On May 9, the two provincial capitals of Hangzhou and Xi'an successively announced the complete cancellation of housing purchase restrictions.
As a result, only the four first-tier cities of Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen, as well as Hainan and Tianjin, have not fully canceled the purchase restrictions. It is only a matter of time before Tianjin cancels the purchase restriction. Whether Hainan will cancel the purchase restriction is not a strong reference for other places. Whether it is cancelled or not, it will not affect the adjustment of policies in other places. There are only four first-tier cities, and whether to cancel the purchase restriction will have a relatively large impact on the whole country.
So, will the first-tier cities completely cancel the purchase restrictions? My view is that, firstly, as long as there are no extreme situations, first-tier cities will not completely cancel purchase restrictions; Second, if the purchase restrictions are fully lifted, Guangzhou will bear the brunt; Third, first-tier cities will still adopt the method of regional cancellation to optimize and adjust the purchase restriction policy; Fourth, first-tier cities will accelerate the pace of development of the housing rental market and comprehensively regulate the real estate market.
What is the extreme situation, that is, the market continues to be sluggish, the risk of developers has erupted again, and it is necessary to completely cancel the purchase restrictions in first-tier cities, and introduce strong real estate market stimulus policies, especially allowing speculation, to promote the rise of housing prices, so as to force residents to buy houses. Otherwise, it is unlikely that the first-tier cities will fully cancel the purchase restrictions, especially in Beijing and Shanghai, where the land is already very tight and the housing prices are very high. Obviously, such an extreme phenomenon cannot and should not be allowed to occur. Otherwise, the consequences will be unpredictable. Obviously, such an extreme phenomenon will not occur in the Chinese real estate market, and it is impossible to allow it to appear. For first-tier cities, it is unlikely that the purchase restriction policy will be completely lifted.
The first-tier cities will not completely cancel the purchase restriction policy, which does not mean that the four first-tier cities will be monolithic. The four major cities have both similarities and differences in real estate issues. The similarity is that they have formed a relatively large pressure on economic growth, some real estate companies have risks, and they have also accumulated a relatively large number of stock houses, and the market is relatively sluggish. The difference is that some have a large impact on economic growth, some are relatively small, some real estate companies are in great difficulty, there are more thunderstorms, some are relatively stable overall, some have a large scale of inventory housing, some are relatively small, some have large market demand potential, and some have small market demand potential. Among them, Guangzhou is a first-tier city with greater risks, greater impact on economic growth, and insufficient market demand. How to resolve the risks of these enterprises must be supported by the greatest policy. Therefore, the possibility of Guangzhou completely canceling the purchase restriction is still relatively large. Shenzhen may also cancel it, but it is still stronger to bear it than Guangzhou if it insists on not canceling it completely. Beijing and Shanghai, based on the supply and demand situation of the two major cities, as well as the perception of investors and property speculators, if the purchase restrictions are completely lifted, the problems will outweigh the results.
If all the first-tier cities choose not to fully cancel the purchase restriction policy, then the most likely thing is to continue to optimize and adjust the current purchase restriction policy, continue to use the method of choosing the region to cancel the purchase limit, and resolve the excessive pressure on the stock of housing in the region, just like the policies recently introduced by Beijing and Shenzhen. This approach should be relatively stable, orderly and more targeted, so as to avoid new contradictions and problems caused by overly liberal policies. More importantly, the liberalization of the regional purchase restriction policy can also promote the comprehensive balance of the regional real estate market and the structural balance of regional commercial housing. In particular, Beijing and Shanghai are more suitable for regional policy adjustment and optimization, and resolve the contradictions in the real estate market in the form of "guerrilla warfare".
Whether the purchase restrictions are lifted completely or partially, the final result should be to promote the stability, health, orderliness and sustainability of the real estate market. Whether the real estate market is stable or not, in the final analysis, is a question of balance between supply and demand. How to ensure the balance of supply and demand, all rely on buying a house, which is obviously unachievable, especially the post-90s and post-00s, who are no longer interested in buying a house. Therefore, first-tier cities should focus on the development of the housing rental market. A few years ago, Shenzhen had proposed to learn the "Singapore model", unfortunately, due to the strong dependence of the economy on real estate, therefore, failed to apply the Singapore experience to the specific work of Shenzhen, therefore, the overall thunder is still loud, the rain is small, the government attaches importance to buying a house, and wants to continue to keep the real estate market active by buying a house, and the result can be imagined. Therefore, first-tier cities are likely to be more inclined to rent in terms of policies in the future, that is, they should really pay attention to the development of the real estate rental market, and take renting as the most important means to solve the housing problem of residents, especially young residents, so that the real estate market will not affect the lives of residents due to excessive development.