Search

The author determines the peculiarities of privatisation processes in transformational economies compared with mature ones and considers the difference of the goal – to accelerate the development of the already existing stock market, and in fact, to create the market anew. Socio-economic transformations, privatisation of property and creation of market infrastructure are prerequisites but not a guarantee for the emergence of the domestic stock market as a specific institutional phenomenon, especially in the absence of adequate incentives for public equity. It is established that some local stock markets are degraded against the background of increasing size, globalisation, liquidity, and integration of world capital markets, including the Ukrainian one. It is stated that, unlike the neighbouring post-socialist states (firstly, Poland), the stock market has not been built in Ukraine as a basis for compelling attraction and allocation of capital. Paper substantiated that this is primarily a consequence of inefficient and protracted privatisation, mainly over-the-counter sale of shares, inconsistency of state and regulatory policy, optional iterations in the development of market infrastructure, the creation irrationality of privatised enterprises (even the smallest) exclusively in the form of open joint-stock companies, which die to their objective inability to raise public capital faced inadequate financial burden and coercion of listing on exchanges. The author identified the main problems of the Ukrainian stock market laid down during privatisation: excessively consolidated share capital structure, insecurity of minorities, meagre free-float and liquidity, conditional exchange pricing, the predominance of over-the-counter circulation of shares, etc. Emphasis is placed on the consequences of the attempt to implement the squeeze-out procedure in Ukraine. In the absence of market prices and the acquisition of control by dominant shareholders long before the legislative changes, the share buyback did not protect minorities. However, it led to significant investors’ losses, termination of circulation of shares of most issuers, even greater conditionality of indices, capitalisation and other indicators of market development. It is noted that the effectiveness of the announced state plans for the development of the stock market due to the privatisation of state property remains in doubt in the absence of prerequisites for balancing economic interests between market participants, the objectivity of pricing, incentives for public capital raising and effective institutional environment. It is concluded that in Ukraine, the focus on privatisation procedures in the stock market development has no prospects in the absence of adequate incentives for the public raising of capital.