WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 4 | 5 || 7 | 8 |   ...   | 13 |

Number of shareholders and economic entitys net asset worth should be noted among the abolished requirements. Audits of 2004 revealed a great deal of problems with regard to these parameters in asset management companies which began to invest pension accruals for the first time. Among new regulations which are worth notice were shares capitalization requirements differentiated for common shares and preferred shares. There were no special requirements established for preferred shares in the previous periods. Since 1 July, capitalization of issuers common shares must be not less than RUR billion instead of 300 RUR million under the previous requirements. The threshold for preferred shares was established at 3 RUR billion level.

Let us consider how the new requirements may effect the current stock exchange listings In quarter 2, the MICEX (Moscow International Currency Exchange) listings included common shares of 17 issuers and the RTS (Russian Commodity Exchange) listings included 7 issuers in quarter 2 of 2005. All these issuers were included into the 1 listings at the MICEX. At the same time, GAZPROM shares were included into the 1 listings at the Moscow Stock Exchange (SE). As of The Russian Federal Financial Market Service. Order No. 04-1245/- of 15 December 2004 On Approval of the Provision on Organization of Trading in the Securities Market (Hereinafter referred to as the RFFMS Order) April 2005, 15 of 18 companies met the new capitalization criterion ( see Table 2 ). Common shares of YUTK and Yakutskenergo have small chances to remain in the primary listings of the MICEX after the new requirements take effect13. Neither do Interural meet the new requirements with its common share capitalization varying at nearly 0.5 RUR billion level.

Table Issuers of Common Shares Included into 1 Listings at the MICEX.

monthly average trad- monthly average tradcapitalization, ing volume excluding ing volume, including Name of issuer RUR billion BT, RUR million in BT, RUR million quarter I, 2005 quarter I, OJSC LUKOIL 791.94 25 640.96 29 577.OJSC RAO EES of Russia 319.40 65 880.62 80 250.Sberbank of Russia 307.87 5 416.46 5 899.OJSC Tatneft 100.53 1 155.71 1 243.OJSC Mosenergo 78.52 673.05 734.OJSC Baltika Brewery 61.76 5.37 5.OJSC Mikhailovsky GOK 58.39 23.80 108.OJSC Rostelecom 41.61 13 631.90 14 851.OJSC Uralsvyazinform 33.05 1 233.54 1 550.OJSC Irkutskenergo 29.16 118.20 122.OJSC Volga Telecom 25.43 11.27 11.JSC AVTOVAZ 22.15 283.50 484.OJSC Sibirtelecom 20.48 105.79 121.JSC Samarenergo 12.03 13.55 18.OJSC YUTK 8.31 10.18 11.OJSC Yakutskenergo 7.75 70.44 77.OJSC Interural 0.50 24.71 29.The calculations were made on the basis of the data obtained from the MICEX and Finmarket Information Agency Since the securities which do not meet the criteria under the RFFMS Order are subject to be excluded from the stock exchange listings after 15 July, a reduction by 3 points can be expected in a spectrum of pension accruals available for investment in common shares, whereas the overall capitalization of common shares available for investment of pension accruals will be changed change insignificantly14.

The MICEX 1 listings also include preferred shares of 10 issuers. Shares of two issuers YUTK and Samarenergo are unlikely to meet the new criterion of capitalization of not less than 3 RUR billion ( see Table 3 ).

Capitalization of these companies was calculated on the basis of the highest price at which their shares were traded in quarter 1, 2005: 9.6 RUR billion for YUTK and 9.1 RUR billion for Yakutskenergo.

Exclusion of 3 issuers would reduce the overall capitalization by less than 1%.

Table Issuers of Preferred Shares Included into the 1 Listings at the MICEX monthly average Monthly average trading volume, ex- trading volume incapitalization, Name of issuer cluding BT, RUR cluding BT, RUR RUR billion million, quarter I, million, quarter I, 2005 OJSC RAO EES of Russia 15.29 495.93 849.OJSC Rostelecom 10.73 804.57 903.Sberbank of Russia 8.20 538.11 573.OJSC Volga Telecom 6.50 3.13 3.OJSC Uralsvyazinform 6.20 77.54 82.OJSC Sibirtelecom 4.61 30.72 31.JSC AVTOVAZ 4.39 223.34 324.OJSC Tatneft 4.06 153.46 159.OJSC YUTK 2.20 1.92 1.JSC Samarenergo 0.86 14.93 61.The calculations were made on the basis of the data obtained from the MICEX and Finmarket Information Agency With regard to the shares liquidity criterion, the RFFMS revised it by two parameters. From the point of view of the term, only 3 latest months must be taken into account from now on, rather than the latest 6 ones, and the RFFMS began to calculate the monthly average transactions in shares. At the same time, the minimum value of this parameter was increased by mother than 10 times from 2 to RUR million. Another few issuers of the A1 listings may be excluded under the new requirements. At least 4 companies of those who meet the common share capitalization volume requirement and one company that meet the preferred share capitalization volume requirement failed to reach the required threshold of monthly average trading volume at the MICEX excluding bargaining transactions ( BT )15 over the first three months of 2005 ( see Tables 2 and 3 ). Only one issuer ( Mikhailovsky GOK ) reached the required level of BT transactions.

The majority of issuers may face difficulties with being retained in the primary stock exchange listings due to the new calculation requirement for monthly trading volume, since trading volumes are subject to considerable fluctuations each month. So, Sibirtelecom preferred shares, in addition to Baltica Brewery, Mikhailovsky GOK, Volga Telecom and Samarenergo, may face problems with being retained in primary stock exchange listings due to its transaction volume being below the required level in one of the three months registered.

The 1 listings at the MICEX may be reduced by 8 to 9 items as a result of the new requirements related to shares.

Another instrument permitted for investment of pension accruals corporate bonds is represented in the MICEX A1 stock exchange listings by 17 securities issued by 13 issuers, its total volume of issues being equal to 51.5 RUR billion. The majority of issues meet both new requirements established by the RFFMS for size of issue and monthly trading volume ( see Table 4 ). Only three issuers with total volume of issues being 2.5 RUR billion fail to pass the test on the size of bond issue.

All issuers would comply with the average monthly trading volume criterion if it were not for the new requirements established on 1 April. However, two companies also failed to meet the required level for bonds, RAO EES of Russia in January and VolgaTelecom in February. LUKOIL bonds began to Trading regulations allow both addressed and non-addressed applications.

be traded in February and were out of circulation within three months required for calculation, as of April 200516.

Table Issuers of Corporate Bonds Included into the A1 Listings at the MICEX Monthly Trading volume, RUR milIssue average tradlion Maturity Name of issuer Series and volume, ing volume, date issues RUR quarter 1, January February March million 2005, RUR 2005 2005 million OJSC Gazprom series 3 18.01.2007 10000 570.2 340.1 1136.8 233.OJSC Gazprom series 5 09.10.2007 5000 1174.7 1240.8 1325.9 957.OJSC Gazprom series 2 03.11.2005 5000 75.9 88.9 114.0 24.OJSC LUKOIL* series 02 17.11.2009 6000 188.3 0.0 434.7 130. OJSC Uralsvyazinform series 6 18.07.2006 3000 198.4 143.7 225.6 225.OJSC Uralsvyazinform series 4 01.11.2007 3000 171.3 103.2 92.4 318.OJSC Uralsvyazinform series 2 06.08.2005 1000 87.4 54.1 54.2 153.CJSC AK ALROSA 19 issue 23.10.2005 3000 90.8 35.3 35.7 177.5 issue, OJSC TNK tranche 28.11.2006 3000 56.6 57.2 92.2 20.OJSC RAO EES of Russia series 2 21.10.2005 3000 26.1 6.7 21.8 49.JSC AVTOVAZ series 02 13.08.2008 3000 153.5 170.1 103.0 187.OJSC MGTS series 04 22.04.2009 1500 58.5 89.9 31.0 54.OJSC VBD PP series 01 11.04.2006 1500 104.0 93.7 103.3 115.OJSC Volga Telecom series -1 21.02.2006 1000 34.4 56.4 3.8 42.OJSC OMZ (UralmashIzhora Group) series 4 26.02.2009 900 166.8 22.1 350.2 128.CJSC NOMOS BANK 6 issue 16.08.2007 800 13.4 21.0 5.6 13.OJSC MNPO Polymetall 1 issue 21.03.2006 750 21.5 5.3 14.7 44.* BT not included The calculations were made on the basis of the data obtained from the MICEX and Finmarket Information Agency The MICEX 1 listings are more widely represented by subfederal and municipal bonds. At present, the listings include 55 bond issues of 21 issuers, two of which being municipalities ( see Table ). Total nominal value of subfederal issues equals to about 131 RUR billion, of which 84 RUR billion are the bonds issued by the Moscow Government. Total value of municipal bonds equals to 4.3 RUR billion.

Subfederal bonds of 15 issues of 11 issuers totaling more than 7 RUR billion ( i.e. 6% of the total value of issues) do not meet the new issue criterion of 1 RUR billion. Two out of 4 issues of municipal bonds do not meet the issue volume criterion, both were issued by the Krasnoyarsk Government.

The RFFMSs Provision on Organization of Trading in the Securities Market provides no direct reference on how to calculate transactions volume in this case.

Table Issuers of Subfederal and Municipal Bonds Included into the A1 Listings at the MICEX MICEX trading volume, quarter Issue 2005, RUR million volume, Type, category and number of issue RUR million January February March Subfederal bonds Moscow Government Bonds, 24 issue 3000 0.6 226.0 1 505.Moscow Government Bonds, 27 issue 4000 1.0 59.7 100.Moscow Government Bonds, 28 issue 3000 471.5 381.6 1 720.Moscow Government Bonds, 29 issue 5000 219.0 844.7 665.Moscow Government Bonds, 31 issue 5000 358.9 176.2 104.Moscow Government Bonds, 32 issue 4000 97.3 213.1 173.Moscow Government Bonds, 33 issue 4000 28.9 390.2 296.Moscow Government Bonds, 34 issue 4000 6.2 177.2 1 374.Moscow Government Bonds, 35 issue 4000 12.3 84.6 213.Moscow Government Bonds, 36 issue 4000 0.0 0.0 0.Moscow Government Bonds, 37 issue 4000 361.0 266.1 297.Moscow Government Bonds, 38 issue 5000 265.4 1 382.6 99.Moscow Government Bonds, 39 issue 10000 477.9 1 469.9 433.Moscow Government Bonds, 40 issue 5000 224.3 508.2 489.Moscow Government Bonds, 41 issue 10000 0.0 285.9 10.Moscow Government Bonds, 42 issue 5000 0.0 28.4 4.Moscow Government Bonds, 43 issue 5000 0.0 0.0 0.Moscow Oblast, 4 issue 9600 373.7 1074.6 1131.Moscow Oblast, 2 issue 1000 14.8 2.9 28.Moscow Oblast, 3 issue 4000 171.8 227.7 338.Kahnty-Mansi Autonomous Area bonds, 1 issue 1000 0.0 0.3 1.Kahnty-Mansi Autonomous Area bonds, 5 issue 3000 0.3 22.0 32.Nizhhy Novgorod Government bonds., 1 issue 1000 59.9 81.2 98.Nizhhy Novgorod Government bonds., 2 issue * 2500 - - - Novosibirsk Oblast bonds, 2 issue 2000 137.8 236.9 123.Sakha Republic (Yakutia) bonds, 5 issue 2000 15.2 155.9 48.Krasnoyarsk Territory bonds,1 issue 1500 43.8 17.6 33.Krasnoyarsk Territory bonds ., 02 issue 1500 88.5 58.3 29.Novosibirsk Oblast bonds, 1 issue 1500 142.2 73.3 56.Leningrad Oblast long-term bonds, 3 issue 1300 74.3 168.5 149.Samara Oblast bonds 2003, 1 tranche 1185 8.3 23.8 27.Tver Oblast bonds, 2 issue 1000 48.2 90.4 134.Yaroslavl Oblast bonds 2004, 2 issue 1000 15.6 15.4 22.Yaroslavl Oblast bonds 2004, 3 issue 1000 67.5 55.8 89.Komi Republic bonds 2004, 7 issue 1000 29.9 74.3 49.Sakha Republic (Yakutia) bonds, 4 issue 1000 89.8 65.2 10.Chuvash Republic bonds, 1 issue 1000 27.8 126.4 25.Kostroma Oblast bonds, issue 004** 800 - - 4.Kostroma Oblast bonds, issue 003 300 27.2 37.6 19.Leningrad Oblast long-term bonds, 2 issue 800 96.8 14.5 36. MICEX trading volume, quarter Issue 2005, RUR million volume, Type, category and number of issue RUR million January February March Sakha Republic (Yakutia) bonds., 10 issue 800 37.5 30.2 44.Khabarovsk Territory bonds, 4 issue 700 11.4 16.1 4.Komi Republic bonds, 6 issue 700 6.4 90.1 21.Komi Republic bonds, 5 issue 500 65.0 22.1 45.Voronezh Government bonds, 01 issue 600 76.1 96.6 105.Tomsk Oblast 400 0.4 1.0 26.Tomsk Oblast bonds, 1 issue 500 10.1 10.6 14.Tomsk Oblast bonds, 2 issue 60 34.0 36.2 30.Bashkortostan Republic bonds 2004, 4 issue 500 1.8 25.6 15.Chuvash Resp. Bonds, 03 issue 500 32.4 126.4 162.Khabarovsk Territory bonds 2004, 5 issue 300 40.0 48.3 16.Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area bonds, 1 issue 285 2.9 113.2 106.Municipal bonds Novosibirsk Municipal fixed income bonds, 1 issue 1500 142 168 Novosibirsk Municipal fixed income bonds, 2 issue 1500 138 227 Krasnoyarsk Administration bonds, 1 issue 700 25 53 Krasnoyarsk Administration bonds, 4 issue 630 66 57 * these bonds were placed in April 2005.

** these bonds were placed in March 2005.

The calculations were made on the basis of the data obtained from the MICEX.

A series of bond issuers among those which met the issue volume criterion, failed to meet the monthly transaction volume (excluding BT) of 10 RUR million by the end of quarter 1. In addition, no transactions were registered whatsoever with two issues of Moscow Government Bonds 1 ( 36 and 43 ) in quarter 1. The same is true with the 2nd issue bonds of the Nizhny Novgorod Oblast Government, but they were placed in April 2005. In general, the minimum trading volumes were registered in January, when there were few working days available ( see Table 5 ). On the other hand, the new trading volume calculation rules will require to take into account the trading figures of May, when the number of working days was below the average as well.

In addition to the MICEX, the SPCE ( Saint-Petersburg Currency Exchange ) is another stock exchange where subfederal and municipal bonds are also traded. However, the SPCE 1 listings include only a single bond issuer, Saint-Petersburg ( SP GIO bonds). The listings include 16 issues ( see Table 6 ) totaling 19 RUR billion. Eleven of these issues still remain below 1 RUR billion in volume in spite of the ongoing campaign on consolidation of issues launched by the Financial Committee. The market treats such issues as unattractive and considers less liquid in general. However, the trading statistics of SP GIO bonds at the SPCE provide no solid prove to this opinion. Transaction volume of 5 out of 11 issues with the volume being not less than 1 RUR billion exceeded the new RFFMS criterion during quarter 1 of 2005.

By the time when the new regulations take effect, one of small issues will have been redeemed. Exclusion of 10 other issues from the 1 listings will reduce by quarter the total number of the currently A1 listed issues ( from 19 down to 14 RUR billion ).

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 4 | 5 || 7 | 8 |   ...   | 13 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .