home » Acts » Management of property complexes of corporate structures. Features of managing the property complex of organizations and enterprises

Management of property complexes of corporate structures. Features of managing the property complex of organizations and enterprises

In the economic literature, everything that an enterprise has and uses in production activities, is called the property of the enterprise. In accordance with Art. 132 of the first part of the Civil Code “an enterprise as an object of rights recognizes a property complex used to carry out entrepreneurial activity. The structure of the enterprise as a property complex includes all types of property intended for its activities, including land plots, buildings, structures, equipment, inventory, raw materials, products, rights of claim, debts, as well as rights to designations that individualize the enterprise, its products, work and services (company name, trademarks, service marks), and other exclusive rights, unless otherwise provided by law or contract.”

The property of the enterprise includes all types of property that are necessary for the implementation of economic activities.

Usually, tangible and intangible elements are distinguished in the composition of property.

Material elements include land plots, buildings, structures, machinery, equipment, raw materials, semi-finished products, finished goods, cash.

Intangible elements are created in the course of the life of the enterprise. These include: the firm's reputation and circle of loyal customers, the firm's name and trademarks used, management skills, personnel qualifications, patented production methods, know-how, copyrights, contracts, etc., which can be sold or transferred.

The relevance of the chosen topic of work lies in the fact that the property of an enterprise is the subject of study of various disciplines: law explores the legal aspects of existence, protection, transfer of property rights and obligations; in the analysis of economic activity, the effectiveness of the use of various kinds property of the enterprise; in the course of economics, the property of an enterprise is considered as an economic, economic resource, the use of which ensures the activities of the enterprise; accounting reflects the movement of property and the main sources of its formation.

The principles of enterprise property management are different depending on organizational forms enterprises. Currently, in Russia, the following main organizational and legal forms approved by law can be distinguished:

1.Customized using wage labor

enterprises without the use of hired labor

full 2. Limited liability partnerships

mixed

open 3. Joint-stock companies closed federal 4. State municipal

5. Non-commercial public organizations

The purpose of the work: to determine the basic principles and methods of enterprise property management from the point of view of management.

A prerequisite for effective management is the existence of goals. Goals for enterprise management economic object, are financial and economic indicators that can be determined as a result of forecasting the future activities of the enterprise. Target indicators can be determined only if the enterprise has a developed business plan, from which it follows: how, in what time frame, and why certain financial and economic indicators can be achieved.

The owner of any enterprise is able to assess how efficiently his property is used, only by comparing the planned indicators with those achieved. Unfortunately, over the past 10 years, the state has not taken any practical steps towards creating a more or less efficient planning system in the real sector of the economy.

You can create any number of bodies involved in the management of state property, but it is impossible to manage without clear goals and high-quality information. No plans - there will be no constructive and consistent actions aimed at achieving certain goals.

Work tasks:

1. To study the main legal acts governing the management of the property of an enterprise in Russian Federation at the present stage.

2. To study the system of state and municipal property management;

3. Describe crisis management assets of a company in bankruptcy.

The work was done on the basis of information obtained from educational and reference literature, as well as from other sources: legal acts, periodicals, enterprise documentation, expert opinions, open statistical information.

1. Types and forms of enterprise property management

1. 1 Legal regulation of enterprise property management

The Federal Law "On State and Municipal Unitary Enterprises" determines, in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (CC RF), the legal status of the state unitary enterprise and municipal unitary enterprise (hereinafter also referred to as a unitary enterprise), the rights and obligations of the owners of their property. A variety of unitary enterprises are state-owned enterprises. State-owned enterprises are state-owned enterprises that are directly under the control of state bodies.

The property of a unitary enterprise is owned by the Russian Federation, a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipality.

The property of a unitary enterprise is formed by:

Property assigned to a unitary enterprise on the right of economic management or on the right of operational management by the owner of this property;

Income of a unitary enterprise from its activities;

Other sources that do not contradict the law.

The property of a unitary enterprise is indivisible and cannot be distributed among contributions (shares, shares), including between employees of a unitary enterprise.

The difference between the rights of economic management and operational management lies in the content and scope of the powers received by the subjects of these rights from the owner to the property assigned to them.

Subjects of the rights of economic management and operational management can only be legal entities that exist in special organizational units. legal forms- "enterprises" and "institutions".

The subject of the right of economic management under the current legislation may be a state or municipal unitary enterprise (Articles 113 - 114 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) as a type of commercial organization.

The subject of the right of operational management can be both unitary enterprises (Article 115 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) belonging to the category of commercial organizations, and institutions (Article 120 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) belonging to non-profit structures, as well as enterprises belonging to private property.

The right of economic management, owned either by the enterprise as a commercial organization; or an institution carrying out entrepreneurial activities permitted by its owner; therefore, it is broader than the right of operational management, which may belong either to non-commercial institutions by the nature of their activities, or to state-owned enterprises.

In accordance with Art. 294 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right of economic management is the right of a state or municipal unitary enterprise to own, use and dispose of the property of the owner within the limits established by law or other legal acts.

The right of operational management in accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 296 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - this is the right of an institution or a state-owned enterprise to own, use and dispose of the property of the owner assigned to it within the limits established by law, in accordance with the goals of its activities, the tasks of the owner and the purpose of the property.

The founder-owner has the right to withdraw property from the subject of the right of operational management only in three cases provided for by law (excessive, unused or not used for its intended purpose), and dispose of it at its own discretion. A state-owned enterprise is not entitled to dispose of any property, except for finished products, without the consent of the owner.

1.2 Tasks and general principles of state property management

The tasks of state property management include two main blocks: strategic management and operational management.

For questions strategic management relate:

Investment decisions;

Decisions on debt obligations of enterprises, especially to the state budget (both in taxes and on loans and guarantees issued);

Problems of choosing directions for the development of specific state-owned enterprises.

Operational management includes three main groups of tasks: planning, control and acceptance management decisions. High efficiency of state property management can be ensured through the implementation of one of the most common concepts modern management, - "goal management". Management by objectives implies the existence of clear, measurable and achievable goals, as well as a strategy and action plan that will ensure the achievement of the set goals. Business planning is not a step backwards, but a professional look into the future. Lack of goals and plans give rise to irresponsibility in the management of enterprises. If there are no goals and no ways to achieve them, then there are no clear criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of management. As a result, control procedures by the owner (in this case, the state) of the most important managerial functions become a mere formality. Thus, the presence of a business plan that includes certain goals (in the form of financial and economic indicators), as well as the main provisions of the enterprise development strategy and operations, is the most important condition for creating a management system by goals.

To fulfill its tasks, any state needs economic resources. One of these resources is state-owned property. And how the state carries out the functions assigned to it depends on the effectiveness of its management.

However, in order for the state to manage its property, it is necessary to have a clear understanding not only of what “property” is and how it relates to the right of ownership, but also “to have an idea” of what is included in such property.

In literature, and not rarely in legislation, the concept of "property" is often identified with the concept of property. Let's try to understand the definition of these concepts in order to eliminate confusion in terminology. Property, from a legal point of view, is a volitional relationship, a set of rights that a subject of law may have in relation to his property. And property is an object of ownership, which in turn follows from Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The confusion of these concepts can lead to a misunderstanding of the law itself and the object to which it is directed. This, unfortunately, has not been avoided by some legislative acts. Yes, in the concept foreign policy RF, as one of the priority tasks, the provision is fixed that the state should “ensure the preservation and optimal use of Russian property abroad” . As you can see, in this case, the concept of "property" does not define the right, but the objects to which it is directed, i.e. "property".

So, let's define what the term "property" is. Often it is used instead of the word "things", and then property is understood as a set of things. This use is not entirely correct, because. the concept of a thing as an object of the material world, which is in a natural state in nature or created by human labor, is already the concept of property. In particular, from Art. 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation it follows that "property" is understood as a set of things and property rights. And Art. 123 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation also includes the right to claim and debts in the concept of a property complex, that is, it expands the original concept and includes a set of obligations in it.

Based on the analysis of the legislation, it can be concluded that property should be understood as a set of things that belong to a certain subject by the right of ownership and property rights and obligations arising from this right. To such subjects, depending on the form of ownership, the legislation includes: legal entities and individuals, the Russian Federation, subjects of the Federation and municipalities. Property owned by the Russian Federation is defined as federal property, which, along with the property of the constituent entities of the Federation, is classified as state property. The allocation of the category of federal property is based on the principle of federalism and the delimitation of the powers of the Federation and its subjects. In fact, the constitutional and legislative consolidation of the division of state property was a step towards the democratization and liberalization of the former system of strict command and administrative dictates of the center. However, there is still difficulty in distinguishing between these two types of state property, which often leads not only to inefficient management, but to the impossibility of using such property. The legislator, realizing this, made an attempt to create an appropriate regulatory framework. It all started in December 1991 with the well-known Decree of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation “On the delimitation of the state property of the Russian Federation into federal property, state property of the republics within the Russian Federation, territories, regions, autonomous regions, autonomous regions, cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg and municipal property". The provisions of the Decree on the definition of the object composition of federal, state and municipal property and the procedure for registering property rights have fulfilled their positive role, as a result of which it has become possible to classify objects of state property - on the basis of classifying them as federal, state property of subjects and municipal property.

This classification, based on the text of the Resolution, includes the following types of objects:

I. Objects relating exclusively to federal property:

a) objects that form the basis of the country's national wealth;
b) objects necessary to ensure the functioning of federal authorities and administration and the solution of all-Russian tasks;
c) objects of defense production;
d) objects of industries that ensure the vital activity of the national economy of Russia as a whole and the development of other sectors of the national economy;
e) other objects, for example: enterprises of the pharmaceutical industry, the industry of biomedical preparations, enterprises and organizations for the production of alcohol and alcoholic beverages.

II. Objects of federal property, individual objects that can be transferred to the state ownership of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (fishing industry enterprises; fur farms; state sanatorium and resort institutions (not included in the property of enterprises); hotel facilities under the jurisdiction of the central government bodies of the Russian Federation ; institutions of health care and public education, culture and sports; research, design, exploration and survey organizations; and if they are part of scientific and production associations - these associations, enterprises road transport, enterprises for the construction and operation of water management systems and structures, etc.).

III. Objects related to municipal property (objects under the operational management of the local administration, enterprises retail, Catering and consumer services to the population, institutions and healthcare facilities (except for regional hospitals and dispensaries) and education).

However, the Decree does not allow to clearly define the range of property belonging to the Russian Federation and property belonging to the subjects of the Federation. It only demarcated the unified federal property fund at that time. In addition, many of the facilities listed in the annexes to this Decree have been privatized.

Does not provide an exhaustive list and the Concept of State Property Management and Privatization dated September 27, 1999 No. 39.

Existing laws contain norms that indicate only certain types of property that is in federal ownership or the property of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. For example, Art. 27 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, art. 5 federal law November 21, 1995 "On the use atomic energy", art. 5 of the Federal Law of May 2, 1997 No. 76-FZ "On the destruction of chemical weapons" . So, in the law "On general principles organizations of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation” states that a constituent entity of the Russian Federation may own:

- property necessary for the exercise of the powers of state authorities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in matters of regional jurisdiction;
- property necessary for the exercise of the powers of state authorities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in matters of joint jurisdiction;
- property necessary to ensure the activities of state authorities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, civil servants of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, employees of state unitary enterprises of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and employees of state institutions of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in accordance with the laws of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation;
- property necessary for the exercise of powers, the right to exercise which is granted to state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation by federal laws.

In addition to the above legal acts, the list of federal property is contained in the Federal Law of August 22, 2004 No. 122-FZ. Such property includes:

- property necessary to ensure the exercise by federal state authorities of powers within their competence established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation that determine the status of these bodies, incl. property of federal state unitary enterprises and federal state institutions classified by decisions of the Government of the Russian Federation as enterprises and institutions subordinate to federal executive bodies;
- property necessary to ensure the strategic interests of the Russian Federation in the field of defense and security of the state, the protection of morality, health, rights and legitimate interests of citizens of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the list approved by the President on the proposal of the Government of the Russian Federation;
- property necessary to ensure the activities of federal state authorities, civil servants of the Russian Federation, employees of federal state unitary enterprises and federal state institutions, including non-residential premises for the placement of these bodies, enterprises and institutions.

However, the current legislation does not contain a unified, complete and closed list of property objects that are in federal ownership. There is a need to adopt a special federal law that would resolve the issue of the list of property that is exclusively in state ownership, and the issues of delimiting the management of federal property between the Russian Federation and its subjects.

To date, the list of property that can be exclusively in federal ownership must include:

- natural resources that serve to meet the needs of society and are public property (for example, natural parks, wildlife sanctuaries, nature reserves, etc.);
- property intended for servicing the activities of the state itself (state treasury, state budget funds, property of the Central Bank, gold reserves, foreign exchange fund, federal communications, etc.);
- property that ensures the defense of the country and the security of the state (property of the armed forces, state material reserve, etc.);
- property that ensures the functioning and development of the entire national economy of the country (valuable mineral resources, land, water resources, air space).

Thus, by now, a certain array of objects of federal property has already been formed, available for systematization and analysis and awaiting special legislative consolidation.

Federal property can be divided into several groups:

- the first category includes property owned by the right of operational management or economic management of federal enterprises and organizations, the so-called distributed property;
- the second group includes property constituting the treasury of the Russian Federation;
- the third is the property rights and obligations of the Federation.

Based on the meaning of Art. 214 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Federal Law

dated November 14, 2002 No. 161-FZ “On State and Municipal Unitary Enterprises”, the first group of federal property includes property that is in federal ownership, assigned to federal state enterprises, federal state-owned enterprises and federal institutions. The rest of the property is the treasury of the Russian Federation. Such a definition does not seem to be entirely accurate, since it turns out that property not assigned to these entities, but acquired in the course of their activities, also constitutes the treasury of the Russian Federation. The inclusion of such property in the treasury undermines the stability of economic relations, deprives state enterprises of the confidence of third parties, because such property may at any time become the basis of the property liability of the Russian Federation for its obligations. Thus, the first group should include not fixed property, namely, property belonging to federal state enterprises, federal state enterprises and federal institutions.

This also includes property belonging to the federal executive authorities, necessary for the exercise of their powers.

The second group of federal property is part of the state treasury, which should include federal budget funds and other undistributed federal property.

The legal regime of property that is part of the property of the treasury has its own characteristics: the property does not belong to any organization on property rights; used by organizations (legal entities) to achieve their own goals only by decision of the authorized state body.

In a letter from the Federal Property Management Agency dated June 15, 2005, addressed to its own territorial departments, an exhaustive list of “objects of registration of the register that make up the state treasury of the Russian Federation is given, these are: a) land plots that are in federal ownership; b) areas of forest, subsoil, water bodies and other natural objects that are in federal ownership; c) federally owned shares (shares, contributions) of economic partnerships, as well as their property that was not included in the authorized capital; d) other federally owned immovable and movable property, incl. transferred for use, rent, pledge and on other grounds.

The third part of the federal property includes the property rights of the Russian Federation. As an example, we can consider the rights that the state acquires after the privatization of federal enterprises by converting them into joint-stock companies with fixing part of the shares or a golden share in the ownership of the state. The federal law "On the privatization of state and municipal property" provides for the adoption of one of two decisions:

1) on the use of the Golden Share. "Golden Share" is a special property right for the Russian Federation to participate in the management of open joint-stock companies. Representatives of the Russian Federation are appointed to the Board of Directors (Supervisory Board) and audit commission society. Representatives have the right to veto when the general meeting of the joint-stock company makes decisions on critical issues activities of the company, such as making changes and additions to the charter, reorganization, liquidation, change in the authorized capital, making major transactions and other rights provided for by the Law.
2) on fixing all or part of the shares in the ownership of the Russian Federation.

As a result of the privatization and transformation of a federal state unitary enterprise, property is transferred to the private ownership of an open joint stock company; the state, becoming the owner of shares or securing a golden share, acquires property obligations in relation to this organization.

As for the requirements and obligations, this can include the institution of state credit. The functioning of the state credit leads to the formation of public debt, which refers to the debt obligations of the Russian Federation to individuals and legal entities of the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities, foreign states, international financial organizations, and other subjects of international law. The debt obligations of the Russian Federation may exist in the form of obligations for:

1) loans attracted on behalf of the Russian Federation as a borrower from credit institutions, foreign states, incl. on targeted foreign loans (borrowings) of international financial institutions, other subjects of international law, foreign legal entities;
2) government securities issued on behalf of the Russian Federation;
3) budget credits attracted to the federal budget from other budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation;
4) state guarantees of the Russian Federation;
5) other debt obligations previously attributed, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, to the state debt of the Russian Federation.

It is obvious that on this stage a fairly wide circle of federally owned property has formed, which requires a legislative definition of its boundaries, in order to avoid numerous disputes about the delimitation of state property between the Russian Federation and its constituent entities and municipalities, which, in turn, have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the management of the entire state generally.

State and municipal enterprises under civil law are unitary enterprises. A unitary enterprise is recognized commercial organization not endowed with the right of ownership to the property assigned to it by the owner. An important provision is that the property of a unitary enterprise is indivisible and cannot be distributed by types (shares, shares), incl. between his employees.

The property of a state or municipal enterprise is, respectively, in state or municipal ownership and belongs to such an enterprise on the basis of the right of economic management or operational management.

In the Russian Federation, in accordance with the first part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, two types of unitary enterprises are created and operate:

- based on the right of economic management of property, which is created by decision of an authorized state body or body local government;
- based on the right of operational management of property, which is created by decision of the Government of the Russian Federation on the basis of property that is in federal ownership. Such an enterprise is considered a federal state-owned enterprise.

The former have a wider range of property rights than the latter:

- they have a statutory fund;
- they have the opportunity to create subsidiaries;
- the owner of the property of these enterprises, as a rule, is not liable for the obligations of enterprises.

In their activities, state and municipal enterprises are guided by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the subsequently adopted Law on State and Municipal Enterprises, as well as other regulations governing the activities of this type of enterprises.

According to paragraph 4 of Art. 113 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the management body of a unitary enterprise is the head, who is appointed by the owner or a body authorized by the owner and is accountable to him. A unitary enterprise after state registration acquires the status of a legal entity with all the rights and obligations arising from the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The charter of a unitary enterprise based on the right of economic management is approved by an authorized state body or local self-government body, and the charter of a state-owned enterprise is approved by the Government of the Russian Federation.

The charter of a unitary enterprise must contain information about the subject and goals of the enterprise, about the size of the authorized capital of the enterprise, the procedure and sources for its formation, its location, the name of the enterprise and other information must be indicated. A feature of the company name of a unitary enterprise is an indication of the owner of its property, and the company name of an enterprise based on the right of operational management must contain an indication that the enterprise is state-owned.

A unitary enterprise is liable for its obligations with all its property, it is not liable for the obligations of the owner of its property. The owner of the property of state and municipal enterprises is not liable for the obligations of the enterprise, except for the cases provided for in paragraph 3 of Art. 56 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

A state-owned enterprise is liable for its obligations with property, and if there is an insufficiency of property at a state-owned enterprise, then the Russian Federation bears subsidiary liability for its obligations on the basis of paragraph 5 of Art. 115 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The owner of property assigned to a state-owned enterprise has the right to withdraw surplus, unused or misused property and dispose of it at his own discretion.

Thus, the main distinctive feature state and municipal enterprises is that they have property assigned to them on the right of economic management, i.e. own, use and dispose of property within the limits of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

A state-owned enterprise in relation to the property assigned to it acts in accordance with the established goals (fixed in the charter), the tasks of the owner and the purpose of the property, therefore, the state-owned enterprise disposes of the property assigned to it only with the consent of the owner of this property.

Municipal property is the economic basis of local self-government and serves to meet the needs of local self-government. The following specific characteristics of municipal property can be distinguished:

- it provides normal living conditions for the population of the municipality, forms and maintains a system of social guarantees, serves the purposes of improvement;
- part of the objects of industrial and social infrastructure works on the principles of commercial calculation and strengthens the revenue base of the local budget;
- acts in two interrelated manifestations - as a property economic (material) and economic (value) complex;
- creates a mechanism that allows the population of the municipality to really participate in the process of disposition, possession and use of municipal property;
- the presence of a sufficient amount of municipal property is designed to ensure the stability of local authorities and their relative independence from higher structures of the power hierarchy;
- is used to implement the financial interests of the municipality as the owner.

