The chief executive of Schroders, Richard Oldfield, has revived the debate over the relevance of public markets at a time when global investment trends seem increasingly skewed towards private equity, private credit, and alternative assets. At a major financial conference this week, he put up an impassioned defence of the ecosystem of public markets, saying that despite the contrary narrative, public markets retain their place as a cornerstone of economic transparency, capital formation, and long-term growth.
In recent years, financial institutions have seen a marked shift in investor preference. IPO activity has ground to a crawl globally, the number of publicly listed companies has fallen in the UK, and private-market funds have swelled in size and influence.
Many of the biggest corporations, particularly in Europe, are opting to stay private longer-or even to delist-to avoid the regulatory scrutiny and quarterly-performance pressures that come with public markets. Against this backdrop, Oldfield’s comments stand out as a pointed reminder that public markets still provide irreplaceable functions in the financial system.
He acknowledged the increasing attractiveness of private markets, saying that Schroders has greatly expanded its private-market arm – Schroders Capital – which as a result now represents a significant slice of the firm’s assets under management. Private equity and infrastructure have risen in popularity for their perceived stability, longer investment horizons, and strong returns. However, he cautioned against viewing this growth as the decline, even death, of public markets. Rather, he emphasized that both ecosystems serve different but complementary purposes.
One of Oldfield’s central arguments is that public markets remain essential for efficient price discovery. Unlike private markets, where valuations are often negotiated behind closed doors, public markets offer transparent, real-time pricing driven by supply, demand, and macroeconomic forces. This transparency ensures that investors — from pension funds and insurers to individual retail participants — can make informed decisions based on openly available information. According to Oldfield, such a mechanism cannot be replicated in private markets, which, with their limited disclosure requirements, often obscure a company’s financial health.
The other biggest point of defensiveness by Oldfield is accountability. Public companies are required to disclose quarterly reports, governance structures, risk assessments, and operational metrics. Such scrutiny naturally imposes more significant accountability on executives and boards, consequently helping protect investor interests. Oldfield countered that private companies may have gained flexibility but lost the benefit of being overseen by the public to check mismanagement and to assure the long-term discipline that comes with it. To institutional investors-including retirement and sovereign assets-accountability is priceless.
He also pointed out public markets’ role in broadly distributing wealth. The shares of public companies are available to retail investors, thereby allowing a wide range of people to participate in the creation of such wealth. Private-market opportunities, however, remain largely unavailable to all but accredited or institutional investors, further entrenching inequality in access to growth investment opportunities. Oldfield said an overdependence on private markets risks consolidating the economic rewards among a chosen few, weakening the inclusive base provided by public markets.
While the message from Oldfield obviously struck a chord, he did not close his eyes to the problems facing the public markets, especially in the UK. London has been suffering from a lack of large-cap listings, as major players turn to US exchanges or decline to become public altogether. Some of the attributing factors include regulatory burdens, valuation gaps compared to US exchanges, and conservative investors. Oldfield rallied behind changes that would make the UK’s public markets more competitive on the international stage: modernizing its listing rules, having greater flexibility at the level of regulations, and offering incentives aimed at welcoming high-growth firms.
Looking ahead, Oldfield believes the future of public markets is not bleak but evolving. He foresees a world in which public and private markets continue to coexist, each fulfilling critical functions within the greater financial system. Public markets will also remain the backbone of pension investment strategies, national savings, and large-scale corporate financing, while private markets will continue to provide alternatives for companies seeking strategic capital away from public scrutiny.
Ultimately, Richard Oldfield’s defense of public markets is more than a response to industry trends; it is a call for balance. As investors chase the allure of private capital, Oldfield’s message is a timely reminder that transparency, accountability, and accessibility remain key to a healthy financial ecosystem. Public markets are, in his view, anything but outmoded; they are of essence in maintaining stability and broad-based prosperity in the financial system.
