UK 07:03 Wednesday, 7 October 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
A reader who knows AIM from the other side writes in with some fairly draconian suggestions for reforming the AIM Casino. He clearly knows what he is talking about and I have real sympathy with the points he makes. Will the casino take any of them onboard? Our correspondent writes:
Already a member? Sign in
• All premium articles
• Tom Winnifrith’s Bearcast
• Access to all the entire nearly 13 year archive
• ShareProphets Daily Newsletter
Cancel any time
This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.
Comments
DUCK AND DIVE
“Give itself the power to expel companies from the market and be prepared to use it.”
Que? Are you saying that AIM has no power to de-list? How can that be? ISDX, GXG and others have this power — and I’m very glad to see GXG flexing its muscles of late:
http://www.gxgmarkets.com/news/gxg-markets-news-archive
I must have misunderstood. AIM is a total farce if it can’t wield the big stick because it doesn’t own a stick.
drunken sailor
AIM can boot companies off; AIM rule 42 refers:
42. If the Exchange considers that an AIM company has contravened these rules, it may take one or more of the following measures in relation to such AIM company:
issue a warning notice;
fine it;
censure it; or
cancel the admission of its AIM securities; and
publish the fact that it has been fined or censured and the reasons for that action.
The problem is that AIM regulation are complete chocolate Teapots who hide behind the Nomads, who in turn are not motivated to enforce the rules and are not held to account by AIM for their failure to enforce the rules..
The latest AIM rules have it all in, they are well written and very clear:
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/advisers/aim-notices/aimrulescompaniesmay2014.pdf
All that is really needed is for the rules to be enforced. It is beyond me why that is so hard to achieve, but it does seem to be.
nigel somerville
Seems to me the fundamental error by the board of USOP was in not getting a listing on AIM in the first place. They’ve been kicked off both ISDX (Plus at the time) and GXG. Heck, they’d have had a clean bill of health on AIM!
desperado
It appears to me that any system where a company directly employs its own policeman is destined to allow the unscrupulous to prosper. The only solution IMHO is to do away with the concept of nomads and direct those fees to a properly funded regulatory agency who is prepared to investigate and provide discipline to the market. Brokers can carry the role of introductions and subject those to direct regulatory scrutiny.
Drunken Sailor
Th OTC Pink Sheets in the US are the place for all dog companies to list, they do not even care if you never produce an annual report!
NJL1974
Drunken Sailor is correct that AIM has the theoretical power to cancel a listing, but the current set-up with NOMADs means that this is never used. This is why:
Stage 1: AIM calls NOMAD and tells them that they are not happy about something that a company has done.
Stage 2: NOMAD says that things are fine. NO ACTION
OR
Stage 2: NOMAD say that they are not happy about it either
Stage 3: AIM tell NOMAD that if they are not happy, then they should resign as NOMAD or they (the NOMAD) will face an AIM disciplinary review.
Stage 4: NOMAD resigns. AIM gets to hide behind NOMAD.
AIM would tell you that if they imposed a de-listing against the will of the NOMAD, then this would “fundamentally undermine the authority of the NOMAD position as defined in the AIM Rules.” This position (by complete coincidence) allows them not to do anything.