The completeness of meeting the public needs of the municipality, and, consequently, the degree of its implementation economic interests, depends on the content and rational structure of municipal property.

According to the principle of matching the volume and nature of property objects to the nature of the tasks solved within the framework of an administrative-territorial entity in the interests of its population, as part of the reform of property relations being carried out in Russia, 80% of the entire housing stock, 76% of preschool institutions, 82% of healthcare facilities, 84% of sports facilities, etc.

Taking into account the developments of scientists related to the study of the legal aspects of managing objects public property, we can conclude that the term "municipal property management" should be considered in two senses.

In a broad sense, the management of municipal property should be understood as an appropriate system of methods, forms and methods of managing municipal property.

Under the management of municipal property in a narrow sense, one can understand the procedure for making decisions by the competent municipal authorities related to the possession, use and disposal of objects of municipal property.

Main tasks and functions of municipal property management:

1. Solving a set of issues on the formation, management and disposal of municipal property, property of the municipal treasury, the effective use of municipal property. Among them:
- - management and disposal in accordance with the established procedure of municipal property owned by the municipality;
- - implementation of the policy of privatization of municipal enterprises and real estate objects on the basis of the legislation of the Russian Federation;
- - carrying out measures to distinguish between property that is in federal ownership, property of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and municipal property, incl. in terms of the delimitation of municipal property between the municipality and the settlements that are part of it;
- - organization of holding public hearings on property issues (permission (change) of a conditionally permitted type of use of real estate objects, establishment of public easements, etc.), incl. And land plots(if necessary);
- - implementation of the functions of a technical organizer for the preparation and holding of auctions (competitions), incl. and auctions for the sale of land plots in State or municipal ownership or the right to conclude lease agreements for such land plots in the municipality.
2. Implementation, within the framework of the powers granted, in accordance with the current legislation, actions for the management and disposal of municipal property, incl. on alienating it into the ownership of other persons, transferring to them the right of possession, use and disposal, namely:
- - registration of lease (sublease) of objects of municipal property;
- - Registration of delivery in gratuitous use of objects of the municipal property;
- - Registration of sale and privatization of municipal property;
- - registration of participation of the municipality in business companies ah, partnerships;
- - implementation of the transfer of municipal property to economic management and operational management, analysis of proposals for the sale of real estate, fixed in economic management;
- - performance of other functions on the disposal of municipal property, incl. land plots, housing stock, within the framework of the current legislation and the powers granted.
3. Exercising control over the use for its intended purpose and the safety of municipal property that is under the economic jurisdiction and operational management of legal entities, transferred under lease agreements, agreements for gratuitous use, and also transferred in the prescribed manner to other persons.
4. Implementation of the acquisition and acceptance of objects in municipal ownership with registration of state registration and receipt of Certificates for the right of municipal property in the Office of the Federal Registration Service for the Moscow Region for real estate objects.
5. Implementation of the write-off of municipal property in the prescribed manner.
6. Identification and registration of ownerless property in municipal ownership.
7. Registration of pledge transactions with municipal property.
8. Conducting an inventory and ensuring accounting of municipal property located in the municipal treasury, operational management and economic management of enterprises and institutions.
9. Maintenance of the Register of municipal property (including the section of the Register on the municipal treasury) in accordance with the current procedure.
10. Implementation of the development of regional regulatory legal acts on the management and disposal of municipal property.
11. Providing advisory assistance to legal entities and individuals on issues within the competence of the Department.
12. Implementation, with the consent of the owner, of the authority to manage and dispose of municipal deposits, shares, shares, blocks of shares with the right to transfer them to trust management in accordance with applicable law.

In our opinion, the following proposals seem appropriate, aimed at improving the current legislation in the field of management of municipal property:

1) it is necessary to fix in the legislation of the Russian Federation the rule that the owner of objects of municipal property is the local population, self-organized in its own organizational and legal form provided for by the legislation in the form of a municipal formation;
2) it makes sense to normatively define the management of municipal property as a procedure for making decisions by the competent municipal authorities related to the possession, use and disposal of objects of municipal property;
3) it is advisable to introduce into the federal legislation such legislative procedures that fix the forms of direct participation of deputies of a representative body in matters of disposition of municipal property, such as:
- - the need to obtain the consent of the representative body to commit big deal on alienation of municipal property;
- - decision by the administration of the municipality of issues related to the use, alienation, leasing of any municipal property solely on the basis of a positive opinion of a specially created Commission for the Management of Municipal Property, which includes deputies of the local representative body.

Analyzing the modern stage of formation municipal government in Russia, it should be noted that for the first time the most legislative norms of municipal government on the basis of municipal property were fixed. The Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law "On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation" determined the main directions for the development of legislation and the limits of the independence of municipal government. A municipal formation is a constitutional structure that is guided by the principles of self-government and owns the relevant property in the territory of this municipal formation.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation (1993) clearly defines:

- “Local self-government is recognized and guaranteed in the Russian Federation. Local self-government within its powers independently. Local self-government bodies are not included in the system of state authorities” (Article 12);
- “Local self-government in the Russian Federation ensures that the population independently resolves issues of local importance, possession, use and disposal of municipal property”;
- "Local self-government bodies independently manage municipal property, form, approve and execute the local budget, establish local taxes and fees, maintain public order, and also resolve other issues of local importance."

Municipal property serves as the basis for the activities of the municipality and a tool for managing the solvency and financial stability of the region.

In recent years, the interest of scientists and practitioners in the problem of the efficiency of the use of municipal property has become more and more noticeable. The increasing urgency of this problem is due to the inefficient use of municipal lands, which are often rented out or, even worse, sold at minimal prices. Municipal property is in a run-down condition, often unusable and in need of major repairs.

Analyzing this problem, there are several approaches to determining the efficiency of the use of property.

First, in terms of the amount of income received. This indicator can be the share of budget revenues from the economic use of property (taking into account revenues from property taxation; excluding revenues from property taxation).

Secondly, from the point of view of public benefit. Only qualitative indicators (eg, reduction in juvenile delinquency as a result of the construction of a network of children's clubs).

Thirdly, from the point of view of budget savings. For example, the construction of administrative buildings makes it possible to release the housing stock occupied by various institutions (SES, housing departments, passport offices, etc.) and transfer it to residents, as well as reduce payments to the private sector for rented space.

With regard to objects of municipal property, the degree of expediency, and not the degree of efficiency of use, should be assessed. If we talk about effective management, then the degree of efficiency must be assessed by the level of satisfaction of all stakeholders in solving certain problems. It is not possible to assess the effectiveness of management only by quantitative indicators, because management of municipal finances and property is a specific area of activity in which it is often important not the number of issues resolved, but the quality of their resolution.

The Federal Property Management Agency has developed a methodology for setting key performance indicators (KPIs) for top managers. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the heads of state-owned companies will depend on the capitalization and dividends paid. For public state-owned companies, it is proposed to calculate the return on investment of shareholders (TSR), it depends on the dividend yield and changes in the share price. For non-public companies - take into account the amount of dividends compared to their average value for the previous three years.

Among other indicators, the Federal Property Management Agency highlights the return on invested or equity capital, which makes it possible to evaluate the effectiveness of investments. The agency also offers five criteria to choose from, of which members of the board of directors are required to select at least two.

It is the achievement of KPI that should be taken into account when rewarding managers at the end of the year.

In the last two decades, the Russian government has adopted several bills to reform state-owned organizations. Currently, they are usually called unitary municipal and state enterprises. Decisions on their reorganization are made by the owner, in this case, the federal government. The last effective legislation "On State and Municipal Unitary Enterprises" was adopted in November 2002.

The decision to reorganize is made in case of insufficiently effective, illegal work state enterprise:

- misappropriation of finances;
- no or minimal profit for the last two years;
- violation established rules on the use of real estate; rent, sale or use by other legal entities.

The process of disbanding or liquidation of such organizations is carried out by competent lawyers. Their professional control and competence will ensure order, and the reorganization of the enterprise will be carried out without violating the existing federal law. Their activities include an adequate assessment of the current situation, collection required package documents, representing the interests of the parties in various instances.

The termination of the activity of any state enterprise occurs according to the same scheme as that of a private one. It can be reorganization and liquidation. Such management measures come into force only if there is a decision of the authorized federal body or a court order.

Forms of reorganization of unitary state and municipal enterprises:

a) the merger of two or more enterprises;
b) joining others to an existing organization;
c) division into at least two new enterprises;
d) separation of one or several unitary enterprises;
e) transformation into another organizational and legal form provided for by federal law.

A change in the type of state-owned enterprise and legal status, under which its property is transferred to the ownership of another state-owned enterprise, is not considered a reorganization. In this case, some changes are made to the charter of the predecessor, which must be recorded by the state registration authorities.

Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part 1) dated November 30, 1994 No. 51-FZ. SZ RF. 1994. No. 32. Art. 3301; 2011. No. 405-FZ. Art. 7347.
Federal Law No. 178-FZ of December 21, 2001 “On the Privatization of State and Municipal Property”. SZ RF. 2002. No. 4. Art. 251; 2011. No. 50. Art. 7343.
Koshkina L.I. Problems of state property management. Economics and property management. 2012. No. 2. S. 15-24.
Chicherin B. N. Property and the state - M .: Direct-Media, 2011.
E1 Shilova Z.A. Municipal property management. M.: Academy, 2012. P.77.

RUSSIAN PRIORITIES

UDC: 338.121:656.2

PROVISION OF STATE INTERESTS WHEN FORMING A MECHANISM FOR MANAGING PROPERTY COMPLEXES OF LARGE CORPORATIONS*

V. O. FEDOROVICH, Doctor of Economics, Director of the Institute of Magistracy E-mail: [email protected] Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management

The formation of a rational organizational and economic mechanism for managing the property complex (property), ensuring a balance of interests of the state and other participants in corporate relations, is a task of paramount importance, far beyond the economic interests of the main groups of shareholders (owners). Underestimation of the importance of corporate governance in industrial corporations with state participation undermines the investment process, reduces the efficiency of capital use, hinders economic growth, hinders the mobilization of savings, makes it impossible to objectively analyze the profitability of various types of assets (property complex) of corporations and their capitalization. And, on the contrary, a correctly chosen corporate governance system guarantees the protection of the economic interests of the state,

* The article was prepared based on the materials of the journal National Interests: Priorities and Security. 2013. No. 26 (215).

financial transparency of the corporation's business activities and its accountability to owners and creditors.

Modern fast-growing corporate formations differ significantly from traditional joint-stock companies, primarily in terms of the composition and structure of assets. The entire property complex of modern corporate entities largely depends on the volume and quality of intangible assets focused on the human factor. These are commercial brands, own developments (know-how), strategic agreements, patents. With employees and business partners, such corporations have very flexible mutually beneficial contracts with a significant degree of economic freedom.

Highly integrated industrial corporations are attractive to a wide range of investors if they are dynamic, innovative and pay high dividends. Integration of various lines of business with the creation of an adequate mechanism for

Good governance improves the competitive position of any modern corporation. Ways to improve the legal framework in the field of corporate governance are determined by the economic interests of the business community. These interests lie in the area of establishing reliable partnerships between the main resource providers and are shared by participants (owners) and creditors. The main problems of interested participants in corporate relations are resolved during negotiations.

The variety of interests of shareholders or their main groups in terms of incentives, attitudes towards risk, preference for investment strategies and sources of financing determines the variability of methods and ways of forming the management of the property complex of large corporate entities. Thus, the organizational and economic mechanism of management in high-risk corporations that use venture capital and rely on the human factor in their economic activity can be very different from those in corporations that have been on the market for a long time.

In addition to the specifics of the capital structure (property) of a corporation, the organizational and economic mechanism for managing the property complex is largely determined by legislation, the system of state regulation and established business practice. These conditions set the institutional boundaries of corporate management of property (capital) of large integrated industrial corporations.

The institutional base for property management is:

Rules and regulations for the formation of a status right (title of ownership) and its subsequent protection;

Voluntarily adopted standards, national codes governing the system of intra-corporate management of property complexes;

A culture of business relations developed on the basis of social norms, religious beliefs and national specifics of specific states (territories).

In the process of formation of organizational, economic and financial mechanisms that ensure the effective management of the property complex, it is important to solve the problems of an institutional nature that arise in the process of separation at the legislative level of the right to own property.

responsibilities and corporate control rights. If the outsider model of corporate control is characterized by dispersion of the ownership structure, then the insider model implies the concentration of ownership (and hence strategic management) with one or several owners. The state can be a participant in both systems of corporate control.

The balance of economic interests of the participants in the outsider model is achieved through the interaction of disparate participants (owner-shareholders) and chief managers of the corporation, who have real economic opportunities. The problems of the insider model lie in the imbalance of the economic interests of the controlling participant (or a group of them) and minority participants (owners).

Let us dwell on the main factors influencing the formation basic models property management mechanism to balance the economic interests of the state and other participants in corporate relations. These are the level of ownership concentration, motivation, material and moral incentives for production management, institutional support for the process of mergers (acquisitions) and separation, models for the formation of equity (authorized) capital, cross-ownership of shares, etc. Ultimately, the influence of these factors also affects the efficiency economic activities of the corporation, its innovative activity, interaction with medium and small businesses (entrepreneurship) and its economic growth.

The organizational and economic mechanism for managing the property complex is aimed at solving problems that arise between the participants (owners) and the state (and the state can also be one of the owners), as well as between the participants and production management. When separating the functions of ownership and control, competition is traditionally considered the main motivation for finding optimal management and control mechanisms that minimize transaction costs. But even market competition with the dominance of the state form of ownership does not solve the problem of the conflict of economic interests in the system "participants (owners) - production management", as well as in the system "state (owner) - state regulation of economic activity" (state - fiscal tax authority) .

In the economic literature, the problems of corporate governance are considered from two positions. The first is the concept of shareholders (owners) and a narrow circle of participants. For shareholders, the most acceptable is the full accountability of production management (top managers) to the owners, i.e., the participants in the corporation. To do this, an organizational and economic mechanism is being formed that allows to maximize the rights of participants (owners) in managing the following tools:

Through compensation payments and options, the economic motivation of managers is linked to the economic motivation of owners;

To strengthen the institutional protection of owners and their rights, a ban (restriction) on insider transactions is introduced, and the market for mergers and divisions is regulated.

From the point of view of the shareholders, the decisive evaluation criterion is the maximum amount of income of the owners, determined by the maximum consolidated profit of the corporation. At the same time, the market price of the property complex of the corporation, calculated as the product of the price of shares (exchange quotation) and their number, is considered the simplest criterion. This indicator makes it possible to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of the management of the economic activities of the corporation as a whole.

Another concept takes into account the economic interests of a wider range of persons - participants (owners), top managers, creditors, personnel and government authorities (state institutions). It is no secret that the economic goals of these categories of persons (subjects) can differ markedly. Thus, the goals of owners and managers in separating the functions of control and ownership most often do not coincide. Unlike participants who want to increase the value (capital) of the corporation, for production management (middle and top management) the main thing is the current material remuneration, for personnel - the growth of wages, which is achieved by increasing sales volumes (capturing a larger market share), as well as by implementing risky investment projects.

The problem of balancing the interests of participants (owners) and production management can be considered on the basis of the concept of "imperfect contracts" (residual control rights), proving the impossibility of an ideal contract, where all conditions and circumstances are provided - after all, management

sometimes it is difficult to make managerial decisions in unforeseen circumstances and situations not stipulated in the contracts. In some cases, the participant reserves such “rights of residual control”, which sharply exacerbates the problem of information asymmetry. Thus, differences in the level of professional training and awareness of owners and managers often lead to serious losses.

The organizational and economic mechanism for managing the property complex in the framework of the first model also includes relationships with the institutional environment and provides opportunities to take into account the economic interests of creditors, personnel and government institutions (authorities). By integrating the economic interests of these groups, this model makes it possible to adequately evaluate the activities of the corporation's top managers and provides them with real targets. Comprehensive integral indicator in this case, the value of economic value added (EVA) can serve (Table 1).

The conceptual foundations of the formation of the organizational and economic mechanism for managing the property of large industrial corporations, proposed by various researchers, are based on the modern concept of managing the value of a corporation, which has as its main goal ensuring growth. market value corporations through an increase in the market value of shares. The system of indicators, which are used as estimates, is constantly being improved. Modern information technologies make it possible to receive them in the mode of operational monitoring. Based on the generalization of the results of basic theoretical and applied developments of foreign and domestic authors, a phased scheme for the formation of an organizational and economic mechanism for managing the property of industrial and transport corporations taking into account the structural relationship of its elements (Fig. 1).

When conducting a valuation of a corporation, the economic category of business value is used. In the very general view this is the book or nominal value, i.e. either the balance sheet total or the value of the organization's assets. However, the real value of the organization differs from the nominal value due, for example, to a certain discrepancy between the book value of non-current (including intangible) assets and their market value (for example, due to the significant time

Table 1

Corporate business performance indicators for various stakeholder groups

Participants (owners) Lenders Production management (top managers)

Return on equity capital Absolute liquidity ratio Product profitability. Profitability of sales

Earnings per share Economic characteristic cash flows Marginal income

The ratio of the amount of dividends and the value of assets The liquidation value of the corporation Asset turnover indicators

The ratio of capitalization and book value of the corporation Strength of financial leverage (financial leverage) Level of operating leverage (operating leverage)

Dynamics of the level of capitalization of the corporation Share (structure) of debt obligations relative to capitalization Structure of receivables and payables, their ratio

Return on assets and the total amount of consolidated profit Financial stability of the corporation Payroll and wage intensity of products, efficiency of personnel use

Tax burden on property Degree of coverage of interest payments Efficiency of investment projects (payback periods)

Equity capital growth rate Solvency Efficiency of production, economic and financial activities

beneficial use). Generally, when deriving the market value of corporations, two approaches are used.

The first approach assumes that the market value corresponds to the equilibrium price set by the interested parties in the course of a transaction related to the change of ownership of a corporation (purchase and sale of an organization).

The market value of a corporation is a relative value, influenced by many factors. Its property components should be assessed comprehensively as a self-developing mechanism, the actions of which are determined by the state of the assets and depend on the efficiency of the corporation's managers. Quite often it is used quantification economic value of the corporation - goodwill, determined by the difference between the real price and the book value of the corporation's assets.

The second approach is based on the main provisions described above, i.e. the market price of a corporation is adjusted for the value of the future growth of its assets due to the economic assessment of the probabilistic value of the inflow Money. In practice, as a rule, this is the amount of discounted cash flows over the useful life of the active fixed assets of the corporation.

Economic value added (EVA) is the book value plus the present value of future EVA. In other words, this is the value of the rate of return minus the weighted average

value of capital multiplied by the amount of invested capital.

As part of the management of the value of the property complex of corporations, the EVA indicator is used in the preparation of the capital budget, in assessing the effectiveness of economic activity of both individual separate structural divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates (legal entities), and a corporate entity (group) as a whole.

The main economic idea of using EVA is that the share capital of any corporate entity should bring at least the same return as an investment with a similar level of risk in the government or corporate stock (bond) market.

To characterize the state interests in the formation of tax and non-tax payments to the budgets of all levels, let us dwell in more detail on the scenario options for the economic behavior of large corporate entities with dominance or 100% participation in the structure of the share capital of the state form of ownership. The economic interests of the state are connected with the determination of the amounts and time periods for receiving income. We are talking about tax and non-tax revenues of the state budget, the payers of which (subjects of taxation) in accordance with the current legislation are all legal entities registered in the Unified State Register of Enterprises and Organizations (EGRPO). The economic and legal aspect of this problem is somehow connected with

Ensuring balance

economic interests of subjects of corporate relations

Economic interests of subjects of corporate relations

Owners

Lenders

Managers

Economic Value Added (EVA) Equity Value Added (AMV)

Creation of a corporate governance model

Ownership structure as a quantitative assessment of the economic opportunities (powers) of participants in property management (private, state, municipal)

State property 100%

Concentrated ownership structure with separation of the dominant owner (presence of a group of minority shareholders)

Distribution (dispersed) ownership structure with a significant number of "equal" small shareholders (one share - one vote)

insider model outsider model

corporate governance corporate governance

Shareholder concept Participant concept

Consolidated budget of the Russian Federation, consolidated budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation

Corporate Income Tax

tax revenue

Property tax of legal entities

Income from the use of state or municipal property or from the activities of state and municipal organizations

Non-tax income

Rice. 1. Stages of formation of the organizational and economic mechanism of property management

large corporations with state participation

problems of corporate management of large business structures.

In this regard, the following questions need to be answered. How to determine the economic interests of the state with equal rights for all forms of ownership? How to influence the integration and disintegration processes in the national economy so that the economic benefit from the economic

tvenno activity of subjects and from the use of property was the maximum? What metrics should be used?

In accordance with the current legislation, budget revenues are considered to be funds received irrevocably and free of charge at the disposal of state authorities of the Russian Federation, a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and local authorities.

self-government. In general, budget revenues are formed from tax and non-tax payments and gratuitous transfers. The income of target budget funds is taken into account separately.

Tax revenues include federal, regional and local taxes and fees provided for by the tax legislation of the Russian Federation, as well as penalties and fines, non-tax revenues include income from the use of state or municipal property (after paying taxes and fees), from paid services provided by budgetary institutions under the jurisdiction of the federal executive authorities, executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local governments, etc., respectively.

According to Art. 42 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation (BC RF), income from the use of state or municipal property includes:

Funds received in the form of rent for the temporary possession and use or temporary use of property in state or municipal ownership;

Funds received in the form of interest on balances of budget funds on accounts in credit institutions;

Funds received from the transfer of state or municipal property to trust management;

Funds from the repayment of state loans, budget loans and budget loans, including funds from the sale of property and other collateral transferred to recipients of budget loans, budget loans and state and municipal guarantees to the relevant executive authorities as security for obligations on budget loans, budget loans and state and municipal guarantees;

User fee budget funds provided to other budgets, foreign states or legal entities on a returnable and paid basis;

Income in the form of profit attributable to shares in the authorized (share) capital of economic companies and partnerships, or dividends on shares owned by the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipalities;

Other income provided by the legislation of the Russian Federation from the use of property located

belonging to the state and municipal property.

Incomes of a budget institution received from entrepreneurial and other income-generating activities are taken into account in full in the estimate of income and expenses of a budgetary institution and are reflected in the income of the corresponding budget as income from the use of state or municipal property, or as income from the provision of paid services. services.

The economic interests of the state, interpreted as the volume and intensity (speed) of the flow of financial resources (cash) to the budgets of the corresponding levels, characterize the state as a regulator of corporate relations. In table. 1, groups of indicators were presented that characterize the state-owner as an equal participant in the formation of the authorized capital - the property complex of large corporate entities. To characterize the economic relations of the state as a regulator of corporate relations through the functioning of the system of taxation of economic (entrepreneurial) activities, let us consider the dynamics of a seven-year period of total income and tax revenues to the federal budget of the Russian Federation (Fig. 2) .

The purpose of the analysis of information arrays, graphically presented in fig. 2-5 is to identify trends and dependencies between tax and non-tax revenues to the budget. The indicated amounts of receipts make it possible to give a volumetric (quantitative) economic assessment of the actual use of the property complexes of large corporate entities in the relevant periods of time.

Operational economic assessment characterizes the system of taxation of production, economic and financial activities of corporations through the collection of value added tax and income tax.

A strategic economic assessment can be obtained on the basis of an analysis of the property tax collection system, rent for the use of property (property complexes) in economic circulation and the amounts of revenues (reporting and planned) from the sale of state and municipal property, restructuring and corporatization of property complexes of state and municipal organizations.

To achieve a balance of economic interests of participants in corporate entities, it is necessary to determine the ratio of the volumes of

25 000 20 LLC

15 000 10 OOO

certain types of cash receipts. This value makes it possible to assess the effectiveness of the functioning of the property complexes of participating organizations and their structural divisions (Fig. 3).

From the analysis of Fig. Figure 3 shows that there is a clear large-scale sum discrepancy between tax and non-tax revenues of the federal budget of the Russian Federation, which indicates a small “economic weight” of state revenues from property (property complexes).

To assess the quality of the economic policy pursued by the Government of the Russian Federation in terms of the operational and strategic use of property complexes with a 100% or other, well-defined share of state or municipal property in the capital of large corporations, it is advisable to analyze the dynamics of non-tax revenues to the budget of the Russian Federation,

16 000 14 000 12 000

6 000 4 000 2 000 0

including sum receipts from the use in economic circulation of property complexes of organizations of state and municipal forms of ownership. Explicit changes in approaches have been noticeable since 2008 (Fig. 4), which is also confirmed by a certain correspondence between operational and strategic assessments of the use of property complexes of corporate entities in economic circulation (Fig. 5).

The economic rationale for the legitimacy of state regulation of privatization processes as a tool for managing structural changes and capitalization of corporate entities with equity or 100% state participation in ownership is proved by the same growth rates of the corresponding revenues (see Fig. 4 and 5). This plot is considered in more detail by the author in the articles.

A model for coordinating state economic interests and the interests of the indicated groups of participants in corporate relations with the formation of aggregated volumetric financial indicators shown in fig. 6.

Let us consider the formation of a mechanism for state regulation of the economic interests of subjects of corporate relations in Russia. At present, the choice of sources and forms of financing (investment) for ensuring both strategic development and current production and economic activities is of particular importance for corporations. Let us dwell in more detail on the distribution of economic interests of participants-shareholders (holders of property titles), creditors and functioning groups of corporations (legal entities), i.e. subsidiaries, dependent and affiliated organizations, and the state as an equal subject of these relations, on the one hand, and their regulator on the other.

Rice. Fig. 2. Dynamics of the total amount of income and tax revenues of the consolidated federal budget of the Russian Federation in 2005-2011, billion rubles: I - income of the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation; II - tax revenues

Rice. 3. Dynamics of tax (I) and non-tax (II) receipts of the revenue part of the federal budget of the Russian Federation in 2005-2011, billion rubles

Practice shows that the economic interests of shareholders, integrated into the ownership structure of specific corporate entities, cause quite significant differences in the structure of sources of their long-term (strategic) and short-term (operational) financing not only of the groups themselves, but also of individual subsidiaries and affiliates within corporations.

State regulation of the economic interests of the subjects of corporate relations in the conditions of a certain economic growth is provided with the help of the organizational and economic mechanism of property management. By analogy with the division of management functions and economic activities at the level of the state apparatus, management at the corporation level is also divided into the functions of shareholders (holders of the title of ownership), the functions of public control (external audit services) and the functions of the current management of production, economic and financial activities (production management). As a rule, in practice, the interests of all these entities reveal significant differences, especially obvious between the participants (shareholders-investors) and managers of the corporation.

Representatives of the top management of the corporation, acting in their own interests, try to receive the highest possible wages and, using their official powers, can withdraw part of the assets through affiliated organizations for their own personal purposes. Managers can also, by means available to them, in accordance with applicable law, oppose themselves

owners (shareholders) in terms of the residual income received by the corporation (retained consolidated profit).

The institutional base of property relations arising from the reform of large industrial corporations, as well as modern corporate relations regulated by the state, are determined by three basic legislative acts. These are federal laws No. 39-F3 of April 25, 1996 “On the securities market”, No. 208-FZ of December 26, 1995 “On joint-stock companies”, No. 46-FZ of March 5, 1999 “On protection of rights and legal

Rice. 4. Dynamics of non-tax revenues (I) and income from the use of state and municipal property (II)

in 2005-2011, billion rubles

Rice. Fig. 5. Dynamics of income tax (I) and income from the use of state property (II) in 2005-2011, billion rubles.

Rice. 6. Balance of economic interests of the state and other key participants

corporate relations

interests of investors in the securities market”. The federal law on joint-stock companies made it possible to form in Russia a two-tier system for managing large corporate entities (JSC), generally consisting of a board of directors and a board of directors. This law creates a fairly solid legal basis for effective corporate management of the property of complex organizational structures.

Under this law, a minority minority on the board of directors can block transactions that are contrary to their economic interests. Thus, decisions on changes in the authorized capital, on the adoption of amendments to the charter, and on major transactions (that is, those exceeding half of the book value of the corporation's property complex) require three-quarters of the votes of the general meeting of shareholders.

It also seems sufficient to protect the rights of shareholders from possible "dilution" of outstanding shares. A new (additional) issue of shares must be placed on the secondary market at market value. The adoption of the relevant decision on placement must be approved by two-thirds of the votes of the general meeting. The voting procedure itself is also strictly regulated, especially when the number of shareholders exceeds 1,000 people. By law, each shareholder has the right to vote, the "weight" of which corresponds to the number of shares multiplied by the number of board members to be elected. Sufficient attention is also paid to external control over

activities of production management is, first of all, a mandatory external audit, and for corporations with more than 500 employees. - an external independent registrar of securities (shares of a corporate entity).

The federal law on the protection of investors' rights regulates the rules of conduct for securities registrars, custodial institutions and traders. This greatly facilitates the very procedure for the free sale (purchase and sale) of securities in the secondary market. In addition, the current legislation establishes rather strict standards regarding the amount of financial information to be published in the open press. These are annual financial statements (1st and 2nd forms), information on significant events for the corporation (changes in the authorized capital, composition of the board of directors, chief managers, share capital structure).

The main vectors of economic interests of the participants, regulated by the current legislation (legislative and regulatory acts of the Russian Federation), are shown in fig. 7.

Let us comment on the indicated in Fig. 7 directions and levels of interaction of economic interests of groups of subjects.

1-2 - the relationship between the participants and production management, due for the most part to the type of ownership (concentrated or dispersed), on the basis of which the authorized capital of a corporate entity is formed. There are potential opportunities here

Rice. 7. The main directions of interaction between the economic interests of the state and other subjects of corporate relations, regulated by the current legislation of the Russian Federation: 1 - participants (owners, i.e. shareholders);

2 - production management (secondary and higher

managers); 3- creditors; 4 - staff (employees); 5- state regulatory bodies

mergers or acquisitions of a legal entity and the associated risks of job loss.

2-3 - relations between production management and credit organizations, which often determine not only the relationship of the lender and the lender, regulated by the financial stability of the organization and the liquidity of the business. The relationship between top managers and the lending institution often develops into a relationship between participants (owners) and the lender as a possible potential institutional owner of the corporate entity (link 3-1 in Figure 7).

