Singapore Private Property prices still up or down? Part III

[Alfc]

52 minutes ago, Wt_know said:

SURE WIN ... *kaboomz* ..... win until siao ah!

 

Exactly, worst case scenario Ah Gong will come out policy and bail out package to defer, defer and defer your installments until prices recover and on the huat journey again. Such a big safety net so really nothing to fear. Even the peasants' plate of chicken rice confirmed inflating at 2% p.a dun get this kind of protection. 

[Wt_know]

16 minutes ago, Alfc said:

Exactly, worst case scenario Ah Gong will come out policy and bail out package to defer, defer and defer your installments until prices recover and on the huat journey again. Such a big safety net so really nothing to fear. Even the peasants' plate of chicken rice confirmed inflating at 2% p.a dun get this kind of protection. 

don't play play ... 34,000 millionaires added

if you don't get defer payment means you missed the boat liao ...  

Edited October 4, 2020 by Wt_know

[Showster]

Just be content someone held prices for you to buy.

Without this force, we would easily have realised the full potential of housing, and it will not be just 1.23mil for Duxton unit.

Honestly, many properties in SG are priced much lower than their potential. It’s just a matter of sieving out which one is the most underpriced.
 

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Showster

[Khng8]

I’m afraid that the G have created a moral hazard by coming out with such bail out measures.

[Wt_know]

36 minutes ago, Showster said:

Honestly, many properties in SG are priced much lower than their potential. It’s just a matter of sieving out which one is the most underpriced.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Wt_know

[Throttle2]

3 hours ago, Khng8 said:

I’m afraid that the G have created a moral hazard by coming out with such bail out measures.

Abo then.  A bunch of free riders....

[Showster]

5 hours ago, Khng8 said:

I’m afraid that the G have created a moral hazard by coming out with such bail out measures.

To be factual, it was much more of a moral hazard to install more than a dozen measures. Therein lies the true unfairness.

[Showster]

X, Y and Z goes to market to buy fish.

X is decisive and buys the bucket of fish he wants at the price he is comfortable with. 

Y has not saved enough and decides to save a while more.

Z can afford it but doesn’t believe he should pay so much for fish.

Y and Z waits.

But the lack of fish caused prices to go up a month later.

The Govt, to ensure that price of fish is sustainable, puts in many measures for people to buy fish. Must meet a certain income to buy a type of fish, and need to pay extra tax to buy fish.

Y has saved enough to buy at the original price but not enough to buy now with the new tax and income criteria. Z says the Govt will ensure he can buy fish so still hopes for cheaper fish.

Now A, B and C has come out to buy fish...

[Alfc]

53 minutes ago, Showster said:

X, Y and Z goes to market to buy fish.

X is decisive and buys the bucket of fish he wants at the price he is comfortable with. 

Y has not saved enough and decides to save a while more.

Z can afford it but doesn’t believe he should pay so much for fish.

Y and Z waits.

But the lack of fish caused prices to go up a month later.

The Govt, to ensure that price of fish is sustainable, puts in many measures for people to buy fish. Must meet a certain income to buy a type of fish, and need to pay extra tax to buy fish. 

Y has saved enough to buy at the original price but not enough to buy now with the new tax and income criteria. Z says the Govt will ensure he can buy fish so still hopes for cheaper fish.

Now A, B and C has come out to buy fish...

"X is decisive and buys the bucket of fish he wants at the price he is comfortable with"

That is where the moral hazard is. X makes the call he is comfortable with and should be solely responsible for his risk and rewards. Comfortable then why need bail package now, regardless of truly in need or free riding? 

Y and Z , well, too bad they missed the boat. Even a packet of chicken rice also go up in price, it is not only about price go up (which is a foregone conclusion) but go up by how much?

Edited October 4, 2020 by Alfc

[Wt_know]

X says Y and Z are stupid la ... got free ride why no take ...    

and the irony ah gong use Y and Z tax money to bailout X ... huat ah!

Edited October 4, 2020 by Wt_know

[Throttle2]

22 minutes ago, Alfc said:

"X is decisive and buys the bucket of fish he wants at the price he is comfortable with"

That is where the moral hazard is. X makes the call he is comfortable with and should be solely responsible for his risk and rewards. Comfortable then why need bail package now, regardless of truly in need or free riding? 

Y and Z , well, too bad they missed the boat. Even a packet of chicken rice also go up in price, it is not only about price go up (which is a foregone conclusion) but go up by how much?

Yes, there are many Xs who think they damn steady and comfortable. Then we should just let them take it on. 

Bail for f**k? Defer for f**k? Right? Bloody moral hazard. 

Y & Z may not have bought but they dont owe anyone anything.....

Then there is ZZ, who uses the money for buying fish to buy other things becos he has the knowledge that money is more useful than just buying fish.

and makes more plus freedom to buy fish at whatever price, anytime he wants to.   

Of course the ZZ type not your usual MCFer in the room type.

muayhahahahaha. 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Throttle2

[Wt_know]

ZZ load up tiger prawns, squids, clams, crabs, even cockles in the wet market ...  

and X still thought he got the best deal for the fish?

Edited October 4, 2020 by Wt_know

[Khng8]

The cooling measures were already there to ensure a stable market. So all those who entered should be prepared for the ups & downs.

The moral hazard is that Y, Z and even ZZ will be encouraged to buy even if they are not financially ready.  
Seeing how X is bailed out & being prudent is penalised by higher prices. Even if market turns down, the G will come to the rescue. As market is not allowed to go down.

PS I’m vested so not being sour grapes. Just saying what I think.

[Showster]

The moral hazard is actually this: why distort the market and not allow a freer market to work some of its magic?

By not having so many cooling measures (some which the Govt actually collects more from the buyers Y and Z if they buy), it is like dropping stones into the well.

Remove some of the cooling measures, then there is no need for any of these so-called bailing out measures at all. In any case, such "measures" (interest-only schemes) are so common in places in the West. It's like paying rent for a place to "own" it. What's the big deal about the bailing out effect???

If X cannot afford the bucket, make him return it. No need to change any measures at all. Let people be responsible for their own risks. Don't drop any stones and don't give any rope.

 

[Throttle2]

11 hours ago, Wt_know said:

ZZ load up tiger prawns, squids, clams, crabs, even cockles in the wet market ...  

and X still thought he got the best deal for the fish?

Becos X knows nothing else so stuck in buying fish lor......while his fish gives 1% net returns per year with money all stuck, other people give 5-6% yields with full liquidity, anytime in or out. 

X got the best deal for his life lah..  huat ah

all of X’s friends too! Huat ah.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Throttle2

[Throttle2]

2 hours ago, Khng8 said:

The cooling measures were already there to ensure a stable market. So all those who entered should be prepared for the ups & downs.

The moral hazard is that Y, Z and even ZZ will be encouraged to buy even if they are not financially ready.  
Seeing how X is bailed out & being prudent is penalised by higher prices. Even if market turns down, the G will come to the rescue. As market is not allowed to go down.

PS I’m vested so not being sour grapes. Just saying what I think.

But ZZ wont buy.  And even if ZZ buys, he has  full cash to back it lah.... muayhahhahaha

well done for saying the truth.   

And whos money is the Govt using???  

The market should decided

Edited October 5, 2020 by Throttle2

[Volvobrick]

1 hour ago, Showster said:

The moral hazard is actually this: why distort the market and not allow a freer market to work some of its magic?

 

Are you serious in asking this question, when everyone knows why the multiple rounds of measures were imposed and not removed till today?

Here are the reasons in case you really don't know:

Runaway property prices cost the party votes at the elections

There was (and still is) a disconnect between the property prices and the economy. 

Many, not just property owners, will pay dearly when the bubble burse, if not deflated in a controlled manner in time.

 

 

[Throttle2]

3 minutes ago, Volvobrick said:

Are you serious in asking this question, when everyone knows why the multiple rounds of measures were imposed and not removed till today?

Here are the reasons in case you really don't know:

Runaway property prices cost the party votes at the elections

There was (and still is) a disconnect between the property prices and the economy. 

Many, not just property owners, will pay dearly when the bubble burse, if not deflated in a controlled manner in time.

 

 

 

You know it’s like a kid, you teach him a new word and he wants to use it?  But he actually doesnt know how to.  

10 points to him for trying lah... muayhahahahaha