Why Small Caps Are Struggling to List and Stay Listed
The Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) Listing Rules impose a wide range of ongoing disclosure, reporting and governance obligations on listed companies. These include periodic reporting, quarterly cash flow statements, half‑year financials, preliminary final reports, annual reports, remuneration and audit committees reports, compliance with Corporate Governance Principles and, for exploration‑focused entities, detailed quarterly activity reports and JORC‑compliant announcements. These obligations are intended to ensure market integrity, transparency and investor protection. However, for many small-cap companies, the compliance burden associated with this can be disproportionately heavy.
In May 2025 the ASX refreshed Guidance Note 1 (GN1), which, among other things, clarified admissibility criteria, early engagement expectations and transparency for earlier‑stage companies. While this arguably brings a greater degree of predictability, it also reinforces rigorous entry standards and ongoing compliance expectations, even for emerging ventures. This reflects a broader tightening of the Listing Rules that has been taking place over time.
Small‑cap companies frequently cite the cumulative cost of, and management time involved in, preparing quarterly activity reports, audit and remuneration disclosures and compliance with a range of governance requirements as reasons why listing is less attractive.
These detailed and onerous obligations can strain boardrooms and the limited resources of a small team. Often the full board ends up comprising the various committees and securing suitably engaged and independent directors can be problematic. All of this deters new listings and contributes to a growing number of voluntary or involuntary de-listings of small caps that cannot sustain the regulatory and associated cost base.
Trends in reduced new listings and rising de-listings
It is clear from ASX data that there is a dearth of new listings and that de-listings are continuing. Anecdotally, legal and capital markets advisers increasingly caution early‑stage companies to defer listing until they reach sufficient scale to absorb the governance requirements and ongoing costs. Tightened listing standards and changes to the Reverse Takeover/Backdoor listing processes has put further road blocks in front of aspiring early‑stage small cap companies forcing them to delay listing until greater operational and financial maturity is achieved.
ASX’s compliance has also updated its scrutiny of mining‑sector reporting. It expects exploration results and resource estimates to be clearly structured, balanced and not misleading, with appropriate cautionary and competent person statements under the JORC Code.
That level of disclosure can be particularly onerous for resource juniors that rely on reports of assay results or modest drill campaigns. Repeated announcements, accompanied by cautionary language and audit‑level depth, can overwhelm small teams.
Companies that fail to comply with the Listing Rules may be suspended and eventually delisted. For example if they fail to lodge reports on time or default on listing fees a company may initially be suspended and, if unresolved after two years, automatically delisted.
There are many examples, such as a junior mining explorer that was suspended after missing two consecutive quarterly activity reports. Unable to secure funding to assemble the necessary information, it sought voluntary delisting. Another example is an early stage technology company that initially listed but post‑listing struggled with the costs of compliance, a weak share price, illiquidity in its shares, little broker interest and an inability to raise capital. It voluntarily delisted after a few years, citing among a range of reasons, the cost of ongoing compliance.
Are the requirements too burdensome?
For large and mid‑cap companies, ASX reporting requirements represent standard operating frameworks and procedures. The high level of transparency supports liquidity and investor confidence. But for small‑caps with minimal revenues and small teams, the fixed costs associated with initial listing and then on going compliance often outweigh the perceived benefits of listing. Many small‑cap founders observe that the time, cost and complexity of assembling the information diverts scarce resources away from operations.
How could the regime evolve to be more flexible?
Graduated reporting regime for small‑caps: One reform would be to adopt a tiered disclosure framework. Entities below defined thresholds, say market capitalisation under $50 million could qualify for reduced ongoing reporting obligations. For example, they could lodge half‑yearly rather than quarterly updates, rely on simplified cash flow disclosures rather than full audited annual accounts and provide basic remuneration summaries in the directors’ report in lieu of full remuneration reports.
Scaled governance requirements: Tailored governance expectations for small‑caps could permit them to defer the formation of formal committees until they reach specified size thresholds.
Temporary provisional status: A provisional “emerging issuer” status could be considered, where newly listed companies are subject to lighter disclosure obligations for an initial period of, say, three years or until they reach a certain specified size threshold. During this time, simplified reporting, no committee requirements, and limited remuneration detail would apply. Once the thresholds are passed, full obligations would commence.
Waiver and guidance expansion: ASX could proactively publish guidance targeted at small‑caps indicating where relief may be available and more consistently offer waivers aligned to GN1 early engagement. For specific small‑cap segments such as biotech or early‑stage exploration, the ASX could accept less frequent updates unless material events occur, subject to ongoing continuous disclosure obligations.
International peers illustrate how small issuer regimes can operate. In Canada, the TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV) imposes lighter continuous disclosure requirements on junior issuers. The U.S. OTC Markets has tiers (e.g. OTCQB) for emerging growth companies with less onerous reporting.
Reforming the ASX regime to permit scaled disclosure for small issuers would require a delicate balancing act. Investor protection mandates transparency around cash use, governance and related party dealings. Any reduction in disclosure must retain core continuous disclosure obligations and safeguard against misleading claims (as ASX emphasises in mining announcements). But proportionality is key: when the cost of compliance eclipses the benefit for issuers with minimal revenue and a small capital base, the listing becomes unattractive and companies may choose delisting or avoidance. A thoughtful tiered approach can attract new listings, reduce attrition and maintain integrity via targeted, risk‑based relief.
ASX listing and reporting requirements are comprehensive and essential for maintaining market confidence, but they impose a disproportionate burden on small‑cap companies which often overshadow the commercial benefits for companies with limited scale. As a result, the new listing pipelines has thinned and a number of existing small‑caps face voluntary or forced delisting.
Reforms such as tiered disclosure regimes, scaled governance thresholds, provisional emerging issuer status and expanded small‑cap-specific guidance could ease compliance while preserving core investor protection. At the same time, any relaxations must still align with ASX’s fundamental emphasis on transparency and balanced disclosure.
Ultimately, a more nuanced, proportional approach would help revive small‑cap listing activity, support early‑stage growth companies and sustain a vibrant capital markets ecosystem in Australia.
PrimaryMarkets
For companies and managed funds that are not listed on a stock exchange, the PrimaryMarkets trading Platform is an ideal way to facilitate the off-market sale of shares in your company and units in managed funds.
PrimaryMarkets is a flexible and evolving Platform that responds in real time to an ever-changing investment environment. In doing so, it provides sophisticated investors with access to companies that are shaping the future in a wide variety of industries and sectors. We provide access to opportunities previously only accessible to institutional investors. In addition to trading, PrimaryMarkets helps companies raise capital from our global investor database.
PrimaryMarkets exemplifies how innovation can transform the way we invest, trade and raise capital by breaking down traditional barriers, providing liquidity solutions and promoting transparency.
As the Platform continues to grow and evolve, it promises to unlock even more opportunities for investors and companies shaping the future of economies.