guajardo dijo:
si y ahi seguis desmadejando, si explota o no explota, jojojo, eso si soñais con unos porcentajes como el 50% de bajada que es de autentico delirio, cuando no ha bajdao todavia ni un 1%.
seguid ,seguid esperando, jojojo.
____________________________________________________________
nuncabajista de la vivienda a largo plazo, la vivienda a largo plazo siempre subira, jeje.
A ver si te lees este artículo guajardo:
Why your home isn't the investment you think it is
Too many people rely on their home as their primary savings strategy. That's a mistake.
David Crook,
Wall Street Journal
12 March 2007
Planning your retirement? Don't bet the house on it.
Your home means a lot of things to you, most of them good. Your home gives comfort and protection to you and your family, and it could well embody all your material hopes and dreams.
But houses have become much more than just places to live. Your home is probably your biggest asset, and the price you could ask for it today is almost certainly much higher than what you paid for it back whenever.
As a result, houses have become substitute credit cards, as profligate owners borrow their equity to finance everything from cars to vacations. Among thriftier owners, the equity they have built up in the family home has become a vital part of retirement planning -- a "fourth leg" of the now-unstable "company pension/personal savings/Social Security" stool that was long the model for a financially secure old age.
Unfortunately for both groups, however,
houses are not very good investments. For the grasshoppers, there's nothing quite as stupid as paying off your 2002 trip to Orlando in 2032, when you finally settle up your refinanced "cash out" 30-year mortgage. And for the ants,
economic studies have demonstrated over and over that houses (1) cost more than most people make when they sell and (2) rarely match the long-term returns of stocks or other investments.
And that's doubly true today, with much of the U.S. well into a real-estate recession. It's unlikely that homeowners in once-booming areas will see a return of skyrocketing prices anytime soon.
"Real-estate investments suffer serious and sometimes prolonged downturns," writes economist W. Van Harlow in a new study of home equity and retirement from the Fidelity Research Institute in Boston. "A real-estate 'bust' could be quite damaging to an investor nearing retirement who relied too heavily on home equity."
It may be late for a lot of homeowners to read this, but here it goes anyway: It's risky and bad planning to have too much of your net worth in your principal residence. No prudent stock-market player would put 60% or 70% of a portfolio in just one stock, but millions will hold that much or more of their total net worth in just one house.
Food for thought:
If you bought a house in Los Angeles in 1990, just as the real-estate market turned downward, you would have had to wait a decade for your home's value to return to what you paid.
If you bought in Rochester, N.Y., in 1980, you would have seen only a mediocre 4% annual growth for the next 25 years.
If you bought in Dallas in 1986, as the oil boom went bust, your home wouldn't have appreciated at all before 1998.
So with all that in mind, here's a question-and-answer rundown of some financial issues of home owning.
[...]
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page94?oid=79089&sn=Detail&ref=patrick.net
Pero no te preocupes, el WSJ seguro que miente y a los que hay que creer son a los de Aguirre y Newman,
Ale, que pases un buen día y te leas el resumen de prensa que posteo estos días de la situación en el mercado americano, si puedes.
