WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 6 | 7 || 9 | 10 |   ...   | 12 |

- - -1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 CFP Working hours Employment Production capacities utilization rate Fixed assets Fig. 1. Structure of GDP Growth in 1996-After a noticeable post-crisis growth in the dynamics of both, GVA of economic sectors and CFP, a trend to slow-down of growth rates is observed, especially in regard to CFP, where the downgrading is more expressed. An average level of the decrease in GVA growth rate in 2000-2004 made 0.58 p.p., in 2000-2005 0.60 p.p. The decline of CFP growth rate in the same period made 0.49 and 0,52 p.p. To make the results of the estimates less dependant on the indicators of the end and beginning of the year under review, we take into consideration also the decrease of growth rate in terms of linear trend. For GVA of sectors those estimates make 0.21 and 0.17 p.p. in the years of 2000-2004 and 2000-accordingly, and for CFP 0.25 and 0.20 p.p. Those figures demonstrate a tendency, observed in the recent years, to a reduction of CFP impact over the production output growth rates. In view of forecasting properties of CFP as the basic indicator of extensive production growth, this trend can be regarded as a sign of further explicit regress of the production output growth.

One should remember, that the above CFP assessment comprises not only the technological component, i.e., various changes in management efficiency and utilization rate of industrial technologies, contributing to upgrading of that indicator. Application of cost assessment of production and capital may lead to a distortion in physical component of CFP assessment due to unsteady dynamics of GDP and fixed assets value.18. Alongside with that, the Russian economic system is characterized by instability due to dependence on high volatility of oil prices, and in the short prospective the market factors can have a greater impact over the production growth as compared with technological ones.

An evidence of interrelation between unaccounted basic factors (labor and capital), production growth (CFP assessment) and oil prices fluctuations is presented in Fig. Cost assessment of production coincides with physical one, when the state of economy is well balanced and competitive for a long term. In other words, when any exogenous stress is under control in a stable economic system.

8,6,2004 4,00 1997 2,0,-2,-4,-6,y = 0,1156x - 0,-8,R2 = 0,-10,-12,-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 , % CFP growth rates, % Oil prices growth rates, % Fig. 2. Comparison of CFP Growth Rate and International Oil Prices in 1993-12 - - - - 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Balance total Oil prices growth Working hours Employment Production capacities utilization rate Fixed assets Fig 3. Oil Prices Impact on GDP Growth with a Break-Down by Sectors in 1996- For 2006 . oil prices growth rates are estimated for eleven months , % Using that correlation (regardless 1998 as the year of default), one may conditionally split the obtained production assessment results into assessment dependable on the international oil prices and balance total. The latter depends largely on technological efficiency, i.e., an intensive production growth indicator. (See Fig. 3).

Basing on the obtained results, one can see that oil prices dynamics (excluding 2001-2003) makes a greater impact on CFP growth and in some years on GVA of sectors as well. Moreover, in 1999 and 2005 the value of balance total was negative. To some extent such a result can be explained by the method of balance dividing. With a restricted range of studies and a simplified model specification one can obtain only rough estimates. It should be noted that the evaluation of oil prices growth impact over CFP might be overestimated).

As a result, in compliance with the obtained assessments, GDP growth within the years of 20002005 was dependant on extensive indicators (labor and capital) by 80-100 per cent and on prices of the international natural resources market. Moreover, one should note that only the latter indicator is characterized by steady dynamics, while in the background of the existing demographic situation and significantly worn-out industrial production capacities the growth of the basic production indicators is downgrading. Unfavorable changes of market prices may restrain the current rates of economic growth.

E. Astafyeva, .Lugovoy Analysis of the Structure of Pension Deductions of Managing Companies The reporting published by the Federal Service of Financial Markets on the investments of pension assets within 2005, has allowed for the first time to present the trends of pension funds investments in private managing companies and in NPF, rather than the Government managing Company (Vnesheconombank). The structure of Vnesheconombank investments and the aggregated investment portfolio of all private managing companies as of the end of 2004 and 2005 is shown in Figs 1-4.

Assets, allocated in Assets, allocated in credit organizations Other, credit organizations in RUR, 9% 2% in foreign currency, The RF Government Government 8% securities in securities, foreign currency, 80% 1 % Fig. 1. The Structure of Investment Portfolio of the Government Managing Company (Vnesheconombank) as of the End of Assets, allocated Assets, allocated in credit The RF in credit organizations in Government organizations in Other foreign currency securities in RUR 1% 2% foreign currency 14% The RF 10% Government securities in RUR 73% Fig. 2. The Structure of Investment Portfolio of the Government Managing Company (Vnesheconombank) as of the End of The RF Deposits Government Other Assets, allocated 6% securities 9% in credit 17% organizations 10% Bonds of the Municipal bonds Securities Russian economic 2% 22% organizations 22% 12% . 3. The Structure of Investment Portfolio of Private Management Companies as of the End of Deposits Other The RF Government Assets, allocated in 6% 9% securities credit organizations 15% 1% Bonds of the Russian economic Sub-federal Securities organizations Municipal securities securities 19% 20% 3% 27% .4. The Structure of Investment Portfolio of Private Management Companies as of the End of Estimates provided by the Federal Service on Financial Markets. Pension Fund of the Russian Federation.

As it was made clear, the share of government securities of the Russian Federation in the aggregate investment portfolio of private managing companies varies from 0 to 96 % as of the end of 2004 and from 0 to 73 per cent as of the end of 2005, making an average of 17 per cent in 2004 and 15 per cent in 2005. However, there were only two managing companies, whose share in the Russian Federation securities stock has exceeded 50 per cent at the end of 2005, namely Dvortsovaya Ploshad and KIT; in twenty nine of the managing companies portfolios there were no government securities at all, whereas an average share made 15 per cent.

However, unlike the government managing company, private managing companies did not make investments in the Russian government securities nominated in foreign currency. In general, the monetary instruments with fixed yield (federal, sub-federal, municipal and corporate securities) made 54 per cent in the aggregate investment portfolio at the end of 2004 and 64 per cent in 2005. The share of securities as of end of 2004 and 2005 varied within 20 per cent, whereas eleven managing companies had no securities in their investment portfolios as of end of 2005 (See Table 1). In 2004 there were ten such companies, and five of them were continuously following the policy of non-investing in the securities.

The published data do not provide a comprehensive information on the amount of assets, deposited by the management companies in banks. There is no information on bank deposits in the tables with the information on management banks, which is available only on the pension system in general.

Therefore, a significant share of assets is not disclosed. For some companies this indicator exceeds the level of 15 per cent, though the total number of such companies (investment portfolios) has reduced within the year from 28 to 15 (See Table 2).

Table 1.

Private Managing Companies, which Had no Securities in the Investment Portfolios as of End of 2004 and Management company (investment portfolio) End of 2004 End of VIKA + + 1.

Dvortsovaya Ploshad + + 2.

Natiional Management Conpany + + 3.

UNIVER Management + + 4.

TRINFICO (conservative capital saving) + + 5.

PIOGLOBAL Asset Management + 6.

INDUSTRIAL TRADITIONS + 7.

REGION Asset Management + 8.

RN-Trust + 9.

Rostov Trust Company + 10.

YAMAL + 11.

Alpha-Capital + 12.

Alliance ROSNO (conservative) + 13.

INTERFINANCE + 14.

Metropol + 15.

Analytical Center + 16.

+ absence of securities in the investment portfolio Table 2.

Management Companies, Which Have Disclosed The Information on Less Than 85 % of the Structure of the Investment Portfolio as of the End of Management company (investment portfolio) Disclosure, % 1.

NBK 2. AK BARS CAPITAL 3. Central Management Company 4. REGION Asset Management 5. YAMAL 6. RFTS- Capital 7. Zolotoye Secheniye 8. Management. Invetments. Development 9. Rostov Trust Company 10. Pifagor 11. PROMSVYAZ 12. Rosbank Management Company 13. Industrial Traditions 14. Finam Management 15. UNIVER Management As concerns the accumulated pension reserves in the NPF, the data, disclosed by the Federal Service of Financial Markets make possible to review the structure of the investment portfolio only as of one date, the end of 2005. The data is presented in regard to the Funds, which participated in the system of mandatory pension insurance.

Deposits Securities 5% 10% Assets in credit Securities of other institutions Russian issuers 1% Other 24% 7% Government Sub-federal securities securities 21% 32% Note: corporate and municipal bonds are included in securities of other Russian issuers Fig. 5. The Structure of Aggregated Investment Portfolio of Non-Governmental Pension Funds as of the End of Assessment source: Federal Service of Financial Markets.

As compared with the aggregated investment portfolio of private management companies, managing the funds of the Russian Federation Pension Fund, there are fewer securities in the aggregated investment portfolio for mandatory pension insurance of NPF (10 per cent versus 19 per cent). The maximum share of investments in securities made NPF Volga-Capital (31 per cent), whereas 10 out of 43 NPFs had no securities in the investment portfolio for mandatory pension security. The share of government securities of the Russian Federation in the NPF aggregate investment portfolio for mandatory pension security varies from 0 to 99 per cent (NPF StalFond), making on average 21 per cent, what is higher than an average indicator for the private management companies by 6 per cent points.

In general the financial instruments with fixed yield (federal, sub-federal, municipal, corporate securities) made in the investment portfolio 77 per cent, what is also higher than the relevant indicator for the private management companies. The most popular investment instrument for both, private management companies and NPFs happened to be sub-federal bonds: the average share of sub-federal bonds in the aggregate investment portfolio of private management companies made 26 per cent, the same with NPFs 33 per cent.

The amount of assets, managed by private management companies under the agreements with the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, made RUR 5.6 bln as of end of 2005; the amount of assets in the NPF on mandatory pension insurance as of the same date was RUR 2 bln. The share of sub-federal bonds in their aggregate investment portfolio made 28 per cent. Nevertheless, the share of pension fund investments in the total amount of sub-federal bonds in circulation makes only 1.5per cent20. The share of pension investments in the market of corporate bonds is even less (0.4 per cent). Currently the The assessment is based on the data on the amount of sub-federal and municipal bonds in circulation in nominal terms www.rusbonds.ru only segment, where a considerable share of pension savings is invested, is the market of the Russian federal securities (OFZ). Even excluding the assets, invested by the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, that share 21, made as of end of 2005 18.1per cent, out of which 17.9 per cent were made by Vnesheconombank. The share of pension savings in the foreign currency securities of the Russian Federation in the total amount of Eurobonds of the Russian Federation in circulation is much lower, about 2 per cent.

L. Mikhaylov, L.Sycheva Provision of Medicines to Individuals Entitled to the Respective Benefits The system of supplementary provision of certain categories of citizens that receive government social aid from the federal budget (aka the lgotniki) found itself in the state of crisis, which was determined both by the recent corruption scandal and its immanent defects.

The unprecedented for the past five decades arrest of a big group of top civil servants of a federal government agency on the charges of corruption made headlines in November and drew the general publics attention to problems of provision of the lgotniki with medicines. It was the Federal and territorial Funds of Compulsory Medical Insurance that exercised the function of financial management of the system of supplementary provision of medicines to certain categories of citizens entitled for social support from the federal budget, as per Federal Statute # 122 of August 22, 2004.

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 6 | 7 || 9 | 10 |   ...   | 12 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .