• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

China Property Bubble May Lead to U.S.-Style Real Estate Slump

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
China is following the US step by step here. The results are unavoidable, no matter what they do, it will be the same. The bubble will burst.

The good thing in all of this is that there will be a lot of houses available, like in the US. But the problem with the US is that instead of using this to the nation's advantage and keep the losses on the private sector's side, the government absorbed the losses, so no one benefits from the cheap housing since in the end they are getting in great debt indirectly as the government's debt grows.

In China, I wonder what the government will do when the bubble burst. The same as the US? We'll see.



China Property Bubble May Lead to U.S.-Style Real Estate Slump


Li originally planned to buy his own place when he got married, but after watching Beijing real estate prices soar, he has been spending all his free time searching for an apartment. If he finds the right place -- preferably a two-bedroom in the historic Dongcheng quarter, near the city center -- he hopes to buy immediately. Act now, he figures, or live with Mom and Dad forever. In the last 12 months such apartments have doubled or tripled in price, to about $400 per square foot.

“This year they’ll be even higher,” says Li in the Jan. 11 issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

Millions of Chinese are pursuing property with a zeal once typical of house-happy Americans. Some Chinese are plunking down wads of cash for homes. Others are taking out mortgages at record levels. Developers are snapping up land for luxury high- rises and villas, and the banks are eagerly funding them. Some local officials are even building towns from scratch in the desert, certain that demand won’t flag. And if families can swing it, they buy two apartments: one to live in, one to flip when prices jump further.

And jump they have. In Shanghai, prices for high-end real estate were up 54 percent through September, to $500 per square foot. In November alone, housing prices in 70 major cities rose 5.7 percent, while housing starts nationwide rose a staggering 194 percent. The real estate rush is fueling fears of a bubble that could burst later in 2010, devastating homeowners, banks, developers, stock markets, and local governments.

Koyo Ozeki, an analyst at U.S. investment manager Pimco, estimates that only 10 percent of residential sales in China are for the mass market. Developers find the margins in high-end housing much fatter than returns from building ordinary homes.

How did this bubble get going? Low interest rates, official encouragement of bank lending, and then Beijing’s half-trillion- dollar stimulus plan all made funds readily available. City and provincial governments have been gladly cooperating with developers: Economists estimate that half of all local government revenue comes from selling state-owned land.

Chinese consumers, fearing inflation will return and outstrip the tiny interest they earn on their savings, have pursued property ever more aggressively. Companies in the chemical, steel, textile, and shoe industries have started up property divisions too: The chance of a quick return is much higher than in their primary business.

“When you sit down with a table of businessmen, the story is usually how they got lucky from a piece of land,” says Andy Xie, an independent economist who once worked in Hong Kong as Morgan Stanley’s top Asia analyst. “No one talks about their factories making money these days.”

[...]

It’s not encouraging that the Chinese have been ham-handed about stopping previous real estate frenzies. In the 1990s the government brutally ended a bubble in Shanghai and Beijing by cutting off credit to developers and hiking rates sharply. The measures worked, but property prices plunged and economic growth slowed.

Analysts are divided over the probabilities of such a crash, but even real estate executives are getting nervous. Wang Shi, chairman of top developer China Vanke Co., has warned repeatedly in recent weeks about the risk of a bubble. In his most recent comments he expressed fear that the bubble might spread far beyond Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen.

One difficulty in handicapping the likelihood of a nasty pullback is the opacity of the data. As long as property prices stay high, the balance sheets of the developers look strong. And no one knows for sure how much of the more than $1.3 trillion in last year’s bank loans funded real estate ventures.
 

Zyzyxxz

Member
I read a similar article in Business Week and I can see that China's problems of quick modernization are having expedited effects on their economy.

I'm worried that if they go bust what does that mean for us? Considering that the world economy is so inter-connected could this start an even worser recession?

Considering so many big companies are beginning to invest heavily in China due to the double digit growth rates will we see something worse than the Recession in Japan of the 90's?
 
Anyone who's interested in the situation in China knows that the real estate market is royally fucked up. But it'll take some extraordinary circumstances for this bubble to burst. Too many interests are invested knee deep in this thing.

It's a sad state of things when the average middle class families can't afford homes for themselves.
 

CDProp

Member
OP, your analysis of things really sucks, lol.

Ether_Snake said:
The good thing in all of this is that there will be a lot of houses available, like in the US. But the problem with the US is that instead of using this to the nation's advantage and keep the losses on the private sector's side, the government absorbed the losses, so no one benefits from the cheap housing since in the end they are getting in great debt indirectly as the government's debt grows.

Seriously, wtf. This is just garbage. Meaningless.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
CDProp said:
OP, your analysis of things really sucks, lol.



Seriously, wtf. This is just garbage. Meaningless.

How so? Lots of houses are on the market and their value will remain relatively low for a long time. This is a readjustment; on the short term it has strong negative impact (lower value of said house, which is a negative impact for whatever relied on its value), but on the longer term this negative impact becomes a positive since it brings the value of houses back to their TRUE value, not their hyper-inflated value, hence making them more accessible, which means more Americans could end up as property owners in the future (rightful property owners, not property owners that really can't afford having a property of their own). But so many big corporations' balance sheets relied on the value of real-estate that the US government has been trying to artificially re-inflate the value of the houses, or buy them off the financial institutions (the ones worth shit). This is causing the debt to grown immensely (among other expenditures), which means that the average American's debt is growing, which means that the positive of having more affordable housing during a normally-paced recovery is partially out-weighted by the increased public debt that tax payers have to pay for anyway.

For China, if the bubble bursts, the mass of cheap real-estate (readjusted value, not hyper-inflated value) would be a good thing in the longer term during a future recovery because there's a fucking lot of Chinese people trying to hop into the middle class and becoming a real property owner (again, not owning a property you can't actually afford) is a big weight off a working family's expenditures/shoulders.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
China has a better shot at avoiding it because of their centralized government that seems hands-on. Our laissez-faire attitude during the middle of this decade was our undoing. We had every layperson essentially calling for the "bubble bursting" since 2005 and we did nothing about it.

Of course, it's easier said than done when everyone is enjoying explosive growth.
 
ToxicAdam said:
China has a better shot at avoiding it because of their centralized government that seems hands-on. Our laissez-faire attitude during the middle of this decade was our undoing. We had every layperson essentially calling for the "bubble bursting" since 2005 and we did nothing about it.

Of course, it's easier said than done when everyone is enjoying explosive growth.
You clearly don't know what laissez faire means if you think that's what was happening during the bubble.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
ToxicAdam said:
China has a better shot at avoiding it because of their centralized government that seems hands-on. Our laissez-faire attitude during the middle of this decade was our undoing. We had every layperson essentially calling for the "bubble bursting" since 2005 and we did nothing about it.

Of course, it's easier said than done when everyone is enjoying explosive growth.

The problem is that the government needs to keep growth at above 5% to "stay in power" according to analysts; meaning that if economic growth falls below 5% they end up with too many job losses, which would make the Communist party vulnerable. This whole stimulus has been to make sure they would meet their growth target (8% I think?). So they have postponed the drop in growth to later. The bigger the bubble gets, the more swift the actions will have to be, which will contract the economy at a very fast pace, and quick growth contractions are more dangerous for the government's stability/popularity than long slow ones.
 

tino

Banned
It's not going to happen, the government has much tighter control over the price. Worst case scenerio, New York style small drop.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
how is China following the US when their economy isn't dependent on a middle class borrowing massive dollars from overseas debtors?
 

ToxicAdam

Member
elrechazao said:
You clearly don't know what laissez faire means if you think that's what was happening during the bubble.

Lassez-faire means (loosely) "let it be". So the government was displaying a "let it be" attitude towards the bubble.


You don't think the government could/should have stepped in and halted the massive amount of subprime mortgages or curtailed the banks from packaging that debt into "safer" vehicles?


The Bush administration attempted to address the sub-prime problem by targeting Fannie Mae, neglecting the problem that was happening industry wide. It was more of a political gambit than actual care for reform.
 
tino said:
It's not going to happen, the government has much tighter control over the price. Worst case scenerio, New York style small drop.
Well, the entire premise of the thread is a bit off, since "china" isn't exactly uniform any more than the US. There'll be places with huge bubbles (CA, Vegas, Arizona), and places where there it is less prevalent. Grouping all of china together is a bit simplistic, but I'm sure the article writer knew that and is talking generally.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Lassez-faire means (loosely) "let it be". So the government was displaying a "let it be" attitude towards the bubble.


You don't think the government could/should have stepped in and halted the massive amount of subprime mortgages or curtailed the banks from packaging that debt into "safer" vehicles?
They could have not played an integral role in creating the problem in the first place. The idea that they "left it alone" or "let it be" is nonsense if you understand the implicit govt backing for everything the banks were doing. Hand in hand to destruction. That is not leaving it be.

scorcho said:
not classic laissez faire - the government has always promoted home ownership through tax mechanisms, and the Fed Reserve's policy during the better part of last decade was 'credit! credit! credit!'.

there was nary any regulatory zeal, but it produced outcomes that politicians/policy makers wanted.

yup
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
not classic laissez faire - the government has always promoted home ownership through tax mechanisms, and the Fed Reserve's policy during the better part of last decade was 'credit! credit! credit!'.

there was nary any regulatory zeal, but it produced outcomes that politicians/policy makers wanted.
 

Canova

Banned
Zyzyxxz said:
I read a similar article in Business Week and I can see that China's problems of quick modernization are having expedited effects on their economy.

I'm worried that if they go bust what does that mean for us? Considering that the world economy is so inter-connected could this start an even worser recession?

Considering so many big companies are beginning to invest heavily in China due to the double digit growth rates will we see something worse than the Recession in Japan of the 90's?

Well considering that China is U.S's sugar daddy and the U.S is already in recession, if China is fucked, then you guys are double-fucked
 

ToxicAdam

Member
elrechazao said:
They could have not played an integral role in creating the problem in the first place. The idea that they "left it alone" or "let it be" is nonsense if you understand the implicit govt backing for everything the banks were doing. Hand in hand to destruction. That is not leaving it be.


Seems like a battle over semantics. I'm saying that they turned a blind eye to the problem that was created and you're saying they helped cause the problem. Federal government's role is to step in and correct problems before they threaten to endanger the people as a whole. So, in that regard, they were "hands off".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom