|
1. 大梁時代 2012-03-28 11:07:00 |
|
大梁時代: 屍歪重臨，經紀將更悲慘，等食蕉。97`年的八萬五害你唔死，今次實整死你。 |
|
2. 吹脹不吹脹？ 2012-03-28 11:12:18 |
|
「C.Y.打壓樓價，亦即是說C.Y.顛覆社會穩定，」 屍歪要做到打壓樓價，但又不會顛覆社會穩定。 吹脹不吹脹？ |
|
3. 五代弟子 2012-03-28 11:22:56 |
|
|
|
4. 小市民 2012-03-28 11:27:28 |
|
傳媒嘩眾取寵, 討厭! |
|
5. Hongkong People 2012-03-28 11:32:23 |
|
Me & my husband also migrated to other place. Not because of 1997, but because of 85,000 and the man-made disaster in HK economy.
We migrated back after SARS and half-million strike in 2003 cos we trusted that HK people were having top quality amongst our competitors i.e. Singaporean and Taiwanese. We believed that once we had a wiser CE, HK would resume its growth.
Now, CY will soon be the CE. Hopefully, he will be humble, won't be have a big ego and trust the market to run for itself. Otherwise, we may force to exit again though we love our country and HK. |
|
6. DAVID 2012-03-28 12:28:36 |
|
我仲以為湯文亮做了凸手 ! 只識唱好個市 |
|
7. ABC 2012-03-28 16:24:09 |
|
host
CY wont be so stupid as to mess up the private property market.
|
|
8. ABC 2012-03-28 16:34:03 |
|
to 5
Why do HK people always blame the downfall of the HK economy (1997-2003) on "85,000"? If i recalled it correctly it was extremely popular when "85,000" policy came out, due to similar situation as now...... properties price were extremely expensive on or before 1997.
Yea, but it's only human natural to blame on something else rather than our own pitfall in judgment.
|
|
9. ABC 2012-03-28 16:39:32 |
|
I am not on anyone side. I am sorry, but I really felt sick when people blamed the downfall of HK economy on "85,000".
And please remember, the property market only take a deep nose dive in late 2002 to early 2003
|
|
10. ABC 2012-03-28 16:51:56 |
|
I can understand why people want to migrate for political reasons, but I dont understand why people need to migrate for economic reasons, because it is next to impossible for a HK guy to find a similar job as he was doing in HK in the western world. |
|
11. O了 2012-03-28 17:04:58 |
|
稍为读过经济学供需关系的朋友都会明白, 八万五政策对楼市的实际冲击有多大. 金融风暴和"沙士"只是乘数效应, 请再想想美国次按危机和欧猪危机的风险是否更大, 楼市抗跌能力为什么这样强呢? 这就是物先腐以后....... |
|
12. 向CY说不 2012-03-28 17:08:04 |
|
ABC--不要无知了，97-03的楼价调整，开始的时候，是因为亚洲经济危机，跟着就是因为当时的大量供应。港英在离开香港之前，大量填海，当时的西九，将军澳，东涌等突然的大量供应，结果出现了供过于求的现象。 当然货币政策也是问题，当时美金强势，亚洲货币大幅贬值，令到香港资金外流。加上当时无自由行，只有香港的资金进入大陆，但是大陆资金不可以进入香港。结果导致市场干渴。到了大游行之后，中国政府明白到香港不能在依靠自己就可以解决问题，所以开放自游行。香港经济才bottom out。 SARS 是典型的熊市的第三期，最后一跌现象。 |
|
13. ABC 2012-03-28 17:25:07 |
|
To 11
May i know why the property market started to drop in late 1997 or early 1998, when supply does'nt even existed yet?
|
|
14. ABC 2012-03-28 17:30:19 |
|
to 11
请再想想美国次按危机和欧猪危机的风险是否更大, 楼市抗跌能力为什么这样强呢?
That was because they did the QE1 & QE2. Which supported their property market artificially, and dont you know their property market is still falling?
|
|
15. ABC 2012-03-28 17:38:16 |
|
to 11
Why shouldnt the government release massive land supply or housing supply when the property market was so hot on or before 1997? It was hailed as a great policy at that time!
Similar to the situation as today, many people are urging the government to release more land and public housing.
|
|
16. O了 2012-03-28 17:39:39 |
|
唔好考我啦, 先搞清楚八万五几时提出来, 几时开始实行, 金融风暴几时吹起, 你就清晰好多啦. 供需关系唔系简单地划一条平行线. |
|
17. O了 2012-03-28 17:40:21 |
|
唔好考我啦, 先搞清楚八万五几时提出来, 几时开始实行, 金融风暴几时吹起, 你就清晰好多啦. 供需关系唔系简单地划一条平行线. |
|
18. O了 2012-03-28 17:48:51 |
|
ABC醒少少啦 楼市抗跌能力为什么这样强呢?----当然是指最近的香港楼市啦,同97-03时期对比吖嘛. 比你激死, 英文咁叻,中文咁水架
|
|
19. O了 2012-03-28 17:55:00 |
|
|
|
20. 80後銀行從業員 2012-03-28 18:11:17 |
|
最近比較令我擔憂的, 不是CY, 也不是香港樓市會如何.....而是中國經濟. 不知各位有否留意最近大半中資股都交了亮麗的業績但對股市卻沒有提振作用. 國內A股更是接連插水. 中國經濟深以為憂, 出口不振, 內需不旺, 樓市更是死氣沉沉. 縱然中國政府有錢, 但隨著經濟能否在十二五轉型的不確定性, 未來投資中國要加倍小心. 不要以為7.5%的經濟增長很容易, 在眾多經濟領域上看不到明確方向. 今年的實體經濟是乍暖還寒. 各位投資小心. |
|
21. 60後中產 2012-03-28 18:22:01 |
|
傳媒嘩眾取寵又不負責任！！ CY聽住！同一個錯誤不能再錯！8.5M呀 |
|
22. Hongkong People 2012-03-28 19:02:32 |
|
I remember that Asian Crisis started from Thailand in early to mid 1997 and at that time, people in other countries just thought that it was a country issue. It's around end October, Hong Kong experienced the Asian Crisis and started with a sharp fall in stock on 31st October, 1997 (maybe 1 or 2 day earlier or later). And after that the property market started to fall sharply in end 1997 and early 1998. With 85,000, the property market dropped by around 50% till end 1998.
Towards Nov 1998, US started to cut interest rate and HK property market experienced a rebound of around 20%. Through to 2001 before 911, once the property market had a stable sign, our government came out and tried to sell its already built Subsidized Housing and the property market slowly die down and loss all rebound momentum. Before 911, the property market already started another wave of sharp fall (by 30% drop from end 1999 to end 2002) and during SARS, the property dropped by around only 10%.
I had a strong memory that every time if the property market had a sign of recovery, our govn't had a strong urge to push those Subsidized Housing (which were built and stood hollowly in different districts) and led to another round of drop in property market.
Singapore same as HK experienced Asian Crisis. But without a wrong policy, their property market dropped only 40% whereas HK dropped 70%. You told me, did 85,000 play a role there.
The damage of 85,000 was not only on property market, it affected whole HK economy including retail and F&B due to the negative wealth effect.
I always love HK. And it was really heart-breaking to see how HK was sabotaged under a stupid CE. And that's why I was have a chance, I migrated to other place (at least I was not sentimentally connected).
So, frankly speaking, I am really afraid of CY but I can hope he can learn from the past and do some good for HK.
Hope I explained myself well. |
|
23. HK Guy 2012-03-28 19:26:31 |
|
HK people , please wake up, afraid who or someone else, is very studpid... Read carefully level 20 The major point is the ...The China economy is going worst, factory order, propperty market, plese go to China and see, watch , and use your heart to feel, the economy of China is going to downturn, this will significantly impact to HK economy... smart HK guy |
|
24. 向饭民说不 2012-03-28 20:59:44 |
|
同意楼上的见解。大陆经济真系不敢乐观。 |
|
25. 向饭民说不 2012-03-28 20:59:57 |
|
同意楼上的见解。大陆经济真系不敢乐观。 |
|
26. 博士也轉軑幫 CY 2012-03-28 21:00:58 |
|
博士也轉軑幫 CY |
|
27. 有網站和fb被人(cy 的人)洗版和攻擊，呢度有無？ 2012-03-28 21:05:41 |
|
有網站和fb被人(cy 的人)洗版和攻擊，呢度有無？ |
|
28. Support ABC 2012-03-28 21:39:04 |
|
8.5M??? 嘩眾取寵!! 21. 60後中產2012-03-28 18:22:01 傳媒嘩眾取寵又不負責任！！ CY聽住！同一個錯誤不能再錯！8.5M呀 |
|
29. ABC 2012-03-28 21:47:23 |
|
To 22
I am not an expert in property, thus I dont know if your facts and figures from 1997-2003 are correct . I only knows that the property market slumped from 1997-2003. You also agreed that the first part of the down turn of property was due to the Asian financial crisis. From my recollection the first part of the drop in property price was from late 1997- 1998 or maybe early 1999 attributed by the Asian financial crisis. I recalled vividly that the period before SARS and during SARS was the straw that broke the camel back. it caused at least another 30% drop in property price.
My point is without the Asian financial crisis and SARS HK property prices wouldnt fall so badly, even if the 85000 policy was being implemented. Moreover, I think Tung's terminated the 85,000 policy in 2001 or 2002 too.
Also, I dont think you should compare HK with Singapore, it's similar as comparing apple to oranges, beside, Singapore werent affected as much by SARS as compared to HK, and I dont think Singapore property prices were as crazy as HK were on or before 1997. Corret me if I am wrong.
Yes, I cannot dispute the fact that the wealth effect dwindled with the collapse of property prices, and it caused tremendous suffering, but isnt it sad that HK biggest industry is just in property alone?
HK property market in early 1997 was just a bubble in waiting to be burst. It's just too bad that Tung's was in the hot seat at the time.
|
|
30. ABC 2012-03-28 21:55:41 |
|
What I am saying is the 85,000 policy alone does not caused the collapse of property prices from 1997-2003, it might cause a 10%-20% or the most 30% fall in property prices but not a collapse.
But of cause people can disagreed or think differently.
|
|
31. ABC 2012-03-28 22:09:39 |
|
The latest example was the World financial tsunami in 2008. The US government would like to pop up their economy after 911 and let everybody have a 'free ride' and we can see the consequences when the bubble burst, and still the after effect of this 'tsunami' is still unknown.
So, if without the Asian financial crisis of 1997, without 85,000 policy and without SARS. Hence. just let the HK property bubble inflate from 1997 till it burst. Would that be a better scenario ?
|
|
32. mimi 2012-03-28 22:09:42 |
|
ABC, I absolutely agree with you! People are greedy and lose money, then try to blame 85,000. |
|
33. 向饭民说不 2012-03-28 22:10:32 |
|
可以相信CY不会真正打压楼市，他当选之后，他最早落区的是中产区。 |
|
34. 向饭民说不 2012-03-28 22:15:11 |
|
但是最后令楼市不能bottom out 的就是庞大的供应量。当年将军澳，西九，青衣和东涌的供应量，比85000的promise 更多。当然这些供应应该都97年前plan的，同85000无乜关系。 |
|
35. 向饭民说不 2012-03-28 22:16:59 |
|
当时庞大的供应量，也可能是港英埋下的地雷。 |
|
36. 80後銀行從業員 2012-03-28 22:19:27 |
|
97年小弟尚未出身, 不是當事人便不評論了. 但今日香港樓市主要取決於以下因素，按重要性由高至低排序: 第一是 中國經濟；第二是 若中國經濟滑落時，會否遇上美國需要加息；第三才是 本地樓市政策. 我認為無需為CY的房策過於擔憂，這只會是催化劑，不是導火線. 即使房策出錯，若樓市要崩盤式下跌，多半是中國玩唔掂，資金外逃，大批人失業，整體經濟供過於求而必須收縮。到時即使供滿樓者亦捱不住要變現才會發生. 這個可能性是有的，即使現在看並不高 |
|
37. mini 2012-03-28 22:23:05 |
|
We are living in a country with liars dealing with liars ! Today, we know who is the true liars and the best actor ! 85000 Units were very good, many citizens could buy more flats ! |
|
38. ABC 2012-03-28 22:24:51 |
|
I dont think Tung's intended to collapse property prices at all. even an idiot like me knows that the economy would froze if HK property prices collapsed.
Tung's was just in an hot seat during an in-opportunistic time
|
|
39. mimi 2012-03-28 22:26:29 |
|
ABC, you are absolutely right and fair to Mr. Tung! |
|
40. ABC 2012-03-28 22:27:58 |
|
to 36
Agreed, and well said.
|
|
41. ABC 2012-03-28 22:58:21 |
|
Anyways, I dont know how I ended up looking like an defender for Tung's. LoL
I was a properties owner from 1997 onwards, and I suffered from the collapse of (1997-2003) too. I blamed no-one but my own bad judgment call.
|
|
42. mimi 2012-03-28 23:52:04 |
|
Agree with ABC, and me too - I blamed no-one but my own bad judgment call. |
|
43. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 00:20:10 |
|
To ABC,
SARS only caused another 10% drop in property price. Property actually bottomed out around May/June 2003.
Agreed with you, the cause for collapse of property was not simply by 85,000 and it accounted for around 30%. But, please don't take the number 30% too easy, it really has a very profound effects.....the 30% left a lot people with no way out. If the property price dropped only 40%, people could pay back the bank with 10% to bail them out from the liability. With additional 30% drop, you tell me how they could repay the negative asset part and walk out from the nightmare accompanied with a job loss.
Frankly speaking, though I did suffer from 85,000 initially. With a strong income flow, we were benefactors finally and we retired at young age. I keep on mentioning 85,000 just a reminder to someone in power that a wrong policy can really make a lot suffering to people....
Agreed with you that it's a pity that HK economy relies too much on property market. But what to do....it is a fact and you can only respect the fact. And before our CE develops another industry to support the economy, he can't break this pillar. Too many people's lives are at stake.
Actually, it is not my first time mentioning that Tung is a kind-hearted guy. But as a CE, even his policy was made with all noble intention....if it turned out wrong, still it was inexcusable. |
|
44. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 00:46:39 |
|
Talking about US financial tsunami....it was really not comparable to the fall of property market. What was the root cause of the tsunami....it was the sub-prime mortgage (banks loaned to sub-quality borrowers) + over lending mortgage (i.e. banks loaned 110% of property price to borrowers). Whereas in HK, before 1997, the downpayment for buying a property was 30% and we didn't have sub-prime and overlending issue here in HK.
Even the property market was the core reason for US financial tsunami and even after 4 years US banks still got lots bad loans and reluctant to take mortgage business unless it is really a very quality one. They are still very tight to loan to borrowers.
Well...by now you may think the US property price may really collapse to an unbelievable low level....make a guess how much it dropped by now from the peak under this backdrop??
Let me give you a light on that: New York----15% San Francisco----30% to 40% Los Angeles ----30% to 40% Las Vegas ----60% to 70% Chicago ---- 40%
The most hard hit city is Las Vegas. And others, though transaction volume may be low, but the prices are still quite ok.
But HK, during 1997 to 2003, without a bank credit crunch, why should the property price dropped by 70%?? If it was not 85,000, what should it be?? |
|
45. 向泛民说不 2012-03-29 00:46:46 |
|
it is a fact and you can only respect the fact. And before our CE develops another industry to support the economy, he can't break this pillar. --- agree。 在未有新的经济的支撑点之前，楼市大幅下跌肯定会带来灾难。 |
|
46. 向泛民说不 2012-03-29 00:51:12 |
|
44楼，美国楼价下跌，同时美金也下跌。所以楼价下跌无甘伤。 97年，香港楼价下跌，但是因为PEG系统，所以港币对亚洲货币实际是大幅升值。所以楼价跌得更凶。03年开始，香港楼价bottom out 其实同美元开始贬值，SYNC得好近。 |
|
47. Agree with ABC 2012-03-29 00:52:51 |
|
I think 85,000 only caused less than 10% drop which was an acceptable policy to rectify the red heat property market in 1997. Asian Financial Crisis was the main cause. This could be verified in Singapore too. Indeed, property market in Singapore dropped more than that in HK even without any 85,000 policy. |
|
48. Agree with ABC 2012-03-29 00:55:31 |
|
Henry Tang, mentioned in 2000, also admitted that 85,000 was not the cause of property price drop. |
|
49. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 01:20:49 |
|
To No. 47,
You can agree with ABC's point of view.
