Hereby I will prove how the realty boomers arguments are false.

What are the boomers arguments?

1.) Buy today, houses always increase in value in the long run.
WRONG. House prices cannot increase more than incomes in the long run. This is obvious if you think about it. If house prices go up more than people can afford to pay, buying stops, like it has stopped now.
Even Warren Buffett have pointed out that houses don't increase in intrinsic value. Unless there's a bubble or a crash, house prices simply reflect current salaries and interest rates. If a house is 100 years old, it's value in sheltering you is exactly the same as it was 100 years ago. Then came the maintenance as the house didn't renovate itself. It also has taxes, and insurance - costs that always increase and never go away. The price of the house went up about as much as salaries went up.
To put this is simple perspective, vegetable were costing Rs.5-6/kg when 5 digit salary was a rarity.
Today, the prices have gone up by about 4 times but so have the salaries. So, sounds very much like the reasoning people use now when they talk about how much their father's house appreciated "in the long run" without considering that salaries rose a proportional amount.

2.) Renting is just wastage of money.
WRONG. As said before renting is now much cheaper per month than owning. If you don't rent, you either:

* Have a mortgage, in which case you are throwing away money on interest, tax, insurance, maintenance, costs that increase forever.
* Own outright, in which case you are throwing away the extra income you could get by converting your house to cash, investing in bonds, and renting a similar place to live for much less money. This extra income is sufficient for emergency expenses,retirement etc.

Either way, owners lose much more money every month than renters and that's assuming prices don't correct to very high level & everything is smooth in the economy.

3.) As a renter, you won't have any money left as you will spend them on vacations,cars & hence won't have equity/savings etc.
WRONG. Equity is just money. Renters are actually in a better position to build equity/savings through investing in anything but housing. Renters can get rich much faster than owners, just by investing in conservative stocks & bonds.

* Owners are losing every month by paying much more for interest than they would pay for rent. The tax deduction does not come close to making owing competitive with renting.
* Owners must pay taxes simply to own a house. That is not true of stocks, bonds, or any other asset that can build equity/savings. Only houses are such a guaranteed drain on cash.
* Owners must insure a house, but not most other investments.
* Owners must pay to repair a house, but not a stock or a bond.
* Owners lose their money as house prices reduce. The EMI's remain constant in spite of reduction in rates. At the end of loan tenure, they would have paid almost twice than that of current renters who will buy at logical rates. Keep interest rates in mind. Most of the EMI is not principal amount but interest.

4.) There are great tax advantages to owning a house.
WRONG. Many people believe you can just reduce your income tax by the amount you pay in interest, but they are wrong. Buyers may not deduct interest from income tax; they deduct interest from taxable income. And even then, the tax advantage is not significant compared to the large monthly loss from owning.

If you don't own a house but want to live in one, your choice is to rent a house or rent money to buy a house. To rent money is to take out a loan. A mortgage is a money-rental agreement. House renters take no risk at all, but money-renting owners take on the huge risk of falling house prices, as well as all the costs of repairs, insurance, property taxes, etc.

5.) RE is based on local factors, it's not a national phenomenon. RE of Delhi-NCR,Bangalore & rest of the cities has nothing to do with Pune RE.
WRONG. Lending rates remain the same throughout the country. ALL loans are harder to get. This will drive prices down everywhere.

6.) A rental house provides good income. So, you can rent if you have purchased as investment.
WRONG. Rental houses provide very poor income in hyped areas and certainly cannot cover mortgage payments. Remember there is almost 300% difference between EMIs & rent for the same house.

It's pointless to do the work of being a landlord if you can make more money with no risk, no work, and no state income tax by investing in assured good returns bond.

7.) If owning is a loss in monthly cash flow, but appreciation will make up for it.
WRONG. Appreciation is negative. Prices are going down. It only adds to the injury of already high EMI's.

8.) As soon as prices drop a little, the number of buyers on the sidelines willing to jump back in increases.
WRONG. There are very few buyers left, and those who do want to buy will be limited by increasing difficulty of borrowing now that many house owners are near bankrupt as they don't save anything at the end of the month due to high EMI's.
No one has to buy, but there will be more and more people who have no choice but to sell as their payments rise. That will keep driving prices downward for a long time.

9.) House prices never fall atleast in Pune.
WRONG. If you see the RE scenario of 1996, prices crashed by 50% & took a whole 7+ years to recover.
Exact 1996 scenario may not be there today but strong correction is inevitable across the city.

10.) House prices don't fall to zero like stock prices, so it's safer to invest in real estate.
WRONG. House prices won't be zero, but the equity or the principal amount you paid can be zero or even negative. What you will pay as EMIs later in actual terms is not for the principal amount but only the interest as house prices dip. So, you will be only serving the bank.

11.) Prices will soften gradually, won't crash immediately.
WRONG. Prices are falling off a cliff. No one knows exactly what will happen, but it looks like prices will continue to fall for long time. These are just more manipulation of buyer emotions, to get them to buy even while prices are falling.

12.) The bubble prices were driven by supply and demand alone.
WRONG. Prices were driven by low interest rates and risky loans & good returns for investors in initial phases of boom in 2004-05.
Prices went up, interest rates went up & buyers savings went down. So prices are violating the most basic assumptions about supply and demand.

13.) There is lack of land.
WRONG. Ample of land is available & continue to be even in future in Pune. Sales volume are down. Even in Japan (small country with less land), prices went down. Current prices here are the same as that of 23 years ago. If we really had a housing shortage, there would not be so many vacant rentals.

14.) If you don't own, you'll live in a cheap neighborhood later.
WRONG. For the any given monthly payment, you can rent a much better house than you can buy. Renters live better, not worse. There are downsides to renting, such as being told to move at the end of your lease, or having your rent raised, but since there are thousands of vacant rentals, you can take your pick and be quite happy renting during the crash. There are similar but worse problems for owners anyway, such as being fired and losing your house, or having your interest rate and property taxes adjust upward. Remember, property taxes are forever.

15.) There's always someone predicting a real estate crash.
TRUE, yet irrelevant. There are very real crashes every decade or so. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

16.) Local incomes justify the high prices.
WRONG. The mortgage should be more than your 3 years earning. It is much higher today. Most are already in danger/red zone.

17.) You have to live somewhere.
CORRECT. But that doesn't mean you should waste your life savings on a bad investment. You can live in a better house for much less money by renting during the down slide in RE.

18.) It's not a house, it's a home.
WRONG. Wherever one lives in it is home, be it apartment, condo, bungalow , mansion or house. Calling a house a "home" is a manipulation of your emotions for profit.

19.) If you don't buy now, you'll never get another chance.
WRONG. History proves otherwise.
Here's a beautiful quote from a analyst:-
"The real issue isn't whether you will be stuck being a renter all your life, she says. Its whether you'll get so scared about being shut out that you'll buy at the market's peak and be stuck in a property you can't afford or sell."

20.) It would take major economic recession or a major earthquake that wipes out this area in order for the price to fall by over 50%.
WRONG. Even today, if the prices fall by 50%, there will still be very few people who can buy at this levels due to uncertainty in jobs & most importantly high EMIs. Also, look at the rental rates for equivalent houses. Which loss per month is larger? EMI or rent?

contd....
Read more
Reply
12597 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • One may not agree with views of another poster,but civility in replies is essential.This forum is for learning and understanding RE.
    Good economic sense is being talked about.If an average man looses a job and has a big loan o/s it is crisis time - EMIs to be paid,family to be looked after.
    Loans are to be very thoughtfully taken and reserve of emergency fund built up.
    Near the place where I stay there is large number of unsold flats,but prices are still higher than earlier.The builders seem to have deep pockets and are resisting price reductions.
    CommentQuote
  • Maharashtra lifts ban on sand mining - The Times of India
    Construction pace will catch up.But strict control over illegal mining is necessary.
    ""Government officials said e-auctioning and thorough scrutiny of mines would control illegal mining.""
    Let us hope that things improve.Illegal sand mining can create havoc.
    CommentQuote
  • Whatever theory we apply, it just seems incomplete.
    Look at the real case from my experience quoted below.
    One cousin had been scouting for a bungalow in western Banglore for the last two years.He found one two years ago and the price was 2.9 crore.He didn't buy as he felt prices would fall.Finally he bought it last week for 3.4 crore.Luckily I didn't advise him not to buy last year as he would have blamed me for wrong advice.
    Another one came across a good flat in North Banglore last year but backed out as the price was 1.5 crore.That area is in good demand.But he got the same flat for 1.34 crore last month !!!!!
    In my home town plots were quoted at 7 lakh last year.My nephew bought one this week for 14 lakhs !!! No reduction at all.
    So much for all our theories and news reports.


    Originally Posted by vaibav123
    One may not agree with views of another poster,but civility in replies is essential.This forum is for learning and understanding RE.
    Good economic sense is being talked about.If an average man looses a job and has a big loan o/s it is crisis time - EMIs to be paid,family to be looked after.
    Loans are to be very thoughtfully taken and reserve of emergency fund built up.
    Near the place where I stay there is large number of unsold flats,but prices are still higher than earlier.The builders seem to have deep pockets and are resisting price reductions.
    CommentQuote
  • rambler,
    The pace of increase in rates is pretty low as compared to heydays when 5 lakh flat in Pune becomes 18 lakhs in three/four years.
    This increase in rate may be due to normal inflationary price rise.
    Plots are a different category.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by investwest
    so did builders and bulls put a theory that there'll be hiring in better pace than past or there'll be no layoffs?
    Furthermore - a layoff is layoff but each employer has its different reasons behind any layoff.

    Are we going off topic? All those who lose their current jobs will find something else otherwise govt will provide them yellow ration cards and will feed them. Don't worry about it - as some companies fire, some others hire and that's what we see in the news pasted and posted here time to time.

    I want to know about the theory which is proved wrong.


    1. Almost all working people in private sector will be laid off / underemployed at some or other time in their working lives . It's a fact and they'll find new work is also a fact .
    It does not mean that they will not buy new houses in their lives or should stop living their lives . People should see the positives rather than negatives .

    2. Prices in Pune are certainly not increasing at the rate they did during 2009-12 which many people seem to take as base percentage for future appreciation .
    CommentQuote
  • rambler

    The micro markets pricing varies. It depends on the supply, holding capacity as well as the socio economic group occupying the area.

    Today, there are areas in Bombay which are not only holding up but showing increase in prices due to low supply/holding capacity of sellers and high demand. When the tide goes out, areas like this are the ones "with clothes on". These do not necessarily have to be hni areas with ultra high budgets.

    Incidentally your cousin in Bangalore has actually paid equivalent for the bungalow, if you account for the time value of money. 7% FD return on rs 2.9 crores is rs 42 lacs ..

    Even a fd would be rs 3.32 cr vs 3.4 cr paid.. Other mode of tax efficient investments like a mutual fund and he has actually saved money.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by Que Sera
    rambler

    The micro markets pricing varies. It depends on the supply, holding capacity as well as the socio economic group occupying the area.

    Today, there are areas in Bombay which are not only holding up but showing increase in prices due to low supply/holding capacity of sellers and high demand. When the tide goes out, areas like this are the ones "with clothes on". These do not necessarily have to be hni areas with ultra high budgets.

    Incidentally your cousin in Bangalore has actually paid equivalent for the bungalow, if you account for the time value of money. 7% FD return on rs 2.9 crores is rs 42 lacs ..

    Even a fd would be rs 3.32 cr vs 3.4 cr paid.. Other mode of tax efficient investments like a mutual fund and he has actually saved money.

    With own money he gained.

    With leverage he has lost a lot. Usually people leverage for 3.4 crore purchase.
    CommentQuote
  • venky

    For investment.. Rent out purposes he may have just about be even. The appreciation has been in the range of 7% + odd.. Slightly below the tax adjusted cost of the home loan 10.4 odd.

    For self occupancy , the tax benefits are limited and would have gained. Mind you the cost of the loan would be 10% + and tax savings limited to rs 50000 (30% of 1.5 lacs), now 60,000 (30% of 200,000) since a person in this tax bracket would have used up 80c anyways.

    This ensures that the effective rate of the loan is nearer to 10%. This is the time correction folks are talking about, i guess.
    CommentQuote
  • Building homes for 1% population is bad business

    Union minister for surface transport Nitin Gadkari on Friday asked Navi Mumbai developers that providing affordable homes to residents was a profitable option than paying high interest rate to banks on the unsold stock and that catering to 1% population was bad business.

    "Everyone knows what is the true situation of the realty sector. You may be claiming that you have recorded good sales, but I know for the fact what the ground reality is. Their are several homes which are lying unsold and developers are footing bank interest," said Gadkari during his speech after inauguration of the 15th Builders Association of Navi Mumbai property exhibition at Cidco exhibition centre in Vashi.

    The union minister said, "There is a need to incorporate new technologies in construction sector, which will bring down the costs, and as a result, will also prove to be beneficial for developers."

    He added, "Even today the developers think that one project should be able to earn them lifetime earnings. Those days are gone and you have to concentrate on increasing the turnover and maintaining the profit. How many people in the country can afford to buy homes worth Rs50 lakh and Rs1 crore? The number is hardly 1% and if you are constructing homes for that 1%, it is not going to be a profitable venture."

    Gadkari said, "Instead focus should be on providing affordable homes to everyone so that sales increase and the profit is maintained," adding, "We are also in talks with the Reserve Bank to see how interest regime can be moderated and it will help the sector. But there is no point in sitting over unsold stock and paying interest to the banks."

    Building homes for 1% population is bad business: Nitin Gadkari | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

    ^^ What do RE bulls want to say on this ??
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by realacres
    Union minister for surface transport Nitin Gadkari on Friday asked Navi Mumbai developers that providing affordable homes to residents was a profitable option than paying high interest rate to banks on the unsold stock and that catering to 1% population was bad business.

    "Everyone knows what is the true situation of the realty sector. You may be claiming that you have recorded good sales, but I know for the fact what the ground reality is. Their are several homes which are lying unsold and developers are footing bank interest," said Gadkari during his speech after inauguration of the 15th Builders Association of Navi Mumbai property exhibition at Cidco exhibition centre in Vashi.

    The union minister said, "There is a need to incorporate new technologies in construction sector, which will bring down the costs, and as a result, will also prove to be beneficial for developers."

    He added, "Even today the developers think that one project should be able to earn them lifetime earnings. Those days are gone and you have to concentrate on increasing the turnover and maintaining the profit. How many people in the country can afford to buy homes worth Rs50 lakh and Rs1 crore? The number is hardly 1% and if you are constructing homes for that 1%, it is not going to be a profitable venture."

    Gadkari said, "Instead focus should be on providing affordable homes to everyone so that sales increase and the profit is maintained," adding, "We are also in talks with the Reserve Bank to see how interest regime can be moderated and it will help the sector. But there is no point in sitting over unsold stock and paying interest to the banks."

    Building homes for 1% population is bad business: Nitin Gadkari | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

    ^^ What do RE bulls want to say on this ??


    Forget bears and bulls. Here is simple question. Why is it more profitable for the builder to build affordable housing than houses that cost 1 cr??? Does the minister want to show some calculations or should we just believe his word??

    Take a small plot - half acre - and show me how building affordable housing project and selling it for 30-40 lakhs is more profitable than building a house that costs 1 cr. Wont the per sq ft flat of both the house be approximately the same???

    Is there some special FSI for affordable housing that is going to increase the return for builder?? Or is the minister suggesting that people will buy a 300 sq ft carpet area house for 40 lakhs but not buy a 600 sqt carpet area house for 80 lakhs???

    What is the definition of affordable housing?? Less area and so lower price or same area but different location hence lower price???


    Forget bears and bulls. Here is simple question. Why is it more profitable for the builder to build affordable housing than houses that cost 1 cr??? Does the minister want to show some calculations or should we just believe his word??

    Take a small plot - half acre - and show me how building affordable housing project and selling it for 30-40 lakhs is more profitable than building a house that costs 1 cr. Wont the per sq ft flat of both the house be approximately the same???

    Is there some special FSI for affordable housing that is going to increase the return for builder?? Or is the minister suggesting that people will buy a 300 sq ft carpet area house for 40 lakhs but not buy a 600 sqt carpet area house for 80 lakhs???

    What is the definition of affordable housing?? Less area and so lower price or same area but different location hence lower price???


    Forget bears and bulls. Here is simple question. Why is it more profitable for the builder to build affordable housing than houses that cost 1 cr??? Does the minister want to show some calculations or should we just believe his word??

    Take a small plot - half acre - and show me how building affordable housing project and selling it for 30-40 lakhs is more profitable than building a house that costs 1 cr. Wont the per sq ft flat of both the house be approximately the same???

