United Russia proposed freezing loan payments for a year for citizens who lost their jobs, but the plan raises serious doubts. Banks may not withstand the loss of income, and analysts call the measure populist and hard to implement without state compensation.

Yesterday, news emerged of a new party initiative from “United Russia”: the first deputy secretary of the presidium of the party’s general council, and chairman of the State Duma committee, Andrey Isaev, proposed freezing loan payments for one year for citizens who have lost their jobs. This is so far the only proposal aimed at supporting consumers in connection with the crisis. But how feasible is its implementation?
So far, this issue has not been discussed with the banks, but it is unlikely that they will approve the proposal: by giving up the inflow of “live” money in a crisis, they could simply go bankrupt.
Many analysts agree that adopting this initiative would, for many, especially smaller retail banks, amount in effect to signing their own death warrant. This will not happen in only one case: if the losses are compensated by the state. Then the next question arises: from what funds will this be done?
According to analyst Sergei Karykhalin, the proposed measure is “populist, and it is hard to imagine how it could be implemented in practice.”
The motives behind this proposal are quite transparent: the decline in living standards and mass layoffs cannot help but affect public trust in “United Russia” as the ruling party. That is precisely why the party will “persuade” bankers and “exert all kinds of pressure on them,” A. Isaev said.
At present, it is difficult to calculate what sums may be involved, since it is unclear how many people will be affected by the cuts. Perhaps workers in the financial sector will suffer more than others, but they are also a significant share of loan recipients.
Analysts predict that, if events take an unfavorable turn, about 200,000 people will lose their jobs, not the poorest segment of the population. Half of them will have loan obligations to banks.
If banks “forgive” debts for all of them, they will have no choice but to raise loan rates for both individuals and businesses. If even these measures do not help, the bank will “burst.” And the state will be left with obligations to depositors to compensate for losses, plus the unemployed (together with their loan debts).
Thus, the “high-profile” initiative has been announced, but the mechanisms for its implementation have not yet been worked out. Has “United Russia” rushed ahead too quickly?