利字當頭：有QE冇EQ
1 :
GS(14)@2012-09-17 23:55:28http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/financeestate/art/20120917/18018125
上星期，聯儲局FOMC推出無限期，每月購入400億美元的按揭抵押證券。香港金管局即時反應，收緊銀行審批樓按。簡單思維背後，就是在資產泡沫時，增加市民上車難度；餘下仍然有能力上車，自然是抵抗力更強的業主。官僚術語叫：逆週期措施。
逆週期嘛，既然大家都想炒樓，就收緊槓桿。可惜現在的問題不在於信貸太寬鬆，而是鈔票購買力下降。資產泡沫，令價值變得更虛幻，扭曲了金融機構資產負債表；賬面資產價格變得更泡沫，負債代價人為地壓低，資產收入能力卻不斷下降。簡單講，創造收入的能力才是衡量資本價值的基礎。忘記這原則往往帶來痛苦教訓。
投機，本來就是有賺有蝕。金融機構無視風險，填鴨式教育出來的知識分子，重複地說是問題因為貪得無厭。要官僚承認系統風險永遠無法處理，實在很難。事實上，現代金融的道德風險深層次矛盾，來自央行、銀行和政府三者互相依存的關係；賺錢時盈利歸自己，蝕錢卻由別人埋單，這種便宜的勾當，是令到泡沫升上半天高的熱空氣。
牛頭角順嫂都明白，人人都貪，不只金融業。人性，除了貪婪，還有恐懼；當兩個心理因素失衡，甚至連恐懼都只不過是「怕賺少咗」。這個時候令人更難上車，只會令「怕蝕底」的心理，更加變態。越多人相信，只有少數人能夠享受資產泡沫帶來的財富效應，政府壓力就越大。不過，當地心吸力發生作用，那些貪字得個貧的，又會叫政府做點事「救市」，央行的干預，就是這樣出現。總之，越靠政府，人的自我求生本能就越脆弱，有QE，大家的EQ也越來越低。
利世民
2 :
abbychau(1)@2012-09-18 22:00:42hong kong has cheap transportation but ridculously high property price.
here are some of my new discovery that I think it will be true again
1.i think 0066.hk will still have its ticket price up for at least 3x comparing to now due to it's high demand.
2.property price comparing to now will be going down or keep steady no matter on a short term or long term base.
both are independent to inflation or deflation.
3 :
GS(14)@2012-09-18 22:05:312樓提及
hong kong has cheap transportation but ridculously high property price.
here are some of my new discovery that I think it will be true again
1.i think 0066.hk will still have its ticket price up for at least 3x comparing to now due to it's high demand.
2.property price comparing to now will be going down or keep steady no matter on a short term or long term base.
both are independent to inflation or deflation.
1. 地鐵唔會加咁離譜，但畀地皮上蓋物業發展權真是絕殺...
4 :
abbychau(1)@2012-09-19 09:00:38No, the property performance won't affect the price and demand of train, mtr's land and property will only be affecting the company performance.
I won't reply because it's all people know. How the tickets prices will go up is what amazingly found.
Btw, You are in another topic.
5 :
GS(14)@2012-09-19 21:45:184樓提及
No, the property performance won't affect the price and demand of train, mtr's land and property will only be affecting the company performance.
I won't reply because it's all people know. How the tickets prices will go up is what amazingly found.
Btw, You are in another topic.
票是賺唔到大錢的，加價有可加可減機制無錯，但是好多人會吵，加價好難
地鐵一直都講是間地產公司
6 :
SYSTEM(-101)@2012-09-20 02:59:17abbychau(zid:1)所發的貼子已被abbychau(管理組:9) 刪除了。(原因:廣告)
7 :
abbychau(1)@2012-09-20 03:05:085樓提及
4樓提及
No, the property performance won't affect the price and demand of train, mtr's land and property will only be affecting the company performance.
I won't reply because it's all people know. How the tickets prices will go up is what amazingly found.
Btw, You are in another topic.
票是賺唔到大錢的，加價有可加可減機制無錯，但是好多人會吵，加價好難
地鐵一直都講是間地產公司
you know how you reply is really making people depressed? not telling if it is true or not but just meaningless as you just use it as an over-exhausted information.
8 :
abbychau(1)@2012-09-20 03:15:197樓提及
5樓提及
4樓提及
No, the property performance won't affect the price and demand of train, mtr's land and property will only be affecting the company performance.
I won't reply because it's all people know. How the tickets prices will go up is what amazingly found.
Btw, You are in another topic.
票是賺唔到大錢的，加價有可加可減機制無錯，但是好多人會吵，加價好難
地鐵一直都講是間地產公司
you know how you reply is really making people depressed? not telling if it is true or not but just meaningless as you just use it as an over-exhausted information.
more than that, you should be noticed I am always sticking to the potential price but you just want to shift to how the company can be performed, even though MTRC can do a great deal on the properties, there is not an argument of how it can adjust the price. are you really serious, making every guess of potential and true information before doing a reply? if no, please do it now as i told you for over half years.
Reply with information, foresight, and at least with direct relevance of pushing to the end of the every branch. You should do it and must do it as a hot and top poster in RF.
I don't want RF to be HOT. but a really readable one.
9 :
GS(14)@2012-09-20 22:29:057樓提及
5樓提及
4樓提及
No, the property performance won't affect the price and demand of train, mtr's land and property will only be affecting the company performance.
I won't reply because it's all people know. How the tickets prices will go up is what amazingly found.
Btw, You are in another topic.
票是賺唔到大錢的，加價有可加可減機制無錯，但是好多人會吵，加價好難
地鐵一直都講是間地產公司
you know how you reply is really making people depressed? not telling if it is true or not but just meaningless as you just use it as an over-exhausted information.
你想要乜野先，你要乜我都有...你翻開份年報
http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... TN20120328516_C.pdf
所得稅17A (2,821) (2,590)
年內利潤14,848 12,172
下列人士應佔：
– 公司股東18A 14,716 12,059
– 非控股權益132 113
年內利潤14,848 12,172
香港車站商務收入5 3,422 2,853
物業租賃及管理業務收入6 3,215 2,961
– 營運鐵路的地租及差餉(199) (184)
物業租賃及管理業務開支(721) (654)
物業發展利潤12 4,934 4,034
物業重估23 5,088 4,074
百四億盈利之中，100億是靠物業得來的，仲唔是地產公司，我要解釋一定找到理由
10 :
GS(14)@2012-09-20 22:32:558樓提及
7樓提及
5樓提及
4樓提及
No, the property performance won't affect the price and demand of train, mtr's land and property will only be affecting the company performance.
I won't reply because it's all people know. How the tickets prices will go up is what amazingly found.
Btw, You are in another topic.
票是賺唔到大錢的，加價有可加可減機制無錯，但是好多人會吵，加價好難
地鐵一直都講是間地產公司
you know how you reply is really making people depressed? not telling if it is true or not but just meaningless as you just use it as an over-exhausted information.
more than that, you should be noticed I am always sticking to the potential price but you just want to shift to how the company can be performed, even though MTRC can do a great deal on the properties, there is not an argument of how it can adjust the price. are you really serious, making every guess of potential and true information before doing a reply? if no, please do it now as i told you for over half years.
Reply with information, foresight, and at least with direct relevance of pushing to the end of the every branch. You should do it and must do it as a hot and top poster in RF.
I don't want RF to be HOT. but a really readable one.
