NextFin News - Russia’s banking system is being pulled in two directions at once: the state wants credit to keep flowing to large companies even as borrowing costs, sanctions, and weaker cash flow are making those loans harder to service. The Bank of Russia has already warned that corporate lending risks are rising, and it moved on 1 April 2025 to impose 20% macroprudential risk-weight add-ons on new credit to large highly leveraged borrowers. By 1 October 2025, the regulator said banks had accumulated a ₽17 billion buffer against that exposure. The tension matters because the same lending push that can keep the economy moving today may also be building the kind of balance-sheet stress that turns a slowdown into a banking crisis.
That is the core of the problem. The official line from Moscow is still that the system remains resilient, but the data show a banking sector being asked to finance companies with heavier debt loads, weaker interest coverage, and less room to absorb a prolonged period of high rates. The Bank of Russia said the aggregate net debt/EBITDA ratio for the largest Russian companies rose to 1.6 at the beginning of 2025, up 0.1 over the previous 12 months, while problem companies accounted for about 8% of the sample’s debt, up from 5% at the end of 2023. In its later review, the regulator said the ratio for the largest non-financial organizations had climbed to 1.9 by the end of the first half of 2025, a four-year high.
Those figures do not yet amount to a crisis on their own. But they do explain why the conversation around Russian banks has shifted from profitability to survivability. In 2024, banks made record annual profits of ₽4 trillion, helped by the central bank’s 21% key rate and solid loan growth. Yet the same high-rate environment that widened net interest margins is now raising debt-service costs for companies, slowing lending demand in some segments, and forcing the regulator to lean on macroprudential tools to stop the riskiest lending from spreading too far.
The Bank of Russia’s own language is careful. In its review covering late 2024 and early 2025, it said corporate lending slowed in December 2024 and briefly turned negative in January-February 2025, before monthly growth picked up in March-April. It added that this year corporate lending would maintain a trajectory of balanced growth without risks of a credit crunch. That is a useful reminder that the regulator is still trying to thread a narrow path: prevent a credit squeeze, but also prevent banks from being pushed into ever more concentrated exposures to highly indebted borrowers.
The broader macro setting makes that balancing act harder. The central bank said in its later review that corporate sector financial performance continued to weaken in 2025 from the record highs of 2023-2024, with balanced financial results excluding the financial and insurance sectors falling 13.1% year on year to ₽15.9 trillion in the first eight months of 2025. It also said the ratio of financial results of loss-making companies to profitable businesses rose to 25.4%, eight percentage points higher than a year earlier and above the decade average of 16.3%.
That combination — higher rates, slower cash generation, and more debt on bank balance sheets — is what makes the current phase different from a normal lending cycle. Banks are not just financing growth; they are being asked to underwrite a wartime economy in which the line between industrial policy and credit policy is thin. When companies with weak interest coverage rely on bank funding to roll over obligations, the system can look stable for a long time and then reprice abruptly if cash flow weakens or policy tightens again.
The question for investors and policy watchers is therefore not whether Russian banks can still book profits; they can, and they have. The question is whether those profits are masking a gradual deterioration in asset quality that the regulator is now trying to slow with tougher capital treatment. The answer will depend less on one headline rate move than on whether corporate borrowing can keep expanding without forcing banks to accept more concentrated risk.
Why The Pressure On Lending Is Rising
The clearest sign of stress is that the regulator itself has started acting against the buildup of leverage in the largest corporate borrowers. To limit the rise in debt burden and reduce systemic risks in lending, the Bank of Russia said that beginning on 1 April 2025, banks faced 20% risk-weight add-ons on the increase in credit claims on large highly leveraged corporate borrowers. In other words, the cost of making those loans rose even before the underlying credit risk showed up in default data.
That matters because the corporate sector is not starting from a clean slate. The central bank said the aggregate net debt/EBITDA ratio for the largest Russian companies climbed to 1.6 as of the beginning of 2025 and then to 1.9 by the end of the first half of 2025, the highest level in four years. It also said companies whose interest coverage ratio was below 1 — meaning they had serious debt-servicing difficulties — accounted for 8% of the sample as of 1 July 2025, unchanged from the start of the year but up from 5% in mid-2024.
That creates a straightforward transmission channel into bank stress. When more borrowers are living close to the edge, any prolonged period of expensive funding, weaker demand, or delayed payments can push them into restructuring rather than repayment. Banks can roll such loans forward for a while, but only by accumulating exposure to borrowers whose repayment depends on continued access to fresh credit.
To reduce the risks of over-indebtedness of highly leveraged large enterprises, the Bank of Russia has applied a macroprudential add-on from 1 April 2025.
The wording is careful, but the policy intent is plain: the regulator sees a leverage problem before it sees a full-scale default problem. That sequencing is important. Banking crises rarely begin with a single dramatic failure; they usually start with a quiet accumulation of bad lending in sectors where political or economic priorities override credit discipline. Russia’s current setup has some of those features, especially where large companies, state-linked priorities, and high borrowing costs collide.
There is also a second-order issue. If banks are pressured, directly or indirectly, to keep extending loans to weak corporate borrowers, then reported lending growth can stay healthy even as the quality of that growth deteriorates. That makes the system look more robust in the short run than it really is. Profit figures then become less informative, because margins are supported by high rates while the asset side is gradually getting riskier.
The central bank’s own data show the contradiction. It said banks’ lending to the corporate sector started to slow in December 2024 and turned negative in January-February 2025, but monthly growth increased again in March-April. It also said tight monetary and macroprudential policies, plus a decrease in banks’ risk appetite due to worsening loan-servicing quality, contributed to a 1.4% contraction in unsecured consumer loans in the first quarter of 2025. That tells you the regulator is actively trying to cool one part of the credit market while allowing a more controlled flow to corporate borrowers.
The result is not a clean credit halt. It is a managed compression of risk, with the state trying to keep banks lending while making the worst exposures more expensive. That can work for a while, but it tends to push banks toward a smaller set of preferred borrowers and away from the broader, more diversified lending base that makes a credit system resilient.
Why The System Has Not Broken Yet
The obvious counterpoint is that Russian banks remain profitable and, by the regulator’s account, adequately capitalized. That is why talk of an imminent crisis is premature. The sector made ₽4 trillion in net profit in 2024, and the Bank of Russia continues to describe the financial system as resilient. The later review said the banking sector’s capital and buffers remain sufficient to absorb accepted risks, even as corporate debt metrics deteriorated.
That is not a trivial point. A profitable banking system can absorb losses for longer than a weak one, and Russia’s banks have benefited from an environment in which rates are high enough to support net interest income. The central bank said net interest income rose 11% to ₽6.7 trillion in 2024. For institutions with stable funding bases, that creates a cushion.
But cushions are not the same as immunity. The issue is whether the profits are being generated on top of an asset book that is gradually becoming more concentrated and less creditworthy. The central bank’s own figures suggest that the share of the most vulnerable corporate borrowers is not shrinking. Problem companies accounted for approximately 8% of the sample’s debt at the beginning of 2025, up from 5% at the end of 2023, and the later review said the same 8% share persisted for the most highly leveraged borrowers with interest coverage below 1.
One reason the system has not cracked is that credit deterioration often lags macro deterioration. Companies can survive longer than expected by drawing on accumulated cash, delaying investment, or rolling over debt. Banks can also hide the full extent of weakness through restructuring, forbearance, or classification practices that smooth the reported path of non-performing loans. That is exactly why regulators watch leverage, interest coverage, and buffer accumulation before bad loans explode into view.
Companies in most industries are still quite profitable, which allows them to service loans even at current rates.
That sentence captures the official defense of the system. The danger is that it may be true today and false later. Profitability can mask fragility for a time, especially when state demand and war-related spending keep parts of the economy running. But once margins compress, payment delays rise, or refinancing becomes harder, the same high-rate environment that protected bank earnings can start to expose losses.
There is a historical lesson here. In banking systems under pressure, the sequence is often: first profits, then complacency, then restructuring, then capital support. The trigger is rarely a single macro statistic. It is usually the point at which a broad set of borrowers can no longer roll debt at the same terms. Russia’s 2025 corporate sector is moving closer to that threshold, even if it has not crossed it.
What Could Turn Risk Into Crisis
The most likely path to a crisis would not be a sudden retail run. It would be a corporate credit event that forces banks to recognize losses on a larger share of their loan books while funding costs stay elevated. That could happen if high rates persist long enough for more leveraged companies to lose operating flexibility, if sanctions or supply constraints hurt cash flow further, or if the state pushes banks to keep lending to borrowers that no longer merit fresh credit on commercial terms.
The later Bank of Russia review is important because it adds another layer of evidence. It said corporate sector financial performance continued to go down in 2025 from the highs of 2023-2024, with balanced financial results falling 13.1% year on year to ₽15.9 trillion in the first eight months of the year. It also noted that the ratio of financial results of loss-making companies to profitable businesses reached 25.4%, compared with a decade average of 16.3%. That is a material deterioration in the backdrop for repayment.
That does not guarantee a crisis. It does, however, narrow the margin for error. If lending is kept alive through softer standards rather than stronger borrowers, the apparent smoothness of the system today may simply be a delay in recognizing tomorrow’s losses. And if the regulator feels compelled to raise macroprudential add-ons from 20% to 40% — as it did later in 2025 for the same category of loans — that is a sign the pressure is still building rather than fading.
The market implication is straightforward. The banking sector is not yet in a crisis, but the risk profile is worsening in a way that official profit figures can conceal. The key variables to watch are the pace of corporate lending, the share of highly leveraged borrowers, the quality of loan servicing, and whether the central bank has to keep tightening capital treatment to restrain risk taking.
For now, the system appears more strained than broken. But the direction of travel is clear: banks are being asked to support a corporate sector that is carrying more debt, earning less, and living with higher rates for longer. That is exactly the kind of setup in which a banking crisis is not imminent, but becomes easier to imagine with every quarter that passes.
The central message is simple. Russian banks can be profitable in a high-rate economy and still become more vulnerable at the same time. When credit growth survives by leaning on weaker borrowers, the balance sheet may look stable until it suddenly does not.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
