top of page
  • Writer's pictureWarren H. Lau

Pros and cons of PSL bailouts for developers vs a broad-based stimulus | INPress International


PSL bailouts | INPress International
PSL bailouts | INPress International

As China's once red-hot property sector cools amid debt defaults and sluggish demand, protecting real estate has become a top government priority to avoid economic fallout. Policymakers now weigh whether extending Policy Support Loans (PSL) specifically to developers offers the best rescue strategy or if a broader stimulus package works better. Both approaches pose advantages and pitfalls requiring careful consideration.


The Case for Targeted PSL Bailouts

Directing PSLs at realtors allows funneling funds precisely where liquidity shortfalls emerged. Since housing accounts for over 25% of GDP, ensuring large firms complete existing projects prevents massive job losses in related industries from cement to furniture. It also protects household wealth invested in unfinished homes. With tight conditions like using money only to finish unsold units, PSLs could solve acute cash crunch issues temporarily.


However, bailouts risk creating moral hazard by rewarding firms for risky past behavior. They may prolong survival of inherently weak companies, exacerbating future debt problems. PSL recipients could squander cash rather than undergoing reforms. Authorities would closely monitor funds usage, requiring extensive oversight increasing costs.


Potential Upsides to Broader Stimulus

Loans target a single sector, missing opportunities to energize wider consumption through tax cuts or infrastructure spending. A well-calibrated mix of financing incentives across property, manufacturing and services reinvigorates growth on multiple fronts simultaneously. Cash handouts to citizens and public works projects boost employment by stimulating demand from multiple angles.


Nonetheless, stimulus indiscriminately benefits all players regardless of financial health. Zombie firms may continue operating with taxpayer support instead of streamlining through market exit. Lack of conditions means spending oversight becomes challenging as money filters through many unnamed final recipients.


Striking the Optimal Balance

Ideally, Beijing deploys selective PSL schemes narrowly focused on developers owning large amounts of livable housing. Strict terms prevent using cash to speculate in land banking. In parallel, temporary tax breaks on purchases revitalize buyer sentiment until supply matches new demand, while transport investment uplifts industrial production.


Triggering economic multipliers requires strategic, multipronged approaches versus hoping any single model suffices. Targeted interventions address specific pain points, whereas broad stimulus jumpstarts wider activity. By layering prudent, phased bailouts with carefully-calibrated universal measures, Beijing strikes the right balance between short and long-term priorities to stabilize a sector so vital to China's middle-income transition.


Of course, reforms lowering debt risks and dependency on real estate profits remain necessary in the long run. But for now, this blended strategy offers the optimal lifeline to navigate China's hard landing into a new era of slower yet sustainable property sector expansion and circulation-driven consumption.

Comments


bottom of page