резюме_ПС_английский_26 10 2018 (1138458), страница 4
Текст из файла (страница 4)
The factors thatnegatively affect the stability of the operator's participation in the payment systeminclude the use of the average number of incidents, independent risk management by thepayment system operator, without the distribution of functions between operators. Also,if the operators and the operator of the payment system are different legal entities, theprobability of excluding the operator from the Register of payment system operatorsalso increases.As a result, the following significant indicators were identified:Financial:(f1) foreign exchange assets;(f2) cash;(f3) net assets;f4) authorized capital;(f5) net profit.18Institutional:i1) the requirement for experience in the market more than 5 years;(i2) application of the indicator «number of payments made to total (P3)»;(i3) application of the «payment system availability index (P4)»;(i4) application of the «Average number of incidents (P5) indicator»;i5) availability of overdraft service;(i6) the fact of socially importance;i7) coincidence of infrastructure (totally different operators of paymentinfrastructure services);(i8) organization of the risk management system.The presented significant indicators reflecting institutional and financial factorsof stability of operators in payment systems are used to assess the level of risk ofpayment infrastructure service providers.2.3.
Coefficient of the payment system stabilityIn the dissertation research, a new coefficient of stability of the payment systembased on the above indicators is proposed. The coefficient characterizes thesustainability of the payment infrastructure service providers.The following formula was used to calculate the stability coefficient of thepayment system18(1): = 0,51 ∗ () + 0,49 ∗ () (1),where () – financial sustainability indicator, () – institutionalsustainability indicator, and Z – coefficient of stability of the payment system.The financial stability indicator is calculated using the following formula: () = 0,32 ∗ 1 − 0,25 ∗ 2 − 0,14 ∗ 3 − 0,15 ∗ 4 − 0,14 ∗ 5, wheref1 – 0, if foreign currency assets are less than 3 billion rubles, 1 – if foreigncurrency assets are more than 3 billion rubles;18The coefficients of the stability indices (0,51 and 0,49) were calculated on the basis of the estimatedstrength of the constructed regressions.19f2 – 0, if the cash is less than 2 billion rubles, 1 – if the cash is more than 2 billionrubles;f3 – 0, if net assets are less than 6 billion rubles, 1 – if net assets are more than 6billion rubles;f4 – 0, if the authorized capital is less than 0.2 billion rubles, 1 – if the authorizedcapital is more than 0.2 billion rubles;f5 – 0, if net profit is negative, 1 - if net profit is positive.6.
The institutional sustainability factor is calculated using the following formula:() = −0,1 ∗ 1 − 0,15 ∗ 2 − 0,18 ∗ 3 + 0,19 ∗ 4 − 0,7 ∗ 5 − 0,11 ∗ 6 + 0,15∗ 7 + 0,9 ∗ 8, wherei1 – 0, if the work experience requirement is less than 5 years, 1 - if the workexperience requirement is more than 5 years;i2 – 0, if the indicator «number of payments made to the total number” is not usedin the payment system, 1-if the specified indicator is applied;i3 – 0, if the payment system does not use the availability indicator of thepayment system 1-if used;i4 – 0, if the average number of incidents is not used in the payment system, 1-ifused;i5 – 0, if the payment system does not implement the mechanism of overdraft, 1 –if the mechanism of overdraft is implemented;i6 – 0 if the payment system is not socially important, 1 – if the paymentsystem is socially important;i7 – 0 if the payment infrastructure service providers and the paymentsystem operator are different legal entities, 1 if the payment infrastructure serviceoperator and the payment system operator are the same;i8 – 0, if the risk management system is decentralized, 1 - if the riskmanagement system is centralized at the level of the payment system operator.20Based on the calculation of the median stability coefficient of the paymentsystem, the following confidence intervals were obtained for stable and unstablepayment infrastructure service providers.Table 5 – Construction of confidence intervals for stable and unstable operators for2017TypeStableRelatively stableUnstableCredit organizationsOther legal entitymore 47,32more 35,31from 39,38 to 47,32from 26,37 to 35,31to 39,38to 26,37Source: constructed by the author of the workIn the dissertation research, the rating of stable payment infrastructure serviceproviders was built by assessing the stability coefficient of the payment system (table 6and 7).Table 6 – Example of sustainable payment infrastructure service providers for creditorganizationsInstitutionalCoefficient ofNameFinancialsustainabilityratiostabilityof thesustainabilitypayment systemindicatorGroup I.
