Citizens' Issues
Bizarre clean chit to Indian corporates by Transparency International

Transparency International has come up with an absurd report on corruption and transparency. The report ranks companies like Reliance Industries and Bharti Airtel ahead of Infosys and Wipro! Even Vedanta is supposedly more “transparent” than Infosys! Among the clean companies is Hindalco and Suzlon! What were Transparency International researchers smoking?

Transparency International (TI), a reputed organisation that measures the levels of corruption around the world, has come up with a report titled ‘Transparency in Corporate Reporting: Assessing Emerging Market Multinationals’, on corporate reporting in emerging markets. Its conclusions based on a ranking of three parameters—corporate anti-corruption programmes , organisational transparency and country-by-country reporting—will come as a shock to anyone who knows anything about corporate governance in India including disclosure and transparency. Tainted companies like the Vedanta come ahead of Infosys. Other dubious entries in the elite list include Reliance Industries and Suzlon! Reliance is ahead of even Wipro. TI calls companies like these “rising stars of the world economy”.
 

Of the 20 Indian companies featured, as many as six Tata companies were rated as paragons of transparency in corporate reporting. They are (in order): Tata Communications, Tata Global Beverages, Tata Steel, Tata Chemicals, Tata Motors, Tata Consultancy Services. How is it possible that TCS ranks below Tata Communications? At the bottom of the list, far below Vedanta, Reliance and Suzlon is Bajaj Auto, an excellent company as  far as ashareholders, creditors, customers and other stakeholders are concerned.
 

This exceptional clean chit to the Tatas comes at a time when the Supreme Court has asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate 14 specific issues based on the controversial Niira Radia tapes and various parties, of which Tata is one of them. The Tata Group, then led by Ratan Tata, was embroiled in the Niira Radia affair, where evidence of corporate lobbying was spilled out to the public and revealed that he was trying to influence the Telecom Ministry. Similarly, Bharti Airtel is also embroiled in the 2G mess. And there is Vedanta Group, which were trying hard to get permits to dislocate tribals of Odisha to build a bauxite mine in the environmentally sensitive area. Environmental activists protested and held a campaign titled ‘Foil Vedanta’ outside the company’s headquarters in London. Reliance Industries led by Mukesh Ambani, too has been embroiled in the Niira Radia affair.
 

Also figuring in the list is Hindalco, an Aditya Birla Group company which is now embroiled in the coal scam. The CBI filed a first information report (FIR) against coal secretary PC Parakh and also named Kumar Mangalam Birla, for alleged corruption for allotment of coal blocks in Odisha. More shockingly, as much as Rs25 crore of unaccounted cash was discovered in the office premises in Delhi. The company officials pretend to are clueless about this.
 

One must wonder if this was a sponsored report. TI put a note on the fourth page that read: “Companies covered in this report may support Transparency International chapters worldwide”. Is it paid research?
 

The three metrics used in the in this report were:
 

# Reporting on anti-corruption programmes (ACP): covering inter alia bribery, facilitation payments, whistleblower protection and political contributions
 

# Organisational transparency (OT): including information about corporate holdings
 

# Country-by-country reporting (CBC): including revenues, capital expenditure and tax payments
 

There was an interesting side note disclosed by TI which read: “Transparency International has not undertaken to verify whether information disclosed on (company) websites or in (company) reports is complete or correct. In other words, if a company publishes what it refers to as ‘a full list of its fully consolidated material subsidiaries’ this has been accepted at face value and scored accordingly. In addition, it is beyond the scope of this research to judge levels of integrity in company practices.”
 

What is remarkable is that TI has succeeded in blurring the definition of ‘transparency’ (or corporate governance, if you will). Because, the next statement reads: “Rather, the research focuses solely on reporting on transparency and anti-corruption in corporate policies and procedures, which Transparency International believes are crucial elements in ensuring good corporate governance and mitigating the risk of corruption.”
 

So, since TI cannot rate companies’ integrity practices it focuses only on reporting and disclosure, and uses the last two as proxy for transparency.
 

Therefore, it would seem that TI has no clue whether companies like Vedanta or Tata Communications are unethical or have shady corporate governance practices. TI probably has no idea about the Niira Radia scandal or the concerns Vedanta generates about its environmental practices. It has rated on the premise that companies like these simply disclosed something, say in company’s documentations such as annual reports and have simply ticked off boxes in their questionnaire.
 

