2011-02-24
Macau Home Prices May Climb as Much as 20% as Casino Growth Fuels Demand
Macau Home Prices May Climb as Much as 20% as Casino Growth Fuels Demand
By Kelvin Wong - Feb 23, 2011
Macau home prices, which have recovered to pre-global credit crisis levels, may rise as much as 20 percent this year as the city’s economy benefits from an expanding casino industry.
Residential values in the world’s biggest gambling hub will gain 20 percent in 2011, according to Midland Holdings Ltd., Hong Kong’s largest publicly traded real estate agency. Jones Lang LaSalle Inc., the world’s second-biggest commercial property broker, predicts a 10 percent gain, while London-based Savills Plc forecasts a 15 percent jump.
Low interest rates, a lack of new supply and rising personal incomes driven by a 58 percent surge in casino revenue helped real estate prices in the former Portuguese colony in southern China climb 15 percent in 2010 even as the government introduced measures to stamp out speculation.
“The property market is now being supported by locals whose incomes have risen off the casino boom, and also the huge demand for rental from foreign workers coming in for the new casinos and other infrastructure projects,” said Gregory Ku, managing director for Macau at Jones Lang.
Casino revenue in Macau may climb 30 percent to $30 billion this year as visitors from mainland China increase, CLSA Ltd. said in a report last month. China contributed more than half the number of Macau’s 25 million tourist arrivals last year.
Macau’s casino revenue grew to more than four times that of the Las Vegas Strip after the government allowed the entry of overseas operators in 2002, including Las Vegas Sands Corp., the world’s biggest casino company by market value, and Wynn Resort Ltd., ending billionaire Stanley Ho’s four-decade monopoly.
Local Investors
Prices for some luxury projects, such as the One Central Macau Residences co-developed by Ho’s Shun Tak Holdings Ltd. and Hongkong Land Holdings Ltd., have risen to about 6,000 patacas ($748) to 7,000 patacas a square foot at the end of last year from about 4,000 patacas in early 2009, according to Jones Lang.
About 10 percent of those who bought the properties last year were foreign investors, compared with about 35 percent between 2007 and 2008, said Ku.
“The credit crisis has pretty much driven out all the foreign funds looking to make a quick profit,” he said.
Galaxy Entertainment Group Ltd., the casino operator part- owned by Permira Advisers LLP, plans to hire as many as 8,000 workers this year after the opening of its 600-table casino in Macau’s Cotai district, Chief Financial Officer Robert Drake said Feb. 15. Macau, the only region in China where casinos are legal, has a population of 550,000.
Huge Demand
The city’s government is building a light-rail system aimed to be finished in 2014 and is working with neighboring Hong Kong and Zhuhai to build a bridge connecting the three cities.
“People are earning more and that’s creating a huge demand to upgrade to better properties,” said Franco Liu, managing director for Savills’s Macau unit. “With limited new land supply in the next few years, there’s so much pressure on prices to keep going up.”
Prices of some luxury apartments have risen as much as 80 percent from the trough during the credit crisis, prompting the government last year to impose higher property transaction taxes and raise mortgage down payments for transactions larger than 3.3 million patacas.
That may lead luxury prices to lag “slightly behind” those in the mass market this year, said Savills’s Liu.
“The measures may push some buyers to shift to lower value properties because they can get a higher mortgage and fall into a lower tax brackets,” he said.
Luxury Prices
With no standard definition for Macau luxury prices, property agencies normally distinguish them from those in the broader market based on location and prices, said Stanley Poon, managing director for Macau at Centaline Property Agency Ltd., Hong Kong’s biggest closely held realtor. Centaline forecasts Macau home prices to rise 15 percent in 2011.
Macau’s luxury home prices fell as much as 40 percent in early 2009 from a previous height in 2007, according to Centaline, after several foreign funds sold investments and developers halted projects as liquidity dried up during the credit crisis.
The number of property transactions fell to 17,000 in 2009, a seven-year low, before rebounding to 30,000 last year, according to data from the Macau government.
Macau’s economy may rise 26 percent in 2010 from a year earlier, according to a forecast by Secretary of Economy and Finance Francis Tam. The jobless rate of 2.7 percent in the fourth quarter was the lowest since 1999, according to government statistics.
Limited Supply
About 80 percent of Macanese own their homes, whose values are still at “a substantial discount” to properties in Hong Kong, about an hour by ferry, said Tom Ashworth, fund manager for Macau Property Opportunities Fund Ltd., which has about $333 million in assets and is developing residential projects including the Fountainside in Macau. Hong Kong home prices have surged about 60 percent in the past two years.
“That gap’s got to close,” Ashworth said. “It’s not going to go to parity, but we believe the current 70 percent discount to Hong Kong could definitely narrow to maybe 50 percent.” Ashworth compared prices at One Central Macau and Hong Kong’s Bel-Air, a luxury apartment project in Hong Kong’s Island South district where units are selling at about HK$20,000 ($2,567) a square foot.
Approval for new real estate and infrastructure projects has slowed since the jailing of a former senior government official in 2008 that sparked a series of anti-graft measures by the government, said Ronald Cheung, managing director for Macau at Midland.
About 2,500 new apartments in projects including the One Grantai and The Riviera Macau are expected to be completed in 2011, down from 3,400 in 2010, he said. Annual completion will probably fall below 1,000 in each of 2012 and 2013 before rebounding in 2014.
“This two-year gap will continue to push up both rents and prices for new units,” Cheung said. “Buyers are also mindful of the threat of inflation that’s driven by the low interest rates,” which are near 20-year low, he said.
香港政府注資強積金 每人六千
政府注資強積金 每人六千
(明報)2011年2月23日 星期三
財政司 長曾俊華 宣布，向所有擁有強積金 的市民，一次過派發6000元，注入他們的強積金戶口。
曾俊華在財政預算案中表示，為增加強積金和職業退休計劃成員的退休儲蓄，建議為所有在今年2月23日已成為強積金計劃或職業退休計劃下，受香港《僱傭條例 》涵蓋的成員的人士，向他們的強積金戶口一次過注入6,000元。
Wall Street Journal Online
他指，這次的注資建議不設收入上限，希望協助更多市民為退休作好準備。這既不會增加通脹壓力，也是政府現在財政上可負擔的。
他表示，已經為這項措施預留240億元。財經事務及庫務局 稍後會公布詳情，積金局 會協助執行注資工作。他希望在2011至12年度內，開始向有關的強積金戶口注入款項。
（即時新聞）
(明報)2011年2月23日 星期三
財政司 長曾俊華 宣布，向所有擁有強積金 的市民，一次過派發6000元，注入他們的強積金戶口。
曾俊華在財政預算案中表示，為增加強積金和職業退休計劃成員的退休儲蓄，建議為所有在今年2月23日已成為強積金計劃或職業退休計劃下，受香港《僱傭條例 》涵蓋的成員的人士，向他們的強積金戶口一次過注入6,000元。
Wall Street Journal Online
他指，這次的注資建議不設收入上限，希望協助更多市民為退休作好準備。這既不會增加通脹壓力，也是政府現在財政上可負擔的。
他表示，已經為這項措施預留240億元。財經事務及庫務局 稍後會公布詳情，積金局 會協助執行注資工作。他希望在2011至12年度內，開始向有關的強積金戶口注入款項。
（即時新聞）
2011-02-23
What we still don't know about Lasik
Elective Surgery
WEDNESDAY, FEB 16, 2011
What we still don't know about Lasik
As the surgery continues to plague patients like me, the man who approved it for the FDA pushes for a recall
BY ABBY ELLIN
Salon
How are your eyes?
That's all anyone ever wants to know these days: How my eyes are doing after my collision with Lasik almost three years ago. Are they still dry? Do they still hurt when exposed to sunlight? Is my vision still blurred? And what about glasses -- am I still wearing them?
The answer: Yes, yes, yes and yes. Emphatically, resoundingly, blindingly yes. My eyes sting. They burn. I look at neon signs and the colors bleed into a fluorescent Rorschach test. I have difficulty deciphering black lettering on white boards; I have personally helped elevate the stock of Allergan, which manufactures Refresh Plus, the drops that allegedly help dry eye.
Lasik Hong Kong
Clearly, this is all very annoying, but at this point, I'm used to it. It's just one of the things I live with, like PMS and hangnails. And in the grand scheme of things, it's not so bad. According to Market Scope, LLC, an ophthalmic industry research firm, nearly 15 million procedures have been performed in the U.S. over the last decade, with a 95.4 percent patient satisfaction rate. Lasik is also a $1.6 billion industry -- which, as Michael Lewis points out in "The Big Short," was initially created to replace the revenue stream lost to declining cataract surgery reimbursement rates.
Ninety-five percent satisfaction is not awful (although of course it depends on what your definition of "is" is). It's the other 5 percent that worries me. I've interviewed people who've had corneal transplants because of botched Lasik, who've lost their jobs because they can't see -- like Los Angeles Dodger Jay Gibbons, who reportedly stopped playing winter ball in Venezuela because of blurred vision he acquired after Lasik surgery earlier in the season, the L.A. Times reported.
So all in all, I'm pretty lucky. But I think it's fair to say that I'm angry. Not just about my situation, but because this is an industry where it's almost impossible to find a reputable refractive surgeon to speak out on behalf of patients. If you've got a problem, it's your fault. I went to a dry eye specialist in New York City, a guy who wrote a book on the subject. He acknowledged that Lasik causes dry eye and that it's a major surgical side effect.
"Would you ever say that on the record?" I asked.
He shook his head somewhat sheepishly. "We do Lasik here," he explained. Aha! Talk about a smart businessman. He's got the problem and the solution under one roof.
Attorneys also have trouble finding doctors to testify for patients. On June 2, 2009, Todd Krouner, a lawyer in Chappaqua, N.Y., who has won millions of dollars for injured Lasik patients, cross-examined a Dr. Wing Chu in a case involving a patient with post-Lasik ectasia, a bulging of the cornea. Dr. Chu is medical director of the Eye-Bank for Sight Restoration, and an associate clinical professor of ophthalmology at Columbia University, among other appointments. He was hired by the defense to conduct an independent medical examination of the patient. Here's how that conversation went:
Krouner: "Is your version of the Hippocratic oath "first do no harm" translated "first do no harm to any ophthalmologist," is that your interpretation of the Hippocratic oath?"
Chu: "That's a part of it."
Oh. Good to know.
The hero here is a man named Morris Waxler, whom I wrote about last year for Salon. Waxler is a Ph.D. and a former branch chief of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health from 1995 to 1999. He was, in effect, the man responsible for approving Lasik vision enhancement lasers in 1997. Since that time, he has become rabidly anti-Lasik, publicly admitting that the FDA "screwed up" when it approved it.
Now he's taken his activism a step further. Last month, he filed a petition calling for the FDA to withdraw approval "for all Lasik devices and issue a Public Health Advisory with a voluntary recall of Lasik devices in an effort to stop the epidemic of permanent eye injury caused by lasers and microkeratomes used for Lasik eye surgery."
In his petition, Waxler maintains that the initial approval was based on data that was "dominated by Lasik surgeons working hand-in-glove with Lasik manufacturers. Data recently brought to light exposes this partnership for what it was: a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse, wherein the primary arbiters of safety and effectiveness of Lasik devices were the device manufacturers and its collaborators." Consequently, he says, the FDA was deprived of knowledge of the full extent of Lasik injuries prior to and during FDA reviews of documents submitted in support of the safety and effectiveness of Lasik devices.
He adds that -- contrary to the FDA's own device-approval standard, which limits adverse events to 1 percent -- published scientific data shows that Lasik devices induce an average adverse event rate of about 22 percent "that persists beyond six months to five or more years."
Lastly, he says, the published data shows that Lasik devices transform healthy corneas into sick corneas that never completely heal; are permanently weakened, vulnerable to trauma and inflammation; cause neuropathic dry eyes; have pathology that progresses annually; are vulnerable to blinding corneal bulging (keratectasia); compromise night vision; have unstable vision corrections that regress; and require eye care that otherwise wouldn't be needed.
This is potent stuff. And it doesn't seem to be the rantings of a bored retiree. "The idea that I had such a hand in getting a product on the market that was messing people's eyes up is disgusting," he says. "My wife said, 'Why are you getting back into that mess? Leave it to other people.' But I couldn't leave it alone. The more I discovered about it, the worse it got. Rereading the applications to the FDA that I once read and reviewed and reviewing the published literature since then -- it's not a pretty picture."
It's not a pretty picture, but it seems to be pervasive among the FDA. According to a recent report in the Archives of Internal Medicine, of the 113 devices that the FDA recalled between 2005 and 2009 for posing serious health risks or even death, more than 70 percent had been approved because they were considered similar to other products on the market. "Our findings reveal critical flaws in the current FDA device review system and its implementation that will require either congressional action or major changes in regulatory policy," the authors wrote.
While Waxler stops a centimeter short of using the C word (that would be, "conspiracy"), he does wonder why doctors failed to report adverse, or negative, reactions after five or six months. "They didn't report the data," he says. "They said patients wouldn't come back because as far as they could tell patients were doing very well. It's like asking Iran how many nuclear sites they have and them saying, 'We don't have any.' And saying, 'OK, that's fine. We trust you.'"
The refractive surgery community, not surprisingly, is less than pleased with Waxler. The American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery stated that while they laud his commitment to Lasik safety (which they share), they "disagree with his science and conclusions."
"The vast preponderance of clinical evidence shows that Lasik is safe and effective -- a conclusion that the FDA has repeatedly re-affirmed in its multiple reviews of up-to-date information," they wrote. "By failing to follow standard scientific protocol, Dr. Waxler does a disservice to all LASIK patients -- including those few who have had serious problems and who deserve to have them clearly understood."
After talking with Waxler, I called, and e-mailed, and called, and e-mailed again, the FDA to no response. Finally, Karen Riley, an FDA spokesperson, shot me an e-mail: "FDA continues to monitor the safety and effectiveness of all devices, including the lasers approved for Lasik," she wrote. "In October of last year we provided a brief update on our role in a three-part study of Lasik that is still in the beginning phases. It is a project that we hope will yield additional insights about this procedure."
It was a nice pat response, but had nothing to do with Waxler's petition. That response came from David S. Buckles, Ph.D., the ombudsman for the CDRH, and was forwarded to me by a Lasik activist:
"I personally appreciate the effort by Dr. Waxler and colleagues to use this approach to raise these issues with the Commissioner's Office because this is an appropriate venue within which to propose changes to the means by which Lasik devices are regulated," Buckles wrote. "While we in CDRH do not have close contact with proceedings in the Commissioner's Office on this particular matter, my understanding is that the petition is under review at the Commissioner's level to determine whether to accept the petition for consideration.
If the petition is accepted for consideration, and subsequently members of CDRH are tasked to participate in the review, then we will have some visibility into the process. However, until that happens, the status of the petition is not within our cognizance."
In other words: Let's wait and see. And wait some more.
Realistically, of course, it's unlikely that Lasik will be banned. Plenty of people have had tremendously wonderful experiences. Even Todd Krouner, the lawyer, says that he "knows and respects too many honest, intelligent, competent Lasik surgeons, who 'eat their own cooking' and have had Lasik themselves," he says. "Still, I believe that the public deserves an honest study, free from the bias and influence of the Lasik industry.
There are bright doctors and trustworthy public health officials who have no financial interest in Lasik, who are certainly qualified to perform a credible study. Without that, I doubt that the public will be able to assess the true risks, benefits and alternatives to Lasik surgery. If doctors cannot agree among themselves about the true incidence of ectasia, or much more common dry eye syndrome, how is a patient ever supposed to make a truly informed decision?"
How indeed? It's a good question, and one I'd like to explore further. But not right now. My eyes hurt.
Abby Ellin is the author of "Teenage Waistland: A Former Fat Kid Weighs in on Living Large, Losing Weight and How Parents Can (and Can't) Help." Her website is AbbyEllin.com. She lives, works, and tries to see in New York City.
WEDNESDAY, FEB 16, 2011
What we still don't know about Lasik
As the surgery continues to plague patients like me, the man who approved it for the FDA pushes for a recall
BY ABBY ELLIN
Salon
How are your eyes?
That's all anyone ever wants to know these days: How my eyes are doing after my collision with Lasik almost three years ago. Are they still dry? Do they still hurt when exposed to sunlight? Is my vision still blurred? And what about glasses -- am I still wearing them?
The answer: Yes, yes, yes and yes. Emphatically, resoundingly, blindingly yes. My eyes sting. They burn. I look at neon signs and the colors bleed into a fluorescent Rorschach test. I have difficulty deciphering black lettering on white boards; I have personally helped elevate the stock of Allergan, which manufactures Refresh Plus, the drops that allegedly help dry eye.
Lasik Hong Kong
Clearly, this is all very annoying, but at this point, I'm used to it. It's just one of the things I live with, like PMS and hangnails. And in the grand scheme of things, it's not so bad. According to Market Scope, LLC, an ophthalmic industry research firm, nearly 15 million procedures have been performed in the U.S. over the last decade, with a 95.4 percent patient satisfaction rate. Lasik is also a $1.6 billion industry -- which, as Michael Lewis points out in "The Big Short," was initially created to replace the revenue stream lost to declining cataract surgery reimbursement rates.
Ninety-five percent satisfaction is not awful (although of course it depends on what your definition of "is" is). It's the other 5 percent that worries me. I've interviewed people who've had corneal transplants because of botched Lasik, who've lost their jobs because they can't see -- like Los Angeles Dodger Jay Gibbons, who reportedly stopped playing winter ball in Venezuela because of blurred vision he acquired after Lasik surgery earlier in the season, the L.A. Times reported.
So all in all, I'm pretty lucky. But I think it's fair to say that I'm angry. Not just about my situation, but because this is an industry where it's almost impossible to find a reputable refractive surgeon to speak out on behalf of patients. If you've got a problem, it's your fault. I went to a dry eye specialist in New York City, a guy who wrote a book on the subject. He acknowledged that Lasik causes dry eye and that it's a major surgical side effect.
"Would you ever say that on the record?" I asked.
He shook his head somewhat sheepishly. "We do Lasik here," he explained. Aha! Talk about a smart businessman. He's got the problem and the solution under one roof.
Attorneys also have trouble finding doctors to testify for patients. On June 2, 2009, Todd Krouner, a lawyer in Chappaqua, N.Y., who has won millions of dollars for injured Lasik patients, cross-examined a Dr. Wing Chu in a case involving a patient with post-Lasik ectasia, a bulging of the cornea. Dr. Chu is medical director of the Eye-Bank for Sight Restoration, and an associate clinical professor of ophthalmology at Columbia University, among other appointments. He was hired by the defense to conduct an independent medical examination of the patient. Here's how that conversation went:
Krouner: "Is your version of the Hippocratic oath "first do no harm" translated "first do no harm to any ophthalmologist," is that your interpretation of the Hippocratic oath?"
Chu: "That's a part of it."
Oh. Good to know.
The hero here is a man named Morris Waxler, whom I wrote about last year for Salon. Waxler is a Ph.D. and a former branch chief of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health from 1995 to 1999. He was, in effect, the man responsible for approving Lasik vision enhancement lasers in 1997. Since that time, he has become rabidly anti-Lasik, publicly admitting that the FDA "screwed up" when it approved it.
Now he's taken his activism a step further. Last month, he filed a petition calling for the FDA to withdraw approval "for all Lasik devices and issue a Public Health Advisory with a voluntary recall of Lasik devices in an effort to stop the epidemic of permanent eye injury caused by lasers and microkeratomes used for Lasik eye surgery."
In his petition, Waxler maintains that the initial approval was based on data that was "dominated by Lasik surgeons working hand-in-glove with Lasik manufacturers. Data recently brought to light exposes this partnership for what it was: a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse, wherein the primary arbiters of safety and effectiveness of Lasik devices were the device manufacturers and its collaborators." Consequently, he says, the FDA was deprived of knowledge of the full extent of Lasik injuries prior to and during FDA reviews of documents submitted in support of the safety and effectiveness of Lasik devices.
He adds that -- contrary to the FDA's own device-approval standard, which limits adverse events to 1 percent -- published scientific data shows that Lasik devices induce an average adverse event rate of about 22 percent "that persists beyond six months to five or more years."
Lastly, he says, the published data shows that Lasik devices transform healthy corneas into sick corneas that never completely heal; are permanently weakened, vulnerable to trauma and inflammation; cause neuropathic dry eyes; have pathology that progresses annually; are vulnerable to blinding corneal bulging (keratectasia); compromise night vision; have unstable vision corrections that regress; and require eye care that otherwise wouldn't be needed.
