Vastgoedzeepbel

[/\|cazar]

Het aloude gezegde: what comes up, must come down.

Volgende artikeltje vond ik in de online editie van The Economist.

Geen nood dus om je nog zorgen te maken om de stijgende prijzen van woningen, gronden, etc ... weldra is er wsh een rationalisering, lees: serieuze daling in prijs. Spijtig voor die mensen die denken dat bakstenen geld moeten opbrengen om hun pensioen aan te vullen.

House prices


[size=-1]Soaring house prices have given a huge boost to the world economy. What happens when they drop?[/size]

[size=-1]PERHAPS the best evidence that America's house prices have reached dangerous levels is the fact that house-buying mania has been plastered on the front of virtually every American newspaper and magazine over the past month. Such bubble-talk hardly comes as a surprise to our readers. We have been warning for some time that the price of housing was rising at an alarming rate all around the globe, including in America. Now that others have noticed as well, the day of reckoning is closer at hand. It is not going to be pretty. How the current housing boom ends could decide the course of the entire world economy over the next few years.[/size]
[size=-1]This boom is unprecedented in terms of both the number of countries involved and the record size of house-price gains. Measured by the increase in asset values over the past five years, the global housing boom is the biggest financial bubble in history . The bigger the boom, the bigger the eventual bust.[/size]

[size=-1]Throughout history, financial bubbles—whether in houses, equities or tulip bulbs—have continued to inflate for longer than rational folk believed possible. In many countries around the globe, house prices are already at record levels in relation to rents and incomes. But, as demonstrated by dotcom shares at the end of the 1990s, some prices could yet rise even higher. It is impossible to predict when prices will turn. Yet turn they will. Prices are already sliding in Australia and Britain. America's housing market may be a year or so behind.[/size]

[size=-1]Many people protest that house prices are less vulnerable to a meltdown. Houses, they argue, are not paper wealth like shares; you can live in them. Houses cannot be sold as quickly as shares, making a price crash less likely. It is true that house prices do not plummet like a brick. They tend to drift downwards, more like a brick with a parachute attached. But when they land, it still hurts. And there is a troubling similarity between the house-price boom and the dotcom bubble: investors have been buying houses even though rents will not cover their interest payments, purely in the expectation of large capital gains—just as investors bought shares in profitless firms in the late 1990s, simply because prices were rising.[/size]

Homes as cash machines
[size=-1]One other big difference between houses and shares is more cause for concern than comfort: people are much more likely to borrow to buy a house than to buy shares. In most countries, the recent surge in house prices has gone hand-in-hand with a much larger jump in household debt than in previous booms. Not only are new buyers taking out bigger mortgages, but existing owners have increased their mortgages to turn capital gains into cash which they can spend. As a result of such borrowing, housing booms tend to be more dangerous than stockmarket bubbles, and are often followed by periods of prolonged economic weakness. A study by the [size=-1]IMF[/size] found that output losses after house-price busts in rich countries have, on average, been twice as large as those after stockmarket crashes, and usually result in a recession.[/size]

[size=-1]The economic damage this time could be worse than in the past because house prices are more likely to fall in nominal, not just real terms. Not only do houses in many countries look more overvalued than at previous peaks, but with inflation so low, prices would have to stay flat for at least a decade to bring real prices back to long-run average values. Most important of all, in many countries this house-price boom has been driven far more by investors than in the past, and if prices start to dip, they are more likely to sell than owner-occupiers. In America this could mean the first fall in average house prices since the Great Depression. Owners who have been using their home like an [size=-1]ATM[/size] to extract cash, or who were relying on rising house prices to provide them with a comfortable pension, will suddenly realise that they need to start saving the old-fashioned way—by spending less of their income.[/size]

The Fed frets
[size=-1]The lesson from recent experience in Australia, Britain and the Netherlands is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, a big rise in interest rates is not necessary to make house prices falter. This is bad news for America. Even if prices there initially just flatten rather than fall, this will hurt consumer spending as the impulse to borrow against capital gains disappears. It is by encouraging such borrowing that rising house prices have given a bigger boost to America's economy than elsewhere. Two-fifths of all American jobs created since 2001 have been in housing-related sectors such as construction, real-estate lending and broking. If house prices actually fall, this boost will turn into a substantial drag.[/size]

[size=-1]No wonder that the Federal Reserve is starting, belatedly, to fret about house prices. By holding interest rates low for so long after equities crashed, the Fed helped to inflate house prices. This prevented a deep recession, but it may have merely delayed the needed economic adjustments. Ideally, the Fed should have tried to cool the housing boom by raising interest rates sooner and by giving clear verbal warnings to buyers, as Britain's and Australia's central banks have done. Even now some stern words from Alan Greenspan, the Fed's chairman, could restrain more house-price inflation.[/size]

[size=-1]Of course, by the time American prices begin to fall, probably sometime next year, they will not be Mr Greenspan's headache. He will have retired and someone else will be in his job. If weaker house prices push the economy towards recession, the awkward truth is that America's policymakers will have much less room to manoeuvre than they did after the stockmarket bubble burst. Short-term interest rates of only 3% leave less scope for cuts. In 2000, America had a budget surplus. Today it has a large deficit, ruling out big tax cuts.[/size]

[size=-1]The whole world economy is at risk. The [size=-1]IMF [/size]has warned that, just as the upswing in house prices has been a global phenomenon, so any downturn is likely to be synchronised, and thus the effects of it will be shared widely. The housing boom was fun while it lasted, but the biggest increase in wealth in history was largely an illusion.[/size]

Bizar genoeg is de economische groei in de VS voor een groot stuk te danken aan het opbouwen van deze zeepbel: door hogere vastgoedinkomsten, verhogen de aanbestedingen van de gelukkigen die ervan kunnen profiteren, erg labiel vrees ik.[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by /\|cazar on 18-06-2005 at 20:26
Reason:
--------------------------------

Het aloude gezegde: what comes up, must come down.

Volgende artikeltje vond ik in de online editie van The Economist.

Geen nood dus om je nog zorgen te maken om de stijgende prijzen van woningen, gronden, etc ... weldra is er wsh een rationalisering, lees: serieuze daling in prijs. Spijtig voor die mensen die denken dat bakstenen geld moeten opbrengen om hun pensioen aan te vullen.

House prices


[size=-1]Soaring house prices have given a huge boost to the world economy. What happens when they drop?[/size]

[size=-1]PERHAPS the best evidence that America's house prices have reached dangerous levels is the fact that house-buying mania has been plastered on the front of virtually every American newspaper and magazine over the past month. Such bubble-talk hardly comes as a surprise to our readers. We have been warning for some time that the price of housing was rising at an alarming rate all around the globe, including in America. Now that others have noticed as well, the day of reckoning is closer at hand. It is not going to be pretty. How the current housing boom ends could decide the course of the entire world economy over the next few years.[/size]
[size=-1]This boom is unprecedented in terms of both the number of countries involved and the record size of house-price gains. Measured by the increase in asset values over the past five years, the global housing boom is the biggest financial bubble in history . The bigger the boom, the bigger the eventual bust.[/size]

[size=-1]Throughout history, financial bubbles—whether in houses, equities or tulip bulbs—have continued to inflate for longer than rational folk believed possible. In many countries around the globe, house prices are already at record levels in relation to rents and incomes. But, as demonstrated by dotcom shares at the end of the 1990s, some prices could yet rise even higher. It is impossible to predict when prices will turn. Yet turn they will. Prices are already sliding in Australia and Britain. America's housing market may be a year or so behind.[/size]

[size=-1]Many people protest that house prices are less vulnerable to a meltdown. Houses, they argue, are not paper wealth like shares; you can live in them. Houses cannot be sold as quickly as shares, making a price crash less likely. It is true that house prices do not plummet like a brick. They tend to drift downwards, more like a brick with a parachute attached. But when they land, it still hurts. And there is a troubling similarity between the house-price boom and the dotcom bubble: investors have been buying houses even though rents will not cover their interest payments, purely in the expectation of large capital gains—just as investors bought shares in profitless firms in the late 1990s, simply because prices were rising.[/size]

Homes as cash machines
[size=-1]One other big difference between houses and shares is more cause for concern than comfort: people are much more likely to borrow to buy a house than to buy shares. In most countries, the recent surge in house prices has gone hand-in-hand with a much larger jump in household debt than in previous booms. Not only are new buyers taking out bigger mortgages, but existing owners have increased their mortgages to turn capital gains into cash which they can spend. As a result of such borrowing, housing booms tend to be more dangerous than stockmarket bubbles, and are often followed by periods of prolonged economic weakness. A study by the [size=-1]IMF[/size] found that output losses after house-price busts in rich countries have, on average, been twice as large as those after stockmarket crashes, and usually result in a recession.[/size]

[size=-1]The economic damage this time could be worse than in the past because house prices are more likely to fall in nominal, not just real terms. Not only do houses in many countries look more overvalued than at previous peaks, but with inflation so low, prices would have to stay flat for at least a decade to bring real prices back to long-run average values. Most important of all, in many countries this house-price boom has been driven far more by investors than in the past, and if prices start to dip, they are more likely to sell than owner-occupiers. In America this could mean the first fall in average house prices since the Great Depression. Owners who have been using their home like an [size=-1]ATM[/size] to extract cash, or who were relying on rising house prices to provide them with a comfortable pension, will suddenly realise that they need to start saving the old-fashioned way—by spending less of their income.[/size]

The Fed frets
[size=-1]The lesson from recent experience in Australia, Britain and the Netherlands is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, a big rise in interest rates is not necessary to make house prices falter. This is bad news for America. Even if prices there initially just flatten rather than fall, this will hurt consumer spending as the impulse to borrow against capital gains disappears. It is by encouraging such borrowing that rising house prices have given a bigger boost to America's economy than elsewhere. Two-fifths of all American jobs created since 2001 have been in housing-related sectors such as construction, real-estate lending and broking. If house prices actually fall, this boost will turn into a substantial drag.[/size]

[size=-1]No wonder that the Federal Reserve is starting, belatedly, to fret about house prices. By holding interest rates low for so long after equities crashed, the Fed helped to inflate house prices. This prevented a deep recession, but it may have merely delayed the needed economic adjustments. Ideally, the Fed should have tried to cool the housing boom by raising interest rates sooner and by giving clear verbal warnings to buyers, as Britain's and Australia's central banks have done. Even now some stern words from Alan Greenspan, the Fed's chairman, could restrain more house-price inflation.[/size]

[size=-1]Of course, by the time American prices begin to fall, probably sometime next year, they will not be Mr Greenspan's headache. He will have retired and someone else will be in his job. If weaker house prices push the economy towards recession, the awkward truth is that America's policymakers will have much less room to manoeuvre than they did after the stockmarket bubble burst. Short-term interest rates of only 3% leave less scope for cuts. In 2000, America had a budget surplus. Today it has a large deficit, ruling out big tax cuts.[/size]

[size=-1]The whole world economy is at risk. The [size=-1]IMF [/size]has warned that, just as the upswing in house prices has been a global phenomenon, so any downturn is likely to be synchronised, and thus the effects of it will be shared widely. The housing boom was fun while it lasted, but the biggest increase in wealth in history was largely an illusion.[/size]

Bizar genoeg is de economische groei in de VS voor een groot stuk te danken aan het opbouwen van deze zeepbel: door hogere vastgoedinkomsten, verhogen de aanbestedingen van de gelukkigen die ervan kunnen profiteren, erg labiel vrees ik.[/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by /\|cazar on 18-06-2005 at 20:23
Reason:
--------------------------------

Het aloude gezegde: what comes up, must come down.

Volgende artikeltje vond ik in de online editie van The Economist.

Geen nood dus om je nog zorgen te maken om de stijgende prijzen van woningen, gronden, etc ... weldra is er wsh een rationalisering, lees: serieuze daling in prijs. Spijtig voor die mensen die denken dat bakstenen geld moeten opbrengen om hun pensioen aan te vullen.

House prices


[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]Soaring house prices have given a huge boost to the world economy. What happens when they drop?[/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]PERHAPS the best evidence that America's house prices have reached dangerous levels is the fact that house-buying mania has been plastered on the front of virtually every American newspaper and magazine over the past month. Such bubble-talk hardly comes as a surprise to our readers. We have been warning for some time that the price of housing was rising at an alarming rate all around the globe, including in America. Now that others have noticed as well, the day of reckoning is closer at hand. It is not going to be pretty. How the current housing boom ends could decide the course of the entire world economy over the next few years. [/size][/font]
[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]This boom is unprecedented in terms of both the number of countries involved and the record size of house-price gains. Measured by the increase in asset values over the past five years, the global housing boom is the biggest financial bubble in history . The bigger the boom, the bigger the eventual bust.[/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]Throughout history, financial bubbles—whether in houses, equities or tulip bulbs—have continued to inflate for longer than rational folk believed possible. In many countries around the globe, house prices are already at record levels in relation to rents and incomes. But, as demonstrated by dotcom shares at the end of the 1990s, some prices could yet rise even higher. It is impossible to predict when prices will turn. Yet turn they will. Prices are already sliding in Australia and Britain. America's housing market may be a year or so behind. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]Many people protest that house prices are less vulnerable to a meltdown. Houses, they argue, are not paper wealth like shares; you can live in them. Houses cannot be sold as quickly as shares, making a price crash less likely. It is true that house prices do not plummet like a brick. They tend to drift downwards, more like a brick with a parachute attached. But when they land, it still hurts. And there is a troubling similarity between the house-price boom and the dotcom bubble: investors have been buying houses even though rents will not cover their interest payments, purely in the expectation of large capital gains—just as investors bought shares in profitless firms in the late 1990s, simply because prices were rising.[/size][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, arial, sans serif]Homes as cash machines[/font]
[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]One other big difference between houses and shares is more cause for concern than comfort: people are much more likely to borrow to buy a house than to buy shares. In most countries, the recent surge in house prices has gone hand-in-hand with a much larger jump in household debt than in previous booms. Not only are new buyers taking out bigger mortgages, but existing owners have increased their mortgages to turn capital gains into cash which they can spend. As a result of such borrowing, housing booms tend to be more dangerous than stockmarket bubbles, and are often followed by periods of prolonged economic weakness. A study by the [size=-1]IMF[/size] found that output losses after house-price busts in rich countries have, on average, been twice as large as those after stockmarket crashes, and usually result in a recession.[/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]The economic damage this time could be worse than in the past because house prices are more likely to fall in nominal, not just real terms. Not only do houses in many countries look more overvalued than at previous peaks, but with inflation so low, prices would have to stay flat for at least a decade to bring real prices back to long-run average values. Most important of all, in many countries this house-price boom has been driven far more by investors than in the past, and if prices start to dip, they are more likely to sell than owner-occupiers. In America this could mean the first fall in average house prices since the Great Depression. Owners who have been using their home like an [size=-1]ATM[/size] to extract cash, or who were relying on rising house prices to provide them with a comfortable pension, will suddenly realise that they need to start saving the old-fashioned way—by spending less of their income.[/size][/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, arial, sans serif]The Fed frets[/font]
[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]The lesson from recent experience in Australia, Britain and the Netherlands is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, a big rise in interest rates is not necessary to make house prices falter. This is bad news for America. Even if prices there initially just flatten rather than fall, this will hurt consumer spending as the impulse to borrow against capital gains disappears. It is by encouraging such borrowing that rising house prices have given a bigger boost to America's economy than elsewhere. Two-fifths of all American jobs created since 2001 have been in housing-related sectors such as construction, real-estate lending and broking. If house prices actually fall, this boost will turn into a substantial drag.[/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]No wonder that the Federal Reserve is starting, belatedly, to fret about house prices. By holding interest rates low for so long after equities crashed, the Fed helped to inflate house prices. This prevented a deep recession, but it may have merely delayed the needed economic adjustments. Ideally, the Fed should have tried to cool the housing boom by raising interest rates sooner and by giving clear verbal warnings to buyers, as Britain's and Australia's central banks have done. Even now some stern words from Alan Greenspan, the Fed's chairman, could restrain more house-price inflation. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]Of course, by the time American prices begin to fall, probably sometime next year, they will not be Mr Greenspan's headache. He will have retired and someone else will be in his job. If weaker house prices push the economy towards recession, the awkward truth is that America's policymakers will have much less room to manoeuvre than they did after the stockmarket bubble burst. Short-term interest rates of only 3% leave less scope for cuts. In 2000, America had a budget surplus. Today it has a large deficit, ruling out big tax cuts. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]The whole world economy is at risk. The [size=-1]IMF [/size]has warned that, just as the upswing in house prices has been a global phenomenon, so any downturn is likely to be synchronised, and thus the effects of it will be shared widely. The housing boom was fun while it lasted, but the biggest increase in wealth in history was largely an illusion.[/size][/font][/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Het aloude gezegde: what comes up, must come down.

Volgende artikeltje vond ik in de online editie van The Economist.

Geen nood dus om je nog zorgen te maken om de stijgende prijzen van woningen, gronden, etc ... weldra is er wsh een rationalisering, lees: serieuze daling in prijs. Spijtig voor die mensen die denken dat bakstenen geld moeten opbrengen om hun pensioen aan te vullen.

House prices

[font=verdana, geneva, arial, sans serif][size=+1]After the fall
[/size][/font][font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-2]
Jun 16th 2005
From The Economist print edition
[/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]Soaring house prices have given a huge boost to the world economy. What happens when they drop?[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-2][/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1][/size][/font]


[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]PERHAPS the best evidence that America's house prices have reached dangerous levels is the fact that house-buying mania has been plastered on the front of virtually every American newspaper and magazine over the past month. Such bubble-talk hardly comes as a surprise to our readers. We have been warning for some time that the price of housing was rising at an alarming rate all around the globe, including in America. Now that others have noticed as well, the day of reckoning is closer at hand. It is not going to be pretty. How the current housing boom ends could decide the course of the entire world economy over the next few years. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]This boom is unprecedented in terms of both the number of countries involved and the record size of house-price gains. Measured by the increase in asset values over the past five years, the global housing boom is the biggest financial bubble in history (see article). The bigger the boom, the bigger the eventual bust.[/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]Throughout history, financial bubbles—whether in houses, equities or tulip bulbs—have continued to inflate for longer than rational folk believed possible. In many countries around the globe, house prices are already at record levels in relation to rents and incomes. But, as demonstrated by dotcom shares at the end of the 1990s, some prices could yet rise even higher. It is impossible to predict when prices will turn. Yet turn they will. Prices are already sliding in Australia and Britain. America's housing market may be a year or so behind. [/size][/font]



[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-2]The global housing boom
[/size][/font][font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-2]Jun 16th 2005
[/size][/font][font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-2]Economic slowdown
[/size][/font][font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-2]Jun 9th 2005
[/size][/font][font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-2]The frothy housing market
[/size][/font][font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-2]May 26th 2005
[/size][/font][font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-2]
[/size][/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-2]America's economy

Asian economies

Britain's economy

Property

[/size][/font]
[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-2]Federal Reserve, Reserve Bank of Australia, Bank of England, IMF[/size][/font]
[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-2]
[/size][/font]

= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) {document.write(''); }// -->

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]Many people protest that house prices are less vulnerable to a meltdown. Houses, they argue, are not paper wealth like shares; you can live in them. Houses cannot be sold as quickly as shares, making a price crash less likely. It is true that house prices do not plummet like a brick. They tend to drift downwards, more like a brick with a parachute attached. But when they land, it still hurts. And there is a troubling similarity between the house-price boom and the dotcom bubble: investors have been buying houses even though rents will not cover their interest payments, purely in the expectation of large capital gains—just as investors bought shares in profitless firms in the late 1990s, simply because prices were rising.[/size][/font]



[font=verdana, geneva, arial, sans serif]Homes as cash machines[/font]
[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]One other big difference between houses and shares is more cause for concern than comfort: people are much more likely to borrow to buy a house than to buy shares. In most countries, the recent surge in house prices has gone hand-in-hand with a much larger jump in household debt than in previous booms. Not only are new buyers taking out bigger mortgages, but existing owners have increased their mortgages to turn capital gains into cash which they can spend. As a result of such borrowing, housing booms tend to be more dangerous than stockmarket bubbles, and are often followed by periods of prolonged economic weakness. A study by the [size=-1]IMF[/size] found that output losses after house-price busts in rich countries have, on average, been twice as large as those after stockmarket crashes, and usually result in a recession.[/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]The economic damage this time could be worse than in the past because house prices are more likely to fall in nominal, not just real terms. Not only do houses in many countries look more overvalued than at previous peaks, but with inflation so low, prices would have to stay flat for at least a decade to bring real prices back to long-run average values. Most important of all, in many countries this house-price boom has been driven far more by investors than in the past, and if prices start to dip, they are more likely to sell than owner-occupiers. In America this could mean the first fall in average house prices since the Great Depression. Owners who have been using their home like an [size=-1]ATM[/size] to extract cash, or who were relying on rising house prices to provide them with a comfortable pension, will suddenly realise that they need to start saving the old-fashioned way—by spending less of their income.[/size][/font]



[font=verdana, geneva, arial, sans serif]The Fed frets[/font]
[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]The lesson from recent experience in Australia, Britain and the Netherlands is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, a big rise in interest rates is not necessary to make house prices falter. This is bad news for America. Even if prices there initially just flatten rather than fall, this will hurt consumer spending as the impulse to borrow against capital gains disappears. It is by encouraging such borrowing that rising house prices have given a bigger boost to America's economy than elsewhere. Two-fifths of all American jobs created since 2001 have been in housing-related sectors such as construction, real-estate lending and broking. If house prices actually fall, this boost will turn into a substantial drag.[/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]No wonder that the Federal Reserve is starting, belatedly, to fret about house prices. By holding interest rates low for so long after equities crashed, the Fed helped to inflate house prices. This prevented a deep recession, but it may have merely delayed the needed economic adjustments. Ideally, the Fed should have tried to cool the housing boom by raising interest rates sooner and by giving clear verbal warnings to buyers, as Britain's and Australia's central banks have done. Even now some stern words from Alan Greenspan, the Fed's chairman, could restrain more house-price inflation. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]Of course, by the time American prices begin to fall, probably sometime next year, they will not be Mr Greenspan's headache. He will have retired and someone else will be in his job. If weaker house prices push the economy towards recession, the awkward truth is that America's policymakers will have much less room to manoeuvre than they did after the stockmarket bubble burst. Short-term interest rates of only 3% leave less scope for cuts. In 2000, America had a budget surplus. Today it has a large deficit, ruling out big tax cuts. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]The whole world economy is at risk. The [size=-1]IMF [/size]has warned that, just as the upswing in house prices has been a global phenomenon, so any downturn is likely to be synchronised, and thus the effects of it will be shared widely. The housing boom was fun while it lasted, but the biggest increase in wealth in history was largely an illusion.[/size][/font][/size]

[/edit]

[genehunter]

Oooouuuwwch !!! Ik sta net op het punt om een appartementje te kopen in het leuvense, toch, hoe kort is korte termijn? Ik kan me niet inbeelden dat wat ik nu koop, binnen 5 jaar maar 80% ofzo meer gaat waard zijn van zijn aankoopprijs... Hoe dan ook, nu kopen en afbetalen blijkt goedkoper dan huren. Het gaat ook over Amerika hé, wat daar springt, knalt harder dan hier. Enfin, laat me iets weten als het zover is, dan verkoop ik snel.

[/\|cazar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door genehunter

Oooouuuwwch !!! Ik sta net op het punt om een appartementje te kopen in het leuvense, toch, hoe kort is korte termijn? Ik kan me niet inbeelden dat wat ik nu koop, binnen 5 jaar maar 80% ofzo meer gaat waard zijn van zijn aankoopprijs... Hoe dan ook, nu kopen en afbetalen blijkt goedkoper dan huren. Het gaat ook over Amerika hé, wat daar springt, knalt harder dan hier. Enfin, laat me iets weten als het zover is, dan verkoop ik snel.

welke zinnige mens koopt nu een appartement in het leuvense !

gaat wat verder richting tienen en je zit al aan de helft dat je moet betalen, ga nog wat verder en je zit nog beter.

[Mambo]

In tegenstelling van de snelle stijging de laatste jaren, wordt verwacht dat vanaf volgend jaar maximum nog 2% stijging zal zijn. Wat dus niet veel meer is en dichtbij een daling komt.
Prik en de ballon is kapot!

[genehunter]

welke zinnige mens koopt nu een appartement in het leuvense !

Ik was in de veronderstelling dat het hier niet in waarde gaat dalen
trouwens: centraal gelegen, ik ben het hier gewoon, dicht bij het openbaar vervoer en andere diensten, veel vrienden wonen hier...

Maar idd veels te duur hier...

[Groentje-18]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door genehunter

Oooouuuwwch !!! Ik sta net op het punt om een appartementje te kopen in het leuvense, toch, hoe kort is korte termijn? Ik kan me niet inbeelden dat wat ik nu koop, binnen 5 jaar maar 80% ofzo meer gaat waard zijn van zijn aankoopprijs... Hoe dan ook, nu kopen en afbetalen blijkt goedkoper dan huren. Het gaat ook over Amerika hé, wat daar springt, knalt harder dan hier. Enfin, laat me iets weten als het zover is, dan verkoop ik snel.

Een appartement in Leuven? Ik wil me niet moeien maar ik weet niet als dat wel zo'n goed idee is... :-s Tenzij je meer de kanten van Heverlee ofzo uitgaat misschien?
Anders ... maak ieder klein spleetje in je appartement dicht want de geur van de interbrew wil je niet ruiken ..., veel studenten die 's nachts lawaai maken, altijd superdruk in de (voedings)winkels,...
Maar langs de andere kant: er wordt wel veel in Leuven georganiseerd, ook qua cultuur enzo, en het is wel gezellig hier. Ma toch: kijk uit dat je je niet langs een fakbar of café vestigt!

[Groentje-18]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door genehunter

Ik was in de veronderstelling dat het hier niet in waarde gaat dalen
trouwens: centraal gelegen, ik ben het hier gewoon, dicht bij het openbaar vervoer en andere diensten, veel vrienden wonen hier...

Maar idd veels te duur hier...

Ah oké ... dat begrijp ik wel. De stad heeft inderdaad ook z'n voordelen.

[Groentje-18]

Er is iets wat ik niet begrijp:
Het gaat hier toch om de huizen en niet om de (steeds schaarser wordende) bouwgronden hé?
(Als het wel zo is begrijp ik alles).

[Cynicus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Mambo

In tegenstelling van de snelle stijging de laatste jaren, wordt verwacht dat vanaf volgend jaar maximum nog 2% stijging zal zijn. Wat dus niet veel meer is en dichtbij een daling komt.
Prik en de ballon is kapot!

Schaf gewoon de fiscale voordelen inzake hypothecaire leningen af, en de prijzen van de huizen zakken zo in elkaar (zie http://forum.politics.be/showthread.php?t=33227).[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Cynicus on 19-06-2005 at 01:31
Reason:
--------------------------------

Schaf gewoon de fiscale voordelen inzake hypothecaire leningen af, en de prijzen van de huizen zakken zo in elkaar (zie http://forum.politics.be/showthread.php?t=33227).[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Schaf gewoon de fiscale voordelen inzake hypothecaire leningen af, en de prijzen van de huizen zakken zo in elkaar.[/size]

[/edit]

[Mambo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Cynicus

Schaf gewoon de fiscale voordelen inzake hypothecaire leningen af, en de prijzen van de huizen zakken zo in elkaar (zie http://forum.politics.be/showthread.php?t=33227).

Voor mij is dat goed.
Nu de rest nog.

[Bobke]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Cynicus

Schaf gewoon de fiscale voordelen inzake hypothecaire leningen af, en de prijzen van de huizen zakken zo in elkaar (zie http://forum.politics.be/showthread.php?t=33227).

Ben ik het mee eens.

[Bob]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Cynicus

Schaf gewoon de fiscale voordelen inzake hypothecaire leningen af, en de prijzen van de huizen zakken zo in elkaar (zie http://forum.politics.be/showthread.php?t=33227).

Het zijn voornamelijk appartementen en rijwoningen die sterk zijn blijven doorstijgen. Vooral de afbetalingsmogelijkheden schijnen een grote invloed te hebben (men zit tegenwoordig met bankprodukten en rekordlageintresten, die de maandelijkse afbetaling tot een minimum beperken).
Kort. Als morgen de intrest stijgt, dan dalen de prijzen. Maar een bubbel is hier wel relatief. Als de prijzen met een 20 �* 30% dalen, zal het al veel zijn. Woningbezitters zijn over het algemeen niet bereid van hun woning met verlies te verkopen (dit in tegenstelling met aandelenbezitters, die dan weer bij dalende prijzen hunnen boel in paniek buitengooien).

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door genehunter

Oooouuuwwch !!! Ik sta net op het punt om een appartementje te kopen in het leuvense, toch, hoe kort is korte termijn? Ik kan me niet inbeelden dat wat ik nu koop, binnen 5 jaar maar 80% ofzo meer gaat waard zijn van zijn aankoopprijs... Hoe dan ook, nu kopen en afbetalen blijkt goedkoper dan huren. Het gaat ook over Amerika hé, wat daar springt, knalt harder dan hier. Enfin, laat me iets weten als het zover is, dan verkoop ik snel.

Als je het lang genoeg bijhoudt moet je je niets aantrekken van die commentaren.

Als je echter een student bent die plant om na een paar jaar al het geld in dat appartement te gebruiken om een huis te kopen, zou je beter 2 keer nadenken.

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Cynicus

Schaf gewoon de fiscale voordelen inzake hypothecaire leningen af, en de prijzen van de huizen zakken zo in elkaar (zie http://forum.politics.be/showthread.php?t=33227).

Als je die voordelen afschaft komen veel Belgen in financiele problemen, vooral jonge mensen aan het begin van hun carriere.

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Groentje-18

Er is iets wat ik niet begrijp:
Het gaat hier toch om de huizen en niet om de (steeds schaarser wordende) bouwgronden hé?
(Als het wel zo is begrijp ik alles).

Om allebei.

Waar ik woon (Sarasota) is het de heetste huizenmarkt van de hele VS. Prijzen van vastgoed zijn met meer als 30% gestegen verleden jaar. Als we naar migratie en aanbouw van nieuwe woningen kijken, zien we hier echter dat het nieuw aanbod groter is als de migratie, dit wil zeggen dat er een pak woningen verkocht worden aan investeerders, die de woning aan een iets hogere prijs terug op de markt gooien enz. Real Estate Agents verdienen in deze streek 3 keer meer als 5 jaar geleden.

[genehunter]

Tenzij je meer de kanten van Heverlee ofzo uitgaat misschien?

Kessel-lo eigenlijk, tuurlijk niet midden in leuven stad!

Als je het lang genoeg bijhoudt moet je je niets aantrekken van die commentaren.

Als je echter een student bent die plant om na een paar jaar al het geld in dat appartement te gebruiken om een huis te kopen, zou je beter 2 keer nadenken.

Dat was eigenlijk wel de bedoeling, een jaar of 3-4-5 en dan terug verkopen, hoe groot is de kans dat het in die tijd in waarde daalt? Allez, ik weet niet of we het gaan verkopen, als we allebei vast en goed betaald werk vinden, dan kan het zijn dat we het gewoon verhuren, daarmee die lening (gedeeltelijk) afbetalen en intussen een nieuwe lening nemen op een koop- of nieuwbouwhuis. Dan zitten we wel even serieus af te betalen per maand, maar ik vind dat beter dan 2 of 3 jaar huurgeld gewoon wegsmijten.

Maar idd, we zijn nu aan het overwegen wat er beter is. Ons spaargeld in een appartement te investeren en zonder echte werkzekerheid te gaan lenen of het spaargeld bijhouden en toch een jaar of 2 te huren en dus gewoon weg te gooien. Huren is natuurlijk minder risico, zeker op een appartement, omdat je daar met eventuele gemeenschappelijke kosten zit en je niet zeker weet of je het aan de aankoopprijs + een 3-4 tal procent (notaris- en rentekosten) kwijt gaat geraken. Als er natuurlijk geen kosten zijn in de periode dat je er woont en je geraakt het kwijt aan de inkoopprijs, dan valt dat te riskeren.[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by genehunter on 19-06-2005 at 10:50
Reason:
--------------------------------

Kessel-lo eigenlijk, tuurlijk niet midden in leuven stad!

Dat was eigenlijk wel de bedoeling, een jaar of 3-4-5 en dan terug verkopen, hoe groot is de kans dat het in die tijd in waarde daalt? Allez, ik weet niet of we het gaan verkopen, als we allebei vast en goed betaald werk vinden, dan kan het zijn dat we het gewoon verhuren, daarmee die lening (gedeeltelijk) afbetalen en intussen een nieuwe lening nemen op een koop- of nieuwbouwhuis. Dan zitten we wel even serieus af te betalen per maand, maar ik vind dat beter dan 2 of 3 jaar huurgeld gewoon wegsmijten.

Maar idd, we zijn nu aan het overwegen wat er beter is. Ons spaargeld in een appartement te investeren en zonder echte werkzekerheid te gaan lenen of het spaargeld bijhouden en toch een jaar of 2 te huren en dus gewoon weg te gooien. Huren is natuurlijk minder risico, zeker op een appartement, omdat je daar met eventuele gemeenschappelijke kosten zit en je niet zeker weet of je het aan de aankoopprijs + een 3-4 tal procent (notaris- en rentekosten) kwijt gaat geraken. Als er natuurlijk geen kosten zijn in de periode dat je er woont en je geraakt het kwijt aan de inkoopprijs, dan valt dat te riskeren.[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Kessel-lo eigenlijk, tuurlijk niet midden in leuven stad!

Dat was eigenlijk wel de bedoeling, een jaar of 3-4-5 en dan terug verkopen, hoe groot is de kans dat het in die tijd in waarde daalt? Allez, ik weet niet of we het gaan verkopen, als we allebei vast en goed betaald werk vinden, dan kan het zijn dat we het gewoon verhuren, daarmee die lening (gedeeltelijk) afbetalen en intussen een nieuwe lening nemen op een koop- of nieuwbouwhuis. Dan zitten we wel even serieus af te betalen per maand, maar ik vind dat beter dan 2 of 3 jaar huurgeld gewoon wegsmijten.[/size]

[/edit]

[De schoofzak]

Als je nu een appartement koopt, met de bedoeling om het binnen een jaar of vijf ongeveer te verkopen, en dit intussen als woning te gebruiken, dan doe je zeker een goede zaak.
Het allerergste dat je kan overkomen is het volgende: dat je zes jaar, ten hoogste zeven jaar, zal moeten wachten om het te verkopen, dus een uitstel van één of twee jaar van je plannen. Intussen gaan de fiskale voordelen lekker verder.

Een dipje dat na maksimum twee jaar terug omgeslagen is in winst, dat noem ik geen dipje. En daarom is het toch een waarheid: vastgoed daalt niet in Vlaanderen.

[genehunter]

Als je die voordelen afschaft komen veel Belgen in financiele problemen, vooral jonge mensen aan het begin van hun carriere.

Mja, als dat afgeschaft wordt, dan ga ik toch huren. Trouwens, als je dat doet, dan ga je die mannen die nu 200 huurappartementen bezitten nog meer geld in hun zakken laten steken op de kosten van jonge mensen die hun geld hard nodig hebben maar niet meer gaan lenen omdat de voordelen ervan tov huren verdwijnen. Als ik moet kiezen tussen 550 huur betalen per maand aan iemand die al stinkend rijk is, of 700 per maand afbetalen, waarvan je 100 fiscaal recupereert én voor iets wat uiteindelijk van jouw is en je ook terug kunt verkopen, dan heb ik rap gekozen.

[boer_bavo]

De vastgoedprijzen in België zijn geen bubble, tenzij plots de lonen fel beginnen dalen.

Maar nu is er weinig aanbod, veel vraag, en veel mensen met veel geld.

En nieuwe bouwgronden ter beschikking stellen zie ik nog niet op veel plaatsen gebeuren. In vergelijking met andere verstedelijkte gebieden van Europa is de huizenprijs hier eigenlijk nog betrekkelijk laag.[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by boer_bavo on 19-06-2005 at 12:27
Reason:
--------------------------------

De vastgoedprijzen in België zijn geen bubble, tenzij plots de lonen fel beginnen dalen.

Maar nu is er weinig aanbod, veel vraag, en veel mensen met veel geld.

En nieuwe bouwgronden ter beschikking stellen zie ik nog niet op veel plaatsen gebeuren. In vergelijking met andere verstedelijkte gebieden van Europa is de huizenprijs hier eigenlijk nog betrekkelijk laag.[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

De vastgoedprijzen in België zijn geen bubble, tenzij plots de lonen fel beginnen dalen.

Maar nu is er weinig aanbod, veel vraag, en veel mensen met veel geld.

En nieuwe bouwgronden ter beschikking stellen zie ik nog niet op veel plaatsen gebeuren.[/size]

[/edit]

[boer_bavo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Cynicus

Schaf gewoon de fiscale voordelen inzake hypothecaire leningen af, en de prijzen van de huizen zakken zo in elkaar (zie http://forum.politics.be/showthread.php?t=33227).

Beter: schaf de aftrekbaarheid van het kadastraal inkomen af. Dan betalen ook mensen mee zonder lening (bejaarden enzo).[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by boer_bavo on 19-06-2005 at 12:28
Reason:
--------------------------------

Beter: schaf de aftrekbaarheid van het kadastraal inkomen af. Dan betalen ook mensen mee zonder lening (bejaarden enzo).[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Beter: schaf de aftrekbaarheid van het kadastraal inkomen af. Dan betalen ook mensen mee zonder lening.[/size]

[/edit]