Stocks
Fortnightly Market View: Be Cautious
In my previous piece on the market, I had written that risks are rising. I had mentioned...
Premium Content
Monthly Digital Access

Subscribe

Already A Subscriber?
Login
Yearly Digital+Print Access

Subscribe

Moneylife Magazine Subscriber or MSSN member?
Login

Yearly Subscriber Login

Enter the mail id that you want to use & click on Go. We will send you a link to your email for verficiation
JK Tyre: Stagnant Profit, Rising Stock Price
The stock of JK Tyre & Industries Ltd (JK Tyre) has been shooting up ever since early August....
Premium Content
Monthly Digital Access

Subscribe

Already A Subscriber?
Login
Yearly Digital+Print Access

Subscribe

Moneylife Magazine Subscriber or MSSN member?
Login

Yearly Subscriber Login

Enter the mail id that you want to use & click on Go. We will send you a link to your email for verficiation
SEBI Ensures No PMS Loophole for Insider Trading
A quarter century ago, when the capital market watchdog had just come into existence but there were no insider trading regulations, we used to joke that 90% of all trading in the stock market is based only on inside information. Even the last guy getting a hot tip on a long train commute to the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) thought he knew something that others didn’t. Even after the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) got its statutory teeth, I used to hear about this secretive group of chief financial officers (CFOs) of companies who met regularly at a Mumbai five-star hotel to exchange inside information.  
 
In the past two decades, the rich and powerful have occasionally been nailed for insider trading; but, more often than not, they get away. During the many excesses of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), a political columnist wrote a snippet about a Cabinet minister texting key government decisions to a television journalist even while the meeting was going on. 
 
The Intelligence Bureau (IB) reported the matter to government when it noticed that the channel was breaking news on decisions even before the Cabinet meeting had ended. According to the column, the minister was so powerful that nobody dared to confront him; instead, it was decided to install jammers outside the Cabinet meeting rooms to prevent information leaking out. I later learnt that the minister’s cohorts tracked the channel in the knowledge that reports from that particular journalist were authentic and probably traded on the information. 
 
In more recent times, Dilip Pendse, managing director of Tata Finance, was found guilty of insider trading in 2014, after a long legal battle. The company secretary of Jagran Prakashan and his wife were found guilty of profiting to the tune of Rs10.4 crore from inside information, in 2009. Even the venerable HDFC Mutual Fund was ordered to pay crores of rupees as fine, in two cases of front-running.
 
That insider trading remains rampant in India is also evident from stock price charts before and after many major corporate announcements. Moneylife has frequently reported this; but there is rarely any action, when the violation is so widespread. Here are just a few links to our reports on NR Narayana Murthy’s comeback to Infosys, Insider trading in Astrazeneca Pharma, ING Vysya, Ranbaxy, Geometric Software, Tata Motors, among the many we have reported. 
 
These anecdotes come to mind in the context a recent query by HDFC Bank to SEBI. The Bank wanted to know whether its employees, who are in possession of unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI) of the Bank or its clients and, hence, restricted from trading in the securities of these entities, could invest their money in the stock market through discretionary portfolio management schemes (PMS) where the client does not dictate the fund manager’s investment decisions. 
 
Essentially, the Bank wanted to know whether its executives could avoid allegations of violative insider trading, if the portfolio manager bought or sold securities of companies where they had UPSI at a time when the trading window was closed for insiders. These executives, it said, would furnish declarations that they have no influence on the stock selection of the portfolio manager. 
 
SEBI’s informal guidance was an unambiguously negative. It, correctly, quoted SEBI’s insider trading regulation (4)(1) to say that bankers could not escape the application of insider trading regulations even if they were clients of a portfolio management scheme. SEBI should be congratulated for such an unambiguous guidance and probably seeing through the nice big loophole that would open up in the difficult-to-prove insider trading regulations. 
 
It must be noted that a SEBI committee, set up to update the insider trading regulations, had managed to insert precisely such an exception to exclude discretionary portfolio managers’ decisions, if they were made without reference to the client (unless circumstantial evidence proved a nexus between the portfolio manager and investor). SEBI seems to have shown rare wisdom by dropping this exception even while announcing the new insider trading rules. Hence, HDFC Bank’s subsequent request for clarity. 
 
Now, consider what would happen if SEBI had accepted the draft regulations or offered a different guidance to HDFC Bank’s query. Insider trading is already extremely difficult to prove anywhere in the world, including countries where regulators can deploy money and technology and have the power to conduct wiretaps and to offer plea-bargains that allow them to let off the small fish to go after the big insider traders. Moreover, all the examples cited above, and scores of other cases investigated by SEBI, show that those in powerful and privileged positions, who have access to UPSI, are not above misusing it for some illegal profiteering. 
 
Had SEBI allowed discretionary portfolio management to remain out of the purview of insider trading rules, it would inflict a nearly impossible burden on itself of proving insider trading through circumstantial evidence alone. Even if it were to cobble together a reasonable case, everyone accused of insider trading would quote SEBI’s informal guidance, to ensure that the watchdog is held to extremely strict proof that the accused had influenced the portfolio manager’s investment decision. 
 
Knowing how hard that will be, any exception to SEBI’s insider trading regulations, or any guidance other than the one it gave HDFC Bank, would open the doors for misuse of PMS by all unscrupulous insiders. This is not an imaginary situation. One of the most famous insider trading cases is that of Robert Moffat, a former IBM executive who admitted to providing inside information to Danielle Chiesi, a consultant of Newcastle Funds with whom he reportedly had an intimate relationship. That is the case which also implicated Raj Rajarathnam of Galleon Funds, who is serving out a long prison sentence. 
 
SEBI’s own investigations have also shown that some foreign ‘institutional’ investors are individual portfolios for the super-rich brought in disguised as an institution. What would stop a group of executives from ensuring that a discretionary PMS is actually limited to a buddy-group? The possibilities of misuse are endless and SEBI hardly has the capability, or the manpower, to track it. 
 
Let us also not forget that the PMS business in India is run by bankers, brokers or mutual funds, who operate in a fairly incestuous set-up. They have constant dealings with one another (socially and professionally), making it even more difficult to prove any charge of insider trading, unless there is a sting operation of sorts. 
 
SEBI’s guidance has put the burden of following the letter and spirit of its regulations squarely on corporate insiders. This is how it should be. Yes, it is possible that senior corporate executives and top bankers will not be able to avail the services of a discretionary portfolio manager; but so what? These are financially savvy individuals (minimum investment in a PMS is Rs25 lakh) who are more than capable of managing their own portfolio. Most of them are people who earn eight-figure salaries and, probably, have stock options whose value runs into nine and ten digits. They are smarter than the average portfolio manager and the small restriction on their investment options is not something that should make our hearts bleed in sympathy, given the enormous scope of misuse. 
 
At a time when retail investors are slowly regaining confidence in the capital market mainly by routing investments through mutual funds, SEBI needs to ensure that it provides a fair and level playing field to investors, not one which allows powerful corporate insiders to get a near carte blanche by routing trades through a portfolio manager.

User

COMMENTS

Anil Kumar

8 months ago

I had earlier written in one of the comments to an article of another type of abuse. About the - sharp rise / or fall in scrips - just a couple of hours before the quarterly result declaration. I had mentioned recent Store One result. The result was declared at around 4 (after market hours), but the scrip tanked the maximum (10%) at around 2 pm. Possible leakage from people in the stock exchange department who get the result first. Request Moneylife investigate this systemic loop hole.

Suketu Shah

8 months ago

HDFC Bank by even suggesting/requesting this seems to think SEBI is in their backpocket!Openly legalise insider trading!How fast this bank is falling.....

Sunil Rebello

8 months ago

Ethics should be a special subject for all MBA, MBBS, CAs and all major Management courses, with compulsory attendance and passing with set marks.
Today we live on a earth, where making money by killing others is an acceptable norm to fatten your bank balance.
Please let us correct ourselves before we make our Mother Earth inhabitable due to our money grabbing ways.
Lets us handover our Earth to our children where they can live in Peace and Harmony. Looking how to serve - rather than being served.

SRINIVAS SHENOY

8 months ago

What do you think?... Write your comments. A nice article for retail investors who are now investing for the purposes of safety of their capital through the mutual funds route. SEBI as the watchdog should ensure safety of the investment, particularly those of the small investors, who generally are the worst sufferers in a downturn.

Suketu Shah

8 months ago

Wonderful insightful article.

Kumar Swamy

8 months ago

SEBI should carefully monitor portfolio holdings in PMS schemes, twitter messages from PMS managers and their mostly bogus claim on PMS annual returns in their presentations to potential clients.

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)