mk.ru
Russia's Subsidized Mortgages Inflate Housing Prices Without Boosting Construction
Between May 2020 and June 2024, Russia's multi-apartment construction increased by 15% to 115 million square meters due to subsidized mortgages; however, apartment prices doubled or tripled, indicating that the program inflated prices rather than boosting construction.
- What is the primary impact of Russia's subsidized mortgage program on the housing market?
- Russia's multi-apartment construction increased by 15% (from 100 million to 115 million square meters) due to subsidized mortgages between May 2020 and June 2024, yet apartment prices doubled or even tripled. This indicates that the program inflated prices rather than boosting construction volumes.
- How did regional housing markets respond differently to the uniform mortgage incentives, and what factors explain this variation?
- While nationwide construction rose, regional markets reacted differently. Some cities (Khabarovsk, Yekaterinburg, Vladivostok) saw a 1.5-2x increase in new construction, while others (St. Petersburg, Krasnoyarsk) experienced declines. This disparity, despite uniform mortgage incentives, highlights the influence of local market dynamics.
- What are the potential long-term effects of the current market trends, including reduced mortgage lending and shifting demand, on housing prices and construction in Russia?
- The market shift towards secondary housing and a 64% drop in mortgage lending in 2024 suggest a cooling effect from government regulations. High-interest rates (above 16%) are prohibitive for most, leading to decreased demand and potential future price corrections, especially in the secondary market where prices are already falling in half of the regions.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline "Однушки всегда в цене" (Studio apartments are always in demand) sets a framing that prioritizes the perspective of the market and developers over individual buyers' financial limitations. The article focuses on the growth in the number of studio apartments and the persistent demand, despite discussing the significant drop in sales transactions. This framing could lead readers to underestimate the challenges faced by potential homebuyers. The concluding sentence "Увы - что риелтору хорошо, то покупателю - плохо" (Alas - what is good for the realtor is bad for the buyer) further solidifies this bias.
Language Bias
The article generally uses neutral language, but some phrases such as "взвинтила стоимость жилья" (screwed up the cost of housing) have a negative and emotionally charged connotation. The repeated use of phrases suggesting market manipulation or negative consequences for buyers subtly influences the reader's interpretation. Replacing such phrases with more neutral alternatives, such as "increased housing costs" could improve objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the perspectives of real estate professionals and market data, neglecting the experiences and perspectives of individual homebuyers. While statistics on buyer interest are included, the article lacks direct quotes or anecdotes from buyers to balance the narrative. The impact of rising interest rates on potential buyers' financial situations is mentioned but not explored in detail. Omission of these perspectives limits a comprehensive understanding of the market.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between the positive effects of preferential mortgage rates for realtors and the negative consequences for buyers. The complex interplay of numerous economic factors influencing the housing market is oversimplified. The claim that "what is good for the realtor is bad for the buyer" is a generalization that overlooks potential exceptions and the nuances within the market.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a significant increase in housing prices (double or 2.5 times) due to subsidized mortgages, while the increase in housing construction volume is only 15%. This indicates unsustainable housing costs and potential challenges in making housing accessible to all, especially low-income populations. The disproportionate distribution of housing types (more small apartments than larger ones) further suggests difficulties in providing adequate housing for diverse family sizes and needs within cities. The decrease in housing transactions also points towards a less vibrant and sustainable housing market.