Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Eke 8 _real_estate_english_2011s
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Eke 8 _real_estate_english_2011s

541

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
541
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. ‥ 1 ‥ Economics for Korean Economy Stage 8 Real Estate Market
  • 2. ‥ 2 ‥ (조선일보, 2010.07.08.목) Despite the rapid economic growth Who possess a house before 45
  • 3. ‥ 3 ‥ How long save annual income? How long will it take after marriage?
  • 4. ‥ 4 ‥ (조선일보, 2010.07.09.금) House refugee Living at House for national exam. vinyl greenhouse Small one room inn Pc room Coffee shop
  • 5. ‥ 5 ‥ Definition  Real estate: land and anything on it  Fundamental difference Land Natural resources : fixed Specific land supply: flexible by reclassification of land Building: flexible in the long run.  Finance is global, but real estate is local Fixedness cause all problem of real estate.
  • 6. ‥ 6 ‥ Housing Sector in Korean Economy  National Wealth Statistics (2008) Land 3,264.6 trillion won Building for resident 779.4 trillion won Building for nonresident 841.3 trillion won  Total Value of Houses (end of 2007) Total the declared value 공시가 : 1,665 t. won Apartment 공동주택 1,343 t. won 747만호 detached house 342 t. won 418만호 2007 GDP : Flow 901 t. won  Housing Investment over GDP 1970-2007 avg. 5.3%, 2003~2007: 4.9%
  • 7. ‥ 7 ‥  Impact of house value on Labor market  The Higher the house value, the lower the mobility of labor  (England, Boston etc.)  Relation of real estae market on financial mkt. Securitization U.S. subprime mortgages problem & global crisis
  • 8. ‥ 8 ‥ Global financial crisis from U.S.  Credit extension & house price bubble Rapid increase of mortgage loan Mediation of the qualification for loan, especially sub- prime creditor  Securitization of subprime mortgage Over-issue of Unclear derivative Invest on mortgage security with short term money.  U.S. House price fall after June 2006  insolvent of subprime loan Stop mortgage related security transaction Global capital market stringency 자료: Acharya and Richardson (2009)
  • 9. ‥ 9 ‥ Ratio of balance of house-backed loan over GDP Countries 1994 2000 2006 Australia 33.2 55.5 82.2 Belgium 21.2 26.6 36.3 Denmark 64.9 76.1 100.8 Germany 44.1 54.1 51.3 Greece 3.6 9.2 29.3 Spain 15.8 30.9 58.6 France 20.8 21.5 32.2 Ireland 22.8 31.6 70.1 Italy 6.0 10.0 18.7 Japan 34.4 36.6 36.1 Korea 11.0 13.0 35.7 Luxembourg 24.4 25.8 34.3 Netherlands 46.4 74.2 111.9 Portugal 15.6 43.9 59.2 Finland 36.2 30.7 43.8 Sweden 54.8 45.7 56.7 UK 54.6 56.3 83.1 US 46.4 52.1 77.2
  • 10. ‥ 10 ‥  Source of inequality of Korean Education and Real Estate  Just before Revolt A woman suaside because the house she sold increase rapidly Cannot overcome the scur of the losss due to her mistake on the wrong decision. Only her fault?
  • 11. ‥ 11 ‥ Recent trend of home values in Korea 출처 : 중앙일보 (2010년4월27일)
  • 12. ‥ 12 ‥ public sentiments  Home value is too high in Korea.  It increase too rapidly. Due to scarce usable land.  Real demander sacrificed by speculators. Korean really have preference on speculation.  The wealthy become richer due to the increase of home value.
  • 13. ‥ 13 ‥ On March 12, 2007, at Song-do, 7,000 people lined up for subscription to a studio apartment (The Plau) by Koron co. for 2 day at cold weather below zero temperatures and the was 2.5Km, because they can get 100 m. won(1억원) premium if registered.
  • 14. ‥ 14 ‥ Questions about the policy on real estate To make it cheap, the government should intervene the market? Do we need any institution related to the public concept of land ownership? Will Increasing of the property holding taxes contribute the stable of house and land prices? Should we stress the role of public for the development of real estate and supply of house? Should we open the cost of sale price of new apartment? Restrain the re-constructing of apartment?
  • 15. ‥ 15 ‥ Table of Contend 1. Characteristics of real estate market 2. Reason of high price of real estate 1) Narrow territory? 2) Unbalance of land owership? 3) Speculators? 3. If not, then why? 4. Real estate tax, proper or not?
