
On Russia, finance needs to find its moral compass
The looming risk of big write-offs should prompt investor rethink
The unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state by Russia has affected many people in many ways. With over three million Ukrainian refugees having now fled their homes in search of safety, it feels somehow empty to write about banks’ exposure to Russia or market interventions by the Russian central bank.
Not that these things don’t matter. Au contraire, they do. And the market reaction to a raft of sanctions from the US, the European Union, the UK and other countries shows just how the global economy and the financial markets are intertwined.
The three European lenders most exposed to Russia going into the war were, perhaps unsurprisingly, Societe Generale, Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI) and UniCredit.
At the time of writing, the banks’ shares are down 23%, 35% and 29%, respectively, since February 24. Not a good look.
While these banks stand out from the crowd, lenders in most western countries also had significant Russian exposures, according to the latest available figures. The same countries now united towards making Russia a financial markets pariah, had billions of US dollars in claims vis-à-vis Russian banks.
Needless to say, banks are not the only market players with links to Russia and its state-controlled institutions.
The largest state-backed pension funds around the globe, from Norway to Japan, from Europe and the US, also reported billions in exposure to the country. Digging into their financial disclosures reveals large exposures to Russia’s two largest banks – Sberbank and VTB Bank – and its main energy companies, Gazprom and Rosneft. All of which have now been sanctioned.
Like it or not, by buying into Russia’s top names, financial institutions played a role in contributing to beefing up Moscow’s war chest.
Granted, there’s an argument to be made about investing in a country such as Russia in order to dig it out from the mud of its past and launch it into a brighter future. The infamous ‘Russian reset’ doctrine deployed by the Obama administration in 2009 was partially based on this thinking, but unravelled after just over three years.
But here’s the thing. Even before last month’s invasion, the writing was on the wall that Putin’s strategic aims lacked any regard for human life, at home or abroad. After all, a good chunk of the currently proscribed companies and personnel made their first appearance on sanction lists after the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
The latest round of restrictive measures has just highlighted the extent of the connections with western institutions. Some banks and funds may now find themselves stuck with a bunch of Russian assets and exposures, and nowhere to offload them. The risk of big write-offs is looming ever closer – cue the world’s smallest violin.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
Taking the measure of CMS pricing
Bank of America quants propose comprehensive framework for modelling rate derivatives
Inflationary forces (and microbial soups)
The hold of central banks over inflation may be weaker than we thought
Was Archegos default a one-in-a-million event?
BoE quant says neglecting high leverage and WWR may create conditions for similar blow-ups
Data shines light on Tibor fragility
Lack of actual transactions in D-Tibor should be considered in fallback discussions
Living with SA-CCR, one year on
Collateral agreements and FX futures may be some of the ways to tackle increased capital costs
GFXC to entice buy-side code adoption with ESG tie-ups
Rating agency partnerships would link FX code adoption to ESG scores
Clock ticking on UK plan for regulatory reforms
Changes to SMCR and short-selling rules least likely to be completed before next election
How did EU regulators miss the FTX horror story?
Gruesome accounting practices and a questionable cast: plenty of grounds to reject Mifid licence