Companies & Sectors
HCL and Tech Mahindra to benefit more from rupee depreciation

It is unlikely that the entire benefit from rupee depreciation will flow to margins in the IT services industry, since market share shifts remain the big growth driver says Nomura

HCL Technologies and Tech Mahindra have until now shown rupee depreciation benefits in margins. Since they do not have near-term pressure on margins, they are likely to continue to show higher benefits of rupee depreciation in margins, says  Nomura Financial Advisory and Securities (India) Pvt Ltd in a research note on Indian IT services industry.


Nomura says, both HCL and Tech Mahindra, followed by Infosys and TCS, will be gainers from the rupee depreciation in the forex market.


“Rupee depreciation theoretically benefits margins of IT companies as a large proportion of costs are in rupees, while revenues are largely in foreign currency. The theoretical sensitivity of US dollar and Indian rupee to margins is about 30 basis points (bps) for every 1% depreciation in domestic currency and about 1.5% on earnings for every 1% rupee depreciation,” the research note said.


The impact of rupee depreciation on specific software companies is shown in the table below:

However, it is unlikely that the entire benefit from rupee depreciation will flow to margins in the IT services industry, since market share shifts still remain the big growth driver. Rupee depreciation benefits are likely to be used for better revenue growth rather than margin improvement, Nomura said.


For HCL Technologies, in addition to improvement of existing business profitability, there will be gains from over $3 billion of deals signed over the last three quarters when the rupee was between 54 and 59. These deals will thus be more profitable under current conditions. Nomura sees upside to HCL Technologies’ guidance of 18.5%-19% margins at US dollar- Indian rupee rates of 55.


For Tech Mahindra, with pricing at a discount to peers and no salary hikes until fourth quarter of FY14, Nomura sees no major near-term fall in margins. The company has guided to keeping EBITDA margins stable at about 21% levels, if the currency holds at near 60 levels and will likely see the margins exceed these targets, in Nomura’s view, if current US dollar- Indian rupee spot rate sustains. The only near-term tempering impact would be on account of $115 million worth of forex losses in the balance sheet, which could bloat given the rupee depreciation. 


Following table shows the impact of rupee depreciation on earnings per share in the IT services industry for select companies:




Investment ‘advisors’ ignore SEBI; just 11 registrations so far

Just 11 entities, including seven individuals have registered as investment advisor with SEBI since the advisor regulations came into force. Is it too early? Or does it vindicate Moneylife’s stand that this regulation is irrelevant given the structure of financial services business?

The much-touted investment advisory regulations from Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) have failed to enthuse registration. A SEBI release on 28th August reminded market intermediaries of this new regulation possibly because only 11 entities, including four firms have registered as investment advisors. The reason is obvious. No financial advisor wants to earn a living only out of advisory fee. There is no market for it. In any case, the advisor regulation applies to just one product that SEBI regulates – mutual funds. It does not apply to insurance, a major source of mis-selling.


While bringing advisory regulations, a well-intentioned SEBI wanted to make a distinction between selling financial products and advising about them. In the first case, the seller (distributor) is working for himself and the financial services company because he is driven by commissions. He is not working for the investor, necessarily. It creates a conflict of interest when he is ‘advising’. In the second case, the advisor is acting for the investor. He is advising for a fee about the best choices. SEBI has asked everyone to make a choice between the two.


You cannot both sell for commission and also advise the investor. Well, may be it is too early, but given a choice, it appears that everybody would want to sell for commission and not advise for fee. This is simply because there is no market of investors seeking pure advice.


Interestingly, the Financial Planning Journal, published by the Financial Planing Standards Board of India (FPSB) has names of over 1,750 financial advisors. These people are from the most likely category to register with SEBI as investment advisor. However, there are only seven individuals, who though it proper to get themselves registered with SEBI.


While drawing up regulations, SEBI did not take into account the actual situation on the ground – average to poor mutual fund performance, quality of advice and mis-selling by large distributors and investors’ attitudes.


SEBI has also enshrined in the advisor regulations that investors have to be profiled for risk including age, investment details, income details, risk tolerance, liability and others. Will risk profiling ensure that the lead will not be passed on to those agents who would share their commissions with the advisor friends?


While removing the so-called conflict of interest in selling, SEBI has also created difficulties for the honest distributor. Considering the actual situation on the ground, a financial advisor asked, “What is a distributor supposed to do when customers ask for advice? Is he supposed to not help the customer? Or what does he do when the distributor knows that what the customers is asking for is an inferior product? Should he allow the customer to make the mistake?”


The line between advisors and distributors is thin. When Moneylife spoke to a smart and ethical distributor of financial products, he said, “I will not be a surprised if (these) so-called investment ‘advisors’ work closely with ‘agents’ wherein the agents would give a pass-back of the commissions they earn to advisors who recommend customers to them. This currently happens as well, but it is more open as there is no restriction, where financial planners have tied up with agents of certain companies. Though the commissions are not disclosed, they earn enough for passing on a lead to an agent.”


What is happening in reality is that distributors sell for commissions but they also advice because customers ask for advice and without some advice and handholding, no selling can happen, especially financial products.


READ: What will SEBI’s Investment Advisor Regulations Achieve?


Moreover, the only mainline investment product that comes under SEBI regulation is mutual funds. Issues related to other financial products will be dealt with the respective regulators. As such, there would be no single body regulating investment advisors.


Investment advisor regulations have been discussed on and off for the past five years. In 2007, the SEBI published a consultative paper on “Regulation of Investment Advisors”. In 2008, the D Swarup Committee re-examined the issue and submitted its report in 2009. The report was revolutionary in its thinking prescribing all financial products have to become “no load”. Opposition to this report was vociferous. After much heat and dust, including dharnas and morchas by a section, the report was buried deeply and quietly. In September 2011, SEBI published another concept paper on the regulation of investment advisors, which led to much debate. Then in September 2012, SEBI come out with the draft regulation on investment advisors in India. Finally, in January, the market regulator came up with its regulations to oversee financial advisors, which came into effect from April 2013.


In short, post-April, anyone who wanted to provide investment advice had to register with SEBI and follow the rules contained in the new regulations. However, in the first five months, as per SEBI data, only 11 entities, including four institutions and seven individuals found it worth registering. Even, the institutions who have registered may have done the registration just in case to avoid problems in the future. 


Here is the list of entities registered with SEBI as investment advisors...



Shashank Gaikwad

4 years ago

Dear Sir, Thanks for very informative article.
I am a trader in Nifty futures and have many followers on trading forums following me. I was planning to start a subscription based service for my followers, to earn some steady income, along with my trading (as in trading, we don't have a regular monthly income - it usually comes in bursts). After going through your article, it seems unlikely that I am allowed to do such a business from SEBI anymore. However, there are few doubts in my mind regarding people who are exempt:

1. Since I trade only in Nifty Futures, can it be considered as "(a) Any person who gives general comments in good faith in regard to trends in the financial or securities market or the economic situation where such comments do not specify any particular securities or investment product;"

2. I am a graduate Engineer, having 10 years of working experience and 7 years of trading experience. Looking at the criteria set by SEBI for investment adviser, even if I want become an investment adviser, it looks almost impossible to do so. Does that mean that I simply cannot start this business, even though I might have the required skill set (no formal degree, but I have been very profitable in trading and have also successfully completed many trading challenges)

Sukhvinder Sidhu

4 years ago

The fate of the right intention and direction cannot be judged in such a short time. The regulator could, perhaps, take this balanced approach under the present conditions. For the present it has tried to keep working space for all the players.

The new system ought to be there for the sake of some benefits in the long term, as is also evident in the spirit of the regulatory changes happening worldwide. Just because something has been taking place till now does not justify it being the most correct thing. Change is the most constant thing, and history tells us that most people do not accept change readily as they like 'sitting over the heap of cheese found sometime back and not bothering that it will somehow finish with time'.

