Subscribe for perks & to support LI

Your Interests & Preferences: Personalise your reading

Which best describes your role and/or interests?

I work in a law firm
I work for a company / in-house
I'm a litigator at the bar
I'm a law student
Aspiring law student
Save setting
Or click here to show more preferences...

I am interested in the following types of stories (uncheck to hide from frontpage)

Firms / In-House
Legal Education

Always show me: (overrides the above)

Exclusives & Editor's Picks

Website Look & Feel

Light Text on Dark Background

Save preferences

Note: Your preferences will be saved in your browser. You can always change your settings by clicking the Your Preferences button at the top of every page.

Reset preferences to defaults?

Why and how the RBI relaxed pricing norms for foreign investors in its first policy statement: Jay Parikh

Jay ParikhJay ParikhVerus Advocates partner Jay Parikh explains why the Reserve Bank of India recently announced it won’t dictate valuation of shares for foreign investors anymore.

Under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”) read with the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident outside India) Regulations, 2000 and RBI circular dated 4 May 2010, different pricing norms are prescribed for the acquisition and sale of listed as well as unlisted equity instruments of companies by non-residents.

On one hand, shares of a listed company may be acquired by non-residents for at least the price prescribed under the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 (“SEBI Guidelines”), on the other, shares of an unlisted company may be acquired by non-residents for at least the price arrived at as per the discounted cash flow method (“DCF Method”).

Similarly, for sale of shares by a non-resident to a resident, the same valuation methodologies would apply i.e. SEBI Guidelines for listed shares and DCF Method of unlisted shares, save that the price thus arrived at shall work as the ceiling or maximum transaction price.

The pricing guidelines are further nuanced for equity instruments embedded with optionality clauses issued to non-residents.

Post the expiry of a lock-in period of 1 year or any other applicable lock-in period, whichever is higher, the non-resident investors are eligible to exit, without any assured return, (i) in case of instruments of a listed company, at the market price prevailing at the recognised stock exchanges; (ii) in case of an unlisted company’s equity shares, at a price not exceeding that arrived at on a Return on Equity (“RoE”) basis, and (iii) for investments in convertible instruments, at a price worked out as per any internationally accepted pricing methodology at the time of exit.

While the move from Controller of Capital Issues determined pricing formula to DCF Method in 2010 evoked mixed reactions, the DCF Method, it was discovered, had its own share of criticisms - for example, the heavy reliance on future projections for arriving at a valuation. There was also growing discontent over the ‘step-motherly’ treatment given to foreign investors in having differential pricing norms for entry and exit.

In view of the criticisms, in the first bi-monthly monetary policy statement for 2014-15 (“Policy Statement”), the RBI has announced that “as regards foreign direct investment (FDI), it has been decided to withdraw all the existing guidelines relating to valuation in case of any acquisition/sale of shares and accordingly, such transactions will henceforth be based on acceptable market practices. Operating guidelines will be notified separately.”

What this essentially means is that the methodology for valuation of shares basis which the entry and exit price is determined for non-resident investors, as discussed above, will now no longer be prescribed by RBI. It is likely that the operating guidelines, once notified, would be in tune with the income tax provisions regarding fair value and the global standards for valuation of shares. Further, it is widely felt that such relaxation could provide far greater flexibility to transacting parties to achieve their commercial objectives in an FDI transaction.

While such a relaxation of the pricing restrictions on equity instruments has been greeted warmly by the foreign investors, till such time as the operating guidelines are actually notified, foreign investors continue to debate certain concerns that arise. For instance, one big concern amongst foreign investors is whether RBI would retain base / ceiling price requirements given that the Policy Statement only speaks about withdrawing “existing guidelines relating to valuation”.

Another concern is whether RBI would continue to frown upon “assured returns” mechanisms. 

Download policy statement here.

Jay Parikh is a corporate and transactional partner at Verus Advocates.

Click to show 10 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
Like +5 Object -3 HR 04 Apr 14, 12:04
How and Why Article: I'm sorry but this article doesn't address 'why'. We all know 'how'-it's right there in a line or two in the rbi policy.
It's just a quick and basic summary of the past, present and new policy.
Reply Report to LI
Like +4 Object -2 R Rajan 04 Apr 14, 12:40
Thanks, we didn't know any of this.
Reply Report to LI
Like +2 Object -1 Vivek 04 Apr 14, 12:53
It should have been better if the write up could have been more detailed one.
Reply Report to LI
Like +6 Object -0 LoL 05 Apr 14, 12:33  interesting
For that, you need to pay.
Reply Report to LI
Like +6 Object -7 Guest 04 Apr 14, 15:03  controversial
Typical "client-update" style writeup giving a neat little summary of the policy statement with no analysis.

In any event nobody goes to a lawyer for an analysis of economic policy so the title and intent of the writer is doubly shady.

This is the kind of shoddy writing and publishing that gives LI a bad name. I remember one such "writeup" on the Vaz judgment some time ago and that was equally poorly written.

Kian, until you get this nonsense reviewed by people in the field and practice, your site will continue looking silly when this stuff is published.
Reply Report to LI
Like +9 Object -1 kianganz 04 Apr 14, 15:07  interesting
We actually requested a write up along those lines to explain the new law and give a brief analysis.

Not everyone is aware of the new RBI policy and as such I found it a useful digest for people tracking this sector and RBI policy...
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 Sam 09 Apr 14, 17:35
Quoting kianganz:
We actually requested a write up along those lines to explain the new law and give a brief analysis.

Not everyone is aware of the new RBI policy and as such I found it a useful digest for people tracking this sector and RBI policy...

Kian, I dont believe that the RBI will do away with the pricing requirement, they will only give people flexibility on method. Check the LLP amendments to FEMA 20. They still prescribe floor / ceiling, but allow parties to choose internationally acceptable method.
Reply Report to LI
Like +2 Object -1 guest 2 04 Apr 14, 19:38
What do you expect in a write up for LI ? If you have the wherewhithal to give extra inputs who prevents you from giving it ? Kian would be happy to publish it.
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -5 summarybhai 15 Apr 14, 12:30
this writeup is a summary of a client update. please avoid such publication in future.
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 querist 08 Jun 17, 17:48
isn't this guy in SAM???!
Reply Report to LI

Latest comments