WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 4 | 5 || 7 | 8 |   ...   | 9 |

Region Number of Region Number banks of banks Moscow 25 Vologda oblast Republic of Dagestan 14 Kabardian-Balkarian Republic Chuvash Republic 4 Kamchatka oblast St. Petersburg 3 Kostroma oblast Rostov oblast 3 Krasnodar krai Samara oblast 3 Magadan oblast Altai krai 2 Nizhny Novgorod oblast Astrakhan oblast 2 Republic of North Osetia Karach-Cherkesian Republic 2 Republic of Tyva Kemerovo oblast 2 Stavropol krai Omsk oblast 2 Tver oblast Orenburg oblast 2 Ulianovsk oblast Republic of Adygea 2 Yaroslavl oblast Republic of Tatarstan Tyumen oblast Vladimir oblast Table Indicators of the structure of balance and credit portfolio of groups as on December 1, 2002.

All banks without Banks with the Banks with the Sberbank share of consumer share of consumer credits in assets credits in assets above the average above 20% Assets 100 100 Funds in banking sector 34.4 32 27. Loans to NBS 48 54.6 53. Including forex denominated 19.8 16.3 14. Including Ruble denominated 28.2 38.3 39. Including those to individuals 3.1 8.5 32. Including for consumer purposes 2.4 7.1 31. Non-outstanding 47.2 54 53. Outstanding 0.9 0.6 0. Promissory notes (without bank promissory notes) 6.1 6.3 12. Debentures and stocks 9.9 5.4 1. Including government securities 5.6 2.8 1. Other assets 4.8 4.2 4.Liabilities 80.3 81.9 75. Funds of banking sector 16.7 13.7 9. Transaction client accounts and time deposits 46.2 49.9 46. Accounts of non-financial sector 24.8 25.1 23. Deposits 21.4 24.8 23. Deposits of legal entities 9.8 9.4 8. Deposits of individuals 11.7 15.4 15. Bank debentures 12.4 13.9 15. Including promissory notes 10 11 12. Other liabilities 5.1 4.5 3. Balance capital 19.7 18.1 24. Profit * 2.7 1.9 2. Structure of loans to NBS Loans to enterprises 91.7 81.8 38.Loans of budgets and extra-budgetary funds 1.7 2.4 0.Loans to individuals 6.5 15.5 61.Memorandum:

Average amount of bank assets (Rub. billion) 2 1.2 0.Profit to balance capital* 13.5 10.4 8.Number of banks 1322 592 82** Ratio to assets, if not otherwise indicated.

*- ratio to assets (or balance capital), annualized ** Excluding Agrooptbank and KMB bank Table Revenues and expenditures in 3 quarters of 2002 (annualized).

All banks Banks with the Banks with the without share of share of Sberbank consumer consumer credits in credits in assets above assets above the average 20% Indicators in per cent of assets Interest yields 9.4 11.2 13. Including those relating to loans to NBS 6.8 8.9 11. Interest expenditures 4.2 5.2 7. Including those relating to time deposits 1.6 2.0 2. Net interest yields 5.2 5.9 6. Net non-interest revenues 4.3 4.3 4. (-) administrative expenditures 4.8 5.7 7.Including pay to personnel (including social insurance charges) 2.3 2.7 3. Net operational revenues 4.8 4.5 3. (-) change in reserves 1.8 2.5 0. Net result of non-regular operations 0.4 0.2 0.Profits before taxes 3.3 2.2 2.Profits before taxes to balance capital 16.8 12.5 8.Analytical relationships Interest yields on loans to NBS to non-outstanding loans 15.7 19.4 28.Interest yields on loans to enterprises to non-outstanding loans to enterprises 16.1 19.0 24.Interest yields on loans to individuals to non-outstanding loans to individuals 23.3 24.6 33.Interest expenditures relating to time deposits 7.6 7.1 11.Interest expenditures relating to time deposits of enterprises to deposits of enterprises 6.3 5.3 12.Interest expenditures relating to time deposits of individuals to time deposits of 9.4 10.0 10.individuals Memorandum:

Number of banks 1322 592 82* * Excluding Agrooptbank and KMB bank Annualized data, relationships are calculated according to denominator values in the beginning of the period.

