Many studies,press articles directly or indirectly address weaknesses in the current European financial architecture and why a deeper, more integrated capital market is seen as critical to competitiveness and technological sovereignty

KEY FINDINGS

• Not one European company in the list of companies with an expected market cap of at least 5 in the line up for an IPO
• Fragmented regulatory landscape in Europe (EU and national regulation) gives rise to complexity While regulation is a factor, it is not the decisive reason for choosing the US over Europe for listings
• The lack of late-stage investment has significant adverse consequences on the ability of Europe's successful entrepreneurial businesses to achieve their full potential.
• Europe has incurred significant economic losses due to European companies choosing to go public in the US
• The presence of 35 different exchanges in Europe, compared to three major ones in the US, indeed introduces a level of complexity and diminishes transparency for institutional investors.
• Europe faces an existential choice: build genuine technological sovereignty now, or accept governance by platforms whose architects view democracy as an obsolete operatingsystem.
• The EU Listing Act is a well-intentioned reform, but it fundamentally misdiagnoses the problem it seeks to solve. While it reduces administrative friction and lowers the cost of listing in Europe, it does not address the core reasons why Europe’s most successful technology companies continue to choose U.S. markets—particularly Nasdaq—over European exchanges. At its heart, the issue is not excessive red tape. It is investor confidence, valuation dynamics, and liquidity.
• If Europe wants to compete with Nasdaq, it must stop viewing regulation as an obstacle to growth and start recognising it as a precondition for trust. Until then, Europe may make listing easier—but it will continue to make excellence look elsewhere