Sberbank is in the wrong pocket


The fact that this is abnormal when the country's main credit institution is actually a monopoly private shop under the roof of the Central Bank, the authors insisted in almost all of their publications (“Our Central Bank is the most central bank in the world. Who does he serve? ”) However, the operation conceived at the top with the transfer of Sberbank to the control of the Russian government is unlikely to make its position more marketable or independent.


It is also difficult to agree with when such a transfer of a powerful asset from one sovereign's pocket to another is called privatization. Thus, the economist director of the Institute for Globalization Problems Mikhail Delyagin has already described the plans of our financial authorities. However, at first he even regarded the idea itself as the withdrawal of state assets from the hands of an independent structure, that is, the Central Bank, into the hands of the state.

Sberbank is in the wrong pocket

That is, at first it was possible to talk about nationalization, although in fact, dear citizens, our billions and even trillions are simply transferred from one pocket to another. And they will steer them as before, as they did before. Without asking about their numerous clients, and, by and large, without informing.

Yes, “formally, everything seems to be correct,” as Mr. Delyagin noted. The Central Bank of the Russian Federation is our main regulator of the financial market, which is not engaged in any market operations either according to the charter or law, it is simply obliged to withdraw from the capital of Sberbank. Otherwise, there is nothing to say about any competition in the financial market.

And interestingly, it even exists in some places, although the same Sberbank has long squeezed out almost all competitors from almost everywhere, starting with utility bills and ending with currency transactions. It is abroad that he has a competitive environment, and he is simply forced to offer not only high interest rates on deposits, but also low, even minimal, ones on loans.

The discount on rates there does not exceed 0,25-0,5 percent, while within Russia one can afford a double spread in percent. And do you believe that with the transfer to the bosom of the renewed cabinet of ministers, Mr. Gref’s financial office will stop robbing his own citizens? They are only customers - let them pay.

Sberbank out of brackets


Speaking about how much Sberbank will add efficiency to its transfer to the executive branch, we should not forget that most of the large banks, more precisely, 10 out of 11, have huge, as a rule, controlling stakes under state control. Moreover, few people care about how the state’s presence in their capital is framed: through the Ministry of Finance or through the Central Bank.

The latter, it seems, with his global sweep of the financial sector only sought to ensure that all kinds of commercial trifles were not even among the leaders. However, again, by law, under full control, or rather, the Central Bank should own only troubled banks that have been rehabilitated or, God forbid, the deprivation of a license.


It is generally difficult with the latter - without a license, a bank is not a bank, and so is a cash register, which is obliged to hand over everything that remains, where it should be. Something is not enough for us to have someone from the banks suddenly get their license for no reason. Gone under the control of the state or of one of the state banks - please be kind, otherwise nothing.

The Bank of Russia in the era of Elvira Nabiullina almost never refused to take pleasure in picking up one or another lending institution. One can understand sovereign bankers, because an extra bank is an extra degree of freedom in terms of the ability to manipulate the market.

It’s just not entirely clear why the Bank of Russia is so eager to change regulation, that is, the appointment and creation of certain rules of the game, and then control over their observance, direct participation in the game. How can one disagree with other economists who drew attention to the Central Bank’s interest in making large banks state-owned in Russia, and as small as possible in general. The head of the Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina on this occasion even recalled that this is the global trend.

It is typical, but after all, the talk that Sberbank will nevertheless be removed from the Central Bank of the Russian Federation brackets began just at the time when a wave of stable reduction in the key rate of the Bank of Russia began. As a result, this causes a decrease in rates for commercial banks and increased competition for the same Sberbank. This trouble in the Bank of Russia, it seems, was understood, quite correctly, and agreed that worrying about it just like that is not even worth it.

Remembering Chubais


Ms. Nabiullina, just recently, recalled that for the government, state ownership is, as a rule, a burden. This is what you need to manage, and it is advisable to effectively, make some serious decisions, allowing third-party people to work as independent directors.

It may seem that our main banker has read like Chubais, but now Elvira Sakhipzadovna doesn’t even remember the same maxims. Was Sberbank really a burden for the Central Bank itself? And now, they say, let it be a burden for the government.

It cannot be ruled out that the great ideas of the main privatizer, our liberals from the economy, who firmly seated their seats in the economic bloc of the government, will work in the case of Sberbank. It was planned to sell its packages on the side more than once, and it still started even before the first stage of collateral auctions. But everything turned out somehow not very.

It didn’t work out very well with the public IPO in 2007, and not only with the shares of Sberbank, but also with VTB and Rosneft. However, judging by the details of the transfer disclosed by the Central Bank press service, that is, the sale of Sberbank shares to the government, the operation itself can be safely called preparation for real privatization.


Perhaps the very same Mikhail Delyagin therefore spoke of privatization, and not of the nationalization of Sberbank, that without this, business could not do without it? In this case, participation in the capital of the largest commercial, but not yet private bank of several of the Russian oligarchs at once can be said to be guaranteed. But there are big doubts about whether potential foreign co-owners will be allowed into the body of Sberbank. Security services have very good chances to block their participation.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kot28.ru 12 February 2020 04: 58 New
    • 16
    • 2
    +14
    Will the transfer of Sberbank to state control be for money? If so, then from whom does the state buy the state (partially) bank?
    1. Far B 12 February 2020 05: 30 New
      • 28
      • 4
      +24
      Yeah, for the money. At market value. 2 trillion rubles with something. Payment will be made from the National Wealth Fund, which now has 7 trillion +. In the morning, I feel that this is not casual - this year the Fund was supposed to grow up to 7% of the country's GDP, after which the government would receive the right to use the surplus to invest the economy. Last year, Sagibzadovna began to hysteria on this issue, saying that it would be nice to raise the bar to 10% of GDP. Now, apparently, they came up with a more elegant feint with their ears - the NWF will lose more than 2 trillion, and again, to the required 7%, it will be like cancer to the Moon. Sagibzadovna, you need not worry: money will not go into the Russian economy.
      1. Berber 12 February 2020 09: 51 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        They stubbornly do not want to invest in our economy. Another option is being considered to invest in profitable projects abroad, because it is more profitable for the Central Bank. And the fact that with this money enterprises are not built inside the country, abroad, no one says. It turns out pieces of paper for the sake of pieces of paper, and not for the sake of people inside the country. The sense of the Central Bank money if they do not work for the good of our economy.
        In short, the enemies are around and there is no comrade on them. Stalin.
        1. Stas157 12 February 2020 12: 16 New
          • 10
          • 0
          +10
          Until recently, Nabiullina reminded that for the government, state property is, as a rule, burden.

          And I thought - a feeding trough. Judging by the indecently huge salaries and bonuses of hired gentlemen Gref, Kostin, Sechin, Miller ...
      2. vladimirvn 12 February 2020 09: 59 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        There was a private (almost) bank and it was bent over raking money for all sorts of projects and needs of the Government. Now there will be state (almost) and money from there you can rake out without looking back. I mean our money, lost on deposits, withdrawn interest on a mortgage, etc.
    2. carstorm 11 12 February 2020 05: 40 New
      • 5
      • 11
      -6
      not a bank but a block of shares of a bank owned by the Central Bank. it’s like a big difference.
      1. Far B 12 February 2020 05: 57 New
        • 11
        • 5
        +6
        You bent! And what is a bank? Thing? Subject? No, a bank is a structure. The main component in which is the governing body. So, the Central Bank sells to the government precisely the management stake, that is, transfers all the management functions. So the bank is for sale.
        1. carstorm 11 12 February 2020 07: 05 New
          • 5
          • 14
          -9
          I understand that this is not your topic) and I won’t even poke at something you simply don’t understand. I’ll say just do not write nonsense, but just delve into the topic.
          1. Far B 12 February 2020 07: 20 New
            • 11
            • 3
            +8
            Designated, this is your topic laughing laughing laughing “Buy a bank”, “Buy a fund (charitable, investment, etc.)”, “buy a consulting (audit) company” - all this is one thing: buy a management stake. Having which, you manage the company, i.e., in fact, own it. Everything else is an exercise in vocabulary. Well, not buildings with office equipment, you mean, saying that the "bank" and the "block of shares" (which in our case is precisely the manager) are not the same thing.
            1. carstorm 11 12 February 2020 07: 25 New
              • 3
              • 13
              -10
              I work in a joint-stock company and I own a small package of it. it just so happened that education also allows us to judge these things a little in depth. first, to calm down, remove the term managing shareholding. that's bullshit. controlling stake. if you own it, then it doesn’t mean that the whole company is yours but only half plus 1 share as an option. which means an advantage in voting and decision-making. no more. this is not an exercise in what?))) you know that there is no such word at all?)))
              1. Far B 12 February 2020 07: 52 New
                • 12
                • 4
                +8
                I know about the controlling stake, and about the blocking, and about the "golden share", do not worry about me, I’m calm))) I’m glad for your education that it "allows you", but I don’t understand why it does not allow you to understand , what
                voting and decision-making advantage
                and there is, in fact, company management.
                do you know that there is no such word at all?)))
                You teach me, teach me, philologist-Russian scholar, damn it))) To begin with, learn how to spell the words "first" and "whatever" as the rules require. For the ending - tighten punctuation, tunnels)))
                1. carstorm 11 12 February 2020 07: 58 New
                  • 2
                  • 10
                  -8
                  I do not like to switch the keyboard, so I do not follow punctuation. that is me. which I did not hide and do not hide. As for management, I repeat, the shareholder does not manage the company. not responsible for losses and debts of the company. how can it be controlled by one who is not responsible for anything? At the annual meeting of shareholders should address the following issues:

                  on the election of the board of directors (supervisory board) of the company;
                  on the election of the audit commission (auditor) of the company;
                  on approval of the company's auditor;
                  on approval of annual reports, annual financial statements, including profit and loss statements (profit and loss accounts) of the company, as well as profit distribution (including payment (announcement) of dividends, with the exception of profit distributed as dividends according to the results the first quarter, six months, nine months of the financial year) and losses of the company based on the results of the financial year. if you consider these issues to be company management, we can end the conversation right away.
                  1. Far B 12 February 2020 08: 03 New
                    • 8
                    • 3
                    +5
                    Mnogabukaf))) Enough to powder the brain))) The owner of a controlling stake through the first, second, tenth hands (it doesn’t matter) affects who will be at the head of the company and what kind of policy this “who” will pursue. This is an axiom. I agree, let's end the conversation. hi
                    1. carstorm 11 12 February 2020 08: 05 New
                      • 1
                      • 11
                      -10
                      I also think that we will finish. it’s hard to explain something to a person who does not understand the topic. it's no offense but just an axiom)
                    2. Arlen 12 February 2020 16: 07 New
                      • 5
                      • 1
                      +4
                      Quote: Far In
                      Controlling shareholder

                      Well, what can I say ... I carefully read your discussion and I can only say one thing: you are right. Below I give a definition for a controlling stake, not for you, I realized that you understand this issue, but for those who minus you.
                      "A controlling stake is a certain number of securities issued by a company that are owned by one person (both physical and legal). A controlling PA gives the right to such a shareholder to single-handedly manage a joint stock company on many issues."
    3. Finches 12 February 2020 07: 18 New
      • 13
      • 2
      +11
      Only 100% nationalization and not only Sberbank will save the country!
    4. Barmaleyka 12 February 2020 08: 12 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: kot28.ru
      then from whom does the state buy out the state (partially) bank?

      the IMF has the Central Bank
      1. bessmertniy 12 February 2020 09: 15 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        I feel that scammers have started a major scam. no And in what - I do not really understand. If I buy a car at home, then what will change? what And what will change is that the state bank will remain the state bank from the fact that the state will buy it from itself for its government. repeat Ugh, you - these reformers completely confused. negative
        1. dSK
          dSK 12 February 2020 12: 06 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Our central bank is not State bank USSR, and a copy of the state Fed.
          The “gray cardinal” steers the whole process - Gaidar’s Kudrin, the main ideologist of privatization. He has already "made" Rosneft, now the next step is Sberbank and the remnants of state property of Russia.
          Dmitry Anatolyevich made him write a letter of resignation from the government. Now I have received an “answer” in the form of a report by the Counting Commission on the activities of the government.
          But now Kudrin doesn’t need the post of prime minister - why does he need an extra headache?
          He helped to grow Mishustin, putting him in charge of UFG capital, this is his man.
    5. Invoce 12 February 2020 12: 08 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: kot28.ru
      Will the transfer of Sberbank to state control be for money? If so, then from whom does the state buy the state (partially) bank?

      You need to look at the list of shareholders of Sberbank
      1. The Central Bank of Russia owns about 51% of the shares.
      2. Foreign firms own 45,64%.
      3. To individuals and investors - 4%.
      under item 1.
      Article 2. The authorized capital and other property of the Bank of Russia are federal property. In accordance with the goals and in the manner established by this Federal Law, the Bank of Russia exercises authority to own, use and dispose of the property of the Bank of Russia, including the Bank of Russia gold and currency reserves. Withdrawal and encumbrance of obligations of the specified property without the consent of the Bank of Russia are not allowed, unless otherwise provided by federal law. The state is not liable for the obligations of the Bank of Russia, and the Bank of Russia for the obligations of the state, if they have not assumed such obligations or unless otherwise provided by federal laws. The Bank of Russia carries out its expenses from its own income.

      The law on the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, it would seem, makes clear everything about the ownership of the Central Bank. In addition, the Duma appoints, upon the representation of the President, the Chairman of the Bank and members of the Board of Directors. And here it’s okay. What is alarming? And almost the same independence from the Government of the Russian Federation that the Fed has. Rather, an inverse relationship is evident - the Government of the Russian Federation depends in its activities on the policy of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. The law has been explicitly written off from similar US Federal Reserve legislation.
      So everything is not completely clear, but it’s for sure that the money will not go to the budget, they will pay faster from the budget for SB shares
  2. Far B 12 February 2020 05: 01 New
    • 11
    • 6
    +5
    So. I'll try the logic. I have repeatedly heard from different sides that the Central Bank is a branch of the Fed. The article also says that the transfer of Sberra under the wing of the Ministry of Finance is a transfer from one pocket to another. It turns out that the Ministry of Finance is also a branch of the Fed? No, the fact that the entire economic bloc of the government is imprisoned exclusively for the West, I agree. But to be frankly called the "branch of the Fed" like that - in my memory this is the first time. "Finally they began to write the truth!" (C) "Town".
  3. 7,62h54 12 February 2020 05: 07 New
    • 12
    • 3
    +9
    Stacked in the common house throughout the country, now this little egg is floating in the wrong hands.
    1. Grandfather 12 February 2020 06: 06 New
      • 13
      • 4
      +9
      "sperbank" -also ... "public heritage" ... only the people are not ours.
    2. Wolverine 12 February 2020 08: 53 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: 7,62x54
      Stacked in the common house throughout the country, now this little egg is floating in the wrong hands.


      Yes uzhzh, the next scam of the great combinators, it is a pity there is no one to give hands to suck semolina through the tube. wassat wassat
      1. bessmertniy 12 February 2020 09: 18 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In order to suck the little manga, the combinators must first free their mouths from the tooth! wassat wink lol
  4. rocket757 12 February 2020 05: 08 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    About a lot of what we have to say is not accepted, it is impossible !!! Because it’s just good for NO, but bad, for y, just the same pee pee pee!
    1. 7,62h54 12 February 2020 06: 17 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      "Few understand, but who understand, few are."
      1. Grandfather 12 February 2020 06: 36 New
        • 8
        • 3
        +5
        the black man has PAIN on his face ...
        1. bessmertniy 12 February 2020 09: 20 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          It was to him that Sber finger pinched, and he could not even blow on him. repeat
          1. Grandfather 12 February 2020 09: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: bessmertniy
            It was to him that Sber finger pinched, and he could not even blow on him. repeat

            ".. breath in his ass .." wassat "karoshi ATM ... no card no birot!"
  5. Dmitry Potapov 12 February 2020 05: 10 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    That is, in essence, the state buys by itself. Although as far as I know, the Central Bank and the state are not the same.
  6. Vladimir_2U 12 February 2020 05: 14 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Understand sovereign bankers can, because an extra bank is an extra degree of freedom in terms of opportunities to manipulate the market
    What are they sovereign ?! A private shop, not controlled by the state, is what place of the “sovereign" is and what it can nationalize, except in the pocket of interested persons.
  7. Monster_Fat 12 February 2020 05: 15 New
    • 11
    • 3
    +8
    Well, firstly, I can’t understand how it is, the government bought the bank? Who will be the owner of the bank in a family name? And in what proportion will the bank’s profit begin to be distributed after its purchase by the “government” type? And secondly, evil languages ​​say that in fact the main bank of the country is redeemed for reformatting by Mr. Mishustin in terms of creating a total control system for the expenses and incomes of his (Sberbank) depositing clients, of which about 75 percent of the country's population.
    1. carstorm 11 12 February 2020 05: 44 New
      • 5
      • 11
      -6
      here who cares who owns the shares by name?))) as for the control, it has existed a long time ago) sber monitors transactions and blocks all suspicious accounts. transfers all data to the tax on transactions above a certain amount and can block them if you do not prove the transparency of these funds. in short, does everything that a bank should do in any normal country so that it does not become a laundry.
      1. Snail N9 12 February 2020 10: 15 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        They write that they wanted in such a cunning way: 1-to feed Sberbank’s beneficiaries with state money that are from the Central Bank, 2 — to fill out (recapitalize) the problem banks of the regulator, for which he does not want to spend “his” money, through the type of “investment” (purchase by another owner) 3-let the teddy bear introduce and work out a system of control over the expenses and income of bank depositors, and introduce a system of automatic taxation on any "income" to the accounts of individuals.
        1. carstorm 11 12 February 2020 10: 28 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          they can write anything. although everything is much simpler. the state cannot fail to buy it at full market value for one simple reason — shares have a price and if someone starts giving shares or selling them for the ruble, this will bring down the price of all shares in general. Yes, and the Central Bank has already said where the income will be denied that these statements seem to refute)
  8. Thrifty 12 February 2020 05: 24 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    The authors, but what is wrong when the state controls banks, has a share in their assets? Are you the eagles of those who need privatization? Few banks, firms of companies are boiled under this sauce? This means that when a bank, even a private one, is drowning, the state throws out billions of dollars for salvation, as we had in 2008, in 2014, when hundreds of billions of dollars were injected into the banking system, and to have a share in them to one degree or another “niiizya?” The article is clearly custom-made, written by typical “grabbers”, from among those who brought the country to a pen! My minus for such a scribble! -
  9. aybolyt678 12 February 2020 05: 48 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    on the other hand, he bought out the share of private traders; more intellectually, a more independent state policy could be pursued through Sberbank. Only we do not have such heroes, and there are no geniuses either.
  10. Professor Preobrazhensky 12 February 2020 07: 45 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Curiously, after all these possible manipulations, will Sberbank finally enter Crimea?
  11. Ross xnumx 12 February 2020 08: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    So, the economist director of the Institute for Globalization Problems Mikhail Delyagin has already described the plans of our financial authorities.

    I hate people "sucking" letters and words. And economists with the name "delyagin" in Russia in our country are a dime a dozen. One problem - the economy is not visible behind inflation.
    All the gimmicks of the existing government are useless a priori - the nature of capitalism is known, and we have heard, seen and know about speculators since Soviet times.
  12. Lamata 12 February 2020 08: 18 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    and e 2 trillion rubles for a stake in Sberbank, where will they go to the Bank of Russia?
    1. bessmertniy 12 February 2020 09: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Proudly Gref flies over them. wassat
  13. 2 Level Advisor 12 February 2020 08: 25 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    What an excellent scheme .. The Central Bank once receives a SB for free .. Cleans up, using the power received from the government, competitors, and now SELLS it back for 2 trillion from the NWF money, which are intended for economic growth .. this is such an economic growth worth 10 Crimean bridges?
    At the same time, his activities in the Security Council will also be controlled by the same people in the Security Council ... It's just fantastic! Most likely, US bonds will be bought again with this money, investing money in the economy of the so-called enemy. ..
    And now the Central Bank can take another bank for free and begin to “grow” it for sale to the country of which they “serve” and so develop the economy further
  14. oracul 12 February 2020 08: 26 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The fact that Gref and Nabiulina are one world (the market will regulate everything) mazan is a fact. Even the fact that their path to financial flows is essentially the same - through the Ministry of Economic Development, also makes them related. And even the fact that the idea of ​​privatization in the theory of capitalism, which is based on the fact that unprofitable state assets are transferred to private hands for the purpose of more efficient management, combines them, because it turns into a profanation in practice, because they primarily privatize the assets that bring huge profits. True, the story with Rusal shows how not only profitable assets, but also products that are so widely used in the military-industrial complex, are being tidied up by foreign (American and Canadian) little hands. The game is long and dark.
  15. 30143 12 February 2020 08: 35 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Again, everything is the same. They will pull the people and they will not blink an eye. What do you say there? 2 trillion The game is worth the candle. And it’s beautiful and elegant ... I won’t be surprised if Chubais himself came up with this scenario.
  16. BAI
    BAI 12 February 2020 08: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Sberbank is cheating (yesterday it shook his wife at $ 100), and will become private - he will completely lose his grip, there is no control.
  17. Alex013 12 February 2020 08: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Now 45% is the share of foreign capital in Sberbank ...
    https://www.sberbank.com/common/img/uploaded/files/pdf/stockholders/shareholder_structure_2016-2018_ru.pdf
  18. Ethnarchist 12 February 2020 09: 08 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    As soon as the phrase "this is for your good" sounds, attention will be robbed, and a figure of 75% says that the amount of loot will not be small ....
  19. prior 12 February 2020 10: 18 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    At whose expense is the banquet?
    I suspect that this scam is cleaner than a retirement.
    Down with capitalism in Russia. Down with the robbery.
  20. nikvic46 12 February 2020 10: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I’m afraid that these re-turbations will affect ordinary citizens. Now, Sberbank is setting aside crumbs of interest from my earned pension. So what? Collect certificates again? My unreasonable opinion. That's when there will be national banks in each region, then everything will move for the better.
  21. depressant 12 February 2020 10: 47 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Let's explain what happens.
    The state, represented by the Ministry of Finance, wants to buy back the shares of Sberbank from the Central Bank (those that belong to the Central Bank) at a market value (2,7 trillion rubles) and become the full owner of Sberra.
    Arguments in favor.

    1. Sberbank makes a very good profit. For example, for 2019 - 870 billion rubles. But on shares the state represented by the Ministry of Finance got only half of this money. Having bought Sber, the state will have twice as much and will be able to manage the profit at its discretion, but now it cannot.

    2. Owning half of the Central Bank, Sberbank got into a conflict of interest over different payment systems. Because the Central Bank is ready to accumulate Sberbank to the state. Then the conflict will turn into competition - who whom.

    3. The state cannot buy Sberbank from the Central Bank for one ruble, as some economists have long suggested, - the value of Sberbank will collapse (shares are traded on the free market).

    4. For the purchase of a part of Sber not belonging to him, the state represented by the Ministry of Finance does not have any money other than the National Welfare Fund. Nabiullina, having received 2,7 trillion rubles for Sberbank, will invest them not in his pocket, but in gold and foreign exchange reserves (rather in dollars - it is hardly possible to buy gold before the crisis). The IMF nods favorably.

    All this is true.
    But the situation ... The Central Bank is separated from the state, subordinated to the IMF - insanity!
    Okay, let's say. We will proceed from senility as limiting conditions seriously given to us in our sensations. And so, they bought Sberbank from the Central Bank. And here is the world crisis, which is not far off, but already behind neighboring houses (they say, it’s like an ideal storm, which has not happened yet). Shares will fall in price --- why not wait and buy Sber on the cheap? Nabiullina will not sell? Selling! She is agree. As soon as possible.
    Gref is desperate. Because he understands - not a fig will not get the state him, his Sber! As soon as the crisis arrives (and it arrives!), The shares of already state Sberbank will fall sharply, like all shares in the world, the government will yell loudly what they say, the National Wealth Fund is rapidly melting because of damned pensioners and mothers with many children, there is no money and already don't hold on. And then a message appears that, in view of the emergency financial situation, there was a need to sell Sberbank to a private trader and, imagine, within the framework of the privatization of everything and everything planned by the president. By the way, Medvedev did not fulfill this plan. It was planned to privatize 10% of state property each year, and Medvedev privatized only 9% for all the years of his reign ...
    And here, some dummies will come out on the stage, ready to buy Sber (or part of it) from the state for the designated crisis pennies, and the government will weep with happiness that at least someone has been found, and nothing that has been cheaply dumped, into crisis and penny money. But who actually becomes the owner of Sberbank, having bought it on the cheap, will be unknown. No, Gref, of course, will know. Actually, he knows now and is grinding his teeth. He is offended - he cherished, he cherished Sber, rowing from him, and there, without showing a finger, he was very hated, Sber ultimately got it.
    Should I think so?
    1. 2 Level Advisor 12 February 2020 11: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      To all of the above, the only amendment is .. What is the reason for this price of shares dropping? well, let them give shares free of charge, and not "for the ruble", they are more likely to grow, because the state is more reliable than the private trader ..
      1. depressant 12 February 2020 12: 12 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The state cannot take from the Central Bank its 50% + 1 share of Sberbank. After all, this is expropriation. But our state does not want to look like an expropriator. Otherwise, those who have placed political figures in it will suspect those figures in an effort to restore socialism, which is desirable for a significant part of our society. The figures understand this and are afraid to be destroyed. This also explains the reluctance of the figures to remove the Central Bank from the control of the IMF.
        By the way, in Turkey and South Africa were not afraid. But simply because the population of these countries, not wanting Soviet-style socialism, cannot even suspect their government of such a desire.
        And the fact that the state is more reliable than a private trader ... You know, I also thought so until recently. Now there are big doubts - after the pension reform, default on indexation obligations to citizens, tariff growth, etc. And after, to put it mildly, inefficient spending of funds on national projects. But in fact - a partial theft, a partial return of unused to the budget, which is why we have a surplus. Yes, a lot of things. Long list. But in general - the inefficiency of the state. I would like to trust, but it does not work.
  22. vavilon 13 February 2020 17: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Enough of the blizzard to drive Nowhere are any independent banks in the world, private not private)))
    Everything is controlled everywhere, both in the west and here.