E U R O P E A N I S S U E R S
V I S I O N 2 0 1 9 - 2 0 2 4
C O M P E T I T I V E N E S S I S
T H E C O R E F O R A
S U S T A I N A B L E E U R O P E
S E R V I N G Q U O T E D C O M P A N I E S
8,000 companies covering markets worth €7.6 trillion
through taxes a strong contributor to the
EuropeanIssuers is a pan-European trade
development of the countries.
organisation based in Brussels which
represents the interests of publicly quoted
In this context, EuropeanIssuers aims to
companies from all sectors to the EU
ensure that EU policies create an
institutions. EuropeanIssuers members
environment in which companies of all
include both national associations and
sizes—from emerging growth companies to
companies, covering markets worth €7.6
the large blue-chip companies—can easily
trillion
market
capitalisation
with
raise capital through public markets and
approximately 8,000 companies.
deliver growth over the long term.
EuropeanIssuers has a special interest for
The activities carried out by our members
more companies in Europe to get publicly
are essential in fuelling the economy. They
listed to raise additional funds through the
bring growth and innovation to the society
issuance of securities and spread the
in which their businesses are established.
ownership among a large group of
By generating economic growth, they are
shareholders.
the main providers of employment and
1 A vision for companies in Europe
1.1 Achieving Growth and Jobs through a competitive Europe
To support the objective of growth and
However, the strengthening of financial
creation of jobs which are at the core of the
regulation has burdened non-financial
EU agenda, the European Union needs to
companies in a disproportionate manner
strengthen the competitiveness of its
with new requirements to access market
industry. This requires taking the Single
finance. This trend continues and creates
Market to a new level and simplifying the
legal uncertainty and costs for companies.
regulatory
environment
in
which
In turn, EU decision-makers should focus on
companies operate. To deepen the Single
the enforcement of the existing legislation
Market further and make it fairer, a
rather than on the elaboration of new rules.
successful Capital Market Union is needed
If the drafting of EU legislation is initiated
to strengthen Europe’s economy.
for a good reason, the aggregate effect of
The regulatory environment needs to be
all those justifications can attain a high level
simplified and proportionate to reinforce
of inconsistency. Therefore, we support the
the Internal Market.
Commission’s initiatives looking at the
legislation in an “holistic” way, for example,
The regulatory re-structuring of financial
the “Fitness check of public reporting by
markets to counter the detrimental effects
companies” and the “Fitness check of
of the financial crisis in 2007/2008 has been
supervisory reporting requirements”.
an important cornerstone to rebuild trust in
the financial system and ensure financial
stability in Europe.
1
We think that consistency should be found
Our industry needs a diversification of
for reporting requirements including the
financial sources, a performing and well-
use of digitalisation and new technologies
established Capital Markets Union (CMU)
and that the legislator should clearly define
and a tax framework to ensure that
the purpose of the reporting in order to
financial markets provide the necessary
better circumscribe the data provided by
financing for growth and innovation.
companies.
EuropeanIssuers has thus welcomed from
the
very
beginning
the
European
For smaller companies, the cost to comply
Commission’s project of creating a Capital
with the requirements has increased and
Markets Union to foster the flow of capital
the regulation should be adapted to fit the
throughout Europe.
needs of the 12,000 quoted companies
across Europe. For smaller and mid-size
For the success of the CMU in the coming
quoted companies, EU Regulation should
years, the objectives of the action plan
be made more proportionate to promote
should be reassessed so that the
SME listing.
forthcoming proposals deliver practical and
measurable outcomes. A more horizontal
Access to finance should be fostered to
perspective is needed, especially on how
strengthen the European economy.
issuers interact with the financial system.
1.2 Sustainability for the future of the European economy and the role of corporates
Issuers have a leading role to play in the
authorities tend to develop policies that
sustainability transition being the drivers of
shift responsibilities more from states to
the
change.
They
integrate
ESG
corporates.
Those
policies
impose
(Environment, Social and Governance)
disproportionate obligations to achieve
considerations
as
part
of
their
policy objectives that are neither the
competitiveness and growth strategy. This
primary purpose nor the remit of
increases the number of sustainable
companies. The companies are substituted
projects
and
creates
new
market
to the States or to the cooperation between
opportunities for investors.
States in some of their responsibilities
which are part of their role towards the
Corporates take interest in wider social
citizens and the environment in the
issues, rather than just those that only
absence of a political solution at European
impact profit margins. They are aware of
or
international
level.
This
may
the impact of their activities on society and
consequently harm the competitiveness of
the environment. Their business approach
European companies on international
includes corporate social responsibility.
markets and in turn, also affect public
As businesses become more global, their
wealth. We illustrate our narrative with two
operational processes become more
specific examples: combatting tax evasion
complex. To capture this evolution,
and sustainability policies.
2
Example 1
Example 2
Combatting tax evasion
Fostering sustainability
European companies support the objective
Without any doubt, sustainability is one of
of fighting tax evasion. Most European
the most important topics society and
companies fully adhere to their tax
companies will face in the upcoming years.
obligations and pay their fair share of taxes
Companies across Europe have recognised
they owe to the community. The approach
the challenge and are transforming their
to impose on European companies the
processes to operate in a sustainable
disclosure of sensitive business information
manner. However, no consensus has been
to the public as proposed in the Public
reached so far on stricter environmental
Country by Country Proposal is a
provisions, partly because of the lack of
competitive disadvantage towards their
effective political solution at the global
international competitors. Instead of
level. Due to the lack of a global approach
putting pressure on Member States that
to tackle climate change, the EU launched
compete on corporate tax to attract
an ambitious sustainable finance action
business and finding a timely political
plan which is driven by the political agenda.
solution, the problem is shifted on
This approach may harm the functioning of
companies, thereby ignoring the negative
markets and run counter the objective of
impact on EU competitiveness.
building a Capital Markets Union in Europe.
2 Overview of EuropeanIssuers objectives
We have identified 6 major objectives and 21 specific actions to support our vision. The table
with proposed actions is included in the annex.
2.1 Attract companies to capital markets and retain existing ones by simplifying the
regulatory environment
Recent political developments, creating
number of potential IPOs (see Appendix 2;
more uncertainty, do not encourage
Table 1 § 2).
companies to enter EU public markets nor
The EU regulatory framework should strike
to remain listed on those markets. Since the
a better balance between entrepreneurial
financial crisis, the regulatory burden to
freedom, investor protection and financial
access and operate public markets has been
stability so that capital markets can be
constantly increasing. In addition, there is a
effectively used for the financing and risk
large amount of funding available from
management of European companies.
private equity. Companies may prefer to
Companies need more flexible access to
turn to private equity to finance their
capital markets depending on their size and
operations, as public markets are over
fundraising ambitions.
regulated. Those are among the reasons
that explain the recent reduction of the
The regulatory environment should be
simplified. We observe too many new rules
3
and stringent requirements. Administrative
education of investors we would achieve
burdens on all companies must be reduced
the protection they need rather than by
and reporting requirements simplified. We
increasing disclosure requirements for
believe that through increased financial
companies.
2.2 Attract investors to the market, promote equity culture and remove national
barriers to cross-border investments
To channel more funds towards capital
capital markets as a source of finance for
markets, we need to incentivise investment
the main users.
in equity and create a tax framework for
Investors are institutional or retail and both
savings and capital gains.
need to have access to the same
At a certain stage of growth, companies
information. However, whilst the level of
need capital to develop their activities.
disclosure of information from the
Going public is an effective way to access a
companies to the investors has increased
wide range of capital market financing
(together with the costs and responsibility
options.
Investors
provide
money,
related to that); we wonder if this
experience and skills to grow businesses.
information is actually used. We believe
Investors provide funds in exchange for an
that confidence of investors increases
ownership stake or future return. Two
through proper dialogue and financial
components are needed to have efficient
education rather than new disclosure
capital markets: first, investors providing
requirements.
capital, and second, liquidity in stock
To access sources of long-term finance, the
markets meaning investors selling and
development of cross-border market for
buying either at the time of the IPO (initial
investment funds and the promotion of the
public offer) or gradually once the company
EU market for covered bonds is important.
is listed. Those ingredients are essential to
It will ease cross-border transactions and
assess the quality and proper functioning of
provide certainty on securities and claims.
2.3 Integrate competitiveness in the assessment of the sustainability requirements
EuropeanIssuers supports the Commission’s
need to have access to capital to develop a
commitment to work towards more
sustainable business. Conversely, those who
competitive and innovative capital markets,
act in a sustainable way will attract capital.
while aiming at creating a sustainable
We also agree with the fact that corporate
economy.
Environmental
issues
and
boards should have a long-term view. This is
especially
climate
change
are
risks
the normal objective of a company to act in
companies face and manage. Companies
such a way to sustain its future. However, we
agree that a long-term vision is necessary to
would like to draw attention to the rise of
ensure the sustainability of their activities.
shareholder activism in Europe which, in
EuropeanIssuers is ready to support the
some forms, forces Boards to become overly
Commission’s Sustainable Finance initiatives
focused
on
short-term
financial
and offers to contribute to the development
performance. Aiming for the short-term
of solutions that would work best for
profit of a company eventually undermines
investors, companies and the society.
it, to the benefit of external interests, and
Indeed, sustainability is a matter of
therefore against the collective and social
innovation in technologies and companies
interest that should prevail.
4
We do not think there is a need to clarify the rules according to which directors are expected
to act in the company’s long-term interest and to develop legislation on that respect for
several reasons:
❖
Many corporate governance codes already deal with that issue recommending the board
of directors to promote long-term value creation taking into consideration the social and
environmental aspects of its activities. Flexibility through self-regulation is extremely
important. It is by nature progressive, adaptable to the companies’ specificities and
reactive; it empowers the actors concerned and the “comply or explain” principle on
which corporate governance codes are based makes it possible to adapt to a variety of
situations.
