March 24, 2010

  • “地王”频现 国务院要求央

    图﹕3月8日,北京土地拍卖会现场。(大纪元资料室)
     
    “地王”频现 国务院要求央企退出房地产 [Banning SOE Real Estate Investment to Impact the Soaring Price of Housing: An Analysis]
    【大纪元3月19日讯】(大纪元综合报导)自去年以来,中国大陆地价暴升,央企“地王”屡屡出现,引发广泛质疑。3月18日,中国国务院国资委召开新闻发布会要求,78户不以房地产为主业的央企退出房地产业务。

    央企被认为国民经济的中流砥柱。按照中共以及国资委的部署,央企已明确主要集中在军工、电网电力、石油石化、电信、煤炭、民航、航运等七大行业。

    北京仁达房地产评估有限公司的一份报告显示,2009年以来的土地市场表现出最大特点为“国进民退”——有国企背景的企业纷纷踏入土地市场,并将多块地王 “收入囊中”。根据国资委的数据统计,目前127家中央企业中,涉足房地产行业的达94家,比例超过七成。其中,除16家主业中包括“房地产开发与经营”,其余78家均属于“不务正业”。

    在当前价格快速飙升的房地产市场上,央企大肆“攻城掠地”已成为房价高涨的重要推手。央企背靠国家信用,具有一般企业无法享受的政策和信贷资源。在同等竞争的条件下,央企比民企更有先天优势和资金底气,民企无法与其平等竞争。同时,央企不计成本的投资终将隐患重重,一旦市场出现变化,损失要靠国家买单。

    按照国资委要求,这78户企业正在调整重组,在完成自有土地开发和已实施项目等阶段性工作后退出房地产业务。但国资委并没有透露具体的退出安排和时间表,市场和百姓期待实实在在的效果,更关注“能否退出”和“如何退出”。

    “地王”频出“凶猛”央企一天包办三
      
    北京仁达房地产评估有限公司的一份报告显示,2009年以来的土地市场表现出最大特点为“国进民退”——有央企背景的企业纷纷踏入土地市场,并将多块地王“收入囊中”。

    尽管调控政策频频出台,各级政府官员不断地坚定表态,但似乎仍然勒不住房价继续上涨的缰绳。一边是国家调控房价政策密集出台,《政府工作报告》明确要求“抑制土地价格过快上涨”,一边是北京一天诞生三“地王”。

    3月15日,两会闭幕的第二天,北京市统计局公布数据显示,今年1—2月,北京市四环路内商品住宅期房均价首次突破3万元/平方米,六环路外的房价也首次突破万元大关。
      
    同一天上午,北京大望京地块和亦庄地块分别以27,529元/平方米的楼面价格、52.4亿元的土地总价,刷新北京土地成交纪录,成为新的“单价地王”和 “总价地王”。但仅仅6个小时以后,“单价地王”就被下午竞价的东升乡蓟门桥地块夺走,该地块的实际楼面价格超过3万元/平方米。当日的三个“地王”全部为“央企制造”,分别为中信集团和中国兵器装备总公司旗下的房地产公司以及远洋地产。北京当天成交6块土地,总金额达143.5亿
      
    17日,北京大望京村4号、5号地再次引得远洋、保利、华润、首开等国字头背景的房企悉数到场,众多民营房企的“观摩”透露着无奈。金地一位工作人员在竞拍结束后难掩失落:“资金等方面的高门槛,使我们根本竞争不过央企。”更多到场的民营房企则不愿多言。

    烟企也来楼市淘金
      
    值得注意的是,中国兵器装备集团、中国烟草总公司这样的非房地产主业央企也杀入地产领域。中国烟草集团在竞拍大望京村一号地时,虽然仅一步之差,被远洋地产挫于马下。
      
    中经联盟秘书长陈云峰表示非常担心,“这意味着土地市场太乱了,一般房地产企业都很难敌得过资金雄厚的央企,更何况现在连非房地产主业的央企也杀了进来。他们对地价推动的力度很难控制。”
      
    北京易居房地产研究所副所长牟增彬认为为,非房地产企业也扎堆出现在土地竞拍现场,只能说明房地产行业的利润率太可观了,毕竟,“对企业而言,哪个行业赚钱做哪个”。

    普通购房者“就这样被抛弃”

    许多普通购房者原本认为房价会在本轮调控中稳定甚至有所回调,而创纪录的房价和地价却让他们再度感到焦虑和恐慌。

    根据北京市统计局最新公布的数据,今年1—2月,北京六环外期房均价首次突破万元大关,达到10,409元/平方米。同期,北京城镇居民人均可支配收入头两个月共为5,335元。据此推算,一个普通的两口之家年收入大约6万元左右,按照目前的价格要在六环外买一套90平方米的住房,不吃不喝需要15年左右的时间。

    这意味着,大多数中低收入家庭甚至中等收入家庭已经很难在六环内买房置业,他们几乎已经被北京的高房价“抛弃”。

    为何“地王”大都由“央企制造”?

    为何“地王”大都由“央企制造”?中国现代国际关系研究院经济安全研究中心主任江涌认为,央企拿地是因为自身创造利润压力太大。“目前国内实体经济疲弱,微观经营环境恶劣。在这种情况下,把钱投入虚拟经济比如股市、楼市比投入实体经济风险要小一些,而且更容易获得利润。”

    署名马光远的博客文章详细指出:其一,这些国字头的企业依靠强大的势力,更容易获取信贷资源,在投资实业盈利微薄的情况下,他们将银行的信贷资金转向暴利的房地产;

    其二,这些央企主业的盈利状况差强人意。2009年,128家中央企业的利润近8千亿元,但如从利润分布看,约前40家央企利润占全部利润的95%;前10 家企业的利润占到全部利润的75%以上,而排名靠前的央企,差不多都是垄断企业。也就是说,尽管央企利润总额庞大,但总体看,除垄断企业之外,绝大多数央企的主业是不赚钱的,他们需要房地产这个暴利行业来粉饰利润。以中建集团为例,房地产虽不是其主业,但利润贡献率达到了40%以上;

    其三,一些企业的巨大垄断利润并未上交,而是被企业留存,但留存的利润并没有用于发展主业,而是拿去投资利润丰厚的房地产。

    署名韩令国的博客文章指出,这一轮调控政策并没有银行的房贷限制配合,无法从根本上调控房地产市场,只是能保障房地产市场趋于稳定,确保房价不会大幅下跌而已,而地方政府正是利用这点来协同国企、央企进行利益输送。国有企业与地方政府之间的权利和利益交换,就是央企制造地王的根本原因。

    专家警言分析

    “地王”频繁再现,说明许多炒家仍预期未来房价会节节攀升。当空手入市的人占大幅比例时,也是房市泡沫破裂的开端。福州大学房地产研究所所长王阿忠指出,在 “地王”身上有四重危机值得警觉:强烈的地价连锁反应、引发房价再度暴涨、资本过度向房地产业聚集、房价背离民生所引起的社会不安。

    《财经》特约经济学家谢国忠表示,中国经济看起来很繁荣但不是因为4万亿元人民币的经济扶持政策,而是增加的10万亿元人民币贷款额流向了房地产市场。在依靠房地产领域的非生产性增长的情况下,如果2012年提高利率并出现全球流动性枯竭现象中国经济将会大幅下滑。

    美东时间: 2010-03-18 16:56:13 PM 【万年历】
    本文网址: http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/10/3/19/n2850038.htm
     
     

    Banning SOE Real Estate Investment to Impact the Soaring Price of Housing: An Analysis

    By Li Ying
    Epoch Times Staff
    Created: Mar 23, 2010 Last Updated: Mar 23, 2010
    Facebook icon Facebook Digg icon Digg del.icio.us icon del.icio.us StumbleUpon icon StumbleUpon Print | E-mail to a friend | Give feedback
    Related articles: China > Business & Economy
    A land auction in Beijing on March 8. (The Epoch Times Archive )
    As if to embarrass Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao who just promised to bring housing prices down in a March 5 National People’s Congress session, Beijing’s residential land-price record was broken twice within six hours on March 15, each by state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

    Three days later the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, a State Council agency, announced that 78 SOEs will be banned from making further investments in real estate. According to the commission, 94 out of 127 SOEs have been investing in residential real estate development while only 16 SOEs’ primary business is related to real estate. The other 78 SOEs, the commission said, will be required to cease investing in real estate upon the completion of their current real estate projects. No agenda was provided.

    The ban seems to reflect the central government’s decision to curb the soaring price of housing, as the SOEs have played a major role in pumping up land prices in the past few years. However, experts have criticized such measures as superficial and ineffective.

    Ren Zhiqiang, president of Huayuan Corp., one of China’s largest real estate developers, said in a recent interview with Economic Information Daily that the 78 banned SOEs have no significant influence in the real estate sector. “The other 16 are the real dominating force,” Ren said. “Ruling out a few SOEs will not solve the major problem and will not stop SOEs from paying sky-high prices for land.”

    Ren’s remarks were echoed by Pan Shiyi, founder and chairman of Soho China, Beijing’s largest real estate developer. Pan said it is very difficult to ban businesses from purchasing land through administrative measures. Some non-real estate focused SOEs have formed joint ventures, and that makes it more difficult to control their investment behaviors, Pan said.

    In recent years SOEs have been aggressively dominating China’s real estate sector. Since 2009, most records in residential housing prices have been set by SOEs. Private developers are more and more frequently shut out of the auctions by the high-price offerings of SOEs. The majority of the non-real estate sector SOEs, such as weapon and tobacco manufacturers, have also joined the game.

    Analysts have attributed the SOEs’ active involvement in real estate development to three main factors: easy access to financial resources, pressure for high revenues in their own companies, and unparalleled profit levels in the real estate sector.

    China’s financial policy has given SOEs many privileges. Compared to other companies, SOEs can easily obtain more loans and cheaper loans. In the past few years a large portion of loans have flown to the real estate market.

    Chinese economist Jiang Yong explained this phenomenon. “Now China’s domestic demand is weak, and the micro-level business environment is harsh. Under such circumstances, it is less risky and more profitable to invest in a fictitious economy—like the stock market or real estate—than in the real economy.”

    On the other hand, with the exception of a few monopolies, the SOEs have been struggling to break even. In 2009, the top 40 out of 128 SOEs contributed to 95 percent of the total SOE revenue, while the top 10 contributed more than 75 percent of the revenue. The top SOEs consist mainly of monopolies. Therefore, most SOEs need the steep profits from the real estate market to make their financial numbers look pretty. For example, the China State Construction Engineering Corp. obtains over 40 percent of its revenue from real estate development, though real estate is not its official primary business, according to an analysis by economist Ma Guangyuan.

    Moreover, SOEs have little concern over investment risks because any loss will be covered by the nation’s tax money.

    If the Chinese government does not directly address the root causes of the SOEs’ over-investment in real estate and only uses symbolic actions to gesture their willingness to reform, the problem of soaring housing prices will only get worse and lead to more serious problems.

    Experts have warned that such an abnormal economic phenomenon will render the country’s economy vulnerable. As real estate market expert Prof. Wang Azhong pointed out, four potential crises are associated with the high price of real estate: the chain effect in the real estate market that will further boost land prices; a new wave of housing price increases; an over-concentration of capital in the real estate sector; and the social instability caused by unaffordable housing prices.

    Read the original Chinese article.


    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/31910/
     

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *