"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.

Honey, I shrunk Tampines Court

The best part about going through an en bloc a second time round is the amount of information you have accumulated from the first.  Our previous en bloc lawyer and MA furnished a wealth of information at the Strata Titles Board - information you couldn't drag from them with wild horses had there not been serious objections.
It is highly uncommon for the Valuer or MA to reveal their computations unless they are legally bound to (ie before a court of law). The Valuers have to sign affidavits.  So it is with these two FORMAL, INDEPENDENT and COSTLY residual valuations from round 1 that I can compare with the two INFORMAL and FREE valuations proffered by the MAs in round 2.

Now, I know that prices have risen and costs have changed since the first round - what has not changed are the base figures, the constants that underline the whole complicated calculation. Tampines Court has not gotten any smaller, it has not changed it's plot ratio and the URA still offers the 10% GFA bonus on top of the potential GFA.

The valuations/proposals have about the same proposed GFA

Round 1 Formal  Valuations   
Saleable Area: over 2 million sqft (2,162,640 sqft & 2,064,336 sqft to be exact.  
Majority valuer: 110% GFA (including Bonus GFA)
Minority Valuer: 105% GFA (including Bonus GFA)

Round 2 MA proposals (no specifics, just approximations):
Net Floor Area,  - around 1, 867, 000+ sqft.  
MA 1:  95% GFA  (excluding  Bonus GFA)*
MA 2:  95% GFA  (including Bonus GFA)

* this was the chosen Marketing agent!!!!

This 10-15% haircut makes a big difference.

I would like to have an explanation. What basis is there for chopping off up to nearly  300,000sqft? 

Click on following link for the:


4    URA grants bonus GFA incentives to encourage the provision of specific building features or uses. Essentially, the GFA of the incentivised features are allowed above the MP GPR control. These bonus GFA incentives are given to help realize various planning objectives for the city. For example, the balcony scheme encourages skyrise greenery while the lighting incentive scheme helps to enhance our city's image and highlight the distinctive Singapore skyline.

The 10% bonus GFA incentive schemes are listed below:
  • Green Mark Incentive Scheme 
  • Balcony
  • Rooftop ORA Community
  • Community / Sports Facilities (for commercial properties)
  • Underground Pedestrian Linkages to MRT (a bit far for TC....)
  • Conserved Bungalow 
  • Lighting Incentive Scheme (for CBD and Marina Centre)
  • Art Incentive Scheme (central area)
  • Orchard UD features 
Click here for:  URA Circular

At the end of the day, setting the RP should be done using a formal, independent Valuation.  Because owners were denied conferring 'powers, duties or functions' on the sale committee at the first EGM, they were not directed to do a formal valuation. That should have been their first order of the day. It's a challenging task to raise the necessary money ($30k) but nothing is impossible. If 32 minority owners could fork out this large sum in round 1, surely hundreds of would-be majority owners can do the same in round 2? Don't look around and see what your fellow neighbours are doing, just go ahead and do it. It's the right and proper thing to do.

If 40% of owners voted for the collective sale at the EGM 1, then they should donate $150 each to the cause. 

High profit margins for DBSS developers

Developers can earn gross profit margins of up to 76 percent from the public housing projects they develop under the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS), according to a Business Times report.

In the report, five out of the seven DBSS projects launched since 2008 have achieved gross profit margins of at least 28 percent.

This is similar to the 30 to 40 percent gross profit margins that real estate groups earn when developing private mass-market projects.

In some cases, however, DBSS margins were even higher.

Sim Lian Group, for example, can make a gross profit margin of approximately 76 percent from its recently launched Centrale 8 in Tampines — even after revealing that prices are now lower than previously announced.

Hoi Hup Sunway generated the highest gross profit for its 1,203-unit The Peak @ Toa Payoh, generating some S$257 million in total.

Using a generous construction cost estimate of S$200 psf ppr, the report included the land and building costs in computing the total development cost of each project, to determine the breakeven price. Industry watchers noted that construction costs could be as low as S$160 psf ppr, in some cases.

“I am surprised that the margins are so high,” said Ku Swee Yong, Chief Executive at International Property Advisor.

“All the more reason for us to re-examine the raison d’etre for DBSS in view of the need for a massive supply of affordable flats to satisfy the past five years of pent-up demand.”

Ha! I told you the  the professed 10% gross profit margin was all poppycock;  it is so obvious from the hard data I've been collecting under 'Developers Windfall'.  They know how to get the most out of the GFA - there are a thousand ways to do it.


    1. Anonymous27 June, 2011

      Bring this up during the EOGM...
      Owners need to know of this significant reduction.

    2. Anonymous27 June, 2011

      It is a bad sign for TC en-bloc round 2.
      That the proposed sale by MAs has put up reduced numbers in area.
      Starting first steps already wrong!
      Waaa Lau!

    3. Anonymous27 June, 2011

      Let's try to visualize the difference.

      If we use standard apartment of 1200sqft as one unit, then:

      (2,162,640sqft-2,064,336sqft)/1200sqft = 82 units.

      (2,162,640sqft-1,867,000sqft)/1200sqft = 246 units.

      (2,064,336qft-1,867,000sqft)/1200sqft = 164 units.

      We are giving away 164-246 units of 1200sqft saleable area.


    4. Anonymous30 June, 2011

      I wonder if this new rule reported today affects the en-bloc:
      Any claim of property market trend or movement or economic forecast must be substantiated by statistics from reliable sources, such as from a government agency’s reports.

    5. Anonymous30 June, 2011

      The MAs are too conservative to our disadvantage. They are only estimates. We should disagree with their estimates. Estimates differ from developer to developer, designs, and so-called opinions. Please challenge this poor estimate from MAs in EOGM. The writer is right.

      This is one way MAs will use to lower expectation of owners. When they present to potential buyers, the figures or their estimates will change to the maximum potential to convince buyers of their profits. Please remember this, my fellow neighbours, that valuations and saleable areas are subjective depending on designs of buildings, restrictions and land size.

    6. Anonymous30 June, 2011

      More people speak up about this conservative proposals the better. Else is back to square one.