I fear that I may never get another shot at sub-$200 BTC.
It's fun because we just hit $160 again.Crazy money.
Topic: false signal resulted rally in China, and it won't stop. - page 2. (Read 17603 times)
Crazy money.
they have an ICP
If you look carefully, you'll see what BTCChina has is "ICP Bei (备)", not "ICP Zheng (证)".
ICP Bei is compulsory for all non-commercial websites run by Chinese individual/company, ICP Zheng is for commercial websites.
Technically, it is illegal for BTCChina to make a profit. The government has every reason to shut it down at their will, although I believe it is unlikely to happen any time soon.
they have an ICP
BTCchina is licensed by the Government of China. People who know about doing business in China will know what I am talking about.
What are you talking about?
There is no license even remotely related to bitcoin exchange in China. There is no forex business outside of banking system. BTCChina is not licensed other than the regular business license.
BTCchina is licensed by the Government of China. People who know about doing business in China will know what I am talking about.
well that's good to know.
BTCchina is licensed by the Government of China. People who know about doing business in China will know what I am talking about.
A dividend of 1.2% per year really isn't that bad, if you have to pay for your own expenses like utilities, repairs & any taxes that come with the land. I wish I could get 1.2% returns by investing in a noninflationary asset like land.
If you take inflation into the account, it will be negative return.Land doesn't inflate. ~.~ WTF are you talking about.
But land doesn't inflate. I'm assuming when you say price per month rent isn't to buy the home when it was bought, but to buy the house when you are renting it, correct?
A dividend of 1.2% per year really isn't that bad, if you have to pay for your own expenses like utilities, repairs & any taxes that come with the land. I wish I could get 1.2% returns by investing in a noninflationary asset like land.
If you take inflation into the account, it will be negative return.Land doesn't inflate. ~.~ WTF are you talking about.
But land doesn't inflate. I'm assuming when you say price per month rent isn't to buy the home when it was bought, but to buy the house when you are renting it, correct?
I'm talking about China. Their 1.2% are before inflation. After inflation it is below zero.
True.They are still investing olny because in bank the interest is even smaller. As for the land, if their flat is in a 20-store building, there is not much land per flat.
Not true. The banks are not lending money now (Oct), they run out of their government-enforced house mortage quota, which is a house price control policy. They buy it with their own money, and the reason they invest is not to earn the dividend, but the faith that the price will roar and their wealth increase. Chinese dream. Roaring Twenties. (my Chinese fellows: Forgive me mention negatives. I know you guys are reading this, 'cause this very discussion is reported back in Chinese online media.) Unbelievable. 1000 times month needed to buy the house. So that means a property you can rent for say $500 per month, is valued at $500,000 right?
That means a yearly rental income of $500x12=$6000 for a property valued $500,000, that is a rental return (or dividend) of 1.2% per year.
Or put differently a Price/Earnings ratio (P/E ratio) of 83. And that is an average for real estate in Beijing?
That means a yearly rental income of $500x12=$6000 for a property valued $500,000, that is a rental return (or dividend) of 1.2% per year.
Or put differently a Price/Earnings ratio (P/E ratio) of 83. And that is an average for real estate in Beijing?
Your estimation is true, but it is not averaged from all Beijing, just the community where I live what I observed. The news paper report ratios much lower. Chinese news report is sensorted, and they could have averaged areas outside of the metro area into it, or just fake data. Anyway, I don't believe in news paper but I also cannot assure that my observation apply to all Beijing. One thing is for sure, that property price is still rising at accelerating rate.
This is a bubble of epic proportions.
Sell all you can. Prepare for a slump of many decades just like Japan.
I don't have a property. At this price only the early buyers could have afforded it. But if I have, I probably won't sell it. A housing bubble burst would cause public rally and GDP get hit, and our government do everything to prevent both (according to the latent contracct between the government and people: government maintain GDP growth and people thus keep roaring 20s dream, thus maintain docile), which translate to that they will maintain house price. A very strong centrol power has much more tools at hand to manipulate economy. In the last 3 decades whoever betted economic failure of our government always lose.
TL;DR
But I didn't see this anywhere:
https://blockchain.info/address/1NtbQKVFxAPc8mmBoWwRzhg7o3EMCBsxNg
But I didn't see this anywhere:
https://blockchain.info/address/1NtbQKVFxAPc8mmBoWwRzhg7o3EMCBsxNg
A dividend of 1.2% per year really isn't that bad, if you have to pay for your own expenses like utilities, repairs & any taxes that come with the land. I wish I could get 1.2% returns by investing in a noninflationary asset like land.
If you take inflation into the account, it will be negative return.Land doesn't inflate. ~.~ WTF are you talking about.
A dividend of 1.2% per year really isn't that bad, if you have to pay for your own expenses like utilities, repairs & any taxes that come with the land. I wish I could get 1.2% returns by investing in a noninflationary asset like land.
If you take inflation into the account, it will be negative return.Land doesn't inflate. ~.~ WTF are you talking about.
A dividend of 1.2% per year really isn't that bad, if you have to pay for your own expenses like utilities, repairs & any taxes that come with the land. I wish I could get 1.2% returns by investing in a noninflationary asset like land.
If you take inflation into the account, it will be negative return. do you mean monthly rent being 200 times more than value of property?
Where I live, if you rent 1000 months, you spend enough to buy the house. The news report says a figure much lower than 1000, and they are sensored. So either I live in a very special area of Beijing (could be, because it is greener here and we have elders in the community -- the less valued locations are full of youngsters), or the newspapers are lying. I didn't do a full study of everywhere in Beijing.
Unbelievable. 1000 times month needed to buy the house. So that means a property you can rent for say $500 per month, is valued at $500,000 right?
That means a yearly rental income of $500x12=$6000 for a property valued $500,000, that is a rental return (or dividend) of 1.2% per year.
Or put differently a Price/Earnings ratio (P/E ratio) of 83. And that is an average for real estate in Beijing?
This is a bubble of epic proportions.
Sell all you can. Prepare for a slump of many decades just like Japan.
A dividend of 1.2% per year really isn't that bad, if you have to pay for your own expenses like utilities, repairs & any taxes that come with the land. I wish I could get 1.2% returns by investing in a noninflationary asset like land.
Yes, that's the question: who are the Chinese behind this rally? Are they gamblers or investors? I believe they are not gamblers only: a lot of Chinese are desperate in search of place to invest.
Where is the line? The behaviour of a gambler and a desperate investor is the same, if they don't have faith in what they are investing in.Anyway, if the rally will continue for another couple of weeks, the West will follow China and then Chinese behaviour won't matter so much: history shows that about half of Westerners hold after the crash and therefore the price after the crash will be about half of bubble peak value.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!
do you mean monthly rent being 200 times more than value of property?
Where I live, if you rent 1000 months, you spend enough to buy the house. The news report says a figure much lower than 1000, and they are sensored. So either I live in a very special area of Beijing (could be, because it is greener here and we have elders in the community -- the less valued locations are full of youngsters), or the newspapers are lying. I didn't do a full study of everywhere in Beijing.
Unbelievable. 1000 times month needed to buy the house. So that means a property you can rent for say $500 per month, is valued at $500,000 right?
That means a yearly rental income of $500x12=$6000 for a property valued $500,000, that is a rental return (or dividend) of 1.2% per year.
Or put differently a Price/Earnings ratio (P/E ratio) of 83. And that is an average for real estate in Beijing?
This is a bubble of epic proportions.
Sell all you can. Prepare for a slump of many decades just like Japan.
You should know that China has a large population, over 10 million population, there are 14 city.
There are 3 city 20000000. (does not contain the floating population.)
There are 3 city 20000000. (does not contain the floating population.)
But that population is overweight in middle age people, with relatively few children, and most of those children are boys with relatively fewer girls since chinese parents keep killing off future potential mothers, so they can have a son. If you look at china's numbers for 0-15 year old girls who determine a population's future, the population does not seem as large as the overall figures you cite.
I was going to post something like this, but then I thought, hey, it's that obvious?
A company like Baidu, posting nothing but a message, showing nothing more than an address.
Now they accept BTC, how? via manual crediting? I'm not saying the news is not authentic, I'm just saying it must be a lot less significant than it sounds like.
A company like Baidu, posting nothing but a message, showing nothing more than an address.
Now they accept BTC, how? via manual crediting? I'm not saying the news is not authentic, I'm just saying it must be a lot less significant than it sounds like.
Thanks for the Chinese perspective.
Paraphrasing but there was one part I found interesting.. American companies place people in government whereas in china the government places people in companies.
Merger of state and private sector in both cases, or in other words Fascism.
Paraphrasing but there was one part I found interesting.. American companies place people in government whereas in china the government places people in companies.
Merger of state and private sector in both cases, or in other words Fascism.
Nailed it.
Jump to: