russia through a lens - deloitte us · 2020-05-11 · russia through a lens contents 04 russia in...
Post on 13-Jun-2020
8 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Russia through a lensDeloitte Research Centre / 14th issue /1Q 2019
Macroeconomic outlookKey Russian macroeconomic indicators in 1Q 2019
Page 04
Snapshot of the agroindustryCompanies increasingly dependent on state support
Page 24
Maturity assessment of risk management in Russia Maturity rises as constraints persist
Page 33
FinTech market trends Financial technologies as a tool for sustainable business development
Page 38
Содержание
03
Russia through a lens
Contents
04Russia in figures Macroeconomic outlook (GDP, inflation, trade indicators, currency rate, Central Bank key rate, commodity price dynamics etc.)
23Latest from Deloitte Research Centre • Snapshot of the agroindustry • Maturity assessment of risk management in Russia
• FinTech market trends
49Global windTop news: Russia and EuropeTop news: Russia and Asia
51Contacts
50Useful stickers
48Top 5 M&A
We are pleased to present the latest edition of Russia Through a Lens, the macroeconomic journal produced by the Deloitte Research Centre in Moscow.
Established in December 2015, the journal is published quarterly as part of the Research Centre’s monitoring activities.
In Russia Through a Lens, we focus on current key trends in the Russian economy and present our research in the following fields:
• Russia in figures – statistical analysis
• Research Centre market analysis
• Top M&As
If you have any questions or suggestionsregarding this research, pleasedo not hesitate to contact us at:cisresearchteam@deloitte.ru
Designed by the Deloitte Design Group, Moscow
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
04
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
05
Russia in figures
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
06
GDP
The Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) estimates that Russian GDP rose 2.3 percent in 2018, a significant increase on the previous forecast of 1.5 percent for 9M 2018. The reason for this difference was Rosstat’s January 2019 revision of year-on-year construction output growth for 11M 2018, from 0.5 percent to 5.7 percent. This radical revision was due to the inclusion of construction work for the third phase of the Yamal LNG plant, which was launched in 2018.
Source: Rosstat, Ministry of Economic Development
“This figure [GDP estimate for 2018] contains a lot of one-off factors: the increase
in oil production after the end of the first OPEC deal, the large contribution of the financial sector amid an unstable and dangerous boom in consumer lending, and the accelerated growth in reserves also has a short-term nature. Given this, investment is still very far from target levels [...] We are already seeing a slowdown in growth in 2019.”Maxim Oreshkin, Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation
The Russian Central Bank estimates annual GDP growth in Q1 2019 at 1.0-1.5 percent.
Source: “Economy: facts, estimates, commentaries. January 2019” (analytical commentaries by the Russian Central Bank).
GDP dynamics
Q1 GDP (at constant 2016 price), bln RUB
17,5
03
18,6
48
19,7
11
19,1
09
19,6
62
19,6
10
17,3
51
19,9
09
19,7
28
16,1
96
18,0
57
20,0
03
19,9
92
20,2
42
Source: Rosstat, (*forecast) Central Bank of Russia
2009
2013
2017
2006
2010
2014
2018
2019
*
2007
2011
2015
2008
2012
2016
33,2
48
60,2
83
83,1
01
41,2
77
68,1
64
86,0
10
38,8
07
73,1
34
92,0
89
26,9
17
46,3
09
79,2
00
103,
627
106,
300
113,
700
Source: Rosstat, (*forecast) Institute for Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IEF RAS)
GDP, bln RUB GDP growth, % (at current prices)
GDP volume indices, %
2009
2013
2017
2006
2010
2014
2018
2019
*
2020
*
2007
2011
2015
2008
2012
2016
2.3
6.8 12.5
1.6
24.619.3
8.3
24.213.1
3.3-6.07.3
23.5 30.2
5.3
8.2 4.5 0.75.2 3.7 0.3-7.8
1.88.5
-2.5 1.2 2.5
2.6 7.0
4.3
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
07
GDP forecasts
Source 2019 2020 2021
Economist Intelligence Unit +1.5% +1.6% +1.7%
Ministry of Economic Development +1.3% +2.0% +3.1%
Central Bank of Russia +1.2% - +1.7% +1.8% - +2.3% +2.0% - +3.0%
IEF RAS +1.2% +2.5% +2.1%
Standard & Poor’s +1.5% +1.8% +1.8%
Moody’s +1.7% - -
Fitch +1.5% +1.9% -
European Commission +1.6% +1.8% -
World Bank +1.5% +1.8% +1.8%
International Monetary Fund (IMF) +1.6% +1.7% +1.6%
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
+1.5% - -
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
+1.4% +1.5% -
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
08
Inflation rate forecasts
Inflation in January-March 2019*: 1.77 percent Inflation target** for 2019: 4.0 percent
*The inflation figure is the consumer price growth rate over the corresponding month of the previous year (Rosstat).
**The inflation target is set for the consumer price growth rate over the corresponding month of the previous year (Central Bank of Russia).
Fact Central Bank of Russia (*forecast)
Ministry of Economic Development (*forecast)
InflationInflation rate, %
“We expect to see 2019 inflation at a lower level of between 4.7 percent
and 5.2 percent. We had previously forecast 5 percent to 5.5 percent.”Elvira Nabiullina, Governor of the Russian Central Bank
Source 2019 2020 2021
IMF 5.7% 4.8% 4.8%
Economist Intelligence Unit 4.7% 4.1% 4.3%
Fitch 5.3% 4.0% -
Interfax poll (consensus) 4.7% - -
Reuters 4.8% - -
2009
2013
2017
2006
2010
2014
2018
2019
*
2021
*
2020
*
2007
2011
2015
2008
2012
2016
11.9
6.1
12.9
8.8
6.5
2.5
9.0
8.8
11.4
4.3
13.3
6.6 5.4
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.8
5.0
4.3
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
09
Share of products in total eхports/imports to/from the CIS/non-CIS countries (January-December 2018)
Trade structurePeriod: January-December 2018
• Foreign trade turnover: USD 692.6 billion (+17.6% YoY)
• Trade balance: surplus of USD 211.6 billion (+USD 80.6 billion YoY)
• Exports: USD 452.1 billion (+25.6% YoY) Share of the CIS countries 12.1%, non-CIS countries 87.9%
• Imports: USD 240.5 billion (+5.1% YoY)Share of the CIS countries 11.0%, non-CIS countries 89.0%
Period: January 2019
• Foreign trade turnover: USD 47.2 billion (-5.4% YoY)
• Trade balance: surplus of USD 16.0 billion (-USD 2.4 billion YoY)
• Exports: USD 31.6 billion (+7.4% YoY) Share of the CIS countries 10.6%, non-CIS countries 89.4%
• Imports: USD 15.6 billion (-1.0% YoY)Share of the CIS countries 10.8%, non-CIS countries 89.2%
Ехports To non-CIS countries
To the CIS countries
Energy products 67.6% 35.9%
Metal products 9.5% 12.8%
Chemical products 5.2% 12.7%
Machinery and auto 4.9% 17.8%
Food and agriculture products 5.0% 9.2%
Timber, pulp and paper products 2.9% 4.4%
Imports From non-CIS
countriesFrom the CIS
countries
Machinery and auto 50.6% 20.5%
Chemical products 18.7% 14.8%
Food and agriculture products 11.2% 22.3%
Metal products 5.9% 17.3%
Textiles and footwear 6.1% 7.4%
Energy products 0.6% 4.3%
Share of energy products in total exports, % (January 2006 – January 2019)
Source: Federal Customs Service
Percentage in exports to non-CIS countries
Percentage in exports to the CIS countries
Jan
2019
2015
2011
2007
2018
2014
2010
2006
2017
2013
2009
2016
2012
2008
39.5
66.4
35.9
67.6
43.6
73.4
53.0
70.8
32.6
62.0
54.2
73.0
40.9
72.4
35.5
68.0
44.0
70.3
42.0
70.4
55.3
72.7
32.9
63.4
47.0
74.5
42.3
69.6
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
10
Exports (January–December 2018):
Percentage of exports
In monetary terms YoY
In physical terms YoY
Categories
Energy products 63.7% 35.2% 6.4%
17.5% Kerosene
10.0% Coal
3.7% Natural gas
-6.0% Liquid fuels
-6.2% Coke
Metal products 9.9% 19.9% 8.5%
19.7% Cast iron
11.2% Copper and copper alloys
10.5% Semi-finished products of iron or non-alloy steel
-1.3% Aluminium
-3.3% Flat iron non-alloy steel
Chemical products 6.1% 14.2% 3.5%
19.6% Products of inorganic chemistry
5.4% Plastics
2.4% Pharmaceuticals
1.5% Abstergent
-14.9% Fertilizers
-19.9% Paint
Machinery and auto 6.5% 2.7% n/a
13.0% Electrical equipment
6.6% Mechanical equipment
-7.5% Optical instruments and apparatus
3.0% Passenger cars
10.1% Trucks
Food and agriculture products
5.5% 20.2% 19.2%
65.6% Meat
33.0% Wheat
Timber, pulp and paper products
3.1% 18.4% 4.2%
8.7% Plywood
6.7% Lumber
0.8% Cellulose
-2.1% Rough wood
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
11
Imports (January–December 2018):
Percentage of imports
In monetary terms YoY
In physical terms YoY
Categories
Energy products 1.0% 8.2% -2.0%
Metal products 7.2% 8.5% 1.6%
1.9% Ferrous metals
-4.2% Flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel
-22.1% Pipes
Chemical products 18.3% 8.1% 1.2%
7.3% Abstergent
6.9% Rubber
3.4% Plastics
1.4% Organic chemistry
Machinery and auto 47.3% 2.0% n/a
11.8% Electrical equipment
8.9% Optical instruments and apparatus
9.5% Passenger cars
-17.9% Trucks
Food and agriculture products
12.4% 2.4% 1.6%
27.0% Sunflower
18.9% Palm oil
17.9% Cheese and curds
7.4% Citrus
-10.5% Butter
-21.1% Milk and cream
-36.7% Fresh meat and ice meat
Textiles and footwear 6.2% 9.2% 2.5%
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
12
EUR vs. RUB USD vs. RUB
USD forecast (average per year), RUB
EUR forecast (average per year), RUB
Source: Central Bank of Russia
Euro US dollar
Source 2019 2020 2021
IEF RAS 78.1 80.9 83.3
Economist Intelligence Unit 78.3 84.2 82.1
Source 2019 2020 2021
The Ministry of Economic Development 66.4 67.2 67.8
IEF RAS 67.0 68.6 70.6
Economist Intelligence Unit 67.5 69.0 67.7
-2%
4Q
201
8
1Q 2
019
1Q 2
018
1Q 2
019
74.7 74.7
75.9
69.9
+7% -1%
4Q 2
018
1Q 2
019
1Q 2
018
1Q 2
019
65.7 65.766.5
56.8
+16%
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
01-Ja
n-20
15
01-Ja
n-20
16
01-Ja
n-20
17
01-Ja
n-20
18
01-A
pr-2
015
01-A
pr-2
016
01-A
pr-2
017
01-Ju
l-201
5
01-Ju
l-201
6
01-Ju
l-201
7
01-O
ct-2
015
01-O
ct-2
016
01-O
ct-2
017
01-A
pr-2
018
01-Ju
l-201
8
01-Ja
n-20
19
01-O
ct-2
018
01-A
pr-2
019
Currency rateRUB vs. EUR, RUB vs. USD
Average 2015
EUR 68.0
USD 61.3
Average 2016
EUR 74.0
USD 66.9
Average 2017
EUR 66.0
USD 58.3
Average 2018
EUR 74.1
USD 62.9
Average 1Q 2019
EUR 74.7
USD 65.7
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
13
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
14
Central Bank of Russia key rate, %
Forecast of the key rate year-end, %
Russia's credit ratings
Source: Central Bank of Russia
Agency Rating Outlook Date
S&P BBB- Stable 16 Jan 2019
Moody's Baa3 Stable 8 Feb 2019
Fitch BBB- Positive 15 Feb 2019
On 22 March 2019 the Russian Central Bank resolved to keep a key rate at 7.75 percent.
Source 2019 2020 2021
IEF RAS 7.75 6.75 6.25
Economist Intelligence Unit 7.75 7.80 7.50
14.0
0
10.5
0
9.00
12.5
0
10.0
0
8.50
17.0
0
11.5
0
9.75
8.25
15.0
0
11.0
0
9.25
7.75
7.257.50
7.50 7.75
The Central Bank’s key rate, indexes and credit ratings
01-Ja
n-20
15
01-Ja
n-20
16
01-Ja
n-20
17
01-Ja
n-20
18
01-A
pr-2
015
01-A
pr-2
016
01-A
pr-2
017
01-A
pr-2
018
01-Ja
n-20
19
01-A
pr-2
019
01-Ju
l-201
5
01-Ju
l-201
6
01-Ju
l-201
7
01-Ju
l-201
8
01-O
ct-2
015
01-O
ct-2
016
01-O
ct-2
017
01-O
ct-2
018
“There are reasons to believe that last year’s decisions to raise the key rate will likely be
sufficient to ensure that annual inflation returns to the target (around 4 percent) in the first half of 2020. The situation for a number of indicators is developing better than our December expectations: external financial and stock markets have stabilized, the effect of the VAT hike on prices was quite moderate, and inflation expectations have started to decline.” Elvira Nabiullina, Governor of the Russian Central Bank
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
15
Indexes (daily): October 2014–March 2019
The MICEX index hit an all-time high of 2,547 points on 5 February 2019 before correcting, and remained between 2,400-2,500 points throughout the first quarter. The dollar-denominated RTS index, on the other hand, is slightly down on its Q1 2018 level.
Below are the sectoral indices of MICEX, which are calculated on the basis of stock quotes of at least 10 issuers.
Source: Moscow Exchange
MICEX Index, RUB RTS Index, USD
3,000
2,750
2,500
2,250
2,000
1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
01-O
ct-2
014
01-O
ct-2
015
01-O
ct-2
016
01-O
ct-2
017
01-Ja
n-20
15
01-Ja
n-20
16
01-Ja
n-20
17
01-Ja
n-20
18
01-Jan-2018
01-O
ct-2
018
01-Oct-2018
01-Ja
n-20
19
01-A
pr-2
019
01-Jan-2019 01-Apr-2019
01-A
pr-2
015
01-A
pr-2
016
01-A
pr-2
017
01-A
pr-2
018
01-Apr-2018
01-Ju
l-201
5
01-Ju
l-201
6
01-Ju
l-201
7
01-Ju
l-201
8
01-Jul-2018
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
Oil and gas MICEX Index, RUBChange for 2018: +36%Change for 1Q2019: +1%
Electric utilities MICEX Index, RUBChange for 2018: -11%Change for 1Q2019: +5%
Metals and mining MICEX Index, RUBChange for 2018: +9%Change for 1Q2019: +2%
Consumer MICEX Index, RUBChange for 2018: -13%Change for 1Q2019: +3%
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
16
Companies and households, USD bln
CB and banking sector, USD bln
Government, USD bln
Share of external debt in reference to GDP, %
Source: Central Bank of Russia
Other reserves
Currency reserves
Monetary gold
31-D
ec-1
5
31-D
ec-1
6
31-D
ec-1
3
31-D
ec-1
7
31-D
ec-1
4
31-D
ec-1
8
Russian external debt International reserves of Russia, USD bln
Foreign debt and reserves
According to a Central Bank preliminary estimate, Russia’s foreign debt stood at USD 453.7 billion dollars as of 1 January 2019, down USD 64.4 billion or 12.4 percent compared to the previous year. In absolute terms, this is the lowest level of foreign debt since April 2009.
49
309
10
60
308
10
40
453
17
77
346
10
46
328
11
8737
29
368
378
510
433
385
468
EUR
USD
Gold
RMB
Other currencies
30 Ju
n 20
17
30 Ju
n 20
18
Сentral Bank foreign exchange and gold assets
16.1%
46.3%
21.9%
16.7%
0.1%
14.7%
25.1% 32.0%
12.4%14.7%
31-D
ec-1
3
31-D
ec-1
7
31-D
ec-1
4
31-D
ec-1
8
31-D
ec-1
5
31-D
ec-1
6
30
143
345
38
39
132
341
40
62
230
437
32
56
118
344
33
42
182
376
29
4498
312
28
518
512
729
518
600
454
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
17
Russian direct investment abroad
Foreign direct investment in Russia
Direct investment, ("+" - inflow/ "-" - outflow)
Source: Central Bank of Russia
2017
2013
2014
2018
2015
2016
Russian direct investment, USD bln Russia's investments in US treasury bonds, USD bln
Investments
Source: U.S. Treasury Se
p-20
18
Ja
n-20
19
Ja
n-20
14
Sep-
2014
May
-201
5
Jan-
2016
Ja
n-20
18
Sep-
2016
May
-201
7
Mar
-201
4
Nov
-201
4
Jul-2
015
Mar
-201
6
Mar
-201
8
Nov
-201
6
Jul-2
017
Nov
-201
7
May
-201
4
Jan-
2015
Sep-
2015
May
-201
6
May
-201
8
J
an-2
017
Sep-
2017
Jul-2
014
Mar
-201
5
Nov
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Jul-2
018
Nov
-201
8
Mar
-201
7
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
57.1
2
2.0
-35.
1
28.
6
22.
1 -1
5.2
22.
3
6.9
+10.
2
31.9
8.
8
86.
5 6
9.2
-17.
3
36.
8
32.
5
-8.2
-23.
1
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
18
17.1
12.0
163611
210
1 13.3
1314
112
106
19.7
12.3
193911
410
5
17.3
12.5
2229
112
104
17.4
12.5
2414
109
99
17.5
13.4
20-6
105
97
15.5
12.5
201
108
94
12.9
10.6
2213
107
98
12.5
9.6
2622
110
100
Source: Rosstat
Source: Central Bank of Russia
Source: Central Bank of Russia
Inflation for January-March 2019: 1.77%
• Food products: 2.59%
• Non-food products: 1.15%
• Services: 1.46%
Average monthly nominal salary, RUB thousand
Nominal salary dynamics, %
Real disposable household income, %
Debt on individual loans, RUB bln
Debt dynamics on individual loans, %
Share of debt to population income, %
Mortgage loans in roubles issued for the period, RUB bln
Average weighted interest rate in December on individual loans, %
Average weighted mortgage interest rate in roubles, %
The volume of mortgage loans in roubles in 2018 increased by 1.5 times compared with 2017. In total, over 3 trillion roubles were issued during the year.
Household income Individual loan portfolio Mortgage market
Household finances
21.0 418
4,06
4
2010
2010
2010
23.4
746
5,53
5
2011
2011
2011
26.6
1,05
4
7,71
2
2012
2012
2012
29.8
2013
1,38
5
9,92
620
13
2013
32.5
1,80
9
11,2
95
2014
2014
2014
34.0
1,16
9
10,6
34
2015
2015
2015
36.7
1,48
1
10,7
74
2016
2016
2016
39.2
2,02
8
12,1
35
2017
2017
2017
43.4
3,01
8
14,7
53
2018
2018
2018
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
19
4,66
6
4,70
7
Nickel, LME, USD/t Copper, LME, USD/t
Source 2019 2020 2021
World Bank 6,642 6,572 6,503
IMF 6,208 6,279 6,318
Economist Intelligence Unit 6,585 7,113 7,475
Citigroup 6,575 7,000 7,500
JP Morgan 7,650 6,500 -
Fastmarkets 6,533 - -
Source 2019 2020 2021
World Bank 13,895 14,007 14,124
IMF 13,776 13,968 14,092
Economist Intelligence Unit 12,385 11,354 11,678
Citigroup 12,000 13,500 14,000
JP Morgan 13,306 13,125 -
Fastmarkets 13,675 - -
Source: Finam Holdings
Oct
-15
5,10
610
,045
Feb-
168,
530
Jun-
164,
847
9,31
5
Oct
-16
4,87
210
,425
Oct
-17
6,93
811
,850
Feb-
176,
012
10,9
60
Feb-
186,
920
13,7
45
Feb-
196,
492
13,0
65
Jun-
175,
968
9,37
5
Jun-
186,
536
14,9
40
Nov
-15
4,57
18,
855
Mar
-16
4,81
68,
495
Jul-1
64,
910
10,6
35
Nov
-16
5,87
911
,170
Nov
-17
6,78
011
,385
Mar
-17
5,85
410
,020
Mar
-18
6,66
513
,390
Mar
-19
6,52
812
,995
Jul-1
76,
382
10,2
20
Jul-1
86,
183
14,0
65
Oct
-18
5,86
311
,540
Sep-
176,
498
10,5
20
Sep-
186,
150
12,5
45
Dec
-18
5,82
710
,645
Dec
-15
8,82
0
Apr
-16
5,03
19,
425
Aug-
164,
603
9,77
0
Dec
-16
5,53
010
,055
Dec
-17
7,26
412
,645
Apr
-17
5,72
89,
455
Apr
-18
6,74
813
,675
Aug-
176,
841
11,7
95
Aug-
185,
876
12,8
10
Nov
-18
6,15
511
,095
Jan-
164,
499
8,61
0
May
-16
4,56
78,
465
Sep-
164,
880
10,5
15
Jan-
176,
004
9,96
5
Jan-
187,
057
13,4
90
Jan-
196,
094
12,4
75
May
-17
5,67
58,
950
May
-18
6,74
615
,300
Maximum for the period
Minimum for the period
15-year minimum
Nickel and copper
Top pricing (nickel and copper)
Copper forecast, USD/t
Nickel forecast, USD/t
Maximum for the period
“Copper demand growth should slow versus 2018, but anything above 0 percent is
sufficient to tighten the market, jolting it from its finely balanced state into outright deficit.” Source: Morgan Stanley
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
20
Aluminium, LME, USD/t Gold, COMEX, USD/oz
Source 2019 2020 2021
World Bank 2,162 2,132 2,104
UBS Group AG 2,034 2,188 2,205
IMF 2,105 2,137 2,165
Economist Intelligence Unit 1,940 1,975 1,950
RBC Capital Markets 1,957 1,984 1,984
Citigroup 2,075 2,250 2,300
JP Morgan 1,971 2,150 -
Fastmarkets 1,948 - -
Source 2019 2020 2021
World Bank 1,264 1,229 1,196
UBS Group AG 1,300 1,325 1,350
Goldman Sachs Group 1,325 1,425 -
Economist Intelligence Unit 1,343 1,375 1,270
RBC Capital Markets 1,338 1,300 1,300
Citigroup 1,331 1,375 1,400
JP Morgan 1,294 1,460 -
Source: Finam Holdings
Oct
-15
1,14
21,
481
Feb-
161,
245
1,57
2
Jun-
161,
323
1,62
6
Oct
-16
1,27
71,
737
Oct
-17
1,27
02,
161
Feb-
171,
245
1,92
1
Feb-
181,
314
2,13
2
Feb-
191,
313
1,90
5
Jun-
171,
241
1,92
3
Jun-
181,
254
2,13
2
Nov
-15
1,07
11,
449
Mar
-16
1,23
31,
521
Jul-1
61,
357
1,64
0
Nov
-16
1,17
71,
731
Nov
-17
1,27
82,
046
Mar
-17
1,25
21,
961
Mar
-18
1,32
52,
005
Mar
-19
1,91
1
Jul-1
71,
276
1,91
8
Jul-1
81,
230
2,07
8
Oct
-18
1,22
01,
956
Sep-
171,
283
2,10
6
Sep-
181,
192
2,05
4
Dec
-18
1,28
51,
853
Dec
-15
1,06
11,
501
Apr
-16
1,29
51,
672
Aug-
161,
313
1,61
5
Dec
-16
1,15
21,
688
Dec
-17
1,30
52,
280
Apr
-17
1,26
51,
918
Apr
-18
1,31
32,
250
Aug-
171,
325
2,12
8
Aug-
181,
207
2,11
8
Nov
-18
1,22
81,
950
Jan-
161,
122
1,51
5
May
-16
1,21
71,
557
Sep-
161,
319
1,67
3
Jan-
171,
211
1,82
1
Jan-
181,
347
2,21
0
Jan-
191,
323
1,29
8
1,90
7
May
-17
1,27
11,
931
May
-18
1,30
32,
296
Maximum for the period
Minimum for the period
Minimum for the period
Gold and aluminium
Top pricing (gold and aluminium)
Aluminium forecast, USD/t
Gold forecast, USD/oz.t.
Maximum for the period
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
21
Natural gas forecast, USD/mmbtu
Crude oil forecast, USD/bbl
Source 2019 2020 2021
U.S. Energy Information Administration 2.9 3.0 -
World Bank 2.7 2.7 2.8
IMF 2.8 2.7 2.6
Economist Intelligence Unit 2.8 3.2 3.3
Source 2019 2020 2021
U.S. Energy Information Administration 62.8 62.0 -
Fitch 65.0 62.5 -
European Commission 61.0 61.0 -
World Bank 75.2 68.9 67.9
IMF 72.3 69.4 66.8
IEF RAS 62.0 65.0 65.0
JP Morgan 72.6 63.7 -
Economist Intelligence Unit 66.0 60.5 67.5
Central Bank of Russia (Urals) 55.0 55.0 -
Ministry of Economic Development (Urals) 63.4 59.7 56.4
Brent crude oil, ICE, USD/bbl Natural gas, NYMEX, USD/mmbtu
Source: Finam Holdings
Oct
-15
2.31
50
Feb-
161.
70
37
Jun-
162.
96
50
Oct
-16
3.00
49
Oct
-17
2.91
61
Feb-
172.
77
56
Feb-
182.
65
65
Feb-
192.
79
66
Jun-
173.
04
49
Jun-
182.
92
79
Nov
-15
2.25
45
Mar
-16
1.95
40
Jul-1
62.
84
43
Nov
-16
3.34
52
Nov
-17
3.06
63
Mar
-17
3.19
54
Mar
-18
2.73
69
Mar
-19
2.68
68
Jul-1
72.
83
53
Jul-1
82.
78
74
Oct
-18
3.27
75
Sep-
173.
02
57
Sep-
183.
02
83
Dec
-18
2.96
54
Dec
-15
2.35
38
Apr
-16
2.14
47
Aug-
162.
87
47
Dec
-16
3.74
57
Dec
-17
2.72
64
Apr
-17
3.28
52
Apr
-18
2.78
75
Aug-
173.
05
53
Aug-
182.
92
78
Nov
-18
4.64
59
Jan-
162.
22
36
May
-16
2.28
50
Sep-
162.
90
50
Jan-
173.
16
55
Jan-
182.
96
69
Jan-
192.
82
61
May
-17
3.09
51
May
-18
2.95
78
Maximum for the period
Minimum for the period
Minimum for the period
Brent oil and natural gas
Top pricing (oil and gas)
Maximum for the period
OPEC’s crude oil exports in February slumped to their lowest level since 2015. The oil cartel saw exports fall to 23.5 million barrel per day in the first half of February, driven by declining output in Saudi Arabia, coupled with the drop in production in Venezuela and Iran due to US sanctions. OPEC's monthly report shows that oil production in Venezuela has fallen by more than 25 percent in the first two months of the year. All of this could lead to a minor deficit on the global market in Q2 2019.
Source: International Energy Agency
Russia through a lens | Russia in figures
22
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre
23
Latest from Deloitte Research Centre Snapshot of the Agroindustry – 2018
Maturity assessment of risk management in Russia
FinTech Market Trends
Snapshot of the agroindustry – 2018
You can find the full report by following the link «Snapshot of the agroindustry – 2018»
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Snapshot of the Agroindustry – 2018
25
Key indicators
Key findings
4.1%
2.5%2.9%1.1%
2016
2017
2018
*
3,60
4
3,64
7
3,68
7
Growth
Agriculture GDP (RUB billion)
* The forecast of the Russian Economic Development Ministry
** The index is a weighted indicator on a scale from -1 to +1 based on the answers of the respondents.
Top three drivers of the Russian agroindustry competitiveness in the global market
• Government support
• Stable legislative and regulatory policy
• Lower cost of energy resources
Agriculture, 2018
Agriculture, 2019
The index for the current state of the Russian agroindustry** increased by 7 points to 0.40 compared to 2017.
The index** for the current state of a company increased by 11 points.
The index for prospects of the Russian agroindustry** fell by 7 points to 0.10.
The business growth outlook index** edged up by 3 points.
270 RUB billion
Net financial result of agroindustrial companies in 2017
Margins, 2017
Pig farming
Milk production
Aviculture
Vegetable farming
Margins, 2018
Statistical data
Survey data
Deloitte’s estimates
Growth
No change
Decrease
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Snapshot of the Agroindustry – 2018
26
Government support for agroindustry
* (on a scale from -1 to +1 where -1 and +1 correspond to a negative view and a positive view, respectively, 1 point = 0.01)
** The profit before tax comprises respective profit indicators in the crop and animal farming industries, according to Rosstat
48 %
Satisfaction with the process of obtaining subsidies (2018, y-o-y)In 2017, the satisfaction with subsidy experience was at -0.16* versus +0.24 in 2018 (on a scale from -1 to +1)
• completeness and availability of information on preferential loans
• administrative dimension
• amounts of preferential lending
The impact on corporate profits
Government support for agriculture
158 RUB billion
234 RUB billion
16,241RUB billion
1.4% 185RUB billion
86%
The federal budget expenditures
2017
The profits of agroindustrial companies**
2017
The share of subsidies in the profit before tax of agroindustrial companies (crop farming, animal farming)(%)
2015
2016
2017
52 50
6570 72
86
According to Rosstat
According to SPARK Interfax
54 %
75 %
Three years total
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Snapshot of the Agroindustry – 2018
27
Challenges and strategies
Global agroindustry market
Innovation and green agenda
Top 3 issues for the Russian agroindustrial companies
Top 3 strategies for the Russian agroindustrial companies
Top 3 technologies planned for implementation
High cost of energy resources
Increasing production
output
Smart farms
Insufficient government support and
financing
Enhancing the production base (launch of new
facilities)
Biotechnology (biopesticides, biofertilizers,
biofuel, biopharmaceuticals)
Lack of skilled person-
nel
Cost cutting
Customization of the product
mix
1 1
1
2 2
2
3 3
3
89 %Representatives of agroindustrial companies believe it is necessary to increase the economic efficiency through automation of key business processes.
29 %
0.13of companies stated that they had formalized ‘greening’ in the corporate policy and actively work to implement it.
The weighted rating of innovation adoption by agroindustrial companies is 2 points below that of Russian companies*
Top 5 countries and regions producing agroindustrial products
• Asia (ex-China and India)
• China
• Brazil
• India
• US
Top 5 countries and regions producing agroindustrial goods
• China
• Asia (ex-China and India)
• US
• EU (28 countries)
• India
Forecast for global consumption of key agroindustrial products (2019–2020)
Corn
Wheat
Soybeans
Dairy products
Sunflower oil
* (on a scale from -1 to +1 where -1 and +1 correspond to a negative view and a positive view, respectively; 1 point = 0.01)
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Snapshot of the Agroindustry – 2018
28
Assessment of the effect of the Government’s export support program
* Compared to the GDP in 2017 and flat exports scenario
The average annual increase in the GDP* until 2024 as a result of the growing agroindustrial export
The total effect of the agroindustrial export support program on the GDP in 2018–2024
The total effect of the agroindustrial export support program on the GDP in 2024
The total additional tax revenue in 2018–2024 resulting from an increase in the agroindustrial production and exports
Additional tax revenue resulting from an increase in agroindustrial exports in 2024
0.3 %
7,175 RUB billion
2,159 RUB billion
1,028 RUB billion
308 RUB billion
2.4 percent
69 percent
of representatives from agroindustrial companies expect that the export revenue is set to increase in the next five years
Top five industries (besides the agroindustry) that are likely to post a maximum production growth upon implementation of the agroindustrial export support programTransport accounts for 17% of the increase in GDP due to the
In order to implement this program, the exports of animal farming products (poultry and pork) should be increased 7 and 6 times, respectively, while the exports of oilseeds should grow 6 times.
6times
7times
6times
implementation of export support program, wholesale trade services – 9%, construction – 5%, for services related to real estate – 5%, machinery and equipment – 3%.
1 2 3 4 5
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Snapshot of the Agroindustry – 2018
29
Russia’s Export Strategy – 2024: assessing the impactAssessment of the impactOn 10 September 2018, Sergey Levin, Russia’s Deputy Agriculture Minister, presented the federal project for Agroindustry Product Exports. This project is designated to implement the presidential decree on increasing agricultural exports twofold to USD 45 billion by 2024. The additional financing required for the project implementation amounts to RUB 696 billion.
Based on that, Deloitte CIS and the Institute for National Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IEF RAS) analyzed the impact of a potential export growth on key economic and industry indicators (the GDP and associated tax revenue).
