113 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research Vol. 12, No. 2, 113-123, 2025 ISSN(E) 2409-2622 / ISSN(P) 2518-010X DOI: 10.20448/ajeer.v12i2.7479 © 2025 by the author; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Access to stock markets impact on SMEs performance Imanou Akala1 Laetitia Pozniak2 ( Corresponding Author) 1,2Warocqué Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Mons, Belgium. 1Email: imanou.akala@student.umons.ac.be 2Email: laetitia.pozniak@umons.ac.be Abstract This study investigates the impact of unregulated stock market listing on the financial performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Europe. The analysis seeks to determine whether listing improves financial performance or whether associated costs outweigh the potential benefits. To address this question, the performance of listed and unlisted SMEs is compared across five key indicators: solvency, liquidity, profit margin, return on assets (ROA), and return on equity (ROE). The sample covers a ten-year period from 2014 to 2023. Statistical analyses were conducted using unpaired Student’s t-tests in RStudio to assess the significance of performance differences between the two groups. The findings reveal a mixed impact of listing on SMEs' financial performance. On the one hand, listed SMEs show significant improvements in solvency and liquidity, suggesting that listing facilitates access to external capital and enhances the ability to meet both short-term and long-term obligations. On the other hand, profitability measures, including profit margin, ROA, and ROE, exhibit a notable decline after listing. This deterioration indicates that while listing improves financial stability, it may simultaneously impose costs and constraints that undermine operational efficiency. Overall, the study provides empirical evidence of SMEs' access to unregulated stock market trade-offs, offering relevant insights for SMEs considering IPOs, investors evaluating SME securities, and policymakers supporting SME financing through stock markets. Keywords: Financial performance, Liquidity, Profitability, Small and medium enterprises, Solvency, Stock markets. JEL Classification: M130; G1; C120; C220. Citation | Akala, I., & Pozniak, L. (2025). Access to stock markets impact on SMEs performance. Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 12(2), 113–123. 10.20448/ajeer.v12i2.7479 History: Received: 4 August 2025 Revised: 3 September 2025 Accepted: 17 September 2025 Published: 1 October 2025 Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. Data Availability Statement: The corresponding author may provide study data upon reasonable request. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors’ Contributions: Both authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 114 2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................................................... 114 3. Data and Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 115 4. Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................. 117 5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 121 References ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 121 mailto:imanou.akala@student.umons.ac.be mailto:laetitia.pozniak@umons.ac.be https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://www.doi.org/10.20448/ajeer.v12i2.7479 https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6885-8006 https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8468-8972 Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2025, 12(2): 113-123 114 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Contribution of this paper to the literature This study contributes to the existing literature in different ways. For instance, the results of this research will shed light on whether SMEs' financial performance post-listing is one of the factors behind the constant decline of SMEs’ IPOs and increased delisting in Europe. This may also help regulators and policymakers in their decisions on whether additional steps are necessary to enhance unregulated stock market efficiency as a tangible solution to SMEs' financing hurdles. 1. Introduction Regulatory bodies accredit stock markets with the aim of establishing platforms to enhance enterprises’ access to equity funds, which are essential for their growth and development. Unlike for SMEs, stock exchanges such as Euronext, the London Stock Exchange, and Deutsche Börse, among others, have proven effective for European large enterprises in their pursuit of financial resources, as well as for their development and expansion (Boccaletti, Ferrando, Rossi, & Rossolini, 2025). Compared to just 40,000 active larger enterprises, more than 22 million SMEs were operating in the EU in 2019 (European Commission, 2021). According to the European Commission (2021), SMEs made up 99.8% of all enterprises in the region; and according to the annual report on European SMEs 2020/2021, SMEs are the largest employers in the EU and globally, and they contribute significantly to the GDP of the EU economies. However, compared to large enterprises, SMEs have different characteristics because they have specific features and higher risk levels, which make it difficult to secure financing (Karlsson, 2021). Additionally, Karlsson highlighted that size positively influences enterprise performance; the larger the enterprise, the better its performance. Hence, cognizant of the important contribution of SMEs to the global economy, contrasted by their limited access to financial resources, which impairs their growth (European Commission, 2021), unregulated stock markets with less stringent listing conditions, particularly dedicated to SMEs, have emerged to facilitate access to long-term funds (Bolek & Gniadkowska-Szymań ska, 2023; Demir, 2024). Furthermore, Demir found that 68% of primary stock markets now offer dedicated SMEs segments with incentives such as reduced fees and relaxed profitability criteria. According to the European Commission (2022a), listing on stock exchanges can give a significant boost to SMEs; the benefits of listing include easier access to additional financial resources and a higher public profile. Regardless of these regulatory astute initiatives to boost and facilitate access to the public equity markets, it must be noted that SMEs IPOs are in constant decline in Europe, leaving policymakers in a vacuum regarding the reasons behind this trend. From 2006 to 2007, the annual average of IPOs was 478, compared to an average of 218 IPOs annually from 2009 to 2017 (European Commission, 2018). Also, recent reports highlight that SMEs listing has fallen by two-thirds (Lehmann, 2023) and IPO capital raising in the EU decreased from 0.9‰ of GDP in 2015 to just 0.3‰ in 2020, indicating a significant decline in EU stock market access (European Commission, 2022b). An assessment by the EU Audit Office (2020) found that SMEs face substantial costs up to 15% of capital raised along with complex compliance requirements, which ultimately diminish SMEs’ motivation to go public and limit the potential performance benefits of stock market access. Although research focusing on SMEs has increased significantly in recent decades, limited attention has been given to the impact of unregulated stock markets on listed EU SMEs. Consequently, further research is required to close this gap, as these markets offer an alternative financing opportunity to SMEs. Therefore, in this study, we address the following question: "Does access to unregulated stock markets improve EU SMEs' financial performance compared to their unlisted counterparts?" The goal is to evaluate the listing effectiveness of SMEs' listings on their financial performance. To fulfill this objective, a comparative analysis was conducted using financial indicators to assess the performance of both listed and unlisted SMEs. 2. Literature Review Some of the work done on SMEs includes the following. Dabić et al. (2020) analysed SMEs pathway to internationalization; Gherhes, Williams, Vorley, and Vasconcelos (2016) investigated SMEs and microbusinesses growth constraints; Mariani and Spoletini (2023) initially, conducted a comparative study examining the markets' environment, incentives, primary and secondary market activity, composition, and rules, they then carried out an empirical study to evaluate how investment schemes affect primary market by measuring IPO activities and the secondary market measuring the trading activity; Stefanelli, Ferilli, and Boscia (2022) investigated the role of crowdfunding and how it supports the financing choices of SMEs; Chaithanapat, Punnakitikashem, Oo, and Rakthin (2022) investigated the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership, customer knowledge management, innovation quality, and SMEs performance; Hilmersson and Hilmersson (2021) investigated the role of networking in accelerating SME innovations; Ortigueira-Sánchez, Welsh, and Stein (2022) investigated the factors that influence innovation and export performance; Karmaker, Al Aziz, Palit, and Bari (2023) examined supply chain risk factors in SMEs, with an emphasis on sustainability in emerging economies; and Sommer (2024) assessed capital markets impact on SMEs financing limitation. These studies offer a holistic, insightful look at the complex environment of SMEs' access to finance, innovation, and sustainability; although investment schemes are important in promoting SMEs' IPOs and favorably impacting their choices to go public, findings emphasize the urgent need for a comprehensive in-depth analysis of the variables impacting SMEs' performance. 2.1. Access to Stock Market as an Alternative Solution In fact, research illustrates that SMEs' ability to raise capital for their expansion and development determines their growth capacity, whether in Europe or elsewhere; it is the biggest obstacle SMEs face globally. The causes of these limitations range from SMEs' main reliance on bank credits, which are becoming scarce (Wehinger & Nassr, 2016), the pecking theory (Myers & Majluf, 1984) whereby enterprises tend to prioritise internal financing over external, and debt over equity; along with the difficulties accessing capital markets because of the costly disclosure requirements during and after IPOs, the regulatory hurdles coupled with institutional and legal impediments (Lopez- Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2025, 12(2): 113-123 115 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group de-Silanes, Phalippou, & Gottschalg, 2015). Even though IPOs are gateways that provide enterprises access to equity capital for their growth and development (Fama & French, 2004), due to the dearth of information on SMEs' financial status, investors have long perceived SMEs as risky investments (Ritter & Welch, 2002). To alleviate this problem, regulators in the EU have launched the SME Growth Markets with the creation of unregulated markets such as Euronext Growth (formerly known as Alternext) or Euronext Access (formerly known as the Free Market) and others. This is intended to contribute to reducing SMEs' financial hassle. Certainly, capital markets’ mandatory requirement for financial information disclosure would increase SMEs' visibility, giving investors access to more credible and reliable information for investment. In addition to offering tax advantages to investors, it offers considerable opportunities for investors to distinguish and finance high-growth SMEs and take part in their valuation, which will ultimately generate value for all parties involved. The literature has shown that as they gain from long-term financing, listed SMEs would expand and surpass unlisted SMEs, which are left behind (Sommer, 2024) which is consistent with the signalling theory, enterprises IPO decision is not merely only a means of accessing external finance but also a strategic signalling mechanism to reduce information asymmetry and attract external stakeholders (Leland & Pyle, 1977). Chemmanur and Fulghieri (1999) demonstrate that enterprises utilise listing to fund growth, research and development, and acquisitions, thereby enabling strategic expansion. According to Floros and Sapp (2011), access to the stock market can increase enterprises' visibility and credibility, which in turn may translate into competitive benefits and business opportunities. The above theoretical background gives a clear guideline on why SMEs should consider the unregulated stock market as an efficient alternative solution to their financial difficulties. Furthermore, studies support the need to reduce SMEs’ reliance on financing through credit and bank loans, particularly in times of economic shocks such as the 2008 financial crisis (Mehrotra & Sergeyev, 2021) or the COVID-19 pandemic (Juergensen, Guimón, & Narula, 2020). This highlights the various potential advantages of stock market listing for enterprises. However, these advantages should be carefully weighed against the associated costs and risks that access to stock markets could cause. 2.2. Adverse Impacts and Risks Associated with Listing In contrast, previous studies conducted on enterprises before and after IPOs demonstrated a negative correlation between economic performance indicators and access to stock markets, challenging the assumption that enterprises primarily go public to fund their growth and expansion. For instance, Sentis (2001) examined both the operational and stock market performance of enterprises newly listed on the French stock market between 1991 and 1995; the author found that in the long run, enterprises’ IPOs underperformed compared to the market benchmark, and financial performance declined post-IPO. Additionally, Sentis (2004) provided a comprehensive international perspective on IPOs, combining both theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence from various countries, including the US, France, and other global markets, and concluded that market timing (enterprises often go public during market highs) and underperformance post-IPO are universally observed across markets in the long run. Similarly, using a panel data econometric approach, Serve (2007) focused on the economic impact of listing enterprises on stock markets, especially in terms of operational and financial performance; the main finding is that there is a mixed effect on operational performance; some enterprises experienced productivity gains and increased investment, while others show decreasing profitability or no significant change. Brau, Couch, and Sutton (2012) investigated whether post-IPO acquisition activity is a driver of underperformance of newly listed firms and found that after the first year post-IPO, acquirers’ abnormal returns were notably negative, pointing to overpayment or integration challenges. Wang (2005) investigated the role of institutional and ownership context in post IPO success in China; his findings imply that state ownership is negatively associated with enterprises’ performance post IPO. Pagano, Panetta, and Zingales (1998) explored the motivation behind Italian enterprises' IPOs and suggested that enterprises' post-IPO investments don’t significantly increase. The motivations for going public are rebalancing ownership (IPOs allow original owners to diversify their portfolios by selling part of their shares), reducing leverage (enterprises use IPOs to pay down debts), and enhancing market visibility and prestige (IPOs improve enterprises' reputation and expand business opportunities). Jain and Kini (1995) investigated the operating performance of enterprises after listing, and in line with agency theory, found that ownership becomes more dispersed post-IPO, agency costs increased significantly, reducing enterprises’ performance. In parallel, Coakley, Fuertes, and Wood (2004) conducted the same analysis in the UK by providing important insight into how timing and financing sources impact post IPO outcomes, especially in developed markets like the UK. Analogously, Mikkelson, Partch, and Shah (1997) examined the relationship between structure and post IPO operating performance of US enterprises and found that SMEs experienced decline in their profitability post IPO. In the same vein, Kutsuna, Okamura, and Cowling (2002) analyzed the ownership structure before and after IPO and its impact on enterprises’ performance, and found that performance declined with high ownership dilution. In summary, the above findings illustrate that although stock markets offer growth opportunities, listing exposes enterprises to challenges, and the factors behind this differ from one market to another, ranging from regulatory costs and market timing hypotheses to agency theory and management structure. Notwithstanding the fact that there are substantial studies examining enterprise performance before and after going public, recent studies focusing on EU SMEs remain limited. Therefore, this paper explores how access to the unregulated stock market affects EU SMEs by comparing the financial performance of listed SMEs versus similar unlisted counterparts over 10 years (2014 to 2023). Based on the findings, a comparative discussion with existing literature is carried out. 3. Data and Methodology To conduct our analysis, we collected yearly key financial data on listed and unlisted European SMEs for a period of 10 years from 2014 to 2023 from the Orbis Bureau van Dijk database on 18/04/2025. We took the following search steps in our selection: 1. Status: active companies (search result 431,648,873 enterprises). Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2025, 12(2): 113-123 116 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 2. Size classification: Small and Medium Enterprises (Search results: 428,116,263 enterprises). It is worth highlighting that enterprises on Orbis are considered to be SMEs when they meet the following conditions: operating revenue less than 10 million EUR; total assets less than 20 million EUR; or fewer than 150 employees. 3. World region: European Union [27] (Search results: 58,633,866 enterprises). 4. All companies scored by Moody's Analytics Pulse (search results: 47,642 enterprises). 5. Unlisted companies (Search results 47,642 enterprises). 6. Publicly listed companies (search results: 20 enterprises). To ensure comparability, 20 listed SMEs were paired with 20 unlisted counterparts of similar size, selected at random. The financial performance of selected SMEs is measured using solvency, liquidity, profit margin, ROA, and ROE. Although the sample size was constrained to a total of 20 listed SMEs, the decision to use an equal size from unlisted SMEs enhances comparability and reduces sampling bias. Even though the sample size may be considered modest, it is methodologically adequate for conducting unpaired t-tests under the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances. These assumptions were verified through diagnostics such as the Shapiro–Wilk test and Q-Q plots. To mitigate limitations associated with the sample size, effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals are reported alongside p-values. Table 1. Financial performance metrics. Definition Formula Liquidity This is a financial metric that measures an enterprise’s ability to meet its short-term financial obligations. 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 Solvability This is a financial metric that measures an enterprise’s ability to meet its long-term financial obligations. 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 Profit margin This is a financial metric that measures an enterprise’s profitability as a percentage of its revenue. % 𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 Return on assets This is a financial metric that measures an enterprise’s ability to use its assets to generate profit. 𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 Return on equity This is a financial metric that measures an enterprise’s ability to use its equity to generate profit. 𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠′𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦 Table 1 presents the financial metrics used in our comparative analysis along with their definition and formula. The unpaired student t-test is used to test our main hypothesis by determining whether there is a statistical difference in listed and unlisted SMEs’ financial performance indicators. We used Excel to calculate the financial ratios and RStudio to analyze the data. 𝑡 = 𝑥1̅̅̅̅ −𝑥2̅̅̅̅ √ 𝑠1 2 𝑛1 + 𝑠2 2 𝑛2 (1) Where: 𝑥1̅̅ ̅ − 𝑥2̅̅ ̅= Sample means of Listed SMEs and Unlisted SMEs. 𝑠1 2 , 𝑠2 2 = Sample variances of both Listed and Unlisted SMEs. 𝑛1, 𝑛2 = Sample size of both Listed and Unlisted SME. 3.1. T-Test Null Hypothesis There is no difference in the mean financial performance between listed and unlisted EU SMEs. H01: There is no significant difference in the solvency of listed and unlisted SMEs. H02: There is no significant difference in the liquidity of listed and unlisted SMEs H03: There is no significant difference in the profit margin of listed and unlisted SMEs H04: There is no significant difference in the ROA of listed and unlisted SMEs. H05: There is no significant difference in the ROE of listed and unlisted SMEs. 3.2. Alternative Hypothesis (H₁) There is a difference in the mean financial performance between listed and unlisted EU SMEs; it could be positive or negative. H1.1: There is a significant difference in the solvency of listed and unlisted SMEs. H1.2: There is a significant difference in the liquidity of listed and unlisted SMEs H1.3: There is a significant difference in the profit margin of listed and unlisted SMEs H1.4: There is a significant difference in the ROA of listed and unlisted SMEs. H1.5: There is a significant difference in the ROE of listed and unlisted SMEs. Before conducting the t-test, we performed the Shapiro–Wilk test to assess whether the data are normally distributed. 𝑤 = (∑ 𝑎𝑖𝑥(𝑖))2𝑛 𝑖=1 ∑ (𝑥𝑖 𝑛 𝑖=1 −�̅�)2 (2) Where: W = The Shapiro–Wilk test statistic. 𝑥(𝑖) = The ordered sample values (i.e., from smallest to largest). �̅� = The sample mean. 𝑎𝑖= Constants derived from the expected values of order statistics of a standard normal distribution and the covariance matrix of those order statistics 𝑛 = Sample size. Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2025, 12(2): 113-123 117 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 4. Results and Discussion 4.1. Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Median, Standard Deviation, Kurtosis, Skewness) Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 report the descriptive statistics. Table 2. Mean. Mean 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Listed SMEs solvency (x) 52.809 48.645 46.487 45.604 44.072 44.404 43.739 43.111 49.766 49.770 Unlisted SMEs solvency (x) 43.896 45.813 45.608 41.350 45.816 44.700 43.982 45.026 44.500 37.770 Listed SMEs liquidity (x) 3.939 4.031 4.058 5.743 5.295 5.854 2.992 1.832 2.262 1.884 Unlisted SMEs liquidity (x) 1.908 2.160 1.933 1.719 1.711 2.293 1.936 1.957 1.519 1.252 Listed SMEs profit margin % 6.459 -2.589 7.160 3.443 5.468 4.900 2.040 2.040 2.240 2.000 Unlisted SMEs Profit Margin % 11.023 9.659 5.780 7.099 7.312 9.045 6.958 8.042 6.517 5.048 Listed SMEs ROA % 4.479 4.070 5.199 -0.534 3.794 4.689 1.189 1.189 1.534 -0.321 Unlisted SMEs ROA % 13.636 11.943 10.784 13.087 7.767 14.174 11.704 10.663 10.344 6.809 Listed SMEs ROE % 8.870 15.581 11.199 0.440 4.319 10.582 5.933 4.133 4.569 1.786 Unlisted SMEs ROE % 35.821 30.703 33.802 65.253 18.966 47.084 28.989 24.751 31.339 24.284 Table 2 presents the solvency, liquidity, profit margin, ROA, and ROE means for listed and unlisted SMEs from 2014 to 2023. The results show that while the listed SMEs’ solvency and liquidity averages are higher than those of unlisted SMEs, their profit margin, ROA, and ROE averages are lower compared to the unlisted counterparts. A line plot was used to visualize the mean performance of listed and unlisted EU SMEs across key financial metrics. This allows for a clear comparison of trends and reveals consistent differences in liquidity and profitability. Figure 1. Solvency, liquidity, Profit margin, ROA, and ROE yearly means variation. Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2025, 12(2): 113-123 118 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Figure 1 displays the yearly mean variations of listed (Blue) and unlisted (Orange) SMEs for the performance indicators Solvency, Liquidity, Profit Margin, ROA, and ROE from 2014 to 2023. Table 2 and Figure 1 findings indicate that listed SMEs outperform unlisted SMEs in terms of Solvency and Liquidity, suggesting that access to unregulated stock markets improves EU SMEs solvency and liquidity, supporting the hypothesis that access to stock markets positively impacts enterprises’ financial performance (European Commission, 2022a). Whereas, listed SMEs' profit margin, ROA, and ROE have considerably decreased compared to unlisted SMEs, putting forward the argument that listing has degraded SMEs' profitability (Pastusiak, Bolek, & Matuszewska- Janica, 2016; Wang, 2005). To better understand the extent and significance of the impact that access to unregulated stock markets has on SMEs’ financial performance, additional statistical analyses will be conducted. Table 3. Median. Median 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Listed SMEs solvency (x) 51.495 51.565 43.655 41.025 39.965 43.865 41.665 36.960 43.855 44.300 Unlisted SMEs solvency (x) 40.565 38.135 47.835 40.040 46.285 50.295 46.330 47.300 48.570 43.525 Listed SMEs liquidity (x) 1.220 1.095 1.250 1.265 1.450 0.750 1.260 0.825 0.985 1.145 Unlisted SMEs liquidity (x) 1.485 1.310 1.430 1.390 1.300 1.635 1.590 1.785 1.355 1.255 Listed SMEs profit margin % 8.095 7.850 7.110 7.490 7.765 5.270 5.270 1.855 0.570 1.065 Unlisted SMEs profit margin % 7.950 8.105 6.920 4.485 3.400 6.435 6.560 5.895 6.030 4.100 Listed SMEs ROA % 3.130 6.780 3.000 2.275 5.525 4.120 4.120 1.625 0.980 1.015 Unlisted SMEs ROA % 13.840 9.350 7.990 6.590 2.235 6.365 7.270 9.490 6.790 4.225 Listed SMEs ROE % 8.285 11.715 8.080 6.040 9.105 10.650 4.420 5.320 3.630 3.765 Unlisted SMEs ROE % 27.405 18.340 16.995 15.775 7.905 13.520 11.965 11.965 17.290 10.885 Table 3 presents the solvency, liquidity, profit margin, ROA, and ROE medians for listed and unlisted SMEs from 2014 to 2023. The results show that while the solvency medians of listed SMEs are higher than those of unlisted SMEs, their profit margin, ROA, and ROE medians are lower compared to the unlisted counterparts. However, the liquidity medians are relatively equal. Table 4. Standard deviation. Standard deviation 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Listed SMEs solvency (x) 26.711 29.850 19.183 19.205 26.151 26.766 25.965 26.407 29.407 29.461 Unlisted SMEs solvency (x) 16.004 21.855 23.511 24.690 25.418 23.581 21.126 21.357 18.939 17.996 Listed SMEs liquidity (x) 7.261 6.344 7.584 9.510 8.971 11.307 5.638 2.608 3.085 1.718 Unlisted SMEs liquidity (x) 1.235 1.830 1.271 1.055 1.019 1.741 0.931 1.044 0.365 0.336 Listed SMEs profit margin % 7.599 23.269 4.125 11.549 8.276 5.562 5.562 5.855 5.242 6.439 Unlisted SMEs profit margin % 11.634 9.260 9.487 9.792 7.742 8.138 5.070 8.238 5.748 4.827 Listed SMEs ROA % 8.053 23.270 5.083 10.348 8.002 6.577 6.577 5.150 5.210 5.032 Unlisted SMEs ROA % 10.713 11.741 15.551 17.093 11.598 16.730 12.721 11.989 12.710 10.542 Listed SMEs ROE % 12.749 16.132 10.238 25.741 39.796 18.548 6.100 12.119 7.921 12.050 Unlisted SMEs ROE % 41.396 30.948 54.698 152.930 23.265 90.979 57.329 43.810 49.559 42.141 Table 4 presents the solvency, liquidity, profit margin, ROA, and ROE standard deviation for listed and unlisted SMEs from 2014 to 2023. The results show that the variation in the standard deviation of unlisted SMEs is relatively high, especially under the ROE. This suggests that there is moderate variability in financial performance indicators following SMEs’ listing. Table 5. Kurtosis. Kutosis 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Listed SMEs Solvency (x) 2.014 2.207 2.270 2.561 2.770 2.746 2.863 2.709 1.745 1.786 Unlisted SMEs Solvency (x) 2.289 1.938 1.407 1.842 1.975 2.848 2.769 3.032 3.435 2.254 Listed SMEs Liquidity (x) 7.264 3.238 7.562 3.311 5.524 6.344 7.921 7.117 6.925 4.253 Unlisted SMEs Liquidity (x) 4.082 3.045 2.715 4.130 5.568 3.162 2.317 1.959 1.744 3.377 Listed SMEs Profit Margin % 2.753 4.665 1.573 5.118 2.476 2.859 2.859 1.827 1.683 1.743 Unlisted SMEs Profit Margin % 4.665 2.595 3.191 2.785 2.725 2.299 2.363 1.860 3.524 4.637 Listed SMEs ROA % 4.665 2.595 3.191 2.785 2.725 2.299 2.363 1.896 3.524 4.637 Unlisted SMEs ROA % 1.659 2.468 2.208 5.026 3.486 2.564 2.964 3.414 4.068 7.498 Listed SMEs ROE % 2.315 3.903 2.565 4.810 4.889 4.050 2.113 5.766 2.314 4.986 Unlisted SMEs ROE % 5.510 3.963 4.365 7.982 2.159 7.739 7.259 6.642 7.253 6.844 Table 5 presents the solvency, liquidity, profit margin, ROA, and ROE kurtosis for listed and unlisted SMEs from 2014 to 2023. The results show that listed SMEs' kurtosis values are mostly <3, ranging from 1.7 to 2.8, indicating a platykurtic distribution. However, unlisted SMEs' values are mixed between leptokurtic distribution >3 and platykurtic distribution <3. Table 6. Skewness. Skewness 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Listed SMEs solvency (x) 0.17 -0.42 0.21 0.33 0.73 0.57 0.78 0.85 0.25 0.21 Unlisted SMEs solvency (x) 0.45 0.60 0.06 0.09 -0.22 -0.27 -0.68 -0.40 -1.15 -0.64 Listed SMEs liquidity (x) 2.42 1.49 2.51 1.49 1.97 2.19 2.61 2.36 2.30 1.46 Unlisted SMEs liquidity (x) 1.44 1.33 1.13 1.40 1.87 1.29 0.86 0.57 0.41 0.37 Listed SMEs profit margin -0.87 -1.77 -0.09 -1.88 -0.81 -0.83 -0.83 0.03 0.32 0.03 Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2025, 12(2): 113-123 119 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Skewness 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Unlisted SMEs profit margin 1.59 0.87 -0.67 0.73 1.03 0.81 0.52 0.26 1.03 1.48 Listed SMEs ROA % 0.55 -0.73 0.78 -1.07 -1.39 -0.16 -0.16 -0.13 0.69 -0.91 Unlisted SMEs ROA % 1.66 2.47 2.21 5.03 3.49 2.56 2.96 3.41 4.07 7.50 Listed SMEs ROE % -0.51 1.03 0.87 -1.17 -1.09 -0.67 0.23 -0.80 -0.09 -1.47 Unlisted SMEs ROE % 1.82 1.26 1.50 2.63 0.96 2.55 2.41 2.09 2.40 2.30 Table 6 presents the solvency, liquidity, profit margin, ROA, and ROE skewness for listed and unlisted SMEs from 2014 to 2023. The results show that listed SMEs with values around 0.2 to 0.8 are slightly positively skewed, whereas unlisted SMEs shift between slightly positive and negative skew. To ensure the robustness of our t-test, we used the Shapiro-Wilk test to verify the assumption of normality for the dataset being analyzed. This is necessary because the data must be approximately normally distributed for the results to be valid and reliable. Table 7. Shapiro–Wilk test. W statistics P-value CI Listed SMEs solvency (x) 0.92 0.334 95% Unlisted SMEs solvency (x) 0.076706* 0.005759* 95% Listed SMEs liquidity (x) 0.909 0.274 95% Unlisted SMEs liquidity (x) 0.969 0.879 95% Listed SMEs profit margin % 0.9278 0.466 95% Unlisted SMEs profit margin % 0.969 0.879 95% Listed SMEs ROA % 0.875 0.141 95% Unlisted SMEs ROA % 0.939 0.537 95% Listed SMEs ROE % 0.951 0.683 95% Unlisted SMEs ROE % 0.858 0.072 95% Table 7 presents the solvency, liquidity, profit margin, ROA, and ROE Shapiro-Wilk test results for listed and unlisted SMEs. The results indicate that, except for unlisted SMEs’ solvency, which deviated significantly from a normal distribution (W = 0; P < 0.05), the other metrics produced a W value close to 1 with P > 0.05, suggesting that the dataset is normally distributed. To further visualize the normality of the distribution, a Q–Q plot was generated using the ggqqplot() function from the ggpubr package in R. If the points lie approximately along the 45-degree reference line, it indicates that the metrics are likely normally distributed. Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2025, 12(2): 113-123 120 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Figure 2. Distribution Q-Q plot. Figure 2 displays Solvency, Liquidity, Profit Margin, ROA, and ROE density distributions for listed and unlisted SMEs. This reveals that, unlike unlisted SMEs’ solvability, most other metrics’ observations are clustered around the mean with fewer outliers, which suggests normality in the dataset. Table 8. Unpaired Student's T-Test Results. T-value Critical T-value P-Value Df CI Listed SMEs solvency - Unlisted SMEs Solvency (x) 2.309 2.111 0.034 16.921 95% Listed SMEs liquidity - Unlisted SMEs Liquidity (x) 3.967 2.237 0.002817 9.707 95% Listed SMEs profit margin - Unlisted SMEs Profit Margin % -3.648 2.160 0.003 12.996 95% Listed SMEs ROA - Unlisted SMEs ROA % -7.9 2.1 4.041E-07 17.0 95% Listed SMEs ROE - Unlisted SMEs ROE % -6.1 2.2 6.957E-05 11.2 95% Table 8 presents the Solvency, Liquidity, Profit Margin, ROA, and ROE t-test results for listed and unlisted SMEs. The results indicate that all the absolute t-values are superior to critical t-values, and the p-values are statistically significant (p < 0.05) for all the metrics, leading to the rejection of the null hypotheses (H01, H02, H03, H04, and