&w=3840&q=100)
Not just 'friendly critics': Independent directors need more accountability
Business Standard Editorial Comment Mumbai
Listen to This Article
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey last week called for greater accountability on the part of independent directors on corporate boards, suggesting that they should not be treated as 'honorary appointees or friendly critics'. This blunt message was addressed to the 2025 Annual Directors Conclave months after Sebi had debarred Gensol Engineering promoters Anmol Singh Jaggi and Puneet Singh Jaggi, who also operated the BluSmart electric-vehicle cab-hailing service, from the market. It is noteworthy that Gensol's four independent directors resigned from the board just as Sebi flagged that the promoters had been diverting funds raised
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
Swiggy hikes platform fee to ₹14 in select regions for festive season
Food delivery platform Swiggy has temporarily increased its platform fee from Rs 12 to Rs 14 in select regions across the country. The Rs 2 hike is being implemented on a pilot basis to manage high demand during the festive season. However, the fee is expected to be rolled back once the festive rush subsides, or it may apply only on festive days when demand slows down. Business Standard placed two separate orders worth around Rs 500 each, one in Central Delhi and the other in Greater Noida. In both instances, the platform fee remained at Rs 12. However, sources familiar with the development confirmed that Swiggy has increased the platform fee by a couple of rupees in select regions experiencing high order volumes. Interestingly, this is not the first time the platform has experimented with fee hikes. The platform fee, which stood at Rs 2 in April 2023, has jumped 600 per cent in just over two years. According to media reports, the Bengaluru-based firm delivers more than two million orders per day. The order history of this reporter shows that orders placed until August 3 charged a platform fee of Rs 11.8. However, orders placed from August 6 consistently charged a fee of Rs 12. The platform is yet to officially comment on the latest fee hike. Swiggy reported a consolidated net loss of Rs 1,197 crore for the first quarter of the financial year 2025-26 (Q1 FY26), widening from a loss of Rs 611 crore in the same period last year. On a sequential basis, the company's losses deepened from Rs 1,081 crore in Q4 FY25.
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
Best Mutual Funds: These 6 value schemes delivered over 20% annualised returns in past 3 years
Best Mutual Funds: Before investing in a mutual fund scheme, investors typically examine its past few years' returns and compare them with those of other schemes in the same category. The past performance of mutual funds sets the tone for their future performance. A high-performing fund, for instance, is likely to garner a lot of contributions from new investors, whereas a low-performing fund fails to gain traction over time. Here, we list out the high-performing value schemes that delivered over 20 per cent annualised returns in the past three years. Let us first understand what a value mutual fund is. Value mutual funds refer to those schemes which follow a value investment strategy with at least 65 per cent in stocks. These funds identify securities that are currently undervalued but are seen to perform well in future after their value is unlocked. There are a total of 24 value schemes with total assets under management (AUM) of ₹ 2.01 lakh crore, according to the latest AMFI (Association of Mutual Funds in India) data as on July 31, 2025. Value Fund 3-year-returns (%) Axis Value Fund 21.45 HSBC Value fund 23.84 ICICI Pru Value 21.05 JM Value Fund 23.34 Nippon India Value 21.19 Quant Value Fund 22.98 (Source: AMFI; regular returns as on 13 August 2025) As we can see in the table above, JM Value Fund delivered over 23 per cent annualised returns in the past three years, while HSBC Value Fund gave 23.84 per cent returns. Other schemes which have delivered high returns include Axis Value Fund and ICICI Prudential Value Fund. Notably, past returns do not guarantee future returns. This means just because some scheme has given exceptional returns in the past, it does not mean it will continue to deliver similar returns in the future as well. Other factors that investors are supposed to consider before making an investment decision include the reputation of the fund house, whether the scheme is active or passive, past performance of the fund manager (in the case of an active scheme), and the overall macroeconomic scenario that prevails, among others. Note: This story is for informational purposes only. Please speak to a SEBI-registered investment advisor before making any investment-related decision. For all personal finance updates, visit here
Mint
5 hours ago
- Mint
Sebi's AIF rule changes give fund managers more time—but add new challenges
The landscape for Alternate Investment Funds (AIFs) in India is undergoing significant change with recent regulatory amendments from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi). These changes aim to resolve long-standing challenges in managing unliquidated assets while giving fund managers more operational flexibility. At the same time, they introduce new complexities that will require careful oversight to ensure investor confidence is not undermined. This article examines the opportunities and challenges these reforms bring, and how Sebi can further strengthen its framework. The changes The Sebi amendments provide flexibility for AIFs by allowing more time to maximise asset valuation. These changes improve outcomes for both fund managers and investors. Increased flexibility for fund management: One of the most notable changes introduced by Sebi is the option for AIFs to enter a "dissolution period" to manage unliquidated investments within their existing schemes. This allows funds to extend their lifecycle in a structured manner, offering fund managers more time and flexibility to dispose of these assets. In the past, funds with unliquidated investments often struggled to wind down promptly, leading to costly administrative and legal burdens. By eliminating the need to create separate liquidation schemes, the dissolution period simplifies operations and provides an efficient path to closing out investments that would otherwise remain stranded. The ability to manage residual investments within the existing fund structure also helps mitigate the risk of distress sales. Fund managers now have the latitude to wait for favourable market conditions or work through complex resolutions without the pressure of an impending deadline, which could result in more favourable outcomes for investors. One-time extension for liquidation: Sebi has also introduced a one-time extension for AIFs with liquidation periods that have either expired or were set to expire before 24 July 2024. This extension is a crucial lifeline, particularly for funds facing illiquid markets or assets that are difficult to sell. It enables fund managers to avoid hasty liquidations that might lead to suboptimal returns. For investors, the extension could result in better outcomes, as fund managers will have the necessary time to work on maximizing the value of their investments, instead of rushing into sales that could lead to unnecessary losses. The challenges Sebi's changes often aim to improve market integrity and protect investors, but they can indeed bring challenges. Balancing these challenges is crucial to ensuring that the regulatory environment supports both market efficiency and investor protection. Transparency concerns: While beneficial for fund managers, extending the holding period raises transparency issues. Delayed disclosures regarding the asset quality and performance of these unliquidated investments could erode investor trust. Sebi must enforce stringent monitoring and ensure that investors remain fully informed, even during extended holding periods. Limited investor options in distribution: Investors may face limited choices when it comes to receiving returns from unliquidated assets. If investors are unwilling to accept in-specie distribution (where they receive the unliquidated asset directly), the investment may be written off. This approach could be detrimental to investors who are not prepared to manage such assets themselves, highlighting the need for more diverse exit options. Valuation complexities: Accurately valuing unliquidated investments is a challenging task. The inherent subjectivity in assessing the worth of illiquid assets can lead to discrepancies between perceived and actual values, increasing the potential for disputes. Ensuring accurate, transparent valuation mechanisms will be crucial to avoiding conflict and ensuring fair outcomes for all stakeholders. Suggested next steps In the evolving landscape of fund management, ensuring transparency and flexibility for both investors and fund managers is crucial. To enhance this dynamic, Sebi could consider the following measures: Standardized exit options: Sebi could explore standardized exit mechanisms for investors who are unwilling to accept in-specie distribution. Facilitating secondary market transactions for illiquid assets or establishing more structured exit strategies could provide greater flexibility to investors. Clearer guidelines on dissolution procedures: Providing more explicit guidelines for entering and exiting the dissolution period would offer clarity for fund managers and investors alike. This could reduce confusion and ensure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of the process. Periodic review of the dissolution period: Sebi ould commit to reviewing the effectiveness of the dissolution period after a certain time. This would allow for adjustments to be made based on market feedback and performance, ensuring that the system remains responsive and effective. Simplified consent mechanisms: Streamlining the consent process—perhaps through electronic voting or reducing the consent threshold—could make it easier for fund managers to make critical decisions without unnecessary delays. Simplified procedures would reduce administrative burdens and improve the agility of fund management. The success of these reforms hinges on addressing potential transparency issues and creating more robust exit options for investors. With further refinements, these amendments could catalyse even greater growth and innovation in India's AIF industry, while maintaining investor confidence and market integrity. Priyesh Chheda is founder of Arbour Investments.
