External debt stability of the Russian economy duality assessment. Debt Sustainability of Public Finances of the Russian Federation: Analysis and Assessment

The formation of the volume of consolidated public debt (internal and external) should be under the control of the state, since its accumulation in excess of the possibility of real repayment on time threatens with default. In this regard, international financial organizations (IBRD and IMF), member countries of the Paris Club of creditors and international rating agencies apply a list of indicators used in assessing the quality (reliability) of debt obligations and assigning sovereign credit ratings.

In international practice, the following indicators are used, in static reflecting the debt situation in the conditions of the current moment:

• debt-to-GDP ratio characterizes the scale of accumulated debt. Depending on the share of exports in the volume of GDP, one can determine the potential for foreign exchange inflows to pay off the debt;
• the ratio of the volume of the budget deficit to the volume of GDP - characterizes the state of the public sector, in which, in order to cover the budget deficit, the corresponding share of GDP will have to be redistributed through internal loans or resort to external ones;
• the ratio of expenditures on repayment and servicing of the debt to the volume of GDP characterizes the share of GDP, which will amount to a "deduction" from the volume of real budget expenditures. This value also characterizes the scale of the return of funds to creditors of the state.

Indicators are also used in dynamics characterizing the change in the debt situation:

• the ratio of external debt to GDP - characterizes the ability to repay the debt;
• the ratio of the cost of servicing the state external debt to export income - characterizes the change in the resource base to repay the debt, because export is one of the main sources of foreign exchange inflow to ensure the liquidity of the entire payment system;
• the ratio of the volume of external debt to the volume of the entire debt - characterizes the change in the need for foreign currency to service the debt;
• the ratio of the volume of foreign exchange reserves to the volume of short-term debt - characterizes the change in the ability of the economy to make payments on the debt during the year. The presence of sufficient foreign exchange reserves helps to improve the country's rating as a borrower, allows borrowing at lower rates;
• weighted average interest rate - indicates a change in the "price" of the debt;
• the composition and structure of debt reflect the change in the volume and share of the market and non-market parts of debt, the structure of debt by the time the obligations arise, by instruments and their maturity.

Debt sustainability indicators can also be:

• outstanding government debt (including interest arrears) as a share of GDP;
• debt per capita, which characterizes the burden on each citizen;
• the ratio of the budget deficit to GDP;
• the ratio of service costs to GDP, i.e. the share of interest payments in the gross national product.

The use of indicators such as:

• borrowing ratio, i.e. the share of new borrowing in general government spending;
• the ratio of service payments (interest) to expenses, i.e. share of interest payments in government spending;
• the ratio between interest expense and total tax revenue.

The indicators determined by the Ministry of Finance of Russia in the development of the budget three-year period are given in Table. 8.4.

Table 8.4

Indicators of the debt burden on the Russian economy in 2011-2014, %

The indicators of debt sustainability are presented somewhat differently in the materials of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation (Table 8.5).

Table 8.5

Debt sustainability indicators of the Russian economy in 2006-2012

In dynamics, the change in these indicators quite fully characterizes the current situation. If it turns out to be dangerous, then adequate measures are taken to reduce the dependence of the economy on imports, stimulate exports, etc. However, public debt is often used as a tool for creating a default situation. For example, in the United States, as of November 30, 2004, the US federal debt was $7.9 trillion, but already in 2012 it exceeded $15 trillion, a level close to 100% of GDP, and continued to grow. The limit accepted in international practice (60% of GDP and 3% of budget expenditures) does not restrain the accumulation of public debt. As for the validity of these critical values, they do not exhaustively characterize the situation in the country in connection with its debt, but on the whole they nevertheless show under what conditions the excess of actual values ​​relative to the normative ones is not catastrophically dangerous.

The Ministry of Finance of Russia does not define or publish a number of the entire set of indicators listed above. The share of direct investment in the amount of funds received from loans is practically not reflected in official statistics.

Back in the 19th century Russian scientists have noted the decisive importance of what the state uses the taxes it collects and the loans it receives. If at the same time budget investments grow and infrastructural conditions are created for producers, then even a significant public debt is not dangerous, since the source of its repayment grows. However, this problem is not easy to solve. Unfortunately, lenders like the IMF "condition" the provision of loans to countries in need with such conditions that they are not up to investment. Yet what matters is not so much what the debt is relative to GDP, but what proportion of the debt is used for productive investments and in the social sector, where a quick return is possible. From these positions, the composition of indicators of the debt burden on the economy it is necessary to introduce the ratio of expenditures on investments at the expense of the budget to the total volume of the total (consolidated ) external and internal debt.

For several years, a gradual decline in both relative and absolute indicators of public debt has been a reality in Russia. The ratio of public debt to GDP was decreasing (Table 8.6).

Table 8.6

Dynamics of the volume of the state debt of Russia (billion rubles and billion dollars)

* For reference: Russia's GDP in 2012 was 58.7 trillion rubles; in 2015 - 82.94 trillion rubles. When calculating the upper limit of the public debt, the dollar exchange rate of 30 rubles was used. per dollar

But there were also disturbing and clearly negative trends:

• a) after 2007, an increase in the total amount of public debt and an increase in domestic public debt becomes a reality;
• b) the rapid growth of external corporate debt. This is evidenced by the data presented in Table. 8.7.

Table 8.7

Growth of corporate external debt in Russia (in billion dollars and in % at the end of the year)

In Russia, when the liquidity crisis worsened (August 2008), the external debt of banks and companies exceeded $510 billion, about 90% of international reserves at that time. It was in connection with this that the state was forced to allocate funds for debt refinancing, since by the end of 2008 corporations had to repay debts to creditors of about $45 billion, by the end of 2009 - about $210 billion. By that time (August 2008 .) external liabilities of a number of banks amounted to: Vneshtorgbank - $30.2 billion, Rosselkhozbank - $16.0 billion, Gazprombank - $8.3 billion, Sberbank of Russia and Alfabank - $6.1 billion each. significant external debt. In particular, at the beginning of 2009, Rosneft had a debt of $19.4 billion, of which $5.4 billion had to be repaid in 2009. of the Russian oil pipeline "Skovorodino - the border of China" with a capacity of 15 million tons per year with the possibility of increasing up to 30 million tons per year in February 2009, an agreement was concluded with China for a loan ($25 billion) secured by transport infrastructure. This has been a factor in expanding oil supplies to China;

c) weak use of state loans for investment in the real sector of the economy. The growth of domestic borrowing results in solving the problem of covering the budget deficit. However, the share of long-term loans is also growing. The upper limits of the state internal and external debt increase annually (Table 8.8). It can be reasonably predicted that this process will adversely affect the future generation. Therefore, it is important to observe the measure. In any case, it is necessary to formalize this measure and control its observance. This is also important in connection with the fact that the foreign exchange resources reserved from oil exports are used to invest in securities of foreign states.

An increase in the volumes of the Reserve Fund and the National Welfare Fund is also predicted for the next three-year budget period. Accordingly, it was supposed to use the latter as an external asset. The actual volumes of the Reserve Fund and the National Wealth Fund at the beginning of 2013 were formed at the same level - 2.6 trillion rubles each. each. However, this is less than it was in both funds at the beginning of the crisis year of 2009. Then the Reserve Fund amounted to 4.85 trillion rubles, the volume of the National Welfare Fund was at the level of 2.9 trillion rubles. Given the above volumes of reserved resources, the desire to build up long-term domestic debt raises doubts. This will hinder the process of economic modernization. The use of these instruments of debt policy requires a radical adjustment.

Table 8.8

Growth of annually set upper limits of the state debt of Russia, billion rubles

• The main directions of the state debt policy of the Russian Federation for 2012–2014 / Ministry of Finance of Russia // Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation: [official. website]. URL: minfin.rU/conimon/img/uploaded/library/2011/08/Dolgovaya_politika_na_sayt.pdf (accessed 25.06.2013).
Annual supplements to the federal laws on the federal budget. See: Federal Law No. 216-FZ of December 3, 2012 "On the federal budget for 2013 and for the planning period of 2014 and 2015".

