Saving Capitalism From Capitalists

By Prakash Chandra Lohani

The idea of destroying capitalism with the aid of the capitalist remains one of the essential characteristics of Marxist theology. Now two leading professors of Finance from the Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago have come up with an interesting book full of insightful concepts and ideas to save capitalism from the capitalists. The 325 page book with the title “Saving Capitalism From The Capitalists” written by the two professors, Raghuram G Rajan and Luigi Zingales clearly indicates that one does not have to be a Marxist to understand the fact that the political economy of capitalism has an inherent tendency to create obstructions in the operation of a free market, an open economy and a competitive economic system. This logic has relevance in the developed countries of the West and more so in the developing countries that are trying to tap the potentials of a competitive market economy. Thus if capitalism based on free markets is to retain its dynamism and efficiency in the enhancement of wealth and income for the vast majority of people in the society the nature of forces trying to obstruct its path and their invisible links and connections with the political forces both on a national and international scale need to be understood for corrective solutions. This is indeed a big task and the two professors do an admirable job in analysing its various dimensions.

Rajan and Zingales make it a central point to emphasise the fact that a competitive market system, especially the financial system rests on a fragile political infrastructure whose norms and values have kept on changing even in advanced democracies depending upon the ability of the economic system to generate employment and distribute the national pie on a broad and equitable scale. In the first part of the 20th century inspite of the first world war, a generally booming economy based on the concept of a minimalist government, the acceptance of gold standard for international transactions and the free market concept provided a value framework of economic decisions that encouraged financial development and made it easy for new enterprises to create wealth and income in the society.

The depression in the late 1920’s changed this generally accepted framework. The notion that the free market system was unfair to the workers and the new middle class gained strength. Politicians were quick to capitalise on this new trend and promote a new value framework that justified government intervention in investments decisions. The authors quote a lot from President Roosevelt’s speeches during the period to dramatise the shift. The pendulum swung from a minimalist to an interventionist government that included the suppression of the financial system and the closing of cross-border capital flows. Here was a case where economic disturbances quickly translated into political decisions that gave a new thrust to restricting competition and openness in international economic transactions. There was, however, more than politics involved in these decisions.

Restricting competition was also in the interest of large corporations and other industrial establishments because it served their interests to protect profit and avoid internal adjustments that may have been necessary in a more competitive environment. The interests of the incumbents—those who stand to gain from the status quo or an interventionist set of policies—did play a major role in the continuation of the domineering role of the government because it helped to maintain profit without much effort. The message is clear that in both the poor and the rich countries the incumbents who are better organised and stand to gain from an active dominant government will use their political connections to promote their interests even though it is detrimental to the general public. The policy tends to continue because the need for organising a countervailing force to challenge is not felt seriously, especially during times of fast growth in output and employment for two reasons.

First, in times of rising employment people are less concerned about the inefficiencies or inequities of the system that may include various forms of corny capitalism captured in its new incarnation as “relationship capitalism”. Second, the cost of inefficiency is distributed widely with the result that for most people rational ignorance is seen as reasonable response. During times of economic strain, however, “rational ignorance” can easily turn into irrational anger against the incumbents and generally against the philosophy of free market and an open economy. Politicians are of course more than willing to tap these sentiments if it leads to power. Here is a situation where political interests and economic thinking reinforce each other to restrict capitalist competition and suppress the operation of the free markets.

The last quarter of the 20th century has seen a progressive decline of relationship capitalism. It was a system supported by the Bretton Woods framework that discouraged free cross-border movement of capital. Changing technology, greater reliance on the market and increasing liberalisation of cross-border capital flows have posed an effective challenge to the coalition of forces that thrived on relationship capitalism. On the other hand, it is also becoming clear that the “invisible hand” theorem if it is to work reasonably in real life needs the visible hand of the government to assure competition. The authors emphasise the not so obvious fact that “a competitive form of market” is a public good that ironically needs the visible hand of the government for maintenance. On this count, communism as an economic and a political system is at a double loss since it allows competition neither in politics nor economics. State capitalism and one party dictatorship combine together to produce a system that goes on to internalise a set of political and economic values that are completely against the humanitarian vision that Marx presented as his utopia.

The maintenance of competition is not easy or simple. There will always be forces arrayed against it since they see their privileges and position being threatened by new entrants claiming for a piece of action. In the context of a rapidly changing technology this logic applies to both the traded and non traded sectors. A worker in a call centre in a developing country can easily be projected as threatening the job of computer operator in a developed nation. There is therefore an inherent possibility to restrict competition with the slogan that you are protecting “your” people, thus preserving the gains available to the few from a restricted economic environment. In politics what is often apparent may not be real. High-sounding slogans projecting national interests in this context can easily become a veil for protecting some people’s vested interest. Ultimately, if people are not careful the evolving coalition of interests against a competitive market in goods and services can easily degenerate into an economic system that is controlled by the few for the benefit of the few. Once the concentration of productive assets in a few hands gains momentum the forces against a competitive system become increasingly assertive and strong.

To promote a competitive economy it is necessary to create an incentive structure that encourages competition. This is especially true in the financial sector where informal and cozy arrangements between the banks and large business houses may put them in same wavelength on the question of competition and liberalisation. A more competitive and open financial market on the other hand could be expected to reduce the cost of capital and encourage new entrants in the economy. This may weaken the power of the vested interests and force them to think of new strategies of change and innovation.

The concern for a competitive economic structure is not just the concern of the developed nations; it is vitally important for developing countries as well. Most developing countries and for that matter the so-called transition economies have a fragile political structure that is often incapable of checking the monopoly tendencies of old and new vested interests that thrive on highly skewed distribution of assets, legal uncertainties regarding property rights and similar other risks that increase the transaction cost of doing business for the small and medium sized entrepreneur and businessmen. The lack of opportunity for the small man on the other hand strikes at the very root of a liberal democratic system and can easily lead people to seek for solutions that could very well be a new model of corny capitalism.

A liberal democratic framework should therefore be able to create incentives for competition and it could well mean among other things, a vigorous growth of the financial sector on a broad scale so that it opens opportunities for new entrants in the economic system. If this is missing a liberal democratic framework could easily end up as a new variant of constitutional formalism where the gap between prescription and practice continues to remain wide as ever. In this setting, competition as a public good becomes the casualty and the capitalists become the adversaries of capitalism.

A Friedman doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits

By Milton Friedman

Sept. 13, 1970

WHEN I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the “social responsibilities of business in a free‐enterprise system,” I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at, the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned “merely” with profit but also with promoting desirable “social” ends; that business has a “social conscience” and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are—or would be if they or any one else took them seriously— preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.

The discussions of the “social responsibilities of business” are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that “business” has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but “business” as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom.

Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means individual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietor and speak of corporate executives. IN a free‐enterprise, private‐property system, a corporate executive is an employe of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose—for example, a hospital or school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services. In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.

Needless to say, this does not mean that it is easy to judge how well he is performing his task. But at least the criterion of performance is straightforward, and the persons among whom a voluntary contractual arrangement exists are clearly defined.

Of course, the corporate executive is also a person in his own right. As a person, he may have many other responsibilities that he recognizes or assumes voluntarily—to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his city, his country. He may feel impelled by these responsibilities to devote part of his income to causes he regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corporations, even to leave his job, for example, to join his country's armed forces. If we wish, we may refer to some of these responsibilities as “social responsibilities.” But in these respects he is acting as a principal, not an agent; he is spending his own money or time or energy, not the money of his employers or the time or energy he has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are “social responsibilities,” they are the social responsibilities of individuals, not of business.What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a “social responsibility” in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price increase would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expenditures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the corporation or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the en vironment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire “hard core” unemployed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.In each of these cases, the corporate executive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his “social responsibility” reduce returns to stock holders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers’ money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employes, he is spending their money.

