The growth rate of property sales stopped declining at the beginning of the year and has since started to stage a decent rebound. By April, the year-on-year growth rate of floor space sold reached 39%, a sharp acceleration from nearly zero growth in December 2008. In the meantime, the decline of average property prices compared to the same period last year also appears to have stabilized in recent months, suggesting significant sequential month-on-month increases.
Property construction has demonstrated a similar trend. Both floor space under construction and floor space completed started to register positive growth at the start of the year after rapid deceleration in 1H08 and then negative growth in 2H08. They accelerated sharply to 10%Y and 28%Y, respectively, by April. The rebound in property construction has reflected substantial improvement in both supply and demand conditions. In particular, from the supply side, property developers' financing conditions have improved dramatically since October 2008, when the monetary policy stance started to be loosened aggressively. Easy availability of bank financing support allows a swift resumption of construction projects that were suspended in 2008 due to lack of financing and/or uncertain prospects for demand, in our view.
Recovery for Real: The Catalysts
While the rebound in the growth rates of property sales and construction activity has lasted for only 2-3 months, we think that it represents the beginning of a sustainable recovery of this sector.
Several catalysts have helped to deliver this rebound. First, relative affordability improved meaningfully in 2008. We estimate that while the average price per square meter for residential property in 2008 was broadly unchanged compared to that in 2007, the average per capita income increase for urban households in 2008 was about 14%. As a result, the relative affordability - defined as the relative growth rate between property prices and income - registered its largest improvement in 2008 after remaining broadly stable between 2003-07.
Second, mortgage interest rates declined substantially. The five-year base lending rate - which is the benchmark rate for mortgage loans - was cut by 189bp from 7.83% in August to 5.94% in December 2008. Moreover, discounts of varying magnitudes have been applied to the standard rate, such that effective mortgage rates are actually significantly lower. For instance, the effective interest rate on a first mortgage is now at 4.16%, or about 250bp lower than the level in August 2008, which is a deep rate cut in a relatively short period of time.
Third, bank lending to property developers was normalized. The growth rate of lending to property developers declined sharply, from 28%Y in December 2007 to only about 7%Y by December 2008, as lending to property developers had been cut back drastically as part of the authorities' policy to rein in the rapid expansion of this sector. Property developers whose access to funding (especially from the banks) has been greatly curtailed had to accelerate their sales by slashing prices in order to improve cash flow.
Expectations that the tight financing conditions facing property developers, and thus the pressures on them to cut prices, would persist contributed to the ‘buyers' strike' in the property market during most of 2008, in our view. The overall financing conditions started to normalize substantially in October 2008, when the policy priority shifted decisively to boosting growth and preventing an economic hard landing. In this context, expectations of a further property price decline started to ease, gradually bringing an end to the buyers' strike, in our view.
Recovery for Real: The Bigger Picture
Besides the important catalysts that helped to kick-start the recovery, a key reason why we believe that the property sector recovery is for real is that the latest developments are consistent with our long-standing view - namely, that there has been no nationwide property price bubble in China in the first place, and that the fundamentals of China's property sector remain sound (see China Economics: Can the Property Sector Be Counted on as the Engine of Growth, September 2, 2008).
The property sector recovery has taken place against the backdrop of a major policy normalization, with the policy priority shifting away from keeping tight controls over property sector development. The Chinese authorities had adopted a series of austere policy measures, with the objective of arresting the rapid rise in property prices since 2005. We argued that these austere policy measures were aimed at addressing income/wealth disparity, which is a social issue, instead of a genuine, meaningful property bubble, which is an economic/financial concern.
Almost all these austere policy measures have been scaled back since October 2008. This is line with our expectation that "the authorities will ease policy controls over the property sector when they start to appreciate the potentially serious downside risk posed by the property sector to the overall economy. This is because a deeper economic slowdown and the attendant unemployment will have much more serious and broader social implications than those associated with housing affordability" (again see China Economics: Can The Property Sector Be Counted On As The Engine of Growth).
Our long-standing view is that there is no nationwide property price bubble in China, and that the fundamentals of this sector remain healthy. Specifically, housing affordability has been widely used as one of the key indicators for assessing whether property prices have been so high as to become a bubble. Relative to household income, housing prices have declined substantially since 1997. Although relative affordability deteriorated moderately in 2004-05, it has improved significantly since mid-2007. Therefore, despite much talk about rapidly rising property prices in recent years, property affordability has been broadly stable since 2003 and even improved significantly in 2008.
