The wealth arm would be part of Godrej Financial Services, which reported a 142.6% increase in consolidated net profit to ₹444 crore from ₹183 crore in the previous year.

“As India’s wealth base expands, there is a growing need for institutions capable of providing long-term financial guidance across generations,” said Pirojsha Godrej, chairperson designate, Godrej Industries Group.

“Godrej group’s legacy and trust would form the foundation of the new wealth management platform,” he said.

Godrej expects wealth management to be a key long-term growth driver for the group’s financial services business. The company also plans to enter the asset management space in the coming years as part of its broader financial services strategy. The listing of the company is expected in the next five years, the executives said.

Live Events

The proposal, along with a slew of other measures, was discussed in a recent meeting of the committee constituted by the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to strengthen the balance-sheets of clearing corporations which play a critical role in the securities markets.

Serving as legal counterparties for clearance and settlement of trades, clearing houses bear the risks on behalf of exchanges.

A senior SEBI official, during an interaction with the committee, has suggested a regulatory ceiling on dividend payout by clearing corporations, two persons familiar with the ongoing deliberations told ET.

Agencies

Proposal aims to strengthen settlement guarantee funds and financial resilience of these market institutions

Other proposals examined by the panel headed by R.S.Gandhi, former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India, are: (1) directly crediting the interest earned by a clearing corporation from investments of the cash collateral (it receives from members) in treasury bills and government securities to the settlement guarantee funds (SGF); the fund, held by a clearing house, acts as a cash buffer to take care of contingencies arising from payment default of top stock brokers; at present, the income from these risk-free investments goes into the books of the clearing corporations; (2) exchanges sharing a bigger slice of the transaction charges collected from member brokers with clearing corporations; currently, a predominant portion of the transaction charge is retained by the exchanges unlike the practice in advanced markets;(3) framing a uniform rule for calculation of SGF across exchanges – while the NSE clearing corporation holds adequate SGF to handle the default of top 3 brokers, some of the other exchanges have a cover of 2 in the absence of any regulation. “There is no standard regulation on how the SGF would be replenished if the fund shrinks due to defaults in the market. Unlike the CCIL, there is no laid down procedure on this in stock market,” said a securities market professional. CCIL, or the Clearing Corporation of India, is the qualified central counterparty for trades in government bonds, foreign exchange, money market instruments, and derivatives like inter-rate swaps.

Live Events

“While NSE has significantly contributed to the SGF following SEBI’s directions, there are no structured regulations on how funds would be raised. Besides, listed exchange could require shareholders’ permission and meetings before making such fund commitments,” said a source. Similarly, though the quantum of dividend paid by clearing corporations is not large, there is a feeling that a rule on limiting future dividend distribution by a crucial market infrastructure institution would help as trading volume grows.
However, all this may call for a balancing act. “The SGF cannot be touched – money flowing into the fund cannot be pulled out. If all interest earnings are credited to SGF, one must factor in the possibility of the fund becoming larger than required. Instead, if the earnings or a part of it, goes to the clearing corporation, there would be greater flexibility in utilising the money in future,” said an exchange official. The entire exercise has assumed significance as financials of clearing corporations and SGFs cannot be fortified through higher transaction charges that could put off investors. “That the issues have to be addressed is widely accepted. But, since it concerns the entire industry, there is no compulsion to finalise the rules before the NSE IPO,” said another person.

The House of Lords has told the Bank of England and the FCA to keep to their timetable on stablecoin regulation, arguing that further delay will hand the digital payments race to Washington and Brussels, and shut British SMEs out of a fast-moving market.

Britain’s stablecoin moment has, in the view of peers, finally arrived, and the regulators must not fluff it. In a report published this week under the unsentimental title Stablecoins: waiting for regulation, the cross-party House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee has urged the Bank of England, the Financial Conduct Authority and HM Treasury to stick rigidly to their published timetable, warning that any slippage will entrench the dominance of dollar-backed tokens and leave UK challenger banks, payment firms and small businesses on the wrong side of an emerging global infrastructure.

The committee, chaired by the Conservative peer Baroness Noakes DBE, was unsparing in its assessment of how far the UK has fallen behind. “The global stablecoin market is dominated by US dollar stablecoins and evolved to serve cryptoasset trading,” she said. “New uses for stablecoins are emerging and regulators globally are setting up regulatory regimes. The UK is lagging behind compared with the US and the EU but is now moving in the right direction.” The message to Threadneedle Street and Stratford was, in effect: get on with it.

A sterling stablecoin, a digital token pegged one-for-one to the pound and backed by safe, liquid assets, is presented in the report as a genuine opportunity for the City and for the wider economy. Peers point to faster, cheaper settlement, programmable payments that could automate routine SME treasury tasks, and a broader stablecoin services ecosystem that could generate fee income for British banks, custodians and fintechs. With the UK’s existing depth in capital markets and a mature regulatory culture, a credible GBP token could find a willing audience well beyond the crypto trading floor.

But the committee is equally candid about the risks. Stablecoins, peers warn, carry implications for financial stability, the disintermediation of traditional deposit-takers and the protection of consumers who may not fully understand what sits behind a digital token. The use of stablecoins for illicit finance, particularly via unhosted, self-custody wallets, is highlighted as a serious global concern that British policymakers cannot wish away.

The committee broadly supports the approach taken in the Bank of England’s November consultation on a regulatory regime for sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins, including the principle that issuers must hold backing assets one-for-one and the offer of a Bank backstop lending facility. What worries peers is the fine print.

Three areas in particular drew sharp criticism. First, the Bank’s proposal that systemic issuers hold at least 40 per cent of their backing assets in unremunerated deposits at Threadneedle Street, which the committee says risks making the UK regime “an international outlier” and a commercially unattractive one at that. Second, the suggestion that pre-emptive holding limits be imposed on stablecoin balances, which peers fear could throttle a market before it has had a chance to demonstrate either its risks or its uses. Third, the proposed restrictions on commercial banks issuing stablecoins under their own branding through ordinary subsidiaries, which the report says could shut high-street lenders out of an obvious adjacent market.

The committee’s preferred approach is what it terms a “use-case agnostic” framework: rules robust enough to mitigate financial stability and consumer protection risks, but flexible enough that they do not pre-judge which applications, wholesale settlement, e-commerce, cross-border B2B payments, micro-transactions, will turn out to matter. Crucially, peers warn the Bank and FCA not to apply “a more severe risk lens” to stablecoins than they do to existing payment rails. That is a pointed reminder that card networks, faster payments and correspondent banking carry risks of their own that have long been managed rather than designed out.

For small and medium-sized businesses, the practical stakes are considerable. Programmable sterling tokens could automate supplier payments, settle export invoices in seconds rather than days, and remove a layer of foreign-exchange and intermediary cost that currently sits between British exporters and overseas customers. Peers’ insistence on regulatory certainty matters because, without it, UK fintechs developing those tools are likely to redomicile or build on dollar rails, a familiar story for anyone who watched the debate over Britain’s ambition to compete with the US as a global crypto hub play out over recent years.

The FCA, meanwhile, is pressing on with a broader conduct regime for digital assets, against the backdrop of falling retail crypto ownership and rising institutional interest, as our recent coverage of the regulator’s preparations for new digital asset rules noted. The Lords’ report is, in effect, an attempt to make sure the prudential and conduct workstreams reinforce rather than undermine each other.

The most pointed political signal in the report concerns unhosted wallets, self-custody digital wallets that sit outside the regulated perimeter and have become a focus of anti-money-laundering attention in both Washington and Brussels. Peers have asked HM Treasury, working with the Bank and the FCA, to assess whether existing UK law is sufficient to detect and deter their misuse, and have explicitly invited ministers to legislate to restrict their use if it is not. That is a notable shift in tone for a committee otherwise inclined towards encouraging innovation, and reflects how seriously Westminster is now taking the illicit-finance risks brought into sharp relief by the Trump administration’s enthusiastic embrace of the sector, as charted in our reporting on the US ‘crypto week’ and the rise of bank-issued stablecoins.

The Lords’ message is straightforward, even if the underlying regime is anything but. The UK has a narrow window in which to set rules that are credible, competitive and durable. Get the calibration wrong on backing assets, holding limits or bank participation and a sterling stablecoin market will simply fail to emerge, ceding ground to MiCA-compliant euro tokens and an increasingly liberal US regime. Get it right and Britain has a genuine shot at hosting a stablecoin ecosystem that serves not only City wholesale markets but the wider SME economy that depends on cheap, fast and reliable payments.

As Baroness Noakes put it: “Regulation needs to allow innovation while ensuring that risks are effectively mitigated. The shape of any UK stablecoin market will be strongly influenced by the direction of the regulatory regime, and so it is important that the regulators get this balance right.”

Further details of the inquiry, including the full report and the evidence submitted by industry, are available on the UK Parliament’s Financial Services Regulation Committee page.

Jamie Young

Jamie is Senior Reporter at Business Matters, bringing over a decade of experience in UK SME business reporting.
Jamie holds a degree in Business Administration and regularly participates in industry conferences and workshops.

When not reporting on the latest business developments, Jamie is passionate about mentoring up-and-coming journalists and entrepreneurs to inspire the next generation of business leaders.

Ministers, and the commission’s interim report, suggested that people were not saving enough for retirement, with people drawing their pension 25 years from now set to be £800 or 8% worse off per year than their counterparts today, according to the government.

Ford Motor Company on Wednesday issued a critical “Do Not Drive” advisory and safety recall for 4,653 vehicles, encompassing certain 2021-2026 Bronco Sport and 2022-2026 Maverick models. 

The recall, which was internally approved May 19, addresses a potential manufacturing defect originating at the vehicle assembly plant, where the front lower control arm ball joints may have been incorrectly installed or repaired, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Officials said the manufacturing defect “may result in loss of vehicle control while driving, increasing the risk of [a] crash,” according to Ford’s official Safety Recall Report to the NHTSA.

A model year 2025 Ford Bronco Sport. (Ford Motor Co. / Fox News)

FORD RECALLS OVER 179,000 BRONCO AND RANGER VEHICLES OVER SEAT DEFECT

Because of the risk, Ford strongly advised owners to stop driving the vehicles immediately until an inspection and necessary repairs are completed. 

The affected population includes 2,357 Mavericks and 2,296 Bronco Sports.

NHTSA documents show the financial burden of resolving the defect will be entirely absorbed by Ford, while auto dealers face strict federal compliance measures. Dealerships are mandated to immediately halt the demonstration, sale or delivery of any affected new vehicles in their inventory.

2022 Ford Maverick Hybrid XLT and 2L-EcoBoost AWD Lariat. Preproduction vehicle with optional equipment shown. Available fall 2021. (Ford)

FORD TEAMS UP WITH OUTDOOR OUTFITTER FILSON TO LAUNCH NEW BRONCO SUV

Violating the federal stop-sale requirement could result in severe civil penalties of up to $27,168 per vehicle.

To minimize the impact on consumers, Ford is covering all costs associated with the repairs, according to the NHTSA.

Dealerships are authorized to claim up to $250 per vehicle for towing services, with some participating dealers offering dispatched technicians to perform mobile inspections at customers’ locations.

FILE – Ford Motor Co. signage is displayed outside of a dealership as the General Motors Co. (GM) headquarters building stands in the distance in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., on Monday, April 1, 2013.  (Jeff Kowalsky/Bloomberg via Getty Images  / Getty Images)

If a vehicle requires parts replacement, Ford is pre-approving the cost of rental vehicles for up to 30 days.

The company has also implemented a reimbursement plan for owners who may have already paid out-of-pocket to repair the suspension issue, NHTSA officials said. Customers are eligible for a refund as long as the prior repair was performed before June 19, 2026.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

Ford did not immediately respond to FOX Business’ request for comment.