One thing Madhabi does not get enough credit for is preventing an all-out market meltdown in the post-September sell-off. Fortunately, for the markets, most of the speculative positions were already out of the market due to the stringent margins and other limits imposed by SEBI on F&O positions and also discouraging the retail from taking on major F&O positions. That may have sounded painful at that point, but it prevented a much larger retail meltdown in the markets. It was largely due to the timely SEBI intervention that the fall has been relatively bearable.

The last 3 years saw some of the biggest IPOs in Indian history. One can complain about stiff valuations and the losses to IPO investors. However, the problem in India is that for every fly-by-night promoter, there are several fly-by-night investors. In fact, what SEBI managed was in compressing the IPO cycle and forcing companies to mandatorily list on T+3 day from the closure of the IPO. At that point, there were several protests that it would kill the IPO market, but it only made the IPO markets more robust; and reduced the investor funds lock-in. 

Probably, one of the biggest changes that SEBI brought about under Madhabi was the shift to T+1 settlement. India had moved from T+3 to T+2 in the year 2003 and for the next 20 years was not able to decide on the move to T+1. It was under Madhabi that the SEBI made the rapid move from T+2 settlement to T+1, and has also made an attempt to shift to T+0 in a phased manner. However, that does remain as work in progress and for the next SEBI chair to continue. The one thing that was also on the anvil was the equivalent of the IPO-ASBA in secondary markets. There was resistance as brokers would lose on the float, but then SEBI has its primary focus on retail investors. 

To be honest, the government opted to go back to the safety of having a FINMIN bureaucrat at the helm of SEBI. As much as Madhabi brought about far-reaching changes to the capital markets front, the regulator also found itself in the news for the wrong reasons. Probably, the center wanted to play it safe and focus on a SEBI chief who maintains status quo of the institution rather than usher in big changes. Could another term for Madhabi have helped the cause of capital markets is something speculative. However, it is important that the government does not relent on the pace of reforms ushered in by Madhabi Puri Buch. There is still a huge unfinished agenda in markets!