The Securities Board of Nepal (SEBON) is again in controversy after it was alleged that commission was demanded for initial share issue (IPO) of hydropower companies. The hydropower promoters have demanded an investigation saying that the board, which has stopped the IPO permission of around 89 companies since 22 months, has mobilized middlemen to collect up to 7 percent commission. However, Sebon and the government have not taken this demand seriously.

IPPAN, the association of independent power producers, discussed the delay in the IPO approval and the impact of the bigbigiy of middlemen on Tuesday. The conclusion of the energy promoters that they have to make a collective response to the middlemen who ask for commission is .  President of the Securities Board Santosh Narayan Shrestha has claimed that false accusations have been made against him. Kantipur's brief conversation with Chairman Shrestha: 

The hydropower promoter is complaining that he has not received IPO permission for 22 months, why did he stop it? 

It's been five months since I became president. I cannot answer why it was stopped for 22 months. Eight companies have received IPO permission in five months. 

When you were appointed as chairman, there were 82 companies applying for IPO, now there are 89. Is the working speed good? Companies that do not meet the

criteria will not be allowed. The board does not agree on the overall asset and liability assessment (Due Diligence Audit-DDA) of the company. Initially, DDA is done by the merchant banker for the company. Its report should also be examined by the mechanism of the board. Due to not reaching the minimum standards in the DDA of many companies, permission could not be granted.

The main objective of the board is to protect citizens' investments. Therefore, the received application should be carefully studied, researched and analyzed. That takes time. If the companies are quick, they will not give IPO permission to those who do not meet the standards. On the other hand, the board's job is not only to give IPO permission. As the company has grown, the capacity of the board has not increased. We are also working for capacity building. 

Are you trying to say that the IPO approval has been delayed because the indicators differed while testing the DDA report submitted by the company?

Some company's DDA report does not meet certain standards. In that case, the company is frequently contacted to meet those criteria. It takes time to get the standards from the company and get them re-examined by the board. For example, some file before but not the annual general meeting of the company. It takes time to hold a

general meeting. The board should be confident while giving permission for an IPO to a company. Because it is a matter of people's investment. What was happening before this, the question is being raised in three. We cannot move forward ignoring all of them.  Out of many companies in the

process, only 8 got IPO permission on what basis? 

Received applications are divided into groups. Allowed equally in all areas. Just because there are many companies in the hydropower sector does not mean that only they will be allowed. Sometimes the previous company's standard is not met, it is asked to meet the standard. Until that company meets the standards, the process of another company has to proceed. All the details of which company applied to the board, when it was reviewed, when insufficient documents were requested, when permission was given are mentioned on the website. We didn't work undercover. Those eight companies got permission because they met the criteria. The board may be questioned if a company is given permission that does not meet the standards. The board does not do the questioning.