Why is state support beneficial for the state? In addition to the absolutely clear direct effect in terms of maintaining the pace of construction and housing provision, there are many indirect effects that support for the construction industry brings. This includes attracting non-bank sources of financing to the economy. Everyone knows that many trillions of rubles are in deposits of individuals, and through the purchase of housing, this money can be involved in the economy, and they will replace the financial resources that are currently lacking in the economy. This is a natural formation of domestic demand in related industries.

Ivan Romanov

In 1994, he graduated from the Leningrad Industrial College of Building Materials and Components; in 1998, from the St. Petersburg State Technical University. In 1994–1998, he worked at the Dom Plus Real Estate Agency; in 1998, he worked in the World Bank’s Reconstruction of the Historical Center of St. Petersburg project. Since 2000, he has been with the LSR Group. In 2013, he was appointed Managing Director in Moscow.

The funds of individuals who come to buy apartments will most likely leave the currency market, and this will help the state to relieve itself of the excessive pressure that exists in the currency market. And also from the need to spend reserves in order to maintain the stability of the national currency.

I would also include the renovation of the housing stock, which the state is forced to do, among the indirect effects: sooner or later it will do it and spend money on it, and developers, by creating the housing stock, facilitate this renovation at a faster pace. Another indirect effect is that the housing that we build is much more efficient in operation, which means that there is less need to subsidize operating costs and housing and communal services. And, of course, all our buyers form a broad class of owners necessary for the development of the economy. Thus, through the return of taxes from various industries, through property taxes, through the creation of social infrastructure facilities, through savings in government spending, the state will receive an effect that should generally remove the question of whether state support should be provided.

LSR Group

Has been operating since 1993. The group's enterprises in St. Petersburg, Moscow and Yekaterinburg produce 1 million square meters of housing per year. The main owner is Andrey Molchanov. Revenue in 2014 was 92.3 billion rubles, profit was 9.7 billion rubles.

Should Federal Law 214 be reformed? Yes. But first of all, not by rebuilding this model, which has existed for many years and has been adjusted many times. These measures should be aimed more at stimulating compliance with Federal Law 214 and creating equal competition. If, for example, we decide not to work with housing cooperatives, then we are in a discriminatory position compared to other, less conscientious developers. It is important that all amendments are weighed by the professional community so that it does not turn out like with insurance. In insurance, the standards have been tightened, the number of companies has been reduced to two dozen, it seems like a good goal, in the end everyone should win, first of all the equity holders. But if you add up their maximum limit of insurance coverage, which they can take on in accordance with the standards, then this is not enough even for the Moscow market! I am not even talking about the rest of Russia.

The author is the managing director of the LSR group in Moscow

The effect of government support