GSS NEWSLETTER ISSUE 145 May 2013 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GSS NEWSLETTER ISSUE 145 May 2013 2 CONTENTS EDITORIAL 4 JOHN’S CORNER 5 HR NEWS 7 Andreas Gatscha appointed Business Analyst in Austria 7 AustriA 8 Stable economic growth despite delay in recovery 8 BELARUS 9 New calculation for market valuation 9 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 10 S&P affirms Bosnia at B/B, outlook stable 10 BULGARIA 11 Imbalances in the Bulgarian economy declining 11 EMEA Finance Magazine: UniCredit Bulbank is Best Bank in Bulgaria for 2012 11 CROATIA 12 CNB widens its scope 12 Centre-right coalition wins European Parliament elections 12 Growth in market value of all Croatian securities 13 CZECH REPUBLIC 14 Zero withholding tax on dividends from 2014 on 14 CNB keeps interest rates unchanged 15 HUNGARY 16 Merger of Hungarian Central Bank and Financial Supervision 16 POLAND 18 Warsaw Stock Exchange implements new trading system 18 Issue 145, May 2013 3 Contents ROMANIA 19 Romanian President rejected promulgation of the law on FSA establishment 19 SPO for 15% of Transgaz shares 19 Fitch Affirms Romania at “BBB-” 20 RUSSIA 21 Limitations for foreign capital in Russian banks 21 Moscow Exchange to launch ETF trading 21 Moscow Exchange launches currency repo transactions 21 FFMS to work out new requirements for brokerage and management companies 22 State Duma to consider regulations to the FOREX market 22 NSD to service tri-party repo transactions of CBR 22 SERBIA 23 Capital market working group established 23 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 24 The top 10 BSSE members in the first quarter 2013 24 Slovak debt ownership structure 25 Stress tests show banking sector well shielded 25 SLOVENIA 26 Slovenia’s economic situation improving 26 UKRAINE 27 Minor stakeholders obtain right of share redemption 27 AZERBAIJAN 28 Azerbaijan to improve requirements for issuance and placement of securities 28 YOUR CONTACTS 29 DISCLAIMER 32 IMPRINT 33 Issue 145, May 2013 4 EDITORIAL a 15% stake of Slovak Telecom, which the Bratislava Stock Exchange was hoping to transact with the aim to improve the poor liquidity of the Slovak equities market. Thus the Slovak capital market once again failed to attract new equity issues. Bond transactions generated 98.51% of the total achieved financial volume on the stock Exchange in 2012. As in pre- vious years, OTC transactions represented more than 90% of the total volume. As for traded instruments, government bonds dominated the market. During the year 2012 Slovakia issued state securities in the total volume of EUR 10.8 billion, representing 125% of the original gross plan of issue. The main aim of the Debt and Liquidity Management Agency (ARDAL) was investor base diversification. The Ministry of Finance for the first time in his- tory issued government bonds in foreign currencies, namely Zuzana Milanova USD, CZK and CHF. Unfortunately a settlement infrastructure Head of GSS Slovakia that would allow settling these instruments against payment is missing on the side of the central securities depository. This year, ARDAL plans, on behalf of the Ministry of Finance, Dear Clients, to issue securities with a total value of approximately EUR 8.3 billion. In January ARDAL introduced a primary The year 2012 was an election year in Slovakia. Early elec- dealership concept and moved to a new auction system tions in March determined a clear winner, the centre-left running in Bloomberg. So far, 12 banks signed the Primary oriented party SMER, who, for the first time in Slovak his- Dealership Contract. The great challenge that remains is the tory, set up a government created from one political party diversification of the existing investors’ portfolio. In addition only. By doing so, the new government certainly took the full to the European market ARDAL is also planning to reach out political responsibility for the implementation of fiscal targets. to investors from other global markets in 2013. Although the deficit in 2012 reached 4.6% of GDP, the new government set the clear goal of consolidating public finances Last year’s major improvement in settlement infrastructure to return to a public deficit below 3% in 2013. As part of its was the introduction of T+0 real time settlement of bonds budget consolidation package, the government approved and T-Bills. T+0 trades now settle immediately after they are the increase of the special bank levy and the extension of the matched in the stock exchange system and waiting for the base for paying the levy. As a consequence, Slovak banks end of trading is no longer necessary. It reduces the opera- suffered a substantial drop in their net profit in 2012. With tional risk connected with settlement of back-to-back trades 0.4% of all deposits in the banks this tax is the highest in and allows clients to manage their cash liquidity better. the euro zone. As for the Central Securities Depository (CDCP), it signed In addition to taxation on banks the government imposed the T2S Framework Agreement in June 2012. It is predicted a special tax on regulated industry sectors such as energy, that CDCP will join T2S in the last wave in February 2017. electronic communications, insurance, railway and air trans- CDCP’s plans for this year are the implementation of certain port, as well as pharmaceuticals. Swift messages and the introduction of settlement in foreign currencies (CZK). Further measures of the new government aimed at the recov- ery of state finances. Investors criticise in particular the abo- Slovakia has decided to join those EU countries which want to lition of the flat income tax and the increase of the tax on introduce a financial transaction tax, with no details disclosed corporate profits in Slovakia. As of this year, the corporate so far. Implementation is expected for January 1, 2014. tax stands at 23%, whereas before it was at 19%. Despite the fact that no favourable breakthrough events hap- Further changes were made to the Slovak pension system. pened on the Slovak capital market last year, we can assume Employees who participate in Slovakia’s second, privately- that sooner or later this market will also be incorporated into one administered pension pillar are limited to contributing 4% of of the regional trading or settlement capital market structures. their salary to this old-age savings plan as opposed to the previous 9%. Yours sincerely, The new centre-left government also halted all privatisa- Zuzana Milanova tion efforts of the former government, including the sale of Head of GSS Slovakia Issue 145, May 2013 5 JOHN’S CORNER Many years ago, I took part in a panel where the concept of unbundled pricing was discussed as the next new develop- ment. The subject is now back on the agenda with a twenty- year gap since my first experience of the then described “inevitable phenomena”. So is it a concept that has at last become possible; or is this yet another example of an industry looking for a way to beat the apparently inevitable downward curve of pricing and upward surge of risk? There appear three ways to unbundle pricing, either to sub-divide services into components and charge for each component, or to adopt risk-based pricing, or to adopt a combination of the two. It is clear that buy and sell side proponents of this concept have diametrically opposed and irreconcilable objectives. The buy side, especially on the John Gubert on broker dealer front, see it as a vehicle for cost reduction, bundled versus whilst the sell side expect more revenue sources to lead to unbundled pricing more revenue! Unbundling is, as I noted, no novelty. It has already hap- And risk-based pricing is also difficult to assess. As a former pened to some extent. The ICSDs offer a form of unbundled chairman of more than one risk committees in both infrastruc- price and I challenge any network manager who can easily ture and financial institutions, I would look at risk quite simply. and accurately compare the cost of intermediating through I would want to know the quantum, the term, the scope one or another of these institutions. Many custodians have and the method of repayment. How can this be applied to a unbundled settlement to the extent that they differentiate corporate action? A voluntary corporate action is more risky between STP and non STP transactions. But, although there than the mandatory ones. A multi-choice corporate action is are some end-to-end markets where a pure STP and confirm- more difficult than a single-choice one. The timetable for the back is viable, defining and agreeing STP numbers is still corporate action can change the risk profile. Regulation in often a challenge. the host country will affect the process. And the size of the holding impacts the quantum of the risk, as does the duration Operational unbundling has a problem to the extent that of the action. If the bank prefunds the action, then the source the current bundled proposition means certain functions are of repayment is dependent on client credit worthiness, for “free” or, in reality cross-subsidised. The cross-subsidy is sale of entitlement is a fall-back in the event of non-payment usually from the ad valorem fee rather than the settlement only. Quite simply, there are a lot of moving parts in every one. Account opening, reporting, corporate actions, income corporate action. Should each event be treated as a separate collection or messaging are all often embraced by the ad valo- one for pricing purposes or should one bundle events into rem. Tax reclamation, proxy voting and more recent additions categories? And would each category of event be subject to may be more commonly separate charges.