"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.

Pro-Owner Inititive: 1-for-1 EXCHANGE

It is time for owners to cover their bases. I never tire of repeating what our dear Minister of Law said about owner control:

 "Owners have the ultimate say.  They can ask for what they think is necessary, for the process, or for them to participate in the process."

There is no good reason why owners can not be given 2 options of payment.

1) Cash

2) 1-for-1 exchange

The signatories to the sale  can make their choice on signing the CSA, and those not for the sale can make the choice when they are being forced out of their homes. Remember it is wise to hedge you bets in the event that the eventual sales proceeds are not sufficient to get a decent sized replacement home or from a sale turned sour by the actions or  inaction of a sale committee.

Expect those who are wishing for a quick sale and a quick profit on their 'investment'  to fight this tooth and nail.  They will be HIGHLY vocal in their objections but stick by your guns because you are an owner, perhaps a long time owner,  and have a right to ask for what you think is necessary. Even if you have no intention of choosing this option for yourself, do not deny the opportunity to those who would. We are neighbours after all - some of us have been neighbours for 26 years. For goodness sake, have a heart.

From the Horizon Towers Appellate Court decision:

107      As the SC is the agent of the subsidiary proprietors collectively, there is no point at which the SC may act solely in the interests of any group of subsidiary proprietors, whether they are consenting or objecting proprietors. When an SC is first appointed, it is with a view to achieving a collective sale for the benefit of all the subsidiary proprietors. At this stage, the interests of the subsidiary proprietors are not yet clearly differentiated. Thus, the SC’s initial paramount responsibility is simply to obtain the requisite consent for the collective sale as well as appoint competent professional advisers. The SC’s members and advisers also have the duty to avoid any possible conflict of interest (see [137]–[145] below). However, once the requisite consent is obtained and the interests of the objecting subsidiary proprietors become distinguishable from those of the consenting subsidiary proprietors, the SC’s role becomes that of an impartial agent acting for both camps. In other words, the SC must hold an even hand between these interests.

New-for-old swops may feature more in collective sales  

Deals where owners get new units in redeveloped property may be a way out for projects having trouble getting 80% approval

Collective sales may be hot but when homeowners are not tempted by the cash, a ‘fair exchange’ might be the way to get around the deadlock.

Hold-outs have stalled the sale process at quite a few estates – particularly prime ones – in recent months. The reluctance stems from the fear that the sale proceeds will be insufficient for a new unit of similar size in the same area, particularly given the rising market.

Typically, a collective sale for an estate more than 10 years old can proceed only if 80 per cent or more of the owners agree to it.

More cash might do the trick but another way is for the owners to do a swop – they get a new unit in the redeveloped property instead of money for their existing one, says lawyer SK Phang of Phang & Co.

So far, such ‘exchange’ deals have been few and far between, with some property consultants and developers calling them complicated and cumbersome.

But Dr Phang believes that more homeowners – particularly those in projects having trouble getting 80 per cent approval – are likely to consider it.

It could be a full exchange for all the owners or a hybrid deal, where some owners opt to sell for cash while the rest pick a unit swop.

This would allow investors to cash in at the collective sale price while owner-occupiers could move back into the redeveloped property, instead of relocating to a less ideal area, said Dr Phang.

In a hybrid deal, the cash offer would be worked out based on the assumption that the entire estate is to be sold for cash.

Last year, Dr Phang helped all 20 owners of Paterson Lodge in the Orchard Road area work out an exchange deal. He is now working on two similar projects.

The benefits to the developers are clear. They will enjoy reduced risks as they would have ‘pre-sold’ some of the units in their new project. The overall cost of the land will be less and so they will have less cash outlay.

Smaller developers, particularly contractor-developers which may not have access to vast amounts of cash, are likely to be more open to the idea, consultants said.

But while developers may save on costs, their potential return may also be less, said
Mr Lui Seng Fatt, the regional director and head of investments at Jones Lang LaSalle. The key would be whether the site is in a choice location. ‘Otherwise, they will just pay cash. It’s more clean cut,’ he added.

DTZ Debenham Tie Leung’s director, Ms Tang Wei Leng, said of exchange deals: ‘There are a lot of uncertainties in terms of the time line; a lot of administrative hassles.’

Those keen on a swop deal are likely to be from estates where a conventional collective sale is not possible due to the large number of homeowners facing a loss, said Mr Lui.

‘In a swop deal, you get a promise to own something yet to be built or even approved by the authorities,’ said Credo Real Estate (Singapore)’s managing director, Mr Karamjit Singh. ‘It’s possible but there are hurdles. Owners have to be prepared for more steps.’

One such step is that when an owner delivers the apartment title to the developer, it has to be free of encumbrances, he said.

Homeowners typically have loans but this hitch could be resolved with the developer’s help. Dr Phang cited a case where the developer provided a corporate guarantee to the bank to take over the encumbrances.

Owners will also have to find a place to live during the 18 months or more during construction of the new development, but they may be able to negotiate a rent subsidy with the developer, said Dr Phang.

Ms Tang also pointed to the ‘risk of the developer not completing the project, or not completing it on time or according to specifications’.

In the case of Paterson Lodge, the owners will transfer their estate’s land to the developer only when the project is completed and they have received titles to their new homes.
A performance bond will solve these problem, said Dr Phang.

For exchange deals, there will be an extra round of negotiations on the ‘replacement’ units, consultants said. And this is what some developers are wary of.

‘It seems troublesome because you have to consider which unit on which floor or size to give to the owners,’ said one developer. ‘Documents have to be drafted watertight. I could put in a clause saying that we will just give a unit of a certain size, for example.’

Dealing with many owners is the tricky part, said another developer.

The major challenge is the acceptance of the market to the idea, said Dr Phang.

‘In a dynamic market, with rising replacement costs, swop deals will become more popular,’ said Mr Singh.

Source : Sunday Times – 25 Feb 2007

Also, an excellent take from The Pariah -  HERE


  1. for 1-1 exchange, what is the norm for accomodation during the construction period? will the developer cover the expense or will the owner foot the bill.

  2. Such details to be worked out later and in the presence of your own lawyer (or group lawyer if interested owners wanted to share the cost).

  3. interesting option. when will such details be worked? out before or after the tender?

  4. One-to one exchange is just an option for individuals but should not affect the decision of enbloc nor should be included in the enbloc contract. Its a private contract between the individual & the developer. Eg, if each owner is getting 1.7M, he may want to exchange the cash he receive for another unit of similiar size and fork out extra cash or developer pay him the difference if necessary depending on how much the developer is selling the new development in $psf. In any case, I understand enbloc owners will be giving priority to select choice unit during VVIP launch. Let's don't complicate matters by adding one-to-one option exchange as part of the enbloc contracts.It gonna be very messy.

  5. I bought my unit last year for investment purpose and an expected enbloc sale. I do not live in Tampines Court. I am in complete favour of 1-for-1 exchange option to be compulsorily put into CSA. This should be there for all who want to encash. This should also be there who love the place. This option should be there for those who believe that develper would sell at substantial high rates. This option is also good for the developer as his cash outflow would decrease. In fact, I would consider this option..only point is how would the issues of mortgage etc being handled by the developer. we need to have a rational mind and sound human heart in putting this option in CSA. This would make the things harmonious and healthy.

  6. hmmm... It is a possibility that 1-1 exchange will complicate things.

