Corporate India set to prefer QIPs for Funds Raising in 2010
.
Merchant bankers are of view that Qualified institutional placements (QIPs) are expected to still be the preferred route to raise money in 2010..
Earlier, QIPs had gained traction during the middle of the year but ran into valuation headwinds in the last quarter of 2009..
In 2009, Indian companies had raised close to Rs 33,000 crore by way of 45 QIP issuances..
Also, about 33 QIP issuances are trading above the issue price, while 12 issuances are trading below the issue price..
2009 was the year of the QIPs. QIPs are expected to rule the roost, as there is serious interest and appetite in the overseas markets for instruments like converts/ADRs/GDRs. . QIP, which was introduced in May 2006, picked up momentum in 2007 and then stagnated in 2008 when the market was in a bear grip..
Delhi-based real estate company Unitech successfully raised $325 million through a QIP in mid-April 2009..
Later, Indiabulls Real Estate and PTC India raised Rs 2,657 crore and Rs 500 crore, respectively, through such placements..
.
In a QIP, unlike an IPO or PE investment, the window is shorter (four weeks) and money can be raised quickly..
According to a study by SMC Capital, the 45 QIP issuances have resulted into a mark-to-market (MTM) return of about more than 21.60 per cent, amounting to a profit of about Rs 7,050 crore..
Some of the QIP issuances trading significantly above the issue price are Unitech (first round of QIP issuance), Emami, Shree Renuka Sugars, HCC , United Spirits, Dewan Housing, etc..
Those trading below the issue price are Network 18 Fincap, REI Agro, Indiabulls Financial Services, Punj Lloyd, Delta Corp..
“The overall positive listing performance of QIPs in 2009 will encourage investors as well as Indian corporates to access this route for fund-rising in an aggressive manner,” says Jagannadham Thunuguntla, equity head, SMC Capitals..
QIPs had hit a pause button when a large percentage of them ran into valuation headwinds, resulting in companies raising a much smaller amount than what was initially proposed..
.
[Via http://smcinvestment.wordpress.com]
No comments:
Post a Comment