InCorp Advisory, an Ascentium Company, strengthens Digital & Cyber Risk Practice with acquisition of Ken & Co.
Ken & Co. brings deep expertise in critical regulatory and global service areas, including Regulatory Cybersecurity Compliance (including CSCRF), IT Audit & Assurance, Data Privacy Advisory (including GDPR and DPDP Act), SOC Advisory Services, Cross-Border Cybersecurity Assessments and Cyber maturity assessments with penetration testing capabilities.
"Our acquisition of Ken & Co. aligns with InCorp India's vision to deliver future-ready risk, compliance, and assurance services," said Manish Modi, CEO for InCorp Advisory, an Ascentium Company (InCorp India). "It strengthens our portfolio amid rising cybersecurity and regulatory demands, deepens our GRC practice, and expands our footprint in India." CA Narasimhan Elangovan, founder of Ken & Co. and a recognized expert in digital assurance and data privacy, will join InCorp India's leadership team to lead the Cybersecurity Practice. His expertise in regulatory cybersecurity frameworks, data privacy, and global outsourcing assurance will be instrumental in expanding InCorp India's international digital risk consulting capabilities.
In the recent past, InCorp India has been strategically strengthening its service portfolio through selective acquisitions of specialised professional services firms that align with its long-term growth strategy. By integrating niche firms with proven track records, such as Ken & Co., InCorp India continues to build a multidisciplinary platform positioned for the evolving regulatory and digital landscape.
About InCorp Advisory InCorp Advisory, an Ascentium Company (InCorp India) offers services across strategy, consulting, compliance, taxation, sustainability, risk, and outsourcing for clients around the world. InCorp India operates from offices in Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, New Delhi, and GIFT City in India.
As part of Ascentium, a global business services platform with more than 2,300 professionals across 44 cities in 22 markets spanning Asia-Pacific (APAC), the Middle East, the Americas, and Europe, supporting over 50,000 client entities, InCorp is expanding opportunities for our clients and partners by offering access to new markets and an even broader range of corporate services, finance and accounting, HR services, as well as fiduciary and trust services.
About Ken & Co.
Ken & Co. is a boutique consulting firm based in Bengaluru, specialising in Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) with a strong emphasis on technology-driven assurance. Ken & Co. has delivered value to clients through digital audits, privacy and cybersecurity services, and data-driven compliance strategies.
Photo: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2734916/InCorp__Ken_Co_acquisition.jpg Logo: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2599817/5174801/InCorp___An_Ascentium_Company_Logo.jpg (Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with PRNewswire and PTI takes no editorial responsibility for the same.).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Dubai real estate deals hit regulatory hurdle! Indian buyers who bought homes using international credit cards in a soup; here's why
AI-generated image Indian property buyers in Dubai are facing regulatory challenges after using international credit cards (ICCs) for property purchases. They opted for this payment method through builder-shared links or during UAE visits, making down payments and instalment payments. The process appeared straightforward, avoiding bank paperwork and potentially circumventing the 20% tax-collected-at-source ( TCS ). However, they allegedly misused ICCs, which are designed for current account transactions like purchasing books, digital content, and hotel bookings, rather than capital account transactions such as property acquisition. While no explicit regulation prohibits ICC usage for overseas property purchases, banking professionals interpret RBI notifications as restrictive of such practices. Also read: Foreign inflows hit 7-month high in primary market with $1.7 billion in July; secondary market sees sharp outflows To address scrutiny from income tax and enforcement authorities, these investors are pursuing corrective measures. They plan to remit funds through RBI's Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS), while cancelling previous credit card transactions, citing error. Subsequently, they expect refunds from builders, failing which property disposal becomes necessary. "Indian residents who have unintentionally paid money through credit card for purchase of property outside India need to approach RBI to regularise their mode of payment. RBI should take a lenient view as the money paid through credit card is a legitimate payment and only the mode of payment was wrong. The regulator should compound the contravention if applied for and need not ask to unwind the transaction or sell the property," said Rajesh Shah, partner at the CA firm Jayantilal Thakkar & Co, as quoted by news agency PTI. While compounding requires accepting violation and paying fines, some buyers prefer discretion, quietly cancelling credit card transactions. The LRS permits resident individuals annual transfers of $250,000 for overseas assets and online purchases. ICC usage within India for foreign purchases counts towards LRS limits, whilst