Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu

Why I will not sign

We are 1 year into our 3rd attempt at an enbloc sale, and it is not good. I have decided to come down firmly on the anti-enbloc side as I have little confidence in the SC (excl.V-Chairman) and absolutely none in the Marketing Agent. If I am selling my house, I am entitled to see the Valuation (or in this case the RLV) to make sure I am not being cheated. I have been refused by the MA and so I have no faith in their competence and every reason to doubt their integrity. An Enbloc is about selling land not units, we should be getting $1.7m/unit (incl. of common property). The present unsupported RP is an undersell designed for a quick sale.




GOSSIP ON THE AIRWAVES


I heard it from a little bird that the meeting held on 18 Sep 2016 did not go as smoothly as hoped.

Apparently, the MA implied that the lifts in the estate were not safe. That the recent $1million upgrade didn't change the main cables ... or something

Management Committee members who happened to be present took umbrage at this outrageous claim and words such as 'SUE YOU' were liberally bandied about. 

The ancient lifts and the imminent danger they posed were a potent signing tool in Rd1 and Rd2. Alas, in Rd3 they had been renewed/refurbished and were good to go for another 20 yrs. The chairman of the SC (being an engineer) was instrumental in getting them replaced and sat on the Management Committee for just that cause. He oversaw the works carried out and can attest to any matter concerning the lifts.

Is he now going to sit back and let the MA rubbish his project? Is he going to turn around and tell SPs that he allowed $1,000,000 of the estate's sinking fund to be wasted on lifts that STILL pose a danger?

Surely not. If the MA did indeed imply that the lifts were unsafe, I hope the SC chairman will come out strongly in their defence and shoot down any such malicious rumour to the contrary.

The signing has flatlined and so we shall no doubt be inundated with all kinds of crazy scare tactics to get people to sign. 

Let's remind ourselves of the ridiculous 'Tilting staircase' claim from Rd 2.

Statutory Notices

LTSA, First Schedule 1(b) affix to a conspicuous part of each building comprised in the strata title plan or the development to which section 84D or 84E applies, as the case may be, a notice in the 4 official languages specifying —..   (ii).......within 4 weeks after the start of the permitted time and thereafter at intervals of not more than 4 weeks from the date of the last notice under this sub-paragraph;





As of 22 Sep 2016 45.71% of the total share values and making up 45.73% of the total area of all lots have signed the CSA

That is 256 units out of 560

A TOTAL OF 7 UNITS HAVE SIGNED THIS MONTH
THE ENBLOC RD III HAS FLATLINED.


MA Monologue & Broken Promises Sep 18 2016

I was not at the Monologue/signing session on 18 Sep 2016 as I had an urgent engagement with divine providence. Be that as it may, there could not have been much 'dialogue' or discussion as the SPs were handicapped by not having access to the relevant material beforehand. When figures are being thrown out or statements made, who can counter-argue effectively on the spot (save one Senior Counsel I can attest to)? One eye-witness account said the meeting was poorly attended with the usual already-signed brigade warming the seats. Others stood around but said nothing. I hope the MA/SC does NOT see this as a sign of approval of their low RP! The opposite is the case; no show means no interest.

SPs are not children who need to be 'talked to', we can read and we need to have the material at hand to digest to make a sensible contribution. They should up their game and realise there are different kinds of people out there. Some require the human touch, others can't abide snake-oil tactics and prefer the digital route.


From their FB page it clearly states that some owners were treated to their own personal slide show via email. The MA/SC cannot treat owners preferentially- there's a Supreme Court ruling on Duty of Evenhandedness don't forget - so I requested for the same slides to be forwarded to my email for my own perusal at my convenience. I explained I was unable to attend the meeting due to hospitalisation and if that isn't a good enough excuse then I don't know what is. I have a Medical Cert for 5 weeks, would they like to see that?

Naturally, they refused and also DENIED sending any slides to selected SPS. So who is telling porkies here? Has someone created another mess, another blooper in this sad enbloc attempt? Who is going to apologise next, I wonder?

Well, further to my open enquiry on FB they have decided to go back on their promises to selected SPs and not send those emails with slides attached after all 'to prevent any misinterpretation of the information'.

I say to prevent any other interpretation and fact-checking of the information.

The material is obviously not robust enough to stand up to too close a scrutiny, methinks, otherwise, why be so cagey?

Explosive Letter from SC V.Chairman Mr. VASAN



(I HAVE EDITED OUT THE FULL NAMES EXCEPT FOR VASAN)

Some members of SC wanted me badly out of the SC in the 14th SC meeting on the grounds that I broke the code of “ their “conduct by addressing some concerns on the issue of current RP to SPs on their “sacrosanct” RP. They did not hesitate to break the law, or claim authority more than what the law of the land confers on SC, to expel me, instead of addressing some concerns of some SPs ,be it few or many . I was troubled when they said in the last SC meeting that sharing some thoughts on RP to the Sps is almost an unpardonable crime, when “SC” has fixed it. I have all along assumed SPs are the ultimate authority in collective sale .Prior to that, some bedlam was created in SC ,while the issue was keenly discussed with a receptive MA . I was sent taunting emails ( which I do not wish to publicise for sake of maintaining the dignity of TC SPs) ,perhaps expecting me to resign on my own. When I stood my ground , they did not mind disgracing themselves with an unlawful act which they were bound to withdraw. I am not surprised that they that they have chosen not to put up the minutes of the 14TH SC meeting on the notice boards to notify the nullification of their illegal decision, even after two weeks ,though Strata Title Act requires that the Minutes must be put up within seven days, as it would expose their folly to SPs at large. But I bear no personal grudge as I have to bear my cross . 
As I have received several calls for many SPs on above issue , I owe it to SPs to explain the background and circumstances to clarify the matter from the proceedings/correspondence of SC itself. 

The issue is not about my presence or continuance as SC member –that decision is only the prerogative of SPs ,but getting RP right to the extent SC can . I had some concerns in this regard, and had voiced it in SC meetings since last year. Be that it may, was I only the person in SC who sought a relook at the RP ? Not at all !! Let me give a brief recount of the SC discussions on RP since circulation of CSA : 

Note : The extracts in red are reproduced from the emails of respective members/MA: 

On 20.05.2016 , Mr. G L, Secretary of SC wrote to Huttons seeking evaluation of The RP with reference to the sale of Shun Fu .I wrote to Mr.G on 29.05.2016 when the approval of CSA draft was under consideration by SC: 

Quote 

“Dear Mr. G 

Thanks for your efforts . I am really sorry I could not be in touch with you on revised CSA etc as I had to travel again since last Friday after my return from Dubai on 25th. I am now in Penang and returning on 31st night. 
As regards your comments on RP vis a vis Shun fu , I refer to my comments in the last SC meeting on RP arrived at by Sc and the absence of critical examination of a detailed residual land value analysis by the Sc so far. In any case ,it will be advisable to have any proposed presentation of analysis at the EOGM by SC members .before it is formally put up at EOGM .” 
unquote 

In response to this email , Huttons replied as under : 

Dear G, 

Thanks for your prompt action in revising the agenda for the impending EOGM. 

The proposed Reserve Price (RP) was indeed one of the key criteria for the selection of Marketing Agent during the last EOGM held at SAFRA Tampines. However, the RP may be reviewed on the basis of prevailing property market condition during the course of the collective sale process. 
With regards to Mr Srinivasan’s email sent yesterday on the reduction of RP, I had replied in my previous email sent to all parties concerned on 17th March 2016. I remembered Francis had mentioned during our first presentation to the CSC that the RP was not the key consideration for the selection of Marketing Agent. He said that the proposed RP has to be realistic and achievable. Thus, we had adjusted the RP in accordance with the probable market changes as we foreseen the property market would be running into headwinds amidst the global economic uncertainties. 
Thanks & Best Regards, 
Terence Lian 

Mr.G wrote again to Huttons on 10.06.2016 drawing their attention to the comments on the derivation of RP by some SPs in TC enbloc website and requested them to address the concerns . 
On 17.06.2016 ,I requested Huttons to clarify their working on RP assuming some parameters in the absence of detailed derivation analysis to SC 

( The Residual land analysis was never given to SC in writing and SC did not have occasion to analyse it critically except listening to the figures given out in EGMs). 

Huttons replied to both Mr.G and me stating that our inquires will be addressed at the EGM on 25.06.2016. 

Finally.SC decided to have a meeting with Huttons on 20.06.2016 to discuss on the RP After considerable discussions , Huttons informed SC that they need two days’ time to decide on the request for restoration of the RP to their FIRST ESTIMATE on 14.11.2015 as proposed by me. (Higher by about SGD XXMN) 

Huttons the wrote to SC on 21.06.2016 stating that they have decided to keep it at same level for several reasons ,all of which have been circulated in their communications to Sps in the last two months 

With reference to the discussion on 20.06.2016, and above response , there was an exchange of views amongst the five SC members ,who attended the meeting ,and their opinion /comments were as under : (Two members Mr.CYS and Mr.TKS could not attend the meeting ) –extracts from emails are in red : 

1. Mr.TWW (Email dated 21.06.2016) 

Quote 
“The point was raised at our meeting that a too low reserve price may cause buyers to try low also, or try not as high as they otherwise would, thinking that the low, 'reasonable' pricing signals eager, "fire" selling (due to, say, panic over ageing estate, etc.). Huttons' point 4 seems to say that the real value of Tampines Court "exceeds" the reserve price they recommend. Should they then not agree with us to improve the reserve price? Buyers, as they said at our meeting, will do their homework, and will thus see the "real value" Huttons' point 4 assert. Why then should genuine buyers be discouraged from bidding if we raise the reserve price to accord with the "perceived" true value? In uncertain market conditions such as at present, and with the large land area of Tampines Court which discourages single buyers, interested buyers may "corner the market" by forming a consortium, hoping to be the only bidders for a cheaply priced enbloc. “ 
Unquote 

2. Mr.TF: ( Email dated 21.06.2016) 

Quote 

“Dear All 
My contribution on point 2 relate to the construction cost that cannot be one part of the issue derived in the increase of construction costs of its location and site constraint as mentioned by Mr Terence has no basis. 

Further from Dr Tan & Mr Vasan notes that gave me the insight a better overall episodes that concluded the MR Terence respond not convincing. 

I am in the opinion that the RP should be reinstated to SGD YYYYYYYY MN ,and may I have individual consensus as we need to reply not later than 22/06/2016. 

Thanks and Warmest Regards 
TF“ 

Unquote 
3. Mr.GW(Email dated 22.06.2016) 

Quote 
I have no objection, as I stated during the meeting, to the RP being XXXMn or YYYMn. and will follow the SCs majority consensus. 

The first objective of any RP has to be that we need to get the 80% signatures. Without this everything falls flat. However if we do get 80% with the ………figure and get no bids or serious offers then again everything falls. 
We have to weigh these two factors. If we can get 80% AND serious bids at this level during the tender then its a dream come through. 
I repeat, I have no objection to either RP figures considering the above. 

Unquote 

5.Mr.GL( In his email dated 22.06.2016) – 

Quote 
Dear all, 
My opinion are as follows: 

1) How will the calculation worked out if we were to adopt XXX as the reserve price, maybe Mr Vasan can help work it out and hope that we can have a better resolution on whether is the price realistic for any buyer. No point having 80% and there is no buyer. I would also like to bring out the point that after some favourable news regarding Enbloc sale, there are news reports that there are indeed other enbloc sites that will be available in the market. 

2) By changing the reserve price now, it will show that the SC did not really deliberate on the previous RP with the MA. It's a short time frame from the last EOGM till today. 

3) Although I have no objections to raising the RP, the new value should be work out together with the MA, with realistic working. Example by raising the selling price of the new development to say $1150psf. 

4) However, my preference will be to go with the RP of XXXX MN, see the response of SPs, raising the RP to a realistic, achievable amount if required. If we are able to get 80% for $XXXXMN, then hope that we will get a bidding war and get a higher price (safeguarded by the valuation), if the market really picks up and TC hold its true value based on its tangible and intangible benefits. It is easier for the SC to raise the RP rather than to lower the RP after a lower bid comes in. 

For your consideration. 
Regards, 
G
Unquote 

I have reproduced the above correspondence which to show that three out of five SC members (including the Chairman) unequivocally opined that RP ought to be increased after the meeting on 20.06.2016 and other two agreed in principle but differed in their perception of the issue. In any event, after some more exchange of views when Mr.G and Mr.Ge opined that it would be advisable NOT to increase RP at this stage , Mr.TF, Chairman ,chose to write as under, on behalf of SC, to MA that SC agrees to leave the RP unchanged. As such , I wrote to him as under on same date

Quote 

“Dear Mr.TF
Thank you for your email of date. 
You may advise Huttons that the Sale committee ,barring one member , has no objection to their presentation of derivation of the RP. It may NOT please be conveyed as a unanimous decision . My dissent may please be recorded in SC minutes . 
thanks and regards 
vasan " 
unquote 

I leave it to Sps to judge from foregoing correspondence whether I was the lone voice to see review of RP. 

While no one doubts the professionalism and integrity of any MA, it is a fact that price in enbloc sales always present a difficult proposition with a known RP unlike Government land sales Sps following the enbloc process , may note that during Round II in 2011-12 , one of the MAs out of five , who rank perhaps as number one in enbloc sales with many big projects , presented first with an RP of SGD 700mn , which was raised by themselves to SGD 800MN within a span of two months when SC found their derivation to be too conservative. Huttons has admitted that the future commercial value of TC after redevelopment will exceed current RP ,but they say as a marketing strategy , RP has been kept lower to attract competitive bids. In another context , they say RP has been fixed taking into account the global economic uncertainties ,and the views of SC Chairman then –when in fact enbloc sale price is not about present market, but about potential market few years down the road . I do not know what sustains but the strategy of lower RP ,but may prove to be self- defeating in a collective sale. 
In a way, I am glad that Huttons has called for a meeting with Sps to clarify on the issue of RP .I hope they will address the genuine concerns on RP, rather than use it as an occasion to convince Sps to sign at current RP . 
It is now the call of the SPs - 

Have we been scammed?

You may recall that the Enbloc Rd 2 attempt was engineered by a new group of property agent flippers who had recently entered out estate after the failed Round 1. The property agent ringleader, who didn't join the SC but played her part off-stage, has since sold up and moved on. Of the four property agents who were voted onto the SC one gave me particular cause for concern. She point blankly refused to make a disclosure of her interests and relationships in the estate. It was only when the lawyer came on the scene did she quickly and quietly 'resign'. 

Well, she got herself on the Sale Committee in Rd 3 again.

I made a search of possible property agents after the list of SC members became known and came up with two. Huttons and Propnex Realty had a member each (if the latter is the same person, same name at least). The Huttons agent became the Secretary of the SC and was present when Huttons made their first presentation on 14 Nov 2015 (see SC Minutes of 3rd Meeting). She wrote the Minutes as was her duty. She was absent when Huttons made their 2nd presentation (see SC Minutes 5th Meeting) and had resigned by the time the SC selected Huttons as No3 MA for the EOGM.

No where can I find a disclosure of the fact that she worked for Huttons. She resigned from the SC on 1 Jan 2016.

How is all this relevant? Well, that is for you to decide. Was any inside information passed along? Was there conflict of interest? Have we been scammed again? 

I have checked with the CEA PUBLIC REGISTER which lists all the registered property agents in Singapore and the companies they work for. Our ex-SC member is still working for Huttons and I stress that this alone is not a crime, but man, you have to wonder.

THE TOP POST WAS WRITTEN ON THE 10TH SEP BUT PUT IN DRAFT AND FORGOTTEN ABOUT BY ME. TODAY ANONYMOUS POSTED A COMMENT ON 'DRAMA ON THE SALE COMMITTEE' WHICH IS APT FOR THIS TOPIC. SO I HAVE POSTED THE LOT TOGETHER.

@ itshometome...
Whether she was a mole or not doesn't really matter, what DOES matter is that she and possibly some members of the SC and most definitely the MA have broken a number of laws according to The 2010 Amendments to Land Titles (Strata) Act.

Firstly, she was advised by Mr Vasan at the first meeting of the sales committee (3rd October 2015) that she should record any conflict of interest as she is in the real estate business when inviting marketing agents and such declarations from her/the agency will be on the SC records.

The law pertaining to a conflict of interest is clear on this and a shortened version says:
"A would-be member must declare any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest at the general meeting before he is elected, and if he fails to do so, his election is void. A member of a collective sale committee must also declare to the chairperson of the collective sale committee, any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest within 7 days after he becomes aware of it. For any serving member of collective sale committees when the amendments come into force, he has 30 days after the operative date of the amendments to make the declaration. The collective sale committee has then to affix notice of that declaration on a conspicuous part of each building comprised in the strata title plan or development, within 7 days of the making of that declaration."

None of this was done, no declaration, no notice from the sales committee to SP's.

She was present at the 3rd sales committee meeting (14th November 2015) when Huttons gave their presentation. There is no mention of a conflict of interest in the minutes and the minutes are signed by her.

She was also present at the 4th sales committee meeting (21st November 2015) where it was decided that Huttons and Mount Everest would be invited for further discussion, again minutes are signed by her and again there is no declaration of a conflict of interest.

At the 5th sales committee meeting (28th November 2015) Huttons gave their presentation, she is conspicuous by her absence at this meeting.

She was present at the 6th sales committee meeting (12th December 2015) but it seems she is only now trying to distance herself as the minutes are not signed by her but by the assistant secretary.

At the 7th sales committee meeting (9th January 2016) it is announced that she had indicated to the SC that on 1st January 2016 she would resign.

If this becomes a legal issue she has some very tough questions to answer, not as tough as the questions Huttons will have to answer though.

Secondly, Huttons...
In 2015 they were appointed as agent for the Jalan Besar collective sale as they like to let everybody know.
1. They are well aware of the laws regarding conflict of interest.
2. The acted with full knowledge that the lady in question was employed by them when they made their presentation.

These are very tough questions for them and I see no way out that preserves any modicum of honesty that they may have tried to portray.

To SP's, these are the people we are dealing with, dishonest, disregard for the law, not forthcoming with information (Ask yourself why THAT is) a lack of trustworthiness etc etc.

These people do NOT have your best interests at heart, they are in it to make money for themselves, they don't care who they hurt along the way and apparently don't mind breaking a law or two to do it.

A link posted here shows a table with various reserve prices and how much SP's get and how much Huttons get, makes for interesting reading:

(Deleted by itshometome: Sorry, but I am still not comfortable publishing the exact RP on this blog. The table is very interesting, very similar to one I made long ago to show why the MA will NOT work too hard for a higher sales price  - because the difference in his commission is not worth the risk.Why reach for the 2 birds in the bush when the bird in hand is just dandy.)

Will you walk into my parlour...

 ...said the spider to the fly. Looks like they are fishing for SPs.

It doesn't seem to be a proper meeting at all but an all day event aimed at collecting a few more signatures. There is a 'flip-side' to the flyer ( flew in my door with the breeze...) which is just a rehash of the same old retarded questions found on the FAQ. Also, you have to bring along your IC ... just in case they manage to persuade you to sign there and then.  The fly, trapped in a web of lies.

The flip side:
"Thus we have decided to conduct another pointless round of presentations cum dialogue sessions to persuade you that the low RP ids actually the right RP for you. Let your voice be heard but we are sticking to our guns and will ignore all calls for transparency with regard to the RLV. We will do our very best to make this collective sale successful and fruitful for Huttons"

No doubt, once people wander into their 'meeting' they will turn on the hard sell. They have NO INTENTION of raising the RP, and asking you about your preferred RP is just a carrot on a stick. Some might even even feel it is a 'name-your-price' affair.... but that is not legal. 
  • Owners cannot sign for different RPs as it's against the law. They cannot sign the CSA with 'conditions' attached. 
  • The MA cannot top up the RP from their own pocket to selective owners because that is also against the law.
I have rooted out a very similar  flyer inviting owners to a 'signing session/meeting' from Rd 1. Same ol. same ol' palaver.

This signing session (thinly disguised as a meeting) is doomed to failure because owners, yet again, do not get to see the RLV in advance. there will be no serious discussion or debate. No doubt, figures will be flashed up on a wall but so what, they could flash Schrodinger's wave equation and owners wouldn't know the difference. Owners will instead be met with 6-8 pushy marketing agents and a fresh faced rookie lawyer who sits and says nothing. Expect nothing new. The RP is locked-in, the SC are sleeping with the enemy and owners need to beware.
So,  the pulling of wool over owners' eyes continues..


Drama on the Sale Committee


It had to come to this, the only thinking member on the Sale Committee - the Vice Chairman - has been ordered to leave the sale committee by the Chairman et al. The VC will not toe the line with regard to the Reserve Price and has a lot to say about the slapdash way in which business is being done.


What order of events has led to this shabby state of affairs?

Apparently (and I am only surmising) it started before the last (3rd) EOGM. The VC claims that the RP was never discussed in any great detail and his efforts to persuade the SC to raise the RP repeatedly fell on deaf ears. He asked that his dissent to the current RP be noted in the meeting's minutes. He also gave a 'notice of motion to amend the motion to approve the current RP' but that motion never saw the light of day at the EOGM.

Who is subverting the rules here? 

The Managing Agent  - whose business it was to hold EOGMs for the Collective Sale and to ensure proper order and compliance of BMSM  rules? 
The Enbloc lawyer - who doesn't seem to have much to say about anything and should be enforcing proper LTSA rules at the very least?
The clueless SC - who are blinkered by their own ignorance?
The MA - who changes his tune every week and has no time for interfering SC members or problematic SPs in general?

The EOGM 3 came and went and the current RP was accepted. This does NOT mean that the SC has to forge ahead regardless, complacent in thinking that this RP is indeed what SPs really want. To date 44.46% have agreed and the remaining 55% have more sense than to sign (I hope).

Not happy that the SPs were being led down the garden path with a dangerously low RP, the VC took it upon himself to alert owners to the danger ahead. It takes a great deal of effort to write, print and personally deliver 560 letters into 560 units spread out over 13 blocks. This shows dedication and conviction.

The Sale Committee did not like their precious RP to be challenged by someone who obviously knew more about RLV than they did. He made them look foolish and they retaliated. We now know them to be bumbling fools and kicking him off the SC only makes matters worse. There is now no one on that committee capable of understanding much less leading our estate down the collective sale path.

We do not want yet another weak sale committee who is more comfortable following advice than leading. Who cannot or are unwilling to challenge flawed MA advice and opt only for the safe option of not-rocking-the-boat. Can you imagine sending that ineffectual lot into a multi-million dollar meeting with a pack of jackals? They'll be eaten alive. I do not want to put my home in their hands.

Now to the matter of whether the sale committee have the authority to boot a fellow member off the committee... and the answer is NO.

WILL THE ENBLOC LAWYER PLEASE STAND UP HERE AND TELL THE SC FOOLS TO READ THE RULES.

According to the Third Schedule

Vacation of office of member of collective sale committee 
5. A person who is a member of a collective sale committee shall vacate his office as such a member — 
(a) if the person was a subsidiary proprietor at the time of his election and he ceases to be a subsidiary proprietor;  Has he ceased to be a SP? No
(b) if the person was the nominee of a subsidiary proprietor and the subsidiary proprietor who nominated him — 
(i) ceases to be a subsidiary proprietor; or No
(ii) notifies the collective sale committee in writing that the person’s office as a member of the collective sale committee is vacated; No
(c) upon the receipt by the collective sale committee from the person of a notice in writing of the person’s resignation; Has he resigned? No
(d) where he is a member under paragraph 1
(2) and the number of subsidiary proprietors increases to more than 3, upon the election of the members of the collective sale committee at a general meeting convened after that increase; 
(e) if the person is removed from office at a general meeting; Was an EOGM held to remove him? No
(ea) if the person is removed from office by the collective sale committee in accordance with paragraph 8 on the ground that an application to a Board has been made under section 84A during his tenure as a member and the person is a subsidiary proprietor who has not executed the collective sale agreement to which the application relates; Application to the STB has not been made and his status as a signatory is unknown and immaterial
(f) if the person dies; Is he dead? No
(g) if the person becomes a mentally disordered person within the meaning of the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act (Cap. 178);  Is he crazy? Decidedly No
(h) if the person is convicted, on or after 4th October 2007, by a court in Singapore or elsewhere of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Is he a criminal? No

So, he was elected on to the committee by SPs at an EOGM, he has not resigned ergo he is STILL on the committee and they cannot bar him from participating or speaking at meetings. Indeed, he has a duty to speak out on matters which are of utmost concern to all SPs. It is the Sale Committee who are being derelict in their duty.

This VC once asked me to join him on the sale committee and I said no for many reasons. He said if I joined and subsequently resigned then that would at least raise a red flag on the proceedings. People would take heed.

I think the Vice Chairman has raised that red flag himself and it's him we should heed

Anonymous

As a way to reach 80% some SP's are calling for an increase in RP and/or SC, MA step aside. Damage was done when with the public revelation of the lowball RP. They compromised their negotiations with no wriggle room.

Would you pay more today, when you know it was selling for less yesterday? With weak housing sentiment, and overtly inept SC/MA, Developers will argue for even less.

Dismissing the MA may provoke internal conflict in the SC and have legal consequences. Anyway finding a replacement Property Agency to step in and clean up a mess not of it's doing, with no guarantee of a payout, is slim to none.

If this MA is compliant and agrees to a higher RP, many will question his Principles. Can he be trusted to provide sterling service to a proposition he disagrees?

Developers are hard-nosed, skilled negotiators even unscrupulous, well prepared with strategies and facts and figures to bolster their arguments, motivated to win and handsomely rewarded for their performance ( not a criticism , a trait I wish our SC/MA is similarly endowed ). They have deep pockets, mega deal talk exposure and inside knowledge ( courtesy of our team ) of our RP to come out on top of any talks.

Just managing expectations to my more optimistic, hopeful neighbours.

Those hoping a higher RP and if one is offered, protect us all with a proviso/caveat that it cannot be reduced- period. After all the MA has defended his low RP with conviction, albeit inconsistently and declared a higher RP unworkable.

I will not sign, whatever the RP. Don't trust and no confidence in SC/MA.
However I'm at the mercy of those who do: That's the Fairness/Unfairness of Enbloc. You choose.

Anonymous

This guy makes my life easy :)

A comment on (E3) RLV to determine RP

Anonymous30 August, 2016
It's a simple matter releasing RLV details. What's the hold up? Are the lawyers questioning the rights of SP's to this information? Is the SC pondering hard on the modalities of disseminating it?

Contrast this with the free and easy manner in which the RP was released to the Public Domain. What is the rational of this very public disclosure? Explain the benefit of this move to future negotiations? This indiscretion has compromised the team. It suggests to me a committee that's eager for a quick and easy sell. Price optimization a secondary issue.

SP's are the ones that pay MA his dues. He's obligated to ensure they get the best price, allay their fears, clear any doubts, answer all questions truthfully and completely. Why then is the MA hindering SP's efforts to scrutinize the RLV? Do SPs have a right to know? What is he afraid of?

Why has the official reasons for reducing the RP fail to address the original stated reason ie Silver Zone, " Alternative construction methods"?

With this payout why are SPs unable to upgrade? Housing options narrowed to equally old RIO CASA and Public Housing. Enbloc should enhance our housing options,should'nt it, MA?

Has this SC/MA lost the plot?

To whom do the SC/MA owe allegiance to? SPs, Developers or Themselves only?

Honestly, I cannot tell. Don't bet your house until you can.

PS. All questions will be asked during dialogue. CYA

POTONG PASIR HUDC going ENBLOC

ST PUBLISHED AUG 24, 2016
Another privatised former HUDC estate could go on the market soon following the landmark sale of Bishan's Shunfu Ville for $638 million in May.
Sources say owners of the 175-unit Raintree Gardens in Potong Pasir Avenue 1 have got the minimum consent level required for the site to be launched for sale.
The 201,405 sq ft plot, next to Kallang River and near Potong Pasir MRT station, has just over 70 years of lease left. It is zoned for residential use with a 2.8 plot ratio.
Property experts believe the owners could get over $315 million, or about $1.8 million per unit.
Including the sum a developer would pay the Government to build a larger project and top up the lease, the price could be some $430 million, or $760 per sq ft per plot ratio (psf ppr). The collective sale attempt is a first for the estate, which was privatised in July 2014. JLL is marketing the sale.
"While there has been one substantial en bloc sale, Shunfu Ville, one sale doesn't really make a market," said Ms Christina Sim, director of investment sales at Cushman & Wakefield. "That said, there are not many good plots in the market right now, and there is still room for more projects in Potong Pasir. It is an up-and-coming area, and most of the new developments there sell well."
For instance, MCC Land's nearby mixed-use The Poiz Residences has sold 74 per cent of 731 units.
Going by recent bullish bids at Government Land Sales (GLS) tenders such as the Martin Place site, there is certainly demand for plum residential sites, though the price must be right, she added.
As the Raintree Gardens site is within walking distance of the MRT station, it has easy access to the city. Another plus point is the nearby Bidadari estate - set to include a 10ha park with Alkaff Lake.
It is also near St Andrew's Village, which includes primary and secondary schools as well as a junior college on one site.
Recent sale sites in the area include that of The Poiz Residences, which went for about $775 psf ppr in August 2014. A site in Lorong Lew Lian, now The Venue Residences by City Developments, went for about $710 psf ppr last November.
Industry experts get lots of requests to assess potential collective sale sites but it is a tough balance to price sites correctly, said Mr Lee Liat Yeang, a senior partner at Dentons Rodyk & Davidson.
"It will not be easy to sell an en bloc site if it is priced too adventurously for a developer. But if owners don't price more aggressively, they may not be able to get the 80 per cent minimum consent level for the sale."
Developers seeking en bloc sale sites must also factor in the longer pre-construction period, he said. After buying, a developer must apply to the Strata Titles Board, seek guidance from the High Court if needed and allow residents to stay rent-free for six months before it can begin redevelopment.
All these eat into a developer's schedule and must be factored in when he prices the land," Mr Lee said.
Developers buying a GLS site can get a project ready to sell about a year from winning a tender.
A Raintree Gardens resident who gave his name as Kah Hoe, 25, said that while the area was nice and units spacious, the price is good enough for his family to sell.'
ST PUBLISHED 1 SEP 2016




RP versus Replacement Cost

Things to remember:
  1. The RLV is a future based calculation - it will take into account the Lease Top Up and all the other costs. No purchaser/developer will buy land without doing a RLV first so it is vital that owners see the SAME figures shown to the purchaser and not some watered-down version with bits left out. 
  2. The RLV will condense the figures down to a $ psfppr figure (inclusive of Lease Top Up)
  3. The RP should be derived directly from the RLV 
  4. Present sale price/TC unit is irrelevant
  5. Present sale price /other units around Singapore is also irrelevant.
  6. Present New Sale prices of nearby units are based on RLVs done in the past.
  7. Present New Sale prices of nearby units are therefore also irrelevant up to a point.
  8. Your sales proceeds will not be in your bank accounts until 2019 by which time prices would have moved substantially. The property market never stands still.
  9. The average unit size in Tampines Court is a whopping 157 sqm
I will look at the following:

  • Present New Sale prices of nearby units.

  • Why new units? Because the RLV figures are extrapolated; our RP is ultimately based on the future $ psfppr and so we should be able to purchase a new unit with the sales proceeds. If not, then the RLV shown to owners has been manipulated to lower the RP. 

    When I checked for New Unit Sales in Tampines Jan-Aug 2016, only units in The Santorini showed. so I will work with that.

    Background info (tables are my own, figures comes from URA

    So, the Santorini was bought through GLS in July 2013. 
    The RLV would have been done in 2013. 
    Sales started in Apr 2014  (It is still under construction so all sales have been off the plans)
    Total No. of units: 597
    Launched to date: 597
    Sold to date: 221 (ref: Realis)

    I have chosen the sales from Jan-Aug 2016 :-
    What does this table tell us? It tells us  
    1. As a rule of thumb, the developer will sell new units for not less that double the $psfppr  he paid for the land. In this case, MCL Land paid $562 psfppr (see table above) in 2013 and lo and behold,  the new units are all being sold at around $1124 psf (give or take) in 2016.
    2. That new units are all basically shoeboxes half to one third the size of Tampines Court; the average size of a unit in Tampines Court being 157 sqm. 
    3. The sole unit closest to our size is 149 sqm and it was sold for $1,753,000
    Tampines Court is in a far superior location than The Santorini and this should be reflected in a higher $ psfppr. At the present RP, we are effectively being offered $765 psf for our units (incl of common property) when the going replacement cost is $1000-$1200. This is unacceptable.

    to be cont.

    (E3) RLV TO DETERMINE RP

    Subsidiary Proprietors are not allowed to see the marketing agent's RLV up close. We are only allowed to catch a brief glimpse if and when they flash the figures on a bright void deck wall where they are almost certainly invisible to the eye. SPs would also need to have photographic memories to digest the information in that glimpse. For all intent and purposes, the RLV is being kept hidden  away from SP scrutiny. One SC member has scrutinized it and found it wanting. The Vice Chairman of the Sale Committee has raised the red flag on the RP.  Owners should take note of his concerns as he is all that stands between US and a REPEAT of Rd 1. 

    After getting a refusal from the MA, I then sent a request for a copy of the RLV to the Sale Committee through their own feedback channel. I assume they have a copy. It was a reasonable request and they should not have turned me down. Their polite answer; a referral back to uncooperative MA, a ritualistic bleating of LTSA requirements and a promised glimpse of the RLV in the offing. 
    I respectfully paraphrase what the Court of Appeal (HT) had to say about Sale Committee and their obligations:

    167 An SC cannot rely on a mechanistic or literal compliance with its statutory and contractual obligations to escape indictment for breach of its obligations as fiduciary of the subsidiary proprietors. The first principle is that an SC has to work for the benefit of all the subsidiary proprietors. This will no doubt involve going beyond just paying lip service to the relevant procedural rules under the LTSA and its mandate under the collective sale agreement. Indeed, in evaluating the conduct of an SC, the contextual conditions in which the power of sale is exercised is everything.

    It is not too late for the SC to 'work for the benefit of all subsidiary proprietors' but time and patience is running out. They have to show they are on the SP's side and not working in the shadow of a MA who has $7 million+ riding on the sale and 7 million+ reasons to keeps things simple and under wraps. SPs  are just  a nuisance that get in the way of a sale. 
    .
    .
    .
    Anonymous23 August, 2016
    Advance notification of RLV calculation is needed to consult and fact check.
    An MA confident of his Valuation calculation will welcome this. It presents him with an opportunity to vigorously defend his numbers with conviction and show his full control of the facts and figures.

    The Chairman must take full control, lead and not just delegate because he sets the tone and direction. He is ultimately responsible for all decisions, even those he allows others to make on his behalf.

    The all impt RP hinges on the RLV. At least 10 days is needed to digest it before meeting the MA so that a meaningful, productive exchange of ideas can take place.

    Not releasing the RLV calculations in advance reflects on the character and integrity ( or lack of ) of those in charge.

    Take charge, do the right thing, and let us have it now.


    UPDATE (from FB)
    Looks like a little 'digital ' pressure has had the necessary effect. Let's see how detailed their figures really are - they need to be spreadsheet quality.

    BTW, dialogue sessions are the worst kind of interface for SPs. Way too much hassle to hold. Venue and time are not for everyone, only the gung-ho ever attend, and owners rarely have the presence of mind to ask questions on the spur, because information is all one-sided. No, digital allows for deeper reflection and is available to all 24 hrs a day. 


    (E3) Timeline

    The Shrinking 50% Premium

    The marketing tool employed by the MA is the 'Premium over individual sale' method. The 'premium' is an old trick, a fallacious marketing tool used by property agents to entice owners to sign the CSA.  It is never guaranteed, serving only to get people to sign on the dotted line. Once signed (and the 5 day cooling period is over) they are permanently and irrevocably locked in. The premium is not. It quietly erodes over time to disappear altogether. Owners should never lock themselves into a reserve price based on a 'premium' because markets never stand still. Always remember.. we are selling land for redevelopment, not our individual units. The market value of your unit has no bearing whatsoever on the calculations in the RLV from which the RP should be derived. Don't be conned by this trick. 

    A comment below (Lee 18 Aug) must have gone through the STB TapeTranscripts of RD 1 and found the telling moment when the property agent finally flinched and told the truth under cross examination. The brilliant lawyer (now a Senior Counsel) was grilling him on the 66% premium. Thanks Lee.

    Below is extracted from Enbloc 1 cross examination of property agent (A) by minority lawyer (Q):

    Q. So how does the sale price of an individual unit have an impact or relationship to the sale price of the       entire site en bloc?
    A. The impact will show actually that we work out the whole en bloc, okay, whether the owner suffer any       losses.

    Q. So the impact is it’s a marketing tool to encourage owners to go en bloc;  am I right?
    A. Yes.

    Q But it has nothing to do with the price they get en bloc? It doesn't impact the price they get?
        Am I right?
    A. Yes.


    Lee also goes on the say that since the FAQ was published two weeks ago, there have been new caveats lodged and so a new premium calculation is in order. 

    Lee:
    In their FAQ "Why should I sell at 1.32m", the MA/SC linked the RP to 50% premium of individual unit selling prices in Jun-Jul 2016 period. 
    Today is 18 August, just about two weeks (their cutoff is Jul 2016) after MA's 50% premium calculation, there are new transactions in Jul and Aug 2016 in the range of $844K to $941K, the average for the eight latest transactions ($941K+$900K+$915K+$865K+$844K+902K+$910K+$850K from URA caveats) is $890.88K.
    If MA/SC is to maintain the premium at 50%, the the RP should be adjusted upward to ($890.88 * 1.5) $1.336M.
    The increase is ($1.336M - $1.32M) $16,000 per unit which is not a small sum of money.

     Whilst I do NOT encourage the use of the premium in any way shape or form, it would be interesting to follow it's disappearance... maybe I'll put in a premium countdown counter if I can find one :P

    Since the MA chooses the latest figures, then we must, too. Jun & Jul now turns into Jul & Aug
    lets look at those transactions:
    (915k+900k+941k) = average $918.7k

    Average selling price + 50% premium is (918.7*1.5) = $1.378 / unit

    Wow! our RP should be increased immediately to maintain the 50%!

    If not , then the premium just sank to 43% 

     HA HA HA  

    Hougang and the MA's "Extensive Research"

    Since the MA thinks it's a good idea for us all to move to equally old Hougang, let's look at how prices are in general with the ex-HUDC estates (all now privatised).

    Well, it does seem that most are out of our reach even now, and so our paltry $1.3m (excl costs & expenses of the sale etc) won't allow us to side-grade. Wonderful, beautiful, convenient Hougang (sorry all Hougangers who are reading this) might have a few units up for grabs at $1m or so, but I expect with even 50 ex-Tampines Courters scrabbling for a new home, even Hougang's prices will spike and devour the whole of the sales proceeds.  These estates are also continually undergoing enbloc disturbances. It's bad here, but it's just as bad elsewhere. Here are excerpts from 2 emails sent from someone in one of the Hougang estates:

    In Florence Regency, less than 20% of owners signed the requisition for an en bloc........... yet the MC is allowing them to convene an EOGM after the AGM..............This is seriously very irritating!

    Today:  You will need to spend a lot on renovating your new maisonette if you were to 'sidegrade' here! Not enough from the paltry payout to render it worthwhile! 

    Oh joy, let's move to Hougang.

    Furthermore,  my Hougang source now informs me of the following:

    I read over the FAQ leaflet provided by the MA posted on FB. They've stated that the average selling price of units in Rio Casa is 830k. You can point out that the MA has failed to qualify this statement. I viewed 3 units put up for auction by HDB in RC that had no takers since day one. .........  HDB eventually sold 2 under the hammer for 730k (2 #02 units in 349 next to the bin centre) and another on #14 at 840k. All 3 were in their original condition and without any kitchen cabinets - in the original  condition you won't like. If nobody wanted them in the 1980s for 190-210k, something isn't right. You can google for it. DTZ auctions marketed the 3 units. You would never get a decent move in condition unit in RC, though remote, at that price! The 2 on the low floor were not even liveable - dead cockroaches on the floor - and difficult to rent out and even I didn't want to buy it at 730k. Add in stamp duty and extensive renovation and you're looking at $830k! Even my vet neighbour who viewed with us said they were absolutely s*** and worth $300k!

    The rock bottom auction prices of those units in Rio Casa were featured in the ST alongside a bank sale in Pine Grove at 930k. The third unit which sold at 730k was auctioned separately a few months after the first two were sold*. After checking with the DTZ auctioneer, she said it sold at 730k. ...... this sale is not on the URA database.....
    .
    The point is that the MA is manipulating statistics and has not discovered the unusual circumstances of the sale. Notice they didn't use Florence Regency prices because they're higher. 3 units sold under the hammer will definitely lower the average PSF price but there's no way you will have sellers let go of their strata titled homes at such rock bottom prices. The ST article on the auction didn't highlight the fact that HDB was the seller!

    The above information can indeed be found on the ST website. The MA boasted tin the FAQ Flyer that the Casa Rio prices were 'based on their extensive research'. So, their extensive research failed to highlight to the owners that these units were unliveable, cockroach infested hellholes that even the HDB could not sell from day 1 and so were sold at auction by the HDB through DTZ after decades of decay. The MA highlighted none of this and instead proffered such bottom-of-the-barrel properties as suitable replacement homes to Tampines Court owners.

    So, after we get the sales proceeds there is nothing left but to downgrade, downsize to a privatised cockroach hellhole or HDB.

    It's important to remember that the record price for a Tampines Court unit is $1.25m. The RP at $1.3m is a joke. People laugh when I tell them what the RP is, the general consensus is we are being robbed.

    From Realis:
    Projects: Ex-HUDC estates  Contract Date: Jan 2016-Aug 2016


    Project Name Area (sqm) Type of Area Transacted Price ($) Unit Price ($ psf) Sale Date Tenure Completion Date Planning Area
    BRADDELL VIEW
    135
    Strata
    1,070,000
    736
    27-APR-2016 99 Yrs From 01/04/1978 1978 Toa Payoh
    BRADDELL VIEW
    158
    Strata
    1,350,000
    794
    26-MAY-2016 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 1981 Toa Payoh
    BRADDELL VIEW
    158
    Strata
    1,300,000
    764
    21-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 1981 Toa Payoh
    BRADDELL VIEW
    167
    Strata
    1,380,000
    768
    20-APR-2016 99 Yrs From 29/04/1981 1981 Toa Payoh
    BRADDELL VIEW
    150
    Strata
    1,285,000
    796
    11-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 01/04/1978 1978 Toa Payoh
    CHANCERY COURT
    189
    Strata
    2,000,000
    983
    28-JAN-2016 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 1981 Novena
    CHANCERY COURT
    189
    Strata
    1,825,000
    897
    19-JAN-2016 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 1981 Novena
    EUNOSVILLE
    156
    Strata
    1,200,000
    715
    31-MAY-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
    EUNOSVILLE
    156
    Strata
    1,120,000
    667
    28-APR-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
    EUNOSVILLE
    158
    Strata
    1,100,000
    647
    24-JUN-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
    EUNOSVILLE
    158
    Strata
    1,140,000
    670
    23-MAR-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
    EUNOSVILLE
    156
    Strata
    1,180,000
    703
    15-APR-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
    EUNOSVILLE
    161
    Strata
    1,200,000
    692
    13-MAY-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
    EUNOSVILLE
    156
    Strata
    1,150,000
    685
    03-MAY-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
    FLORENCE REGENCY
    158
    Strata
    888,000
    522
    25-APR-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
    FLORENCE REGENCY
    157
    Strata
    900,000
    533
    24-MAR-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
    FLORENCE REGENCY
    158
    Strata
    900,000
    529
    20-JUN-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
    FLORENCE REGENCY
    157
    Strata
    870,000
    515
    20-JUL-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
    FLORENCE REGENCY
    158
    Strata
    930,000
    547
    16-JUN-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
    FLORENCE REGENCY
    156
    Strata
    868,000
    517
    12-JUL-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
    FLORENCE REGENCY
    157
    Strata
    880,000
    521
    12-JAN-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
    FLORENCE REGENCY
    156
    Strata
    861,888
    513
    08-APR-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
    IVORY HEIGHTS
    155
    Strata
    1,000,000
    599
    25-APR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
    IVORY HEIGHTS
    158
    Strata
    1,220,000
    717
    22-JUL-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
    IVORY HEIGHTS
    158
    Strata
    1,008,888
    593
    18-MAR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
    IVORY HEIGHTS
    181
    Strata
    1,190,000
    611
    15-MAR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
    IVORY HEIGHTS
    158
    Strata
    1,200,000
    706
    15-APR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
    IVORY HEIGHTS
    155
    Strata
    960,000
    575
    07-MAR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
    IVORY HEIGHTS
    158
    Strata
    1,300,000
    764
    07-APR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
    LAGUNA PARK
    135
    Strata
    1,215,000
    836
    24-JUN-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedok
    LAGUNA PARK
    135
    Strata
    1,205,000
    829
    21-JUL-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedok
    LAGUNA PARK
    135
    Strata
    1,160,000
    798
    12-APR-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedok
    LAGUNA PARK
    150
    Strata
    1,450,000
    898
    11-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedok
    LAGUNA PARK
    150
    Strata
    1,188,888
    736
    11-APR-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedeck
    LAGUNA PARK
    150
    Strata
    1,340,000
    830
    08-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedok
    LAKEVIEW ESTATE
    150
    Strata
    1,200,000
    743
    31-MAY-2016 99 Yrs From 01/06/1977 1977 Bishan
    PINE GROVE
    155
    Strata
    1,050,000
    629
    29-JUN-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    155
    Strata
    1,075,000
    644
    27-JUL-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    155
    Strata
    938,000
    562
    25-MAY-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    162
    Strata
    1,145,000
    657
    25-JUL-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    163
    Strata
    1,450,000
    826
    25-JAN-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    155
    Strata
    1,200,000
    719
    18-JUL-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    158
    Strata
    1,360,000
    800
    17-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    163
    Strata
    1,290,000
    735
    17-JUN-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    155
    Strata
    1,120,000
    671
    10-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    155
    Strata
    1,010,000
    605
    08-JUL-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    108
    Strata
    890,000
    766
    04-AUG-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    155
    Strata
    1,050,000
    629
    03-JUN-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    162
    Strata
    1,080,000
    619
    03-AUG-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    163
    Strata
    1,420,000
    809
    03-AUG-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    PINE GROVE
    109
    Strata
    910,000
    776
    02-AUG-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
    RIO CASA
    156
    Strata
    840,000
    500
    30-MAR-2016 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Hougang
    RIO CASA
    153
    Strata
    840,000
    510
    29-FEB-2016 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Hougang
    RIO CASA
    151
    Strata
    845,000
    520
    19-MAY-2016 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Hougang
    RIO CASA
    156
    Strata
    730,000
    435
    13-APR-2016 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Hougang