Uncategorised
FEATURE: Wealth Managers Try To Measure How Deeply Russian Sanctions Will Bite
 
					
  Following the recent sanctions imposed by the US and the European
  Union over the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, Russia has remained
  defiant, warning that these acts will backfire, causing further
  economic woes for Western nations.
  
  The new measures, the toughest against the Kremlin since the
  height of the Cold War, aim to force Russia to change its stance
  over its alleged support of separatists in eastern Ukraine by
  targeting its financial, energy and arms sectors.
  
  While the latest sanctions are expected to have limited
  short-term impact on Russia, in the long-term, the economy, which
  is already teetering on the brink of recession, is likely to feel
  the strain. Economists have also said that EU economic interests
  could be hit due to its close trading ties with Russia.
  
  Chris Weafer, a partner at Moscow-based consultancy
  Macro-Advisory, warns that as a result of the sanctions, Russian
  high net worth individuals could permanently move their assets
  away from Europe, although the new measures would “not materially
  affect” the wealth management industry in total.
  
  “We have already heard that Megafon, which is controlled by
  Russia’s richest person, Alisher Usmanov, has moved its cash to
  Hong Kong banks. This is a move I expect will be replicated by
  other companies and increasingly, by individuals. But even when
  sanctions risk ends, I expect to see much greater use of
  financial services and wealth management from Asia, Singapore and
  Hong Kong in particular,” said Weafer.
  
  The latest sanctions signal a step up in resolve by the West and
  come following a deepening of the crisis in Ukraine since the
  downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July.
  
  As well as going after eight of Putin's top associates, the US
  has expanded its sanctions to include three banks, the Russian
  energy sector and defence companies.
  
  Meanwhile, the new EU measures will restrict Russian state-owned
  banks from accessing European capital markets and companies will
  no longer be able to buy or sell new bonds, equity or similar
  financial instruments with a maturity exceeding 90 days, as well
  hitting the energy sectors and the export of arms.
  
  “There will likely be two effects,” said Weafer. “The sanctions
  threat should provide a boost to the development of domestic
  financial services and secondly, Russians are more likely to look
  to greater diversification in their wealth management,” he
  said.
  
  Weafer said that Russian businesses, many of which are owned by
  high net worth individuals, would be hurt by the increased number
  of obstacles they faced in order to carry out business and trade
  with Europe.
  
  “Even if the official sanctions are not hurting them
  specifically, many Western banks and trade companies have adopted
  a very cautious approach towards Russia risk and are on a
  voluntary basis stopping or restricting trade with Russian
  entities. That is also hurting profits and affecting the value of
  their business and net worth,” he said.
  
  “As a group, the wealthy Russians who are not part of the
  political elite are very frustrated at the political events and
  sanctions impact. But they have no political voice and very
  little influence. They may not even complain too loudly inside
  Russia,” he added.
  
  Sanctions
  
  A number of successful challenges to EU sanctions over the past
  year have made the bloc wary of taking aggressive action against
  Russia. Only now has the EU matched the hard-hitting measures
  imposed by the US, following several rounds of mild
  sanctions.
  
  “The stance of the EU has changed significantly in response to
  the downing of flight MH17 that was attributed to pro-Russian
  separatists in Ukraine. These sanctions are substantively
  different from the previous ones and are meant to hurt. It is
  important to note that the EU sanctions have moved a step up in
  targeting Sberbank, which the US sanctions have so far avoided,”
  said Nonna Crane, a senior associate at Chadbourne & Parke, a
  London-based international law firm which specialises in
  sanctions.
  
  Earlier this year, German chancellor Angela Merkel said that
  legal considerations had played a significant role in the EU’s
  reluctance to match US measures.
  
  “We in Europe are bound to having an obvious connection to Crimea
  – ie, the offence that is at the base of the sanctions,” said
  Merkel. “That’s a different legal situation from the US.”
  
  This followed the case last year of Iran's Bank Mellat, which
  successfully got EU sanctions against it quashed and then sued
  the UK Treasury for $4 billion in compensation for alleged lost
  business (for an exclusive interview with Sarosh Zaiwalla, the
  lawyer who won the case for the bank, click here). Commentators on the crisis have suggested
  that because of this judgment, the EU has been wary of imposing
  stricter sanctions against Russia and as a result previous
  measures were largely cosmetic.
  
  “The Bank Mellat ruling could be used by entities or individuals
  affected by sanctions as a precedent to challenge them. Whether
  we are going to see those targeted taking the same action remains
  to be seen. With time, depending on how long the sanctions last,
  we may see them challenged,” said Kevin Atkins, international
  partner at Chadbourne & Parke.
  
  “In order to challenge the sanction, an entity or individual
  would have to demonstrate that there has been a substantive error
  in that the restriction imposed upon it is not proportionate or
  justifiable and there are a number of recent examples of
  successful challenges of this nature at the EU and UK
  level.  EU challenges would be made to the general court of
  the Council or the European Court of Justice whilst UK challenges
  would be made to the High Court, with the right of appeal up to
  the Supreme Court,” said Atkins.
  
  Effectiveness
  
  Opinion on the effectiveness of sanctions is divided and many
  observers are sceptical that they will force Putin to reconsider
  his Ukraine strategy.
  
  On the one hand, as Russian trade and investment are spread
  across multiple jurisdictions, it is therefore not dependent on
  one country and could see its way through the storm by expanding
  trade elsewhere.
  
  However, analysts have pointed out that as a result of Russia's
  weakened economic performance in recent years and slow growth,
  authorities will want to minimise as much negative impact as
  possible. Asset bans and visa restrictions targeted at the
  wealthy may also increase pressure on Moscow to negotiate a
  settlement.
  
  While the Russian economy expanded by 1.3 per cent last year, the
  Washington-based International Monetary Fund has projected a much
  lower 0.2 per cent growth this year due to the sanctions, in
  contrast to the forecast last year of 3.3 per cent.
  
  “Russia is going to feel the pressure this year, and gross
  domestic product decline will continue in 2015. However, even
  without the sanctions the Russian economy would be weak. It is
  anyone’s guess if sanctions are effective and trigger a policy
  change towards Ukraine by Russian authorities,” said Michal
  Dybula, an economist at BNP Paribas.
  
  Macro-Advisory's Weafer said that it was still too early to tell
  whether the new sanctions would bring about a change in policy
  from Moscow.
  
  “Will they change Russia’s political stance towards East Ukraine?
  There is no evidence of that as yet. But the downing of MH17,
  which directly led to this move to stage three sanctions, was a
  major game-changer. It is still too early to be able to say what
  the political impact will be - but there will be a clearly
  negative economic impact,” said Weafer.
  
  Banking
  
  The EU has been heavily criticised by Russia’s biggest banks for
  including the financial services industry in its new round of
  sanctions.
  
  Sberbank, Russia’s biggest bank by assets, said in a statement
  that the new EU sanctions would do nothing to ease the troubles
  in Ukraine and that they undermined “the foundations of the
  global financial system".
  
  Weafer said that blocking the state banks from accessing US
  dollar and Euro debt beyond a 90-day maturity will cause a
  “squeeze” on the domestic Russian debt market.
  
  “The banks will of course get access to state money via the
  central bank and the big corporations will also get access to
  state funds. But the small and medium-sized enterprises and
  individuals will find it tougher to access new debt and the cost
  of both servicing existing debt and any new debt will be higher,”
  said Weafer.
  
  “We have estimated a 100-basis point rise in the short-term
  interest rate, which will hurt Russian GDP by nearly 1 percentage
  point after three to four quarters. This is quite a significant
  impact that will not only be weighing on the respective banks
  with restricted access to capital markets, but feeding into the
  Russian economy,” said Dybula.
  
  “Certainly we are expecting the pressure on the Russian currency
  is going to remain high as private capital outflows accelerate.
  Wider ramifications of this will be that less money is available
  for domestic investment, which will harm overall economic
  performance,” he added.
  
  In response to the crisis in Ukraine, a number of Western banks
  have already cut their exposure to Russia to protect themselves
  from potential risk as a result of the ongoing instability in the
  region. Citigroup, the US bank with the largest footprint in
  Russia, cut its total exposure by 5.3 per cent to $8.9 billion
  for the three months ending on 30 June, while Bank of America
  Merrill Lynch reduced exposure by 40 per cent in the first half
  of the year to $3.9 billion.
  
  “With banks already reducing their exposure to Russia, the new
  sanctions are only going to exacerbate this,” said Dybula.
  
  EU impact
  
  But what about the impacts of sanctions on the EU?
  
  So far, in retaliation to the sanctions, Russia has imposed an
  embargo on food imports from the EU, US and some other Western
  countries, leading the European Commission to promise financial
  support to EU vegetable and fruit growers.
  
  The Polish prime minister has already said that sanctions would
  reduce Poland’s GDP by 0.6 per cent by the end of the year.
  
  UK exports to Russia and Ukraine account for just 0.5 per cent of
  UK GDP, suggesting that little damage would be done to the UK
  economy overall. More significantly, Russia and Ukraine account
  for 1.1 per cent of EU GDP and 1.6 per cent of German GDP.
  
  “I tend to think that some countries will be affected more than
  others, particularly those with stronger ties to Russia through
  financial or trade links,” said Dybula.
  
  “The biggest hit we are going to see in terms of GDP will be the
  countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Poland in particular has
  been hit by Russia's ban on food exports, while Russian sanctions
  against Germany's manufacturing industry could hurt GDP by more
  than 1 per cent,” he added.
  
  Weafer said that current sanctions could hit London harder than
  most other EU countries and warned that the potential future loss
  could be significant.
  
  "If Russian banks and big corporations are now forced to seek
  alternative banking and financing arrangements in Asia or
  elsewhere, then they may keep those new relationships when the
  sanctions end," said Weafer.
  
  "Russia has long-term plans for a huge increase in investment and
  for new listings. Normally the bulk of that would have gone
  through London. Now it may be more spread between other locations
  and London’s dominance of Russian banking may be lost," he added.