強積金可用以置業 須多審視負面景况

<轉載自2017年11月3日 明報 社評>

強積金當局與政府溝通，研議容許打工仔退休前提取部分強積金（MPF）供款，用作首次置業。有關擬議就現行退休儲蓄安排，會有深遠影響，期望當局除了看到擬議的積極一面，更須審視可能衍生的負面效果，特別是對箇中風險，必須有充分估計，避免出現動搖退休支柱的局面。

星洲人置業為安居 港人買樓憧憬升值

市民渴望置業安居，惟樓價節節攀升，市民收入難以企及，置業首期往往成為最大障礙，有意見因而提出仿效新加坡，容許以強積金戶口供款置業。新加坡有關成功經驗，固然可研議仿效，不過，新加坡公積金與本港強積金存在差異，難以照搬援引。

新加坡早已容許公積金用作置業。現行新加坡公積金制度，設有3個分帳戶，分別作退休、置業和醫療用途，僱員與僱主合共供款達僱員月薪37％，其中23％是置業帳戶供款；本港僱員及僱主合共供款率只有10％，兩者難以比較。即是說，新加坡容許用公積金置業，惟僱員退休與醫療供款不受影響，並未偏離公積金為退休儲蓄實質。另外，新加坡約九成國民購住組屋，基本上用來居住，炒賣並非目的。港人置業除了安居，大多有升值憧憬，出發點與星洲迥異。

有意見認為以強積金置業，乃讓市民自行作資產配置。此乃基於一個前提，就是本港樓價持續上升，用強積金供款買樓，回報更高。回顧本港房地產市場，無疑是中長遠處於升勢，惟不能忽視周期轉折，樓價大起大落，例如回歸之後到SARS期間，樓價最多跌過七成，出現逾10萬個負資產，當時樓市慘况可以哀鴻遍野來形容。

根據最新數據，本港強積金戶口平均結餘約18萬元，放在樓價動輒數百萬元，首期以200、300萬元計算檢視，這筆結餘數額可謂杯水車薪。有一個情况值得注意：現屆政府房屋政策以置業為主導，當局將推出政策措施鼓勵市民置業，「首置上車盤」、「綠置居」常態化與此有關，特別是「綠置居」，以公屋居民和公屋申請人為目標，若單位以成本價出售，一般而言，18萬元或許就足夠作首期。從這個角度看，容許以強積金置業，隱然成為「綠置居」的配套措施。若有這方面連繫，當局須十分謹慎，因為強積金供款是公屋居民退休生活重要支柱，設若樓市逆轉，可能令居民無法安享晚年。

房屋政策以置業主導，由於未有具體細節，目前難以研判良窳。政府就鼓勵市民置業或幫助市民置業，須定位準確，以近期公屋單位是否80萬個就足夠為例，政府已經被指摘為「逼市民買樓」，設若容許以強積金置業，而平均結餘數額約可支付「綠置居」首期，這個「巧合」，不能排除會被解讀為政府「幫助」合資格居民置業。若樓市順風順水，長升長有，就皆大歡喜，現實是沒有長升不跌的樓市，當市况逆轉，有居民蒙受損失、或退休儲蓄付諸樓價一跌，屆時政府將承受的道德風險和指摘，不容忽視。

政府助市民置業 勿忽視道德風險

強積金管理費高昂，蠶食打工仔辛勤所得，市民早已詬病。強積金用以置業，須從戶口領取累算權益，而強積金是「跟着工作走」，即使行政安排可解決提取累算權益，行政負擔和開支勢必增加，因此，須注意強積金受託人為了應付繁複行政安排，會否使強積金整體管理費居高不下。另外，打工仔領取供款置業之後，基於種種原因出售物業，則其賣樓所得，是否回歸強積金；若毋須回復退休儲蓄功能，即是變相提前領取強積金，這個缺口打開了，強積金變相被廢。

從強積金現况、本港樓市實質、不確定性與行政安排的複雜性等，當局對容許打工仔以強積金供款置業，切忌一頭熱，必須衆端參觀，從長計議。置業主導的房策，確有可能出現市民申請「綠置居」、「白居二」及首置上車盤等，即使「中籤」，但是無足夠錢支付首期等情况，當局就此勿偏重「幫助」市民置業的好處，因為可能負面情況同樣顯而易見；最重要是強積金原旨在協助打工仔作退休儲蓄，多年來回報率即使偏低，惟打工仔退休時總算有一筆錢，若弱化了強積金的退休儲蓄功能，在風險不確定之下，會帶來什麼影響、最壞情况是否可以承受等，當局須更多考慮。

MPF and home purchases

AUTHORITIES of the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) are meeting with the government and looking into the possibility of allowing working people to withdraw part of their MPF contributions prior to their retirement so that they can buy their own flats.

Hong Kong people are keen to buy their own flats and settle down. However, their income cannot keep up with property prices, which have reached one high after another. The deposit has become the biggest obstacle to buying a home. It is therefore suggested that Hong Kong people should be allowed to draw on their MPF contributions for flat purchases, which is done in Singapore. However, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) system in Singapore is not exactly the same as Hong Kong's MPF system. It is therefore difficult to transplant the whole idea into Hong Kong.

The Singapore government has been allowing the use of CPF contributions for flat purchases for quite some time. Under the existing CPF system, there are three accounts for retirement, acquiring home ownership and medical purposes respectively. Contributions made by employees and employers amount to 37 per cent of one's monthly salary. 23 per cent of the contributions belong to an account for home purchases. In Hong Kong, however, employers' and employees' contributions amount to just 10 per cent of the salary, making the MPF system hardly comparable to its Singaporean counterpart. In other words, while the Singapore government allows the use of CPF contributions for home purchases, their retirement and healthcare contributions are ringfenced, meaning that CPF remains in nature a retirement protection. Furthermore, around ninety per cent of Singaporeans buy and live in public housing basically for the sole purpose of accommodation, while property speculation is not a goal. In Hong Kong, one buys a home not only to put down roots; one also expects one's flat to gain in value. The motives of home purchases are different.

There are views that allowing home purchases with MPF contributions is equal to giving MPF account holders the leeway to adjust their portfolio. This is based on the assumption that the upward trend in Hong Kong's property prices will continue and the returns will be higher if MPF contributions are used to buy flats. Hong Kong's property market is no doubt on the rise in the medium or long term. However, we cannot ignore the possibility of seasonal changes, which can cause property prices to fluctuate wildly. During the period from the handover to the SARS outbreak, property prices tumbled by as much as 70 per cent, and more than 100,000 households were in negative equity. An atmosphere of despair pervaded the property market.

According to latest statistics, MPF accounts in Hong Kong have a balance of $180,000 on average. Contrast this with the price of a flat, which can easily be millions of dollars, as well as the deposit of two to three million dollars, and we can see that the MPF contributions are far from enough. What is noteworthy is that the incumbent government has given the ownership of flats a central role, and is to launch policies that encourage citizens to buy their own flats. This is why the "Starter Home" scheme for first-time home buyers and the regularisation of the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership (GSH) Pilot Scheme have come into existence.

Judging from the current situation of the MPF scheme, the state of the property market, the uncertainty and the complexity of the administrative arrangements, etc, the government must not allow working people to use their MPF contributions to buy flats without proper consideration. It has to listen to different views and give it more thought. A housing policy centred around the ownership of flats can indeed lead to the situation in which potential buyers cannot come up with the deposit even though they have successfully applied for GSH flats, flats under Interim Scheme of Extending the Home Ownership Scheme Secondary Market to White Form Buyers, or "Starter Home" flats. The government must not pay too much attention on the benefit of "helping" people buy their own flats, as the downsides might be equally obvious. Most importantly, the MPF is aimed at helping working people provide for their retirement. Despite the low return rates over the years, the scheme provides people with a sum of money when they retire. If the MPF's function in supporting retirement is weakened, the government will have to give more thought to its effects and whether the worst scenario will be manageable given the uncertain risks.

強積金可用以置業 須多審視負面景况

強積金當局與政府溝通，研議容許打工仔退休前提取部分強積金（MPF）供款，用作首次置業。

市民渴望置業安居，惟樓價節節攀升，市民收入難以企及，置業首期往往成為最大障礙，有意見因而提出仿效新加坡，容許以強積金戶口供款置業。新加坡有關成功經驗，固然可研議仿效，不過，新加坡公積金與本港強積金存在差異，難以照搬援引。

新加坡早已容許公積金用作置業。現行新加坡公積金制度，設有3個分帳戶，分別作退休、置業和醫療用途，僱員與僱主合共供款達僱員月薪37％，其中23％是置業帳戶供款；本港僱員及僱主合共供款率只有10％，兩者難以比較。即是說，新加坡容許用公積金置業，惟僱員退休與醫療供款不受影響，並未偏離公積金為退休儲蓄實質。另外，新加坡約九成國民購住組屋，基本上用來居住，炒賣並非目的。港人置業除了安居，大多有升值憧憬，出發點與星洲迥異。

有意見認為以強積金置業，乃讓市民自行作資產配置。此乃基於一個前提，就是本港樓價持續上升，用強積金供款買樓，回報更高。回顧本港房地產市場，無疑是中長遠處於升勢，惟不能忽視周期轉折，樓價大起大落，例如回歸之後到SARS期間，樓價最多跌過七成，出現逾10萬個負資產，當時樓市慘况可以哀鴻遍野來形容。

根據最新數據，本港強積金戶口平均結餘約18萬元，放在樓價動輒數百萬元，首期以200、300萬元計算檢視，這筆結餘數額可謂杯水車薪。有一個情况值得注意：現屆政府房屋政策以置業為主導，當局將推出政策措施鼓勵市民置業，「首置上車盤」、「綠置居」常態化與此有關。

從強積金現况、本港樓市實質、不確定性與行政安排的複雜性等，當局對容許打工仔以強積金供款置業，切忌一頭熱，必須衆端參觀，從長計議。置業主導的房策，確有可能出現市民申請「綠置居」、「白居二」及首置上車盤等，即使「中籤」，但是無足夠錢支付首期等情况，當局就此勿偏重「幫助」市民置業的好處，因為可能負面情況同樣顯而易見；最重要是強積金原旨在協助打工仔作退休儲蓄，多年來回報率即使偏低，惟打工仔退休時總算有一筆錢，若弱化了強積金的退休儲蓄功能，在風險不確定之下，會帶來什麼影響、最壞情况是否可以承受等，當局須更多考慮。