Analysis of the Impact of the Housing Voucher System on Liquidity in China's Real Estate Market

Housing vouchers are compensation certificates issued by local governments with land as credit support. They are mainly used for resettling residents to purchase houses or allowing developers to deduct land costs when bidding for land, essentially acting as a tool to inject liquidity into the real estate market in a targeted manner [0]. Currently, three first-tier cities—Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen—have successively implemented this system. Regarding implementation effects, there are significant differences among cities: Guangzhou’s housing voucher usage rate exceeds 70%; among the 1,411 vouchers issued (valued at 18.68 billion yuan), 1,041 have been used, absorbing 792 inventory units [0]. In contrast, cities like Zhengzhou and Fuzhou have usage rates of only 25-35%, and there are large discounts of 30-50% in the black market [0].

China’s real estate market is facing a phased adjustment. Data from Morgan Stanley shows that industry sales have declined significantly from their peak, with second-hand housing prices in first-tier cities falling by 34% [0]. Zhongzhi Research Institute predicts that new housing sales in 2025 will halve compared to the peak [0]. As a leading enterprise in the industry, Vanke’s stock price has dropped by 38.42% over the past year, and its financials show negative free cash flow and moderate debt risk, reflecting liquidity pressure on the enterprise side [0].

The housing voucher system directly increases market liquidity by providing targeted subsidies to homebuyers and easing developers’ land cost pressure. However, its effectiveness is influenced by policy design details: Guangzhou’s high usage rate may be related to more flexible usage rules and sufficient effective inventory; while some cities’ low usage rates stem from constraints such as transfer restrictions and limited applicable areas [0]. Additionally, the ‘quasi-currency’ nature of housing vouchers relies on local governments’ land credit; if the land market remains sluggish, this credit foundation may be weakened.

1. Persistence of Urban Differentiation
   : First-tier and core second-tier cities, with reasonable inventory structures and stable market demand, are more likely to see the housing voucher system take effect; while cities with high inventory and weak demand may face a ‘lack of liquidity’ dilemma with housing vouchers.
2. Policy Design is Critical
   : Details such as the scope of use, transfer rules, and discount rates of housing vouchers directly affect their usage rate and market acceptance.
3. Need for Coordinated Supporting Policies
   : The housing voucher system has limited effect on its own; it needs to be combined with comprehensive policies such as relaxed purchase restrictions and lower loan interest rates to effectively drive industry recovery.

1. Credit Risk
   : If the land market remains sluggish, local governments’ land credit may decline, potentially triggering concerns about housing voucher ‘devaluation’ [0].
2. Structural Risk
   : In some cities, inventory is dominated by non-core areas, making it difficult for housing vouchers to effectively absorb structural inventory.
3. Market Distortion Risk
   : Black market transactions may disrupt the order of the housing voucher market and weaken policy effects.

1. Inventory Absorption Window
   : First-tier and popular cities can use housing vouchers to accelerate inventory absorption and ease enterprises’ capital pressure [0].
2. Consumption Driving Potential
   : If the circulation scope of housing vouchers is expanded, it can indirectly drive the recovery of related consumer markets such as home furnishings and decoration.

As a targeted liquidity injection tool, the housing voucher system has shown certain inventory absorption effects in first-tier and popular cities, but implementation varies significantly across cities. Its long-term effectiveness depends on the rationality of policy design, the stability of the land market, and the coordination of supporting policies. Against the backdrop of the current deep adjustment of the real estate market, the housing voucher system can serve as one of the means to alleviate liquidity pressure, but it is difficult to achieve a full recovery of the industry on its own.