Книги по разным темам
Pages: | 1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 21 | 0.34
by corporates
3.36
4.19
Balance capital
15.61
16.70
Revenues (annualized)
1.96
2.26
For reference:
Average assets, billion rubles
10.5
9.34
Number ofbanks
60
137
* less Sberbank
estimated from data by STIiK
Let us discuss in more detail a group ofbanks acting as bonds underwriters37 (16 banks) and bondissuers (16 banks at theend of September).
Data on 2001 bond offerings underwrittenby banks is shown in Table 8.
The overwhelming majority of bondunderwriters are major Moscow banks. Let us discuss the group of banks that underwrote corporate debtin 200138.
Aggregate assets of the corporate debtunderwriters among banks in 2001 stood at the end of November at Rbs 467billion, or 23% of total assets of all active Russian banks. The average assetsin this group of banks are Rbs 29 billion, which is 3.1 times that of the CBB-holding banks.
Table 10
List of bank underwriters of corporatebonds in 2001
Avtobank | Urals-Siberian bank(Bashkreditbank) |
Alfa Bank | ALROSA, Lianosovo Dairy Plant, OMZ |
Zenith Bank | RITEK, Nizhnekamskneftekhim, SIBUR, Moscow City Telephone,Tatneft, Bashkreditbank |
VBRR | MMK |
GUTA-Bank | Invest-Inkor, Inkor-Finans, Moscow City Telephone |
Trust and Investment Bank | Tyumenenergo, Moscow City Telephone, RTK-Leasing, ALROSA |
NIKoil | OGO Grain |
Impex-Bank | Tulachermet, Tatneft |
ING Eurasia | TNK |
MDM-Bank | NTMK, Bashinformsvyaz, Tsentrtelekom |
Promsvyazbank | Krasnaya Presnya sugar factory |
Promstroibank (St. Petersburg) | Murmansk Shipping Company |
Reiffeizenbank | SIBUR, Tsentrtelekom |
Rosbank | Aeroflot, MMK |
Northeastern investment bank | Silicon |
Bank ofMoscow | Moscow BakeryFactory |
Sources: www.micex.ru, www.cbonds.ru,Finmarket Information Agency.
Underwriters, as a rule, are activeinvestors. Throughout the year, corporate debt holdings of bank-underwritersgrew 7 times in absolute terms, and by the end of September amounted to anaverage of Rbs 6.1billion. The proportion of CBBs in the assets of these banks rose from 0.3% to1.3%, thus exceeding a similar indicator for CBB-holding banks by 20%. Of all CBB holdings with CBBunderwriting banks only 4% were bank debt, which is understandable since bank debt accountsfor a smaller fraction of the non-government paper market.
However, profitability of theCBB-underwriting banks in 11 months amounted to 1.61% annualized, which isconsiderably less than Russia’s average (2.3%).
The bulk of CBB-underwriting banks (14)have also holdings of ruble government debt. Bond underwriters among banks in the past year cutby half the proportion ofruble federal debt holding in the assets: from 2.6% to 1.14%. It was a biggerreduction than both at an average Russian bank and in the group of banksoperating on the CBBmarket.
The conclusion then is that theCBB-underwriting banks this year were keen to rather acquire corporate debtthan ruble governmentdebt, compared to banks that simply traded in corporate bonds. There is an evergrowing interest on part of potential investors to both corporate and bank debt. Banks are no exception, andamong professional operators on the corporate and bank debt underwriting market, the leaders arebanks. The leading commercial banks have been underwriters or co-underwriters of manybigger corporate and bank debt issues.
However, some investment companies aretaking over the banks in the number of underwritten issues. As a result, more competition is expected between banksand investment companies for CBB underwriting.
Some of the financial indicators ofdebt-underwriting banks are shown in Table 11.
Table 11
Some indicators of CBB underwriter banks
Investment in non-government debt,in bln. rubles, | 0.84 | 2.67 | 4.27 | 6.12 |
of which inresident corporate debt, in bln. rubles. | 0.77 | 2.46 | 3.91 | 5.87 |
As a percentageof assets: | ||||
Non-governmentdebt in rubles, | 0.25 | 0.66 | 0.99 | 1.31 |
of which debtof resident banks | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.05 |
of which debtof resident corporates | 0.23 | 0.60 | 0.91 | 1.26 |
Ruble federaldebt | 2.64 | 1.91 | 1.28 | 1.14 |
Promissorynotes (wechzels) in rubles | 4.12 | 3.77 | 3.45 | 3.51 |
bybanks | 0.35 | 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.13 |
bycorporates | 3.77 | 3.61 | 3.32 | 3.38 |
Balance capital | 15.94 | 13.97 | 14.03 | 13.32 |
Revenues(annualized) | 2.13 | 1.77 | 1.86 | 1.61 |
Forreference: | ||||
Average assets of a bank in thegroup, billion rubles | 20.79 | 25.47 | 26.98 | 29.18 |
Let us discuss now the bond-issuing banks.In 2001, the number of banks that issued their bonds ranged between 12 and 16.By the start of 2001, banks issued a total of Rbs 4.7 billion in debt, Rbs 5.6billion by the start of quarter two, Rbs 3.3 billion by the third quarter andRbs 4.2 billion by the fourth. The proportion of the issued debt in theliabilities of the this group of banks also diminished since early in the year(from 3 to 2%)39.
The regional pattern of issuer banks isquite regular (as of the end of November): half of all issuing banks are located in Moscow and Moscow Oblast, three banks inSt. Petersburg, and the rest in other regions.
In the later half of 2000 the few banksthat resorted to the instrument preferred long-maturing debt (with more than 3 years maturity). Bythe start of 2001, of all the bank bonds, bonds maturing between one and three yearsaccounted for Rbs 1 billion, and those with more than 3-year maturity, for Rbs3.5 billion. The bonds maturing in under one year accounted for less than Rbs200 million. By the end of September, the maturity structure changed somewhat:those maturing between 1and 3 years accounted for almost Rbs 2 billion, and those with more than 3-yearmaturity, for only Rbs1.3 billion. The amount of outstanding debt with a short maturity grew toRbs 900 million. Thus, in 2001, debt-issuing banks showed a preference forshorter maturities.
Let us apply certain indicators tocharacterize issuer banks.
The assets of bond issuers accounted for10% in the overall assets of active Russian banks by the end of November of2001 года, while average assets of issuerbanks were 8 times as high as those of an average statistical Russian bank(less Sberbank).
The group of debt issuers throughout 2001showed a very high proportion of federal debt in their assets: almost 30% atthe start of the year and about 25% by the end of November40. The bulkof this amount is composed of the currency-denominated government debt: on average, 94% of thetotal. The pattern is largely due to Vneshtorgbank: it accumulated 98% of allcurrency federal bonds in the group at the start of the year, and 88% by theend of November (in terms of its currency federal debt holdings, Vneshtorbank is followed by the bankNovaya Moskva, which has only 1/12th of the amount). Less Vneshtrogbank, the rublefederal debt holdings inthe assets of the issuer bank groups is close to Russia’s average (by December, ruble federal debtholdings accounted for 1.5%, with 1.6% average for all banks).
For purposes of analysis, we shall excludeVneshtorgank, the uncontested leader, from the discussed group of issuer banks.Note that deposits in the liabilities of the resulting group account for a smaller percentage thanwith an average Russianbank. Specifically, private deposits in this group accounted for 7.5% ofliabilities, andcorporate deposits, 11.9%, while in an average Russian bank the values are 8.1% and15.3%, respectively. Therefore, bonds in the liabilities of issuer banksУsubstituteФ for another time instrument for the mobilization of resources,viz. deposits.
Pages: | 1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 21 | Книги по разным темам