The discussion was initiated by former Moldovan Prime Minister Ion Sturza, who analyzed the structure of the banking system’s assets and interest income.
According to data cited by the former prime minister, commercial banks earned approximately 11.16 billion lei in interest income in 2025. Of this amount, 8.28 billion lei—or about 74 percent—came from loans to individuals and businesses.
The remainder of the interest income was associated with other financial instruments, including government securities, certificates of the National Bank of Moldova, interest-bearing reserves, and funds deposited with other financial institutions.
Government Financing Instead of Business Lending
At the end of 2025, the banking system’s assets, according to data cited in the publication, totaled approximately 190 billion lei. At the same time, loans and advances were valued at 103.6 billion lei, funds deposited with the National Bank of Moldova (NBM) at 32.6 billion lei, and another approximately 32 billion lei were invested in government securities and central bank certificates.
Thus, a significant portion of the banks’ assets was invested in instruments linked to the government and the National Bank.
Sturza himself drew attention to the possible correlation between the cost of funds raised by banks and the yield on government securities. In his view, given the current market structure, it may be more economically advantageous for banks to invest part of their free liquidity in relatively low-risk instruments rather than channel it into riskier lending to the real sector.
At the same time, the former prime minister noted separately that it is standard banking practice for banks to hold liquid and reliable assets. The issue, in his view, arises when government financing becomes more attractive to banks than lending to private investment projects.
The Debate Over the Cost of Government Borrowing
Particular attention in the discussion under the post was paid to the cost of government borrowing.
Former Moldovan Finance Minister Mariana Durleșteanu believes that the Ministry of Finance should change its approach to the government securities market. Specifically, it should develop longer-term instruments and the secondary market. “Financing the budget deficit is too expensive because it’s our money—taxpayers’ money,” Durleștianu wrote.
In her view, a more developed government securities market could partially attract funds directly from the public, rather than solely through the banking system. She also raised the issue of taxing bank profits and dividends paid to shareholders.
Ion Prisecaru, former head of the Tax Service, linked the current situation in his commentary to the government’s long-standing monetary and financial policies. In his view, government policies over various periods have failed to sufficiently stimulate financing of the real economy.
Entrepreneur and former defense minister Valeriu Plesca, for his part, opposed singling out the banking sector as a separate category in the tax discussion. “Taxation of banks must be brought in line with that of any other economic agent,” he wrote.
The discussion also included the view that additional taxation of banks could reduce the government’s borrowing needs. However, this argument requires a separate economic analysis, as the impact of the tax burden on the banking sector depends on the tax structure, fiscal policy, the cost of funding, and banks’ lending activity.
Why This Issue Is Important for the Economy
The discussion touches on the broader issue of the allocation of financial resources in the economy.
For banks, government securities and National Bank instruments are an important part of liquidity and risk management. At the same time, the high yield on government debt has the potential to compete with business lending for bank resources.
For the government, the cost of servicing domestic debt directly affects budget expenditures. For businesses, the availability of credit and the cost of borrowing are crucial, especially for long-term investment projects.
This is precisely why the issue raised by the discussion participants goes beyond the scope of bank profits. It concerns the balance between the financial stability of banks, the cost of public debt, and the financial system’s ability to channel resources to the private sector.
At the same time, the argument that banks generally prefer to invest in government securities rather than in lending to the economy has long been at the center of discussions. Added to this is the fact that approximately 95% of Moldovan banks’ assets are owned by foreign investors.
Against this backdrop, the claim that banks “parasitize” on Moldova’s economy—failing to lend to it or contribute to its development while avoiding excessive risks—is increasingly surfacing in such discussions.
The discussion initiated by Ion Sturza also fits into this context. The question is simple: To what extent does the current structure of the financial market encourage banks to lend to the real sector, and what is the optimal cost of government financing through domestic borrowing?
As we can see from the discussions that have unfolded under the post, the topic is only gaining momentum and will soon become the subject of a broader debate. We hope that the relevant government agencies will also join in.
Follow our updates
