Disclaimer






"I am a BLOGGER NOT an expert. This is a BLOG not a 'go-to' website for official information. I represent no one's view save my own. I have neither legal nor financial training, nor do I have anything to do with the real estate industry. My understanding of the Collective Sale Process is from a layman's position only. My calculations, computations and tables are homespun and may contain errors. Please note that nothing in this blog constitutes any legal or financial advice to anyone reading it. You should refer to your lawyer, CSC or financial adviser for expert advice before making any decision. This disclaimer is applicable to every post and comment on the blog. Read at your own risk."
Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
There is one thing worse than an Enbloc ----- and that is an Enbloc done badly. Since the majority have the necessary mandate to sell, then they owe it to all SPs to make a success of it. Minority SPs can only watch and wait, if they sell then lets pray it's at a price we can move on with, if they don't sell, then we are happy to stay for a few more years.

Gung-ho resident


I am NOT THE AUTHOR of the above flyer!  I do not need the expense of printing out 560 flyers nor do I have the time to drop them onto 560 doorsteps! That's what my blog is for; free and easy.

The author doesn't sound like an agent - and believes owners should be more gung-ho about selling their units at comparable HUDC prices. He's right, but we are getting there very slowly. I predict $800k will be breached by mid year. $900k by year end if prices continue to rise. 
Our units are worth $800 psf at least ($1.36m).

Why? Because that is what a similar replacement unit would cost in the area.
Don't forget, any developer will take the present strata title area to (ie present gross floor area of 1million sqft ) - and double it to approx. 2 million sqft (potential gross floor area). And after that they will sell for $800 - 1000 psf. 

At the very least, an enbloc price should realise the full potential of your stake in TC. After all, that is what RELEASING THE VALUE is about - releasing it for YOU and NOT  to the developer only. 1700 sqft enbloc price is $1.36 to $1.7 million.The developer is still left with 1 million sqft to sell. 

So, at $419 psf we are still way, way below our true value. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating another en bloc - I would quite happily live here for the rest of my days. The estate's repainting and repair works are nearing their end (mid-April) and the MC will be proposing and presenting other works to increase the value of the estate and for owner's enjoyment at the next AGM.

24 comments:

  1. Install lifts for walk-up units. This will surely increase the value of our estate. The MC can conduct a study and present the cost to the apartment owners (except ground floor units) for vote and let them pay for the lifts. HDB has installed lifts for old walk-ups flats in Tampines estate. We can do it too.

    Tampines Court owner.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Total: 560 units
    High rise: 440 units
    Low rise: 120 units (32 ground floor)

    16 lifts = $3,000,000 (estimate)

    a) If 120 units willing to pay = $25,000 per unit
    b) If only 96 units willing to pay = $31,000 per unit
    c) If 560 units willing to pay = $5,000 per unit

    It's hard enough to get people to fork out $20, let alone $5000+. Especially for a new facility that does not increase the value of the estate and benefits only 96 individual units. A special resolution requires 80% approval at the AGM and no way would this pass the 20% mark.

    no government subsidy (like the HDB's 90%)
    no use of CPF (as in the hdb LUP)

    No chance it will be passed at an AGM

    The only way is for all the 96 owners to get together and agree shoulder the full cost.then it would become common property and the maintenance would be shouldered by 560 units.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tampines Court and Ivory Heights at Jurong East St 13 share many similarity in term of the locations and ages of the estate.

    But the resale price of Tampines Court is about 10 months behind Ivory Heights.

    Tampines Court is selling at $690k as at Mar2010.

    From Apr2009 to Jun2009 period, Ivory Heights were still selling at $600k to $690k but the resale price increased to $915K in Feb2010. A hefty increase of about $200k (28%)over 10 months period.

    TC is like a blue chip stock which is under value. Let's hope that the market can discover the true value of TC and the price of TC could reach $900k in 10 months or shorter period.

    ReplyDelete
  4. location location location... look at your location before comparing the psf with other developments.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In terms of location, Tampines is just as good if not better than Jurong East (Ivory Heights) or Yishun where new mass market condo can sell for around S$800 per sq ft now. The distance and the number of MRT stops from Jurong East to Orchard or CBB is about the same as that from Tampines/Simei. Amenities around Tampines Court is also comparable than those around Jurong East Ivory Heights. Air quality is certainly better in Tampines and you do not see that many foreign workers in Tampines compared to Jurong East. The land price and selling price of new condo in Tampines will probably be the same or more than that in Jurong East. So why is Tampines Court selling at $100K to $200K less than Ivory Heights? I would maintain that one main reason is because owners of low rise units without lift are willing to sell their units cheaply and this affects the valuation of other units in Tampines Court. The other reason could be because of the failed enbloc - owners who had committed to other units thinking that enbloc will be successful just need to sell or can sell even if price is relatively low compared to other privatised HUDC units. For those who disagree, just imagine a new block of condo with lifts with same HUDC design being built for sale in the vicinity of Ivory Heights and Tampines Court. Would developers and buyers value the units at the same price of $100k to $200k less for units in Tampines? For those who do not comprehend no further explanation can change their mindset.

    Tampines Court Owner

    ReplyDelete
  6. With almost 20% of units having changed hands since the failed en bloc - I believe most of the disgruntled owners have already left the estate.

    I think another reason why the prices are lower is the mindset of original owners who feel that $700k is a good return from their original $180k.
    Those that have bought at $600+, either in the 1990's or recently, will not aim so low.

    ReplyDelete
  7. why not the sinking fund to use for part install lift for the walkup apt and the rest to be bond by the 96 unit rather than to use it for landscaping it does not bring the valuation up and also the labour cost of up keeping the plant

    ReplyDelete
  8. To Itshometome:

    Your prediction that Green Lodge would be "snapped up" as its $135 million enbloc "bargain price" turns out to be wrong.

    Source : Business Times - 27 March 2010:

    "The story is similar for freehold Green Lodge. BT understands that several bids were received during the tender but they failed to meet the reserve price. The owners were looking for $135 million. Add a state charge of about $9.5 million and the price would be $683 psf ppr."

    Below is what you wrote:

    Project Name:
    GREEN LODGE
    Address:
    19, 19A TOH TUCK ROAD
    Type: APARTMENT / CONDO
    District: 21
    Year Completed: 1984
    Tenure: FREEHOLD
    Total Units: 80
    .
    Not a good price - their 40% premium will surely be eroded 1-2 yrs down the line. Already the new projected is projected to be double the price psf. Another case of HALF THE SIZE and DOUBLE THE PRICE. If the owners try to relocate to other established condos in the area they will also find the prices there would have risen on the back of an expected influx of GreenLodge enblocers....
    Basing the en bloc price on resale prices of surrounding condominiums in the present market is wrong, wrong, wrong. When will they ever learn!!
    Green Lodge will be snapped up at this bargain basement price.
    Freehold too!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The sinking fund is not that deep! We can pay the $550k for painting and repairs easily, and we must leave enough for the 12 lift replacements in a few years PLUS must always have a buffer sum of at least $1 million in case of emergencies. We collect $200k/yr in the SF.

    Say the owners vote yes to allowing $500k (say) for low rise lift installment - that would still leave 96 owners to pay $25k each. I am not saying it is not possible - if there were consensus among the 96 owners then I would certainly fight for the $500k for you guys and it would probably get a yes at an AGM. So long as people don't have to pay a levy they are more likely to agree.

    I'm thinking way down the line here - but the money would have to be gathered in advance as the MCST could not be saddled with collecting a $2.5 debt - what if owners refused to pay, the SF would be bankrupt and the MC could never allow that to happen

    The low rise owners should form a sub-committee amongst themselves this year and seek the consensus on the cost before approaching the rest of the owners on the SF.

    Before you ask, the high rise lifts are an existing common property that has to be maintained under BMSM and when the tine comes for them to be replaced, then they will be replaced regardless of how people vote. This is a must do item by law and the cost (again by law) is shared by all owners regardless of usage.

    As for landscaping, it certainly does increase the value of the estate; people look at the environment as well as the unit when deciding to buy. And the price would be better if all things looked really nice. Loyang Valley is one such place where landscaping plays a huge part in the ambiance of the estate. But landscaping is a maintenance issue - not a SF matter and not a large scary amount:) I can tell you that landscaping is not being considered for the AGM agenda for 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Your prediction that Green Lodge would be "snapped up" as its $135 million enbloc "bargain price" turns out to be wrong."

    Several bids... so there was a lot of interest.They are playing hardball and bidding low to try and deflate the owners' resolve. The owners are not obliged to sell and have rightly decided to hold out.

    This is what the government does in their Government land sales (GLS).

    In the media recently it was highlighted that two GLS sites in Tampines and Ten Mile Junction, which received low bids the first time they were tendered out, were sold for triple the price on the second tender. The Gov did not automatically assume that the first time bids represented their true value and so did not sell in round 1. The developers cannot fool them as well as they can en bloc owners. En bloc owners believe the dishonest property agent spiel about" your estate is only worth with what the developer is will to pay". RUBBISH!

    Developers look upon en bloc owners as easy prey - because they are generally ignorant of such things and think they have to lower their price to suit the buyer.

    Developers have only 2 avenues in which to acquire land - through GLS and through en bloc. Owners should follow the GOV example and not be taken for a ride.

    ReplyDelete
  11. you mean by law(BMSM)coming out from owner pocket to replace the lift(for high rise block) or using sinking fund?

    ReplyDelete
  12. If there is enough in the SF then the SF will be utilized. If there isn't enough then a levy will be imposed. Of course the latter is more painful and hopefully will not be necessary.

    Obviously I cannot predict what an MC will do in the future on this issue. At the moment there is around $2 million in the SF (after present R&R).

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Developers look upon en bloc owners as easy prey - because they are generally ignorant of such things and think they have to lower their price to suit the buyer"

    Contradicting yourself? Green Lodge and Laguna Park shows that owners have the ability to hold out against the developers.

    Prices are transparent these days and the new rules protect the sellers through a independent valuation at the end of tender.

    homework and impartiality.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To the person comparing Ivory Heights and TC, there is only one transaction at IH compared to 6 at TC. 1 transaction is not representative and should not be representative of IH's valuations.

    As for the other locations in the upper table, they are far superior to TC, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No contradiction - I did say 'generally'.
    That some estates are now more cautious is a good sign that lessons from the last en bloc frenzy have perhaps been learned. Let's see how many more will follow suit.

    But new owners who approach en bloc for the first time will probably be sitting ducks as usual.

    Ah, the valuation again...

    How independent is it really? We have seen how the En bloc lawyer/PA/SC refused to accept the recommendation of a valuer of the majority's own choosing.... and instead hired their own who magically comes up with the figure they want!

    We have seen how that valuation can be rubbished at the STB by a competent lawyer who can do math as well as talk.

    The owners must get their own valuation done - INDEPENDENT of the property agent and sale committee. Keep those two impostors at arms length.

    It's madness to trust anyone with vested interest to do an honest job.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Generally is a convenient term.

    If it is the opinion that one valuation cannot be trusted, they can get a few, average it to reduce risk.

    "We have seen how the En bloc lawyer/PA/SC refused to accept the recommendation of a valuer of the majority's own choosing... and instead hired their own who magically comes up with the figure they want! "

    Generally again?

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Generally' means what it means; not always, not specifically and not absolutely. You failed to understand its significance in the sentence, that's all.

    "We have seen" is an expression which refers to an actual occurrence in the past and most definitely does not mean generally! It happened in Tampines Court en bloc round 1 - I assume my readers are mostlty Tampines Courters who do not need a deeper explanation - but in case you are not let me explain further:-

    At the rowdy AGM 2007, to discuss the sale with all owners, an unhappy majority owner stood up and asked that the majority and not the SC/PA choose the independent valuer. There had been a high degree of majority discontent over the sale with majority owners claiming 'misplaced trust' in the SC. The request for a majority chosen valuer was denied. Later, a list of valuers was put up on the notice board and owners were asked to make their preference known, but that the ultimate decision lay with the SC. In other words, an exercise in futility. No one bothered to write in.

    Get more than one valuation....I say yes to that! by independent groups of owners.

