|
|
此文章由 villa 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 villa 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
买房还是租房？算一算！(3)
2007年10月18日
买房还是租房的两篇文章，很多朋友都看了。看过之后，大家都有自己的想法，有人觉得买房最要紧，再投资也是要买房的；有的觉得投资的回报不会这么大，万一投资不成功，那不是什么都没有？
不论作什么事都要根据自己的状况来作决定。有的人比较传统，一直有良好的储蓄习惯，向往安定的生活，那结婚买房对他们来说是很必然的事情。但是，有些朋友还处于打拼的阶段，如果强逼自己买房，生活压力只会更大。而另外一些朋友，一直是有投资习惯的，而又向往自由，那他们就会选择将金钱进行投资，住所也可以在不同的城市之间变化，这样的生活状态也是有的。
中国人有一种习惯思维，别人作什么那我是不是也要这么做，就如现在大陆全民炒股炒基金，当然也有人是不做的。不可能所有人都做一样的事情，所以房子这个问题也是一样。都买房谁都不租房是不可能的，但都租房也是不行的，所以要有个度。中国的房产自有率达到了82％，而房屋贷款总额更是超过了发达国家。全民喊累作房奴，所以上海北京等城市的白领开始放下负债的担子，过轻松的生活，因为买房是为了提高生活质量，不是为了找累的。
话题回到澳洲，澳洲人是怎么生活的，这里的房价变化有什么规律,大家的收入和房价是什么状况?这一节提供一些客观的信息，也给大家一些建议作为家庭讨论分析时的参考。
澳洲房屋的自有率快速增长是在二战之后。政府出台相关政策帮助居民购房，比如低息（5.25%）房贷，首付款支持，一些机构可以提供95％的贷款（银行当时的贷款比例是67％），雇主还能赞助员工买房花费的保险费、手续费等费用。这么好的购房环境怎么能不买房呢。
随着通货膨胀和人口增长，房价开始走高。1980年澳洲全国平均House价格是5万元，1990年时达到15万元，2000年为23万元，今年 2007年涨到了47万5千元。房价涨了近10倍，那工资收入呢？1980年时，一个家庭的全国平均收入为2.5万元，也就是两年的家庭收入等于一套房子的价格，房屋承受力（affordability）等于2。现在的状况是家庭年平均收入为11万，但要全家不吃不喝4.5年才能买到房。所以工党大呼房屋承受力到了历史最高点。1986-1996年，家庭收入的年平均增长率为0.2%,1996-2006年为1.2％，可以明显看出房价的增长速度明显高于收入的增长。澳洲人和中国人一样感觉到买房不是件容易的事了。
澳洲和中国都处于经济快速发展和房屋需求的膨胀时期，房价猛涨。那已经经历了或正在经历这个过程的欧洲和北美一些国家是如何处理租房和买房的呢？德国和瑞士的房屋自有率只有43％，日本，荷兰，奥地利，法国，丹麦等国的自有房比例也都在澳大利亚之下。很多人是终身租房的。
这里引入一个租房概念Lease，这个不同于Rent。在澳洲租房（Rent）的时候，租期基本是1年一签或半年一签的。这样大家就要担心老搬家，不安定，对买房的渴望更迫切。而Lease常常是一租10年，有点像中国的廉租房，可以自己装修，不像rent的房子要求那么苛刻。这类Lease的房子所有权大多是政府、基金会和一些大型机构的。美国和加拿大的一些地方甚至是整个区建成租赁的，来缓解购房的压力。这是一种对民众有益的方式，而澳洲目前还没有这样类型的出租房。所以澳洲政府在想方设法平抑房价，帮助居民购房的时候，在出台税务减免政策，增加土地供应的时候，不妨参考一下其它国家的一些做法。
在购房的政策环境转好之前，在存够购房款之前，我们还可以有些办法让自己的财富增值的快些。罗列一下常规的投资领域和回报率。数据为15年平均值，截至2006年12月的统计。
澳洲股票 17.1%
国际股票 12.6%
商业房产 12.3%*
养老金 9.6%*
黄金 4.3%
自有住房 3.7%*
*许多公司投资房产，拥有的是shopping centre，办公楼，工厂，仓库等物业，不同于个人住宅。
*养老金25年的平均回报为11.2％
*自有住房的增值是8％，但要扣除4.3%的养房开支。
好了，有了这些信息，可以开个家庭会议讨论下了。讨论时请记住几条：
1．把心理需求和经济价值分开考虑。如果，看中了梦想中的房子，如果买房是在澳洲打拼成功的标志，那么就买房吧。没条件创造条件也要买，不然会一辈子难受。
2．如果决定轻松面对生活，去租房。那么千万记住去投资，不然简单储蓄是不足以安度晚年的。
3．当拥有了自住房之后，再投资时请考虑买投资房以外的选择，让财富更有效的增值。
4．决定租房，那要选好地点，签长一点合同，毕竟目前还没有Lease的种类供选择。
买房还是租房，这是个问题。如果你有了答案，请发言告诉我们，让大家参考下吧。
（网上唐人街Holly撰稿）
:si34
Renting beats buying
October 14, 2007 Source: The Sun-Herald
The issue of housing affordability won't go away. But instead of looking at subsidies or tax relief for home buyers, maybe we should be discouraging people from buying at all.
