By Scott Ellam, CEO of XCE Connecting Excellence Group

Europe does not lack ambitious companies. It lacks enough ambitious companies that see public markets as part of the way they are built.

That distinction matters because the usual debate around European public markets has become familiar. Too few IPOs, too many delistings heightened regulation, and an absence of liquidity. Growth companies remain private for longer, sell to strategic buyers, or look to deeper pools of capital in the United States. There is truth in all of this but the diagnosis is incomplete. 

Public markets are not simply broken machines waiting to be fixed by lighter regulation or more generous listing rules. They are part of a wider ownership system. If fewer companies are choosing to become public, the question is not only whether markets are attractive enough. It is whether founders, boards and investors still understand what public markets are for.

The numbers show why this matters: The OECD’s Corporate Governance Factbook shows that more than 35,000 companies have delisted from public markets globally since 2005. Around 12,000 of those delistings were in Europe. At the end of 2024, Europe still had nearly 6,500 listed companies, but accounted for only 13% of global listed market capitalisation. The United States accounted for roughly half.

That is not just a capital markets statistic, it is a signal about where corporate value is being built, financed and owned.

Europe’s savings problem

Mario Draghi’s report on European competitiveness made the deeper issue clear. Europe has substantial private savings, but too much of that capital remains poorly connected to productive investment. EU households save more than their US counterparts, yet their wealth has grown far more slowly since 2009.

This is one of Europe’s quiet structural weaknesses: if savings remain in deposits, low-risk products or fragmented national systems, they do not easily become patient capital for European companies. If European companies cannot access deep domestic pools of growth capital, they become more dependent on bank lending, private equity, foreign investors or eventual sale.

None of those routes is inherently wrong. Bank finance suits many businesses. Private capital can be extremely valuable. Strategic acquisitions can help companies scale. But an economy that cannot efficiently connect household savings, institutional capital and ambitious companies will eventually face a competitiveness problem.

Public markets are one of the few systems designed to make that connection visible and scalable. 

The rise of private capital has changed expectations

The growth of private markets has changed how founders think about capital. Private capital can offer speed, concentration and narrative control. It allows companies to avoid daily price movements, public disclosure and the burden of explaining themselves to a broad shareholder base. For early-stage or heavily investing companies, that can be appropriate.

But private capital also has its own costs; it often comes with preference structures, concentrated ownership, fund timelines and eventual exit pressure. A business can avoid public scrutiny for a time, but it cannot avoid the economics of ownership forever.

This is where expectations have become confused. Many companies want public market benefits without public market obligations. They want liquidity without volatility. Access to public capital without full transparency. The credibility of being listed without the discipline of being scrutinised. A broad investor base without the work of continuous investor communication.

That bargain does not exist. Public markets are not private markets with a ticker attached. They are a different operating environment. The discipline is the feature and very much the whole point of listing in the first place. 

For many founders, the discipline of public ownership can look like a disadvantage. Quarterly reporting can feel distracting, daily price movements can feel irrational, governance requirements can feel cumbersome, analysts and investors can misunderstand the business and public criticism can be uncomfortable.

All of this is true but discipline is not the same as dysfunction. The best public companies are not built by ignoring scrutiny but by becoming strong enough to withstand it. Public markets force management teams to explain capital allocation clearly. They require boards to formalise governance. They make performance visible. They give investors, employees, customers and partners a common reference point for assessing the company.

In short, this can all improve a business.Because it can sharpen decision-making, make leadership teams more precise, create acquisition currency. It can also help employees participate in long-term value creation and provide transparency that builds trust with customers and partners. For the right company, public markets are not an exit route. They are strategic infrastructure.

Europe needs better public readiness

The European debate often focuses on increasing the number of IPOs. That is understandable, but it is not enough. Europe does not just need more companies to list. What it needs is more companies that are ready to be public for the right reasons.

A weak public company does not strengthen a market. A company that lists too early, communicates poorly, disappoints investors and retreats from scrutiny reinforces the very scepticism that keeps others away.

The better goal is public readiness. That means stronger governance before listing. Clearer capital allocation. More credible long-term business models. Better investor communication. A more mature understanding of what it means to operate with public ownership. It also requires a shift among investors.

European investors cannot complain about a shortage of quality public companies while refusing to support the ones that are building patiently and transparently. Long-term capital markets require long-term shareholders, not only trading liquidity.

Public markets as a competitiveness tool

The EU’s Listing Act and Savings and Investments Union are important steps. Simplifying listing rules, improving market access and mobilising savings toward productive investment all matter. But regulation can only do so much.

Europe’s public markets challenge is also cultural. Too many founders still see listing as a final event rather than a long-term structure. Too many boards treat public ownership as a burden rather than a discipline. Too many investors treat public companies as quarterly instruments rather than ownership opportunities.

If Europe wants more durable, globally competitive companies, it needs to recover a more serious view of public markets.

They are not there to applaud founders. They are not there to provide effortless liquidity. They are not there to recreate private valuations under public rules. They exist to connect capital, companies and society through transparent ownership. That is still an extraordinary mechanism.

The future of European public markets will not be won by nostalgia for a previous era of listings. It will be won by companies that understand public ownership as part of company design. The question for founders is not, can we get public? It is, would being public make us more disciplined, more trusted and more durable?

For many businesses, the answer will be no. For the right businesses, it may be the most important strategic decision they make. Public markets are imperfect but they are not finished. Europe’s task is not simply to revive IPO volumes. It is to build companies worthy of public ownership.

Bio

Scott Ellam Founder & CEO, Connecting Excellence Group PLC (AQSE: XCE | OTCQB: XCELF)

Scott Ellam is the Founder and CEO of Connecting Excellence Group PLC (XCE), a UK-listed international executive recruitment group with an integrated Bitcoin treasury. XCE builds profitable, international recruitment companies and uses Bitcoin as a long-term reserve asset to strengthen its balance sheet, align incentives, and compound value over time.