Latest news with #MFU
Mint
16-06-2025
- Business
- Mint
Sebi's new fee platform aims to protect investors. But not many have taken to it
Mumbai: The capital market regulator's centralized fee collection mechanism, aimed at ensuring that investors pay only registered investment advisers and research analysts, is seeing slow adoption since its launch nearly nine months ago due to its optional status and limited awareness, according to industry participants. Since it was introduced by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), the platform has seen collections worth ₹ 5 crore, according to a statement released by the regulator on 12 June. Managed by BSE Ltd. and MF Utilities India Pvt. Ltd. (MFU), the mechanism went live on 1 October 2024, offering a closed and auditable ecosystem to help investors avoid unregistered operators. India has approximately 1,300 registered investment advisors (RIAs) and 1,371 research analysts (RAs) for the 11.4 crore investors, according to data by the National Stock Exchange (NSE). The usage of the mechanism has been steady, particularly among digitally enabled research advisers and analysts, according to Ganesh Ram, managing director & chief executive officer of MFU. 'However, since the facility is optional as per Sebi, adoption has been gradual,' said Ram. 'We are yet to do major promotions or marketing as we wanted to first ensure the system's stability.' Ram noted that larger firms are increasingly using the platform. 'It's a fully web-based portal and full stack API, that supports all payment modes—e-mandates, ad-hoc payments, and recurring mandates including UPI. Advisors can track payments from all investors in one place,' he said. 'Since MFU also facilitates mutual fund transactions, it becomes an added advantage for users.' The platform charges an annual subscription fee of around ₹ 7499, Ram said, which covers related charges and platform features, maintenance, etc. While the central fee collection mechanism (CeFCoM) offers clear advantages for compliance and traceability, some experts caution against any move to make it mandatory. CeFCoM is 'undoubtedly a valuable enabler for individual registered investment advisers (RIAs),' especially solo practitioners who typically lack access to traditional payment gateways, according to Harsh Roongta, member of Sebi's Alternative Investment Policy Advisory Committee (AIPAC) and founder of Fee Only Investment Advisers LLP . However, 'making CeFCoM mandatory would be counterproductive for several reasons', he said. 'As Sebi-registered intermediaries, RIAs are also required to register with platforms like ValidPay, which support UPI-based fee collection—an option that is more cost-effective, real-time, and client-friendly,' he said. 'Mandating CeFCoM would restrict access to such alternatives and raise unnecessary questions from clients.' He also pointed to structural issues. 'CeFCoM was originally conceived as a surveillance mechanism to monitor that fees remain within Sebi's prescribed limits…and requires each client to be registered with BASL (BSE Administration and Supervision Ltd). This process is still largely manual and often delayed, making CeFCoM unsuitable for digital-first or time-sensitive advisory models.' Roongta cautioned about financial implications as well. 'It comes at a cost— ₹ 11,800 annually, with an added delay of one working day in crediting fees. If made mandatory, the associated costs are likely to rise further, imposing a financial burden on already resource-constrained RIAs.' Several advisers who have adopted CeFCoM praised its utility, but acknowledged challenges. 'We adopted CeFCoM as soon as it was activated. It took a month or two to onboard most of our clients, but now a large part of our collections go through the system,' said Vivek Rege, founder and CEO of V R Wealth Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 'CeFCoM is ultimately about investor protection… It gives clients confidence that they're dealing with a registered adviser.' Renu Maheshwari, vice chairperson of Association of Registered Investment Advisers (ARIA) and CEO of Finscholarz Wealth Managers LLP, said her firm has transitioned from MFU's earlier e-collect system to CeFCoM seamlessly. 'It's working smoothly now, though NRI payments are still a grey area,' Maheshwari. 'Anything that becomes mandatory should not be disruptive. At this stage, keeping CeFCoM optional gives RIAs the freedom to adopt at their own pace.' Other advisers say the bigger challenge lies in the system's low visibility. 'Ask any investor—do they even know what CeFCoM is? Or that it exists as a safer alternative? Sebi hasn't publicized it,' said Kavitha Menon, founder of Probitus Wealth and an ARIA board member. She argued that 'India doesn't know about registered investment advisers, let alone CeFCoM.' Menon also flagged the cumbersome onboarding and associated costs. 