转贴一个惨痛的：房子卖了

dara

58# amateur_idiot


实际上也没必要太悲观，只要政府把通胀启动起来，过几年后房价自然会上去了。

买房子被套，比买股票被套不知好多少倍：房子可以自己住，股票只好当手纸了。
dividend_growth 发表于 2009-5-21 15:21

100% agree. way better than 股票.
As long as you have job, it is fine.

watchdog

100% agree. way better than 股票.
As long as you have job, it is fine.
dara 发表于 2009-5-21 15:23

The problem is that job market keeps sinking.

BSW

8# 戒急用忍
Lao Da, alLready back to 2002 level?  Where are you?  Las Vegas?

In my area (S. Cal.), while the overal market has dropped about 50%, good neighborhood has only seen about 20-25% drop.  Even if inflation is factored in, the drop is not too much higher than 30%.  So it is still around 2004 level (though in the worst neighborhood, it is probably about 2000 level) .

SpringMountain

Real Estate is very localized, there're still up area in this market and down areas 5 years ago. Too many ppl love to compare how big each other's house is, without considering if it's worth it.

In CA, the rent:purchase is way off, and same situation happened twenty years ago as well. History does repeat.

pingwater

唉。大家都不容易啊。

BSW

60# dividend_growth
Lao Da, this thing has two angles.  You are right in the sense that, if your house is "under water," at least you can still live in it and stick to the end (when it gets above water, which is almost a given).  With a stock position under water, you do not have this kind of peace of mind since the stock  has no practical utility, and the risk of holding it in the hope of a final turnaround is far less certain.  

On the other hand, having a stock under water now can also be less a problem than having a house under water.  Say, if you suddenly lose your job and need to relocate while the housing market continues sinking, you can keep holding the stock position.  But your won't have such a luxury if you can no longer afford the mortgage payment.

戒急用忍

你错了，他是2006年借满55万买的房，最后亏16万。
他要是在2006年借满55万炒股，早见外婆了。。。如果现在只亏16万，已经beat很多基金和sp500了...

看看我转贴的这个例子啊，买房卖房，这一买一卖就亏了16万啊。 炒股要想亏16万，可没那么容易呢。


你在别的帖子里说这个话倒也算了，偏偏在这个帖子里面说。横横。这叫哪壶不开提哪壶。
xiaobailong 发表于 2009-5-21 13:54

amateur_idiot

If you own the house and it's under water, you have the luxury to walk away without any liabilities.  Your loss is your downpayment only.
If you own the stock and it's under water, you don't have choice but to hold the position.  You might lose every penny you put into the market if you use margin.

60# dividend_growth
Lao Da, this thing has two angles.  You are right in the sense that, if your house is "under water," at least you can still live in it and stick to the end (when it gets above w ...
BSW 发表于 2009-5-21 16:28

金瓶梅

觉得美国， 中国house market 需要根本性改革， 目前如果让房价立刻上去只会让
根本性更糟， 政府不应该用房子来维持虚假繁荣， 只会让老百姓觉得要立刻买，
不买明天就没这么便宜的价格了， 不买就没有每年近似10% 的PROFIT， 很多人开
始用房子来作为投资的手段， 甚至投机。 如果政府买卖收10% 的手续费， PROFIT
收30% 的资本盈利税， 就不会有太多的投机人在， 对于稳定市场很有效， 而且可
以说房价控制低， 也是对百姓有利， 消除地区过大差异。

xiaobailong

觉得美国， 中国house market 需要根本性改革， 目前如果让房价立刻上去只会让
根本性更糟， 政府不应该用房子来维持虚假繁荣， 只会让老百姓觉得要立刻买，
不买明天就没这么便宜的价格了， 不买就没有每年近似1 ...
金瓶梅 发表于 2009-5-21 17:14

嗯，德国政府对房价控制得就很好，这么多年房价基本上没动，呵呵。

xiaobailong

你错了，他是2006年借满55万买的房，最后亏16万。
他要是在2006年借满55万炒股，早见外婆了。。。如果现在只亏16万，已经beat很多基金和sp500了...


戒急用忍 发表于 2009-5-21 16:29

这个不对吧？ 顶多是他自己downpay了16万，加上margin有55万的buying power, 所以买了55万的房子。

agang

嗯，德国政府对房价控制得就很好，这么多年房价基本上没动，呵呵。
xiaobailong 发表于 2009-5-21 17:39

But there are negative population growth in Germany ba?

newbee168

一个朋友告诉我， 她Daddy1980 年 50万NEW YORK 买的， 到高峰都到500 多万了，
翻了10 倍， 听说最近跌， 但是说跌也跌不到400万， 远没跌回80 年的水平
金瓶梅 发表于 2009-5-21 12:53

您介是要让米国倒退30年啊！

xiaobailong

But there are negative population growth in Germany ba?
agang 发表于 2009-5-21 17:43

population不成问题，美国population才增加了多少啊，房价涨了多少？根本不成比例，所以population根本不是影响因素，顶多被当成借口而已。

如果德国想要population增长，也接受移民好了，这又不是什么难事。

focusonsth

slowisfast

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ne ... 00Ww&refer=home

links4rank

如果德国想要population增长，也接受移民好了，这又不是什么难事。
xiaobailong 发表于 2009-5-21 17:46

哈，LZ成了总理了！

tape

49# amateur_idiot

真的吗？俺也有朋友06冲着抢房子。

tape

52# 逍遥自在
9494

stringzero

pat pat