redemption ? or a feint ?

"Trading, proprietary or otherwise, did not lead to the financial crisis," said Rob Nichols, president of the Financial Services Forum, a lobbying group for CEOs of firms such as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.

He said the government should be focused on better risk management, corporate governance and other forms of regulatory oversight, "rather than arbitrarily banning certain activities, or setting arbitrary size limits."

This guy Obama was living true to my prediction all of 2009 as an expert practitioner of masterly inactivity. But post the loss of a crucial and important senate seat in a recent election he has suddenly realised why he won the elections in the first place - TO CLEAR THE MESS THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAD MADE IN THE PAST CENTURY..

If this proposal of his to limit banks to banking and remove all proprietary trading to separate entities not backed by banks or institutions where public money is involved were to pass muster in congress - this man Obama will have my vote if ever he decides to move to India and stand for elections. (why not - we have no problems with an italian running the country!!).

As for Mr Rob Nichols and those whom he represents - they now have to think up another way to keep their casinos running with public funds!!

SATiAte

Is this a blooper from the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) or things so corrupt in this country that any kind of verdict is up for sale?

Point of the case:

1. Are PE firms to be treated as promoters (as they have controlling rights on decision making) etc.?

SAT has ruled that in the case of Subhkam Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd, that PE firms need not have to lose their affirmative rights as this would not amount to control and hence the tag of promoter would not attach to them.

What I fail to understand is that if some are first among equals as all will be shareholders, then for that purpose there is the possibility to issue differential voting rights stocks. The very fact that some shareholders have rights that normal shareholders do not and cannot exercise - those holding these rights should be made more accountable and their actions transparent. It would be easy for a competitor to mask his investments in a rival company and kill it by effectively using his affirmative acts to see that the rival is slow to react to his moves in the market.

This kind of trend is dangerous as L&T recently had a proposal in its Board to enter the field of Insurance. Its largest shareholder which is LIC has reportedly blocked the proposal as they fear the competition and the consequential loss of business. Where is no shareholder agreement if an LIC with one member on the board can flex its muscles one fears what these PE's would do if they were to be given this free hand with no accountability or transparency as to their holdings.

It would be interesting to see if SEBI were to appeal this. Would be interesting to know the lobbyists who got this victory for the PE investors.