Core Viewpoint - The current discourse around property management in China highlights the challenges faced by property companies, particularly regarding the collection of service fees and the management of funds by homeowners' committees, which may not lead to improved community conditions without a solid legal framework and full payment compliance [1][2]. Group 1: Industry Challenges - Property companies are experiencing a decline in profitability, with average gross margins returning to rational levels after previously exceeding 35%, and many companies are now reporting losses [1]. - The average collection rate for residential property fees in China is only 76.3%, indicating significant issues with fee compliance among homeowners [1]. Group 2: Governance and Management Issues - The reliance on homeowners' committees to manage funds and distribute public benefits is problematic, as there have been numerous cases of corruption and mismanagement within these committees [3][4]. - The distribution of public benefits can undermine the long-term maintenance needs of properties, leading to a depletion of funds necessary for infrastructure upkeep [4]. Group 3: Economic and Legal Considerations - The connection between companies and fund management is crucial, as companies possess the legal responsibility and expertise to manage emergencies and maintain service quality [5]. - There is a need for improved legal frameworks and industry regulations to ensure that property companies operate transparently and effectively, rather than shifting financial management to homeowners' committees [5][6].

Core Viewpoint - Recent cases of property management companies returning funds to homeowners in cities like Chengdu, Guangzhou, and Wuhan have garnered attention, as most homeowners have not experienced such refunds before [1][2] Group 1: Property Management Practices - Property management services are divided into two systems: commission-based and fixed-price. Only commission-based systems can return surplus property fees, with less than 8% of key cities operating under this model [2][8] - The majority of properties operate under a fixed-price system, where any surplus is not returned to homeowners, while commission-based systems are primarily found in high-end residential areas [7][8] - Chengdu has seen a slight increase in commission-based management, rising to about 10% due to recent policy changes [8] Group 2: Homeowner Associations and Management - Effective management of public revenue in residential areas relies heavily on the operation of homeowner associations (HOAs), which are often underrepresented across the country [2][12] - In some successful cases, such as the Baoli Lianghe Forest community in Chengdu, the HOA has effectively managed surplus funds and returned them to homeowners [3][6] - The establishment of HOAs is crucial for the oversight and management of public revenue, yet many areas still struggle with low HOA coverage and weak homeowner autonomy [12] Group 3: Public Revenue Management - Public revenue sources include parking fees, advertising income, and other communal earnings, which are often poorly managed and lack transparency [10][12] - Recent policies in seven provinces and cities have been introduced to clarify the ownership and management of public revenue, emphasizing that these funds belong to all homeowners [10][11] - The management of public revenue is increasingly being regulated, with requirements for separate bank accounts and transparent accounting practices [11][12] Group 4: Challenges and Opportunities - The transition from fixed-price to commission-based management can yield positive results, as seen in some cases where property fees have not only been recouped but have also led to increased property values [8][12] - However, the reluctance of large property management companies to switch to commission-based systems poses a challenge, as it affects their profit margins and control over funds [9][12] - The push for transparency and effective management of public revenue is essential for enhancing homeowner rights and ensuring sustainable property services [12][13]

Group 1 - The core issue is the dysfunction of homeowners' committees (业委会) in various residential communities, leading to stagnation in community affairs and governance [2][4][5] - In a specific case in Beijing, four members of a homeowners' committee resigned, resulting in a lack of leadership and failure to address essential community maintenance tasks [2] - The local street office initiated a re-election process for the homeowners' committee, which was legally upheld by the court, emphasizing the need for proper governance [2] Group 2 - The "entrepreneurial mindset" approach in managing homeowners' committees is being adopted in some communities, leading to improved transparency and accountability in financial management [4] - The transition from a "fixed fee" to a "performance-based" payment model for property management has been implemented, enhancing service quality and owner satisfaction [4] - Successful collaboration among homeowners' committees, property management companies, and community committees has resulted in increased payment rates and improved community services [5] Group 3 - The lack of professional skills among committee members often leads to inefficiency and disengagement, with many members feeling overwhelmed by the responsibilities [6][7] - Personal conflicts and unfounded accusations against committee members contribute to a "lying flat" mentality, discouraging active participation [8][9] - Recommendations for improving homeowners' committee effectiveness include establishing interim property management committees and enforcing stricter regulations on committee member conduct [10][12]