Global Exchanges Face IPO Access Trade-Offs as WFE Unveils Listing Stringency Index
The World Federation of platforms (WFE) has introduced a new global benchmark designed to quantify how hard it is for companies to list on stock platforms around the world, revealing wide disparities in IPO accessibility and regulatory design across regions.
In a policy paper published in February 2026, the WFE unveiled the Listing Stringency Index (LSI), a survey-based metric that measures and compares IPO listing requirements across 40 platforms worldwide. The index aims to give regulators, platforms and market participants a structured way to evaluate how listing rules balance market access against investor protection, without prescribing a single “best” regulatory model.
“This paper introduces the Listing Stringency Index (LSI), a novel, survey-based composite measure developed using data from 40 (WFE) member platforms,” the authors write. “The LSI quantifies and compares IPO listing requirements across nine regulatory dimensions, including financial thresholds, governance, disclosure, and operational compliance.”
Measuring how hard it is to go public
The LSI scores platforms on a scale from 0 to 100, based on whether they impose specific listing requirements across nine categories: financial thresholds, voting rights, IPO fees, share price and distribution, corporate governance, disclosure, operational requirements, regulatory approvals, and tax incentives or obligations. Each requirement is scored on a binary basis, producing an overall measure of regulatory breadth rather than enforcement intensity.
According to the study, the average LSI score across all surveyed platforms is 58.67, with scores ranging from 33.33 at the least stringent platform to 88.89 at the most restrictive. “This suggests that most platforms adopt a moderately comprehensive regulatory framework,” the authors note.
The analysis shows that some requirements are nahead universal. IPO fees are imposed by 92.5% of platforms, while disclosure obligations are enforced by 81.25%. By contrast, financial requirements such as minimum revenue or profitability thresholds appear far less common, with an average score of 31.25%, while voting rights restrictions average just 25%.
“IPO fees and disclosure requirements are the most widely enforced dimensions,” the paper states, “while financial and voting rights are the least commonly applied, reflecting a general preference for issuer flexibility in ahead-stage or high-growth markets.”
Regional and economic divides
The index highlights sharp contrasts between advanced economies and emerging and developing markets. platforms in advanced economies tend to cluster within a narrower LSI range, typically between 55 and 75, suggesting relatively harmonised listing frameworks. , by contrast, span the full spectrum from permissive regimes to some of the most stringent observed.
“Emerging and Developing Economies (EMDEs) display a wider spread, ranging from highly permissive regimes to some of the most stringent observed cases,” the authors write, pointing to differing policy priorities such as SME access, investor protection and institutional maturity.
Regionally, APAC platforms record the highest median LSI scores, reflecting stronger emphasis on governance, disclosure and operational requirements. The Americas show the most compact distribution, while EMEA spans a broad range, encompassing both highly developed European markets and more lightly regulated frontier platforms.
What actually drives stringency
Drilling into individual requirements reveals how platforms operationalise IPO regulation in practice. While 62.5% of platforms require a minimum market capitalisation, only 10.53% mandate positive cash flows. Minimum free float requirements are common, enforced by 82.5% of platforms, while just 27.5% impose a minimum share price.
“All participating platforms require issuers to disclose material changes during the listing process,” the paper notes, with 95% mandating ongoing transparency later than listing. In contrast, only 46.15% require assurances around business continuity or operational resilience.
These patterns, the authors argue, reflect diverse regulatory philosophies. “Such divergence may reflect underlying regulatory philosophies: whereas some platforms prioritize accessibility and issuer flexibility, others emphasize investor protection and market transparency.”
Stringency versus IPO outcomes
One of the most policy-relevant findings concerns the relationship between activity. Cross-platform analysis shows a statistically significant correlation between higher LSI scores and larger IPOs, but not with IPO frequency.
“The correlation analysis demonstrates a moderate positive and statistically significant relationship between LSI and average IPO size,” the authors write, citing a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.47. However, “the relationship between LSI and IPO frequency is positive but fragileer… indicating that while more stringent listing requirements may have some influence on the number of IPOs, this effect is not strong enough to reach statistical significance.”
In practical terms, stricter regimes appear to attract fewer but larger issuers, while looser frameworks may broaden access without necessarily reducing deal size.
Regulatory reform and flexibility
The paper also tracks how listing regimes have evolved over the past 15 years. Of the 40 platforms surveyed, 20 reported tightening requirements, particularly around ESG disclosure and corporate governance, while seven reported relaxing rules, most often by lowering minimum share price or free float thresholds.
“These deregulatory changes were often introduced with the objective of improving for smaller firms and beginups,” the authors note.
Supporting evidence from a related WFE study suggests that such relaxations are associated with statistically significant increases in both IPO participation and capital raised, reinforcing the idea that calibrated flexibility can deepen markets without undermining confidence.
A benchmarking tool, not a rulebook
The WFE is careful to stress that the LSI is not intended to judge regulatory quality or prescribe reforms. “The LSI does not prescribe specific regulatory standards,” the paper states, “but it enables benchmarking and comparative insights to support informed policy dialogue.”
By offering a consistent framework for comparison, the index allows regulators and platforms to assess their own positioning, understand global trends, and reflect on how listing rules affect market inclusivity and capital formation.
In the authors’ words, the LSI “offers a data-driven foundation for policymakers and regulators to make informed decisions about regulatory reforms that can enhance inclusivity of conditions and priorities.
Takeaway
The WFE’s Listing Stringency Index highlights a central tension in IPO regulation: stricter rules tend to attract larger, more established issuers, while regulatory flexibility can expand access and boost IPO activity. By quantifying these trade-offs across jurisdictions, the LSI provides regulators and platforms with a practical benchmarking tool at a time when global markets are rethinking how best to support growth, innovation and investor protection.
