March 26, 2017

Igor Kolomoisky: I would advise you not to relax – the crisis has not passed

December 25, 2010    InterviewРаспечатать эту статью

Igor Kolomoisky: I would advise you not to relax – the crisis has not passed

The first part of this interview is available here: Igor Kolomoisky: Between Us Pinchuk guarantors can not be – we are currently guarantors

— In times of crisis Privatbank has received 7 billion refinancing. How do you get them — under the arrangement?

— No. Absolutely official channels.

— There was talk that a refinancing is paying bribes …

— Well, I do not know. what they say — we is not affected. There was not that a hint — even hints.

— Who do you think, proved to be better prepared for the crisis and effectively fights with him: the power or business?

— The crisis was severe enough … I find it difficult to evaluate, who behaved like — this was the first time in Ukraine. And I’ll tell you, not only the reaction of the Ukrainian authorities, but also other states was not very adequate at first. By and large, from the Ukrainian authorities not very much depended. I would say that this crisis is an objective reality that existed beyond the desire or reluctance of the reaction of the Ukrainian authorities and businessmen. And what fight? No, well, it was possible to something and fight, but the epicenter of the crisis was not in Ukraine, so the fight is nothing. He was so global in comparison with the possibilities of the Ukrainian authorities and business, that the only way? that they remain — it has something to adapt and begin to live in new conditions.

— You keep talking about the crisis in the past tense. Do you think that he had already passed?

— No, not yet passed. We must wait for the fall. The first signal that the crisis has passed can return to the level of production before the crisis. Or at least a positive trend. This yet. So I would advise you not to relax — we do not stand at the helm of the world economy and particularly on what we have no influence.

— Now all who have spare capacity, try to buy some assets. How much money have you spent on acquisitions during the crisis?

— Come on, we will not discuss the amount. In general, we have increased in different branches of our holding. Although the ferroalloy business, we have not increased their power, did not buy anything. Had only some repairs and tried to adjust to market requirements in a crisis. But in general, where a given new assets, somewhere got new fields are, somewhere — infrastructure elements. And, of course, bought everything crisis priced inexpensively. Here, in particular, strengthened in the oil business, we have now is still fairly complicated design of the transaction on petrol stations under the brand “Alfa—Nafta—products” …

— but in fact — already filling in your portfolio?

— No. There is a common understanding and agreement on the purchase of a number of stations. But to say that the money paid and goods have already re—written to us yet. And I think this registration will last a long time, because if the filling would be burdened with something, I simply do not buy it. For example, I just do not pay money if they are pledged.

— I understand that you insist on the fact that these stations were removed from the structure of deposits “Ukprombanka”?

— You know, sometimes I look through the press and read that the show was going to Kolomoisky some refueling and so on …. Of course, I understand that this is nonsense, but let us, I’ll still explain. It’s simple: we want to buy a net, weighed down with no good — filling. I just expressed interest, said he was willing to buy the property, but when they began to understand, the product was laid down. We talk to the seller, well: let us pay money, and you part repayment and part zaberesh itself.

You know, I do not want to buy a gas station, then to the creditors came to me the same Ukrprombank and said they were because of me left with nothing. In principle, the seller will agree with us, understanding is.

And now this whole process we are engaged is not a salesman stations. We are buying assets, and the purification of these assets from liabilities — is the problem of the seller, who in his time filling in these laid your same bank. But what is fueling removed from the pledge, does not mean that someone is not going to repay these loans with collateral.

— And then what is the subject of litigation?

— I understand that some refilling were incorrectly issued, some, for example, were laid by two or three credits and so on. And now, somewhere someone with something that does not agree. There after all what the situation: the bank had ruled the owners, and now came to a temporary manager appointed by the National Bank, which ensures that all assets were left intact. He’ll spend some checking on the result of which they must decide either to recapitalize or nationalization can eliminate … we do not know that now is in Ukrprombank.

On the other hand, the bank’s owners have a deal with me to bring some of the assets of the pledge. And, of course, the interim manager is struggling to be somewhere more money to pay or have paid not one but two loans and so on … In this and the dispute. But to us it has nothing to do. The deal is actually quite complicated. Once a month, I ask, and tell me what kind of procedure is moving, everything is fine.

Many say that because of what you are trying to bring the seller and filling out the bail—out, slowed down the whole procedure of the bank recapitalization, and that you theoretically easier to break up the bank and release the gas station, than to continue this long process … < / strong>

— And here we are? The bank I never belonged. It belongs to the very same sellers refills, and there they themselves need to understand each other.

Understand that there are only 200 pledged for loans stations. Each refill — a separate set of documents. That is, 200 gas stations — 200 sets of documents. And deal with them — this is a complicated and lengthy work. But then again, I personally do not do this …

Main competitors on the Odessa Port Factory — Russians
— Are you going to participate in the privatization of Odessa Portside Plant (OPP)?

— Yes, of course. But alone we are not going to buy it. AEs, of course, good company, but to pay for this half—life or half the kingdom, we are not ready.

— Why? There are no free resources?

— At the moment, the company announced the starting price of around $ 500 million — 4 billion hryvnia. I will not say whether I have to have the funds or not, but I’m not going to spend the money on the IPF in this situation. Not so much because the SCR is not necessary, but because we do not know what will happen to anything at all osenyui ready: Will the second wave of crisis, there will be a second wave of the crisis. And we have elections in the country on the nose …

— If none, then with whom are you going to bid?

— For anyone who is ready to cooperate with us in this matter. The entire list of those with whom we are negotiating, I call you can not, because that is the secret negotiations. I can only say that we have just found a rapport with the owners of Cherkassy “Nitrogen” ( Alexander Yaroslavsky — UP ). It is still our only partners, but we continue to negotiate with the owners of many other plants.

— That is, in this part of you also do not yet ready to participate?

— No, why. Together we think. Together have spread half — it was easier, all three will be even easier …. Well after all, still do not know how much it will be necessary to accumulate. I think the maximum price may go up to a billion dollars. That is, if there will be many participants and will stir. But it is also possible that particularly would not want to and you can pick up at the starting price ( laughs ).

— Who do you think his main competitor in this auction?

— I do not know — no one emerged. But I think it will necessarily take part Norwegian Yara. It is true, given that there is a large share of public capital in the frontal part she could not. The fact that the Ukrainian legislation in the privatization of the company can not participate, in which more than 25% stake in another state. Then it is not privatization, but sale of the asset to another state — we need intergovernmental agreements, etc. Therefore Yare have to take some partners. There will be more participants and with the Russian side — Sibur, Eurochem ….

— I understand that they can become major competitors?

— I think so. They are always top competitors. In general, Russians in Ukraine — the most important competitors.

— And how do such privatization is rational in a crisis?

— From the viewpoint of the state, I believe, is not rational. I believe that in times of crisis privatization be stopped.

— What do you think, why the President has agreed to sell the plant with amiakoprovodom?

— A way, I do not know if he agreed or not. It seems to me that lately Yushchenko tried not to influence this process. After last year’s conflict over the IPF has been associated more with the change of the head of the State Property Fund, and the factory was only a pretext.

— And you as a potential future owner of the plant are not afraid that you will not have control over the strategically important object, I mean amiakoprovod: in terms of the tender prices will adjust to the handling of the state, not the owner of the plant?

— Well … will govern and will be — and us what is the difference? I do believe that the goal is not to take this handling, and buy the plant. After all, handling is important for producers of ammonia, as, for example, and Dniproazot Cherkassyazota not have a lot of ammonia. Ammonia is of great importance for the Russian companies, for example, Tolyatinskogo plant of the Ukrainian — maybe even for Horlivka …

Actually, I think that Ukrainian producers of nitrogen fertilizer has long had to create some semblance of a foreign organization. Any “Ukramiak” or “Vneshhim” or “Ukrhim” … to consolidate volumes of nitrogen fertilizers, which are exported. Because the power of six Ukrainian refineries together constitute about 10—11% of world market of this product. At least, once it was. And if you combine the efforts to trade nitrogen fertilizers, it is realistic to influence world prices. And it will help dampen rising cost of the increase in gas prices.

“1+1” will not serve nor Tymoshenko nor Yanukovych, Yushchenko nor

— How much cost the purchase of 49% of the “1 +1”?

— I am now in the process of the deal, under which I must pay $ 100 million in common shares of the company and channel TET, and CME must pay 100% of “1 +1” channel and “Cinema” and the company will be allocated 51% to 49 %.

What if you do not believe that I still have a stock of CME, shares the “1 +1” will cost me 100 million plus TET channel. I think that today’s crisis TET can be estimated at least another 100 million, while last year it was possible and the 200 million estimate. Here, and read …

— It turns out now, you pay about two hundred … It is inexpensive, given that the recent nearest competitor — “Inter” — recently asked shareholders billion ….

— Wait a minute! When in “Inter” gave a billion and then TET was worth 200 ( laughs ). Why, then, a little? You are reading the statements about the “advantages”: Fuksman something to say Radnyansky, Prof—Media has made some statements. … They offered 300 to 400 million for 100%. So if you take the top mark, just as in and out — 200 million.

Is not it be easier to agree to the terms and Fuksman P odnyanskogo and buy the channel for half price?

— This is not a valid question because Fuksman and wanted to throw out all Rodnyansky me out of the deal. They took me the full amount and refused to issue shares to me under the guise that it is supposedly prohibited CME. But if it were not for that deal with Fuksmanom and Rodnyansky, there would be no deal this today — it’s not two different events. And then buy now and can not be viewed as two separate transactions.

— Do you have plans to become sole owner of all shares of “1 +1”?

— Well … except that the CME will offer me to buy their share — anything can happen. But this makes no sense for CME. The fact is that if a public company there is no majority — it makes no sense to own minority stakes, because then the asset is not included in the consolidated financial statements.

— That is not even such negotiations took place?

— No. Today we have agreed on a deal in which it owns 51% and are now discussing the principles of cooperation. Since I can now begin to negotiate that they do leave? Or even think about it? Then I would have had now openly say they do — why then do this company? The question still is why I want it? Who then will manage the channel? These transnational television company, they have stations throughout Europe. And I that, TV? I’ll do it will not, that is, I need someone to hire. And why, if they are professionals in this business.

— Now you are in the operational control of processes in the channel?

— Never do. None of my people on the channel no.

— It is said that Tkachenko — your people …

— No, but listen, so you can make a person Kolomoisky anyone. It reminds me of the movie “The New Adventures of elusive,” where Buba Kastorsky interrogated in the secret service asked — and you are in Buenos Ayrose their people are.

— you already can guess what changes will occur in the management of the channel after the end of the transaction?

— Upon completion of the transaction I will not have the right to change the management of the channel. And to influence the appointment and I can now — I get to the supervisory board of the channel. At the moment, and I was completely satisfied with the CME and Tkachenko. I generally try not to interfere with the channel, because there are professionals. Adrian Sarbu ( executive director of CME ), for example, I have a big reputation — he is a great professional.

— But recently, the channel rates are falling and it’s not a secret. And do you as a businessman should not be interested in the change management that can not handle the situation?

— Everyone is talking about falling ratings, and I think that this is not happening in one day. At the very fact that today we disentangle the policies that were more Fuksman and Rodnyansky. When they realized that they were going to withdraw, they did everything to break down these channels. Moreover, Rodnyansky was a clear conflict of interests: he was in the CCC and CCC entered the Ukrainian market, and he deliberately created a situation in order to facilitate this process. Rodnyansky Lauder was negotiating with, offering some joint projects, as well as the arguments cited that the “pros” is still down, still all bad ….

So we’ll see. The results of the current management we will see in the new season: to analyze ratings, really appreciate the work of a team and then we’ll decide where we’re going.

— Who ask the supervisory board? The media appeared information that Novikov …

— I do not know who it is. But Novikov — unlikely, it is zampredbanka, he will be that part—time work there? While I do not know. Will be a day — will be food.

— To be realistic, it’s hard to believe that the upcoming presidential election you will not use the TV ….

— In what sense?

— As the election resource. For example, a television channel Inter.

— Wait a second. Compare the “pros” and the Internet at least not correctly. Inter belongs to specific individuals, someone says, half Firtash, Khoroshkovsky half, and someone — that is completely Horoshkvoskomu.

A “1 +1” is owned by a public U.S. company and is controlled by clearly written out the scheme, which corresponds to the corporate law of public companies, which operates in including in the United States. And there is no one fools around and no one can tell. I, for example, in the public broadcaster, as a board member signed the oath of a whole that has to do, and what is not. In particular, if I find out about some negative things regarding freedom of speech, I must inform everyone about this and scream “Help! Help!”. Therefore it is impossible to compare the management of “ins” and the management of Inter.

I do not have, such as the right to pick up, call Tkachenko and ask, “what you put out there in the story” or “can you do something to change it.” It is impossible, you know? It is unacceptable and impossible.

If I afford to give instructions Tkachenko, and then he will notify the board of directors, then I have a great chance to be in U.S. custody.

— All may not be so rude. And it’s not Tkachenko, who may or may not call. At stake — the presidency and if you have the opportunity to influence it indirectly, then your risk may be warranted.

— Firstly, the Tkachenko too, is a normal person. Second, think, and I have to depend on the call Tkachenko, or not? Or maybe I’m going for the presidency? What effect might be worth it, so I then got into a U.S. prison?

— Your description looks like something utopian in Ukrainian reality. Indeed, to date, and “1 +1” is often not a model of objectivity.

— This is the problem of the entire Ukrainian journalism — they think that if the channel is biased, then the owners fault, not journalists. We will not deal with Inter — everything is understandable, so all we saw and heard, especially the famous air in winter, when Firtash were free. And it is not necessary to explain.

“1 +1” in contrast to the other channels have to be objective channel. And if some bias creeps in some moments, it is not because the process run by the owners or the puppeteer, but because journalists allow themselves to express their opinions and stand on a side, but do not have the right to do it .

— I am going to ask you a question that concerned the majority of politicians and journalists. Many of them fear that the upcoming presidential “1 +1” will serve the interests of Yulia Tymoshenko. You as a shareholder can ensure that this does not happen?

— I can now tell you that even if someone wants and that this channel is served by someone, he can not do it. Either now or later. And it’s not only the BYuT and Tymoshenko, as did the Party of Regions and Viktor Yanukovych, “Our Ukraine” and Yushchenko. This is a non—excited, we can then!

Even when I have this package, I can not, and the procedure I will not manage the channel — this will make the CME. And since I’m not going to get out of the CME, I’ll be under oath.

Be dishonest channel “pluses” does not allow its structure. This is a channel that runs the civilized foreign standards. And even those manifestations, which can sometimes be — is the problem of journalists, that is, your colleagues — their impropriety or incompetence. And from the owners it is impossible.

— Finally. Tell me, what is still the essence of your conflict with Mikhail Brodsky?

— We have no conflict. And anyway, I will not discuss in the media some of his personal relationships with friends and colleagues. I can tell you only one thing — you watched the movie Running? There was such a hero KORZUKHIN Paramon Hitch — he’s Paramosha, who brilliantly played Evstigneev. He had lost at cards, paid off and then cried that he took the money. And Brodsky — he lost a dispute with him have all received, and now he is displeased that he had had all received. It was a personal dispute — I will not discuss. In Brodsky’s got a lot of money, and now he is crying that his nespravdelivo robbed. And after its release to the press, I do not talk to him. Given the nature of Brodsky — we had a mediator, who before joining the debate gathered from participants in the money and then gave all the winner. And Brodsky would have long settled. He’s insane, so who pays attention to it?

— Brodsky himself argues that the mediator was Tihipko …

— No, not a mediator Tigipko — let slander is not a candidate for president and do not draw in some private disassembly. If he submits to Brodsky in court, I witnessed with his hand and was ready to confirm that it was not him.

Tags: ,