For an individual, BSE has set minimum tangible assets worth Rs1 lakh. Also, it would charge a one-time fee of Rs15,000 for membership
Following directives from market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the BSE on Tuesday allowed mutual fund (MF) distributors to use its infrastructure for purchase and redemption of mutual fund units directly from asset management companies (AMCs) on behalf of their clients.
In a circular, BSE said that an entity seeking to register itself as MF distributor on its mutual fund platform in a move to use the Exchange’s infrastructure is required to have a networth of at least Rs1 lakh on the basis of audited balance sheet of the latest financial year.
For an individual, the exchange has set minimum tangible assets worth Rs1 lakh. Also, the exchange would charge a one-time fee of Rs15,000 for membership. MF distributors would not handle payout and pay-in of funds as well as units on behalf of investor.
“The pay-in will be directly received by recognised Clearing Corporation and payout will be directly made to investor’s account.
“In the same manner, units shall be credited and debited directly from the demat account of the investors by the Clearing Corporation,” BSE said.
Earlier this month, SEBI had cleared the proposal to allow MF distributors to use the infrastructure of recognised exchanges for purchase and redemption of mutual fund units directly from AMCs on behalf of their clients. This would be in addition to the existing channels of MF distribution.
The move is aimed at leveraging the stock exchange platform, which would eventually help MF distributors to improve their reach.
This facility would be available only for a MF distributor registered with Association of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI) and those who have been permitted by the stock exchange concerned would be eligible for this purpose.
The stock exchange would grant permission on a request made by a AMFI-registered MF distributor on the basis of criteria, including fee and code of conduct, among others, as laid down by it.
This is with regard to “Grossly Underperforming Star Performers” by Jason Monteiro. What is your advice to investors who are holding HDFC Top 200 or HDFC Top Equity schemes? These two schemes were also featured in equity schemes for ‘any season’ in the
18 October 2012 issue of Moneylife.
This is with regard to “What causes obesity and bulimia?” by Prof Dr Hegde. I find all your articles very informative. They give a whole new perspective on medicine and health. They are like fresh air in the midst of manipulative, harmful, loaded information coming from the media. Please keep writing.
This is with regard to “NSEL fallout: ICAI begins probing Financial Technologies, NSEL issues.” Delightful! The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India still has no clue about what is to be done. Seems to be infested with morons at all ends.
Not Charitable Institutions!
This is with regard to “RBI says no zero percent interest scheme for buying consumer goods.” Festive season shoppers and credit card users know this. After all, no financial institution (FI) will offer 0% EMI (equated monthly instalment) and not earn anything for the service. FIs are shrewd businesses and not charitable institutions. This move by RBI will force them to re-phrase their schemes; and, perhaps, make the charges more transparent and easy to compute.
This is with regard to “Repo rate hike cannot act as an effective measure in taming inflation” by Vivek Sharma. Good observations, but is likely to fall on deaf ears. Such increases have only put a brake on growth without doing anything for inflation, caused by high oil prices and high fiscal deficit due to populist policies. This has, in turn, stoked inflation by pumping liquidity into rural areas. RBI should have learnt from the lack of correlation between the interest rate and inflation rate by this time. Unfortunately, old habits die hard and RBI continues to flog a dead horse.
Call the Bluff!
This is with regard to “RBI’s New Financial Inclusion Committee: Rife with conflicts of interests” by Ramesh S Arunanchalam. This article is very pertinent. It is important that we call the bluff. First of all, the committee is not even needed. Secondly, why fill it with people from commercial microfinance alone? Where are the representatives of cooperatives and cooperative banks? And could the country not field people who don’t have conflict of interest? Or maybe this is an exercise in promoting vested interests?
Mere supervision or regulation of a body by government would not make that body a public authority, the apex court ruled
The Supreme Court while quashing a circular by Kerala government ruled that co-operative societies do not fall within the ambit of Right to Information (RTI). The Kerala government circular was issued to bring all such societies within the scope of the RTI Act.
A bench of justices KS Radhakrishnan and AK Sikri said mere supervision or regulation of a body by government would not make that body a public authority and quashed the Kerala High Court's order holding the circular valid.
"Societies are, of course, subject to the control of the statutory authorities like Registrar, Joint Registrar and the Government. But cannot be said that the state exercises any direct or indirect control over the affairs of the society which is deep and all pervasive," the bench said
"Supervisory or general regulation under the statute over the co-operative societies, which are body corporate does not render activities of the body so regulated as subject to such control of the State so as to bring it within the meaning of the State or instrumentality of the State," it added.
The state government had informed the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in May 2006 that all institutions formed by laws made by State Legislature is a public authority and, therefore, all co-operative institutions coming under the administrative control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies are also public authorities.
Quashing the state government's decision, the bench said that power exercised by the Registrar over the societies is merely supervisory and regulatory.
"The mere supervision or regulation as such by a statute or otherwise of a body would not make that body a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act. In other words just like a body owned or body substantially financed by the appropriate government, the control of the body by the appropriate government would also be substantial and not merely supervisory or regulatory," the bench added.