Owner satisfaction is decreasing, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to collect property fees. Some property management companies have collection rates below 50%. Why?

Once considered a “cash cow” in the real estate industry, property management is also facing funding difficulties.

Data from the CRIC Property Management Research Center shows that by 2025, the average collection rate for the top 500 property service companies nationwide has fallen to 71%, declining for four consecutive years. Listed property companies have a collection rate of 78%, while small and medium-sized companies generally fall below 65%, with some even dropping below 50%.

Similarly, data from Zhongwu Think Tank indicates that in 2025, the collection rate for residential property fees among the top 100 companies has dropped to 82.3%. Industry satisfaction with residential property services is only 73.2 points, the lowest in recent years.

“This is not merely a cyclical fluctuation but a sign that the industry is bidding farewell to the extensive growth era dependent on real estate, officially entering a ‘hard battle’ concerning survival and value restructuring,” Zhongwu Think Tank stated in its report.

Property fee collection is becoming increasingly difficult

On February 24, First Pacific Rongke Property Management (Beijing) Co., Ltd. Hefei branch issued an “External Work Liaison Letter” to Hefei Beichen Tiandu Community, clearly stating that “the owner property fee collection rate remains low, with a significant number of owners owing fees,” and “the project has been operating at a long-term loss, making it objectively unable to continue providing property services, leading to business and operational decisions.” The company will officially withdraw from property services at the community starting May 24, 2026.

Earlier this year, Sunac Services’ Taiyuan branch also formally submitted a withdrawal application to local housing authorities, planning to exit property services at Jinzhong City Tongjian Sunac City before April 30, 2026, citing “long-term losses exceeding sustainable operational capacity.”

According to CRIC Property Management Monitoring, in 2025, there were 173 property withdrawal projects, with 64.7% of cases being “voluntary withdrawal” or “non-renewal upon expiration.” The main reason behind “voluntary withdrawal” is low property fee collection rates in communities, leading to cash flow pressure.

A senior executive from a leading property company told the Daily Economic News (hereinafter referred to as “the reporter”): “Our company is currently facing significant difficulties in collecting property fees. The nature of the project determines the collection situation.” She gave examples such as old communities, resettlement housing, or some investment-heavy communities, where collection rates are very low. In contrast, commercial housing, especially those with high occupancy rates in their first year after opening, tend to have higher collection rates.

She revealed that the group has a mandatory collection rate standard for each regional company, but “for some projects that truly cannot meet the standard, they may be grouped together to reach the regional average.” She admitted that the company tries to improve owner willingness to pay through community activities and resident engagement; meanwhile, it develops new value-added services around housekeeping, renovation, home inspections, medical accompaniment, and single economy to subsidize project revenue.

CRIC data shows that in 2025, the average collection rate for the top 500 property service companies was 71%, down for four consecutive years; listed companies had a collection rate of 78%, while small and medium-sized companies generally fell below 65%, with some dropping below 50%.

Data from Zhongwu Think Tank shows that in 2025, the collection rate for residential property fees among the top 100 companies was only 82.3%, a decrease of 2.4 percentage points from the previous year. Historically, this figure has declined from around 93% in 2020, a drop of about 10 percentage points. This indicates that even industry leaders are not immune to cash flow pressures caused by declining owner payment willingness.

“The collection difficulties stem from a triple squeeze of policies, markets, and owner behavior,” CRIC Property Management stated in its report. In recent years, many local governments have introduced policies guiding property fee standards, strictly regulating initial property fees for ordinary residences. Some owners adopt a wait-and-see attitude, either “not paying unless reduced” or “not paying without clear service improvements,” leading to decreased willingness to pay. Additionally, policies offering discounts for vacant properties further increase collection pressure.

Meanwhile, residents’ income expectations are unstable, and their sensitivity to fixed expenses like property fees has increased. Some owners delay or refuse to pay property fees altogether. “In the future, the downward trend in collection rates will continue, and the industry’s cash flow and operational stability will remain under pressure.”

Entering the second half

Not only are collection rates declining, but owner satisfaction is also dropping.

Zhongwu Think Tank data shows that in 2025, industry satisfaction with residential property services was only 73.2 points, down 1.4 points from the previous year. Complaints about basic services such as security, cleaning, landscaping, and repairs have risen significantly, with “untimely responses, inconsistent standards, and incomplete resolutions” becoming common owner grievances.

“Service quality is the core support for collection rates, and satisfaction directly reflects service quality,” Zhongwu Think Tank said. Every water leak repair, parking guidance, or cleaning service either accumulates or depletes owner satisfaction, which in turn influences their willingness to pay. To improve collection rates, property companies must not only rely on催费 but also systematically address historical issues, enhance service quality, and increase transparency.

For example, in Hangzhou’s Hehui area, Dongfang Yufu, the property fee collection rate has been 100% for four consecutive years. The key is that after the property team moved in, they focused on improving service quality, significantly enhancing community sanitation and facility maintenance, gradually earning owner recognition.

Country Garden Services also turned around an old community in Shanghai’s Jing’an District, Yanqu Community, where the property is over 40 years old, with property fees less than 1 yuan. By integrating surrounding resources, developing value-added services, and establishing a co-governance model, they achieved “micro-profit sustainability.”

Vanke Property has also implemented a “flexible pricing” model in projects like Vanke Jinyu Xuefu Hanlin Community in Chongqing.

Note: By the end of 2024, Vanke Property proposed “flexible pricing,” organizing 158 mandatory services across 95 service spaces and 1,530 work items to ensure basic community operation and safety; additionally, 350 optional services are offered, allowing owners to choose services and frequency as needed.

“The property management industry has moved beyond the ‘dependent on real estate and extensive growth’ first half, fully entering the ‘independent operation and refined management’ second half,” Zhongwu Think Tank said. The dual decline in satisfaction and collection rates is a concentrated outbreak of long-standing industry contradictions, a necessary pain of transformation, and an important opportunity for high-quality development.

“The winners in this new arena are not necessarily the largest companies in scale but those skilled at resolving historical issues, embracing service transparency, and addressing macro-level conflicts at the micro level.”

(Disclaimer: The content and data in this article are for reference only and do not constitute investment advice. Please verify before use. Operate at your own risk.)

Reporter: ****| Zheng Yuhang ****

Editors: ****| ******** Duan Lian, Gao Han, Du Hengfeng ****

Proofreader: He Xiaotao ****

****** | Daily Economic News nbdnews Original Article |**

Reproduction, excerpting, copying, or mirroring without permission is prohibited