Thread by @bauhiniacapital

When first mooted, TSE market structure had changes had possibilities, but

a) potential changes were watered down
b) cos who cdn't clear low hurdles were given 3yrs to clear them with a "plan"
c) changes offer minimal structural improvement to attract more foreign participation.

https://twitter.com/LandersWSJ/status/1476026285873070082

Result: The move from 6 'venues'* with different listing rules* to 3 venues** (w/ diff listing rules) will basically mean nothing to the vast majority of investors.

*TSE1, TSE2, TSE Mothers, Tokyo Pro, JASDAQ Standard, JASDAQ Growth

**TSE Prime, TSE Standard, TSE Growth

And it will have taken 3 years and efforts at every major company to simply relabel the venue on which they are listed, and in the end, it looks like a few percent of listed Japan will be slowly phased out of the TOPIX Index.

The original goal was to create a "premier" venue so that foreigners would be attracted to the concentration of better governance blue chips.

Lack of director liability for anything financial means directors approve garbage capital structure and garbage related party

takeovers with impunity. And the Companies Act Article 235 allowing squeezeouts with only 2/3 super-majority, and JCOM (4817) court precedent on appraisal rights kind of makes a mockery of "fair value", which means that companies large and small can effectively screw

shareholders/minorities any time they want if there is a friendly cross-holding base, or a parent company.

The only real solution is to make noise, early and often, but do so behind the scenes. Helpfully the stewardship code obliges adhering investors to keep a record of

interactions which can then be used to name and shame when things happen which shouldn't. It is a shame that more investors don't pick up the cudgel when they have the opportunity.

If anyone is looking at this oppty (green/brownfield) in the bigger picture...