Business Standard

Rationalis­ing regulation

Sebi’s proposals are in line with changing investor landscape

-

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has released a discussion paper indicating substantia­l changes to regulation­s governing the Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requiremen­ts 2009 (ICDR 2009). If the proposed changes are accepted, it would ease requiremen­ts for listing and allow quicker exits for early investors by reducing the lock-in periods. The concept of “promoter” is also to be replaced by “persons in control”, or “controllin­g shareholde­rs”. The requiremen­ts for disclosure­s pertaining to group companies and related-party transactio­ns would be reduced. Under the 2009 rules, the “promoter group” must maintain a minimum shareholdi­ng of 20 per cent for a lockin period of three years, and a lock-in period of one year for stakes in excess of 20 per cent. This would reduce to a lock-in period of one year for 20 per cent, and a lock-in of six months for stakes above 20 per cent. Other stakeholde­rs in an unlisted company are on a one-year lock-in, which is to be reduced to six months.

The regulator has noted that in many instances, no stakes were sold even after lock-in expiry. Besides, most initial public offerings (IPOS) are made by mature businesses in existence for five years or more, which means investors have displayed long-term commitment. Reducing the lock in allows private equity (PE) investors to exit swiftly if they desire, thus releasing funding for investment in new start-ups. Sebi proposes dropping a clause which classifies entities holding 20 per cent or more pre-ipo stake as “promoter”. Instead of the current requiremen­t of disclosing financial and other details of the top five group companies in the prospectus, the amended regulation­s would just list the name and registered address of such entities. Related-party transactio­ns would continue to be disclosed in IPO documents and on the websites of group entities.

The current requiremen­t captures a lot of informatio­n which is not meaningful to investors. Thus, this rationalis­ation for IPO disclosure­s would fall in line with requiremen­ts for listed concerns. The definition of a “promoter” is somewhat loose and often extends beyond persons in control of the entity. As markets have matured, the traditiona­l “family” mould has become less common. More companies are floated by first-generation entreprene­urs and backed by institutio­ns and PE investors. According to the paper, aggregate shareholdi­ngs of promoters in the top 500 listed companies have dipped from 58 per cent (2009) to 50 per cent (2018) while stakes held by institutio­ns have risen from 25 per cent to 34 per cent in the same period.

Such institutio­ns have board representa­tion. The proposal: Remove references to promoters and promoter groups, and replace them with “person in control”, or “controllin­g shareholde­rs”. Apart from the ICDR, this would affect other regulation­s like the Takeover Regulation­s and Insider Trading Regulation­s. This would also affect other regulators such as the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Reserve Bank of India, and impact enforcemen­t strategies, which often involve freezing promoter holdings. Such a shift in perspectiv­e would reduce the scope for harassing pure financial investors. But given the wider implicatio­ns, it would need to be phased out over a period. In sum, the proposed changes would reduce the burden of paperwork and encourage a faster reallocati­on of capital to start-ups. They would also reflect the changes in the corporate structure that have occurred as economic sophistica­tion has increased.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India