A debt crisis is a situation where a debtor refuses to fulfill its debt service obligations in full (defaults). This applies not only to the official direct refusal of payments on external and internal debt, but also to other situations. Among them:

• 1) partial failure by the debtor to fulfill its debt obligations according to the original (or restructured) payment schedule;
• 2) restructuring by the debtor of its debt obligations not previously agreed with creditors;
• 3) offering creditors less favorable terms for exchanging old obligations for new ones compared to the original terms.

A single delinquency in servicing debt obligations is considered technical default. Such a situation developed in the USA in the summer of 2011, when, due to legislative restrictions on the state debt limit, they could not fulfill their current obligations to service it.

The following types of debt crises are distinguished: external and internal debt. These debt crises, respectively, can arise in the sphere of state, corporate, regional obligations. You can also detail debt crises depending on the specific debtor, the type of debt obligations (bonds, loan agreements, bills) that the debtor refuses to pay.

There are a number of indicators of a country's debt sustainability. Among them:

• the most used indicator is the ratio of debt to GDP;
• the ratio of external debt (or payments to repay it) to exports of goods and services;
• the ratio of payments on public debt to budget revenues;
• average maturity of the debt;
• share of debt in foreign currency in total debt;
• the ratio of international reserves to short-term external debt;
• the ratio of payments on external debt to international reserves;
• the ratio of short-term debt to total outstanding debt;
• state external (internal) debt per capita;
• budget deficit as the main factor in the formation of public debt; and etc.

In connection with the increase in the share of market debt (bonds traded on financial markets) in public debt, the importance of investment credit ratings assigned by leading rating agencies has recently increased (Standard & Poor's, Moody's, Fitch Ratings).

For external debt, ratings on long-term foreign currency obligations are of particular interest. Corporate, institutional and private investors are guided by investment ratings, the cost of new borrowings and, consequently, the possibility of debt refinancing and new debt financing largely depend on them.

At the same time, the activity of rating agencies has a subjective component and causes well-reasoned criticism. Nevertheless, the ratings that exist for the analysis of investment risks are still recognized by the majority of qualified investors (Table 7.1).

Table 7.1 .

For analytical purposes, the IMF proposes the following thresholds (debt/GDP) that correspond to different degrees of debt crisis risk: low (30%), medium (40%), and high (50%). In terms of the ratio of payments on external debt to exports, the threshold values ​​are 15, 20, 25%, respectively.

Norms recommended in 1997 by the European Stability and Growth Pact (Stability and Growth Pact) to ensure the sustainability of the euro area, are: annual budget deficit - up to 3% of GDP; sovereign debt - up to 60% of GDP (in the conditions of the current crisis - up to 80%). In 2010 these criteria were exceeded by almost all members of the European Community. On average, the budget deficit of the 27 EU countries was 6.4% at the end of 2010 (17 euro area countries -6.0%), and public debt - 80% (in the euro area - 85.1%) of GDP.

The debt burden of the economy is not always a defining feature of the debt crisis, but creates its prerequisites. The debtor's difficulties in servicing the debt do not yet mean a debt crisis, unless a refusal to pay or a unilateral change in the terms of debt service is officially announced. The debt crisis is largely a consequence of the foreign debt management policy.

A country, making a decision to refuse to service and repay its own debts in full, measures its benefits and losses from such a decision. These losses may be associated with economic sanctions and political consequences from foreign creditors, a drop in credit ratings and a sharp rise in the cost of new borrowing in financial markets, a deterioration in the country's economic situation if taxes are raised and social programs are cut to pay off debts.

In modern conditions of post-crisis development of financial and economic systems and unstable economic ties, the issues of public debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are one of the most important and acute tasks of balancing and securing the regional economy. Barely recovering from the financial crisis of 2008-2009, which unbalanced the budget system of the regions and led to an accelerated increase in the debt burden, the subjects faced new problems that limited the ability to ensure a positive budget balance.

Since 2010, there has been an increase in regions with a budget deficit. The reason for the deterioration of the situation is related to the fall in tax revenues after the 2008 financial crisis. At the same time, the Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation “On Measures for the Implementation of the State Social Policy” adopted in 2012 constituted a significant burden on the regions. The main goals of the implementation of the "May Decrees" were to increase wages for employees of budgetary institutions, and to intensify housing construction in the regions. At the same time, the main expenses for the implementation of these decrees fell on the budgets of the subjects of the Federation. After 2013, a record year in terms of the number of deficit regions and the total volume of the budget deficit, the growth rate of regional and municipal debt, in 2014 the regions faced new challenges of the macroeconomic environment - a decrease in the availability of credit resources, a deterioration in credit ratings, a reduction in economic activity, which entails a decrease in level of tax revenues

Currently, there is a tendency for the growth of the public debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. At the same time, over the past five years, the internal debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation has grown almost 3.5 times. An increase in the level of debt burden is a significant risk for the execution of regional budgets with a lack of own funds to finance the necessary expenses, as evidenced by the annual mention of this problem in the Main Directions of Budget Policy for the financial year and planning period.

Therefore, public debt management is of particular interest. In Russian economic science, the issues of studying the theory of public debt are revealed in the works of B.I. Alekhina, Yu.Ya. Vavilova, C.B. Garkavy, Yu.A. Danilova, Zhigaeva, E.V. Pokachalova, L.I. Ushvitsky and M.M. Ulyanetsky, which are devoted to the analysis of the composition and structure of the public debt of the Russian Federation, the assessment of management methods for it.

At the same time, the parameters for optimizing the structure of public debt are not widely presented in modern literature. In this regard, we will consider the issues of debt policy and public debt management at the regional level in the context of the possibilities for optimizing the structure of public debt and maintaining debt sustainability within the maximum permissible values. To do this, we will assess the debt sustainability of a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and identify the factors that determine it.

The absence of a significant improvement in the economic situation with the increasing level of debt burden of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation at present can become a real threat to the solvency of a number of regions. In this regard, the balanced and moderate approach of the heads of regions to borrowing makes it relevant to analyze the debt sustainability of the regions. Monitoring the debt sustainability of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is part of the regional debt policy. In this regard, the correct methodological approach to assessing the debt sustainability of the region is important.

To assess the debt sustainability of the regional budget system, we selected 5 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The selected regions include the city of Moscow, the Republic of Tatarstan and the Tyumen region. These regions are of particular interest due to the structural indicators of public debt, as well as indicators of the debt burden.

Let us characterize the economic feasibility of selecting these regions. The city of Moscow is the capital of the Russian Federation and the region where the largest share of market debt is observed. At the moment, the debt of the city of Moscow on government securities is 85,565.4 million rubles. This is the highest value among all regions of the Russian Federation. Also, the capital of Russia has an external debt, which is not typical for other subjects of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the city of Moscow has had a low debt burden for the last 5 years, so this region is of particular interest.

In the Republic of Tatarstan, there is a significant debt on loans attracted to the budget from other budgets of the budget system. At the moment, the debt on this instrument is about 90% of all borrowings. However, the Republic of Tatarstan has high tax and non-tax revenues, and is also one of the few regions whose tax potential index is greater than one. The region is heavily indebted, but this has little effect on the region's debt burden.

According to the rating agency "RIA Rating", the Tyumen region has been among the regions with a low debt burden for the past 5 years. At the same time, the region has an insignificant level of public debt. This region has aroused interest due to the fact that over the past year the region's debt has increased by 218%, and this is the most significant increase in debt obligations among all regions. However, the region has maintained a low debt burden due to its own revenues and high budgetary security.

Let's consider indicators of debt stability of the presented regions. Table 1 presents indicators of debt sustainability of the city of Moscow, the Republic of Tatarstan and the Tyumen region.

All indicators of the debt sustainability of the city of Moscow are within the limit values ​​established by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation. The structure of the state debt of the subject mainly consists of debt securities, market borrowings in different years accounted for from 55.14 to 62.10%. The indicator “the ratio of the state debt of the subject of the Russian Federation to the tax and non-tax revenues of the subject” has a downward trend. This is primarily due to the fact that over the past 5 years Moscow has been reducing its public debt. However, this does not liquefy the problems of further optimization of the public debt structure through the gradual replacement of market borrowings, which in the future will increase the level of debt management.

The estimated indicators of debt sustainability in the Republic of Tatarstan look much worse. In the context of the financial and economic crisis, due to a decrease in budget revenues, the Republic of Tatarstan began to actively attract budget loans from the federal budget to cover the budget deficit, in connection with this, the debt burden on the budget of the Republic of Tatarstan increased. Thus, in the structure of the state debt of the Republic of Tatarstan, a significant amount of debt on budget loans, the share of the debt instrument is about 90% of the total debt of the region. The indicator of "public debt to tax and non-tax revenues" is within the thresholds, but differs from the previous region.

Table 1 Indicators of debt sustainability of the city of Moscow, the Republic of Tatarstan and the Tyumen region.

It is worth noting that the Republic of Tatarstan does not have marketable debt, and at the moment the region has low public debt servicing costs. Despite the fact that the state debt of the subject continues to grow, the Republic of Tatarstan is an innovative and industrial region, so the “government debt to GRP indicator” has a downward trend.

The indicators look much better in the industrially developed region - the Tyumen region. The Tyumen region over the past 5 years has one of the lowest levels of debt. Within 5 years, the state debt of the Tyumen region does not exceed one and a half billion rubles. The region has high tax and non-tax revenues, as well as a high value of GRP. Last year, the state debt of the Tyumen region showed the largest increase among all the subjects of the country. Despite this, the region is in the top three of the most prosperous subjects of the country. The structure of public debt involves two instruments: budget loans and government guarantees. Budget loans account for 22%, while government guarantees account for 78%. Most of the estimated indicators are missing, since their values ​​do not affect the debt sustainability of the region.

Thus, the considered subjects of the Russian Federation are distinguished by high debt stability. Only in the Republic of Tatarstan, some values ​​of the estimated indicators are at an average and low level. Most of the estimated indicators are within the threshold values, which indicates an effective debt policy pursued by the regional authorities. It should be noted that the lowest indicators of debt sustainability were in the Republic of Tatarstan, however, the restructuring of debt on budget loans helped to keep the subject's values ​​of estimated indicators at an acceptable level. Particular attention should be paid to the indicator “the ratio of the state debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to the value of property constituting the treasury of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. All regions have high estimates for this indicator, which indicates a reliable provision of debt obligations.

At the same time, the proposed methodological approach, based on estimated indicators of debt sustainability, may not fully assess the effectiveness of the debt policy pursued by regional authorities. Therefore, it is quite logical to supplement estimated indicators, depending on the increase in the use of debt instruments, as well as changes in the market situation for debt obligations, which allow for more detailed monitoring of interrelated budget and debt indicators. Considering that regional authorities have access to a wide range of debt instruments, it becomes especially important to take into account the factors affecting the debt sustainability of a subject of the Russian Federation.

In order for the debt sustainability indicators of a subject of the Russian Federation to remain within the threshold values, it is advisable to identify factors that affect debt sustainability. In the process of creating a system of criteria, it is advisable to use economic and mathematical methods of correlation and regression analysis based on identifying the relationship and dynamics between the debt sustainability of a subject of the Russian Federation and various economic indicators.

However, debt sustainability is directly related to the amount of public debt of the subject. In this regard, the resulting factor will be the public debt of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, since the calculation of estimated indicators of debt sustainability is based on the relationship to the public debt of the region.

Thus, to keep public debt at an economically safe level, constant monitoring of the level of public debt is required. The formed current level of public debt of the subjects of the Russian Federation suggests that the policy of further increasing public debt can lead to a radical deterioration in debt sustainability and an increase in the debt burden. Therefore, it becomes especially important to conduct an effective debt policy by regional authorities. With a further increase in public debt, the debt sustainability of the subjects will not be able to remain within the parameters that allow proper servicing of public debt.

At the same time, it is worth noting the high dependence of the regional economy on various factors affecting debt sustainability. Timely assessment of factors and maintaining a moderate debt burden is a strategic task for regional authorities. Therefore, a reasonable borrowing policy of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is a driver for the growth of opportunities in the private sector, which ensures the development of the regional economy as a whole.

Bibliographic list

1. Babich I.V. Formation of the debt policy and management of the internal debt of the subject of the Russian Federation: dissertation for the degree of candidate of economic sciences: 08.00.10 / Babich Irina Vladimirovna; Saratov, -2012. p.34-37
2. Pakhomov S.B. Debt management of regions and municipalities of Russia. Institutional Forms, Mechanisms, Technologies.// Ed. Pakhomova S.B. - M .: "UNP", - 2009. - p. 21
3. Garkavy S.M. Mechanisms for improving the methodological and organizational support of public debt management.// Garkavy S.M. - Budget. - 2008. - No. 11. - p. 31-33
4. Kozelsky V.N. Influence of debt burden on the state and direction of development of regions / Kozelsky V.N. // Finance and credit. - 2014. - No. 8. - p. 46-48.
5. Savinova E.V. Management of the public debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation // Savinova E.V. / Mordovian State University. N.P. Ogareva". - Privolzhsky Scientific Bulletin. – 2016.-№ 2.- p. 82
6. Soldatkin S.N. Methodological approaches to assessing the quality of debt management of the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation// Soldatkin S.N./ Theory and practice of social development.-2014.-№9.
7. Chernysheva T.Yu. Models of public debt management // Finance and credit. - 2007. - No. 24. - p. 42
8. The main directions of the budget policy for 2015 and the planning period of 2016 and 2017. – Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, 2016.- URL: http://www.minfin.ru
9. The main directions of the budget policy for 2013 and the planning period of 2014 and 2015. - Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, 2016. - URL: http://www.minfin.ru / (date of access: 01.11.2016)
10. State debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. - Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, 2016. - URL: http://www.minfin.ru / (date of access: 01.11.2016)
11. Execution of the budgets of the subjects of the Russian Federation. - Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, 2014. - URL: http://www.minfin.ru / (date of access: 01.11.2016)
12. "Methodological recommendations to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities on improving the system of management of state and municipal debt 2006-2008". - Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, 2016. - URL: http://www.minfin.ru (date of access: 01.11.2016)
13. “Recommendations for Conducting a Responsible Loan/Debt Policy by the Subjects of the Russian Federation”. - Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, 2016. - URL: http://www.minfin.ru / (date of access: 01.11.2016)
14. “The main directions of the state debt policy of the Russian Federation for 2012-2014. - Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, 2016. - URL: http://www.minfin.ru / (date of access: 01.11.2016)
15. "Methodological recommendations for public authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on long-term budget planning" - Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, 2016. - URL: http://www.minfin.ru / (date of access: 01.11.2016)
16. Bulletin of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation "Audit of Debt Policy Effectiveness". - Official website of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, 2016. - URL: http://www.ach.gov.ru/upload/uf/c64/.pdf/ (date of access: 06/01/2016)
17. Budget Code of the Russian Federation dated 07/31/1998, No. 145-FZ (as amended on 05/23/2016, as amended on 06/02/2016) (as amended and supplemented, effective from 06/01/2016) // SPS " Consultant Plus" (date of access: 01.11.2016)
18. Kovalenko O. G. Definition of the concept of cash flows // O.G. Kovalenko. - A young scientist. - 2009. - No. 2. – pp. 56-60
19. Kurilova A.A., Osadchikova E.V. On the directions of investment activity of the Samara region // A.A. Kurilova, E.V. Osadchikov. – Finances of Russia in the context of globalization: materials of the All-Russian round table with international participation, timed to coincide with the "Day of the financier - 2016". Voronezh Economic and Legal Institute. - 2016. - S. 109-114
20. Medvedeva O.E., Makshanova T.V. Advantages and disadvantages of creating a mega-regulator in the financial market of Russia // О.Е. Medvedeva, T.V. Makshanova. – Vector of Science of Togliatti State University. – 2013. No. 3 (25) . – P.353-356