According to the Reserve Bank, any transaction by banks in currency markets will have to be necessarily on behalf of their clients
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has imposed restriction on banks with regard to trading in currency futures and options (F&O) with immediate effect, in order to arrest the decline of rupee against the US dollar.
In a notification, the central bank said, "On a review of the evolving market conditions, it has been decided that banks should not carry out any proprietary trading in the currency futures/ exchange traded currency options markets."
Under the new norms, the banks have been barred from trading in currency futures and exchange traded currency options market on their own. They will, however, be allowed to trade on behalf of their clients.
The move is apparently aimed at stemming the declining value of rupee which touched its life-time low of 61.21 to a dollar yesterday.
On Monday, market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) tightened the exposure norms for currency derivatives to check large scale speculations in the market.
In a circular, SEBI said that it is reducing the exposure that brokers and their clients can take on currency derivatives and also doubled their margins on dollar-rupee contracts.
Currency derivative trading allows investors to take forward views on various currency pairs, including rupee- dollar, and it was being felt that large-scale speculations on their future movements might be adding to the downward pressure on the Indian currency.
In February, the apex court had directed the Centre to hold discussions for enacting a law to regulate the sale of acids and a policy for treatment, compensation and care and rehabilitation of such victims
The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the union government for not being serious about framing a scheme to curb the sale of acid to prevent acid attack cases.
A bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said people are dying every day due to acid attacks but the government has failed to frame a policy despite assurances given by it on the last hearing on 16th April.
“People are dying, but you are not worried about it. Think of people who are losing their lives every day. Girls are being attacked every day in different parts of the country,” the bench said.
It also said, “With heavy heart this court had passed order in April, but the Government failed to come out with any scheme to curb sale of acid in the market.”
“Seriousness is not seen on the part of the Government in handling the issue,” the bench said, while granting one week’s time as a last opportunity to the Centre to frame a policy in consultation with the State Governments.
The court was hearing a PIL filed in 2006 by Delhi-based acid attack victim Laxmi, who was then a minor. Her arms, face and other body parts were disfigured in the acid attack.
The bench made it clear that if the Centre fails to come out with such a scheme on the next date of hearing, 16th July then it would pass orders.
The Financial Stability Report released by RBI has taken note of mis-selling in the wealth management division of banks. An issue which has been constantly been highlighted by Moneylife, needs to curbed with many checks and disclosures in place
Taking serious note of the mis-selling that occurs in wealth management and investment advisory services offered by banks, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)'s Financial Stability Report released on 27 June 2013 says that it is in the process of reviewing its guidelines.
The RBI in its report says, “Grievances relating to mis-selling, whereby products that are unsuitable for a particular customer, either for commission-linked reasons or lack of knowledge, clarity regarding accountability between the product issuer and the advisor/portfolio manager, need to be addressed by improving consumer protection measures.”
It further says, “The issues have been widely debated in the inter-regulatory technical group of the FSDC Sub Committee and a review of the extant guidelines on wealth management services offered by banks is being carried out. The aspects on marketing and distribution of third party financial products by banks also need to be factored in while issuing comprehensive guidelines on Wealth Management Services by banks.”
Moneylife has for long been highlighting the mis-selling of these services with specific examples. However, the RBI had not responded until now. This was among the many issues taken up by Moneylife Foundation with RBI deputy governor, Dr KC Chakrabarty, at an Open House meeting in June 2013. In a recent cover story on such issues, (Read: Banks Vs Depositors) Moneylife pointed out how selling of insurance, mutual funds and equity advisory services by banks have affected customers, who do not know which regulator will redress their grievance. RBI ignores complaints about third-party products (some are not even regulated), while Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA), both already poor at grievance redress, are even more reluctant to address complaints about mis-selling by banks.
Moneylife has highlighted several stories on mis-selling. A year ago we wrote about how HSBC Bank promised Suchitra Krishnamoorthi, a well-known singer and actor, extravagant assured return of 24% from mutual funds as well as insurance, but instead continuously churned her portfolio. (Read: HSBC loots Suchitra Krishnamoorthi after big promises of 24% returns). The case remains unresolved, with the bank brazenly continuing to blame Ms Krishnamoorthi for having signed papers.
In a similar case, another high net worth individual (HNI) based in London, found out abnormal churning of mutual funds in his portfolio that was managed by HSBC bank. Both are HNIs who were made to sign a power of attorney (POA) in favour of HSBC to handle their investments smartly. He too is in India and doing the rounds of all the regulators in the past week to try and figure out who will own up to the responsibility of regulating HSBC.
In another such case, 79-year old Mangelal Sharma was persuaded by IndusInd Bank officials to break his fixed deposit with the bank and invest in a mutual fund product saying it was a low-risk banking product. Moneylife’s aggressive stance on mis-selling by banks, and campaigning against this case led the Bank refunding the money back to Mr Sharma (Read: Mangelal Sharma gets his Rs7 lakh back—another Moneylife victory)
Unfortunately, in several such cases, banks tend to get away scot free because the consumer is conned into signing a number of documents based on misplaced trust in their bankers. For instance, when Mr Sharma approached the Banking Ombudsman for justice, his case was rejected because he had signed on the investment form. As per existing policy, the Banking Ombudsman would not get into the merits of an obviously wrong product, with a five-year lock-in product being sold to a 79-year old senior citizen. Similarly, when Ms Krishnamoorthi took her issue up with the Ombudsman, the bank replied stating that she had signed on all the letter of instructions (LoIs) to carry out the transactions in her account. The manner in which bank officials discharge their fiduciary duties was not even taken into account.
The RBI Financial Stability Report also mentions that, “The recently notified SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013, contain detailed norms for risk profiling and suitability, creation of a Separately Identifiable Department or Division (SIDD) for IAS, detailed disclosure to the clients including any conflicts of interest, redressal of investor grievances, etc. Such norms are expected to address mis-selling risks to a certain extent.” When SEBI had come up with the draft regulations in September 2011, we had mentioned that this idea of SEBI is nonsensical. (Read: Investment Advisor Regulation - II: How SEBI’s do-gooding can be easily undermined) How far this move would be effect we do not know as customers are after all known to sign on blank forms and signing without reading.
Reported by Jason Monteiro