L. V. Mikhailov, L. I. Sycheva, Ye. V. Timofeyev Reforming state unitary enterprises: the trends of The radical reform of property relations in Russia carried out over the last decade has resulted in a sharp decline in the size of the public sector in the national economy. However, at present the enterprises exclusively owned by the state, i.e. state unitary enterprises (SUE) continue to play an important role in the national economy and are active actors of the property (civil) turnover.

Until September of 1999, when the Concept of management of state owned property and privatization in the RF (further referred to as the Concept), which for the first time introduced state unitary enterprises as an object of the property state policy, was approved, their legal status had been regulated primarily by the Civil Code. At that time the state had no elaborated system of management of such enterprises yet.

In order to enforce the approaches set forth in the Concept, there were approved the Model charter of the federal state unitary enterprise (FSUE) and the contract with its manager, and introduced the procedures governing coordination with the RF Ministry of Property Relations, new accounting documents for FSUEs.

Besides, there were approved the indicators of economic efficiency of such enterprises and the Register of approved and actual values of efficiency indicators.

In the course of the work related to the further introduction of new accounting documents, indicators of economic efficiency, and organization of the Register carried out in 1999 through 2001, there was taken the next logical step as resolution of the RF Government No. 228 On measures aimed at the improvement of the efficiency of the use of federal property under the economic jurisdiction of federal state unitary enterprises was approved on April 10, 2002. The resolution stipulated that sectoral federal executive bodies should approve FSUE operational programs, set forth the special form of such a program, the rules of elaboration and approval of operational programs and determination of the share in FSUE profits due to the federal budget.

The FSUE operational program shall consist of 4 sections: 1) a brief outline of the progress in the implementation of the enterprises operational program in the preceding year and the first six months of the current year; 2) measures aimed at the development of the enterprise as concerns its operations in procurement and marketing, production, finance and investment, and social spheres (the amount of costs and expected effect of measures alongside with the detailed classification of measures related to each sphere); 3) the budget of the enterprise for the planning period (net proceeds from sale of goods, products, works, services (minus VAT and similar mandatory payments), net profits (loss), the share of profits due to the federal budget, and net assets)9.

The rules governing elaboration and approval of the operational programs and determination of the share in profits of federal state unitary enterprises due to the federal budget were approved simultaneously with the SUE operational program.

It was stipulated that the share of profits due to the federal budget should be calculated by reduction of the amount of net profits (undistributed profits) of the enterprise derived in the preceding year by the amount of the approved enterprises costs borne in the current year under the operational program in relation to the implementation of measures aimed at the development of the enterprise carried out at the expense of its net profits. In the case there is not approved operational program for the current year (excluding 2002), the share of the enterprises profits due to the federal budget in the current year shall be determined by reducing the amount of net profits (undistributed profits) by the amount of mandatory payments to the enterprises funds generated in accordance with the legislation and the charter of the enterprise. Net profits (undistributed profits) shall be determined basing on respective accounting data.

One of the most important factors behind the sluggish development of the situation in the sector of unitary enterprises before September of 1999, when the Concept was approved, was the eight year absence of a special law regulating this organizational and legal form10.

However, the last autumn the law was approved at last, what was undoubtedly the most important development in the sphere of reforming of property relations in Russia. Law No. 161 FZ of November 14, 2002, On state and municipally owned unitary enterprises enacted on December 3, 2002, more precisely defined the stipulations of the RF Civil Code concerning the legal status of state and municipally owned unitary enterprises, the procedures governing the establishment, reorganization, and liquidation of such enterprises, the status of owners of the property of such economic agents, and introduced respective amendments to the rules of the Code.

Similarly to the Civil Code, the law confirms that two types of unitary enterprises may function in the country: those granted economic jurisdiction and those granted operative management rights (public enterprises). The law also grants RF subjects and municipal entities the right to found public enterprises, what had not been stipulated in the RF Civil Code. The principally important fact is that the regulations set forth in the new law embrace not only FSUEs, but also regional and municipal unitary enterprises. Until this law was approved, only federally owned SUEs had been the subject of the whole regulatory and legislative base created in 1999 through 2002.

Among other numerous innovations, there shall be specially mentioned those strengthening state control over unitary enterprises and additional constraints aimed at the tighter financial control. According to the new law, unitary enterprises have to obtain owners approval in order to:

establish subsidiaries and branches;

participate in commercial or not-for-profit organizations;

As concerns enterprises producing most important (strategic) products (works, services), federal executive authorities have the right to introduce additional indicators: volume of sales in relation to 3 to 5 key products (works, services), average number of employees, average monthly payroll, expenditures for social security and health care, implementation of ecological programs.

As Section I of the Civil Code was enacted on January 1, 1995, it was envisaged that founding documents of unitary enterprises should be brought in the agreement with Civil Code provisions on the terms defined in a separate law concerning state and municipally owned unitary enterprises.

dispose of the investment in (share of) the authorized capital of joint stock companies and stocks owned by unitary enterprises;

conduct transactions involving loans, warranties, bank guarantees, other encumbrances, assignments of claims, conversions of debts, and establish societies in participation;

conduct transactions involving the interests of the unitary enterprises managers and large transactions11;

make borrowings.

Unitary enterprises are prohibited to establish affiliates and act as founders (partners) in crediting organizations. The financial resources transferred to the funds created by enterprises may be used only for purposes set forth by federal laws, other regulatory legislative acts, and charters of unitary enterprises. The state or municipally owned enterprise may dispose of movable and unmovable property only in the limits allowing it to conduct operations, the purposes, objects, and types of which are determined by the charter of such an enterprise. Transactions infringing upon this requirements shall be null and void. The affiliates created by unitary enterprises earlier shall be reorganized by the way of merger with the respective founding unitary enterprises within six months after the aforesaid law came into force.

Certain constraints were introduced in relation to the current operations conducted by managers of unitary enterprises. The managers were deprived of the right to be founders (partners) in legal entities, hold offices and engage in other paid activities at state bodies, local governments, commercial and not-for-profit organizations with the exception of educational, scientific, and other creative activities, be as the single executive body or a member of a collegial executive body of a commercial organization except in the cases the participation in a managing body of a commercial organization is an official duty of such a manager, as well as take part in strikes. Managers of unitary enterprises shall be certified in accordance with the procedures set forth by owners of unitary enterprises property.

The enforcement of the stipulations set forth by the law On state and municipally owned unitary enterprises is a most important task in the course of reforming of property relations. Proceeding from the previous experience, it is may be assumed that this task requires a considerable time.

Table The dynamics and sectoral structure of federal state unitary enterprises in 2002 through 2003.

Sectors As on January 1, 2002 As on January 1, . % . % Agriculture and forestry 1368 14,6 1568 16,Science and scientific services 1431 15,2 1431 14,Transportation and communications 1033 11,0 1033 10,Construction 988 10,5 988 10,Trade and public catering 909 9,7 909 9,Maintenance supply and marketing 692 7,4 892 9,Mechanical engineering and metalworking (without medical equipment industry) 879 9,4 879 8,Wood, woodworking, pulp and paper industry 229 2,4 229 2,Health care, fitness, and social security 226 2,4 226 2,Polygraphic industry 219 2,3 219 2,Geology and prospecting of mineral resources, geodesy and hydrometerology 218 2,3 218 2,services Other industries 1202 12,8 1254 12,Total 9394 100,0 9846 100,Source: RF Ministry of Property Relations and the data from its web site www.mgi.ru.

At the same time, it is necessary to stress that the absence of the law could not be a barrier to the state as concerns the consolidation of its management control over unitary enterprises via improvement of the The law sets forth the criteria defining such transactions.

existing regulatory base (introduced in 1999 through 2002), i.e. via elaboration of the model charter and contract with the manager of FSUE and improvement of the efficiency of certification commissions generally oriented towards better retention of state owned property. In this connection, it shall be again stressed that the prospects of enforcing the new law primarily depend on the contents of SUE and MUE charters and contracts with respective managers.

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 4 | 5 || 7 | 8 |   ...   | 9 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .