Investments of commercial banks into city and regional securities amounted on that date to RUR 17.0 billion, or 53 percent of the market volume, and the volume of lending to subfederal and municipal government agencies was RUR 29.5 billion. Thus, the total funding granted by commercial banks to territorial government agencies was RUR 46.5 billion, or less than 1.2 percent in the structure of the banks' assets.
By November 2002 the exchange turnover in subfederal and municipal securities reached RUR 6.2 billion during the month; the St.-Petersburg Currency Exchange and MICEX were the main trade floors, and RTS is gradually entering this market. The yield spread between government securities and subfederal and municipal securities moved in the 1 - percent range. The yield on most of securities was 13 to 18 percent, which, considering the inflation rate, meant an extremely low real interest rate.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks Among constituent entities of the Federation borrowing in the internal market, Moscow and St. Petersburg became the largest borrowers (including the bond market). The main amount of accumulated debt nominated in foreign currency also fell to their share. Moscow's eurobonds, with the credit rating equal to the sovereign rating, sold with a spread of 1.0 to 1.percent to the yield of RF eurobonds, or within the range of 10 to 11 percent p.a. in Euros.
Thus, even the regions formally entitled to borrow in foreign currency (in accordance with the Budget Code, this right has been granted to the regions repaying the accumulated currency debt) found this less attractive compared with internal loans. At the same time, external loans had the advantage of a comparatively longer term and the possibility to count on comparative lowering of the debt burden from currency-nominated liabilities in case the real exchange rate of the Rouble would grow.
The regions were quite successfully repaying or refinancing the accumulated debt against a background of economic growth and increasing budget revenues, and no new defaults occurred in the market. At the same time, a number of entities of the Russian Federation failed to meet their obligations on the so-called 'agricultural' bonds of 1997 - 1998, with maturity up to three years, that had been issued in the course of restructuring regional debts to the federal budget. However, some investors do not think that the default on the 'agricultural' obligations increases the risk on new loans significantly.
Growing investments by pension funds that are expected to take place in the course of the pension reform, create the necessary conditions for a considerable growth of demand for regional and municipal securities, both due to potential investments by the funds themselves and due to the possibility that they would 'squeeze' investor money out of other sectors of the financial market. The trend towards an increase of the international credit rating of the RF, which encourages the growth of regional credit ratings, has the same effect. In this connection, the ability of regional government agencies to use the attracted funds efficiently gains primary importance.
Dynamics of Market Growth The resulting consolidated regional budget for 2002 had a deficit of RUR 44.1 billion, i.e. 2.7 percent of the expense side, or 0.40 percent of the GDP. The budgets of the entities of the RF had a deficit of almost RUR 37 billion (3.0 percent of the expense side), budgets of municipal entities - a deficit of RUR 20.5 billion (2.8 percent of the expense side).A deficit of the regional consolidated budget was previously observed in Russia in 1999. In 2000 the budget was implemented with a surplus amounting to 0.49 percent of the GDP, and in 2001 the surplus was 0.02 percent of the GDP. There were two reasons that contributed to the increase in budget deficit in 2002 in approximately equal proportions: growth of lending by higher-level budgets and growth in net borrowing on issues of securities and on lending by commercial banks (Table 18).
The amount of deficit of the consolidated regional budget is not equal to the sum total of the deficits of regional and municipal budgets since it does not include the amount of loans extended by regions to municipal entities that are carried as the deficits of municipal budgets but are not included in the deficit of the consolidated regional budget.
INSTITUTE FOR THE ECONOMY IN TRNSITION http://www.iet.ru Table Net Borrowings by Regional and Local Budgets (percent of GDP) Jan. - Jan. - Year 1995 1996 1997 Decem. 1999 2000 2001 Aug. Borrowings from subfederal and local government agencies, in- 0.38 0.87 1.43 0.71 0.33 0.15 -0.29 -0.04 0.cluding:
Repayable loans from budgets of 0.07 0.23 0.66 0.05 -0.09 -0.11 -0.03 0.04 0.other levels Subfederal (municipal) bonds N.a. 0.16 0.22 0.08 -0.01 -0.05 -0.27 -0.07 0.Other borrowings 0.31 0.48 0.55 0.58 0.43 0.31 0.01 -0.02 0.Lowering of balances in budget... 0.03 -0.18 0.09 0.02 -0.19 -0.30 -0.05 -0.accounts Funding deficit out of borrowings and lowering balances in budget 0.38 0.9 1.25 0.8 0.35 -0.04 -0.59 -0.09 0.accounts Source: IET calculations on the basis of data provided by the RF Ministry of Finance The relation of municipal budgets' deficit to their expense side increased only 0.18 percent compared to 2001. The deficit of the consolidated regional budget is explained exclusively by the budgetary policy of RF entities: the surplus of 0.98 percent of the budgets' expense side was replaced by a deficit of 3.02 percent of the expense side. (See Table 19).
Table Consolidated Regional Regional Budgets Municipal Budgets Budget Year 2002 -2.67 -3.02 -2.Year 2001 0.12 0.98 -2.Year 2000 3.41 3.95 -1.Source: IET calculations on the basis of data provided by the RF Ministry of Finance In 2002, in 26 RF entities the consolidated regional budget was implemented with a surplus amounting to a total of RUR 10.98 billion, or 2.29 percent of the corresponding budgets' expenses. The median level of the budget surplus was 1.6 percent of the revenues of the corresponding budget. The greatest ratio of surplus to budget revenues was observed in the Lipetsk Oblast (11.9 percent), Jewish Autonomous Okrug (9.5 percent), Chechen Republic (6.6 percent), Yamal-Nentsi Autonomous Okrug (4.8 percent) and the Leningrad Oblast (4.percent).
Eight RF entities provided over 81.5 percent of the total surplus: the Yamal-Nentsi Autonomous Okrug (21.2 percent of the total surplus, or RUR 2.3 billion), Krasnodar Krai (11.8 percent, or RUR 1.3 billion), Lipetsk Oblast (11.6 percent, or RUR 1.27 billion), St.Petersburg (9.7 percent, or RUR 1.1 billion), Leningrad Oblast (7.5 percent, or RUR 0.8 billion), Chukotka Autonomous Okrug (7.5 percent or RUR 0.8 billion), Chelyabinsk Oblast (6.3 percent or RUR 0.7 billion) and Tyumen Oblast (6.1 percent, or RUR 0.7 billion).
The consolidated regional budget of 63 RF entities was implemented with a deficit in 2002. The budget deficit in these regions totalled RUR 55.1 billion, or 3.78 percent of the revenue side of their budgets.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks The median value of the budget deficit was 2.1 percent of the budget's revenue side.
The highest level of deficit was observed in the Evenki Republic: 30.6 percent of the revenue side (covered out of bank loans); Sakhalin Oblast: 11.5 percent; Nentsi Autonomous Okrug:
8.4 percent; Voronezh Oblast: 7.5 percent; Moscow: 7.4 percent, and Komi Republic: 6.percent (See Table 20).
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.