I know your dad has always said "rent money is dead money" and "always invest in bricks and mortar", but from a financial point of view it looks as though dad could be wrong.
My thanks to Phil Ruthven from research and forecasting group IBISWorld for comprehensively crunching the numbers, which seem to indicate none of us should be buying a home.
I know we buy homes for emotional and security reasons as well, but from a purely financial point of view it makes sense to invest elsewhere, even given that homes don't attract capital gains tax.
For many, owning a home has been a forced saving plan as we pay off the mortgage and build up our equity. It has also been helped by relatively low interest rates and a strong economy, which have pushed up real-estate prices.
These are all good reasons to own a home. But are they the best reasons when compared to using your money in other ways?
Let's look at dad's first bit of advice that "rent money is dead money". Is that really true? For a number of years now interest payments on houses have been higher than rents even before capital or principal repayments were made.
The interest on a loan to buy an average house is double the amount it costs to rent that same house.
One of the key assumptions in Ruthven's figures is that you lease the same house for five to 10 years rather than simply rent for a year or two and then move somewhere else.
"If individuals or families leased their home and invested the difference between the lease costs and the interest-plus-principal repayments in shares, they would have been better off financially even over the past 45-50 years of [sometimes] high inflation and they will probably be better off over the next 45-50 years," he says.
Now I bet you're thinking that sounds good, but where do you actually invest that difference? Phil has assumed you've simply put it in an indexed share fund - nothing fancy.
So let's do the numbers on buying (with 10 per cent deposit) compared with leasing an established house worth $475,000 (the average house price) in 2007. Assume inflation will average 4 per cent over a 15-year pay-off period, and interest rates will average 9 per cent.
The value of the home in 2022 would probably be around $1.23 million, producing a nominal capital gain after costs of $468,500.
But this doesn't include hidden expenditure of $427,500, which is all the stamp duties, insurance, maintenance costs, alterations and rates. Take that into account and the profit shrinks to just $41,000. It's not much, so buying a home with the aim of forced savings is not a good investment.
The alternative is to lease the same house with annual rent of $21,375 initially, rising each year, and investing the difference in shares, assuming an average cumulative gain (capital gain and reinvested dividends) on the growing portfolio of 14.3 per cent.
Australian shares have returned an average 17.1 per cent over the past 15 years and international shares 12.6 per cent.
If lease costs are assumed to be 4.5 per cent per annum of the value of the home being leased (with the home value and therefore lease costs increasing over the 15-year period at 4 per cent per annum) then the lease paid over the 15 years will be $427,975.
But with $47,500 initial capital plus the difference between paying off the home and leasing ($286,025) being invested in shares (including reinvesting the dividends and bonus shares) then the investment at the end of 15 years should be worth about $1.4 million in a superannuation fund, less taxes, or a net $1,192,000.
This is a profit of $787,720.
But remember, about $427,500 in home ownership costs over 15 years are "forgotten" or "hidden" costs. So, if the lessee were to invest these equivalent outlays (in more shares) that a home owner has to find in addition to interest and capital repayments, any comparison becomes truly embarrassing.
At the end of the first 15 years the lessee would have an extra $1,465,000 less taxes, or $1,245,000 on top of the $1,192,000, totalling $2,437,000.
That's virtually double the net worth of the home owner at the end of this 15-year period. The difference is mind-boggling.
One final thing. Ruthven rents his home, so he practises what he preaches.
[ 本帖最后由 villa 于 2007-10-19 11:17 编辑 ] |
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
我的海运之路:自己DIY! (2009-3-23) shangpin 
发表于 2007-10-16 13:44
