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.

SC Meeting: 16 Apr 2011

SC Minutes 2

Are these really the minutes of a 5 hour long meeting?.... it looks more like an attendance roll.  The vast majority of owners who did not attend as observers would have no clue as to what went on. This minimalistic style of minuting is not acceptable; it is lazy and totally non-transparent in the long run.

The onus is not on owners to attend meetings in order to keep abreast of what's going on, but for the SC secretary to write comprehensive minutes of the proceedings for everyone to read.

Sat 16 April, 2011  A fly on the wall's viewpoint

Five marketing agents  made their pitch one by one followed by a Q&A session.

On reflection, perhaps it is best for the sale committee to publish it's minutes first as I wouldn't want to 'disturb' any negotiation by alerting competitors to each others weaknesses.

So generalities will have to suffice for now.
  • The proposed reserve prices ranged from ridiculously low to within possible 70+% reach.
  • Presentation was similar though a couple stood out in their polished performance giving a positive appraisal of the estate and a bullish assessment of the market. 
  • The firms ranged from big to boutique. 
  • Solo performers to 'Men in Blue' - replete with architect as wing man. 
  • One was cagey about showing his workings, as if it were inside information. It's no surprise his proposal turned out to be the lowest. 
  • Another had absolutely no problem in offering up his calculations for scrutiny.
  • One inexplicably used 2010 GLS sales in Jln Eunos and Hougang when we have GLS sales much closer to home in Tampines and Simei. 
  • One wanted to choose the law firm as he had had trouble with some firms in the past.
  • Some preferred mass signings whilst another wanted to go about the estate signing at any hour of the day and thought the lawyer should be at his beck and call.
  • One highlighted their big business connections, another his legal expertise. 
  • Even on first blush, you could tell the sharks from the minnows, which ones would most likely cause property agent problems akin to round 1. 
  • Only one tried the goondu method of individual unit price and 'premium', the others realised how owners in general have savvied up since 2008.
  • One was involved in two big High Court cases which involved setting precedents in two areas; supplemental CSAs and conditional signers, though of course, this was not mentioned. 
  • Only observers asked about 1-for-1 exchange and height restriction. 
  • All 5 marketing agents thought that TC could be rebuilt up to 36 storeys when in fact we have a height restriction of 49 m AMSL. The Tampines area will  only have it's first 36 storey building when they decide to move Changi Airport to Jurong.
I have to say kudos to some  of the sale committee members, but  perhaps trying to gauge 5 prospective marketing agents over five and a half hours was a case of too much information, delivered too fast and in not enough fine detail.  The SC has the printouts to pore over  and hopefully they will spot the holes and miscalculations.. eg:
  • I have a sneaking suspicion not one of the MAs added the Bonus GFA when computing the total saleable area - thereby awarding the developer an extra 10% GFA on top of their 'reasonable profit', - and 10% is 196,603 sqft. The total saleable area is therefore 2,064,336 sqft  and NOT 1,966,034 sqft.
  • And what was the Value on Completion @ ???? sqft. I hope it was $1200 -1400  and NOT $800.
  • Did I see efficiency at 85% on one proposal? Shouldn't that be 95%?
The residual land value method might be subjective, but millions can be given away with a snip her, a snip there. I hope the SC have done their own RLV spreadsheet to plug in the various values.
etc, etc, etc...

The slides flashed by so fast and it was hard for me to read the small print from the back of the room. Scrutinizing every detail was not possible in such a setting, with time as a constraint.
I hope all interested owners can get a closer look at the selected proposals before the EGM so we aren't all squinting at the screen trying to do lighting speed mental arithmetic before it vanishes from view.

My own personal view is that  the highest proposal might appeal to a good number at the beginning - especially to those who view their units as investment or plan on downgrading.  But it will lose it's shine quickly if the market continues on it's upward path, especially to those looking for a replacement home with some cash to spare.

The highest proposal does not reach my expectation.

13 April 2011
To the SC: Don't accept approximations, or a lumped figure for development cost or development proceeds - get the breakdown. These figures will have to undergo further scrutiny by interested owners.

        20 comments:

        1. I hope the common SC meeting on 16th April with the marketing agents will be more objective.

          Please just don't give us sales talk on how good you are. Just let us know how much our RP for a start. And please do your homework and don't pick figures from the air.

          ReplyDelete
        2. I hope the marketing agents don't come up with 1.7M thinking that this is the RP that we want because they have visited this blog.

          They should give their own professional opinions based on their market knowledge and experience and get a few valuations from professional valuers to compare with.

          ReplyDelete
        3. Conveyancing rules changed to better protect clients' money - Straits Times:
          http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_655767.html

          ReplyDelete
        4. Thanks for posting the notice in your blog. I am a tampines court owner but not staying there. I did not receive any letter regarding the meeting on 16th April 2011. Anyway, i will be attending the meeting & i have been following your blog diligently. Keep up the good work. I will not sell if the price is not right.

