Equities Trading at Indian Exchanges: Competition Can Wait
Celent will help qualify your requirements and introduce you to the vendor
Spotted a missing vendor? Use this form to alert a vendor to the Celent service
Create a vendor selection project & run comparison reports
Register to access this feature
Click to express your interest in this report
Indication of coverage against your requirements
Vendor requires PRO subscription to activate this feature
Requires research subscription, contact Celent for more info
28 September 2010Arin Ray
MCX-SX, which offers trading in currency futures, had requested to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the capital market regulator, for approval to launch trading in equities, equity derivatives, interest rate futures and other instruments. It was thought that this move would add a new dimension to India's exchange landscape which is dominated by the two main exchanges, the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). The recently started United Stock Exchange, which commenced its operations in the currency futures segment on 20th September, 2010, recorded on its very first day a turnover more than that of the combined turnover at NSE and MCX, the country's existing currency trading exchanges. It was anticipated equities trading at MCX, if approved, would also throw up similar competition to the country’s two existing exchanges. In September 2008, MCX-SX was conditionally recognized as stock exchange trading in currency futures by SEBI for a year; recognition was extended in August 2009 for one more year to give MCX more time to comply with requirements. In April, 2010 MCX-SX sought permission seeking approval for trading in segments permitted to BSE and NSE. In July, 2010, MCX-SX filed petition before the Bombay High Court seeking intervention over the delay in approving its application by SEBI; in August 2010, the Bombay High Court asked SEBI to take a final decision on the matter by September 30. On 23rd September, 2010, SEBI rejected the application stating it ‘was not satisfied that it would be in the interest of trade and also in public interest to allow the application’. SEBI's rejection, as mentioned in its order, was based on a number of issues. Under MIMPS (Manner of Increasing and Maintaining Public Shareholding in Recognized Stock Exchanges Regulations), no person resident in India shall at anytime, directly or indirectly, either individually or together with persons acting in concert, hold more than five per cent of the equity share capital in a recognized stock exchange. A select class of financial institutions, however, can own up to a maximum of 15% each.
- MCX-SX is promoted by Multi-Commodity Exchange of India Ltd (MCX) and Financial Technologies India Ltd (FTIL). When MCX-SX was formed, its promoters MCX and FTIL owned 51% and 49%, respectively, which, after divestment, came down to 37% and 33.9%. The promoters in April, 2010 undertook a further financial restructuring to comply with regulations, by reducing their respective shares to 5% each. However, it also issued warrants to MCX and FTIL, which allows the promoters to gradually sell the warrants under favorable market conditions. Under this arrangement, according to SEBI, MCX and FTIL have together now a holding of 71.90% in the shares and warrants issued by the company.
- MCX-SX had submitted that the two promoters did not share a common management, but it (SEBI) found the two entities are operating under a common management. According to SEBI, therefore the share holding of FTIL together with that of MCX (5% each) exceeds the permissible limit of 5% limit of ownership in a stock exchange.
- SEBI stated that 'the promoters of MCX-SX and their associates had arrangements with three shareholders of MCX-SX where sale of shares between the parties were based on offers to buy back the shares at or within specified time in the future'. It found such arrangements illegal.
- In its order SEBI said 'MCX-SX has been dishonest in its disclosures to SEBI on material information and has failed to fulfil its disclosure and fiduciary responsibilities' and also it 'has failed to adhere to fair and reasonable standards of honesty that should be expected of a Stock Exchange'.