With preferential mortgages increasingly restricted, families with children are now almost exclusively eligible for affordable 6% rates, leading to a financial analysis of the costs and benefits of having a child versus facing higher mortgage rates. The cancellation of preferential mortgages in Russia has made it financially advantageous to have a child, despite the associated expenses, when considering the cost of housing. An analysis was conducted comparing the financial implications of taking out a family mortgage at a lower interest rate versus a market mortgage at a higher rate for a childless individual.

The study presents a hypothetical scenario involving a 27-year-old woman in St. Petersburg named Olya, who is contemplating whether to have a child to qualify for a family mortgage or to proceed with a market mortgage at a higher interest rate. The analysis compares two options: having a child and utilizing a family mortgage with a subsidized interest rate, or remaining childless and obtaining a market mortgage with a significantly higher interest rate.

Calculations reveal that even when accounting for the minimum expenses of raising a child, obtaining a family mortgage proves to be financially more beneficial than a market mortgage. The family mortgage option, despite the costs associated with raising a child, results in a total expense of 12,464,891 rubles over 18 years, taking into account various state allowances and employer payments. In contrast, the market mortgage option, without the benefit of subsidized interest rates, leads to a total expense of 24,077,705 rubles over the same period, almost double the cost of the apartment itself.

Furthermore, the study explores scenarios where Olya strategically uses state benefits to reduce her mortgage principal, leading to even greater savings and further solidifying the financial advantage of having a child and utilizing a family mortgage. By allocating maternity capital and child allowances towards early mortgage repayments, Olya can significantly reduce the loan term and total interest paid, making the family mortgage option even more financially attractive.

The analysis concludes that having a child and taking out a family mortgage is more profitable than remaining childfree and opting for a market mortgage, unless the expenses for the child exceed a certain threshold. The study calculates that Olya can spend up to 746,000 rubles per year (approximately 62,000 rubles per month) on her child before the financial benefits of the family mortgage are negated. Even with higher spending on the child, strategic use of state payments towards mortgage principal reduction can further increase the threshold of financial practicality to 72,000 rubles per month.