居屋定價方程式 須符合政策目標

<轉載自2018年4月19日 明報 社評>

新一期居屋即使以市價七折定價，大部分市區單位呎價近1萬元，單位售價由159萬至630萬元不等，並非一般打工仔可以負擔。居屋計劃以協助中低收入家庭置業為政策目標，是維持社會穩定、促進社會流動的重要房屋政策工具，近年樓價飈升，居屋定價與市價掛鈎，售價因而水漲船高，脫離了資助房屋對象中低收入家庭可負擔的購買力，似已背離政策原來目標。今年適值居屋政策實施40周年，或許是時候探討居屋定價方程式是否有改動空間。

樓價飈市價七折不變 超逾中產市民承擔力

較早前，立法會房屋事務委員會通過動議，要求房委會全面檢討資助房屋售價，包括建議與市場脫鈎，以建築成本出售，並以市民合理承擔力為依歸。上周三立法會答問大會期間，行政長官林鄭月娥對於有意見要求資助房屋定價與市價脫鈎，改以成本定價，她表示「我很願意去看這個問題」。

多名立法會議員倡議以建築成本、申請者負擔能力等因素為居屋及綠置居定價，以減輕供樓者負擔。回顧歷史，居屋定價以成本為基礎，不是沒有先例，1982年以前出售的居屋，售價是依據成本釐定，後來才改為與市值及申請者負擔能力掛鈎。不過，房委會資助房屋小組主席黃遠輝認為，以建築成本定價，會失去地區差異等因素，容易造成地點較好單位極受歡迎，相反則無人問津的情况。居屋一刀切以建築成本定價，顯然並不合理，也造成另一種不公平。

在樓價持續瘋漲下，居屋售價與市價掛鈎，並以「七折定價」，是否合理，值得商榷。根據房委會文件，1991年居者有其屋小組委員會同意居屋單位在正常情况下應按市值折減30%售予申請者，「但若未能符合負擔能力基準，可以提供更高的折扣」。事實上，居屋按市值折扣率定價並非一成不變，房委會曾有以四折至六折出售居屋的先例，例如1997年樓市高峰期開售的「居屋樓王」旺角富榮花園，折扣率就為市價約五成。可見居屋「七折定價」只是通俗的表述，歷史上居屋售價折扣率並非鐵定不變。不過，2006年，房委會再次確認按市值扣減30%的一般指引，新一期居屋也沿用「市值七成」定價機制。

房委會強調居屋定價已考慮申請者負擔能力，惟仔細拆解房委會的定價理據，顯然較偏重「七折定價」，考慮負擔能力的比重不高。根據房委會訂出的新一期居屋白表申請者資格，兩人及以上家庭入息上限為每月5.7萬元，房委會的計算基礎是參考去年第四季將軍澳、荃灣、沙田等「擴展市區」及新界區樓齡10年、實用面積40平方米單位價格，即560萬元，按揭與單位售價比例八成及供款20年，並假設按揭利率為2.7%，因而得出5.7萬元上限。房委會強調，衡量居屋定價折扣的原則，是至少有一半出售單位可讓白表申請者入息上限的家庭，購買物業後按揭供款比例不逾40%。但以上述月入5.7萬元的家庭為例，如果購買售價570萬元的居屋單位，每月供款26,363元，佔入息比例46%，在利率趨升下，將會相當吃力。

調整居屋定價機制 增可負擔能力比重

新一期居屋長沙灣凱樂苑提供2522個單位，其中157個屬620平方呎以上大單位，以平均呎價9234元計算，這類單位售價572萬元，最貴者630萬元。從傳媒報道可見，不少白表申請者的父母準備「幫補」子女首期，甚至負擔部分供款。樓價瘋漲，子女買樓「靠父幹」已不是新聞，但這種不健康現象蔓延至資助房屋，進一步折射了社會扭曲。

根據房委會新一期居屋售價及銷售安排文件，93%推售單位在「申請者負擔能力之內」。統計處數據顯示，去年第四季本港約有71.8萬戶每月收入介乎3萬至6萬元，佔全港234.2萬住戶約三成，他們理應是較有能力購買居屋的一群，不過，按負擔能力分析，每月收入3萬至5萬元的住戶，即使有幸抽中新一期居屋，將來供款時也會捉襟見肘，遑論收入屬於相對低的一群。

房委會辯稱，目前以七折定價，至少一半出售單位可讓白表申請者置業後，每月按揭與收入比例不逾40%，符合可負擔水平，云云。問題是為何符合這個方程式的單位比例是一半，而不是60%或70%等更高比例。前特首曾蔭權在2011年施政報告提出復建居屋，認為新居屋計劃的定價要「與時並進」，將售價與合資格家庭的供款能力掛鈎，例如一個月入2萬至3萬元的家庭，當局會將實用面積400至500平方呎單位售價，定在150萬至200萬元左右。曾蔭權的新居屋與傳統居屋不盡相同，惟他提出居屋售價須為市民可負擔的原則，不應因人而廢。時移世易，當年曾蔭權的定價構思或許難以照搬，但當局必須大刀闊斧，調整居屋定價機制，尤其是提高申請者負擔能力的比重，令居屋重新成為穩定社會的政策工具。

HOS pricing should match policy objective

THE PRICES of the latest batch of Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats have been set at 70% of market levels. Most of the flats in the urban area cost almost HK$10,000 per square feet, with prices ranging from HK$1.59 million to HK$6.3 million, which do not come across as easily affordable to ordinary working people. The objective of the HOS policy is to help low- and middle-income households in purchasing homes. It is an important housing policy that serves to maintain social stability and enhance social mobility. However, since the selling prices of HOS units are pegged to market levels, the rocketing property prices in recent years have also made HOS flat prices rise with the tide. With its pricing far exceeding the home purchasing power of low- and middle-income households, supposed to be the targets of subsidised housing, it seems the HOS policy has already deviated from its original objective. With 2018 marking the 40th anniversary of the implementation of the HOS policy, perhaps it is time to examine whether there is room for changing the HOS pricing formula.

Just days ago, the Legislative Council Panel on Housing passed a motion asking for a comprehensive review by the Housing Authority (HA) on the pricing mechanism of subsidised housing. One of the ideas proposed is to unpeg the prices from market levels and set prices in accordance with construction costs and on the basis of citizens' affordability. Then at a question session of the Legislative Council last Wednesday, Chief Executive Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor also commented on the idea, saying that "I am willing to look at this problem". However, HA Subsidised Housing Committee chairman Wong Yuen-fai rejected the idea of pricing at construction costs, saying it would mean discarding price factors like geographical differences, easily resulting in the hot pursuit of flats with good locations and the poor sales of others. Pricing HOS flats at construction costs in an across-the-board manner is clearly unreasonable and will only lead to another sort of injustice.

As property prices continue to skyrocket, the rationality of pegging HOS unit prices at 70% of market values is indeed debatable. According to HA documents, the Home Ownership Committee agreed in 1991 that under normal circumstances HOS flats should be sold to applicants at a 30% discount off assessed market values. "However, if the benchmark for affordability cannot be matched, a higher discount can be offered." In fact, the discount rates offered in past sales of HOS flats have not always been the same. There were cases in which HOS flats were sold at 40% to 60% of market prices. But in 2006, the HA once again adhered to the general guideline of offering a discount of 30% of market values. In the sale of the latest batch of HOS flats, the pricing ratio of 70% of market price has been adopted as well.

In the latest HOS batch, 2,522 flats in Hoi Lok Court in Cheung Sha Wan are offered for sale. Of them, 157 are classified as large flats with an area of more than 620 square feet. With an average price of HK$9,234 per square feet, these large flats are sold at HK$5.72 million on average and the top price reaches HK$6.3 million. As reported by the media, many parents of white form applicants are willing to help finance their children's down payment of home purchase, and even burden themselves with paying part of the mortgage. Amid absurd property prices, stories of young home buyers relying on their parents' help are now commonplace. Still, the spread of this unhealthy phenomenon of over-dependence on parents for home purchase has further reflected the distortions in our society.

When former Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen announced resuming the building of HOS flats in his policy address in 2011, he suggested that under the new scheme, the pricing should "move with the times" and proposed pegging HOS unit prices to buyers' ability to pay the mortgage. Times have changed and it may be hard to copy Tsang's idea on pricing without modifications. But the authorities should take bold and resolute action to adjust the HOS pricing mechanism. A higher weight should, in particular, be given to applicants' affordability in setting the prices. By doing so, we hope the HOS policy will once again serve its function as an instrument for social stability.

居屋定價方程式 須符合政策目標

新一期居屋即使以市價七折定價，大部分市區單位呎價近1萬元，單位售價由159萬至630萬元不等，並非一般打工仔可以負擔。居屋計劃以協助中低收入家庭置業為政策目標，是維持社會穩定、促進社會流動的重要房屋政策工具，近年樓價飈升，居屋定價與市價掛鈎，售價因而水漲船高，脫離了資助房屋對象中低收入家庭可負擔的購買力，似已背離政策原來目標。今年適值居屋政策實施40周年，或許是時候探討居屋定價方程式是否有改動空間。

較早前，立法會房屋事務委員會通過動議，要求房委會全面檢討資助房屋售價，包括建議與市場脫鈎，以建築成本出售，並以市民合理承擔力為依歸。上周三立法會答問大會期間，行政長官林鄭月娥對於有意見要求資助房屋定價與市價脫鈎，改以成本定價，她表示「我很願意去看這個問題」。不過，房委會資助房屋小組主席黃遠輝認為，以建築成本定價，會失去地區差異等因素，容易造成地點較好單位極受歡迎，相反則無人問津的情况。居屋一刀切以建築成本定價，顯然並不合理，也造成另一種不公平。

在樓價持續瘋漲下，居屋售價與市價掛鈎，並以「七折定價」，是否合理，值得商榷。根據房委會文件，1991年居者有其屋小組委員會同意居屋單位在正常情况下應按市值折減30%售予申請者，「但若未能符合負擔能力基準，可以提供更高的折扣」。事實上，居屋按市值折扣率定價並非一成不變，房委會曾有以四折至六折出售居屋的先例。不過，2006年，房委會再次確認按市值扣減30%的一般指引，新一期居屋也沿用「市值七成」定價機制。

新一期居屋長沙灣凱樂苑提供2522個單位，其中157個屬620平方呎以上大單位，以平均呎價9234元計算，這類單位售價572萬元，最貴者630萬元。從傳媒報道可見，不少白表申請者的父母準備「幫補」子女首期，甚至負擔部分供款。樓價瘋漲，子女買樓「靠父幹」已不是新聞，但這種不健康現象蔓延至資助房屋，進一步折射了社會扭曲。

前特首曾蔭權在2011年施政報告提出復建居屋，認為新居屋計劃的定價要「與時並進」，將售價與合資格家庭的供款能力掛鈎。時移世易，當年曾蔭權的定價構思或許難以照搬，但當局必須大刀闊斧，調整居屋定價機制，尤其是提高申請者負擔能力的比重，令居屋重新成為穩定社會的政策工具。