Galaxy Securities: Real Estate Market Expected to Stabilize and Stop Decline within the Year 银河证券：预计年内房地产市场有望止跌企稳

Price adjustments, high inventory, and weak demand—these three phrases together have become the standard disclaimer for the real estate market. But what is truly intriguing is why every discussion about the market eventually slides into the preset track of "policy stimulus will lead to stabilization." The mention of "stabilizing the real estate market" at the April Politburo meeting triggered market anticipation like a coded signal. This conditioned reflexive expectation is itself a phenomenon worth警惕.

Transaction volumes in first-tier cities are indeed picking up, but is this a genuine recovery in demand, or a short-term pulse driven by policy stimulus? The claim that rent-to-sale ratios are tending toward balance often masks a harsh reality: when the price-to-income ratio remains dauntingly high for ordinary households, the so-called "reasonable range" is more of a statistical gloss. The market is not transitioning toward "genuine demand-driven" dynamics but is instead caught in a tug-of-war between policy support and wait-and-see sentiment.

Even more ironic is that when analysts describe the future as a "slow recovery," this "slow" could mean years of struggle. Developers are mired in debt, homebuyers linger in the psychology of "waiting a bit longer," and the inertia of land finance forces local governments to continually test the boundaries of regulatory controls. This stalemate among multiple parties is hardly a "clearing process"—it is more like a psychological war, waiting to see who blinks first.

The "stabilization" blueprint outlined in research reports overlooks a fundamental contradiction: when economic growth is decelerating, the job market is under pressure, and household leverage ratios are approaching their ceiling, can real estate still play the role of an economic engine as it did for the past two decades? Pinning hopes on incremental measures like "urban renewal" is akin to putting new tires on a leaking car—without addressing the structural problems, it won't go far.

What is most unsettling is the implicit inertia in this analysis: as if real estate "cannot fall," and there is no willingness to deeply explore "why it cannot fall." When the entire system is anxious about "stopping the decline," it exposes our collective fear of economic structural transformation. A healthy economy needs to rely on technological innovation and consumption upgrades, not perpetually numb itself with the fantasy of steel and cement.

The market may momentarily catch its breath under policy escort, but true "stabilization" requires a more thorough revolution in mindset—accepting that real estate must return to its status as an ordinary commodity, that the land finance model must historically phase out, and that the logic of growth must be fundamentally restructured. Until then, all predictions of "halting the decline" are merely the groans of an old cycle extending its line.

房地产市场又在酝酿“止跌企稳”的叙事了。券商研报里的乐观措辞，总让人想起天气预报里那句“局部有雨”——听着有希望，但你永远不知道自己是不是那个“局部”。

价格调整、库存高企、需求疲软，这三个词组合在一起，已经成了房地产市场的标准免责声明。但真正值得玩味的是，为什么每次市场讨论的终点，总会滑向“政策发力就能企稳”的预设轨道？4月政治局会议再提“稳定房地产市场”，市场就像接到暗号一样开始预热。这种条件反射式的期待，本身就是一个值得警惕的现象。

一线城市成交确实在升温，但这是真实需求的回暖，还是政策刺激下的短暂脉冲？租售比趋于平衡的说法，往往掩盖了一个残酷现实：当房价收入比依然高悬在普通家庭头顶时，所谓的“合理区间”更像是对统计数字的修饰。市场不是在向“真实需求驱动”过渡，而是在政策托底和观望情绪之间反复拉锯。

更讽刺的是，当分析师们用“缓慢复苏”来描述未来时，这个“缓慢”可能意味着以年为单位的煎熬。开发商在债务泥潭里挣扎，购房者在“再等等”的心理中徘徊，而土地财政的惯性又迫使地方不断试探调控的边界。这种多方僵持的局面，哪里是什么“出清进程”？更像是一场心理战，看谁先眨眼。

研报里描绘的“企稳”蓝图，忽略了一个根本矛盾：当经济增速换挡、就业市场承压、居民杠杆率接近天花板时，房地产还能像过去二十年那样扮演经济引擎吗？把希望寄托于“城市更新”这类增量操作，就像给一辆漏油的汽车换新轮胎——结构问题没解决，跑不远。

最令人不适的，是这种分析背后隐含的惯性思维：似乎房地产“不能跌”，也不敢深究“为什么不能跌”。当整个系统都在为“止跌”而焦虑时，恰恰暴露了我们对经济结构转型的集体恐惧。一个健康的经济体，需要依靠科技创新和消费升级，而不是永远靠钢筋水泥的幻梦来麻醉自己。

市场或许会在政策护送下短暂喘息，但真正的“企稳”需要的是更彻底的观念革命——接受房地产回归普通商品属性，接受土地财政模式的历史性退场，接受增长逻辑的根本重构。在那之前，所有“止跌”的预言，都不过是旧周期在延长线上发出的呻吟。