|
1. JL 2014-01-06 10:06:38 |
|
馬後砲永遠是最準！ |
|
2. Albert 2014-01-06 10:17:27 |
|
每年都有剛性需求,但3D須辣招卻如築了堤壩去截流,但卻又沒有排洪準則,只是一招了.........禁.
待購買力積聚到滿溢時,那些等跌的用家,一年一年的續租下去, 租金一年一年的加上去, 到時真係會否喪到用"黑色"佔中行動,搞亂香港而令樓市大跌, 去滿足他們不平衡的心理..... |
|
4. 地產商 2014-01-06 10:29:51 |
|
博士將我們的部署寫出來，我真的不大滿意 |
|
5. 珍惜香港 2014-01-06 11:40:47 |
|
多謝各位專家博士支持棘招 |
|
6. 長好友 2014-01-06 11:43:26 |
|
滙豐亞太區業務策略及經濟顧問預料，聯儲局最快或要等待二○一五年後才會加息，加上本地房屋供應未有大增，樓價大跌機會不大。若果今年本港息口沒有上調，今年本港樓價有望輕微下調。 |
|
7. 馬後砲永遠是最準！ 2014-01-06 11:52:24 |
|
馬後砲永遠是最準！ |
|
8. To 5樓 2014-01-06 12:23:49 |
|
|
|
9. Alan Pepper 2014-01-06 13:59:34 |
|
誰馬後砲? 教授是敘述 2013 所發生的事情, 不是預測或者證明他是正確的。(就算他是，請看看他在過去的一年的文章)
|
|
10. 周顯 2014-01-06 16:39:47 |
|
明水和暗水 你買了房子，可以用來自住，可以用來收租，更加可以丟空了，乾放着，等它升值。然而，當你把房子用來出租時，收回來的租金，便是你的投資回報。 在一般的投資計算，可以用年租金收入，來計算租金的回報率。例如說，你的房子的價值是一千萬元，年收租金五十萬元，回報率便是五十萬除以一千萬，即5%了。 問題在於，這個算法是不對的。 因為，一間房子在出租了一年之後，價值是會改變的。房地產是建築物，而建築物是會折舊的。我們可以看到，十年樓的價格，是低於新樓一成至兩成，而三十年樓的價格，更是低上兩成以上，五十年樓的價格，那就更低了。 依我的約略計算，新樓的貶值率，大約是2%至3%之間，而這是以複式計算的。換言之，假設樓的第一年折舊率是100乘98%，即98，到了第二年，那是98%乘98%，即是96.04%，餘此類推。這即是說，新樓在最初的幾年，折舊的速度比較快，而愈到後來，折舊的速度愈慢。 所以，我一直以來，認為租樓千萬要租新樓，但是買樓卻要買十年至二十年左右的樓，因為這時樓的「高速折舊期」已經過去了，跟着的折舊會變慢，但是，這個時間的房子，依然有着足夠的新淨，自住也不太委屈了自己。 所以，如果計算租金的回報，必須也計上樓宇的折舊，才能夠計算出真實的回報率。因此我常常說，在樓價的最瘋癲期，如果把折舊也計算上，實際租金是負回報，我見過價值七千萬元，在淺水灣的豪宅，只租十萬元，我也心思思想租番一間。 為甚麼很多人都會忽略了樓宇的折舊呢？因為在yield來說，它是一種「暗水」，意即是隱藏的成本，如果不是專業人士，便往往看不到這一點了。 這好比當年的我，並不明白為甚麼人們收到了派息，便歡天喜地﹕這明明是股票的價值減少了，股價加上派息，總值可是不變的。然而，如果你手上拿着一張股票，這一張股票並沒有變化，也沒有缺角或短少了，無端端卻又收到了一份現金，這好比無故多出了一份禮物，表面上，當然是值得高興的事。 結論是，租金就和股票派息的原理一樣，因為有「明水」可收，便看不到「暗水」了。這實在是人類分析事物的盲點。 |
|
11. 比喻 2014-01-06 18:21:36 |
|
股票跟股息關係，一般正常情況，股票面值跟股息派發與該公司營運利潤有直接關係，派息反映該公司所賺取利潤再分派給股東，而且公司營運每年計數，故每年派息雖然從股價扣除，但公司股價按年營運情況會有所増值，而且基於一般情況不會１００％派發所得利潤，因此絕不是只扣減股票價值。 但 如x比喻所謂＂暗水＂，即$10蚊股價，假設公司每年賺$１，每年派息５毫。２０年後股價＝$０， 哦！！好多有２０年歷史，應該係０價值囉！！ 這好比當年的我，並不明白為甚麼人們收到了派息，便歡天喜地﹕這明明是股票的價值減少了，股價加上派息，總值可是不變的 （除非假設是沒有業務營運，齋派股本為利息）
|
|
12. LIKE! 2014-01-06 18:31:37 |
|
To: 11
Thank you! 我喺另外嗰邊睇完剩係識笑, 唔識點講 ... hahaha |
|
13. 大寶二寶 2014-01-06 18:39:09 |
|
回10.
我不大同意你嘅睇法：
1. 普通資產係會折舊貶值， 正如一部汽車一落地就貶值， 因為市場上充斥着大把同類汽車兼且有替代品。 但楼房就不同, 地球土地供應有限， 所以長期都升值， 你至多可講內裏裝修折舊， 但房價會升。
2. 舊楼平過新樓。 吾係舊楼折舊貶值， 而係通涨令到人工材料急升， 所以新楼梗係貴過舊楼( 撇開內部装修吾計)。
3. 折舊率点定， 点計都冇一套公用客觀標準， 任你講咩都得？ 加入折舊率只係將回報率公式復雜化。
若每年有2%折舊， 吾通過多四十幾年後層楼一個仙都吾值？
共勉之， 哈哈！ |
|
14. 小C 2014-01-06 19:02:06 |
|
周顯，唔該唔好自認大師，你問基金經理，若果上市公司不派股息，他會怎樣，又問你自己，如果有業主和你簽一張二十年不加租合約，你會怎樣，折什麼扣，貶什麼值，大師，唉 |
|
15. 大寶二寶 2014-01-06 19:03:17 |
|
補充一点， 我地一般計回報率都係based on actual cash flow, 呢D non-cash item 係吾會計嘅。 最多都係計埋損失左嘅opportunity cost, 你提議嘅計法真係創先河。我係專業人仕都未聽過。
共勉之， 哈哈！ |
|
16. mini 2014-01-06 19:27:10 |
|
"結論是，租金就和股票派息的原理一樣，因為有「明水」可收，便看不到「暗水」了。這實在是人類分析事物的盲點" ??? Depending on individual needs, date & price of purchasing, location, life expectancy & type of properties, and targeting customers... Again, You Don't Buy, But You Need To Pay Higher Rents for several decades in HK... Stocks can be zero, and the dividend payout ratio & the placement of new shares are subject to the hands of major shareholders/state policies for state-owned enterprises ! Share prices are subject to High Frequency Machines/ Super Computers Plus a number of Derivaties around the world ! See How Global Financial Tsunami happened in 2008 ! Unlike Stocks, Real Estates can at least provide a land for grandchildren, mom said... See how Insurance Companies do invest in real estates in HK...
Note: Purchasing of anything likes shopping in the supermarkets/shops: Buy 2 Get 1 Fee ???
|
|
17. 怪論 2014-01-06 20:29:58 |
|
睇完周顯先生嘅樓宇折舊論, 覺得同意佢嘅論調係有啲唔妥, 完全唔同意佢嘅論調又係有啲唔妥, 總之怪怪地, 好似以前成報嗰位作者前輩三蘇寫嘅怪論文章, 風格差唔多, 周顯先生從今起可稱為新潮怪論作家! 恭喜, 恭喜. |
|
18. Alan Pepper To 10F Mr. Chow 2014-01-06 20:38:54 |
|
This is partially true. And I believe everyone who invest in properties understands this. However he is far from the entire truth. Depreciating the entire lump sum is the biggest mistake. One should separate the value of property into 2 parts, land price and building cost. The depreciation only applies to the building costs, but land prices will appreciate over the long run.
Let's say building costs is about 3000 per Sq. Ft. And land price is 10000, One should depreciate the 3000, not the entire 13000. If the depreciation rate is 10% it should depreciate 300 each year. That comes to about 2% per year for example. But on the other have the land prices rise in the long run, so the depreciation is offset or even surpassed by the appreciation. This will depend on the given time in market.
Secondly the depreciation rate is reduced every year and the salvage value will rarely become 0, or it will take a very long time. Because buildings that are over 50 years old are everywhere, and in the case when the property can be redeveloped it is usually for the purpose of using up the plot ratio. Usually yielding higher selling price if sold to a developer, or if it is developed by the original owners they will be entitled to more Sq ft.
Thirdly if you buy a 2nd hand flat, renovation is probably required for properties that are more than 10 - 20 years old. This mean you have to pay an extra 5-15% of the property value (depending how much you wanna spend). Bare in mind that this is cash up front, and cannot put into mortgage (or you pay high interest if you take a renovation loan) . You can argue that you don't need renovation, but if you buy a new flat there's absolutely no need for renovation (you are of course welcome to renovate a new flat) .
So although his theory of "clear water" and "dark water" has some logic, his foundation certainly cannot hold up and was not well thought out. |
|
19. 大寶二寶 2014-01-06 21:06:27 |
|
To: 18 Alan 兄
It's seems that in Hong Kong, normally when you purchase a flat, you have only bought the building only but not the land as we so called 'leasehold land'. Is it right?
共勉之， 哈哈！ |
|
20. Property Owner 2014-01-06 21:22:55 |
|
樓上,
如果leasehold land 無 value, 地產商的拍地錢都是枉给政府啦。
公司會計都知到 樓價包含 land cost and building cost. 只有 building cost 要折舊。
|
|
21. 火燒 2014-01-06 23:06:29 |
|
就算間屋俾火燒為平地，業主都只係損失上蓋，明無？塊地係燒唔去嘅，因此二十年前買嘅屋只要地價升得快，地上嘅磚頭瓦片即使全部折舊至零，仍然會值錢過當初買入個陣時！周蜆呢條友咁蠢都唔知係乜野人？ |
|
22. Alan Pepper 2014-01-06 23:31:16 |
|
To 19/F
I think this is an entirely different topic and will require an understanding of the history and jurisdiction governing the land ownership of Hong Kong. Below is a summary on land ownership:
I. Basic knowledge of land ownership in Hong Kong
The People's Republic of China owns all the land in Hong Kong , except the land on which St John's Cathedral stands. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong has the powers to lease and grant state land to the public for ownership for a limited period of time (legally defined as "leasehold" land). The Chief Executive can do so by: i) granting Government leases for a certain period, or ii) granting licences for individuals or corporations to occupy Government land for special purposes for a certain period (usually shorter than a government lease). In other words, a "land owner" actually leases the land from the Government but the relevant lease period can be very long (e.g. 50 years or more).
There are a number of lands which has a lease term of 999 years (such as Tai Koo Shing I think, due to the original lease term between Tai Koo / Swire and the government during early colonial period) and more so that have a lease term of 50 years. Many of which has already expired and renewed on a yearly basis. So does this mean the government of Hong Kong can take back any land that the lease has expired? Theoretically yes. And will the government exercise this right? Maybe? Maybe not. When I was younger during the time when China and Great Britain were in negotiations about the future of Hong Kong, leasehold was a major concern for many businesses and individuals. And during a period some properties with expiring leases were the subject of discussion. The value of the said lands plummeted to almost nothing and even then nobody would buy it because of the uncertainty. In the end however the government chose to renew leases as they expire.
In my personal view, lease renewals should continue indefinitely until something epidemic happens to Hong Kong or the government of China. Something that is as dramatic as war, topple of governments, decease 1000 x more drastic than SARS, etc. As under "normal" circumstances no government would withdraw this lease pattern. But if anything like this would happen to Hong Kong, there will be no point discussing the property market wouldn't it? And even if you have land that has a 999 year lease period, or if your land is freehold wouldn't matter.
In conclusion, You have ownership of the land as long as the government has leased it to you.
As Keynes stated: In the long run we are all dead. So if you are concerned about leasehold or freehold of land, or if the government will take back land after lease expire? I think your time should be better spent elsewhere. |
|
23. 大寶二寶 2014-01-06 23:53:13 |
|
To: 22
That means we have bought the buildung as well as 'leasing' the land. Simply speaking, we have also 'bought' the land and in the long run the land cost will rise despite the depreciation of the building. Thanks 各C Hing
共勉之， 哈哈！ |
|
24. Alan Pepper 2014-01-06 23:53:29 |
|
To 23/F.
Yeah, something like that... take care brother... |
|
