WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 | 2 || 4 | 5 |

Dynamics of the Rouble / Dollar Exchange Rates in 31,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,The official dollar exchange rate 30,30,The average-weighted 'today' dollar exchange rate 30,The average-weighted 'tomorrow' dollar exchange rate 30,30,30,30,30,30,30, roubles/US dollar 01.01.10.01.16.01.22.01.26.01.01.02.07.02.13.02.19.02.23.02.02.03.08.03.15.03.21.03.27.03.02.04.06.04.12.04.18.04.24.04.28.04.08.05.16.05.21.05.25.05.31.05.In May 2002 the euro/USD exchange rate got the highest level since February 2001, rising by about 10% for last four months (since 0.86 to 0,94 $/euro). The main causes of bullish dynamics of euro were, in our view, fundamentals related to balance of demand and supply of dollars in the world forex market. Currently attractiveness of the US stock market for portfolio investors is lower than it was in recent years, and the highest deficit if the US trade balance makes surplus of dollar supply. The latter induced a decline in dollar exchange rate in the first half of 2002 against all leading currencies. In the situation expectations (forming, in the first line, by statistical data on dynamics of the US and European economies) are of minor importance.

FIGURE 8.

Dynamics of the Euro/Dollar Exchange Rate on the International Markets 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,In May, the rouble/euro official exchange rate fell from 28.1453 roubles/euro to 28.roubles/euro, i.e. by 4.19% over the month. According to preliminary estimates, in May 2002, the total trading volume on euro made up to about 4 billion roubles.

FIGURE 10.

Dynamics of EURO Official Excnange Rate in the second half of 2001 and 29,29,28,28,27,27,26,26,25,25,24,24, USD/EURO 01.07.08.07.15.07.22.07.29.07.05.08.12.08.19.08.26.08.02.09.09.09.16.09.23.09.30.09.07.10.14.10.21.10.28.10.04.11.11.11.18.11.25.11.02.12.09.12.16.12.23.12.30.12.06.01.13.01.20.01.27.01.03.02.10.02.17.02.24.02.03.03.10.03.17.03.24.03.31.03.07.04.14.04.21.04.28.04.05.05.12.05.19.05.26.05.rubles/euro 03.07.17.07.31.07.14.08.28.08.11.09.25.09.09.10.23.10.06.11.21.11.05.12.20.12.09.01.23.01.06.02.20.02.07.03.22.03.05.04.19.04.07.05.22.05.TABLE 2. INDICATORS OF FINANCIAL MARKETS.

January February March April May* inflation rate (monthly) 3.1% 1.2% 1.1% 1.2% 1.3% annualised inflation rate by the months tendency 44.25% 15.39% 14.03% 15.39% 16.77% the RCB refinancing rate 25% 25% 25% 23% 23% annualised yield to maturity on OFZ issues 14.08% 13.84% 15.80% 16.64% 15.5% volume of trading in the secondary GKO-OFZ 4.51 6.11 4.78 11.33 14.market a month (billion roubles) yield to maturity on Minfin bonds by the end of the month (% a year):

4th tranche 7.22% 5.97% 6.86% 6.19% 6% 5th tranche 11.03% 9.35% 10.13% 9.88% 9.7% 6th tranche 10.57% 8.96% 9.65% 8.80% 8.9% 7th tranche 11.62% 9.16% 10.23% 10.26% 10% 8th tranche 10.41% 8.75% 9.63% 8.92% 9% INSTAR MIACR rate (annual %) on interbank loans by the end of the month:

overnight 29.09% 39.64% 17.79% 8.86% 4.5% 1 week 8.24% 14.55% 22.84% 12.34% 13% official exchange rate of ruble per US dollar by 30.6850 30.9404 31.1192 31.1963 31.the end of the month official exchange rate of ruble per Euro by the 26.5456 26.7120 27.1515 28.1453 29.end of the month average annualized exchange rate of ruble per 1.81% 0.83% 0.58% 0.25% 0.36% US dollar growth average annualized exchange rate of ruble per -0.27% 0.63% 1.65% 3.66% 4.19% euro growth volume of trading at the stock market in the RTS 419.7 247.1 426.3 468.9 454.for the month (millions of USD) the value of the RTS Index by the end of the 287.53 290.75 350.75 386.10 391.month growth in the RTS Index (% a month) 10.57% 1.12% 20.64% 10.08% 1.34% * Estimates S. Drobyshevsky, D. Skripkin Household Deposits: Dynamics in 2001 through early The dynamics of bank household deposits5 in 2001 through early 2002 provides evidence that this segment of banking services experiences a certain recovery. While after the crisis of 1998 the share of household deposits in bank liabilities (without Sberbank) declined almost twofold (by end-1999 it was at 5.6 %), by end-2001 this indicator increased up to 8.4 % on the average, while for banks attracting household deposits it made about 9.1 % (see Table 1). By the end of the first quarter of 2002 the share of household deposits increased up to 9.4 % (9.7 % for banks attracting household deposits).

The amount of bank household deposits in comparable prices in 2001 (without Sberbank) increased by 67.4 % in 2001, while in the first quarter of 2002 its increase made 9.3 %. In year 2000, the growth of this indicator made 32 % and only insignificantly differed from the rates of growth in the amount of household deposits attracted by Sberbank. In 2001, commercial banks significantly increased their effort and were ahead of Sberbank in terms of rate of attraction of household deposits (in 2001, in real terms the amount of household deposits in Sberbank increased only by 20.7 %). As a result, over the year the share of Sberbank, as concerns this sector of banking services, decreased by almost 6 p. p. and made 73.5 % by end-year as compared with 79.3 % in early 2001 (without taking into account the funds related to card accounts).

Here and below without banks under ARCO management. , Alfa Bank pursued an especially aggressive policy aimed at the attraction of household deposits.

While in early 2001 its share of the market (without Sberbank) made 3.4 %, by the end-year it reached 7.9 %, and made 8.1 % as of April 1, this year.

FIG. The rate of growth in household assets and deposits in comparable prices without Sberbank (quarter on quarter change, in %) % -1- Household deposits 2 -Assets Estimated on the basis of data provided by STIiK.

The ratio between household deposits and GDP has also returned to the pre-crisis level. By end-2001 it made 7.4 % (the estimate is based the preliminary data provided by Goskomstat as concerns GDP in 2001). As before the crisis, household deposits played a greater role in balance sheets of regional banks (see Table 1): on the average, the share of household deposits in the liabilities of these banks was two times higher than in Moscowbased banks. At the same time, due to the high concentration of banks in Moscow their share in the total amount of household deposits made more than 60 % by end-2001.

TABLE The share of household deposits in bank liabilities* Banks of Moscow and Operating banks (without Regional banks Moscow Oblast Sberbank) 07.98 01.00 01.01 01.02 04.02 07.98 01.00 01.01 01.02 04.02 07.98 01.00 01.01 01.02 04.Household deposits 8.6 4.7 4.7 7.0 7.9 18.0 9.6 9.2 13.6 15.7 10.4 5.8 5.8 8.6 9. Including forex deposits 4.0 3.7 3.7 5.4 6.3 3.3 4.2 3.8 5.6 6.7 3.9 3.8 3.7 5.5 6. Including Ruble deposits 4.6 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.6 14.7 5.4 5.4 8.0 9.0 6.5 2.0 2.1 3.1 3.Memorandum:

Number of banks attracting 596 533 535 546 548 785 627 617 630 553 1381 1160 1153 1176 household deposits Average amount of assets, 680 1412 2150 2852 2957 116 348 601 780 864 359 837 1321 1742 Rb. bln.

* values at the beginning and end of a month for banks attracting household deposits Estimated on the basis of data provided by STIiK.

In 2001, the Moscow-based banks practically doubled the total amount of attracted household deposits. Over the year this amount grew from Rb. 54.5 to Rb. 110 bln. The amount of funds deposited by households in regional banks also practically doubled in 2001. Therefore, the dynamics of household deposits in balance sheets of Moscow and regional banks practically coincided in 2001.

03.06.09.12.03.06.09.12,03.However, Moscow and regional banks significantly differ in terms of currency of household deposits. While the share of forex household deposits in Moscow banks was slightly over 77 %, in regional banks this ratio was different: forex household deposits made 40 % of deposited funds. On the whole, operating banks (without Sberbank) demonstrate the reverse ratio between forex and Ruble household deposits in comparison with that observed before the crisis. While in mid-1998, Ruble household deposits accounted for almost two thirds of funds, at present, Ruble deposits make only one third of household deposits (see Table 2). Over the same period, the share of forex deposits in Sberbank increased significantly more than in Moscow banks on the average. While in mid-1998 forex deposits made 10.8 % of Sberbank liabilities relating to household deposits, by end-2001, this amount was already 25.5 % (a 2.4 times growth). At the same time, in an average Moscow bank the share of forex household deposits increased only 1.7 times (from 46.5 % to 77.6 %). It may be also noted that while in mid-1998 the ratio between the share of forex deposits in Sberbank and the group of Moscow banks made 1 : 4.3, by end-2001 it decreased to 1 : 3.

TABLE The currency structure of household deposits Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating banks banks banks banks banks without Sberbank Sberbank Sberbank Sberbank Sberbank without without without without Household Sberbank deposits Sberbank Sberbank Sberbank Sberbank 01.07.98 01.01.00 01.01.01 01.01.02 01.04.Forex 37.5 10.8 66.1 21.1 63.4 23.6 63.7 25.5 65.9 N / a Ruble 62.5 89.2 33.9 78.9 36.6 76.4 36.3 74.5 34.1 N / a Estimated on the basis of data provided by STIiK.

Relatively short term deposits still dominated the time structure of household deposits in 2001 and early 2002 (see Table 3).

TABLE Time structure of household deposits of residents* Operating banks with Sberbank Operating banks without Sberbank Household deposits 01.07.98 01.01.00 01.01.01 01.01.02 01.04.02 01.07.98 01.01.00 01.01.01 01.01.02 01.04.Demand deposits* 40.7 28.8 29.5 23.2 n / a 24.6 34.1 37.1 33.2 31. Including card 3.5 2.6 2.2 1.6 n / a 10.5 8.7 9.6 5.1 4.accounts Up to 3 months 9.4 8.9 6.3 4.8 n / a 17.0 14.8 9.8 7.6 7.3 to 6 months 34.4 49.2 41.4 32.8 n / a 27.9 19.9 21.7 21.6 20. 6 to 12 months 8.5 8.1 11.4 14.7 n / a 17.0 17.0 21.6 27.3 29.Year and more 7.0 5.0 11.4 24.5 n / a 13.5 14.2 9.8 10.3 11.Total 100 100 100 100 n / a 100 100 100 100 Forex deposits Demand deposits 39.0 28.0 25.4 22.1 n / a 28.9 34.7 34.5 28.2 29. Including card 10.0 4.9 3.6 1.4 n / a 15.9 8.6 8.4 2.8 2.accounts Up to 3 months 11.0 7.9 4.6 4.0 n / a 14.3 15.8 9.7 8.0 8.3 to 6 months 19.4 40.3 41.5 35.0 n / a 21.7 15.5 18.4 20.0 17. 6 to 12 months 19.6 16.0 20.0 24.4 n / a 20.3 19.1 26.5 32.6 34.Year and more 11.0 7.8 8.5 14.5 n / a 14.8 14.9 10.9 11.2 13.Total 100 100 100 100 n / a 100 100 100 100 Ruble deposits Demand deposits 41.2 29.1 31.4 23.7 n / a 21.9 33.1 41.2 41.1 39. Including card 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.7 n / a 7.1 8.8 11.5 8.8 7.accounts Up to 3 months 9.1 9.4 7.2 5.3 n / a 18.7 13.0 9.9 7.1 6.3 to 6 months 37.9 53.0 41.4 31.6 n / a 31.8 28.2 27.1 24.1 24. 6 to 12 months 5.8 4.7 7.3 9.4 n / a 14.8 12.8 13.8 19.0 20.Year and more 6.0 3.8 12.7 30.0 n / a 12.8 12.9 8.0 8.8 10.Total 100 100 100 100 n / a 100 100 100 100 * balances of card accounts are included in demand deposits.

Estimated on the basis of data provided by STIiK.

Since the share of household deposits belonging to non-residents in the total amount of household deposits is extremely low (on the average, below 1 %), for purposes of the analysis of the time structure there were used only household deposits made by residents. As Table 3 demonstrates, by end-2001, the main share of funds related to demand deposits termed 3 to 6 months and more than a year. At the same time, Sberbank deposits to a certain extent affect the overall picture. Without Sberbank, the structure is dominated by demand deposits termed 6 month to 1 year. It may be also noted that operating banks tend to increase deposits termed 6 to 12 months, and vice versa, the share of short deposits (up to 3 months) tend to decline. By end-2001, this type of deposits was most rare.

The share of deposits termed 6 to 12 months has noticeably increased over the last 2 years 1.8 times.

Deposits termed 3 to 6 months and 6 to 12 months dominate forex deposits. In case the structure of deposits is reviewed without Sberbank, the share of deposits termed 6 to 12 months increases. Ruble deposits for the same term are less frequent. Without Sberbank, their share in the total amount of Ruble household deposits made only 19 % (with Sberbank only 9.4 %) by end-2001. However, in the last 3 years there has been observed a trend toward a growth in the share of Ruble deposits termed 6 to 12 months.

In 2001, the share of Ruble household deposits termed more than a year sharply increased. By endyear they accounted for 30 % of all Ruble deposits, while in early 2000 this value was much lower and made only 3.8 % (8 time growth). However, as Table 3 demonstrates, Sberbank is responsible for this development, since it offers a very attractive option of two-year deposits.

L. I. Sycheva, L. V. Mikhailov, E. V. Timofeev Investment in the Real Sector In January through April of 2002, the amount of investment in fixed assets from all sources of financing made Rb. 352.6 bln., or 101.6 % of the figures registered over the respective period of the preceding year.

The major factors constraining investment activity were a trend towards a decline in internal sources of investment resources of the real sector of the economy related to a decrease in profitability observed since the 4th quarter of 2001, the changes in the taxation of profits, and the abolishment of privileges relating to a considerable number of spheres of investment activities. It shall be also noted that among factors facilitating a decrease in the base of internal sources of financing was the lack of a uniform procedure governing the revaluation of fixed assets, what results in a decrease of the total depreciation and its share in the cost value structure.

The shrinking demand of the oil sector resulted from the changes in the external economic situation and a decrease in the sectors profitability, and outpacing growth of less capital intensive sector of services in comparison to dynamics in manufacturing sector were the structural factors determining moderate dynamics of investment in fixed assets in January through April of 2002.

Pages:     | 1 | 2 || 4 | 5 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .