Why firms favour the AIM when they can list on main market? |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Strome College of Business, Old Dominion University, Constant Hall, Suite 2080, Norfolk, VA 23529-0222, USA;2. Judge Business School, Cambridge University, United Kingdom;3. University of York, Freeboys Lane, YO10 5GD, United Kingdom;1. Department of Radiophysics, Vilnius University, Saul?tekio 9, LT-10222 Vilnius, Lithuania;2. Faculty of Science and Technology, Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences, Student? 39, LT-08106 Vilnius, Lithuania;3. Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Semiconductor Physics Institute, A. Go?tauto 11, LT-01108 Vilnius, Lithuania;4. ECSE and Phys, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 8th Str. 110, Troy 12180, NY, USA;1. A R Sanchez Jr. School of Business, Texas A&M International University, 5201 University Boulevard, Laredo TX 78041, USA;2. University of Nebraska at Kearney, College of Business and Technology, Kearney, NE 68849, USA;1. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA;2. The Capital Group Companies, Los Angeles, CA, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | It is often argued that the popularity of Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in terms of higher number of listings relative to the Main Market (MM) is mainly due to the strict listing requirements in the MM. During the 1995 to 2014 period, 577 out of 1143 AIM listed firms did not qualify for MM listing, but the rest (566) that raised equity in AIM could have joined the MM. This raises the question why firms that meet the heavier regulatory environment of the MM choose the AIM, a lighter regulatory environment. This paper subjects this question to a comprehensive investigation and finds that the market choice is a self-selection decision. The two markets attract companies with different characteristics, and dissimilar post-listing investment and financing priorities. The evidence also shows that smaller and younger companies choose to be listed on the AIM due to lower listing and on-going costs. Heckman Selection models addressing the important question of what would have been the operating performance if AIM companies joined MM indicate that AIM companies would not perform better had they selected to go public in the MM. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