It is well known in India that regulation is abysmal as is corporate governance general. In fact, in a disclosure-based regime, SEBI has failed abysmally to get companies to toe its line or protect investors. Many Indian savers and investors are still groping in the dark when it comes to investment matters due wrong practices on the ground, never mind disclosures on paper.
 

Even corporate auditing has gone for a toss as evidenced in the recent Gujarat NRE coke case as well as Financial Technologies, where auditing irregularities were found. Yet, TI says, “Companies from India performed the best overall among the BRICS with a score of 54% on the strength of their performance on country-by-country reporting.”
 

TI picked only 100 companies from 16 countries worldwide, all from BRICs region, of which 20 Indian companies were featured in the list. Interestingly, it did not select these companies on its own. It used Boston Consulting Group list of Global Challengers 2011. The TI report said that it hopes that these companies will set benchmark in transparency. It said, “In view of the growing economic and political clout of emerging markets and the rapid advances of emerging market companies both domestically and across borders, the hope is that these Global Challengers will adhere not only to applicable legal and regulatory standards but that they will go above and beyond them to achieve the highest standards of ethics and transparency.” Multinational companies like ITC and Hindustan Unilever—both high on corporate governance—have been left out.
 

Interestingly, Chinese companies were the worst of all. TI found that nine out of the 11 worst performers are incorporated in China.

 

Transparency International has been at the forefront of promoting transparency around the world but its own actions has been often suspect. According to top investigative journalist Chitra Subramaniam, TI was silent on the Bofors scam when the bribe giver was Sweden. Yet, year after year, Sweden has been rated one of the corrupt-free nations in Transparency International reports. Switzerland, which helps rogues stash wealth secretly, also routinely figures high on their list.
 

A full summary of only Indian companies is disclosed below, with their scores:

 

COMPANY

ACP

OT

CBC

INDEX

Tata Communications

92%

88%

34%

7.1

Tata Global Beverages

92%

75%

31%

6.6

Tata Steel

92%

75%

30%

6.6

Bharti Airtel

85%

75%

34%

6.4

Tata Chemicals

81%

75%

30%

6.2

Mahindra & Mahindra

73%

81%

30%

6.1

Tata Motors

77%

75%

29%

6.0

Tata Consultancy Services

85%

75%

17%

5.9

Reliance Industries

65%

75%

30%

5.7

Wipro

77%

63%

30%

5.7

Lupin Limited

42%

75%

38%

5.2

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories

50%

75%

25%

5.0

Vedanta Resources

92%

44%

10%

4.9

Infosys Technologies

77%

38%

30%

4.8

Suzlon Energy

54%

56%

32%

4.7

Hindalco Industries

35%

75%

30%

4.7

Larsen & Toubro

19%

81%

26%

4.2

Crompton Greaves

23%

75%

26%

4.1

Bharat Forge

15%

75%

33%

4.1

Bajaj Auto

31%

38%

30%

3.3

ACP: anti-corruption practices  ; OT: organisation transparency  ; CBC: country-by-country reporting

 

The overall list of all 100 companies can be found here:
 

User

COMMENTS

darshan singh

3 years ago

You have brought out real facts about Tata.I have servered in es Tata teleservices for 13 yrs.I have taken up with the Minority Commissioner below issues which are self explanatory.

To,
The Minorities Commissioner,
Behind JJ School of Arts,
Near CST Railway Stn.
BadruddinTayabji Marg,
Fort, Mumbai 400001

Discharge from employment by the employer-
Tata teleservices ( Maharashtra) Ltd
Sir,
The petitioner , Commander Darshan Singh Randhawa(Retd), Age 58 yrs. s/o Bhagwan Singh , a keshdhari sikh ,residing at K-41 Jal Vayu Vihar, Hirananadani Gardens, Powai Mumbai.The petitioner is domiciled in state of Maharashtra, copy of the certificate attached.The petitioner was employed in the Tata Teleservices having employee no. 1831,was working as an Internal Auditor, at their office at D-26/2 TTC Industrial Area MIDC Sanpada PO Turbhe Navi Mumbai 400703, having their registered office at Voltas Premises, TB Kadam Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400033,herein after mentioned as respondent.
The services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect by the respondent company vide there impugned letter dated 02 December 2013, copy attached. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as a Senior Manager Security by M/S Hughes Telecom on 2nd,January 2001. That company was taken over by the respondent company namely Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd, which is a public limited company in 2003 and the petitioner continued to work in various capacities doing the supervisory tasks for which he was recruited for till January 2013.There was no contract signed between the petitioner and the respondents after the petitioner became its employee when the petitioner’s company namely M/S Hughes Telecom was taken over by the respondent company.
The petitioner during his 13 yrs of service in M/S Hughes Telecom and Tata Teleservices ( Maharashtra) Ltd was Head of Business Ethics, Chief Vigilance officer, Head Security, Chief Nodal officer etc. He along with his team of about 10 employees inquired into many incidents of fraud and exposed company officials who were involved in fake telephone bookings on forged documents, billing frauds, employing ghost employees, misappropriating company property and cash, cheating company whilst acquiring sites for cellular towers, fake bill collections etc. The petitioner was applauded for exposing various scams in the company and was awarded for significant contributions to the company in May 2011, certificate attached. However various changes in the management took place and people with vested and selfish interest started yielding power who were adverse to getting exposed in various frauds/scams. To achieve their nefarious designs they slowly started dismantling appellant’s team by transferring the petitioner’s team members to various departments, who were totally dedicated and trained by the petitioner. The petitioner himself was transferred to internal audit department without any formal training in February 2013, without any of his subordinates reporting to him.
The petitioner was asked to report to a supervisor, in the internal audit department who was much younger in age and had spent less time in the company as compared with the petitioner. It is very evident from the job assigned to the petitioner that he was doing a clerical work in the company w.e.f. February 2013. He did not have any administrative/ managerial or supervisory powers over any body. He as an internal auditor had no independent right or authority to take any decision .The petitioner was not given any training for the new assignment as an internal auditor. All this was done to degrade the petitioner and harass him so that he voluntarily resigns and leaves the company. The petitioner is now 58 years age, it is not possible to search for a new job at this age, the market conditions are not suitable to find a suitable job at this age by the petitioner. Inspite of the humiliation meted out to the petitioner, he did not resign from the company although there was lot of pressure on him to resign. The petitioner craves leave to produce the required proof, if desired.
As the petitioner did not resign, the respondents found an ingenious method to terminate him by surreptitiously declaring him as a poor performer. To achieve the same, the petitioner was appraised by his supervisor; Head of the Internal audit department on 31 March 2013, i.e. within one months of joining as an Internal Auditor. The petitioner was given a low rating as G3 by his supervisor. The petitioner was not happy with the low rating and informed his supervisor that he does not agree with the rating given by him in a short period of one month of his joining in the Internal Audit department. In such a situation as per the procedure laid down by the company, the Human resources department should have intervened to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and his supervisor. However nothing was done as there was a tacit understanding between them to terminate the petitioner by fraudulently declaring him as a poor performer . To add insult to the injury, the petitioner’s appraisal was moderated by HR department and further reduced. The petitioner was finally given low rating as G2P2, the same is attached.
Due to a low rating in the appraisal, the petitioner was put on the Performance Enhancement programme in short PEP, as per the procedure laid down by the company for poor performers. The petitioner wrote a detailed e-mail to his supervisor recording his apprehensions for the PEP, the same is attached. No action was taken by the company on the same as the same was according to their pre-plan. On the hind side, it is now apparent to the petitioner that the PEP was a sham exercise lasting for about 12 weeks to declare the him as a non performer. The petitioner worked hard and put in lot of efforts and submitted his performance of 12 weeks to his supervisor. The supervisor without any application of mind declared the petitioner as poor performer.
As per the procedure laid down by the company for in the PEP, the supervisor alone can not declare the petitioner as poor performer. He can only recommend to the Head of the Department who is authorised to declare the petitioner as poor-performer after he interviews him and hears him and is satisfied that the petitioner was really a poor-performer. After all the formalities a document is signed by , the supervisor , the Head of the Department and the petitioner declaring him as a poor-performer.This procedure was not followed by the respondents. The petitioner has not signed the final PEP report along with his supervisor and Head of department. Further the PEP procedure also lays down that all the reports of the PEP would be audited including the document signed by the petitioner, his supervisor and the Head of the Department. Hence to declare an employee as a poor-performer the procedure as laid by the company was not been followed, the petitioner has been declared as a poor-performer unilaterally by his supervisor , who had little experience in the company as compared to the petitioner. Hence , declaring the petitioner as poor performance is void ab initio. From the above narrative it is quite apparent that the petitioner’s transfer to the internal audit department was with a mala-fide intend to declare him a poor performer and terminate him. The petitioner in this petition is challenging his termination being discriminatory ,arbitrary, mala-fide and based upon extraneous reasons as stated above.
The petitioner submits that prior to joining the present company he served for 23 yrs. in the Indian Navy as a commissioned officer and retired as a commander. In this company the petitioner worked in the supervisory capacity for 12 years but was forced to work as a clerk from February 2013 in the internal audit of the company under a totally inexperienced supervisor. It was a totally new job as an internal auditor without any training. The petitioner was never recruited to perform internal audit duties but to do jobs like Head physical security, Chief vigilance officer, Head Business Ethics, Chief Nodal officer , these are the supervisory jobs which he performed after he retired from the Indian Navy in the company for 12 years and his performance was above average. It is pertinent to mention that the jobs which the petitioner was recruited to perform are still being performed by different employees in the company. It was with total mala-fide intend that the petitioner was asked to perform a totally new job of an internal auditor without any formal training so as to declared him as a poor-performer. The contract signed by the petitioner and Hughes Telecom became a nullity after he was removed from a supervisor job and transferred to work as an internal auditor as the terms of his employment were changed unilaterally without any notice to the petitioner .
As per the company policy an employee can work up to superannuation age of 60 years. The petitioner would have superannuated in January 2016 ( in about 2 years time ), however the company mala-fidely terminated the services of the petitioner as a poor-performer immediately vide their impugned letter ibid. It is submitted that there is no provision under any laws to terminate an employee for poor-performance after 13 years of service. Such a termination is a colourable exercise, victimization of the petitioner and violation of his fundamental rights . An employee can be terminated on disciplinary grounds or discharged due to continue ill heath, an inquiry is held for the same. There is no provision to discharge/ dismiss an employee for poor-performance. Depriving an employee his livelihood without following the procedures as laid down in various laws is termed as unfair labour practices. The petitioner above mentioned was discharged/terminated/retrenched by the respondent industry without following any procedure as laid down in various laws of the land.
The petitioner was verbally informed the Circle HR Head on 7 November 2013 that he would be discharged from the Company for poor-performance with three months notice period payment. The petitioner has written to the Circle HR Head about his illegal discharge vide his e-mail dated 11 November 2013 the same is attached.The respondent have not answered to any of the petitioner’s contentions in their impugned letter ibid.
Depriving the petitioner the right to work and live with dignity by the respondents is violation his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have been sacking their employees since last two years but have been given severance packages depending upon their length of service, however the petitioner has been denied the same which is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The respondent’s vengeful and discriminatory attitude is further apparent from the below illegal actions. The appellant during his employment was given mobile no. 9223405305 and photon no.9223765458 for official use and the company paid for their usage. The appellant took mobile no.9223419894 for usage by his family members and he paid for its usage himself. All the above telephones were disconnected on 20 January 2014 suddenly, without any intimation to the petitioner. The appellant had given his official e-mail for getting the bills for the above telephones. The appellant’s official e-mail was blocked on 3 December 2013 and he stopped getting the bills for the above telephones as the same were being received on his official e-mail. Even when the appellant did not receive the bills for the telephones he has paid Rs1500/- on 11 Jan14 vide cheque no.151583 of Punjab National Bank although the bill amount was about Rs600/-.To prevent any disturbance in the telephone services for mobile no.9223419894.
As stated above the petitioner is on notice period from 3 December 2013, during the said period he is fully entitled to all the perks, pay, allowances, privileges etc. as an employee. The notice period duration is deemed to be employment for all practical purposes. The notice period payments have not been credited by the company till date, none payment of his dues and denying the appellant use of his official mobile no.9223405305 and photon no.9223765458 smacks of total vengeful and high handedness on part of the company in which the appellant served for about 13 yrs. Disconnecting the above telephones without any intimation is against the rules of natural justice , DOT policy and the company policy. All employees are entitled to retain their mobile nos. even on separation provided they fill up fresh CAFs ( customer application forms) and are willing to pay for the usage.The appellant went to the Company store at Vashi for activating the illegally disconnected telephone nos. And filled new CAFs( customer application forms) He was informed that telephone no. 9223405305 can not be given to him as the same has been removed from the system. The appellant has been using the said mobile no. since last 10 years and all his relatives, friends, banking transactions etc.are done using the said mobile. Mobile no.9223419894 which was being used by the appellant’s family on a Black Berry hand set could not be activated on the Blackberry hand set as the hand set is non reum, he was given a fresh sim card and charged Rs400/- for reactivation and cost of the sim card for telephone no. 9223419894.The fresh sim card is not at all useful to the appellant as the same can not be used in the blackberry hand set. Hence both the mobile nos. are not available to the appellant from 20 January 2014. The photon has been activated under a new no. 9223106244.
Due to illegal disconnection of the appellant’s telephones as stated above, during the notice period has caused him lot of agony and pain, he is unable to communicate with his relatives and friends. All his financial transactions have stopped. None payments of the dues to the appellant is causing him further distress.
The above illegal acts by the respondents smacks of total arbitrariness, highhandedness on their part, total prejudice and discriminatory behaviour against the petitioner. The petitioner being a keshdhari sikh, a person belonging to minority community and a veteran from the Indian Navy was singled out for a special ill-treatment. The respondent as per their corporate social responsibility are to employee members of minority community and diverse back grounds so that they have employees from varied backgrounds. However in the case of the petitioner the respondents have shown irresponsible corporate behaviour by terminating the services of the petitioner who servered them for 13 years and was illegally terminated at a ripe age of 58years.
In view of the above the petitioner prays that the respondent’s irresponsible corporate and illegal behaviour against a minority community and veteran petitioner be inquired into and relief as deemed suitable be provided.
Yours Sincerely

Commander Darshan Singh Randhawa(Retd)
The petitioner above named

Encl: As above

RS Software reports healthy 22% increase in net profit

Despite a marginal increase in expenditure, RS Software announces a rise in profit driven by a 23% rise in income

RS software India, a Kolkata-based software company reported 23% increase in net income at Rs9,550 lakh for the quarter ended 30th September 2013 as against Rs7,752 lakh for the same quarter last year.

 

The company shows a formidable rise of 22% of net profit as the figures rose from Rs948 lakh to Rs1,160 lakh for the current quarter.

 

The total expenditure of the company including the employee cost, depreciation and amortisation costs increased to Rs7,570 lakh for the current period from Rs6,482 lakh in the previous quarter.  

 

The company announced at its Board meeting an interim dividend of 25% for financial year 2013-14.

 

On Friday, RS Software’s shares closed at Rs139.65 which is down by 1.72%, while the benchmark S&P BSE Sensex closed at 20,882.89 points up by 2.29%.

User

SEBI’s bizarre claim: It has a great complaint handling system!

SEBI chairman has written to the Maharashtra government that it has a well-oiled system of handling complaints and it should be used instead of police action in cases of disputes involving securities and stock exchange. This is a laughable claim, given how faulty SEBI’s grievance handling mechanism is, as Moneylife has pointed out repeatedly.

Mr UK Sinha, chairman of The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), has written to state chief secretary Jayant Banthia, that complaints were being lodged with the police against brokers without exploring SEBI’s complaint marvellous handling system. The SEBI chief mentioned that they have a “well-oiled grievance redressal mechanism in place, which aggrieved persons can access to settle disputes. But clients often approach police even before availing of the redressal mechanism, or when disputes are still being resolved at the stock exchange.” Mr Sinha’s claim about SEBI’s system called SCORES (SEBI Complaints Redressal System) is laughable. If it was indeed effective, aggrieved investors would have chosen it as the first and only route and SEBI would have had a long list of success stories to talk about.
 

Those who have filed complaints through SEBI’s grievance redressal system would know that the regulator rarely investigates the complaint and merely functions like a post office. It passes it on to the accused broker or company for their reply and resolution, functioning more like an 'in and out' mail system. With poor redressal of complaints, investors would have found it easier to approach the police.
 

Investors’ complaints filed with the market regulator either remain unheard, or are disposed off with vague replies. Moneylife has had a direct experience of this. What SEBI could not care less is that the grievance redressal mechanism is so poor and fraught with delays that the investor gets harassed even more in the bargain. The brokers get away scot-free or with a minor punishment, and it is not long before they get back to their malpractices. This is one of the main reasons why the investor population is dwindling. (Read: Does SEBI really pay any heed to investors’ complaints?)
 

