Latest news with #LCM
New Straits Times
8 hours ago
- Automotive
- New Straits Times
Rare earth magnet users jolted into paying premium prices for ex-China supply
FOR years, Rahim Suleman had reached out repeatedly to carmakers and other potential clients to market the rare earth magnets from the plant his company was building in Estonia, one of just a handful outside dominant producer China. But after April 4, when Beijing imposed new restrictions on the super-strong magnets used in electric vehicles (EVs) and wind turbines, Suleman retired his sales pitch. He didn't need it any more. Ever since China's export controls tightened some rare earth exports to a trickle in the midst of a trade war with the United States, causing chaos in supply chains and some auto plant shutdowns, "the phone is ringing off the hook", said Suleman. Companies starting new plants in Europe, the US and Asia had previously reported difficult talks on deals that embedded the higher costs to make magnets outside China, which benefits from cheaper labour costs and economies of scale as well as government support via tax refunds. But the crisis has led many customers to soften or drop objections about paying those premiums as they scramble to hammer out deals, according to a dozen industry participants, including carmakers, magnet makers, rare earth producers, consultants and government officials interviewed by Reuters. While rare earths magnets from China are flowing again, customers remain on edge about the threat of future shortages. Suleman's company, Neo Performance Materials, launched output of permanent magnets at its Estonia plant in May. Now, he said, "everybody wants to talk about how (they can) satisfy their demand out of our facility". He said he had no worries about lining up enough customers who would pay a premium — US$10 to US$30 per kg, with EVs typically holding 2kg to 4kg of magnets per vehicle — over the price they usually pay for Chinese magnets. Output at Neo's factory in Estonia is starting small, providing samples to its first customer, which Suleman declined to identify. German auto parts supplier Schaeffler said it was a customer of the plant, but declined to comment on how much it is paying. In South Korea, customers of NovaTech, which produced magnets in China, were prepared to pay 15 to 20 per cent more for magnets made in Vietnam, said a company source, adding that there was "a growing sense of crisis among customers". The company, which sells China-made magnets used in Samsung's phones and tablets, is investing at least 10 billion won in a plant in Vietnam launching early next year to make magnets using locally processed rare earths from a partner, said the person and another company official. Britain's Less Common Metals (LCM), one of the few firms outside China involved in a key step of rare earths processing — making rare earth metals and alloys — says it is battling to cope with new enquiries. "Now, post-April 4, it's like someone stuck a cattle prod into the whole industry," said Grant Smith, its chairman. He said LCM had held discussions with numerous companies that used magnets as they sought alternative supply sources, though he declined to name them. Despite the new willingness to pay a premium, it would take many years or even decades to build up production outside of China, which accounted for 90 per cent of global permanent magnet supply, said industry participants. And the question of how much more should be paid for rare earths and magnets outside of China is a tricky one. Too high a premium for mined rare earths could see consumers cutting down their use, while premiums that are too low would not be enough to allow construction of ex-China projects, say analysts and consultants. Carmakers are willing to pay more to guarantee ex-China supplies, but they are also in the midst of an EV price war that has left them with thin margins. One executive at a rare earths company said the firm had held discussions with carmakers that were prepared to pay US$80 per kg for neodymium-praseodymium oxide, a rare earth needed for magnets used in motors and generators — a figure Reuters has not independently verified. That is already a significant — near 30 per cent — premium over the Chinese price of US$62 based on data from price reporting agency Fastmarkets.
News18
7 days ago
- Business
- News18
BSE Shares Down Over 1% As Sebi Slaps Rs 25 Lakh Penalty For Flouting Regulatory Norms
Last Updated: Shares of BSE declined over 1 per cent on Thursday morning after markets regulator Sebi slapped a Rs 25 lakh penalty on the stock exchange. BSE Share Price Shares of BSE declined over 1 per cent on Thursday morning after markets regulator Sebi slapped a Rs 25 lakh penalty on the stock exchange for failing to provide equal access to corporate disclosures to all stakeholders and take action against brokers with frequent modifications during trades. After a flat beginning to the trade, the stock later dropped by 1.47 per cent to Rs 2,748 on the NSE. The market regulator passed the order after an inspection conducted between February 2021 and September 2022. In a 45-page order on Wednesday, Sebi found that BSE's system architecture allowed its paid clients and internal listing compliance monitoring (LCM) team to access corporate announcements before the same were made public through its website, resulting in a breach of norms. The regulator also observed that the data dissemination process lacked safeguards to ensure simultaneous and equal access to all stakeholders, which is critical to maintaining market integrity and preventing unfair information advantage. Accordingly, Sebi concluded that BSE failed to comply with Regulation 39(3) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) SECC (Stock Exchange and Clearing Corporations) Regulations, 2018, which mandates stock exchanges to ensure fair and transparent access to all users. It also noted that BSE did not establish a really simple syndication feed, which could have mitigated the risk of unequal access to corporate disclosures. Although the exchange later created a time gap to address the issue, Sebi held that such corrective action was taken only after the inspection highlighted lapses. Sebi also flagged serious shortcomings in BSE's monitoring of client code modifications, which are permitted only in case of genuine errors. BSE failed to initiate disciplinary action against brokers with frequent modifications and did not adequately monitor 'error accounts', raising concerns over the possibility of misuse and lack of due diligence in trades between unrelated institutional clients.
The Hindu
7 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
BSE shares down over 1% as Sebi slaps ₹25 lakh penalty for flouting regulatory norms
Shares of BSE declined over 1% on Thursday (June 26, 2025) morning after markets regulator Sebi slapped a ₹25 lakh penalty on the stock exchange for failing to provide equal access to corporate disclosures to all stakeholders and take action against brokers with frequent modifications during trades. After a flat beginning to the trade, the stock later dropped by 1.47% to ₹2,748 on the NSE. The market regulator passed the order after an inspection conducted between February 2021 and September 2022. In a 45-page order on Wednesday, Sebi found that BSE's system architecture allowed its paid clients and internal listing compliance monitoring (LCM) team to access corporate announcements before the same were made public through its website, resulting in a breach of norms. The regulator also observed that the data dissemination process lacked safeguards to ensure simultaneous and equal access to all stakeholders, which is critical to maintaining market integrity and preventing unfair information advantage. Accordingly, Sebi concluded that BSE failed to comply with Regulation 39(3) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) SECC (Stock Exchange and Clearing Corporations) Regulations, 2018, which mandates stock exchanges to ensure fair and transparent access to all users. It also noted that BSE did not establish a really simple syndication feed, which could have mitigated the risk of unequal access to corporate disclosures. Although the exchange later created a time gap to address the issue, Sebi held that such corrective action was taken only after the inspection highlighted lapses. Sebi also flagged serious shortcomings in BSE's monitoring of client code modifications, which are permitted only in case of genuine errors. BSE failed to initiate disciplinary action against brokers with frequent modifications and did not adequately monitor 'error accounts', raising concerns over the possibility of misuse and lack of due diligence in trades between unrelated institutional clients.
India Today
7 days ago
- Business
- India Today
Sebi penalises BSE Rs 25 lakh for unequal data access, failure in oversight
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has fined the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) Rs 25 lakh for not giving equal access to corporate information and for failing to properly supervise certain trading an order released this week, Sebi said that BSE allowed some users, including employees of its Listing Centre Module (LCM) and paid subscribers, to access company announcements before they were made public on the BSE's official website. The regulator said this early access gave some traders an unfair advantage, which goes against the rules of fairness and equal opportunity in the stock also criticised BSE for not taking action against brokers who were repeatedly changing client codes during trades. These changes raise concerns about possible misuse and lack of proper called this failure 'laxity and negligence' and pointed out that BSE, being a first-level regulator, has a duty to maintain a clean and fair trading regulator said in its order, 'This case involves multiple acts of omission, laxity, and negligence, marked by a lethargic approach, which cannot be excused. If such regulatory oversight is allowed to continue unchecked, it risks damaging the credibility of both BSE and Sebi.'BSE has since made some improvements. It has added a time gap in the release of information to paid clients to avoid any unfair early access. However, Sebi said the problem existed earlier and had already caused a violation of the rules laid out in Regulation 39(3) of the SECC argued that there is no specific rule requiring it to provide corporate announcements via RSS feeds. Sebi replied that even if there is no such rule, the exchange still has a duty to make sure that all investors get the same information at the same further said, 'BSE, as a Market Infrastructure Institution (MII), bears a higher responsibility to uphold the principles of transparency. Any system that allows privileged early access—even due to technical reasons—must be rectified to maintain trust in the market.'The regulator decided to impose a monetary penalty under Section 23H of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act and Section 15HB of the Sebi Act, instead of opting for stricter measures. However, it stressed that the violations were serious and must not be Shukla, who issued the order, directed BSE to pay the Rs 25 lakh fine within 45 days from the date of receiving the also made it clear that if BSE fails to make the payment in time, recovery proceedings may be launched under section 28A of the Sebi Act. This could include attaching and selling the movable and immovable properties of BSE to recover the dues, along with applicable case brings attention to the importance of fair access to information and strong regulatory oversight in maintaining the trust of investors in India's capital markets.- Ends advertisement
NDTV
7 days ago
- Business
- NDTV
SEBI Fines Rs 25 Lakh Penalty on BSE for flouting regulatory norms
New Delhi: Capital markets regulator Sebi on Wednesday slapped a Rs 25 lakh penalty on BSE for failing to provide equal access to corporate disclosures to all stakeholders and take action against brokers with frequent modifications during trades. The market regulator passed the order after an inspection conducted between February 2021 and September 2022. In a 45-page order, Sebi found that BSE's system architecture allowed its paid clients and internal listing compliance monitoring (LCM) team to access corporate announcements before the same were made public through its website, resulting in a breach of norms. The regulator also observed that the data dissemination process lacked safeguards to ensure simultaneous and equal access to all stakeholders, which is critical to maintaining market integrity and preventing unfair information advantage. Accordingly, Sebi concluded that BSE failed to comply with Regulation 39(3) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) SECC (Stock Exchange and Clearing Corporations) Regulations, 2018, which mandates stock exchanges to ensure fair and transparent access to all users. It also noted that BSE did not establish a really simple syndication (RSS) feed, which could have mitigated the risk of unequal access to corporate disclosures. Although the exchange later created a time gap to address the issue, Sebi held that such corrective action was taken only after the inspection highlighted lapses. Sebi also flagged serious shortcomings in BSE's monitoring of client code modifications, which are permitted only in case of genuine errors. BSE failed to initiate disciplinary action against brokers with frequent modifications and did not adequately monitor 'error accounts', raising concerns over the possibility of misuse and lack of due diligence in trades between unrelated institutional clients. "...the role of stock exchanges as 'the first layer of oversight' is of much significance, while handling material price sensitive information about listed companies and their securities. "Therefore, as a premier recognised stock exchange, BSE must have internal controls on how to manage and handle such corporate announcements so as to ensure compliance with its obligations," Sebi's Quasi Judicial Authority Santosh Shukla said in the order. The availability of information about listed companies with LCM employees of BSE and its paid subscribers before it is available to general investors through its website has clearly impaired the concept of impartiality, transparency and fairness of information dissemination from the first level regulator BSE, Shukla said. Further, BSE has also displayed laxity and negligence, with respect to not supervising norms with regard to client code modifications as found, he added.
