When a business begins to consider going public, it signals not only a moment of maturity but one of ambition. A listing is as much a strategic statement as it is a financial one, about growth, governance, and global outlook. For a UK firm weighing up this step in 2025, there are compelling reasons to look at the domestic market, yet also justifiable concerns about its competitiveness compared to the likes of New York or Amsterdam. The recent PISCES framework aims to address precisely that imbalance, but the path ahead is still nuanced.
As someone leading a global financial business with cross-market exposure, I’ve long followed the evolution of the UK’s capital markets. There’s no question that the last five years have seen a recalibration of sentiment. The number of firms choosing London as a listing venue has dwindled. Notable decisions by household names like ARM and CRH to opt for US listings triggered wide-ranging debate. These weren’t simply votes of no confidence, they were reflections of structural issues that couldn’t be ignored: liquidity, valuations, and perceived red tape.
Today, the UK is at a crossroads. The macroeconomic environment is stabilising, interest rates are softening, and institutional investors are once again scanning the horizon for growth stories. Yet despite these tailwinds, structural friction remains. Firms still see the US as offering deeper liquidity, higher valuations, and a more growth-orientated investor base. That matters, especially to founders and early investors looking for returns on long years of risk.
But it’s not just about dollars and cents. The decision to list is as much about identity and support as it is about capital. Companies want to know they’ll be backed long after the IPO headlines fade. That requires confidence. Confidence in regulation, in investor appetite, and in the market’s ability to tell the right story.
UK firms now weigh up an increasingly global menu of listing options. London remains a viable choice, with the Main Market and AIM offering two distinct tracks depending on scale and ambition. Amsterdam, with its lighter-touch regulatory environment and strong ESG investment culture, is an attractive European alternative. And then, of course, there’s the US with its NASDAQ and the NYSE exchanges, where tech valuations soar and investor activism is both a risk and a reward.
Each route has trade-offs. The US offers scale, but also brings costly compliance and greater scrutiny. Amsterdam is efficient but less liquid. London has heritage and credibility, but needs to be more founder-friendly and agile.
This is where there is hope that the PISCES initiative comes in.
PISCES -the Public Interest Statement of Company Equity Structures – may represent one of the most meaningful developments in UK capital markets in recent years. Its goal is to address the often-cited misalignment between founders, early investors, and public market expectations. It introduces a clearer, more flexible framework around dual-class share structures, founder control, and long-term decision-making, all while preserving transparency and shareholder rights.
At INFINOX, we see PISCES as more than regulatory reform; it’s a cultural statement. It recognises that today’s growth companies, especially those with strong founder leadership, need space to scale without being beholden to quarterly earnings cycles or short-term activist pressures. By enabling innovative governance models, the UK is signalling that it wants to compete not just on tradition, but on terms.
To quote one prominent tech founder I spoke with who considered London but ultimately chose the US: “I wanted to list where I could keep building, not defending.” PISCES aims to remove that binary choice. It gives UK firms the tools to protect mission-led leadership while still opening the door to public capital.
Of course, the success of PISCES depends on how investors respond. If institutional players embrace the spirit of the reforms and back innovation with patience, the framework could reset the narrative. But if old habits persist, the regulatory shift may end up cosmetic.
Beyond markets and mechanisms, it’s crucial to remember that listing is a deeply personal decision for any founder or leadership team. It tests internal governance, financial discipline, and the strength of culture. The businesses that seem to succeed in public markets are those that approach the transition with honesty not just about their balance sheet, but their operating model, investor relations maturity, and strategic horizon.
At INFINOX, our thinking towards going public remains the same: listing is not the destination, it’s a new beginning. We must know who we are, what we stand for, and whether the story we are telling is compelling over the long term. Our hope is that PISCES can support that journey but it cannot substitute for preparation or conviction.
The UK’s capital markets face a pivotal moment. There is renewed energy, reform-driven optimism, and a more open-minded approach to governance and control. For UK firms with global ambition, like we have, that’s welcome progress. But the choice of where and how to list will remain complex.
PISCES brings substance to the UK’s offer. It creates a more accommodating environment for modern companies without diluting investor confidence. But the journey to listing still demands careful planning, clear communication, and a strong internal compass.
If the UK can match reform with resolve and investors respond with vision, we may well see a new generation of firms choosing to scale in Britain, not despite the public markets, but because of them.
By Lee Holmes, CEO, INFINOX