The most hard thing is to make a beginning, which has been done. The new idea has now taken root. The motive is for the long term, so short term negativity is not justified. Also, we cannot find 100% perfect system anywhere at anytime.


prakash praharaj

In Reply to Sukhvinder Sidhu 4 years ago

Well said Mr sukhvinder!Change management is a process and we will find things better say in 2/3 years.


4 years ago

operational head india
singapore media and channel group
Is it enough if they suspend the 11 investment advisors what about the clients and as such all the stock brokers are cheat and criminals and there accounts are fudged it need strict and scientific SFIO audit then only stock market could recover and win the confidence of indian investors


4 years ago

Having advised retail clients on more than Rs.1000 million worth of long term mutual funds investments for close to two decades, have this to say:

1) It is a thankless job.

2) There is far more handholding required after investment happens. And most of it being to prevent clients from doing something stupid, or getting them to sit tight and do nothing; - where most people are seriously short on patience, and are simply not satisfied with what they own,

3) The investment advisor's chief role is to protect client's from committing costly mistakes. - Unfortunately this aspect is not even acknowledged by majority of the investors.
(You don't need an advisor to manage your money, but to protect you from those self-defeating tendencies that can get you into trouble while investing)&

4) And last but not the least, it is far more rewarding to be an investor and take care of your own investments . . . than be an investment advisor in the current regulatory environment.



In Reply to Nilesh KAMERKAR 4 years ago

You are on the dot sir.
It is high time we make the regulator answer for their foolish regulations. It is time to regulate the regulator.
But who is to bell this cat.

R Balakrishnan

In Reply to Nilesh KAMERKAR 4 years ago

Very well said Sir.
SEBI is all over the place. It cannot even do what it is primarily supposed to do. There seems to be a kind of megalomania sweeping across the regulator. In the first place, not one of them have any kind of experience other than the bureaucracy - graft and red tape. And do they have the means and the capabilities to regulate? Sad regulators we have. Where a fund manager can be my driver, but an advisor needs to be registered!! Passengers and the conductors need permits. Driver does not need any license. This is the comic organisation named SEBI


In Reply to R Balakrishnan 4 years ago


After the FINMIN, it would be the regulators turn to learn some basic principles of economics.


In Reply to Nilesh KAMERKAR 4 years ago


our Present Finance Minister is bothered only his welfare rather than countries welfare he is an sadist you knew how he killed the NBFC and where by many people who were employed in this NBFC in their mid 40's and 50's lost their job lost their diginity and as such we cannot expect any relief from him even though he is well qualified person but he is not bothered about indian investors

Judge approves Facebook settlement

Facebook reached a $20 million settlement agreement in the US. Under the agreement, Facebook can still post users’ content in ads but will give users more control over how their content is used

Facebook users included in sponsored stories on the social networking site who filed claims will receive $15 each as part of a $20 million settlement agreement approved by a federal judge this week.

Under terms of the class action lawsuit settlement approved by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg Monday, Facebook payouts will also go to attorneys and organizations involved in consumer privacy issues.

The settlement stems from a class action lawsuit filed in California by five users in 2011 who said Facebook shared their “likes’’ of certain advertisers without their consent in the form of sponsored stories. Facebook earned about $73 million in profits from the sponsored stories, or 60 cents per user included in the ads, according to court papers.

Some advocates objected to the agreement, saying it didn’t go far enough to prevent Facebook from engaging in the same conduct in the future, still doesn’t have sufficient protections for minors, and doesn’t sufficiently award users.

Under the agreement, Facebook can still post users’ content in ads but will give users more control over how their content is used. Children have to opt out if they don’t want to be used in Facebook’s sponsored stories, instead of being automatically excluded as some consumer advocates had sought.

Judge Seeborg said the plaintiffs in the case faced a hurdle of proving harm from the sponsored stories. He wrote:

Going forward, operation of the Sponsored Stories program will be more transparent, and Facebook users will have a greater ability to see how and when their activities result in generation of Sponsored Stories, and to limit recurrences. The minor subclass, and parents of minors, will have further opt-out options. The injunctive relief, while not as robust as some would prefer, contributes to the conclusion that the settlement as a whole is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Read more here about social networking sites and user content.



We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



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)