In the past, the bailout policies in various places were twisted and pinched, and those who were afraid of wolves and tigers in the past looked at each other in various places, for fear that they would make mistakes. The entire demand-side policy has been dragged on for more than a year, and the best time to stabilize the market has been missed, so that it is now so passive.
After the big leader presided over the meeting today, the policy on the demand side was very direct, which is equivalent to the official announcement of the above attitude, that is, it must be stabilized. Why? Because some policies still look quite strong, and I'm a little scared when I look at them.
The minimum down payment is 1.5%.
The down payment is 1.5 percent, and the down payment for the second house is 2.5 percent. To be honest, this down payment ratio is really low, and for banks, as long as the house price is a little bit back, they have to worry about whether the owner will default.
We have always set a relatively high down payment ratio, on the one hand, to protect the bank, and on the other hand, to protect the buyers. The appropriate down payment policy is to be afraid that everyone will be hot-headed, so that people who cannot repay the loan will be burdened with decades of loans.
How did the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States come about? At that time, the low down payment and zero down payment made the default rate of housing mortgage loans extremely high, which eventually caused risk infection and a financial crisis.
The problem on the demand side is the change in income expectations. I dared to buy a few years ago because income is expected to grow steadily and house prices are rising, so I don't worry about borrowing more. Nowadays, more people who own houses and work are looking for ways to reduce leverage and tighten expenses.
I expect this down payment reduction to have a limited effect, but it will stimulate families who don't have enough down payment and just need it to get on the bus. In fact, our country has strict risk management and control of banks, and the current policy should fully consider the risks of banks.
So why did the above dare to reduce the down payment ratio to such a low level at this time? A reasonable assumption is that the above believes that house prices have bottomed out and is confident that they will be able to drag down the current house prices. So I said that it is equivalent to an official announcement of attitude.
Provident fund interest rate cut
From May 18, 2024, the interest rate of personal housing provident fund loans will be lowered by 0.25 percentage points, and the interest rates of the first set of personal housing provident fund loans for less than 5 years (including 5 years) and more than 5 years will be adjusted to 2.35% and 2.85% respectively, and the interest rates of the second set of personal housing provident fund loans for less than 5 years (including 5 years) and more than 5 years will be adjusted to not less than 2.775% and 3.325% respectively.
The use of provident fund as a means of regulation is really indescribable. In big cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, the amount of provident fund is only about 1 million, for example, the family in Shenzhen is only 900,000, which is a drop in the bucket for buying a house. Now that the interest rate on commercial loans has been reduced, the position of CPF loans is even more awkward.
Today's policy only lowers the interest rate of the new provident fund loans, so will the interest rate of the existing provident fund loans be reduced?
In addition, in addition to the quota design, the provident fund has many very strange designs. For example, when our family bought a second house, we used a provident fund loan, and then we can only withdraw 60% of the payment amount every month, and we cannot withdraw the full amount. This means that I have to pay off my CPF loan every month, and then we have to keep money in my CPF account.
These obviously unreasonable designs should also be modified to reduce the financial pressure on home buyers.
There is no reduction in the interest rate of commercial loans
It was too late. In the first half of the year, I was still struggling with how much of a lower limit should be set for each city, and now I realize that there is no need to dwell on this issue. The audience is gone, and the actor is still wondering if he should tell a pornographic joke and leak a little skin.
It's always good to come out. A few days ago, a state-owned bank in Nanjing adjusted the mortgage interest rate for the first home to 3.45%, and it is expected that more banks will lower the interest rate.
The question arises again, can the interest rate of the stock housing continue to be adjusted? I feel like it's going to be a lot harder, at least not that fast. As a person who bought a house in the first two years, I really envy the policy of buying a house now.
Acquisition of stock housing
It was also mentioned in the communiqué of the morning meeting. Last night, we analyzed the trade-in, and the acquisition of existing houses either chose the old and dilapidated or the new houses were guaranteed to be delivered. Both of these practices are practiced everywhere.
Today's proposal is that it should give priority to the acquisition of "built, sold and undelivered buildings" projects, and also mentions the acquisition of idle land of real estate companies to help real estate companies tide over difficulties.
The relevant local governments should proceed from the actual situation and properly dispose of the idle stock of residential land that has been transferred by means of repossession and acquisition as appropriate, so as to help real estate enterprises with financial difficulties to solve their difficulties. In cities with a large inventory of commercial housing, the government may purchase some commercial housing at a reasonable price as appropriate.
However, there are no detailed rules for this policy today. It should still be more complicated, and you need to try it as you go; It could also be to observe the effects of current policies.
What do you think of today's policy?