In 2008, when the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States swept the world, most people only remembered the 4 trillion stimulus policy, and few people noticed the most powerful move to reduce production capacity that year, "home appliances to the countryside".
Relying on the purchasing power of stimulating the huge population base in the rural areas, the mainland's surplus production capacity was consumed by the huge population base in those years, thus achieving a stable economic landing.
▲ The wave of "home appliances going to the countryside" back then can be called a super move to reduce production capacity.
Now, the State Council has issued the "Action Plan for Promoting Large-scale Equipment Renewal and Trade-in of Consumer Goods", which looks so familiar. The so-called "promotion of large-scale equipment renewal" means that the state mobilizes central enterprises and state-owned enterprises to update equipment and production lines on a large scale, remove backward production capacity, and enhance market competitiveness. Consumer goods represented by automobiles, home appliances, and home decoration use policies to support people to "trade in the old for the new".
▲ "Trade-in" is to stimulate consumption in disguise and remove excess capacity.
The "trade-in" routine is not new, only this time even the house is involved in the "trade-in". This says at least two things:
1. The inventory of the house is very large, and if the inventory of the house is not large, who will take the time and patience with you to carry out the "trade-in" activity.
2. The sales of the house are worse than expected, and if the house is easy to sell, do you still need the "trade-in" policy to stimulate sales?
Because the house is not selling, more and more houses have become inventory, so now the house is also beginning to "trade in".
The house is in the form of a "trade-in".
At present, more than 30 cities across the country have issued a "trade-in" policy for houses, and more and more cities will follow suit.
In general, there are three main modes of "trade-in" of houses:
First, subsidies for house purchases. This is currently the most conventional "trade-in" policy, which means that the government gives certain deed tax incentives and housing subsidies to buyers to buy new houses. Reduce the cost of buying a house and stimulate the demand for housing replacement among the improved population.
This model is "routine" because it has been used too many times before. Most people have become numb to this policy and don't have much perception. The house purchase subsidy is a house purchase discount, and this kind of preferential developer can also give it, and most people will not rush to buy a new house for this house purchase subsidy and deed tax preference.
▲The preferential policy for buying a house has been implemented for a long time, and if it is effective, there is no need for other policies.
Second, buy a new one. This is a four-party cooperation between the government, developers, home buyers, and intermediaries, where buyers first go to see the new house, pay a deposit with the developer to subscribe to the new house and lock the house, and then entrust their old house to an intermediary for sale. If your second-hand house is sold, the sale price will be automatically deducted from the new house, and if it cannot be sold, the subscription money for the new house will be automatically refunded to the buyer after the time expires.
Compared with the traditional sale and replacement, the "new" part of the new purchase policy is that the government supervises developers and intermediaries. With the blessing of the government's credibility, developers really give discounts, and intermediaries do not dare to eat the price difference at both ends, thereby reducing transaction costs and increasing the liquidity of second-hand housing.
However, this policy will still encounter a fundamental problem, that is, if the second-hand housing can really be sold, whether the government supervises it or not, the problem is not big, but now the problem is that the second-hand housing has no liquidity.
▲Second-hand houses are not liquid, and entrusting intermediaries to sell old houses must also be sold at a low price before they can be sold.
Third, the acquisition of state-owned enterprises. Local state-owned enterprises buy old houses in people's hands, replace new houses launched by state-owned enterprises, and use old houses to offset the payment of new houses. State-owned enterprises use the acquired old houses as rental and affordable housing.
This is currently the most violent and radical "trade-in" policy, and only some cities such as Suzhou, Lianyungang, and Zhengzhou, Henan have taken the lead in piloting.
▲The entry of state-owned enterprises to acquire old houses is the fastest policy to stimulate the demand of the property market.
This policy is a super move, which not only revitalizes the liquidity of the second-hand housing market, but also effectively de-escalates new housing. However, at present, the policy is still in the pilot stage in some cities, and has not been popularized on a large scale. After all, the direct acquisition of state-owned enterprises is a great test of the financial strength of state-owned enterprises, and cities without money cannot do it.
All in all, the three current mainstream "trade-in" policies are all formulated around destocking and stimulating demand.
The liquidity of second-hand housing is contradictory
If you take a closer look at these "trade-in" policies, they are actually not new, but have been in place for a long time. As for the effect, it can only be said that if the effect is very good, there is no need to continue to loosen the policy on the property market.
It is precisely because of the limited effect of the previous period that the radical policy of "state-owned enterprises buying old houses" needs to be used. The reason why "state-owned enterprises to acquire old houses" cannot be widely promoted at present is that the main stuck point is still the liquidity problem of second-hand houses.
As we all know, there are a large number of sell-one-buy-one, sell-old buy-new, small-buy-large replacement and improved housing demand in the market, and these needs need to be sold to have purchasing power in order to be released. But if the second-hand house is not liquid, the old house cannot be sold, and your new demand for housing cannot be realized.
▲The house is old for a certain number of years, and it can't be rented out, let alone sold?
However, in order to make second-hand housing liquid, in addition to school district housing, financial attributes are inevitably needed, that is, investment and speculative demand must be allowed, so that the house has the basis of "speculation", in order to realize the liquidity of second-hand housing, which is contrary to the idea of "housing not speculation".
Second-hand houses have no liquidity, prices will inevitably fall, and the price of first-hand houses cannot be supported. Even if there is a demand for "selling one and buying one, selling the old and buying the new", it is a high buy and a low sale, and the loss is the buyer. No matter how stupid a buyer is, it is impossible to cut the meat and sell the old house, and then buy a new house, which is an operation against human nature and cannot be landed.
▲In addition to the school district housing, most of the houses that are now mobile are new houses that have just been bought a few years ago.
This contradiction in the liquidity of second-hand housing, even if state-owned enterprises enter the market to acquire old houses and transform them into guaranteed rental housing, also hides huge risks and hidden dangers.
It takes a lot of money for state-owned enterprises to acquire old houses, and the old houses they acquire are used for rental housing, and the acquisition funds cannot be covered by rent collection alone. State-owned enterprises will be in a state of debt due to the acquisition of old houses, which is to become local "hidden debt".
▲ This operation has the risk of pushing up local debt, and cannot be promoted on a large scale.
It is also not feasible to demolish the old houses that were acquired and then carry out urban renewal. The reason is that the purchase price is too high and the cost of land is too expensive. If you sell land directly, the land price will be ridiculously high, and the house price cannot support the land price, and the land cannot be sold at all.
▲Urban renewal can only demolish old villages, not old houses.
From this, we can see that the "old for new" house is an ideal and very fleshy operation, which is difficult to popularize.
Write at the end
It is difficult to "trade in the old for the new" in a house, and in essence, the house is not a general consumer product. Without the blessing of financial attributes, if ordinary people want to increase their desire to buy a house, the necessary condition is to increase their income.
The demand of ordinary people to buy a house is not stimulated, but by the sense of security brought by the increase in income, which grows spontaneously. If there is no increase in income, the effect of stimulation alone is very limited.