Core Viewpoint - The property management industry is undergoing a significant transformation due to recent national policies and urbanization trends, shifting from a focus on real estate support services to comprehensive urban operation and grassroots governance [1][4]. Group 1: Property Management Role Transformation - The role of property management is evolving from "real estate support service provider" to "urban comprehensive operator" and from "community maintenance provider" to "grassroots governance collaborator" [1]. - The central urban work conference highlighted the transition of urbanization from rapid growth to stable development, emphasizing quality improvement over quantity [1]. Group 2: Property Fee Models - There is increasing discussion around property fees, driven by rising expectations for service professionalism and transparency concerns regarding fee structures [1]. - Three main trust-based models have emerged in property management: 1. Single trustee model where the property company manages both services and funds, which is simple but requires high internal governance [2][3]. 2. Independent third-party trustee model where a financial institution manages funds, ensuring safety and transparency but at a higher cost [2][3]. 3. Dual trustee collaborative model where both the financial institution and property company manage funds and services, balancing safety and efficiency but also incurring higher costs [2][3]. Group 3: Challenges of Trust-Based Models - The trust-based model faces challenges such as unclear legal status and financial difficulties, including additional costs for third-party audits and the inability to resolve inherent funding gaps [4]. - The shift in roles under the trust model may lead to governance issues, as property companies become mere executors without the authority to respond flexibly to emergencies [4]. Group 4: Commission-Based Model - The commission-based model, which allows property companies to charge a fixed commission while reimbursing actual expenses, is gaining traction due to its transparency and alignment with owner interests [5][6]. - This model has shown positive results, such as a 30% increase in maintenance funds in a Shanghai project, enhancing trust between owners and property management [5]. Group 5: Comparison of Models - The commission-based model is less disruptive to existing operations compared to the trust model, requiring only contract adjustments rather than a complete overhaul of financial systems [6][7]. - The commission model is legally mature and aligns with existing regulations, while the trust model faces legal ambiguities and higher operational costs [7]. Group 6: Challenges of Owner Autonomy - The concept of owner autonomy in property management is currently more of an ideal than a practical reality, facing challenges such as large community sizes and the lack of effective governance structures [9][10]. - The existing owner committee system has inherent weaknesses, including unclear legal status and operational inefficiencies, which hinder effective self-governance [13][14]. Group 7: Core Industry Issues - The fundamental conflict in the industry stems from a misalignment in the perception of service value rather than merely financial opacity, suggesting a need to enhance professional service capabilities rather than complicate systems [15].