  • 16. ‥ 16 ‥ Chapter I. Characteristics of Real Estate Market 16
  • 17. ‥ 17 ‥ Real Estate Market  very unstable Sale price of home at Seoul For 10 years From 30.8 to -15
  • 18. ‥ 18 ‥  Why unstable?  because of the inelasticity of supply of real estate Why Inelastic?  It takes time to build building.  Difficult to increase supply
  • 19. ‥ 19 ‥ Instability of Real Estate Market industrial products 출처: 알짬시장경제
  • 20. ‥ 20 ‥ Q0 P0 P2 P1 중기 공급 장기 공급 수요 증가 수요 주택수 평당임대료 (또는 매매가) Q0 P0 P2 P1 중기 공급 장기 공급 수요 증가 수요 주택수 평당임대료 (또는 매매가) Inelastic supply of housing Long-run Supply short-run Supply Demand Demand Increase Sales Price / rent No. of House
  • 21. ‥ 21 ‥ Q0 P0 P2 P1 중기 공급 장기 공급 수요 증가 수요 주택수 평당임대료 (또는 매매가) Q0 P0 P2 P1 중기 공급 장기 공급 수요 증가 수요 주택수 평당임대료 (또는 매매가) elastic supply of housing Long-run Supply short-run Supply Demand Demand Increase Sales Price / rent No. of House
  • 22. ‥ 22 ‥ Because of this character  Government intervention inevitable?  Already publicity concept applied on land Even though private land ownership, Government regulated the purpose of land 지목, floor space index 용적률, the building-to-land ratio 건폐율  Land is not public goods 2 characteristics of Public goods Uncompetitiveness Unexclusiveness
  • 23. ‥ 23 ‥ Q0 P0 P2 P1 초기 공급 정책 후 공급 수요 증가 수요 주택수 평당임대료 (또는 매매가) P3 정책 후 증가 Q0 P0 P2 P1 초기 공급 정책 후 공급 수요 증가 수요 주택수 평당임대료 (또는 매매가) P3 정책 후 증가 Repeat of Price increase & govt. intervention Increase after policy Supply Demand first Increase Sales Price / rent Increase after policy
  • 24. ‥ 24 ‥ Chapter II. Why so expensive?
  • 25. ‥ 25 ‥ Common view  Expensive because of 1. scarce usable land? 2. Concentration ownership? 3. Speculators?
  • 26. ‥ 26 ‥ 1. scarce usable land?
  • 27. ‥ 27 ‥  Population density (2003) Land size 99,461 km2, population 4,764만명, density 481/km2 3rd in the world after Bangladesh & Taiwan  Land size per person half of Japan 1/8 of U.K.
  • 28. ‥ 28 ‥ Population densities of 48 metropolitan areas Scource: Bertaud
  • 29. ‥ 29 ‥  Natural constraints ¾ of land are mountains and inland waters  Supply constraints by regulations limited development district =5.4% of total land There are 315 regulations related to land Made through 112 laws By 13 department of government.
  • 30. ‥ 30 ‥ 2 1 % 6 5 % 2 %1 %3 %3 % 5 % 지목별 토지면적비율 (2003) 농경지 산림지 대지 공장용지 공공용지(학교,도로,철도) 하천 기타 Too much farmland Share by Purpose of land (2003)
  • 31. ‥ 31 ‥27 4.6Etc. 2.8River & watercourse 2.8public site(school, road, railroad) 0.6Plootage for Factory 2.4Plottage for Building 65.3foreistry 21.5farmland sharePurpose (2002년 현재) 100.0 (300억평)Total Share by Purpose of land (2002)
  • 32. ‥ 32 ‥  Urban Area = plottage for building, factory & public site  Scarce? No! Urban area can be increased By reclassification of land
  • 33. ‥ 33 ‥ Is land supply curve vertical?
  • 34. ‥ 34 ‥  Not all land is the same commodity. Forest, Farmland, lot for residency, lot of commercials buildings  Procedures If peoples gathered some areas, the sites for resident become scarce and Government reallocate some farmland for resident, & Reallocate some lots for resident to commercials, Then the supply of these land increased.
  • 35. ‥ 35 ‥  Real estate: land and anything on it  Fundamental difference Land Natural resources : fixed Specific land supply: flexible  by reclassification of land Building: more flexible in the long run.
  • 36. ‥ 36 ‥  By the development of construction technolodge 1960s 5 story 1970s 12 1990s 30 2010s 50
  • 37. ‥ 37 ‥ bird-eye view of Apt. in Apkujungdong Current & after reconstruction
  • 38. ‥ 38 ‥ a birds-eye-view of Yongsan International Business District
  • 39. ‥ 39 ‥ 2. Concentration ownership? Distortion of statistics on Inequality of land distribution
  • 40. ‥ 40 ‥  Report on July 14, 2005 About land ownership concentration It made people anxious. Share of upper 5% of large land holder was 65.2% on 1986. It increased to 82.7% on 2005.
  • 41. ‥ 41 ‥  Is it true?  What is wrong?
  • 42. ‥ 42 ‥ Problem of this statistics  1% of total population.  Not of total household. My family are also included in non-land-holder. It is not wrong, but meaningless. Calculated with household, not population 82.7% of land is owned not by upper 5%, But by upper 14% Among the upper 1% of land holder, There is no chief of Jaebol. Most are the owner of forests and farmland.
  • 43. ‥ 43 ‥  In 45 days, another report on land ownership concentration on Aug. 29, 2005.  What is different?  Still problems.  What?