          ReplyDelete
        5. The notices for SC meetings and their minutes are posted on the MCST Notice Boards in the estate. They are not sent by post, so non-resident owners should check online for information. I will always post whatever is up and any piece of paper that passes my way.....

          ReplyDelete
        6. Please let us know what went on today in SC meeting #2, and the magic numbers! Thanks!

          ReplyDelete
        7. Hi, could you say what is ridiculously low and what you mean by 80% reach?

          ReplyDelete
        8. Thks isthometome for your posting & update. Good work !

          My opinion:

          1) Any MA who didn't do their homework before coming for the presentation should be writen off straightaway
          2) Any MA who comes up with ridiculous low RP should also be excluded as well asall they are interested is to sell TC off cheaply and quickly.
          3)We don't need impressive presentation or smooth talker too but sincere interest to serve us and act in our interest.

          Let's don't hurry. If we do not get the price we want, don't enbloc. Wait until the lands are all dry up and developers come knocking on our door. Then we have the bargaining power. In the meantime, let's be patient and enjoy our TC home.

          ReplyDelete
        9. Hi anonymous, i think the best is you sit in the meetings instead of asking itshometome to provide updates coz some info are confidential. -owner of TC

          ReplyDelete
        10. Let's not sell our children inheritance for a song. Good things comes to those who wait.

          ReplyDelete
        11. Unless it has been published in the public domain, I am not going to release what is considered 'sensitive' information such as RP or Fees etc. It is for the SC to make it publicly known by posting it on the notice boards for all and sundry to see.

          Ridiculously low means there is not a chance of anyone signing.
          An 80% chance (which I have since downgraded to 70%) is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

          Let's say it's big enough to entice, but is it large enough to satisfy?

          ReplyDelete
        12. Hope it'll be Breaking News ! - I am looking forward to receive record price offer for TC, be it through tender or private treaty.

          Stay cool, have confidence! We will get the price we want !

          ReplyDelete
        13. Minutes of SC Meeting on 16 Apr was posted on Notice Board.

          ReplyDelete
        14. To: itshometome

          Appreciate if you could put back your comments (only online for a few hrs)on the presentation of 5 MAs during 16 Apr meeting. This will benefit all TC residents.

          Regards

          ReplyDelete
        15. Hmm... not sure how far I can go here. Whilst I think the official minutes are a joke and hardly qualify as minutes at all, is it really for me to fill in the blanks?

          I did post a very minor individual critique briefly, with no figures or names, but bear in mind this was not a public meeting, and therefore cannot be described in too much detail before it's due time.

          I am pretty sure I know which 2 marketing agents they will choose in the end.

          ReplyDelete
        16. Hi itshometome,
          Thanks for your updated information which is useful for most of us who are not able to attend the meeting.
          Questions:
          1) Is the SC required to provide a detailed minutes to the residents as they are appointed by the residents?
          2) How are we able to voice our concerns and if this is the way the SC is handling the situation, are we going to get a good deal?
          Regards

          ReplyDelete
        17. you guys did not invide Credo? They are the ones that brokered Farrer Court... hmm....

          ReplyDelete
        18. I note that the Sales Committee acts immediately when itshometome posts a comment on this site("illegal" posting of notice & use of stationery). I have sent an email to their email address expressing my dissatisfaction with the minutes of the second meeting and have yet to receive the courtesy of a response.I am bemused by the comment that we should attend the meetings if we want to know what's going on as some information is confidential(Apr 17th comment). We are all in this together whether you are for or against the en bloc. No one should be deprived of whatever information concerns the en bloc process. I do not want to sell but I will comply with the law. If we have to make a decision which will affect our future let it be based on all possible information provided by all agencies involved, not by hearsay.

          ReplyDelete
        19. Ahem.... in case you think the SC act on what is posted on this site, you are wrong. Don't credit me having that much influence, please! This is just a blog.

          When I see an anomaly on the board I EMAIL the MCST office and it is THEY who rectify the situation. The managing agent (Jason) takes the neutrality of the managing agent's position very seriously and sticks to the rules. The MA/MCST cannot be seen to be either promoting or blocking the collective sale process, or breaking any of the LTSA rules.

          ReplyDelete
        20. I think we should postpone the current En Bloc & bide for better time to relaunch TC.

          With escalating property price been a hot topic in this election, we can expect the government to introduce more tough cooling measures after the election. This will dampen the developers' appetite for large land like TC.

          If we proceed now & subsequently fail (which is very likely considering current scenario), we will be prevented to go EB for the next 2 years. Just look at Pine Grove. JLL is silent since 19 April. No reaosn for given.

          ReplyDelete