荔枝视频

Regulators have spent the past several years loosening restrictions on how Canadians can access private, exempt markets. Yet, arguably, little has been done to structurally change public markets to reflect their central role in capital formation.

In a recent commentary in the , , associate professor of finance and an associate dean at the 荔枝视频鈥檚 , argues that instead of steering everyday investors into more complex and opaque private markets, regulators should focus on making public markets more attractive and easier to use. 

鈥淕reater access to private markets is not, in itself, a policy solution,鈥� writes Pandes. 鈥淩egulators should not confuse expanding access with the meaningful, continuous disclosure of public markets. Access without disclosure shifts risk rather than managing it.鈥�

Pandes notes that, to be fair, regulators are not ignoring the public markets. He cites a range of reforms from the Canadian Securities Administrators, including efforts to streamline capital-raising for established companies and modernize disclosure requirements, as evidence that meaningful improvements are already underway.

Yet these changes haven鈥檛 really addressed the main question growing companies face, which is whether going public is worth the cost, complexity and time.

鈥淎dvocates of wider exempt-market access often argue that Canada鈥檚 public markets have become too burdensome for innovative firms, pushing entrepreneurs toward private financing,鈥� writes Pandes.

鈥淭here is truth in that diagnosis. But widening retail access to private markets is not a solution to public-market stagnation. It reallocates risk to Canadian households without addressing the underlying causes that make a public listing less attractive in the first place.

Read the full story at (subscription required).