overseas travel expenses are exempt. Property purchases via ICC remain non-compliant, regardless of transaction location. RBI's LRS circular specifies maintaining bank accounts for minimum one year before capital account remittances. According to Moin Ladha, partner at the law firm Khaitan & Co, quoted by ET, "Purchase of property overseas is permitted specifically under Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules, 2022. These rules prescribe the mode and conditions permitting such acquisition, which include inheritance, gift, funds in a resident foreign currency account earned as an erstwhile NRI, and remittance under the LRS. Since general permission is not available to acquire a property by using an ICC, any such acquisitions need to be regularised (by a post facto approval or sale of the property) followed by compounding the interim non-compliance with RBI." Property purchases abroad remain subject to 20% TCS under section 206C(1G)(a) of the I-T Act, regardless of RBI's stance on transactions, notes Ashish Karundia, founder of Ashish Karundia & Co. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . Discover stories of India's leading eco-innovators at Ecopreneur Honours 2025
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11 hours ago
- Business Standard
Ozempic maker's plight shows why managing markets matter for pharma giants
Ozempic-maker Novo Nordisk A/S saw its shares take a record plunge last week, sending their peak-to-trough collapse to 70 per cent and returning them to levels last seen in 2022. The Danish drug giant's purpose may be to improve people's lives, but investors' shrinking gains from its opening of the anti-obesity market matter too. Novo's blind spot has been failing to see its share price as an asset to manage — and exploit. For years, Novo had a relatively quiet life as one member of an insulin oligopoly alongside US peer Eli Lilly & Co. and France's Sanofi SA. While it wasn't a completely smooth ride — 2016 was dire — Novo has never seen operational and strategic challenges on the scale it's now facing. In developing Ozempic for diabetes and its sibling Wegovy for weight loss, the company suddenly found itself riding a tiger. On a five-year view, Novo is still the world's third-best performing major pharma stock, after Eli Lilly and Abbvie Inc. Perhaps if it had made a steadier journey to this point, instead of more than trebling in just over two years before its subsequent slide, there'd have been no drama. Try telling that to Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen. He has been replaced as chief executive officer. First, Novo should not have let market expectations run away. A key issue here was confidence it expressed that a successor to Wegovy, CagriSema, would achieve 25 per cent weight reduction. This long-held view within the company was expressed even a few weeks before trial data came in at 22.7 per cent in December. That was still an impressive achievement, but the stock market was badly disappointed. The shares tumbled amid concern the shortfall would further weaken Novo's competitive position. Company leadership is often overly preoccupied with how to get a share price up. But boards should worry about the stock price in both directions. As the cliché goes: under-promise and over-deliver. Some may say a company can't and shouldn't try to control its share price. But that doesn't let Novo off the hook. Should it not have taken advantage of the strength of its shares by using them as a currency to make an acquisition? That was an opportunity even before the price went into overdrive. Novo could have diversified, say, by buying a biotech specialising in related areas such heart disease. Instead, Novo's fortunes have yoked largely to Wegovy. It's hard to separate this from the governance of the firm. Novo has a controlling shareholder in the form of the Novo Nordisk Foundation. This has a majority of the votes but a minority economic interest. Such foundation ownership is common in Scandinavia. The stated objectives for the Novo investment include 'contributing positively to the lives of people' and 'generating competitive long-term financial results.' That doesn't mean Novo the foundation or Novo the drugmaker ignores ordinary shareholders. The foundation says it has an 'arm's length relationship' with Novo Nordisk, which in turn is governed by an independent board of directors. It also says it's 'particularly mindful of observing and respecting the rights of other shareholders.' Nor has the foundation been passive. It sought the CEO change. And last year it struck a major deal to expand manufacturing capacity. But the general idea that a long-term anchor shareholder is a good thing needs some qualification. Novo's ownership structure and sheer size protect it from a takeover or shareholder activism: These are the twin threats that otherwise focus boards' attention on their stock price. For a controlling shareholder with an indefinite investment horizon, the short-term share price — whether a bubble is inflating or deflating — is unlikely to be of much concern. In turn, such governance is more likely a brake than a spur to doing anything strategically opportunistic, especially if it involves issuing stock that might change the power dynamics. Small wonder that Novo has historically avoided transformational dealmaking in favour of commercial partnerships and small bolt-ons.