* The data for 2018–2024 is presented as per the International Cooperation and Export Project
2014
2016
2015
2017
2018
*
2020
*
2019
*
2021
*
2022
*
2024
*
2023
*
7,947
11,400
8,2507,5509,053
7,644
10,707
5,9797,8657,264
5,967
5,351
8,550
6,095
3,977
6,876
4,646
7,694
2,679
3,0753,036
2,406
5,482
8,471
6,0305,109
6,693
5,374
7,497
3,065
3,5482,937
2,827
2,281
4,313
2,595
1,881
3,050
2,022
3,500
2,508
2,6872,880
2,619
1,318
2,200
1,571
1,156
1,947
1,280
2,042
943
1,0551,205
881
747
5,212
1,355
1,886
3,263
1,356
5,226
969
1,162786
809
587
2,161
606
508
1,232
565
1,943
454
499552
425
461
703
522
371
572
400
639
258
486211
160
826
1,990
976
562
1,314
713
1,752
219
325109
120
27,000 45,00030,00023,000 35,00025,000 41,00017,074 20,70218,981 16,215
Cereals and grain legume
Fish and crustaceans
Meat and sub-products (ex. Finished meat products)
Fats and oils
Confectionery
Beverages
Sugar industry products
Food industry products
Other
Total
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Snapshot of the Agroindustry – 2018
30
* Provided that the agroindustrial exports increase compared to the flat exports scenario
** The amount of support cited as per the addendum to the minutes of the meeting no. 24 held by Presidential Presidium for Strategic Development and Priority Projects on 24 September 2018
Assessment of the impact on the GDP growth
Assessment of the impact on the tax revenue growth*
2018
2022
2019
2023
2020
2021
29
181
55
257
80
118
2024
308
2%
0% 1% 1%2%
0% 1%
2018
2022
2019
2023
2020
2021
202
1,26
1
378
1,79
8
556
820
2024
2,15
9
2024 GDP growth(RUB billion)
Agroindustry 528
Transportation 367
Retail 196
Construction 107
Real estate 107
Machinery and equipment 69
Chemicals 69
Banks 66
Government services 59
Energy 58
Oil products 55
Other 478
Incremental GDP growth (billion roubles)
Share of GDP (%, 2017)
Incremental tax growth (billion roubles)
According to our preliminary estimates prepared jointly with IEF RAS, the total effect on the tax revenue growth (RUB 1,028 billion) will be nearly three times higher than the financial support for the project (RUB 350 billion)**
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Snapshot of the Agroindustry – 2018
31
MethodologyThe methodology for assessing the tax effect from increasing agroindustrial exports
* the following commodity groups were selected: grain, fish and seafoods, meat and meat products (excluding end products), fat-and-oil products (excluding oilseeds), confectionery products, beverages, sugar industry products, other food industry products, other products (including oilseeds).
** The methodology for assessing indirect macroeconomic effects of the incremental output growth is described in more detail in following paper:“Assessment of multiplier effects in the Russian economy based on input-output tables” (M. Yu. Ksenofontov, A.A. Shirov, D. A. Polzikov, A. A. Yantovskiy// Forecasting issues. 2018. No. 2. pages 3–13).
https://ecfor.ru/publication/otsenka-multiplikativnyh-effektov-na-osnove-tablits-zatraty-vypusk/
The assessment of the direct incremental tax revenue growth resulting from the agroindustrial exports growth was calculated in several stages:
• Development of the target export growth scenario based on headline indicators for 2017* and the following breakdown by agroindustrial products (the calculations were linked to the base-case scenario providing for a USD 45 billion increase in agricultural exports by 2024);
• Splitting incremental export revenue between agribusinesses, logistics and wholesale companies in accordance with the expert assessment of the revenue allocation within the value chain per each agroindustrial product item;
• Calculation of the direct tax effect based on expert assessments of the structure of expenditures and taxation parameters for separate agroindustrial product categories, as well as in the logistics and the wholesale trade;
• Calculation of incremental domestic production cost growth in agroindustry (agricultural raw materials in the processing industry and the animal feed, seeds, organic fertilizers, and hatchery eggs in the agriculture), using expert assessments of the material cost structure in various agroindustry’s segments and the share of imports in the respective costs;
• Assessment of incremental tax growth in the agroindustry based on expert assessment of the expenditure structure and tax parameters in production of some types of agri-cultural products for
intermediate consumption.In addition, we assessed indirect tax effects in the industries related to agroindustry, logistics and trade. The calculations comprised the following stages:
• Calculation of incremental growth of other material costs for select domestic agroindustrial products, as well as logistics and wholesale trade as per the expert assessment of the material cost structure in these segments, and the share of imports in the respective costs;
• Calculation of incremental compensation and profit growth in agroindusty, logistics, and wholesale trade based on the expert assessment the compensation and profit share in the output in these industry;
• Assessment of incremental final demand growth of households, government and businesses, given the additional revenue.
The required elasticity indicators, e.g. the elasticity of household consumption by revenue was calculated on the basis of the institutional account matrices published by Rosstat. The structure of the final demand (separately for household consumption, fixed asset accumulation and government consumption) was used in order to calculate the incremental final demand growth for products from various segments which took shape in the Russian economy in the base period. These calculations were based on Rosstat’s statistical data reflect in input-output tables (inter-industry balance) for 2015:
• Calculation of the incremental final demand for domestic products from households, government and businesses, given the share of imports in the respective product consumption in various industries. These calculations were performed separately for household consumption, government consumption and fixed asset accumulation. The share of imports in the final consumption on the basis of the import matrix and inter-industry balance for 2015 (released by Rosstat);
• Assessment of the total indirect incremental output growth in various sectors resulting from the incremental growth of final and intermediary demand for domestic products (see paragraphs 2.1 and 2.4). The calculations were performed in accordance with IEF RAS’ methodology based on the static model of the inter-industry balance. The incremental agricultural output growth which has been accounted for in assessing the direct effect from the export expansion was not taken into account in order to avoid double counting;
• Calculation of the total indirect incremental tax growth in various industries based on the tax payment/output ratio in the based period in those industries (according to the inter-industry balance, as well as Rosstat’s data on the tax revenue extracted from Form 1-NOM for 2015).
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Snapshot of the Agroindustry – 2018
32
The calculation of indirect macroeconomic effect on the basis of the static model of the inter-industry balance shows that the export growth should have no significant impact on the structural economic parameters (the structure of material costs in various industries, the share of import in the domestic consumption of various products, the elasticity of final consumption by revenue of households, governments and businesses).
Constant prices were used to perform these calculations. The unit material costs were adjusted to expected productivity growth in using primary resources in order to account for production efficiency in the Russian economy for the forecast period (e.g. the adjustment ratio for 2024 with respect to the 2015 level equaled 0.82). The shares of imports in the final consumption in various industries were constant.
The calculations did not account for effects related to additional investment required for achieving the agroindustrial export growth targets.
Key scenario assumptions Corporate export revenue forecast for the next five years
Expected to grow
Expected to stay flat
Expected to fall
69%
31%
Sixty nine percent of representatives from agroindustrial companies expect that the export revenue is set to increase in the next five years One third of the respondents (31 percent) do not expect such changes to take place. Companies with revenue of RUB 2–5 billion (80 percent) and companies with more than 500 employees (80 percent) tend to anticipate export revenue growth more often than other representatives of the agroindustry.
Maturity assessment of risk management in Russia
You can find the full report by following the link «Maturity assessment of risk management in Russia»
(in Russian)
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Maturity assessment of risk management in Russia
34
Maturity level: the weighted value of respondents’ responses (on a scale from 0 to 1)
Executive summaryRisk management profile
The average number of employees engaged in risk management
The average number of years risk management functions have been operational
Is most likely to initiate and supervise risk management activities
Of companies have an approved risk management policy
4
4
Chief Executive Officer
80%
Risk management maturity weak spots in non-financial companies
• The low level of engagement of company executives in risk analysis and the risk management system
• A lack of the necessary competencies to conduct a quantitative assessment of the impact of risk on corporate objectives and budgeting
• A lack of structured and regulated processes, which complicates the implementation of risk management into operating activities
Future risk management developments
• The development of a risk management culture
• The integration of risk management into target-setting and KPI/KRI development
• The integration of risk management into the budgeting process
Cyber risks
85% Of organisations consider cyber risks to be a major concern
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Maturity assessment of risk management in Russia
35
Think that internal control activities are conducted based on the risk-oriented approach
Said that risk is taken into consideration when carrying out all key back office business processes
Think that internal audit activities (audit plan, reporting structure) are conducted based on a risk-oriented approach
Said that information about risk management is disclosed in management accounting, rather than in a separate report on risk
Disclose information about the risk management function, risk management procedures and results of risk analyses on their corporate website
Use up-to-date risk modeling and assessment tools (risk simulation, stress-testing, scenario analysis, decision trees)
25%
31%
27%
18%
16%
35%
Maturity assessment of risk management
Think that risk management is integrated into planning and budgeting
Said that risk analysis impacts changes to the company's objectives and budget revisions
Think that KPIs are set based on the results of risk analysis and are tracked in terms of risks
Think that risk appetite is determined/revised recurrently as the corporate strategy/annual objectives are defined
Said that important strategic, budgetary and investment decisions are only made once a risk analysis has been conducted and its results properly documented
Think that significant risk management issues are regularly discussed at meetings of management bodies (more often than once per quarter)
Said that the risk manager is a fully-fledged member of key management bodies within the company
Think that information about risks is communicated to management in full and on time
Think that risk management is fully integrated into key operational processes; risks are analysed regularly as part of operating activities
20%
24%
11%
18%
27%
44%
13%
38%
40%
Overall maturity of risk management in 2018
Industry with the highest risk management maturity
Total revenue of companies with the highest risk management maturity
Number of staff in companies with the highest risk management maturity
0,54*
ТМТ
RUB 50 - 500 billion
5 000 employees
+
*On a scale from 0 to 1
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Maturity assessment of risk management in Russia
36
Subscription for regular analytical reports
Training
External expertise
Not maintained
Requirements on counterparties to regularly, independently confirm adequate cyber risk management
Raising cyber risk awareness of clients
Cyber risk assessment conducted on potential counterparties at the bid stage
Counterparty requests for audits and reviews
Inclusion of penalty provisions in contracts with counterparties for breaching organizational requirements
13%
26%
34%
36%
58%
21%
25%
31%
48%
The impact of third-party cyber risk management on organisations
Adequate competency level for cyber risk management
Has the risk appetite of your organisation changed
as a result of using innovative technology?
Are cyber risks a major concernfor your organisation?
At which stage are risk management tools used?
Implementation
Design
Conceptualisation
Yes
No
Increased
Unchanged
100% of TMT respondents indicated that cyber risks are a significant concern for their companies. Respondents from the manufacturing and consumer industries were the most likely to say that cyber risks are not a major concern (10 and 12 p.p. above average, respectively). Companies with revenues over RUB 50 billion and staff numbers of over 5,000 were more concerned by cyber risks (92% and 93%).
Generally, risk appetite was higher in TMT and metal companies than in other
sectors (16 and 15 pp higher than the average, respectively).
In the manufacturing sector, 9 of 10 companies noted that
their risk appetite did not change.
Metallurgical companies are most likely to use risk management tools for innovative
technologies at the implementation stage (14 p.p. above average). In contrast, TMT (56%) and manufacturing (57%) companies are most
likely to use these tools at the design stage.Respondents from companies with revenues over RUB 500 billion and staff numbers over
5,000 employees were more likely to say that they use risk management tools at the design
stage (14 p.p. above average ).
15%28%
72%
35%
57%8%
85%
Cyber risk management
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / Maturity assessment of risk management in Russia
37
Overall maturity in 2018
Overall maturity in 2017
Technology, media and telecommunications
Energy industry
Metals industry
Manufacturing
Consumer industry and transport
< RUB 2 billion
RUB 2 – 50 billion
RUB 50 – 500 billion
> RUB 500 billion
< 500 employees
500 - 5,000 employees
> 5,000 employees
“The overwhelming majority of respondents (85%) confirmed that cyber risks are a significant concern for their organisations’ business activities. However, applying innovative technologies does not usually result in increased risk appetite (with over 70% of respondents reporting risk appetite unchanged) .
The desire to keep risk appetite unchanged, while simultaneously applying innovations, necessitates the adoption of a risk-oriented approach at the conceptualisation stage. Respondents confirmed that their companies start managing the risks associated with innovative technologies at the conceptualization stage (over 55%) or at the design stage (35%). At the same time, almost 50% of respondents said that there is an inadequate level cyber risk management competency in their companies. This could suggest that cyber risk management tools are not sufficient effective, despite all efforts made by companies.
One more area of concern is managing cyber risks in the specific business environment where a company operates. The approaches developed to mitigate such risks are mainly non-recurrent (initial bid checks: 34% of respondents) or are applied after the fact (penalties: almost 60% and audit requests: 36% of respondents). Only 13% of respondents indicated regular independent checks on counterparties’ level of cyber risk management. Due to the widespread and rapid adoption of innovations, the reactive approach to cyber risk management cannot ensure the timely identification of threats arising in a company’s business environment.
This means that a proactive approach to cyber risk assessment must be applied more widely.”
0.54
0.41
0.57
0.53
0.53
0.50
0.47
0.53
0.43
0.60
0.57
0.54
0.45
0.55
0 0.5 1
Overall maturity of risk management
Denis Lipov, Deloitte Cyber Risk Management Leader
FinTech Market Trends
You can find the full report by following the link «FinTech Market Trends»
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / FinTech Market Trends
39
Driver 1.Growth in demandTop 3 reasons:01. A financial technology boost results in
broader availability of financial services for consumers and businesses*
02. Financial technology contributes to more agile delivery of financial services to consumers and businesses*
03. Financial technology helps to improve living standards and make businesses more competitive, bringing in healthier profitability.
*The agility and availability of financial services tend to increase bothgeographically and also in terms of making services available to social groups requiring a more focused proposition.
Driver 2.Proactive regulationTop 3 reasons:01. Financial technology is one of the key
tools used to strengthen transparency in business and the national economy. It also helps to reduce cyber risks in the finance industry.
02. Financial technology can be used as a way to enhance living standards and implement better financial support for businesses
03. Financial technology underpins the development of a FinTech infrastructure. It is already a prerequisite for maintaining growth in the leading national economic sectors.
Driver 3.Market agilityTop 3 reasons:01. Digitalisation is a trend with relevance
across various industries, including agriculture, manufacturing and pharma. It has a profound impact on what businesses need and what clients expect from FinTechs
02. FinTech is a fast-paced and highly competitive market. As a result, FinTechs have to stay aligned to both demand specificity and the behaviour of competitors
03. With an opportunity to draw on successful international practices, the Russian FinTech market is far more dynamic, offering a broader variety of products and services to surpass other industries.
Therefore, the FinTech market as such is one of the drivers enabling a stronger national social and economic climate.
The FinTech markethas three fundamental evolution drivers:
• Growth in demand for online or mobile financial services for households and businesses
• Proactive regulation by the government driving an integrated national FinTech environment and infrastructure
• Market agility, FinTechs responding with high agility to a growth in demand by launching new products/services on a regular basis
Key findings
* http://www.cbr.ru/fintech/regulatory_platform
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / FinTech Market Trends
40
The existing pronounced positive impact from the evolving FinTech market also carries certain risks arising as potential negative consequences. Such risks can generally be divided into three groups:
01. Infrastructural or market risksVolatility is a characteristic feature of the FinTech market. In addition, the demand for FinTech services is quite sensitive to market changes, including regulatory developments. Relatively weaker loyalty to FinTech services results in consumers tending to shift from the existing products to new offerings as soon as new products or regulatory constraints emerge.
This is what characterises the financial services industry as a whole. The scale of impact from errors in automated processes is another dimension of infrastructural risk. The risk of inconsistent processes can emerge from both cyber risks (e.g. data leaks, which also involve the use of data for illegal activities) and technological failures in business processes.
Another important finding from our survey is that FinTechs have not named their potential environmental footprint as a key barrier to the development of the FinTech market. This may lead to a heavier environmental footprint as power consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions grow.
With FinTech products and data centres becoming more widespread, the lack of commercially viable power-saving and alternative energy solutions increases exposure to these risks.
02. Economic risksA potential growth in debt load on businesses and consumers is one of the major economic risks as online loans are one of the key products offered on the existing FinTech market.
Dropping real income would result in an increased debt load, defaults, lower living standards and a weaker economy.
However, this risk is directly dependent on the quality of financial services, and high quality hinges on the maturity of financial technology. Macroeconomically, the FinTech market needs support from the government to develop technology and build a stronger infrastructure, which inevitably requires significant public spending.
At the current stage, many private FinTechs have been on the market for less than three years, meaning that the market is still emerging and has not reached maturity.
As a result, building a market infrastructure requires huge financial and labour input from the government and the business community, with potential investment returns having a minimum horizon of three to five years. 03. Social risksAs with many other tech companies, FinTechs have a significant transformational impact on the labour market. Firstly, the use of automation solutions and RPA technology to develop new services lays off employees who have been responsible for previously unautomated processes. Secondly, FinTechs tend to hire younger professionals, contributing to a widening inequality in terms of employment opportunities for more senior applicants aged 50+.
This could turn into a sensitive issue amid the ongoing pension reform in Russia. Even though these risks also apply to other industries, the financial services industry is one of the largest employers in Russia.Therefore, it should develop along with the transformation of the educational system to prepare professionals who will be sought after in a digital world.
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / FinTech Market Trends
41
* http://www.cbr.ru/fintech/regulatory_platform
** http://www.cbr.ru/fintech/remote_authentication
Economic, social and infrastructural risks accompanying the development of the FinTech market are closely related, with the effect that growing barriers trigger risks spanning social, economic and infrastructural areas. As noted above, the FinTech market is characterised by volatility resulting from dynamic changes in offerings, with new products and services regularly launched on the market. However, when it comes to making a decision, consumers do not always have sufficient information on how FinTechs function, including product terms and conditions and the volatility of digital currencies. This leads to socio-infrastructural and socio-economic risks where consumers may face potential issues, including losses.
Even though there is a large number of risk sources, the FinTech market is not the only industry exposed to these risks. Currently, FinTechs account for less than five percent of the financial services sector. Therefore, key mechanisms for mitigating and monitoring the risks identified should and can be used. In addition, FinTechs, as any other financial service providers, are interested in a healthier market climate with a lower number of negative credit histories, reduced consumer debt burden, stronger market transparency, better data quality, higher financial literacy, etc. in a situation where regulation is tightening, providers fail to comply with business operation rules and business efficiency is becoming weaker.
According to FinTech experts, key risk mitigation mechanisms include:
• Better service delivery transparency across FinTech services
• Stronger security for personal data
• Consumer financial and technology education
• Affordable funding for Internet-focused and FinTech companies
• More efficient regulation, especially as regards legal rules and regulations underpinning the development of the FinTech industry
• Bringing private FinTechs under the regulatory umbrella of the Bank of Russia*, as well as making them part of innovation developments and providing them with remote authentication opportunities as part of the project by the Bank of Russia**
• Better FinTech products (i.e. products should become more user-friendly and help businesses and consumers minimise their costs).
These mechanisms will be further strengthened through fundamental drivers that are common across markets and that also support the development of FinTech services. This attests to the fact that this process is organic and has a mid-term potential over a period of three to five years. Accordingly, our survey takes a closer look at the development trends in the Russian FinTech market over a period until 2020. In answering this question, we used in-depth analytics to gain an understanding of the unique quality and quantity data.
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / FinTech Market Trends
42
A snapshot of Russia’s FinTech market — 2018
* on the scale from -1 to 1
48 RUB billionRussia’s FinTech market size, 2017 3,652 Number of employed
in Russia’s FinTech industry
3 yearsFinTech company average age
289 USD millionTotal M&A value, 2017 102,000 The average
number of B2C clients
352 organizationsThe average number of B2B clients
0.43 Consumer sentiment index* 15 The average number
of employees in FinTech companies
17 The number of M&A transactions, 2017
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / FinTech Market Trends
43
Drivers and barriers for development of Russia’s FinTech market
Top five barriers for the development of Russia’s FinTech market:01. Low appeal for foreign investors02. Low purchasing power of the
population03. Deficiencies of government regulation
of the industry04. Geopolitical risks05. Lack of flexibility in the tax system with
respect to FinTech
42 percent of FinTech companies assessed the efficiency of the regulator’s current efforts at the average level.
38 percent of FinTech companies believe the efficiency of the regulator’s efforts is low.
20 percent of FinTech companies believe the efficiency of the regulator is low.
Regulator efficiency index with respect to FinTech support and development is at the average level (1.66 out of three possible levels).
Despite the average regulator efficiency scores 48 percent of FinTech companies see positive changes in the regulator’s efficiency.
Top five development strategies for Russia’s FinTech market:01. Implementation of new technology02. Launch of new products in the market03. Entry into new markets04. Organic growth05. Higher promotion and marketing
expenses
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / FinTech Market Trends
44
The Russian FinTech market development map until 2020
2020
The growth in the market will continue at the same pace within the next two years, and there are two drivers at play: FinTechs are developing new products and services, as well as working on products for related industries.
Andrey Petkov(MFC «Chestnoe Slovo»)
First, the market is far from reaching saturation, given the fast Internet penetration rates in Russia. Second, the availability of highly qualified IT specialists in the market makes it possible to implement the most complex and nonstandard projects everywhere, in the capital and the regions.Third, both the business and the Government (the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry) actively promote FinTech.
Sergey Sedov (Zaymer)
2018
The current market size (as at end-2017) —48 RUB bln
76 percent of FinTech companies tend to positively assess the situation in the FinTech market from a standpoint of the business financial wellbeing.
24 percent of FinTech companies have a negative view on the market situation.
The expected market size (as at end-2018) — 54 RUB bln
60 percent of FinTech companies tend to have a positive view on the future of the Russian FinTech market.
30 percent of FinTech companies do not expect conditions in the Russian FinTech market to the Russian FinTech market to change drastically.
10 percent of FinTech companies expect conditions in the Russian FinTech market to deteriorate.
The FinTech sentiment index is positive (0.31*), indicating quite positive financial climate.
The Index of Expectations is positive (0.33*) which indicates that FinTech companies are quite optimistic about the future.
* on the scale from -1 to 1
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / FinTech Market Trends
45
One should realize that in the past ten years Europe and the US has seen the most continuous bull market since mid-20th century which we totally missed. At all. We have had recession since 2010. The private sector contracts while the role of the state increases.
Alexander Dunaev (MoneyMan)
The uncertainty index in the FinTech market is negative (-0.25*)indicating rather high uncertainty in the Russian FinTech market.
12 percent of FinTech companies believe the uncertainty is low.
The remaining 10 percent do not expect significant changes. At the same time, nobody expects that their business will deteriorate.
88 percent of FinTech companies assess the uncertainty in the market at the average or above-average levels.
Despite the high level of uncertainty, 90 percent of the respondents expect the company business to improve by 2020.
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / FinTech Market Trends
46
burden, increasing role of the state in the business, and ‘neo-feudalism’ force young and ambitious innovators to leave the country as it is easier for them launch the business of their own in indisputably more stable conditions in the West where the resources are cheaper and the market is larger and, more importantly, growing. In the West, given the need of western institutions in innovations and tough competition, startups develop faster, raise financing and attract clients easier, as well as can protect their intellectual property in a more secure way. In order to make the robust development of FinTech companies happen in Russia, a lot of reforms need to be performed which is not expected in the short-term. In such conditions, the FinTech market in Russia is destined to contract and remain a subsidized branch of government-owned companies (or a part of ‘innovation cities’ subsidized from the federal budget). There are also two significant obstacles for the Russian FinTech development. First, state companies often buy and integrate FinTech startups instead of helping them to develop, buying their products and services, and providing advice to boost their competitiveness. Second, it is difficult to access global capital markets from Russia which otherwise is vital for modern business models in order to monetize digital products and services. It would take years of work to achieve this through improving the country image which is objectively difficult to ensure in the near future. To sum up, the FinTech community does exists and tries to develop in Russia but the external factors are likely to have a negative impact on the market preventing Russian companies from full-scale competition with western FinTech communities in the mid-term».
«Today, the situation in the FinTech market is mixed while the forecast is negative. There are a plenty of reasons to it, as the roots are of a systemic nature. The first and foremost, startups and smaller companies in the Russian market have no chances to compete with larger players due to the lack of competition between the latter. Although the major players declare that there is competition, in fact, it does not happen in the market, which prevents smaller companies and startups from offering innovations in the market. Hence, the first reason comes from the lack of a real need in innovations from outside on the part of financial institutions. The closed nature of financial institutions is the second reason. The participants of the recently held FinTech power conference agreed that the first reaction of financial institutions to interesting ideas is contemplating the implementation on their own. This poses another obstacle for startups as its life cycle at the seed stage rarely exceeds 2-3 years (provided it is not a ‘zombie’ startup) While major players try it ‘on their own,’ startups are closing due to the lack of first clients. Stagnation in the Russian economy is the third reason. The contracting market, sanctions, rouble volatility, growing tax
Top five advanced technologies:01. Artificial intelligence02. Machine learning03. Predictive analytics04. Deep learning05. Big data
Top five segments to expand in the future:01. Digital banks02. Lending03. Scoring04. Marketplace05. Investments
The Russian FinTech market development map until 2020
Alexey MininExecutive OfficerData Analytics InstituteDeloitte CIS
Russia through a lens | Latest from Deloitte Research Centre / FinTech Market Trends
47
Russia’s FinTech contribution to achieving the SDGsIn 2015, 195 Member States of the United Nations adopted the Global Sustainable Development Goals, which underlie a transition from the industrial era to environmentally clean development within cleaner systems. Countries, industries and companies contribute towards these Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the mere fact of operation.
In Russia, FinTech is the main contributor to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure). Significant steps are also being taken to contribute towards SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 1 (No poverty). According to research by SDSN and Bertelsmann, SDGs 8 and 9 are among the Goals with the lowest probability of achievement. Due to the ongoing growth in the Russian FinTech market it may be concluded that there will be positive developments and progress towards SDG 8 and SDG 9.
1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic
resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance.
1.5 By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.
1.6 Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions.
8.1 Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least seven
percent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries.
8.4 Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-year framework of programs on sustainable consumption and production, with developed countries taking the lead.
8.10 Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all.
9.3 Increase the access of small industrial and other enterprises (especially in developing countries) to financial services
including affordable loans, as well as expand their integration in production and supply chains and markets.
The list of top FinTech technology products which contribute the most to implementation of SDGs 1, 2, 8, and 9:
• Online lending;
• P2P lending;
• Crowdfunding;
• E-wallets;
• Online payment services;
• Mobile points of sale.
Russia through a lens
48
Top 5 M&As*
Target company
Industry Bidder company
Seller company
Deal value (USD, mln)**
Additional information
Arctic LNG 2 (10% stake)
Mining Total Novatek 2,550 Total’s stake in the Arctic LNG 2 project is both direct and indirect, as Total also owns 19.4 percent of Novatek. After the 10 percent acquisition, Total’s stake in the project stands at 27.4 percent. Installed capacity at the new plant is 19.8 million tonnes of LNG per year and capex is estimated at USD 20-21 billion.
Avito Holding AB (29.1% stake)
TMT Baring Vostok Capital Partners Ltd; Vostok New Ventures Ltd; Filip Stig George Engelbert; Jonas Nordlander
OLX Group 1,160 Naspers, the principal owner of Avito, acquired 29.1 percent of the company from shareholders via its OLX Group structure. Naspers share in Avito has risen from 70.4 percent to 99.6 percent.
JSC Peter-Service (100% stake)
TMT IKS Holding LLC USM Holdings Ltd
288 IKS Holding appeared in December 2018 to consolidate the IT assets of Anton Cherepennikov. The main client of Peter-Service is telecoms operator MegaFon, which is controlled by USM Holding.
JSC Lider-Invest (51% stake)
Real estate Etalon Group AFK Sistema 230 Merging the assets of Etalon Group and Lider-Invest will create the market leader in residential real estate, with a project portfolio of 4 million square meters.
Etalon Group (25% stake)
Real estate AFK Sistema Vyacheslav Zarenkov and members of his family
226 AFK Sistema became Etalon Group's largest shareholder following the deal. AFK Sistema earlier signed a binding agreement on the sale of a 51 percent stake in its subsidiary developer JSC Lider-Invest to Etalon Group.
(Russian companies)
* Mergers and acquisitions
** Public information about the transaction value
Source: Merger Market
Russia through a lens
49
Global wind
Top News: Russia and Asia21 March 2019Nizhneleninskoye-Tongjiang bridge construction nears completionThe two sides of the railway bridge, that will span Amur River on the Russia-China border, have been connected. Construction is scheduled for completion in July 2019 and rail traffic is expected to start this year.Projected capacity is around 21 million tonnes per year and will be open year-round.
27 February 2019Chinese investor opens yeast plant in Lipetsk RegionAngel Yeast Co. has opened Russia's largestyeast plant in the Dankov special economiczone in Lipetsk Region, creating 560 jobs.The Chinese investor spent over USD 100million to build the factory.
18 February 2019Japanese investors become partners of a residents of Primorye gaming zoneJapan’s Simple Create Co Ltd. will be involved in the construction of the hotel and casino complex. Total investment in the first phase of theproject is USD 70 million, and the secondphase will cost USD 200 million. The firstphase will create almost 800 jobs.
21 January 2019Hyundai to start producing engines and automatic transmissions in RussiaHyundai Motor Group is pledging to invest RUB 16 billion in its Russian plant over the next 10 years. The contract envisages the construction of an engine and automatic transmission plant near to their main production facility in Leningrad Region. Hyundai is also committed to establishing a R&D center in Russia.
Top News: Russia and Europe13 March 2019Volkswagen to expand localization of engine manufacture in RussiaVolkswagen is planning to localize the production of its 1.4l turbo engine, and is negotiating the terms of a Special Investment Contract (SIC) to double the output of its 1.6l engine, which is manufactured in Kaluga.The SIC will involve investment of RUB 40 billion.
18 February 2019GAZ Group and Volkswagen planning to expand partnershipGAZ Group and Volkswagen may invest anextra RUB 13.7 billion in the developmentof jointly manufactured products underthe Russian carmaker’s SIC (in addition tothe RUB 20.9 billion that has already beenannounced).
14 February 2019United Green planning infant formula plant in RussiaThe Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF)and British United Green Group (UGG)are planning to build an infant formulafactory. The plant could be the first fullylocalized production facility for breastmilk substitutes in Russia.The new factory will help reduce imports(over 80 percent of instant infant formulais shipped in from abroad), and will createa regional distribution channel for sales ofdried baby food in Russia and the CIS.Planned investment is RUB 10 billion.
12 January 2019Bettermann expanding production at Lipetsk SEZGermany’s Bettermann is expanding the production of electrical equipment at the Lipetsk special economic zone (SEZ). The company will complete the construction of the second phase of its plant in Q1 2019 and will finish phase three, which will launch the manufacture of cable support systems, by the end of 2020.Bettermann will invest a total of RUB 17 billion in the plant.
Source: InvestinRussia.com
Russia through a lens
50
FORBES: RUSSIA’S 100 MOST TRUSTWORTHY BANKS 2019Subsidiaries of foreign banks and the largest Russian banks make up the top five.
(in Russian)
MAIN TAKEAWAYS FROM DAVOS The highlights of the World Economic Forum 2019 in Davos
FUTURE TODAY: BEST GRADUATE EMPLOYERSTech, commodities and consulting companies take the top spots.
(in Russian)
FORBES: 20 RICHEST RUSSIAN BUSINESSMEN Russian businessmen listed with wealth of over USD 20 billion for the first time since 2011.
(in Russian)
WORLD HAPPINESS REPORT Russia 68th of 156 countries, dropping six places compared to last year.
KEF- 2019 RESULTSIn 2019 the Krasnoyask Economic Forum was held in the format of a Russian Competitiveness Summit.
(in Russian)
Useful stickers
Roman Karikh Analystrkarikh@deloitte.ru
Joe PacelliPartnerjpacelli@deloitte.ru
Lora NakoryakovaResearch Centre Leaderlnakoryakova@deloitte.ru
Dmitriy KasatkinHead of research projectsdkasatkin@deloitte.ru
Mikhail GordeevHead of research projectsmgordeev@deloitte.ru
Vladimir SokolovSenior Research Specialistvsokolov@deloitte.ru
Yulia AfanasyevaAnalyst yafanasyeva@deloitte.ru
Victoria PigalkinaAnalyst vpigalkina@deloitte.ru
Contacts
deloitte.ruAbout Deloitte
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms.
Deloitte provides audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk management, tax and related services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. Deloitte serves four out of five Fortune Global 500® companies through a globally connected network of member firms in more than 150 countries bringing world-class capabilities, insights, and high-quality service to address clients’ most complex business challenges. To learn more about how Deloitte’s approximately 286,000 professionals make an impact that matters, please connect with us on Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter.
This communication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or their related entities (collectively, the “Deloitte Network”) is, by means of this communication, rendering professional advice or services. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. No entity in the Deloitte Network shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this communication.
© 2019 AO Deloitte & Touche CIS. All rights reserved.
top related