【英语中国】中国沿袭香港房地产开发模式

Cathy Holcombe

After China's frothy property prices stoked fears that a bubble was forming, the central government took measures to cool the market. But now a different concern has come to the fore: Will these market-stabilizing measures overshoot and send the market into a downward spiral? While this possibility can't be ruled out, investors can take some comfort from the fact that not every Asian property market labeled a 'bubble' ends up bursting.

Just look at the property markets in Hong Kong and Singapore. Based on typical OECD affordability ratios, residential real estate in these two cities is wildly expensive. Median incomes in Hong Kong and Singapore are only just over half that of the United States, yet average home prices are much loftier. As for the luxury sector, one could buy a castle in Europe for the amount needed to afford a posh penthouse in Hong Kong, the world's fifth most expensive city for residential real estate. Last year a number of top-notch flats were put on the market at prices ranging from $25 million to $50 million.

There are two explanations why the Hong Kong and Singapore markets have managed to remain in 'bubble' territory for decades. First, these governments depend on property as a major form of revenue and thus are drawn to policies, such as limiting land supply, that keep prices high. And second, those who cannot afford to buy or rent homes are provided with a roof over their heads -- roughly 50% of the populations in both cities live in public housing.

Obviously, China is not a land-deprived city-state, but rather a geographically sprawling country with more than 1.3 billion people, only half of whom live in urban areas. But the country's urban centers have a lot in common with Hong Kong and Singapore, in the sense that they have an unusually high reliance on land sales for revenues. The key differences are that China does not have much of a public-housing sector, and that its property-development market is very fragmented, with literally hundreds of small companies competing to build and sell homes. Investors should pay close attention to recent policy moves that will narrow these differences.

This year, China is due to start construction of 5.8 million units of public housing -- nearly double the total for last year and roughly one-third of all new housing starts in the pipeline. Just as interesting is how policy makers plan to achieve this. Unlike in Singapore and Hong Kong, public housing in China is built and sold by private sector companies, at set prices to eligible buyers.

Because the returns are unexciting, developers have not always been keen to jump on board. How then is Beijing now getting developers to cooperate? The answer could be that they are simply ordered to do so. It is important to recognize, however, how easy it could be to fall into a quid pro quo situation where the country's larger developers are more willing to build public housing -- if they get premier access to private-sector deals. And one way to ensure that is to set the rules of land auctions in favor of big players. Which brings us back to the Hong Kong model.

As Stephen Brown of local think tank Civic Exchange has argued, Hong Kong's property market is overwhelmingly dominated by a just a handful of players because of a land-auction system that requires very large upfront payments in return for development rights. As a result, only the largest blue chips with strong financing channels have been able to participate regularly.

It appears that Beijing has studied Hong Kong's system. In March, Beijing sharply raised the stakes for participation in the country's land auctions: Winning bidders must now hand over 50% of land costs within a month, more than half the previous requirement, and also must stump up a large down payment just to participate in the auctions. Measures like this will drive smaller players out of the market over time, allowing for higher margins for the remaining developers. In return, the bigger players should be quite happy to lend a hand in public housing.

Some economists may think it is reckless to promote policies that encourage property bubbles, but one can see why China has been inexorably drawn down this path. Reliance on land sales allows China to put off plans to broaden the tax base, which will be risky and politically sensitive. Moreover, local governments are exposed to trillions of yuan in debt taken out during the stimulus program. Rising land values will rescue their balance sheets.

And finally, why shouldn't China play to its cultural advantage? There are not many societies that can get away packing its citizens into public housing -- look at the social problems this has caused in Britain, France and the U.S. But because of the homogenous nature of Chinese society, mainland China (like Hong Kong and Singapore) can rely on the solution of using public housing to shield its poorer citizens from rising property values.

Once a high land-value system takes hold, however, it is hard to go back. Former Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa was effectively driven from office after his plans to vastly expand new land and housing supply tanked the market. There has been much public debate about the plight of mainland Chinese who cannot afford housing. But in the future, more pressure will come from homeowners who want to see their investments protected. Naturally this constituency will have more clout.

Ms. Holcombe is editor of research at GaveKal, a Hong Kong-based financial services company.

