The 608 Cities Announce The Target Of Housing Price Regulation &Nbsp; 49 Cities May Be Held Accountable.

According to the person in charge of the Ministry of housing, urban and rural construction, the 608 cities include 281 districts and 327 county-level cities.

In addition, 70 large and medium cities with new housing price index have been published and released by the National Bureau of statistics.

In the 31 provinces and municipalities and 5 planned cities, there are two provincial capitals in Xining and Lhasa, and the capital of the autonomous region has not yet announced the target of price control.

Xi'an's regulatory target is set at a growth rate of not more than 15%, and is higher in 36 cities.

The industry believes that this may mean that the target of this round of regulation will be reproduced for the second time.

Han Shitong, a researcher at Peking University's Public Economic Research Center, said that this shows that the target of price control is not final, there is still room for improvement and that the regulation of the property market will continue to exert strength.

But it is still unknown how to adjust the issued regulatory targets as appropriate.

And what kind of house price control targets can get social support is not fixed.

Regulating target inventory

Regulatory types relate to cities

Take GDP and per capita disposable income as reference.

In 31 provinces and municipalities and 5 planned cities, 17 cities in Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Wuhan and other cities have linked the price control targets directly to GDP and per capita disposable income growth.

Public information shows that Shanghai's GDP growth is expected to be around 8% in 2011, Guangzhou's GDP growth is expected to be 11%, and Shenzhen's GDP growth target is 10%.

Referring to the increase of per capita disposable income

In the 36 cities above mentioned, 15 cities in Tianjin, Chongqing, Ji'nan and Haikou have increased the per capita disposable income as the upper limit of housing price increase.

In 2011, the expected target of per capita disposable income growth of urban residents in Haikou and Ji'nan was 10% and 12% respectively, and Nanjing's expected target was 11%.

Specific increase or upper limit

In addition to binding the target of housing price control to GDP and per capita disposable income increase, some cities clearly put forward the specific upper limit of increase.

Lanzhou put forward "an increase of less than 9% a year"; Nanchang put forward that "the year-on-year growth rate is controlled within 10%"; and Wuhan put forward that "the increase is not more than 12%".

Taking housing affordability of residents as a reference

The reason why housing price control targets are widely disputed is that the local governments have ignored the "housing affordability" index.

In March 30th, Changchun put forward the goal of "new housing housing price to income ratio (housing flat type standard calculated by 60 square meters) within 5.8", becoming the first price control target linked to the price to income ratio.

"Timely adjustment" target of price control

The elm, known as the housing price control target, whose growth rate is less than 50.5%, has recently adjusted its target to "growth rate within 10%, lower than the growth of per capita disposable income of urban residents in 2011".

Guiyang has also recently revised the "new housing price growth rate not higher than last year's national average" announced in February as "the increase is controlled within this year's gross domestic product and the per capita disposable income growth of urban residents. The increase is not higher than the national average of last year".

Steady and steady decline

The price control target announced by Beijing in March 29th is "the price of newly built ordinary housing is steadily decreasing compared with 2010", and the word "drop" has finally appeared in the target of price control.

Observation

Don't let policy be a countermeasure.

More than two months have passed. Apart from Beijing's clearly stated objectives of "stable and steady decline", almost all cities have left "ample" space for this year's housing prices under their respective frame of reference.

The goal of price control originally aimed at controlling house prices and reversing expectations has contributed to the anticipation of price increase in concrete practice.

Moreover, in the process of setting the price control targets, some cities only restrict prices in some regions, and some cities only impose restrictions on some of the units, which in turn have eliminated the intensity of regulation and control in a disguised way.

Behind the "loose" housing price control objectives, it reflects the dilemma faced by the local governments in implementing the central regulatory policies: on the one hand, the rising housing prices can not be ignored or irrelevant; on the other hand, the dependence on land finance and the demand for stimulating real estate investment are still unable to get rid of in a short period of time, forcing local governments to reserve space for the development of real estate and thus hesitate to control housing prices.

The controversy and doubt on the target of housing price control once again highlights the complexity, urgency and particularity of China's real estate regulation.

Scientifically setting the price control standard to ensure that the regulation and control policies do not change and remain unchanged, it is necessary for local governments to thoroughly understand the spirit of central regulation and control and resolutely implement the central control policy.

At the same time, it is necessary to speed up the pace of deep regulation of real estate from top to bottom, further smooth the fiscal and tax relations between the central and local governments, establish and improve a more effective regulation and administrative accountability mechanism, and accelerate the construction of affordable housing.

These tasks can not be completed and realized in a short time. They need to be enriched and perfected in the process of practice.

"Deadline" although, but the pace of price regulation has not stopped.

Whether it is for cities that have already issued regulatory targets or regulatory targets have not yet been promulgated, continue to listen to the views of all parties, combine their own realities, take into consideration a variety of factors, feedback and adjust the target of housing price control, and come up with the issue of real estate price control that can stand the test.