Buy in places where the millionaires go 
Singapore 
Don’t buy in China, India, Russia, UK, … Hong Kong 
2 Likes
I was surprised to see that Singapore apparently has less than 6 million people. Their millionaire count is huge for a population so small.
1 Like
Obviously, sure, if you can semi compete but if you are poor you would not be able to hang with folks like that. Things will be more expensive there and imagine the competition that say your kids would face. I am fine with something like a Malaysia which is not top tiered but decent enough.
I think this is strictly from the standpoint of wanting your real estate to appreciate.
2 Likes
Well, one can argue higher returns on RE can be achieved elsewhere (perhaps at more risk for sure). The buy in there is not exactly cheap.
1 Like
Says it’s just a forecast, btw…
Interesting that Russia has the same number predicted to leave as the UK.
1 in 6 Americans is a millionaire. This country is extraordinarily wealthy.
1 Like
lmaoo，why hongkong
It’s as much a comment on how little 1 million dollars is worth these days as it is on how “wealthy” Americans are.
A million US dollars in 1900 would be anywhere from 35 to about 70 million today depending on how inflation is calculated.
1 Like
Primary residency wealth is meaningless unless people plan to sell it to downsize or relocate to where RE is less expensive. I guess people could borrow against the equity to fund their lifestyle, but that’s just stupid.
1 Like
.
If include Primary, Singapore has higher density than US. Most Singaporeans are house rich cash poor.
1 Like
Money is money. Is 401k money meaningless because you have to wait until retirement to tap into it? Imagine telling people in Palo Alto their $3M houses are meaningless.
Houses are forced saving vehicles. Most people choose to buy for investment purpose. If they want to spend all their cash on cars and vacations they would have rented instead.
Did you not read the whole sentence or just not understand the whole thing?
1 Like
.
I have the same feeling. Quite often, he makes non sensical comments.
I read the whole sentence. Many people cash out their expensive primaries to fund their retirement. For them that may even be the only or main retirement savings.
That’s why I mentioned 401k. For many people with expensive homes they are functionally equivalent.
Most definitely not “meaningless”.
Your response is always confusing. Why can’t you respond directly, rather than using a “round about” way such as asking a question or using an analogy. A direct response is “Is not meaningless because “
…
How about this reformatting?
Is not meaningless because…
many people cash out their expensive primaries to fund their retirement. For them that may even be the only or main retirement savings.
That’s why I mentioned 401k. For many people with expensive homes they are functionally equivalent.
You mention people cashing out their primary as if that’s not covered by part of the sentence. You literally said the first part is false while ignoring the condition in the sentence. Then you word the condition another way.
1 Like
I am saying practically everybody treats their expensive primary home as investment and retirement saving. So the “unless” clause is silly. It’s like saying you will starve to death unless you eat food. Sure, that’s technically true. But nobody would refuse food if they are starving.
.
I was referring to…