For two years now, investors have been able to include in their ISAs companies listed on the Alternative Investment Market, generally known as the AIM. The UK Shareholders’ Association (UKSA) warned the Government that this was unwise and, from an individual investor perspective, unlikely to have a happy outcome because of poor and variable regulatory oversight of the AIM. One aspect of this is the poor reporting standards of these companies – known to be a matter of concern to the Financial Reporting Council but in UKSA’s opinion not receiving sufficient attention by any regulator.
As an increasing number of private investors are now inevitably being drawn to AIM companies in which to invest their savings, a team of UKSA’s members has begun to examine selected AIM companies’ annual reports, with the objective of exposing directors’ reporting practices to public scrutiny by publishing our findings here. We will highlight good practice when found, but we particularly want to draw attention to companies’ reports which do not measure up, especially for the needs of private investors whose interests are our greatest concern. Too many AIM company reports are deficient, confusing and even difficult to read (whether on paper or on screen) and this exposes investors to unnecessary risk.
UKSA’s examination of company reports will enable us to comment on how well or badly directors are reporting to their shareholders and potential investors, but we will not be commenting on the suitability of any company as an investment and nothing published here should be construed as a comment on any company’s viability.
Dart Group plc
Hargreaves Services plc
James Halstead plc
SQS Software Quality Systems AG
Tissue Regenix Group
Eric Chalker reports to members, July 2016
Getting to the heart of the matter
An article in 'The Private Investor' September 2016, reporting progress:-
AIM Company reports – an unexpected accolade!