    ReplyDelete
  18. you repeatedly shared about the previous enbloc... things have changed and there are new rules to ensure transprency to reduce the risks that you repeatedly highlighted.

    Time to move on....

    ReplyDelete
  19. Unfortunately, not that much has changed. Most of it cosmetic; reduce a tiny bit, but not eliminate. The same pitfall about valuation is there - just moved to a different time slot.

    a)The SC is still not obliged to get a proper valuation to determine a proper reserve price.

    b)No proper valuation means no basis as to how it is determined. In other words no calculations can be shown to owners.

    c)An independent valuer of the SC's choosing will still proffer a figure to mirror the baseless RP.

    d)No quantitative, proper comparison can be made.

    Putting the valuation at time of tender makes no difference - it is for the SC's consideration only - owners have no say whatsoever.

    When owners gather to have a AGM to discuss the bids - it is to 'consider' only. That means owners are locked out in the all important decision making.

    "Time to move on"
    Fine, but amnesia is not the answer, and if a comment asks directly if an opinion is based on generality or specifics, then I will elaborate.
    In future, don't ask if you don't want an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  20. For info, there's 2 new caveats lodge for Ivory Hgts - 459~559psf. :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sigh ... all said we have an unattractive surrounding. The environment
    remains dirty and untidy. Even worse than the surrounding flats. Am always wondering why residents do not bother to tidy up their balconies. And our rubbish collectors are only interested to salvage collectables items for resale and the Management turning a blind eye on cleanliness! Until rats are not seen running around our rubbish chutes do not expect an enhance value of your property! Everybody have to play a part rather than just doing a calculus on valuation and potential profit.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There have been problems with the cleaning contractor, especially with the ongoing R & R works. But rest assured, the estate will be tidied up starting this weekend, when in addition to the regular cleaners, a float team of cleaners will come and clean the estate.
    This float team will be every weekend from now on.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Answer to some of your converns:
    a)The SC is still not obliged to get a proper valuation to determine a proper reserve price.

    Comment: For Practical reason. Valuations are based on current values. Reserve prices are based on future value. RPs are usually higher than valuations.


    b)No proper valuation means no basis as to how it is determined. In other words no calculations can be shown to owners.

    Comment: As mentioned above. Valuation are based on current value. You can benchmark from other enblocs around the area. Valuers do such comparisons as well. RPs are also affected by owners own expectation. There are many factors, not just valuation.




    c)An independent valuer of the SC's choosing will still proffer a figure to mirror the baseless RP.

    Comment: SC consist of owners and mandated in an EOGM. If you wish to look after your interest, you can be part of the SC.


    d)No quantitative, proper comparison can be made.

    Comment: By the time you find a method, the market have moved on.


    Putting the valuation at time of tender makes no difference - it is for the SC's consideration only - owners have no say whatsoever.

    comment: Again, the SC is mandated by the owners.

    When owners gather to have a AGM to discuss the bids - it is to 'consider' only. That means owners are locked out in the all important decision making.

    Ans: You can always decide with your PEN.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 'Comment: For Practical reason. Valuations are based on current values. Reserve prices are based on future value. RPs are usually higher than valuations.'

    And how, pray,can you set a future value (B) if you have not determined the present valuation (A)? (A) must come before (B), and looking at individual unit values is the wrong way though very often the way presented to the owners. AT the STB, our en bloc PA ADMITTED it was the wrong way (see tape transcripts).

    'Comment: As mentioned above. Valuation are based...'
    I don't think you understand my point. I will stand up at any EOGM and demand that the SC SHOW the calculations that were made in determining the RP. In other words; the BASIS of the RP. In other words; the actual MATH and TABLES involved. I know what it should look like so don't pluck a figure and tell me to accept it on face value.

    "d)No quantitative, proper comparison can be made"
    Again you do not understand my point. If you check Reserve Price under Pitfalls, and read my postings there, perhaps you will see the examples of the Comparative and Residual method for calculating a Valuation. It costs around $20k to get an independent valuation done.

    The last two comments are true; that is why owners should be vary careful about electing numskulls onto the SC, and the danger of not laying down the rules from day 1. DO NOT GIVE THE SC POWER OVER ALL THE PROCESS.

    ReplyDelete