H05). Furthermore, solvency and liquidity t-values are moderately positive; meanwhile, profit margin, ROA, and ROE t-values are considerably negative. The t-test results suggest that access to the stock market has improved listed SMEs’ solvency and liquidity, whereas profitability has significantly declined. Without taking a definitive position on whether access to unregulated stock markets positively or negatively impacts SMEs’ financial performance, our results align with existing literature indicating that listed SMEs tend to report improved solvency and liquidity (Boccaletti et al., 2025). Despite these benefits, listed SMEs' financial performance can be affected by factors such as equity dilution and heightened compliance costs, which can reduce profitability indicators such as return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) (Pastusiak et al., 2016). In the U.S. context, Mikkelson et al. (1997) found that many enterprises experience a decline in profitability post-IPO despite robust pre-IPO growth. Similarly, Pagano et al. (1998) observed that listing proceeds are not always immediately reinvested into operations, which may negatively impact post-listing financial performance. On a separate note, according to Lehmann (2023), EU enterprises are more prone to listing in the US stock markets than in Europe. Furthermore, Helbing, Lucey, and Vigne (2019) in their investigation of the determinants of IPO withdrawal, they found that venture capital or private equity involvement, the presence of negative news, CEO duality, or the intent to retire debt increases the probability of IPO withdrawal. In a nutshell, these findings highlight Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2025, 12(2): 113-123 121 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group a complex relationship between stock market access and SME financial performance that requires further investigation. This study has some limitations. The relatively modest sample size may constrain broader generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the research did not consider contextual factors such as sector/industry, market conditions, or institutional support that could significantly impact SMEs' financial performance. Finally, acquiring sufficient precise financial data over time, particularly for unlisted SMEs, remains difficult because of limited reporting requirements and differences in disclosure practices. Considering the critical contribution of SMEs to economic growth worldwide, future research should analyze larger and more diverse samples across various industries to better capture the nuanced financial effects of listing. Furthermore, better availability of SMEs’ financial data through centralized databases or enhanced regulatory disclosure requirements could significantly improve the depth of future empirical studies. 5. Conclusion Despite their significant contribution to the global economy, SMEs face numerous obstacles that hinder their full potential. The difficulty of obtaining sufficient financial resources is a substantial barrier to their development and growth. As an alternative solution, regulators and policymakers introduced the unregulated stock market to facilitate SMEs’ access to equity funds. With the success and controversy surrounding these stock markets, this paper aims to assess whether listing would significantly improve SMEs’ financial performance by examining and comparing various financial metrics for both listed and unlisted SMEs. Our empirical results present a nuanced but insightful view on how access to unregulated markets affects the financial performance of SMEs. Compared to unlisted SMEs, while listed SMEs’ liquidity and solvability have improved, profitability indicators exhibit a significant decline. Our paper contributes to the literature on SMEs issues and prospects by providing empirical evidence from the EU context. Although most of the existing literature focuses on large enterprises in non-European markets, particularly the US, this paper fills an important gap by providing an analysis of the differences in financial performance between listed and unlisted EU SMEs. It offers insights into how unregulated stock markets such as Euronext Growth, Euronext Access, and AIM Access may impact financial indicators such as solvency, liquidity, profit margin, ROA, and ROE. Our findings suggest that although listing may enhance liquidity and solvency, it can also impair SMEs' profitability. These insights are particularly relevant in light of the EU’s initiative to facilitate SMEs’ access to financing through stock markets. Therefore, EU policymakers should reconsider their approaches to alleviating SMEs' financing challenges. Evidence indicates that government interventions, such as direct subsidies, can encourage SMEs to scale their operations, invest in product improvements, and adopt modern technologies (Wehinger & Nassr, 2016). These incentive effects help build long-term financial resilience. Additionally, capital structure theory, as developed by Modigliani and Miller (1958) and Modigliani and Miller (1963), highlights the preference for debt over equity due to tax advantages and reduced short-term risk. However, overdependence on debt can increase enterprises' weighted average cost of capital (WACC), ultimately necessitating a more balanced and mixed financing sources (Tarver, 2022). To address the ongoing decline in IPOs and the rising SMEs’ delisting rate, a broader and more diversified financing ecosystem is needed; a solution that goes beyond the creation of unregulated stock exchanges. Instruments such as EU-level funding schemes, innovation-focused grants, and strategic subsidies could help mobilize private investment. Complementary services such as post-IPO advisory programs could further support SMEs’ post-IPO financial performance and lower the risk of delisting. According to the European Commission (2021), just 23% of all SMEs sell to other EU countries, and only 3% to non-EU ones, indicating that many EU SMEs remain largely domestically oriented. Hence, EU SMEs should take further advantage of the single market access to expand their activities to other European and global markets to improve their profitability. References Boccaletti, S., Ferrando, A., Rossi, E., & Rossolini, M. (2025). European SMEs’ growth: The role of market-based finance and public financial support. Small Business Economics, 64(2), 691-727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-024-00918-y Bolek, M., & Gniadkowska-Szymańska, A. (2023). Is the growth of companies influencing their financial condition depending on their size: S&P 500 listed companies example. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, 30(2), 323-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-022-09376-6 Brau, J. C., Couch, R. B., & Sutton, N. K. (2012). The desire to acquire and IPO long-run underperformance. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 47(3), 493-510. Chaithanapat, P., Punnakitikashem, P., Oo, N. C. K. K., & Rakthin, S. (2022). Relationships among knowledge-oriented leadership, customer knowledge management, innovation quality and firm performance in SMEs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(1), 100162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100162 Chemmanur, T. J., & Fulghieri, P. (1999). A theory of the going-public decision. The Review of Financial Studies, 12(2), 249-279. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/12.2.249 Coakley, J., Fuertes, A. M., & Wood, A. (2004). A new interpretation of the exchange rate–yield differential nexus. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 9(3), 201-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.230 Dabić, M., Maley, J., Dana, L. P., Novak, I., Pellegrini, M. M., & Caputo, A. (2020). Pathways of SME internationalization: A bibliometric and systematic review. Small Business Economics, 55(3), 705-725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00181-6 Demir, I. (2024). Global developments in SME markets over the past decade. London, UK: World Federation of Exchanges. European Commission. (2018). Commission staff working document: Executive summary of the impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council amending Regulations (EU) No 596/2014 and (EU) 2017/1129 as regards the promotion of the use of SME growth. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. European Commission. (2021). Annual report on European SMEs 2020/2021. Brussels, Belgium: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA). European Commission. (2022a). Annual single market and competitiveness report 2022 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2022b). SME listing on public markets – making it easier for SMEs to raise capital on public markets. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (2004). New lists: Fundamentals and survival rates. Journal of financial Economics, 73(2), 229-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2003.04.001 Floros, C., & Sapp, T. (2011). Shell games: On the value of shell companies. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(4), 850–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-024-00918-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-022-09376-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100162 https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/12.2.249 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.230 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00181-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2003.04.001 Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2025, 12(2): 113-123 122 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Gherhes, C., Williams, N., Vorley, T., & Vasconcelos, A. C. (2016). Distinguishing micro-businesses from SMEs: A systematic review of growth constraints. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(4), 939-963. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2016-0075 Helbing, P., Lucey, B. M., & Vigne, S. A. (2019). The determinants of IPO withdrawal–Evidence from Europe. Journal of Corporate Finance, 56, 415-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2019.03.001 Hilmersson, F. P., & Hilmersson, M. (2021). Networking to accelerate the pace of SME innovations. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(1), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2020.10.001 Jain, B. A., & Kini, O. (1995). Venture capitalist participation and the post-issue operating performance of IPO firms. Managerial and Decision Economics, 16(6), 593–606. Juergensen, J., Guimón, J., & Narula, R. (2020). European SMEs amidst the COVID-19 crisis: assessing impact and policy responses. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 47(3), 499-510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-020-00169-4 Karlsson, J. (2021). Firm size and growth barriers: A data-driven approach. Small Business Economics, 57(3), 1319-1338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00350-y Karmaker, C. L., Al Aziz, R., Palit, T., & Bari, A. M. (2023). Analyzing supply chain risk factors in the small and medium enterprises under fuzzy environment: Implications towards sustainability for emerging economies. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 100032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2022.100032 Kutsuna, K., Okamura, H., & Cowling, M. (2002). Ownership structure pre-and post-IPOs and the operating performance of JASDAQ companies. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 10(2), 163-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-538X(01)00041-5 Lehmann, A. (2023). The listing Act: No more than a minor boost to EU equity markets, Bruegel . Retrieved from https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/listing-act-no-more-minor-boost-eu-equity-markets Leland, H. E., & Pyle, D. H. (1977). Informational asymmetries, financial structure, and financial intermediation. Journal of Finance, 32(2), 371– 387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1977.tb03277.x Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Phalippou, L., & Gottschalg, O. (2015). Giants at the gate: Investment returns and diseconomies of scale in private equity. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 50(3), 377–411. Mariani, J., & Spoletini, F. (2023). SMEs growth markets: Analysis and impact of investment schemes. Master's Thesis, Politecnico di Milano. Mehrotra, N., & Sergeyev, D. (2021). Financial shocks, firm credit and the Great Recession. Journal of Monetary Economics, 117, 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2020.01.008 Mikkelson, W. H., Partch, M. M., & Shah, K. (1997). Ownership and operating performance of companies that go public. Journal of Financial Economics, 44(3), 281–307. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance, and the theory of investment. American Economic Review, 48(3), 433–443. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1963). Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: A correction. American Economic Review, 53(3), 261–297. Myers, S. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13(2), 187–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(84)90023-0 Ortigueira-Sánchez, L. C., Welsh, D. H., & Stein, W. C. (2022). Innovation drivers for export performance. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 100013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2022.100013 Pagano, M., Panetta, F., & Zingales, L. (1998). Why do companies go public: An empirical analysis. The Journal of Finance, 53(1), 27–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.25448 Pastusiak, R., Bolek, M., & Matuszewska-Janica, A. (2016). Profitability of Polish medium-sized enterprises listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29(1), 894–906. Ritter, J. R., & Welch, I. (2002). A review of IPO activity, pricing, and allocations. Journal of Finance, 57(4), 1795–1828. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00478 Sentis, P. (2001). Operational and stock market performance of companies listed on the stock exchange: The French case 1991-1995”. Paris: Edition Dalloz. Sentis, P. (2004). Introduction to the stock market, an international approach. Paris: Economica. Serve, S. (2007). “The impact of admission to listing on the economic performance of companies”. Grenoble: Grenoble University Press. Sommer, C. (2024). The role of capital markets for small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) finance. Journal of Development Studies, 60(11), 1812–1831 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2024.2377299 Stefanelli, V., Ferilli, G. B., & Boscia, V. (2022). Exploring the lending business crowdfunding to support SMEs' financing decisions. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), 100278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100278 Tarver, E. (2022). Does the tradeoff model or the pecking order play a greater role in capital budgeting? United States: Investopedia Academy. Wang, C. (2005). Ownership and operating performance of Chinese IPOs. Journal of Banking and Finance, 29(7), 1835–1856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2004.07.003 Wehinger, G., & Nassr, I. K. (2016). Opportunities and limitations of public equity markets for SMEs. OECD Journal: Financial Market Trends, 2015(1), 49-84. https://doi.org/10.1787/fmt-2015-5jrs051fvnjk Appendix This Table 1 presents the composition of the sample, distinguishing between listed and unlisted SMEs. The first group includes firms listed on unregulated stock markets, while the second group consists of comparable unlisted SMEs. These two groups form the basis of the statistical analyses conducted in the study. Table 1. Listed EU SMEs. Listed EU SMEs Country Year of Listing Unregulated stock market GIMV NV BE 11/06/1997 Euronext Access (Brussels) GIMV HEALTH & CARE PARTNERS (listed under GIMV) BE 24/03/2014 Euronext Access (Brussels) GIMV BE 11/06/1997 Euronext Access (Brussels) AKTIESELSKABET SCHOUW & CO. DK 31/08/1987 Nasdaq Copenhagen (Small Cap) PERSEIDA RENTA GESTION SOCIEDAD LIMITADA. ES 13/12/2020 Euronext Access (Paris) EVLI OYJ FI 16/11/2015 Nasdaq Helsinki (Mid CAP) COFACE S.A. FR 27/06/2014 Euronext Access (Paris) EVROPEISKOE OBSHCHESTVO SKOR E.O. (listed under SCOR SE) FR 1989 Euronext Access MOTODINAMIKI SA GR 30/06/2005 Athens Stock Exchange (ATHEX) MYTILINEOS S.A. GR 1995 Athens Stock Exchange (ATHEX) IVECO GROUP N.V. IT 30/09/2013 Euronext Growth Milan CAPITAL GROUP EMERGING MARKETS TOTAL OPPORTUNITIES (LUX) LU 28/02/2017 SICAV https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2016-0075 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2019.03.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2020.10.001 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-020-00169-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00350-y https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2022.100032 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-538X(01)00041-5 https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/listing-act-no-more-minor-boost-eu-equity-markets https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1977.tb03277.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2020.01.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(84)90023-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2022.100013 https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.25448 https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00478 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2024.2377299 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100278 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2004.07.003 https://doi.org/10.1787/fmt-2015-5jrs051fvnjk Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2025, 12(2): 113-123 123 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Listed EU SMEs Country Year of Listing Unregulated stock market NINETY ONE GLOBAL STRATEGY FUND - EMERGING MARKETS CORPORATE DEBT FUND LU 15/04/2011 SICAV FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES NV NL 13/10/2014 Euronext Access (Paris & Milan) SIF MUNTENIA BUCURESTI RO 01/11/1999 Bucharest Stock Exchange (ATS) XANO GROUP AB SE 05/12/1988 Nasdaq Stockholm (Mid Cap) ARJO AB (PUBL) SE 12/12/2017 Nasdaq Stockholm (Mid Cap) VIAPLAY GROUP AB (PUBL) SE 28/03/2019 Nasdaq Stockholm (Mid Cap) ENAD GLOBAL 7 AB (PUBL) SE 2019 Nasdaq First North Growth Market VBG GROUP AB (PUBL) SE 1987 Nasdaq Stockholm (Mid Cap) Table 1 provides the list of listed EU SMEs based on our filter on Orbis. As per the platform, enterprises are classified as SMEs when they meet the following conditions: operating revenue less than 10 million EUR; total assets less than 20 million EUR; or fewer than 150 employees. Table 2. List of Unlisted SMEs. Unlisted Companies Country Creation Year ACO - BOUWTEAM BE 30/06/1993 FIXINOX BE 1994 DOE-HET-ZELF SAFTI BE 29/04/1977 H & M SPOL. S R.O. CZ 24/10/1990 VARS BRNO A.S. CZ 1995 CARGO MARKETING SPEDITION GMBH DE 1997 ALKO ESPANA SAU ES 26/05/1977 HOHNER AUTOMATION SOCIEDAD LIMITADA. ES 14/06/1983 GTIE AMIENS FR 15/12/1997 EMUGE - FRANKEN S.R.L. IT 02/07/2001 KEB ITALIA S.R.L. IT 11/02/1975 MOSCA DIRECT POLAND SP. Z O.O. PL 05/12/2008 W-Z SP. Z O.O. PL 07/04/2003 TONELI NUTRITION TITU SA RO 30/11/1992 APTILO NETWORKS AB SE 01/09/2001 BLUEBEAM AB SE 2010 HOWDEN INSURANCE BROKERS AKTIEBOLAG SE 26/10/1990 K A OLSSON & GEMS AKTIEBOLAG SE 1950 NTI-SKOLAN AB SE 1968 ZITO MALOPRODAJA D.O.O. SI 23/05/1991 Table 2 provides the list of the randomly selected unlisted EU SMEs out of the 47,642 Moody scored enterprises based on our filter on Orbis. As per the platform, enterprises are SMEs when they meet the following conditions: operating revenue < 10 million EUR; total assets < 20 million EUR; or employees < 150. Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article.