Driving through the rain towards brighter economic future of Ukraine

About a month ago, during a Washington round-table on Ukraine hosted by the US-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), someone asked me what do my colleagues and I expect from the new President of Ukraine and his administration? My answer, which was picked up by the Voice  of America and other publications, was essentially – I have no idea. But since we have been and continue to be bullish on the Ukraine for almost twenty five years, our strategy is to move forward despite the political climates, as we always hope for sunny investment weather, but carry a sturdy umbrella in case it starts to rain. 

Well, it is raining now.  Raining hard and much sooner than expected.

The events of this passed week have created a vicious firestorm with  “Ukraine” being mentioned practically non-stop.  In this post I will not address the politics of the situation, as this has been done by practically every major media outlet in the world ad nauseam. My focus will be on business opportunities and financing tools available to those wishing to invest into the Ukrainian economy, as despite this week’s “torrential downpour” nothing has fundamentally changed to make Ukraine a less attractive place to invest.

First, some basic assumptions under which we have been operating in Ukraine for almost quarter of the century:

• Massive institutionalized corruption exists in Ukraine and it will probably take two-three generations for it to be rooted out;
• Ukraine is a very risky place to do business;
• Many people who accumulated capital in the ’90’s played by the “fast and loose rules” and cut multiple corners;
• As business in the country evolves, most astute business people understand that by playing by the transparent and well-defined rules set out by the western markets they can unlock the value of their holdings, obtain access to low-cost financing and protect their assets for the generational asset transfer;
• Ukraine has fantastic potential for economic growth in multiple sectors;
• Terrific opportunities exist for US, Canadian and European companies to supply goods and services to Ukraine and to bring world-class Ukrainian goods into the Western markets;
• Ukraine has a superb pool of smart and educated labor force;
• Country is of a strategic geopolitical importance and will always be a subject of political pressure and outside influence;

Given the above, it is important to take a long view and not be terribly concerned with current politics, because by definition Presidents, Ministers, Ambassadors and Senators change every few years. Once such long-term philosophy is accepted, then it is necessary to construct one’s proverbial umbrella. Namely, risk mitigation, corruption resistant mechanisms must be incorporated into one’s approach to doing business in the country.  What this means in practice is the following:

• Targeting for investment and financing primarily those sectors where corruption is either low or  non-existent. From our standpoint exports of Ukrainian natural foodstuffs, renewable energy, electro-transport production, IT, nuclear waste containment are some of those.
• Utilizing US Government financing tools, such as those offered by OPIC and US-EXIM  Having these tools part of a business transaction not only provides low-cost, long-term financing, which improves economics of practically any project, but having government-backed financing in a deal, also improves quality of due diligence and acts as fantastic corruption deterrent and protection for investors.
• Obtaining political risk, trade credit, or breach of contract insurance for every significant deal or trade transaction. US  Government and certain well-rated global  insurance companies offer protection to investors from such perils as expropriation, creeping expropriation, currency  inconvertibility, non-payment for goods supplied, or services rendered and for breach of contract.  Such insurance is not terribly expensive, but  de rigueur for anyone looking to invest into the Ukraine, or into any  foreign market, for that matter.
• Creation of a so-called Grey2White® program to allow investment where original capital, or business formation had murky roots, but can be fully re-mediated with application of strict compliance procedures, financial restructuring and accounting oversight.
• Finally, despite of the current rainy weather, we are moving hard to add one more extremely effective tool, which has been missing in Ukraine’s economic development. Creating a safe umbrella for individual American-Ukrainian, Canadian-Ukrainian and members of Ukrainian diasporas in other countries to invest into the future of Ukraine.

What this means is a focused investment platform listed on a stock exchange and subject to a recognized US, or Canadian authority such as Securities Exchange Commission (USA), or Canadian Securities Administration (CSA). Such platform would will further be secured by protection of the political risk insurance and will, for the first time since Ukraine’s independence, allow individual investors with as little as $500! to invest,  to participate in Ukraine’s economic development, while having the umbrella of protection of the western laws, rules and regulations.  We call this platform “Develop UA”™ and expect to formally roll it out to the world in the middle of October, 2019 regardless of whether it is raining, or sunshine in Kyiv and Washington, DC.

relevant links

http://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/doing-business-in-ukraine-now–usubc-roundtable-in-washington

https://ukrainian.voanews.com/a/amerykanksy-biznes-ukrayina/5051657.html

 

Trump scrambles Ex-Im Bank politics

By MEGAN CASSELLA and ZACHARY WARMBRODT, POLITICO.com

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

The politics around the Export-Import Bank just got much weirder.

President Donald Trump is reaching for a compromise in the debate raging around the bank, aiming to keep the agency open while putting an outspoken, ultra-conservative opponent of the institution at the helm.

In doing so, Trump has confused the politics around the export credit agency, which had been a major boost to American manufacturers such as Boeing, GE and Caterpillar before Republicans took steps to crimp the flow of financing.

The formerly anti-Ex-Im Trump abruptly changed his tune on the bank last week when he called it “a very good thing” and announced plans to nominate two board members. That was a major step toward bringing the agency back to its full working capacity.

Then, two days later, he nominated for the chairmanship former Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), a vocal foe of the bank who has also come under fire in the past for his comments about homosexuality. That set up a political tightrope that both supporters and detractors of the agency may have trouble navigating.

Democrats who champion the agency because they say it creates jobs and promotes manufacturing are uneasy about supporting a social conservative who might try to hamstring the bank from within. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the Banking Committee, which will vet the nominees, said appointing Garrett as chair would put thousands of American jobs at risk.

