Apartment prices in Seoul and other major cities have shot up over the past two years in the wake of the record-low key rate set by the central bank and the reconstruction boom.
The situation is totally opposite to four to five years ago when the construction sector suffered from a mass of unsold apartments after the 2008-2009 financial crisis, which caused the insolvency of some small- and mid-sized builders.
The sluggish construction industry was a fast-track opportunity for the government to boost the economy. Policymakers actively provided the market with plenty of cash by easing regulations on mortgages. The Bank of Korea also fueled it by continuously lowering the key rate since the second half of 2014.
As a result, apartment prices in the Gangnam district of southern Seoul have skyrocketed. Other cities, such as Busan, Daegu, Sejong and Jejudo, saw bidding competition rates for housing that were higher than that of Seoul this year.
Currently, those in the property industry and analysts are divided on their projections for next year’s construction market sentiment, with some pessimistic and others optimistic.
But it seems that a majority of monetary policymakers are leaning toward a more pessimistic view. According to the minutes of the Sept. 9 rate-setting meeting, publicized on Sept. 27, five out of six members of the Monetary Policy Committee of the BOK issued warnings of a possible slowdown in real estate sentiment.
In August, the number raising concerns was four of the six rate-setters including BOK Gov. Lee Ju-yeol.
Regardless of arguments that the rate-setters should be held accountable for the inflating property asset bubble, there is an urgent need for ordinary households to pay attention to their warnings, which have grown since August. These might have become even more serious during Thursday’s gathering, whose minutes will be unveiled later this month.
The household sector should focus on statistics on the real contract rates among apartment applicants.
For the six major cities, including Sejong, the collective contract rate after bidding hovered at over 95 percent in the first quarter of 2015.
After peaking at about 98 percent in the second quarter of 2015, it has continued to fall, staying at 78 percent in the second quarter of 2016.
The statistics show the weakening effect of premiums on initial apartment prices. Selected bidders or speculators seeking short-term gains actively made contracts with builders during the first half of last year. With the government seeking to boost the real estate market at that time, premiums were rising at a rapid pace right after highly competitive lotteries.
However, as the premium level has become negligible amid prevailing concerns over the end of the low-rate era, more preferred bidders have dropped their contracts. Among them are undoubtedly speculative investors.
The corporate sector appears to be regarding this situation as a real estate bubble. More enterprises are rushing to sell property assets involving their main offices as part of efforts to brace for uncertainties.
The timing is noteworthy as the construction market is showing signs of sluggishness after a two-year bull run. Companies may be hastening to secure cash via sales of properties. Analysts have said that the corporate sector could face a drop in real estate prices in the near future.
Many households purchased apartments on temporarily eased rules on mortgages, and banks allowed many of the households to enjoy floating-rate mortgages. Many households would be saddled with a heavier payment burden if apartment prices fall and interest rates rise.
As financial regulators restored average rules on mortgages to curb overheating early this year, housing prices in some regions across the nation recently halted their growth due to decelerating transactions and lower contract rates for newly built apartments.
Though the future situation is not easy to predict, the Finance Ministry should map out an exit strategy against unfavorable scenarios. The property bubble that burst between 2007 and 2010 yielded a great number of “house poor” homeowners, whose mortgage payments left them with little disposable income.