Cathy Holcombe

由于居高不下的房地产价格让人担心中国房地产市场正在形成泡沫，中国中央政府已采取措施为市场降温。但现在人们又开始担心另一个问题：这些稳定市场的措施是否过火并导致市场进入下跌通道？尽管不能排除这种可能性，但令投资者感到安慰的是，并非所有存在泡沫的亚洲房地产市场最终都以泡沫破裂告终。

看一看香港和新加坡的房地产市场。基于通用的经济合作与发展组织(OECD)的房屋价格可承受比率，这两个城市的住宅房地产非常昂贵。香港和新加坡的收入中值仅略高于美国的一半，然而平均住宅价格却高许多。在高档住宅方面，在香港购买一套高档顶层住宅的钱能在欧洲买下一座城堡。在世界住宅房地产价格最贵的城市中，香港排名第五。去年上市的许多顶级公寓的价格在2,500万美元至5,000万美元之间。

香港和新加坡房地产市场数十年来一直保持泡沫不破有两个原因。首先，政府依靠房地产作为主要的收入方式，因此采取了限制土地供应等政策以保持房价高企。其次，为那些无力购房或租房之人提供居所──这两个城市中约50%的人口居住在公共住房内。

显然，中国并不是一个土地稀缺的城邦，而是一个幅员辽阔的国家；人口超过13亿人，但只有一半居住在城镇地区。然而，中国的城市中心与香港和新加坡有许多共同之处，即公共收入对售地的依存度畸高。关键的不同之处在于，中国的公共住房不多，且房地产开发市场非常分散，实际上有数百家小型公司相互竞争，争相建造并出售房屋。投资者应当密切关注近期的政策走向，这些政策将缩小这些差距。

今年，中国预计将开建580万套公共住房，是去年总量的近两倍，占住宅开工总量的三分之一左右。决策者将如何实现这一目标令人关注。与新加坡和香港不同，中国的公共住宅由私营公司兴建，并以确定的价格出售给符合条件的购房人。

由于收益不太高，开发商一直不太积极。北京现在怎样让开发商合作呢？答案或许是简单地命令他们这样做。无论如何，重要的是要承认把这种情况变成一种补偿交易有多么容易。如果大型开发商能够得到私有住宅领域的重要合同，他们会更加愿意建造公共住房。而确保他们这样做的一个办法就是制订偏向大型开发商的土地拍卖制度。这样我们就又回到了香港模式。

香港智库──思汇政策研究所(Civic Exchange)的布朗(Stephen Brown)曾说，由于香港的土地拍卖制度要求提供巨额首付以换取开发权，因此房地产市场完全由少数开发商主导。结果，只有具有强大融资渠道的最大型蓝筹公司才能定期参与土地拍卖。

显然北京已经研究过香港的制度。今年3月，北京大幅提高了参加中国土地拍卖的门槛：赢标者必须在一个月内支付土地成本的50%（比之前的比例多一半以上），并且参加拍卖必须支付高额的保证金。随着时间的推移，此类措施将把小型开发商逐出市场，并让其它的开发商获得更高的利润。作为回报，更大型的开发商应当十分乐于在兴建公共住房方面帮把手。

部分经济学家或许认为推动鼓励房地产泡沫的政策过于草率，但我们能看出中国为什么义无反顾地走向这条路。基于出售土地获得的收入，中国得以推迟实施扩大税基的计划，而这是一项具有风险性和政治敏感性的计划。此外，在经济刺激计划实施期间，地方政府背负了数万亿元的债务。提高土地价值将挽救他们的资产负债表。

最后，中国为什么不发挥其文化优势呢？靠把居民装进公共住房便能脱身的社会并不多，看看这种办法给英国、法国和美国造成的社会问题吧。但由于中国内地与香港和新加坡是本质相同的华人社会，中国也能依靠相同的解决办法，即利用公共住房保护其贫困的公民不受高涨的房地产价格所累。

然而，高地价机制一旦确定下来便难以回头。香港前特首董建华提出的大幅扩大新土地和住宅供应的计划重击了市场之后，他也被迫下台。各方对中国内地居民无法负担高房价的困境进行了大量的公开讨论，但未来更多的压力将来自房主们──他们希望自己的投资得到保护。这部分人的影响力自然更大。

（更新完成）

（Cathy Holcombe是香港金融服务公司GaveKal的研究编辑。）