China Real Estate: Web Survey on Recent Land Tax

Stephen Chung

Managing Director

Zeppelin Real Estate Analysis Limited

February 2007

　(Based on Data from the China Real Estate Index System CREIS)

A progressive and more restrictive land tax will be imposed starting this month on profitable real estate development projects and it is expected most developers would face heftier taxes which in turn affect profitability and investment return. Naturally, many developers object to its imposition and the market participants, ranging from home buyers to real estate agents, harbor varying expectations and views. We have spotted a web survey hosted by www.soufun.com and up to January 22, 2007, the results based on around 28,000 respondents are listed below:

Survey question 1 = do you agree to imposing the said tax (on real estate developers)?

Survey question 2 = what effect the said tax will have on the current rising real estate price trend?

Survey question 3 = do you think the said tax would affect the (reportedly handsome) profitability of real estate developers significantly / inversely?

Survey question 4 = do you consider land-hoarding (by real estate developers) for profit a serious problem or matter?

Survey question 5 = do you think the said tax would put a stop to land-hoarding as mentioned?

Survey question 6 = after the said tax was announced, listed real estate stocks dropped in share prices. Do you think this implies the end of the bull-run for listed real estate stocks? 

Survey question 7 = which real estate companies will the said tax most affect? 

Notwithstanding the survey is web-based (thus not discounting the possibility of inaccuracies such as a respondent may fill in several surveys for fun or otherwise) and simplistic, it may help throw a light on the possible leanings of participants. A few summaries are listed below: 

A)     Almost 2/3 of participants generally agree to the imposition of the said tax

B)     A reason for the relatively high support may be due to the possibility that more than 90% of participants think land-hoarding for profit is serious (too much)

C)    Yet only around 1/5 of participants think the said tax would put a stop to land-hoarding

D)    On the other hand almost 70% of participants think real estate prices would continue to go up despite the said tax

E)     Just as only around 1/5 of participants think the real estate stock bull run would be stopped by the land tax

F)     Though around 1/2 also expect the profitability of real estate developers would be affected

G)    And 2/3 think the land tax affect real estate companies with many land banks or are small to medium in size

In a nutshell, the survey appears to suggest that people in general do not think the said land tax would dampen real estate prices, prices of real estate equities, or the inclination of real estate developers to hoard land for profit although the profitability of the latter would be affected.  

Notwithstanding the above and the various published commentaries since the said tax announcement, we think the actual effects may not appear until sometime has passed. Nonetheless, very preliminarily we think the said tax may have the following implications: 

a)      The stronger real estate developers may have an opportunity to weed out the weaker competitors and expand market shares

b)      Land prices may face downward pressure as real estate developers seek to maintain a certain required level of return and profitability

c)      Real estate supply may face reduction IF some real estate developers throw in the towels which in turn may mean price rises, if not for long at least for a while, given all things being equal 

As such, the said tax may not have a direct effect on real estate prices being mostly a “supply-side” tax and the ability of real estate developers to pass all or in significant portion of the increased taxes onto purchasers depends on various factors including market sentiment etc, i.e. sometimes they can and sometimes they cannot. The view that increased costs lead automatically to increased prices is flawed*.  

Notes: The article and/or content contained herein are for general reference only and are not meant to substitute for proper professional advice and/or due diligence. The author(s) and Zeppelin, including its staff, associates, consultants, executives and the like do not accept any responsibility or liability for losses, damages, claims and the like arising out of the use or reference to the content contained herein.                                

 Back to Home  /  Back to Simple to Read Stuff Section