Skip to main content

Time-bound listing plan fails to take off

Time-bound listing plan fails to take off
The ‘ time-bound listing’ for public sector undertakings (PSUs), announced in this year’s Union Budget, isn’t being met.
A state- owned unit was to list within 165 days after its initial public offer of equity (IPO) got approval by its parent ministry or department and by the department of investment and public asset management (Dipam).
The idea was to help the Centre with its ambitious disinvestment target of over Rs 70,000 crore for the current financial year. However, PSUs have repeatedly missed the schedule set under the guidelines, which had deadlines for each task in the IPO process. Examples are General Insurance Corporation (GIC Re), New India Assurance, IRCTC and Ircon.
For instance, the Centre had allowed 90 days for the company to file an offer document with market regulator Sebi, from the day of board authorisation for the IPO. Within this period, 45 days were allotted for investment bankers to do the duediligence and for filing of offer documents. Notably, the Centre had budgeted only 30 days for Sebi’s nod to the IPO; typically, this takes at least two months.
The boards of GIC Re and New India Assurance approved the resolution to list in July 2016. They’re yet to complete the listing process. Both GIC and New India Assurance filed their draft prospectus with Sebi at the beginning of this August. They’ve yet to get a go-ahead from Sebi. Similarly, Indian Railways-backed IRCTC’s and Ircon’s IPO proposal was approved in April and bankers were appointed four months earlier. However, these two are yet to file the draft prospectus with Sebi.
Cochin Shipyard is the latest PSU to come out with an IPO but it did not follow the guidelines. It had filed its prospectus with Sebi on March 31 this year. However, it took nearly 145 days for the company (from the date of filing the draft prospectus) to list on the exchanges.
Investment bankers handling the issues say the timelines set by the Centre ignored various practical issues. Not did it take into consideration the need for approval from multiple regulatory authorities in some cases, as with GIC Re or Cochin Shipyard.
A senior Dipam official said the According to time-bound listing guidelines put up by Dipam, a PSU should ideally list within 165 days from the time when IPO process started Within 165 days, 15 days are given for the board of the PSU to approve the IPO, 90 days for appointment of bankers, due diligence and filing offer document The document expects a nod timelines were “indicative” and might be falling short but the aim was to hasten the entire listing process. “Until last year, it took two three years for a PSU to complete the listing process. Now, things are moving much more quickly. 
With the listing of Hudco and Cochin Shipyard, you can be sure about the seriousness of the government about these listings,” said the official.
According to sources, the ministry of environment took close to three months to give a go-ahead for the Cochin Shipyard IPO. Similarly, GIC Re and New India Assurance required a nod from the insurance from Sebi within 30 days and the company is expected to launch the IPO within 30 days from the approval date Boards of GIC Re and New India Assurance approved the IPO proposal more than a year ago, the IPO is yet to hit the market Similarly, IRCTC and Ircon commenced the IPO process more than four months ago, but are yet to file the offer documents regulator, apart from Sebi.
“The IPO process is complicated and there could be unexpected hitches. Sometimes, the approvals take longer than expected. Further, bankers could also face hurdles during due-diligence. Most important, even if every procedure is completed on time, the market conditions might not be conducive for launch of the issue,” said a banker.
So far this financial year, the Centre has raised Rs 19,078 through various divestments, show Dipam data. At least half a dozen IPOs of PSUs are expected to hit the market before March 2018.
The Business Standard, New Delhi, 14th September 2017

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Shrinking footprints of foreign banks in India

Shrinking footprints of foreign banks in India Foreign banks are increasingly shrinking their presence in India and are also becoming more conservative than private and public sector counterparts. While many of them have sold some of their businesses in India as part of their global strategy, some are trying to keep their core expertise intact. Others are branching out to newer areas to continue business momentum.For example, HSBC and Barclays Bank in India have got out of the retail business, whereas corporate-focused Standard Chartered Bank is now trying to increase its focus on retail “Building a retail franchise is a huge exercise and takes a long time. You cannot afford to lose it,” said Shashank Joshi, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ’s India head.According to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) data, foreign banks’ combined loan book shrunk nearly 10 per cent from Rs 3.78 trillion in fiscal 2015-16 to Rs 3.42 trillion last financial year. The banking industry, which includes foreign banks…

New money laundering norms stump jewellery sector

New money laundering norms stump jewellery sector Dealers with turnover of Rs 2 crore and above covered; industry says threshold too low The central government has notified the money laundering rules for the gems and jewellery sector with immediate effect. Now, any entity deals in precious metals, precious stones, or other high-value goods and has a turnover of Rs 2 crore or more in a financial year will be covered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002). The limit of Rs 2 crore would be calculated on the basis of the previous year’s turnover, said the notification. The directorate general of goods and service tax intelligence has been appointed under the Act. Sources said the government’s move to apply the PMLA to the jewellery sector was a fallout of income-tax raids on jewellers soon after demonetisation last November, when it was found that they sold gold and jewellery at a huge premium and accepted old currency notes as payment. The notification, issued on Augus…

Confusion over branded food GST

Confusion over branded food GST The GST Council's statement over the weekend on applying tax on branded food items has left most of the trade confused.

Even though the Council has not changed the rates on food -0 per cent on unbranded stuff and 5 per cent on brands -many small traders who didn't levy GST earlier said they could come under the 5 per cent slab after the clarification.

While they predicted some increase in consumer prices, large players said they can absorb GST in many ways and keep prices steady.

"Trade is confused and hence on behalf of our chamber, we have asked our members to go ahead and charge 5 per cent GST," said Sushil Sureka, general secretary of the Ahilya Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Indore.

The statement clarifying the application of GST came after some businesses were found deregistering their brands and selling under corporate brand name without paying tax, after the Council exempted unbranded food from the new all-encompassing indirec…