This is potent stuff. And it doesn't seem to be the rantings of a bored retiree. "The idea that I had such a hand in getting a product on the market that was messing people's eyes up is disgusting," he says. "My wife said, 'Why are you getting back into that mess? Leave it to other people.' But I couldn't leave it alone. The more I discovered about it, the worse it got. Rereading the applications to the FDA that I once read and reviewed and reviewing the published literature since then -- it's not a pretty picture."
It's not a pretty picture, but it seems to be pervasive among the FDA. According to a recent report in the Archives of Internal Medicine, of the 113 devices that the FDA recalled between 2005 and 2009 for posing serious health risks or even death, more than 70 percent had been approved because they were considered similar to other products on the market. "Our findings reveal critical flaws in the current FDA device review system and its implementation that will require either congressional action or major changes in regulatory policy," the authors wrote.
While Waxler stops a centimeter short of using the C word (that would be, "conspiracy"), he does wonder why doctors failed to report adverse, or negative, reactions after five or six months. "They didn't report the data," he says. "They said patients wouldn't come back because as far as they could tell patients were doing very well. It's like asking Iran how many nuclear sites they have and them saying, 'We don't have any.' And saying, 'OK, that's fine. We trust you.'"
The refractive surgery community, not surprisingly, is less than pleased with Waxler. The American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery stated that while they laud his commitment to Lasik safety (which they share), they "disagree with his science and conclusions."
"The vast preponderance of clinical evidence shows that Lasik is safe and effective -- a conclusion that the FDA has repeatedly re-affirmed in its multiple reviews of up-to-date information," they wrote. "By failing to follow standard scientific protocol, Dr. Waxler does a disservice to all LASIK patients -- including those few who have had serious problems and who deserve to have them clearly understood."
After talking with Waxler, I called, and e-mailed, and called, and e-mailed again, the FDA to no response. Finally, Karen Riley, an FDA spokesperson, shot me an e-mail: "FDA continues to monitor the safety and effectiveness of all devices, including the lasers approved for Lasik," she wrote. "In October of last year we provided a brief update on our role in a three-part study of Lasik that is still in the beginning phases. It is a project that we hope will yield additional insights about this procedure."
It was a nice pat response, but had nothing to do with Waxler's petition. That response came from David S. Buckles, Ph.D., the ombudsman for the CDRH, and was forwarded to me by a Lasik activist:
"I personally appreciate the effort by Dr. Waxler and colleagues to use this approach to raise these issues with the Commissioner's Office because this is an appropriate venue within which to propose changes to the means by which Lasik devices are regulated," Buckles wrote. "While we in CDRH do not have close contact with proceedings in the Commissioner's Office on this particular matter, my understanding is that the petition is under review at the Commissioner's level to determine whether to accept the petition for consideration.
If the petition is accepted for consideration, and subsequently members of CDRH are tasked to participate in the review, then we will have some visibility into the process. However, until that happens, the status of the petition is not within our cognizance."
In other words: Let's wait and see. And wait some more.
Realistically, of course, it's unlikely that Lasik will be banned. Plenty of people have had tremendously wonderful experiences. Even Todd Krouner, the lawyer, says that he "knows and respects too many honest, intelligent, competent Lasik surgeons, who 'eat their own cooking' and have had Lasik themselves," he says. "Still, I believe that the public deserves an honest study, free from the bias and influence of the Lasik industry.
There are bright doctors and trustworthy public health officials who have no financial interest in Lasik, who are certainly qualified to perform a credible study. Without that, I doubt that the public will be able to assess the true risks, benefits and alternatives to Lasik surgery. If doctors cannot agree among themselves about the true incidence of ectasia, or much more common dry eye syndrome, how is a patient ever supposed to make a truly informed decision?"
How indeed? It's a good question, and one I'd like to explore further. But not right now. My eyes hurt.
Abby Ellin is the author of "Teenage Waistland: A Former Fat Kid Weighs in on Living Large, Losing Weight and How Parents Can (and Can't) Help." Her website is AbbyEllin.com. She lives, works, and tries to see in New York City.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)