2-4 - relations between the top managers and the staff of the corporation, regulated by the system of contracts and the terms of the collective agreement concluded annually between the administration (top managers) and the hired staff of the corporation.

3-5 - relationship between government agencies(banking) and commercial banks or between the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and commercial organizations in the field of regulation of credit relations and taxation of credit organizations, including currency regulation.

4-5 - relations between employers and employees, regulated by the state through civil and labor legislation.

5-1 - relations between public institutions (authorities) and participants

(owners), regulated by the three legislative acts mentioned above.

5-3 - relations between state institutions (authorities) and production management, regulated by civil law and the Corporate Governance Code.

If we consider the directions of the impact of economic interests for each of the five subjects of corporate relations presented in Fig. 7, taking into account the incoming directions of influence with a minus sign, and the outgoing ones with a plus sign, it is possible to draw up a balance equation for the economic interests of the partners in corporate relations, which should be taken into account in management and adjusted using the organizational and economic mechanism of property management.

The contradictions between the economic interests of the participants (owners) and production management (top managers) are considered in the conceptual theory of agents or the concept of delegation of authority - agency theory. At the same time, the economic interests of owners and managers are studied, and groups of their main contradictions are classified.

Slightly different conceptual approaches form the basis of the theory of interested persons (stake-holder theory), which proposes ways to harmonize the economic interests of all entities directly or indirectly related to the functioning of the corporation. According to this concept, the goal of the economic activity of any corporation is not to maximize the value of the corporation (growth of capitalization), but to improve its image by improving the social and economic situation of the staff and reducing environmental risks. Managers, in the absence of information asymmetry, make managerial decisions, taking into account all interested parties (owners, creditors, personnel, etc.).

Let's try to realistically assess the possibilities of production management to balance the economic interests of the subjects of corporate relations. To do this, we classify into groups economic disagreements that are potentially possible in the process of exercising the rights and obligations of subjects, in accordance with the current legislation of the Russian Federation (Table 2).

Summarizing the data in Table. 2, we can distinguish the following main contradictions in the economic interests of the considered groups of subjects.

table 2

Economic interests of the main groups of subjects taken into account in the formation of the organizational and economic mechanism of property management

Subjects of corporate relations Characteristics of economic interests Degree of influence on the achievement of the goal Responsibility

Owners (participants): majority shareholders (board of directors), minority shareholders (board of directors) Strategic, long-term Tactical, operational, short-term High Low Limited participation Limited participation

Production management: Executive Director(chief manager), top managers (board, administration), personnel, employees (collective council, trade union) Tactical and short-term (amplitude), individual Operative, short-term, collective (group) Tactical group and operational individual High (partially limited) Medium (limited) Low, minimal High individual Medium individual Low

State - participant (shareholder) Strategic, socio-economic focus High, limited by ownership structure High, limited by participation

The state is a regulatory and fiscal authority Strategic, focused on macroeconomic benchmarks High High

Stakeholders (including affiliates) Tactical and medium-term Limited or low Low, depending on the conditions of control

1. Disagreements in economic interests between participants (owners) and production management (top managers) can be quite significant. Thus, owners are interested in maximum capitalization and dividend payments, and top managers are interested in high material remuneration (wages, bonuses, managerial status). Dominants depend on the degree of concentration of ownership.

2. The conflict of interests of the dominant groups of shareholders (majority shareholders) and other shareholders (minority shareholders) of the corporation, as a rule, manifests itself in connection with the dynamics of the market value of shares: the majority shareholders have long-term interests, the minority shareholders have short-term interests. As for investments, for some, strategic innovations are decisive, for others, operational ones. For example, according to the International financial corporation, the share of undistributed (net) profit directed national companies RF on dividend payments increased to 21%, while such payments were made in less than 30% of regional corporations with sales of less than $10 million and more than 50% of companies with sales over $10 million.

3. Disagreements between top managers and staff (employees), as well as between owners and employees are mainly resolved on a contract basis

when hiring (hiring) for work, in the future - with the help of trade unions, civil and labor legislation.

4. Differences in the interests of owners and other stakeholders (affiliates, government agencies).

Practice has shown that a rational organizational and economic mechanism for managing the property complex contributes to the streamlining of corporate relations at all levels of the hierarchy of management of entities, which ultimately streamlines business processes and contributes to the growth of investment in the national economy. At the same time, a quantitative economic assessment, which comprehensively and fairly objectively takes into account the economic interests of the state and other subjects of corporate relations and reflects the effectiveness of the mechanism for managing the property complex, is provided by two identical and widely used indicators - the value added of equity capital (market added value, MAV) and economic value added. (economic value added, EVA) .

The problem of resolving economic contradictions between the subjects of corporate relations is being actively studied in developed capitalist countries. Traditionally, there are Anglo-American and German-Japanese models of corporate governance. In the first, the emphasis is on state regulation of capital markets for legal

howling protection of owners (participants), as well as legal entities as equal participants in economic turnover. At the same time, the rights of minority groups of shareholders are equally protected (in the case of a dispersed ownership structure). There are also special schemes for participation in the board of directors of representatives of employees (corporation personnel), through this mechanism, the economic interests of personnel are taken into account.

In the German-Japanese model of corporate governance (Germany, Japan, Austria, Holland, Belgium, France, Italy, etc.) there are two-level management systems - the board and the supervisory board, which includes independent directors - representatives of all subjects of economic relations. The Russian, the youngest, model of corporate governance in practice consolidates quite significant rights expressing the interests of all subjects of corporate relations of executive directors (president of an OJSC, chairman of the board of directors, general (executive director). At present, it is necessary to pay special attention to the experience of Germany, where the degree participation of an employee in ownership, management and production processes determines his motivation, interest in end results activities of the corporation (which not only contributes to the balance of economic interests of these groups of entities, but also meets the principles of economic and social justice).

Let us consider several situational models that are typical for the practice of modern corporate relations and allow us to talk about the possibility of integrating economic interests in the management of the property complex of large corporate entities.

The owners have at their disposal an effective toolkit, with the help of which it is possible to correct the managerial decisions of managers. These are mechanisms of internal and external control, the use of independent persons in the boards of directors, a change in the ownership structure - in case of mergers (acquisitions) or division of a corporation. In some cases, relative harmonization of the interests of owners and managers is possible through the mechanism of monetary compensation. Relativity is due to the measure of responsibility, measured by a specific amount of costs incurred by owners and managers as a result of their management decisions.

Complicating the situation under consideration, the appearance of a third subject - the spokesman is quite op-

divided economic interests - the creditor (in the case of long-term borrowings, the creditor is considered the investor) as the holder of the debt obligations of the corporation. In the event of a conflict situation (a discrepancy between the economic interests of owners and creditors), the threat of bankruptcy of the corporation becomes real. However, if there is little or no risk on a corporation's debt obligations, creditors have little interest in either the rate of return or the market value (capitalization) of the corporation itself. If such a risk is still present, then the owners always have certain advantages over creditors. Such advantages lie in the legal sphere, since claims on shares are, by their economic and legal nature, residual claims, and in the event of a decrease in the value of debt obligations, the value of obligations on shares remains unchanged for some time.

It is also possible that the production management makes managerial decisions that allow (within the framework of the current legislation) to transfer the corporation's assets into the sphere of its own powers, strengthening its economic position. If managers act in the interests of the owners, then in the event of a default risk, they may be interested in transferring credit resources towards the owners of the corporation, for example, in the following ways:

Direct investment resources (loans) to the most risky high-yield assets. When making a profit, the owners remain the winners, otherwise the creditors assume the risk of loss;

Reducing the capitalization of costs financed by attracted financial resources (additional issue of shares). Typically, attraction is carried out until the profit received due to this (net present value) is equal to the amount attracted for this financial resources(investments). If at the same time loans are used as additional funds, then the growth in the market value of debt obligations becomes a kind of “capital” for this part of the investment. When paying off debt obligations, in this case, there is a reduction in investment;

Having carried out a fairly active credit policy for partial payment of funds borrowed by the owners of the corporation. This helps to reduce the market value of debt obligations and save

a decrease (although often a decrease) in the level of capitalization of a corporation. At the same time, the amount of dividends received by the owners largely compensates for the decrease in the value of their shares;

Hiding from creditors information relating to the financial stability of the corporation. By dragging out the restructuring procedure or exploiting gaps in legislation, managers make the procedure of bankruptcy and reorganization of a corporation as difficult as possible. The economic gain (very relative) due to the conservation of the age structure of debt obligations and the increase in risk is received by owners to the detriment of creditors. Solving the problem of coordinating the interests of owners and managers requires a search for approaches and methods for quantitatively measuring the quality of managerial decisions. Owners are potentially ready and able to adequately pay for management decisions of managers if there are indicators that allow them to be measured and evaluated effectively, with a given degree of objectivity. managerial contribution. Such indicators can be the amount of earnings per ordinary share, the capitalization of the corporation, the positive dynamics of profitability, the level of economic value added or the value added of equity capital.

Properly chosen criteria for operational strategic economic evaluation will strengthen professional motivation corporate management to generate financial revenues that increase the capitalization of the corporation, rather than organizational pseudo-restructuring and risky investments with low returns. The Russian economy is currently characterized by the strengthening of the position of the state. This is manifested in terms of regulating economic and financial relations at the macro level in an increase in the share of state ownership in especially significant sectors of the economy. State regulation of financial markets, the processes of restructuring of large industrial and transport corporations affects the structure of the authorized capital, the balance of economic interests of participants and the sources of strategic and current financing of economic activities. In practice, this happens through the implementation of targeted state programs (lending to specific sectors of the economy), regulation of stock market prices, through state participation in large industrial corporations.

active formations (holdings), through the policy of credit rates (participation of the state in credit institutions, adjustment of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, etc.).

As mentioned above, the coordination of the economic interests of participants (owners) can also have a direct impact on the structure of sources of financing for large corporate entities. V. B. Kondratiev considers three basic approaches that explain the differences in the structure of financing. Within the framework of the first approach, the capital structure of the corporation seems to be moving towards a well-defined optimal model, which is possible under the current bankruptcy legislation and the level of taxation, which harmonize the composition and structure of assets, the level of investment risk and the amount of profitability.

The second approach characterizes the impact of the conflict of economic interests of insiders and outsiders on the optimality of the structure of corporate finance sources. In this case, it is believed that the agency costs associated with the exercise of managerial powers of the corporation's managers predominate.

Within the framework of the third approach, the emphasis is on the problems associated with the imperfection of the Russian financial market. A certain asymmetry of information and the presence of transaction costs limit the ability of production management to manage the investment process. The conflict of economic interests of owners, creditors and management can have a direct impact on the efficiency of the corporation and its development strategy, making it difficult to form a rational structure of funding sources. Thus, the analysis of debt financing, on the one hand, provides control over the actions of production management, but, on the other hand, leads to an increase in agency costs. This is explained by the fact that the growth of credit risks contributes to an increase in the share of remuneration of creditors and other holders of debt obligations, which they receive in the distribution of net consolidated profit from all profitable investments of the corporation. Such a prospect of income redistribution in reality contributes to the refusal of owners from strategically advantageous capital investments.

As a first approximation, the financial structure of large corporate entities, in the capital of which there is (or prevails) the state

gift property can be represented by the following basic indicators:

Indicators of financial stability (ratio of own and borrowed funds);

Specific gravity debt obligations in the total amount of financing of capital investments;

The share of short-term liabilities in the total liabilities of the corporation;

The level of coverage of debt obligations by cash, i.e. the ratio of gross current cash, before taxes and depreciation, to the average for the period interest rates on debt obligations (credits).

Achieving a balance of interests of all participants in large corporate entities (including the state) and an incentive to build a rational structure of the property complex, ensuring the mobilization and optimal flow of financial resources, should be:

Legalization of equality of all forms of ownership, development of methods for registering relevant rights and their subsequent protection;

Clear distribution of the rights and obligations of the parties, consistency of decisions and adopted provisions on the basis of legislative and regulatory acts;

Consistent reform of the corporate sector through a system of federal laws prescribing the procedure for the creation, accession (merger) and division of large corporate entities, as well as laws on the functioning of the stock market (securities market), bankruptcy of organizations, etc.;

Transparency in the management of the property complex (accompanying the distribution of financial resources with reliable and transparent reporting on the production and economic activities of the corporation and its financial condition);

Regular control over the intra-corporate distribution of managerial powers, analysis of decision-making procedures, compliance with the rules of statistical and financial reporting.

Bibliography

1. Bocharova I. Yu. Intra-company interests in the conditions of the formation of the national model of corporate governance // Economics modern Russia. 2005. No. 3. S. 116-123.

2. Kondratiev V. B. Corporate Governance and investment process. M.: Nauka, 2003.

3. Kungurov Yu. A., Fedorovich V. O. Financial management under the conditions of reforming large industrial complexes. Novosibirsk: SAFBD, 2009.

4. Russian statistical yearbook. 2012. Moscow: Rosstat, 2012.

5. Fedorovich V. O. Large corporate entities: the concentration of production factors and economic growth. Siberian Financial School. 2005. No. 1. S. 87-96.

6. Fedorovich V. O. Composition and structure of the organizational and economic mechanism for managing the property of large industrial corporate entities. Siberian Financial School. 2006. No. 2. S. 45-54.

7. Fedorovich V. O., Kontsypko N. V. Study of the mechanism of formation and distribution of strategic financial savings of a corporation // Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. Economy. 2012. No. 1. S. 135-144.

8. Fedorovich V. O., Kontsipko N. V. Financial mechanism for the formation of strategic financial savings in large industrial corporations.

9. Fedorovich V. O., Kungurov Yu. A., Fedorovich T. V. Capitalization of the largest corporations: economic assessment of structural transformations in the national economy of Russia // Finance and credit. 2008. No. 18. S. 32-38.

10. Fedorovich V. O., Fedorovich T. V. State property: management of structural changes and capitalization of large corporate entities // EKO. 2006. No. 7. S. 28-41.

11. Fedorovich V. O., Fedorovich T. V. Information models of management analysis in large corporations (groups) // Siberian Financial School. 2005. No. 3. S. 18-27.

12. Fedorovich V. O., Fedorovich T. V. Structural transformations in the industrial complex of Russia // Siberian financial school. 2005. No. 3. S. 73-78.

13. Fedorovich T. V., Kungurov Yu. A., Fedorovich V. O. Restructuring of the public sector: the formation of a nuclear energy industrial holding. 2008. No. 7. S. 16-29.

14. Fedorovich T. V., Fedorovich V. O. Allocation of the financial and investment components of the synergy effect and their role in improving the systemic efficiency of business // Economic analysis: theory and practice. 2008. No. 21. S. 24-33.

15. Shcherbakova O. N. Application modern technologies estimating the value of the business of an operating company // Financial management. 2003. No. 1. S. 105-121.

16. Ross S. The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal's Problem // American Economic Review. 1973. Vol. 63, May.

UDK 332.1: 338.6 BBK 65. 9(7) K-91

Kosova Elena Gazizovna, applicant, assistant of the department "Finance and Credit" of the Economic Institute of the Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "North Caucasian State Humanitarian Technological Academy", t89280257925.

FEATURES OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IN A CITY MUNICIPALITY

(reviewed)

The article discusses various forms of management organizations and ways to effectively use the property complex of an urban municipality.

Key words: management, urban municipality, municipal economy, property complex.

Kosova Elena Gazizovna, applicant, assistant of the Department of Finance and Credit of the Economic Institute FSEI HPE ”North-Caucasian State Humanitarian Technological Academy,” tel.: is: 89280257925.

FEATURES OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OF CITY MUNICIPALITY

The article discusses various forms of management organization and ways of efficient use of the property complex of the city municipality.

Keywords: management, urban municipality, municipal economy, the property complex.

The efficiency of the municipality is determined by the state of its economy, and it, in turn, depends on the level of use of municipal property and the resources that it has. The development of the municipal economy to the greatest extent corresponds to the interests of the population.

An integral part of the municipal economy is municipal economy, which is a set of enterprises and institutions that carry out on the territory of the municipality economic activity aimed at meeting the social needs of the population.

Revealing the problems of local economy management, we note that the local economy is a set of municipal enterprises, organizations, institutions, engineering infrastructure facilities, municipal housing stock, and other property that serve the population of the municipality. In principle, the local economy includes not only objects of municipal property, but also enterprises, organizations, institutions and objects of federal, republican and private property, whose activities are mainly related to serving the population

In the municipal property of the city of Cherkessk there is property intended for resolving issues of local importance of the urban district, for the implementation of certain state powers transferred to local governments of the municipality, for ensuring the activities of municipal unitary enterprises and municipal institutions, as well as for resolving issues of organizing the life support of the municipality, the right to decide which is granted to local governments by federal laws.

The composition of municipal property is determined in accordance with federal laws and laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. According to Federal Law No. 131-FZ of 2003, municipal property includes:

Property intended for resolving issues of local importance, including municipal lands and some natural resources;

Property intended for the implementation by local governments of certain state powers;

Property intended to ensure the activities of bodies and officials local self-government, municipal employees, employees of municipal enterprises and institutions.

The federal law of 2003 specifies the composition of municipal property, which

may be owned by settlements, municipal districts and city districts. According to the Law, only the property necessary for the exercise of the powers of local self-government bodies as public authorities should be in municipal ownership.

Property intended for commercial use (profit making) must be transferred to other owners. Municipal property, depending on its purpose, can be divided into two main groups: property that allows you to conduct business activities, produce goods and provide services, and property that ensures the implementation of managerial and other non-economic functions of local government. The property of the first group is assigned to municipal enterprises and institutions on the basis of economic management or operational management. It allows economic entities to function, and in some cases - to make a profit and pay taxes and fees to the budget. The property of the second group, not assigned to municipal enterprises and institutions, constitutes (together with financial resources) the treasury of the corresponding municipality.

Based on the indicators in Table 1, it can be concluded that municipal enterprises operate unprofitably and the economic foundation that was created by the previous period, namely in 2007 and previous years, was largely destroyed by the economic crisis, but timely assistance from the republican and federal authorities contributed to the preservation municipal enterprises and their functioning. The positive moment is the increase in investments in fixed capital and the relative stability of the number of employees (the absence of a sharp decrease in the number of employees), a decrease in unprofitability by 2.5 times.

Table 1 - Dynamics of the effectiveness of the use of municipal property in the urban municipality of Cherkessk, 2007-2009

2007 2008 2009 2008 to 2007, % 2009 to 2008, %

Enterprises by form of ownership, units 6354 6964 7270 109.6 104.4

state 279 272 272 97.4 100.0

municipal 108 100 101 92.5 101.0

private 5339 5982 6591 112.0 110.1

Average number of employees, people 10.8 10.1 9.9 93.5 98.0

Volume of shipped goods own production, performed works and services, thousand rubles 1838.3 2100.2 1755.0 114.2 83.5

Availability of fixed assets, million rubles 2642.4 3188.7 4100.1 120.6 128.5

Investments in fixed capital, million rubles 945.3 1301.1 1379.7 137.6 106.0

Balanced financial result (profit (+), (loss (-) of the activities of organizations, million rubles 121.7 -44.7 -17.8 -36.7 -38.8

Source: Compiled according to the city municipality of Cherkessk.

As you know, the existing legislation allows local governments on behalf of the municipality to independently own, use, dispose and manage municipal property. In accordance with the Law, they have the right to transfer municipal property for temporary or permanent use to individuals and legal entities, state authorities and local governments, alienate, make other transactions in accordance with federal laws.

IN modern conditions 131, the question of forming a system of measures to create a mechanism for managing and effectively using municipal property in the system of each particular municipality has become more acute than ever, since municipal property is a source of financial and economic power of any management system.

Let us consider some forms of municipality management that are acceptable for use by the municipality of the city of Cherkessk. The municipal government system can interact with private enterprises through the municipal order form. These are works aimed at performing work on the improvement of the territory of the municipality, public services for the population, the construction and repair of social infrastructure facilities, the production of products, the provision of services necessary to meet the domestic and socio-cultural needs of the population of the territory of the municipality, to perform other works using the provided for this material and financial resources at the expense of the local budget. Consequently, the involvement in the economic turnover of subjects of various forms of ownership is the economic and legal nature of the local economy, and this diversity must be used when creating the financial system of municipal government.

The system of municipal government today has become exactly the structure that integrates the objects of the local economy and solves all economic and social problems and the tasks of servicing the municipal economic complex. One of the areas of municipal management and management for the city is the objects of socio-economic infrastructure, that is, healthcare, education, preschool education, culture, managed directly by the city, these areas, as a rule, are part of the municipal property and are supported through budget funding.

The second rather large-scale direction of municipal management is the spheres of economic activity, working mainly on the principles of commercial calculation - this is trade, consumer services, housing and communal services, transport, construction.

The first and second spheres in the complex represent a socio-economic system that reproduces the life of the population living in a given territory.

One of the methods of disposing of the municipal property of the city of Cherkessk is operational management, this method is a system of relations in which an enterprise or institution exercises the use and disposal of property within the limits established by law, in accordance with the goals of its activities, the tasks of the owner and the purpose of the property. The owner has the right to withdraw excess unused property and dispose of it at his discretion. The subject of operational management may dispose of the assigned property only with the consent of the owner. The owner, represented by the municipality, determines the procedure for distributing the income of an enterprise or institution, and the business entity manages the income and property acquired at the expense of these incomes independently. For the obligations of the subjects of operational management in case of insufficiency of its property, the municipality, as the owner, bears subsidiary liability.

For the municipal government system, the most economically effective method disposal of municipal property is a lease, i.e. leasing for temporary use of municipal property not assigned to other legal entities on property rights. The right to lease municipal property belongs only to the municipality as the owner. The transfer of municipal property is formalized by a lease agreement, under which the landlord undertakes to provide the tenant with certain property for temporary use for rent. At the same time, the income received by the lessee as a result of the use of the leased property in accordance with the contract is his property. Land plots, natural objects, enterprises and other property complexes, buildings, structures, equipment, vehicles and other things that do not lose their natural properties in the process of their use can be leased. The lease agreement must contain data that allow you to definitely identify the property to be transferred to the tenant as an object of lease. The property is leased together with all its accessories and related documents. When concluding a lease agreement, the municipality notifies the tenant of all rights of third parties to the leased municipal property (servitude, right of pledge, etc.).

Little is used in the practice of municipal government in Russia, including the city of Cherkessk, the method of trust management of municipal property. The essence of this method lies in the fact that trust management is carried out on the basis of an agreement, according to which the municipality, as the founder, transfers property to the trustee for management for a certain period. Management is carried out in the interests of the municipality, in some cases, it is possible that trust management will be carried out in the interests of a person trusted by the municipality. This person may be an individual entrepreneur or a commercial organization, with the exception of a unitary enterprise. Property is not subject to transfer to trust management of a state body or body of another municipality. The transfer of property for trust management does not entail the transfer of ownership of it to the trustee, but he has the right to perform any legal and actual actions in relation to this property in accordance with the contract in the interests of the municipality.

All objects of municipal property can be in trust management, including enterprises and property complexes, individual objects, securities and other property. Property already placed by a municipal entity on the basis of economic management or operational management cannot be transferred to trust management.

The form of effective use of municipal property is the participation of the municipality in economic companies. Owned management

municipal formation shares (shares, shares) in the authorized capital of economic companies are carried out by the administration of the urban district. The administration of the city district appoints its representative to participate in the work of the management bodies of economic companies and partnerships, in the authorized capital of which there is a share of the municipality. The privatization of shares (shares, stakes) in the authorized capital of business entities owned by a municipal formation is carried out on the basis of an approved forecast plan for the privatization of municipal property and decisions on the conditions for their privatization adopted by the Duma of the city district. It should be noted that the municipality of the city of Cherkessk has the opportunity to use this form, but misses this opportunity.

Some municipalities, subject to appropriate conditions, may benefit from a concession agreement. Under a concession agreement, one party (concessionaire) undertakes, at its own expense, to create and (or) reconstruct the property specified by this agreement, the ownership of which belongs or will belong to the other party (grantor), to carry out activities using (exploiting) the object of the concession agreement, and the concessor undertakes to provide the concessionaire for the period established by this agreement with the rights of possession and use of the object of the concession agreement for the implementation of the specified activity. The list of proposed forms of effective management of municipal property is not final, theory and practice will create, and other, new ways, but the above forms can be used by the city of Cherkessk for the benefit of the population.

Literature:

1. Zotov V.B. The system of municipal government. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2008. 271 p.

2. Vasilenko I.A. State and municipal administration. M., 2005. S. 41.

3. Roy O.M. The system of state municipal government. M., 2005. S. 63.

1. Zotov V.B. The system of municipal governance. SPb.: Peter. 2008. 271 p.

2. Vasilenko I.A. State and municipal management. M. : 2005. P. 41.

3 Roy O.M. The system of state municipal governance. M.: 2005. P. 63.

Information system " Management and disposal of the property complex» (hereinafter referred to as the System) is intended for use in government bodies the authorities of the Russian Federation, carrying out accounting and disposal of property in various legal forms. The system has the following functionality:

Cadastral registration of land plots, real estate and movable property in the context of legal, economic and technical characteristics;

Maintaining a register of counterparties - legal, individuals, individual entrepreneurs, as well as enterprises and institutions in the context of contracts (and other transactions) with property objects;

Implementation of all types of transactions with property objects, preparation of draft contracts, orders, resolutions, acts and other documents;

Calculation of fees for the use of property, accrual of penalties, fines in the personal accounts of payers;

Analysis of receipts from the Federal Treasury Department on personal accounts of payers, the possibility of using billing technology (payment terminals), interaction with banks, as well as interaction with the GIS GMP;

Monitoring and analysis of the state of the property complex;

An Internet portal for counterparties to access information on personal accounts, prepare receipts for payment, and more.

Implementation of the System will allow to carry out:

Full inventory of real estate, movable property and land, control over the integrity and completeness of data;

Reduce labor costs, the burden on employees and the risk of the "human factor" when calculating fees for the use of property, preparing and printing financial, accounting documents, parsing receipts by automating the maintenance of personal accounts and parsing payments;

Setting up the System in accordance with changes in legislation (regulatory and reference information, methods and calculation parameters);

Increasing income from the use of property due to the prompt identification of arrears and automation of the process of conducting claims and lawsuits;

Reflection of property potential, its dynamics and structure;

Monitoring and analysis of property and land resources, ensuring control over the use of property;

Enforcement of legislation on open data, etc.

DESCRIPTION OF FUNCTIONALITY

Subsystem "Maintaining a unified register of property objects"

The subsystem serves to implement and display the processes of formation of property objects (land plots, real estate, movable property) of their state accounting with the possibility of dividing by municipalities, the emergence and state registration of property rights to them. It has the functionality to enter / upload data on legal, economic, technical and other characteristics, reflect the registration of property rights, take into account technical and title documentation, maintain a history of changes in objects.

The subsystem ensures the optimal management decisions on the disposal of property when renting it out, alienating it, assigning it to economic management and operational management, transferring it for use or trust management, contributing it as a share when creating business entities, using it as collateral for securing credit obligations.

Subsystem "Maintaining the Register of Counterparties"

Maintaining a register of counterparties (legal entities, individuals and individual entrepreneurs) involves storing information on persons who enter into legal relations with the Administration. Information is displayed on all types of legal relations with the counterparty in the field of property relations (rent, acquisition (alienation) of property, etc.), the history of activity is kept.

The register also includes enterprises and institutions. Data is collected on the property transferred and acquired by them, and an analysis of financial and economic activities is carried out.

Control is carried out at each stage of the liquidation procedure, bankruptcy of counterparties in order to timely withdraw property and collect debts.

Subsystem "Management and disposal of property objects"

This subsystem is used to implement and display the processes of disposing of objects (transactions): transfer of property for rent, registration of property, gratuitous use, management and operational management, permanent (perpetual) and gratuitous fixed-term use, trust management, storage, acquisition of property, purchase / sale apartments and rooms in communal apartments.

The subsystem provides for the preparation of draft documents (orders, resolutions, lease agreements, etc.), and the calculation of the purchase price of objects.

The integrity and completeness of documents are monitored, the timing of the execution of documents, the timing of the use of property, compliance with the regulations for the implementation of transactions is carried out.

A system of reminders to users on the main events in the System (the need to execute a document, prepare a document, etc.) is provided.

Subsystem "Management of personal accounts and administration of income from the use of property"

The subsystem serves to maintain personal accounts, calculate and accrue fees for the use of property, make preliminary calculations (for lease agreements), control over payment, analyze arrears and take measures to reduce arrears (claim work), prepare financial and accounting reports.

The subsystem carries out mass and individual preparation of settlement forms and forms of payment (PD-4) for sending to payers.

The subsystem provides the ability to collect, store and process information from municipalities, subjects of the Russian Federation.

Enforcement of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated July 27, 2010 No. 210-FZ "On the organization of the provision of state and municipal services", interaction with the GIS GMP.

Subsystem "Analysis of receipts (payments) on personal accounts of payers"

The subsystem serves to interact with the Federal Treasury, download and process information on payments, as well as interact with banking structures to download payment orders. A billing technology is used to collect payments through payment terminals.

Subsystem "Conducting claims and lawsuits with debtors under lease agreements"

The subsystem combines the work of specialists in the implementation of payments for the use of property and the legal service. The subsystem identifies non-payers, prepares prescriptions, claims for payment of debts, and statements of claim.

The subsystem controls the deadlines for the execution of documents using a system of reminders and user notifications.

Litigation is ongoing until the entry into force of court decisions. The activities of the bailiff service are monitored.

Subsystem "Monitoring of the state of the property complex" and subsystem "Analysis of the effectiveness of property management"

Subsystems provide instrumental support for the formation of analytical materials on the state of property use at the current time and for the selected reporting period, containing both textual and graphical forms of information presentation. The formation of analytical materials is organized in an automated mode in accordance with the parameters specified by the user.

Within the framework of these subsystems, mechanisms for information and technological support of management activities and management decision-making have been created.

Subsystem "Internet portal"

The subsystem includes the creation of an electronic portal (contractor of the Office), which allows the user to receive the following information:

Print a payment order for the payment of the principal debt, penalty interest, debt for actual use without manually entering any additional data;

Possibility to leave a request for certificates, reconciliation acts, extracts from personal accounts and other documents;

Leave a preliminary request for the extension of contracts, assignment of the right to lease, or termination of the lease;