Bank - a kind of store money. The full definition is applicable to the area of consumer lending. People get the money and the opportunity to purchase something that is vital for them (or seems so). Availability of loans depends, inter alia, on the proper construction of the credit industry.
O how to develop credit sphere, the nature of the crisis, especially the domestic mortgage market told the President of the Association of Russian Banks, Head of National Economy Academy under the RF Government Garegin Tosunyan.
- Karekin Ashotovich, can we talk about some global post-crisis changes in the banks? You feel such a separation of their activities - the "before crisis" and "after"?
- I do not agree to such a division - "before" and "after". Because this crisis was unique. There was a surge in short-term liquidity crisis, but the acute phase is over, and, most importantly - some significant changes for the worse or the better part did not happen.
There were problems with that before the crisis AHML (Agency for Housing Mortgage Lending - approx. Ed.) And the Government called: "Loans and mortgages, and the Agency will buy the mortgages," but these obligations in a crisis, frankly, not always implemented. But it has pushed for what later became AHML provide decent money, but now we have established and operate ARIZHK (Agency for Restructuring of mortgage housing loans - approx. Ed.), And insurance agency mortgages, which, incidentally, was born with ARB and developed a mechanism of credit AHML mortgage banks. That is now rapidly accumulate the necessary tools.
But the link is only with the crisis do not want to, I think it's just the normal process of development.
- With this year's increased requirements to the size of the share capital of banks - now it must be at least 90 million rubles. The new regulations do not conform to all credit institutions. Some due to "capital deficiency" had to leave the market. It is believed that the output (in addition to capital increase), for example, can be a merger of banks. But is this true? Is it advisable to this approach the regulator? What may happen in the future, given that since 2012 capital requirements will rise to 180 million rubles?
- This increase in capital requirements were made roughly at the wrong time. But let us now look back. Moreover, the much more serious concerns are certain statements about the possible substantial increase in banks' capital, almost up to 1 billion rubles. I do not know what motives guided by the apologists of this idea, but categorically oppose.
In the United States operate 9,000 banks and there are many credit institutions with capital less than 100 thousand dollars. In Britain, banks are called only large structure, but financial institutions, similar to our banks, there are tens of thousands.
We have already established the legal framework for microfinance centers. Of course, it is good that they are supporting this sector of the economy, but it turns out that now the medium and small banks "bottom" props competitors that have more lenient regulations or do not have any; "top" as they "pressed" credit institutions other than very large dimensions.
When talking about the state of subordinated loans, the unsecured auctions, small and medium-sized banks "cut off" by the level of capital. Why? I think that the "spectrum" of credit institutions should be broad and continuous! Indeed, in some regions of the loan even at a rate of 5-10 thousand dollars is enough to purchase real estate, and the bank issuing such loans may have a capital of not hundreds of millions of dollars, and only 3-5 million.
I think that after all measures to further tighten the requirements for minimum capital, as mentioned above, will not be realized. Although, in principle, to raise the requirements is a positive sign: in fact, most owners were able to find resources and dokapitalizirovat banks, although they did not want to invest in them. But then ask the question: "Why are they so reluctant and heavily invested in your bank? Why, at the same time ready to invest in the oil industry, in commerce, in the real estate. Perhaps this is also the result of the policy, which is not very conducive to the development of the banking business. So when you want to capitalize on the system, we must do so not by increasing administrative strips for capital, and the creation of a certain investment climate, by which in this area will be willing to invest.
Why are foreigners investing in our banking sector? Because when it comes to big capital, the investment climate in the country more or less acceptable to him. If the billions invested in the bank, the investment is fully justify themselves, because to such owner is treated with increased attention and respect and less on his "bump".
- Is there a solution? How can I create acceptable conditions for small and medium-sized banks?
- It would be logical to identify different segments of the regulation. For example, large banks with capital is not below a certain level, have access to State support in the form of subordinated loans, large unsecured injections.
For medium-sized banks should be your level of support, but there should not be allowed large organizations, otherwise they will "eat" all this support. That will then clear the logic of the many statements of support for small and medium businesses.
In the meantime, we do not support those who have "not above", and those who have "not less". For those who are engaged in regulation of the capital, apparently, there is no problem to provide a continuous "flow of goods" in the financial market. They face the challenge - to build more barriers, restrictions. Why? On the contrary, should be continued lending, and the people as a result of this will have improved access to financial instruments. Then the entire economic body, figuratively speaking, "blood supply" and starts well and develop effectively.
At the other extreme - when lending to developing too rapidly, gets too much dope. Thus, the volume of mortgage loans per capita in America in 1250 times higher than our performance!
- The causes of the crises in our country and the United States still differ? What are the main problems in the Russian mortgage?
- We have a different nature of the crisis. There - gluttony, overeating, here - hungry dystrophy, malnutrition! Dystrophy and obesity - a different problem.
Mortgage we did not develop as a tool for solving social problems. In Russia there was no access to the general population - poor people and members of so-called middle class, and the mortgage in fact, become for some an opportunity to buy real estate with a loan in order to further speculation.
The result has been even greater stratification in society: those who really need housing, with much less likely to acquire it, unlike those homes were in principle not necessary, but they decided to develop their business in real estate.
It's so obvious, so on the surface, but none of the departments from which depends the solution of this problem, in its emphasis not see it. Except, perhaps, AHML. I believe that the Agency is trying to do something in that direction: developing the infrastructure, trying to support different segments of the population. But it is still limited to those subsidies, which allocates state and the law, which applies now.
We have not even begun to implement a socially oriented mortgage program. But if you really want to provide a wide range of mortgage people, it is very simple.
Here, illustrative example of Canada. In this country, specially created insurance agency mortgages, which guarantees the return of banks throughout the loan amount and interest thereon in case of default of borrowers. But these guarantees apply only to poor people: who are taking credit for the first time. If people have enough income for conventional loans, the government did not guarantee them. To credit institutions "guaranteed" borrowers even better than the wealthy, because the first case, all of the risks assumed by the State. As a result, for 10-15 years in Canada has been implemented mortgage program, and homeless remain. So the problem is solved, but only if such a goal really worth to the authorities.
In fact, I believe that lending - a powerful tool for shaping public consciousness and a certain system of relations in the socio-economic sphere. If we want people to really develop your own business, able to feed their families, they must be economically independent.
- It creates the feeling that the society exists and is imposed, including through the media, some "bankofobiya. Utilized in this case this term, which, as far as we know, you put in circulation a few years ago. Some of the legislator, Rospotrebnadzor also sometimes not conducive to creating a positive image of banks. Why is this happening?
- I agree that bankofobiya unwinds. I can offer another term: "economic bullying" - where the system of market management is given at the mercy of big players ... As in the army. "Economic hazing" - is when the regulators primarily interested in what happens to the big players and their supporters. Very accurate, I think, essentially a reflection of what is happening in our society, when all interested only in those who are richer and bigger, older and stronger.
In a society bankofobiya injected artificially, because I always want to find the extreme. Ineffective management need for someone to cancel. Who? Naturally, the banks that make loans at high interest rates! Should be found guilty - and are, moreover, that the perpetrator - not the most miserable (I do not idealize the banks - they will be able to defend themselves).
But the fact is that banks are behaving most economically literate as they are still fairly mundane structures, and under normal conditions of competition would be forced to lower rates on loans, create additional "zavlekalovki" for clients and just run over them. Therefore, they do not have administrative herded into the "necessary" interest.
The question that must be competition. Normal competition! If there was an excess of bank services, we would not have been, perhaps, of interest on loans, there would not be relevant issues in customer service. That is, it is obvious that there is a shortage of proposals. But once there is shortage, why then continue monopolized banking market? Built up such a non-competitive environment, when in Tabor sometimes is not the most effective organizations, and those closest to the authorities or the largest of the formal parameters, which sometimes turn out to be a "colossus with feet of clay, and occasionally burst.
It seems to me that our monetary policy is largely ineffective. How could the most important document is developed annually by the Central Bank and the Government, entitled "Monetary policy, did not provide any measures to promote lending, and all the time it actually contain? At least in one paragraph should include the development of credit markets. However, a lot of talk about inflation, combat, and at the expense of the credit market that you want to compress, not to develop.
I was recently in Switzerland - Geneva constructed, reconstructed: allocated several tens of billions in infrastructure to provide jobs during the crisis. And what did we do? To raise rates utilities, tariffs RZD tariffs on gas! When all of the country during the crisis suffered from deflation, we are proud of the 8% y inflation.
- I wonder whether the majority of banks to engage in long-term lending? Or the market will be dozens of banks offering mortgage?
- Mortgage as a form of credit - one of the most interesting. First, it is multiplying, creates around itself dozens of other businesses. Secondly, it gives people the main chance - to have a family, have a roof over your head, have your own life - that is what you're afraid to lose. That's the main thing.
In the mortgage market there is positive movement, but very slow. Incidentally, it was even in times of crisis. A year ago I was approached for advice friends whose children wanted to take a loan and found a bank where loan rates were at 10%. Another thing is that it required a high level of income security.
I think that reducing the number of banks that deal with mortgages, consumer loans, will not. For example, last year, many banks have turned their potrebprogrammy, and now again beginning to develop them. We do not have time, so to speak, blink, again as hundreds of banks will compete in this field.
At the same time mortgage lending - a very profitable, because labor costs are lower, and risk management - easier. Therefore confident that the mortgage market will develop. Another thing is that it requires certain skills, certain access to sources of refinancing: not every bank the same AHML will work.
- Is it possible to identify some "formula" of interest rate policy of banks? How are rate: Central Bank refinancing rate plus a certain number of interest?
- Much of this issue depends on the risks of the situation, because most of the margin is laid on the potential loan default. The minimum level of borrowing costs now - about 10-15% in rubles and the maximum - 18-20%.
The refinancing rate is now 7.75%, that is, as we see, when determining the value of the primary resource for the banks it is approximately doubled. This inevitably occurs not only due to the risks that banks must take into account, and the margin, but at the expense of operating expenses that are not only an assessment of the borrower, but also in compliance with all regulatory requirements.
By the way, about the requirements. Ministry of Finance has decided that must be submitted to the banks additional requirements to assess the profitability of borrowers. I was recently on the Kamchatka Peninsula, there on the session of the National Banking Council was made following an interesting idea.
In meteorology is the concept of follow-up review of previous forecasts. And can it be transferred to the banking sector? That is, after the repayment by the borrower to analyze whether the supervisory authority of the borrower took in one or another category. If the Bank in its assessment of its borrowers will be at a higher level of understanding and knowledge of customers, it can be to soften the requirements and if, on the contrary, the Bank assesses all clients on the 1 st category, but they were 5-th, then the same can be apply appropriate sanctions and require more stringent assessments of borrowers. That is to say in this matter is needed retroanaliz. When we talk about it, one speaker said: "Yes that's you! What kind of prognosis in question, we have even when the borrower has to repay the loan, begin to ask questions with regard to him and to put sanctions! ".
- That is, interest rate policy depends on several factors. And we can not say that if the refinancing rate will drop suddenly, we assume, up to 3%, the rate on loans is estimated to be at 6%?
- Probably, this ratio is possible, but the question here is not quite a linear relationship.
If the ratio is 3% and 6% - this is normal, then 8% and 16% - is not quite, because the situation more predictable market with 8% y refinancing rate, banks can set lower rates for loans, reducing its margin to 3 -5%, maybe slightly higher - the more you must take the pot. 8-10% margin many think is already too much. But the tradeoff for the uncertainty in monetary policy.
That is, if the banks have been less negative expectations that borrowing costs could be lower than under the current refinancing rate.
- What do you think about the need to introduce so-called irrevocable deposit? How they may affect the credit market?
- I would call these deposits are not irrevocable, and long-term. Today there are none: they are actually demand deposits, since at any moment, anyone can take his money from the bank.
Long-term deposits - a deposit, which will be located at the bank a fixed time: you put money in 3 years and for so many years they are in the bank, was put on 5 years - so all this time, your funds are in a credit institution.
According to opponents, such contributions would infringe on the rights of the consumer, but it is, I think, a complete nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment