The house can't go up.
- Most people judge this conclusion based on the following criterion:
In the short term, we look at policy, in the medium term, we look at land, and in the long term, we look at population.
Is there anything wrong? At least not logically.
After all, the current status quo is indeed - the policy is ineffective, the houses are oversaturated, the population is negative, and everything is stepping on the thunder point.
However, being logically correct does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily correct.
How so?
Let's talk about my personal opinion first: the house will rise again, and the focus is on 27 cities will experience another round of general rise.
Why?
I'm afraid that everyone will have more doubts if I leave this criterion, so I will expand from the above three dimensions one by one.
First, let's start with the population that we are most concerned about.
Even if the population growth is negative, we still have at least 15 to 20 years of demographic dividend.
How so?
Prior to this, it was suggested that urbanization was not nearing its end.
And negative population growth is the last straw that immediately crushes the camel, no one has the need to buy a house, and the house price will only be as Ma's father said in the future - everywhere like a green onion.
Is that so?
Of course not, the emaciated camel is bigger than the horse, you buy green onions in Hegang, of course you can't see how expensive the gold price in Beijing is, why don't you take a plane to Beijing to see?
Above, I want to say that people will move and gather.
And man grows up.
That's what we need to be wary of.
So as soon as the figure of -9.02 million came out at the beginning of the year, many people felt that the house price was going to end;
As everyone knows, newborns do not have purchasing power in the present, so if you really want to be bearish, then please travel to thirty or forty years to see.
So what we want to look at is actually to take the next 5-10 years of fresh graduates as a reference data, and then to refer to the purchasing power of the next 20 years.
The above is the number of college graduates in each of the next 21 years based on the growth rate of these two years.
Therefore, my conclusion has come out: in the future, there will be 15-20 years of purchasing power, and then where these purchasing power is concentrated, housing prices will inevitably rise.
After all, you also assume that there will be a surplus of houses in the future when the population is decreasing, so you need to look at the places where these people are going.
Wherever people go, wealth gathers.
To put it bluntly, whether the population of this city is a net inflow or a net outflow, and the housing prices of a city, do not depend on locals, but on outsiders, and they are young people.
The most important thing is whether the city has an industry, whether there is an emerging industry, and whether it can attract young people to work here.
In the long term, first- and second-tier cities will still be places of net population inflow;
In many small places, with more and more net outflow of population, and there is no industry to retain people, there will only be fewer and fewer people;
If there is no one and no industry, it is natural that the land finance cannot be played, and the local government cannot afford to survive the fiscal deficit, and the city will eventually be the survival of the fittest.
That's why I've always been emphasizing high-quality assets, and why it's time to get rid of low-quality assets and buy good houses in good cities and good locations.
Secondly, look at the land in the medium term.
Let me ask you a question first: does the total number of houses in the country affect the scarcity of houses in big cities?
It doesn't affect it, so as long as the blockage of land supply is dredged, not only will the future house not be oversaturated, but there will also be no house to sell.
OK, so what's the land market like right now?
In the second round of land auctions that have just ended in Shanghai, there are 4 plots of land - the least shipment since the centralized land supply, which can be seen:
The supply of land is shrinking dramatically.
And its intention is also obvious, in essence, it is still to destock.
Of course, just talking about Shanghai alone can't constitute a causal relationship, let's look at some more macro data.
First, investment in real estate development has plummeted.
Looking at this curve, you can know that the growth rate has not slowed down since Xiaoyangchun last year.
What does it mean?
The supply of commercial housing will continue to decline in the future.
At the same time, the pace of destocking will continue to accelerate.
It can be seen that as of February 2024, 26 of the 30 key cities still have a decontamination period that exceeds the 18-month warning line.
The supply is decreasing, and it is this part of the inventory pressure that needs to be reduced at the same time.
Judging from the overall data in February, the supply area of newly built commercial residential buildings in 100 cities across the country was 7.93 million square meters, while the transaction area reached 10.59 million square meters, showing a trend of supply exceeding demand.
Of course, this is only the result of exchanging price for quantity, but everyone also knows that the value of a commodity is determined by the core supply and demand, and once the supply is less than the demand, there will be a continuous trend;
That is to say, from the rise in housing prices, these key cities are only one destocking cycle away.
And what does this mean I don't need to say, in short, everyone should prepare as soon as possible, because the era of stock housing game is indeed coming~
Especially if you have a house in your hand, if you don't assess the value of your city, you are likely to lose a fortune because of the wrong time.
How can you avoid it? Which time is it really worth getting into the game? When is the time to throw away the house in hand?
Including the underlying logic of the development of the property market - why only the housing prices in the core areas of large cities will rise? It can be said that only this logic can achieve a complete closed loop.
Finally, I would like to briefly talk about the policy, which is also a point that everyone is more confused about.
Last year, a total of 751 policy moves were made, covering more than 330 cities, but the cycle of increase and the proportion of average prices did not look ideal.
So, is it because real estate can't be saved, and the policy is ineffective?
However, in fact, it is, if the policy is exhausted, you say that the policy is ineffective?
Don't forget, our country's most vocal Dabeishang is still guarding the door of purchase restrictions.
But why hold on? Is it because the patriarch doesn't want to save the market?
On the contrary, it is precisely because I want to think that I must control the intensity of stimulation:
On the one hand, it can avoid the impact of a sharp widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.
What does it mean?
Here's another question for you: why do you think many people don't buy houses in the current environment?
Is there really no demand for buying a house?
No, it is that the debt capacity of the majority of residents has reached the limit, and the demand has also been suppressed.
Then the answer is very clear, which group is the most indebted now?
Improving the group.
In addition, let's take a look at what the parents have done in stimulating the economy in the past two years:
The data of the first quarter has been clearly revealed, that is, to promote industrial transformation and upgrading——
This process will inevitably clear out a part of the low-end backward production capacity, which is equivalent to eliminating part of the labor force in this chain.
That is, the number of unemployed people is becoming more and more numerous.
And this situation of inflation at the top and deflation at the bottom, the parents also know in their hearts that it is definitely more unhelpful for the fundamentals of stimulating consumption, so they have not stepped on the accelerator to the end.
On the other hand, it has to do with the fact that land is state-owned.
To put it bluntly, as long as the land is state-owned, then housing prices will not fall quickly, and the slower it will be to the bottom.
This is why I said before that the biggest negative for the property market is not the lack of residents' expectations, but the law itself that "the property market is a policy market".
Because this also means that the patriarch wants to control it, but the local government relies too much on it, so that the order cannot be fully issued.
Therefore, when housing prices have not fallen in place, the rescue policies of many cities have bottomed out.
Now that the first-tier cities have made it clear that they will not take the lead, the second, third and fourth-tier cities that are almost out of surplus food can only find various ways to fill the financial holes from other places;
For example, the "unreasonable" increase in gas, water and electricity bills a few days ago is actually equivalent to a forced mechanism, so that you have to spend more money.
Of course, if you want to say that the local government has no money to engage in this kind of "forced mechanism", it is too ugly, in fact, there are also bitter places that you can't say.
Because real estate falls, the disadvantages of falling housing prices and rising prices are vividly reflected here.
And this also means that if this trend continues, the policy will have to continue to increase.
And if it is not directly released to limit purchases, it will definitely be a move on monetary policy, such as the LPR will have to be lowered again, and the deposit interest rate will have to be lowered again until the bubble is cleared.
Obviously, this is not something that can be done all at once, because it has to do with what people expect from the city.
After all, it is rare to rise in general prices, so even if it falls out of the cost performance, it does not mean that the city's property market has a chance to completely reverse.