Valuer Insights
Business Insights | Reset, Repricing, Recovery
Interpreting Hong Kong’s 2026 RVD Indices Against the 2021 Peak
May 12, 2026
Contact
Angus Luk
Senior Director, Valuation & Advisory Services, Hong Kong
Hong Kong’s residential market has spent the past few years moving away from the extraordinary highs of the 2021 cycle. But in 2026, the more important question is no longer simply how far prices have fallen. It is whether the market has already adjusted enough to begin stabilising and laying the groundwork for recovery.
This dataset is especially useful because it does not look at prices in isolation. It combines March 2026 RVD price indices, the 2021 peak index for each size class, and the latest picture of secondary stock for sale and transactions up to late April 2026. That combination offers a more complete view of market health, because property cycles are shaped not only by price correction, but also by liquidity and inventory absorption.
At first glance, the market remains below its former highs. In March 2026, Class A stood at an index of 331.1 versus a 2021 peak of 443.8, while Class B was 306.9 versus 385.6, Class C 297.6 versus 350.2, Class D 281.4 versus 342.8, and Class E 274.8 versus 328.0. In percentage terms, current prices are still around 15% to 25% below peak, depending on size. The sharpest correction has taken place in Class A, which is roughly 25.4% below its high, while Class C has seen the mildest decline at about 15.0%.
On the surface, that sounds like a correction story. But it is equally a story of reset and normalisation. One of the most constructive aspects of the data is that the repricing has been broad-based and orderly rather than concentrated or disorderly. Every class has adjusted, but none appears to be in free fall. That matters because markets usually recover more sustainably when valuation expectations have already reset across the board. In that sense, much of the heavy lifting may already have been done.
The more encouraging signal comes from market activity. According to the data, there were 26,319 secondary units for sale and 19,057 transactions recorded up to 28 April 2026. That is a sizeable level of throughput relative to available stock and suggests the market is functioning rather than frozen. Buyers and sellers are still meeting each other, which is one of the clearest signs that price discovery is taking place. In other words, this is not a market stuck in stalemate. It is one where pricing is adjusting through real transactions, and that is usually the first condition for stabilisation.
This is particularly visible in the mass-market segments, which remain the engine room of Hong Kong’s resale market. Class A recorded 8,488 units for sale and 6,975 transactions, while Class B saw 11,158 units for sale and 8,823 transactions. Together, these two categories account for the bulk of both supply and activity. In practical terms, that means the most liquid and accessible parts of the market are also the ones where stock is being absorbed most actively. That is a constructive sign, because early-cycle stabilisation almost always begins in the segments where deals are easiest to execute and where the buyer base is deepest.
When the stock and transaction figures are translated into simple turnover measures, the pattern becomes even clearer. Class A is turning over at roughly 82% relative to available stock, and Class B at around 79%. Class C is lower at about 55%, with Class D at 43% and Class E at 37%. The implication is important: the segments that have corrected the most are also the ones trading the most actively. That usually means they are further along in the price-discovery process. Prices may still be below peak, but the market is already revealing where clearing levels are. This is often the phase that immediately precedes a more visible stabilisation in headline indices.
Among all classes, Class C deserves particular attention. Its March 2026 index of 297.6 is only about 15% below its 2021 high of 350.2, making it the segment closest to regaining peak territory. It also recorded 2,058 transactions against 3,725 units for sale, showing that activity remains healthy even if it is not as liquid as smaller units. This is often the profile of a more end-user-driven market, supported by family upgraders and owner-occupiers rather than highly tactical investors. That makes Class C significant: it is not only the least corrected segment, but arguably the one with the clearest value floor. In many property cycles, this mid-sized, owner-occupier segment becomes the anchor for broader market stabilisation.
The larger-size classes, D and E, tell a different but still constructive story. Their transaction volumes are naturally lower—858 deals for Class D and 343 deals for Class E—because larger homes appeal to a narrower buyer pool and therefore reprice more slowly. Yet the drawdowns in these segments are not dramatically worse than in the rest of the market. Class D remains about 18% below peak, while Class E is around 16% below peak. That suggests a market where owners still have holding power and where there is little evidence of disorderly forced selling. In other words, the top end appears to be undergoing a slower but controlled adjustment, which is more positive than a sharp capitulation.
A useful way to think about recovery is to ask how much each class would need to rise from March 2026 levels to revisit its 2021 peak. On that basis, Class A would need an increase of roughly 25%, Class B around 20%, Class C about 15%, Class D close to 28%, and Class E around 16%. These numbers do not imply such gains are imminent, but they do show the relative “distance to recovery” for each segment. By that measure, Class C once again stands out as the clearest recovery candidate, given that it needs the smallest uplift to reclaim peak territory. Classes D and E are not far behind. Class A, by contrast, has the longest road back, but because it is also the most liquid, it may well be the first to show clearer signs of stabilisation even if a full return to peak takes longer.
Taken together, the data suggests that Hong Kong’s residential market has entered a healthier stage of the cycle. Prices have already undergone a meaningful reset from 2021 highs. Transactions remain strong, especially in the mass market. Supply is being absorbed rather than simply accumulating on the sidelines. And the most resilient segment—Class C—is also the one closest to peak, indicating that the underlying end-user market is holding up better than headline corrections alone might suggest.
From a market-structure perspective, the picture is equally telling. The market appears to be splitting into three distinct zones. Classes A and B form the liquidity-led reset zone, where prices have corrected more sharply but activity is strongest and price discovery is most advanced. Class C represents the stability zone, where prices have held up best and upgrader demand appears to be providing support. Classes D and E make up the holding-power zone, where repricing is slower but orderly. This segmentation is healthy because it suggests the market is not collapsing in unison, but moving through adjustment at different speeds depending on buyer type and liquidity. That usually provides a more durable base for recovery than a one-dimensional rebound.
In short, the 2026 RVD indices do not yet tell a story of full price recovery. But they do point to a market that has already corrected substantially, remains liquid, and is increasingly showing the conditions needed for stabilisation and eventual selective recovery. Compared with the 2021 peak, Hong Kong residential prices are now in a more clearly defined and manageable gap. The significance of this dataset is that the market is actively working through that gap: transactions are happening, stock is clearing, and the segments most closely tied to genuine housing demand are showing resilience. If the next stage of the cycle is stabilisation first and gradual re-rating later, the market may already be entering that transition.
This dataset is especially useful because it does not look at prices in isolation. It combines March 2026 RVD price indices, the 2021 peak index for each size class, and the latest picture of secondary stock for sale and transactions up to late April 2026. That combination offers a more complete view of market health, because property cycles are shaped not only by price correction, but also by liquidity and inventory absorption.
At first glance, the market remains below its former highs. In March 2026, Class A stood at an index of 331.1 versus a 2021 peak of 443.8, while Class B was 306.9 versus 385.6, Class C 297.6 versus 350.2, Class D 281.4 versus 342.8, and Class E 274.8 versus 328.0. In percentage terms, current prices are still around 15% to 25% below peak, depending on size. The sharpest correction has taken place in Class A, which is roughly 25.4% below its high, while Class C has seen the mildest decline at about 15.0%.
On the surface, that sounds like a correction story. But it is equally a story of reset and normalisation. One of the most constructive aspects of the data is that the repricing has been broad-based and orderly rather than concentrated or disorderly. Every class has adjusted, but none appears to be in free fall. That matters because markets usually recover more sustainably when valuation expectations have already reset across the board. In that sense, much of the heavy lifting may already have been done.
The more encouraging signal comes from market activity. According to the data, there were 26,319 secondary units for sale and 19,057 transactions recorded up to 28 April 2026. That is a sizeable level of throughput relative to available stock and suggests the market is functioning rather than frozen. Buyers and sellers are still meeting each other, which is one of the clearest signs that price discovery is taking place. In other words, this is not a market stuck in stalemate. It is one where pricing is adjusting through real transactions, and that is usually the first condition for stabilisation.
This is particularly visible in the mass-market segments, which remain the engine room of Hong Kong’s resale market. Class A recorded 8,488 units for sale and 6,975 transactions, while Class B saw 11,158 units for sale and 8,823 transactions. Together, these two categories account for the bulk of both supply and activity. In practical terms, that means the most liquid and accessible parts of the market are also the ones where stock is being absorbed most actively. That is a constructive sign, because early-cycle stabilisation almost always begins in the segments where deals are easiest to execute and where the buyer base is deepest.
When the stock and transaction figures are translated into simple turnover measures, the pattern becomes even clearer. Class A is turning over at roughly 82% relative to available stock, and Class B at around 79%. Class C is lower at about 55%, with Class D at 43% and Class E at 37%. The implication is important: the segments that have corrected the most are also the ones trading the most actively. That usually means they are further along in the price-discovery process. Prices may still be below peak, but the market is already revealing where clearing levels are. This is often the phase that immediately precedes a more visible stabilisation in headline indices.
Among all classes, Class C deserves particular attention. Its March 2026 index of 297.6 is only about 15% below its 2021 high of 350.2, making it the segment closest to regaining peak territory. It also recorded 2,058 transactions against 3,725 units for sale, showing that activity remains healthy even if it is not as liquid as smaller units. This is often the profile of a more end-user-driven market, supported by family upgraders and owner-occupiers rather than highly tactical investors. That makes Class C significant: it is not only the least corrected segment, but arguably the one with the clearest value floor. In many property cycles, this mid-sized, owner-occupier segment becomes the anchor for broader market stabilisation.
The larger-size classes, D and E, tell a different but still constructive story. Their transaction volumes are naturally lower—858 deals for Class D and 343 deals for Class E—because larger homes appeal to a narrower buyer pool and therefore reprice more slowly. Yet the drawdowns in these segments are not dramatically worse than in the rest of the market. Class D remains about 18% below peak, while Class E is around 16% below peak. That suggests a market where owners still have holding power and where there is little evidence of disorderly forced selling. In other words, the top end appears to be undergoing a slower but controlled adjustment, which is more positive than a sharp capitulation.
A useful way to think about recovery is to ask how much each class would need to rise from March 2026 levels to revisit its 2021 peak. On that basis, Class A would need an increase of roughly 25%, Class B around 20%, Class C about 15%, Class D close to 28%, and Class E around 16%. These numbers do not imply such gains are imminent, but they do show the relative “distance to recovery” for each segment. By that measure, Class C once again stands out as the clearest recovery candidate, given that it needs the smallest uplift to reclaim peak territory. Classes D and E are not far behind. Class A, by contrast, has the longest road back, but because it is also the most liquid, it may well be the first to show clearer signs of stabilisation even if a full return to peak takes longer.
Taken together, the data suggests that Hong Kong’s residential market has entered a healthier stage of the cycle. Prices have already undergone a meaningful reset from 2021 highs. Transactions remain strong, especially in the mass market. Supply is being absorbed rather than simply accumulating on the sidelines. And the most resilient segment—Class C—is also the one closest to peak, indicating that the underlying end-user market is holding up better than headline corrections alone might suggest.
From a market-structure perspective, the picture is equally telling. The market appears to be splitting into three distinct zones. Classes A and B form the liquidity-led reset zone, where prices have corrected more sharply but activity is strongest and price discovery is most advanced. Class C represents the stability zone, where prices have held up best and upgrader demand appears to be providing support. Classes D and E make up the holding-power zone, where repricing is slower but orderly. This segmentation is healthy because it suggests the market is not collapsing in unison, but moving through adjustment at different speeds depending on buyer type and liquidity. That usually provides a more durable base for recovery than a one-dimensional rebound.
In short, the 2026 RVD indices do not yet tell a story of full price recovery. But they do point to a market that has already corrected substantially, remains liquid, and is increasingly showing the conditions needed for stabilisation and eventual selective recovery. Compared with the 2021 peak, Hong Kong residential prices are now in a more clearly defined and manageable gap. The significance of this dataset is that the market is actively working through that gap: transactions are happening, stock is clearing, and the segments most closely tied to genuine housing demand are showing resilience. If the next stage of the cycle is stabilisation first and gradual re-rating later, the market may already be entering that transition.