' />

The Sinocism China Newsletter

Be Informed About China

Credit Suisse Analysis Of Likely Impact If China Imposes A Residential Property Tax

with 15 comments

Regular readers of this blog know that I have been skeptical of both the likelihood of an imminent introduction of a residential property tax in China as well as arguments by pundits that said tax will have a significant dampening effect on real estate prices. [UPDATE: Said "pundit", Patrick Chovanec, has just posted a good comment clarifying his position.]

Credit Suisse just released a very interesting analysis of the likely impact of possible new residential property taxes in China. The report states that property tax has been decided and its release is imminent, something that is not yet provable unless the Credit Suisse analysts have a very senior source in the central government in Beijing.

That issue aside the report is very much worth reading. It analyzes the likely stock market reaction, the possible effect on home prices and the housing market overall, and the expected impact on local government finances. Among the conclusions:

Property Tax: Would It Crash The Market?

China has decided to extend the holding tax for commercial properties to investment purpose residential ones, to avoid legislation issues for implementing a new property tax. Several industry experts, including those that we brought to meet investors recently, believe that the property tax could cause China’s residential property prices to drop 40% or more. In our opinion, however, property tax is just one component of China’s property policies – it should not crash the property market and its upcoming implementation could actually signal a bottoming in China’s property sector.

Property Tax – Only Part Of The Housing Solution

We expect it to cool the sentiment in the near term for investment and speculation in the property market, but property tax by itself cannot solve the housing issue. The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security’s proposal to double average wages in China within five years, if approved and implemented, should improve the affordability ratio significantly. The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development also announced plans of large scale Public Housing construction. If this plan is implemented strictly, we should see a surge in public housing supply in the next few years, although the total amount may stay small in the foreseeable future – as of 2009, public housing stock accounted for less than 5% of total housing stock in China.

Other Countries’ Experience – It’s Unlikely To Crash The Market

We draw this conclusion after studying the property tax situation in many countries. Specifically, we studied countries that started to implement property tax only in recent decades, such as South Korea and Mexico – both started to implement property tax in a hope to reverse the surge of property prices – just like China. Neither of the two countries’ implementation of property tax caused a crash in the property market.

China’s Current Plan – Limited Monetary Impact

Based on the current plan’s tax rate, scope and difficulties on implementation, we expect the impact on the property market to be less than what the current stock market assumes. Our detailed scenario analysis also shows that, even if the full amount of property tax can be successfully collected, the monetary impact on home-buyers should be manageable.

In fact, scenario analysis on Shanghai’s proposal shows that the new property tax’ net impact on monthly payments shoud be only 5% to 6% – an impact even smaller that that caused by a major interest rate increases.

A Gradual Reform – No Near-term Replacement For Land Sales

One of the key targets for property tax is to reduce the local government’s reliance on land sales as the main financing resource. However, this goal cannot be realised in the foreseeable future, in our view.

Land sales has been an important source of revenue for local governments and property tax has been below 4% of local government revenue. Therefore, as discussed earlier in this report, local governments may be willing to implement property tax for additional revenue, but will have to continue to rely heavily on land sales for years to come, in our view.

The report also discusses the likely structure of the property tax and suggests something that I have not seen discussed much elsewhere, that the tax may in fact not be assessed annually but rather upon change of ownership. I am not sure this aligns with the goals of policymakers, but it is an interesting suggestion:

Property Tax Is Likely To Become Transaction-based Rather Than A Holding Tax

Due to the difficulties in tax administration and collection at the local level, residential property-related taxes – from land sales markets to secondary housing markets – are all collected after transactions are through. According to industry experts, although property tax is designed to be a holding tax, it may become feasible to collect upon changes of ownership. In this case, the property tax may actually propel property price appreciation in the long term, although the negative market sentiment in its implementation causes could reduce property prices in the near term.

The full report is embedded below. It is worth reading.

We will only know if China is going to introduce a property tax if and when the central government officially announces it. Until then any “leaks” into the press should be considered speculation that is serving the agenda, and possibly the stock market positions, of the source.

What is quite remarkable about China punditry, both economic and political, is that you can be wrong for almost a decade or more, as Gordon Chang has been, and still be considered a serious and intelligent source of information. The rise of the China bears has certainly invigorated the market for “analysis” supporting their positions, credible or not.

Please tell me what you think in the comments.

If you use RSS you can subscribe to this blog’s feed here, and if you use Twitter you can follow my more frequent updates @niubi, and if you use Sina Weibo you can follow me here. You can also follow my blogging on digital media and the Internet in China at DigiCha.

Sinocism is a labor of love that takes tens of hours a week to curate and write. If you value it please consider contributing:  

Recurring Payments

Billing Information

Payment Information

cc types
 / 
Thanks for your support! Name: {fname} {lname} Plan: {plan} Amount: $ {amount}
  Or make a one-time payment via Google Checkout or Paypal:
 

Written by Bill Bishop

June 14th, 2010 at 9:00 am

  • Patrick Chovanec

    Great reading. Since I’m the “pundit” who is cited as being pro-property tax, I guess I ought to clarify my position. The post I wrote mainly criticized higher transaction taxes, which I think do little to correct what’s driving China’s property market, with a property holding tax, which at least begins to address the reasons why people funnel so much money into unproductive real estate investments. I don’t mean to suggest that a property holding tax is some kind of silver bullet. In fact, I would say that a holding tax is actually more useful in preventing a bubble from forming in the first place (or preventing the current one from getting bigger) than deflating one that has already been formed. The fundamental problem, in my view, is a lack of available and attractive investment alternatives for average Chinese citizens. A holding tax could alter marginal incentives, in this respect, but any money taken out of real estate would have to find somewhere else to go, and if the perceived risk-return gap with other assets is large enough — and I think it is — that incentive might not be enough to push people out of real estate. So while I do see a property holding tax as part of the solution — particularly if the revenue were to go to replace local governments’ reliance on land sales — it’s just a part, and a long-term one at that.

    • http://www.sinocism.com/ Bill Bishop

      Thanks for clarifying this. I will update to point to this comment. A
      very useful one

  • Patrick Chovanec

    Great reading. Since I'm the “pundit” who is cited as being pro-property tax, I guess I ought to clarify my position. The post I wrote mainly criticized higher transaction taxes, which I think do little to correct what's driving China's property market, with a property holding tax, which at least begins to address the reasons why people funnel so much money into unproductive real estate investments. I don't mean to suggest that a property holding tax is some kind of silver bullet. In fact, I would say that a holding tax is actually more useful in preventing a bubble from forming in the first place (or preventing the current one from getting bigger) than deflating one that has already been formed. The fundamental problem, in my view, is a lack of available and attractive investment alternatives for average Chinese citizens. A holding tax could alter marginal incentives, in this respect, but any money taken out of real estate would have to find somewhere else to go, and if the perceived risk-return gap with other assets is large enough — and I think it is — that incentive might not be enough to push people out of real estate. So while I do see a property holding tax as part of the solution — particularly if the revenue were to go to replace local governments' reliance on land sales — it's just a part, and a long-term one at that.

  • http://www.digicha.com/ bbishop

    Thanks for clarifying this. I will update to point to this comment. A
    very useful one

  • Kangnick06

    i should have bet you a beer or something. It hasn’t happened yet but it will.

    Property tax aimed only at high-end residences
    http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90860/7024847.html

    • http://www.sinocism.com/ Bill Bishop

      Don’t hold your breath. And even if it happens it will have minimal
      impact. There is no evidence to support assertions that a new property
      tax will have any meaningful impact on prices. People are pushing the
      wrong medicine for China’s housing market. It needs massive new supply
      coupled with the current demand tightening measures like increased
      mortgage rates and no new loans for 3rd or more properties

      • Kangnick06

        oh, on this we agree. i do think they’re going to do it but i dont think its going to work. the other issue of course is the lack of good investment options.

        • Kangnick06

          and completely agree with your comments on chang.

  • Kangnick06

    i should have bet you a beer or something. It hasn't happened yet but it will.

    Property tax aimed only at high-end residences
    http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/9

  • http://www.digicha.com/ bbishop

    Don't hold your breath. And even if it happens it will have minimal
    impact. There is no evidence to support assertions that a new property
    tax will have any meaningful impact on prices. People are pushing the
    wrong medicine for China's housing market. It needs massive new supply
    coupled with the current demand tightening measures like increased
    mortgage rates and no new loans for 3rd or more properties

  • Kangnick06

    oh, on this we agree. i do think they're going to do it but i dont think its going to work. the other issue of course is the lack of good investment options.

  • Kangnick06

    and completely agree with your comments on chang.

  • Pingback: Commentary: Chongqing as Chicago on the Yangtze » The China Vortex

  • Anonymous

    Update .Sept 18 th .2010.

    PARTNERS IN CRIMES.

    Pictet & Cie Bank.

    Ivan Pictet.
    Nicolas Pictet.
    Charles Pictet.
    Jacques de Saussure.
    Jean – Francois Demole.
    Renaud de Planta.
    Philippe Bertherat..

    Pictet & Cie.- claim they are the “Rolls Royce”of swiss banks.

    Swiss Banks or more correctly Swizz banks.

    Swizz. —- “ a great disappointment.” or a “ fraud.”

    Fraud. —“ an intentional deception or dishonesty.”— “a crime.”

    Crime. —“ an act committed or omitted in violation of a law.”

    Serious Crimes .
    Conspiring to pervert the Course of Justice.
    Perverting the Course of Justice.
    Contempt of Court.

    Pictet & Cie.

    Pictet & Cie Bank –Partners –(1996—2010)-liable.
    Peters &Peters – Partners.—(1999—-2010)-liable.

    The bank and it’s officials/lawyers deliberately withheld crucial documents requested under a High Court order. The bank and it’s officials/lawyers deliberately withheld evidence from the Police, and one of it’s account managers Susan Broadhead gave a false witness statement .
    Another one of it’s managers Nicholas Campiche ( Now Head of Pictet – Alternative Investments.) concocted a letter pretending to be a client and closed his account. The senior partner (Ivan Pictet.) sought to have numerous documents destroyed,along with those copies held in their London office’s of Pictet Asset Management. Initially stating that they were forgeries then their lawyers Peters & Peters – Monty Raphael –and the barrister Charles Flint.Q.C. later had to admit in Court that the documents were genuine.

    British Parliament. Hansard .29th March 2007.
    Barry Sheerman .M.P.—quote.

    ———“ Constituents of mine have lost £2 million through fraud. The fraudster used Pictet & Cie – - a French Bank – - and Pictet Asset Management to back the fraud being perpetrated.””

    (1) It is a criminal offence for a bank to knowingly act for an undischarged criminal bankrupt in so far as it seeks to assist that criminal bankrupt in the fraudulent movement of monies. ( Money Laundering.)

    (2) It is a criminal offence for a bank to lie to the police and the bankrupts trustee in bankruptcy in so far as any knowledge of, or dealings with the bank was refuted .

    (3) A bank can be guilty of Contempt of Court if it fails to comply fully with the Courts order for discovery .

    (4) The banks contempt is further compounded if it fails to address its error after it is specifically drawn to the to its solicitors attention. ( Monty Raphael).

    (5) It is a criminal offence under the Financial Services Act to seek to destroy evidence that might be relevant to an investigation .

    (6) It is a criminal offence not to relinquish control of funds to the Trustee immediately the fact of the bankruptcy is drawn to the banks attention.

    (7) It is a criminal offence to lie or otherwise obfuscate the lawful and proper enquiries of the F.S.A.

    In the F.S.A. cover up , they concluded that there had been “ Rogue” elements in Pictet & Cie’s , London operations . They had been moved from their London Office so who was there left to prosecute. “ Unbelievable.”

    On Dec 9th,2008. the complaint was sent to 150 Members of the House Of Lords and 230 Members of Parliament.

    *** We thank –David Cameron. M.P. ( Canary Wharf Speech.) Dec. 15th. 2008.

    (1) Bankers who behave irresponsibly should face professional consequences.
    (2) If anyone is found to have behaved criminally they must be prosecuted.
    (3) The F.S.A and the Serious Fraud Office should be following up every lead, and
    investigating every suspect transaction .
    (4) We need to make it 100% clear –those who break the law should face prosecution.
    (5) That we make sure we root out any wrongdoing that may have happened, whoever is
    involved, however high or well connected they may be.

    The ‘Doyens’ of the establishment.’ ( Ivan Pictet and Monty Raphael.)

    Ivan Pictet.
    Managing partner in Pictet & Cie Bank . — retiring -. 2010.?
    President of the Geneva Financial Centre. – stepping down. 2010.?
    World Bank.committee member.
    United Nations. Investment Committee member,
    Vice President – Global Humanitarian Forum. — redundant.2010.?
    Member of the Henokiens.
    Blackstone Group — Board Member.
    Past- President – Geneva Private Bankers association.
    Past –President – Geneva Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

    Monty Raphael. ( Peters & Peters.)
    Quote.” —- Doyen of U.K. Fraud lawyers.
    Head of Fraud and Regulatory Dept. — stepping down.?.
    Member of the Law Society of England & Wales.
    International Bar Association Member.
    Director of Fraud Advisory Panel.

    Written Parliamentary Questions received by the table office ..

    (1) To ask the secretary of state what steps he is taking to ensure that Swiss Banks such as Pictet & Cie do not evade criminal prosecution under EU law even when the illegal act is committed by a London based subsidiary.

    (2)To ask the secretary of state what steps he is taking to protect the rights of UK citizens who seek redress following criminal activities by Swiss banks with subsidiary offices located in London.

    On Dec 9th,2008. the complaint was sent to 150 Members of the House Of Lords and 230 Members of Parliament.
    On Aug 19th.2009.another complainants file regarding the “cover up” was forwarded to the same 380 members.

    We started our campaign in June 2008 — via the “net” to highlight our fight to get “justice”. In our second year campaign we hoped to reveal further damning evidence . Due to there being an on going Police investigation into our complaint we are at this moment unable to place dozens of documents on to the “net”. Again we thank other “ E- Mailers” for their information in relation to our campaign.

    Quote. ( America’s Top Lawyer .)
    You can be the richest man in the world with the best lawyers that money can buy but you cannot win against a man who has got nothing left to lose and is telling the truth.

    The Truth hurts.
    • Ivan Pictet. Announces stepping down from Pictet & Cie. 5th Feb 2010.
    June 2010 – stepping down as president. Geneva. Fin. Centre.
    • Monty Raphael. Steps down as head . May. 2009.

    *** We note that there has been a sharp increase in Peters & Peters partners leaving to go to other practices. Moving does not alleviate them of any responsibility from any illegalities that may have occurred at Peters & Peters during their partnership tenure. From 1999 onwards.

    *** Were currently waiting to see if the Police and other Law Enforcement Bodies attempt to cover this case up like their F.S.A. counterparts. If they do –“ then watch this space.”

    We have recently been informed that due to pressure from our M.P. that the Ministry of Justice have asked Lord Myners to investigate our claims that the F.S.A. covered up the illegal activities of Pictet Asset Management. London.

    The consensus of opinion is the Pictet & Cie should be prosecuted , and that their banking licence’s should be taken away in the U.K. ( and fined.)

    Their solicitors at Peters & Peters — prosecuted and struck off.

    Our Campaign’s Second Year Anniversary this week .
    Started June 6 th 2008. ( almost 2 million E-Mail in two years.)
    Still no injunctions – - -no writs – - – ( they can’t go to Court – - – - it’s all true.)

    *** the Bigger they are – - – - the harder they fall.!!!
    In America – - they would have all been in prison for the last seven years.

    Full Story.

    Go to search box on “Google” and insert ( Ivan Pictet / Monty Raphael) ) – - then try –(Pictet& Cie/MontyRaphael on “Yahoo”.
    Or try on Yahoo. – - – ( Charles Flint Q.C.) and (Nicholas Campiche.)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RKAKHM4FZZHYFIINDWUGVHP77U Jack

     
    Update
    — Feb 3 .2013.

    Pictet
    & Cie Bank —- List of Crimes.

    1996 —–
    F.S.A— Breach in London.

    2003 —– F.S.A.
    – States rogues operating in Pictet’s London office. Ivan Pictet

    states
    that documents were forgeries but were later proved to be genuine in

    the
    British Courts. He had documents destroyed in their London office –

    hoping
    to hide the crimes.

    2007
    .- – - The Securities and Exchange Surveillance issued a
    recommendation

    that
    the Prime Minister and The Commissioner of the FSA to take
    disciplinary action against Pictet Asset Management – Japan Ltd.

    2008
    .– Dec. – Pictet Bank state – ” We have never chosen
    any funds linked to Madoff.

    2011 – - – Madoff
    Trustees sue Pictet & Cie. Bank for $156 Million.

    2011- – - Pictet &
    Cie Bank abetted a Bribery Scheme – Oil company sues Pictet for
    $350Million

    2012 – - – April
    – Geneva Bank Pictet used in Offshore Tax Scheme. ( USA.)

    2012 — – June.
    – Published in Anglo INFO .Geneva.— USA Trust Fund Investors were
    sent false and fraudulent documents by Pictet Bank in order to
    collect large fees. ( Like MADOFF)

    Even after the SEC
    in the USA uncovered the fraud Pictet continued to charge fees and
    drain whatever was left in these accounts. Estimated that $90 million
    lost in this Pictet Ponzi scheme.

    2012 – - – July.
    – De – Spiegel. — states – Pictet Bank uses a letterbox
    company in

    Panama
    and a tax loophole involving investments in London to gain

    German
    millionaires as clients.

    2012
    - – - August —- German Opposition Leader accuses Swiss Banks of
    “organised crime.”

    2013
    — Jan.— Swiss MP’ table motion to freeze Tiab Mahmud’s assets of
    ” criminal origins”

    held
    in Swiss banks – $18 million held in 5 accounts at Pictet &
    Cie. Bank. Bahamas.

    Ironically
    the Pictet & Cie.Bank partners are bigger criminals than the
    criminals who have accounts in the their bank.

%d bloggers like this: