Has SEBI gone completely wrong here?

May 14, 2010

In this issue:
» Higher capital requirements from mutual funds
» Agriculture sector has staged a quick recovery
» RBI not intervening in Rupee movements
» US$ 11 bn debt fund for India's infrastructure
» ...and more!

---------------------------- Crash Proof Your Portfolio Now! ----------------------------
This message requires your urgent attention... because if you choose to act on it, you could not only save a lot of money when the next crash hits the stock market but actually profit from it.
But you need to act on this now. This opportunity will disappear forever in the next few days...
Click here for full details...

One great feature of capitalism is that it unleashes human potential. It is the closest thing to a meritocracy. But not always. There is a tendency for power to concentrate. For the wealthy to get wealthier. It is here that that role of regulators becomes critical. To ensure a level playing field. To promote as much competition as possible.

Stock markets are integral to a capitalist economy. And we admire India's stock market regulator, SEBI's initiatives in promoting transparency and competition. SEBI is now proposing higher capital requirements for mutual funds, investment banks and brokers. The minimum net worth requirement for mutual funds used to be Rs 100 m. It has now been increased five times to Rs 500 m.

The apparent reason is that mutual funds will be able to absorb more losses if they have higher capital. But we think SEBI has got it completely wrong this time. Quantity does not always assure quality. After all, weren't all the firms that caused the global financial crisis, very large? We think, by hiking the net worth requirement, SEBI will create a high entry barrier. One that only the wealthy can cross. Not necessarily the most talented. It will end up promoting a rich boys' club beyond the reach of many. But this is just our view. Tell us what you think of this move by SEBI.

 Chart of the day
Monsoon rains may come 10 days early this year, a former chief of India's meteorological department says. Given how important the monsoons are for India's agriculture and in turn its economy, we hope he is right. We also decided to see how accurate the predictions of the met department have been over the last several years. As today's chart of the day shows, the met department's predictions have usually been correct. But they do get it wrong from time to time. Like last year. Hopefully, their prediction of 98% normal rains this year will come good. We wonder though, when will India be stop being so dependent on the whims of the weather gods.

Source: PTI

Decoupled it may not be but it is certainly unruffled. This description, courtesy the Financial Times, sits rather lightly on the economy of Asia ex-Japan. And why not. The economies of the developed world have gone into a long snooze. Whereas Asia, ex-Japan, is behaving as though the crisis never happened.

But isn't the difference in the two economic zones baffling? After all, even the developed world unleashed stimuli just as quickly as the Asian economies. The difference perhaps lies in the manner in which the consumers of the two zones behaved. Developed economies had overleveraged consumers and overleveraged governments. However, these concerns are not anywhere close to being equally big in emerging Asia. Thus, when either the governments or the consumers or both loosened their purse strings, growth followed.

Furthermore, even penetration levels of a lot of goods and services are abysmally low in emerging Asia. This provides a further fillip to growth. However, things are gradually beginning to heat up. Supply is failing to catch up with demand at the same time the Asian central banks are adopting a loose monetary policy approach. They may have to tighten up a bit more or else inflation and asset bubbles could rear up their heads yet again. From a long term though, Asia's future does look as bright as ever, especially in China and India.

Globally, banks are now reporting their performance for FY10. The focus has once again shifted to entities in emerging markets. Interestingly, Economist has published a report on how banks in emerging economies could face the same set of problems as their global peers. The report at the outset acknowledges the inherent strength of Indian, Chinese and Brazilian banks. Be it their improved efficiency, better asset quality or larger size. But it also points out that their attempt to expand globally may come at a high cost.

The BRIC-originated banks are seen as the engines of growth for global economy. At the same time, the crisis in the West has done a lot of good to their reputation. Primarily, because they are gatherers of large savings rather than givers of large loans like their peers in the West. But they are also expected to face as much resistance in establishing a global presence as did the American and European banks. As it is, globalization of banking is no more a sought-after model as it once used to be.

It is India's biggest need of the hour and its biggest bane, both at the same time. Infrastructure, or the lack of it, is perhaps India's biggest bottleneck at this moment. From power to roads, and from ports to sanitation, everything is in a state of disarray. The good news is that as per a recent report, the government is planning to set up a large US$ 11 bn debt fund dedicated to India's infrastructure needs. While the specifics are still being worked out, the basic idea is slated to be the refinancing of lending institutions. While the thought surely seems noble, what remains to be seen is how far the government carries through with this idea on a consistent note.

Gone are those days when the RBI felt compelled to intervene regularly in the forex markets. What else would explain the fact that the RBI has stayed on the sidelines from December 2009 to March 2010. This is its longest hiatus since mid 2006. The central bank now intends to intervene only if there is considerable volatility in the rupee. Even speculative activities fuelling gyrations in the currency would be strong enough reason for the central bank to step in. However, the RBI is not particularly concerned with the rupee levels. Or whether the Indian unit has been strengthening or weakening.

Various other macroeconomic indicators have also begun to form the basis for RBI's intervention. These are the dollar's performance against global majors and movement of Asian currencies. India's monetary policy when assessing rupee volatility would also have a bearing. Thus, it appears that the central bank's tolerance for volatility in the rupee has increased. This means that Indian corporates may have to brace themselves for possibly more fluctuations in the forex market. The RBI certainly does not want to participate as actively as it once did.

Some good news for people reeling under food inflation. In a confidence boosting announcement, the agriculture minister, has said that India will be in a position to export sugar and wheat next year. After the worst monsoon in 37 years, this would mean that the agriculture sector has staged a quick recovery and supply would outstrip demand. However, all this would depend on a normal monsoon this year. While food inflation has been increasing week on week, a timely start of the monsoons would act as a trigger for cooling of food prices.

Meanwhile, the BSE-Sensex languished deep in the red today despite sporadic attempts to recoup its losses during the day. At the time of writing, the BSE-Sensex was trading 120 points below the dotted line. Profit booking amongst metal, energy, realty, banking and auto sectors resulted in the plunge. As for global markets, most other Asian markets ended the day lower, while the European markets are also currently trading in the red.

 Today's investing mantra
"In the stock market the more elaborate and abstruse the mathematics the more uncertain and speculative are the conclusions we draw there from." - Benjamin Graham

Today's Premium Edition.

Recent Articles

All Good Things Come to an End... April 8, 2020
Why your favourite e-letter won't reach you every week day.
A Safe Stock to Lockdown Now April 2, 2020
The market crashc has made strong, established brands attractive. Here's a stock to make the most of this opportunity...
One Stock that is All Charged Up for the Post Coronavirus Rebound April 1, 2020
A stock with strong moat is currently trading near 5-year lows.
Sorry Warren Buffett, I'm Following This Man Instead of You in 2020 March 30, 2020
This man warned of an impending market correction while everyone else was celebrating the renewed optimism in early 2020...

Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Has SEBI gone completely wrong here?". Click here!

81 Responses to "Has SEBI gone completely wrong here?"


May 24, 2010

I agree that with higher capital requirements, SEBI may not be doing the right thing. Instead insistence on expertise, staff and resources in a regulatory regime may make more sense. If the idea is to have sufficient capability to handle losses, then study the best practices worldwide and implement rules that pragmatically can cover losses.



May 19, 2010

I look at this issue from an other angle.
Firstly, there should be entry and exit load for any scheme offered to investors. This is the mangmt fee with which fund managers need for their existance.

Non performing funds should be penalised : for example
managers should be asked to contribute twice the %age erosion of NAV from their own net worth in percentage terms.cut off period should be kept as 1 year end from date of issue and so on.....
Low entry barrier may be fixed --but imprisonment clauses should be included for anyone starting a Fund.
It will ensure that talented and confident people and not manipulators would enter the scene.
Keep in mind, the great scamsters of the world all started poor but were very talented.
So talent does not assure integrity & character.
SEBI should disclose their balance sheet in public just as they require others to do so.
this is enough for now.



May 17, 2010

Well, I do not exactly subscribe to the view. Another way of looking at it would be that it would encourage only serious players to come forward and launch mutual funds. Today we see the smaller and newer funds houses who had launched mutual funds considering the small net worth requirement and now there are not moving much either in terms of activity or performance. Smaller investors who invested in this funds are left with little option.



May 17, 2010




May 17, 2010

Has SEBI got it wrong this time? Views on both sides are visible and quite valid too. My take is that SEBI needs to take a balanced view and regulate the MF end of the market without throttling it. NW limit on the lower side is indeed desirable and at the same time tends to restrict smaller palyers to the "Club" One way of tackling this is by specifying NW in some proportion of Assets under Management. This way, smaller players can have their own field with adequate capital for safety.


Manish Shah

May 16, 2010

I agree with you, bigger is not always better, SEBI should have find some better ways to promote good practices, although atleast SEBI is becoming active, hope for the better.



May 16, 2010

We are not fools, we the 1 billion population in India are not fools to believe that everything is depending upon the Monsoon! These are the lazy dumps who in power does not do anything good for the people but leave it on to fate! that's the Great Monsoon! Shame for us, isn't it?



May 16, 2010

Correct me if I am wrong, but normally in case of sudden wholesale redemption by many customers drives down the NAV disadvantaging those customers who are still unitholders. So,I think higher NW mutual funds
will be able to absorb such shocks better. also in terms of stability, it will be much better--like we saw many schemes of reputed MF's such as JM were closed during the recent downturn. So,I think it is an excellent move by SEBI in the right direction. Of course, size does,nt guarantee good corporate performance,but at least it will eliminate the non-genuine operators. As far as comparing the failure of big fund houses abroad is concerned, you have been repeatedly saying that SEBI has good system of checks and balances in place, so I don't feel that is a valid point. By the way, normally you are very supportive of SEBI's reforms, so in this case why the protest? is it beacuse Quantum MF is affected? regds


Harvinder Singh

May 16, 2010

You are absolutely right. The role of SEBI should be to foster healthy competition, not to bar competition.



May 15, 2010

I think your views are absolutely correct, quantity does not assure quality. By increasing net worth requirement to 500 m SEBI is creating barrier for small investment companies. It should focus more on transparency rather than creating such barrier.

Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Has SEBI gone completely wrong here?". Click here!