The right way to raise capital depends on what you actually need: growth funding, an exit, or a bridge to succession. Bursa Malaysia’s LEAP Market is one option among several — and the recent news that advisory firm ZICO is eyeing the LEAP Market puts a spotlight on it, but it is not automatically the best fit for every SME with ambitions. The honest answer is that founders should work backwards from their objective, not forwards from whichever platform is in the news.
We advise founders across Malaysia and the region on exactly this decision, and the conversation almost always starts in the wrong place: “should we list?” The better first question is “what problem are we solving — capital, liquidity, or continuity — and which structure solves it with the least dilution of control and the most predictable outcome?”
What Bursa’s LEAP Market actually is
The LEAP Market was set up by Bursa Malaysia as a fundraising platform for small and mid-sized companies, sitting alongside the Main and ACE Markets but with a materially lighter listing process. It is restricted to sophisticated investors rather than the general public, which means disclosure and governance requirements are lower than a full public listing, and the company works through an appointed listing sponsor rather than a traditional underwriting process.
For founders, the appeal is straightforward: access to capital markets and a public valuation reference point, without the cost and scrutiny of a full IPO. Many companies use it as a stepping stone — building a track record and investor base on LEAP before graduating to ACE Market once they meet the higher bar.
The trade-off is liquidity. Because only sophisticated investors can trade LEAP-listed shares, the pool of buyers is smaller than on ACE or Main. A LEAP listing raises capital and market credibility; it does not, by itself, create the deep secondary market a founder might picture when they hear “going public.”
The real question: capital, exit, or succession?
Before comparing platforms, separate the three problems founders often bundle together.
Capital for growth — you need funds to scale operations, enter new markets, or build capacity, and you’re willing to dilute equity in exchange for growth capital and, in some structures, strategic guidance.
Partial or full exit — you or your co-founders want to realise value now, whether that’s cashing out a stake or selling the business outright.
Succession without a buyer — there’s no next-generation leader or willing acquirer, and the founder needs a structure that keeps the business running and the value intact regardless of who’s in the top seat.
Each problem points to a different route, and conflating them is where we see founders lose the most time and leverage in negotiations.
Comparing the main routes
| Route | Best for | Typical cost/effort | Control impact | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LEAP Market listing | Established SMEs wanting public capital markets access with lighter compliance | Moderate — sponsor fees, ongoing disclosure, board upgrades | Partial dilution; founder usually retains majority | 6–12 months to list |
| Private equity / VC | Growth-stage companies needing capital plus operational input | High advisory/legal cost; investor due diligence is intensive | Meaningful dilution; investor board seats and covenants | 4–9 months to close |
| Trade sale (full or partial) | Owners ready to exit or bring in a strategic partner | Deal advisory and legal fees, often success-fee based | Full or majority control transfer | 6–18 months, deal-dependent |
| Family/management succession | Owners without a buyer, wanting continuity | Legal, tax, and governance restructuring cost | Control transfers internally, gradually | 1–3 years, planned in advance |
| ACE/Main Market IPO | Larger SMEs ready for full public listing | Highest cost and disclosure burden | Significant dilution; public accountability | 12–24 months |
None of these routes is inherently superior. A profitable family business with no succession candidate gains nothing from a LEAP listing if the underlying issue is leadership continuity, not capital. Equally, a fast-growing tech company chasing regional expansion may find private equity slower and costlier in governance terms than a LEAP listing, but faster in terms of actual cash-in-hand and strategic support.
When LEAP Market listing genuinely makes sense
We’d point a founder towards LEAP when three conditions hold together. First, the business has a credible growth story it can articulate to sophisticated investors — not just historical profitability, but a plan for what the capital does next. Second, the founder is comfortable with public company obligations: quarterly reporting discipline, a board that can withstand scrutiny, and governance that goes beyond a family arrangement. Third, there’s a realistic path to ACE Market or beyond within a few years, because LEAP’s restricted investor base means it works best as a stage, not a destination.
The ZICO move into this space is worth noting for founders because it signals growing advisory infrastructure around LEAP — more sponsors, more comparable transactions, and more market familiarity with the platform. That doesn’t change whether it’s right for your business, but it does mean the execution risk of listing on LEAP is lower today than it was a few years ago.
When private capital or a trade sale fits better
If your priority is speed, a private raise or trade sale usually beats any listed route. Private equity and strategic buyers can close in months once diligence is done, and the negotiation is bilateral rather than shaped by market disclosure rules. For founders planning a full or partial exit, a trade sale to a strategic acquirer often delivers a control premium that a minority public listing cannot match — buyers pay more for certainty and control than public markets typically price in for a minority stake.
The cost is negotiating leverage and preparation. Private buyers and PE firms diligence founders hard, and weak governance, informal related-party arrangements, or unclear ownership structures get discovered and priced against you. This is the same discipline we cover when advising founders on whether to scale regionally now or wait out uncertainty — timing a capital event to your operational readiness, not the other way round.
When the real answer is succession planning, not fundraising
A meaningful share of the “we need to raise” conversations we have are, underneath, succession conversations wearing a fundraising costume. The founder is tired, there’s no obvious successor, and a listing or sale feels like the only exit. Often it isn’t. Structured succession — bringing in professional management, restructuring ownership across family members, or building a holding structure that separates operating risk from family wealth — can solve the continuity problem without triggering a premature capital event or an undervalued sale.
Getting the underlying corporate structure right matters here too. Founders sometimes discover mid-negotiation that their holding entity, subsidiary arrangements, or cross-border structure (see our note on choosing between an Sdn Bhd and a branch office) complicates due diligence far more than expected. Fixing structural issues before a capital raise or sale process starts is cheaper and faster than fixing them mid-negotiation.
How we advise founders through this decision
Our approach starts with the same three-way split above: capital, exit, or succession. From there we stress-test the business against whichever route looks most likely — governance readiness for a listing, growth narrative for private investors, or ownership clarity for a trade sale or succession plan. We’d rather spend a session telling a founder their business isn’t ready for LEAP or PE yet, and what to fix first, than watch them burn six months on a process that stalls at diligence.
Frequently asked questions
Is Bursa’s LEAP Market only for tech companies?
No. LEAP was designed broadly for SMEs seeking capital markets access with lighter requirements than ACE or Main Market, not exclusively for technology firms. What matters more than sector is whether the business has a credible growth narrative and the governance maturity to operate as a public company, even with a restricted investor base.
Can a family business use LEAP Market listing to solve a succession problem?
Not directly. A listing raises capital and can bring in professional oversight, but it doesn’t by itself resolve who runs the business day-to-day. If the core issue is leadership continuity rather than capital, succession restructuring should happen first or alongside any listing plan.
How much dilution should a founder expect from a private equity raise versus a LEAP listing?
It varies by deal size and valuation, but private equity investors typically negotiate for board influence and protective terms alongside their equity stake, while a LEAP listing usually leaves founders with a larger retained stake since sophisticated investors buy into a public offer rather than negotiating bespoke control terms. Every deal is different, and this is exactly the kind of structuring question worth modelling before choosing a route.
What should we fix before approaching any of these routes?
Governance clarity, clean ownership records, and a growth or continuity narrative you can defend under scrutiny. These three issues cause more delays and valuation discounts in Malaysian SME deals than almost anything else we see.
Choosing between a LEAP Market listing, private capital, a trade sale, or a succession restructuring is a strategic decision, not a paperwork exercise — and the wrong route costs more than the time it takes to get advice first. Book a free strategy call with OMO to map the right path for your business.