Serbia’s corporate sector entered 2026 without a generalised liquidity crisis, but the aggregate figures conceal substantial funding pressure among microenterprises, textile producers, public utilities and smaller contractors.
Around 78% of surveyed companies reported sufficient resources for optimal operating finance. Another 71% said they had enough funds to finance planned investments. Among companies with insufficient operating resources, the average funding gap reached 32%.
These headline figures suggest a broadly solvent business sector. The distribution tells a different story. Only 8% of large companies lacked sufficient operating resources, compared with 16% of medium-sized enterprises, 24% of small businesses and 30% of microenterprises.
Sectoral differences are similarly pronounced. Approximately 94% of electronic-communications companies had enough operating finance. The ratio was 82% in chemicals and agriculture and 81% in energy and coal mining. It fell to 75% in construction, 70% among public utilities and only 58% in textiles.
The corporate lending market is expanding, but much of the growth reflects the need to finance working capital. Investment loans increased by 14.5% year on year in May, while liquidity and working-capital loans expanded by 11.2%. The total volume of new corporate loans in Q1 was approximately RSD 289.1bn, slightly below the corresponding period of 2025.
Banks reported a modest tightening of corporate credit standards during the first quarter. Higher funding costs contributed to the change, while banking-sector competition and increased risk appetite provided some offset. Corporate demand for investment finance weakened, but demand for working-capital facilities remained stronger.
The pattern is consistent with the business survey. Companies are not necessarily borrowing to expand production. Many need additional funds because materials, wages and inventories cost more, while customer-payment periods have not shortened. A business can therefore report stable turnover and still require a larger credit line.
Public utilities face a particular mismatch. Their revenues may depend on regulated tariffs, municipal budgets or public-sector collection, while fuel, maintenance and capital-replacement costs follow market prices. Insufficient liquidity can delay environmental compliance, equipment replacement and network maintenance even where demand is stable.
Construction companies face similar timing risk. Costs are incurred before works are certified, and certified amounts may remain unpaid for weeks or months. Smaller subcontractors carry labour, fuel, machinery and material costs without the balance-sheet strength of the main contractor. A profitable project can still create a cash deficit during execution.
Serbia’s banking sector is well capitalised, with a capital-adequacy ratio close to 19.5% at the end of Q1, compared with the 8% regulatory minimum. The constraint is therefore less the availability of bank capital than the risk profile, collateral and documentation of smaller borrowers.
Receivables financing, supplier finance, leasing and guarantee-backed investment loans could improve the transmission of bank liquidity into the productive economy. Without those instruments, credit growth will remain concentrated among companies already strong enough to satisfy conventional underwriting requirements.
