It is more difficult to raise funds for the provident fund.

1, the relative opening rate of housing provident fund is low. The provident fund system has not been fully promoted in many small and medium-sized cities. Driven by departmental interests or local interests, some places are unwilling to lose their existing housing interests, unable to correctly grasp the situation, and still have policies and countermeasures. In addition to subjective factors, there are also reasons for corporate losses, and there are also problems left over from budgetary difficulties. Because there are no relevant laws, the government has no strong punishment measures for those units that do not implement the housing provident fund system.

2. The housing accumulation fund failed to be paid in full and on time. In China's economically developed cities, such as Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, the proportion of payment is far less than that of Singapore's 25%, and the situation in other cities is even less optimistic. Even so, it is difficult for many departments and units to pay in full within a lower prescribed proportion, or to delay payment for a long time, showing great randomness. Many enterprises have fallen into a vicious circle because of poor efficiency and serious phenomenon of delaying payment of housing provident fund.

3. The housing accumulation fund has been misappropriated. In the relevant decision, the State Council defined the property of housing provident fund as "individual payment, unit subsidy, and ownership belongs to individuals." However, due to the deviation of understanding, some units pay insufficient attention to the provident fund, and the phenomenon of misappropriation of housing provident fund occurs from time to time. Some units only deduct housing provident fund and do not accept it. These behaviors have dampened the enthusiasm of employees to participate in housing reform and affected the overall arrangement of the whole housing reform work by the state.