2014年9月12日星期五

20140912 公屋改革面面觀 ─ 租金偏離市場



2014年9月12日

公屋改革面面觀─租金偏離市場

基於最近有新聞報道,房委會正研究公屋輪候計分制,筆者亦順勢在公屋政策方面進行研究,為討論增添數據上的基礎,因為始終公屋補貼佔政府行政開支甚大(每年隱性開支數以百億計),卻往往被要求福利的聲音淹沒,難以在客觀環境下制訂合適的長遠政策。

本文先從租金、住戶收入、通脹三方面探討現行公屋租金制訂政策的利弊,隨後再討論其他政策範圍,包括入息限額等。

行政反應遲緩 效果適得其反
凡是討論公屋租金的新聞或節目,最多聽到的意見必是「租金太貴,政府應增租金豁免」,到底實情如何呢?

長線而言,租金指數應反映經濟增長,而經濟增長則大致與整體通脹掛鈎,因此,理論上樓宇租金應與通脹亦步亦趨,相差不遠。

在過去20年間,本港物價上升了四成【圖1,橙柱】,同期私人樓宇租金亦大致追隨通脹,上升了四成半左右【圖1,紅線】,與理論相符。



然而,公屋租金卻耐人尋味,由於公屋檢討租金並非按供需博弈來制訂,而是間歇性地由一個複雜的行政機制釐定,加上時有基於政治考慮而推出的凍租及免租措施,導致實際公屋租金長時間偏離經濟實況,造成應減租時卻加租【圖1,綠線1996至2007年間】,應加租時卻凍/免租【圖1,綠線2008年至今】的畸型效果。

到下次再制訂新租金時,若以通脹為指標,則可能需要大加六成以上方才追貼市場──當然,屆時低民望的政府必會毫不猶疑地放棄原則,結果犧牲的又是公帑及廣大的納稅人。

感覺與現實的落差──租金從來沒這樣便宜?
除了通脹外,租金必定與住戶收入水平有甚大的關係;然而,大眾在傳媒不停渲染下,幾乎一致認為現在租金太貴、已達難以負擔地步!但如果把租金與住戶收入比較,卻見到一幅完全不同的圖畫:過去20年間租金升幅竟然大大跑輸收入升幅。

以私樓租金對私樓住戶收入來看,過去20年間私樓住戶收入跑贏租金17%【圖2,紅線】,由公屋租金與公屋住戶收入來看,公屋住戶收入亦在過去20年間跑贏租金27%之多【圖2,綠線】!


由此可見,在考慮政治利益分配時,要求聲音的大小比要求理據的強弱更將影響政府的決策。以上證據清楚說明,不論是提議私樓租金管制抑或公屋凍租,都在理據上欠缺說服力。

雞與蛋:住私樓所以收入高,還是收入高所以住私樓?
以上討論可作兩項總結:公屋租金既跑輸通脹亦跑輸收入增幅,私樓租金則與通脹看齊但跑輸收入增幅。

若單就收入變幅作比較,可見私樓住戶的實質入息中位數在過去30年間上升了九成(約年均2.3%),但是公屋住戶的實質入息中位數卻沒有升幅【圖3】。


雖然公屋住戶的收入沒有實質下跌,卻沒有為居民帶來經濟上的得益,尤其是1997年之後,在私人樓宇住戶收入節節上升之際,卻出現公屋居民實質收入收縮的情況。公屋戶賺錢能力減少,到底是因為福利愈來愈全面,為減少出外工作帶來誘因,還是因為高科技及其他市場上的轉變,令低技術工種的貶值?此問題非本文討論範疇,實有待進一步分析。

綜觀上述,可見未來政府實應減少公營房屋供應,增加私樓供應。此舉既減低私樓租金上升的壓力,亦減輕政府要行政干預市場的誘因。在更多市民能夠進入私人市場之際,既減少福利的負面影響,亦能帶活整體房屋存量的流轉及升級,對社會必定利多弊少。


筆者特別鳴謝香港城市大學經濟及金融學系學生梁啟康協助收集及整理本文相關的數據及圖表。

2014年8月22日星期五

20140822 HK residential supply outlook: Tseung Kwan O, Tai Po, Yuen Long hardest hit



HK residential supply outlook: Tseung Kwan O, Tai Po, Yuen Long hardest hit


The newly published Hong Kong Property Review 2014 provides new data evaluating the future residential supply by district. The author takes this opportunity to analyse the information and highlight favoured and disadvantaged districts for the benefit of potential buyers.

