Natalia Plugar: "I am afraid to stop projects»

Natalie, your company has made the most famous Russian venture deal of the market - led to the IPO project "Russian navigation technology." But there are in your portfolio and controversial projects - Pogarskaya potato plant or condoms "Iziteyl." You are generally happy with how it works with venture capital? - By law, I can not comment on the draft of our funds, as they are intended for qualified investors. Why venture projects invested just over FTRA and not, for example, through an LLC or some other variant of direct investment fund? - Management company was interested in working with venture capital projects, and the idea to "pack" them in the form of closed-end mutual funds. Working Group of MERT, which led the current Minister Elvira Elvira, arranged for the proposed model, as spetsdepozitary provide control over the expenditure of public funds. So the state is practically the first time drew attention to the venture market. And if this mechanism did not start to grow then, perhaps, and now Venture theme would not be such a fashion. However, experience has shown that working with venture capital money in Pytheas is very difficult, primarily because of the restrictions, because the investment legislation is written primarily for the securities market and ignores a number of features ventures. You mean the prohibition of disclosure? - The ban - an obvious curiosity. Because of him, even the speakers at conferences managers, in principle, can get a fine. But this is public money, and here, by contrast, requires openness. We want to develop venture capital market, and examples of successful investing does not seem to exist - that is impossible to talk about them. This means that the investor has no incentive to go on the market. Now began to accept amendments to these regulations, but the problem is solved only partially. Of course, it is important that no longer comes to the paradox, when we could not divulge details of the fund even spetsdepozitariyu. That is the same control, for which all was started, almost did not act? - No, of course, information about the transactions they receive. But in a very limited extent. Everyone is talking about this issue. You are a recognized expert in the market to regulate, say exactly what to do? - Give the right to disclose information. And to make it mandatory if we are talking about public money. It is easy to adopt the list of investors, information on investments which are disclosed. Others - optional. But the ban imposed is not "out of thin air" - was the same in him any sense? - Is the original contradiction: the information about the funds for qualified investors shall not be disclosed to simple, unskilled citizens who are not aware of the risks, did not seek to invest in these funds. But the fact he is a qualified investor to become, they were not so simple. You can negotiate with any management company - it is formally sufficient that any qualified investor Criminal recognized. - Managers do not go to such risks. It is easier to negotiate with the broker and "create a story" - formally passed through by the necessary amount of what some papers to qualify. I know that such proposals are on the market. But such tricks have to be a problem of those who they are and not to complicate the work of the entire market. Hardly, if we begin to disclose the venture proektax, all pensioners will run immediately written to qualified investors. Let them not have to disclose the yield of the fund, but why not allow us to promote individual projects? And even then we can do nothing to counter the rumors. Recently, at a hearing in the Federation Council, deputies were outraged, that too can not get access to this information. By the way, they say, has some serious history of theft of public money on Pogarskaya potato plant? - I do not have such information, and more can not say anything. We can only ask the RVC and the companies themselves, that they were told. But a successful company there is nothing stopping itself to advertise? - Companies do not like publicity, to the IPO fame they practically do not need - they have other things to worry enough. That we need advertising, and not self-promotion, a promotion of the market as a whole. Why so few RVC itself talks about his projects? - This question is not for me. In general, can we consider these investments secure enough? Look, how many scandals has got out of the crisis - and the license of the operating companies were, and spetsdepozitarii. As a result, the management FFMS complained that "you come - and there is no control, no spetsdepozitariya." - License - this is a very important point. After all, her lack of means for automatically management's loss of the profession: a decision-making positions in the business have to forget. Certainly, there can be people who are not so important. But they also have to protect: to fulfill the licensing requirements required $ 2 million of cash. No bills and other "paper" this is not amiss - only liquid assets. And they must be kept constantly liquid: registered capital and then give the money to someone "in debt" does not work. On the question of risk: if the advance is assumed that not all venture projects "worked" means that a successful project should not only itself generate income, but also cover the losses. It turns out that the idea of ​​a normal business with sustainable income, say 20% per annum you will not be a fund? - Yes, "just a good project" with a yield of 20% per annum venture does not fit. There are many other aspects. For example, the regional authorities, as co-investors of local funds, are often more interested in profitability and efficiency is not the project, and how many jobs and how soon it will. Because future income for them - something incomprehensible, and jobs can be "touched." A private investor, on the contrary, we need income. In such circumstances, the "average to good design" can be easily left behind. What should be the project that you get it? - We are now in more than 20 projects. We believe initially in any of these proektov. But the idea is formulated - this is not the subject of intellectual property rights, is far more important issue of implementation. So we do not take alone, even if his idea and it could be interesting. The Management Company shall not create a team, it is not its function. What is important is the competitiveness of the goods - or that such a product did not exist in the market, or that he has, by contrast, have been successful foreign counterparts. And the team needs to know not only how to make a product, but also how to sell it. But what about the thesis, "a good product will sell itself"? - The Russian market is very difficult to get, even if the utility of goods is evident. Take, for example, tenders for government contracts. Everyone knows how they are. Corruption a lot, and sometimes it is not even in direct bribery, and formed bonds that nobody wants to destroy. But corruption - is not the only problem. For example, developed a new fuel, cheaper and more efficient. How to sell it, if the competition was announced for the supply of coal? If the state wants to promote venture capital, you probably would want to enter for them, for example, quotas for these competitions. It is strange to hear the head of the company, a member of the VTB Group, complains of the lack of understanding with state agencies. - Yes, we operate under the brand name of VTB, and perhaps we would have found some kind of lobbying resources. But the venture capital market should not rely on lobbying and promotion system for new products. The chapter "RUSNANO" Anatoly Chubais, recently spoke about the need to generate demand for innovative products, but it turns out that you first need to create mechanisms for most of this formation. When the MER entry, everything was great, everyone said, 'Okay, now we have all these billions of place! "But it turned out that there is no research and development systems, sown or structures, or mechanisms to market - and in the midst of all that hang in the void venture. About problems with the seed stage is widely spoken, but with the release of some of the complexities in the market? Either the project is successful and has established sales, or it is not successful. - For example, our project has successfully produced the first batch of goods - it's time to build the plant. But I have to fund such money, venture capital do not build factories. The bank will not give credit on one technology, they need support. RBD is a program to support projects in the growth stage - but something is really in the market I do not see it. Where examples to RBD financed the construction of the venture industry? This problem should be solved. Are constructed as industrial parks? - What we call "technology parks" - this is not techno. They are suitable except for computer projects that do not have to do anything. But no Russian industrial park does not presuppose any laboratory or experimental grounds, or, say, the equipment leasing. That is, communication or IT, where the minimum required equipment, yet somehow work, but, for instance, chemical designs innovators do not promote in any way. We have been offered a project to create a cure for cancer - but it's very expensive, it's billions. And the more such money is not in the regional venture capital. How is "no money"? RVC budget - 30 billion rubles, and for the year disbursed only 2.7 billion rubles - the rest is deposited. - Distribute the money for the funds is easy - and they will just lie on the deposits. We, too, not all invested. We and another fund - "Bioprocess" - gave the whole amount at once, but on the next contest procedure revised. Now funds are paid in tranches - that is something that is not invested funds, lies at the RVC. The same with seed fund. Well, why not invested in something? So you want to build a plant - let RVC on free money and build? - Venture fund can not invest all your money. For normal operation, it needs to invest about 50-60% of their funds. First of all, because the venture - this is risky business, and any project at any time may require additional funding. And it is impossible for each such occasion to seek a new investor or liquidate the project just because the fund has no money to spend. Also, the fund over its entire service needs, infrastructure - and they also have to pay. Finally, the management company all this time is rewarded, and the project can be implemented and a dozen years. So the margin of safety is required. You do not regret having got involved in this thing? - Everyone seems to be that if you go back a few years ago, many would have done differently. For example, we now see that some projects had to be structured differently - in a different way to determine the proportion of owners, dates and amounts of funding. And not only that the venture - a rather unpredictable thing. Played a large role crisis - some markets have disappeared, while others, conversely, pozakryvalis competitors. In some companies have to add funds. Tell me, if, for example, RNT - a good project, why are you selling it? After all, those shares rise in price that are in the wrong hands, could remain yours? - If we had not reached the IPO, the value of our shares would have remained at the same level. Now, that portion that remains in our portfolio have really expensive. But you have to allocate additional funding to other projects - can be, and the cost to hold? How is it determined the fate of the projects - what to keep and which to close? - One company in our portfolio at first was considered the favorite, but eventually became one of the worst. However, we do not have closed, changed management, the market for a while, too, has changed - and the project has re-emerged prospects. So the destiny of the project should not be emotional. There is another aspect: while the state has not taken a final decision for the forgiveness of venture failures, as long as it is a declaration, I am afraid to stop projects. Immediately asked: "Where public money Delhi?". President Dmitry Medvedev seems clearly spoken on this subject? - I once asked about this y Chubaysa Anatolia, he said: "This request is addressed to the President not only us, but the prosecutor's office." And the very next day I could see how this instruction is executed: the prosecutor's office received a request from the requirement to specify how many failed projects, and specifically who made the decisions about investing