At the First Affordable Mortgage Forum on 2 April 2026, Danylo Hetmantsev, head of the parliamentary tax committee, described a housing initiative under development aimed at roughly a million families. The terms discussed were 3% to 5% annually, up to 25 years, with a debt burden capped at 15% to 20% of household income.
The proposal is worth taking seriously and worth reading precisely. It is a description of intent, not an adopted programme, and the gap between those two things in Ukrainian housing policy is usually measured in years.
The terms as described
| Parameter | Figure discussed |
|---|---|
| Rate | 3–5% annually |
| Term | up to 25 years |
| Debt burden ceiling | 15–20% of household income |
| Target scale | ~1 million families |
Each of the three parameters is more generous than what exists. єОселя runs to 20 years, not 25. Its rates are 3% and 7%, so a 5% upper bound is a material improvement for the general category. And an explicit debt-burden ceiling of 15% to 20% is a substantially tighter affordability test than banks currently apply — which sounds restrictive but is the term that makes the payment survivable.
The reasoning behind it
Hetmantsev's stated rationale was that existing programmes are insufficient given that roughly a third of the population lives below the poverty line, and that mortgage policy is not a choice between a social function and an economic one. He identified low household purchasing power and high lending risk — which keeps banks from expanding credit voluntarily — as the binding constraints, with demand far exceeding what state support currently covers.
That diagnosis is supported by the volumes. Since launch, єОселя has issued more than 22,000 loans totalling around 40 billion hryvnia. Set against a target of a million families, the existing programme has reached roughly 2% of that number over its entire life.
The arithmetic problem
This is where the proposal becomes difficult.
A subsidised mortgage costs the budget the difference between the borrower's rate and the market cost of funds, every year, for the life of the loan. With the policy rate at 15.5%, that gap is roughly 10 to 12 percentage points. On єОselya's average loan of about 1.8 million hryvnia, the annual subsidy per loan is significant — and it recurs for two decades.
Multiply a comparable commitment by a million households and the figure exceeds what the budget carries, in a year when fiscal pressure is rising into 2027 and external financing is already covering a substantial deficit. The programme as described would require either external financing specifically allocated to it, a much smaller realised scale than the headline, or a phase-in over many years.
There is a second constraint that money does not solve. A million families is roughly forty-five times the volume єОселя has produced since 2022, and the binding limit there is not only budget but supply — accredited developments, completed housing stock and the capacity of ten partner banks to process files.
What could make it plausible
A falling policy rate reduces the subsidy per loan directly. Market expectations discussed during 2026 have pointed to the rate potentially declining toward 13.5% to 14%, which would lower mortgage rates by roughly one to one and a half percentage points and narrow the gap the state has to cover.
That is the mechanism by which a programme of this scale becomes cheaper — not through better terms, but through a lower baseline. It also means the programme's realistic timing is tied to the disinflation path, which is presently running against it: the National Bank raised the rate to 15.5% on 30 July, its first increase since December 2024.
How to treat it as a buyer
As information about direction, not as a plan to wait for. There is no adopted legislation, no operator, no funding line and no start date.
Households that qualify for existing programmes should use them. The historical pattern in Ukrainian housing support is that new instruments narrow during adoption rather than widen, and that transitional rules favour those already in the system.
Bottom line: the terms discussed — 3% to 5%, 25 years, a debt burden ceiling of 15% to 20% — address the right constraints. The scale does not fit the current budget at the current policy rate, which makes the rate path, not the announcement, the thing to watch.
This is analysis, not investment advice.