Withdrawal of the license from bank Yugra in the end of July became the largest insurance event and one of the most scandalous. The Prosecutor General's Office tried to prohibit the Deposit Insurance Agency from initiating payments to depositors of Ugra (170 billion rubles), and the owner of the bank, Alexei Khotin (with whom he could not be contacted), after the license was revoked, he sent salvage plans to the Central Bank. Now the courts are considering three cases of Ugra: the introduction of the provisional administration, the revocation of the license and bankruptcy.
The central bank accused "Yugra" of improper conduct of business: the bank fulfilled its demands only on paper, but in fact its business was limited to lending to the owner due to attracted deposits from the population. "Ugra" has always denied this, but it was limited and did not tell about its business. Everything changed with the beginning of the courts: the former chairman of the board of Ugra Dmitry Shilyaev told his version of what happened to the bank, but the regulators - the Central Bank and the DIA - declined to comment.
"On July 6, around 5 pm, they telephoned Baltschug [Central Directorate of the Central Bank for the Central Federal District] and asked to be at [the workplace] for an hour," recalls Shilyaev. - I waited two hours and left. In the district around 19:00, the Central Bank staff came to the bank, took two of our employees, went to Baltschug together, put them in the meeting room and held them for almost three hours - they were given an order at about 10 pm ".
It consisted of two parts, says Shilyaev. The first is to add 13.4 billion rubles. reserves and report on the implementation of up to 15 hours on July 7, the second - until 15.00 on July 7 to submit the reporting forms. "It takes less than 24 hours to fulfill the order, probably when they want to kill the bank," Shilyaev said. "Even to physically carry out all the wiring, all the staff worked all night."
Such tough deadlines are not new, says Kirill Parfyonov, President of the Club of Bank Accountants: "One bank received an order on December 31 to charge additional reserves before the end of the month." It is practiced, according to him, and the provision of reports "urgently for implementation": "Perhaps this is due to the fact that if you accrue quickly and do not give something else to do, then there will be complete certainty that the bank will not come up. It is likely that the decision has already been made and it is only necessary to back it up with reporting. "
Approximately the same happened: on July 7, a meeting of the Banking Supervision Committee of the Central Bank (CBN) was held, the result of which was an order on the introduction of the temporary administration in the person of the DIA from July 10 to "Ugra".
The bank, according to Shilyaev, did everything on time - at 15.05 the reserve report was sent to the Central Bank with a paper version, in which Yugra reported that the reporting forms will be submitted before 5 pm on July 7: "Before we send the report, we They showed him to a working group of employees of the Central Bank checking the bank. In the letter we explained that the required forms are compiled on the basis of data for the entire bank (with branches with different time zones) on the second business day after the reporting date. Therefore, at 15.00 the reporting for July 7 can not be, but we are obligated to provide it before 5 pm, which was done at approximately 16.45, we have a note of the bank's curator on a paper version. " On that day, electronic reporting was sent to the Central Bank, he added.
But on Fridays, the regulator had a short day - just before 16.45 - and did not manage to fulfill the "Ugra" order, representatives of the Central Bank insisted in court. On the short day, however, the Central Bank had much to do, was told at the court: to discuss the financial situation of Yugra on KBN following the order, send a request to the DIA to prepare a plan to prevent the bankruptcy of the bank, obtain the written consent of the agency, and at another meeting of the KBN approve it plan.
"The Central Bank generally looked at the bank's statements then, saw that he had fulfilled the reserve orders and had not violated the standards?" - a lawyer of Ugra asked several times at the court session. The representative of the Central Bank did not answer - he only insisted that it did not matter for the temporary administration (the Moscow Arbitration Court upheld this position).
Without further argument
The Central Bank explained the introduction of the provisional administration in Yugra with detected signs of asset withdrawal and inaccurate reporting, as well as the "technical" execution of its instructions: the bank formed reserves for one loan, and then disbanded in others. Suspicions and very profitable for Yugra deals with derivatives were raised.
Petr Aven member of the board of directors and co-owner of Alfa-Bank
Opening and Binbank were quite market-based banks that worked with a large number of borrowers, had large interbank relationships, while Yugra basically lent to the main shareholder.
According to Shilyaev, the Central Bank officials came with a check in May and did not leave until the very end. This was confirmed at the court by a representative of the Central Bank. "The man at 30 was constantly in the bank" and could watch online, as Yugra is carrying out the order, Shilyaev said.
"We with the Central Bank have never argued, followed all the regulations and recommendations, followed all regulatory documents of the regulator and legislation," he assures. Such humility is atypical. When receiving serious, multi-billion prescriptions between the regulator and the bank, "there always goes first a correspondence and a discussion about the amount of reserves that need to be assessed," says Oleg Vyugin, chairman of the Board of Directors of Safmar Financial Investments, former first deputy chairman of the Central Bank and chairman of the board of directors of MDM Bank : "Valuation [of pledges by an independent appraiser], the financial performance of the business [borrower] or, in addition, something proposed [in the form of collateral for the loan] is also in progress. This is a perfectly acceptable practice on the part of the Central Bank - a discussion of the figures that they have developed. I do not know how now, but the Central Bank used to listen and sometimes even agree on other figures, less cruel. "
There were no other plans
After a comprehensive audit of the Central Bank in July 2016, the bank received an unprogrammed reserve of 76 billion rubles. The main complaints are incorrect assessment of credit risks and collateral value, Shilyaev says: "The method of Ugra <...> was in fact approved by the Central Bank, because [before] it did not cause criticism. A pledged property the bank took into account on the basis of reports of independent appraisers from the top 20 ".
Recognition of collateral and assessment of reserves for corporate borrowers is the most difficult subject for bank inspections, there is no standard practice and there is always a subjective point of view, no methodology will cover all situations, says Pavel Alekseev, Head of Strategy, Planning and Controlling, OTP Bank: "A big role is played by the professional judgment of a bank specialist and the Central Bank. Adequate people work in the Central Bank, but with a certain focus - in order to make up for the reserves. However, they are not very bloodthirsty. "
After that check, the Central Bank, according to Shilyaev, did not issue a precept, Ugra sent objections to the act, in response to the bank "verbally it was recommended to prepare a plan for improving financial stability" - to eliminate the regulator's remarks. In August, a plan was drawn up with a schedule of additional reserves for all of 76 billion rubles. in the first six months, registration of additional collateral and capitalization of the bank, and in the next six months - registration as collateral for the real estate being built by borrowers, he says: "The plan was adjusted after the regulator's remarks about some minor inconsistencies. There were no other plans. "
Dmitry Shilyaev, former governor of Yugra Bank
It seems that the execution of the next injunction irritated the regulator, who expected that we should lie down and surrender.
10 borrowers suspected by the Central Bank in unreliable reporting received confirmation of the auditors about the correctness of the reflection of transactions, new assessments of pledges with a confirmatory examination of the SRO were ordered, Shilyaev lists: "In six months we have formed reserves for the amount of more than 76 billion rubles. and [then] reduced by collateral. In total, collateral was secured for 150 billion rubles. But we did not correct all the reserves, and approximately 60 billion, that is, the net re-creation of reserves was up to 20 billion. "
Here's how it was: every month the bank formed reserves for the portfolio, and the next month they were reduced by issuing new pledges, eliminating comments to borrowers (on grounds of unrealistic activity). This is called improving the quality of the loan portfolio, says Shilyaev. The Central Bank took it differently.
By March 1, Ugra fulfilled its plan and reported to the Central Bank, but the latter began to send new instructions, including on motives of the July verification act of 2016, Shilyaev said: "On May 19, at 7 pm, we were invited to a meeting in Baltschug, where closer to 11 o'clock handed the order to complete the reserves of not less than 46 billion rubles., The implementation was given three weeks. "
All or nothing
In the prescription there were a lot of inconsistencies, Shilyaev said: for example, to form reserves for borrowers who have already repaid the debt. In reality, 57.7 billion rubles had to be formed, he said: "We were in shock, because the bank has already digested these reserves and no comments were made." But the bank also fulfilled this requirement, the capital sank to 33 billion rubles.
It could be worse: in June, the bank received shares of nine companies (less than 20% everywhere) with licenses for 28 oil fields: Yerbogachenskoye, Nizhnekirenskoye, Moktakonskoye and others, as a result of trilateral deals between Yugra, its borrowers and owners assets were repaid loans of more than 8 billion rubles. - due to transfer to the bank of pledged shares, valued at 19.3 billion (copies of reports are available from Vedomosti).
June 13, "Yugra" reported on the implementation of the May order. And on the evening of June 21, a new one arrived - it was necessary to execute it no later than the next day and report back to June 26 inclusive. "It was based again on the July Act of 2016," Shilyaev said. "And we concluded that the Central Bank is taking all possible actions to violate either the requirements of the prescription or the standards." "Even if the borrower is no longer, the bank specified in the reserve reserve is obliged to create and wait until the Central Bank understands and does not recognize the error - such rules," he complains.
The new regulation required to complete the reserves by adjusting the value of collateral for loans of 34 borrowers in accordance with the fair value established by the Central Bank (35.4 billion rubles against 97 billion in the bank's calculations), and for three borrowers - not to take into account the pledged property. These are "Irelyakhneft", LLC "Meridian" and "Multanovskoye", which laid oil wells, gas lift lines and trains from wells. The document does not contain data on Meridian, but is on Irelyakhneft and Multanovskoy: the debt to the bank is 17.4 billion rubles, the security value is 12.6 billion according to Ugra and 8.3 billion according to the Central Bank .
170 billion rubles.
so many deposits were insured in Ugra, the total population of the bank kept 184.7 billion rubles. (data of the Central Bank). With "the most optimistic approach to assessing the imbalance of Ugra, the necessary funding for sanitation would exceed the size of the DIA insurance liability," the regulator noted. The Central Bank explained the collapse of Ugra by its business model: due to the funds of individuals, projects related to beneficiaries were financed, and the scale of the borrowers' activities did not match the size of the loans
The regulator did not allow for the reduction of reserves to take into account the value of collateral - it is applicable only when selling the business as a whole, because "facilities <...> are not able to generate income in isolation from the entire property complex of the deposit," the Central Bank said. "The cost of the collateral was ordered to be reset, although we explained to the Central Bank that the property complex is divided between several collateral agreements for one borrower. Previously, the regulator was calm about this, "Shilyaev said.
If the property complex is broken down under loan agreements, but is in the mortgage for one borrower - this is a strong position, says a former top-manager of banks from the top 20: "The Central Bank allows in this case to reduce reserves by providing." But here the reputation is of tremendous importance, he notes: "If the bank has repeatedly inflated the regulator, then there is no confidence in it. And even when the entire property complex is mortgaged by one contract, the Central Bank begins to doubt the estimates of the bank. If the bank has a good reputation, then 20 pledge agreements are not a problem. "
Vyugin draws attention to the fact that the Central Bank did not respond to Ugra's objections to the verification act: "Some strange practice, perhaps it means that the trust is completely destroyed. In principle, the central bank responds to letters, at least they must answer: "Our position has remained unchanged, your arguments for such and such reason do not pass."
Loss on time
"Yugra" again found a way out. This time the shareholder forgave her a debt of $ 85 million on subordinated deposits. Since 2015, Khotin thus helped the bank by $ 780 million - as the Central Bank suspects, due to the scheme with loans. "Yugra" again reported - the order is executed, everything is in order, says Shilyaev.
The new order - due to which Shilyaev waited in vain for guests from Baltschug - came on July 6. This time, the real estate was recovered: the bank received 115 450 sq. M of compensation from 10 borrowers. m of space in the business centers of Moscow market value of 16.9 billion rubles. At the same time, loans were stopped by about 3 billion, Shilyaev said: "This difference and allowed to fulfill the order." But the Central Bank considered that the fair value of these assets is 6.4 billion rubles, and in a couple of weeks - 5.2 billion, he continues.
Shilyaev speaks about two orders of the provisional administration: on July 12 - to reflect in the balance sheet from July 10 the property received on the basis of the CB estimate (minus 10.5 billion rubles from the capital), on July 27 - to adjust its value based on the new CB rating of July 26 , and reflect the posting on July 21. In total, Ugra, which had daily reports to the Central Bank, had a minimum of three orders of the provisional administration dated July 27 (copies are from Vedomosti), which corrected the balance in the operating day on June 21-that is, in hindsight.
"The Central Bank in this case writes:" Improper accounting, unreliable reporting. " It's safe to say that for a bank that reports daily, sanctions for this would follow, "Parfenov said. "But this is a monument, who will plant it!" This is bad, but they have created such a system, according to which they themselves have a certain judgment, make it fulfill others. But they treat themselves very condescendingly. "
Under the order of July 10, the subsoil users received on expropriated paper were transferred to the appraised at cost, their positive revaluation was canceled and reserves for possible losses on them in the amount of 50-100% were formed. The bottom line: on the balance of Ugra, net investments in these shares were 6 times cheaper than they were, 3.2 billion rubles.
The discrepancies in the estimation of deposits can be much greater, says Sergei Vakhrameyev, portfolio manager of GL Asset Management: "Everyone has different geology, it can cost $ 1 / barrel, or it can not cost anything. To assess the value of an asset, you need internal information: how the field will be developed, when it reaches the peak of production, what oil will be produced. But the most important parameter is the evidence of reserves. " All deposits are medium-sized, with unconfirmed reserves far from communications, extraction is mostly planned only in 2018. Objectively, it is impossible to assess their investment value, Vakhrameev says, or a very large plug will be produced.
Relations with the regulator in "Yugra" worsened in the spring of 2015 - after getting into the list of banks published by the DIA for capitalization through OFZ, Shilyaev said. But at a meeting in the Central Bank was orally proposed to refuse, Shilyaev said, after which the pressure began: new checks with instructions, a demand to disclose the beneficiaries (among them, Alexei Khotin, whose market was considered the owner of Ugra, with 52% categorically refuted), in 2016 - limiting the size of deposits and rates for them, the bank was transferred under the supervision of Moscow and the daily reporting form, he lists. "The bank met all criteria [for capitalization]. We asked the Central Bank to explain which item of the law does not correspond, but did not receive an answer, "complains Shilyaev. In the spring of 2016, Yugra withdrew its application for capitalization by 9.9 billion rubles, but "the Central Bank has become a taste," he says.
Another order issued by the DIA on July 10 was to create 100% reserves for forward contracts with ZAO Extract-Fili and Vostok-Drilling LLC for RUB13.1 bn, concluded in 2015-2016. with calculations in 2018. "This is nonsense, the reserve is formed only for assets that bear the risk of non-return," says Shilyaev. - And under these contracts, the counterparty should transfer the rubles and only then the bank - put the currency. "
Typically, forwards are valued at fair value (based on expected profit), which depends on the volatility of the underlying asset, says senior analyst Fitch Alexander Danilov: "I do not even remember that for them banks created reserves, especially for the full amount of the contract - most likely just an error. " DIA rectified its order of July 27: to restore (i.e., cancel) all these reserves - by 13.1 billion rubles, and in the operational day of July 21.
The next day, July 28, the Central Bank withdrew the license of Yugra, justifying it by the fact that on July 22, after the creation of reserves, negative capital exceeded 7 billion rubles.
Shilyaev believes that the regulators adjusted the figures, and expects to challenge their actions in court.
The main thing is not the form, but the content, notes Danilov: "Perhaps from a formal point of view it matters how much the decision of the Central Bank / temporary administration was issued, but more importantly (for example, for creditors) is the question which banks have on in fact, there are assets and what is their real value. "
All reports on the appraisal of the oil assets that were caught by Yugra were prepared in five days by an expert from the Business Assessment Bureau. He evaluated these companies when their shares were laid in Yugra, so it was logical for him to do a re-evaluation, including because of the timing, explains Shilyaev. The business evaluation office did not respond to the request.
Five companies received appraisal for the property. Accredited under the DIA "Esarji-valuation" diverged from the Central Bank in 3.4 times, the Bureau of the urban cadastre - 5 times. "We do not look at the Central Bank and other comrades," Roman Beloborodov, the general director of the bureau, said. - We have a license, we are checked, we are not some kind of dummy one-day. We are independent experts, analyzed the market, we decided that the figures are the same. " Other appraisers declined to comment.
S.A. Ricci at the request of "Vedomosti" estimated the market value of all 29 real estate "Yugra": 17-21 billion rubles. "The assets are quite decent, they are able to generate a leased stream," says CEO S.A. Ricci Alexander Morozov.
Why borrowers of "Ugra" after the instructions of the Central Bank promptly unsubscribed the bank to the pledge, Shilyaev does not explain. He assures that the real estate transferred to the bank and shares in the oil business were not Khotin's assets: "I only operate with the documents available to the bank. Borrowers and pledgers did not have any legal relations with the shareholder, these structures did not belong to his business, and he was not their beneficiary. " But among the borrowers there were companies that are drilling and in the deposits of the bank's shareholder, he admits: "We are credited with many companies that serve the business of shareholders." "He does not know all shareholders' companies, but the bank" always received information from Khotin's structures about his ownership ":" How deeply we could study the issue was studied so much ". And yet, Shilyaev is confident that borrowers who are not related to Khotin account for more than 90% of the loan portfolio.
"Shareholders struggle with the Central Bank for the bank because they are afraid that the interim administration, when it starts trying to return loans, will restore the chains for which funds have been raised and get to their other assets," Danilov believes.