  • 44. ‥ 44 ‥  Meaning statistics on concentration should include the price of each land. Statistics by size treat cheap forests and expensive urban land.
  • 45. ‥ 45 ‥ If prices are considered, land distribution of Korea is the farest among 60 countries. Land Gini Coefficient of each country
  • 46. ‥ 46 ‥  Korea is relatively equivalent society. World Bank – East Asia Miracle (1993)  Reason a status system is abolished during Japanese colonial period. Land reform after liberalization Shareholding system dissolved. 6.25 Korean War destroyed everything.
  • 47. ‥ 47 ‥ 3. Speculators?
  • 48. ‥ 48 ‥ House Price to Income Ratio Trend 자료: 국민은행, 주택금융수요실태조사, 각년도
  • 49. ‥ 49 ‥ U.K.  This graph shows the ratio of house prices to Income for first time buyers, source Nationwide data.
  • 50. ‥ 50 ‥ How long will it take after marriage? 자료: 국민은행, 주택금융수요실태조사, 각년도
  • 51. ‥ 51 ‥ Average Age of House Owner by Income quintile1) (단위: 세) Lowest 1 quintile Middle (2~4 quintile) Highest 5 quintile Avg.2 3 4 quintile Owned Houseless 55.9 46.3 39.9 47.9 45.7 45.4 40.2 39.6 39.9 46.2 40.0 48.2 41.2 46.5 Average 46.9 43.1 43.0 42.7 43.5 44.6 44.1 주 주: 1) 2007~2009년 분기 평균 기준, 가구주 기준 2) 도시가구 기준 자료 : 통계청「가계동향조사」원시자료
  • 52. ‥ 52 ‥ Average Age of House Owner by Income quintile
  • 53. ‥ 53 ‥ Country Comparison of HWI 자료: Housing Statistics in the EU (2010)/ 국토해양부/ 통계청/환경부/한국은행 주: 세부 지표의 괄호 안 수치는 2008년도 지표 값
  • 54. ‥ 54 ‥ House Price & Rent Trend 주 : 1) 음영은 경기하강기
  • 55. ‥ 55 ‥ Increasing Rate Of Purchasing & Rent Price (Yearly Avg. growth rate, %) 80s 90s 1990~2010 2000s 2007 2008 2009 2010 Purchasing Price 9.8 0.6 5.2 9.0 4.0 0.2 2.4 2.9 Jeonse 15.0 3.8 4.9 5.1 2.9 0.2 6.4 4.4 Monthly 4.5 4.7 0.8 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.4 2.6 Note: 1980s : 1987~89, 1990s : 1990~99, 2000s : 2000~09 Source: 국민은행「주택가격조사」, 통계청「소비자물가조사」
  • 56. ‥ 56 ‥
  • 57. ‥ 57 ‥ Increasing Rate Of Purchasing & Rent Price by Region (Yearly Avg. growth rate, %) 80s1) 90s1) 2000s1) 2007 2008 2009 2010 Purchase Price 9.8 0.6 5.2 9.0 4.0 0.2 2.4 Seoul Metro Other - - - - 7.8 16.0 1.0 6.8 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.92) 0.5 3.9 Jeonse Price 15.0 3.8 4.9 5.1 2.9 0.2 6.4 Seoul Metro Other - - - - 5.7 8.0 2.0 3.8 2.3 -0.2 6.6 1.12) 0.9 4.8 Monthly rent 4.5 4.7 0.8 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.4 Seoul Metro3) Other 3) - - 4.44) 4.34) 0.9 1.2 0.4 2.3 0.8 1.9 0.5 1.8 0.70.5 주주 : 1) 1980년대 : 1987~89년, 1990년대 : 1990~99년, 2000년대 : 2000~09년 2) 2004~09년 (2004년부터 통계 작성) 3) 수도권은 서울, 인천, 경기지역의 가구수를, 지방은 각 광역자치단체의 가구수를 기준으로 가중평균 4) 1991~99년 자 료 : 국민은행「주택가격조사」, 통계청「소비자물가조사」및「인구주택총조사」
  • 58. ‥ 58 ‥ Trend of Purchasing Price by Region 음영은 경기 하강기
  • 59. ‥ 59 ‥ 음영은 경기 하강기 Trend of Jeonse Price & monthly rent by Region
  • 60. ‥ 60 ‥ Increasing Rate Of Purchasing & Rent Price by Size (Yearly Avg. growth rate, %) 80s1) 90s1) 2000s1) 2007 2008 2009 2010 Purchasing Price 9.8 0.6 5.2 9.0 4.0 0.2 2.4 Large Middle Small 6.9 9.6 11.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 4.0 4.6 7.0 8.4 10.3 1.0 2.6 6.8 -2.1 -0.4 0.5 2.6 6.1 1.7 3.1 Jeonse Price 15.0 3.8 4.9 5.1 2.9 0.2 6.4 Large Middle Small 13.5 14.4 17.1 2.1 3.3 4.2 3.7 5.1 3.6 4.9 5.7 1.3 2.2 4.2 -1.5 0.1 5.4 7.6 5.3 1.5 6.3 주 주: 1) 1980s : 1987~89, 1990s : 1990~99, 2000s : 2000~09 자료 : 국민은행「주택가격조사」
  • 61. ‥ 61 ‥ Classification Criteria Class Large 아파트 및 연립주택(전용면적 95.9㎡ 이상), 단독주택(건물면적 162.0㎡ 이상 또는 대지면적 327.3㎡ 이상) Middle 아파트 및 연립주택(전용면적 62.8㎡ 이상~95.9㎡미만), 단독주택(건물면적 95.9㎡ 이상~162.0㎡ 미만 또는 대지면적 228.1㎡ 이상~327.3㎡ 미만) Small 아파트 및 연립주택(전용면적 62.8㎡ 미만), 단독주택(건물면적 95.9㎡ 미만 그리고 대지면적 228.1㎡ 미만)
  • 62. ‥ 62 ‥ Trend of Purchasing Price by Size 음영은 경기 하강기
  • 63. ‥ 63 ‥ Trend of Jeonse Price by Size 음영은 경기 하강기
  • 64. ‥ 64 ‥ Jeonse Prices Increasing rate Trend 통계표명 : 주택전세가격 동향 단위 : % 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 02월 03월 04월 05월 06월 07월 08월 09월 10월 11월 12월 01월 02월 03월 04월 전국 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.7 0.9 1.6 1.7 1.2 수도권 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.7 1 1 0.6 0.8 1.7 1.8 0.9 서울 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.6 1 1.7 1.4 0.6 강남 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.8 1 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.7 1.3 0.7 강북 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.9 1.7 1.6 0.6 출처 : 국토해양부 「전국주택가격동 향조사」 주택전세가격 증감 률
  • 65. ‥ 65 ‥ Jeonse Prices Increasing rate Trend 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 02월 03월 04월 05월 06월 07월 08월 09월 10월 11월 12월 01월 02월 03월 04월 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 강북 강남 서울 수도권 전국
  • 66. ‥ 66 ‥ Jeonse Deposit ratio over home value  Close to 60% of home value  highest last 6.5 years 국민일보, 2011.05.05한국경제 2011-05-05
  • 67. ‥ 67 ‥ Why renters suffered from high price? 1. Because of Jeonse system? 2. Because of multi-holder?
  • 68. ‥ 68 ‥  Lease a house on deposit basis  Unique in the world  Found at the middle of Josun dynasty At Seoul, granary was rented by a deposit system.  1910, Japanese Colonial government reported It is the most general house rent system in Josun At the report on the survey of Josun Custom (慣習調査 報告書) 1. Jeonse 傳貰
  • 69. ‥ 69 ‥  Foreigners are surprise at Return all the deposit money  Possible only when 1. Home value increases, & 2. Interest rate is high.  Is it continued? Will change to Monthly rent system. Renters prefer to the deposit system.
  • 70. ‥ 70 ‥  Understanding the rent system on deposit basis. Ratio of the deposit vs. home value. 52-60%
  • 71. ‥ 71 ‥  Why owner prefer the system? Expectation on the increase of home value.  So Owner take advantage when home value increase more than cost, Otherwise, renter get benefits.  Key Relative price increase
  • 72. ‥ 72 ‥ How much increase?  If house prices increase more than 3.5%, then the owner can get benefit.  Cost  Tax, interest, (opportunity cost), maintenance cost,  Reported by the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (국 토연구원), a non-profit think tank. (Chosun Daily, 2011.3.10. ]
  • 73. ‥ 73 ‥ Does it increase always? 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 전도시매매지수 전도시매매/물가
  • 74. ‥ 74 ‥  Risk sharing & the deposit system Inevitable business cycle & risk Risk come from the fluctuations Which is more desirable in the sense of taking the risk? The richer Deposit rent system. Owner, the richer, hold the risk
  • 75. ‥ 75 ‥ 2. Because of multi-house owner?  No!  because If it prohibited, the supply of houses decreased.
  • 76. ‥ 76 ‥
  • 77. ‥ 77 ‥ plottage of Alfa Dorm, core facility of Pangyo, Kuyngido, Size: 137,500㎡, need 5 t. won to built it, but negligent because of shortage of fund. [Korea LH co.] Still Vacant in Core Area at Panyo & Dongtan
  • 78. ‥ 78 ‥  No. of Houses multiplex housing multiplex housing
  • 79. ‥ 79 ‥ House Ownership (2006) Total None one house two houses Over 3 houses Sum 3주택 4주택 5주택 6주택 이상 세 대 House -hold 16,410 (100.0) 6,800 (41.5) 7,290 (44.4) 1,761 (10.7) 559 (3.4) 371 (2.3) 97 (0.6) 33 (0.2) 58 (0.3) No. of house 13,270 (100.0) - ( - ) 7,290 (55.0) 3,520 (26.5) 2,460 (18.5) 1,185 (8.9) 420 (3.2) 179 (1.3) 676 (5.1) 천세대, 천호, % 세대는 종합부동산세법상 기준 (종부세는 6억 이상 주택에 대해서 부과) 자료: 기획재정부
  • 80. ‥ 80 ‥ Year 2005 Household 종부세 기준이 아니므로 전체 주택수가 더 많다.
  • 81. ‥ 81 ‥ Year 2005, Apartment holder (exclude detached house)
  • 82. ‥ 82 ‥ % of No. of Houses by category Year Total1) Owned Etc.3) Rent Jeonse Monthly2) 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 100.0 ( 797) 100.0 ( 957) 100.0 (1,135) 100.0 (1,296) 100.0 (1,431) 100.0 (1,589) 58.6 53.6 49.9 39.3 42.8 46.9 23.9 23.0 27.8 15.5 19.8 19.1 2.0 3.7 3.1 2.5 2.8 3.1 53.3 54.2 55.6 44.1 43.0 41.3 29.7 28.2 22.4 14.5 14.8 19.0 주 주: 1) ( )내는 전체 가구수(만가구) 2) 보증부 월세, 무보증 월세, 사글세 3) 무상 및 미상 등 자료 : 통계청「인구주택총조사」
  • 83. ‥ 83 ‥ % of Rent (%) 1970 1980 1990 2004 Korea - 39.3 46.9 41.3 1) U. S.A. 35.8 34.4 36.1 31.0 일 본 - 40.0 39.0 39.5 독 일 63.9 60.7 61.9 51.4 영 국 50.0 42.0 35.0 30.0 네덜란드 - 58.0 55.0 44.6 18개국2) 평균 49.9 39.3 36.3 34.3 주: 1) 2005년 기준 2) 위 국가(한국 제외) 및 프랑스 호주 오스트리아 벨기에 캐나다 덴마크 핀란드 아일랜드 이탈리아 뉴 질랜드 노르웨이 스페인 스웨덴 자료 : 통계청「인구주택총조사」, Gstach(2007)에서 재인용
  • 84. ‥ 84 ‥ 2020 Seoul announced Housing comprehensive plan  2011.06.08  City Government of Seoul will supply 720,000 houses until 2020  Including 200,000 Public rent housing  42% will be small size under 50㎡. destruction
  • 85. ‥ 85 ‥ Dispute on half price apartment  Is it possible if government supply the houses? ‘Nest house’보금자리주택 by LH co. 5th, May. 18, 2011. 4 places 2011.05.18
  • 86. ‥ 86 ‥ Sale Price changed a lot by the neighbor prices [중앙일보] 2011.05.  정부는 분양가를 주변 시세의 80~85%로 정하기로 하고 관련법 개정안을 국회에 냈다.
  • 87. ‥ 87 ‥ No more nest,‘보금자리’ 자료출처 : 국민일보 2011년 5월 26일
  • 88. ‥ 88 ‥  Home value = construction cost + land cost Little variations between urban and rural areas. But land cost differ a lot. Therefore government cannot cheap house without any supply of cheap land.
  • 89. ‥ 89 ‥ Land cost Home value Cost per 3.3m2 (만원) Const. cost Location Rural area metro N. Seoul S. Seoul 250 500 1000 2000 3000 100
  • 90. ‥ 90 ‥  Differences of home value is determined by Land prices Which is dependent on how many people want it. Not by government Of course, government can give impact with regulations.
  • 91. ‥ 91 ‥ Source: Ken Jones and Jim Simmons 'Location, Location, Location' 2nd ed. Nelson Canada 1993 Location, Location, Location Moses
  • 92. ‥ 92 ‥ Mean Apartment Price by quintile  Seoul apartment is far more expensive! Because of its location. http://land.kbstar.com/quics?asfilecode=5023&_nextPage=page=B011886
  • 93. ‥ 93 ‥  Case of Housing. http://land.kbstar.com/quics?asfilecode=5023&_nextPage=page=B011886
  • 94. ‥ 94 ‥ Why?  Several reasons One of them is education environment. Housing price increase 5,500 won(per 3.3㎡당) With one more higher point of the college entrance exam Reported by Korea Institute of Public Finance(조세연구원) on 2011.4. 26
  • 95. ‥ 95 ‥ Can government supply all new houses?  It is impossible.  Debt of LH public corporation Interest burden 10b won(100억 원) per day.
  • 96. ‥ 96 ‥ 조선일보, 2010.07.27]
  • 97. ‥ 97 ‥ LH가 지난해 7월 착공한 경기도 성남시 중동3재개발구역. 주택시장 침체 등으로 분양 가를 확정하지 못해 착공 1년이 지나도록 아직 일반분양하지 못하고 있다. [LH 제공]
  • 98. ‥ 98 ‥ How many houses to built  Supplied by private at Seoul metropolitan area.
  • 99. ‥ 99 ‥  If government control the allocation Too big Sigapore possible Posibility of moral hazard Communist society  In the long run, private ownership is not different from longterm lending. China, Vietnam, Israel Also very expensive.