The stockholders or the customers or the employes could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is exercising a distinct “social responsibility,” rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employes, only if he spends the money in a different way than they would have spent it.

But if he does this, he is in effect imposing taxes, on the one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds shall be spent, on the other.

This process raises political questions on two levels: principle and consequences. On the level of political principle, the imposition of taxes and the expenditure of tax proceeds are governmental functions. We have established elaborate constitutional, parliamentary and judicial provisions to control these functions, to assure that taxes are imposed so far as possible in accordance with the preferences and desires of the public— after all, “taxation without representation” was one of the battle cries of the American Revolution. We have a system of checks and balances to separate the legislative function of imposing taxes and enacting expenditures from the executive function of collecting taxes and administering expenditure programs and from the judicial function of mediating disputes and interpreting the law.

Here the businessman—self‐selected or appointed directly or indirectly by stockholders—is to be simultaneously legislator, executive and jurist. He is to decide whom to tax by how much and for what purpose, and he is to spend the proceeds—all this guided only by general exhortations from on high to restrain inflation, improve the environment, fight poverty and so on and on.

The whole justification for permitting the corporate executive to be selected by the stockholders is that the executive is an agent serving the interests of his principal. This justification disappears when the corporate executive imposes taxes and spends the proceeds for “social” purposes. He becomes in effect a public employe, a civil servant, even though he remains in name an employe of private enterprise. On grounds of political principle, it is intolerable that such civil servants—insofar as their actions in the name of social responsibility are real and not just window‐dressing—should be selected as they are now. If they are to be civil servants, then they must be selected through a political process. If they are to impose taxes and make expenditures to foster “social” objectives, then political machinery must be set up to guide the assessment of taxes and to determine through a political process the objectives to be served.

This is the basic reason why the doctrine of “social responsibility” involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative uses.

ON the grounds of consequences, can the corporate executive in fact discharge his alleged “social responsibilities"? On the one hand, suppose he could get away with spending the stockholders’ or customers’ or employes’ money. How is he to know how to spend it? He is told that he must contribute to fighting inflation. How is he to know what action of his will contribute to that end? He is presumably an expert in running his company—in producing a product or selling it or financing it. But nothing about his selection makes him an expert on inflation. Will his holding down the price of his product reduce inflationary pressure? Or, by leaving more spending power in the hands of his customers, simply divert it elsewhere? Or, by forcing him to produce less because of the lower price, will it simply contribute to shortages? Even if he could answer these questions, how much cost is he justified in imposing on his stockholders, customers and employes for this social purpose? What is his appropriate share and what is the appropriate share of others?

And, whether he wants to or not, can he get away with spending his stockholders, customers’ or employes’ money? Will not the stockholders fire him? (Either the present ones or those who take over when his actions in the name of social responsibility have reduced the corporation's profits and the price of its stock.) His customers and his employes can desert him for other producers and employers less scrupulous in exercising their social responsibilities.

This facet of “social responsibility” doctrine is brought into sharp relief when the doctrine is used to justify wage restraint by trade unions. The conflict of interest is naked and clear when union officals are asked to subordinate the interest of their members to some more general social purpose. If the union officials try to enforce wage restraint, the consequence is likely to be wildcat strikes, rank‐and‐file revolts and the emergence of strong competitors for their jobs. We thus have the ironic phenomenon that union leaders—at least in the U.S. —have objected to Government interference with the market far more consistently and courageously than have business leaders.

The difficulty of exercising “social responsibility” illustrates, of course, the great virtue of private competitive enterprise — it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to “exploit” other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes. They can do good—but only at their own expense.

Many a reader who has followed the argument this far may be tempted to remonstrate that it is all well and good to speak of government's having the responsibility to impose taxes and determine expenditures for such “social” purposes as controlling pollution or training the hard‐core unemployed, but that the problems are too urgent to wait on the slow course of political processes, that the exercise of social responsibility by businessmen is a quicker and surer way to solve pressing current problems.

Aside from the question of fact—I share Adam Smith's skepticism about the benefits that can be expected from “those who affected to trade for the public good”—this argument must be rejected on grounds of principle. What it amounts to is an assertion that those who favor the taxes and expenditures in question have failed to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to be of like mind and that they are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what they cannot attain by democratic procedures. In a free society, it is hard for “good” people to do “good,” but that is a small price to pay for making it hard for “evil” people to do “evil,” especially since one man's good is anther's evil.I HAVE, for simplicity, concentrated on the special case of the corporate executive, except only for the brief digression on trade unions. But precisely the same argument applies to the newer phenomenon of calling upon stockholders to require corporations to exercise social responsibility (the recent G.M. crusade, for example). In most of these cases, what is in effect involved is some stockholders trying to get other stockholders (or customers or employes) to contribute against their will to “social” causes favored by the activists. Insofar as they succeed, they are again imposing taxes and spending the proceeds.

The situation of the individual proprietor is somewhat different. If he acts to reduce the returns of his enterprise in order to exercise his “social responsibility,” he is spending his own money, not someone else's. If he wishes to spend his money on such purposes, that is his right, and I cannot see that there is any objection to his doing so. In the process, he, too, may impose costs on employes and customers. However, because he is far less likely than a large corporation or union to have monopolistic power, any such side effects will tend to be minor.

Of course, in practice the doctrine of social responsibility is frequently a cloak for actions that are justified on other grounds rather than a reason for those actions.

To illustrate, it may well be in the long‐run interest of a corporation that is a major employer in a small community to devote resources to providing amenities to that community or to improving its government. That may make it easier to at tract desirable employes, it may reduce the wage bill or lessen losses from pilferage and sabotage or have other worthwhile effects. Or it may be that, given the laws about the deductibility of corporate charitable contributions, the stockholders can contribute more to charities they favor by having the corporation make the gift than by doing it them selves, since they can in that way contribute an amount that would otherwise have been paid as corporate taxes.

In each of these—and many similar—cases, there is a strong temptation to rationalize these actions as an exercise of “social responsibility.” In the present climate of opinion, with its widespread aversion to “capitalism,” “profits,” the “soulless corporation” and so on, this is one way for a corporation to generate goodwill as a by‐product of expenditures that are entirely justified in its own self-interest.

It would be inconsistent of me to call on corporate executives to refrain from this hypocritical window dressing because it harms the foundations of a free society. That would be to call on them to exercise “social responsibility”! If our institutions, and the attitudes of the public make it in their self‐interest to cloak their actions in this way, cannot summon much indignation to denounce them. At the same time, can express admiration for those in dividual proprietors or owners of closely held corporations or stock holders of more broadly held corporations who disdain such tactics as approaching fraud.

WHETHER blameworthy or not, the use of the cloak of social responsibility, and the nonsense spoken in its name by influential and prestigious businessmen, does clearly harm the foundations of a free society.

I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely far‐sighted and clear‐headed in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly short sighted and muddle‐headed in mat ters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of business in general. This short sightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or incomes policies. There is nothing that could do more in a brief period to destroy a market system and replace it by a centrally controlled system than effective governmental control of prices and wages.The short‐sightedness is also exemplified in speeches by business men on social responsibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the ptirsuit of profits is wicked and im moral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, business men seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.

The political principle that under lies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no “social” values, no “social” responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form.The political principle that under lies the political mechanism is conformity. The individual must serve more general social interest— whether that be determined by church or a dictator or a majority. The individual may have a vote and a say in what is to be done, but if he is overruled, he must conform. It is appropriate for some to require others to contribute to a general social purpose whether they wish to or not.Unfortunately, unanimity is not always feasible. There are some respects in which conformity appears unavoidable, so I do not see how one can avoid the use of the political Mechanism altogether.But the doctrine of “social responsibility” taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book “Capitalism and Freedom,” I have called it a “fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society, and have said that in such a society, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

NYT Link: https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html

What is Alpha?

Alpha is an excess portfolio return, introduced by Michael C Jensen in his doctoral dissertation (1968) and subsequent JOF article (1968).

Sharpe ratio, Jensen Alpha and Treynor ratio are three leading, fundamental benchmarks to measure portfolio returns.

View insights

408 post reach

All reactions:

11

A Tribute to Professor Michael C. Jensen

Michael C Jensen

(Nov 30,1939 - April 2,2024)

I am deeply saddened by the sudden demise of Professor Michael Cole Jensen on April 2, 2024. He was 84.

He was one of the very few early contributors in the field of finance & economics. He did his PHD (Finance) in 1968 (dissertation: Mutual Fund Performance) from University of Chicago. His doctoral advisors were professors Merton H Miller and Eugene F. Fama, both were recipients of Noble prize in economics.

After his PHD, he joined University of Rochester, Simon School of Business as finance faculty in 1967. He remained there till 1988. At Simon, he founded Journal of Financial Economics, one of the leading scholarly finance journals. His 1976 Journal of Financial Economics (JFE) paper with William Meckling, Simon Business School Dean, “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure” is a seminal piece (340,000 citations on Google scholar). It set the bar for the extensive literature on agency theory.

He joined Harvard Business School in 1985 and taught “Organizational Structure and Agency Theory” there till 2000. While at HBS, he was the most powerful faculty member. After Harvard, he joined Monitor Group, a consulting firm, in 2000. He co-founded SSRN, an online portal, to have social science research articles at one place.

He was popular for Jensen’s Alpha, an excess return on investment portfolio.

His works shaped our understanding of institutional economics, corporate finance, and the theories of the firm and managerial behaviour. Jensen’s pioneering contributions, including his seminal work on agency theory, have not only advanced academic thought but also profoundly influenced practical approaches in business and finance worldwide. His research contributions put him in the highest echelons of academic finance and economics. Prof. Jensen was also nominated for Noble prize in economics.

His untimely death is immense loss to the finance fraternity. He left many creative ideas and innovative thinking for the students, researchers and practitioners of finance.

It was my privilege to be one of his students during his Leadership Training and Seminar at Simon Business School, University of Rochester.

I pay my sincere homage to Prof. Jensen. He was truly a beloved person. He and his works remain with us for forever.

Mathematical Finance

Brownian Motion, Ito's Lemma and the Black-Scholes Formula

 

1. The stochastic property of an assets’ price can be described by Brownian Motion

2.  Price of derivative is a function of a stochastic process.

3.  Ito's lemma provides a framework to differentiate the functions of stochastic process and this is of particular significance to derivative pricing (before Ito's work, people did not know how to do it). 

4.  Ito's lemma allows us to derive the stochastic differential equation (SDE) for the price of derivatives. Solving such SDEs gives us the derivative pricing models.

नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्सको निर्माण: चयन प्रक्रिया, त्रुटी र समाधान

नेपाल स्टक एक्सचेन्ज लिमिटेडले नयाँ इन्डेक्स (सूचकांक) बनाउने प्रस्ताव गरेको छ।​ प्रस्तावित नयाँ इन्डेक्सलाई उसले "नेप्से ३०" नाम दिएको छ। मापदण्ड पुगेका​ मध्येबाट उत्कृष्ट ३० ​कम्पनीहरु​को स्टकलाई समाबेश गरेर यो इन्डेक्सको निर्माण हुने भएकाले यसलाई "नेप्से ३०" नामाकरण गरिएको बुझ्न सकिन्छ।​ यो आलेखमा कम्पनी वा स्टकलाई एकले अर्कोलाई बुझाउने वा प्रतिस्थापन गर्ने गरी प्रयोग गरिएको छ।

स्टक एक्सचेन्जले मिति २०८० बैशाख २० मा एक सुचना जारी गरी प्रस्तावित नेप्से ३० मा समाबेश गरिने स्टकको छनौटका आधार, चयन प्रक्रिया र गणना बिधीको मस्यौदा प्रकाशित गरेको थियो। साथै सम्बंधितहरुबाट राय-सुझाबको लागी सार्बजनिक अनुरोध समेत गरेको थियो। राय-सुझावको लागी स्टक एक्सचेन्जले प्रस्तुत गरेको दस्तावेज़ हेर्दा यति महत्वपूर्ण र जिम्मेवारीपूर्ण कार्य बिना तयारी, हतार र हचुवाको भरमा प्रस्ताब गरेको प्रस्ट हुन्छ। कुनै एक-दुई व्यक्तिको आधा-अधुरो ज्ञान, बिना जानकारी र अध्यनको आधारमा इन्डेक्स निर्माण र ब्यबस्थापन गर्न खोज्दा स्टक एक्सचेन्ज प्रतिको दैनिक खस्किदो साख र विश्वसनीयता झनै रसातलमा पुग्ने देखिन्छ।

स्टक एक्सचेन्जले जसरी नेप्से ३० छनौटका आधार र गणना बिधीको प्रस्ताब गरेको छ, त्यो अत्यन्तै अव्यवहारिक, अबैज्ञानिक र त्रुटिपूर्ण देखिन्छ। ​मस्यौदामा थुप्रै त्रुटीहरु छन्। त्रुटिपूर्ण प्रक्रियाबाट बनेको इन्डेक्स​ ​त्रुटिपूर्ण ​मात्र हुँदैन, त्यसमा आधारित भएर भविष्यमा बन्ने इन्डेक्स फण्डस्, अपसन्स्, फ्युचर्स, स्ट्रकचर्ड प्रडक्टस् जस्ता बित्तिय साधनहरु पनि त्रुटिपूर्ण हुन्छन। ​यस्ता साधनहरुको खरिद/बिक्रीमा कसैले अत्यधिक गुमाउने र कसैले अत्याधिक कमाउने विभेदपूर्ण अवस्था आऊदछ। यस्ता बित्तिय साधनमा लगानी गर्दा कसैलाई हानी-नोक्सानी भएमा कानुनी प्रक्रियामा जानसक्ने र सो पश्चात क्षतिपुर्ति समेत दिनुपर्ने अवस्था आउनसक्छ।​ प्रस्तावित नेप्से ३० त्रुटीपूर्ण इन्डेक्स नबनोस र विभेदपूर्ण बित्तिय साधन नहोस भन्ने हो भने पुँजीबजारका बिज्ञ र तथ्यांकशास्त्रीहरु सम्मिलित एक समिती गठन गरी सो समितीले अध्ययन र अनुसन्धान गरेर सुझाब गरे​ पश्चात मात्र यसलाई प्रयोगमा ल्याईनुपर्दछ। यत्तिकै ल्याइनु त्रुटीपूर्ण ​हुन्छ।

प्रस्तावित नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्स निर्माण प्रक्रियामा के के त्रुटीहरु छन्? त्रुटीपूर्ण इन्डेक्सले भोलि के के समस्या ल्याउनसक्छ? नेप्से ३० लाई कसरी त्रुटीरहित निष्पक्ष र लगानीको बराबर अवसर प्रदान गर्ने इन्डेक्स बनाउन सकिन्छ? यो कसरी सहि र सर्ब-स्वीकार्य हुनसक्छ? यस आलेखमा इन्डेक्स निर्माणका यिनै बिबिध पक्षबारेमा बिबेचना हुनेछ।

 

नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्सको प्रस्ताबमा रहेका त्रुटिहरु:

१) पहिलो त्रुटी पहिलो बुंदामै छ। यो बुंदामा छनोटमा पर्ने कम्पनीको "प्रति शेयर चुक्ता मूल्यभन्दा प्रति शेयर किताबी मूल्य बढी भएको हुनुपर्ने" भन्ने छ। यो ज्यादै कमजोर बुझाइका साथ राखिएको अनाबश्यक ब्यबस्था हो। किनकी प्रतिकित्ता चुक्ता मूल्यले कुनै स्टक लगानी योग्य वा अयोग्य भन्ने जनाउदैन। कारण कम्पनीको बित्तिय उपलब्धिमा यसको खासै प्रभाब र प्रासंगिता हुँदैन। अझ अन्तरराष्ट्रिय अभ्यासमा त प्रति शेयर चुक्ता मूल्यलाइ शेयर संख्या गणना गर्न बाहेक अन्य कुनै बित्तिय बिश्लेषणमा प्रयोग, समाबेश र उल्लेख पनि गरिदैन। चुक्ता पुँजीकै पनि त्यति धेरै अर्थ रहदैन किनकी यो नाम मात्रको हुन्छ। त्यहाँ कम्पनीको प्रति कित्ता चुक्ता मूल्य जतिपनि हुनसक्छ र प्राय यो दशमलब पछिको २/३ स्थानमा रहेको पाइन्छ। चुक्ता मूल्य र किताबी मूल्यको कुनै बित्तिय सम्बन्ध स्थापित नहुने हुँदा कुनैपनि अन्तरराष्ट्रिय स्टक इन्डेक्सले यस्तो सम्बन्धलाइ स्टक छनौटको आधार मानेको पाँईदैन।

यसै बुंदामा "विगत ५ आर्थिक बर्षमध्ये पछिल्लो आर्थिक बर्षसहित कम्तिमा ३ बर्ष खुद नाफामा रहेको हुनुपर्ने" भन्ने पनि छ। बिगत पाँचबर्षको मुनाफाको इतिहास खोज्नु फ्रि-फ्लोट इन्डेक्स निर्माणको आधार कदापी ब्यबहारिक हुदैन। छनोट हुने कम्पनी मुनाफामा गएको हुनु जरुरी छ तर यति संकुचित ब्यबस्था राख्दा धेरै राम्रो सम्भाबना भएका कम्पनीहरु समाबेश नहुने र कतिपय अवस्थामा कुनै समुहमा एउटा पनि कम्पनी समाबेश नहुने अवस्था आउनसक्छ। आर्थिक मन्दीको अवस्थामा आज नाफामा रहेका र इन्डेक्समा समा​बेश गरिएका धेरै कम्पनीहरु २/३ बर्षसम्म पनि नोक्सानीमा जानसक्ने अवस्था सिर्जना हुनसक्छ। त्यस्तो अवस्था​ आएमा इन्डेक्सको निरन्तरतामा नै प्रश्न उठ्नसक्छ। त्यसैले यो प्राबधानलाई खुकुलो बनाउदै "छनौट गरिने हरेक कम्पनीले पछिल्लो त्रैमासिक वा पछिल्लो १२ महिनामा मुनाफा गरेको हुनुपर्नेछ" भनि परिबर्तन गर्नु आबश्यक छ। यसले इन्डेक्समा समाबेश हुने सम्भावित कम्पनीहरुको ​गुणस्तर र दायरा बढाउछ।

२) दोश्रो त्रुटी पनि दोश्रो बुंदामा नै छ। यसमा "अघिल्लो आर्थिक बर्षमा प्रति शेयर आम्दानी चुक्ता मूल्यको न्युनतम १०% रही सोहि बर्षको बार्षिक मुद्रास्फिती दरभन्दा बढि रहेको" हुनुपर्ने भन्ने छ। इन्डेक्स निर्माणमा प्रति शेयर आम्दानी, चुक्ता मुल्य, मुद्रास्फितीको दर र यी आँकडा बिचको सम्बन्ध स्थापना गर्नु असान्दर्भिक र औचित्यहीन छ। यी कुनै पनि आँकडाको इन्डेक्स निर्माणमा कुनै भूमिका हुँदैन। फेरी​ पनि यहाँ चुक्ता मूल्यलाई प्रति शेयर आम्दानीसंग जोड्नु अर्थहिन छ। प्रति शेयर आम्दानीलाई मुद्रास्फितीको दरसंग जोड्नु झनै अर्थहिन छ।

यस्तो ब्यबस्था गर्दा यदि कुनै​ बर्ष आर्थिक मन्दी भएमा वा कुनै आर्थिक बर्ष मुद्रास्फितीको दर निकै उच्च रहेमा नेप्से ३० भित्र पर्ने प्राय धेरै कम्पनीहरुको प्रति शेयर आम्दानी चुक्ता मूल्यको न्युनतम १०% नहुन सक्ने वा मुद्रास्फिती दरभन्दा प्रति शेयर आम्दानी कम हुने स्थिति सिर्जना हुनसक्छ। यस्तो असान्दर्भिक शर्त राखिदा भविष्यमा इन्डेक्समा ३० स्टक नरहने र इन्डेक्सको निरन्तरता पनि नहुने सम्भाबना निम्त्याउछ। त्यसैले प्रति शेयर आम्दानी र मुद्रास्फिर्तीको दर स्टक छनोट र इन्डेक्स निर्माणको आधार हुनसक्दैन।

​३) तेश्रो त्रुटी भार अंक गणना बिधीको प्रयोगमा रहेको छ। स्टक छनौटमा स्टक एक्सचेन्जले प्रस्ताव गरेको इन्डेक्स भार गणना बिधीको प्रयोग अनाबश्यक, अव्यवहारिक तथा अबैज्ञानिक छ। इन्डेक्स गणनाका लागी स्टक छनौटमा कुनै भूमिका नहुने प्रति सेयर आम्दानीलाई ३०% भार दिएर भार गणनामा समाबेश गर्नु गलत छ​। भार गणना गर्ने नै हो भने पनि यो ब्यबस्था हटाएर मात्र भार गणना गर्नुपर्दछ।

​फ्रि-फ्लोट इन्डेक्समा​ फ्रि-फ्लोट बजार पुँजीकरण​, फ्रि-फ्लोट​ सेयर शंख्या, कारोबार सेयर शंख्या, कारोबार रकम, कारोबार संख्या जस्ता आँकडालाई भार गणनाको आधार बनाउँदा ​स्टक छनौट प्रक्रिया सबै​लाई सहज र प्रस्ट बुझ्न सकिने हुन्छ। भार मापन गर्दा प्रति शेयर आम्दानी, किताबी मूल्य, मुद्रास्फीति आदि जस्ता आधारभूत मुल्यांकनका पक्षहरुको प्रयोग अव्यवहारिक हुन​ जान्छ।

पुँजीबजार दैनिक रुपमा हेरेक मिनट, सेकेन्ड र टिकमा धितोपत्रको किनबेच हुने ​बजार हो। तसर्थ इन्डेक्स चयन प्रक्रिया, भार मापन बि​धी तथा गणना बिधी कहीं पनि आवधिक रुपमा परिवर्तन हुने आधारभूत सूचकहरुको प्रयोग अव्यवहारिक र अबैज्ञानिक हुन जान्छ। अझै बिस्तृत रुपमा ब्याख्या गर्नुपर्दा जतिपनि बजारलाई प्रभावित गर्न सक्ने आधारभूत बित्तिय र आर्थिक कारक तत्वहरुको अन्तिम प्रतिक्रिया नै कम्पनीहरुको स्टकहरुको मुल्यमा प्रतिबिम्बित हुने र सबै कम्पनीहरुको स्टकको मुल्यको योग बजार पुँजीकरण हुनेहुँदा, बजार पुँजीकरण, कारोबार रकम र कारोबार संख्या जस्ता मूल्य र मात्रा नै इन्डेक्स चयनको मापदण्ड र आधारहरु हुने गर्दछन।

तसर्थ ​कम्पनी छनौटका आधारहरु तय गर्दा भबिस्यमा आउनसक्ने समस्यालाई पनि ध्यान दिनु जरुरी छ। त्यसोभए इन्डेक्स निर्माणमा ​कम्पनी​ छनोटका सहि, उत्कृष्ट र ब्यबहारिक आधारहरु के के हुनसक्छन भन्ने प्रश्न उठ्छ। ​कम्पनी​ छनोटका ति आधारहरु पत्ता लगाउन अन्तर्रास्ट्रिय अभ्यास र अनुभवलाई सन्दर्भमा लिनैपर्दछ। प्रख्यात स्टक मार्केट इन्डेक्स स्ट्यान्डर्ड एन्ड पुअर्स ५०० ले प्रयोग गरेका आधारहरु नै दुनियाँमा सबैभन्दा सहि, उत्कृष्ट र ब्यबहारिक मानिन्छ। ​कम्पनी​ छनौटमा प्रयोग गरिने बि​धी भनेको बजार पुँजीकारण, तरलता, कारोबार रकम, कारोबार संख्या, कारोबार अवधि र औसत दैनिक कारोबार लगायत निम्न उल्लेखित आधारहरु उपयोगी हुन्छन।

बृहत सुची निर्माण: स्टक छनौटका शर्त, मापदण्ड र आधारहरु:            

इन्डेक्स गणनामा कम्पनीको छनोट महत्वपूर्ण हुन्छ र यसका केही शर्त र मापदण्डहरु हुन्छन्। अपवादमा बाहेक इन्डेक्समा समाबेश हुने समयमा हरेक कम्पनीले त्यस्ता मापदण्डहरु पुरा गरेकै हुनु​पर्छ। ३० स्टक इन्डेक्सको निर्माणका लागी सर्बप्रथम ६० ​कम्पनी छनौट गर्नुपर्दछ। छानिएका ६० ​कम्पनीबाट सबैभन्दा धेरै भार हुने ३० स्टकलाई इन्डेक्समा छनौट गर्ने र बाँकी ३० लाई प्रतिक्षा सुचिमा राख्नुपर्दछ। ६० स्टक छनौटका शर्त, मापदण्ड र आधारहरु देहायका हुन्छन।

(१) ​आवास र सुचिकृत: छनौट गरिने हरेक कम्पनी नेपालमा दर्ता भै नेपाल स्टक एक्सचेन्जमा सुचिकृत भएको हुन अनिबार्य हुन्छ। अहिले एउटा मात्र स्टक एक्सचेन्ज हुँदा सूचिकरणको समस्या छैन। तर भोलि अर्को नयाँ स्टक एक्सचेन्ज आएमा नेप्से ३० मा रहेका कम्पनीहरु अहिलेको स्टक एक्सचेन्जबाट नयाँमा सर्नसक्ने हुँदा यो शर्त आबश्यक हुन्छ। नेपाल स्टक एक्सचेन्जको ब्यबस्थापन र निरिक्षणमा संचालन हुने नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्समा अन्य स्टक एक्सचेन्जमा सुचिकृत कम्पनीहरु तकनिकी हिसाबले समाबेश गर्न मिल्दैन। कुनै बिदेशी कम्पनी पनि यो इन्डेक्समा समाबेस हुनसक्दैन।

२) मुनाफामा रहेको: छनौटको अवस्थामा हरेक कम्पनीले पछिल्लो त्रैमासिक वा पछिल्लो १२ महिनामा मुनाफा गरेको हुनु आबश्यक हुन्छ।

३) शेयर संख्या (फ्रि-फ्लोट): छनोटमा पर्ने हरेक कम्पनीको सर्बसाधरणमा किन-बेचका लागी उपलब्ध शेयर संख्या कम्तिमा ५० लाख कित्ता हुनुपर्नेछ।​

४) तरलता: ​बर्तमान बजारको तरलतालाई मध्येनजर गर्दा पछिल्लो १२ महिनामा पब्लिकमा रहेको शेयर संख्याको २०% सेयर बराबर खरिद–बिक्री भएको हुनपर्ने हुन्छ। ​तर ​भोलि तरलतामा सुधार भएमा अंतर्राष्ट्रिय अभ्यास अनुरुप "बिगत १२ महिनामा पब्लिकमा रहेको शेयर संख्या बराबर खरिद–बिक्री भएको" स्टकलाइ मात्र तरलता भएको स्टक मानिनु पर्ने हुन्छ।

५) कारोबार अवधि: छनौट गरिने कम्पनीको धितोपत्रको पछिल्लो ६ महिनाको अवधिमा कम्तिमा ९०% दिन कारोबार भएको हुनुपर्नेछ। यसमा कुनै संस्थागत परिघटना (कर्पोरेट इभेन्टस्: मर्जर एण्ड एक्विजिसन वा अरु कुनै​ बिशेष परिस्थिती​) को कारण कारोबार नभएमा ब्यबस्थापन एबं समायोजन कमिटीले सो अवस्थामा उचित निर्णय लिनसक्नेछ।​

६) औसत दैनिक कारोबार: छनौट गरिने कम्पनीको धितोपत्रको बिगत ६ महिनाको कारोबार दिनमा औसत दैनिक कारोबार रकम रु.५० लाख, औसत दैनिक कारोबार शेयर संख्या २५ हजार र औसत दैनिक कारोबार संख्या २०० भन्दा बढि हुनुपर्नेछ।

७) औसत प्रभाव लागत: छनौट गरिने कम्पनीहरुको धितोपत्रको ​पछिल्लो ६ महिनाको अवधिमा कुनैपनि समयमा १० लाख बजार मुल्य बराबर रकम कारोबार गर्दा औसत प्रभाव लागत २% भन्दा बढी नभएको हुनुपर्नेछ।

८) समूह बर्गिकरण: सुचिकृत कम्पनीहरुको समूह बर्गिकरण ज्यादै अब्यबहारिक छ। ​प्रस्तावित इन्डेक्स गणना गर्ने उदेश्यले स्टक एक्सचेन्जले १३ समुहलाई ६ समुहमा झारेर पुनर्बर्गिकरण गरेको छ, जसमा "बैंक तथा बित्तिय संस्था, बिमा, लघुबित्त, जलबिद्युत, उत्पादनमुलक र ब्यापार तथा सेवा" छन्। पुनर्बर्गिकरण आबश्यक थियो, तर यो संख्या घटाउने काम मात्र हुनुहुँदैन। यो पुनर्बर्गिकरणमा नेपाल दुरसंचार​ कम्पनी लिमिटेड, नागरिक लगानी कोष जस्ता महत्वपूर्ण कम्पनीहरु छुटेका छन भने बित्तिय ​संस्थाको रुपमा लघुवित्तको छुट्टै समूह हुनुसक्दैन।

नेपालको परिप्रेक्ष्यमा समूह बर्गिकरणमा केहि ​अफ्ठ्यारो देखिन्छ। नचाहदा नचाहदै पनि असन्तुलित बर्गिकरणलाइ नै पछ्याउनुपर्ने बाध्यता छ। अहिलेलाई "बित्तिय, बिमा, जल-बिद्युत (उर्जा), उत्पादनमुलक र ब्यापार तथा सेवा" समूह गरी ५ समूह मात्र बन्न सक्दछन। "बित्तिय समुह" मा बाणिज्य बैंक, विकास बैंक, फाईनान्स, लघुबित्त र लगानी संस्थाहरु समाबेश गरिनुपर्दछ। "बिमा" समूहमा जीवन र निर्जीवन बिमाको अनाबश्यक बर्गिकरण हटाएर नेपाल पुनर्बिमा कम्पनीलाई समेत समाबेश गर्नुपर्दछ। जलबिद्युत समूहलाई "उर्जा (इनर्जी)" नामाकरण गर्नु स्तरिय र ब्यबहारिक हुन्छ। "उत्पादनमुलक" समुहलाई यथावत राखिनु पर्दछ। बाँकी रहेका ब्यापार, सेवा, होटेल तथा पर्यटन र अन्य मिलाएर "ब्यापार तथा सेवा" समूह बनाउनु पर्दछ। "म्युचुअल फण्ड" र "अन्य" समूहको ​बर्गिकरण र इन्डेक्स गणना अर्थहिन छ।

अहिले सुरुवाती चरणमा उप-समूहलाइ पनि विचार गर्नुपर्ने देखिन्छ। बित्तिय समुहको उप-समूहमा बाणिज्य बैंक, विकास बैंक, फाईनान्स, लघुबित्त र लगानी संस्था र बि​मा समुहको उप-समूहमा जीवन, निर्जीवन र पुनर्बिमालाइ लिनुपर्नेछ।

इन्डेक्सको गणना सहि तवरले गर्न अहिलेको समूह बर्गिकरणलाई बिस्तारै अंतर्राष्ट्रिय अभ्यास अनुरुप ​बदल्दै लैजानुपर्दछ। अंतर्राष्ट्रिय अभ्यासमा उस्तै प्रकृतीका ब्यबसाय र तिनमा अन्तर्निहित जोखिम अनुसार कम्पनीहरुलाई "फाईनान्सियल्स, इन्फर्मेसन टेक्नोलोजी, हेल्थकेयर, कन्जुमर डिस्क्रिएसनरी, कन्जुमर स्टेपल्स, कम्युनिकेसन सर्भिसेज, इन्डस्ट्रीयल्स, रियल इस्टेट, मेटेरिअल्स, इनर्जी र युटिलिटीज" गरि ११ समूहमा बर्गिकरण गरिएको छ। नेपालमा हाल सुचिकृत कम्पनीहरु यो बर्गिकरण अनुरुपका कतिपय समुहमा उपलब्ध नभए पनि बिस्तारै यहि अभ्यासमा जानेतर्फ कार्य सुरु गर्नुपर्दछ।

​९) प्रतिनिधित्व: ​स्टक छनोटका शर्त र मापदण्डका आधारमा ​५ समुहमध्ये प्रत्येकबाट​ १२/१२ कम्पनी गरि कुल ६० कम्पनीहरुको बृहत सुची निर्माण गर्नुपर्नेछ।​ सबै समुहमा ​समान संख्यामा कम्पनी​हरु ​नभएका कारण कुनै समुहबाट १२ कम्पनी छनोट​ हुन ​नसक्ने अवस्था आएमा सम्भब भएजति कम्पनी छनौट गर्नुपर्दछ। कुनै समुहबाट जति कम संख्यामा कम्पनी छनोट हुन्छ, सो संख्या अर्को समुहबाट पूर्ति गर्नुपर्दछ।

बजार पुँजीकारण र तरलताका कारण "बित्तिय" समूहबाट स्टक छनौट गर्दा धेरै संख्यामा बाणिज्य बैंकहरु​ पर्नसक्ने ​सम्भाबित​ ​अवस्थाबारे​सचेत हुनुपर्छ। त्यस्तो भएमा इन्डेक्स असुन्तलित हुनेहुँदा सन्तुलन मिलाउन बिकास बैंक, फाईनान्स, लघुवित्त र लगानी उप-समुहबाट कम्तिमा​ २/२ कम्पनी र बाँकीमा बाणिज्य बैंक छान्नु पर्दछ। नत्र बिकास​ बैंक, फाईनान्स कम्पनी, लघुवित्त र लगानी उप-समूहको ​प्रतिनिधित्व नहुने सम्भाबना हुन्छ। बिमा समुहबाट पनि जीवन, निर्जीवन र पुनर्बिमा उप-समुहबाट ​कम्तिमा १ र बढीमा ६ कम्पनी ​छान्नुपर्ने हुन्छ।संख्या र बजार पुँजीकारण धेरै भएका कारण बित्तिय समुहबाट धेरै कम्पनि छनौट हुनु अन्यथा होइन।

​१​०) समाबेश हुन नसक्ने: कुनैपनि स्टक इन्डेक्समा छनौट गरिने कम्पनीको स्टक​ (इक्विटी सेयर​) र रिट्स​ मात्र समावेश हुनसक्छ। ऋणपत्रहरु (बन्ड/डिबेन्चर), अग्राधिकार सेयर, परिवर्तनिय धितोपत्र (डिबेन्चर/अग्राधिकार सेयर), म्युचुअल फन्ड​स् र निलम्बनमा परेका धितोपत्रहरु समावेश गर्न योग्य हुँदैनन।

​१​१) नयाँ सुचिकृत धितोपत्र: कुनै नयाँ सुचिकृत धितोपत्र ​दोश्रो बजारमा ६ महिना कारोबार भएर बजार मूल्यमा स्थिरता आएपश्चात मात्र प्रतिक्षा सुचिमा छनोट हुन् योग्य हुनेछ। प्रतिक्षा​ सुचिमा कम्तिमा पनि ३० कम्पनी राखिनुपर्दछ।​ पहिलो पटक इन्डेक्स निर्माण भएपश्चात कुनै स्टक इन्डेक्सबाट बाहिरिने अवस्था आएमा त्यसलाई​ प्रतिस्थापन गर्ने अर्को स्टक कम्तिमा पनि ६ महिना प्रतिक्षा​ सुचिमा रहेको​हुनुपर्नेछ।
१​२) परिभाषा: प्रस्तावित नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्सलाई फ्रि-फ्लोट इन्डेक्स भनिएको छ तर फ्रि-फ्लोट भनेको के हो र यसको गणना कसरी हुन्छ? त्यसको परिभाषा कतै छैन। तसर्थ फ्रि-फ्लोट लगायत अन्य थुप्रै शब्दावलीहरुलाई इन्डेक्स कार्यबिधी (म्यानुयल) मा ​परिभाषित ​ गरी सार्बजनिक गर्नुपर्दछ। इन्डेक्स गणनाका सुत्र, आधार र बिधीहरु पनि परिभाषित गरी सार्बजनिक गरेको हुनुपर्दछ।
१​३) अन्य: छनोट भैसकेको कम्पनीको हकमा ​यहाँ उल्लेखित शर्त र मापदण्डहरु कम्तिमा ६ महिनाको लागी लागू हुँदैनन। यी शर्त र मापदण्डहरु बजारको अवस्थामा सुधार आएमा समय-समयमा परिबर्तन हुनेछन्। अरु शर्त र मापदण्डहरु थपिन सक्नेछन्।

नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्समा छानिने आधारहरु :

माथिका शर्त, मापदण्ड र आधारमा ६० स्टक छनौट​ पश्चात हरेक समूहबाट उप-समुह​ समेत मिलाएर सबैभन्दा धेरै भार हुने ३० स्टकलाई नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्समा समाबेश गर्नुपर्दछ। बाँकी ३० स्टक प्रतिक्षा सुचिमा रहनेछन्। ३० स्टक छनौटका शर्त, मापदण्ड र आधारहरु ​निम्नलिखित हुनेछन:

१) प्रतिनिधित्व: ​माथि​ बुँदा ​नम्बर ९ मा जस्तै सकेसम्म हरेक समुहबाट ​६/६ कम्पनी ​छनोट ​गरेर ३० स्टक पुर्याउनु पर्दछ। कुनै समुहबाट ​६ कम्पनी छनोट​ हुन ​नसक्ने अवस्था आएमा कम्तिमा २/२ कम्पनी छनौट गर्नुपर्दछ। कुनै समुहबाट जति​ कम संख्यामा कम्पनी छनोट हुन्छ, सो संख्या अर्को समुहबाट पूर्ति गर्नुपर्दछ।​ त्यसरी नै प्रत्येक ​समूहभित्रका उप-समुहबाट कम्तिमा १ कंम्पनी समाबेश ​गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ।

बिकास बैंक, फाईनान्स, लघुवित्त र लगानी उप-समुहबाट १-३ कम्पनी र बाँकीमा बाणिज्य बैंक छान्नुपर्दछ। बिमा समुहबाट पनि जीवन, निर्जीवन​ र पुनर्बिमा उप-समुहबाट १-३ कम्पनी छान्नुपर्ने ​हुन्छ।​ इन्डेक्सलाई ज्यादा सन्तुलित​ ​र ​प्रतिनिधीमुलक बनाउन अपवादको ​ रुपमा ​यस्तो उपाए अपनाउनुपर्ने बाध्यता छ।

२) कम्पोजिट (समग्र) भार: कम्पनी छनौट ​गर्ने प्रक्रियामा समूह तथा उप-समुह​मा कम्पोजिट भारको प्रयोग गर्न सकिन्छ। भार गणना गर्दा प्रत्येक समुह तथा उप-समूहका कम्पनीको बजार पुँजीकारणलाई ४०%, फ्रि-फ्लोट सेयर शंख्यालाई २०%, कारोबार ​सेयर शंख्यालाई १५%, कारोबार रकमलाई १५% र कारोबार शंख्यालाई १०% भार छुट्टयाई हरेक कम्पनीको कम्पोजिट भार गणना गरी अधिकतम भार हुने उत्कृष्ट ​कम्प​नीलाई छनोट गर्नुपर्दछ।

३) फ्रि-फ्लोट बजार पुंजीकारण: छनौट गरिने हरेक कम्पनीको फ्रि-फ्लोट बजार पुंजीकारण ​नेप्से ३०​ को फ्रि-फ्लोट बजार पुँजीकरणको ​कम्तिमा ०.​५​% हुनुपर्नेछ।

४) समीक्षा र पुनराबलोकन: नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्सलाई हरेक ६-६ महिनामा समीक्षा र पुनराबलोकन ​गर्ने र आवश्यक ​भएमा कुनै कम्पनी ​थपघट ​गरि सन्तुलित र पुर्न-संरचना गर्ने। असामान्य अवस्थामा बाहेक कुनै कम्पनी बाहिरिने वा थपिने अवस्थामा सो को जानकारी ३० दिन ​अगावै दिनुपर्ने।

५) समायोजन: नगद लाभांश, बोनस सेयर, हकप्रद, थप सेयर (एफपिओ), फ्रि-फ्लोट सेयरमा घटब​ढ हुँदा, सेयर टुक्रा पार्दा, सेयर पुनर्खरिद गर्दा, मर्जर एन्ड एक्विजिसन गर्दा, परिवर्तित बण्ड, डिबेन्चर वा अग्राधिकार सेयर साधारण सेयरमा परिबर्तन ​हुँदा, कर्मचारीको अप्सन्स प्रयोग हुँदा, कम्पनीको अंश बिक्री गर्दा (स्पिन​-अफ), कम्पनीलाई टुक्र्याउदा (स्प्लिट​-अफ), इन्डेक्समा कम्पनी थपघट हुँदा वा अन्य कुनै संस्थागत परिघटना (कर्पोरेट इभेन्टस्) भएमा सम्बन्धित स्टकको मूल्य र आधार बजार पुँजीकरण (वा डिभाइजर) समायोजन गर्नुपर्दछ ताकि इन्डेक्स​को ​गणना ​सहि​ होस्।

६) बहिर्गमन: स्टक छनौटका शर्त र मापदण्डहरु नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्समा समाबेश हुनका लागि अनिबार्य हुन्छन। यी ब्यबस्था छनोट भैसकेको​कम्पनीको हकमा ६ महिनाको समयमा यी शर्त र मापदण्ड लागु नहुन सक्छन। छनौट भैसकेपछि हरबखत ​ति​मापदण्ड पुरा ​नहुन सक्छन। तर लामो समय शर्त र मापदण्ड पुरा नगर्ने कम्पनीहरु समिक्षा र पुनराबलोकन पश्चात बहिर्गमनमा पर्नसक्छन। हरेक कम्पनीलाई आफ्नो स्थितीमा सुधार गर्न ६​ महिनाको समय हुनेछ। स्थितीमा सुधार नभई कुनै ​कम्पनी मापदण्ड पुरा गर्न नसक्ने स्टकलाई मापदण्ड पुरा गर्ने अर्को स्टकले प्रतिस्थापन गर्नुपर्दछ। यसको सार्बजनिक जानकारी ३० दिन अगावै दिनुपर्दछ।

इन्डेक्स गणना बिधी:

इन्डेक्स गणनाका धेरै बिधीहरु भएपनि प्रमुख रुपमा मूल्य औसत र भारित बजार पुँजीकरणको आधारमा यस्तो गणना गर्ने गरिन्छ। नेप्से ३० फ्रि-फ्लोट समायोजित भारित बजार पुँजीकरण इन्डेक्स भएको हुँदा इन्डेक्स गणना गर्दा छानिएका कम्पनीहरुको पब्लिक खरिद–बिक्रीका लागि योग्य र उपलब्ध सेयरको बजार पुँजीकरणलाई मात्र समावेश गरिन्छ।​ यस्तो बजार पुँजीकरणको भारित औसतका आधारमा इन्डेक्स गणना हुन्छ। यो ​बिधीले कम्पनीको कुल बजार पुँजीकरणलाई भने समावेश गर्दैन ।

स्ट्यान्डर्ड एन्ड पुअर्स ५०० ले सुरुवात गरेको यो बिधीलाई बिश्वका अन्य धेरै इन्डेक्सहरुले पछ्याएका छन्। अर्थतन्त्रका सबै क्षेत्रका स्टकहरुलाई समावेश गरेर इन्डेक्स गणना गरिने हुँदा यसलाई मार्केट​ बेञ्चमार्कको रुपमा व्यापक प्रयोग गरिन्छ। यसको गणना बिधी यस अनुसार हुन्छ​:

नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्स (आज) = {(नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्सका सदस्य कम्पनीहरुको आजको बजार पुँजीकरण)/(नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्सका सदस्य कम्पनीहरुको आधार मितीको बजार पुँजीकरण)} x १०००

आधार बजार पुँजीकारण (डिभाइजर) = आधार मितीमा छनौट गरिएका ३० स्टकहरुको फ्रि-फ्लोट बजार पुँजीकरणको योग

आधार मिती = श्राबण १, २०७७ (१६ जुलाई२०२०)

साधारणतया इन्डेक्स गणना गर्दा आजको मितीको बजार पुँजीकरणलाइ आधार मितिको बजार पुँजीकरणले भाग गरेर १०० ले गुणा गरेर निकालिन्छ। तर यहाँ १०० को ठाउमा १००० लाई प्रयोग गरिएको छ। यसको कारण नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्स १००० बाट सुरु होस् भनेर हो। आधार मिती श्राबण १, २०७७ (१६ जुलाई​ २०२०) लिनुको कारण सो आर्थिक बर्षमा नेप्से इन्डेक्स १३९४.७७​ को तहमा रहेको हुँदा यो मितिको बजार पुंजीकारणलाई आधार मान्दा नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्स १४-१५०० को हाराहारी आओस र अहिलेका नेप्से इन्डेक्सकोको अंकसंग तुलनात्मक होस् भनेर गरिएको हो।

हरेक इन्डेक्स गणनाका लागी आधार बजार पुँजीकरण, जसलाई डिभाईजर भनिन्छ, आबश्यक हुन्छ। स्टकहरुको तथ्याँक (बजार मूल्य र कर्पोरेट इभेन्ट्स) उपलब्ध भएमा आधार बजार पुँजीकरण जुनसुकै मितीबाट पनि लिन सकिन्छ। उपलब्ध हुन्छ भने सुरुको मिती (२०५० साल) देखि नै आधार बजार पुँजीकरण गणना गरेर समायोजन गर्दै ल्याएर आजको मितीको सामायोजित आधार बजार पुँजीकारण निकाल्न सकिन्छ। इन्डेक्स सकेसम्म सुरुको मितीदेखि गणना गरिए बढी जानकारीमुलक, तुलनात्मक र उपयोगी हुन्छ। कारण यसले बिगतमा कुन समयमा कस्तो ब्यबहार (मुल्यमा उतार-चढाब) गरेको थियो भन्ने थाहा हुन्छ। तथ्याँक नभएको अवस्थामा जुन आर्थिक बर्षदेखि तथ्यांक उपलब्ध हुन्छ त्यो बर्षको श्राबण १ को बजार पुँजीकारणलाई लिएर इन्डेक्स गणना गर्नसकिन्छ। जुन​सुकै मितीको फ्रि-फ्लोट बजार पुँजीकरणलाइ आधार पुँजीकरणको रुपमा लिईदा पनि गणना बिधीले कुनै फरक पार्दैन।

इन्डेक्स निर्माण, व्यवस्थापन र समायोजन:

कुनैपनि कारोबार-योग्य इन्डेक्स निर्माणको लागी इन्डेक्स ब्यबस्थापन र समायोजन कमिटिको नितान्त आवश्यकता हुन्छ।​ इन्डेक्समा रहेका कम्पनीको सेयर संख्या र मूल्यमा परिवर्तन आउँदा इन्डेक्समा परिवर्तन आउछ र त्यसका लागी आधार बजार पुँजीकारण (डिभाइजर) लाई समायोजन गर्दै लानुपर्दछ। इन्डेक्स गणना भनेको यही समायोजन हो र यो अत्यन्तै महत्वपूर्ण हुन्छ।​

इन्डेक्स निर्माण, व्यवस्थापन एबं समायोजनको चुनौतीपूर्ण कार्यको लागी पुँजीबजारका बिज्ञ (फाइनान्सियल एक्स्पर्टहरु) र तथ्यांकशास्त्रीहरु सम्मिलित एक कमिटी बनाएर सो कमिटीलाई जिम्मा दिन आवश्यक हुन्छ। यो कमिटीको अध्ययन, अनुसन्धान र सुझाब अनुसारमात्र इन्डेक्सलाई प्रयोगमा ल्याईनुपर्दछ। यत्तिकै ल्याइनु त्रुटीपूर्ण हुन्छ। यो कमिटीले नै इन्डेक्समा परिमार्जन, समायोजन, कम्पनीहरु थपघट गर्ने, थपिने सम्भावित कम्पनीहरु छनोटमा राख्ने लगायत​ सम्पूर्ण कार्य गर्दछ। स्टक छनोट र गणना कार्यविधि (म्यानुएल) बनाउने र इन्डेक्स सम्बन्धी सबै निर्णय यही कमिटीले गर्छ। इन्डेक्सको बिश्वासनियता र पारदर्शिताका लागि यस्तो ब्यबस्था गर्नुपर्ने नै हुन्छ।

नेप्से ३० इन्डेक्स निर्माणको प्रस्तावित मस्यौदामा थुप्रै त्रुटी र कमजोरीहरु छन्। केहि त्रुटीहरु अति सामान्य र आधारभूत बिषयमा नै छन्। इन्डेक्स निर्माणको प्रक्रियामा स्टक छनौट बिधीको आधार प्रति शेयर आम्दानी, चुक्ता मूल्य र किताबी​ मूल्यको सम्बन्ध, मुद्रास्फीतिजस्ता आँकडाहरु कारक तत्व हुनसक्दैनन। यस्ता अ​नाबश्यक र असान्दर्भिक ब्यबस्था राखेर बनाइएको इन्डेक्स त्रुटीपूर्ण हुने हुँदा यी ब्यबस्थाहरु​ खारेज गर्न बान्छनिय छ।

मस्यौदामा राखिएका धेरै ब्यबस्था ज्यादै सतही र हचुवा तवरले राखिएका छन्। एक पारदर्शी, निष्पक्ष र लगानीयोग्य इन्डेक्समा हुनुपर्ने धेरै बिधी, प्रक्रिया र आधारहरु कतै उल्लेख नै गरिएका छैनन। यो हिसाबले ब्यबस्थापन गरिने नेप्से ३० पनि हालका इन्डेक्स भन्दा तात्विक फरक हुने देखिदैन। हालसम्मको गतिबिधि र कार्य हेर्दा स्टक एक्सचेन्जबाट प्रस्तावित इन्डेक्सको निर्माण तथा ब्यबस्थापन हुन् असम्भब प्राय: छ।

निचोडमा इन्डेक्स निर्माणका दुई प्रमुख कारण लगानीयोग्य र पारदर्शीता हुन। त्रुटीपूर्ण इन्डेक्स लगानी योग्य हुँदैन। बिस्तृत कार्यबिधी नभएको इन्डेक्स पारदर्शी हुँदैन। पारदर्शी नभए बिश्वासयोग्य हुँदैन, जसले गर्दा लगानी आउदैन। यी दुई महत्वपूर्ण मापदण्ड पुरा नगर्ने इन्डेक्सको कुनै अर्थ हुँदैन। तसर्थ इन्डेक्सलाई लगानीयोग्य बनाउने हो भने यो त्रुटीरहित र पारदर्शी हुनैपर्दछ।

- मुक्ति अर्याल र बिष्णु प्रशाद बस्याल

(अर्याल फाईनान्सियल इकोनोमिस्ट र बस्याल अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय पुँजीबजार बिज्ञ हुन्।)

(२०८० साउन २० गते - अनलाईनखबरमा प्रकाशित)

https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2023/08/1345952?fbclid=IwAR2op4_jYIPCGzKJQya07C2aCosk7uZ00NTPE8PgsMvekELsScaTOOd-Z1E_aem_Af_8s9sa2TZq--mGUwjgpchlwllCJstx4TzBs5nxbsTpmGUip2drxcmJGAigP1pqhxI&mibextid=Zxz2cZ