The Supreme Court’s verdict on Yes Bank’s AT1 bonds raises serious questions about investor protection, banking regulation and the accountability of financial regulators in India.
In this Podcast, Debashis Basu examines the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Bombay High Court’s ruling against the write-off of ₹8,415 crore in Yes Bank AT1 bonds. The case goes beyond a legal dispute: it exposes the consequences of mis-selling complex financial products to ordinary investors and the shortcomings of India’s disclosure-based regulatory framework.
Despite being high-risk securities meant for sophisticated investors, Yes Bank’s AT1 bonds were allegedly sold to retail customers as “Super FDs”, promising attractive returns while creating an impression of fixed-deposit safety. SEBI’s investigation uncovered serious mis-selling, while the Supreme Court questioned the conduct of Yes Bank, the RBI and the bank’s administrator.
In this Podcast, we explore:
- What are AT1 bonds, and why are they risky for retail investors?
- How were Yes Bank’s AT1 bonds mis-sold as “Super FDs”?
- Why did the Supreme Court question the RBI’s role in the episode?
- What is disclosure-based regulation, and why can it fail ordinary investors?
- Why is handing over a disclosure document not the same as obtaining informed consent?
- How can India move towards outcome-based regulation that prioritises investor protection and accountability?
Debashis Basu argues that financial regulation must go beyond disclosure requirements. Regulators must examine whether products are suitable for customers, whether sales practices encourage mis-selling, and whether financial institutions are held accountable when investors suffer losses.
The bigger lesson: Investors cannot be expected to bear the consequences of regulatory failures simply because risks were disclosed on paper. Effective regulation must protect investors in practice, not just in principle.
","author_name":"Debashis Basu & Sucheta Dalal"}