The introduction of the actual-price registration system for all property transactions nationwide and the “Joint Property Tax System 2.0,” effective from this month, together with the COVID-19 pandemic, have created a property market freeze, with transaction volumes shrinking and real-estate agents losing their jobs.
It remains to be seen whether the nation will see a fall in closing prices, creating a stressed market, or whether investors who thrive on risk determine that this is the time to jump in and buy property at knockdown prices, entering the market at this period of “crisis.”
Some believe that the market will rebound after the pandemic abates, and that now is a good time to buy.
However, with the prevailing housing market conditions, with prices remaining high, but a lack of increase in incomes for buyers, there is little incentive to buy property.
Meanwhile, sellers have deep pockets and sufficient liquidity. The two sides find themselves in a standoff.
As a result, property prices are unlikely to budge in the short term and nobody knows exactly how the pandemic will develop.
Faced with high property prices and uncertainty over the pandemic, it is difficult to predict whether property prices will bounce back or whether they will remain stagnant, leaving buyers and sellers unsure of how best to proceed.
However, as the pandemic drags on, the wealth disparity will continue to widen. Meanwhile, the stock market is rising, potentially driving the desire to invest in property.
On the other side of the coin, with people being required to stay at home as the nation deals with an outbreak, incomes are flatlining, and in some cases decreasing, leading to a further suppression of consumer momentum.
The property market consists of two aspects, the main being people buying a home, followed by those wishing to buy as part of their investment portfolio.
Especially given the current market, where sky-high property prices necessitate borrowing large amounts of money to own a home, buying property to live in is a completely different proposition from simply investing in stocks without exposing oneself to additional financial burden.
That is, the decision to invest in the property market or the stock market entail different considerations: with buying property, individual consumer preferences prevail, while with buying stocks the major factors determining the decision will be profit and market trends.
What is worrying is that in the past, the low number of investors in the property market has led to property price speculation that scared off buyers looking to purchase their own home.
Real-estate agents have tried to entice people to enter the market, comparing today’s situation to the rebound in the aftermath of the 2003 SARS epidemic.
However, this overlooks the differences in the circumstances between then and now, including the severity of the current outbreak and the huge differences in the state of the property market, not least because of the introduction of policies to curb property market speculation.
Because of these differences, people simply do not know whether the property market will rebound. Amid high property prices, potential buyers are faced with the decision of whether to risk buying now, uncertain of whether prices will rise or fall.
They stand to gain or lose not inconsiderable amounts of money: It is not a decision they should take lightly.
Whether the government can curb speculation through the actual-price registration system and transparent information on pre-sale housing; whether the Joint Property Tax System 2.0 can prevent short-term and pre-sale housing investment transactions; whether controls can be implemented using the review and increase of interest rates on properties not for owner habitation and hoarding tax; and whether the government can implement a cross-departmental, multipronged approach to reduce incentives for investment and speculation in the property market will all be crucial at this juncture.
However, if vested interest groups that believe that the government should suspend these policies, given the pandemic and the sluggish market, manage to apply sufficient pressure on the government force a change of course and choose the lesser of two evils, stormy seas could be ahead for the property market.
The considerations of potential buyers are also important.
People looking for a home to live in will be looking at practical matters, such as adequate ventilation, good sunlight, size and the local community environment, when considering a purchase.
However, given the high prices at the moment, coupled with buyers’ limited resources, the options might be constrained to smaller, single-story properties that might not meet their expectations, especially with a partial lockdown to curb COVID-19 infection.
In other words, when thinking of purchasing a property, individual requirements and resources will be central, and the nature of the property itself should be far more important to the decision than any considerations of uncertainty concerning the market in the near term. If people are thinking of buying property as an investment, they will stand to lose even more by buying a less-than-ideal property.
In particular, buyers must be aware that they can only buy individual properties, and not a diverse basket like exchange-traded funds. These are two different propositions, so they should not be tempted to rush into the market and make a rash purchase that they might later regret.
Chang Chin-oh is an honorary chair professor at National Tsing Hua University’s College of Technology Management.
Translated by Paul Cooper
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS