Se pregateste privatizarea OPCOM dupa metoda : distruge si apoi vinde ieftin?OPCOM Privatization Prepared By Destruction In Order To Sell Cheap?

A trecut o luna de cand Comisia Europeana a aplicat o amenda de peste 1 milioane de euro operatorului pietei de energie electrica din Romania si nimeni nu stie inca cum au fost rezolvate problemele surprinse de catre autoritatile de la Bruxelles. Daca traderilor straini de energie prezenti pe piata romaneasca li s-a rezolvat problema, in sensul ca nu mai sunt obligati sa plateasca TVA pe tranzactii in Romania, in schimb despre problemele de lichiditate ale OPCOM, generate de lipsa TVA nu se spune un cuvant. Cum se descurca operatorul de piata, avand inca rolul de contraparte, in situatia in care cuantumul taxei pe valoare adaugata platita de traderii straini era cam de 17 ori mai mare decat cifra de afaceri a OPCOM ?

Sa presupunem ca o parte din acesti bani pot fi recuperati din noile tarife aprobate de catre ANRE la inceputul anului pentru serviciile OPCOM, dar aceasta suma este mult sub nivelul TVA. Pe de alta parte cum si cine va plati amenda data de Comisia Europeana, in conditiile in care aceasta este de circa o treime din cifra de afaceri a OPCOM si mult mai mare decat profitul companiei? Este adevarat, OPCOM a contestat amenda la Curtea Europeana de Justitie (sau cel putin asa s-a anuntat) dar sansele de castig sunt destul de slabe, mai ales ca autoritatile considera amenda Comisiei ca fiind destul de blanda si s-au impacat cu ideea platii ei.

Pana sa aflam raspunsuri la aceste intrebari nu putem sa nu anticipam un scenariu extrem de bine pus la punct, de preluare a operatorului de piata de catre firme private, la o valoare mult scazuta fata de ceea ce s-a investit in el si mai ales fata de importanta covarsitoare pentru buna functionare a pietei de energie din Romania. Metoda prin care inainte de vanzare se incearca scaderea valorii unei companii, pentru ca ulterior sa fie cumparata la pret de nimic nu este noua in Romania. Mai toate privatizarile importante au trecut prin aceasta.

Trebuie sa amintim ca una din obligatiile asumate de catre Romania in negocierile cu organismele financiare internationale este si privatizarea OPCOM. Mai mult decat atat, anul 2014 pare sa fie chiar scadenta acestei operatiuni. Sa ne mai mire atunci ca s-a inceput tocmai cu o amenda la la Comisia Europeana? OPCOM si-a asumat rolul de contraparte in tranzactiile cu energie inca din 2008, functionand ca o casa de compensatii, ceea ce a permis ca tranzactiile sa fie decontate in maxim doua zile si piata sa nu duca lipsa de lichiditati. La vremea respectia insa se avea in vedere ca OPCOM sa fie rapid privatizat.

Cum acest lucru nu s-a intamplat, guvernul a venit, in noua conjunctura, cu o Ordonanta de Urgenta care modifica Codul fiscal si care ofera prin discriminare posibilitatea pentru anumiti traderi sa nu plateasca taxa pe valoare adaugata la tranzactii, ceea ce s-a dovedit o carpeala de moment. Statul ar urma sa intervina printr-un circuit financiar astfel incat sa poata acoperi criza de lichiditate din piata. Oare acelasi tip de carpeala se cauta si in momentul de fata?

Foarte posibil, daca banuiala noastra, conform careia OPCOM trebuie privatizat pe mai nimic se confirma. Pretul de piata al operatorului de energie electrica va fi foarte scazut, pentru ca noii actionari vor fi obligati sa aduca bani de acasa pentru a sustine o casa de compensatii (rolul de contraparte) .

Transelectrica, actualul actionar majoritar al OPCOM va ramane cel mai probabil cu plata amenzii data de catre Comisia Europeana su cu alte crica 9 milioane de euro investiti deja in OPCOM, de la infiintare si pana in prezent. Ca o paranteza, acesti bani trebuiau recuperati din activitatea OPCOM, dar intre timp s-au recuperat tot de la consumatorii din Romania, prin cresterea repetata a tarifelor de transport si mai nou prin cresterea tarifelor operatorului de piata.

