Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

26 banks put through a stress test: what it means for Ukraine's financial security

The NBU resumes annual stress testing — 26 banks that control more than 90% of assets will undergo the tests. It's a signal to the IMF, investors and every depositor.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 2, 2026 · 2 min read

26 banks put through a stress test: what it means for Ukraine's financial security

What happened

The National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) has approved the procedure for assessing the resilience of banks in 2026: 26 largest banks, accounting for more than 90% of the banking system's assets, will be subject to the review. The results are to be published by 31 December 2026.

Which banks will be checked

The list includes: PrivatBank, Oschadbank, Ukreximbank, Ukrgasbank, Sense Bank, Raiffeisen Bank, Ukrsibbank, OTP Bank, Credit Agricole Bank, ProCredit Bank, KredoBank, Pravex Bank, PUMB, Pivdennyi, Tascombank, Universal Bank, Credit Dnipro Bank, VST Bank, A‑Bank, MTB Bank, Bank Lviv, Idea Bank, Acordbank, Bank Alliance, Globus and Radabank.

How the assessment will be carried out

The procedure consists of three stages: an asset quality review (AQR) by independent auditors as of 1 January 2026; extrapolation of the results to all banks (if necessary); and stress‑testing under baseline and adverse macroeconomic scenarios to determine capital needs.

Selection criteria

The NBU will select banks based on three main indicators: size of risk‑weighted assets, volume of household deposits, and volume of net loans to households. The sample will also include banks that required recapitalization following the 2025 resilience assessment.

"The 2026 resilience assessment will allow the NBU and international partners to get a clear picture of risks and determine the amounts of capital needed for banks to operate stably under wartime conditions."

— Press service of the National Bank of Ukraine

What changed because of martial law

Due to martial law, the NBU has simplified some requirements: loans will be assessed under wartime rules, checks on the write‑off of problem assets will not be carried out, and reports may be submitted without an auditor's opinion. This balances the need for speed with the requirement for transparency for partners.

Context and consequences

Resuming annual stress‑testing is part of Ukraine's commitments to the IMF and the EU under the Ukraine Facility. For the market this means two things: first, greater transparency — a key to investor confidence; second, a tool for early identification of banks that need recapitalization or restructuring.

The NBU has already published the 2025 results (29 December): under the baseline scenario an increased level of required capital adequacy was identified for six banks (Credit Dnipro, Tascombank, VST Bank, A‑Bank, Bank Lviv and Pravex Bank), and under the adverse scenario for an additional three (Ukreximbank, Sense Bank, MTB Bank). These findings will be the basis for measures in 2026.

What it means for people and the economy

For depositors and customers — this is an additional tool of confidence: regular, independent assessments reduce uncertainty about banks' resilience. For the state and partners — it is a signal that the financial system is undergoing a professional review necessary for further support and investment. Overall, this is an element of the country's financial defence: not a loud declaration, but systematic work.

Brief forecast

The 2026 results will show how well banks have adapted to prolonged war and whether additional recapitalization steps are needed. Now the ball is in the partners' court: pledges of support must be turned into concrete resources that will strengthen the resilience of Ukraine's banking system.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026