are closely interconnected. China alone is home to over 2 000 growth companies, with a combined market capitalisation of USD 2.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Asia excluding China and Japan lists around 5 700 growth companies, which collectively represent 18% of global growth market capitalisation.
Note: Panel A shows the regional distribution of 16 247 companies listed on growth markets in 59 jurisdictions. Panel B shows the regional distribution of the 35 626 companies listed on main markets in 109 jurisdictions. The bubble size represents the share of the market capitalisation in total global market capitalisation. LAC stands for Latin America and Caribbean.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG; see Annex for details.
In comparison, growth markets in the United States and Europe are smaller in size. US growth markets are home to 1 376 companies with a total market capitalisation of USD 339 billion, representing less than one‑tenth of the global figure. These companies are mainly listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market and the NYSE American (formally NYSE MKT). US growth markets are significantly smaller than main markets, which have a total market capitalisation of USD 51 trillion.
Europe hosts 3 414 growth companies with a total market capitalisation of USD 226 billion. The region has several key markets. One of the pioneering European markets for small and growth companies is AIM in the United Kingdom, which currently lists 787 companies. Euronext offers two primary segments for growth companies: Euronext Growth, a second‑tier market, and Euronext Access, a third‑tier market. Both segments support growth companies’ access to equity financing across six markets: Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Portugal. In addition, Euronext Expand Oslo in Norway also provides dedicated platforms for growth companies, further enhancing their access to capital markets. Collectively, Euronext’s growth segments list over 800 growth companies. Meanwhile, the First North Growth Market operating in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden collectively lists around 500 growth companies.
Most markets for growth companies represent only a small fraction of each jurisdiction’s GDP compared to main markets (Figure 1.2). In most cases, jurisdictions with more developed main equity markets also have larger growth markets. For instance, in Canada and Sweden, where the size of the main market surpasses that of GDP, growth markets are equivalent to 2.9% and 4.7% of GDP, respectively. However, the relationship between main and growth markets is not always straightforward. In some cases, highly developed main markets do not necessarily entail strong growth markets. For instance, Switzerland’s main market has a total capitalisation exceeding USD 2 trillion (equivalent to 226% of GDP), but the growth market remains underdeveloped, at less than 1% of GDP.
As noted, Asia has the largest markets for growth companies globally. They play a large role in the economy with their value equivalent to 10% of the region’s GDP, compared to 4% globally. The three largest equity growth markets in Asia - China, Korea and Chinese Taipei - have market capitalisations equivalent to 14%, 18% and 29% of their respective GDPs. China stands out as the largest public equity growth market with three dedicated marketplaces for growth companies: the ChiNext Board on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, the STAR Market on the Shanghai Stock Exchange and the Beijing Stock Exchange. Korea follows with two growth markets, the KOSDAQ market and the KONEX market with a total of 1 742 listed companies. Chinese Taipei has the world’s largest growth market relative to GDP (29%), with over 1 000 listed growth companies and a combined market capitalisation of USD 223 billion. Besides these three dominant markets, both advanced economies, such as Hong Kong (China) and Japan, and emerging markets, including India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Viet Nam, have large markets for growth companies.
In North America, Canada has a particularly active growth market with 2 418 companies listed on the TSX Venture and Canadian Securities Exchange, with a market capitalisation equivalent to 3% of GDP. While Canada surpasses the United States in terms of the number of listed companies, its overall market value remains comparatively modest. The US growth market, which comprises 1 376 companies, has a substantially larger market capitalisation of USD 339 billion, an indication of larger growth companies.
Europe also has active growth markets, with the United Kingdom (787 companies, USD 94 billion) and Sweden (642 companies, USD 28 billion) leading both in terms of number of companies and market value. Other important markets include France, Italy, Poland and Romania.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG; IMF World Economic Outlook https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO; see Annex for details.
While almost all growth markets position themselves as serving growth companies or SMEs, there is no universal definition of what constitutes a growth company or an SME. For instance, national definitions of SMEs tend to be based on metrics such as total assets, number of employees or turnover, while stock exchanges generally use market capitalisation as the key criterion for listing (Soomro and Aziz, 2015[5]). Moreover, while growth markets normally set a lower market capitalisation threshold, upper limits are usually not specified (see Chapter 2). As a result, the size of companies listed on these markets varies widely. Indeed, although public equity markets dedicated to growth companies are predominantly composed of smaller companies, the median market capitalisation of companies listed on these markets ranges from USD 3 million to USD 600 million (Figure 1.3).
In most markets, the majority of listed growth companies have a market capitalisation below USD 100 million. An outlier is China, where the median size is USD 600 million, significantly higher than in most other markets. Türkiye also has large companies in its growth market, with a median size of USD 106 million. In contrast, Australia, Denmark, Hong Kong (China), India and Sweden have a median market capitalisation of USD 10 million or less, showing that even very small companies in these jurisdictions can access equity markets.
Note: The analysis only includes markets with over twenty listed growth companies.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG; see Annex for details.
The industry breakdown shows that the technology, industrials and healthcare sectors dominate growth markets worldwide, together accounting for 71% of total market capitalisation (Figure 1.4). The technology sector alone accounts for nearly one‑third of global market capitalisation and represents the largest share in Europe, China, Japan and the rest of Asia. This contrasts with main markets, where the sector’s share is much lower in Europe, China and Japan. Industrial companies also represent a significant share of growth markets, with over one‑fifth of market capitalisation in Europe, China and Latin America. Healthcare is among the top three sectors across most growth markets, which contrasts with its relatively lower representation on main markets.
Note: The shares in the figures are calculated over market capitalisation. “Others” includes all industries not listed among the top three. Financial companies are excluded in the analysis.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG; see Annex for details.
The large number of listed companies on growth markets is driven by high activity in IPOs. While most companies enter these markets through traditional IPOs, a small proportion use alternative listing methods such as direct listings or Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs).
1.3.1. Initial public offerings on growth markets
Between 2019 and 2023, growth markets recorded 4 221 IPOs globally, surpassing the 3 630 IPOs on main markets (Figure 1.5). Growth companies raised USD 313 billion through these IPOs, about one-third of the capital raised by IPOs on main markets (USD 965 billion). Notably, financial companies play a minor role in growth markets, contributing to only 2.5% of the total capital raised, compared to 10.6% on main markets.
The year 2021 marked a record for public equity financing, with IPO proceeds reaching USD 400 billion on main markets and USD 93 billion on growth markets. Activity slowed in 2022 and 2023. While growth companies continued to list, albeit at a reduced pace, main markets experienced a steep contraction. Capital raised on main markets through IPOs fell to less than a quarter of the issuance in 2021 and less than half of the levels seen in 2019 and 2020.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg; see Annex for details.
There are important differences in IPO activity across regions and jurisdictions (Figure 1.6). The United States is a major player in terms of the total number and value of IPOs, both on main and growth markets. During the 2019-2023 period, the United States saw 270 non-financial company IPOs on growth markets and nearly 600 on main markets, raising USD 20 billion and USD 305 billion, respectively. IPOs on main markets tend to be much larger, with a median size of USD 258 million, compared to USD 18 million for growth market IPOs. In Canada, the median IPO size was considerably lower, at USD 0.5 million for growth markets and USD 123 million for main markets. A total of USD 836 million was raised from 146 IPOs on Canadian growth markets.
In Europe, there were 659 non‑financial IPOs on growth markets in 2019-2023, raising a total of USD 22 billion, above the amount raised in the United States. Sweden was the most active market in Europe with 151 growth company IPOs, raising USD 6.5 billion. The median IPO size in Sweden was USD 6.2 million, an indication of the ease with which small companies can access public equity markets. Italy and the United Kingdom followed, with 140 and 118 IPOs, raising USD 1.9 billion and USD 5.2 billion respectively. Norway had 68 IPOs on its growth markets raising USD 4.6 billion, positioning it as one of the most active IPO markets relative to the size of its economy. Other European countries including France (62 IPOs), Denmark (36 IPOs) and Finland (29 IPOs) also exhibited robust IPO activity on growth markets, with varying levels of capital raised.
Asia plays an important role in IPO activity globally, particularly on growth markets where it accounted for over two‑thirds of IPOs and over four-fifths of the capital raised in 2019-2023. This strong performance is largely driven by China, which alone accounted for Asia’s IPOs and raised around USD 225 billion, making up almost 90% of the region’s capital raised on growth markets. Growth companies in Japan and Korea also raised significant amounts of capital. Japan recorded 359 growth company IPOs, raising together USD 13 billion, which is 65% higher than the amount raised on main markets. In Korea, 265 growth companies listed, raising a total of USD 12 billion. Indonesia followed with 153 IPOs on its growth market, raising USD 4 billion. Malaysia, Thailand and India also saw a high number of growth company IPOs, though the capital raised was comparatively lower.
In nearly all jurisdictions, the number of IPOs on growth markets has outpaced IPOs on main markets, possibly due to lower entry requirements. For example, Sweden had 151 growth company IPOs, nearly five times the number recorded on its main market. In Korea, the number of growth company IPOs was 265, more than eight times the number on its main market. Similarly, China and Japan had three times as many IPOs on their growth markets as on their main markets.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg; see Annex for details.
Across all jurisdictions, the median IPO size on growth markets remains significantly smaller than on main markets, with the exception of China (Figure 1.7). Of note, China’s growth markets, particularly Shenzhen ChiNext and Shanghai STAR, tend to attract more established large companies. This is also reflected in the large median size (USD 600 million) of listed Chinese growth companies (Figure 1.3). Although these markets primarily serve smaller companies, their listing requirements remain relatively stringent compared to the main boards of the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges. For example, to qualify for listing on ChiNext, a company must have a positive net profit for the past two years, with a cumulative net profit of at least RMB 100 million (~USD 14 million) and a net profit of no less than RMB 60 million (~USD 8.3 million) in the most recent year. Alternatively, it must have an estimated market value of at least RMB 1.5 billion (~USD 207 million), a positive net profit in the most recent year and annual revenue of at least RMB 400 million (~USD 55 million). Another option is to have an estimated market value of at least RMB 5 billion (~USD 690 million), and annual revenue of no less than RMB 300 million (~USD 42 million) in the most recent year (Shenzhen Stock Exchange, 2025[6]).
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg; see Annex for details.
Akin to the industry distribution of listed companies, the technology, industrials and healthcare sectors dominate IPO activity on growth markets globally, collectively accounting for over two‑thirds of all capital raised (Figure 1.8). The technology sector leads IPOs on growth markets in Japan (61%), China (33%) and Europe (22%). The sector also represents a significant share of IPOs on main markets, contributing to over one‑quarter of total IPO proceeds, largely driven by US companies. The industrials sector also plays an important role, representing one‑quarter of growth company IPOs worldwide. In Europe, industrials account for 20% of growth company IPOs, while in China and Japan, they make up 28% and 12% respectively. In the rest of Asia industrial growth companies account for 20% of the capital raised. The healthcare sector has a strong presence in growth market IPOs, particularly in the United States (21%), China (16%), and Asia excluding China and Japan (28%).
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg; see Annex for details.
1.3.2. Alternative listing options for companies to access equity markets
Traditionally, an IPO has been the primary method for companies to access public equity markets. In recent years, however, alternative approaches have emerged besides IPOs, offering companies greater flexibility when going public. These alternatives, such as direct listings and Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs), allow companies to bypass some of the complexities and costs associated with traditional IPOs.
Direct listings have gained prominence, allowing companies to list their shares on a stock exchange without issuing new equity. Instead, outstanding shares are sold to the public without underwriters being involved. Importantly, a direct listing is often used by well-established companies to access public markets at a much lower cost (Zheng, 2022[7]). Similarly, SPACs have also become a faster and flexible path to public markets. SPACs are essentially shell companies created solely to raise capital through an IPO with the intention of acquiring an existing private company. This approach allows a company to become publicly traded through a reverse merger with a listed SPAC, thus bypassing the lengthy and complex traditional IPO process. This streamlined listing method gained significant popularity around 2020, when SPACs accounted for more than half of all IPOs in the United States (Nasdaq, 2020[8]). However, their rapid growth has sparked political debate about regulatory oversight and investor protection. To increase transparency and protect investors in both SPAC IPOs and subsequent transactions, jurisdictions have begun to implement stricter regulations. For instance, in 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission introduced new rules to bring the disclosure requirements and legal liabilities of SPACs more in line with those of traditional IPOs (SEC, 2024[9]).
Of the 30 markets included in the OECD Survey on Equity Markets for Growth Companies (hereafter “OECD Survey”), 22 offer alternative listing methods beyond IPOs for the main market, while 23 jurisdictions provide such options for the growth market (see Figure 1.9). Direct listing is available in both main and growth markets in 20 jurisdictions (Panel A). In India, however, direct listing is only allowed on the growth market. Conversely, in Singapore, direct listing is allowed on the main market but not on the growth market, reflecting a preference for maintaining strict regulatory oversight of growth markets.
Jurisdictions such as Hong Kong (China), Singapore and the United Kingdom have imposed strict conditions on SPAC listings from the outset. For example, Hong Kong (China) only allows SPAC IPOs targeted at institutional investors and requires stringent sponsor qualifications, a minimum fundraising amount of HKD 1 billion (~USD 129 million), and specific rules to prevent trading suspensions after acquisition announcements (HKEX, 2022[10]). Singapore introduced SPAC rules in 2021, requiring a minimum market capitalisation of SGD 150 million (~USD 110 million) and a 24-month deadline for completing a merger (SGX Group, 2021[11]). The United Kingdom relaxed its rules in 2021 to attract SPAC listings, allowing them to avoid trading suspensions upon deal announcements if conditions like a minimum fundraising of GBP 100 million (~USD 126 million) and investor redemption rights are met (FCA, 2021[12]).
Note: In Malaysia, the term “direct listing” is not used. Instead, “introduction of shares” is used. Despite the difference in terminology, this method is essentially the same as a direct listing.
Source: OECD Survey on Equity Markets for Growth Companies, see Annex for more details.
In 10 of the jurisdictions surveyed, SPACs are available in both the main and growth markets (Figure 1.9, Panel B). In France, Germany and Hong Kong (China), however, SPACs are restricted to the main market, limiting growth companies listing through this route. In Italy, SPACs can be admitted to the growth market Euronext Growth Milan, as well as the professional segment of Euronext MIV Milan, which is designed for qualified investors. In Canada, SPACs are allowed in both the main and growth markets. Moreover, the TSX Venture Exchange (growth market) has established the Capital Pool Company Program (CPC), which has a similar structure to SPACs with the aim of helping early‑stage companies access capital markets. While SPACs have a minimum capital raising of CAD 30 million, a CPC is only allowed to raise up to CAD 10 million, which is suitable for early‑stage companies (TSX Venture Exchange, 2023[13]).
Another pathway to going public is through a reverse takeover, where a private company merges with or acquires a listed company to gain a public listing without undergoing the formal IPO review process. Often referred to as a “backdoor listing”, this method typically involves a dormant or struggling listed company being acquired by a private entity, which then becomes the effective operating company post-merger. While it allows for faster market entry, it also raises concerns about regulatory avoidance and investor protection.
As a result, many jurisdictions have introduced strict oversight to address the risks associated with reverse takeovers. In Japan, if the post-merger entity is effectively the unlisted company, it is subject to delisting unless it passes an IPO-level review within a specified grace period (JPX, 2022[14]). This ensures that companies cannot bypass the listing process without meeting appropriate standards. In Hong Kong (China), the listing rules require the post-merger entity to satisfy new listing criteria. For particularly large acquisitions, the stock exchange imposes stricter disclosure requirements and mandates thorough due diligence by a financial sponsor (HKEX, 2025[15]). Meanwhile, China significantly tightened its reverse takeover regulations in 2016, following a period of widespread use during an IPO freeze. The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) introduced more detailed and stringent criteria to determine what constitutes a backdoor listing, making it more difficult for companies to go public through speculative shell acquisitions (China Daily, 2016[16]).
1.3.3. Listing costs
The cost of going public is a significant factor in growth companies’ access to equity markets. The initial fees include: (i) listing fees; (ii) registration/admission fees; and (iii) fees paid to underwriters, accountants, law firms and other listing service providers. Additionally, companies must bear ongoing costs, which primarily consist of annual fees paid to stock exchanges to maintain their listing status, as well as other compliance‑related expenses, such as financial reporting and audit services. In a few jurisdictions, regulators also charge an annual fee on listed companies.
Recognising the financial constraints faced by growth companies, both regulators and stock exchanges are structuring their listing fees to be more affordable in markets targeting growth companies. For instance, the Tokyo Stock Exchange sets its initial listing fees for the Growth Market at only 1/15 of that in the Prime Market.
The method for calculating initial listing fees varies considerably between jurisdictions. In Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Romania, South Africa, Chinese Taipei and Türkiye, stock exchanges charge a fixed fee to listed companies, regardless of issuance size or capital. In contrast, jurisdictions such as Australia, Chile, India and Japan base their fees on the size of the issue. Meanwhile, 16 jurisdictions base fees on market capitalisation.
Jurisdictions also differ in their approach to proportional and regressive fee structures for both initial and annual listing fees. 10 jurisdictions (Chile, Columbia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and Thailand) apply proportional listing fees based on the issuance value or market capitalisation at the time of the listing (Figure 1.10). In 9 jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, China, France, Hong Kong (China), Italy, Korea, Portugal and the United Kingdom), listing fees are structured to be regressive, with the rate decreasing as the issue size or market capitalisation increases.
Note: In jurisdictions with three‑tier markets, the listing fees refer to the second tier.
Source: OECD Survey on Equity Markets for Growth Companies, see Annex for more details.
Importantly, most stock exchanges have lower or upper limits to the fees they can charge. For instance, in Sweden, listing fees for the Nasdaq First North Growth Market are set with a maximum of SEK 605 000 (~USD 57 250). In the United Kingdom, the AIM uses a regressive fee structure with the lowest admission fee set at GBP 15 125 (~USD 11 834), and the highest at GBP 155 000 (~USD 121 274). Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Chinese Taipei have a fixed fee structure.
Initial fees vary across jurisdictions and typically represent a larger share of market capitalisation for smaller companies. This may be justified, as it may be costlier for exchanges and regulators to oversee smaller companies than larger one. To facilitate comparisons, Figure 1.11 shows the total initial fees for companies with a market capitalisation of USD 10 million and USD 40 million, expressed as a share of the market capitalisation. For a company with a market capitalisation of USD 10 million, the highest fees are on the First North Growth Market in Sweden (0.35%), followed by the United Kingdom’s AIM (0.25%) and Singapore’s Catalist (0.24%). Despite its relatively high fees, the First North Growth Market is nonetheless often regarded as a well-functioning and dynamic platform for growth companies. The same holds true for the United Kingdom’s AIM and Japan’s Growth Market, both of which have developed vibrant market for growth companies under comparable cost burdens for small offerings.
Note: In jurisdictions with three‑tier markets, the listing fees refer to the second tier. For jurisdictions that use issue size to calculate the listing fee, it is assumed that 25% of the market capitalisation is raised during the IPO.
Source: OECD Survey on Equity Markets for Growth Companies, see Annex for more details.
As company market capitalisation rises to USD 40 million, fees as a percentage of market capitalisation decline significantly due to fixed fee components or regressive fee structures. Australia and the United Kingdom remain among the most expensive jurisdictions. At the other end of the spectrum, Argentina imposes no initial listing fee. Companies only need to make one upfront payment for the annual maintenance fee.
Listed companies are also subject to ongoing listing fees charged by stock exchanges. Fees are set as a fixed amount in only four jurisdictions (Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and South Africa), while the others apply either a regressive or proportional fee structure. Annual fees vary significantly across jurisdictions. France, Italy and Portugal charge the highest ongoing fees (Figure 1.12). Over a three‑year listing period, these fees amount to 0.62% of market capitalisation for companies valued at USD 10 million and 0.15% for those valued at USD 40 million. Australia, Hong Kong (China), Sweden and the United Kingdom also impose relatively high fees. In contrast, stock exchanges in Argentina, Bulgaria, Croatia and Korea charge significantly lower fees.
Note: In jurisdictions with three‑tier markets, the listing fees refer to the second tier.
Source: OECD Survey on Equity Markets for Growth Companies, see Annex for more details.
In addition to regulatory and stock exchange fees, a significant portion of IPO costs comes from financial advisory services, with underwriting fees being the largest direct expense. These fees typically range from 2% to 8% of the gross IPO proceeds. In markets such as the United States, Japan and China, they account for more than 60% of total IPO costs (OECD, 2017[17]). Legal and accounting fees also represent a substantial share of IPO costs. Compliance costs during the listing process are also substantial, as companies must prepare periodic financial statements and comply with corporate governance requirements. This requires both internal resources for document preparation and external financial services, such as accounting, throughout the process.
In the OECD Survey, all participating jurisdictions reported having sufficient financial advisory services (e.g. investment banks, independent financial advisers, accounting firms, legal advisers), but that their costs remain high, particularly for growth companies. In Spain, for example, recent admissions to the Bolsas y Mercados Españoles (BME) Growth showed that incorporation costs exceeded 10% of the funds raised prior to listing. These costs include legal, notary, registry, adviser, due diligence and venue fees. The financial burden of advisory services can be particularly challenging for smaller companies, potentially deterring them from accessing public equity markets.
To alleviate this financial burden and encourage companies to access equity markets, several jurisdictions offer financial support or subsidies. For instance, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, through the Grant for Equity Markets Singapore Scheme, supports 20% of the eligible IPO expenses for companies listed on Catalyst, with a grant cap of SGD 300K (~USD 233K) (MAS, 2021[18]). For some cases in Japan, funding is available through local government programmes. For example, the municipality in Fukushima Prefecture offers financial support to companies preparing to list, covering up to half of the listing costs, up to a maximum of JPY 500 million (~USD 3.5 million).
Several jurisdictions have introduced tax incentives to reduce the costs associated with the listing process. In Italy, according to the Budget Law, SMEs that apply for listing on a regulated market or multilateral trading facility in a member state of the EU or the European Economic Area and successfully obtain admission, can claim a tax credit of 50% of consultancy costs, up to a maximum of EUR 500K. In Malaysia, technology-based companies are entitled to a tax deduction of up to RM 1.5 million (~USD 360K) for expenses incurred in the IPO process during the tax year 2023-2025 (Ministry of Finance, 2022[19]). Such incentives have been instrumental in encouraging SME listings by reducing the financial burden of going public (Fernandez, 2021[20]).