Миллионы в бетоне: как квартиры стали худшей инвестицией?

Summary

The presenters argue that Russian housing is becoming a riskier and less liquid investment as high borrowing costs, weaker demand, possible tax changes, and developer financing pressures converge. They caution against buying property on the assumption that mortgage rates will soon fall or that an investor can refinance cheaply later.

Their outlook is for a difficult period for mass-market and “pseudo-premium” housing, with possible restructurings, bankruptcies, and a redistribution of the development market around 2027.

Macro, rates, and financing

• The discussion refers to the Central Bank’s four monetary-policy scenarios: baseline, pro-inflationary, disinflationary, and risk. The speakers consider the pro-inflationary path increasingly plausible.
• They cite a 14% key rate, expected to be in place by October 23; the date is unclear in the auto-generated captions. Mortgage rates are said to be roughly 20%. They also discuss an 18% rate in the context of borrowers waiting to refinance.
• The speakers warn that taking an expensive mortgage now on the promise of refinancing later can sharply increase the effective purchase cost. One estimates that spending a year or two at an 18% rate could add roughly 40% to the purchase price.
• Household inflation expectations are cited at 14.2%. The speakers point to fuel availability, rising utility tariffs, and higher food costs as inflationary pressures.
• The draft budget figures discussed for 2027 are 43.3 trillion rubles in revenue, 48.8 trillion in spending, and a 5.5 trillion-ruble deficit, or 2.2% of GDP. Deficits of about 1.9% of GDP are projected for the following two years. A separate estimate attributed to Sber puts a possible deficit at about 6.3 trillion rubles; the exact year and context are unclear.
• The speakers expect budget borrowing to put pressure on bond yields. They say long-dated OFZ yields to maturity are around 16–16.7%, with the longest issues extending to about 14 years. They expect more floating-rate bonds tied to the key rate, potentially with a 0.5–1 percentage-point spread.
• They say family mortgages account for about 56% of mortgage issuance under preferential programs and refer to family mortgages as around 46% of the market, though the exact denominator in the captions is unclear. They expect reduced eligibility or availability to weaken demand, particularly for homes that are already expensive.

Real-estate market and investment risks

• The speakers say the end of preferential tax treatment for some mutual-fund structures—including property-focused funds—could reduce the appeal of closed-end mutual funds (ZPIFs) and affect commercial real estate. They describe these structures as complex and requiring substantial legal and operational expertise.
• For a sample of 12 elite-property projects, they cite 2,842 apartments in total: 1,466 sold and 1,376 unsold, leaving 48.4% unsold.
• For a sample of 20 “pseudo-premium” projects, they cite 9,128 apartments, with 5,312 unsold, or 58.2%. The speakers argue that some developments marketed as premium or deluxe are overpriced relative to their location, amenities, and quality.
• They identify around 1.6 million rubles per square metre as a level above which transaction volumes had fallen noticeably, and describe roughly 2 million rubles per square metre as a broader market affordability threshold. These are the speakers’ estimates, not formal market-wide benchmarks.
• A cited example is Prime Park. The speakers say it began around 300,000 rubles per square metre and now approaches 1.2 million rubles per square metre, while some units in the wider segment remain around 700,000–800,000 rubles. They criticize its long construction period and question whether the location and surrounding environment justify the price.
• They warn that large construction projects can mean years of noise, dust, traffic, and disruption. In Moscow City, they describe construction as ongoing for roughly two decades and say investors should account for the possibility of a permanently changing construction environment.
• A 16.9 m² studio in a project marketed as Level Zvenigorod is cited at approximately 15.7–16 million rubles, or about 934,000 rubles per square metre. The captions give an expected completion date of Q2 2028. The speakers criticize the unit’s size, price, location, and surrounding conditions.
• They see opportunities in the secondary market, where investors who need to exit may sell below developer pricing. Discounts of 10–15% versus developers’ actual closing prices are cited, and a roughly 18% gap is mentioned for PIK. The speakers say buyers should compare against real transaction prices, not headline sales-office prices.
• They describe some finished apartments bought by “flippers” and renovated for resale as heavily discounted because they have been difficult to sell. The speakers caution that finishes and layouts may be unattractive or impractical, so a discount alone does not make a property a good investment.
• They argue that expensive property can be illiquid and costly to maintain, and may generate little or no income while held. They advise investors to consider how they will exit and preserve capital during ownership.

Investment framework and cautions

When evaluating a property, the speakers suggest:

• Test affordability using the full financing cost. Calculate the down payment, monthly payments, and total cost under a high-rate scenario. Do not assume refinancing will rescue the investment.
• Compare with completed and secondary-market alternatives. Check actual negotiated prices and comparable properties rather than relying on developer list prices.
• Assess liquidity and exit options. Ask who the likely future buyer is and whether sufficient demand exists at the target price.
• Evaluate location and daily usability. Consider walkability, transport access, existing cultural and commercial infrastructure, views, privacy, and nearby planned construction.
• Account for carrying costs and income. Include maintenance and other ownership costs, and compare the property’s potential cash flow with alternatives.
• Be cautious with premium labels. The speakers’ view is that marketing classifications can obscure differences in location, build quality, amenities, and genuine scarcity.

As alternatives to property, they mention bank deposits, OFZs and other bonds, money-market funds, and gold. Stocks are largely set aside in this discussion. They do not give a formal personal-financial-advice disclaimer; the closing line is “invest wisely.”

Assets, instruments, sectors, and companies mentioned

• Instruments: Bank deposits, OFZ government bonds, fixed- and floating-rate bonds, money-market funds, gold, mutual funds and ZPIFs, mortgages, real estate, and developer bonds.
• Sectors: Residential and commercial real estate; property development; banking; oil and liquid-hydrocarbon transport.
• Companies and developers named: PIK, Sber, VTB, Promsvyazbank, A101, LSR, Samolet, Apri, Brusnika, Glorax, FSK, Donstroy, and Prime Park. No stock tickers are provided.
• The speakers also mention companies involved in transporting liquid hydrocarbons but do not identify them by name or ticker.

Presenters and sources

Presenters: Igor Shimko and Alexander Dyachenko. The auto-captions render the guest’s surname inconsistently.

Sources and references mentioned: Central Bank monetary-policy scenarios; the Ministry of Finance draft budget; a Sber deficit estimate; Benmap Pro property statistics; RBC; the speakers’ own market observations and Telegram posts; and Cesare Marchetti’s work on urban growth and transport.