This text is an automatic translation from Русский. It was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Read original →
This text is an automatic translation from Русский. It was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Read original →The microfinance market generated a record 67 billion rubles in profit, yet half of all MFOs are operating at a loss. An analysis of market polarization, the surge in online lending through marketplaces, and regulatory risks looming in 2026.
The microfinance market in 2025 showed record profits of 66–67 billion rubles (+26% compared to the previous year), however, growth was driven exclusively by the largest players. More than half of MFOs reduced profits, and a third operated at a loss, which indicates strong market polarization. Key success drivers were the online model, integration with marketplaces, and technological development.
The microfinance market reached a new profit level in 2025. According to the Central Bank, the aggregate financial result of MFOs came to approximately 66–67 billion rubles, up 26% from the previous year. However, this figure reflects not so much improved margins as simple business expansion.
Companies actively ramped up lending, attracted new clients, and increased turnover. Yet the picture within the market remains uneven. Based on nine-month results, the regulator noted that more than half of MFOs saw profits decline, while about a third operated at a loss. In other words, the bulk of profits are generated exclusively by the largest companies, while a significant portion of the market feels far less confident.
Formally, the microfinance sector appeared more efficient in 2025. Average return on equity rose from 20% to 21%, but this metric conceals a different picture—it essentially shows aggregate data: as the famous Russian saying goes, "I eat cabbage and my neighbor eats meat—on average we both eat stuffed cabbage." That's why we need to look at median profitability, where all companies are ranked by profitability level and the middle value is taken, without accounting for market share. And that figure, by contrast, fell to roughly 2–3%, with a significant portion of companies seeing returns hovering near zero or slipping into negative territory. Essentially, the rise in "average temperature" is driven by a few large players, while most market participants operate with minimal returns.
The key success factor for large companies is their focus on the online model and ecosystem expansion. With greater investment capacity, they're aggressively scaling up remote lending while simultaneously developing additional lines of business—from insurance and service offerings to partnerships with retail and marketplaces. This allows them not only to reduce operating costs but also to increase revenue per customer beyond the traditional microloan.
An additional advantage comes from their level of technological development: investments in IT, scoring, and risk management enable more accurate borrower assessment and portfolio quality control. In an environment of tightening regulation, these are precisely the companies in the strongest position. Meanwhile, smaller MFOs face rising costs, margin pressure, and increasingly find themselves on the edge of profitability.
Despite growth in lending volumes, portfolio dynamics began to slow noticeably. In 2025 it increased by approximately 22%, whereas a year earlier the pace was nearly twice as fast. By year-end, quarterly growth had practically stalled.
At the same time, total microloans issued reached around 2.1 trillion rubles, up 35% for the year. This points to a shift in market structure: loans are turning over faster—issued and repaid more frequently—but the "on-balance-sheet" volume is growing more slowly.
MFOs affiliated with marketplaces and non-bank payment organizations played a substantial role here, accounting for roughly half of all lending. Thus the market is gradually shifting from classic "payday loans" to embedded financial services within e-commerce and digital ecosystems.
Pressure from the regulator continues to intensify. Caps on total cost of credit, reserve requirements, and upcoming changes in online identification and biometrics are affecting market participants differently.
Large companies are adapting through scale, while smaller ones are losing profitability. By the end of 2025, signs of demand saturation began to emerge: it's becoming harder to find new borrowers without high debt burdens.
Against this backdrop, the risk of portfolio quality deterioration is growing, especially if companies try to maintain lending volumes at any cost. In 2026, additional pressure may come from further regulatory tightening, possible cooling of consumer demand, and rising delinquencies. The most vulnerable in this situation remain players without access to cheap funding and developed risk management systems.