今日林行止專欄講:「香港地產發展商利潤之豐厚，在地價高漲的香港，是世界其他地區的地產商難望其項背的。」牽起了奶茶怪一直的疑問 -- 既然是那麼好景，香港又是一個自由市場，為什麼世界各地的地產商不爭相參與香港地產事業? 如果有充分競爭，本地地產商的豐厚利潤理應消失，而事實又不是這樣，究竟是甚麼阻止外國競爭者加入?
香港地產開埠以來由英國財團支配，70-80年代，本地財團掘起，奪去主導地位，到今日，行業結構早已歸邊，每次土地競投都是幾個大家熟識的「本地薑」舉手。大體上，香港的地產制度是自由的，土地拍賣，是公開競投、價高者得的，建築工程可以外判給承建商，而售樓渠道亦十分暢通，地產代理競爭激烈。如果說「地頭蟲」有無可替代的優勢，那優勢是甚麼呢? 反觀香港地產商在外地，如英國、中國上海，都很吃得開。看來香港地產業比外地和內地的更封閉，為什麼呢?
5 則留言:
high entry cost?
it is a very good question. i have never thought about beofe.
seafoodx, high entry cost might affect the new start-up local developers, which is understandable, but can hardly stop international big developers including the mainland ones. Agree?
liangzi: thank you. hope more people in the blogsphere could recommend more answers.
there are a few unique capability and advantages that HK developers enjoy, which creates certain edges for HK developer. e.g Henderson has accumulated a lot of land certificated (via New Terriotiry farm land), etc. which is hard to replicate for foreign new entrant.
also, there indeed have been new competitors entering the market, e.g. Sino-land from singapore. sino learned an expensive lesson in 1997.
it is also true that HK is controlled by cartel. imagine if there were no anti-trust in US, the cartels in telecom, oil, etc. in US were very effectively in keeping outsiders out. same for HK market.
however, the issue is HK is, IMO, not really the competition, but the "business model" of HK's tax system, where the developers are effectively the tax collectors for the govt. so they are performing an additional economic activity of 'collecting tax', and hence higher margin that developers elsewhere, who do not perform such function.
look how the HK govt worried when the developers complain -- the govt are trying to make sure that these tycoons are profitable, otherwise the govt will be in trouble as well.
sun bin, thank you for your comments, thoughtful points.
Sino Land entered the Hong Kong property market in 1972, and should be considered "old Hong Kong" (lao xiang gang).
發佈留言