The ex-the Board of “PrivatBank” has accused the NBU in the destruction of financial institutions

The essence of these changes? NBU allowed to consider collateral only assets that can be issued in a mortgage (about the same as Khrushchev in a residential area).

Let’s look at a concrete example.

One of our borrowers was the enterprise, which according to independent appraisers, was worth about 6 billion UAH. The borrower is owned 75% of the company, 25% owned by the state. Thus, the value of this collateral was $ 6 billion * 75% = 4.5 billion.

But after dramatic changes the rules of the game this Deposit was worth zero…

If we consider that in Ukraine there are practically no large enterprises, which on 100% belonged to a single owner (and for the conclusion of the mortgage need the consent of all owners), we can say that the NBU has made it impossible to consider the vast majority of objects in our country.

But even if some of the objects belonged to our borrowers at 100%, the NBU and then found ways how to recognize these liens are not valid.

For example, one of our collateral was the stadium Dnipro arena. At the time of its construction has been spent more than 1 billion UAH, and the independent appraisers have estimated its current value of ~850 million UAH. However, the NBU has recognized the value of this collateral is also zero! Why? “And you still can not find it now buyer!”, says the regulator.

Well, that in Ukraine now hard to find buyers, nobody argues (our President, for example, also says cannot sell their businesses because of poor market conditions). But, you see, according to this principle, it is possible to reset almost all the deposits?

We have given only two examples of the amazingly irresponsible approach of the NBU to how to properly assess the collateral of banks. Experts agree that these abrupt changes in the NBU has taken specifically against our Bank. The regulator did not stop even then, that along the way, he made it almost impossible for business lending by any Bank in our country;

When experts talk about the borrowers associated with the former shareholders of the Bank, there is often a surprising substitution of concepts. The idea that the Bank issued to related parties loans and therefore had problems with their return. This is a logical conclusion does not hold water.

It is important to understand that almost all Ukrainian enterprises bad service their loans. This is because the country already a few years into a deep economic crisis. If a Ukrainian company has stopped working due to the war in the East of Ukraine or cease exports due to poor market conditions, it ceases to service the loans regardless of whether it is connected with owners of the Bank or not;

Let’s define the concepts. Who are connected persons? On this account there are clear accounting standards IFRS.

Our Bank regularly held audit international audit companies of the big four. According to the latest report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, the share of credit portfolio, which had in our Bank to related parties amounted to 17.7%.

But at some point, the NBU decided to change the rules of the game. The regulator has announced that IFRS does not want it on their own “expert” to determine which persons to call associated.

But the problem is that once you reject international standards, and begin to define “by eye” who is connected and who is not, start the manipulation.

“Experts” from the NBU began to refer to related companies, almost everyone who’s ever had dinner with the Bank’s shareholders. For example, no one was able to explain why in the list of insiders has got football club “Dynamo Kiev”.

It is important to note that the clarity of the criteria for the definition of related persons in the banking business is extremely important. After all, these weak countries like Ukraine, with a corrupt judiciary and 1001 way to deceive the lender, banks are always trying to get as much impact on their borrowers (not in vain, for example, one of the conditions of Bank lending is its significant equity participation in the company).

For your entertainment here is an example.

A few years ago, one European Bank has issued a loan of large Dnieper businessman. As collateral, the Bank got the building. Then the businessman pulled a resourceful scheme: he agreed with the city Council, and they changed the address of the mortgaged building, and the previous address has received some sort of barn next door! Very resourceful, you see. And such tricks borrowers in our country perform often.

That is why Ukrainian banks for loans, try as much as possible to control of the borrowers that they are not thrown, as a businessman in this example.

How to control? As much as allow international standards! But when these international standards have been cancelled, and instead, tyranny begins, so there are ridiculously high numbers, according to the insider lending that loves the voice of the NBU;

In 2014-2015, since the beginning of hostilities our Bank (like everyone) have experienced a huge outflow of deposits. 63% of the outflow, we were able to cover the expense of its reserves and 37% due to the refinancing from the NBU (in light of this, think about how ridiculous that sounds the charge that the refinancing “brought in offshore”).

Since the beginning of the crisis, our Bank received refinancing of $ 30.2 billion UAH. When Gontareva the head of the NBU, it increased the credit rate to 28-32% per annum! And that instead, on the contrary, to support banks during the crisis, as do the Central banks all over the world!

Cynicism consisted in the fact that other large banks refinancing rate in 2016 was reduced.

According to his own decree, the NBU had to lower the rate for our Bank, but under different pretexts, and so it did. In the end, our Bank was paying huge interest on the loan, which we were forced to take during the war, paying in total at the time of nationalization 11.1 billion of the loan and 13.1 billion percent. And the money, of course, Oh how would our Bank during this crisis;

The government has initiated a number of information attacks, which led to a panic among our customers.

In the last two years, our Bank has experienced seven information attack on “PrivatBank natsionaliziruyut”.

Each such attack led to outflows of funds from our Bank. The last attack was provoked Gontareva, when it gathered at a closed meeting of leading bankers and experts and told them that “PrivatBank” can be nationalized, dropping, thus, another wave of rumors that gladly picked up by the media, led by inter.

As a result, we got a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Our customers started to withdraw money at this rate to get through it was impossible. You know the rest.

After we realized that this panic threatens the money of our clients, we appealed to the Ministry of Finance with a proposal for a voluntary transfer of the Bank;

6. The main postulate. Since coming to power, Gontareva led a deliberate policy to destroy our Bank.

In addition to in this article, the facts, the NBU every day thinking of new ways how to stop our work. All this time our team was not doing to serve customers and to deal with the crisis, and in order to constantly fend off a hostile regulator.

Why the NBU is doing? We don’t know. The first version is that the Bank selected as part of a redistribution of property. The second version is that the team Gontareva sincerely believed that the main mission of NBU is not the development of the economy (e.g. by encouraging lending) and in the “cleansing” of the market.