erm, didnt you say you dont rent out the unit you stay in

so what cash flow?

i never said zero value, but little value, even with Freehold, it's still not worth much. remember condos are not like shopping malls or landed properties, sure, you get some money back, how much i don't know, but remember all the legal fees & commitment to the unit.

and say your condo is 50 years old, sell to who? u really think PJ is like HK? runned down units people still buy?

you pay your bank and instalment no?

the guy say zero value as in not much gain after taking into account all the expenses etc. he's not wrong.

unless you can sell ur 50 year old condo for a net profit, then come back to use when you do.

and at the end of the day, can you sell that only house that you own?

and if you sell it, where you going to stay?

sure it can be sold, then you have to bunk with your kids or buy another unit that is a downgrade from your own

or rent

which tend to cost about he same as the one you sold or cheaper if you downgrade

the reality is, as your house appreciates so do others.

i did, but you dont seem to get it

let me make it easier

if you have an apple, you sold it for Rm1, then you buy another for Rm1 whats the nett value of this transaction?

erm, renting doesnt mean you are homeless

and didnt i say i dont account for emotional attachments

erm  mortgage?

economics and accounts folk, would only realise an item after a transaction is done not before.

His point is, where will you stay if you have a roof over your head after you sold your super appreciated property? It's a valid question.

No, your answer was it is irrelevant when it fact, it is. Your property can appreciate 1000% but it won't matter squat when you have to spend the same amount of money staying elsewhere.

You're not talking about value of the person who don't got a property, you're talking about someone who has lost value buying property, but presented in a way that looks like there is a gain in value.

That was what you didn't get.

You don't seem to get it. When you buy that other apple, and you eat it, that's the value. Someone who don't have an apple, is the one who doesn't have that value.

+3kk! is right, you really don't get it. I already explained to you.

"You're not talking about value of the person who don't got a property, you're talking about someone who has lost value buying property, but presented in a way that looks like there is a gain in value."

if you can't post any contribution to the discussion why even bother posting?

why waste your youth here? why not just go to the kitchen make some sandwich and try to give birth to a child instead? or ur hubby could use some companionship.

me buy > rent.
regardless its a shit hole low cost apartment or condo.
no need calculator or Einstein to brain this.

Investors would want to say BBB UUU, not RRR DDD. majority investors eying on the profit from sales, not rental. They want more buyer so market goes up, not more rentals. more rentals = kill the market coz nobody's buying.

what is the ratio of Flippers vs Rental investors? if people buy properties for rentals, we will see much lesser buyers as the "Potential Profit" is much lower for rental vs flipping, you would have to wait a good 15-30 years until you finish your loans to see the profit generating, most people don't have the patience, thus the flipping market. most investors buy it for the resale, not for rentals, rentals just a reason to justify their investment, like if i can rent it out at least i can't sell it i still have rentals.

if rentals can cover the monthly loans, people won't be selling it out of no choice.

truth is rental yields barely cover monthly loans, it's just a cushion.