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 a 2nd category economist in management international finance Department of Foreign Operations of the Central Bank 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, until 2003 he headed the department of operations at open market Bank of Russia. Then for about eight years he was director of the operations department at financial markets TSB RF.
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:
Muddy trust schemes of Nabiullina’s deputy
Member of the Board of Directors and First Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank Sergey 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 Board of Directors of the Central Bank along with civil servants, they 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 with total area 842 sq. 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, and the Service for the Protection of Consumer Rights and Ensuring Accessibility financial services, Corporate Relations Department, Admission and Termination Department financial organizations. In particular, under the jurisdiction of Mr. Shvetsov Moscow Exchange and its subsidiaries, coordination of 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 opportunity does not exist for everyone. 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 initial deadline his existence or in connection with the destruction of his 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 may be talking about transferring property to a trust, the terms of which, in principle, do not imply disclosure ultimate beneficiary(there is also such legal form), or about a trust registered in the name of a nominee,” suggested Mr. Konstantinov. “The second option is more likely, since it raises fewer questions.”
Russian pensioners experienced a new shock, not having time to recover from a two-year freeze on citizens’ savings. Bankruptcy series non-state funds gave opponents a reason funded pensions talk about their abolition again. 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 guarantee system 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 result of investing depends on skill 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 on them savings accounts Appropriate funds will be transferred. 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 supposed to be in accordance with work experience, 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 choose between funded and distribution system and thereafter, 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 financial situation one, and 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 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 the funded system from the points 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 insurance system bank deposits, however, when insuring bank deposits, not only the nominal value is guaranteed, but also the income on the 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 bank " Russian loan" 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, which are actively traded on the stock exchange, 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 banking system In the event of a bank's bankruptcy, 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 whole financial system. This may also apply to audit companies. The Administrative Code allows the Bank of Russia to go to court to disqualify a manager 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, financial companies and in general any management positions (even management of a shoe workshop). 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 transition 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 big people can do this financial structures. 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 business 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 stocks is much more complicated story, than in debt instruments, but with proper organization of the investment process, 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, can generally independently manage his property 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.
Illustration: "Businessman"
Sergey Goryashko
Employees of the Central Bank (CB) reported on income for 2015. The richest, as in 2014, was the first deputy chairman of the Central Bank, Sergei Shvetsov - last year he earned 58.1 million rubles. The head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, earned almost two and a half times less - 24.1 million rubles. Several employees of the Central Bank have real estate abroad - for example, Mr. Shvetsov owns a house in the USA and an apartment in Spain, the chief accountant of the Central Bank Andrei Kruzhalov also has an apartment in Spain, and the director of the statistics department of the Central Bank Ekaterina Prokudina owns a dacha in Finland.
Information on the income of Bank of Russia employees was published today on the regulator’s website. The income of the head of the Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina in 2015 amounted to 24.1 million rubles. Mrs. Nabiullina increased her earnings by compared to 2014 (RUB 21.9 million) . She owns two apartments, one of which Mrs. Nabiullina owns 1/3 of together with her husband, and a Jaguar S-Type. Her husband - rector of the Higher School of Economics, Moscow City Duma deputy Yaroslav Kuzminov - earned 27.8 million rubles, significantly less than two years ago, when he declared an income of 45 million rubles, he owns a plot (1470 sq. m.) and country house. Mr. Kuzminov does not have a car; all the property of the spouses is in Russia.
First Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank Georgy Luntovsky, Alexey Simanovsky and Ksenia Yudaeva earned 28 million rubles. (compared to 33.7 million rubles in 2014), 27.3 million rubles. (compared to 21.5 million rubles in 2014) and 26.9 million rubles. (compared to RUB 19.5 million in 2014), respectively.
 |
| Sergey Shvetsov
|
His wife, director of the Department for Support and Control of Operations in Financial Markets of the Central Bank, Marina Alyokhina, had an income of 12.4 million rubles in 2015. (more than in 2014, when she earned 10.1 million rubles). She owns three plots (with a total area of 7,712 sq. m, two were purchased in 2015), two apartments, a parking space, a garage (all in Russia) and an Infinity FX37 car.
In second place in terms of income in 2015 was the Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank Olga Skorobogatova - 53.2 million rubles. (she earned a little more in 2014 - 55.2 million rubles). Mrs. Skorobogatova owns two plots (total area 3219 sq. m.), two houses and four apartments. She also has two garages and parking spaces, although there is only one car - a BMW 523. Her husband has another car - Mercedes Benz CLS350, he also owns an apartment (shared ownership). In 2015, he earned significantly less than his wife - 579.6 thousand rubles.
Closed the top three in terms of income Chief Accountant Central Bank Andrey Kruzhalov. He declared income of 42.9 million rubles. for 2015. His earnings increased compared to 2014, when he received 26.6 million rubles. Mr. Kruzhalov owns two plots (total area 2898 sq. m), a house and an apartment (in shared ownership with his wife). He and his wife also have an apartment, utility room and parking space in Spain. Mr. Kruzhalov’s wife (earned 637.4 thousand rubles in 2015) also owns her own apartment in Russia. The Kruzhalovs have two cars in their fleet - a Mercedes-Benz ML350 and a Nissan Maxima.
Anastasia Kostromina, manager of the Omsk region branch of the Siberian Main Directorate of the Central Bank, also has foreign real estate - she owns an apartment in Montenegro. Director of the Statistics Department of the Central Bank Ekaterina Prokudina owns a plot of land with a country house, a bathhouse and a utility block in Finland. The manager of the Orenburg region branch of the Ural Main Directorate of the Central Bank, Alexander Stakhnyuk, declared a house with a plot in Ukraine. Also in the use of three minor children of the deputy chairman of the Central Bank Vasily Pozdysheva three apartments in France.
["RBK Newspaper", 05/17/2016, "They don't save on themselves": The income of the Deputy Chairman of the Bank of Russia, Vladimir Chistyukhin, who reported income of 31.9 million rubles, also increased by 50%. The official owns the land, residential building and two apartments. He also owns a Lexus GX460.
At the first deputy chairman of the Central Bank Dmitry Tulin
, who came to the Bank of Russia at the beginning of 2015, income did not change compared to 2014, remaining at the level of 18.7 million rubles. He is the owner of a residential building with a total area of 365 square meters. m, six apartments, land plot and a Subaru Forester.
On average, each key manager of the Central Bank earned 17.65 million in 2015, according to annual report regulator This amount includes salary, benefits and various compensations. Bank of Russia expenses for payments to key management personnel in 2015 increased to RUB 317.8 million. versus RUB 285 million in 2014.
At the same time, the total expenses of the Central Bank for maintaining employees increased by 2.2% compared to 2014. On average, each Central Bank employee earned 125.4 thousand rubles per month in 2014 monthly income regulator employees were 120.9 thousand rubles. In 2015, the Bank of Russia laid off 4% of its employees, the number of which at the end of the year amounted to 58.1 thousand people. - Insert K.ru]