Then there are conservative Republicans who have been critical of the bank and are now cheering Garrett’s nomination.

“For too long, the bank has been a clear example of corporate welfare run amok — benefiting special interests and foreign companies at the expense of U.S. taxpayers,” said Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who also sits on the Banking Committee. “I am confident that Congressman Garrett will chart a new course for the bank that puts U.S taxpayers first.”

The result is a 180-degree flip-flop, where lawmakers and interest groups who had expended significant resources and political capital to rein in the bank could shift to support Trump’s nominees, while its biggest champions could be left behind.

“We’re encouraged and optimistic that [Garrett] would be able to substantively reform the Export-Import Bank, make it work better in the meantime,” said Chrissy Harbin, vice president of external relations at the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity. “And then when the reauthorization comes up again … we’d encourage D.C. to have the same conversation about the possibility of letting it expire once and for all.”

Democrats on the Banking Committee have reservations about Garrett, including Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.).

Cortez Masto said she was pleased that Trump was committing to making the bank functional. Still, she has concerns about Garrett, “given his past opposition to Ex-Im’s mission, not to mention his divisive rhetoric toward LGBT families.”

“This Garrett nom is a Catch-22,” one Senate Democratic aide said. “We need to confirm him to have a quorum, but he could be a cancer inside the agency.”

Last November, Garrett lost a seat he had held since being elected to Congress in 2002. A key moment in the race came in 2015, when POLITICO reported that he told fellow GOP members that he wouldn’t support the National Republican Congressional Committee because it backed gay candidates.

Financial companies that had been campaign backers during his years as a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee pulled back.

Garrett later denied that he objected to gay candidates and said his problem was with support for same-sex marriage.

He lost to a well-funded Democratic challenger, Josh Gottheimer, but stayed plugged in to the emerging Trump team. While in Congress, Garrett served with Vice President Mike Pence and is said to be close with the former Indiana congressman. He also counted White House counselor Kellyanne Conway as a constituent and campaign donor. A December meeting at Trump Tower was well-publicized.

Garrett could not be reached to comment on this story.

Beyond Congress, his nomination also puts big American manufacturers in an awkward spot. They need more board members at the bank to provide a quorum that’s necessary to approve deals with more than $10 million. Yet they are unsure what changes might be in store given Garrett’s past comments and promises from senior administration officials like White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to put “reformers” at the helm.

For now, major users of the bank are focusing on the fact that Trump has put forward any nominees rather than worrying about who they are.

“Generally speaking, between the president’s comments and naming of two nominees, it’s really encouraging,” said Kate Bernard, a Boeing spokeswoman. Boeing, she added, has experienced the loss or delay of three satellite sales since the bank first fell victim to political crossfire in 2015, so giving the bank back its quorum to “shake loose” projects that remain in the pipeline is the most crucial step at this point.

There’s no question, however, that the Garrett nomination “raises some eyebrows in the business community” and “sends some mixed messages given his previous history in the House,” said one bank proponent who asked not to be named.

Garrett established himself as a consistent and outspoken opponent of the bank while in Congress, twice voting against its reauthorization in the past five years. In 2014, he expressed skepticism that attempts at reform would ever be successful, and he pushed hard the following year to let the charter expire.

“We have the opportunity to save capitalism from cronyism and to fulfill a promise to the American people to work for them instead of a select few with special connections in Washington,” Garrett said in May 2015.

“For the sake of the American taxpayer and the preservation of the free enterprise system, Congress should put the Export-Import Bank out of business.”

The White House noted that history of opposition toward the bank in discussing his appointment, saying Trump chose him “to both usher in reforms and prioritize small businesses.”

“Former Rep. Scott Garrett has passionately spoken out on some of the problems that the Bank’s previous activities created,” a White House spokeswoman said in an email. “He will be a key voice for reform.”

The current nominees represent only a temporary fix: Garrett and former House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who Trump picked to sit on the board of directors, would both have to be approved to restore the bank to full working capacity. What’s more, they’ll provide a quorum that will only last until July 19, when acting Vice Chairman Scott Schloegel’s term expires. At that point, the bank would lack a quorum once again if no additional members have been confirmed before then.

But in the meantime, major users of the bank fear that the administration is trying to reshape the agency in a way that would hurt large companies that have traditionally benefited from it. Various administration officials have hinted at their own ideas for reform.

Mulvaney, who was a critic of the bank while a member of Congress, told CNBC last week that Trump’s nominees would make sure the bank “sticks to its knitting.” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told the network in a separate interview that he wanted a reformed bank to “help small businesses more.”

Some reforms will be put into place as soon as Garrett and Bachus — or any two nominees — are confirmed and a board with at least three members votes to approve them. The bank’s 2015 charter included a slate of changes for the bank, and while a majority have been completed, a handful require a board quorum to be implemented — something the bank has lacked since its reauthorization was passed almost a year and a half ago.

Two of the outstanding requirements involve appointing a chief ethics officer and chief risk officer. A third involves the bank’s lending to small businesses and “increases the authority of staff to approve applications for up to $25 million in export financing for small business working capital and insurance products.”

But beyond that, bank observers say there is little a chairman can do on his own to change the bank’s operations.

And while he could attempt to direct export credit assistance more often to smaller businesses, “there’s not a ton of discretion,” said Peter Cohn, an analyst with Height Securities.

“So I don’t know that we’re going to see a whole lot more than window dressing on that front,” he said.