Sustainable payment infrastructure service providersSberbank PJSC50,9937,9988,98Bank Vozrozhdenie (OAO)50,9931,4882,47NCO JSC NSD50,9927,9978,98VTB Bank (OAO)50,9926,9977,98JSCB «Svyaz-Bank»43,8727,8671,73OJSC Bank «FC Opening»50,9913,5164,5Isibasi Bank (JSC)50,9913,2564,24PJSC «BANK URALSIB»43,8713,1256,99JSC JSCB «NOVIKOMBANK»43,8713,1256,99OJSC «URALSIB»43,879,553,37JSC «Nefteprombank»21,7431,4853,22JSC «GLOBEXBANK»43,878,6352,5QIWI Bank (JSC)21,7526,9948,74Group II.
Relatively sustainable payment infrastructure service providers21JSC CB «UNISTREAM»14,4231,4845,9Rnko «Payment Center» (LLC)31,0214,7445,76JSCB «BANK OF CHINA» (JSC)38,314,6242,93Group III. Unsustainable payment infrastructure service providersOOO NKO «Western Union DP7,1331,4838,61NBCO «JSS» (JSC)7,1330,6437,77KB «Geobank» (OOO)14,4223,0237,44NCO JSC «LEADER»7,1327,9935,12NCO OF MKS, OOO (OOO)032,7432,74JSC «Bank Voronezh»14,4517,3431,79ZAO AKB «GAZBANK»21,759,531,25NCO «Russian financial society»7,1318,125,23CB «Neklis-Bank»7,2913,2520,54OOO RNKO «RIB»7,1307,13Vostok»(OOO)Source: constructed by the author of the workA similar calculation was made for other legal entities (table 7).Table 7 – Example of calculation of stability coefficient of payment infrastructureservice operators for other legal entitiesNameFinancial sustainabilityInstitutionalCoefficient of stabilityindicatorsustainability ratioof the payment systemGroup I.
Sustainable payment infrastructure service providersJSC «NSPC»50,9933,184,09LLC «Multiservice21,7531,4853,23OOO «Customs card»21,7527,8649,61LLC «BEST»21,7522,7644,51OOO «RUKARD»21,7518,1439,89OOO «KP Retail»21,7517,3439,09JSC «KOKK»14,6223,2437,86payment system»Group II. Relatively sustainable payment infrastructure service providersLLC «Digital Payment»14,6218,1432,7622CJSC «ZOLOTAYA21,759,8631,61OOO «ATP»21,758,6330,38LLC «Handi solutions»14,6213,2427,86KORONA»Group III. Unsustainable payment infrastructure service providersOOO «EKSMO»21,753,6125,36CJSC «NCC»14,624,6219,24CJSC Processing7,298,2315,52company «Union Card»Source: compiled by the authorThe Bank of Russia, can allocate these three categories, and then determine thegroups of available measures for each category of operators.
The inclusion of theoperators in the Register of payment system operators shall be based on the assessmentof the risk category. Based on the received assessment, the procedure of registration ofoperators is selected. Sustainable operators can be attracted without the consent of theBank of Russia. In case attracting relatively sustainable operators, coordination with theBank of Russia is required. The Bank of Russia should carry out additional assessment.The operator of the payment system cannot attract operators decided as unsustainable.The risk category of the payment infrastructure service providers determines thecomposition and frequency of supervisory measures.
Sustainable payment infrastructureservice providers are not subject to inspection within a year of the evaluation. Operators,recognized as relatively sustainable, are subject to inspection with subsequent reportingof violations, as well as possible penalties. Payment infrastructure service providersrecognized as unsustainable should be excluded from the Register of payment systemoperators.2.4. Theoretical and practical significanceThe research confirmed the ideas J. Rochet and J. Tirole, associated with the useof the concept of information asymmetry and moral hazard in the activities of thepayment systems. It was confirmed that the control of financial performance of thepayment infrastructure service providers has a positive impact on the smooth23functioning of the payment system. From a practical point of view, the study proposesthe coefficients of financial and institutional stability, based on which the totalcoefficient of stability was determined.2.5.
The scientific novelty1) As part of a risk - based approach to the supervision of the Bank of Russia, themost significant financial (net profit, cash, authorized capital and net assets) andinstitutional (availability of overdraft, social importance, requirements for the durationof experience) factors that reduce the risk of disruption of the sustainability of paymentinfrastructure service providers are determined;2) The coefficient of stability of payment systems was developed, reflecting thecontinuity and reliability of the payment infrastructure.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
