31-12-2010.
FOR RETAIL INVESTORS, THE PROBLEM LIES ELSEWHERE
Happy, Wealth and Value Addition New Year to all of you!
In both the PSB and the earlier MOIL IPOs, the premium on their listing is far below estimates. MOIL which was expected to list around Rs.700/- to Rs.750/- listed far less at Rs.450/- and PSB which was expected to list around Rs.210/-. did so only around Rs.130/-, hugely disappointing investors, especially retail investors.
Retail investors are sore, naturally, Some boarders are attributing this development to SEBI's recent decision to increase investment limit in retail category from Rs.1.00 lakh to Rs.2.00 lakhs,and are demanding its roll back. Or, if this is not possible, then, they are demanding that atleast the percentage share in the IPOs., reserved for the retail category should be increased from the present 35% to 50%. There are also calls for retail investors to unite for this fight.
Both suggestions are misplaced, in my opinion. The problem lies elsewhere. Even if the limit for retail category is increased to 50% or even more, retail investors will continue to remain voiceless even in cases where managements are grossly incompetent, or are indulging in fradulant practices and are damaging or even destroying shareholders wealth. Under the present law, even if you participate in a Special or Annual General Body Meeting, which I have done on some occassion, what gets recorded as proceedings are only the management comments and approvals based strictly on the agenda circulated by the managements. Even if you make excellently researched suggestions on what is wrong with the company, and its consequential poor performance, and you suggest what are the solutions possible, not one word gets into the proceedings, and when the next AGM or SGM happens, you find that your efforts have been in utter vain. Such callous indifference is possible also because, voting is not on the basis of share holders attending, but on the total of the shares held by those who put their resolutions to vote. If 3 or 4 persons or for that matter even one from the managements, accounting for say 30% of votes, vote for the resolutions, and say, 500 attending shareholders accounting for 29% of the votes (in terms of number of shares held), vote against the resolution, the resolution is still considered approved! The nominees of banks, financial institutions, generally do not attend in majority of cases, and even where they do, conduct themselves as dumb zombies.
In the US, AGMs are dreaded by most managements, because the informed, assertuve retail shareholders do bring the roof down on the promoters, when the company is not doing well and show the door to such managements at times. Here, it is a brief ritual, may be at times also with some discomfoort and nuisance for managements, but surely something that will not stick!
If retail investors are to safeguard their interests, this aberration must be addressed first, by making atleast the gist of their comments, mandatorily included in the proceedings in the Annual Reports. There can be no greater nightmare for incompetent or fradulent managements, that could compel them to either shape up or get out, than by changing the meaning of calculating votes cast in an AGM or SGM, to mean the number of shareholders attending the meeting, and delinking votes cast, from the number of shares that each shareholder holds.
N.NARASIMHAN
Zerodha (Trading Account)
RHP
IPO Mentor (600+ Posts, 300+ Likes)
