The UK government’s introduction of the Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System (PISCES), in early 2026, reflects efforts to address ongoing weaknesses in domestic equity capital markets by creating a new type of venue via which private company shares can be traded at intermittent auctions. PISCES represents an early step toward formalising private market liquidity and reshaping how companies and investors engage outside traditional public listings. In this article, GreySpark explores the PISCES market concept and contemplates whether limited investor access and potential competition with existing public markets such as the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) will temper its success.
By GreySpark’s Declan Sharp, Analyst and Rachel Lindstrom, Head of Capital Markets Intelligence practice
The UK’s equity fundraising issues led the UK government to propose significant reforms after the 2025 Wholesale Markets Review. It acknowledged that capital markets volume and equity fundraising were lacking for both investors and companies wishing to raise funds. One explanation is that the UK, unlike the US, lacks the strong cultural demand to invest in growth companies, and UK markets are not underpinned by the same abundant level of capital. To address these issues, the government introduced PISCES to facilitate private company share auctions. The framework is a shareholder-to-shareholder platform model, with auctions to facilitate quasi-private market equity fundraising without it being a full IPO. This project gained momentum at the end of 2025, when the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) approved two platform operators: LSEG in August 2025 and JP Jenkins in November 2025.
PISCES Licences Kick Off the New Market
JP Jenkins is a London based stalwart of unlisted securities that has been providing a market for unlisted and unquoted companies since 1991. On 10 March 2026, UK boardgame maker, QPlay was announced to be the first private company to agree to use a PISCES platform to raise equity funding. The auction took place on JP Jenkins’ PISCES platform between 18 March to 24 March 2026.
JP Jenkins operates a matched bargain platform, meaning that trades occur only when a buyer and seller are directly matched. It does run auction-like processes (e.g. collecting bids / offers over a period), but these are not the same as the formal exchange-style auctions facilitated by the LSEG. Essentially, JP Jenkins provides the infrastructure and market data, while brokers actively find counterparties for each trade, and trades are settled on a T+2 settlement cycle.
LSEG’s platform is a structured auction system. It uses a more formal, rules-based approach than JP Jenkins, where orders are centrally aggregated and a single clearing price is determined at set times via intermittent auctions (similar to opening and closing auctions on public markets). This model is closer to a traditional exchange with greater standardisation and structure.
PISCES Platform Rules and Restrictions
Rules for the new private market trading systems were put in place by the FCA, because of the significant impact intermittent auctions can have on continuous trading. The key restrictions include:
- Company Control: A company’s shares will only be admitted to a PISCES platform for controlled trading events with the expressed consent of the company.
- Restrictions to Participants: Participating companies retain an influence over who will be able to trade shares and pricing by setting floors and ceilings.
- Limited Transparency: Transactions will not be subject to public market regulatory frameworks, such as the UK Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), the UK Takeover Code or ongoing public disclosure requirements.
- Exemptions: Transfers will benefit from exemptions, such as the absence of stamp duty.
There are clear parallels between the UK PISCES model and the more mature private secondary markets in the US. US platforms EquityZen, Forge Global and NASDAQ Private Market have already demonstrated the viability of broker-mediated matching between buyers and sellers of pre-IPO shares, alongside the provision of data and analytics to support valuation and execution.
Forge Global was acquired by Charles Schwab in March 2026, signalling institutional broker buy-in to the growth potential of these new markets. Although the legislation behind the markets will be different, the UK-based private markets operators are likely to draw from US precedents in the structuring of intermittent liquidity events, the development of data solutions and in the design of post-trade processes. However, there is currently no mention of an indexing and price discovery product, such as the US’ Forge Price, from either UK market operator.
Gauging Supply and Demand
Although private credit is currently in the news cycle, for many of the wrong reasons, there is growing interest in hybrid instruments, such as convertibles, in pre-IPO companies. Indeed, venture debt and venture capital to pre-IPO software companies are going through a transformation, as valuations of companies are being slashed as a consequence of the structural challenge AI poses to the business model of these companies. Therefore, convertibles, negotiations on amending funding structures or restructurings of capital structures of these companies are likely to result in an increase of the supply of equities being put on the market.
Demand will be limited because of the restrictions placed on eligible investors. Retail investors will not be allowed to trade on PISCES platforms, for instance. Only institutional investors, high net-worth individuals, ‘PISCES’ sophisticated investors and employees of participating companies are able to buy and sell shares. Whether this will provide sufficient demand to the market will only be answered once the markets are fully operational. In one of the FCA’s consultation papers, the regulator relayed that respondents to the consultation believed that PISCES platforms should be open to retail investors to provide greater liquidity and demand.
On the supply side of the private market, the model appears to rely primarily on companies themselves and their employees as sources of funding via share purchase. While this aligns with the goal of providing liquidity to founders and early stakeholders, it raises questions about depth and consistency of supply. Compared to public markets, and even established US secondary platforms, private market secondary auctions may initially capture relatively low trading volumes. Traditional private equity secondaries typically involve fund-level transactions, such as the transfer of limited partner interests, collateralisation of fund interests or the creation of continuation vehicles, rather than the sale of individual portfolio company shares. As such, it is plausible that supply will come from angel investors, venture capital funds and employees seeking liquidity.
Mutual Growth, Not Cannibalism
The strategic vision of PISCES is questionable as a consequence of the lack of retail investment and, also, that it may take capital investment away from the LSE Alternative Investment Market (AIM). LSEG constructed AIM 30 years ago for small cap stocks, positioning AIM as a growth market. When indexed across its existence, AIM has actually decreased in value over the past 30 years. Indeed, the market was under pressure last year because of lack of capital flow. The AIM offers public market access, regulatory credibility and, therefore, a broader investor base with more safeguards. It is likely that PISCES is not entirely complementary and will become partially substitutive of AIM. As a private market auction platform, PISCES markets will enable small and medium-sized enterprises to raise equity capital through structured trading events. This potentially runs counter to the objectives of the AIM, as PISCES allows firms to seek liquidity in the private markets without going to IPO.
From a market infrastructure perspective, successful adoption will depend heavily on integration with existing buyside and sellside technology stacks. Institutional investors expect seamless connectivity, likely via standardised APIs, so that orders and data can flow directly into established order and execution management systems. The LSE’s private market works using the same auction-based pricing system as its public stock market, and the shares are held and transferred digitally through the same electronic system (CREST).
Nurturing Growth in New Markets
Trading in private equity secondaries is expected to resemble equity-style auction processes, with transactions conducted through structured, time-bound events rather than continuous markets. The necessary intermediation using brokers models is similar in both, but the execution mechanism is materially different. In both models, a sellside entity (broker or bank) must be approved to be an intermediary that executes trades. In the LSEG model, such entities are a Registered Auction Agent (RAA) and ‘can either place it directly onto the Order Book (if it has access to the Order Book) or pass on the order to another RAA who has access to execute orders’. However, in the JP Jenkins model, ‘Approved Intermediaries’, submit buy or sell orders on behalf of their clients, and there is a matching mechanism provided by the venue, but it is not an order book. In both the LSEG and JP Jenkins markets, intermediaries will also be required to manage investor eligibility and interface to the auction mechanism. The venue-based versus broker-centric models of these two competitors offer choice to potential market participants. It is likely that the LSEG model will be more appropriate for less sophisticated shareholders, such as the employees of private firms looking to cash out, who do not possess as much experience of engaging with brokers as more sophisticated investors.
