The regulator has openly expressed dissatisfaction with the Moscow Exchange's position during discussions of new requirements for public companies. The Bank of Russia points out that the trading venue, in disputes over the regulator's initiatives, systematically sides with issuers rather than private investors. For shareholders and bondholders, this is a signal that the rules for public organizations may remain soft for a long time to come.
Such a line from the exchange is objectively beneficial to companies: new obligations on reporting and shareholder relations can be postponed indefinitely. If the regulator pushes through its position, however, issuers will have to disclose significantly more data, and investors will get a more transparent market.
Why the regulator is unhappy with the venue's position
Bank of Russia Deputy Chairman Vladimir Chistyukhin, speaking at the Moscow Exchange's corporate governance forum, directly stated that the infrastructure is leaning toward the issuers' side and called this a "big, big problem." The regulator continues to discuss changes to the rules on listing, information disclosure, and holding shareholder meetings. Issuers oppose most of the proposals, while investors, by contrast, consider the new requirements insufficiently strict.
Chistyukhin emphasized that he had expected greater support from the trading venue. He attributed the exchange's caution to its desire to retain clients and its reluctance to make unpopular decisions.
Moscow Exchange Supervisory Board Chairman Sergei Shvetsov countered: the exchange must remain an independent market participant, not an instrument of the regulator. According to him, the company intends to revise its approaches to working with the Central Bank.
Audit and sanctions: where the exchange chooses its own line
The dispute over investor protection also touched on auditors. Shvetsov proposed radically reducing the number of audit firms, while Chistyukhin advocated only for tightening admission to their registry. The exchange took a tougher position than the regulator — and whether bondholders can trust issuers' financial statements depends directly on audit quality.
It is telling that the venue also defends its interests abroad: on October 5 it filed a lawsuit against the EU Council in the European Court of Justice after falling under European Union sanctions in July. The details of the claims are not disclosed, and the precedent is not in the exchange's favor: in 2024, the court rejected a lawsuit by its group member NSD to lift restrictions.
Cryptalist analysis: The escalation between the regulator and Russia's largest venue reflects a fundamental conflict of model: an exchange dependent on commission income from issuers has an objective interest in soft requirements, whereas the depth and quality of the market grow only under strict disclosure. For investors, this is an indicator of heightened regulatory risk in the public debt and equity segment — until the dispute is resolved, the quality of corporate reporting and the protection of minority shareholders will remain the market's weak link.