Well let's take a look at reality here. Bankers and salesmen and developers don't care about educating you, they only want to make a fat profit, and property buyers give them their supply of fat profits. Each time a property changes hands, we see at least 10-15% of the property value goes into administrative costs, and another 100% in interest payment over the next 20 years.

If it's me also I want to keep you dumb la.

Not me. You may have given the kids good advice and they might not have signed with you, but they're going to the next broker who will tell them things like "I'm sure your salary will increase over time so your burden will lighten, and your asset will appreciate". So I'd rather have them sign with me, I make my profit, and then turn around and buy back their foreclosed homes when they default.

Not like I bankrupted them pon, they should've done their homework. Sure it might sound ruthless and cutthroat, but educating people to be smart in buying homes is not my job if it doesn't help my sales figure. (Even though I'm not in mortgage sales)

They only care that you can repay the loan. Banks don't want to hold property, but they will have to if it means taking back their capital. Banks will do anything to make a profit, they were not in investment business but now they have investment banking, they were not in insurance business, but now they have bank assurance.

If this month everyone defaults on their loan payment, the next month there will be a property management arm formed in the banks.

Agreed, that's why banks will always make defaulting the last option for mortgage holders too. We should not lose sight, however, as to the mechanics of the economy, ie consumers have a lot of power if they know what to do.

What do you think will happen if ALL borrowers refuse to repay?

"Couldn't happen"? Look at the sub-prime crisis, and that's not even all borrowers.

Anyway, since you are unable to participate in the thought exercise, I will tell you, if all borrowers default on their mortgage, absolutely nothing will happen to the borrowers, the banks on the other hand, will be shitting in their pants begging for govt intervention. People will make a bank run, banks will become insolvent, real estate agents will lose their jobs, the economy will buckle, and believe it or not, after 3-5 years, you will see much more stable property market and property market, after developers, agents and banks learn that it is stupid to treat real estate properties as "an investment".

Of course it will go under. No organization can survive losing 1/3 of their asset, if it's a public listed bank, they're going to lose more than 1/3, way more.

Malaysia land is limited? You never been outside of your shell is it?

As we now know, m'sian property market never takes a nosedive, rather, it's a gradual downtrend because holding power is quite strong, plus there is always upward pressure from property scums agents and sellers, downward pressure is from buyers and owners going bankrupt. The latter is rarely stronger than the former, hence you see a fast uptrend blow slow downtrend. Banks just go whichever way the wind carries them. As long as the buyers stop buying, we can expect the downtrend to continue.

Generally true, it also depends on how much cheaper it is to rent. If it's only 20-30% cheaper, I'd say probably not worth it. But I've heard stories where people manage to rent out their units for higher than installment payments, which I find hilarious.

I still find it funny. Why would someone pay more for rent than they would for installment?

Can't afford downpayment for loan is not an excuse really. Just rent someplace cheaper and save the delta until downpayment can be afforded.

Renting single room cannot compare with installment payment. Different dynamics (paying for whole house vs paying for room)

Short term rental is acceptable, but there aren't very many people looking for short term rental, i'd say owner might average out the same as normal rental.

Memang pon. Stimulus is to turn negative into positive. This is just bailout, turning big negative into smaller negative. a foolish one some more.

Always be wary of people who tell you "properties are an investment". How can a bunch of brick and mortar appreciate in price? Just call it what it is, speculation. Those who tell you otherwise are ignorant or are liars.

That's not the right logic. In that case, you might want to consider gambling in Genting an investment.

What you had just described is the definition of speculation. Investment is something where the value (not the price) of what you invested in increases. E.g. you buy shares in company, company performs well, it reflects on your share price. Bricks and mortar themselves not increase in price, because they do not gain value.

Depends on what you build on that land lah. Besides, if this logic pans out, why do apartment prices go up 100% also.

You're partially right, share prices are also based on speculation in the secondary market. Ultimately, analysts will then judge whether they're over/under valued based on the fundamentals.

Price goes up, value stays the same. In other words, you're overpaying, at some point, there will be a correction. Ie still speculation.

Other people's money how they want to spend it is up to them, when banks loan more, I buy more bank shares only

After all, managing my portfolio from my computer is much easier than dealing with tenants and agents and lawyers.