❖
Companies are increasingly involving stakeholders through different forms of dialogue,
including “stakeholder committees” with various composition and purposes. This process
enables the participants and stakeholders to discuss about the new challenges companies
are facing regarding their sustainable development policy.
❖
Many companies already incorporate environmental, social and governance factors in
their strategies and reporting and some already have specific climate-related policies in
place. Companies also have due diligence procedures in place to check their supply chains.
According to the Non-financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), companies are to describe
these due diligence procedures, addressing risks linked to the companies’ operations and
their business relationships.
Therefore, before engaging in new policy action, an assessment should be made of the
provisions and good practices that already exist in the Member States. Such an assessment
will allow EU policymakers to decide whether there is evidence of failure and necessity to act.
2.4 Improve access to finance for small companies and elaborate proportionate rules
We observe that companies which are no
costs of listing (for e.g. Prospectus), which
longer SMEs, but are not yet large ones,
are
disproportionate
for
smaller
struggle with access to capital markets.
companies.
Small and mid-cap companies have the
To facilitate healthy and thriving public
most difficulties complying with overly
capital markets, it is important to recognise
burdensome regulation. The existing
the diverse nature of companies on these
requirements and listing costs in both
markets and ensure that the rules applying
regulated and multilateral trading venues
to smaller companies are appropriate for
continue to be disproportionate to the size
their size. We consider that to boost the
and level of sophistication of SME’s. In
number of initial public offerings (IPOs) a
Europe, the regulatory focus is too often
more proportionate regulatory approach
expended on the largest 20% of companies,
should be adopted as a key principle to
which represent approximately 80% of the
support listing of smaller companies. We
total market capitalisation, at the expense
applaud
the
aim
to
reduce
the
of smaller companies. This deters many of
administrative burdens and the high
these growing companies to seek or
compliance costs faced by smaller issuers.
maintain listing on a public market. This is
particularly the case with regards to the
5
2.5 Integrate, adopt and follow a Better Regulation approach
Despite some improvements, we still
To ensure a proper dialogue with all
observe very detailed regulation in many
stakeholders, we believe that businesses
areas. In reviewing existing regulation or
interests should be better represented
drafting new regulation, the Commission
when
formulating
advice,
should strengthen its Better Regulation
recommendations, at every stage of the
approach
and
pursue
a
simpler,
process including expert groups and public
proportionate and more coherent EU
hearings.
regulation, and flexible access to capital
In terms of Better Regulation entailing the
markets, simplification and cost reduction.
principle of proportionality, we are
Moreover, the Commission should ensure a
concerned with the introduction of a
more harmonised implementation by
collective redress mechanism in the
national competent Authorities. We believe
Member States concerning violations of
that soft law is generally more effective
rights granted under EU law. The risk is to
than hard law and that codes of conduct
disproportionately expose EU companies to
and best practices should be favoured.
abusive claims, who would face, under the
Alternatively, a smart mix between hard
EU proposal, an even more constraining
law and soft law can be beneficial, when
environment than in the US and the rest of
only key principles are defined at European
the world.
level and then supplemented by soft law.
2.6 Develop a harmonised and simplified EU tax system
The present situation where different
limited local taxation at the discretion of
national tax systems co-exist is globally
the country, is a long-term process before
considered
complex
and
creates
implementation.
high administrative
costs
in
its
implementation. It leads to forum
Therefore, we propose to create an
shopping and tax competition between
optional intermediary
system
of
tax
countries. We realise that the way to an
harmonisation for EU companies which will
ideal system with a unified basic EU tax
create more certainty and avoid the burden
system, based on underlying homogenous
of having to comply with every single
definitions,
and
where
appropriate,
national regime while operating in the EU.
combined
with
a supplementary
6
APPENDIX 1: Tables of proposed actions
1. Attract companies to capital markets and retain existing ones by simplifying the
regulatory environment
Legislation
Proposed actions
1. Market Abuse
Market Abuse Regulation has resulted in a complex regulation with heavy
Regulation &
burdensome procedures and we propose a set of measures to alleviate the
Directive
current regime:
• Exclude non-regulated markets from the scope of certain MAR
provisions to ensure that companies are not overburdened with
requirements and procedures.
• Clarify the conditions for the delay and consider it a natural
counterbalance of the very broad definition of inside information.
• Clarify that the leak of rumours triggers the publication of inside
information only when the leak comes from the issuer side. If it does
not, a no comment policy should still be possible to protect the
legitimate interests of the issuer.
• Simplify provisions on insider lists.
• Raise the threshold for managers’ transactions and ensure that
competent authorities are responsible for disclosing managers’
transactions to the public.
• Exempt companies from drawing up and keeping lists of persons closely
associated to PDMRs (Art. 19 of MAR) and exempt non-financial
companies from the application of the rules on prevention and
detection of market abuse (art. 16.2 MAR).
• Adjust the level of sanctions for certain violations (especially on
disclosures and insider lists) which is disproportionate to the size of
many companies.
• Clarify the derogation regime regarding subscription to capital increase
dedicated to employees
2. Audit rules
The implementation of the Audit Directive and Regulation has led to a
confusing patchwork of different requirements in various Member States.
Groups of companies currently must follow track of different rules in the
Member States they operate, which makes the audit process more
burdensome and reduces audit quality.
Groups of companies should be allowed to steer the audit process of its
group via one single auditor network on parent company level in order to
use synergies, keep the overview and thereby enhance audit quality.
The Commission should undertake an evaluation of the implementation of
the audit reform. This evaluation should include a comprehensive inventory
of the various options exercised and be followed by a stakeholder
consultation. We believe that the evaluation planned for June 2028 is too
late.
3. Non-financial
Companies need flexibility when choosing any framework (international,
information
national or sectorial) they follow. Non-financial information shall be
reporting
7
disclosed to the extent necessary for the understanding of the company’s
development, performance, position and impact on the activity.
The concept of materiality is key and should be kept. The Commission itself
recognises the fact that whether an issue is material depends on the
company’s business model, specificities, sectoral and geographical context.
It is necessary to leave room for companies to exercise judgment as regards
the materiality of information.
The EU should refrain from increasing overall reporting burdens for
corporates. The diverse nature of publicly quoted companies means that
achieving comparability through non-financial reporting is a burdensome
task and therefore should not be an objective on the EU’s approach for non-
financial reporting
4. Public CBCR
EuropeanIssuers supports the introduction of measures to combat
corruption and tax evasion at international level and considers country-by-
country reporting to tax administrations as foreseen by Action 13 of the
OECD BEPS plan and as implemented by Directive 2016/881/EU on
mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation as an
effective way to tackle these issues.
On the contrary, EuropeanIssuers is strongly opposed to any attempt to
encourage disclosure to the public country-by-country information.
Public Country-By-Country Reporting would lead to disclosure of business
sensitive information to international competitors in an unprecedented
way. This would place European companies in a disadvantageous position
compared to their international competitors who don’t have to abide to
similar rules.
5. eXtended
The EU should refrain from imposing a mandatory audit on the technical
Business
requirements on iXBRL reporting and see how technology can facilitate
Reporting
access to relevant information and reduce burden and costs.
Language (XBRL)
or iXBRL
6. Prospectus
For secondary issuances, there should be no further approval of the
prospectus. Alternatively, the prospectus for secondary issuances should
be replaced by a securities note only.
All other information is already public and integrated in the price of the
shares and with technology investors receive a continuous flow of
information. Additionally, as issuers will assume the full burden of
implementing iXBRL, which is supposed to make it easier and faster for
investors and authorities to absorb and control financial information,
alleviations in various legislation, including prospectus, should be granted
to issuers.
7. Future of MiFID
We observe a reduction of investment research coverage to small and mid-
II
caps as well as investors’ involvement.
The unbundling of research from execution is one of the most controversial
issues in MiFID II. Most of the investor community have seen their list of
research providers decrease since MiFID II’s implementation.
8
Fund managers see the effect of MiFID II on the liquidity of mid and small-
cap stocks to be negative. They also expect this to lead to a decrease in the
number of broking houses in both the short and long run.
Research suggests that midcap companies have been most affected (small
caps were already suffering) with falls in coverage and liquidity. Companies
are trying to mitigate the effect making more direct contact with investors
through capital market days and improved websites, though this in itself will
not reverse the trend towards lower visibility and lower liquidity.
2. Attract investors to the market, promote equity culture and remove national barriers
to cross-border investments
Legislation
Proposed actions
8. Taxation
We support the creation of tax incentives to improve equity investment
without worsening the tax treatment of debt.
9. Financial
Renounce the proposal to create the European Financial Transaction Tax
Transaction Tax
(FTT), which would run counter to the objective of promoting equity
culture and would be detrimental to the functioning of capital markets.
It is likely to result in a decrease of liquidity in stock markets thereby
creating additional hurdles for companies using capital markets as a
source of finance. Additionally, costs will be transferred to investors –
retail investors in particular – and companies, and thereby to the real
economy.
10. An EU framework
Create an EU investment protection framework with substantive rights
for investment
and effective enforcement tools for EU investors who invest in EU
protection
Member States.
Otherwise, the EU will risk losing EU investors as their legal protection will
decrease following the termination of all currently existing Intra-EU
investment protection treaties between Member States until the end of
2019.
Not replacing mentioned investment treaties with an EU investment
protection framework would also lead to the paradoxical situation that
third country investors investing in the EU would effectively have a greater
protection due to EU-third country trade agreements than EU investors.
11. Shareholder
Flexibility through self-regulation is extremely important. The industry
Rights’ Directive
develops when necessary sets of recommendations and guidelines based
on best practices. This allows companies to adapt according to the nature
of the sectors in which they operate. Those principles are in some cases
incorporated in Codes of Corporate Governance.
The guidelines of the Remuneration Report should
• remain non-binding and with no legal obligations. Soft law and
national corporate governance codes should be favoured.
• be comprehensive concise, transparent, meaningful and simple.
9
• be short or straightforward, avoid contradictions, repetitive
tables and duplicated information
• adopt a more flexible and clearly intelligible approach
throughout its entirety
12. Digitalisation of
Publicly traded companies should be allowed to be dispensed with any
Shareholder’s
requirement for a physical meeting as it is already the case in the US.
General meetings
Theses fully online AGMs whose purpose is to increase participation,
reduce costs and environmental impacts (less travel and fewer printed
materials) should be an option left to companies, subject to shareholders
approval. A reflexion should be set up in order to determine its feasibility
and the possible hurdles.
3. Integrate competitiveness in the assessment of the sustainability requirements
Legislation
Proposed Actions
13. Taxonomy
Graduate and proportionate progress of the taxonomy.
Integrate a forward-looking approach to enable ‘traditional’ or
‘conventional’
business
activities
to
transition
and
become
environmentally sustainable. No activity should be excluded ex ante and
even the highest GHG emitters should be given the chance to become
greener. There should be no ‘black’ or ‘brown’ list of unsustainable
activities.
No further reporting requirements should be imposed on corporates.
Integrate non-financial companies in the sustainable finance platform
A better balance between level 1 requirements and level 2 forthcoming
measures.
14. Disclosures
The evaluation to be undertaken 3 years after the entry into force of the
Regulation will assess whether its functioning is inhibited by the lack of
data or their suboptimal quality, including indicators on adverse impacts
on sustainability factors by investee companies.
This question is already addressed by the Non-financial reporting
directive. Any discussion about additional disclosure requirements for
investee companies should take place in the framework of the NFRD
review, be subject to an in-depth analysis of the matter, taking into
account the outcome of the Fitness Check on Public Corporate reporting,
a discussion with the corporates involving the most competent experts,
and an impact assessment of any new provision.
15. Due diligence
Companies are already doing a lot to control their supply chains and make
alongside the
sure they do not have a negative impact on human rights, social and health
supply chain
issues and the environment.
As laid down in NFRD, they must describe the due diligence procedures
they have put in place to address risks linked to their own operations and
those of their business relationships.
10
At this stage, we believe it is not necessary to add new legislative
requirements in the field of due diligence but to provide for guidelines
about the concept and practical implementation of due diligence.
These guidelines should be in line with internationally recognised
standards such as UNGP and OECD Guidelines for multinational
companies.
The development of a non-binding European approach on due diligence
will also be useful to push for the same approach towards third country
competitors.
16. Extra financial
The diversity of approaches and evaluation methodologies in
rating agencies or
sustainability ratings results in an important workload for companies
sustainability
which are facing numerous requests to fill in questionnaires from different
agencies
sustainability rating agencies. To improve the situation, sustainability
rating agencies should be required to adopt a code of conduct which they
apply and report upon according to the “comply or explain” principle, and
minimum transparency requirements.
4. Improve access to finance for small companies and elaborate proportionate rules
Legislation
Proposed Actions
17. SME Growth
Less stringent, more proportionate approach to regulatory requirements
Markets
for smaller issuers notwithstanding the trading venue i.e. not only those
listed in a SME Growth Markets but also those listed in other MTFs and
RMs
Definition of Small and Mid-Cap companies
A transitional, graduated approach that period exempts newly listed
companies on public markets from having to comply with all the rules at
once. Companies move more gradually to full compliance to spread the
cost of adopting regulation over a number of years. Such companies
would be highlighted to raise awareness among investors
Companies on SME Growth Markets and MTFs should have the choice to
use their local accounting standards (GAAP) or full IFRS
Establish an EU Commission sponsored European Growth Fund to co-
invest alongside private sector investors. Some of the benefit for the
reduced risk for private sector investors to be passed to an Equity
Education Fund to raise awareness of the benefits of equity and IPOs
Review State Aid rules to enable Member States to improve on existing,
and create new tax incentives for investors and listed companies
5. Integrate, adopt and follow Better Regulation approach
Legislation
Proposed Actions
18. Call for evidence
The perspective of non-financial companies as end-users of capital
on the cumulative
markets could have been better considered in the previous calls for
impact of the EU
evidence that focussed on financial market participants.
financial services
legislation
11
A follow-up therefore needs to be conducted, focussing on
inconsistencies and incoherencies in Capital Markets regulation that
negatively affect non-financial companies.
Any impact analysis of a market intervention through policy, legislation
or market regulation should be done looking at small and midcaps as a
separate segment; this is to avoid an apparent overall market benefit
whilst there is actual detriment to the small and midcap segment. This
segmented cost benefit impact analysis should be a legal requirement
and should apply to the EU Commission as well as NCAs in Member
States.
19. Transition
Ensure longer transition and implementation periods to ensure that
especially necessary Level 2 measures for implementation can be
delivered on time.
20. Disclosure
Ensure public and transparent disclosure of documents at the different
stages of the process
The selection process of the technical expert groups is not objective nor
transparent. The same applies to assessment of the adoption process at
level II by member states.
21. Stage of
Ensure substantial issues are dealt with in Level 1. Political deadlocks
legislation
should not be overcome by deferring crucial decisions to Level 2 and 3
12
APPENDIX 2: Evolution of companies with listed shares (2015-2019)
Table 1: Number of listed companies
Stock Exchange
June 2019 June 2018 June 2017 June 2016
June 2015
2019 vs 2015
Athens Stock Exchange
Total
183
200
210
224
243
-25%
Domestic
179
196
206
220
239
-25%
Foreign
4
4
4
4
4
0%
BME Spanish Exchanges
Total
2937
3048
3280
3590
3595
-18%
Domestic
2910
3022
3254
3563
3564
-18%
Foreign
27
26
26
27
31
-13%
Bucharest Stock Exchange Total
85
87
87
85
81
5%
Domestic
83
85
85
83
79
5%
Foreign
2
2
2
2
2
0%
Budapest Stock Exchange
Total
41
40
41
44
42
-2%
Domestic
41
40
41
44
42
-2%
Foreign
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Bulgarian Stock Exchange
Total
272
276
355
357
367
-26%
Domestic
272
276
355
357
367
-26%
Foreign
0
0
0
0
0
0%
CEESEG – Ljubljana
Total
29
34
38
41
48
-40%
Domestic
29
34
38
41
48
-40%
Foreign
0
0
0
0
0
0%
13
Number of listed companies
Stock Exchange
June 2019 June 2018 June 2017
June 2016
June 2015
2019 vs 2015
CEESEG - Prague
Total
54
54
25
25
24
125%
Domestic
16
16
14
15
14
14%
Foreign
38
38
11
10
10
280%
CEESEG – Vienna*
Total
749
622
247
87
96
680%
Domestic
72
69
70
76
82
-12%
Foreign
677
553
177
11
14
4736%
Cyprus Stock Exchange
Total
107
108
76
81
87
23%
Domestic
92
96
76
81
87
6%
Foreign
15
12
0
0
0
15%
Deutsche Börse AG
Total
519
509
451
601
644
-19%
Domestic
469
460
407
539
576
-19%
Foreign
50
49
44
62
68
-26%
Euronext
Total
1239
1239
1278
1063
1065
16%
Domestic
1087
1077
1109
944
943
15%
Foreign
152
162
169
119
122
25%
Irish Stock Exchange
Total
n/a
54
50
53
54
0%
Domestic
n/a
43
39
41
45
-4%
Foreign
n/a
11
11
12
9
22%
14
Number of listed companies
Stock Exchange
June 2019 June 2018 June 2017
June 2016 June 2015 2019 vs 2015
LSE Group
Total
2450
2491
2485
2631
2720
-10%
Domestic
2049
2071
2049
2139
2177
-6%
Foreign
401
420
436
492
543
-26%
Luxembourg Stock Exchange Total
158
164
177
189
197
-20%
Domestic
27
26
29
27
25
8%
Foreign
131
138
148
162
172
-24%
Malta Stock Exchange
Total
26
25
25
23
23
13%
Domestic
26
25
25
23
23
13%
Foreign
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Nasdaq Nordic and Baltics
Total
1029
1008
920
852
817
26%
Domestic
986
964
881
817
785
26%
Foreign
43
44
39
35
32
34%
Oslo Børs
Total
243
235
221
216
214
14%
Domestic
194
188
178
172
169
15%
Foreign
49
47
43
44
45
9%
SIX Swiss Exchange
Total
274
268
265
266
276
-7%
Domestic
240
233
227
230
240
-7%
Foreign
34
35
38
36
36
-13%
15
Number of listed companies
Stock Exchange
June 2019 June 2018 June 2017
June 2016 June 2015 2019 vs 2015
Warsaw Stock Exchange
Total
845
876
887
896
908
-7%
Domestic
818
848
856
864
877
-7%
Foreign
27
28
31
32
31
-13%
Zagreb Stock Exchange
Total
123
145
131
140
144
-15%
Domestic
123
145
131
140
144
-15%
Foreign
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Total of All Exchanges
Total
11122
11480
11248
11459
11647
-2%
Domestic
9521
9912
10067
10411
10529
-8%
Foreign
1601
1568
1181
1048
1118
47%
*In CEESEG -Vienna, the global market** has been introduced in 2017, a market segment for international issuers, thus
the reason for high increase in foreign listed companies.
** The global market is a segment for shares only (including certificates representing shares) that are included in the
Vienna MTF and listed on at least one other stock exchange, and for which at least the applicant – or an exchange member
named by the applicant – assumes market making obligations.
Number of Listed Companies
11700
11600
11500
11400
11300
11200
11100
11000
June 2015
June 2016
June 2017
June 2018
June 2019
N° listed
Series1
LTinear
rendli (S
ne eries1)
companies
16
Table 2: Number of New Listings, Year to Date (New companies listed through an IPO and other new companies listed)
June 2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
Stock Exchange
IPO
Other
IPO
Other
IPO
Other
IPO
Other
IPO
Other
Athens Stock Exchange
Total
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
Domestic
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
Foreign
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
BME Spanish Exchanges
Total
1
8
3
31
10
23
9
36
16
169
Domestic
1
8
3
31
10
23
9
36
16
169
Foreign
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bucharest Stock Exchange Total
0
0
0
2
4
0
1
0
0
0
Domestic
0
0
0
1
4
0
1
0
0
0
Foreign
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Budapest Stock Exchange Total
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
Domestic
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
Foreign
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bulgarian Stock Exchange Total
0
0
1
5
1
2
1
3
1
2
Domestic
0
0
1
5
1
2
1
3
1
2
Foreign
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CEESEG - Prague
Total
1
0
2
3
0
0
1
1
1
2
Domestic
1
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
1
2
Foreign
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
17
Number of New Listings, Year to Date (New companies listed through an IPO and other new companies listed)
June 2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
Stock Exchange
IPO
Other
IPO
Other
IPO
Other
IPO
Other
IPO
Other
CEESEG - Vienna
Total
2
77
0
66
1
333
0
3
0
1
Domestic
2
5
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
Foreign
0
72
0
65
0
332
0
3
0
0
Cyprus Stock Exchange Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Domestic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Foreign
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deutsche Börse AG
Total
2
3
14
7
12
4
9
10
14
11
Domestic
1
3
13
6
11
3
5
8
11
6
Foreign
1
0
1
1
1
1
4
2
3
5
Euronext
Total
1
9
18
14
18
12
24
7
40
5
Domestic
0
7
15
10
18
6
23
4
39
3
Foreign
1
2
3
4
0
6
1
3
1
2
Irish Stock Exchange
Total
n/a
n/a
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
3
Domestic
n/a
n/a
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
2
Foreign
n/a
n/a
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
LSE Group
Total
34
27
119
55
138
59
79
53
118
58
Domestic
32
20
107
37
118
51
71
43
103
46
Foreign
2
7
12
18
20
8
8
10
15
12
18
Number of New Listings, Year to Date (New companies listed through an IPO and other new companies listed)
June 2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
Stock Exchange
IPO
Other
IPO
Other
IPO Other IPO Other IPO Other
Luxembourg Stock Exchange Total
3
0
3
1
5
0
7
0
4
2
Domestic
1
0
1
0
1
0
4
0
2
0
Foreign
2
0
2
1
4
0
3
0
2
2
Malta Stock Exchange
Total
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Domestic
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Foreign
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nasdaq Nordic and Baltics
Total
17
12
54
10
86
19
62
23
76
14
Domestic
16
9
52
8
85
18
60
18
76
12
Foreign
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
5
0
2
Oslo Børs
Total
7
5
8
15
11
13
3
4
7
4
Domestic
0
4
6
9
11
8
3
4
6
3
Foreign
7
1
2
6
0
5
0
0
1
1
SIX Swiss Exchanges
Total
7
0
7
6
0
0
1
0
3
0
Domestic
4
0
7
5
0
0
1
0
2
0
Foreign
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
Warsaw Stock Exchange
Total
4
5
9
12
13
8
13
15
36
0
Domestic
4
5
8
12
13
8
13
15
32
0
Foreign
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
19
Number of New Listings, Year to Date (New companies listed through an IPO and other new companies listed)
June 2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
Stock Exchange
IPO
Other
IPO
Other
IPO
Other
IPO Other IPO Other
Zagreb Stock Exchange Total
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
Domestic
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
Foreign
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total of All Exchanges Total
79
149
241
233
305
477
214
158
318
273
Domestic
69
64
218
132
279
124
194
133
291
248
Foreign
10
85
23
101
26
353
20
25
27
25
Number of New Listings, 2018 vs 2015
Change in Total % (IPO)
-32%
Change in Total % (Other)
-17%
Change in Total Domestic % (IPO)
-33%
Change in Total Foreign % (IPO)
-17%
Change in Total Domestic % (Other)
-88%
Change in Total Foreign % (IPO)
75%
Notes on the Tables:
1. Excluding investment funds besides BME; BME includes investment companies listed (open-end investment
companies).
2. Including Alternative and SME Markets
Notes on the Exchanges:
1. Euronext 2019 figure includes Irish Stock Exchange.
2. Euronext includes Belgium, England, France, Netherlands and Portugal.
3. LSE Group includes London Stock Exchange and Borsa Italiana.
4. Nasdaq Nordic Exchanges include Copenhagen, Helsinki, Iceland, Stockholm, Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius Stock
Exchanges.
20
Market Capitalisation, Value at Month End (EUROm)
2019 vs
Stock Exchange
June 2019
June 2018
June 2017
June 2016
June 2015
2015
Athens Stock Exchange
45.453,22
40.561,31
44.066,48
30.132,99
38.029,82
20%
BME Spanish Exchanges
681.178,13
728.846,35
757.950,52
587.462,85
864.985,08
-21%
Bucharest Stock Exchange
20.860,11
20.291,92
19.258,41
14.999,49
18.234,01
14%
Budapest Stock Exchange
26.344,48
22.576,15
22.836,96
17.251,86
15.165,87
74%
Bulgarian Stock Exchange
14.109,62
12.135,72
5.726,25
4.122,80
4.340,26
225%
CEESEG - Ljubljana
6.775,50
5.815,00
5.264,20
4.943,00
5.857,00
16%
CEESEG - Prague
24.131,15
26.953,00
23.393,99
21.287,32
24.139,61
0%
CEESEG - Vienna
111.956,97
126.097,39
114.336,49
78.276,47
87.732,73
28%
Cyprus Stock Exchange
3.850,60
3.290,40
2.758,34
2.434,08
3.105,50
24%
Deutsche Boerse AG
1.713.288,81
1.808.760,71
1.745.369,90
1.388.575,12
1.577.657,82
9%
Euronext
3.883.623,00
3.715.436,00
3.531.568,00
2.964.845,00
3.074.028
26%
Irish Stock Exchange
n/a
122.184,98
119.106,42
102.156,07
140.587,13
-13%
LSE Group
3.458.417,80
3.693.457,60
3.505.812,30
3.139.467,80
3.759.534,40
-8%
Luxembourg Stock
Exchange
41.810,29
54.032,00
52.617,02
46.450,00
54.142,00
-23%
Malta Stock Exchange
4.816,20
4.302,72
4.350,97
4.111,47
3.678,33
31%
Nasdaq Nordic and Baltics
1.304.696,94
1.240.417,60
1.288.879,39
1.101.301,61
1.114.416,18
17%
Oslo Børs
255.223,08
270.776,45
210.232,58
187.985,90
203.140,81
26%
SIX Swiss Exchange
1.494.707,62
1.301.150,50
1.444.220,47
1.278.185,35
1.397.704,76
7%
Warsaw Stock Exchange
145.954,55
138.357,32
158.272,26
116.351,58
148.993,82
-2%
Zagreb Stock Exchange
18.615,10
18.937,41
19.189,44
16.471,01
17.423,53
7%
TOTAL
13.255.813,17 13.354.380,53
13.075.210,39
11.106.811,77
12.552.896,66
6%
Total Market
Capitalization
(in Euro)
13.500.000,00
13.000.000,00
12.500.000,00
12.000.000,00
11.500.000,00
11.000.000,00
10.500.000,00
June 2015
June 2016
June 2017
June 2018
June 2019
21
Chart 1: Listed Companies and Market Capitalisation
Source: Federation of European Securities Exchanges (FESE)
Chart 2: New Listings and Investment Flows
Source: Federation of European Securities Exchanges (FESE)
22
Chart 3: SME Markets
Source: Federation of European Securities Exchanges (FESE)
Note on the Charts: The charts do not include data from all the stock exchanges listed on above tables, but only member exchanges of
Federation of European Securities Exchanges (FESE).
Sources: Federation of European Securities Exchanges, World Federation of Exchanges, Athens Stock
Exchange, Budapest Stock Exchange, Bulgarian Stock Exchange, CEESEG – Vienna, Cyprus Stock
Exchange, SIX Swiss Exchange, Zagreb Stock Exchange
23
APPENDIX 3: Organisation of EuropeanIssuers
EuropeanIssuers combines a high-level leadership with more than 200 Board members of
European listed companies and a strong capacity to provide solid input and technical expertise
to shape effectively and proactively the future environment in which our listed companies do
operate sharing the views of the leaders of the European economy. To support the European
regulatory framework, EuropeanIssuers maintains a constant dialogue with the main
European decision and policymakers. Over the last five-year term, we held around 200
meetings with European representatives and issued approximately 100 positions papers and
policy by including contributions. This figure is multiplied the work of our members.
The Policy Committee is the main technical working body of the association composed of
senior legal and technical experts with first-hand practical experience. It convenes on a bi-
monthly basis, monitors developments and draft position papers in which EuropeanIssuers
publicly expresses its members’ views.
The Smaller and Medium Issuers Listed in Europe Committee, created in 2008, focuses on the
specific needs of smaller listed companies. It was set up in reaction to the increase of de-
listings and the decrease of new listings, due to the ever-growing volume of regulations for
listed companies.
EuropeanIssuers currently has 14 active working groups, set up to assist the Policy Committee
in considering and discussing policy issues affecting European quoted companies. A single
working group can cover several legislative files in the same field and develops common
positions reflecting the views of the membership. A working group is composed by a team of
experts working together based on time commitment, knowledge of the topic,
communication skills, diversity amongst member associations and companies as well as
geographical balance.
EuropeanIssuers Registration number with the European Commission and Parliament 20935778703-23
24