I wonder that AIM still has the nerve to remain silent, when so many of their stocks are close to zero and many more are set to fall, due to Rules like "must have a Nomad" - er, well what if the Nomads are finding things hard, pushing up their fees, so few AIM companies want to pay for a somewhat dubious level of . . . ?

It's bad enough a stock IS listed on AIM, where the importance seems to be the number of listed companies, rather than their worth ( as profitable ventures) and with Rules that mean investors will lose out even more, when the stock cannot be traded.

When Markets return to better-times I shall remember these rather restrictive AIM-Rules that serve no-one it seems; although AIM receives much by way of fees, for nothing that imposes any value to my way of thinking.

h
i recall having similar views about bt when it had a monopoly over us all. as soon as competition entered the market suddenly it seemed it was able to offer us much better deals. why so sudden and why not before for all those years? i have no loyalty to bt. id like to see it go to the dogs. i'm short. lol. speaking here as a customer not a shareholder.
regards
jkd