The price of risk must be reduced: What is holding back Ukrainian exports?
Interview
When people talk about financing Ukrainian exports today, they often look for one main problem: regulatory restrictions, a lack of instruments, or poor coordination between the state and banks. Actually, risk has always been the primary obstacle.
And as long as its cost remains too high, it is difficult to scale exports as the economy requires.
For banks and businesses, the key deterrent remains the security risks of war. These directly affect investment decisions, project payback periods, and willingness to take on long-term commitments.
The second systemic barrier is collateral. For most manufacturing companies, especially in the regions, access to financing is limited primarily by a lack of liquid collateral, despite the presence of demand or ideas. Most assets are already pledged as collateral for loans to finance current operations.
This is where the Export Credit Agency's instruments come into play. ECA insurance coverage allows banks to lend to exporters without traditional collateral and businesses to raise financing against export contracts or future cash flows. Importantly, these instruments are integrated into banking products. They are recognized by the NBU as acceptable collateral.
Businesses are ready to export. But they are not ready to pay for uncertainty
According to a survey by the European Business Association, only 14% of Ukrainian companies already export, and another 14% plan to expand their geography. At the same time, almost 80% of businesses plan to raise funds for development. The problem is not motivation, which is there. The issue is that companies primarily rely on grants and their own funds, with loans and investments making up a smaller portion of their funding.
The practice of banks reveals two parallel realities. There are companies that, even during the war, are making decisions to expand production and enter new markets. There are also those who have found export opportunities after 2022 and are building new capacities for them. But almost every such project has the same point of tension—collateral and the cost of risk.
Insurance of property against military risks currently costs 5% per year. For investment loans, which are often provided on market terms, this sharply increases the payback period and eats into profitability. As a result, even economically viable projects are postponed or do not get off the ground.
Where do the instruments work, and where do they come up against reality?
The state and international partners have already created a number of effective mechanisms: guarantees, portfolio solutions, risk sharing with IFIs, and ECA instruments. It works. In the manufacturing sector alone, Oschadbank's project financing in the SME segment reached UAH 1.7 billion in 2024-2025.
However, there are also structural constraints. For example, documentary instruments, even those protected from military risks (such as the EBRD's TFP), are difficult to apply in practice: international counterparties often require prepayment or post-payment instead of traditional letters of credit. This complicates cooperation between Ukrainian companies and global partners.
Another problem is scale. The current limits on portfolio guarantees are more suited to the needs of small businesses. For medium-sized companies that can significantly influence the country's export potential, these volumes are often insufficient.
A separate but critically important issue is currency regulation. Without a doubt, it is a key tool for maintaining macrofinancial stability.
There are three systemic problems
The first is unpredictability. Frequent and rapid changes in regulations complicate the planning of currency flows, foreign economic activity, and investments for both companies and banks.
The second is the imbalance between control and service. Increased financial monitoring slows down transactions. The list of documents required for currency transactions has expanded significantly, and not all foreign counterparties are willing to provide all the requested information.
The third is restrictions on capital movements and the lack of adequate hedging instruments. This increases exchange rate risks, eats into margins, and discourages investment. A telling example is the terms of foreign economic activity. Before the full-scale war, businesses had much more time to fulfill contracts. Today, even with a formally extended term of up to 180 days, control has become strict. And in conditions of complex logistics and a long production cycle, this often means penalties without any real violation of the economic logic of the contract.
Strict currency restrictions create three risks for businesses: exchange rate risk, liquidity risk, and investment risk. Funds may be available, but it is impossible to use them in a timely manner.
Looking ahead, the key task is to reduce the price of risk and add new instruments. Affordable investment insurance is needed. Portfolio guarantees need to be scaled up to a level that is attractive to medium-sized businesses. And we need a more predictable currency policy that allows us to plan, not just survive.
These are the challenges we will have to address if we truly want economic recovery.
Interview
Oschadbank Press Center