cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/42696039

Web archive link

Once one of the country’s biggest growth drivers, China’s property market has been in a downward spiral for four years with no signs of abating. Real estate values continue to plummet, households in financial distress are being forced to sell properties, and apartment developers that racked up enormous debt on speculative projects are on the brink of collapse.

There was some optimism that government measures to end the crisis had been working to reinvigorate the market, but in March, government-linked developer China Vanke Co. reported a record 49.5 billion yuan ($6.8 billion) annual loss for 2024, showing just how deep the problems run. Then in August, property giant China Evergrande Group delisted from the Hong Kong stock exchange — making the shares effectively worthless — marking a grim milestone for the nation’s property sector.

China is now considering further measures to revive its struggling property sector, particularly after new and resale homes recorded their steepest price declines in at least a year in October. The slump has heightened concerns that further weakening could destabilize the country’s financial system.

Evergrande’s downfall is by far the biggest in a crisis that dragged down China’s economic growth and led to a record number of distressed builders. Founded in 1996 by Hui Ka Yan, Evergrande’s rapid expansion was from the outset fueled by heavy borrowing. It became the most indebted borrower among its peers, with total liabilities reaching about $360 billion at the end of 2021. For a time it was the country’s biggest developer by contracted sales and was worth more than $50 billion in 2017 at its peak. Founder and chairman Hui became Asia’s second-richest person. Over the years the company also invested in the electric vehicle industry and bought a local football club.

How did some Chinese developers get into this mess?

In 1998, China created a nationwide housing market after tightly restricting private sales for decades. Back then, only a third of its people lived in towns and cities. That’s risen to two-thirds, with the urban population expanding by 480 million. The exodus from the countryside represented a vast commercial opportunity for construction firms and developers.

Money flooded into real estate as the emerging middle class leapt upon what was one of the few safe investments available, pushing home prices up sixfold over the 15 years ending in 2022. Local and regional authorities, which rely on sales of public land for a chunk of their revenue, encouraged the development boom. At its peak, the sector directly and indirectly accounted for about a quarter of domestic output and almost 80% of household assets. Estimates vary, but counting new and existing homes, plus inventory, the sector was worth about $52 trillion in 2019 — about twice the size of the US real estate market.

The property craze was powered by debt as builders rushed to satisfy expected future demand. The boom encouraged speculative buying, with new homes pre-sold by developers who turned increasingly to foreign investors for funds. Opaque liabilities made it hard to assess credit risks. The speculation led to astronomical prices, with homes in boom cities such as Shenzhen becoming less affordable relative to local incomes than those in London or New York. In response, the government moved in 2020 to reduce the risk of a bubble and temper the inequality that unaffordable housing can create.

Anxious to rein in the industry’s debts and fearful that serial defaults could ravage China’s financial system, officials began to squeeze new financing for developers and asked banks to slow the pace of mortgage lending. The government imposed stringent rules on debt ratios and cash holdings for developers that were called the “three red lines” by state-run media. The measures sparked a cash crunch for developers that was exacerbated by the impact of aggressive measures to contain Covid-19, such as the suspension of construction sites.

Many developers were unable to adhere to the new rules as their finances were already stretched. In 2021, Evergrande defaulted on more than $300 billion, triggering the beginning of China’s property crisis. Two more property giants defaulted — Sunac China Holdings Ltd in 2022 and Country Garden Holdings Co. in 2023.

With household debt at a high of 145% of disposable income per capita at the end of 2023, homeowners are increasingly under financial pressure. The country’s residential mortgage delinquency ratio – which tracks overdue mortgage payments – jumped to the highest in four years as of late 2023. Some homeowners are being forced to sell their properties at a discounted rate, which is only exacerbating the problem.

Chinese banks’ bad debt — loans they no longer expect to recover — hit a record 3.5 trillion yuan ($492 billion) at the end of September. Fitch Ratings has warned the situation could deteriorate further in 2026 as households struggle to repay mortgages and other loans.

A prolonged property slump could also deepen deflationary pressures. Former finance minister Lou Jiwei recently warned that households’ worsening outlook — driven by falling home values — will affect consumption levels and intensify price declines.

According to economists at Morgan Stanley and Beijing-based think tank CF40, the property sector’s drag on inflation could even be greater than official data suggest. They argue that the methodology used to determine China’s official Consumer Price Index understates falling rents, and, by extension, the broader deflationary impact.

  • Sepia@mander.xyzOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    The degree of Chinese propaganda in this thread is astonishing even for Lemmy. It’s almost hilarious how the reality (may it be intentional or unintentional) is ignored just to make the West look bad and China portraying as the big and only.

    There is a lot wrong in ‘the West’ with housing, and countries offering sometime reasonable solutions, and sometimes not. But China has a long way to go also in this respect as the housing condition for a large portion of Chinese people is devastating.

    As one research study (here is the archived link) says:

    Depending on how one defines homelessness, China has either a very tiny homeless population or an extremely large one. Compared to other countries, there very few vagrants: people living on the streets of China’s cities without means of support. But if one counts the people who migrated to cities without a legal permit (hukou), work as day laborers without job security or a company dormitory, and live in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions on the edge of cities, there are nearly 300 million homeless.

    Unlike the ‘communist’ agenda of China that is conveyed here in this thread, a study’s conclusion is:

    Free market fundamentalism is responsible for the emergence of this sort of homelessness in China.

    Another commentary concludes,

    China is confronted with a housing paradox. The housing market is crashing, yet more than a fifth of the Chinese population is homeless.

    It’s really is to find reliable and very good sources on homelessness in China.

    It also tells you a lot that as anger mounts in Hong Kong over apartment fires, Beijing warns against ‘anti-China disruptors’ – (archived link).

    But I understand that you cannot discuss this here. As some sort of projection of their own behaviour, they accuse others of ‘propaganda’ and ignore the facts. It is likely this why Lemmy is still a niche and, as long as this sentiment prevails, will never meaningfully grow imo.

    [Edit typo.]

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      The degree of Chinese propaganda in this thread is astonishing even for Lemmy.

      Blah blah blah. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. We know you’re on Lemmy for two purposes and two purposed only: To post China Bad news links and Russia Bad news links.

      You are in fact the propagandist.

      Seriously, tell me how that’s not your whole deal. Because your posting history is public. Why are you spending your time on Lemmy with this singular purpose? Does that sound organic to you—like what regular people do on social media?

      • Sepia@mander.xyzOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        @davel@lemmygrad.ml

        Lemmygrad./ml [users] frequently share posts that support authoritarian regimes, as seen in their support for China, North Korea, and Russia. Moreover, their support can extend beyond backing these authoritarian regimes, even cheering on their violent actions, as evidenced by their posts on the Russian invasion of Ukraine …

        Lemmygrad./ml … also serves as a hub for left-wing extremist subreddits that faced restrictions from Reddit. [There is] an increase in user activity and toxicity levels on Lemmygrad.ml following the migration of r/GenZedong and r/GenZhou. Furthermore, our analysis of the content revealed posts supporting authoritarian regimes, endorsing the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and exhibiting anti-Zionist and antisemitic rhetoric. Our findings underscore the importance of studying left-wing extremism on decentralized platforms alongside right-wing extremism to gain a comprehensive understanding of the full spectrum of political extremism on the Decentralized Web …

        Source

  • guismo@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Thanks for the article. I have much more respect for China now.

    Houses becoming more affordable? Imagine the poor investors crying! Oh the sadness! I sure am happy living in a country where parasites don’t have to ever worry about such an unspeakable suffering!

    But honestly, everyone who buy houses for profit can go get fucked with a pineapple.

    • Sepia@mander.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Oh, yes, sounds very impressive. But don’t make the mistake to think that ‘ownership’ in China means the same as in Western democracies.

      In 1949, when the People’s Republic of China was founded, all land was nationalized. Although the (most) residents didn’t pay rent, the government owned all the land.

      In 1980, Deng Xiaoping changed the law and formalized the ownership, but this didn’t change the fact that the land was -and sill is- owned by the state. Property rights in mainland China are some sort of ‘lease rights’ (IIRC 70 years for private property and 50 years for commercial property).

      It is true that by this law, most of Chinese citizens indeed have been ending up with property/lease rights. But be aware that the government can revoke this right at any time for no reason as the government still owns the land.

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        In every state in the world, in the final analysis the state owns the land. If you want to find out the hard way, just stop paying your property taxes. Eminent domain in China is similar to the US and many other states:

        In China, “requisitions”, the Chinese form of eminent domain, are constitutionally permitted as necessary for the public interest, and if compensation is provided. The 2019 Amendment of the Land Administration Law of China spells out rather detailed guidelines, guaranteeing farmers and those displaced greater financial security.

        Property rights are in fact stronger in China than in many places: https://duckduckgo.com/?q="china"+home-owner+refuses+to+sell+highway&iar=images

        Your sole mission here is to spam Lemmy with anti-China & anti-Russia news articles though, so there’s no reason to believe that you’ll re-evaluate & update your understanding. You’ll recycle the same bullshit the next time around.

      • Calavera@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        For me that sounds great. It prevents generational wealth transfer and improves meritocracy

      • Johnny_Arson [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        In 1949, when the People’s Republic of China was founded, all land was nationalized.

        Which is why this article means absolutely nothing. Again proving you know nothing about the economics of socialism.

  • Johnny_Arson [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    lmao Bloomberg’s take on China? What kind of deeply unserious bullshit is this?

    will affect consumption levels and intensify price declines.

    Which is it? Are people losing their homes or are prices coming down hurting landlords and speculators?

    Why would you believe anything Morgan FUCKING STANLEY and some lib think tank have to say about socialist economics.

    • Sepia@mander.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      No, it effects ‘ordinary’ Chinese people as many invested their life savings hoping to pay for a house or an apartment for themselves and their children. Their money is now gone for property that will never be built, or is half-built and’ll be never finished. Many are now left behind with an amount of debt.

      As the article says:

      Money flooded into real estate as the emerging middle class leapt upon what was one of the few safe investments available, pushing home prices up sixfold over the 15 years ending in 2022. … At its peak, the sector directly and indirectly accounted for about a quarter of domestic output and almost 80% of household assets.

      The consequences are dire:

      With household debt at a high of 145% of disposable income per capita at the end of 2023, homeowners are increasingly under financial pressure. The country’s residential mortgage delinquency ratio – which tracks overdue mortgage payments – jumped to the highest in four years as of late 2023. Some homeowners are being forced to sell their properties at a discounted rate, which is only exacerbating the problem … the situation could deteriorate further in 2026 as households struggle to repay mortgages and other loans.

      The data for these inferences comes from official Chinese sources - which is, once again, a very bad sign given as China’s official statistics are ‘opaque’ to say the least. The article reads:

      The property sector’s drag on inflation could even be greater than official data suggest [because] the methodology used to determine China’s official Consumer Price Index understates falling rents, and, by extension, the broader deflationary impact.

      It could even be worse than the data suggests.

      And it definitely effects a large number of Chinese people of the middle class, just like you and me.

      [Edit for clarity.]

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        The article is from Bloomberg, whose existence is predicated on housing as financial instrument, while China isn’t. The reason they’re always wrong about China is because being right would put them in a bind.

        And it definitely effects a large number of Chinese people of the middle class, just like you and me.

        Won’t somebody please think of the petite bourgeoisie!

        Even if we accept your presumption that we’re all “middle class” they’re still not just like you and me, because they live in China, and we don’t. We live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie[1][2]; they don’t. We have to be born with a silver spoon or get very lucky or hustle like hell until we’ve gathered a large enough nest egg (a.k.a. private property) to be able to live off of the proceeds in order to retire; they don’t.

        Have you considered that corporate social media might be more your speed? Their algorithms are sure to boost your message.

      • frisbird@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        Perhaps you don’t understand what the word means.

        The commenter said this only effects speculators.

        You replied with:

        No, it effects ‘ordinary’ Chinese people as many invested their life savings hoping to pay for a house or an apartment for themselves and their children.

        That’s speculation. Investing with the hope of a big pay out is the definition of speculation. Yes, ordinary Chinese people can be speculators. Do you think speculators are not ordinary people?