From 2026, Vietnam’s land price table is no longer a number that sits still for five years: Article 159 of the Land Law 31/2024/QH15 moves to tables built by provincial People’s Committees, approved by the People’s Council of the same level, and applied from 1 January each year — and the first tables under the new mechanism in many large cities have risen sharply against the previous cycle. For a developer, the right question is not “how much did the table rise” but “which of my project’s financial obligations are already locked at old prices, and which are still open to be charged at new ones”. That boundary decides the entire action strategy.
The price-lock mechanism: which obligations are settled, which are open
The through-line principle of land finance law is that an obligation is determined by the rules and prices at the time its calculation basis arises: a project that already holds a land allocation or lease decision together with a specific land-price decision or a payment notice at the determined price has that obligation locked — later years’ new price tables do not come back to recompute the locked part. Conversely, every project still in earlier steps — no specific price decision yet, compensation plan not yet approved at a specific price, an annual lease awaiting its unit-price cycle adjustment — stands before the new table as an unlocked variable.
The three obligation groups most sensitive to the table: first, land use levies and lump-sum rents of projects about to be allocated or leased land — computed on the price at decision time, so a one-fiscal-year boundary can create differences of tens of percent in total investment. Second, annual land rent at the end of its five-year stability cycle: the unit price is recomputed on the current table at adjustment under Decree 103/2024/ND-CP. Third, site-clearance compensation: the specific price for compensation is decided when the plan is approved, and in a rising-table environment residents’ price expectations rise with it — slowing progress even though the legal formula does not change. Inventorying the portfolio by these three groups, with each obligation’s locked or open status, is the first task to complete.
Actions 1–2: race to lock obligations, and recompute project economics
For a project legally ripe to have its land price determined and its obligation notified, accelerating the remaining procedures — price-plan approval, specific price decision, payment notice — before the new table takes effect is a measurable financial decision, not mere administration. But the “race” needs discipline: accelerate only projects whose files are genuinely ripe (planning, land decision, approved compensation plan); a file rushed to beat a price date but legally defective will be recomputed or inspected later, and that risk costs more than the price gap saved.
In parallel, recompute the whole portfolio’s economics at the new table: for projects with unlocked land obligations, IRR and NPV must be rerun on scenarios of land cost rising per the published table, plus compensation cost rising with market expectations; decision thresholds — minimum margin, minimum feasible selling price, break-even against sales progress — must be updated and resubmitted to the investment approval level rather than keeping old-table numbers. Projects that no longer clear the efficiency threshold at the new land-price level must be discovered at this step, while stopping or restructuring is still cheap.
Actions 3–4: renegotiate along the contract chain and restructure the portfolio
A rising land table hits not only the developer — it hits every open contract in the project chain. With contractors and suppliers: unsigned contracts need price-escalation clauses for materials and labour tied to published indices; signed contracts need a review of force-majeure and change-of-law clauses to determine whose account price movements fall into, before a contractor slows progress unilaterally to force renegotiation. With homebuyers: selling prices of unlaunched phases must be recomputed on new land cost; for launched phases under signed contracts, the developer has almost no door to pass land-price increases to buyers — price-adjustment clauses in off-plan sale contracts are tightly limited by real-estate business law to the agreed price.
At portfolio level, a sharply rising table is the moment to re-sequence capital priorities: projects with locked land obligations become relatively more valuable (land cost fixed at the old level) and should be prioritised for sales progress; projects with unlocked obligations and thin margins are candidates for project transfer, partnering with a land-strong counterpart, or controlled suspension pending a clearer policy landscape. What not to do is keep an even implementation pace across all projects as if nothing changed — in a step-jump land-price cycle, the speed of restructuring decisions is the largest competitive advantage left.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can land financial obligations be completed before the new price table applies?
Yes for projects with ripe files: land financial obligations are locked by the price and rules at the time of the land allocation/lease decision and the specific price decision or payment notice — the locked part is not recomputed under a new table. The work is accelerating the remaining procedures of eligible projects. Projects not yet legally eligible have no lawful “lock early” path — a file rushed for price is a recompute and inspection risk.
2. How should project economics be recomputed when the table rises?
Rerun IRR and NPV for every project with unlocked land obligations on at least two scenarios: land cost per the newly published table, and compensation cost rising with market expectations; update decision thresholds (minimum margin, minimum feasible price, break-even) and resubmit to the investment approval level. Projects with locked obligations keep their models but gain priority, their land cost being fixed.
3. Can prices be renegotiated with contractors and buyers?
With contractors: unsigned contracts get index-linked escalation clauses; signed contracts get a change-of-law and force-majeure review to allocate price movements before progress disputes arise. With buyers under signed sale contracts: the agreed price is legally protected and land-price increases cannot be passed through; only unlaunched phases can be repriced on new land cost.
4. How should the project portfolio be restructured in this scenario?
Prioritise capital and sales progress for projects with locked land obligations (land cost fixed at the old level); projects with unlocked obligations and thin margins are candidates for transfer, partnership or controlled suspension. Allocate by each project’s price-locked status rather than keeping the uniform implementation pace from before the table changed.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council