A Leading Exchange Offering Free Listings Risks Undermining Its Own Competition

5 September 2025

Photo: Chris Ratcliffe/Getty Images

In early September, the London Stock Exchange unveiled a bold and controversial strategy by launching its new Private Securities Market under the Pisces framework with a complete waiver of listing fees until the end of 2026. Intended as a bridge for private companies toward broader access to capital, the move has stirred sharp criticism from its main rival, JP Jenkins.

Mike McCudden, chief executive of JP Jenkins a private shares platform facilitating trading in more than 60 unlisted securities warns that the London Stock Exchange’s decision to waive fees for its Pisces offering creates an unfair advantage for the City powerhouse. In an interview with Financial News, he argued that this effectively erects towering barriers to entry for other players, insulating the LSE from competition. McCudden insists that competition fuels innovation and lower costs, and without it, the marketplace could stagnate. He warned that only firms with deep pockets like Cboe or Nasdaq would be able to launch competing venues under these conditions, not smaller challengers.

The backdrop to this clash is the UK government’s broader initiative to rejuvenate its capital markets. Pisces, the Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System is designed to provide regulated trading for private companies seeking liquidity without the full burden of a public listing. The framework allows one-off share trades in a lighter regulatory environment and comes with incentives like tax breaks. The LSE, as the first approved operator under this scheme, sees the fee waiver as a way to lower entry costs for young or growth-stage enterprises and encourage usage. Starting 2027, they will begin charging £25,000 annually for two auctions, with an additional £15,000 per extra auction

JP Jenkins plans to launch its own Pisces-equipped venue in October, offering access to the same regulatory benefits but at a base rate of around £15,000. McCudden emphasized that Pisces is meant to foster diverse platforms working together to support emerging firms, not let a single player dominate the space. Several potential operators including private market specialist Globacap and challenger exchange Aquis are also eyeing entry into the Pisces ecosystem.

Critics worry that, by pulling up the drawbridge on competition, the LSE’s move could stifle innovation, diminish choice, and lock in its dominant role at the expense of market dynamism. As the Financial Times noted earlier in the year, a successful Pisces regime depends on multiple operators offering a variety of services each appealing to different segments of private firms with unique needs. Without that breadth, capital market reform could fall flat.

Defenders of the LSE’s approach argue that offering free listings gives the new platform a necessary runway to prove its utility and function as a stepping stone to public markets. After all, London faces mounting pressure: a woefully slow IPO market, capital flight to U.S. listings, and a widening perception that its financial infrastructure is outdated. In that context, a jump-started private market might recalibrate London's standing.

But such optimism comes at a risk. The LSE’s dominance in data and analytics revenues underpins much of its influence. If free access to a breakthrough venture draws firms exclusively to its ecosystem, smaller innovators could fade before taking flight. Competition ensures that various models subscription-driven platforms, tailored research services, or flexible listing packages remain in the mix.

For now, the fight lines are drawn. JP Jenkins prepares its own Pisces offering at a discounted rate and hopes others will follow suit. The LSE defends its waiver as temporary and strategic, aimed at overcoming early inertia. Regulators may ultimately expect more operators to enter the field and to shape the offering in ways that nurture choice. The fate of London’s revitalization campaign may hinge not just on reforms, but on whether the city can sustain a thriving ecosystem or recast its infrastructure as a monolith.