But Singapore property dropped only 40% and HK property dropped 70%. This is the fact. |
|
50. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 01:27:25 |
|
To 46,
Yap, so, now the US dollar depreciate...it is also natural for HK property appreciate to compensate the depreciation of HKD pegged with USD. So, our CE really needs to aware the fact that once the US dollar reverse the downward trend, HK property will also naturally corrected in the price.
Any strong administrative measure to cool down property market in wrong timing may really coupling the effect and do additional harm to HK economy. |
|
51. Small Potato 2012-03-29 08:40:45 |
|
To ABC
I agree with you. Most real estate sales agent make up a story. I support your opinion.
|
|
52. 真相 2012-03-29 09:52:31 |
|
比較香港和新加坡樓市，可證明85000的影響其實輕微，香港樓價波動大，係因為政府政策沒有長遠規劃，以至95至97年樓價不正常的大幅攀升，造成樓市泡沫，因而爆破後的跌幅較大。但以1995年的同一起步點計，即使加上沙士因素，香港樓價跌幅確實比新加坡小 (~30%：~37.5%)。現在的樓價指數對比1995年，升幅卻比新加坡為高 (>100%：~25%)，如以97年高峰比較，升幅卻差不多。
香港樓市
1995-1997：2年時間，中原城市領先指數由約50點谷底升至約100點，升幅約1倍。
1997-1998：亞洲金融風暴，指數由約100跌至約45點，跌幅55%，但較1995年只跌10%。
1998-2003：樓價上落市為主，沙士期間，指數比98年低位再跌約10點，跌幅22%，較1995年谷底跌約30%。
2003-2011：指數由谷底回升，升幅超過2倍，比97年高位只升幾%，但比95年谷底升1倍多。
新加坡樓市
1995-1997：2年時間，Private Residential Property Index由約160點升至約180點，升幅12.5%。
1997-1998：亞洲金融風暴，Index由約180跌至約100點，跌幅44.5%，但較1995年的160點跌了37.5%。
1998-2003：樓價同樣以上落市為主，但沒有沙士影響，Index最低企於約115點，比1998年谷底只回升約15%。
2003-2011：Index由谷底回升，升幅約1倍，比95-97高位只升約11%，但比95年只升約25%。
|
|
53. 真相 2012-03-29 10:02:39 |
|
因此，香港樓市97年開始的跌幅較新加坡巨大，是以偏蓋全，並未考慮到95-97年期間的樓市泡沫因素，但新加坡期間並冇泡沫存在，因而跌幅較少。但以95年的谷底計，香港樓市升幅比新加坡巨大，現在的樓價是否存在泡沫，不作評論，市民可自行判斷。 |
|
54. 孽種瘤說「振英會害人」 2012-03-29 10:05:12 |
|
CY的打手都死到那裡去了? 為什麼不繼續惡搞呢? 是否合約完了呢? 還是給人過橋抽板呢? 思歪的本性慢慢會出來的。唐唐說得對「聽其言，觀其行」日久才能見人心。流夢BEER、孽種瘤已被趙完鬆、用完即棄。思歪多謝都沒一聲，流夢BEER自作賤，不言也罷，孽種瘤現在才如夢初醒，但貞操已失，一文不值了。 最慘是對住周梁說「振英會害人」周梁踢爆，水洗不清。思歪假面具，為了低民望，狼的尾巴現在深深藏不露，什麼時候SELL 23條，狼尾巴什麼時候露再出來，又臭、又醜、又靡爛。田二少陪葬孽種瘤，天下同聲一哭。€ |
|
55. 支持ABC 2012-03-29 10:13:11 |
|
樓上廢柴，淫豬輸了就是輸了，唔憤氣可自行了斷，繼續說三道四的八婆是於是無補的，不要再怨三怨四，這裡是講樓市的，不要再說CY或淫豬，搞臭這裡。 |
|
56. To 54 2012-03-29 10:22:46 |
|
唐唐打手，輸了沒有糧出，的確好可憐，在這裡繼續發泄，都係唔會有糧出架啦！這只會令網友更加討厭唐唐和支持者。 |
|
57. 真相大哥： 2012-03-29 10:34:04 |
|
真相大哥： 你花了不少時間以似是而非的ｄａｔａ企圖為ｃｙ的８５０００解剖。其實將會是弄巧成拙，越描越黑。等有識之士直斥其非。我想你再辛苦些，再找找數據，告訴全港市民，到底八萬五害而死了多少港人？今天失業，明天銀主上門，妻離子散，茫茫蒼天，慾哭無淚，一生人辛苦了十多年，才有的一層樓，真是為樓辛苦為樓忙，最後又死在樓手上。到現在梁振英還死不認錯，最怕的是不認錯，還會再錯，你說到時又會死多少人？ ２００３沙市之後，樓價之所以愎生，其實是曾陰權，孫公出了無數招的結果，天憐香港，日本樓市二十年還未走出苦海，美國樓市不知還要幾多年？死者已矣，死不能復生。但錯過不可再錯，要吸取教訓。政策錯，付代價的卻是貧苦百姓，ｃｙ一樣住得豪爽、食得豪爽，家住山頂。這可能是為數不少的選委縱使在壓力下也不投票給他的原因。 ｃｙ一日未認錯，全港市民都只能活在恐懼的日子，惶恐不可終日。 |
|
58. 真相 2012-03-29 10:51:24 |
|
57樓好像不太明白事實的真相，造成樓市泡沫爆破的就是95-97年的大泡沫，短短2年間升幅1倍，如果唔係亞洲金融風暴刺破泡沫，恐怕泡沫更大，殺傷力將比日本更深。要怪的不是CY，也不是老董，當時政府只是接了燙手山芋吧了，要怪的是95-97期間造成樓市泡沫的原兇，不止是港英政府、地產商、地產代理.....，還有的是加入炒樓行列的市民。
|
|
59. 70後 2012-03-29 11:13:14 |
|
其實, 老懵懂同只狼做第一手, 係希望有所作為, 政策朝令夕改, 大家可能都忘記左, 而家開始為當時政府平反tim..... 唔好講8万5, 中藥港, 數碼港, 紐倫港, 成衣中心, 東方荷李活, 動感都市, 玩具, 鐘錶都有涉獵到.....大家諗吓, 咁好大喜功嘅政府, 點會有好嘢做出嚟, 一味喺道賴港英, 赤鱲角機場當初班愛國愛港人士係反對派.....大家唔好唔記得!!! 8万5推行太急, 起左一堆垃圾沉降樓, 大家都唔好忘記...... |
|
60. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 11:29:12 |
|
To 真相, A Moment of Truth! I find it ridiculous to loop in 1995 in discussion on the impact of 85,000 on HK property market, reason being: 1. 1995 was long before the implementation of 85,000 2. 1995 was a sluggish year with low transaction volume (that means fewer people enter the property market in that year and the effect of 85,000 had lesser effect) If you looping in 1995 simply because you believes there was a bubble between 1995 to 1997. Guess it is fairer to talk back further on 1994. Do you have memory what happened that year?? China implemented the tightest Macroeconomicc Control under Zhu Rong Ji. And HK property market experienced a slump in end 1994 to 1995. The effect acted on the market till around Sept 1996 where the market started to pick up again. So, 1995 property market was a suppressed year where Singapore didn't share the same effect. Let's not talk about the negative effect on property market by June 4 event 1989 which led to another 2 years slow market till Deng's South Trip to restate the open door policy to regain the market momentum. Again, Singapore had no this kind of turbulence on their property market. But in 1997 onwards, both Singapore and HK shared the same hard hit by Asian Crisis. But we had 85,000, they didn't. That's where the comparison kicked in.... In short, let's go back and start with 1997 as a disccusion point on impact of 85,000. |
|
61. agree with No 59 2012-03-29 11:29:37 |
|
|
|
62. 真相 2012-03-29 11:33:10 |
|
也不要拉扯其它政策混為一談，因為成效需時間證明，但很多政策煲呔上任後已沒有再投放資源令其延續。
只講8萬5，95-97年的泡沫爆破的確是原兇，日本和美國都有樓市泡沫爆破，而且影響更深遠，他們卻沒有加大建屋的政策，卻出現比香港還要嚴重的泡沫爆破。 |
|
63. 70後 2012-03-29 11:45:24 |
|
你咁講, 即係話老懵懂嘅班子唔識經濟....睇唔出市况, 連你都知道95-97有泡沫, 成個懵班子無人知, 都係港英嘅錯, 市民有錯, 懵班子只係無辜受牽連.....? |
|
64. OL 2012-03-29 11:45:36 |
|
TO: 真相 我們討論8萬5, 各有意見, 相互交流! 你宣稱自己叫真相, 但美國為什麼樓市下跌這麼多也不知道便自稱真相?做人謙虛些好! |
|
65. O了 2012-03-29 11:56:09 |
|
"也不要拉扯其它政策混為一談...只講8萬5，" 你知唔知宜家香港啲每年需求量和供给量是多少? 八万五当年多了几多供给量? 多咗个啲去咗边? 对楼市有什么影响? 不要什么都推说外在因素, 过去两三个月听的太多了.不要让它延续下去 |
|
66. 向饭民说不 2012-03-29 11:56:19 |
|
香港97年到2003年的供应量大部分都是港英制定的。
但是作为一个特首，当经济转向的时候，他没有办法将香港带出困境，董建华是有不可推卸责任。
董建华人格也算好，一直都无推卸责任，因为他的确没有办法将香港带出困境。
但是CY班友日日系度推卸责任，真系废柴。我们希望CY能做过成熟的男人，不要推卸责任，乜都不关他的事。他要知道，他就快是特首了。
|
|
67. 真相 2012-03-29 12:01:52 |
|
造成各種泡沫都有其原因，如果番看世界歷史上各種各類的泡沫，篇幅所限，不能祥述，資料也很易找到，但總結只有一個原因，唔係貪婪，而係太貪婪。
樓市泡沫係結果，爆破係必然會發生，只在乎泡沫有多大多寬，影響有幾深遠，而缺乏長遠的規劃，政策往往更為滯後，導致不可預知的結局，往往需要人為扭曲的政策干預。現今的美國正正就是要扭曲市場的正常運作，但卻沒有理會始終要還的未來後果。 |
|
68. O了 2012-03-29 12:08:11 |
|
"香港97年到2003年的供应量大部分都是港英制定的。" 不要把责任都推给港英政府, 我记得中英对港府卖地有一定限制的. 谁有资料可以查查啊?
|
|
69. O了 2012-03-29 12:12:20 |
|
|
|
70. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 12:23:06 |
|
To No. 66, "香港97年到2003年的供应量大部分都是港英制定的", By far as I know it was not true. All those seaview public housing and subsidized housing were rushed by Tung Administration. In order to efficiently implement his 85,000, without any proper planning, all the valuable lands at the end were used for building those housing. Because of the rushing, we had lots of developments shorting pillars and some were demolished and rebuilt. What a mess and waste of HK resources! |
|
71. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 12:28:47 |
|
To No. 69, Yes, Chinese government had restricted HK govn't in land selling before 1997. That's really unfair by blaming them for the oversupply in 97 to 03. It's totally our own mess. Though, English govn't implemented quite a few bombs in HK before their leaving i.e. the so-called democracy, the booming of govn't structure..... |
|
72. O了 2012-03-29 12:40:24 |
|
如果话港英政府97前开发咗好多土地, 八万五就应运己生, 咁就更加讲唔通. 当时也剩下大量储备, 难道我们把它花光了才是对的吗? |
|
73. 向饭民说不 2012-03-29 12:46:33 |
|
68楼，你说的对，有一段时间每年是限定卖50公顷。导致了90年代初的求过于供，后来因为楼价泡沫，所以大陆容许港英卖地超过50公顷。在98年，我们见到了将军澳，西九，东涌，变成了重灾区。 |
|
74. 真相 2012-03-29 12:57:50 |
|
|
|
75. 真相 2012-03-29 13:00:05 |
|
|
|
76. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 13:36:38 |
|
To真相,
Thank you for sharing. Can you help digging out the area of lands actually sold to developers during the period??
The table you shared told us only the land put into the reserved...that may not be reflecting a full picture of what happened during that time. |
|
|
77. 真相 2012-03-29 13:52:04 |
|
係已批出土地數量，不是儲備。 |
|
78. 真相 2012-03-29 14:08:56 |
|
Not looking back and only start with the highest point of 1997 as a discusion point is really misleading and ridiculous. We should get the whole picture.
Indeed, not only Tung's government misjudged the bubble burst in 1997, many many people including professors, so-called experts, speculators, investors and ordinary people, all misjudged and under-estimated the effect. I remember many people jumped in to buy more properties after 10%~20% correction.
|
|
79. 70後 2012-03-29 14:09:43 |
|
大家真係要注意咩人喺道做緊嘢, 突然有一批人出嚟(呢啲平時無嘅)為前朝講說話, 仲要係有埋剪報, 資料準備好晒, 有備而嚟......選前嘅打手, 到而家嘅統戰..... 覺得我多余嘅, 可以唔洗理我㗎..... |
|
80. 真相 2012-03-29 14:23:25 |
|
To: 79
好抱歉，我並不是你的屍德哥爾摩症候群發作的所謂打手，亦與任何政府官員或政客無關，我只係一個97年買樓中招的其中一個小市民，之前未出現過這論壇，因為太多雙方打手佔去了大部份版面。
曾經有一段時間都有怨恨8萬5，但經多年來反思，除了幫我買樓的經紀外(後來知道他是者老點)，我並沒有怨恨任何人，反而學會了更多，只怪當時沒有投資智慧，現在更加懂得投資了。
現在，好希望市民不要人云亦云，不去尋找真相，我有些年青同事，他們根本沒研究真偽，就相信報紙離誌所說，有時真係好似班泛民為反而反，所以我覺得有責任教育他們，不一定要相信我，但希望他們自己尋找真相，才好下定論。
|
|
81. O了 2012-03-29 14:24:29 |
|
无论有几多人赞成或者根据什么资料决策，都改变不了一个事实。 八万五是一个在不适合时间和环境下的错误决策，重要系固执咁错落去，直至SARS之后。。。 |
|
82. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 14:25:19 |
|
But starting from 1995 is also misleading given 1995 is a suppressed year after the stringent Macroeconomic Control in China. Starting from 1995 is only a way to underestimate the effect of 85,000.
Even the 85,000 bomb was planted by previous gov't, but Tung failed to halt it and minimized the damages was also inexcusable.
As I reiterated earlier, the trigger point for the downfall of HK property market was Asian Crisis. But 85,000 worsened the situation and accounted for around 30% of further drop which was unbeareable for lots of homeowners who bought properties in 1997 (which active transaction, we know that there were a lot of people involved).
HK as a small open economy, we don't really have the power to change the macroeconomy, but we really need a smart leader that should have better understanding in his own land's economy. It is really sad to see people suffered from wrong policy advocated by our own leader. If our leader doesn't think himself smart enough, just let the market do its job and should never play a master planner's role.... |
|
83. 樓價會狠跌 2012-03-29 14:37:54 |
|
商界投唐唐都是鏡頭吹水，實際冇人敢得罪共產黨，入到票站你填邊個，任你吹水，邊個知？到時背後又係同中共講，我撐梁，唔好對付我啊，地產黨旗下太多物業了！ |
|
84. 真相 2012-03-29 14:42:14 |
|
其實老董政府係唔係真的沒有處理問題呢？先看看以下數據：
私人住宅已施工數量：
1997：22000
1998：35300
1999：31300
2000：30100
2001：18300
2002：17800
2003：14100
2004：14000
2005：15000
可以肯定，並不是 "O了 兄" 所講的直到SARS後才動手修正，97-2000的施工量反映97前滯後的政策數量，而2001打後減少的施工量正正反映老董政府的修正措施。由於樓宇落成量更為滯後，以至雖然施工量減少也未能扭轉樓價跌勢。扭轉樓市泡沫的確需時，措施並不能立杆見影，看日本和美國就可知一二。所以，CY提出樓市的長遠規劃不無道理，但是否恰如其份就要各界參與討論了，而且還要審時度勢，否則「泡沫 - 爆破 - 衰退」的周期將會不斷重演。
|
|
85. 70後 2012-03-29 14:42:55 |
|
哈哈, 咁古道熱腸嘅人, 喺香港真係好少見, 如果17年真係有得一人一損凸手, 我必定算你..... |
|
86. 真相 2012-03-29 14:56:35 |
|
私人住宅落成量以供參考：
1997：18200
1998：22280
1999：35320
2000：25790
2001：26260
2002：31050
2003：26400
2004：26000
2005：21730
2006：17320
2007：10470
2008：8780
2009：7160
2010：14260
2011：10600
2012：預測少於10000
由於近年政府察覺樓市泡沫或再現，賣地數量也有所增加，普遍預期2013年後供應將會回升。
|
|
87. 真相 2012-03-29 15:09:14 |
|
多謝 "70後" 兄抬舉，小弟何得何能，我只會分析往後資料，尋找真相，絕對冇本事制訂政策，甚至連比意見的能力都沒有，因為只有政府才有充足數據分析。但我並不是一言堂的人，只要有人能提出真實數據說服我，我必定接受，絕不會為反而反。 |
|
88. 80's passerby 2012-03-29 15:16:42 |
|
I wish I could go through the above informative replies. Just to share an idea of human behaviour I heard from a recent gathering. A study reveals that the movement of 20% people is sufficiently to turn around the whole group's behavour. That is why the power of media is far powerful than ever. |
|
89. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 15:22:11 |
|
Do you have figures of finished Subsidized Housing units??
As I mentioned in another post, though Tung announced the dead of "85,000", but their action told us that it didn't. Whenever the property market had a sign of recovery, our govn't would come out to push those subsidized units....maybe he was too eager to sell off those units and recoup the money putting in in building those units given a severe budget deficit. So, "85,000" effect was still rippling till 2003.
|
|
90. O了 2012-03-29 15:36:25 |
|
|
|
91. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 15:37:38 |
|
, Looking at your figures.....somehow, it confirmed one point that demand of property is not equal to demand for housing physical beings. It should be demand for housing physical beings+ investment demand.
So, whenever, the property market in an uptrend, the demand will grow tremendously. For those who don't own a property, they will come out and shout and protest as they are not able to enter the game of wealth accumulation. Whenever, the property market in a downtrend, the investment demand will die down and even the actual housing demand will also be delayed and that will result in a huge surplus in supply.
It is really important for policy maker to aware this fact and don't fall into a trap of oversupply due to the miscalculation of demand. In whatever market situation, never push for an extreme policy, a moderate one is always safer for the good of everybody. |
|
92. 我的“直至SARS之后。。。”是根据据的（但不知道是否有人缴了功） 2012-03-29 16:23:13 |
|
我的“直至SARS之后。。。”是根据据的（但不知道是否有人缴了功）---立法会房屋政策会议记要. 最好你有时间帮手找找 |
|
93. 真相 2012-03-29 16:26:38 |
|
資助出售單位落成量：
1997：21535
1998：21993
1999：26532
2000：25914
2001：26174
2002：1072
2003：320
2004：0
2005：0
2006：0
2007：2010
2008：2200
2009：370
2010：1110
如計及滯後因素，資助出售單位應該在98/99年已動手減建，私樓減建的措施應該都是同期。這說明當時老董政府的確有採取措施希望扭轉樓價下跌，只不過成效係因落成量回落需時的滯後效應。
但也有一點要留意，公屋輪候冊的人數卻由01/02年的谷底8.6萬人，每年增加，直至去年的15.2萬人，而獲配公屋數目卻每年減少，由01/02年的4.2萬，減少至去年的1.6萬。
這些數據各位可查證。這些扭曲修正的政策我不評論對錯，但只想說一句公道話，老董政府當年並不是一意孤行，但的確沒有做好市場預期。
Note: 樓市升跌因素當然各人心中有數，97的利息和過去幾年的利息差天共地，股市上落，自由行，大陸資金.....，單看供應，可能未必能了解全部真相，但可以理解的是，完全怪罪於老董政府並不乎合現實。
我再重申，我同老董或任何官員、政黨、政治人物、財團.....都沒有任何關系，我只是一個97年都中過招的普通小市民，我只是覺悟了。
|
|
94. 真相 2012-03-29 16:31:07 |
|
To: 92
我不想評論，無謂以為我說人壞話，請自己尋找真相吧！
|
|
95. O了 2012-03-29 16:40:49 |
|
尚欠公屋数据. 如果认为要求过份就算了, 你的数据刚好反影了经济周期的结果, 并不是政策有了什么改变(或者政策静静的改咗只是冇讲比你同我听). |
|
96. 真相 2012-03-29 17:15:48 |
|
如果 "O了 兄" 認為公屋出租單位對私樓有影響，我會找找看，印象中整體供應都應該是減少了。而現實係輪候公屋的需求因政府的穩定樓市政策而大幅上升，叫得做輪候，他們的收入一定要付合要求，你相信他們有能力置業嗎？或許只佔很小部份吧！
|
|
97. O了 2012-03-29 17:50:14 |
|
问题不在对实际需求有多大影响, 而是政策有否改变, 怎么改变, 什么时候改, 有冇公告天下. 你的数据好明显: 公营房屋供应量一直冇变, 直至2002年突然断裂了消失了,WHY? 是否证明我说的"直至SARS之后"冇错......... 时间可能有误差......哈哈 |
|
98. 真相 2012-03-29 21:53:06 |
|
資助出售單位落成量在2002年突然減少，原因是停賣居屋，但可出售的單位數目往後並沒有增多，約6000個剩餘單位貨尾，原因是2002年已沒有在建或已批興建的資助出售單位。，如果你知政府處事的方式，你應該知道這政策轉變一定不可能在2002年才發生，因為房署也曾表明要由批地到興建居屋落成雖時5年以上，這是滯後的落成可出售單位數據，即2001年的落成量應該是97/98 (或之前) 批建的，如此類推。如果是2002年才決定減少或停建，那2002年後的施工數量應該還有幾年加起來的過去數量，最少都有8萬至十多萬個以上的單位在建或可出售。
所以，我並不同意是 "直至SARS之后" 才改變政策，但可以肯定的是老董政府並冇公報天下，以致後來他自己說 "8萬5已經唔存在" 而被市民罵爆，就是沒有做好市場預期的工作，我是同意這點的。
|
|
99. 真相 2012-03-29 22:00:32 |
|
以下是剛從網上找到的資料，證明政策轉變約在98年，但的確沒有公報和做好市場預期，棋差一著：
董建華及相關政府官員一直並無表明政策改變，即使政府在1998年宣佈暫停賣地時，董建華仍然表示八萬五計劃不會受暫停賣地影響。直至2000年6月29日，董建華在禮賓府接受無綫電視新聞專訪，被問及會否修訂「八萬五」目標時，董建華首次明言「從98年就再沒有說過『八萬五』這個字眼，那你說還存不存在？」。 |
|
100. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 22:07:47 |
|
To 真相,
Maybe you were 一個97年都中過招的普通小市民, but I was more than that. I actively participated in property market all the time, so I had clear memory how our govn't act through the whole period.
Just copy what I've written earlier to reiterate my point.
" As I mentioned in another post, though Tung announced the dead of "85,000", but their action told us that it didn't. Whenever the property market had a sign of recovery, our govn't would come out to push those subsidized units....maybe he was too eager to sell off those units and recoup the money putting in in building those units given a severe budget deficit. So, "85,000" effect was still rippling till 2003. "
You may have the figures but actions of the govn't kept on sending the signal to the market the "85,000" was not dead. I also mentioned earlier that a smart policy maker need to manipulate market expectation. If our govn't was so eager to push their subsidized housing, what would you expect the market to react?? That's unbearably stupid for a gov't acting like that.
|
|
|
101. 真相 2012-03-29 22:16:41 |
|
I think it's kind of confidence issue, but not that they didn't take any action after the 97 Asian Financial Crisis. The problem was really that they were too stupid not to announce the policy change right in 98. Unfortunately, coupling with SARS, many people's confidence broke. |
|
102. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 22:53:13 |
|
You are right. It is a confidence issue. But you should be smart enough to know that confidence is a major component to determine the direction of the market be it stock market or property market.
I am not saying that Tung's Administration didn't do anything to rectify the situation, but at the same time, they were doing contradictory things (pushing out subsidized housing each time when the recovery was still very fragile). And the market was so confused till nobody had any confidence left at all. The final major slump happened in mid 2001 till end 2002 (though the fall was sharpened because of 911 in US).
The market bottomed out in 2003 with announcing of free travelers from China and the bold announcement of Mr Suen on rescuing 9 policies on the property market.....As I mentioned early, I am the benefactor of 85,000 and retired early at young age. But it is just heart-breaking to see people suffered from a wrong policy which was totally avoidable. If there is another 85,000, it maybe my another chance for me to boom again. But just I would rather not. |
|
103. 真相 2012-03-29 22:57:44 |
|
孫九招是2002年11月公報的。 |
|
104. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 23:05:10 |
|
OK. Without SARS, end 2002 should be time to bottom out. Couldn't be lower after dropping near 70%. |
|
105. 真相 2012-03-29 23:05:21 |
|
自由行和CEPA也是董在任時2003年SARS後的政策 |
|
106. 真相 2012-03-29 23:14:49 |
|
我只想說，97樓市下跌不應完全怪罪於董政府，港英政府種下的樓市泡沫及政策、高利息、投機熱、亞洲金融風暴、SARS......，至於所佔的比重，各有各說，我也無謂評論。
|
|
107. Hongkong People 2012-03-29 23:24:58 |
|
HK as a small open economy doesn't have control on other macro environment. But we don't really need a govn't to further drag us into hell.... |
|
108. O了 2012-03-30 01:36:14 |
|
从真相的資料我們可得出一個結論. 一個供需嚴重失衡的房屋政策是樓市下跌七成的內在原因, 無論什么時候開始, 什么時候無再執行, 只要冇公開宣告, 市場就有理由預期政策冇變. 信心就持續低迷, 需求就不會增加, 樓市仍是改不了走低的趨勢. 外圍因素反而是一些激化劑, 也就是所謂的乘數效應, 當外圍因素良好時, 需求增加, 失衡有所改善, 價格下跌速度減慢, 當外圍因素轉差時, 需求減少, 失衡加劇, 價格下跌速度加快. 再看看現時的樓市價格, 供應不足是市場一致的共識, 加上低息環境, 需求增加, 外圍因素稍稍好轉, 價格就會向上, 一切限制措施都只是拖延時日, 相反像美國次按和歐債危機這些世界性的外圍因素, 不足以改變市場對供應不足的預期, 所以需求只是量變而非質變, 價格下跌輕微. 不要再為八萬五政策開脫了, 為錯誤找借口總是容易的事, 勇敢地認識錯誤才能避免重蹈覆彻. |
|
