Don’t be fooled by the “small spring”! 93 trillion yuan of inventory will take 12 years to absorb, labor force will sharply decline by 250 million: this wave of housing market recovery is a big‑capital escape route, not your bottom‑buy ticket! Understand Japan’s PKO mirror and the negative carry death‑sentence, and exit before “price but no market”.
The video argues that the so‑called “small spring” in China’s current real estate market is a brief illusion created by media narratives and policy liquidity, intended to help developers and local state‑owned investment firms digest high‑level trapped assets. The video bases its assessment on a total inventory of 93 trillion yuan, a future labor force reduction of 250 million, a negative rent‑to‑sale ratio, and a comparison with Japan’s 1990s PKO, concluding that the housing market is far from being cleared and warning that a situation of “price without market” may arise.
Video link:
Full text:
Recently everyone has been surrounded by various so‑called good news: ten‑trillion‑yuan urban renewal, a rebound in first‑tier city housing markets, and a turning point in de‑stocking across a hundred cities, sounding as if the real‑estate bubble collapse is being repaired. The CCP has recently been aggressively pushing rhetoric about a housing market recovery. Put those words aside and look at them calmly. The current so‑called rebound is a liquidity illusion manufactured by the CCP. But is the hype effective? Yes, because it provides a precious yet extremely short‑lived escape route for high‑level trapped stock assets. In other words, this wave of “rebound” is not for you to bottom‑fish, but for you to unload.
In a market where incremental capital has dried up and everything relies on stock‑based competition, what is the cheapest and most effective way to boost prices? It is no longer about pouring water, because with the scale of local government debt in the CCP, any liquidity injected ends up stuck in a debt black hole. The remaining tool is narrative engineering: using algorithmic distribution and high‑frequency, high‑density targeted messaging to reverse a group’s pessimistic expectations within a very short time window. This is exactly what is happening now; even the so‑called massive urban‑renewal water‑pouring is just narrative.
What focus have the media been repeatedly pushing lately? First‑tier cities turning from decline to rise, a cumulative increase of 0.05%; the continuation of the “small spring,” confidence restoration, and a strong floor provided by whitelist policies and rate cuts. But once you pierce the underlying data, the picture changes completely. S&P says that core‑city price declines have entered a vicious cycle, expecting another 2%‑4% drop by 2026. In new‑home sales, S&P also sharply lowered its outlook, forecasting a further 10%‑14% plunge in 2026, with total sales falling from 18.2 trillion yuan in 2021 to under 8 trillion yuan.
The inventory is even scarier. We performed a full‑scale calculation, adding together the unsold completed homes and the potential stock of homes under construction, arriving at a total inventory of 93 trillion RMB. At the current rate of absorption, it would take several decades. The media emphasized that the inventory in a hundred cities fell slightly by 2.4% month‑on‑month, sounding like a reversal, but before that the nationwide absorption cycle for the hundred cities had reached a historic peak of 22.9 months, and the absorption cycle in third‑ and fourth‑tier cities often ran for thirty to forty months, with places like Jinjiang and Shaoguan even as high as 108 to 141 months. Rendering a roughly 2% drop in inventory as a trend reversal, the trend the CCP talks about flips far too easily.
What is the CCP trying to achieve by crafting this narrative? There are always two groups in the market, with completely asymmetric information. One side is the sellers – the big capital, including developers and local state‑owned investment companies. They are most likely to have the real data, knowing that the 93 trillion inventory is a Damocles sword hanging over everyone, and that local governments carry up to 18.9 trillion USD of debt, with 40% of their revenue historically coming from land‑sale proceeds that have now collapsed. Local governments are extremely eager, and indeed forced, to convert these heavy assets into cash flow to repay maturing rigid debt.
The other side is the buyers – the retail investors. Their characteristic is obvious: they buy on the rise and not on the fall. Some will inevitably be lured by the CCP into “getting on the train”; this trick works every time for the Party, only that each round of “catch‑up” is weaker than the previous, aiming to extract all the remaining savings from ordinary people. Thus, in a real‑estate market where buying pressure is nearing exhaustion, the CCP uses media propaganda to artificially create a segment of “catch‑up” liquidity. This liquidity is extremely fragile, not coming from improved resident income expectations nor from a re‑expansion of balance sheets, but from the last overdraft of households’ stock savings.
For capital that deeply understands liquidity logic, this is a heaven‑sent escape route: when the bid‑ask spread is about to widen infinitely in a down‑cycle, they can discount or even break even to monetize heavy assets, strip away credit risk, achieving a decisive strategic victory. Some may call this alarmist, but let’s not guess – look at history.
Blind faith in a policy bottom has already been played out in Japan in the 1990s, with a precise mirror image. Japan’s asset bubble burst in the 1990s, the Nikkei 225 slashed from a historic high of nearly 39,000 points in a avalanche‑like halving, dropping 38.7% that year, facing systemic collapse. The Japanese government did not let the market clear naturally; instead it launched the famous price‑support operation, the PKO, in financial history.
The specific approach was to deploy public pension funds into the market, strictly limit short‑selling, and issue administrative orders directing trust banks to buy stocks in the spot market as a floor. This feels very familiar. The operation indeed created a textbook‑style “dead‑cat bounce” on the chart. In 1993 the Nikkei index rose modestly by 2.9%. At the time countless media outlets, brokers, and politicians fervently interpreted it as the fundamentals having hit bottom, the starting point of a full‑scale recovery.
But digging into the underlying data reveals that during the PKO, those financial institutions that were publicly mobilized to buy stocks in the spot market were secretly building even larger short positions in the Nikkei futures market. Because those at the top of the information chain clearly knew that corporate earnings were deteriorating, balance sheets were collapsing, and this was an irreversible physical law. Consequently, after a brief sideways period, the futures market collapsed in sync, the PKO failed completely, and the public funds that followed the crowd were trapped.
What followed was an even more desperate real‑estate market. In 1992 Tokyo residential land prices fell 19% in a year, commercial land fell 13% – that was just the beginning. Japanese land prices then drifted down for over 20 years, and only in 2018 did the national average land price manage a meager 0.1% rebound. If someone bought at the so‑called policy bottom in 1993, they faced a liquidity hell with no exit for up to 30 years.
Today's CCP script is an unexpected cut to the LPR and the promotion of massive urban renewal liquidity, which is fundamentally the same as the PKO and central bank rate cuts of years past. The biggest difference, however, is that the Japanese government is actually trying to use forced expansion of government credit to support the nominal pricing of assets, whereas the CCP is most likely just deceiving everyone. The CCP has no mindset of providing a floor for any assets; it wants to brag so that people will prop up assets, then the CCP will sell those assets, creating one illusion after another. Even if the Japanese government had that intention, what it creates are only policy rebounds without trend reversals. Trend reversals require sustained economic improvement—nothing more.
For the past 30 years, the underlying logic of Chinese housing has been a high‑leverage, appreciation‑driven valuation line. Chinese houses follow the same logic as high‑tech, high‑growth stocks: they enjoy the world’s lowest capital return rates while betting that price gains far exceed borrowing costs. As the population peaks and leverage collapses, the financial nature of this asset is undergoing an irreversible fundamental reversal, which is the true trend reversal.
From a hedge‑fund perspective, the lifeline for judging whether a long‑term asset is worth holding is cash‑flow carry. If an asset cannot generate its own cash, it is a liability. In 2023, the average rent‑to‑price ratio for the 50 key cities nationwide was only 1 to 615; in the first half of 2024 it only adjusted to 1 to 590, meaning it would take 590 months—about 50 years—to recoup the purchase price from rent. By 2026, the CCP claims the current property yield is 2.26%. Even if that were true, with a capital‑cost benchmark of 3.5%, the net carry remains negative at about –1.24% per year.
Leveraging to buy a home remains a liability. Previously, real‑estate speculation could be framed as betting that price growth outpaces interest‑rate growth; now, after discarding the fantasy of ever‑rising prices, merely holding a home results in an annual net loss of nearly 1% of capital, not counting vacancy loss, brokerage fees, depreciation, maintenance costs, and the upcoming housing insurance or pension charges China will impose. This structural negative basis, in financial mathematics, is equivalent to a death sentence for the asset. Buying it now is like buying a wild‑card that will only bring you trouble.
If low rents are a soft knife cutting flesh, the advancing housing‑pension system is the final blow that shatters real‑estate balance sheets. The CCP repeatedly says the public housing‑pension account is funded by the government, not directly by citizens, and that it is unrelated to property tax. Yet, from the hard constraints of the national balance sheet, that claim cannot stand.
The extraction rate of existing residential special‑maintenance funds is shockingly low—only 10% in Beijing, and most cities are below 5%. Local governments have defaulted the interest income from these funds to local fiscal budgets, and a single residential complex typically collects only 6 to 9 million yuan. Whether it’s aging elevators, falling façades, or corroded pipelines, repair costs easily run into the tens of millions, making that money a drop in the bucket.
The CCP also says local finances will back this indefinitely. What can Chinese local governments use to back it? They are already struggling with massive debt; providing an unlimited backstop is impossible, and they cannot shoulder such huge expenses for citizens. A simple extrapolation: once China’s massive reinforced‑concrete building stock collectively ages, mandatory housing insurance, higher maintenance‑fund contributions, and eventually a property tax will all become rigid public expenditures that ultimately fall on the populace, turning into regular costs for owners.
Even harsher, once this negative‑cash‑flow pricing model is accepted by the market, the belief in long‑term home ownership will collapse completely. It will not create value; it will consume cash each year. Some may cling to a final sliver of hope, thinking the market is near bottom and about to clear, but that illusion must be shattered.
Projecting real inventory data together with the next 30 years of demographic structure leads to a cold, undeniable conclusion: a true physical clearance is still far away, and deleveraging has not even reached half of what is needed. On the supply side, China must abandon the CCP’s narrow definition of “saleable commercial housing” and conduct a full‑scale stress test, pushing all completed but unsold units and potential under‑construction inventory onto the market—a total of 93 trillion yuan, about 13 trillion USD, equivalent to 67% of the GDP the CCP will report in 2025, physically representing roughly 80 million units for sale.
In terms of demand, the national sales peaked at 18.2 trillion yuan in 2021 and fell to 8.4 trillion yuan in 2025. If it continues to drop another 10%–14% in 2026, the entire industry's sales scale will be almost crippled within just four years. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario where sales magically stabilize at 8 trillion yuan per year, it would still take at least 11 to 12 years to digest the 93 trillion yuan of accumulated inventory. The turnover cycle for the international health market is usually only six months, while, according to the CCP’s metric for commodity housing inventory, the turnover cycle in first‑tier cities nationwide remains 16.6 months, 19.6 months in second‑tier cities, and fully exceeds 30.2 months in third‑tier cities. The supply‑demand rift has become so large that market forces alone cannot repair it.
Even more despairing than the 93‑trillion‑yuan inventory is the pool of potential buyers. Housing is a multi‑decade asset, anchored only by population, new households and the credit‑expansion capacity of the labor force. Even the CCP’s own statistical bureau predicts a steep and irreversible demographic cliff: even if the current decline continues, China’s labor force is projected to shrink by 250 million between 2025 and 2050.
The labor force is the only vehicle for leveraged home purchases. In other words, nearly ten million primary homebuyers will vanish each year. Once the physical basis for credit expansion in the financial system is destroyed, there will be no young people willing to shoulder a 30‑plus‑year mortgage, and banks, no matter how much base money they inject, cannot turn it into broad‑based credit that pushes up house prices; it will merely circulate empty within the financial system.
Births are now even worse, a double deadlock of low fertility and aging. By 2041, the median age of the national population will exceed 50. In societies where the median age is over 50, the core demands are medical care, retirement and risk‑free fixed income; no one will leverage to buy non‑interest‑bearing assets with extremely low rent‑to‑price ratios and poor liquidity.
Therefore, clearing the 93‑trillion‑yuan inventory is no longer a financial deleveraging issue but a physically unresolvable deadlock. Restricting developers from cutting prices, setting secondary‑market guidance prices, or injecting blood into a whitelist cannot create buyers with payment capacity. The objective effect of these measures is only to freeze liquidity, mask the true liquidation price, and stretch the pain indefinitely.
The most critical operational conclusion is four characters: escape velocity. In today’s Chinese macro environment, traditional asset‑pricing models have failed, and the weight of liquidity premium in valuations will rise exponentially. In a market with virtually unlimited supply and a lack of genuine buyers, possessing high‑quality liquidity itself—such as high‑rated sovereign bonds or foreign exchange—is thousands of times more important than maintaining a phantom heavy‑asset nominal price on the balance sheet.
The greatest cognitive blind spot for the vast majority is a pathological obsession with historical book wealth and a delusional expectation of mean reversion. Mean reversion anchors to a central price, but the center keeps moving down, so mean reversion also keeps moving down. People psychologically resist accepting a current real discount that could be as high as 30%–40%, but the rule of compounding is ruthless: once you hold a non‑liquid asset with deep negative cash flow, over a decade or even several decades of gradual decline, not only will the nominal principal be eroded, but the time opportunity cost, credit quality and risk‑resilience will also be dragged down. This is a chronic but absolutely fatal financial suicide.
If you still have excess property, sell it now. Recently, the density of discourse has surged abnormally, with liquidity on the order of tens of trillions being hyped to the heavens. The CCP, relying on massive resources, has barely managed to manufacture a weak artificial liquidity buyer. Recall Japan’s PKO: the government raised prices, the media took a high‑ground view, but truly rational institutions never followed the herd; instead, they used the depth of retail‑driven liquidity to dump their positions.
When policy credibility marginally diminishes and is exhausted, and the last batch of leveraged retail investors are also cut off, the market bid‑ask spread will widen to outrageous levels. The future normal will not be a simple decline but a terrifying “price without market”: listing prices may remain firm, but no amount of discount will bring a single cent of real cash, liquidity will freeze completely, and this is the ultimate form of balance‑sheet recession.
There are three disciplinary rules. First, prioritize shedding leveraged assets. While CCP media still hype a rebound and buying pressure persists, one should disregard sunk costs and decisively exit at a discount. Selling at a discount on the eve of a major crash is the cheapest insurance premium against future liquidity drying up. Second, beware of the noose of debt‑laden property holdings and complete liquidation before hidden real‑estate taxes and property‑based pensions effectively take effect. Third, embrace extreme and pure liquidity, allocating cash from liquidation into assets that are not dragged down by a recession in China’s balance sheets. Completing these three steps may not make you rich, but it can prevent falling back into poverty.
Whose rebound is it, actually? The answer is clear: it is an extremely brief escape hatch opened for existing trapped assets, not a ticket for ordinary people to bottom‑fish. If you go bottom‑fishing, you become the escape hatch for those trapped assets. Recognizing this is not about creating panic, but about keeping an extra eye when terms like rebound, small spring, and turning point surround you, distinguishing who is selling, who is buying, and why. Dealing with the CCP only requires seeing through the nature of false narratives and returning to common sense, which makes you immune to these tasteless nonsense. Whether you buy or sell, stay or leave, it is your own life and assets, and the biggest investment of your life.