'Properties in Southeast Asian (MXSO) cities including Bangkok, Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur are attractive for investors seeking to boost returns by holding riskier assets, Deutsche Bank AG (DBK)’s RREEF unit said.

Retail real estate, such as supermarkets, convenience stores, and logistics facilities, which include warehouses that focus on e-commerce, offer opportunities, said Leslie Chua, the head of research and strategy in the Asia-Pacific region at RREEF Real Estate, a unit of Deutsche Asset Management (Asia) Ltd. Office markets in Sydney and Melbourne also are attractive because of a lack of supply, he said.'

continued .. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/southeast-asian-properties-are-attractive-deutsche-bank-says.html

Bankers recomending SE Asian real estate? Time to sell!

Just another real estate pimp trying to move the market .

Bankers recomending SE Asian real estate? Time to sell!

Yes the moment bank analysts recommend stocks, real estate or other commodities usually signifies the top of the market.

If I wanted SE Asia property exposure I think I would stick with Singapore.

And below quote from the article tells it all....come buy some SE Asia property assets from/through RREEF...real estate pimps....maybe what they are pimping is indeed attractive (until you turn on the lights).

RREEF, with 3.4 billion euros ($4.4 billion) in Asian property assets, recommends investors diversify by boosting alternative investments, including Asian real estate, to counter declines in traditional assets, such as bonds and stocks.

Banks are not all swinging the same way re investment advice and it would be a mistake to take what DB has said as authoritative. And even DB doesn't claim that. DB suggests property in the region if an investor wants exposure to riskier assets. Some guys just read the word 'bank' and a red mist descends.

"attractive for investors seeking to boost returns by holding riskier assets"

TRANSLATION: Great if you want to enjoy 20-60% return for some short period of time, and when the music stops you may well have lost the principle and the return but it was a fun ride!

Banks are not all swinging the same way re investment advice and it would be a mistake to take what DB has said as authoritative. And even DB doesn't claim that. DB suggests property in the region if an investor wants exposure to riskier assets. Some guys just read the word 'bank' and a red mist descends.

And with good reason after Goldman Sachs encouraged their clients to buy instruments from them even though they considered them to be a crock of shit

Banks = worse than snake oil vendors

Edited September 29, 201213 yr by Asiantravel

Banks are not all swinging the same way re investment advice and it would be a mistake to take what DB has said as authoritative. And even DB doesn't claim that. DB suggests property in the region if an investor wants exposure to riskier assets. Some guys just read the word 'bank' and a red mist descends.

And with good reason after Goldman Sachs encouraged their clients to buy instruments from them even though they considered them to be a crock of shit

Banks = worse than snake oil vendors

That is a misunderstanding (commonly made by some Congress members of the Democratic Party) of how the purchase and sale of derivative instruments are made.

The example which came up in the hearings (the 'shitty deal') was related at that time to a German bank (and others on other deals, many deals) who wanted to buy into mortgage related debt.

GS facilitated that which did not preclude them taking the other side of such instruments trading on the book they had created. These were not innocent grannies being hoodwinked.

A more modern example would be in currency trading. Every trade has another side. I might make a trade buying Euros for dollars. HSBC facilitate that. At the same time HSBC may be selling Euros for dollars. They might even be the buyer of my dollars. Do I know that? No. Should I care? No.

Banks are not all swinging the same way re investment advice and it would be a mistake to take what DB has said as authoritative. And even DB doesn't claim that. DB suggests property in the region if an investor wants exposure to riskier assets. Some guys just read the word 'bank' and a red mist descends.

And with good reason after Goldman Sachs encouraged their clients to buy instruments from them even though they considered them to be a crock of shit

Banks = worse than snake oil vendors

That is a misunderstanding (commonly made by some Congress members of the Democratic Party) of how the purchase and sale of derivative instruments are made.

The example which came up in the hearings (the 'shitty deal') was related at that time to a German bank (and others on other deals, many deals) who wanted to buy into mortgage related debt.

GS facilitated that which did not preclude them taking the other side of such instruments trading on the book they had created. These were not innocent grannies being hoodwinked.

A more modern example would be in currency trading. Every trade has another side. I might make a trade buying Euros for dollars. HSBC facilitate that. At the same time HSBC may be selling Euros for dollars. They might even be the buyer of my dollars. Do I know that? No. Should I care? No.

And what was the ' misunderstanding ' when it called its own clients Muppets?

Edited September 29, 201213 yr by Asiantravel

Banks are not all swinging the same way re investment advice and it would be a mistake to take what DB has said as authoritative. And even DB doesn't claim that. DB suggests property in the region if an investor wants exposure to riskier assets. Some guys just read the word 'bank' and a red mist descends.

And with good reason after Goldman Sachs encouraged their clients to buy instruments from them even though they considered them to be a crock of shit

Banks = worse than snake oil vendors

That is a misunderstanding (commonly made by some Congress members of the Democratic Party) of how the purchase and sale of derivative instruments are made.

The example which came up in the hearings (the 'shitty deal') was related at that time to a German bank (and others on other deals, many deals) who wanted to buy into mortgage related debt.

GS facilitated that which did not preclude them taking the other side of such instruments trading on the book they had created. These were not innocent grannies being hoodwinked.

A more modern example would be in currency trading. Every trade has another side. I might make a trade buying Euros for dollars. HSBC facilitate that. At the same time HSBC may be selling Euros for dollars. They might even be the buyer of my dollars. Do I know that? No. Should I care? No.

And what was the ' misunderstanding ' when it called its own clients Muppets?

None at all. They can think that and quite embarrassing to have those comments made public.

However, GS were performing the role of market makers and facilitating the creation of that financial instrument.

They then took the other side. It is as well to remember that at that time (so-called AAA) MB securities were in hot demand.

GS were one of the first banks to start hedging against exposure and it was this that was/is being thrown back at them.

And with good reason after Goldman Sachs encouraged their clients to buy instruments from them even though they considered them to be a crock of shit

Banks = worse than snake oil vendors

That is a misunderstanding (commonly made by some Congress members of the Democratic Party) of how the purchase and sale of derivative instruments are made.

The example which came up in the hearings (the 'shitty deal') was related at that time to a German bank (and others on other deals, many deals) who wanted to buy into mortgage related debt.

GS facilitated that which did not preclude them taking the other side of such instruments trading on the book they had created. These were not innocent grannies being hoodwinked.

A more modern example would be in currency trading. Every trade has another side. I might make a trade buying Euros for dollars. HSBC facilitate that. At the same time HSBC may be selling Euros for dollars. They might even be the buyer of my dollars. Do I know that? No. Should I care? No.

And what was the ' misunderstanding ' when it called its own clients Muppets?

None at all. They can think that and quite embarrassing to have those comments made public.

However, GS were performing the role of market makers and facilitating the creation of that financial instrument.

They then took the other side. It is as well to remember that at that time (so-called AAA) MB securities were in hot demand.

GS were one of the first banks to start hedging against exposure and it was this that was/is being thrown back at them.

Banks = worse than snake oil vendors

Banks are not all swinging the same way re investment advice and it would be a mistake to take what DB has said as authoritative. And even DB doesn't claim that. DB suggests property in the region if an investor wants exposure to riskier assets. Some guys just read the word 'bank' and a red mist descends.

And with good reason after Goldman Sachs encouraged their clients to buy instruments from them even though they considered them to be a crock of shit

Banks = worse than snake oil vendors

If you think that then no need to follow their advice. But other may want to take a punt. Risky investments can give fantastic returns. Yes, you can lose your money as well, but that's the nature of the game. Stay out of the game if you don't like the rules.

Banks are not all swinging the same way re investment advice and it would be a mistake to take what DB has said as authoritative. And even DB doesn't claim that. DB suggests property in the region if an investor wants exposure to riskier assets. Some guys just read the word 'bank' and a red mist descends.

And with good reason after Goldman Sachs encouraged their clients to buy instruments from them even though they considered them to be a crock of shit

Banks = worse than snake oil vendors

If you think that then no need to follow their advice. But other may want to take a punt. Risky investments can give fantastic returns. Yes, you can lose your money as well, but that's the nature of the game. Stay out of the game if you don't like the rules.

There is a huge distinction between losing money because the investor simply makes a bad call compared to losing because of misrepresentation and deception by the vendor in a transaction

Edited September 29, 201213 yr by Asiantravel

Are the Chinese coming ...... We have seen a pick up in Samui recently .....

Buying home away from home catching on

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2012-10/04/content_15796718.htm

Are the Chinese coming ...... We have seen a pick up in Samui recently .....

Buying home away from home catching on

http://usa.chinadail...nt_15796718.htm

This is reminiscent of California in the 80s when the Japanese were buying everything in sight - right before the lost decades began for them.

As Myanmar’s diplomatic and economic barriers fall, is the former pariah state ready for prime real estate?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/9f5800d0-0882-11e2-b57f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz28XX1gXai

Banks are not all swinging the same way re investment advice and it would be a mistake to take what DB has said as authoritative. And even DB doesn't claim that. DB suggests property in the region if an investor wants exposure to riskier assets. Some guys just read the word 'bank' and a red mist descends.

And with good reason after Goldman Sachs encouraged their clients to buy instruments from them even though they considered them to be a crock of shit

Banks = worse than snake oil vendors

If you think that then no need to follow their advice. But other may want to take a punt. Risky investments can give fantastic returns. Yes, you can lose your money as well, but that's the nature of the game. Stay out of the game if you don't like the rules.

There is a huge distinction between losing money because the investor simply makes a bad call compared to losing because of misrepresentation and deception by the vendor in a transaction

The trouble is when so many retail investors expect a one-way bet and cry 'foul' when it doesn't work out for them.

The record presales and correlative price rises seen this year could result in a property market cooldown next year as buyers drop off. If a real global economic slowdown occurs (one that affects Asia significantly), then there could be trouble as the speculative purchases (30-40% of condo purchases for rental in TH) may not yield return, i.e. buyers are unable to find renters, thus resulting in a sell-off, price drop, WW3, etc..

However, most property companies are cutting back on high-rise development next year, focusing on low-rise properties that are often less speculative, so this might actually help protect the sector from a bubble burst.

So yeah, I guess in the end, it is risky.