January 2012 CRISIL Insights Capital Market Entities Redesigning Strategies: Will They Succeed? CRISIL Insights Analytical Contacts Name Designation Email id Pawan Agrawal Director [email protected] Nagarajan Narasimhan Director [email protected] Rupali Shanker Head [email protected] Suman Chowdhury Head [email protected] Manoj Damle Senior Manager [email protected] Prachi Gupta Senior Manager [email protected] Gourav Gupta Manager [email protected] Subhasri Narayanan Manager [email protected] Abhishek Sonthalia Rating Analyst [email protected] Shailesh Sawant Rating Analyst [email protected] Prashant Mane Executive [email protected] Sahil Utreja Executive [email protected] FOREWORD I am delighted to present this compendium of articles on the India’s capital market entities (CMEs), titled ‘Capital Market Entities Redesigning Strategies: Will They Succeed?’ This compendium is part of our initiatives to share with you, the insights we have gained from our ongoing analysis of key developments and sectors, over the years. Capital market entities are primarily engaged in the business of broking (both retail as well as institutional) and investment banking. They also provide associated services like demat accounts, providing loans against shares, margin funding, etc. to their broking clients. In the financial system, they perform an important intermediary role: n As investment bankers, CMEs facilitate raising of capital (both equity and debt), which is critical raw material for growth. They also play an important role in mergers, acquisitions, and their funding n As brokers, CMEs enable equity investing culture, helping to expand the retail investor base. CRISIL has a strong and diverse rating coverage in this sector – CRISIL rates more than 50 companies engaged in capital market and related businesses, including domestic and foreign, as well as large and small. Together, the combined income of these rated companies is over Rs.100 billion. They have a combined debt of over Rs.200 billion as at March 2011. In the retail NBFC sector, CRISIL rates more than 60 entities – these represent more than half of the NBFC assets in the country. As you may recall, CRISIL had hosted an Investor Discussion Forum and published a compendium on the retail NBFC sector in March 2011. In the current environment, the challenges faced by CMEs are numerous. There are structural changes like shift of trading turnover towards options segment, higher competition from foreign brokerages in institutional broking, increasing use of technology through use of DMA platforms, and lower retail participation which are impacting broking revenues. The difficult macroeconomic environment has also significantly reduced opportunities in the investment banking business. This would result in significant earnings impact; CMEs’ profits are expected to drop by more than half in 2011-12. As the title suggests, CMEs are redesigning their strategies in the wake of these challenging times: n They are realigning their cost structures while remaining focused on the core broking business n Some of them are building new businesses such as asset and wealth management, and insurance n Some of the large CMEs are even diversifying into retail lending. CRISIL believes that profits from newer segments will contribute upto 60 per cent of the aggregate profits of CMEs by 2012-13. Their combined lending book is likely to triple to more than Rs.300 billion by March 2013, as against Rs.100 billion at the end of March 2010. In this process of evolution, CMEs will benefit from their comfortable capitalisation. CRISIL-rated CMEs have a combined net worth of over Rs.200 billion and average gearing of around 1 time. However, CRISIL will continue to monitor the following for these entities: n Ability to successfully scale-up new businesses n Ability to manage asset quality in lending business n Ability to control costs in the core broking and investment banking businesses n Ability to realign growth strategies in line with the tightening regulatory framework We hope you will find our insights and analysis useful. We welcome your feedback. Warm Regards, Ramraj Pai Director - Ratings CRISIL Insights INDEX Contents Page Article 1 - Continued pressure on broking and investment banking revenues of CMEs Profits from fee-based businesses to decline by over 70 per cent in 2011-12......................................1 Article 2 - Diversification into retail lending may help large CMEs mitigate profitability pressure Ability to raise resources and manage asset quality will be the key monitorables.................................5 Article 3 - Small CMEs will remain niche, broking-focused players However, ability to maintain cost structures will determine profitability..................................................9 Article 4 - Strong regulations and greater focus improve brokers' risk management.............................13 Annexure - Financial Comparison of CRISIL Rated Capital market entities (CMEs) CRISIL Insights Continued pressure on broking and investment banking revenues of CMEs Profits from fee-based businesses to decline by over 70 per cent in 2011-12 Executive Summary Profits of domestic capital market entities (CMEs) from fee-based businesses1 may reduce by more than 70 per cent in 2011- 12 (refers to financial year, April 1 to March 31). This is primarily on account of pressure on broking and investment banking, which, in turn, is due to: n Structural changes impacting these businesses - Shift in trading pattern, resulting in lower yields - Larger proportion of institutional trades through the direct market access (DMA) facility - Heightened competitive intensity, especially with entry of foreign players n Downturn in the markets - Subdued primary market issuances - Lower retail participation in the equity market Some cushion is, however, provided by income from distribution of financial products, asset management and wealth management, which is expected to remain relatively stable. While this segment constitutes a relatively low proportion of overall income (19 per cent as on March 31, 2011), entities with diversified revenue streams are better poised to handle the downturn. Structural changes weighing on CME profitability Shift in trading pattern resulting in lower yields As can be seen in Chart 1, there has been a shift in the traded volumes towards the futures and options segment, primarily options. In the first nine months of 2011-12, derivatives (futures and options) constituted 91 per cent of turnover, with the low- yielding options segment constituting over two-thirds of the total. The primary reason for this shift has been the unfavourable tax and brokerage structure for cash trades as compared to options trades. Additionally, options entail lower risk for the investor than futures. Blended yields have, therefore, been on a downward trend (refer to Chart 2). Chart 1: Movement in Equity markets turnover Chart 2: Decline in blended yields 10.0 100% 14% 9% 26% 24% 28% 8.0 80% 6.9 6.7 6.1 5.8 6.0 60% 5.0 86% 91% 40% Basis points 4.0 72% 74% 76% 20% 2.0 0% 0.0 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011- 12 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 (Till Dec-11) F&O Turnover Cash Turnover Source: BSE, NSE Source: CRISIL estimates based on rated portfolio 1Fee based businesses includes broking and related activities, investment banking, distribution related income, wealth management, asset management etc. 1 CRISIL Insights Given the above, CRISIL does not expect this trend to reverse over the medium term; broking yields would remain under pressure. The shift towards the derivatives segment and the larger share of proprietary trading have also been highlighted by the Reserve Bank of India in its Financial Stability Report - December 2011 as developments that need to be monitored in the interest of financial stability, as they are potential sources of systemic risk. Larger proportion of institutional trades through the DMA facility Most large domestic CMEs have broadened their product portfolio in broking operations through the use of DMA and algorithm trading for institutional investors. Market estimates place the share of FII trades executed through the DMA facility at around 30 per cent; this number is expected to increase over time. Given that the brokerage for such trades is significantly lower than that for trades executed through brokers, this could put further pressure on broking yields. The ability of these large CMEs to ramp up their volumes and market share will determine the impact on the institutional broking revenues. Heightened competitive intensity, especially with entry of foreign players Competition in fee-based businesses in the capital market space has intensified over the past few years due to: n Entry of new players, primarily foreign entities which have established their presence in institutional broking and investment banking n Entities with operations in limited segments diversifying and offering multiple products and services under a single umbrella. Chart 3: Share in institutional broking revenues 100% 18% 29% 36% 80% 42% 60% 40% 82% 71% 64% 58% 20% 0% 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Established players New players Source: CRISIL estimates based on rated portfolio An example of this trend can be seen in institutional broking. Chart 3 indicates the share of institutional broking revenues of established players in this segment versus newer players who have entered or expanded this business materially only after 2007. As can be seen, established