Russian pensioners experienced a new shock, not having time to recover from a two-year freeze on citizens’ savings. The bankruptcy of a number of non-state funds gave rise to opponents of funded pensions to once again talk about their abolition. The first deputy chairman of the Bank of Russia, Sergei Shvetsov, told Lenta.ru about what kind of pension system the regulator sees.

“Lenta.ru”: Sergey Anatolyevich, the period during which citizens can choose between savings and distribution systems expires in four months. Meanwhile, in the previous two years they simply could not make this choice. The funds themselves went through corporatization for two years and entered into the system of guaranteeing pension savings. And choosing one of them was not so easy. It turns out that this time was simply stolen from people. What advice do you now have for our readers?

Sergey Shvetsov: The question is not as simple as it seems. Let's go in order. Each of the pension schemes - distribution and savings - has its own pros and cons. In the first case, the person is awarded points, in the second - real money. In the distribution system, pension payments are provided by future state income, and in the funded system - by actually accumulated funds, including investment income. Both systems have risks, but they are different. The risk of the distribution system is a reduction in budget revenues, creating a budget deficit. The state simply may not have the money to pay pension payments based on points. The risk of the savings system, in turn, may be associated with ineffective investment of funds or - in a separate case - with hyperinflation, the loss of their real value. The investment result depends on the skill of the management company.

If citizens receiving points want not only to rely on the state for payments based on points, but also to save for their old age on their own, they should write an application to the Pension Fund of Russia (PFR) before the end of the year to transfer to the savings system and choose, accordingly, non-state pension fund (NPF) or private management company. Then the appropriate funds will be transferred to their savings accounts. If they don't make it before the end of the year, the money won't be credited to their accounts. If a citizen has not yet decided through whom he wants to invest his funds, then I recommend spending some time to figure it out. If this is not possible, for now you can entrust the management of the funds to a state management company, that is, VEB. To do this, you need to come to the Pension Fund office and write an application. And then, at any time after January 1, the citizen will be able to make his choice in a calm atmosphere.

At the same time, I would like to note that some NPFs have already been corporatized and entered into the system of guaranteeing the rights of insured persons. Together they manage more than 90 percent of the pension savings that were in the non-state savings system before 2014. Their list is on the Bank of Russia website. If a citizen chooses one of these funds, he will cease to be “silent”. At the same time, one should not think that by choosing a non-state pension fund, he will refuse the pension paid by the state. It’s just that after retirement, he will receive the money due to him from several sources: from the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (depending on the number of points he accumulates in the distribution system) and from his non-state pension fund.

In addition, in the savings system, a citizen can voluntarily add his money to the account and thus increase his pension. And through the co-financing system, he will also receive additional money from the state. In the distribution system, there is no such opportunity to increase your future pension. There you can only get what is due in accordance with your length of service, if, of course, the state has the opportunity to make such payments.

And do you think that everyone will figure it out and make a choice by the end of the year?

No, not all Russians will exercise their right to choose in the next four months. Not everyone realizes why they need to save for their old age, still being under the illusion that the state is responsible for their pension. Moreover, not everyone has an answer to the question of how to accumulate their pension. Therefore, the Bank of Russia supports the idea of ​​giving people the opportunity to make a choice between the savings and distribution systems in the future, after January 1, 2016.

After all, there are many people who haven’t even gone to work yet and weren’t even born. They should also have a choice. They should also be able to save for their old age. Today the financial situation is one, but tomorrow it will be different. People's priorities can change throughout their lives.

We support the idea of ​​extending the period for choosing a non-state pension fund or management company for the current generation of working Russians for another two years. You are right when you say that in 2014 and 2015 they were in fact deprived of such an opportunity. But this is not enough, in our opinion. The mechanism may look like this: a citizen should have the opportunity to make a decision and write a corresponding statement when he reaches an age that is a multiple of five - at 25, 30, 35 years, and so on. A person grows up, and his choice will be more conscious.

Why such difficulties? Let the citizen choose whether to save for retirement himself or rely only on the state whenever he wants. No time restrictions.

In principle, you are right. However, such a solution to the issue would create certain problems for the pension fund budget. I have already said that in a point system, your contributions do not go to your account, but to pay pensions to current pensioners, so a sudden transition of a large number of citizens, due to some circumstances, to a funded system from a point system would deprive the Pension Fund of the opportunity to pay pensions to current pensioners. That is why we propose such a compromise option, which excludes a one-time mass flow of citizens from system to system. In general, the Bank of Russia believes that a person should have a choice as a matter of course.

At the same time, I will add that the quality of assets in which NPFs invest Russians’ savings is now monitored by the Bank of Russia. The created system guarantees the preservation of this money. Market participants form a guarantee fund within the Deposit Insurance Agency (DIA). If it turns out to be exhausted, the Agency will be able to obtain a loan from the Central Bank, and in the event of bankruptcy of the fund, the value of the savings will be returned to the citizen.

This mechanism is similar to the bank deposit insurance system, however, when insuring bank deposits, not only the face value is guaranteed, but also the income on invested funds. True, up to a certain amount. In terms of pension savings, it’s the other way around: only the nominal value is guaranteed, but without restrictions on the amount.

There is experience in guaranteeing pension savings in different countries - in some places only the nominal value is guaranteed, in others - the real return (nominal value plus income within the limits of inflation). Since our pension system is in its infancy, the legislator protected only the basic amount of contributions. Other decisions may be made in the future, but this is how the pension system is currently structured.

But I want to emphasize that the guarantee system does not replace supervision and requirements for management quality. In addition, a full guarantee creates client indifference to the choice of a pension fund.

By the way, about the reliability of non-state funds. Recently, the Central Bank revoked the licenses of funds associated with entrepreneur Anatoly Motylev. Why did this happen so late? After all, it was known that not everything was all right with them back in the summer of last year.

We, as a mega-regulator, considered the Motylev financial group as a whole, so we worked with the group’s managers to improve the credit quality of assets to minimize risks for both bank depositors and pension fund clients. We achieved the withdrawal of most of the pension savings from assets prohibited for such investments, in particular from the Russian Credit Bank. For some time, these funds had a positive trend in improving asset quality. We gave them a chance to correct the situation, but at a certain point the shareholders' resources were exhausted, and management's attempts to continue correcting the situation stopped yielding results. This is what led to the decision to revoke the licenses of these seven funds. The funds remaining in the Russian Credit Bank seem to have been lost forever; other assets will be sold by the DIA. At the same time, the Deposit Insurance Agency may well either sell these assets or, for bonds, simply wait for repayment. The assets include securities that are actively traded on the stock exchange and have appropriate ratings. There has not yet been a single default on them.

In accordance with the legislation, the Bank of Russia, without waiting for the completion of the sale of assets by the DIA, will transfer to citizens the amount of the principal debt to their accounts for accounting for pension savings in the Pension Fund, so that citizens who have trusted the Motylev funds will not lose anything in this regard.

Next will come proceeds from the sale of assets. This money will be distributed between the Bank of Russia and fund investors. In this way, investment income will be partially compensated. And clients themselves will be able to choose another non-state pension fund that is included in the guarantee system. Moreover, they will not necessarily have to do this before January 1, 2016; it is possible later, since these citizens have already made their choice in favor of the funded system.

How much of a blow did this story with the Motylev funds deal to the funded pension system?

Definitely, it has a very strong negative effect. But this proves that we have taken the right path towards increased regulation and supervision. Although, in general, the funded pension system is certainly stable, and all the funds included in the guarantee system have structured their work with assets in a high-quality manner.

The fact is that the current system better distributes roles between the government, the Bank of Russia and the funds themselves. It more clearly defines investment objects and business processes, and more effectively divides responsibility for strategic and tactical asset management between non-state pension funds and management companies. Now the NPF will not be able to simply give money to the management company and shift responsibility to it. So the likelihood of similar cases repeating for those funds that are included in the guarantee system is now much lower. Moreover, the Central Bank’s strict selection of funds included in the guarantee system should add confidence to citizens that the old sins of the pension system are a thing of the past. Now that the funds have become joint-stock companies, we can control the owners of NPFs in terms of their business reputation and the ability to help their funds if necessary.

In the banking system, if a bank goes bankrupt, some of its managers may be disqualified and prohibited from working in banks for a certain time. Why not extend this practice to the pension system?

Not only for pensions, but for the entire financial system in general. This may also apply to audit companies. The Administrative Code allows the Bank of Russia to go to court to disqualify one or another manager of a joint stock company. This applies to both board members and top managers. Until now, there has been no such practice - no one has yet applied to the court for disqualification. As a result, pension fund managers could develop a feeling of impunity when committing violations, because by breaking the law, the manager receives benefits for himself and does not risk anything. It is necessary for such responsibility to appear. We are working on this with our colleagues at the Ministry of Finance.

In the UK, courts disqualify managers on average in about 26 percent of cases. This is a fairly large share. Moreover, there are degrees of disqualification: a ban on holding positions in public companies, in financial companies and in general in any managerial positions (even managing a shoe shop). We do not yet have such broad measures in place. But in general, such a measure as disqualification is in our arsenal, and we will pay more attention to it.

Naturally, disqualification will apply if we are talking about management violations related to a violation of fiduciary responsibility to the client, for example, the acquisition of obviously low-quality assets. If we encounter falsification of reports, we will contact the relevant authorities for criminal prosecution of such people. The worst sin in the financial market is disrespect for the regulator. And if a market participant goes so far as to deceive the regulator, for example by submitting false reporting data, then he must bear maximum responsibility for this.

How do you see the configuration of the pension savings market? Are there too many funds?

When we talk about consolidation of the pension market, we do not mean that funds must necessarily merge. Rather, it is the transfer of two or more funds under the control of one legal entity. We welcome this, since the very business model of a pension fund depends on the volume of funds under its management. Getting the investment process right means a lot of money. Only large financial institutions can do this. The business model of small funds is quite questionable. They should focus on a very simple set of tools, but then either they will lose in profitability, or they will have to grow their customer base sooner or later. Perhaps one of the owners has plans to grow this business to the required size in order to receive a normal return on invested capital.

As a regulator, the Bank of Russia cannot say how many pension funds the country needs - this must be determined by the market. Our task is to ensure that there is no dumping and that everyone complies with the requirements for organizing business processes.

We hope that pension funds will gradually abandon placing funds in banks and switch to investing in capital market instruments. After all, the task of the financial sector is to deliver money from those who have it and are not in demand to those who need it. And the pension fund and the bank are both financial intermediaries in this chain. It is very expensive for the economy to have two financial intermediaries - this is a double commission, so we consider it unnatural for pension funds to place funds in banks.

So you are against pension funds investing in bank shares?

These are different things - lending money to a bank or participating in its capital. Investing in shares is participation in business, this is normal. In this sense, banking is no different from any other industry. If an industry has above-average growth prospects, then your investment in that industry has the potential to yield good positive returns. However, investing in shares is a much more complex story than in debt instruments, but if the investment process is properly organized, the income can be much higher than inflation.

The government decided not to extend the moratorium on investing pension savings, but Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets said after that that the discussion was still ongoing, since the pension system was experiencing a deficit. From this point of view, how likely is it that the measures you talked about will be implemented? After all, if the moratorium is renewed, this will have to be forgotten.

Discussions about where to get money to cover the deficit of the Russian Pension Fund will continue as long as this deficit exists. But I consider it strange, to put it mildly, to use citizens’ funds without asking their permission to cover such a deficit. Our citizens have made their choice, which must be respected. In addition, I believe that raising the topic of a moratorium is extremely harmful for the Russian business climate, since the stability of the rules of the game for the industry is a fundamental issue both from the point of view of assessing the value of shares of pension funds and the business model of pension funds, and from the point of view of inflows into the industry of quality capital and intelligence.

The pension system is not only a social function, but also a business that needs clarity. And citizens need to be given guidelines as to what they can count on. Because it’s one thing when I can count on accumulated assets, and quite another when they promise me money for virtual points.

There are no absolutely reliable social obligations; there are specific budget possibilities in a particular year, which determine the possibility of the state fulfilling social obligations. If there is enough income, everything is fine, but if not, there is a forced adjustment of social obligations. The example of Greece is a clear confirmation of this. The decision to lift the moratorium has been made, and we are building our financial market development strategy on the basis of the public statements made by the head of government.

Let's finally return to the needs of potential retirees. How can a working person ensure that his pension is high?

To receive a pension that is not much different from the salary lost due to retirement, you simply need to make additional contributions. A person can do this both through pension funds and through insurance companies; he can generally manage his property independently if he has the appropriate knowledge, skills and time for this. But there is one important point: self-discipline. A person always has situations in life when he needs money for some needs.

These may be various life situations and the temptation to make some large purchases. So, the main unique feature of the pension fund service is that the pension system does not provide the opportunity to take this money and spend it. It would seem that this is a restriction of the rights of the depositor. What's good about this? But a person who has funds in a non-state pension fund does not count on this money while he is working. He cannot take them and spend them. This is how the pension system around the world protects a person from himself and allows him to slowly save up for a decent existence in retirement age.

Education

In 1993 he graduated from Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov. Qualified as an economist-mathematician.

Labor activity

After graduating from university in 1993, he got a position as an economist of the 2nd category in the international finance department of the department of foreign operations of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Over the years of work here, he became a leading economist, and then the head of the sector.

In 1996, he left the Central Bank and took up the post of deputy representative of Ost-West Handelsbank AG in Moscow. Later he became a representative and headed the bank's representative office.

In 2001 he returned to the Central Bank, and until 2003 he headed the open market operations department of the Bank of Russia. Then for about eight years he was director of the department of operations in financial markets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.

Video:

On September 1, 2013, he was appointed head of the financial markets service of the Bank of Russia. He is on the board of directors of the Central Bank and is the first deputy chairman of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.

On October 5, 2016, information appeared in the media that he would become responsible for licensing and financial recovery. Also, under his supervision, licensing, liquidation and financial rehabilitation of all participants in the financial market, including banks, take place.

Video:

The First Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Bank of Russia earned 88.6 million rubles in 2017. At the same time, five apartments in Mexico disappeared from his declaration, but a house in the USA and an apartment in Spain remained.

First Deputy Chairman Sergei Shvetsov earned the most of any Central Bank employee in 2017. He declared income of 88.6 million rubles. - almost three times more than in 2016, when he earned 30.6 million rubles. Shvetsov owns a plot of land and a guest house, an apartment and a share in another apartment in Russia, an apartment in Spain, and a house in the USA, according to documents published on Friday on the Central Bank website.

Five apartments in Mexico, which he owned through a trust, disappeared from Shvetsov’s declaration. Since last year, officials and managers of the Central Bank have been prohibited from owning “foreign financial instruments,” including through third parties and trust management. Shvetsov must make a decision - to resolve the issue with the trust or make a decision about his career, said Ruslan Vesterovsky, director of the department of personnel policy and personnel support at the Bank of Russia, a year ago.

Shvetsov’s wife earned 35.7 million rubles, she owns 4 plots of land, a house and two apartments in Russia and an Infinity FX37 car.

Shvetsov in 2014-2015 topped the list of the regulator's richest employees. However, in 2016, another deputy chairman of the Central Bank, Olga Skorobogatova, became the leader: she then earned 74.2 million rubles. At the end of last year, it declared 62.3 million rubles. All of Skorobogatova’s real estate is located in Russia: two plots of land, two houses, four apartments and two garages. The husband of the deputy chairman of the Central Bank, who owns a share in a Russian apartment and a Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class, registered an income of 1,714 rubles.

In third place in the list of the richest employees of the regulator is first deputy chairman Ksenia Yudaeva. She earned 40.3 million rubles in 2017. versus RUB 31.9 million a year earlier. Her property has not changed over the year: two plots of land (one of them in shared ownership), a residential building, two apartments and a BMW X6.

Sergey Shvetsov oversees financial markets and their professional participants, Olga Skorobogatova oversees the work of the National Payment System and monetary circulation, Ksenia Yudaeva oversees economic modeling and forecasting and establishment of official exchange rates to the ruble.

Chairman of the Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina earned 33.8 million rubles last year, which is 6.9 million rubles more. more than in 2016. The property of the Chairman of the Central Bank also did not change: an apartment, a share in another apartment and a Jaguar S-type car.

He turned out to be a member of trusts that own several apartments in Mexico. And according to the new law, employees of the financial regulator are prohibited from engaging in a business parallel to their main activity.

And a trust is just a parallel business. And Mr. Shvetsov needs to get out of it no later than June of this year. In general, Sergei Shvetsov, even according to the official declaration, turned out to be the wealthiest of the top managers of the Central Bank. In a year he earned almost 60 million rubles. Indeed, in addition to trust matters in Mexico, he turned out to be the owner of real estate in the USA and Spain.

As they say, Shvetsov could earn a decent fortune by heading the Moscow branch of the German bank Ost-West Handelsbank AG. There was a rather murky history with this bank at one time. Money was allegedly withdrawn through him from other problem banks. This may have helped Mr. Shvetsov gain a very good profit.

In general, he had enough personal wealth to buy real estate both in Europe and overseas.

Millionaires of the Central Bank

Thus, Olga Polyakova, promoted by the Chairman of the Central Bank to its board of directors, turns out to be a millionaire, earning almost 15 million rubles per year.

And Mrs. Polyakova is the owner of an account in the Swiss bank Credit Suisse, which contains more than 3 million euros! The media published a copy of an account statement of a woman whose name and surname completely coincide with the data of the head of the main department of the Central Bank for the Central Federal District.

And meticulous journalists found out that Anastasia Sverdel, deputy director of the Central Bank, also has money in foreign banks. The press, in particular, mentions Banco L.J. Carregosa S.A. And there are almost 4 million euros in Sverdel’s account.

And that is not all. Anastasia has a husband, Leonid Sverdel. So, the spouses, as it turned out, own an etching company in Belize called Matherick Group Limited. Its authorized capital is no less than 6.5 million in European currency.

And then there is a bank like Credit Suisse. So Ms. Sverdel keeps “modest” savings of more than 3 million euros. This is how bank employees skillfully make money. They are apparently quite adept at this.

Apparently, this is why the financial regulator often has problems with the transparency of its own income. So, last year, only half of the bank clerks on staff filled out declarations.

Despite the fact that even those who did fill out declarations, these same declarations were drawn up with great violations. That is, there is a gross violation of Russian laws. Was anyone punished for this? There is no certainty.

After all, Russian laws are not written for everyone. And even more so for the main bank of the country.

Bankers are growing

By the way, for those who completed the declaration and completed it according to all the rules, their income for the year increased from 30 to 50 percent. Good job!

Here we can recall another member of the board of directors, Olga Skorobogatova, who filled out everything correctly. So her annual income exceeded 50 million rubles! And at the Central Bank, the lady is responsible for nothing more than monitoring the manifestation of corruption in the banking sector.

Apparently she had very good control! But another deputy of Nabiullina, Mikhail Sukhov, was directly involved in the development of documents on the control of banking corruption.

He has his own rich credit history. It is known that Sukhov actually lobbied for the issuance of a loan of 2 billion rubles to the Moscow Capital Bank. Moreover, the loan is unsecured! Meanwhile, the bank that received this loan was in a state of bankruptcy and revocation of its license.

But Sukhov had the authority to both revoke licenses and override them. And Moscow Capital did not lose its license, and even received 2 billion!

Mikhail Sukhov is also strongly suspected of being involved in the withdrawal of money from such banking monsters as Transcredit, Alfa Bank, Renaissance Capital and Russian Capital. Naturally, using his official position.

True, today Mr. Sukhov is no longer in business. He was, as they say, kicked out of the board of directors. But will this make things easier for the financial regulator? After all, Olga Polyakova came to replace Sukhov. With their multi-million dollar foreign accounts.

Which, according to a new law that has not yet entered into force, she has no right to have. But for now she has. And there are suspicions that it will continue to have. She is a bank employee, and therefore will find a way to “settle” this issue. It’s not for nothing that he works at the financial regulator.

