New FDI rules may have unintended effects 

#GS3 #Economy 

Ministry’s note, a likely reference to Chinese investors 

  • The Ministry of Commerce press note amending the FDI policy to make investments from countries which ‘share a land border’ with India can only be construed as being aimed at Chinese investors.  
  • Such restrictions were already applicable to Pakistan and Bangladesh, while Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka are not major investors in India. 
  • The note makes clear its objective is to curb opportunistic takeovers or acquisitions due to the current COVID-19 pandemic. This is a likely reference to the possibility of Chinese investors purchasing undervalued shares of Indian-listed companies.  
  • This is indeed a risk that has also been identified by other countries. On April 12, news of an incremental purchase of shares in HDFC made by the People’s Bank of China made the headlines. 
  • A plain reading of the amended policy makes every type of investment by Chinese investors subject to government approval. It neither distinguishes between greenfield and brownfield investments nor listed and unlisted companies. 
  • It also does not distinguish between the different types of investors, such as industry players, financial institutions, or venture capital funds. Such a blanket application could create unintended problems. 
  • Making government approval necessary for acquisitions in private companies by Chinese investors will only reduce the number of potential investors available for a prospective seller, and drive down the valuation. 
  • The absence of a white knight may cause bankruptcy and job losses. Greenfield investments are another category where the new rules may pose obstacles. 
  • Most investors in companies such as Zomato, Swiggy, Bigbasket, Makemytrip, Oyo, Ola and Snapdeal are either venture capital funds registered in off-shore tax havens or listed in stock exchanges in the U.S. or Hong Kong. 
  • It will prove to be extremely difficult to attribute nationality to venture capital funds or fix the ultimate beneficial ownership of listed companies down to founders of a certain nationality. 
  • By abolishing the Foreign Investment Promotion Board in 2017, India took the decision of dismantling the last vestige of an FDI regime that sought to block sensitive foreign investments. 
  • What Delhi should have left behind then was a national security exception — along the lines of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) — to deal with genuine threats to national security or black swan events like the COVID-19 pandemic.  
  • Instead, issuing an amendment that reverses what has been a highly-advertised new FDI policy position may have unintended consequences in the minds of foreign investors. 
Print Friendly and PDF
blog comments powered by Disqus