WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 12 | 13 || 15 | 16 |   ...   | 21 |

The issuer banks have also shownpreponderance for such a financial instrument as ruble promissory notes(wechzels). By the end of December their proportion in the liabilities of the issuerbanks grew to 6.5% versus 5.1% of an average Russian bank. The preference isfor this wechzel-based financing: the volume of outstanding wechzels from issuer banksis 1.6 times bigger than the outstanding bonds, and at the start of 2001 thegap was even wider: 2.7 times (Table 13).

Table 12

Some indicators of bond-issuing banks


01.01.01

01.07.01

01.10.01

01.12.01

Outstanding rublebonds, in billion rubles

4.70

3.34

4.20

4.07

Outstanding ruble wechzels, in billion rubles

12.61

7.27

8.59

7.83

As a percentage of assets:





Non-government debt in rubles,

0.27

0.04

0.49

0.35

of which debt of resident banks

0.10

0.00

0.16

0.00

of which debt of resident corporates

0.16

0.04

0.33

0.35

Ruble federal debt

1.40

0.37

1.94

1.54

Promissory notes (wechzels) in rubles

14.23

8.94

8.83

8.76

by banks

0.99

0.81

0.38

0.35

by corporates

13.24

8.13

8.45

8.41

Outstanding ruble bonds

8.48

3.09

3.08

4.00

Outstanding ruble wechzels

8.18

7.81

6.83

6.47

Balance capital

17.69

19.64

17.37

21.76

Revenues (annualized)

0.99

1.01

1.01

1.64

For reference:





Average assets of abank in the group, billion rubles

4.37

5.83

7.40

5.11

* less Vneshtorgbank

Estimated from data by STIiK

Banks on corporatedeposits market

The overall corporate deposits market inRussia at the start of 2001 was estimated to be worth Rbs 220 billion. By theend of the third quarter, the amount grew to Rbs 290 billion. After the 1998crisis year, this is one the faster growing segments of the banking market.

In 2000, the volume of assets placed intime deposits by corporates grew 80%, in 11 months of 2001, another 39%, which,in constant prices, was 50% and 18.5%, respectively. In the bank liabilities,the share of corporate deposits grew from 10% early in 2001 to 13% by December2001.

Corporate rubledeposits

The ruble segment of this sector of thebanking market is relatively small. By 2001, the overall amount of depositsmade by corporates stood at Rbs 57.8 billion plus another Rbs 21.6 billion ofdeposit certificates. Throughout 2001, the amount of the deposits raisedfrom corporates more than doubled, and deposit certificates, tripled. Bythe fourth quarter of 2001, the ruble component of the corporate depositsamounted to Rbs 78.7 billion, having grown 36% in three quarters.

The ruble deposit market is not highlyconcentrated, on the one hand, and shows a relatively small group of banksworking there, on the other. Corporate deposits were raised by slightly morethan by half of the banks. If one is to exclude banks under ARCOadministration, by 2001 the leader – Rosbank – accounted for about 20% of thetotal ruble deposits raised. Sberbank and MMB held another 6% each. As aresult, three leaders had 32% of the market, and the top 10 players on themarket accounted for 53%. Of the top 10 leaders, apart from Moscow banks, therewere 3 regional banks (Urals-Siberian bank, Promstroibank from St. Petersburg,and Zoloto-platina bank), and one 100 percent foreign equity bank (Citibank).Overall, Moscow-based banks (less Sberbank) held nearly 64% of corporatedeposits by value. By the end of quarter three, the situation changed asRosbank’s marketshare plummeted, and it dropped to the second place, with 7.3% of the market,ceding its leadership to MMB with 8.6%. The MMB’s growing market share was notdirectly related to its merger with the Bank of Austria, since ruble depositsof the latter accounted for less than 1% of such deposits at MMB. The thirdplace went to BIN Bank, which moved up from its 87th place having raised its share from0.11% to 5.5%, and jumped ahead of Sberbank, which had only 4.5% of the totalcorporate ruble deposits. The summary share of the three leaders increasedslightly to 21.5%, while top 10 banks had 42% of the market betweenthem.

The structure of the deposit certificatesmarket, although smaller, has a higher degree of concentration. Over half ofall certificates of deposit issued by 2001 were issued by only two banks: Trustand Investment Bank and Menatep (St. Petersburg), whose business is not exactlyindependent, since both belong to the same group. The third place went toSberbank (5% of the market); all in all, the product was offered by less than100 banks. Over three quarters of 2001, the situation changed little: onlySberbank’s share ofthe market grew to 7.7%, and the number of banks on that market increased to109.

Market structure by maturity

The ruble deposit market is short-term:most of the capital raised was for the maturity of under three months (over43%, of which about 60% was raised by Moscow banks) (Table 11). The second mostpopular term of the deposits is over 12 months. Regional banks raised depositsfor longer terms than Moscow banks. Over 40% of the raised deposits had amaturity of over one year, while those under three months accounted for 17% ofall ruble deposits.

Table 13

Maturity structure of corporate rubledeposits by the
start of 2001 (inpercent)

Deposits by residentcorporates:

Banks raising ruble deposits (lessbanks under ARCO administration)

All active banks

All active banks less Sberbank

Banks in Moscow and Moscow Oblast, lessSberbank

Regional banks

Oncall deposits

2.5

2.2

2.9

0.9

Maturing in 90 days

43.8

43.4

57.5

16.1

Maturing between 91 and 180 days

17.1

17.1

15.8

19.7

Maturing between 181 days and up to one year

13.6

13.5

9.1

22.1

With a maturity of more than a year,

23

23.7

14.6

41.3

of which with maturities over 3 years

11

11.6

9.6

15.5

For reference:

Average assets (in current prices, billion rubles)

3.08

2.15

4.32

0.91

Number of banks

593

592

216

376

Source: estimated from data bySTIiK

Data as of the end of September 2001suggests that the situation has somewhat changed. The proportion of shortdeposits with a maturity under 3 months with the Moscow banks dropped,triggering a change in this ratio for all of the banks, despite a growth inthis proportion at regional banks from 16.1 to 21.6%. At the same time,regional banks saw a smaller proportion of deposits with a maturity over oneyear which dropped from 41% to 29%. Moscow banks, instead, improved their ratioto 23.9% from 14.6%. They also had fewer deposits maturing between 6 and 12months. As a result, maturities for corporate deposits somewhatlengthened.

Table 14

Maturity structure of corporate rubledeposits as of 01.10.2001 (in percent)

Deposits by residentcorporates

Banks raising ruble deposits (lessbanks under ARCO administration)

All active banks

All active banks less Sberbank

Banks in Moscow and Moscow Oblast, lessSberbank

Regional banks

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 12 | 13 || 15 | 16 |   ...   | 21 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .