#suprioghatak #frontrunning
#insidertrading #axismutualfund #sebi
The Axis Mutual Fund Story
What is the
difference between front-running and insider trading?
Both affect mutual fund unit holders and stock
market investors.
Our seventh-largest fund house, Axis Mutual Fund, has suspended
two fund managers including its chief dealer and is investigating improprieties
in the funds they have handled. While it is yet unknown what is the exact
nature of these violations, domestic mutual funds have come under investigation
for front-running.
Front-running is not insider trading, though the culprits
make money in both by trading in shares. In front-running, a dealer within an
institutional money manager like a mutual fund or a share broker abuses knowledge
of orders that the mutual fund has for the day and tries to profit from them.
What are the differences between the two?
How to make a cheat sheet in a front-running fraud
The fund manager decides what to buy or sell. Informs his dealer
who executes the trade on behalf of the fund house. It has a dealing room in an
isolated area where these trades happen all day long. Only dealers and fund
managers are allowed entry. And the crime takes place here.
The dealer to make profit enters the market minutes before punching
the fund house order. Mutual funds place large orders which sharply move the stock
price.
The dealer buys or sells the stock minutes before a mutual fund
places its trades, buying or selling the stock.
The idea is to profit from the big investor’s moves, either by
buying or selling shares.
What is insider trading?
It is when a company insider, official, employee or senior executive, takes advantage of unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) to trade in the company’s stock and make profits from such transactions.
It is done by a company’s employee to make profit by dealing in
the company’s shares.
Front running can be done in just about any stocks or sectors by
unrelated people, having knowledge of large investors’ plans to trade in the
markets.
What is the Impact on investors?
Insider trading gives an unfair advantage on the basis of non-public information.
SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations clearly define
the insider and what constitutes unpublished price-sensitive information.
Public shareholders like mutual funds are at a disadvantage as
company insiders have access to UPSI, take undue advantage and use accounts of
their associates to execute such trades.
SEBI has put in place certain checks and balances to prevent
insider trading. For example, SEBI’s code of conduct for listed companies
states that trading restrictions on insiders can come into force from the end
of every quarter till 48 hours after the declaration of the company’s financial
results.
In front-running, if the
dealer benefits, how does it harm the unit holders of the fund house?
Knowing that the mutual fund is going to buy a certain stock, he can build a position immediately in another account. And as the price rises with the mutual fund buying it in large quantities, he can sell the stock and make a quick profit.
Similar is the case when the dealer knows that the mutual fund is
going to sell a stock. Then, the mutual fund scheme is deprived of a
market-driven price, as the presence of more participants who have taken
positions in the market, the stock price gets impacted.
When the fund house finally enters, the stock price is already
manipulated.
A one-off incident does not materially impact a stock’s price. But
a dealer repeatedly front-running a large investor can make lots of money.
Worse still, if the buying is large enough, it can create a large
jump in the stock price. So, when the mutual fund is buying, it is buying at a
higher price than it would have otherwise.
The dealer will not execute such fraudulent trades in his own
account, but through his associates and their accounts, to avoid getting
caught. These accounts are mule accounts in stock market vocab.
Front-running also impacts other stock market investors, as the
latter trade at prices manipulated by the dealer for his own gain.
Most mutual funds have strong control measures to check front-running.
Access to dealing room is strictly controlled. Surveillance cameras keep an eye
on the dealing room. No mobile phones are allowed inside the dealing room.
All conversations are on recorded lines. Declarations need to be
made of personal holdings as well as those defined as relatives. Pre-clearance
is required when trading in shares in personal account or in those of relatives.
However, all such controls are possible within the premises of the
fund house. Work from home has made it difficult to ensure these controls in
letter and spirit. Calls still get recorded, but who is interacting within his
own premises cannot be controlled.
How has SEBI dealt with
front running?
When SEBI has found violations, it has imposed monetary penalties. Dealers, fund managers and the outside brokers with whom they have worked in collusion get penalised. Rarely the CEO of the fund house pays a monetary penalty. Unlike US SEC, it is rarer in India to penalise or debar a CEO of an Asset Management Company. On the gravity of the securities fraud, SEBI pulls up the fund house’s trustees and the Board of Directors.
Sometimes, proceedings get settled through consent mechanism of SEBI, also known as settlement process, where the institution under investigation, settles the case with SEBI in lieu of payment of monetary penalty and voluntary restrictions. In one of the first cases of insider trading that came to light in public domain, a large fund house’s head had to pay Rs 15 lakh fine, as part of SEBI’s consent proceedings. The fund house and its trustee board had to pay Rs 20 lakh each.
A
consent mechanism is usually of two types; one where the fund house neither
admits nor denies the findings of fact or conclusion of law, and the second
category where there is admission. In the first the penalty amount is higher in
comparison to the cases where fund house admits the charges.
And how
is the consent fine decided? SEBI relies on the formula prescribed in the
Regulations where it takes into account the size and nature of the offence,
impact on the market, the company and conduct of the culprit.
To be
continued
No comments:
Post a Comment