mk.ru
High Demand for Illegal Lending in Russia Due to Stricter Credit Regulations
In Russia, almost 17% would use illegal lenders if rates were 7% below legal institutions' 32.8% average in July 2025; inability to get legal loans (70%) is the main reason, affecting those with poor credit, unconfirmed income, or high debt.
- What are the demographic and socioeconomic factors that make certain groups more vulnerable to predatory lending practices?
- The inability to obtain loans from legitimate sources is the primary reason (70%) for using illegal lenders. Other factors include lack of official income (49%), faster processing (40%), and pre-existing illegal debts (25%).
- How can the issue of illegal lending in Russia be effectively addressed, considering the underlying economic and regulatory factors?
- The issue extends beyond financial literacy; many have unconfirmed incomes, and stricter lending regulations limit access to legal loans. This, combined with informal employment, renders financial literacy campaigns ineffective. Even successful entrepreneurs use illegal lenders for speed and favorable terms, highlighting the market failure.
- What are the primary reasons Russians turn to illegal lenders, and what percentage of the population is willing to do so under specific circumstances?
- Almost 17% of Russians would use illegal lenders if offered rates 7% lower than legal institutions. With average loan costs at 32.8% in July 2025, nearly 20% of working Russians would choose illegal lenders at a 25% interest rate.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue largely from the perspective of those who use black lenders, highlighting their motivations and rationalizing their choices. While it includes quotes from experts, the overall narrative emphasizes the affordability and convenience of black lenders, potentially minimizing the dangers and illegality of their operations. The headline (if there was one) likely would have emphasized the high number of Russians willing to use black lenders, reinforcing this framing.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "black lenders" which carries negative connotations. While this term is widely used, it could be replaced with more neutral terms like "unlicensed lenders" or "illegal lenders". The phrase "go to those who don't ask for scoring and biometrics" is a slight value judgment, implying that asking for scoring and biometrics is somehow negative. The descriptions of methods used by black lenders, such as "beating with baseball bats" also could be softened.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the reasons why people use black lenders, but omits discussion of potential solutions implemented by legitimate financial institutions to address the issues of access to credit. It also doesn't explore alternative lending options that might be available to those struggling to access traditional loans. The lack of information on government initiatives or support programs designed to improve financial literacy or provide access to credit for underserved populations is a significant omission.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the choice between legitimate and black lenders as a simple cost calculation, ignoring the significant risks associated with black lenders, such as violence and extortion. It oversimplifies the complexities of the financial situation of many Russians, reducing the issue to a simple choice based solely on interest rates.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a significant portion of the Russian population resorting to illegal lenders due to inaccessibility of formal financial services. This exacerbates existing inequalities by disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups with poor credit history, irregular income, or high debt burdens. The inability to access legitimate credit limits opportunities and reinforces socioeconomic disparities.