Following the end of last year, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank and the Ministry of Land and Resources jointly issued the Notice on Safeguarding the Housing Provident Fund's Rights and Interests of Workers' Housing Loans. Then, at the beginning of this year, Qingdao, Hefei, Nanjing and other places have issued the "New Provisions on Provident Fund Loans", requiring real estate development enterprises not to refuse depositors who meet the conditions for housing provident fund loans to use housing provident fund loans to buy houses when selling commercial houses.

In fact, it is a good policy to let buyers enjoy the preferential interest rate for repaying loans from provident fund, especially in the context of the continuous increase in commercial loan interest rates since last year, which can reduce interest expenses for buyers by 100,000 or even hundreds of thousands.

For example, citizens want to borrow 6.5438+0 million yuan. According to the provident fund policy, the maximum amount of husband and wife provident fund loans is 600,000 yuan, and 400,000 commercial loans are needed. According to the loan term of 25 years, the total interest paid is 606,200 yuan, and the total repayment amount is 6,543,800 yuan+0,606 yuan.

However, if the pure commercial loan is 6,543,800 yuan, according to the loan term of 25 years, the interest paid is 822,600 yuan, and the total repayment amount is 6,543,800 yuan. Obviously, if you use a combination of provident fund and commercial loans, it will save 2 1.64 million yuan compared with pure commercial loans.

Although provident fund loans can reduce the pressure on home buyers to repay loans, developers are often reluctant to do provident fund loans. At present, many developers hope that buyers can buy a house in full, or the loans are all commercial loans, but they usually take a very negative attitude towards the business that buyers require "provident fund loans". Why did the developer refuse the provident fund loan?

First, provident fund loans require developers to have certain qualifications. Only legal commercial houses with complete five certificates are eligible to declare provident fund loans, and illegal land use projects such as small property rights are not allowed. If the development company itself is not standardized, or even the five certificates are incomplete, it will definitely fail to meet the requirements of the provident fund center project filing, and the filing application will be rejected.

Second, there is a gap between the progress of the project and the requirements of provident fund. According to the requirements of the project, the project progress must reach more than two-thirds of the total project progress before applying for provident fund loans. And some developers are building projects, when the developer's project progress is only about two or three floors above ground, it is often necessary to continue to maintain the project operation by collecting pre-sale housing funds. At this time, the developer wants to start accepting the project advance payment. Obviously, it is impossible to get support from the provident fund at this time.

Third, compared with commercial loans, the approval time of provident fund loans is long, the procedures are relatively complicated, and the withdrawal of funds is relatively slow. Developers prefer to pay the full amount or use commercial loans. Especially in the current unpredictable real estate regulation and control policies, the provident fund review time is so long and the process is so slow, developers are afraid that their sales will be dragged down by the provident fund and are unwilling to cooperate with the provident fund.

Fourth, for the developer, he needs the bank to put down a large number of mortgages in time, and in exchange, the developer should help the bank find more outstanding mortgage applicants, so that the two sides can reach a mutually beneficial model. However, because provident fund loans are policy loans, there is no room for mutual benefit between banks and developers. Therefore, developers are generally reluctant to do provident fund loan business as long as the real estate can be sold smoothly.

Judging from the current situation, there are two management modes of China's housing provident fund management center: 1, which entrusts the bank to operate and directly hands over all fund collection and loan business to the bank, represented by the "Shanghai model"; 2. Self-management, that is, the center is responsible for all business, and the bank only acts as a cashier, represented by the "Beijing model".

Then, the crux of the difficulty of provident fund loans has surfaced. If it is the "Shanghai model", it will easily provide a breeding ground for commercial banks to take advantage of their own interests, take advantage of the characteristics of low capital cost and large deposit amount of provident fund, arbitrarily intercept the use of provident fund, privately divide the spread and other insider stealing behaviors. For the entrusted bank, the provident fund business is like the children of the ex-wife. Everything is behind the bank's own business, and the inefficiency can be imagined.

If it is the "Beijing model" of self-management. Because the housing provident fund management center is a non-profit institution directly under the people's government of the city, it is neither a government agency nor an enterprise legal person with independent property. This legal status has not been explained so far, so there is always the idea of seeking stability in its development process, which can't keep up with the pace of the market. It is easy to formulate some overly conservative policies and such a slow approval process, which of course can't meet the needs of the market.

For the business staff of the provident fund management center, no matter whether I issue a loan of 100 million yuan or 100 million yuan a year, it will not affect my income, but once the loan is risky, it will be borne by me personally. In this case, business personnel will naturally take the top-down approach when handling business, preferring to make fewer mistakes rather than let themselves take the blame. Therefore, the provident fund management center will delay indefinitely as long as there is something wrong with the audit. Can the developer not complain if the time is prolonged?

I am sure whether the housing accumulation fund is good or not, but it is far from good enough. If we don't change the existing mechanism, it will be a trouble sooner or later. Therefore, governments at all levels should not only require developers not to refuse depositors who are eligible for housing provident fund loans to use housing provident fund loans to buy houses, but also improve the efficiency of provident fund management centers or banks in approving housing provident fund loans and prevent buyers and developers from waiting too long.