Rus News Journal

Check funds: a rating

“ the Alpha “ and “ the First “ on the places

last week president Sankt - the Petersburg stock exchange Igor Kljuchnikov has visited the largest check investment funds and has agreed with them that SPFB will incur primary placing of their actions. This event, together with growth of interest to actions of funds in the secondary market, testifies to the fact, in general - that, not unexpected: as check funds concentrate in the portfolios more and more actions of the privatised enterprises, the action of funds from the office tool “ voucher privatisation “ turn to real share value. Check funds can apply today approximately for the same role in economy of Russia what is played to economy of the USA by pension funds - a role of the largest institutional investor.
Experts did not find possible to leave this circumstance behind frameworks of the attention and have tried to estimate comparative appeal of check funds from positions portfelnyh investors. Calculation of a rating of check investment funds became result of research.
Certainly, the rights the ancient wise man, bequeathing to judge day on evening, and life - on death. But, in our opinion, on check funds it is possible to start to judge already and at present, rather early stage of their life. Let while and approximately.

paradox of classical share strategy in Russia
At once we will underline the major circumstance: unlike investments in investment funds in the West, a premise of means in our check investment funds risky enough. In economy with the securities market developed and having long history criteria of reliability of investment institutes already davnym - are developed, checked up and rechecked for a long time. In a basis of guarantees for clients of funds there at legislative level it is put, except many other, a principle of a diversification of a portfolio. Such principle is certain by the law and at us - but in the Russian conditions the classical stereotype of behaviour of fund conducts to opposite results.
the matter is that profitableness of actions of the privatised enterprises is rather low, if is not equal to zero (one of check funds is proud of reception of dividends from the enterprise “ Kurskhimvolokno “ at a rate of 30 % annual to face value of the voucher). It interferes with liquidity of actions of the enterprises in the secondary market and to growth of their course cost, providing, finally, prosperity of funds.
In the secondary market to actions of this or that enterprise those who is going to grasp over it control show interest only or at least to enter into its board of directors. Only to this group of investors funds have chance to sell the action from the portfolio more expensively a course of check auction. But such chance exists only until at the enterprise there is a race for power. Then actions any time can keep afloat thanks to a loud name of the enterprise or as a result of work specialising on these actions a market - makers (like the company “ Business services “ working with papers GUMa). In all other cases of the action sag: new owners of the enterprise solve own problems into which circle of payment of high dividends do not enter at all. Such actions are already necessary to nobody - at the best owners of the enterprise will agree to buy them at obviously below cost prices.
according to experts, such situation has developed for a long time. Moreover, it can also to become complicated after fixed capital of the enterprises will be overestimated. After revaluation face value of actions will be raised (or their additional issue) will be made and the members of labour collective receiving the actions in a preferential mode, will want partially them to realise. Consequences are obvious: on the market a considerable quantity of papers will in addition be splashed out - and their course will fall. Will expand the offer at the low prices and check funds which will appear before a choice: or immediately to be closed from - for lacks of money, or to prolong an agony, selling nizkodohodnye and nobody quoted actions with losses for itself. Such fate will comprehend first of all funds, “ playing by rules “ i.e. filling portfolios small share holdings of huge number of emitters. Similar packages do not give control over the enterprises and to realise them it is possible only until the section of spheres of influence at the enterprise is finished. Who was not in time - that was late.
But, of course, at all all is lost. The analysis of activity of leading funds has allowed us to reveal two strategy, adhering which they hope not only to survive, but also to bring in incomes. The funds realising one strategy, experts conditionally named “ growth funds “ another - “ speculative funds “. The rating of these groups paid off separately.

a technique of drawing up of a rating
to Apply any of existing techniques of an estimation of investment appeal to comparison of the Russian check funds it was not possible. In - the first, owing to specificity of their activity in privatisation (direct analogues in world practice are not present). In - the second, funds had not time to show to the full yet the potential - to oldest of them was not executed also year. Therefore many parametres underlying classical techniques (even the size of the dividend, not to mention indicators of dynamics of the finance), are not defined yet.
experts have tried to allocate those characteristics of funds which with high probability can affect their further development. Such indicators it was typed more than ten (tables 1 and 2 see). Already at fluent viewing of the table the reader risks to appear in position of Gogol Agafi Tihonovny: here to take ustavnyj fund of the First voucher, yes to put to it profitableness from the First check...
a rating quite often define as the weighed sum of private indicators. But here there is a reasonable question: from what reasons to appoint weight factors at indicators. How many people - are so much opinions, to all will not please. Besides, any mathematician knows that varying concrete values of scales, it is easy to receive almost any in advance set result. Therefore experts have indignantly rejected the widespread weight approach.
we have decided to use the original procedure, allowing to generalise various opinions. Without going into details decision-making theories, we will explain the basic ideas. The first. If it is impossible to prove concrete values of weight factors concerning many indicators it is possible to tell firmly at least that one is more important than another. Further we will define such relative importance a rank: indicators with a rank 1 - the most important, with a rank 2 - a little less significant and etc. the Uncertain rank means what to specify degree of importance of the given indicator in relation to the rests it was not presented possible. We will notice that definition of relative importance, certainly, too can be treated theoretically as the subjective approach, therefore we underline that our rating is a rating “ the Businessman “ also does not exclude presence of a rating of other analysts.
the Second idea. The jury usually defines an estimation as an average arithmetic the estimations given by judges. As and in our approach: the fund rating is defined as average among estimations at all possible values of weight factors.
the third. That it was easier to be guided among a great number of indicators, they are broken into two hierarchical levels. For example, such indicator as liquidity, in turn, is defined by four indicators of the second level which we will name further criteria: presence of a network of dealers, contracts on the quotation and etc. (see table 1).

growth Funds
the Overall objective of ideal fund of growth - “ to overstay “ from present recession before the future lifting (if, of course, that takes place). Therefore fund strategy looks so.
In voucher privatisation the fund buys up (within the limits of restrictions itself, and behind their limits - with the help “ friendly “ firms) share holdings, big enough to enter in “ a share “ with administration of the enterprises and even to plant the. The preference is thus given large, but to the peripheral and little-known enterprises located in industrial cities: otherwise about its investment appeal knows a wide range of investors and at check auction it is not possible to take hold of a large share holding.
if the fund together with friendly firms grasps a package, comparable with an administration package the unique competitor of fund on sale of actions there is a labour collective. However the arrangement with enterprise administration about a coalition removes a problem: in cities - factories the worker of the enterprise keeps for the workplace and without the consent of the owner will not dare to sell the actions if it threatens it with immediate dismissal. And definitively to be insured from sale by workers of the actions, the administration forces them to transfer to its the stock in trastovoe management (it, by the way, it is observed and not only in cities - factories). Therefore the potential buyer of the given manufacture can get it only at fund and only at the prices which will be offered by fund: the offer of actions will not proceed from other sources. And up until that time the joint-stock company will develop under fund complete control.
it is quite good also if the fund has possibility to result the serious foreign investor. Having left itself, after sale to this investor of a controlling stock, a small share holding, the fund provides to itself potentially highly remunerative investment. After all the foreign investor brings not only the large capital for enterprise development, but also new mentality: maintenance of profitableness and liquidity of actions of the enterprise is an integral part of strategy of the normal western businessman. Certainly, the foreigner can and adopt local experience - but we will not distract.
so, fund control over the enterprise, in the absence of the offer of actions from the competing small holders, capable to bring down the price, becomes the strategy keystone to success.
if the fund could grasp control, but thus and competitors managed to receive essential share holdings of the enterprise, position worsens a little, however does not become hopeless. The fund aims at buying up of the actions disseminated on another investors. In a case when it is a lot of such investors, the fund occupies a waiting attitude and thanks to a competition of investors among themselves achieves exhibiting to sale of these packages at the prices comprehensible to it. Sooner or later reduction of prices necessarily will occur, since except for fund very few people shows demand for these packages. If the competitor - the investor one, and it holds large enough package with it it is possible to enter into the agreement and to operate further together. If to make it it will not be possible, it is possible to stimulate the holder of a share holding to throw out them on the market, creating actions reputation unattractive (carrying out fictitious transactions with them at cut prices). To buy up after that the thrown out actions - a trick.
well and if the growth fund consistently did not adhere resulted above to strategy and at it in a portfolio small share holdings of the enterprises have accumulated, race for power on which has already come to the end save situation any non-standard receptions of service of the portfolio can only. For example, the fund can incur responsibility on stock quote from the portfolio and thus prevent them “ sagging “.
the strategy of fund of growth Listed above feature have defined two main criteria on which experts judged an indicator of professionalism of the fund aimed at long-term investments. To group of the criteria characterising an indicator of professionalism of work of fund with actions of the privatised enterprises, experts have given the first - the highest - an importance rank: after all the fund future first of all depends on professionalism of drawing up and portfolio service. The deal of ranks of importance in this group of criteria is resulted in table 1.
Table 1
growth Funds
a rank of indicators a rank of criteria “ MMM - Invest “ “ Partnership “ “ the privatisation Program “ “ the Alpha - the capital “ the First voucher National CHIF “ the Moscow real estate “
Professionalism of work of fund with actions of the privatised enterprises 1
a share of the controllable enterprises from total number of the enterprises which actions are included into a portfolio of fund 1 0 0,13 0 0,8 0,15 0 0
a share “ sagged “ share holdings in a portfolio 1 0,44 0,08 0,3 0 0,3 0,68 0,63
sufficiency of a share of the vouchers enclosed in the action, from total amount of the involved checks 2 + + - + + + +
presence of communications with foreign firms 2 negotiations are carried on there is no communication data there are no direct communications negotiations are carried on negotiations are carried on negotiations
a share of the transactions made to order, from total number of transactions 2 0 0,62 0 0 0 0 0
presence of operations with bonds 3 - + - - - + -
Potential of liquidity of actions of fund 2
presence of a network of dealers 1 + + - + + + +
presence of the contract on stock quote of fund a market - the maker 2 - - - - + - +
quantity of actions of the fund got for money (1000 rbl. are led to face value) are carried on 2 1000 50000 124 122000 14352 50000 349000
presence of transactions with fund actions in the secondary market 2 + + - - - - -
the Size of fund (volume of the involved vouchers) Ν* 200000 400000 482452 1652115 3000000 1000000 1700000
Presence of excess of face value of the action of fund over face value of check N - + - - - - -
the Information openness of fund N is insufficiently opened closed opened opened opened insufficiently opened closed
Risk “ samoproedanija “ N 0,44 0,08 0 0 0,3 0,68 0,63
*Πΰνγ uncertain importance.

By the first criterion of this group (a share in a portfolio of the enterprises supervised by fund) the fund " has appeared the leader; the Alpha - the Capital “: about 80 %. Funds “ MMM - Invest “ “ the privatisation Program “ and “ National investment “ Have informed on that they do not aspire to control and, accordingly, have no controllable enterprises. As to fund “ the Moscow Real estate “ (“ MN - fund “) That its operating g - n Vasilev though did not deny desire of fund to become the owner of any enterprise, but to inform on quantity of the enterprises supervised by fund has refused. On this basis and proceeding from a considerable quantity of share holdings of the different enterprises in a portfolio “ MN - fund “ (and them at it more than at the First voucher - the largest fund on volume of the involved vouchers) so, the small size of each of packages, experts have considered that at fund is not present the controllable enterprises.
by the second criterion (a share “ sagged “ share holdings) “ the Alpha - the Capital “ has shown ideal result: at them “ sagged “ share holdings in general are not present - practically over all enterprises which actions are in its portfolio, the fund holds control. But liquidity and at the First voucher, though at it low enough share of the controllable enterprises is high. By the way, this fund has created non-standard system of service of the portfolio.