  7. We have been happily calculating and proposing RP of $1.5m to $1.8m here in this blog.

    But there are some negative remarks about TC started to appear in this blog:

    - TC is old ... (but the whole TC will be demolished if enbloc)
    - Buyers are not begging ... (but TC can always wait)

    (Please note that URA rejected the only one bid for the WaterView site in 2008 as the price offered was too low. The same site attracted 8 bids in 2010 with top bid of $302m. (translated to $421 psf/ppr))

    - Greedy ... (but Developer also try to maximize their profit)
    - DC/DP is going up ... (but DC/DP is a small portion)

    This is the same tactic used by the PA in enbloc Round 1. Please don't be surprise that the proposed RP by the enbloc group is $1.2m which was mentioned there in one of the comment.

    TC is considered lucky (thanks to the minority group) to have escaped from below value sales in 2008.

    Now the SC is elected and we do not know the motive of those people except 3 to 4 residents SC members. I observed there are some "high-handed" SC members and supporters during the EOGM.

    Once bitten twice shy, Let's hope that TC are smarter now and if there are >80% wanted to sell, TC can achieve maximum return for all residents. Please do not sell cheap again.

    This is our hard earned money which can be put to good use for our family.


  8. "Please do not sell cheap again....."

    Actually based on the market prices, in the last enbloc, our RP wasn't cheap. The market price for individual unit was $350K and we were getting almost double.

    Based on the current market price of $900K each, we should be easily getting $1.8M for enbloc prices. Anything less, it won't be a good deal for us.

  9. i agree... 1.8m,is a fair price..

  10. mm.... i am very surprised by the high valuation that everybody is proposing. Whilst I am happy as an investor for such high valuations, it seems a stretch. Using the latest sale price is a big mistake because we are probably at the peak of the property market and doubling that to 1.8m is assuming that the market will continue to accelerate at a fast pace this year. And this seems unlikely with all the measures, and even if it does in the coming quarter, be assured the govt will come up with another round of measures to dampen the mkt.
    One of the authors seems to say that only Farrer court is the fair value, but speak to all property experts and you will realise that that transaction was a one off and very difficult to pull off again. Thats why Laguna Park, despite being in a good location, has failed several times because they set the price so high.
    There is only a fair price if there is a buyer. Your price may be fair to you but if no buyer is willing to pay for it, then it is of no use.
    If we miss this peak market to sell it, the fair price may be $900k (or even lower) when the next recession comes.

  11. As an investor - you should not be telling people who own only one home to sell and hope for a recession to kick in at the time you collect your sales proceeds. Most of T-Courters are not investors - these are our homes which must be replaced 6 months after the sale.

    No one can predict the future and it is NOT WISE to bet on a recession. One should always cover the worst case scenario which is property prices will continue to rise.

    We do not care if there are no takers - we can still happily live on here, we would have lost nothing.

    Investors, on the other hand, need to sell and worry about there being no takers so are happy to lower others' expectations.

    The game is rigged.

    The big developers wait on the sidelines and hope the sellers will panic and lower their prices.

    Laguna only has to hold out - look at the selling price of Silversea: over $2000psf!!!! - Laguna's future psf will be through the roof!

    The age of the estate will not be a big factor - the lease top-up is a small fraction of the overall cost.

    Tampines Courters are in no rush to sell. We may have a team of en bloc raiders in the estate - but us ordinary folk are going to fight back.

  12. sounds like bullying to me... a small group of 'raiders' vs a huge group of owner occupiers.

  13. I wish all investors are better investors than what I see in the blog.
    Their views are pretty narrow, buy and sell quickly, small gains never mind...
    Great investors buys for the long term wait for opportunities for big profits, meanwhile they don't panic, they'll rent out and collect money.
    Trying to short sell will do you no good, here's why:
    1. the en-bloc will destined to fail, due to many minorities
    2. during the en-bloc process, even if you want to sell (desperate) you can't because real buyers don't want the prospect of moving out.
    3. In the event of developer agreed to buy, and minorities fights it, it'll be another long drawn battle, during which the Caveat will prevent you from selling your unit.
    Hence, investors, go with the flow, aim high with the residents, push for RP that >98% signs the CSA, I think $1.7mil is the magic number, but of course, official valuation needs to be done.

  14. I do not agree one 2 one exchange to be included as one of the term in CSA least it will complicate the enbloc process. There will be dis-agreement on location of the unit, layout, strata area, price etc.

    It has to be a separate agreement between owners and developer. Everyone one will be given cash, those who want a replacement unit in the new development of equivalent size can always buy from the developer during soft launch, the agreement is possibly priority given to TC owners for choice unit before public launch.

    February 12, 2011

  15. Soft launch is double the price or half the size and only unfavorable units on offer - plus you are treated like dirt aka Gillman Heights owners and CapitalLand.

    This was offered to the minority in round 1 - and there was a deafening silence from us all. Only an idiot would fall for such an empty promise.

    February 12, 2011

  16. Whatever lah, so long as one-2-one exchange does not short change those who prefer to go for cash & complicate the enbloc process, we are fine with it.

    If those who opt for cash are getting 1.7m cash and those who opt for one-2-one exchange are getting for eg 2.5m worth of same size unit when its launched, it would not be fair to the former.

    If minority has no financial loss I don't think its acceptable reason to object the enbloc. One-2-one exchange can only be consider as a request and not a demand. It has to be iron out between the developer and those who wants it in a separate agreement. Certainly this demand should not be included as part of the csa and affect those who prefer cash.

    We cannot allow whims and fancies of every individual owners to be satisfied. Next you may have another person who wants god knows what and when will it end ?

    February 12, 2011

  17. The SC has a duty to all SPs, it is an IMPARTIAL AGENT ACTING FOR BOTH CAMPS - consenting and no-consenting owners.

    Horizon Towers Apppelate Court decision

    107 As the SC is the agent of the subsidiary proprietors collectively, there is no point at which the SC may act solely in the interests of any group of subsidiary proprietors, whether they are consenting or objecting proprietors. When an SC is first appointed, it is with a view to achieving a collective sale for the benefit of all the subsidiary proprietors. At this stage, the interests of the subsidiary proprietors are not yet clearly differentiated. Thus, the SC’s initial paramount responsibility is simply to obtain the requisite consent for the collective sale as well as appoint competent professional advisers. The SC’s members and advisers also have the duty to avoid any possible conflict of interest (see [137]–[145] below). However, once the requisite consent is obtained and the interests of the objecting subsidiary proprietors become distinguishable from those of the consenting subsidiary proprietors, the SC’s role becomes that of an impartial agent acting for both camps. In other words, the SC must hold an even hand between these interests.

    February 12, 2011

  18. Anonymous said...

    the sc has to decide how best to conduct the enbloc to bring it to successful completion. the sc should consult the lawyers and ma on the feasibility. they will then share the opinion with all the owners.

    That said, 1-1 exchange is not feasible for tc and will do more harm than good.

    February 12, 2011

  19. The bottom line is every one should be compensated EQUALLY whether he chose cash payout or one-for-one exchange unit.

    How can you ensure that the one-for-one exchange unit is EQUAL IN VALUE to cash payout? I am sure everyone won't mind to opt for the one-for-one exchange unit if the value is higher than cash payout.

    SC is going to have headache. You have said SC should be impartial which means no one should have higher compensation than others. Better stick to standard cash payout for everyone. Fair to all and no quarrels later.

    February 12, 2011

  20. It is for the owners to decide how the sale is to be conducted - not the lawyers and agents with vested interest in seeing the sale go quickly.

    It is for individual owners to decide whether they want an exchange unit or cash. They will weigh the pros and cons and come to their own conclusions. An exchange is not without it's inherent risks and cash will always be king.

    I believe either it is an option given to all or AT THE VERY LEAST an option for the remaining minority owners whose homes are being sold from under them.

    To the person who thinks people are going to be compensated equally... well, you haven't read any of the important court decisions, have you.