Last year, we wrote about the harrowing tale of a 78-year old veteran from the Air Force, whose life savings was wiped out at Motilal Oswal Securities by using a forged power of attorney (PoA). SEBI, which is mandated by law to protect investors, made no attempt to contact senior citizen, but simply accepted the submissions made by Central Depository Services (CDSL) and Motilal Oswal Securities, without even looking at the correspondence exchanged between the 78-year old, despite knowing that he has a ruling from a District Consumer Redressal Forum against MOSL regarding the forged Power of Attorney (PoA). (Read: Wiped out by Motilal Oswal, shunned by a callous SEBI & ministry, the 78-year old's fight continues, Wiped out by Motilal Oswal, an aggrieved small investor won in consumer court but got shafted by SEBI)
 

Similarly, Moneylife has written in the past about how letters from retired Union Secretaries like EAS Sarma, specifically addressed to SEBI chairman UK Sinha, were dumped into the automated redressal system called SCORES leading to a similarly mindless response to him. Mr Sarma, in his letter to the SEBI chairman (Mr Sinha) had questioned about non-disclosures by Reliance Industries (RIL) regarding the Krishna Godavari (KG) basin reserves. Instead of a proper reply, SEBI sent an automated reply to the former secretary in a tome and language, which ensures that the market regulator could wash its hands off any responsibility of responding. In its response, SEBI said: “Please note that while the entity (RIL) is directly responsible for redressal of your complaint, SEBI initiates action against recalcitrant entities on the grounds of their unsatisfactory redressal of investor complaints as a whole”. (Read: What is wrong with SEBI's treatment of investors?, Does SEBI understand difference between a complaint and suggestion?)
 

Moneylife has been regularly writing about SEBI's hands-off approach on complaints and investors' grievances. (Read: 'Investor interest: SEBI's hands-off approach'.) SCORES is a "web-based centralised system for the speedy redressal of grievances" that was launched in the last few days of the tenure of former chairman CB Bhave. (Read: 'Complaints redressal: SEBI's high cost experiment'.) Its scores pretty low in investor’s experience. Mr Sinha would do well open his eyes and ears to what it happening on the ground before dashing off letters with tall claims.

User

COMMENTS

Anupam Saraph

2 years ago

SEBI's "SCORES" complaint management system does not allow complainants to keep a copy of the complaint they file. It merely sends them a complaint number.

In my own experience, SEBI has not replied to my complaint even after two months.

Instead I got a reply from the MF Institution whose business process I complained about justifying their business process.

It appears that SEBI cannot protect the investors, rather it protects the private interests of the Mutual Fund Institutions.

Sweena Jain

3 years ago

Its Joke of Millennium.

Vaibhav Dhoka

3 years ago

Chairman's move is to insulate brokers from any wrongdoing,brokers have grown with SEBI officials blessings. Chairman has hefty pay-package and he is least concerned about about small investors.With SEBI's inaction small investor is running away from Stock market and Mutual fund investment.As IPO market is dead so will be scene at stock exchanges and Mutual funds.SCORES is used to throw out investors complaint.

Nilesh KAMERKAR

3 years ago

Less than 3% of Indian household savings gets invested into Indian equities.

The failure of RGESS is more to do with people's lack of faith in the regulator than in equities.

Sensex is close to its all time highs, but the IPO market is dead. There's hardly any retail participation even in the secondary markets too. Why have individual investors turned their back on equity markets in India?

Finance Ministry needs to seriously review the devastating impact of counter productive measures introduced by SEBI in the last 5 years.

SEBI has failed to bring reforms that can revive retail participation in Indian Capital markets. Before anything else, its time to reform the nutcase regulator first.

The day is not far when resident Indian investors would be forced to invest in equities and mutual funds abroad.

Get Well Soon SEBI . . .

Suiketu Shah

3 years ago

One of the most ridiculous things I have heard in 2013 like the one I heard that "Infosys is over,Hexaware is far better" from a sodapop courier boy impersonating as a shares broker RM and talking in his personal capacity,not that representing his company.

pushkar kulkarni

3 years ago

another joke from SEBI.

MMS should approach SEBI for coal gate and other cases?!

one can make another serial - yes minister and ji sir..

Vaibhav Dhoka

3 years ago

Really Mr Sinha's statement is laughable and is direct blow to investor community.It clearly shows SEBI wants to insulate cheat brokers from police action.I have burnt my hands at SEBI and EOW of Pune police.They used me as football,asking me to take up action from opposite agency.The fact in India is NONE of the agencies work and investor remains hopeless at mercy of these agencies.I have complaint against Kotak Sec.Ltd has cheated me for over 15 lakhs in 2004,throe a franchisee..The fact is both agencies are bound to take action,but either of them never take action except in case courts intervention.

mAYANK

3 years ago

SCORES as a system has only make things worse. The bureaucratic set up at SEBI instead of finding a logical end to the problem just aim to make sure their desk are clean.if a retired Union Secretary is getting such an answer god bless the common Investor.

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)