With apologies to the Bard, as retired directors, we “suffer the slings of outrageous fortune” and so, “take arms against a sea of confusions and misapprehensions.” We emerge from our retirement shelter to participate in the debate on whether Tata Sons should or should not be listed. We are not concerned in this article with other Tata issues.

The case for listing Tata Sons is made around three issues. First, that an IPO will deliver more transparency; second, that it will provide an exit for certain shareholders; third, that Tata Sons is too important to remain private.

The question of more transparency

Tata Sons has behaved like a listed company even though it was not bound to do so. Its accounts are published on its website, it is regulated by MCA and RBI, and its board composition is in line with SEBI’s listed company regulations. Its historical record demonstrates that it discharges obligations — moral and financial — in a manner that exceeds the behaviour of many listed companies. What further transparency is sought to be achieved?

Examples are given of investment companies like Berkshire Hathaway. Over a century and a half, Tata Sons has played a unique role in Indian industrialisation, somewhat like an early VC/PE firm. In recent decades, some global VC/PE firms have indeed listed, but nobody compelled them to do so. Sequoia and Sutter Hill promoted the now $5 trillion Nvidia, but neither is........

© Indian Express