And Shvetsov will find a way to “hide” all his foreign real estate and trust matters. There is no doubt about it.

And the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, persistently instructs Russians to tighten their belts and live within their means. This is probably right in difficult economic conditions. But maybe I can show this by personal example? After all, Elvira Sakhipzadovna herself is far from poor, having increased her annual income by more than 2 times, to almost 25 million rubles.

Muddy trust schemes of Nabiullina’s deputy

Member of the board of directors and first deputy chairman of the Central Bank, Sergei Shvetsov, managed to fulfill the requirement of the new law banning civil servants from owning and using foreign financial instruments. The Central Bank claims that Mr. Shvetsov no longer has income from trusts that owned several apartments in Mexico. According to experts, it is difficult to get rid of participation in a trust and income so quickly, but it is possible given the variety of forms and methods of managing trusts.

As Kommersant reports, today a law comes into force according to which members of the board of directors of the Central Bank, along with civil servants, cannot directly or indirectly own and use foreign financial instruments. The law was adopted on December 28, 2016 and put the first deputy chairman of the Central Bank, Sergei Shvetsov, in a difficult position. To continue working as a member of the board of directors of the Bank of Russia, he urgently needed to resolve the issue of income from participation in foreign trusts. His 2016 income tax return included trusts with five apartments in Mexico totaling 842 square meters. m. Other members of the board of directors of the Bank of Russia have not yet declared such income. Yesterday, the press service of the Central Bank, in response to a request, reported that Mr. Shvetsov got rid of the trusts.

Sergey Shvetsov has been a member of the board of directors of the Central Bank since October 18, 2013. On March 3, 2014, he was appointed first deputy chairman of the Central Bank. Mr. Shvetsov oversees the development of the financial market and access to work on it. Subordinate to him are the Department for the Development of Financial Markets, the Department for Combating Unfair Practices, the Service for Protecting Consumer Rights and Ensuring the Availability of Financial Services, the Department for Corporate Relations, and the Department for Admission and Termination of Activities of Financial Institutions. In particular, Mr. Shvetsov is in charge of the Moscow Exchange and its subsidiaries, coordinating interaction with the Federal Antimonopoly Service and international financial organizations.

The Central Bank refused to explain how Mr. Shvetsov was able to quickly get rid of foreign income unauthorized under the new law. In general, trusts are convenient because ownership of property and receipt of income from it are legally separated. The beneficiaries of the trust receive income from its property, but cannot dispose of it.

Previously, the Central Bank stated that the trust could be liquidated through the sale of real estate. However, lawyers will clarify that this possibility does not exist for all trusts. It is possible to terminate a classic trust (as a rule, we are talking about an irrevocable trust) only in the manner established in the conditions of its creation, after the expiration of the initially established period of its existence or in connection with the destruction of its property. “It is almost impossible to terminate the existence of an irrevocable trust in any other way, even through the courts,” points out Paragon Advice partner Alexander Zakharov. However, there are so-called simple trusts (bare trust), the process of liquidation of which is much simpler, continues Mr. Zakharov. Essentially, we are talking about a trust registered offshore, where the founders are nominees, and the income is received by the final beneficiaries. In this case, you can sell the property from the trust, return it to the owner, and the structure itself is automatically liquidated. Such trusts do not have a direct connection with the final beneficiary, and the income from them is difficult to track, experts point out.

According to experts, you can get rid of participation and income in a classic trust in a short time formally - transfer the property to a new trust, in which the official will no longer be the founder. In this case, the previously existing trust will cease to exist, comments Dmitry Konstantinov, a lawyer at Ilyashev and Partners. And the beneficiary will lose the right to receive payments from the trust fund, adds Alexander Zakharov.

Based on the fact that Mr. Shvetsov declared income from trusts, most likely he was among their founders, experts suggest. He could not sell the Mexican apartments from the trusts, but he no longer has foreign income from them. “In this case, we can talk about transferring property to a trust, the terms of which, in principle, do not imply disclosure of the final beneficiary (there is such a legal form), or about a trust registered in the name of a nominee,” suggested Mr. Konstantinov. “The second option is more likely, because it raises fewer questions.”