25% Public Float in India : Is the timing right ?
Create a vendor selection project & run comparison reports
Click to express your interest in this report
Indication of coverage against your requirements
A subscription is required to activate this feature. Contact us for more info.
Celent have reviewed this profile and believe it to be accurate.
The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules (SCRR), 1957 was recently amended to incorporate a minimum 25% public float for all listed companies – private and public. The amendment also applies to listed statutory corporations. Public float is defined as that part of a listed company’s shares that are not held by the promoter. The proposal to push for a 25% public float had been around for some time now, and it has finally seen the light of the day, with the proposal turning into a law with a strong push from the Finance Ministry. There is little doubt about the objectives of the amended law – greater public float creates deeper public markets, making the markets more efficient, thereby reducing the cost of raising funds. However, the crucial question that is being asked now is about the timing of the amendment, and about the time-frame given to companies to comply with the new law. While equity markets all around the world still appear shaky and offer no compelling signs of recovery from the financial crisis, it appears that the amendment is a tad hasty. It is not very convincing that the next 2-3 years is the best time to dilute shareholding, especially given the volatility and the subdued valuations. The criticism is equally about the short time-frame (2-3 years on average) given to the companies to comply. This compliance is estimated to raise money in excess of Rs. 1.6 trillion. Companies might be unable to put the forcefully raised money to any better use. The premise that ‘greater public float results in greater liquidity’ also appears shaky. Higher public float might discourage many companies which are more comfortable with smaller divestment from listing. Also, listed companies which do not want to divest at the moment, might rather prefer to delist than comply with the new law. This might in fact result in lower liquidity. While the objectives of the amendment are noble, and definitely in the right direction towards creating more mature equity markets, the government should have waited for more convincing signs of global economic recovery before making the law.