Some market observers argue, however, that a more relevant indicator of affordability should be the housing-price-income ratio (HPIR), which measures absolute housing affordability. The average HPIR in China was in the 8-9x range during 2003-08, which is much higher than the established HPIR norm of 3-6x. However, the HPIR in China may have overstated the seriousness of low absolute affordability, due to some China-specific factors, in our view. Adjusting for these factors would make housing more affordable than suggested by the current HIPR, lending further support to the argument that there has been no bubble in house prices.
There are at least two such factors at play. First, Chinese household income growth has been very strong on average, and this secular trend is expected to remain largely intact for the foreseeable future. During 2002-07, the average annual nominal growth of household disposable income per capita was about 12%, which is much faster than that in many emerging market economies, let alone developed ones. Factoring in the rapid income growth in the foreseeable future, the income-growth-adjusted HPIR (IGA-HPIR) (i.e., continued strong income growth with fixed housing purchasing prices) in China will decline substantially in the years immediately after a house purchase. We argue that when gauging housing affordability in a fast-growing economy such as China, the IGA-HPIR is a more appropriate concept than the HPIR.
Since the HPIR norm of 3-6x in developed economies should be a function of expected income growth in these economies, when estimating the IGA-HPIR for China, we use the difference in expected income growth between China and the developed economies. If we assume that China's nominal annual household income growth is 5pp higher than that in developed economies, which is by no means a strong assumption in view of the track records in the past five to ten years, the average HPIR for a house purchased in China today will drop from the current 8.3x in 2007 to 6.5x five years from now.
The second China-specific factor that helps to explain the seemingly high HPIR in China is the very high house- ownership ratio and the strong demand for housing upgrades. The house-ownership ratio in China is over 80%, one of the highest in the world - a legacy from the planned economy era. Under the planned economy, the vast majority of employees lived in public housing that were later privatized and sold to these employees at a heavy discount - even for free in many cases. In this context, the unusually high house-ownership ratio is a reflection of the distortion of the planned economy in the past, rather than the natural work of a market economy.
Most public housing in China - especially that inherited from the planned economy era - is of low quality. Given the rapid household income growth in recent years, this is the key reason for the strong demand for housing upgrades, despite the already high house-ownership ratio. We estimate that at least 30% of underlying housing demand in recent years may have reflected the need for housing upgrades. And the down-payment for this type of house purchase is typically financed by the proceeds from the sale of the first house. In other words, about 30% of home buyers already have a sizeable endowment - which reflects the wealth transfer from the state when the public housing was privatized - to allow them to pay the down-payment without tapping into their current income or savings. This is a quite different situation from that in developed economies, where there is a well-functioning property market and no pent-up demand for housing upgrades.
We assume that out of the need for housing upgrades, home buyers make a 40% down-payment (which is not a strong assumption, given that the current average amount of a down-payment is about 35%), and the down-payment is fully financed from the proceeds of the sale of the first house. Adjusting for this special factor, due to the demand for housing upgrades, we estimate that the HPIR could drop from the current 8.3x to 7.3x.
Factoring in these two China-specific factors, we estimate that the adjusted HPIR ratio would be around 5.7x, significantly lower than the current 8.3x.
Moreover, the relatively brief history of China's property market development has exacerbated the social aspect of the housing affordability issue. Deterioration in income/wealth disparity in China was an issue long before the rapid development of the property market in the past four to five years. However, the income/wealth disparity becomes more obvious when the majority of households start to realize that they cannot afford a decent house. In a sense, the property market serves as a mirror that reflects the underlying income/wealth disparity that existed long before the rapid rise of the property market. To the extent that the underlying income/wealth disparity has been revealed through the property market within a relatively brief period, it has constituted a shock to many low- and middle-income households in China, exacerbating the social aspect of the housing affordability issue.
Implications
Both the near-term catalysts and fundamentals suggest that the recovery in the property sector is for real and is sustainable, in our view. Despite much attention being paid to the sizeable fiscal stimulus undertaken by the Chinese authorities to boost growth, we think that the recovery in the property sector has been by far the most encouraging development in the Chinese economy.
The double-digit growth in China in 2003-07 has been driven primarily by two engines: exports and investment. With exports as an engine of growth shutting down, due to the recession in the G3 economies, the outlook for robust growth in China hinges critically on the strength of domestic investment, as consumption has not been the primary factor contributing to the stellar performance of the economy in recent years.
Domestic investment has so far held up quite well, reflecting an aggressive policy stimulus that has brought about a strong increase in investment in infrastructure projects undertaken primarily by state-owned or state-controlled enterprises. Whether resilient investment growth is sustainable beyond 2009, when the effect of the policy stimulus is phased out, has been a key concern among many market observers. In this context, a property sector recovery offers hope that private, market-based investment and its attendant positive impact on other activity (e.g., consumption, increased local government revenue as a result of resumption of land sales) will be able to offset the eventual phasing-out of policy stimulus, helping to sustain organic growth, especially in the event of a prolonged recession in the G3 economies beyond 2009.
Reflecting the significant pick-up in property sales, the property inventory in major cities has started to decline rather rapidly. Morgan Stanley's Property Research team estimates that the current inventory level in major cities ranges from about three months of sales in Shanghai to about 11 months in Beijing (see Morgan Stanley Property Team's weekly publication, China Property: Transaction Tracker, May 11). Using an alternative indicator, we estimate that the nationwide inventory level - as defined by the vacant area in the primary market adjusted for sales - has recently stopped rising after a rapid increase for most of 2008.
As inventory stops rising and even starts to decline, the sizeable pick-up in sales will eventually translate into a significant recovery in new projects launched, in our view. While the year-on-year growth rate in floor space started remains in negative territory, we expect it to bottom out and start to show positive growth in 2H09. The historical pattern suggests that it takes about six months before new projects started begins to respond to sales.
A buoyant property market would also help to underpin private consumption. Despite new property construction remaining sluggish, the recovery in property sales appears to have already had a positive impact on property-related retail sales, which has been instrumental in underpinning the resilience of overall retail sales. For instance, retail sales of construction & decoration materials and furniture - both of which are closely related to purchases of new houses - have registered a strong rebound since the start of the year.
What's Next
A stable policy environment is critical to healthy, sustainable development of the property sector in China. Looking ahead, we expect the authorities' current policy stance vis-à-vis the property sector to remain unchanged. In fact, we view the policy change since October 2008 as policy normalization, rather than discretionary, counter-cyclical policy easing, which tends to be temporary.
The authorities' current policy approach features two tracks: 1) encouraging market-based commercial housing by removing unduly austere policy measures that artificially depress its development; and 2) addressing the housing issue for low-income households by developing the low-cost, low-rent, affordable housing program financed by public funds. This is an effective and sustainable policy approach, as a viable affordable housing program is predicated on a buoyant commercial housing program, in our view. In view of the property sector's importance in supporting an economic recovery and sustainable growth, any concern that the policy shift might potentially hurt this sector is unwarranted, in our view.
Risks
An affordable housing program features prominently in the Chinese authorities' stimulus plan, and Rmb400 billion out of the Rmb4 trillion spending package is committed under this program. While this is a key component of the current dual-track policy approach for the property sector, there is a risk that the publicly funded affordable housing program may creep into an overly ambitious public housing program. It could end up becoming a heavy-handed intervention by the government into the property sector under the pretext of an aggressive implementation of the pro-growth fiscal stimulus plan. This would run the risk of damaging the otherwise market-based, sound commercial housing sector by crowding out private investment, threatening the sustainability of the property sector as an engine of growth in the long run. China had a broad-based public housing program in the planned economy era, which proved unsuccessful.
For a list of policy announcements introduced since 2005 first aiming at curbing fast property price increases, and those introduced since 4Q08 to support this sector, please see the Appendix of China Economics: Property Sector Recovery Is for Real, May 15, 2009.
Important Disclosure Information at the end of this Forum
Business Conditions: Genuine Improvement or Mirage?
May 18, 2009
By David Cho & Richard Berner | New York
After months of gradual improvement, the Morgan Stanley Business Conditions Index (MSBCI) soared to new 18-month highs in early May and appeared to signal an expansion in overall business conditions for the first time in nearly two years. The headline diffusion index jumped by approximately nine points on a seasonally adjusted basis and crossed the important 50% threshold - a feat last accomplished in October 2007. The unadjusted headline index reaped even more impressive gains than its seasonally adjusted counterpart according to this month's canvass - jumping 14 percentage points to levels last seen in May 2006.
Genuine or counterfeit? In our view, these findings seem far more buoyant than even the increasingly promising financial and economic developments lately. Call us skeptics, but we're not sure our results square with those positive signs, and we are concerned that this bounce in the survey may not be sustainable. Indeed, a closer look at the details in the MSBCI suggests that the headline reading may overstate the fundamentals and that recovery is coming, but it's not here yet.
To be sure, credit markets are now open for business, funding costs have come down, and equities have rallied dramatically and recouped most of the losses that had been sustained since the beginning of the year. In addition, a number of other business surveys and indicators have begun to exhibit hopeful signs of improvement. For instance, the ISM Manufacturing Index surpassed the 40% mark this past month - the highest measurement for this indicator since September 2008. Likewise, the NFIB Small Business Optimism Index sharply rose almost six percentage points in April - completely reversing four consecutive months of steady deterioration. But at 86.8%, the level was still the second-lowest monthly reading in that survey's history. In our view, unprecedented policy stimulus will help growth resurface in 4Q09 (see US Economic and Interest Rate Forecast: Recovery Closer, but Risks Persist, May 11, 2009). However, we still anticipate that this eventual recovery will be fitful and sluggish.
Credit healing, hopes soaring. Three noteworthy components of the MSBCI reached historical highs in early May. First, the credit conditions index jumped 21 points to 77% - setting a new water mark for this particular series since its inception in 2003. Indeed, almost 93% of analysts reported that capital markets were now open to the companies under their coverage. Nearly 39% of survey respondents indicated that their companies planned to take advantage of this increased market access to make changes to their capital structures over the next several months. Fully 29% of analysts anticipated that their companies would issue equity to meet their capital needs and roughly 22% predicted that the firms under their coverage would raise debt to do so. In addition, around 68% of all respondents expected their companies to refinance debt obligations in the near future.
Second, the business conditions expectations index also set a new record high at 77% this month - climbing 14 percentage points from the April measurement. In fact, a majority of respondents in each sector believed that business conditions would either improve or remain unchanged over the next six months. Finally, a record 63% of our industry analysts foresaw upside risks to their earnings estimates - the highest reading for this series since it was first incorporated into the MSBCI in May 2007 and a dramatic turnaround from recent months.
Meanwhile, although still significantly below its historical high, the advance bookings index surged 17 percentage points to 45% in this month's canvass. In a somewhat positive development for the near term, this index reached its highest mark in eight months - with at least half of all analysts from the consumer staples, healthcare, information technology and materials spaces reporting increases in future orders relative to the previous three months.
Five reasons for pause. Although key aspects of the MSBCI exhibited obvious improvement this month, there are reasons for pause. Five key components clearly tempered the otherwise optimistic tone of the May canvass.
First, the price index actually decreased three points to 38% in early May as firms continued to lose pricing power. Since the sharp decline in commodities prices and the intensification of the global recession last fall, this series has now been entrenched in contractionary territory for seven consecutive months.
Second, the capital expenditure plans series repeated April's abysmal reading - with only 7% of survey respondents expecting their companies to step up fixed investments over the next three months.
Third, according to our industry analysts, firms appeared to remain extremely reluctant to expand payrolls. Reflecting the nearly two million jobs that have been shed since February 2009 alone, the hiring series was measured at a dreadful 2% in this month's MSBCI. Sadly, the forward-looking hiring plans series did not fare any better; only 2% of respondents to this month's survey reported that the companies under their coverage intended to increase payrolls over the near term.
Fourth, around 68% of survey respondents expected their firms' margins to shrink in 2009, and slightly more than half of all analysts reported that the earnings quality of the companies under their coverage had deteriorated over the past year. The combination of shrinking margins and rising earnings estimates clearly suggests that analysts are pinning their hopes on a significantly improving sales outlook; on that score, we think there is scope for disappointment.
Finally, in a rather ominous sign for the commercial real estate market, two-thirds of respondents to the May canvass indicated that their companies planned to pare their physical operations in response to the economic downturn. In fact, with the sole exception of the utilities space, nearly half of the analysts in every other sector believed their firms would close some number of physical locations over the next several months.
Ongoing debate. In the past we have accused our analysts of excessive optimism when the fundamentals seemed out of sync with the upbeat tone they've heard from management or with the performance of their stocks. We're not sure that this is one of those times; indeed, while we also expect recovery, it is clearly our sober view that seems out of sync with the markets and the analysts. Time will tell who is right.
Important Disclosure Information at the end of this Forum
Disclosure Statement
The information and opinions in Morgan Stanley research were prepared or are disseminated by Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and/or Morgan Stanley C.T.V.M. S.A. and/or Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc and/or Morgan Stanley Japan Securities Co., Ltd. and/or Morgan Stanley Asia Limited and/or Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) Pte. (Registration number 199206298Z) and/or Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) Securities Pte Ltd (Registration number 200008434H) and/or Morgan Stanley Taiwan Limited and/or Morgan Stanley & Co International plc, Seoul Branch, and/or Morgan Stanley Australia Limited (A.B.N. 67 003 734 576, holder of Australian financial services licence No. 233742, which accepts responsibility for its contents), and/or Morgan Stanley India Company Private Limited and their affiliates (collectively, "Morgan Stanley"). As used in this disclosure section, Morgan Stanley includes RMB Morgan Stanley (Proprietary) Limited, Morgan Stanley & Co International plc and its affiliates.
Global Research
Conflict Management Policy
Morgan Stanley Research observes our conflict management policy, available at www.morganstanley.com/institutional/research/conflictpolicies.
Important Disclosures
Morgan Stanley Research does not provide individually tailored investment advice. It has been prepared without regard to the circumstances and objectives of those who receive it. Morgan Stanley recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages them to seek a financial adviser's advice. The appropriateness of an investment or strategy will depend on an investor's circumstances and objectives. Morgan Stanley Research is not an offer to buy or sell any security or to participate in any trading strategy. The value of and income from your investments may vary because of changes in interest rates or foreign exchange rates, securities prices or market indexes, operational or financial conditions of companies or other factors. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance. Estimates of future performance are based on assumptions that may not be realized.
With the exception of information regarding Morgan Stanley, research prepared by Morgan Stanley Research personnel is based on public information. Morgan Stanley makes every effort to use reliable, comprehensive information, but we do not represent that it is accurate or complete. We have no obligation to tell you when opinions or information in Morgan Stanley Research change apart from when we intend to discontinue research coverage of a company. Facts and views in Morgan Stanley Research have not been reviewed by, and may not reflect information known to, professionals in other Morgan Stanley business areas, including investment banking personnel.
To our readers in Taiwan: Morgan Stanley Research is distributed by Morgan Stanley Taiwan Limited; it may not be distributed to or quoted or used by the public media without the express written consent of Morgan Stanley. To our readers in Hong Kong: Information is distributed in Hong Kong by and on behalf of, and is attributable to, Morgan Stanley Asia Limited as part of its regulated activities in Hong Kong; if you have any queries concerning it, contact our Hong Kong sales representatives.
Morgan Stanley Research is disseminated in Japan by Morgan Stanley Japan Securities Co., Ltd.; in Canada by Morgan Stanley Canada Limited, which has approved of and takes responsibility for its contents in Canada; in Germany by Morgan Stanley Bank AG, Frankfurt am Main, regulated by Bundesanstalt fuer Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin);in Spain by Morgan Stanley, S.V., S.A., a Morgan Stanley group company, supervised by the Spanish Securities Markets Commission(CNMV), which states that it is written and distributed in accordance with rules of conduct for financial research under Spanish regulations; in the US by Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, which accepts responsibility for its contents. Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, authorized and regulated by Financial Services Authority, disseminates in the UK research it has prepared, and approves solely for purposes of section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, research prepared by any affiliates. Private UK investors should obtain the advice of their Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc representative about the investments concerned. In Australia, Morgan Stanley Research and any access to it is intended only for "wholesale clients" within the meaning of the Australian Corporations Act. RMB Morgan Stanley (Proprietary) Limited is a member of the JSE Limited and regulated by the Financial Services Board in South Africa. RMB Morgan Stanley (Proprietary) Limited is a joint venture owned equally by Morgan Stanley International Holdings Inc. and RMB Investment Advisory (Proprietary) Limited, which is wholly owned by FirstRand Limited.
Trademarks and service marks in Morgan Stanley Research are their owners' property. Third-party data providers make no warranties or representations of the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of their data and shall not have liability for any damages relating to such data. The Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) was developed by and is the exclusive property of MSCI and S&P. Morgan Stanley bases projections, opinions, forecasts and trading strategies regarding the MSCI Country Index Series solely on public information. MSCI has not reviewed, approved or endorsed these projections, opinions, forecasts and trading strategies. Morgan Stanley has no influence on or control over MSCI's index compilation decisions. Morgan Stanley Research or portions of it may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the written consent of Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley research is disseminated and available primarily electronically, and, in some cases, in printed form. Additional information on recommended securities/instruments is available on request.
The information in Morgan Stanley Research is being communicated by Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc (DIFC Branch), regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority (the DFSA), and is directed at wholesale customers only, as defined by the DFSA. This research will only be made available to a wholesale customer who we are satisfied meets the regulatory criteria to be a client.
The information in Morgan Stanley Research is being communicated by Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc (QFC Branch), regulated by the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority (the QFCRA), and is directed at business customers and market counterparties only and is not intended for Retail Customers as defined by the QFCRA.
As required by the Capital Markets Board of Turkey, investment information, comments and recommendations stated here, are not within the scope of investment advisory activity. Investment advisory service is provided in accordance with a contract of engagement on investment advisory concluded between brokerage houses, portfolio management companies, non-deposit banks and clients. Comments and recommendations stated here rely on the individual opinions of the ones providing these comments and recommendations. These opinions may not fit to your financial status, risk and return preferences. For this reason, to make an investment decision by relying solely to this information stated here may not bring about outcomes that fit your expectations.
|
![](/img/clear.gif"){kind=spacer}