Alexandr Ivanter

Infrastructure a priori is not very attractive for commercial banks as infrastructure development projects are riskier and designed for long periods. So, VEB expects that regulatory limitations on raising financial resources to fund infrastructure projects will be eased.

Vnesheconombank sets yield benchmarks for the first echelon of ruble denominated bond issues and it is among the ten largest Russian Eurobond issuers. Why are market bond issues so important for VEB, isn’t it too risky to expand non-residents’ presence on the government bond market and in capital of state-run banks and to what extent is interface of the Russian export support system user-friendly? We are talking about all this with Vnesheconombank Deputy Chairman Alexandr Ivanov.

- In late July, Vnesheconombank placed a debut stock market ruble-denominated bond issue. How did the placement go? Why did you choose this instrument?

- The placement was a success. Upon opening a bid book we planned to borrow 10 billion rubles for a period of three years but the demand exceeded 50 billion and we decided to double the placement volume. The borrowing cost also proved to be pretty favorable. Now, the bond issue is being traded at a yield rate of 7.7 percent per annum, with a premium of about 160 basis points in relation to MinFin bonds of similar maturity and this is a very good indicator – one of the best for corporate bonds of first echelon issuers.

These stock market bonds’ specific feature is that they have higher liquidity which is determined by a whole number of covenants (terms under which bondholders can start to negotiate early repayment with the issuer) attractive for investors and ensuring the bonds’ better protection. Moreover, we envisaged a whole number of additional obligations on information disclosure.

- Did non-residents show interest in the bond issue?

- Foreign investors’ aggregate demand was about 7 billion rubles. This is a good result as earlier investors used to enter into our ruble-denominated bonds in homeopathic quantities – as a rule through their subsidiary Russian banks just as part of treasury operations. There are plans that this year, non-residents will be able to purchase Russian issuers’ bonds through trade and settlement systems Clearstream and Euroclear. As a result the bond market liquidity in any case liquidity of first echelon bonds increased significantly - already on expectations of new investors. And we could feel it in the course of the bond placement.

- I have been recently struck by the Central Bank’s information: by mid-year a proportion of non-residents in MinFin ruble-denominated bonds reached 30 percent.

- Didn’t you expect this?

- Foreigners had a similar proportion in GKO in 1997 on the eve of the Asian crisis and the rapid shedding of bonds by non-residents was a trigger for a default on government bonds in August of 1998. Aren’t we making the same mistake now? Aren’t we excessively liberalizing access to our market?

- In fact, there are no grounds for panic. First, the scales of the markets are incomparable. GKO’s volume in circulation was 40 percent of GDP on the peak of the market, now, the OFZ portfolio is 3.3 trillion rubles and this is about 5 percent of GDP. Second, the state of the federal budget and government finances is significantly better today than in 1997 and especially in 1998.

- Doesn’t it embarrass you that 44 percent of Sberbank’s shares are in non-residents’ hands?

- No, it does not. Sberbank’s controlling stake is still in the Central Bank’s hands. Key decisions are taken with due regard to the principal shareholder’s opinion.

- VTB can boast of its anchor investors. By the way, its aggregate proportion of non-residents in the capital is very substantial – more than 30 percent.

- Long-term foreign investors are among shareholders both in Sberbank and VTB. But as you know market is market. Nowadays capital has no borders, it flows in and out. But I am sure that for the time being system-forming banks should be controlled by the state. And the fact that foreign investors enter into capital of our companies and our banks is linked not only to risks. As a rule they bring best practices of corporate governance and tend to discipline management.

- It’s interesting that the format of assuming Russian risks by foreigners is changing. The crisis reduced substantially the total number of banks and banks’ stakes controlled by foreigners on our market. At the same time, non-residents’ presence in capital of the largest state banks and in the aggregate portfolio of government bonds has increased dramatically. Instead of enjoying imperfections of the Russian market and business climate you can purchase a few OFZs of Sberbank and VTB by clicking mouse several times without leaving your office in Luxemburg or in London and live greatly.

- There is such a tendency now. Nevertheless, a number of Central and Eastern European countries where all commanding heights had been in foreigners’ hands since the 1990s suffered a lot more in the crisis. They experienced a colossal capital outflow through banks into their maternal markets, lending and especially long-term lending imploded. So, I would describe the structure of our banking system as a balanced one. Foreigners have access to our capital markets through subsidiary banks and there are no limitations on their capital movements but at the same time, the state sector is playing a dominant role.

- Let’s move back to VEB. What’s your program of market borrowings in the current year?

-In the year 2013, a target volume of raising financial resources is to remain at last year’s level and is about 7-8 billion dollars. About a half of this sum is public debt: eurobonds and local bonds and the other part is comprised of non-public instruments such as syndicated loans, bilateral credits, trade and tied financing. Cost of raising resources plays a top-priority role for a bank for development that is why a choice of raising funds and their volume depends largely on market conditions.

Since the start of 2013, we have already raised funds in the amount of about of 3 billion dollars. We have recently registered two issues of domestic euro-denominated bonds at the Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange. This is a debut issue on the Russian market. We saw a pretty strong demand among domestic investors for such instruments. Now we are working actively with the Moscow Exchange on implementing this project and conducting consultations with market players. We hope to make a bond placement until the end of the year.

- What are VEB’s long-term target bond funding indicators?

- We plan to bring a share of market bond borrowings to one third of a total volume of resources to be raised. This objective is to be achieved in the longer term.

Regrettably, as opposed to many foreign development institutions, Vnesheconombank has to operate in a rather complicated situation. Under the Law on the Bank for Development, VEB does not have the state’s guarantees for its obligations. Moreover, VEB is not funded from the budget on a regular basis for corporate-wide purposes – there are only target deposits of the Central Bank, the Finance Ministry and the National Wealth Fund tied to a number of specific projects. VEB is also barred from raising deposits from natural persons and companies except those cases when this is done under investment projects. So, as far as raising funds are concerned, VEB has to operate on the market and compete for financial resources with other development institutions as well as with Russian banks and corporations.

- And with the Finance Ministry to some extent?

- Our Bank is a responsible borrower and so we coordinate our activity on the public debt market with the Finance Ministry.

- How do you do it?

- These are regular working consultations on the phone. There is no formal intervention by the Government in VEB’s operational activity.

- At the July conference organized by VEB in Moscow, head of Brazil’s Development Bank BNDES Luciano Coutinho said that in the current complicated global macroeconomic situation it was development banks’ bonds with government guarantees that were becoming the most important instruments for long-term funding.

- I’m glad that people from different countries think in the same way and say the same things being aware that in the period of crisis investments in infrastructure and their long-term funding are very important. These are taxes, employment. This is a quality of people’s life. This is caring for future generations.

- Absence of a sovereign guarantee for loans is really a serious limitation, isn’t it? If it was removed what would it change for you?

- All is pretty simple: we could increase borrowing volumes substantially and reduce borrowing costs. Although our Bank is a quasi-sovereign borrower without the state’s formal guarantees our bond placement costs are a lot more expensive than those of the Russian Finance Ministry.

- The QE-3 program is expected to be phased out in the U.S. How will it influence the international bond borrowing market?

- These expectations are already exerting pressure on US treasuries quotes. Ten-year treasuries’ yields have increased by more than 40 percent from 1.8 to 2.8 percent per annum from May till now. Increased yields of American government bonds lead to increased yields of dollar denominated eurobonds of other market players on international debt markets.

The factual phase-out of the QE-3 program might have a short-term negative effect in capital markets and market for divestiture of risky assets including Russian debt instruments and, above all, of second and third echelon issuers. We haven’t seen so far any significant direct threats to Vnesheconombank’s borrowing costs.

Moreover, it should be noted that the reason for discussing phase-out dates of the stimulus program was a gradual recovery of the U.S. economy including labor and real estate markets. In the future positive macroeconomic data from the U.S. could provide support for capital markets. Moreover U.S. FRS basis rates will remain at previous historical minimal rates (0.0-0.25 per annum until unemployment rate in the country goes down to 6.5% (the current rate is 7.6 percent) thus limiting further growth in debt instruments’ yields.

- Despite this positive information, Russian banks might use the tightening of monetary policy in the U.S. as an excuse for increasing credit rates for corporate borrowers?

- We shouldn’t rule out this scenario. To a certain degree this will be a natural selection however cruel it might sound. In the situation of more limited access to financial resources only competitive projects and borrowers will survive. Financial discipline, balance quality and quality of corporate governance will come to the forefront.

But I’d like to stress that we shouldn’t approach infrastructure projects with standard market requirements. Infrastructure a priori is not very attractive for commercial banks as infrastructure development projects are riskier and designed for long periods. So, we hope that in the situation of hardening access to liquidity the state and regulators would step up national development institutions’’ activity. As to VEB we hope that our regulatory resource limitations will be eased.

- Let me ask you a question in the fantasy genre. You tend to place bonds; they are normal quasi-sovereign instruments even without formal government guarantees. Why don’t you use pension funds of the so-called “undecideds”? VEB is responsible for managing these funds as a state trust management company. These funds are reliable instruments; they are no less reliable than for example RZHD infrastructure bonds in which VEB has recently started to invest pension funds.

- In principle, I see no problems here. I asked my colleague this question. It would be logical for VEB as a main bank responsible for funding infrastructure in Russia to use pension funds to this end on the terms of recoverability and serviceability. But this issue is in the legal domain. We’ll have to deal with a classical conflict of interests – one and the same institution will combine functions of issuer and investor.

Nevertheless, the Bank’s investment declaration as a state trust management company is being expanded. Today we are allowed to invest not only in government bonds but also in corporate bonds.

Moreover, President Putin said that up to a half of the National Wealth Fund’s financial resources (the amount of funds in it was 86.9 billion dollars as of early August) could be used to fund infrastructure projects inside the country. VEB jointly with its subsidiary Russian Direct Investment Fund and the Economic Development Ministry is developing a mechanism that would make it possible to use financial resources of the National Wealth Fund to finance these projects with minimal risks.

- Last year the Export Insurance Agency of Russia (EXIAR) incorporated in Vnesheconombank Group started to operate. What results has it achieved as of today?

-The Agency was established in 2011. Since it was established the Agency was designed to create a special regulatory framework to insure export credits against political and commercial risks and to operate in the interests of domestic exporters.

In late December of 2012, Russia’s state guarantee for EXIAR’s obligations was registered with the support of Vnesheconombank for a period of twenty years. Factually, it was at the time when EXIAR became a full-fledged state export credit agency of Russia.

As of today, export support has been provided for more than 30 projects and contracts for a total amount of more than 16 billion rubles and detailed preparatory work is being performed with regard to 20 projects worth about 70 billion rubles.

In the current year EXIAR has supported a transaction on supplying sections of steam turbine condensers to Ukraine. Moreover, the Agency covered risks under an export credit to fund supplies of Rostselmash products to Kazakhstan. I’d also like to highlight a project to insure supplies of equipment and spare parts manufactured by concern Ruselprom and intended for modernizing Cuban thermal power stations.

- Can we talk about synergy of EXIAR, Roseximbank and Vnesheconombank itself in supporting Russian non-raw materials exports? Are there all necessary export promotion institutions in Russia?

- In my opinion we have now created all necessary components of the export support system. Vnesheconombank is responsible for extending export credits and guarantees. We have recently established a special export funding department which is fully involved in performing this function. We have EXIAR responsible for issuing insurance policies for export credits. And guarantees not only for VEB’s credits but also for credits of all Russian and foreign banks which are ready to fund Russian exports. There is Roseximbank responsible for extending government export guarantees as the agent for the Finance Ministry. There is VEB-leasing, a leading leasing company in Russia owned by Vnesheconombank. It participates in a number of major international leasing transactions.

But there is a problem that we are addressing now. Here I mean segmentation of export promotion institutions, and the absence of a clear-cut interface for domestic export companies. We decided to create an interface in the format of “one window” for any exporter irrespective of its size and range of export products to be able to turn to Vnesheconombank’s specially established department. Then its application will be directed for its intended purpose depending on the exporter’s needs and specific activity and the exporer will be able to gain access to a whole range of export support products we have at our disposal now.