  • 100. ‥ 100 ‥ To stabilize the rent market  Jeonse supply decrease Owners prefer to month payment Low interest Decreasing home value Rapid Aging of society  The old want monthly income.  Jeonse demand increase Renters with money Wait more drop of home value.
  • 101. ‥ 101 ‥  Jeonse  Monthly Payment with security deposit  Pure Monthly payment rent Source: 국민은행 부동산통계
  • 102. ‥ 102 ‥ Rent housing market  policy Supply public rent housing Supply private rent housing Multi housing holder is supplier Most rent market is dominated by private Junsae suppliers
  • 103. ‥ 103 ‥ "다주택자에 대한 시각 달리해야"  권도엽  New Minster of Land, Transport & Maritime Affairs 2011.06. 01 ▲ 권도엽 신임 국토부장관 연합뉴스
  • 104. ‥ 104 ‥ 3. Then why it increased?
  • 105. ‥ 105 ‥  So expensive not because of 1. scarce usable land? 2. Concentration ownership? 3. Speculators?  But because?  Demand > supply
  • 106. ‥ 106 ‥ 서울 및 강남 아파트 명목, 실질가격 200.00 700.00 1200.00 1700.00 2200.00 2700.00 3200.00 88-11 89-11 90-11 91-11 92-11 93-11 94-11 95-11 96-11 97-11 98-11 99-11 00-11 01-11 02-11 03-11 04-11 05-11 06-11 07-11 서울 평당가 서울 실질가격 강남 평당가 강남 실질가격 Real Housing Price (1988-2007) 1st Boom 2nd. Boom Foreign Currency Crisis
  • 107. ‥ 107 ‥  Two Real Estate Boom in Korea 1st. Boom: 1988-1990 after the long economic boom in 1980s. 2nd. Boom: 1998-2006 After the long depression in housing price in 1990s, & By the overshooting after IMF foreign crisis. Long stagnation in real estate price between the two booms.
  • 108. ‥ 108 ‥ 1st. Boom: 1988-1990  Demand side 1. rapid economic growth. 1) Rapid increasing of Income 2) the high rate of increase in population 2. Rapid Urbanization  Concentration to Seoul Metropolitan Area 3. Tendency to nuclear family 4. Baby Boom Generation buy a house 5. Myth to the Housing Price 6. Mortgaged loan custom  Supply Side Inelastic supply
  • 109. ‥ 109 ‥ Evaluation of Urbanization  Two Faces of Urban Pros Engine of Economic Activity: 86% of GDP was produced at urban area in U.S.  Low income countries only 55% Cons Pollution, a traffic congestion, poverty, crime
  • 110. ‥ 110 ‥  Why people lives in urban area?  Why firms are there in expensive city?  agglomeration economies Producer benefit: Easy to get worker, cost down Regional economies:  productivity increase with more same business  Share manpower pool, knowledge spillover Urbanization economies:  Productivity increase whith more population in the city Consumer benefit: Various goods and services, & cultural activities
  • 111. ‥ 111 ‥  Global urbanization Since 1960, the urbanization of developing countires dominated the global urbanization. In 2009, global urbanization was over 50%. Difference Developed countries avg. : 75%, Underdeveloped : 45% Regional Difference Africa: 39%, Asia: 42%, Latin & South America: 79%, Europe: 72%, N. America: 82%
  • 112. ‥ 112 ‥ Steps of Urbanization: S shape curve 시간 도시화율 0 20 40 60 80 100 선진국 완료단계이행단계초기단계 개발도상국 저개발국s 농촌인구의 도시 진입 인구학적 변동 농촌 사회 도시 사회 도시화
  • 113. ‥ 113 ‥ Economic Development & Urbanization Source: UN 2009
  • 114. ‥ 114 ‥ Urbanization & Per capita Income Source: Buckley and Annez 2008 (1996 US$)
  • 115. ‥ 115 ‥ 90.590.1 88.3 86.7 81.9 74.3 66.7 50.9 43.1 33.9 28.3 24.4 18.4 14.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 도시화율 Urbanization of Korea  Rapid urbanization in1960-70s  After 1990s, stabilized.
  • 116. ‥ 116 ‥ Industrial structure 1963-2007 Farming Mining S.O.C & Fishery & Manu- Manufac- turing & etc. facturing Service 1963 63.0 8.7 7.9 28.3 1970 50.4 14.3 13.2 35.3 1980 34.0 22.5 21.6 43.5 1990 17.9 27.6 27.2 54.5 2000 10.6 20.4 20.3 69.0 2007 7.4 17.7 17.6 75.0
  • 117. ‥ 117 ‥ Is the world flat or spiky?  Thomas Friedman Information and Communications tech. Globalization & urbanization  Frances Cairncross The Death of Distance Substitution of Personal contact & Information and Communications tech?
  • 118. ‥ 118 ‥ The World is Spiky: Population Map by Tim Gulden, University of Maryland. From Richard Florida, ‚The World is Spiky,‛ The Atlantic Monthly, October 2005 Richard Florida
  • 119. ‥ 119 ‥ Seoul Subway Number of Lines : 14개 Number of Stations : 436개 System Length : 755Km Daily Ridership : 8million
  • 120. ‥ 120 ‥
  • 121. ‥ 121 ‥
  • 122. ‥ 122 ‥ World City Ranking Ranking City 인구순위 GDP순위 1 New York 6 2 2 London 28 5 3 Tokyo 1 1 4 Paris 20 6 5 Hong Kong 31 14 6 Chicago 25 4 7 Los Angeles 12 3 8 Singapore 38 23 9 Sydney 43 24 10 Seoul 22 19 11 Brussels 54 48 12 San Francisco 46 16 13 Washington 42 10 14 Toronto 36 20 15 Beijing 13 33 16 Berlin 48 46 17 Madrid 34 22 18 Vienna 55 40 19 Boston 41 11 20 Frankfurt 64 20 20 Shanghai 7 21 자료: Foreign Policy 2010
  • 123. ‥ 123 ‥ Social Cost of Urban Concentration  Social Cost Pollution, a traffic congestion, crime  Does the social cost due to the population? Not by the congestion But by the energy consumption, transportation pattern, behavior of production or consumption
  • 124. ‥ 124 ‥ Urban Policy  Proper size of City Depend on benefit and Cost Dynamic concept  이호철, ‚서울은 만원이다‛ 1968 , 서울 인구=370만  Is metropolitan area too big? The bigger the size, the more negative external diseconomy? Then the quality of life in Seoul when the population was 5 million, is better than now?  How to solve the city concentration? Control the size? or Solve the external diseconomy.
  • 125. ‥ 125 ‥ 2. Why long stagnation in the 1990s?  Key factors of the long stability in 1990s.  5 New Towns  2 million housing construction  Housing supply increased rapidly in 1990s. In the year 1965 – diffusion ratio was 81%. Beginning of the 1980s, inhibitive policy of supple  year 1987 it decreased to 69.2%. In the early 1990s, accomplished the goal of constructing 2 million houses. In year 2002, the Diffusion Ratio of housing reached 100%.
  • 126. ‥ 126 ‥ 주택보급률  Diffusion Ratio of Houses by Year
  • 127. ‥ 127 ‥ Solved by Increasing the Supply 전체주택건설 실적 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 82년 83년 84년 85년 86년 87년 88년 89년 90년 91년 92년 93년 94년 95년 96년 97년 98년 99년 00년 01년 02년 03년
  • 128. ‥ 128 ‥  side effect of the urgent construction a shoddy and fault construction Rapid increasing of wages of unskilled laborers Rapid increasing of wages of manufacturing workers Lose of competitiveness Chronic Trade deficit Cost push inflation due to the rising of wage & material cost The demand of real estate increased and the real estate price increased.
  • 129. ‥ 129 ‥ 3. The 2nd. Boom  under former President Kim Dae-jung administration Overshooting to overcome the foreign currency crisis. Wave the real estate sales tax Abolition of the upper limit of sale price of newly- built-housing  `Participatory Government of Roh administration Policy target for real estate: lessening real estate polarization Misunderstanding of the reason of the rising of real estate price
  • 130. ‥ 130 ‥ mistakes  focused on the relative poverty rather than absolute poverty. Two kind of polarization Focused not to the solving the problem of low income class, but to the calm downing the jealousy. High Income Low Income
  • 131. ‥ 131 ‥ Always rising? 
  • 132. ‥ 132 ‥ polarization 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 아파트 연립 단독 South of Han River
  • 133. ‥ 133 ‥ What is the problem?  Housing policy of earlier government. Stable prices of housing for those with low income  Then, what is the problem? Jealousy
  • 134. ‥ 134 ‥ More than income? 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 도시근로자소득 물가지수 서울아파트 강남아파트
  • 135. ‥ 135 ‥  The government should concentrate on supply the cheap housing for the poor.  No need to control the luxury housing for the rich.
  • 136. ‥ 136 ‥ •Win Hyde Park 3 in London (Left). •560평 Penthouse 165.5 b. won • Time Warner Center Penthouse. (center). •New York Manhattan 79th flower – 33.5 b. won •(right upper) 인도 출신의 철강왕 미탈이 2004년 사들인 저택1200억원 •Monaco - (오른쪽 아래). 블룸버그 세계적인 수퍼 부자 유치를 국가 전략으로 삼고 있음
  • 137. ‥ 137 ‥ The Power of Chinese New Rich 자료발췌 : 조선일보 2009년 10월 21일 Villas at Sujun city in South China. The villa over 31 b. won, & the apt. 8.5 b. won. Almost are sold.
  • 138. ‥ 138 ‥발췌 : 2009년 10월 16일 조선일보 Hong Kong '콘두잇 Road(天匯)’39 Apt 65.7 b. won for each. The most expensive
  • 139. ‥ 139 ‥  The government regarded the speculation as the reason of high price. Because the Diffusion Ratio was over100%.  Therefore 1. did not supply housing at Seoul metropolitan area 2. Supply only the other region with no demand  So the Result  Prices at Seoul Increased more  Construction co. bankrupted because of an unsold apartment in the other region.
  • 140. ‥ 140 ‥
  • 141. ‥ 141 ‥  The supply decreased after 2002  After 2006, increased at Metropolitan Area except Seoul.
  • 142. ‥ 142 ‥ Housing construction 2000-2009 구 분 수 도 권 전 국 소계 서울 인천 경기 2000 241 96.9 20.5 123.6 433.5 2001 354.4 166.6 54.5 133.3 529.9 2002 376.3 159.8 55 161.5 666.5 2003 297.3 115.8 29.4 152.1 585.4 (증감률) -21.0 -27.5 -46.5 -5.8 -12.2 2004 205.7 58.1 22.4 125.2 463.8 (증감률) -30.8 -49.8 -23.8 -17.7 -20.8 2005 197.9 51.8 17.6 128.5 463.6 (증감률) -3.8 -10.8 -21.4 2.6 0.0 2006 172 40 16 116 470 (증감률) -13.1 -22.8 -9.1 -9.7 1.4 2007 302.6 62.8 41.6 198.1 556.8 (증감률) 75.9 57.0 160.0 70.8 18.5 2008 197.6 48.4 33.6 115.5 371.3 (증감률) -34.7 -22.9 -19.2 -41.7 -33.3 2009 255.1 36.1 59.5 159.5 381.8 (증감률) 29.1 -25.4 77.1 38.1 2.8 2010 상반기 65.2 14.0 10.6 40.5 110.3 (증감률) 36.9 35.1 -20.9 70.0 114.6
  • 143. ‥ 143 ‥ Supply where no demand! Trend of Unsold Apt. 2000~2007 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 00.12 01.12 02.12 03.12 04.12 05.12 06.12 07.9 07.12 서 울 수도권 지 방
  • 144. ‥ 144 ‥ It reached 165 thousand housings 자료출처 : 조선일보(2010년 6월 25일)
  • 145. ‥ 145 ‥ Trend of unsold apt. 145
  • 146. ‥ 146 ‥ Daeku, most severe  30% discount sale discount 1억5000만 won  Residents barricaded to prevent new comers from moving in. 대구 수성구 범어동  "입주하려면 차라리 나를 밟 고 가라"며 길 위에 드러누웠 다. 치열한 몸싸움은 1시간 넘 게 이어졌다. 주민 10여 명이 경찰에 연행됐다 새벽 3~4시에 승용차로 '도둑 이사'
  • 147. ‥ 147 ‥ Bankruptcy of construction cos. 자료출처 : 조선일보(2010년 6월 25일)
  • 148. ‥ 148 ‥ '사형선고' 기다리는 건설사들… 자료출처 : 조선일보(2010년 6월 25일)
  • 149. ‥ 149 ‥ Because of speculations?  Even though Diffusion Ratio is over100% The quality of residency is not so good. There are new demand for higher quality.
  • 150. ‥ 150 ‥ Housing area per person  Resident housing area per person 3.5 times increase duuring 1990-2010 1990 9m2 =>2010 33m2 (2011년) 1인당 주거면적의 변화 2.9 3.5 4.3 5.2 6.1 7.5 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 연도 평수
  • 151. ‥ 151 ‥ Quality of housing Index 한국('08) 일본('03) 미국('03) 영국('02) 독일('02) Diffusion Ratio 109.9 (100.7) 109.3 108.5('03) 105.2 100.6 No of housing per 1000 people 291 (344) 422 416 426 473 Acreage per housing (m2) 63.1('00) 94.9('00) 148('01) 87('01) 95 housing size per person(m2) 23.0 (‘05) 33.8('00) 65.3('01) 44.0('01) 41.6('01) Ratio of Self owenership 62.9(’04) 61.2 68.3 70.4('03) 42.6 2008 주택수 (백만 호); 14.2 vs 16.7, 가구수 (백만); 12.9 vs 16.6
  • 152. ‥ 152 ‥ conclusion  Price depend on the power of supply and demand in real estate market also like other commodity market.  Increase the supply is the most important.  If it is impossible, then should accept the increase of prices for the rich.  For the poor, the government should supply cheap public housing.
  • 153. ‥ 153 ‥ Only for dwelling?  double-sidedness of real estate Consumer goods and Demand was influenced by income and population factor of production and Assets Relative profitability should be considered.  Selection criteria Convenience Distance to work place, No of rooms and toilet, Years, how old accommodation(market, park Prospect, future value
  • 154. ‥ 154 ‥  Can we push to consider only the convenience to the people, whose asset is only this house?
  • 155. ‥ 155 ‥ House as a means of investment  means saving – too low profitability stock – too risky business – need experience, health, large capital Housing –  until now, the easiest and safe investment with reasonalble profit  If national investment knowledge increased, it will be changed.

×