Mint
a day ago
- Mint
Why Mortgage Lenders Are Ignoring Trump's Rollback on Home Appraisal Reviews
At one midsized US mortgage lender, almost a quarter of customers who dispute property appraisals find that the value of their home had been miscalculated. It's an industrywide issue that has historically penalized minority groups, and now President Donald Trump has offered lenders the chance to ignore his predecessor's attempts to make it easier for homeowners to question the valuations assigned by property appraisers. Trump has scrapped some of the guidelines, part of his team's vow to stamp out what it sees as initiatives that support diversity, equity and inclusion. Many financial professionals agree that home appraisals can be unreliable, and that Black homeowners and other minorities are often put at a significant disadvantage. This can be especially damaging given that home ownership is the top wealth-creation tool in the US — and an appraisal is a key determinant of how much, if anything, someone can borrow. With their decision to end some of the requirements related to home valuations, however, Trump and his cabinet members may have little impact on lenders' practices. That's because there's fresh evidence that the changes the Biden administration put in place are supported by the industry. Some of the country's biggest lenders, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and U.S. Bancorp, said they would make no policy changes as a result of the rollback. New American Funding, which also isn't planning to change its approach, was the only financial institution of more than 10 contacted by Bloomberg to disclose information about disputed home valuations. The Tustin, California-based mortgage lender, which provided roughly $14 billion of mortgage loans last year, said an average 2.5% of its customers request new valuations each month. Of those contested, roughly 22% are found to need an adjustment. New American didn't share a breakdown of borrowers' requests by race. 'The changes have made it much easier for the borrower,' said Michelle Rogers, New American's chief valuation officer. 'It's more transparent and the borrower knows they can initiate it.' The appraisal directives were put in place following a deep dive by the Biden administration into prejudices in the business. One of Trump's housing regulators, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, said rolling them back was part of an attempt by the president to put an end to the 'obsession' with DEI. The administration also has vowed to make deep cuts to the federal apparatus that enforced fair housing and fair lending laws, from slashing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau staff to gutting the Justice Department's Civil Rights division. A HUD official who spoke on background said the department's recent reforms simply reverted its stance to the way things were before Biden-era regulators imposed their standards. Lenders aren't being barred from letting borrowers dispute their appraisals, said the official who declined to be identified. The White House hasn't responded to a request for comment. Black homeowners have long reported having their homes valued more highly after taking down all evidence of their race. Research from the Brookings Institution and the federally controlled housing finance agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has shown that home appraisals can be affected by racial bias, which in turn affects the value of homes in entire neighborhoods. Brookings found, for example, that homes in neighborhoods where the majority of residents are Black are valued between 21% and 23% lower than comparable homes in white neighborhoods, with appraisal bias as one of several contributing factors. Economists at Freddie Mac reported in 2021 that greater percentages of homes in majority Black and Latino census tracts were undervalued compared with those in white census tracts, leading them to conclude that there was a 'valuation gap' between homes in different neighborhoods. The appraisal problem for minority borrowers also is a problem for lenders, since having low appraisals can prevent a homeowner from qualifying for a mortgage refinancing or a new home loan. That means the lender loses out on valuable business. Banks also suffer when appraisers make mistakes in the opposite direction, valuing properties too highly, because it means the bank can't safely rely on the value of a property as collateral for a loan. The reforms that the mortgage industry recently adopted to try to make the appraisal process fairer originated with a Biden administration task force called PAVE , which was formed in 2021. The group consisted of public officials from 13 different agencies, and its goal was to produce a report with recommended changes to a suite of different mortgage industry standards. PAVE recommended more training for home appraisers and higher standards for appraisers seeking to qualify for professional licenses. Those changes were handled by the Appraisal Foundation, a nonprofit organization that serves as the regulator for home appraisers. A spokeswoman for the foundation declined to comment on the Trump administration's recent changes, but said that new education and licensing standards put in place last year are still in effect. PAVE also called for an industrywide requirement for mortgage lenders to let borrowers request 'a reconsideration of value' if they disagreed with an appraiser's determination. Last year, regulators began requiring mortgage lenders to decide how they would standardize their procedures and to explain them clearly to their customers. In a rare win for the government, the policy received support from the Mortgage Bankers Association. Federal housing regulation includes a web of rules issued by different agencies, including HUD and also Fannie and Freddie. The new home-appraisal guidance went into effect for all of the housing agencies. But so far, the Trump administration has only rolled back the policy for mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which help low- to moderate-income families attain home ownership. On July 17, Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, proposed a bill that would make mortgage lenders' ROV policies required by law. It also would expand public access to data on mortgage appraisals by forcing a federal housing regulator to more regularly share details. While fair-housing advocates support the proposal, the bill also has backing from a more unlikely source: the National Association of Mortgage Brokers. The group represents more than 500,000 mortgage brokers across the US. Its president, Jim Nabors, called the proposed bill 'critical' for ensuring fairness for homebuyers and added: 'Our entire board of directors and membership applaud Senator Warnock.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
