Véronique Bédague (Nexity) : Législatives, les attentes du secteur immobilier

Yes, you are right. The situation was improving, obviously. We have a drop in interest rates that corresponded to an improvement in the purchasing power of our clients of about 5%, which is not negligible. And then obviously also our clients, you know, the French, our fellow citizens, their real estate projects have been blocked for two years. So basically, it takes just a little for the French to regain interest in these topics and be interested in buying. Obviously, the dissolution of the National Assembly sent us into a bit of a suspended time, which is normal. Our fellow citizens are very concerned, they are interested in politics, they are interested in the programs. Well, what I hope is that on Sunday evening we will have a government and that the real estate projects of everyone can be deployed as they wish.

Listen, we are a group — I have always said it, well before the crisis — a group of warriors. It is our temperament, it is also the temperament of developers. So how are we going to emerge from the crisis? Profoundly reorganized, but effectively you also said it, more concentrated and smaller in terms of workforce, at least. But what I take away from what we are doing today is transformation. We are transforming to do two very important things: to be real partners for local authorities on land. Nexity must be able to propose the best project for a neighborhood, for a community. You know we were the first to commit very strongly to urban rehabilitation. Our learning curve is already very significant and is accelerating. It is very important today to arrive on a piece of land, look at what is already there, and ask: how can I use what is already there and how can I best respond to the needs of a community? And then our objective is also to produce, as you know, sustainable housing but at an affordable price. Price is extremely important. And in our downsizing, that is also there: we absolutely want to meet the solvent demand of our clients. So today in terms of projects, there are obviously the transformation questions with what already exists. But regarding what comes out of the ground, there are still projects underway. Some have been taken over by the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations. Where are we clearly on new housing? On new housing, we continue to build housing that was reserved 2 or 3 years ago. So we are delivering a lot at the moment. Obviously it will be a little different unless a government really takes on housing policy in 2 or 3 years.

Well, I think that there are good news after all. Basically, the former government said they hadn't done enough on housing, and undoubtedly the elections and results are not completely disconnected from those issues. And then every party talked about housing. You don't realize the progress we are in. That is, everyone told themselves in this blocked society — but I have been saying this for years: housing, the fact that young people, those who are on the move, cannot move, well, it fractures society. And we see it today. So housing needs to be taken back because it is a domestic activity, it creates jobs, and it allows us to restore confidence, especially to young people and to all those who want to move from where they are. In fact, we have assigned a large part of the population to residence. But it is not just a financing issue. That is, there is obviously the issue of access to credit, which has slightly loosened, although we are still far from the levels of two years ago. It is also a land issue. There have been no major developments on that. I have always said, housing policy — unfortunately, I would like to tell you there is one measure that will solve everything, but it does not exist. Housing policy must concern all layers of housing. We must talk about social housing, we must talk about investment in housing, we must talk about homeownership. And so all that must be worked on. One of the topics that must be worked on is obviously housing taxation. Édouard Philippe said a few weeks ago: the taxation of housing and real estate is absurd. Yes, that is true, it is. So it needs to be worked on. It must be because it does not allow investment to be pushed, clearly because it discourages investment. So that is the issue. And when you discourage investment in housing, it simply means that in 2 or 3 years, we will not find new rental housing in the private sector. And the French need it. That is why we need to reinstate a Pinel, we need to reverse decisions like that. I don't know if the solution is Pinel. Pinel gives the impression that we give a bonus to the developer. That is not the issue at all. I think we need to refound housing taxation and put a housing tax equivalent to what there is on stocks or on bond coupons. Today, why do you pay more taxes when you rent a home to a family than when you take government bonds? I don't understand. I don't understand the logic.

We have projects really underway. There is awareness there too, but it is very uneven depending on the mayors, depending on their projects, depending on the political situation obviously. But I feel that mayors are actually on the front line. When there is no housing for your children, it is to your mayor that you will say, 'But I don't understand, my son/daughter wants to find housing, there is no housing.' So the pressure rises on mayors. When you meet a mayor, they always talk about housing because it is one of the issues they have. But I also think we need to look at the issue of local authority financing. These finances were completely disrupted. The other day I was discussing with a mayor who told me, 'I think the order of magnitude is right: as soon as I welcome an additional inhabitant in my municipality, I incur 11,000 euros of recurring expenses in my budget every year.' And so that is a budgetary issue that must be looked at anyway. And you know very well that the abolition of the housing tax from this point of view was a thunderbolt for local authority financing, because today you have an additional inhabitant, there is no additional funding.

It is a contradictory signal that is given around these ecological issues. I think we should not let up on ecology. At Nexity, we never consider questioning our trajectory. And I am convinced that whatever happens, it is the direction of history and it is our comparative advantage on the market. I intend to strengthen it. By what means? In our company, when we set objectives, we also think about the way and the means we need to achieve them. I think that is what was missing in those laws. That is, they said: 'As of December 31, that's how it happens.' They did not measure the scale of the efforts required. So I think that if this question arises, then we will need to do things seriously, set objectives. Thermal sieves are bad for the environment. When you are in a thermal sieve, you have very high bills. We really need to fight against these thermal sieves, but we must do it in a realistic way, because otherwise you constantly oppose the ecological imperative and equality in society. Because when ecological imperatives are not tenable, it is always the most modest who pay. And there too, you create frustrations, tensions in society.