false signal resulted rally in China, and it won't stop.

[Wary]

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.

[theonewhowaskazu]

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.

[Wary]

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.

I'm talking about China. Their 1.2% are before inflation. After inflation it is below zero. 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.

[ksteve96]

TL;DR

But I didn't see this anywhere:
https://blockchain.info/address/1NtbQKVFxAPc8mmBoWwRzhg7o3EMCBsxNg

[zhangweiwu]

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?

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.

[zhangweiwu]

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.)

[theonewhowaskazu]

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.

I'm talking about China. Their 1.2% are before inflation. After inflation it is below zero. 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.

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?

[Nemesis]

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.

I'm talking about China. Their 1.2% are before inflation. After inflation it is below zero. 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.

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?

[dairy100]

BTCchina is licensed by the Government of China.  People who know about doing business in China will know what I am talking about.

[vokain]

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.

[dahongfei]

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.

[dairy100]

they have an ICP

[dahongfei]

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.

[Lohoris]

I fear that I may never get another shot at sub-$200 BTC.

It's fun because we just hit $160 again.
Crazy money.

[BitPirate]

All these Chinese exchanges with 0% fee. The result... A game to shake people down.

Running a BTC exchange is a risky business. So are BTCChina et al a charity? Heck no, they're likely all making lots of money -- the future of BTC be damned.  If an exchange's main business is Fiat in, flip, then Fiat out... It is not an exchange, it is a game... A "pass the bag" gamble.

I hope investors can see the huge information asymmetry with big players they have in this giant game of chicken. The only winners can be the biggest holders already. There is even no pretense of self- regulation in the interest of users.

With 0% fee in a near-100% speculative environment like China, exchanges can only operate fairly if they publish more data --- e.g. Volume per user. Without this, you may as well be playing Russian Roulette.

This should be abundantly clear today. The question is, where do we go from here? Because this is not sustainable at all. Smaller players will lose all.

A potentially very valuable tool is being damaged in the pursuit of profit. After all, what use is a trustless payment system when it's exchange value can not be trusted?

[dahongfei]

All these Chinese exchanges with 0% fee. The result... A game to shake people down.

Running a BTC exchange is a risky business. So are BTCChina et al a charity? Heck no, they're likely all making lots of money -- the future of BTC be damned.  

I hope investors can see the huge information asymmetry with big players they have in this giant game of chicken. The only winners can be the biggest holders already.

With 0% fee, exchanges can only operate fairly if they publish more data --- e.g. Volume per user. Without this, you may as well be playing Russian Roulette.

This should be abundantly clear today. The question is, where do we go from here? Because this is not sustainable at all. Smaller players will lose all.

Agree. It is so easy to fix prices and fake volumes in a 0% commission market.

This rally has a lot to do with the trend that most major Chinese exchanges switched to 0% commission mode to start a price war.

[BitPirate]

A war in which everyone loses due to greed.

We won't play that game, but the longer everyone else does, the more BTC is damaged.

[bitcool]

Every customer likes low commission rate, exchanges compete with each other by offering low rates.

They are fighting for market share, as long as there's no government subsidies involved, it's a normal free market.

It can be cruel, but that's the nature of Capitalism.

I fail to see the difference between an ultra low commission rate (e.g. 0.001%) and 0%, or the connection between 0% commission rate and all the bad things you warned about.

[N12]

All these Chinese exchanges with 0% fee. The result... A game to shake people down.

Running a BTC exchange is a risky business. So are BTCChina et al a charity? Heck no, they're likely all making lots of money -- the future of BTC be damned.  If an exchange's main business is Fiat in, flip, then Fiat out... It is not an exchange, it is a game... A "pass the bag" gamble.

I hope investors can see the huge information asymmetry with big players they have in this giant game of chicken. The only winners can be the biggest holders already. There is even no pretense of self- regulation in the interest of users.

With 0% fee in a near-100% speculative environment like China, exchanges can only operate fairly if they publish more data --- e.g. Volume per user. Without this, you may as well be playing Russian Roulette.

This should be abundantly clear today. The question is, where do we go from here? Because this is not sustainable at all. Smaller players will lose all.

A potentially very valuable tool is being damaged in the pursuit of profit. After all, what use is a trustless payment system when it's exchange value can not be trusted?

I honestly do not understand. Are you saying that the 0% fees chinese exchanges have employed are creating a speculative bubble? Or is it that they are faking their volumes and prices? How are the exchanges making money in the present without fees? Are you saying they are front running their traders to make money off them? I'd like to hear more about this please.

[zhangweiwu]

Interesting stuff. Let me know if you want to guest write an article. http://cryptolife.net

Intersted. What do you need? I didn't find an email address to drop you a message.