The formation of a provisional administration at the Slovyansky Commercial Bank (representatives of the National Bank of Ukraine regional directors, State Tax Administration, and the regional authorities) was followed by another wave of depositors’ indignation.
Meanwhile, according to Oleksandr TOLSTOI, NBU Zaporizhzhia regional director, the provisional administration’s powers are limited to controlling the bank’s financial operations. Mr. Tolstoi stressed, “We and the bank management must find the best ways to increase the liquidity of assets and hence boost (state) budget revenues and improve settlements with the depositors. First, the provisional administration should decide whether regional branches should continue to function (in the Crimea, Kryvy Rih, and Mariupol). Secondly, it must analyze its profits and losses. Third, it must exercise stringent control over the way the bank makes settlements with physical persons and the state.”
In the words of Oleksandr SIN, deputy chairman of the oblast state administration, the provisional administration is the first concrete step toward defusing social tension. “At this stage,” Mr. Sin said, “the bank could not have sold its assets on its own, for its reputation has been seriously tarnished. We do not rule out that Slovyansky bankers will sell out bills of exchange, promissory notes, and property for a song. The oblast state administration thinks it advisable to bind over the management of enterprises, which once credited Slovyansky, to buy out their debentures. There can be more than one mechanisms for doing so: repaying the loan either in money or in products. In any case, the state will in practice be able to increase the liquidity of assets to 100%.”
In his turn, Volodymyr DANELIUK, deputy chairman of the Slovyansky board of directors, is deeply doubtful whether this kind of dual power is constructive. In his view, there are three ways of breaking the impasse, one of them being the most realistic. “The oblast administration’s idea to bind over the Slovyansky debtors to repay loans is a sound one, but it is difficult to implement,” Mr. Daneliuk says. Unfortunately, most enterprises are experiencing economic problems. Moreover, the bank’s prestige has been undermined. I am certain that those who owe us will find a host of excuses not to pay. The state should not bind over but ask, persuade, and, if you like, beg the directors to understand the situation. There is also another way: to place Slovyansky’s assets at the National Bank’s disposal. But this is impossible before a court makes a decision. And, finally, Slovyansky could be given a fixed-purpose loan. If the state does not trust us, let it place the loan in the accounts of the National Bank itself! As the assets are being sold, we will repay the debt. Unfortunately, Kyiv has not yet reacted to our proposal.”
Mr. Sin called upon the bank’s board of directors not to resist the provisional administration’s intentions. (Before the court rules, the assets are Slovyansky’s private property. Nobody is authorized to utilize them without the bank’s consent). “We are acting to serve common interests. Ours is a constructive approach. I am convinced state control will be indispensable even if the court sides with Slovyansky. No one can rule out a situation such that the bank will itself take steps toward self-liquidation,” he declared.
