The head of the Asset Recovery and Management Agency, Olena Duma, said that the expected monthly income from the management of Gulliver BFC will be more than UAH 17 million. According to her, this is 100 times higher than the average monthly income that TRI O LLC provided as a manager in 2018-2020. However, she forgot to mention that at that time the company managed only three floors (about 6 thousand square meters), and the new manager will be in charge of the entire shopping center with an area of more than 150 thousand square meters, UNN writes.
Details
The other day, Olena Duma reported on her twitter channel that ARMA had announced a competition to select a manager for the Gulliver shopping and entertainment center. The head of the agency proudly stated that she had taken the strictest possible approach to the selection of the manager of this high-profile asset and even set the maximum possible 4 criteria for candidates. Among the conditions to be fulfilled by the bidders are property worth at least UAH 100 million, a professional team, proven experience in managing similar facilities and proven financial solvency.
She also emphasized that the minimum monthly payment from the manager will be more than UAH 17 million. The winner of the tender will be the one who offers the highest percentage of payment to the state budget, starting at 70%.
"For comparison, in 2018, the Gulliver shopping center was already arrested and transferred to the National Agency. The management company at that time, Tri O LLC, began managing the Gulliver shopping center on April 26, 2018," Duma wrote.
According to her, in 2018, TRI O LLC paid UAH 2 million (UAH 500 thousand per month) from the management of the Gulliver shopping center; in 2019, UAH 5.5 million (average UAH 500 thousand per month); in 2020, UAH 350 thousand (average UAH 29 thousand per month); in 2021, UAH 100 thousand for March, UAH 200 thousand for April, and UAH 61 thousand for July.
"So, over four years, the state budget has received UAH 8.2 million from the management of this asset. At the same time, the minimum monthly payment from UAH 29 thousand (in 2020) or the average withdrawn over four years of UAH 170 thousand per month - has been raised to UAH 17.4 million per month! This is a hundred times more per month than the average for all four years," the Head of ARMA emphasized.
The data presented by Olena Duma on state revenues from asset management in 2018-2021 look convincing, but do not take into account important details.
In 2018, it was not the entire Gulliver Business Complex that was arrested and handed over to ARMA, as one might think from Olena Duma's post, but only certain premises on three floors (total area of about 6,000 square meters) that belonged to companies associated with former Minister of Revenue and Duties Oleksandr Klymenko.
At that time, these premises were managed under an agreement with Arma by Tri O LLC, which owns the entire building of the Gulliver IFC. accordingly, the revenues received from their management could not correspond to the scale of the entire complex.
Even if we do not take this "detail" into account, the figures reflected in the ARMA's 2018-2019 activity reports differ significantly from those voiced by Olena Duma.
Thus, in the report on ARMA's activities for 2018, the experience of managing three floors of the business center (note, not the shopping mall, as indicated by the Duma) was called "difficult and useful", and the specified income to the state budget, which was provided by the manager - TRI O LLC, is more than 2.5 millionhryvnias (against 2 million hryvnias indicated by the current head of ARMA). It is worth noting that this amount is not for the whole of 2018, but only since April, when the asset was transferred to the manager.
The report on ARMA's activities for 2019 states that TRI O LLC, as a manager, has already provided almost 6.3 million hryvnias to the budget (against 5.5 million hryvnias indicated by the Duma).
It should be noted that in 2020 these properties were under management for only 16 days in January. After that, the seizure of the property was lifted, and it was removed from ARMA's management.
Comparing the income from managing the entire 150,000 square meter Gulliver shopping center with the income from managing only three floors of about 6,000 square meters looks very questionable and incorrectand.
Was this presentation of information the result of a superficial familiarization with the facts, or was it a deliberate attempt to manipulate information? Regardless of the answer, Elena Duma's post raises many doubts about the transparency and objectivity of the information she presented.
This case once again demonstrates the importance of transparency in the coverage of management decisions, especially when it comes to large state assets and budget revenues. The public has the right to know the whole truth, including the amount of assets that were transferred to management, in order to have a complete picture of the real situation.
It remains to be seen how the situation develops and the results of the tender to see whether the new management requirements will really help improve financial efficiency and preserve the value of the asset.
recall
After the publication of information about the valuation of the capital's Gulliver, ARMA Head Olena Duma immediately began to justify her criticism of the tender for the manager of this asset.
Similarly, in the case of the appraiser of the Gulliver shopping center, the public has already raised several questions that have not been answered. In particular, what criteria were used by ARMA to select Business Consulting as the winner and what remuneration the company will receive for its work. After all, apart from Olena Duma's statements that the competition was "transparent," no information about it can be found.
As you know, the ARMA employees were not able to conduct a full inspection of the entire Gulliver shopping center and business center. After all, after the performance with cover numbers, "mom's agents" were still forced to act in accordance with the law. Accordingly, if a full inspection of the asset has not been carried out, how can its value be objectively assessed?