The largest exporters of raw materials, as well as state-owned banks and other enterprises belonging to the Federal Property Management Agency in 2017, were to pay 397 billion rubles to the budget in the form of dividends. It was possible to collect only slightly more than half 204 billion, the Accounting Chamber reported in June.
It is already clear that next year the situation will repeat, Deputy Finance Minister Alexei Moiseyev said in an interview with Bloomberg on Tuesday.
In the budget-2018 the Finance Ministry has laid 400 billion rubles in the form of dividends of state companies. But "many showed much weaker results than it was expected," Moiseyev said.
"We will not collect 400 billion rubles," he warned, adding that the amount would have to be "substantially adjusted."
The reason for de-zhavyu federal budget, which is half of the revenues from oil and gas exports, this time will be too strong ruble, explained the deputy minister: the average since the beginning of the year, the dollar was 15% lower than the government pawned in the budget.
This hits the revenues of the treasury: the stronger the ruble, the less rubles are earned by commodity exporters for the same amount of currency earnings.
The main disappointment of this year for the budget was Gazprom. The holding received almost a trillion rubles of net profit, however, half of this amount turned out to be a fiction: as a profit, Gazprom took into account the fact that its foreign currency debt became smaller, if we evaluate it in rubles.
"The profit is paper, there is no real cash flow," Russian President Vladimir Putin admitted on May 15. By the end of the year, the budget received from Gazprom only 73 billion rubles instead of the planned 182.6 billion rubles.
Dividends from Rosneft also turned out to be half the plan: its controlling stake belongs to Rosneftegaz, a state fund that is hiding in the shadows, which also owns Rosstetey shares and 11% of Gazprom.
At the end of the year, Rosneftegaz unexpectedly recorded an accounting loss of 90.4 billion rubles, which formally freed him from the need to pay with the shareholder represented by the state.
The source of these losses has remained a mystery: in 2015, Rosneftegaz became a non-public joint-stock company and does not disclose financial statements, despite the fact that it owns key state assets in the energy sector.
In June, at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, First Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich announced that Rosneftegaz would pay dividends of 70 billion rubles from its cash reserves. This is half the amount that he received from the shares of Gazprom and Rosneft. Where the remaining funds were directed, Dvorkovich did not specify.
This year the situation of raw state-owned companies has worsened. In the first half of the year, Gazprom's net profit collapsed 11-fold, and cash flow became negative: the holding received 446 billion rubles from operating activities, and spent 746 billion rubles on capital investments.
Megaprojects for the construction of pipelines to Europe and China brought the company to the cash gap, which was covered by eating stocks in bank accounts and attracting new debt, the total amount of which exceeded 3 trillion rubles.
In the "cash-burning" mode, Rosneft also spent half a year: the company's reserves were cut at a rate of 2 billion rubles a day. Starting a year with 790 billion rubles in bank accounts, by June 30, Rosneft had only 439 billion in cash and cash equivalents.
On operating activities, the company earned 204 billion rubles, and spent 406 billion rubles on investments and investments. Rosneft's net debt has updated the historic record of 2.2 trillion rubles, and the total liabilities (including deferred taxes and the loans that have not yet been produced ) exceeded 7 trillion rubles, which is equivalent to 28% of the reserves of the Russian central bank.
"It's been almost three quarters already and it's already clear that many companies will have substantially lower profits," Moiseyev said on Tuesday. However, lower budget revenues than planned do not mean "we need to change the approach," he noted.