1 who are cans vacuum cleaners. Get rid of vacuum cleaners. Not by percentage alone

By merging all Otkritie banks, will its owners “cover up” the withdrawal of assets and the likely “cut” of 50 billion rubles?

After the president and largest shareholder of Otkritie Holding, Vadim Belyaev, announced the merger of the banks of the Otkritie group, experts began talking about the difficult state of affairs in this financial structure.

However, even Belyaev, who owns 28.6% of the shares of Otkritie Holding, cannot hide the acute crisis that has struck this financial group. In particular, Belyaev did not rule out that after the consolidation of main assets, the staff of the banking group would be reduced by up to 20%.

Experts suggest that the owners of Otkritie simply do not have the opportunity to pay all their subordinates, and the merger of banks is just an excuse to fire one fifth of the workers.

Which banks will be “merged”?

Currently, the Otkritie banking group includes the following banks: FC Otkritie (at the end of 2015, 2.95 trillion rubles in assets), KhMB Otkritie (504 billion rubles in assets) and Trust (248.1 billion rub.). Otkrytie received 127 billion rubles for the rehabilitation of Trust (in progress since December 2014).

The process of merging banks could take place as early as 2016. Otkritie shareholders stated in the summer of 2015 that they planned to merge Trust into the retail KMB Otkritie and abandon the Trust brand, which is why in October S&P downgraded the rating of KMB Otkritie.

Agency analysts indicated that due to the merger of Trust, potential support for KhMB Otkritie from the parent bank FC Otkritie may be limited.

It seems that now there have been changes in the plans of the owners of Otkrytie, since, according to media reports, Trust will not become part of the new “united” bank.

50 billion for “cutting”?

As noted above, the Central Bank previously allocated 127 billion rubles for the rehabilitation of Trust Bank, which is being carried out by Otkritie. , and then Trust Bank suddenly hid its reporting from the general public.

Moreover, the reporting data was hidden during the period when Trust was already controlled by Otkritie. Now the public does not know how exactly the 127 billion rubles intended for the rehabilitation of Trust are spent. All this suggests that, perhaps, Otkrytie’s top managers may simply waste the money allocated for the reorganization of Trust.

Moreover, at the end of December 2015, the Otkritie holding applied for an additional loan to reorganize Trust Bank. To cover the hole that grew during the reorganization (according to the sanator bank - editor's note) another 47 billion rubles will be required. (in addition to the 127 billion rubles already received – editor’s note)

This is exactly the request Otkritie Bank sent to the Deposit Insurance Agency (DIA), but the final decision is up to the Central Bank. If the holding receives this amount, Trust will become the record holder among private banks in terms of rehabilitation costs.

Experts do not exclude the possibility that these almost 50 billion rubles. can also be subjected to “cutting”. By the way, if money from Trust was transferred to the “head banks” of the Otkrytie group, then with the help of the upcoming merger, the owners of the financial holding company may well hide this “cut.”

By the way, at the end of December 2015, information appeared that the Central Bank could transfer Trust to another bank for reorganization. It seems that the Central Bank has finally stopped trusting Otkritie.

Catastrophic drop in profits

Otkritie started talking about the crisis at the end of January 2016. It was then that it became known that the net profit of FC Otkritie Bank (the parent bank of the group) for 2015 decreased by more than six times - to 2.3 billion rubles. versus 14.6 billion a year earlier.

It is also known that by December 2015, FC Otkritie Bank attracted foreign currency of varying maturities through repo transactions with the Central Bank for more than $15 billion (over 1 trillion rubles at the end of December, or more than 35% of assets).

But the subsidiary bank of FC Otkritie, KhMB Otkritie, ended 2015 with a net loss of 21 billion rubles. against a profit of 0.9 billion a year earlier according to RAS. The collapse of the income of FC Otkritie and KhMB Otkritie indicates that the Otkritie financial group is in a state of crisis.

Will the license be revoked following the deposits?

At the end of 2015, talk began among experts that the banks of the Otkritie group might soon have their license revoked. This opinion is supported by a record level of deposit outflow in the fall of 2015.

The thing is that in October 2015, the banks of the Otkritie group - FC Otkritie and KhMB Otkritie - lost over 220 billion rubles. funds of legal entities. The lion's share of the outflow comes from the group's parent bank, FC Otkritie: over the month, deposits of corporate clients decreased by 190 billion rubles, or almost a quarter, to 583 billion.

The outflow was ensured by state-owned companies and budgetary organizations - their deposits decreased by 196 billion rubles. (up to 106 billion rubles). As a result, the bank’s balance sheet shrank over the month by almost 6% (by 166 billion rubles). This is a record outflow of government funds among banks from the top twenty.

Analysts note that the withdrawal of funds from state corporations from banks is the first sign of imminent revocation of a license. This is explained by the fact that government agencies, having insider information from the Central Bank, try to withdraw their deposits in advance from the accounts of those credit institutions that will soon have to say goodbye to their license.

"Bank-vacuum cleaner"

Against the backdrop of a catastrophic drop in net profit and growing net loss, banks that are part of the Otkritie financial group continue to very actively accumulate citizens’ deposits.

So, for example, in 2015, the volume of deposits in PJSC Khanty-Mansiysk Bank Otkritie increased by 237.64% and amounted to almost 183 billion rubles. At the same time, the share of overdue debts of individuals amounted to 17.51%, and “overdue” loans from organizations – 11.76.

Such a rapid growth of deposits, according to experts, has already alerted the Central Bank. Banks such as KhMB Otkritie, which attract deposits from citizens en masse, are usually called “vacuum cleaner banks.”

It seems that at KhMB Otkritie, like any other “vacuum cleaner bank”, old depositors are essentially paid high interest rates by attracting new depositors. However, sooner or later, such “vacuum cleaner banks” “burst”, like financial pyramids (such as the legendary MMM by Sergei Mavrodi).

Assets “on withdrawal”?

Now it’s worth thinking about who is behind all the machinations in “Otkrytie”? Let us recall that the shareholders of FC Otkritie are Vadim Belyaev (26.71%), IFD Capital (19.90%), Ruben Aganbegyan (7.96%), Alexander Nesis (7.34%), NPF Lukoil -guarantor" (7.06%), Alexander Mamut (6.67%), Sergey Gordeev (6.38%), Dmitry Sokolov (4.67%) and Alexey Gudaitis (2%).

And until July 2013, the shareholders of FC Otkritie were the owner of the O1 Group holding, Boris Mints, and the head of Rusnano, Anatoly Chubais. They were at the origins of the creation of the FC Otkritie bank, and Mints, together with Belyaev, are considered co-founders of this financial group. It is now believed that it is Belyaev who has real control over the Otkritie financial group.

Rumor has it that “Belyaev’s team” is very actively withdrawing finances from Otkritie. The thing is that the banks of the Otkritie group are still willing to lend to the companies of their owners. And this, by the way, is one of the most common “legalized schemes” for withdrawing assets from banks.

By the way, according to Moody’s, the volume of loans issued to related parties by FC Otkritie Bank is already twice the capital of this bank. According to IFRS reporting (dated June 30, 2015), the capital of FC Otkritie Bank is 296.1 billion rubles. At the same time, the volume of loans issued by the bank to related parties is growing steadily.

If at the beginning of 2015 the share of such loans was 85% of the bank’s capital, then by the end of the first half of the year it increased to 229%. It is known that over the six months of 2015, FC Otkritie Bank tripled lending to shareholders and their companies - from 216 billion to 663 billion rubles. Experts are confident that the owners of the Otkritie group have intensified the process of withdrawing assets, as they fear that the bank’s license will soon be revoked.

It seems that the attempt to unite the banks that are part of the Otkritie holding is an attempt by Vadim Belyaev and his partners to save their financial empire from collapse. But, according to experts, after the decline in profits and the massive withdrawal of deposits from Otkritie banks, nothing can save them from complete financial collapse.

Dmitry Vasin

This morning, three players who were actively raising funds from the retail market lost their licenses. Experts note that a high share of individual funds in liabilities is often combined with a risky lending policy and an inadequate risk assessment. All this led to the collapse of Lenoblbank, Sodruzhestvo and Lada-Credit and may become a signal to the market that the regulator has entered into an active fight against “vacuum cleaner banks”.

The problems of the Vsevolozhsk Lenoblbank surfaced in the public sphere back in the summer. At the end of July, the bank's credit rating was downgraded (from B++ to B+ with a negative outlook) and then withdrawn. In a message from the rating agency RAEX, the downgrade was explained by the insufficient amount of own funds at low capital adequacy standards, which is facilitated by the low level of profitability in combination with a significant amount of household funds in liabilities. All this, according to the agency, did not allow the bank to increase its own funds in sufficient volume.

In mid-August, Lenoblbank was disconnected from the banking electronic urgent payments system (BESP). A few days later, payments began to go through again. Nevertheless, this became a definite signal for investors. Soon after this, Lenoblbank lowered rates and stopped accepting funds from the public on several deposits. Which probably completely killed the retail bank's balance sheets. As of September 1, the share of individuals' funds in Lenoblbank's liabilities was 76.6%. The bank used these funds very boldly - RAEX noted a significant volume of closed-end real estate mutual funds on its balance sheet.

All this did not go unnoticed by the regulator. The information message of the Bank of Russia indicates that Lenoblbank does not comply with a number of federal laws and regulations of the Central Bank, including the law “On combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism.” In addition, a decrease in equity capital was established below the minimum value of the authorized capital. The bank's high-risk credit policy, which allowed the placement of funds in low-quality assets, led to the complete loss of its own funds.

For similar reasons, Lada-Credit Bank lost its license. The share of individuals' funds in the liabilities of this bank as of September 1 was 70.48% (such credit institutions are called “vacuum cleaners” in banking slang). “CJSC CB Lada-Credit pursued a high-risk credit policy associated with the placement of funds in low-quality assets. As a result of fulfilling the requirements of the supervisory authority to form reserves adequate to the accepted risks, the credit institution completely lost its own funds (capital),” the Bank of Russia said in a news release.

Sodrugestvo left the market due to the same risk management mistakes in assessing risks associated with unsatisfactory asset quality, which led to the complete loss of the bank's equity capital.

“Indeed, the regulator is paying close attention to banks with a high share of individuals’ funds in liabilities, the policy of placing them in assets is characterized by high risks,” confirms Evgeniy Slavnov, an analyst at the Rus-Rating rating agency. The very fact that the bank is funded by private deposits is not a cause for concern. However, it is necessary to carefully monitor where and how the funds attracted from investors are placed on the asset side, the analyst recalls. “If you look at the balance sheet structure of the three banks whose license was revoked, what is striking is a significant share of private deposits in liabilities, while these funds are placed mainly in the corporate loan portfolio. This creates potential liquidity risks for the credit institution due to the fact that the public has the right to withdraw their deposits at any time, regardless of the contractual period. This could also lead to a social explosion and a further decline in public confidence in the banking sector if credit risks materialize in the corporate loan portfolio. The difficult economic situation in the country negatively affects the ability of companies to service their loans, which, in turn, further increases liquidity risks for the bank,” explains Mr. Slavnov.

In addition, the expert reminds, there are often situations when funds are withdrawn from the bank through corporate loans. And this factor could also influence the decision to revoke the licenses of three banks today.

Meanwhile, the Deposit Insurance Agency reports that payments to depositors of Sodrugestvo, Lada-Credit and Lenoblbank banks will begin no later than October 30, 2015. Agent banks to accept applications from depositors and pay them compensation will be selected on a competitive basis no later than October 22.

We actually came to the same conclusion: banks in the former CIS countries exist primarily for one purpose - to work “honestly” for a while, accumulate money from gullible clients, and then quickly vacuum it up abroad. In this matter, they are helped by the central banks of “independent” states, and on the other side of the cordon by Western bankers specialized in buying stolen goods.

And if in Russia the evil Putin has already eliminated the “roof” of serial bankers in the Central Bank of Russia, and Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan is desperately fighting against it, then in Ukraine it is thriving for robber bankers
financial paradise.

Read the article under the spoiler about this.

According to specialists from the non-governmental organization Global Financial Integrity, who study illegal financial flows in developing countries, an average of 11-12 USD billion is illegally withdrawn from Ukraine every year.

According to preliminary calculations, in 2015 alone, 14.2 USD billion left the country - an amount exceeding the total volume of tranches from the IMF allocated to Ukraine in the period 2014-2016 (12.3 USD billion). The lion's share of funds withdrawn from the Ukrainian economy passes through the banking system, which acts as a storage and transit point for various types of assets.

In December 2015, during the final press conference on the situation in the banking sector, including the fight against speculative financial structures, the head of the NBU, Valeria Gontareva, said that the regulator managed to successfully complete the operation to remove speculative and non-payment financial structures from the Ukrainian market and, they say the situation in the banking system is improving. “We are confident that the worst is behind us and we are full of cautious optimism for the future,” she said at the time.

But the current state of affairs suggests that the conclusions of the head of the NBU were premature. Nine months of this year have passed, and we are still seeing “falling” banks, whose bankruptcy is often accompanied by scandals associated with various financial scams.

Banking supervision

One of the most egregious cases of fraud this year can be called, without exaggeration, the situation that arose around PJSC Bank Mikhailovsky. This is not the largest bank among the financial institutions sanctioned by the regulator. But the revealed scheme of asset fraud, carried out by the bank’s management in front of the NBU, forces us to be critical not only of the actions of the bankers, but also of the reaction of the regulator, whose responsibilities include monitoring operations in the financial market and preventing various types of banking speculation.

Let us remind you that the funds of Mikhailovsky depositors were allegedly attracted to the bank. In fact, most of the money was transferred to Investment and Settlement Center LLC (“IRC”), which is associated with the bank. On the eve of Mikhailovsky’s recognition as insolvent, the bank’s management, using access to the “operational day” program, transferred loans and “junk” accounts of the IRS company to the accounts of individuals in the bank, trying to hide suspicious transactions and shift responsibility to their depositors to the Deposit Guarantee Fund.

Now the facts that led the bank to the introduction of a temporary administration are being investigated by law enforcement agencies, and the former chairman of the bank’s board, Igor Doroshenko, and the former shareholder, owner of the Eldorado chain and the Gulliver business center, Viktor Polishchuk (his share in the bank was 92.501% of the authorized capital. - Ed.) are threatened with proceedings with the regulator and the prosecutor's office.

In particular, on October 8, Doroshenko’s Shevchenkovsky District Court of Kyiv extended the period of detention with the amount of bail set at UAH 137.8 million. The prosecutor's office of the city of Kyiv suspects the former chairman of the board of Mikhailovsky of stealing 870 million UAH of bank funds and bringing the bank to insolvency.

Former director of IRC Mikhail Kanyuk was also arrested in the criminal case. Deputy head of the bank's board Denis Panfilov is wanted. Viktor Polishchuk fled the country.

A striking example of illegal manipulations with the assets of banks that came under the supervision of the NBU is the scam involving PJSC Bank Contract. The bank sold the building it owned at night (after the end of the banking day), and the curator was unable to monitor and prevent the illegal transaction. “The function of the NBU that requires strengthening is banking supervision. On the one hand, the National Bank states that it sees the situation in banks in real time and controls their operations, but how illusory this control is is evidenced by the situation with the Mikhailovsky Bank, when technical manipulations with the bank’s IT system led to disastrous consequences for FGVFL consequences and threaten an additional burden on the long-suffering budget,” notes lawyer Yulia Kurilo, partner of the SK Group law firm.

Another example of the illusory nature of control, according to her, is transactions on correspondent accounts opened in banks outside Ukraine. “The notorious Austrian Meinl Bank AG has already provided more than one Ukrainian financial institution with a rolled-out scheme, as a result of which bank accounts were emptied by fraudsters in a matter of seconds, as, for example, in the story with the Kievan Rus Bank,” Kurilo gave an example.

The most interesting thing, according to her, is that the banking market is well aware of these notorious banks with “ambiguous reputations” that provide services to Ukrainian financial institutions for the withdrawal of assets. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the NBU does not work to proactively implement these schemes, for example, by limiting the range of correspondent banks for financial institutions that have a financial recovery program, including with the involvement of NBU stabilization loans.

According to the lawyer, another scheme that should have been blocked was the provision by banks of financial guarantees for obligations in favor of foreign financial institutions, as well as letters of credit. “A bank guarantee and a letter of credit are active banking operations, the bank earns money from them. But this is also a high risk, which, in the absence of adequate security from the client, results in significant losses for the financial institution,” explains Kurilo. “And the fact that financial institutions very often use these banking instruments in dubious transactions suggests that they should become the object of close attention from the NBU. And, perhaps, one of the conditions for providing a stabilization loan to a bank should be reliable support for such operations (under the control of the National Bank), verification of their reality, economic feasibility, etc.”

Advisor to JSC Spencer and Kaufmann Nikolai Likhachev also believes that in order to prevent the withdrawal of assets, the NBU must respond in a timely manner to the schemes already identified in insolvent banks in order to avoid the use of similar mechanisms in existing banks. “In addition, it is necessary to pay attention to the institution of supervision of the NBU for a more in-depth analysis by the regulatory authorities of the activities of banks about which there is suspicion about their future activities,” says the lawyer.

In general, he said, Ukraine should seriously think about the global trend of deoffshorization and join the initiative of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development regarding the automatic exchange of tax information. These steps will not prevent possible risks of asset withdrawal, but will make it easier to track the routes of their movements and take measures to return them.

In addition, according to Likhachev, to prevent the outflow of assets from Ukraine, it is necessary to minimize the reasons for the withdrawal of capital. And the main step to prevent it will be the optimization of taxation: reducing the number of taxes, their rates, simplifying payment.

Keep your face

Representatives of the NBU keep a good face in the face of a bad game: over the past two years, the regulator, based on the results of an inspection of banks, filed a total of 175 statements regarding fraud with the police and prosecutor’s office. At the same time, the Federal Guarantee Fund filed 362 personal lawsuits against bank owners with law enforcement agencies. True, none of these cases have been brought to their logical conclusion - the punishment of the perpetrators and the return of stolen funds have not yet occurred. “I am not yet aware of any cases where the NBU would initiate the process of returning funds outside of Ukraine,” notes Kurilo.

“There is not yet a specialized structure in Ukraine that would investigate violations in the banking sector. All cases are handled by law enforcement agencies, including cases that concern banks. Representatives of law enforcement agencies quite often contact the NBU and ask for documents confirming the facts. But even if the recorded fact is obvious to us as a violation, the chain of actions of law enforcement agencies is unchanged: investigation, trial and only then a decision on the case,” “turned the arrows” to law enforcement agencies, etc. O. Deputy Head of the NBU Ekaterina Rozhkova during a briefing arranged for media representatives.

It should be noted that back in December 2015, a law was adopted providing for the creation of the National Agency for the identification, search and management of assets obtained from corruption and other crimes. According to the document, the National Agency is created by the Cabinet of Ministers and is accountable to the Verkhovna Rada. Its main task is the formation and implementation of state policy in the field of identifying and searching for assets, including abroad, as well as the management of seized and confiscated assets. But the main hopes placed on the agency are to increase efficiency and transparency in solving cases related to the withdrawal of funds, because agency employees will work independently of law enforcement agencies.

However, nine months have passed and the agency still has not been created. Moreover, many experts generally express doubts about the effectiveness of its work. “The fact is that the National Agency is controlled by the Cabinet of Ministers and the Verkhovna Rada, although in principle it should only be accountable to these bodies. If we remember the fact that some Ukrainian ministers still “cannot” provide income declarations, what kind of independence and transparency can we talk about?” Stanislav Batrin, director of the law firm LionsLitigate, is indignant.

According to him, an attempt to create a full-fledged organization that will identify corruption schemes and deal with the return of stolen assets is possible only if it is a completely independent structure with a wide range of powers and a transparent form of management. Unfortunately, the law adopted in December does not provide for this.

The Bank of Russia lowered the key rate. This will likely be followed by a reduction in deposit rates at commercial banks. Nevertheless, among credit institutions there are those who are trying to lure investors with increased interest rates. Lenta.ru found out how to recognize such a “vacuum cleaner bank”.

Not by percentage alone

When a citizen takes money to a bank, he is primarily interested in a high interest rate. People have already been burned by the pyramid schemes of the early 1990s, so the vast majority know that the higher the return, the higher the risk. But fortunately for us, a deposit insurance system for individuals has been operating in Russia for more than 10 years. All banks working with citizens' deposits pay contributions to the Deposit Insurance Agency, which will pay the depositor both the principal and interest, but not more than 1.4 million rubles.

In any case, finding out that the bank in which you kept your money no longer exists and you now need to go to another bank appointed as a payment agent to withdraw your deposit with accrued interest is not very pleasant. But you shouldn't worry too much either. Does this mean that when choosing a bank it makes sense to be guided only by the interest rate?

It is difficult to demand from an ordinary citizen to care not only about his pocket, but also about the banking system as a whole. But it is also wrong not to be at all interested in the reliability of the bank to which you are depositing money. This is rather a question of general culture. Whether you always throw garbage in the trash can, or you can pass it by - it’s a nobody’s street, maybe someone will clean it up. Whether you always pay for travel on transport or you don’t have to pay - it won’t decrease... It’s about the same thing here. By depositing money in a bank that is deliberately risky, you encourage its irresponsibility.

During a crisis, banks experience problems with money. Confidence in banks is declining, and lenders are reluctant to lend. This means that in order to attract borrowed funds, you have to increase the interest rate. For example, make it 5 percent higher than the market: that is, you attract at 16 percent per annum, and lend at more than 30 percent. It turns out that the bank is sucking depositors’ money from the market like a vacuum cleaner. This is a usurious scheme in which both the bank and the depositor are involved. What if the bank still cannot pay its obligations and collapses? This is no longer so important - others will pay. The depositor will take the insurance from the agent bank for payments to victims and put them in another “vacuum cleaner bank”.

This is also good if the bank became a “vacuum cleaner” not out of malicious intent, but simply faced a shortage of borrowed funds. It happens that the scheme is initially fraudulent, and the financial institution, collecting deposits at increased rates, does not intend to pay creditors at all. For example, Master Bank, declared bankrupt in 2014, accepted dollar deposits at 9 percent against the average market rate of 4-5 percent for foreign currency deposits. There are many schemes for stealing client funds - with the help of fictitious bills of exchange, loans to dummies... In the end, the bank is exposed, its license is revoked, and the DIA compensates for the losses of depositors. And everyone is happy. But the Deposit Insurance Agency is not a bottomless barrel. If at the end of the first quarter of this year the DIA fund had about 85 billion rubles, by now there are less than 70 billion left. This is despite the fact that retail banks’ licenses are regularly revoked. Since the beginning of the year, the Central Bank has done this with about 30 Russian banks. As the regulator explains, the credit institutions on which he brought down his punishing sword did not meet the requirements of financial stability and solvency. In June, OPM-Bank, Metrobank, and Sibneftebank lost their licenses.

Unfortunately, this is the other side of the insurance system, which, on the one hand, ensures people’s trust in banks, and on the other, covers unscrupulous bankers and outright fraudsters. Large banks have long expressed dissatisfaction with the current situation. Thus, the head of Sberbank German Gref has already proposed introducing restrictions on insurance payments on deposits. For example, the lifetime limit on the total amount of insurance compensation is no more than 3 million rubles. Or pay insurance only once, or no more than once every five years. Then the depositor will think not only about interest, but also about the reliability of the bank.

Leave payments alone

“Under no circumstances should we touch the law on deposit insurance and limit insurance! - Financial Ombudsman Pavel Medvedev is convinced. - The law is written in an optimal way. Introduce even the slightest restriction, and people will stop trusting banks altogether.” Moreover, according to Medvedev, any “penalties” in relation to depositors who chose the “wrong” bank will be destructive. Whether to assign compensation to only 90 percent of the deposit amount or to pay only the principal amount without interest - all this will lead to the fact that people will simply prefer to keep money in stockings. The Ombudsman considers the schemes proposed by Gref to be too complex. “People will not figure out in which case they will receive the entire amount, and in which - only a part. They’ll just spit and prefer not to get involved with banks,” he said in an interview with Lenta.ru.

Not only the ombudsman who cares about depositors, but also the regulator himself is not enthusiastic about the idea of ​​limited insurance payments. Although, it would seem, it is the Central Bank that should have the biggest headache from unscrupulous banks. Nevertheless, the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, said in early June that she did not support proposals for partial insurance payments on citizens’ deposits. " The economic effect of this will not cover the damage to the reputation of the banking system“, she is sure.

Depositors cannot and are not obliged to calculate banking risks, the regulator believes. Therefore, the Central Bank decided to influence not citizens, but the banks themselves. From July 1, different levels of insurance premiums will be introduced depending on the level of maximum interest rates. Banks that inflate deposit rates will have to pay more to the deposit insurance fund.

In addition, the Central Bank has the opportunity to monitor where depositors’ money is spent. Typically, “vacuum cleaners” that attract deposits at too high interest rates are sent to businesses associated with the bank’s owners. This is how low-quality assets are formed. To prevent this, the regulator does not even have to revoke the bank’s license - it is enough to prohibit attracting funds from the public. Pavel Medvedev believes that these measures by the Central Bank are quite capable of protecting the market from “vacuum cleaners”. This way, savers can breathe easy - learn about banking before they start saving for a new refrigerator until needed.

Watch your back

The head of the analytical department of the Corporate Finance Bank, Maxim Osadchiy, points out the following signs that distinguish a “vacuum cleaner” from a bona fide credit institution.

The most obvious and striking one is inflated interest rates on deposits. Today, rates of 16 percent per annum against the average market level of 11 percent should raise questions. You should also be wary of a sharp increase in deposits, too large a share of deposits in the bank's liabilities (that is, more than 50 percent). Of course, not all banks that actively attract money from the public are unscrupulous or involved in some kind of criminal schemes. “For example, at the Home Credit and Vostochny banks, deposits take up more than half of the liabilities, but this is such a business model, there is nothing reprehensible in it,” Osadchiy noted in an interview with Lenta.ru. However, signs of fraud in a credit institution should concern everyone, the expert warns. “Caution never hurts. After all, if a fraudulent banker initially decided to steal your money, he may not even reflect it in the reporting as deposits, and problems will arise with the payment of insurance,” warns Osadchiy. In addition, money can be withdrawn from the deposit without your knowledge. Therefore, it makes sense to take a closer look at the bank, even if the deposit amount is less than 1.4 million rubles.

Osadchy considers such banks as Transportny, OPM-Bank and Metrobank, which were deprived of their licenses at the end of May, to be classic “vacuum cleaners”. Thus, at Transportny the share of deposits in liabilities as of May 1 was 73.5 percent, at Metrobank - 64.7 percent, and at OPM-Bank - 63.9 percent. The corporate loan portfolio in the assets of Transportny accounted for 65.8 percent, for Metrobank - 53.5 percent, and for OPM-Bank - 83 percent. But the share of overdue debt in the corporate loan portfolio of all three banks was less than 1 percent, which is quite natural for banks with fictitious loans. According to Osadchy, there are currently about 20 “vacuum cleaners” with signs of criminal schemes operating in the Russian banking market.

But to combat criminal banking schemes, the efforts of the Central Bank alone are not enough. Financial Ombudsman Medvedev complains that until recently, the qualifications of the prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs were not enough to effectively suppress the activity of fraudulent banks. “When working with banks, we observed a lack of knowledge among investigators and delays in time, which allowed fraudsters to withdraw funds... I spent a whole year fighting to create a special interdepartmental working group on crimes in the banking sector. Finally, I managed to convince the security forces, and such a group will be created with the participation of the prosecutor’s office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the DIA and the Central Bank,” he says.

It is quite possible that the problem of “vacuum cleaner banks” will be solved by new regulatory measures or improved qualifications of law enforcement agencies. But still, the situation in which conscientious banks pay the inflated rates of their colleagues seems unfair. And an investor who places money at super-interest rates must also risk at least something. Meanwhile, there is a fair solution: you can compensate for interest not at the increased rate promised by the irresponsible banker, but at the minimum rate that existed on the market at the time the deposit was opened. That is, the depositor of a bankrupt bank receives the entire amount of the deposit, receives interest income, but not “fabulous”, but minimal. It was as if he had put his money in the most conservative bank. Then, trust in bank deposits will be preserved, and depositors will begin to take a more responsible approach to choosing a bank.

The head of Khakassia, Valentin Konovalov, signed a resolution on the cost of living - the main criterion for determining the level of social benefits.
Khakassia-Inform
10.12.2019

Last week, the Deposit Insurance Agency (DIA) shared interesting information with the public. It turns out that even by revoking the licenses of banks you can make a good business, equally dusty and illegal. To do this, it is enough to open a fictitious deposit and receive insurance compensation. True, according to the DIA, in nine cases out of ten the trick does not work. But this does not negate the need to carefully look at the problems of the deposit insurance system and, in general, at the relationships of banks with clients and with the mega-regulator.

What are fictitious deposits? These are deposits opened in the bank at the time the card file was created. The card index is a dying state: the organization is still formally operating, but has already stopped making payments. An accessible analogy: buying a retroactive ticket for a bus that has already crashed, but collecting information about the victims is still ongoing - in the hope of illegally obtaining insurance. According to the DIA, since 2008, 15 billion rubles worth of fictitious deposits have been opened, almost a third of this amount came in 2013. True, the DIA easily calculates such “contributions”, and in 90% of cases, according to the agency, its position is supported by the court.

However, fictitious deposits are a drop in the sea of ​​DIA problems. The real problem is the continuous revocation of licenses from banks, including large ones with a large deposit base. Insurance compensation for Master Bank and Investbank alone in each case exceeded 30 billion rubles, for JSCB Pushkino - 20 billion rubles. In total, over the past year, DIA reserves, which amounted to about 212 billion rubles in November, were blown away by almost half. And the Central Bank is not yet thinking about stopping the anti-license marathon. Already in the first days of the new year, for example, the license of the Novokuznetsk Municipal Bank was revoked.

At the same time, many banks were gutted on the eve of the revocation of their licenses, that is, their assets are guaranteed not to be enough to pay off all creditors. This means that these are net losses both for depositors (in the amount of the deposit exceeding the amount of insurance compensation of 700 thousand rubles) and for the DIA itself (there is no need to talk about second- and third-priority creditors). This is where a conflict of interests arises: who should receive what is left and in what proportion?

Investors

I talked in detail about one of these stories in Novaya No. 55 ( ). An initiative group of depositors of the deprived AMT bank demanded that the DIA actually remove itself from the first line of creditors so that those who held more than a million rubles in the bank could receive their money. The logic is clear: the state must first of all protect the rights of individuals, while the agency is a legal entity. The DIA, in turn, insisted that, having paid money to the insured depositors, it had actually inherited their rights, which means it was in an equal position with the “physicists” and was not obliged to let them go ahead. The law (on deposit insurance) in this case was on the side of the DIA.

Therefore, I was not surprised when I read it addressed to Vladimir Putin. Citizens ask the president to ensure that the law is changed so that “the requirements of the DIA are satisfied only after all the demands of individual depositors have been satisfied.” That is, if a person kept a million rubles in a defunct bank, then in addition to his 700 thousand insured, he should receive... no, not 300 thousand, but 300 thousand plus interest that “accumulated” on the million. Let’s assume the rate was 12% per annum and the deposit lasted exactly one year. Then it turns out to be one million one hundred twenty thousand. Or 420 thousand over 700 insurance. If the contribution was 10 million... do the math yourself.

Margin

It is precisely the rule of law that allows a person to receive not only the amount of the deposit, but also interest, in my opinion, that is one of the main reasons that ensure the bright, albeit fleeting, career of vacuum cleaner banks. In the worst case, they stupidly collect deposits (which are withdrawn to offshore accounts of shareholders and top managers), and then “die” to everyone’s satisfaction. To everyone - because people who brought money there and did not cross the threshold of 700 thousand rubles get everything they expected. And then they calmly take the money to the next “vacuum cleaner”. The DIA pays for this, or rather, all other investors. After all, the agency’s reserves are formed from bank payments; these are their expenses, which they naturally pass on to consumers. For example, for those who take a loan from them.

By the way, banks often become “vacuum cleaners” not out of malicious intent. It’s just that one of the few ways for them to make money is to aggressively issue consumer loans at high (sometimes inflated) rates. In order to actively issue such loans, you need to attract money. The savings of the population in this regard are the main resource. How to attract them? By upping the ante, of course. Yes, you give 5% more than the market average, but you earn 30% on loans! This is a purely usurious scheme, on both sides. Both the vacuum cleaner banks and their clients receive excess profits - of course, at the expense of all other participants in the system.

True, such a scheme cannot work for a long time - and does not work. Restrictions inevitably arise from both the market and the regulator. Firstly, arrears on consumer loans are growing, because a large number of borrowers simply cannot service them because the interest rate is too high. Secondly, reserves must be created for these loans. The more risky loans you issue, the larger the amount of reserves you must create. This means attracting even more expensive deposits. And the “vacuum cleaner” begins to work not so much for its own well-being, but for compliance with Central Bank standards.

There is excellent statistical evidence of this. Last year, the banking system's operating income (before deduction of all expenses, including provisions) grew by 21%, but the net financial result, apparently, will be several percentage points less than a year earlier. That is, banks attract more and more money into deposits using high rates, issue more and more expensive loans - and begin to earn less?

The behavior of investors is no less illogical. According to the DIA, as of the first quarter of 2013, the amount of deposits above the threshold of 700 thousand rubles amounted to 48% of the total amount of deposits in banks. That is, half of all deposits in the event of problems in the system one way or another end up at risk, although nothing prevents them from being split up and guaranteed to be received through the DIA even in a negative scenario.

Gloomy prospects

Now is the time to remember Professor Nikita Krichevsky’s material “Let’s rummage through garbage cans” (). It said that Russia, as a member of the G20, pledged to implement the recommendations of the Financial Stability Council existing under this organization. The most unusual and frightening among them for investors sounds like this: “Convert into equity or other instruments of ownership of a firm undergoing resolution..., all or parts of the unsecured and uninsured claims of creditors.”. Simply put, instead of money, depositors should receive not money in excess of the insured amount, but shares in the capital (that is, shares) of banks. These banks themselves will self-recover through the “managed liquidation” procedure. Moreover, this rule will not apply to everyone, but only to systemically important banks.

By the way, Russia officially joined the initiative of the Financial Stability Board in October, and at the end of December last year, the Central Bank published a list of systemically important banks, which was subsequently expanded.

That is, so far everything is going according to plan. No information has yet leaked from Neglinnaya that a regulatory framework is being developed that would create the institution of “managed liquidation” and a mechanism for converting deposits into shares. But if the weeding of the banking system continues and DIA reserves are reduced to a critical level, then this unpopular reform can be presented under the guise of combating negative phenomena. Moreover, flavored with the spice of social discord. Like, why should this state protect the interests of millionaires, and, moreover, unreasonable ones who are too lazy to split a large deposit into several smaller deposits?

In such a situation and taking into account Russian specifics, a practice may develop in which the DIA, as a kind of representative of the insured “physicists”, will take away almost all liquid assets within the framework of “managed liquidation”. And other creditors, including the first priority ones, will receive candy wrappers and a timid hope that they will ever be able to be turned into at least some money.

Of course, the scenario looks, if not fantastic, then unlikely. But I am ready to believe in this rather than in the fact that the state will meet the depositors halfway and let them go ahead of itself in the queue. Times are tough these days, and everyone needs money.

Looking for a way out

Is it possible to propose an alternative solution to the problem, recognizing that such important components as the quality of banking supervision and the work of law enforcement agencies, if they change for the better, will be in the long term? I think it's possible.

The first thing to do in this case is to change the system logic. Recognize that any deposit rate that exceeds the market average is a market risk for both the bank and its client. A bank deposit is a means of preserving and increasing savings, but not of extracting excess profits.

If you accept this thesis, it will become clear how to change regulation. Recently, the Law “On Consumer Credit” was adopted, prohibiting raising interest rates on loans by more than 30% above the market average. The average market rate is the official indicator that the Central Bank will calculate. This means that we need an analogue for the deposit market. For example, according to the DIA, the average level of rates in the first half of 2013 was 8.1% per annum in rubles. But for now this information has rather a reference and educational value, but should have a normative one.

Namely, the DIA must pay money based on the deposit amount and the average market rate, and not the bank’s rate, as is happening now. This will help investors adequately assess risks and not expect that they will receive their excess profits even if the license is revoked. After all, why take money to a bank that gives a 50% premium to the market, if at hour “x” you will get what you would get from a credit institution with a less aggressive policy? Moreover, you will waste time, energy and nerves in queues of defrauded investors. Isn’t it more logical to immediately take the money to a bank that does not offer pie in the sky (option: the sky is in diamonds)?

Then banks will have less motivation to pursue a risky policy of attracting money from “physicists” at any cost. Will this limit their competitive opportunities? Rather, it will bring you back into the framework of common sense and force you to pay more attention to the quality of service, marketing, and loyalty programs.

Then, by the way, it will be easier for aggressive banks to survive the decrease in margins on consumer loans, which will inevitably occur as a result of the new policy of the Central Bank, increasing the reserve ratio for unsecured loans. It's time to bury the hatchet of the financial war of everyone against everyone.