“It looks like a financial pyramid” – Newspaper Kommersant No. 37 (7482) of 03/03/2023

What risks do legislators see in mortgage programs at near-zero rates and other schemes of developers to attract buyers and what are they going to do about it, Kommersant was told by the deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Property, Land and Property Relations Nikolay Nikolaev.

– How justified, in your opinion, are the Central Bank’s fears about near-zero mortgage rates and other real estate sale schemes used by developers?

– No matter what conditions developers offer to buyers and no matter how “chocolate” they may seem, no one will make any gifts. Under any scheme, the equity holder pays all lost income to the bank and cashbacks. But, alas, the more attractive the conditions seem, the lower the threshold of critical perception of such proposals by consumers.

The fact that the Central Bank is worried about the spread of schemes is understandable to me. Another thing is surprising: why does Rospotrebnadzor not intervene? This is not only their opportunity, but also a direct obligation. They are responsible for consumer rights.

– Recently, the head of the Bank of Russia, Elvira Nabiullina, promised to achieve a legislative ban on mortgage programs from developers. How can I do that?

– It is possible to prescribe restrictions in the legislation, it is more difficult to make them impossible to circumvent. In addition, it is impossible to set a lower threshold for mortgage rates for political reasons – the state, on the contrary, must fight for their reduction. Most likely, the Central Bank will act by the same methods as now, that is, regulate mortgage rates through the banking sector.

With regard to cashback, everything is a little more complicated, other measures are needed. When developers offer a refund of part of the purchase price, they withdraw the project finance funds that should go to construction. In this case, the question arises: how will the construction be completed if the remaining funds are not enough? By all indications, it looks like a financial pyramid scheme.

In addition, the situation in the economy in all sectors is not the best. If earlier it was possible to widely distribute the professional risks of construction to all its participants, now the primary housing market is seriously narrowing, it is necessary to look at the solvency of buyers more carefully.

– What are the consequences of the implementation of currently known schemes?

– At least to delays in construction. This can hit not only developers, but also banks, which will suffer losses. In addition, do not forget that as part of state support for the construction industry, a temporary moratorium on bankruptcy was introduced. If the developer fails to meet its obligations, then the equity holder, if this moratorium is lifted, will return the funds in full, but only after a long bankruptcy. At the same time, inflation will eat up the funds, and he will be able to buy other housing much later.

– How to avoid it?

– Now we see a serious contradiction: on the one hand, the construction and related industries, which say that it is necessary to save the markets and give them the opportunity to attract new buyers, on the other hand, people whose interests must be protected. In this case, the most important thing is to preserve the mechanism that was introduced as part of the shared construction reform, and in no case shift professional risks onto buyers.

We remember how many attempts were made to achieve a phased disclosure of escrow accounts, but fortunately they were unsuccessful. If the basic principles of 214-FZ (regulates shared housing construction.— “b”) are preserved, then citizens and their interests will be protected.

Interviewed by Daria Andrianova