(Incepand din anul 2008, OPCOM a ocupat rolul de contraparte in tranzactiile cu energie electrica, in sensul ca orice act de vanzare-cumparare trecea inevitabil prin OPCOM, din punct de vedere al decontarii. Astfel s-au evitat blocajele financiare, precum si aparitia arieratelor, in sensul in care fiecare tranzactie era achitata in cel mult doua zile de la data incheierii ei. Trebuie sa recunoastem e o performanta pentru Romanai. De aici a aparut si o mare lichiditate in piata, necesara bunei functionari a oricarei burse. Plata TVA insa in tara de origine a traderului de energie face praf aceasta lichiditate castigata in ultimii 5 ani, iar rolul de contraparte nu mai poate fi jucat de catre OPCOM pentru simplu motiv ca acesta nu dispune de lichiditati si nici o banca nu este dispusa sa angajeze credite de zeci de milioane de euro in numele OPCOM.

Concret, la o cifra de afaceri anuala a OPCOM, de 4 milioane de euro, valoarea TVA-ul achitat de traderii straini ar fi de vreo 17 ori mai mare. In 2011, de pilda, TVA era de 12 milioane euro, intr-o singura luna si de 22 de milioane de euro, daca rambursarea TVA se facea la 6 luni. In 2012 insa, valorile au fost si mai mari, respectiv 16 si 47 milioane euro, doar intr-o singura luna).
One month after the European Commission fined the Romanian electricity and gas market operator (OPCCOM) 1 million euros, no one knows how the issues pointed out in Brussels are solved. The problem is solved for the foreign energy traders acting on the Romanian market: they no longer owe VAT here; there’s not a mention of OPCOM getting cash-strapped in return. How does the market operator fare still acting as counterparty, given the fact that VAT paid by foreign traders was roughly 17 times its turnaround?

Suppose that some of this sum can be recovered through the new tariffs of OPCOM approved by the Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE) at the beginning of 2014. Who and how will pay the EC fine, equivalent to one third of OPCOM’s turnover, and much larger than the company’s profits? Actually, OPCOM has challenged the fine at the European Court of Justice – at least officials say it did – but its chances of success are small, especially as authorities see the sum as quite minor and stomached it.

Before these questions are answered, we cannot but anticipate a carefully concocted scenario for the takeover of OPCOM by private companies, at a value way below the investments made there, especially considering its vital importance for the proper operation of Romania’s energy market. The privatization method involving the devaluation of a company to sell it cheap is not new in Romania – it was seen in almost all the major deals.

OPCOM privatization is indeed an obligation assumed by Romania with the international financial organizations. Moreover, 2014 seems the deadline for it. Is EC’s fine still surprising? OPCOM assumed the counterparty position as early as 2008, operating as a settlement agent, which allowed the reimbursement of trades within two days and kept the market liquid. The idea back then was to privatize it quickly.

As it did not happen, the Government now issued an Emergency Order changing the Tax Law, allowing in a discriminatory way some traders to avoid paying the VAT on their operations; it proved to be a last-minute hack job. The state was to intervene through a financial circuit, covering the lack of liquidity on the market. Is this the same type of improvisation sought now?

That’s very possible, if our hunch on the intentions of selling OPCOM cheap is confirmed. The market price would be low as the new stockholders would have to bring money to support a settlement agent as a counterparty.

Transelectrica, currently the majority shareholder of OPCOM, will probably be left to pay the 1 million dollar fine, after it already poured 9 million euros in OPCOM as investments. To digress, the investments should have been recovered from OPCOM’s operations, but all ended being paid by Romanian consumers, through repeated increases of energy transmission tariffs, and recently through the higher tariffs of the market operator.

(Starting from 2008, OPCOM acted as counterparty in the electricity transactions; any contract for selling energy passed through it when it came to reimbursements. The cash flow was thus secured, and the creation of arrears was avoided, as reimbursements were made within two days. We must admit that this is a performance in Romania. This also created great market liquidity, vital for any exchange. VAT payment in the traders’ countries of origin blows away this liquidity gained over five years, and OPCOM can no longer act as a counterparty, simply because it no longer has the cash; no bank is willing to lend tenths of millions of euros on OPCOM’s behalf.

In concrete terms, as OPCOM’s annual turnover is 4 million euros, VAT was around 12 million euros in one month of 2012, or 22 million euros if VAT was reimbursed after 6 months. But there were also months with peaks of 16 or 47 million euros. The ratio of VAT to turnover for OPCOM was generally 17 to 1).