Igor Shuvalov: "He will not resolve"

The first deputy chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation - that it went wrong with the Russian economy, who is to blame for this, why such high salaries from officials and why he told everyone about his wealth

Last week at the Gaidar forum-2014, Minister of Economic Development Alexei Ulyukaev said the following phrase: “The world will demonstrate growth rates of more than 3.5 %, and we, at best, 2.5 %.” And this, judging by the estimates of experts, is still quite optimistic forecast: someone says that growth will be from 0 to 1.7%, and someone is completely convinced that in the second quarter of 2014 the Russian economy will go into minus. And this despite the fact that oil prices have been kept in the range of $ 100–120 per barrel for the past four years, China is still growing, the US economy shows a height of 3.6% and the old light crashes out of depression. What's happening?

Those numbers that you named do not talk about anything good. This is a problem. This is a problem for our society, it is a problem for our economy. We live with you at a time when there are no high rates of economic growth, when the inflation rate is 6.4–6.5 % still quite high, although it is slightly reduced, and inflation is not as much as it is as it was even as it was last year. Not everything is great and with investments. And if earlier we often said that external factors are to blame in the situation, then the president in December in his message to the Federal Assembly noted that we must first pay attention to internal factors. In other words, that the causes of the disease, and even, perhaps, their essential part, are within the country. The situation is not good, but I would not call it dramatic either: we are experiencing a difficult period, but it is very useful for our economy.
About the economy
And the causes of the disease?
For many years there was a stormy economic growth based on high prices for energy resources and other groups of our traditional export, this is metal and so on. As a result, a large number of ineffective expenses and ineffective labor were formed. We constantly said that our roads are more expensive, our pipes are more expensive and so on. Because everything grew. Neither private companies nor state corporations had to tightly control the costs. At the same time, labor productivity-when compared with the cost of labor in the USA or in the European Union-is still low. A large number of ineffective expenses have accumulated. The expenditure part of the federal budget for 2014 is 14 trillion rubles: ten years ago, in 2004, it was 2.7 trillion. However, the authorities-at the municipal, regional, federal level-and consumers are still unhappy with the quality of the services provided. I do not like medical care, do not like the quality of education, do not like the quality of state or municipal management. Although the costs are huge. This means only one thing: we must learn not only to spend, but to spend effectively, that is, for less money to produce better services.
That's exactly why the state this year went to freeze tariffs (state monopolies), but at the same time requires them to fulfill their investment programs. The same Gazprom - he cannot increase the price of gas, but he will have to fulfill his investment program in full, too - both with Russian Railways and with Transneft. This means that they will have to go through their companies and see: there are kickbacks, there are no kickbacks, whether there are overpriced salaries and if there is, how to reduce them, it means that they will have to release some employees, mainly managers, they will not be able to increase wages as before, and at the same time invest in the implementation of investment programs, without receiving as much as they received if we increased the tariff.
The discussions that such steps should be taken in relation to the same Gazprom took several years - I was a member of them, but as soon as I was talking about freezing tariffs, there was a lot of explanations right away why it was impossible to do in any way. When the economic growth rate decreased, we were able to freeze tariffs, although it would be necessary - a few years ago. In other words, we, the state, abandon the possibility of raising more money from enterprises through tariffs and thereby release them for development and at the same time give them a signal: and you guys also reduce our costs.
However, the business and the state, apparently, did not catch these of your impulses: in 2013 you shortened almost trillion taxes in the budget.
This is wrong. Those budget parameters that were laid down compared to last year. Yes, this is due to oil and gas revenues, tax on individuals and VAT. In terms of income tax, privatization income and imported customs fees, we really noted. In general, the federal budget received more income than we planned.
As far as I understand, this figure was given at a meeting of the president in Sochi.
Right. Only the reasons for this are different. We joined the WTO. I like not like it, but this is an institute, and we went along this path. There were a large number of opponents, some members of the government also believed that we did not need to do this, that it would be painful. What does this mean to you and me? This means that every year the customs duty - for the same cars, for example - will decrease and the customs authorities do not receive as much money as before. Another reason is a reduction in income tax in the country. I specifically held a few meetings on this subject with the governors and managers of those enterprises where the dramatic fall of income tax: expensive labor in low labor productivity is a serious reason for this. With this low growth in GDP, the real wages and real incomes of the population were significantly higher than growth figures: 3.9% and 5.4%, respectively. What does it mean? And the fact that the products are shipped less, and they began to pay more for it. In the current conditions, many managers need to think about how, increasing labor productivity, to release the labor resource that these enterprises do not need.
That is, the government is ready to abandon the policy of artificial deterrence of unemployment?
Now we have 5.4%unemployment, and we do not assume its dramatic growth. Even where there are already problems, in metallurgy, for example, colleagues say that we will not see more than 6–6.5% in the near future. But if in 2008, during the crisis, we gave (to the heads of enterprises) a clear signal: do not even think of throwing people out into the street, because there was an extremely tough situation, now we are walking along a different path. We reserved the money in the federal budget, we are ready, together with the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, large employers, to start the programs for retraining people who need to be removed from these enterprises, to give them the opportunity to do their own business, allocating some grants, or to give them the opportunity to move to work in another place. For these events, we reserved 200 billion rubles in the budget.
Libya began to supply oil to the market again, increases supplies, despite the exacerbations, and Iraq, and it seems that there will be no bombing of Syria and Iran - all these are factors of reduction in oil prices, the main source of the Russian budget. What is the situation in 2014? Your forecast?
I am not engaged in forecasts, this does the Ministry of Economic Development. I will say this: we are ready to develop any scenario. Anyone. Including in the case of a heavy external situation. Someone says that energy prices will be stable, someone-that oil can fall to $ 80 per barrel. I believe that we must always keep in mind all scenarios, even the worst. We have resources in order to answer this. I mean the fulfillment of social obligations: if the situation is completely tough, then, then, we will have to climb into reserves - we have accumulated considerable. It is different here: frightened by the low rates of economic growth, it is important not to embark on the path of rapid provision of state resources in order to spur this economic growth. So, as happened in the mid-80s in the Soviet Union, when an acceleration policy was declared, they poured money into the economy, it spurred an increase, then a sharp decline-and as a result, budget deficit and debt became the disease of our economy until the early 2000s.
In 2012, a fundamental thing was done - the budget rule was introduced: this will not allow us to spend oil revenues as before. It is necessary not to “break” from this, and after 10 years, oil revenues will be less than 50% of the budget: the rest will bring the economy of the non -energy sector.
About banks
For the past month and a half, almost every week it becomes known that the Central Bank has withdrawn a license from the next bank. Some economists believe that the Central Bank, increasing the requirements for the capital of banks, thereby chopping off the last driver of economic growth - consumer demand. For example, Andrei Nechaev, in the past, the Minister of Economics and Banker believes that “the Central Bank is so increasing the requirements for capital capital, that the normal bank has no desire to lend to someone except Gazprom.” What can you answer?
I answer. Firstly, do not think that the situation is unexpected for us. Have we planned such a rate of economic growth? The answer - no, we did not plan. Did we mean that they may be low? Had. Accepting the law on the budget rule, we understood that the restriction of government agencies would affect economic growth. We carefully observe the symptoms of our economy, and not only our, but also our neighbors, we look at what will happen to the metallurgy market, what with coal and so on. And I remember that in September 2012, at the next meeting, experts presented a very interesting report, which stated that one of the main and most serious institutional risks for us is the promotion of consumer lending and that we are at the point when it needs to be limited. And stop considering consumer lending to such a volume as the necessary drive of economic growth.
We received these papers, began to work seriously with them. Firstly, this led us to the need to make a legislative decision that the Bank of Russia can take special actions in relation to banks that promote such lending and even at a predatory interest. Secondly, it became clear to us that such a driver of economic growth as consumer demand, we do not need now, because he can “get out” at one point. Suppose we take a hypothetical situation: there is a sharp reduction in the income of the federal budget, banks will behave tough, demand the refund of loans, then social unrest.

*“Basel-III”-a document of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which was developed after the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. “Basel-III” tightens the requirements for the adequacy of bank capital so that both credit institutions themselves and the financial system of the country as a whole were insured from the risks of the collapse. In Russia, Basel-III standards began to operate from 1.01.2014.

As for the requirements for the capital of banks, yes, the Basel-III obligation is introduced: nobody likes it, of course, very stringent requirements, this is true, but this does not affect the desire of banks to issue loans. Their business is to lend. If you talk with the largest banks, they all run after customers, and now many have already become even special products for small and medium -sized enterprises. Because banks need to sell money. They cannot sit on this money, because the state no longer lets them earn on their papers. Moreover, we are now discussing in the government - however, so far we strictly argue with the Ministry of Finance - how to create a special product for small and medium -sized entrepreneurs and borrow from banks. We launch the mechanism of the warranty fund, but this still needs money and long liabilities for banks. Now we are discussing how to make sure that for entrepreneurs the rate is about 10%. I can’t say that so far we succeed: there is a discussion between departments. But if it turns out, then banks will be able to give small, medium -sized, honest entrepreneurs loans at 10% and lower.
As for the first part of your issue - the recall of licenses, the Bank of Russia does what it is supposed to be by law: it ensures the stability of the banking system. We want the entire financial system of the country by 2017–2018 to meet the highest international requirements, which is also required by the “Basel-III” we approved. Even during the crisis of 2008-2009, disputes were: Gref, Ulyukaev, your humble servant - we supported the point of view that, of course, we must take advantage of the situation and push banks to consolidate our own assets, to enlargement. Then this point of view was not accepted. Now there is no just goal to enlarge the banks. The goal is to, firstly, remove from the market those who are engaged in dubious operations, and we have a whole article of illegal business. Secondly, so that there are no banks with capital insufficiency: they need to look for partners, possibly merge with other banks. This is planned work. In this sense, both the Bank of Russia and the government will be difficult for the government, but we must achieve a different quality of the reliability of banks.
That is, the review of licenses will continue?
You know, all adults: if you don’t have enough capital, go look for it if you have dubious operations in your bank - stop them. It will not resolve itself. This is both bank shareholders and their managers should definitely understand.
About the salaries of officials
You have not said more than once or twice that the main task in the conditions of the fall in GDP is to reduce costs; that the state begins with itself, freezing tariffs. From January 1, the federal contract system, which replaced the public procurement system, began to operate. And we drink coffee with tea, and before there was a cookie and pies. However: how does the fight against costs come together with an increase in salaries to high officials in and without uniform? And not only in 2013, but also in September 2014, too, when the monetary reward of top officials will grow by more than 60%?
I will answer: in the Russian Federation there is a kind of management system. Not unique, but peculiar. Members of the government are not united by the general party goal and are not connected by party discipline. Members of the government, for the most part, are high -level professionals who have been appointed and who can leave their post at any time. If you go to buy a manager of this class in the market, then it will cost a lot of money. If he became a member of the government, because his party came to power, then you would probably not have to pay such a lot of money: his loyalty was determined by the belonging to the winning party. And if not, then you must pay according to the laws of the market. After all, this person has a huge responsibility, control and management of huge cash flows. And if they go to manage banks and companies, then for them the amount of wages is a competitive factor.
You enter a very dangerous field ...
I do this a second time, I do it consciously, because I believe that it is impossible to maintain virginity by giving birth to three children. If society wants to be not corruption, so that high professionals are engaged in public administration, then they need to pay high salaries.
The monetary reward of the heads of law enforcement agencies, and the deputy prime minister is higher than in such a non-poor and oil-bearing country as Norway, and is comparable to the income of ministers in Germany and Great Britain. However, the salary of the Norwegian minister is 3.7 times higher than the average income in the country, in Germany - 7.1 times, in African Burundi - 15 times, more than 20 times with us. At the same time, Russia is steadily included in the thirty of the most corrupt countries of the world, and studies show that a simple increase in salaries of officials of corruption problems does not solve.
The fact is that members of the government are not officials. Members of the government are statesmen, they are responsible for the most complex and important management processes. This is exactly what Singapore lived at one time - look at their experience when they fought corruption and implemented new, modern management methods: government members began to receive an astronomical, by some standards, salary ...
Yes, but at the same time the Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yu mercilessly planted those who were caught on bribes, including his close relatives. Singapore enters the top three most pure in terms of corruption of the countries of the world. And we have the whole struggle with corruption ended with zilch, high -profile affairs are closed one by one.
No, you are distorting, because this is a completely different factor in the fight against corruption. This is a factor in the fight against offenses. You are talking about wages now.
These are interconnected things: I, a taxpayer, agree to pay a lot to the official, but I demand that you guys do not steal.
I agree. So I'm not saying that this part of the work needs to be forgotten. Of course, we must deal with the fight against those who steal, they must be put in prison and do it consistently. But in order for you to carry out this part of the work successfully, you need to pay serious money managers. One cannot be without the other. Однако я обращал ваше внимание на другое: пока члены правительства не связаны мотивами политической борьбы и политической работы, им надо платить по меркам рынка. Иначе они просто уйдут в бизнес.
Однако особенно не уходят. Много ли высоких в прошлом политических назначенцев, министров, вице-премьеров создали свой бизнес или возглавили большие частные компании?
Потанин был вице-премьером…
7 месяцев…
Шевченко был министром здравоохранения, по-моему, три или четыре года, после этого он стал очень хорошим главным врачом клиники. Сергей Франк, он ушел из Министерства транспорта и стал очень хорошим управленцем компании «Совкомфлот», которая и была хорошей, но при нем стала значительно лучше.
Это не госкомпания?
Госкомпания. Герман Греф был ярким министром, сейчас возглавляет Сберегательный банк Российской Федерации — по оценке независимых экспертов, и даже за рубежом, один из лучших образчиков корпоративного поведения и управления. Так что у нас есть управленцы, которые, уйдя с госслужбы, вполне состоялись. Вот еще Виталий Савельев, «Аэрофлот»…
Абсолютное большинство — в аффилированных с государством компаниях и почти никто не создал своего бизнеса…
А Кирилл Андросов? А Андрей Шаронов, Андрей Дементьев?
О политщедрости
Следующий вопрос — тоже к разговору об издержках. Украина получила с барского российского плеча $15 млрд, Белоруссия, Лукашенко — $450 млн. И это в условиях пусть небольшого, но дефицита бюджета? И насколько законно можно было субсидировать Украину из Фонда национального благосостояния?
Что же вы думаете, мы сумасшедшие, что ли? Of course, we did not violate any legislation: we bought sovereign bonds in English law released through the Irish exchange. Вы думаете, (министр финансов) Силуанов хочет в тюрьму? He signed everything. Of course not. Nothing is broken. Сделали все по закону.
Что теперь, с вашей точки зрения, будет с Украиной?
Это вопрос к украинским властям. Для меня самое главное, что есть повестка обеспечения совместных проектов и надо их немедленно запускать. Раньше взаимодействие не очень получалось. Это — не вопрос Таможенного союза или Европейского союза, или еще чего-то. На протяжении многих лет говорили: ну, давайте, вот по «Антонову» (КБ «Антонов», разрабатывающее пассажирские самолеты АН. — The New Times) поговорим. Все время говорили, и никогда ничего не заканчивалось результатом. Never. А речь о проектах, которые выросли в той, еще старой, единой стране и имеют потенциал серьезно развиваться, потому что есть большой рынок, и мы понимаем, куда мы можем продавать этот совместный продукт. Ракетостроение, самолетостроение, атомная энергетика: мы могли бы это развивать совместно не только для нашего общего рынка, мы в третьи страны могли бы продавать. И если сейчас нам удастся реализовать конкретные проекты, это было бы хорошо. Если это опять выльется в разговоры, то ничего хорошего нет.
Вы считаете, что Украина отошла от опасности дефолта?
So far, yes. Весь этот процесс нужен ровно для того, чтобы дать возможность украинской экономике передохнуть и перезапуститься.
About personal
Конец года ознаменовался новой серией скандалов вокруг вашего имени, точнее — вашего состояния. Политик Борис Немцов заподозрил вас в несвоевременной уплате налогов, политик Алексей Навальный — в сокрытии информации о собственности. А я пытаюсь понять, зачем вы стали рассказывать о своих деньгах зрителям федерального телевизионного канала?
Да никакой это не скандал. В отношении транспортного налога: попытались создать медийный повод, была вброшена информация, но она не была подтверждена налоговыми органами. Адвокаты же мне подтвердили, что денежные средства уплачены, но уведомления я не получал. Якобы уведомление было направлено через личный интернет-кабинет налоговой службы. Читать эти обвинения было смешно: на фоне тех сумм, которые я и моя супруга платим по подоходному налогу, подозревать, что я уклонился от уплаты транспортного налога — ну честное слово, несерьезно. Так что никаких долгов по налогам у меня нет.
Что касается телеинтервью накануне Нового года, то мне был задан вопрос о том, что произошло с моими зарубежными активами, и я подтвердил, что исполняю закон, который принят и уже действует. Мне не разрешено обладать определенными зарубежными активами, все они переведены в российскую юрисдикцию, создано специальное российское юридическое лицо, которое принадлежит нам с женой пополам. Мы не управляем этим юридическим лицом. Специально создана система управления, по которой мы не можем вмешиваться в управление, это аналог blind trust — «слепого траста» — института, которого нет у нас, но который распространен на Западе.
Но такие «слепые» трасты на Западе — это одна из форм ухода от налогов или сокрытия истинного владельца собственности.
This is another. В данном случае слепое управление подразумевает в том числе отсутствие возможности влиять на управление. Все активы переведены в эти юридические лица в Российской Федерации, все зарубежные активы, которыми при этом не положено обладать, находятся под процедурой ликвидации. Многие не поняли моих слов о том, что зарубежные юридические лица мы создавали в том числе для того, чтобы была возможность оперировать наследством после смерти меня и моей жены. К сожалению, эта часть моего интервью была выдернута из контекста и представлена как основная. Конечно, когда я работал в бизнесе в 1990-х, то предприниматели создавали зарубежные компании в основном по причине отсутствия тогда в России реальной правовой защиты собственности. Но дело еще и в том, что российское законодательство предполагает безусловное наследование имущества. А мы с женой считаем это неправильным: мы хотим, чтобы наши дети зарабатывали самостоятельно, чтобы они боролись за успех в жизни. И то определенное имущество, которое после нашей смерти должно достаться нашим детям, оно должно достаться только при наступлении определенных обстоятельств.
Вы идете по пути Баффета, Гейтса, Потанина, Зимина, которые либо полностью, либо частично лишили своих детей наследства, передав деньги на общественные нужды?
С точки зрения принципов — да, абсолютная аналогия.
А как дети к этому относятся?
Есть дети взрослые и невзрослые. Сын, которому 20 лет, и дочка, которой 15, считают, что это абсолютно правильное решение.
Много разговоров было по поводу того, что в основе вашего состояния лежит опцион на 0,5% акций компании «Сибнефть», который был выдан вам Романом Абрамовичем за содействие при скупке государственной доли в компании — во всяком случае, так об этом писала американская Wall Street Journal. В начале 2004 года вы реализовали этот опцион и полученные $50 млн вложили в металлургическую компанию Алишера Усманова «Корус групп», вернув их сторицей — та же WSJ называет сумму $119 млн.
Да, но это включая те деньги, что были предоставлены взаймы.

Старые друзья: Роман Абрамович и Игорь Шувалов на открытии Универсиады в Казани. Июль 2013г.
Больше всего вопросов вызывает именно опцион: документы широкой публике не известны.
При моем приеме на госслужбу вся необходимая информация об этом опционе и других моих финансовых активах, включая документы, были предоставлены Фариту Газизуллину, принимавшему меня на работу. Но на самом деле больше всего вопросов звучало в отношении другой сделки — дохода от вложения в акции «Корус». All these issues were the subject of consideration in the General Prosecutor's Office, which lasted several months. Not only me, but also everyone who was mentioned in the publication, provided relevant explanations, submitted documents, including those that were previously investigated and evaluated by tax authorities and auditors. Со стороны оппонентов было обращение в суд, который постановил, что все законно и вопросов к нам нет.
Другой вопрос, который задавал вам Алексей Навальный, касался поместья в Австрии, которое вы арендуете у некоей юридической фирмы. Навальный утверждает, что на самом деле поместье принадлежит вашей семье и арендуете вы его сами у себя.
Собственно, я никогда и не скрывал, что эта недвижимость принадлежала зарубежной фирме, собственником которой являлась моя жена, — это указано в реестре. Это было сделано специально, чтобы избежать даже видимости какой-то скрытности. Эта фирма управляла не только домом в Австрии, но и другой нашей недвижимостью. Она принадлежала не конкретно нам, но нашим юридическим лицам — и это указано во всех документах и налоговых декларациях.
Еще раз, чтобы вопросов не оставалось: поместье в Австрии принадлежит компании…
… которая принадлежала нам. Yes. Теперь, вы меня спрашиваете, почему я об этом говорю публично и получаю шишки на голову? Потому что я считаю это правильным. Когда ты занимаешь ту позицию в правительстве, которую занимаю я, то людям, конечно же, интересно, чем ты обладаешь. Есть вопросы — надо на них отвечать. И я отвечаю.
Ходит много разговоров, что вы можете покинуть правительство и заняться созданием правой политической партии. Под этими слухами что-то есть реальное?
Моя профессия — государственный управленец. Для меня абсолютным приоритетом является то, что сейчас я должен выполнить определенную профессиональную повестку. Если президент и премьер-министр решат, что моя работа в государственных структурах закончилась, то это будет жизнь вне органов власти, и тогда я буду рассматривать различные перспективы в бизнесе. А пока я составляю свои планы до 2018 года, то есть до конца политического цикла, и планы эти — заниматься тем, чем я занимаюсь.

фотографии: Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters, Алексей Даничев, РИА-Новости