'The registration process is still cumbersome—for both adviser and client… ₹ 11,800 a year may not sound like much, but for many individual advisers with modest earnings, it's a burden.' In response to Mint's queries, Sebi said it had floated a discussion paper in August 2023 to assess whether CeFCoM should be mandatory. 'Based on the responses received, it was decided to make it optional. Change can be considered inter alia, based on the industry demand for it,' a spokesperson said. While the regulator maintained that CeFCoM was not primarily intended as a surveillance tool, it emphasized that the mechanism helps investors distinguish between registered and unregistered entities. 'Clients being able to move towards registered entities in this regulated bubble is the aim of the CeFCoM,' the spokesperson added. Sebi acknowledged limited awareness as a challenge, but pointed to growing traction. 'Despite being optional, more than ₹ 5 crore of fees has been collected through this mechanism; [that] demonstrates some traction,' it said.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Montana Farmers Union seeks to join lawsuit against tariffs on Canada
An aerial view from a drone shows a combine being used to harvest the soybeans. (Photo by Joe Raedle | Getty Images) The Montana Farmers Union on Monday filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit brought by four Blackfeet Nation tribal members seeking an injunction against the Trump administration's tariffs on Canada. The organization, which has been around since 1912, said that joining the case was a way to continue fighting 'on behalf of family farmers and ranchers.' 'The executive branch has overstepped its constitutional and statutory authority on these tariffs. Montana farmers and ranchers can't afford any more uncertainty or any more financial stressors – especially not random tariffs,' MFU President Walter Schweitzer said in a press release. Plaintiffs State Sen. Susan Webber and Jonathan St. Goddard, both enrolled members of the Blackfeet Nation, originally filed the lawsuit in federal court earlier this month against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the United States of America, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, arguing that the tariffs levied by the administration against Canada violates Indigenous treaty rights and exceeds presidential authority. The suit claims the tariffs violate a 1794 treaty exempting tribes along the United States-Canadian border from being taxed or levied on goods between the nation. It also challenges the Trump administration's ability to use emergency powers to bypass Congress to impose tariffs. Trump has declared that the fentanyl drug crisis at America's borders constitute a national emergency, though Customs and Border Patrol have only seized 19 kilograms of fentanyl coming from Canada compared to 9,600 kilograms coming from Mexico. Monday's step to intervene was taking action for Montana family farmers and ranchers who 'are facing dire financial and mental impacts if the tariffs remain in effect,' according to the release. 'MFU's members rely on a predictable and stable trade market and the tariffs imposed by the President not only exceed the President's constitutional and statutory authority, they've 'wallop[ed]' the agricultural community in Montana, as no one can 'plan or prepare,'' the proposed complaint states. 'Because of the President's tariffs, their goods will be more expensive to export, which will result in reduced profits and lost customers. Even worse, farms and ranches that have been in families for generations must be sold simply because the President's isolationist and unlawful approach is incongruous with the international market with which these farmers and ranchers have been dealing and relying upon for decades. MFU's members do not have robust markets in the United States for the crops they grow and those markets cannot be developed overnight,' according to court filings. According to the Office of United States Trade Representative, Montana's largest market is Canada, with $869 million in goods exported to the state's northern neighbor in 2024 — 37% of total exports. The top agricultural exports to Canada in 2024 included $113 million in live cattle; $106 million in dried legumes, $25 million in brewing and distilling dregs, $10.2 million in barley, and $10.1 million in cigarettes, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The complaint from MFU mentions several members who have been impacted by the tariffs. One member, John Wicks, a fourth generation farmer from Liberty County, said he was in contractual discussions with a cross-border trading partner for his organic lentils, but was told they could not enter into a contract due to the instability of the trade market before the tariffs were imposed. Specifically, 'if American tariffs were going to be implemented, the partner would not take the crops,' harming Wicks financially, according to court filings 'Our Canadian partners either won't buy our crops or are offering significantly lower prices than our partners in the United States. Our partners in the United States know that our Canadian partners are doing this and are capitalizing on it by offering lower prices, so we're getting squeezed,' Wicks wrote in a declaration of support for MFU's filing. As of Wednesday afternoon, District Court Judge Dana Christensen had not issued a ruling on whether he would allow Montana Farmers Union to intervene. A hearing for the preliminary injunction will be held next Thursday at the Missouri River Federal Courthouse in Great Falls. Attorneys for the federal government have filed a motion to move the case to the Court of International Trade in New York, arguing the District Court doesn't have jurisdiction over tariffs, but attorneys for the plaintiffs responded that case can be rightfully heard at the District Court as the lawsuit is over the constitutionality of executive orders. 'Farmers and ranchers have invested decades in developing reliable markets for our products,' Schweitzer said in the press release. 'Overnight, these random tariffs have destroyed markets that will take decades to rebuild. This is why the authority to impose tariffs resides in Congress because it provides a forum for public debate and input and ensures the benefit outweighs the harm.'
BBC News
20-03-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
International 'reassurance' force planned for Ukraine ceasefire
The potential Western troop deployment to Ukraine being discussed in London should be described as a "reassurance force" rather than a "peacekeeping force", defence and diplomatic sources dubbed the Multinational Force Ukraine or MFU, it would be sent to the country to cement any ceasefire and encourage long-term confidence in the focus would be on providing Ukraine with air cover to keep its skies safe and a naval presence in the Black Sea to encourage deployment of so-called "boots on the ground" - probably about 20,000 strong - would in terms of size not be big enough to enforce any peace. Instead, the troops - provided by a so-called "coalition of the willing" - would most likely be deployed to protect cities, ports and major energy option being considered is that the MFU might not operate in the east of Ukraine near the front line to try to reassure Russia it poses no offensive President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin have said repeatedly they would not agree any ceasefire if European and other forces were deployed to sources say any multinational operation in Ukraine would not be a "peacekeeping force" and should not be described as such. Peacekeeping forces - under the aegis of either the United Nations or Nato - traditionally are impartial, operate with the consent of both parties and use force only to defend themselves. The multinational force being discussed would very much be on Ukraine's side, there to help deter future Russian aggression. UK hosts military leaders to work on Ukraine plansGermany votes for historic boost to defence spendingCan Europe deter Russia in Ukraine without US military? At the moment, it is not expected that the multinational force on the ground would monitor any ceasefire. That would be done by Ukrainian troops on the frontline and Western surveillance assets in the air and sources also say the coalition troops would not be deployed to provide a so-called "tripwire force" - meaning a force smaller than that of the opponent, designed to deter an attack without triggering escalation - if Russia resumed its invasion of Ukraine. They say the military impact of any allied deployment of about 20,000 troops would be limited compared to the number of troops on either side of the front line. Ukraine has almost a million military personnel, Russia's army is even of the focus of Thursday's discussions is on how best any international force can provide Ukraine with assets it does not have, especially capability in the air. So, there will be discussions about which countries can provide warplanes to keep Ukraine's skies safe during a will also be discussions about how to make the Black Sea safe for shipping. That may involve two components: how best to keep shipping lanes clear of mines and what kind of naval task force could provide a security presence in the key uncertainty is whether the United States would provide any air, satellite or intelligence cover for any European force on the ground. The US has thus far said it would not be willing to provide any military "backstop".The European strategy for now is to stop asking the US and instead organise the best force and capability it can to ensure the security of Ukraine in the future. Once the details are agreed, then the UK, France and others would see if the European offer was substantial enough for the US to have a change of heart and agree to play some kind of all this planning depends on, of course, is some kind of ceasefire being agreed in Ukraine. While the US remains optimistic, many in Ukraine remain sceptical that Russia even wants to end the fighting.
