Outline ·
[ Standard ] ·
Linear+
Implementation Of A Maximum LTV of 70%, for 3rd properties and beyond only...
|
babyekc
|
 Nov 4 2010, 12:23 PM
|
Getting Started
|
QUOTE(Drian @ Nov 4 2010, 11:55 AM) So? Don't want to fork out 30% d/p then don't buy la. Simple as that and if that someone doesn't have enough money to make a 30% downpayment for their third house then too bad, don't buy it. Totally agree. That's exactly the main objective from the government. It's not that when you dont have the money, and just because you want to buy it, you can buy it. You must have the money, in this case, 30% d/p. And bear in mind, this is only for 3rd property onwards, not 1st property. I sincerely thinks that this is a very good move from the government. Let me assume something, let say before this implementation from the government, the LTV is 100%, and the government only adjusted the LTV to 90%, these ppl still going to whine. Because they edi have this mindset - even i don't have the money, i can own 10 houses, now i gonna fork out the 10% d/p, where do i find the money? How can government do this? If the government protect the 1st house buyer, how can i be rich? This post has been edited by babyekc: Nov 4 2010, 12:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
babyekc
|
Nov 4 2010, 02:08 PM
|
Getting Started
|
QUOTE(airline @ Nov 4 2010, 12:36 PM) then buyer sell either 1 of 2 properties lo to get 3rd property loan. people in the other forum complain cause now they cant sapu few floors already. haha great, that's 1 of the way to stop rich gets richer and poor gets poorer.  |
|
|
|
|
|
babyekc
|
Nov 4 2010, 02:27 PM
|
Getting Started
|
QUOTE(Drian @ Nov 4 2010, 02:15 PM) Actually if the property investors are really really rich, this move doesn't affect them as they can afford to pay cash full for the property. It's only those who are not that rich but want to own many property, who can't even pay 30% downpayment that will be affected by this. yea, then i should have refer to - those who r not that rich. |
|
|
|
|
|
babyekc
|
Nov 4 2010, 02:37 PM
|
Getting Started
|
QUOTE(Drian @ Nov 4 2010, 02:12 PM) If you're a "genuine upgrader" want to upgrade but have no money for the 30% d/p, sell your apartment , rent a place and start buying the landed property. Simple. In that case, everyone can give the same scenario as an excuse for owning three property using bank loans. To me it's just an excuse. Why not make it 5 houses then ? I also can create a scenario whereby young msians bought their first starter home, usually an apartment & then later 3 more for investment, who now wants to "upgrade" to a landed prop. Exactly, im not only saying those who really sapu a few floors. but also those edi bought 2 - 3 properties! if genuine upgrader, sell the 2 u bought and upgrade, by this means u'll have the 30% of d/p. if ppl holding 2 - 3 properties as investment, doesn't that lead to increase of property price because of demand more than supply? of coz, in here im saying MANY ppl, not only 1 person. |
|
|
|
|
|
babyekc
|
Nov 4 2010, 02:57 PM
|
Getting Started
|
QUOTE(Daryl Teo @ Nov 4 2010, 02:25 PM) heh heh
I think there are other more effective mechanisms as i have mentioned earlier than just capping the 3rd prop like debt gearing ratio or even NAV using a valuation approach than to dismiss everyone on their 3rd purchase as fueling speculation. A good policy have to make provisions for the interests of all affected groups not just the popular considerations. Your first proposition for "genuine upgrader" sounds plausible. Your 2nd scenario is not pertinent to the 3rd prop cap discussion.
different ppl have different interests, u just cant make everyone happy. |
|
|
|
|
Quote
0.0140sec
0.27
6 queries
GZIP Disabled