Gazprombank increases commission for storing dollars in company accounts

Gazprombank increases commission fees for storing US dollars in company accounts. It will increase to 12%. Experts call the rate prohibitive, explaining the bank’s decision with the desire to encourage clients to transfer “toxic” currency to other banks or convert it.

The third largest bank in the Russian Federation by assets, Gazprombank (GPB), is radically changing tariffs for corporate clients for storing balances in US dollars. So, if until now the bank has not charged any commission for this service, then from December the commission will be 1% of the average monthly account balance, and a month later – from 2024 – 12% per annum. This follows from a notice to bank clients posted on the website. It applies to tariffs for legal entities, individual entrepreneurs and individuals engaged in private practice.

Only the commission for dollars changes, storing euros remains free, the commission for other currencies (in Swiss francs, Swedish kronor, yen) will remain at 1.5%. For individuals, servicing foreign currency accounts (except for Swiss francs) is free, but when receiving and transferring funds to the account, 3% of the credited amount is charged (minimum 12 thousand rubles).

Other banks have significantly lower commissions: as a rule, tariffs do not exceed 1%, and sometimes lower than 0.1% (although there are high commissions for incoming transfers), there are options, including free storage of US dollars.

However, not all banks now easily and quickly open new accounts in the “toxic” currency, even despite the affordable prices. One of the bankers told Kommersant that it is “possible, but difficult” for businesses to open dollar accounts in Russia. In his assessment, for the most part, banks “don’t want to work with dollars.” Among the largest players, only Tinkoff Bank has tariffs comparable to GPB plans: the commission is 12% if the account balance exceeds $5 million (from $150 thousand – 1% per annum). Officially, the banks did not answer Kommersant.

Analysts and market participants surveyed by Kommersant call 12% an “extra-high commission.” However, banking expert Alexey Nechaev clarifies, GPB is unlikely to aim at generating additional income.

Financial expert Olga Ulyanova believes that this is “virtually a prohibitive rate,” indicating “the bank’s lack of interest in attracting dollar funds.” “The GPB has a special status (it is only under sectoral sanctions of the United States and the European Union since 2014.— “Kommersant”), the bank has freer access to currency transactions, which players included in the SDN list do not have. Perhaps the credit institution is faced with an influx of dollar liquidity, as clients are still looking for where they could place their foreign currency funds,” notes Ms. Ulyanova. “It would be more convenient for the bank if most of the current client funds in dollars were converted into rubles or, say, yuan,” agrees Managing Director of the Expert RA rating agency Yuri Belikov.

Experts also note the rupture of correspondent relations between GPB and US banks that occurred at the beginning of the year (see Kommersant on January 25). Then the American JP Morgan Chase Bank and Bank of New York Mellon stopped servicing Gazprombank’s dollar correspondent accounts, and corresponding transfers of funds became impossible, Mr. Belikov explains: “In essence, the bank now has nothing to do with dollars; it cannot make money on such funding.” Apparently, the expert concludes, “a short currency position allows you to get rid of dollars in liabilities, which the bank does by introducing commissions.”

There are other possible reasons. When a bank stores client funds in foreign currency, Ms. Ulyanova adds, this forces the bank itself to look for instruments for placing these funds in other large banks or the Central Bank, and “now the range of such instruments is extremely limited.” As Mr. Nechaev notes, since large American banks closed GPB’s nostro accounts, the bank began to hold dollar liquidity with “other, possibly specific counterparties.” According to his assessment, “it can be assumed that the risks of such storage have increased greatly after the case of the St. Petersburg Exchange (came under sanctions in early November.— “Kommersant”) or GPB’s counterparties do not want to provide these services in the future.”

Olga Sherunkova