> Basically, if you put down a huge deposit (like $90,000: 50% to 90% of the value of the property), you don't pay any monthly rent and get the entire deposit back when you move out.
That's kind of a strange system. Any idea how it evolved there? Basically sounds like the landlord has to invest the money in such a way as to get a return that would be equivalent to rent but also safe enough so that they can return the deposit. I don't think I'd want to be a landlord there.
I believe the system started when there were double digit interest rates (in the 80's?).
Now interest rates are much lower, but Koreans got used to paying $0 rent and anything above that feels like they are being ripped off.
One reason landlords like the system is because they can daisy-chain the purchase of multiple properties. They take the first cheonsae deposit and use it to purchase another property, then use the cheonsae deposit from the 2nd property to purchase a 3rd property, and so on...
Even if landlords don't receive monthly rent, they expect to earn money on the increased value of the property. Cheonsae contracts are normally 2 years, then they can ask for more deposit or sell the property for a profit.
> One reason landlords like the system is because they can daisy-chain the purchase of multiple properties. They take the first cheonsae deposit and use it to purchase another property, then use the cheonsae deposit from the 2nd property to purchase a 3rd property, and so on...
That sounds like it’d be a disaster during a liquidity crunch.
Korea is an economic experiment of monstrous proportions in many ways. There are a lot of risks that are specific to their system buy it feel like even if the whole thing massively blew up at this point that the average Korean would be better off than if they had never taken the risks.
Buying the assets for enough to cover the landlord's debts. then liquidate the assets for market value. The government could even just hold the assets themselves.
Maybe I'm missing something here, and I just read the Wikipedia article you linked. If the landlord takes the cash and buys the property, then the cash is gone and there is no cash to get interest on. Does the landlord just pocket the property appreciation?
In a way yes. But its also using leverage to amplify your gains.
Say I get $90,000 to go buy a house, I spend the $90,000 and have 1 door. I get a tenant in it and they make a $90,000 down payment. I then go buy another house and get another tenant in it and they make a $90,000 down payment. I now have two houses and still have the same amount of money I started with, I can continue this cycle and as long as property appreciates I don't just get the property appreciation from one house I get it from all of the houses so (% appreciation * property value * number of properties).
Say it is a $100,000 property and it appreciates 3%. If I had just bought one house and put the money in an interest yielding savings account I would get some low % return. If I instead chained it to acquire 10 houses I would get $30,000 return, which is 30%. But if the value of the house goes down it works against me!
Obviously this ignores transaction costs, interest costs etc.
Korea has a housing lottery where they give you first dibs on a new apartment at an extremely discounted price with financial assistance. Due to demand, this housing is difficult to get even at full price. However this lottery is only available to first-time homeowners. So my friend chose to do cheonsae instead of outright buying a place to save his housing lottery ticket.
Usually cheonsae deposit is less than 100% of the purchase price, so it costs less. Even if the difference is small (10%), you are guarded from drops in real estate value. If you put down $90,000 deposit you should get back exactly $90,000 even if the property value dropped below that.
And perhaps cheonsae loans are easier to get than house mortgages. I'm not sure about this, but the deposit may be better collateral than the property?
This feels like it should be illegal. Just by random chance there will be a point in time where enough tenants ask their deposit back at the same time, and you enter one big economic crisis. Of course, banks also have this risk of a bank run, but the difference is that big banks are tightly regulated and have a strict reserve rate they have to abide to (usually >5%). I wouldn't trust a big population of landlords who manage their own finances, and have a big incentive to cut corners.
If anyone knows a method to short Korean housing, please let me know!
What happens if two or more tenants want to move out at the same time? With the strategy you describe the landlord only has cash for one reimbursement.
With a ponzi scheme, there is no underlying investment. So the pool of capital never grows.
This Korean system should work in theory. People generally don't move very frequently. As long as there's a liquid market for investments in stocks & bonds, and the housing appreciates in value over the long term, it's not a bad system.
Seems pretty favorable to the landlords too. They get $90k up front for a $100k house. Which they could invest for an 8% or so return, which, in the first year is ~$550/mo in rent, compounded each year, minus maintenance. Yield wise, $7k on a $10k investment ($100k house - $90k from renter) is fucking amazing.
The fact that is has been around for so long suggests that it works in practice too. Yeah, maybe a black swan event causes a liquidity crunch. But so long as the government steps in to provide liqudity (low interest mortgages would work), then it shouldn't hurt too bad. Worst case, foreign investors step in to buy up the real estate.
You ask jokingly, but the serious answer is that there's an actual scarce asset behind it. Sort of like Bitcoin ;) Whether the scheme artificially inflates the value of the asset remains to be seen of course. I feel the fact that the contracts usually only last 2 years or less really takes the sting out of the risk of collapse, but I'm no economist. Also if it's been going on since the 80's, that means it's been going strong through 30 years of turbulent economical climates.
If everyone makes the same bet, it can still lead to disaster (real estate must rise! Let's all speculate on real estate! --> eventual disaster).
Or let's put it this way: a rational bet is something like, this thing is worth $50 now, it will be worth at least $100 later. An irrational bet is one like "this thing will be worth more over and over again!" If everyone things like that, then the thing's price will keep rising until the bubble bursts.
The fundamental reason the US housing market crashed was that mortgages were written on properties that couldn't be sustained by income.
South Korea has two characteristics that directly impact that: scarcity of land (relative to population) and a solid, world-leading economy in many high margin industries.
It's not inconceivable property with such qualities could increase in value forever, and still be properly valued.
So saying "Just like 2008 US" is a pretty pithy distillation of a number of complicated factors.
It makes zero sense to me that you would have 80% or even 50% of a property’s market value and not just buy the place as opposed to letting someone else.
Do they not do home mortgages in South Korea? Are properties expected to go down in price?
Since you seem to get the whole deposit back, it seems like it'd be preferable to rent in many situations if the landlord still assumes liabilities (repairs, disasters, etc) and the costs associated with them. If it's "free" to live there either way, I'd rather someone else cough up 10k for a new AC, heater, etc.
Why would you not want to pay more rent and invest the rest of the savings yourself? The landlord (at least in the US) almost always has to pick up the tab for all those repairs anyway.
You also get to avoid the risk of the landlord not giving you a large sum of money back.
But as a renter, you are exposed to the risk that your landlord won't have your deposit when you are ready to move out. To me, that seems like a bigger risk.
> That's kind of a strange system. Any idea how it evolved there? Basically sounds like the landlord has to invest the money in such a way as to get a return that would be equivalent to rent but also safe enough so that they can return the deposit. I don't think I'd want to be a landlord there.
I was thinking the same, but here's another way of framing it: they're like real estate agents [1] in the US, except that instead of keeping a 2.5%–5% commission at every sale, they keep the capital gains. They may not need to invest deposits at all to make money.
To me renting under this system doesn't seem clearly better than buying. You're paying most of the money to buy the property, but it's not an investment. You can't come out ahead. But at least there's no risk or hassle of doing property maintenance.
[edit: no, I just saw yongjik's comment: "Under the 'jeonse' system, if the landlord becomes bankrupt, the renter is suddenly out of a large portion of their total wealth, and will be evicted by the new owner - without any money to find the next place. (There are insurances to protect renters but the risk is still there.)" I don't think I'd like to rent under this system at all.]
[1] and property managers who handle repairs and such, but that's probably not how they make their money at $50/month.
I believe the system was adopted in the old days with very high interest rates (~10% was common) - landlords could easily expect to make enough return.
It's actually greatly favorable to landlords. Just think about what happens when one side is out of money. Under the monthly rent system, landlords can't get any more money until they evict the renter (which is a lot of hassle, anywhere in the world). Under the "jeonse" system, if the landlord becomes bankrupt, the renter is suddenly out of a large portion of their total wealth, and will be evicted by the new owner - without any money to find the next place.
(There are insurances to protect renters but the risk is still there.)
Not an expert, but I think there's a good chance the renter will lose money. When this happens, the landlord usually has more debt than the house is worth, so the renter has to compete with other lenders. (There's some legal protection, but I don't think it's bulletproof.)
That's kind of a strange system. Any idea how it evolved there? Basically sounds like the landlord has to invest the money in such a way as to get a return that would be equivalent to rent but also safe enough so that they can return the deposit. I don't think I'd want to be a landlord there.