Impact of the Crimean Annexation and Sanctions on Russian Growth

Whatever the narrative or counter-narrative, the annexation of Crimea by Russia is in effect.  What does this auger for Russia’s economy?

Russia’s growth was already flat-lining before the Russian-Ukrainian “conflict” with concern over the greater reliance in 2014 on hydrocarbons than in 1991 AND the increasing likelihood of a narrowing current account on the Balance of Payments in the coming years.

Did the Putin team do its sums?

Cost of Transfer of Fiscal Responsibilities To Moscow

The incorporation of approximately 2 million Crimeans represents an administrative challenge that Russia will manage although the transfer of property rights will prove more taxing whilst an asset-grab of prized real-estate or businesses has already begun.

Crimea was reliant on transfers from Kiev of around 60% of its budget of approx. $0.5 bn. Add additional (and higher) centrally managed social payments (eg pensions higher than in Ukraine) that Moscow will now have to manage and the expected reduction of both cash-payments from migrants working outside Crimea and the likely collapse – at least this year – of tourism receipts means that the net back-of-the-envelope cost to the Russian budget is around $1.5-2bn per year.

Add additional Russian transfers that will be needed to keep the Crimean economy afloat – and the total bill will be $4-5bn, equivalent to less than 0.2% of GDP for the Russian Budget.  I’m sure the boys from MinFin will have provided something along these lines in their preparatory brief to Mr Putin.

Cost of Sanctions

This is the big unknown. The Russian economy is far more integrated with the rest of the world than is often appreciated.  Even excluding the gas flows that cater for 30% of European energy consumption there is a surfeit of international connections from industry to finance that affect corporates and banks.

The combination of US and EU sanctions was scoffed at by Putin and co initially. However the very inter-connectivity of Russia to the global nexus of markets is already having a marked effect – in particular following the measures announced by the US.  Global banks will be reticent to fall foul of the US’s regulatory net by touching anything associated with the Putin Inc. clan that have been shown the equivalent of soccer’s Yellow Cards.  With regulators purportedly checking bank exposures to Russia, and with recent experience of handling and containing potential contagion, the possibility of a tail-risk event such as a gradual Iran-style financial squeeze led by the US could seriously hurt Russia.

With rating agencies such already highlighting a “negative” for Russia and reports of credit lines being cut, the initial flight of hot funds may prove to be a more lasting factor than Putin’s strategists may have anticipated in their cost-benefit analysis of the Crimean blitzkrieg.

Interbank rates in Moscow have risen over a percent over the last 48 days and the US’s clever focus on Bank Rossiya and the resultant freeze on its quarter of a million credit card holders by Mastercard and Visa will have done more to hit home to the rich upper and middle classes the potential financial impact of even a modest lock-out from the international financial architecture.

Old hands in Russia from the 90s will be aware of the  risk of mini bank runs given memories of two previous Russian financial crises since the Soviet collapse in 91 but I see this less of a risk and the Central Bank will manage any liquidity crises given its oodles of reserves.

One hopes that diplomacy at least de-escalates the situation so that the threat, in particular, of harsher German-led EU economic sanctions dissipates. If not the next round of trade and financial sanctions on Russia – and its likely reaction against foreign investments in Russia by it – will unfortunately mean a greater hit on the Russian economy.

The Putin model relies on hydrocarbon revenue and the short-term risk of say the US releasing reserves on the global market will have less of an impact than imagined as supply is based on agreed forward prices.

However if such a move affects the forward curve and at the same time presages a very likely structural shift in EU energy demand for Russian gas through say a strategic “energy security pact” to import US gas and accelerate alternative LNG and from other supply sources in the Mediterranean, then this will have a harder medium-term hit on the Putin model and its economy.

Compensation for loss of State Owned Assets to Ukraine?

Murky waters and hardly mentioned so far… but assume that Ukraine,  with western assistance, is able to get safe passage out for its military personnel.

And that it seeks damages from Moscow for loss of key refineries and other assets. .. what then?

The “zero agreement” at the time of the Soviet Dissolution amicably done by the successor republics and Russia was for Russia to assume all external debt obligations but also to secure external assets – including Soviet embassies. As the takeover in Crimea is an annexation and essentially – despite Russian protestations – in violation of the Budapest Agreement it signed in 1994 that recognized Ukraine’s borders, it is highly probable that Ukraine could seek damages in almost any western country.

Summary:

1.       The nominal cost of running Crimea will be peanuts but the short term cost for Russia will reduce growth by  1/5% of GDP to around 0.5%-0.7 and lower than the 1.3% year-start forecast.

2.       Russians are feeling very proud of Mr Putin but domestic consumption will be lower as the financial squeeze from the sanctions hits home and the cost of capital rises and imported inflation rises on the back of a falling rouble.

3.       Trade will be affected – both due to the rise in country risk and delay or cancellation of cross-border projects – but also due to the significant impact on Ukrainian-Russian trade, even excluding the risk of putative economic sanctions from the EU. The Current Account could be wiped out.

4.       An escalation of tension will lead to a much higher hit on the Russian economy from the external squeeze – particularly through the financial links - but Putin's government will tap into the huge fiscal reserves to ensure growth remains at least round 0.5% of GDP.

5.       Mr Putin has in effect secured his re-election! In turn the Putin 2.0 economic model will last longer . The EU will accelerate to reduce reliance on Russian gas. Together these two factors will lower trend growth.

Ukraine, Key Political-economy Concerns and Stabilisation

There are several overarching questions and concerns that are exercising the international community, some of which include:

• How did it get to this stage with Ukraine and Russia now on the brink of war?
• What can be done to assuage Russian concerns and de-escalate the situation?
• What does it mean for the longer term for Russia’s neighbours from the Narva region in north-east Estonia through to the ‘stans in the east and even Moldova in the south-east where there are sizeable Russian populations (if not majorities as in NE Estonia)?
• And in turn for the EU that now houses several former members of the Comecon bloc and for its own energy security given the continued reliance on Russian gas and for financial centres such as London a reliable diet of Russian capital – legal or otherwise – as well as listings?
• Concurrently how can the EU utilise its very successful soft power refined during the Accession Process since the late 90s that has helped former planned economies to successfully transform into functioning, democratic, market economies?
• And the Economics: how does the putative conflict between the countries likely to affect the economies of these two countries – both over the short and medium term -  and what are the potential spillover effects onto neighbouring economies? 

As someone who has advised worked on both countries (inc. the Crimea) since the mid-90s I have my own views on these questions from first-hand experience and various writings.

In this blog entry I will focus only on the last question as it is perhaps the underlying and central cause of the current malaise. Although events over the last few months seemed to accelerate toward the end till the eventual exit of the now-former president Yanukovych, to many of us long-time Ukraine-watchers the situation had been steadily worsening with gross mismanagement of the economy and in effect a social mis-contract between the political-economic elite that are essentially the one-and-same to effectively asset-strip the state, allow rampant corruption and in effect created the disconnect and discontent that so fuelled the anger on the street.

Result: macroeconomic instability with the economy in recession since 2012 but which was buoyed previously due to demand for steel from Russia and globally, a large current account deficit, fiscal mismanagement and with FX reserves below 90-day cover.

In the last week has seen the Ukraininan currency, the Hryvna bombed and Ukrainian assets nosedived as investors rushed to the Exit doors.  The threat of bank runs has been temporarily halted through restrictions on withdrawals but the threat of meltdown remains a tail risk without external support. The necessary devaluation through an open float of the currency will push up imported inflation and further reduce real incomes and purchasing power.

Though Russia has too been hit it is sitting on a half trillion dollar reserve base inclusive of oil funds and will ride out the storm…one for another blog.

Ukraine will, however, need rapid stabilisation and to their credit the big guns in the form of the IMF and the EU are already making preparations for rapid-response loans and budget support using the experience from recent years in the Eurozone and elsewhere.

The key question beyond short term plugging of financing gaps will be whether Ukraine will be willing and able to undertake genuine reforms to ensure sustainability. This in turn will depend on how the Russo-Ukrainian spat plays out – the longer the duration, the more costly the impact and the reconstruction/redevelopment efforts.

It will also depend on political will and all the bonhomie rhetoric from some western capitals about the Ukrainian parliament being the people’s senate ignores the rather unsavoury truth  that it does unfortunately retain the reputation of being a Members Club for crooks. Whether this group in the Rada has the courage or willingness to sanction broad-based reforms remains to be seen, particularly difficult reforms to balance the fiscal books through necessary but potentially difficult political amendments to the energy deficit that has been soaking close to 8% of GDP in subsidies.  A fresh election may well be required to give the new government a genuine mandate.

The so-called Orange Revolution in 2004-05 was pyrrhic and a gross disappointment for those that saw it as a precursor of a fundamental redress of governance in Ukraine. Unfortunately, and despite significant good-will and dollops of western assistance thereafter there was little real appetite in Kiev to modify the status quo and despite some sterling efforts to kick-start reform at a regional levels.

Hopefully, the penny has dropped for many of these rent-seeking members of the elite that political stability and effective economic governance go hand-in-hand….and hopefully the sabre-rattling from Moscow will cease….and the hit on the RTS, the rouble and share prices in energy stocks in Russia may well catalyse this.