, we might face the risks of ‘ bubbles ’ in this market. in turn, the bank of russia has already taken measures to prevent the materialisation of these risks — we have raised the so - called macroprudential buffers for mortgage loans with a down payment of 15 % to 20 %. however, if lending standards continue to lower ( this is a trend we are observing ) or housing price growth remains fast, we might not rule out the need to increase these buffers. furthermore, unsecured consumer lending is also expanding, while households ’ incomes are recovering much more slowly. this means that households ’ debt burden is growing. it is crucial to prevent a situation where its level becomes hazardous. in this regard, we decided to raise the macroprudential buffers for consumer loans to the pre - pandemic level as well beginning on 1 july. in addition to such macroprudential buffers, we would like to have an opportunity to restrict highrisk lending not by raising the requirements for banks ’ capital, as banks need capital for lending and, moreover, it is distributed unevenly across the system. these buffers are very efficient and might become a problem for some banks, whereas they are wholly useless for other banks and do not influence lending growth paces. we have prepared proposals for the bank of russia to be entitled, just as regulators in many other countries, to set direct quantitative limits for consumer loans. the relevant draft law has been submitted to the state duma. we also hope for your support in this regard. in our opinion, this measure is absolutely essential and beneficial in all respects. considering the current state of the banking system and our policy aimed at preventing the accumulation of systemic risks ( this is an area we are closely monitoring to avoid a build - up of systemic risks in the financial area, and the financial area is an infrastructure, the circulatory system of the entire economy, as it is often called ), the banking sector will maintain its stability further on and continue to provide lending to the economy. this makes it possible for us to start discussing the next step in the protection of depositors ’ rights : jointly with the deposit insurance agency, we are studying opportunities for expanding insurance for not only individuals and small businesses, but possibly medium - sized enterprises as well, and also social, educational and healthcare organisations. this amount will also be 1. 4 million rubles. we would like to continue the discussion of this topic with deputies. in

as we faced last year, accommodative monetary policy helps the economy return to its potential. however, it might be hazardous to continue accommodative policy after the economy recovers since it might trigger the risks of high inflation and ‘ bubbles ’ in the financial market. at the end of the year, we were able to see that the economy had started to bounce back, the decline was less significant than forecast, and consumer demand was reviving faster. therefore, we decided to increase the key rate. moreover, at the end of 2020, demand was focused on a limited number of products, meaning prices were rising only in respective product groups. as you remember, we discussed all prices for a range of food products. contrastingly, beginning from early 2021, we have been recording a rise in prices for an increasingly larger number of goods. this is evidence that the impact of aggregate demand factors on observed inflation is intensifying. this in turn proves that accommodative monetary policy has already made the necessary contribution to creating the conditions for economic recovery. we expect that russia ’ s gdp will return to its pre - pandemic levels already in 2021 h2, possibly by the middle of the year. what might happen if we delay the end of accommodative monetary policy? first of all, inflation would remain elevated. its rate is elevated at the moment. this would undermine the purchasing power of households ’ incomes. second, deposit rates would remain low. this would adversely affect both the purchasing power of savings and households ’ demand for deposits as a store of value. eventually, the banking system would have fewer resources to further support economic development and promote the growth of economic potential. third, if an increase in the key rate was delayed, this would prolong the period of elevated inflation and, thus, higher inflation expectations. a delay might force us to raise the key rate more significantly and not only return to a neutral rate ( which ranges from 5 % to 6 % in nominal terms ), but, possibly, even switch to tight monetary policy. i would like to emphasise once again that we were able to shift towards accommodative monetary policy last year solely because we had been keeping inflation at a low level for several previous years. currently, we can see how much people are concerned about increased inflation and low deposit rates. we need to bring inflation back to 4 % in order to ensure better life quality for people. our analysis shows that