    February 13, 2011

  21. Of course, collective sales proceed has to be shared equally according to share value. Why should you get more than me just because you ask for one-for-one exchange ? How about I want 2 units of total flr area of 1700sf instead of single, else pay me more. Or I deserve more because my unit is higher floor and better facing ? What kind of nonsense is that?

    If sales proceed is unfairly divided, those who are victimised are surely going to fight for their rights. In the end if everyone fight for their own selfish reason, its going to be another long drawn case like gillman hts and all will suffer. We need to me mature and considerate. Just because you own 1 0r 2 units you cannot dictate the enbloc should go your way. Else you are worst than those flippers.

    We all want smooth enbloc process like farrer court. Let's work as a team to get best price and share proceed equally & fairly for mutual benefits instead of fighting for our own selfish gain.

    February 13, 2011

  22. An exchange is not about dollars and cents - it is about the replacement of your home with same strata area, same orientation and same level in the new estate. If 80% want to cash out, then so be it, but there will be a minority who will want to preserve what they have built up over the past 25 years.

    In the last round, the 80% was reached but only just. Around 98% of the units sold since 2008 have been ex-majority owners. The minority percentage therefore would not have changed much, with some from both camps flipping over to the other.

    Unless, the SC can appease owners who want to stay on with an exchange - they are not going to reach the 80% in the 6 months they envision.

    50% of the owners stayed away from the EOGM.. that should tell you how many are not particularly interested.

    A smart SC will cover all the bases - a dumb one will just go about their business as in round 1.
    No imagination.

    February 13, 2011

  23. Interesting that 1-4-1 replacement means same size, same floor, and same orientation, PROBABLY your own definition! No where has it stated like that. It will be very stifling for any buyer to have an architectural plan that caters to such restrictions. Imagine 100 units on different blocks asking for it. In Singapore only one enbolc has succeeded and it is a very small development in Orchard area. There are many developments attempting it but failed due to the diificulties in carrying them out.

    Other forms of 1-4-1 : Exchange for a smaller size but on only certain floors etc. Owners will draw lots for the units to eliminate floors, orientations etc. It is impossible to fulfil 100% attributes for 1-4-1. What about some who want it-same shapes and layouts as well, and maybe some may ask for idiosyncracies that is currently not feasible to perform,such as some god-pleasing features that have bless them for 20yrs and to do without that attributes would displease those gods....

    February 13, 2011

  24. A cash option of $1.7m is much easier to match than a 1-4-1 even with a can-do spirit without a sense of realism. Can someone who refuse to accept an orientation view of 40% view of east coast when he claims he has an oriiginal 70% of that view and sue the buyer? A can-do spirit must be realistic too. Quotations of do-able and surmountability are sweet only when they are practical and realistic. I am happy to go for $1.7m nothing less(AS OF TODAY's EQUIVALENT!)

    February 14, 2011

  25. not practical, i agree with the prevoius post on 1-for-1 exchange.
    And only for minorities.... That will put a nail on you enbloc. think.

    February 14, 2011

  26. My inbox is being flooded by property agents having a go at this site. I know them to be property agents by the manner in which they write (text), and their lack of fundamental knowledge about TC.

    Any juvenile texting message will not see the light of day on this blog. So go away 20-somethings agents!

    February 14, 2011

  27. This blog owner preached so much about transparency and yet selective in posting contributions. When you disagree with his or her opinions, it will not be posted or block your ip address.

    No point contributing here. Let's leave & let him or her talk to himself/herself !

    February 14, 2011

  28. I am not an agent and yet my postings was blocked just because I disagree with you. I think you have a personal agenda to advocate your silly demand of one-for-one exchange in your blog and expect everyone to support you.

    If anyone dis-agree with you their postings will not 'see the light of day in your blog' as you said. If you are to curb freedom of speech, why set up this blog in the first place? If the website is your personal "playground" you SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to use 'www.tampinescourt.net website address as you are not the sole owners of TC and the website address is misleading and give others the idea that the opinions expressed in this blog are the voices of TC owners. I suggest you change your website address to your personal name.

    So what if agents post their opinions. We can always dis-agree with them or correct their perceptions. In the end, we the TC owners will decide and not them but we need to listen to as many opinions as possible to make an informed decision. Imagine in EOGM, the chairman/moderator allows only voices who agreeable with him/her or SC to be spoken, it become silly and immature and should not have the meeting in the first place.

    February 14, 2011

  29. I wouldn't know how to block an IP address...

    Most of the comments I post are from people who disagree with me, and since I do have a job and not sitting at home on the computer all day - your comment might not appear until the next day.

    The txting knd r frm young pple who hv no idea wht they r tlking abt n r virtually unreadable. txting is an abomination n ony the illiterate use.

    They can rant away on condosingapore or other such websites.

    Sayonara to you, so.

    February 14, 2011

  30. Ok, some of you are going to be happy with $1.4mil.
    Some of us will be happy with $1.7mil.
    So if TC RP is set at $1.4mil per unit, you'll bound to get big objection.
    If we set RP at $1.7mil per unit, those who are happy at $1.4mil, should be happier. Wonder what's the problem.
    Now if the $1.4mil folks thinks that $1.7mil will be to high a price to attract any tender; here's a suggestion:
    Those who are happy with just $1.4mil, gets $1.4mil, those who wants $1.7mil, gets $1.7mil. You average it out the RP may hit $1.55mil- BUT
    guess what, the $1.4mil folks will now become unhappy if we distribute it this way right?
    The point is why then are there people trying to push down the RP to below $1.7mil?
    - RP at $1.7mil will have very much lesser resistance and objections.

    As to 1 for 1 exchange, what's wrong with putting this in as an option in CSA?

    If someone likes the place and opts for 1 for 1 exchange, let them be. If others want to cash out, move to a landed, condo or HDB it is their choice. It's up to the developer to sell whatever price for the new estate and those who opted for 1 for 1 will have to live with it even if it is smaller.
    En-bloc is a problem. Not only do you want to decide to sell your neighbour's home, you'll want to decide how much they get or where they live?
    Let the lawyer & developers take care of details like cash out or 1 for 1 exchange as an option, (not mandatory), so don't panic.
    Nothing is complicated for good lawyers to pen down in black & white with sellers and buyers who chooses the option. See how the Government do their SER, it can be done.
    Take a vote at EOGM, see how many would like to have 1 for 1 as an option.

    February 14, 2011

  31. 1.7mil no go for me. its 3mil or nothing. Why bother with the hassle and the stress to earn some peanuts.

  32. 1 for 1 exchange as an option is fine as I suggested earlier but should NOT be mandatory clause in CSA as it may jeapordise the whole enbloc process and make it a long drawn and tedious process like gillman height which I am sure nobody would like it.

    Those who opt for 1 for exchange should sign a separate agreement with the developer so any dispute concerning the exchange unit agreement could be separately resolve instead of holding back those who opt for cash.

    As an analogy, suppose a company want to retrench a group of workers and give the option of either paying cash or a company car of certain capacity, make and condition. The master retrenchment agreement once signed should allow those who opt for cash to take it quickly and let them move on with their life and those who opt for the car can discuss and/dispute with the company separately for what car type should be given. If the car issue has to be completely resolved before payment can make to those who opt for cash it would be damn unfair to those who opt for cash. I hope my analogy is easy enough for you to understand.

    Personally, I really don't understand the logic of one for one exchange. Why just make it simple, take the cash of $1.7M like everybody else and negotiate with the developer to buy a unit of the same size when the new tampines court condo is ready for launch. For all you know, you may later don't like the design, layout and facilities of the new tampines ct condo and decide to buy some other condos. To be fair to the developer you can't insist to have the same layout, design, level and strata area as new condos are always different in design and characteristics compare with 30+ years old condo like TC. Contrary, surely you too can't back out once you sign the agreement with the developer and you have to take your unit whether you like it or not. Cash is KING and always more flexible to dispense with and use it the way you like it.

    Don't pull everybody into deep shit just because you want your whims and fancies met. You have your dreams so has has the rest. Imagine every now and them someone can out with silly own ideas of what he wants to be included in the CSA and make the complete mess of the enbloc process. When will it end then?

    February 14, 2011

  33. i agree, the more complicated, the more issues will arise. there are other issues like accomodation during the building, time frame for developer to provide replacement, etc. i propose everyone take the cash and manage their own funds. Do not shoot yourself in the foot.

  34. CASH is always KING. I am not bothered with 1 for 1 exchange. Life goes on better with CASH, because other opportunities are available

  35. Put the option in there with a separate agreement as suggested above - if there are folks who wants it.
    Eat your pepper crab and I'll have my chilli crab.
    That way we can finish our meals together without fighting.
    If the options are not in there, then, there will be objectors, the sale will delay...
    Why if you think cash is better others cannot think 1 to 1 is better?
    Cash has pit falls too, - INFLATION
    Here's the point, when you restrict all to cash, or <$1.7mil, if there are hanky panky going on, the en-bloc will definitely face objections and roadblocks. When that happens, the process delays, we sink deeper into inflation that is already rising, then your CASH means peanuts.

  36. 1-1 will have potentially more obstacles because there will be implementation issues which nobody here know how to do it. Do not push 1-1 just for selfish reasons. Look are practical issues.

    Get the lawyer to advise and you will get a better picture.

  37. to "1-1 will have potentially more obstacles.."
    It seems like you know of the complications and that the lawyer you are in contact with has given you a better picture that it has more obstacles and implementation issues.
    In the en-bloc process there will be lawyer appointed. As someone suggest, get the lawyer to put is option as a separate agreement. Lawyers are trained and paid to do such things, of course nobody here know how to do it.
    Pushing this is not for a selfish reason, it fact it is for the good of all, imagine that the those who like 1-1 signs CSA, and with the RP satisfying the >$1.7mil the en-bloc can get more than 90% support, the en-bloc will sale through.
    According to Stephen Covey, this is habit number 4, THINK WIN-WIN.
    Your thinking however is not inclusive, and hence a think "I win - you lose" is a slefish mentality.
    BTW, I would not go for 1-1, but believe that when we think win-win and being inclusive, we'll all gain from it.

  38. Yes! the enbloc lawyer should be able to explain to you the merit and demerit of haveing a 1-1 exchange.

    Please consider his advise.

  39. That's more like it, at lease give the lawyer a chance to explain, advise; it's their job to convince.
    And then the owners will decide.
    This is THINK WIN-WIN

  40. Just my 2 cents worth. My back-of-envelope calculation has that it is cheaper for any buyer to do a 1-4-1 replacement based on size alone and no other implementation issues mentioned in the earlier posts. Assuming that 50 units want 1-4-1 replacement, the developer can build them in one of the blocks and opted owners draw lots for 50 units allotted.

    To a point mentioned by a poster, that it will not be fair that those who opt for 1.7m cash and when the 1-4-1 replacement get $2.5m worth, the reverse can also happen. The poster is assuming that the market continues to ascend but what if the market descends and the value of each unit is less than $1.7m, what then? Each owner has to bear his own risk. So it is alright to have 1-4-1 option in the CSA but make it a simple one based on same size alone with only internal fittings mentioned in the supplemental agreement. The external features such as orientations,levels, views etc should not be brought in to complicate matters. 1-4-1 is achievable. Please have it in CSA.

  41. So, it is, so it is.

    Where there is a will, there is always a way.

  42. Anonymous28 May, 2011

    Hi: This Facebook about 1 for 1 exchange is new, but some thought provoking new posts will be added to it: