NZAX-listed companies are generally out of sight, out of mind, and while their listing may have been easy and cost-effective, you've got to wonder how many question why they bothered.
The NXT market was officially launched two weeks ago with the compliance listing of mail company G3. At first glance, the NXT market sounds a lot like the NZAX, except the former is specifically aimed at "high growth" small companies as opposed to the garden variety small company that NZAX caters for. It seems likely that NXT will ultimately replace NZAX, though I guess it will have to prove itself first as we wouldn't want two floundering alternative markets.
My analysis probably seems harsh, especially as we should all be supportive of flourishing capital markets that give small companies a chance to grow and access capital. My view is coloured by NZAX's experience to date and that of its British counterpart, London's Alternative Investment Market (Aim), which just celebrated its 20th birthday.
After 20 years London's junior market should have lots of success stories, as it also offers low-cost and lower-compliance listing to small and medium companies - and there are a lot more potential candidates in Britain than New Zealand.
Aim started in 1995 with 10 listings and now boasts 1100 companies in all manner of industries.
There have been some notable successes, like Domino's Pizza and As Seen on Screen Holdings (or Asos, as any fashionista would know), but there's been a lot of mediocrity and a decent smattering of outright failures as well.
According to research conducted at London Business School, over the past two decades investors would have lost money in 72 per cent of all companies to list on Aim. In more than 30 per cent of cases, investors would have lost virtually all (at least 95 per cent) of their investment.
There have been some successes, with 1.4 per cent of all Aim companies (39 in total) generating multi-year returns in excess of 1000 per cent. But the exceptions really are exceptional; the norm is not flash.
The study suggested at least some of the poor performance was due to the nature of companies listing on Aim; a number were "unseasoned", some were faddish and many illiquid. Investors found themselves in something of a lottery and the lighter reporting requirements of Aim-listed companies didn't improve the odds.
While I like the idea of small companies accessing capital through a stock exchange listing, I still think some fundamental investment criteria must be met, regardless of size.
A company should have a track record, it should have a competitive advantage, it should be profitable (or capable of being so in the short term) and its management should be transparent.
There are some investing rules that should be sacrosanct to all investors, regardless of the market they choose to buy in.
-This column is presented in association with Fisher Funds.