Generally, districts with abundant supply will see purchasing power diluted by the new completions, thereby weakening the momentum of home price increases. The author adopts two measures in his analysis: 1) the ratio of new completions to current stock to measure degree of such supply abundance, and 2) the ratio of theoretical rise in vacancy rate (due to new supply) to starting vacancy rate. These two metrics help evaluate the relative strength of the new supply, and then ranked the districts according to these two indicators. The result is tabulated below:

Table 1: Future supply and theoretical vacancy rates – Buy blue areas and avoid red ones


Eastern, Southern and Kwai Tsing are the low supply districts for 2014-15
The R&V Department’s forecast completions suggest that Eastern, Southern, and Kwai Tsing will be the least supplied districts: these districts have the lowest “rise vacancy rate” and “ratio of rise in vacancy to starting vacancy” by the end of 2015, indicating they are the districts least affected by new supply (blue shades in Table 1). This will no doubt be supportive for home prices in these 3 districts. Looking at price performance, major housing estates in these districts saw prices rise by 4% YTD, and are expected to further outperform (Chart 1).

Chart 1: Trend of Centa-City Index of best 3 regions, worst 3 regions and the overall index


Vulnerable districts: Tseung Kwan O, Yuen Long, Tai Po
Tseung Kwan O (falls in Sai Kung District), Yuen Long and Tai Po look to be the most vulnerable districts (red shades in Table 1). These three districts are also plagued by supply over the past three years too, with a host of developer projects coming to the market, including Providence Bay, Mont Vert, Hemera, Tseung Kwan O zone 66 etc, which kept vacancy rates at elevated levels. Without new buying demand from other parts of Hong Kong, these three districts could see vacancy rates reaching double digits in the next two years. Year to date, home prices of leading real estates in these three districts have risen less than the low supply districts (Chart 1).

It should be pointed out that the above analysis only makes use of expected vacancy rates, while the property market is influenced by other factors, including location, presence of public housing, interest rates, government policies, etc. Vacancy is buy one of the many considerations when investing in property and buyers should base their decisions after considering all factors.

Administrative intervention caused the market failure
Since the end of 2009, government intervention in the housing market has not stopped – from restricting Loan-to-value (LTV) ratio for luxury homes through to the latest legislation on Double Stamp Duties (DSD). These measures have twisted the market’s pricing mechanism, causing prices of small/medium sized units to irrationally rally while prices of larger units languished. 

During 2006-2009, when property prices were determined by supply and demand, large units (where inventory was the lowest, and where the government should be supplying more land) saw the biggest rise in prices (Chart 2). However, the well intending bureaucrats, from 2010 to 2013, small flats where most trading up from should be taking place, witnessed the biggest rise in prices, thanks to government policies to provide easy credit to small flats buyers and the ‘HOS-for-secondary-market-white-form-buyers’ policy (Chart 3).

Chart 2: Before intervention, large units saw faster price rises than small units

Chart 3: After intervention, small units had higher price increases than large units


The road to hell is paved with good intentions – the saying seems particularly appropriate to the HK housing market. As dysfunctional anti-market policies creates ever more imbalances in the market, the future supply will inevitably be more and more detached from the real needs of the HK people.

Table 2: Home prices in leading estates before/after government intervention




Special thanks to Mr Leung Kai Hong in assisting the collection of data and charts related to this article.