The encyclopedia · Strategy & Leadership · Strategic decision · 1999–2026
China's biggest furniture-mall landlord posted its first loss — and renamed itself twice
Easyhome listed at a ¥36B valuation in 2019 as the landlord of China's furniture trade. In 2025 GMV fell 39%, rent income fell 26%, first loss: ¥999M.
Easyhome (居然智家, formerly 居然之家, 000785) · 2026-04-29
What happened
Easyhome opened its first store on Beijing's North Fourth Ring Road in August 1999 and grew into China's largest operator of home-furnishing malls — not selling furniture itself but collecting rent and management fees from dealers under one roof. In December 2019 it reached the exchange by backdoor-listing into Wuhan Zhongshang at a valuation of about ¥36 billion, closing with 355 malls in 29 provinces, 92 of them self-operated. The model was a leveraged bet on one input: Chinese households buying homes and furnishing them.
When property transactions stalled, the bet broke on every side at once. FY2025 GMV across the malls fell 39.1% to ¥74.4 billion. Leasing and franchise management revenue — the reason the company existed — dropped 25.75% to ¥4.434 billion, and the company had to cut its own tenants' rents to keep them from leaving, taking another 7.62 points of margin. Gross margin fell for a third straight year to 20.14%. To keep the malls full, Easyhome became a dealer itself: merchandise sales of ¥6.302 billion became the biggest revenue line — at a gross margin of just 7.18%.
The annual report of April 29, 2026 showed the first loss since listing: ¥999 million. Q4 alone lost ¥1.388 billion as ¥1.508 billion of fair-value writedowns landed on the ¥22.2 billion of investment property the company carries. Cash stood at ¥980 million against more than ¥4 billion of borrowings due within a year. The crisis had already taken the founder: Wang Linpeng died in July 2025, and a professional management team now runs the retreat — including renaming the company to a tech-flavored name in December 2024 and changing it back eight months later when it didn't work.
Why it happened
- The whole model was one derivative: rent from furniture dealers, mall values, and trade volume all move with home sales. When housing transactions stalled, all three fell together.
- Defending occupancy destroyed the economics — cutting tenants' rents and then selling furniture directly on a 7.18% margin turned a 34% landlord into a low-margin dealer in two years.
- The balance sheet had been built for the boom: ¥22.2 billion of investment property marked to a falling market, and ¥4 billion of debt due within a year against ¥980 million of cash.
The lesson
A furniture-mall landlord is a derivative of home sales. When housing transactions fell, Easyhome lost rent, mall value and volume — and became a furniture dealer on 7% margins to keep the malls full.
Aftermath
The retreat is physical: 6 self-operated malls closed in 2025 and 12 more handed to franchisees; 39 franchised doors shut, leaving 372 malls. Q1 2026 carried no relief — revenue down 23.82%, profit down 70.65%. The stated strategy is to become a 'domestic-demand' platform of design apps and smart-home showrooms, where the one bright spot — a smart-home arm selling ¥6.74 billion including electric cars — grew 6.6%. The company changed its name to a tech-flavored one in December 2024, then back to Easyhome in August 2025. The malls, and the housing market they depend on, have not changed at all.
Sources
- The Paper — Easyhome FY2025 annual report: first loss since listing, 372 malls, GMV down 39.1%, 2026-04-29
- Hexun — Easyhome FY2025 loss analysis: ¥1.508B investment-property writedown, cash ¥980M vs ¥4B due within a year, 2026-05
- Sina Finance — Easyhome FY2025 annual report analysis: revenue ¥11.144B, loss ¥999M, rent concessions to merchants, 2026-04-29
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
A 90-year-old department store has ¥137M cash against ¥3.9B of short-term debt
Wanda sold 48 plazas in one package — the IPO bet's final bill
Knocked back ten years: Pou Sheng's Nike and Adidas trap
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →

Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.