    Is there some special FSI for affordable housing that is going to increase the return for builder?? Or is the minister suggesting that people will buy a 300 sq ft carpet area house for 40 lakhs but not buy a 600 sqt carpet area house for 80 lakhs???

    What is the definition of affordable housing?? Less area and so lower price or same area but different location hence lower price???


    Forget bears and bulls. Here is simple question. Why is it more profitable for the builder to build affordable housing than houses that cost 1 cr??? Does the minister want to show some calculations or should we just believe his word??

    Take a small plot - half acre - and show me how building affordable housing project and selling it for 30-40 lakhs is more profitable than building a house that costs 1 cr. Wont the per sq ft flat of both the house be approximately the same???

    Is there some special FSI for affordable housing that is going to increase the return for builder?? Or is the minister suggesting that people will buy a 300 sq ft carpet area house for 40 lakhs but not buy a 600 sqt carpet area house for 80 lakhs???

    What is the definition of affordable housing?? Less area and so lower price or same area but different location hence lower price???


    Forget bears and bulls. Here is simple question. Why is it more profitable for the builder to build affordable housing than houses that cost 1 cr??? Does the minister want to show some calculations or should we just believe his word??

    Take a small plot - half acre - and show me how building affordable housing project and selling it for 30-40 lakhs is more profitable than building a house that costs 1 cr. Wont the per sq ft flat of both the house be approximately the same???

    Is there some special FSI for affordable housing that is going to increase the return for builder?? Or is the minister suggesting that people will buy a 300 sq ft carpet area house for 40 lakhs but not buy a 600 sqt carpet area house for 80 lakhs???

    What is the definition of affordable housing?? Less area and so lower price or same area but different location hence lower price???


    Forget bears and bulls. Here is simple question. Why is it more profitable for the builder to build affordable housing than houses that cost 1 cr??? Does the minister want to show some calculations or should we just believe his word??

    Take a small plot - half acre - and show me how building affordable housing project and selling it for 30-40 lakhs is more profitable than building a house that costs 1 cr. Wont the per sq ft flat of both the house be approximately the same???

    Is there some special FSI for affordable housing that is going to increase the return for builder?? Or is the minister suggesting that people will buy a 300 sq ft carpet area house for 40 lakhs but not buy a 600 sqt carpet area house for 80 lakhs???

    What is the definition of affordable housing?? Less area and so lower price or same area but different location hence lower price???


    Forget bears and bulls. Here is simple question. Why is it more profitable for the builder to build affordable housing than houses that cost 1 cr??? Does the minister want to show some calculations or should we just believe his word??

    Take a small plot - half acre - and show me how building affordable housing project and selling it for 30-40 lakhs is more profitable than building a house that costs 1 cr. Wont the per sq ft flat of both the house be approximately the same???

    Is there some special FSI for affordable housing that is going to increase the return for builder?? Or is the minister suggesting that people will buy a 300 sq ft carpet area house for 40 lakhs but not buy a 600 sqt carpet area house for 80 lakhs???

    What is the definition of affordable housing?? Less area and so lower price or same area but different location hence lower price???


    Forget bears and bulls. Here is simple question. Why is it more profitable for the builder to build affordable housing than houses that cost 1 cr??? Does the minister want to show some calculations or should we just believe his word??

    Take a small plot - half acre - and show me how building affordable housing project and selling it for 30-40 lakhs is more profitable than building a house that costs 1 cr. Wont the per sq ft flat of both the house be approximately the same???

    Is there some special FSI for affordable housing that is going to increase the return for builder?? Or is the minister suggesting that people will buy a 300 sq ft carpet area house for 40 lakhs but not buy a 600 sqt carpet area house for 80 lakhs???

    What is the definition of affordable housing?? Less area and so lower price or same area but different location hence lower price???
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by realacres
    Union minister for surface transport Nitin Gadkari on Friday asked Navi Mumbai developers that providing affordable homes to residents was a profitable option than paying high interest rate to banks on the unsold stock and that catering to 1% population was bad business.

    "Everyone knows what is the true situation of the realty sector. You may be claiming that you have recorded good sales, but I know for the fact what the ground reality is. Their are several homes which are lying unsold and developers are footing bank interest," said Gadkari during his speech after inauguration of the 15th Builders Association of Navi Mumbai property exhibition at Cidco exhibition centre in Vashi.

    The union minister said, "There is a need to incorporate new technologies in construction sector, which will bring down the costs, and as a result, will also prove to be beneficial for developers."

    He added, "Even today the developers think that one project should be able to earn them lifetime earnings. Those days are gone and you have to concentrate on increasing the turnover and maintaining the profit. How many people in the country can afford to buy homes worth Rs50 lakh and Rs1 crore? The number is hardly 1% and if you are constructing homes for that 1%, it is not going to be a profitable venture."

    Gadkari said, "Instead focus should be on providing affordable homes to everyone so that sales increase and the profit is maintained," adding, "We are also in talks with the Reserve Bank to see how interest regime can be moderated and it will help the sector. But there is no point in sitting over unsold stock and paying interest to the banks."

    Building homes for 1% population is bad business: Nitin Gadkari | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

    ^^ What do RE bulls want to say on this ??

    Gadkari is advising to the builder to build houses which have demand. "focus should be on providing affordable homes to everyone so that sales increase and the profit is maintained". There is still a tremendous demand in affordable homes section. Obviously if all players try to gain market-share in one area and leave other area untapped then the inventory will be skewed.

    Supply and demand: Supply is more in one area and less demand while demand is more in one area with less supply. That means, affordable housing section too sees price rise.

    Gadkari may be true (I feel he his a very good administrator) but read an article posted a little earlier in this same thread
    Originally Posted by herohiralal
    In other unrelated news - unrelated cause it does not impact pune RE prices :)

    Lodha Sells Rs 500 Crore Worth Flats in 9 Days at Mumbai High Rise - NDTVProfit.com
    CommentQuote
  • Lodha Sells Rs 500 Crore Worth Flats in 9 Days at Mumbai High Rise - NDTVProfit.com - I guess demand is going down and RE prices are falling ;-) duh
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by herohiralal
    Forget bears and bulls. Here is simple question. Why is it more profitable for the builder to build affordable housing than houses that cost 1 cr??? Does the minister want to show some calculations or should we just believe his word??

    Take a small plot - half acre - and show me how building affordable housing project and selling it for 30-40 lakhs is more profitable than building a house that costs 1 cr. Wont the per sq ft flat of both the house be approximately the same???

    Is there some special FSI for affordable housing that is going to increase the return for builder?? Or is the minister suggesting that people will buy a 300 sq ft carpet area house for 40 lakhs but not buy a 600 sqt carpet area house for 80 lakhs???

    What is the definition of affordable housing?? Less area and so lower price or same area but different location hence lower price???

    In haryana you get higher fsi for affordable scheme.

    All schemes launchedvso far are sold out in multiples of supply.

    And builders are making money in this scheme
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by compuwalah
    Lodha Sells Rs 500 Crore Worth Flats in 9 Days at Mumbai High Rise - NDTVProfit.com - I guess demand is going down and RE prices are falling ;-) duh


    I say very shady report.

    Absolutely no details more than this terse statement.

    And how were they able to sell these very same flats that were not selling before all of a sudden. Simply by using the term "online"? :)

    Online means what at this stage?

    What was the booking amount for each flat? What are the details of the buyers - are they proxies for the builders/brokers themselves?

    On the online platform this is done in various forms like click-fraud (for click-through revenue and click-based valuations), facebook type like-fraud (where sophisticated subject sites like Biochemistry got maximum likes from Egypt and Bangladesh - I'm sure there is lot of interest in advanced Biochemistry in rural Bangladesh! :D).

    I believe this is one more ruse to use online platform to desperately claim abnormal sales of a normal asset out of the blue. Time will bear me out.

    cheers
    CommentQuote
  • Rightly said wiseman. I called them up asking same. They said wiseman has not paid their salary for over six months and they will withhold the info for time being :-P

    Not sure if you read the news (before posting the knee jerk reply) that they we not able to sell since the clearance from aviation dept was pending. After that last clearnce has been been obtained, it was open for booking.

    Please find the relevant news and read it so that there can be some meaningful discussion.

    Otherwise we only have misguded personal opinions that have filled up pages of several threads.

    >> I believe this is one more ruse to use online platform to desperately claim abnormal sales of a normal asset out of the blue. Time will bear me out

    Yes sir. Just like it has done for last 5 years :)
    CommentQuote