Mirror of the week. Ukraine »№ 7, 25 February 2011 track record before the National Bank, the first impressions of the NBU, the main innovations and the most pressing challenges for the banking system, decision-making mechanisms and human resource policies, as well as personal income, communications, and party affiliation ... All this and many other chapter of the National Bank Sergei WATERMELONS said in an exclusive interview ZN.UA. - Sergei G., you are almost half a year working with the National Bank and two months - to post its head. Time to look around and realize the measure of responsibility? It does not scare you? Experience enough? - Scarecrow? To some extent, certainly. Headed by the National Bank - it is really huge and very serious responsibility. But his department for the first time I have headed in another 19 years, and 22 - had already taken the bank. So during this time as a chickenpox responsibility. - National Bank already knew a lot of young leaders. Viktor Yushchenko headed the agency at age 38, became acting Yatsenyuk chairman in 30 years. That inspires confidence that manage? - Actually, I do banking, at least half of my life. You probably know that my mother, Valentina Arbuzov, - the banker. Even in Soviet times, she worked at the State Bank of the USSR, then in the late 80's and early 90's - in the ICB of the USSR, first deputy head of the Donetsk oblupravleniya - Gemma Sergeyevna Maslova. To my brother and had to frequently visit my mother at work, and that such a bank, we know not by hearsay. I went to work almost immediately after school. I wanted to go to "my bread" to make money. Mom dissuaded, offered to go to learn, but first - to try what the job at the bank. Working in a bank trainee, went to university. In order not to give up work, moved to distance learning. So that way in the banking industry was itself - from the bottom and top. - On any road a lot easier to go, having a good patronage. - Those who know my mom, so the issue will not put. I do not know how other families, but if you work with a relative - is, on the contrary, difficult, very difficult ... But we have so happened: my brother and I went in the footsteps of the mother, starting to work from early youth. Then, in 1922, I took a branch. It was a branch of Privatbank in the small town of Donetsk region - Kostyantynivka. A few years later made it a leader in the field. - Also without family connections? - Well, as my mother or someone else can help recruit clients? Money they give? Or say: "Come to my son?" Nonsense. To figure out the best ride in Konstantinovka and ask how it was, what was there the "Privat" branch prior to my arrival. Arriving there, I quickly established a connection to the local executive committee. I managed to pick up on the maintenance budget - and sought a special trip to Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, and not, good, favorable conditions. Over the budget stretched the company. By the time I left in the service of our bank customers was 90% of the city. By profit, we held second or third place in the region, working far from the most populated and industrialized city of the powerful. Writing a special computer program, we created the first Ukrainian city base for forming utility payments. Having collected and presented this base city, we did and it detailed map with all streets. And residents - the project of a commercial bank had to spend and the population census. It's all left, and people certainly remember it. Most of them want to believe, were good memories. Then I was invited to Ukrbiznesbank, then called another "Donechchina. Seven years, from 2003, I led the bank. Advances institutions can also be traced in the dynamics of its indicators. But the main thing - even in times of crisis the bank without having to refinance the NBU did not stop payments to depositors. That's why I think it can handle. Because I work in a bank for a long time and I have almost 15 years of experience in the head, and successful. - That was the experience of other "side of the fence" ... How difficult was it to reorganize? - My first thought when I came from a commercial bank: the man who called this institution the bank was a little out of it. In fact, the National Bank - is not a bank. That's all, whatever - a state institution in terms of complexity and subtlety to manipulate matter far outpacing any state committee or the ministry, but certainly not a bank. Of course, the knowledge and experience, which I received in the commercial sector, now help me a lot. I clearly understand and now I understand that the banking system should, from which she suffers, which metrics to collect reports and overly complicated. There are very few commercial bankers, and this, in my view, the weakness of the National Bank. So, just to protect yourself from some potential problems, officials are often overly complicate the procedures and reporting, not knowing really why should they, and then drowned in a stream of reaching market. On many items there is no explanation why it is so, why do need a circular or standard. And just now I understand and I understand that there can be another way to deploy performance, understanding the real risks. And if you see what is happening with the banking sector today, what policies we implement today, it's probably not a banker, which would be reasonably unhappy with this policy. Thus, banks have been heard and were able to solve their basic problems that have arisen due to stringent requirements (eg in relation to the order provisions and calculation of regulatory capital). The claims of smaller banks - the third and fourth groups - also reduces mainly to sensational bill number 0884. When we gathered the representatives of these groups, I asked the question: "What do you need today from a regulator, what would you like?" Answer: "Remove Bill 0884." - "And that apart from him?" - "Bill 0884". The main claims were presented to the requirement of increasing the minimum capital for start-up banks of up to 500 mln. - And more because nothing and no need ... Because they are afraid that tomorrow this rule will extend the already existing banks, and at least half of them would be thrown out of the market. - Well, do not tell. Do not they need to work normally and transparent market for refinancing, the ability to not only attract, but also a place in the National Bank of resources on the normal rates? They are not interested in formation of reserves, the need for extending the resource base, protection from unscrupulous borrowers and much more? That's what he had to say. And people asserted the same thing, although I have said repeatedly: "I'll guarantee you that the existing banks will not touch it." I did not invent this rule, and wrote, so it's not for me and lobby - again. I did a commercial banker in the past and can well understand that this was not the measure, which the banking system today superneobhodima - two. And, nevertheless, were all set up and tried to put pressure on us so aggressively that I had to take a principled stand. Although not nearly the problem it infringe someone else's interests. The task of this rule - too easy today to restrict market access for both people random, and for yesterday's bankrupt owners, who through nominees are opening new banks. After all, someone who can gather 100 million, does not always bring together 500. And if someone has one or group of people can gather, it will be much more serious and informed decision. And if we see to it that these 500 million of capital were real money, then, believe me, the ratio varies greatly. If not managers, and owners come to the National Bank and ask: how do you think things in the bank if there was abuse? Ratio becomes much more serious. And if a man put a hundred million, and then somehow took away much of the back - he is different in this business is. No proper understanding of responsibility - was taken away, then again placed, and so a few more times ... I remember, were estimates that the bank capital by 70-80 per cent may be fictitious. - Believe me, this is very difficult. And we can safely say that the bank capital today basically meets the requirements of the National Bank. - Statutory or regulatory? - Both of them. In this case, if something is not done according to the rules and managers, and owners are taking a huge risk. For undergoing a crisis of banks operating rate of increase "ticket" to the market is profitable: the already existing place in the sun automatically increases in value. In this case, it will be easier and to raise capital and sell if they see that do not pull their business. I tried every way to convince his colleagues, but they, alas, I still do not believe. - But is it their fears are groundless? According to established practice, the National Bank quickly brings his normativku under statutory requirements. Tomorrow, 500 million will be a minimum threshold for opening new branches, the day after tomorrow - for the admission of new deposits, even after some time - of foreign exchange operations - I will answer this way: if we wanted to make life difficult for any particular banks, we have to do plenty of mechanisms, and without such a law. Task was to organize the market and raise the cost of existing assets. Believe me, I was much easier to abandon the bill, which initiated the Stelmach than the lobby. But the bill is very important, its adoption - a beacon of the IMF and its representatives have repeatedly raised this issue ... - That's the norm to increase ustavnikov 500 million? - No, apart from this rule there are many others, including transparency of ownership. 500 million - it was an initiative of NBU. But to say that I was persuaded into uselessness of such an increase, too, is wrong. I asked Vladimir Semenovich: "Why five hundred million?". He said: "We have checked how much it costs to open a bank abroad. And those who refers to European requirements - say, in the EU less than five million for the opening of the bank - cunning. In fact, for such money can only be ascribed to open the cash or exchange. And to open the normal functional bank with 70% of the total list of licenses, as times and have not less than EUR 50 million. Therefore, by the way, "new" banks abroad are practically no - they are very difficult to open. Mainly sold to existing ones. Stelmakh said that the fruits of today the new banks, property owners are again two years later would be unable to fulfill obligations to discredit the system, too, is inexcusable. And I support him. Here we Vladimir Semenovich views largely coincide. From the many approaches that were adopted during Stelmakh, we have already given up and introduced new ones. And in monetary policy, and management of the banking system. However, this does not mean some kind of conflict in the relationship: we often communicate, are discussing. And in general, wherever possible, we try to keep the continuity of the policy of the National Bank. - That is the banks of the third and fourth groups have nothing to fear? You warrant? - In the foreseeable future, we will raise the requirements for the capitalization of existing banks only in accordance with the law. Ask a question: why do we need to lobby for the bill in Parliament which would not take it, because there are so many bank owners, or is somehow associated persons? Why should I fight with the same Cabinet, who is also the unrest is not satisfied? Why fight the banks if you can just tighten the procedure for calculating regulatory capital? And I'm still not clear to whom and what it took to push their heads together, bringing the matter before the courts, banks and their regulator. Annoying misunderstanding, although I have a lot calmer attitude to such things. When changing places, very much looks different and it becomes clear. From the standpoint of the interests of the system and the state point of view on all these issues is very different from the one you think is right, being a commercial bank. - By the way, if we talk about the need to establish someone in trouble, why not create them, to those agencies for which small banks are very often referred to as unreliable, captive, envelopes, etc. You worked in a small pot, do they all do not have the right to life? - The main task of control - control over the legality of operations and solvency of the banking system. A market must be submitted to all types of banks. In fact, small banks are often much more stable than the larger and larger. There's much less bureaucracy, due to faster response and greater flexibility are always competitive advantage. System banks also have their advantages. So I - for the best possible stratification in the system. - Do not confuse the situation, for example, DialogBank? How could it happen that during the interim administration in the bank as sharply rising assets and deposits, and now it again with the interim administration, and the Guarantee Fund "shines" the prospect of compensation derived therefrom under the supervision of NBU's assets? - We understand what happened at this bank, and put a number of limitations that do not allow to realize the conceived scheme with impunity. Uninterrupted surveillance saw the situation, and the National Bank intervened in the process. Left verification was carried out related work, and today, if you check, payments do not. Continue to engage the authorities. National Bank has also prevented the implementation of the planned scheme, and that would make it to the organizers, did not happen. Worked beacons - Why, in other cases they so often do not work? Is it true that surveillance NBU trite can not cope with its functions due to the extremely large number of supervised? So, supposedly, and it was conceived, with the filing of an MFI, to drastically reduce their numbers - in fact control our work very well. Sometimes we are criticized by offering to introduce some more advanced western techniques. But often, and recognize that many of the requirements of NBU, had been actively criticized, helped preserve the system during the crisis. So now they are studying our experience, and the last IMF mission even officially stated that "they not only come to teach and demonstrate, but they themselves are learning." - You have spoken against the decision of the former leadership. What do you think is most important to have done and what still plan to do? - Firstly, we are now actively developing the market of hedging instruments that allow banks to insure themselves against currency risks. Vladimir Semenovich is known about this issue quite conservative. He believed that because the country lacks a developed financial and, in particular the stock market, then there is nothing to hedge, because it just untie the hands of speculators. In my opinion, people need to give at least a rudimentary tools that they have tested them and were ready for use, when financial markets are sufficiently develop. Today we are talking about the forwards, the swap transactions. Until very recently, these tools do not run just because the two colliding transactions - the sale and purchase of currency - it was necessary to pay pension fees. As a result, the margin increases many times and lost the meaning of operation: insurance became too expensive. Therefore, the abolition of the pension due from the currency - is a breakthrough and, incidentally, is largely the merit of the National Bank. This issue was addressed at the legislative level for the first five or seven years. And had to do it in a matter of urgency in the first days after the New Year, as the government initially failed to pass this rule through the budget law. While society and here reacted differently. Specialists saw an undoubted positive: it is the same for investors is very important for the market. But detractors have raised a ruckus: rob pensioners! With this fight hard. Each has its own position, their tasks. Someone so earns political or even some dividends, and with these people is useless to discuss, they try to explain something. But if you go back to the topic of insurance risks, we now allow banks svopirovatsya with each other, ie exchange the dollar for a long long hryvnia. And now a foreign investor coming to Ukraine, will know at what price it will return that dollar back, can calculate your risks and understand, with which it comes out. He will not pay hedzhfondam and give this return to our home market. This, in my opinion, too revolutionary breakthrough. - Banks have long offered the National Bank to take this risk, but the regulator did not want that - you know why? It is unusual for him. The National Bank - a nonprofit organization, and he should not assume the risks of business structures. Because if we do this again flywheel unwind, we can repeat the error, as when hyped consumer lending. Then, too, nobody wanted anything wrong. I had to decide whether to issue an individual license. Also we are engaged in issues of writing off bad debt, which has been formed. Already deducted from bank balance sheets around 10 bln. At the same time discussing the issue of taxation. I was the Minister of Finance on this issue. He clarified: taxes are paid when the mortgage is sold. - No. - Yes. - No. - For example?
Mirror of the week. Ukraine »№ 7, 25 February 2011 track record before the National Bank, the first impressions of the NBU, the main innovations and the most pressing challenges for the banking system, decision-making mechanisms and human resource policies, as well as personal income, communications, and party affiliation ... All this and many other chapter of the National Bank Sergei WATERMELONS said in an exclusive interview ZN.UA. - Sergei G., you are almost half a year working with the National Bank and two months - to post its head. Time to look around and realize the measure of responsibility? It does not scare you? Experience enough? - Scarecrow? To some extent, certainly. Headed by the National Bank - it is really huge and very serious responsibility. But his department for the first time I have headed in another 19 years, and 22 - had already taken the bank. So during this time as a chickenpox responsibility. - National Bank already knew a lot of young leaders. Viktor Yushchenko headed the agency at age 38, became acting Yatsenyuk chairman in 30 years. That inspires confidence that manage? - Actually, I do banking, at least half of my life. You probably know that my mother, Valentina Arbuzov, - the banker. Even in Soviet times, she worked at the State Bank of the USSR, then in the late 80's and early 90's - in the ICB of the USSR, first deputy head of the Donetsk oblupravleniya - Gemma Sergeyevna Maslova. To my brother and had to frequently visit my mother at work, and that such a bank, we know not by hearsay. I went to work almost immediately after school. I wanted to go to "my bread" to make money. Mom dissuaded, offered to go to learn, but first - to try what the job at the bank. Working in a bank trainee, went to university. In order not to give up work, moved to distance learning. So that way in the banking industry was itself - from the bottom and top. - On any road a lot easier to go, having a good patronage. - Those who know my mom, so the issue will not put. I do not know how other families, but if you work with a relative - is, on the contrary, difficult, very difficult ... But we have so happened: my brother and I went in the footsteps of the mother, starting to work from early youth. Then, in 1922, I took a branch. It was a branch of Privatbank in the small town of Donetsk region - Kostyantynivka. A few years later made it a leader in the field. - Also without family connections? - Well, as my mother or someone else can help recruit clients? Money they give? Or say: "Come to my son?" Nonsense. To figure out the best ride in Konstantinovka and ask how it was, what was there the "Privat" branch prior to my arrival. Arriving there, I quickly established a connection to the local executive committee. I managed to pick up on the maintenance budget - and sought a special trip to Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, and not, good, favorable conditions. Over the budget stretched the company. By the time I left in the service of our bank customers was 90% of the city. By profit, we held second or third place in the region, working far from the most populated and industrialized city of the powerful. Writing a special computer program, we created the first Ukrainian city base for forming utility payments. Having collected and presented this base city, we did and it detailed map with all streets. And residents - the project of a commercial bank had to spend and the population census. It's all left, and people certainly remember it. Most of them want to believe, were good memories. Then I was invited to Ukrbiznesbank, then called another "Donechchina. Seven years, from 2003, I led the bank. Advances institutions can also be traced in the dynamics of its indicators. But the main thing - even in times of crisis the bank without having to refinance the NBU did not stop payments to depositors. That's why I think it can handle. Because I work in a bank for a long time and I have almost 15 years of experience in the head, and successful. - That was the experience of other "side of the fence" ... How difficult was it to reorganize? - My first thought when I came from a commercial bank: the man who called this institution the bank was a little out of it. In fact, the National Bank - is not a bank. That's all, whatever - a state institution in terms of complexity and subtlety to manipulate matter far outpacing any state committee or the ministry, but certainly not a bank. Of course, the knowledge and experience, which I received in the commercial sector, now help me a lot. I clearly understand and now I understand that the banking system should, from which she suffers, which metrics to collect reports and overly complicated. There are very few commercial bankers, and this, in my view, the weakness of the National Bank. So, just to protect yourself from some potential problems, officials are often overly complicate the procedures and reporting, not knowing really why should they, and then drowned in a stream of reaching market. On many items there is no explanation why it is so, why do need a circular or standard. And just now I understand and I understand that there can be another way to deploy performance, understanding the real risks. And if you see what is happening with the banking sector today, what policies we implement today, it's probably not a banker, which would be reasonably unhappy with this policy. Thus, banks have been heard and were able to solve their basic problems that have arisen due to stringent requirements (eg in relation to the order provisions and calculation of regulatory capital). The claims of smaller banks - the third and fourth groups - also reduces mainly to sensational bill number 0884. When we gathered the representatives of these groups, I asked the question: "What do you need today from a regulator, what would you like?" Answer: "Remove Bill 0884." - "And that apart from him?" - "Bill 0884". The main claims were presented to the requirement of increasing the minimum capital for start-up banks of up to 500 mln. - And more because nothing and no need ... Because they are afraid that tomorrow this rule will extend the already existing banks, and at least half of them would be thrown out of the market. - Well, do not tell. Do not they need to work normally and transparent market for refinancing, the ability to not only attract, but also a place in the National Bank of resources on the normal rates? They are not interested in formation of reserves, the need for extending the resource base, protection from unscrupulous borrowers and much more? That's what he had to say. And people asserted the same thing, although I have said repeatedly: "I'll guarantee you that the existing banks will not touch it." I did not invent this rule, and wrote, so it's not for me and lobby - again. I did a commercial banker in the past and can well understand that this was not the measure, which the banking system today superneobhodima - two. And, nevertheless, were all set up and tried to put pressure on us so aggressively that I had to take a principled stand. Although not nearly the problem it infringe someone else's interests. The task of this rule - too easy today to restrict market access for both people random, and for yesterday's bankrupt owners, who through nominees are opening new banks. After all, someone who can gather 100 million, does not always bring together 500. And if someone has one or group of people can gather, it will be much more serious and informed decision. And if we see to it that these 500 million of capital were real money, then, believe me, the ratio varies greatly. If not managers, and owners come to the National Bank and ask: how do you think things in the bank if there was abuse? Ratio becomes much more serious. And if a man put a hundred million, and then somehow took away much of the back - he is different in this business is. No proper understanding of responsibility - was taken away, then again placed, and so a few more times ... I remember, were estimates that the bank capital by 70-80 per cent may be fictitious. - Believe me, this is very difficult. And we can safely say that the bank capital today basically meets the requirements of the National Bank. - Statutory or regulatory? - Both of them. In this case, if something is not done according to the rules and managers, and owners are taking a huge risk. For undergoing a crisis of banks operating rate of increase "ticket" to the market is profitable: the already existing place in the sun automatically increases in value. In this case, it will be easier and to raise capital and sell if they see that do not pull their business. I tried every way to convince his colleagues, but they, alas, I still do not believe. - But is it their fears are groundless? According to established practice, the National Bank quickly brings his normativku under statutory requirements. Tomorrow, 500 million will be a minimum threshold for opening new branches, the day after tomorrow - for the admission of new deposits, even after some time - of foreign exchange operations - I will answer this way: if we wanted to make life difficult for any particular banks, we have to do plenty of mechanisms, and without such a law. Task was to organize the market and raise the cost of existing assets. Believe me, I was much easier to abandon the bill, which initiated the Stelmach than the lobby. But the bill is very important, its adoption - a beacon of the IMF and its representatives have repeatedly raised this issue ... - That's the norm to increase ustavnikov 500 million? - No, apart from this rule there are many others, including transparency of ownership. 500 million - it was an initiative of NBU. But to say that I was persuaded into uselessness of such an increase, too, is wrong. I asked Vladimir Semenovich: "Why five hundred million?". He said: "We have checked how much it costs to open a bank abroad. And those who refers to European requirements - say, in the EU less than five million for the opening of the bank - cunning. In fact, for such money can only be ascribed to open the cash or exchange. And to open the normal functional bank with 70% of the total list of licenses, as times and have not less than EUR 50 million. Therefore, by the way, "new" banks abroad are practically no - they are very difficult to open. Mainly sold to existing ones. Stelmakh said that the fruits of today the new banks, property owners are again two years later would be unable to fulfill obligations to discredit the system, too, is inexcusable. And I support him. Here we Vladimir Semenovich views largely coincide. From the many approaches that were adopted during Stelmakh, we have already given up and introduced new ones. And in monetary policy, and management of the banking system. However, this does not mean some kind of conflict in the relationship: we often communicate, are discussing. And in general, wherever possible, we try to keep the continuity of the policy of the National Bank. - That is the banks of the third and fourth groups have nothing to fear? You warrant? - In the foreseeable future, we will raise the requirements for the capitalization of existing banks only in accordance with the law. Ask a question: why do we need to lobby for the bill in Parliament which would not take it, because there are so many bank owners, or is somehow associated persons? Why should I fight with the same Cabinet, who is also the unrest is not satisfied? Why fight the banks if you can just tighten the procedure for calculating regulatory capital? And I'm still not clear to whom and what it took to push their heads together, bringing the matter before the courts, banks and their regulator. Annoying misunderstanding, although I have a lot calmer attitude to such things. When changing places, very much looks different and it becomes clear. From the standpoint of the interests of the system and the state point of view on all these issues is very different from the one you think is right, being a commercial bank. - By the way, if we talk about the need to establish someone in trouble, why not create them, to those agencies for which small banks are very often referred to as unreliable, captive, envelopes, etc. You worked in a small pot, do they all do not have the right to life? - The main task of control - control over the legality of operations and solvency of the banking system. A market must be submitted to all types of banks. In fact, small banks are often much more stable than the larger and larger. There's much less bureaucracy, due to faster response and greater flexibility are always competitive advantage. System banks also have their advantages. So I - for the best possible stratification in the system. - Do not confuse the situation, for example, DialogBank? How could it happen that during the interim administration in the bank as sharply rising assets and deposits, and now it again with the interim administration, and the Guarantee Fund "shines" the prospect of compensation derived therefrom under the supervision of NBU's assets? - We understand what happened at this bank, and put a number of limitations that do not allow to realize the conceived scheme with impunity. Uninterrupted surveillance saw the situation, and the National Bank intervened in the process. Left verification was carried out related work, and today, if you check, payments do not. Continue to engage the authorities. National Bank has also prevented the implementation of the planned scheme, and that would make it to the organizers, did not happen. Worked beacons - Why, in other cases they so often do not work? Is it true that surveillance NBU trite can not cope with its functions due to the extremely large number of supervised? So, supposedly, and it was conceived, with the filing of an MFI, to drastically reduce their numbers - in fact control our work very well. Sometimes we are criticized by offering to introduce some more advanced western techniques. But often, and recognize that many of the requirements of NBU, had been actively criticized, helped preserve the system during the crisis. So now they are studying our experience, and the last IMF mission even officially stated that "they not only come to teach and demonstrate, but they themselves are learning." - You have spoken against the decision of the former leadership. What do you think is most important to have done and what still plan to do? - Firstly, we are now actively developing the market of hedging instruments that allow banks to insure themselves against currency risks. Vladimir Semenovich is known about this issue quite conservative. He believed that because the country lacks a developed financial and, in particular the stock market, then there is nothing to hedge, because it just untie the hands of speculators. In my opinion, people need to give at least a rudimentary tools that they have tested them and were ready for use, when financial markets are sufficiently develop. Today we are talking about the forwards, the swap transactions. Until very recently, these tools do not run just because the two colliding transactions - the sale and purchase of currency - it was necessary to pay pension fees. As a result, the margin increases many times and lost the meaning of operation: insurance became too expensive. Therefore, the abolition of the pension due from the currency - is a breakthrough and, incidentally, is largely the merit of the National Bank. This issue was addressed at the legislative level for the first five or seven years. And had to do it in a matter of urgency in the first days after the New Year, as the government initially failed to pass this rule through the budget law. While society and here reacted differently. Specialists saw an undoubted positive: it is the same for investors is very important for the market. But detractors have raised a ruckus: rob pensioners! With this fight hard. Each has its own position, their tasks. Someone so earns political or even some dividends, and with these people is useless to discuss, they try to explain something. But if you go back to the topic of insurance risks, we now allow banks svopirovatsya with each other, ie exchange the dollar for a long long hryvnia. And now a foreign investor coming to Ukraine, will know at what price it will return that dollar back, can calculate your risks and understand, with which it comes out. He will not pay hedzhfondam and give this return to our home market. This, in my opinion, too revolutionary breakthrough. - Banks have long offered the National Bank to take this risk, but the regulator did not want that - you know why? It is unusual for him. The National Bank - a nonprofit organization, and he should not assume the risks of business structures. Because if we do this again flywheel unwind, we can repeat the error, as when hyped consumer lending. Then, too, nobody wanted anything wrong. Dali himself unprotected layer tool, which requires hedge professional approach and tools to no avail. Here too, the situation may be twofold. So today we take risks for themselves, but partly. Although we can fully take. We - the only institution that can take all the risk by fixing the level of emissions produced by a dollar. Emphasize: the emission produced by the dollar, as more liquid collateral for refinancing are not. - By the way, how to make mortgages more liquid and revive the transfer of assets? - We are now actively engaged in forming the market of the bad assets. There are a lot of regulatory gaps. For example, there is a problem - how to sell the assets, which are formed under the foreign currency reserves. I had to decide whether to issue an individual license. Because there are companies that are ready to buy, but how to make this sale, no one knows. Also we are engaged in issues of writing off bad debt, which has been formed. Already deducted from bank balance sheets around 10 bln. At the same time discussing the issue of taxation. I was the Minister of Finance on this issue. He clarified: taxes are paid when the mortgage is sold. The actual taxation occurs because our decision does not entitle the banks not to deal with debt repayment, including the implementation of the pledge, after it is debited from the reserves. Another step - we have somewhat altered approach to the calculation of regulatory capital by canceling his adjustment to the imbalance of long-term assets and liabilities. - Reliability of the banking system is not affected? - No. In my opinion, this is the position of fundamental importance, although Mr. Stelmach considered her principal. This figure is actually double influence on the calculation of regulatory capital. A similar situation has been the case with the recent decision on the currency market. We had two ordinances, imposing restrictions on the margin at the exchange points throughout the day. Remember this? We are one of them (Resolution № 462) abolished as superfluous, and in some media is perceived as if we had liberalized. - How you can understand the issue of granting foreign currency loans to the population of the National Bank's position remains unchanged and tough: to borrowers with no income in foreign currency, foreign currency loans would not be? - Yes. Definitely. Moreover, we have these measures will be set in law. - Calls for banks to seek a compromise is not perceived? - No. I elaborate on: the question is vulnerable segments of the population - about individuals and enterprises that have no foreign exchange earnings. All these questions are rather clearly defined in the new law on currency regulation, which is currently being prepared. We have changed the approach to the law, working hard with its initiator, but in principle already agreed position. - At one time, this bill proposes revolutionary things, removing most restrictions on the movement of capital as such at all. What about today? - National Bank is planning to abandon the strict administration. For example, we are ready to withdraw from individual licensing, setting the maximum amount of movement of capital (up to 100 thousand euros), which required confirmation will only be evidence of tax payment. We had already agreed to this measure. Is believed to increase the amount or even remove the restrictions. But this would mean a free conversion. A free conversion under our unsustainable balance of payments - as long as unacceptable. Therefore, we are not yet come along. At least until inflation has not come to a lower and stable value, and gradually moving away from intervention, we see that the forex market itself operates. Freely, without the hesitation that scare people. Therefore, I oppose complete conversion, even though lobbing it very seriously. - Many bankers also supported this idea. - They are not responsible for the solvency of the country. - What will happen to the compulsory sale of foreign exchange earnings? - We offered to cancel it, but to give the National Bank the right to a sharp deterioration in the balance of payments enter temporarily for up to three months, up to a wholly mandatory sale. But while this is not necessary, we have to date reserves - $ 35 billion - and net reserves of how many? - Approximately 20 billion We entered the regime of the agreement with the IMF when we had 13 billion, when the amount of reserves did not cover three months of imports. We now have a much larger sum. Is it enough? We covers six months of net imports, so that this position in principle is sufficient. But the payment of external debt - about 70% of payments for the next 12 months. - Our balance of payments until such a reasonable condition, but the trade - in the red, though small. It turns out that the devaluation was insufficient to cover the negative balance? - Let's see, does a devaluation for exporters? It does not help! It is an illusion, which invented devaluation can help the exporter only once - when he receives payments under the contract. But he's right that some purchases in the domestic market, paying salaries, etc. And now for the devaluation to raise domestic prices, purchases went up, it is necessary to index salaries, etc. Still, he lost his advantage. Therefore, devaluation does not help the real development of exports. It only allows for a while to get additional revenue, because of exchange rate differences. Now our position in the foreign exchange rate policy is this: we will not tolerate surges and fluctuations, but will gradually minimize its presence in the market. And we want to come to market to, where possible, distortions of self-regulated. The balance of payments has improved - the hryvnia strengthened gradually get worse - has little to devalue. And the people and business will gradually get used to possible exchange rate fluctuations. - You talked about the instability of the financial account balance. Including due to the periodic inflow or outflow of hot money. How secure we are from them are now protected, or may require additional restrictions? - Direct and portfolio investment - a healthy alternative to export earnings, if the macroeconomic policy of the government deserves credit, and investment climate attractive to foreign investors. A loss here to help badly. Therefore, the National Bank today, together with the State Commission for Securities, with the participation of the Cabinet and presidential administration, working to achieve the most favorable conditions it is to attract strategic foreign investor. Sure, we also track the amount of money entering and cost, and timing. And, of course, if necessary, will take some restrictive measures. But our priority now - it's not as a limitation, and vice versa - to activate the banking operations and, most importantly, a full-fledged resumption of lending to the economy. Experience in 2008 is, he understood, the main threats to financial stability, we know. But from the market-based instruments provided not intend, by contrast, will do our best to develop them. - For example? - Today, we have significantly revived the resource market. For example, we plan to give banks greater flexibility in dealing with the so-called overnight to work with NBU. Started themselves more actively enter the market by raising rates on certificates of deposit. Banks to make more money by trading resources, which sometimes just lay on the correspondent account for free. We were able to more actively manage market liquidity. - It is a long time, but in vain declared the increasing role of interest rates and the development of instruments of monetary policy? After all, before the discount rate and other rate control actually lived their separate lives - these tools are already working. Yes, the discount rate and the refinancing rate - they are different rates as the currency market - the official NBU rate and the rate at which market transactions are real. But we have already several times, these courses are so alike in that in fact it was already one course. The market gets used to it, and soon we will begin to teach him to that and on the resource market rates are interrelated. Just recently held a meeting, reviewed the possible consequences. Two rates - account and refinancing - we give to a common denominator and see how it will react to the market.
No comments:
Post a Comment