如果你想講票價，票價就由可加可減機制釐定，有公式計，但是現在政府提緊無建議諮詢，加價不易，我只告訴個現實
http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/%E ... B%E6%A9%9F%E5%88%B6
票價調整方程式的運算結果並不是票價調整的自動決定因素，根據目前的專營巴士票價調整安排，當局在釐定專營巴士票價水平時，會考慮一籃子的因素，包括[2]：
自上次調整票價以來營運成本及收益的變動；
未來成本、收益及回報的預測；
巴士公司需要得到合理的回報率；
市民的接受程度及負擔能力；
服務的質和量；以及
票價調整幅度的方程式（0.5 x 工資指數變動 + 0.5 x 綜合消費物價指數變動－0.5 x 生產力增幅）運算結果。
所以最後可能唔跟，但是死講一個話題是無用的，始終一樣會連住另一樣。社會是一個有機體...單一因素唔可能是講晒d野，我最多就唔繞咁大個圈，淨是講地鐵加唔加到價個構成會點...
11 :
GS(14)@2012-09-20 22:34:02http://news.sina.com.hk/news/2/1/1/2774201/1.html
(綜合報道)(星島日報報道)近年港鐵坐擁巨額盈餘仍然每年加價，惹來社會大眾不滿。政府昨日突然發表諮詢文件，即日起至十月底，就檢討港鐵票價可加可減機制諮詢市民意見，預料明年年初會完成檢討。民間組織批評政府的諮詢文件是「垃圾」，指政府不但沒有主動提出新票價機制建議方案，更無公布檢討可加可減機制的顧問報告內容，是草率諮詢。
運輸及房屋局昨公布，當局已發信港鐵要求檢討票價可加可減機制，預料明年初完成檢討；就檢討票價可加可減機制，當局同時發表了諮詢文件，並由即日起至十月三十一諮詢市民意見，有關文件可於運房局和運輸署網站下載。
不過，與過往政府進行的諮詢不同，是次諮詢文件只有五頁，當中絕大部分內容是介紹可加可減機制的誕生背景、調整票方程式的每一個項目的作用，以及機制設立後，港鐵每年調整票價的情況，包括由○九年起加價百分之二點零五，至今年加價百分之五點四。
當中卻未有提出政府就新票價調整方程式的建議方案，只有一小段篇幅提及，「政府理解近年來有意見認為每年根據票價調整機制審議港鐵票價時，也應考慮其他因素，包括港鐵公司的利潤水平、服務表現，以及市民的負擔能力和接受程度。」
民間監管公共事業聯委會發言人蔡耀昌批評諮詢文件垃圾，當局未有提出方案去有效收集市民意見，「這樣子太空泛，最少都應該說會在新方程式內加甚麼因素，各個因素的比例如何，最後的方程式如何整合，市民才會給到具體的意見。」他又指，政府早前就檢討可加可減機制進行的顧問研究報告一直未有公布，感覺上屆政府和現屆政府在檢討可加可減機制一直採取拖字訣，「檢討機制是一早就知道時間表，為何不可以早點開始做諮詢？」他批評，運房局局長張炳良上任後，主力處理房屋問題，「交通就好像孤兒仔一樣無人理」，他促請政府就檢討票價機制認真做諮詢，提供建議方案，公布顧問研究報告結果。
12 :
GS(14)@2012-09-20 22:35:02http://www.thb.gov.hk/tc/policy/ ... ation_paper_MTR.pdf
自己慢慢睇，唔好成日BJ 我，我其實無out topic ，是你自己識野少
13 :
GS(14)@2012-09-20 22:35:58問題是你唔明d乜我可以拋出證據，你可以懷疑我有乜點錯左，但是我寫呢d野之前一定有嘗試找過資料去睇
14 :
GS(14)@2012-09-20 22:55:5314樓提及
no, you are totally on a wrong track. how MTRC perform is totally out of topic.
你講票價咪票價囉，你最初話66抵買我咪解釋囉...66表現我都有必要解釋，因為你想買66嘛
15 :
abbychau(1)@2012-09-20 23:00:4415樓提及
14樓提及
no, you are totally on a wrong track. how MTRC perform is totally out of topic.
你講票價咪票價囉，你最初話66抵買我咪解釋囉...66表現我都有必要解釋，因為你想買66嘛
i didn't say that.
16 :
GS(14)@2012-09-20 23:04:271.i think 0066.hk
will still have its ticket price up for at least 3x comparing to now due to it's high demand.
= 淨是解釋呢點是無可能，因為有機制嘛，唔關需求事，但是關通脹，有數得計
2.property price comparing to now will be going down or keep steady no matter on a short term or long term base.
both are independent to inflation or deflation.
= 就呢點，唔一定只關需求事，因為他是租金收入貢獻支持個base，賣物業唔穩定的，只是入帳扮穩定，所以我地睇租金收入，他d鋪唔愁無人租，但他d鋪的租金同營業額有關，營業額是睇通脹和市道
講到尾唔成立
17 :
abbychau(1)@2012-09-20 23:04:2916樓提及
15樓提及
14樓提及
no, you are totally on a wrong track. how MTRC perform is totally out of topic.
你講票價咪票價囉，你最初話66抵買我咪解釋囉...66表現我都有必要解釋，因為你想買66嘛
i didn't say that.
if you relate my first reply to the article. It makes no sense to say if 66 is cheap or not. So let's talk from the ground again.
18 :
GS(14)@2012-09-20 23:05:2918樓提及
16樓提及
15樓提及
14樓提及
no, you are totally on a wrong track. how MTRC perform is totally out of topic.
你講票價咪票價囉，你最初話66抵買我咪解釋囉...66表現我都有必要解釋，因為你想買66嘛
i didn't say that.
if you relate my first reply to the article. It makes no sense to say if 66 is cheap or not. So let's talk from the ground again.
講完，同通脹一定有關，有數計
19 :
abbychau(1)@2012-09-20 23:06:4619樓提及
18樓提及
16樓提及
15樓提及
14樓提及
no, you are totally on a wrong track. how MTRC perform is totally out of topic.
你講票價咪票價囉，你最初話66抵買我咪解釋囉...66表現我都有必要解釋，因為你想買66嘛
i didn't say that.
if you relate my first reply to the article. It makes no sense to say if 66 is cheap or not. So let's talk from the ground again.
講完，同通脹一定有關，有數計
if taking inflation into account, there is nothing to say.
20 :
GS(14)@2012-09-20 23:08:5620樓提及
19樓提及
18樓提及
16樓提及
15樓提及
14樓提及
no, you are totally on a wrong track. how MTRC perform is totally out of topic.
你講票價咪票價囉，你最初話66抵買我咪解釋囉...66表現我都有必要解釋，因為你想買66嘛
i didn't say that.
if you relate my first reply to the article. It makes no sense to say if 66 is cheap or not. So let's talk from the ground again.
講完，同通脹一定有關，有數計
if taking inflation into account, there is nothing to say.
你自己講的，我推翻左，到你提反證據
both are independent to inflation or deflation.
21 :
abbychau(1)@2012-09-20 23:11:3621樓提及
20樓提及
19樓提及
18樓提及
16樓提及
15樓提及
14樓提及
no, you are totally on a wrong track. how MTRC perform is totally out of topic.
你講票價咪票價囉，你最初話66抵買我咪解釋囉...66表現我都有必要解釋，因為你想買66嘛
i didn't say that.
if you relate my first reply to the article. It makes no sense to say if 66 is cheap or not. So let's talk from the ground again.
講完，同通脹一定有關，有數計
if taking inflation into account, there is nothing to say.
你自己講的，我推翻左，到你提反證據
both are independent to inflation or deflation.
the meaning of both are independent to inflation or deflation. is that the price can be a 3*(100+n)% where n is inflation.
of course the price is dependent on inflation. but what i have said can also be independent of it. do you understand?
22 :
GS(14)@2012-09-20 23:12:49你玩晒，我投降，呢個貼你BJ 我50都唔緊要