The EIB European Investment Bank could help to coordinate

Have what main brakes to the rating of SMEs you identified

There is a depletion of the number of introductions in the stock market. The problem is, of course, cyclic, but it also masks a structural reality: increasing the rating, and this desertification everywhere in Europe. Since mid-2007, 600 quoted shares have disappeared from European regulated markets, which gives a good indication of the number of companies "lost" Awards a company may have several listed actions, Editor's note. Large values concentrated more than 90 of the liquidity, which violates the interest for an SME to remain listed. The candidates for the scholarship are deterred by the weight and the cost of regulatory requirements, the majority of which arises from the European directives which apply regardless of the size of the issuer. Companies such as Nokia, Shell, or a small regional biotech have the same level of requirement! It is so at European level that must be done to change the give. Europe can even draw the American experience where the regulator, the SEC, was adapted from the 1990s, its rules to provide a framework more friendly to small values.

What tracks do you propose

The cornerstone is a European definition of the average values. The current is based on elements only economic - such as the number of employees-, but not scholars. I thus propose criteria for a definition of the "Smiles" ("Small and Medium Issuers Listed in Europe"), specific to the game of the main European stock directives: prospectus, market abuse and transparency. Two criteria could be taken into account: remove less than 75 million euros in the introduction, and weigh less than 35 of the average market capitalization of the country. This would cover approximately 65 of companies listed in Europe and almost 80 in France. In total, 4,000 companies are concerned.

Your proposed 20 recommendations to alleviate the requirements for these values...

In fact, they would be adapted to the specificity of the average values. For example, the "Smiles" would benefit from a prospectus different, customized. Only essential information would be required, with an important risk component. They have, for example, that two years of account at present. Then, for the half-year results, I propose to extend the deadline for publication of two to three months, which would give them more time and would allow them to be more followed by analysts in the big wave of summer publications. Another proposal concerning accounting standards: it is proposed to give serious consideration to the possibility for mean values of using IFRS repository for SMEs, much more flexible. Another track directly addresses market companies: the report invites the fellowship to create a common bargaining for these SMILEs platform, as the average values do not represent an important profit centre. The EIB (European Investment Bank) could help to coordinate. Finally, a series of measures relate to the orientation of the savings: in my report, I also drew attention to the risks posed by high prudential ratios envisaged in the Solvency II directive, on investment in shares of insurers.

The differences between the regulated and organized, markets as Alternext, will diminish. What recommendations do you have for them

Alternative markets have their own rules and are not required to apply all the European directives. To the extent they have a real economic role, I recommend to retain the flexibility of these markets. A rating could bring three levels: the large cap, the Smiles and an entry into stock market organized at the national level. I propose greater flexibility to raise funds, for example, that the threshold for mandatory prospectus covered by the MFA is noted in 5 or 10 million euros.