Sunday 15 March 2015

Bond issue: Probe begins amid growing demand for CB Governor to step down

Three lawyers nominated by the United National Party (UNP) began their investigations this week on a controversial Treasury bond issue that has rocked the ruling party as demands grew this week for under-fire Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran to quit or ‘take leave of absence’ while the probe was pending.

The Governor is being investigated for alleged ‘insider dealing’ and allegedly helping his son-in-law Arjun Aloysius’ company Perpetual Treasuries get an unfair advantage in a Rs. 10 billion Treasury bond transaction a fortnight back.

The three -member committee comprise Gamini Pitipana (Chairman), Mahesh Kalugampitiya and Chandima Mendis. Their names were forwarded to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe for the investigation by UNP vice president (Legal) Daya Pelpola.

What was seen as a party inquiry into the matter of national importance was criticised by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and good governance activists.
“The committee announced as appointees to constitute the inquiry panel, totally lacked the required capability (knowledge, skills, attitudes and values) and appeared to have questionable independence due to conflicting network connections to a political party which constitutes your government,” said good governance activist Chandra Jayaratne in a letter to President Maithripala Sirisena on Friday.

Urging an independent inquiry into the February 27 controversial bond issue in which the CB had accepted Rs. 10 billion against an advertised amount of Rs. 1 billion, Mr. Jayaratne suggested the appointment of a four-member committee of experts including former CB Deputy Governor W. A. Wijewardena, retired experienced treasury manager Sanjiva Senanayake and two financial and accounting specialists.

Sunil Handunnetti, the JVP’s spokesperson on economic issues, repeated his call for a credible investigation. He told the Sunday Times yesterday that the Governor should either step down to enable an independent investigation or the Government should replace him. “Our position is that there should be a proper investigation. Furthermore this investigation should be credible and (should) be carried out irrespective of whether or not it had anything to do with a relative of the Governor,” he said.

Meanwhile, Mr. Mahendran, who couldn’t be reached on the phone yesterday for comment, had flown to Singapore and Los Angeles on official business, returning to work on Friday.

The Government, earlier said the decision to hurriedly increase the bond issue (from Rs. 1 billion to Rs. 10 billion) was based on a need to raise Rs. 12 to 15 billion to pay off urgent bills from road construction work handled by the previous government.

Deputy Economic Planning Minister Harsha de Silva defended the Government’s actions that were taken so far. However he said, “I won’t defend anyone if wrong has been committed”. Yesterday, asked to comment, Dr. de Silva said “something will happen (next week). Wait for the completion of the probe committee process”.

Market dealers said if the Government desperately needed funds, the CB could have announced another emergency bond, more transparently, rather than catching the market off-guard by accepting more bids than the advertised amount.

Around 9.30 am on February 27, some dealers were informed by the CB that the indicative interest rate (the rate at which the bonds were most likely to be accepted) would be around 9-9.5 per cent.

The auction was taking place at 11 am on the same day, and, according to one dealer “we were shocked that two hours later the CB had accepted bids up to 12.5 per cent.”

The usual practice is for the CB to accept the lowest bids but in this case, interest rates in the market which were around 9-9.5 per cent shot up to 12.5 per cent, substantially increasing the cost of borrowing to the Government by at least 300 basis points (3 per cent). “This is a huge jump and costly borrowing,” one economist said.

This week, the CB had five bond auctions at three to 20 year tenure periods raising a total of Rs.89.2 billion at interest rates ranging from 9 per cent to 11+ per cent. “Interest rates have gone up due to the February 27 bond auction coupled with a CB policy announcement on the same day,” one dealer said.
The Government’s expenditure plans have gone haywire due to a shortfall in tax revenue and a surge in huge bills for road construction which it says was not settled by the previous administration.

Economists said the cost of borrowings will sharply rise owing to the emergency requirement of Rs. 15 billion this month while the outstanding amount to be paid for land acquisition alone was reported to be Rs. 44 billion.

Dealers in the primary market have urged the CB to discontinue the practice of accepting bids more than what is advertised as it results in manipulation, possible insider trading and undue advantage. (See details in the Business Times)

They, however, praised the CB decision to scrap private placements of bonds, introduced by the previous regime, as they benefited some market players.
sundaytimes.lk

CEB deposits: FCID tells court leasing company paid Rs. 76 m to two agents

The People’s Leasing Company paid Rs. 76.1 million in commission to two ‘agents’ to entice the Ceylon Electricity Board to deposit its Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and pension fund in the company, investigations by the newly setup Finance Criminal Investigation Department (FCID) have revealed.

The FCID on Thursday filed a report in the Colombo Magistrate Court after it completed investigations on the case. FCID officer Y.B. Kahatagahawatta told Colombo’s Additional Magistrate Nirosha Fernando that the transaction – the payment of commissions by the People’s Leasing Company, a subsidiary of the state-owned People’s Bank — was an offence under the Public Property Act.

In a statement to the FCID, the PLC’s Treasury Affairs Manager Dishna Kumari Ratnayaka had said the company had been paying the commission since 2008 to the two agents to attract deposits from the CEB. But a CEB accountant in his statement claimed that no agents were involved in the process.

A CEB clerk told the FCID that Board had deposited more than Rs. 3.4 billion in PLC since 2008 and had ten certificates of deposits. The case will be taken up on April 30.
sundaytimes.lk

“Small Shareholders complain to SEC over malpractices by their brokers”

Right of Reply

The Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) has sent the following response to the article under the above headline which appeared in the Business Times last week. Extracts:

The CSE wishes to clarify certain issues raised in the said article with regard to the role of the CSE in safeguarding the interests of the investors when handling complaints made by investors against stockbroker firms.

The procedure to be adopted by the CSE in respect of “Client-Stockbroker Dispute Resolution” is stipulated in Section 10 of the Stockbroker Rules of the CSE. In terms of Rule 10.2 (read in conjunction with Rule 10.3) of the said Stockbroker Rules, an investor may refer to the CSE, a complaint against a Stockbroker Firm with regard to transactions that have been carried out in his/her CDS Account and such complaint will be dealt with by the officials appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of the CSE.

The Secretariat of the CSE will arrive at its decision in accordance with the Stockbroker Rules of the CSE based on the representations (verbal and written) made by the parties concerned and any documentary evidence furnished to the CSE. The decision of the Secretariat of the CSE and the reasons for such decision will be communicated to the parties in writing. In the event, if either party is not satisfied with the decision of the Secretariat of the CSE, such party may appeal to the Dispute Resolution Committee of the CSE (a sub Committee of the CSE Board), within a period of twenty one (21) days of the decision, for an adjudication of such decision.

The CSE assures the public that the CSE has been inquiring into complaints made by investors against stockbroker firms in an independent and transparent manner and at no time has attempted to mislead investors or treat them indifferently.

The decision of the Secretariat of the CSE with regard to the complaint made by Ms. Harshani Wijenaike has been based on the observations made by the CSE in regard to the rights and obligations of the parties in this regard and the CSE has communicated to the parties the reasons (with reference to the relevant documentary evidence) for arriving at the said decision.

Further, with regard to concerns that have been raised in connection with the CDS Account that has been opened in the name of Ms. Wijenaike’s mother, it will be appreciated by the party concerned that ascertaining the authenticity of the documents in question is not a matter within the regulatory purview of the CSE. In the circumstances, the matter can be referred to a competent authority by the party concerned and the CSE assures its fullest co operation in connection with any investigation carried out by such competent authority in this regard. The Secretariat of the CSE has not yet finalized the decisions with regard to the complaints made to the CSE by Mr. K P Somaratne and Mr. S.P.S.S. de Silva.

The CSE notes with growing concern that many investors complain to the CSE years after the disputed transactions have been carried out in their CDS Accounts despite the advice given on the reverse side of the monthly Statements dispatched by the CDS (in all three languages) and the Contract Notes requiring investors to bring any disputed transactions to the attention of the Compliance Officer of the Stockbroker Firm / CSE immediately.”

Business Times: Ms. Wijenaike when contacted by the Business Times denied statements made pertaining to her enquiry.

“I was sent correspondence by the CSE saying that I have to respond to a disputed transaction within 21 days and my enquiry came when the time had lapsed. Why I didn’t complain during the said time period was thrown at me many times. It was mainly because I didn’t have enough confidence to do so and with the past regime it was near impossible,” she said, pointing out that in a court of law, this argument does not arise as a complaint has to be perused thoroughly irrespective of the time frame.

“I was also told that it’s my ‘responsibility’ to be informed of the CDS transactions as I had SMS correspondence with my stockbroker. How can this be held as my responsibility? I didn’t get any documents on my transactions.

I never got any statements on my margin accounts. Also I have never received a document on credit extension. I also never signed to open a margin account,” she said.

“The stockbroker at the meeting with all three parties couldn’t come up with any documentation pertaining to my credit agreement or the margin account,”she added, further stating that when she kept on asking for these documents, the broker kept mum.

“The CSE officials also didn’t request the broker for it. I shouted myself hoarse asking the broker to produce documentation and all they did was divert the discussion saying I was well aware of what took place in this entire incident.”

Ms. Wijenaike insisted that she had ‘only’ signed an account opening document. “My broker had opened an online trading account for me. The stockbroking advisor had signed this online trading account opening form and had traded on it.”

When the Business Times reverted to Rajeeva Bandaranaike, CEO CSE, he said that Ms. Wijenaike can always respond to the Dispute Resolution Committee of the CSE (a sub Committee of the CSE Board), within a period of 2) days of the decision, for an adjudication of such decision.
But, Ms. Wijenaike in turn said she wasn’t aware of such an entity. “We’re not properly communicated on what we should or shouldn’t do.”
sundaytimes.lk

Former SEC official traded in stocks

Complaints have been received by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pertaining to transactions carried out by a former top official, according to sources.

SEC officials are not supposed to trade on shares while holding office and when they do, it has to be communicated to the Commission members for approval.

While the complaint hasn’t been examined as yet, it was established that the said official had changed certain SEC rules to unload some shares while in office, sources close to the SEC told the Business Times. “Apparently he has also traded under a different name with an account maintained at a ‘friendly stockbroker’. One source said, adding that this is illegal.

Another source said that right now, the understanding is that there has been a violation pertaining to such trades. “This is yet to be established, but the authorities are on this trail.”

Earlier when Thilak Karunaratne had held office as Chairman in his first stint nearly two years ago, he had stopped trading of shares he held in listed companies. When contacted, he told the Business Times, “This time too I have completely stopped trading.” But he didn’t want to comment on this particular issue of the former SEC official’s trading.
sundaytimes.lk

Primary dealers seek urgent meeting with CB on bond issue

The Central Bank (CB) is yet to respond to a request from primary market dealers trading in Treasury bonds for an urgent meeting to discuss the crisis in the bond market exacerbated by allegations of insider trading, traders said.

Soon after a crisis erupted on Friday February 27, 2015 when the CB accepted bids for Rs. 10 billion, 900 per cent more than the advertised amount of Rs. 1 billion, an association represented dealers met at an emergency session and decided to meet the CB’s Superintendent of Public Debt whose department handles these issues.

Traders said a meeting-request letter was sent on March 2 but a response had not been received as yet as of Thursday.

The issue of accepting bids over the advertised amount has been nagging primary dealers for many years, and it was brought to the notice of the earlier administration too. “The practice of accepting bids more than what is advertised is an unhealthy one and could leave room for manipulation,” said one trader.

While there have been instances in the past where the CB has accepted bids over the advertised amount, the large amount it accepted at the controversial February 27 auction surprised many and caught the market off guard. Interest rates were also higher and along with a CB policy change on the same day, pertaining to interest rates, traders were caught on the back foot.

Bids worth Rs. 5 billion – directly and indirectly – by Perpetual Treasuries, a market trading company owned by the family of Arjun Aloysius, son-in-law of CB Governor Arjuna Mahendran, were accepted raising questions as to whether they had prior information about the CB accepting upto Rs. 10 billion in bids.

The Government, in a response to the criticism, said that there had been a discussion on February 26 where the need to urgently raise up to Rs. 15 billion in bonds for road contract payments, etc was decided. This, it said, was the reason why the CB decided to accept bids over than the requested amount.

In response, dealers say the CB could have asked the dealers on the same day (February 26) to submit an amended bid for the auction closing the next day (February 27). “This is not difficult since traders are networked to the CB and fresh bids could have been electronically submitted,” one dealer said, adding that the CB could use this formula to make the auctions more transparent in the future.

Dealers said after the scandal, Perpetual was maintaining a low profile and few banks were said to be dealing with the firm on bond related issues.
Clarity

This benefit unfortunately will not apply to those caught up with the January 31 cut-off date who had over Rs. 1 million in their deposits, they said. “This is a huge mess by the Government. The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing,” said one affected senior citizen.


Turmoil in the bond market

There are 16 primary dealers registered in the money markets. When a Treasury bond is offered by the Central Bank (CB), the dealers are obliged to make an offer (even if they are not interested) and in such a situation, uninterested parties are likely to make bids of 10 per cent or less of the total amount sought.

The Bank of Ceylon’s combined bid totalled Rs. 3.58 billion while the next highest came from Perpetual Treasuries with a combined total of Rs. 2 billion (while its balance Rs. 3 billion was said to have been routed through the Bank of Ceylon). Dealers also allege that swings in the interest rates in the money market which impacted on pre-bond and post-bond trades may have also benefited this particular trader.

In such cases, these uninterested dealers make what are called ‘dummy’ bids at high rates in the hope and presumption that these high bids would be rejected as the CB generally accepts the lower bid range, unless the banking regulator is desperate for funds.

In the latest case, 10 per cent of Rs.1 billion worked out to little over Rs. 62 million per dealer (16 in total). According to a leaked document on the final bids accepted by the CB, the CB table revealed a total of 13 out of 26 bids which were Rs. 100 million and below (one at Rs. 8 million; seven at Rs. 100 million and eight at Rs. 50 million). There were four bids, one at Rs. 3 billion (Bank of Ceylon) and three at Rs. 1 billion and slightly over.
sundaytimes.lk