Ощадна Та Інвестиційна Поведінка Домогосподарств України В Умовах Війни: Аналіз На Основі Статистичних Даних

The article examines the saving and investment behavior of Ukrainian households under conditions of full-scale war, based on statistical data of the National Bank of Ukraine for 2025–2026. The study substantiates the need to distinguish between saving behavior (holding funds in deposits, cash, or foreign currency) and investment behavior (primarily the purchase of domestic government bonds) as strategies governed by different behavioral logics. It is established that household investment behavior largely conforms to the rational model: the growth in government bond holdings outpaces deposit growth and is explained by higher effective yield and the tax-exempt status of coupon income. Household holdings of domestic government bonds grew from UAH 78.5 billion to UAH 111.9 billion over 2025 (+42.6%), nearly three times faster than the +14.4% growth in household deposits, a gap explained by bond yields of roughly 15-16% nominal (about 8% in real, inflation-adjusted terms) against a 10.42% deposit rate. Saving behavior, by contrast, shows systematic deviations from rational expectations: household inflation expectations respond not to the official consumer price index but to a narrow set of visible price shocks (fuel, electricity); household exchange-rate expectations remain more pessimistic than those of businesses, while actual demand for cash foreign currency is declining, indicating a gap between stated concerns and actual behavior. Within saving behavior, the number of household deposit accounts grew by only 17% since the onset of the full-scale invasion, while the average account balance rose by 63%, indicating that households are consolidating funds in existing accounts rather than opening new ones. The household behavior sub-index within the National Bank of Ukraine's Financial Stress Index is shown to be methodologically treated as an independent source of systemic risk, not reducible to interest rates. The article concludes that stimulating investment and saving behavior requires differentiated policy tools: a price signal for investment behavior and communication-based instruments for saving behavior.