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.

EGM 3

Reset for 24 SEPT 2011

Here is the Requisition Form for EGM 3. The 'at least 20% by share value' owners are requisitioning for these motions to be on the Agenda.

We are 7 months into the collective sale attempt and it is clear things are not being done in a logical order.   Indeed as a property-agent-driven-sale from the start, things are going exactly the way the property agent brigade want matters to go: ie the old way.  

The main  issues above could have and should have been dealt with by the owners 7 MONTHS AGO, they also could have been raised in EGM 2 under 'other matters'.  But they weren't.

It was at the FIRST EGM under the missing half of the motion AND ITS POWERS, DUTIES OR FUNCTIONS  of the sale committee that the valuation report/ slush fund for miscellaneous matters could have been decided. We were denied half the motion by our  managing agent, even though I had written in with a motion to amend the motion for it's inclusion and had my list of powers, duties or functions all ready on the day (Valuation Report before marketing agent selection being No. 1 on the list).  The herd mentality from the floor was strong, the speakers were property agents and en bloc raiders determined to do things their way and the mood swayed in their direction.  The leader in this en bloc sale attempt, the requisition starter, the one who wanted questioning of sale committee candidates restricted, has turned out to be none other than the Marketing Director for Team ERA.

Resolutions 
1: To resolve and approve the terms and conditions on the CSA. 
2. To resolve and empower the SC on appointment of an independent property consultant for report on apportionment of sale proceeds.
And when are the owners going to decide on their preferred method of apportionment? Will there be an EGM 4? Or are we being asked to let 10 owners decide alone on this  matter?
The SC should not be allowed to choose the valuer; that can easily be done by the owners themselves at the scheduled LTSA Owners' meeting between 80% and tender. The SC can line up 3 valuers for owners to choose from.

3. To resolve and decide on the Reserve Price
4. To resolve and decide on the need for independent Valuation prior to fixing RP and empower the SC to appoint the independent valuer.
It is too late now. The well is poisoned, we have an MA on board and a proposed RP .
.
7. To resolve and authorize the MC to permit the sales committee to use the conference room at no cost.
8. To resolve and authorize the SC to use the void decks for any meeting of the SPs with the Solicitors for signing the CSA or meeting SC members.

This EGM will be the CSA EGM and the CSA MUST include the following (FIRST SCHEDULE):
3. The collective sale committee shall provide a preface to the collective sale agreement stating the clause numbers and page numbers in which the following information are found:
(a) the reserve price for the development; 
(b) the apportionment method for the proceeds of sale;
(c) the fees payable to the advocate and solicitor, marketing agent and other person involved in handling the collective sale;
(d) the amount of the compensation fund, if any; 
(e) the person entitled to any interest derived from moneys held by any stakeholder; and 
(f) the date of delivery of vacant possession of the lot or flat.



NOTE WHEN MAKING COMMENTS:
PLEASE DO NOT STATE THE RP IN YOUR COMMENTS AS IT IS OSTENSIBLY CONFIDENTIAL - THOUGH IT WILL SOON BE AN OPEN SECRET....  IT IS A HASSLE FOR ME TO DELETE

12 comments:

  1. Anonymous23 July, 2011

    totally agree.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous23 July, 2011

    Resolution 2 asks us to empower them to appoint an independent valuer for the apportionment of proceeds. There is a need for another EOGM to approve the apportionment. This really looks messy.

    So ERA is now the marketing agent for the enbloc. Any agent in the sale committee an ERA agent? There will be a conflict of interest! Council of Estate Agents(CEA)'s latest Practice Guidelines are very clear on this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous23 July, 2011

    I think it is important to do a first mover advantage to ensure that we are not shortchanged. First we need to move a motion for a Reserve Price we deem right, otherwise a much lower figure may appear to our disadvantage. The motion shall be:

    "To resolve and approve the Reserve Price for the collective sale of Tampines Court as $1.9m"

    Any seconder?

    We have to move a motion otherwise like in Rd 1, the SC put up and the crowd went with the flow!!!It happens all the time.Remember the preliminary stage of this enbloc?

    Did the SC suggest a motion in the coming EOGM to empower the SC to increase the RP? This is a no-brainer. That is what reserve price is about, a based price!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous25 July, 2011

    Again, same bad en-bloc process...
    Again, the same few good people who bring this up
    And the rest like the last time, sits on the fence; like it is written, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'
    So to the rest of you, you either dance along with ERA or mourn with the funeral song because it is again going wrong.
    Basically, don't do nothing...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous25 July, 2011

    Years to correct supply-demand imbalance for HDB flats: Khaw
    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1142742/1/.html

    On Friday, figures from the HDB showed prices rising by 3.1 per cent in the second quarter of this year, nearly twice the previous quarter's 1.6 per cent.

    "Why do prices go up? It's very simple, because there's an imbalance in supply and demand. Supply means... build more. (But) you won't see the flat until three years later. New housing plans will have effect on the resale market. So the more I push out, I'm sure there's some influence," said Mr Khaw.

    The above news means that when the en-bloc goes through, at the suggested price of $1.5mil per unit, in 2 years time when prices of home have not yet quite stabilized, you'll have to hold your money, rent a place, $2K every month for 2 to 3 years which works out to $72K and prices stabilized, by the way, it is stabilized, not crash.
    Or you take the money and buy a home smaller but higher priced than your current nice cosy home.
    The MA like previous one will get commission only if the sale is successful.
    Question, do you think a bunch of property agents, committed to put 2 years of effort, will not push the sale at the price to guarantee a sale to get their money?
    In the same article, Mr Khaw said it is a simple reason, low supply, high demand for HDB. What you don't know is that it means property agents will be closing lesser deals in the coming months and years.
    It means more desperadoes... to make a bad deal happen. Why?
    Because if the en-bloc happens, more than 500 families will be displaced and looking for homes to buy... it's win-win for property agents and lose-lose for home owners.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous25 July, 2011

    Valuation before setting RP is necessary.
    Looking at HDB's website Q1 COV for HDB 5-room and executive in Tampines is $25K and $40K respectively.
    However, Q2 COV for the same flat types in Tampines is $42K and $51K respectively.
    Mr Khaw is right, we can't use the generic Median COV to determine HDB resale prices, neither can we just depend on some numbers by one ERA to sway your home RP for the en-bloc. An independent valuation now to set the RP and later again during the tender is necessary to ensure we're not short changed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous25 July, 2011

    not to worry la. Papers already stated that large sites going for enbloc are not going go thru. Pine Grove, Laguna... all fail... looks like a futile exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous25 July, 2011

    Those who suggest independent valuation before setting the RP are naive. You get 10 different valuers, you will get 10 very different valuations. I can tell you now that you will get 10 different figures ranging from $1.2m to $2m for each unit. Those who have work with valuers will know. Valuation is not science but very much an art. Do not waste our money(probably cost from $20k to $100k, again different valuers charge differently) going for valuations!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous25 July, 2011

    ... Do not waste our money...
    For HDB resale, there is always valuation done and sale is almost always above valuation, hence there is COV($30 to $70K).
    HDB resale price ranges from $300K to $550K, the sellers will get the valuation done, and add on the COV, they easily recover the money spend.
    But in TC, there are people who are trying to sell an entire estate which is close to a billion dollars and they say, do not waste our money...? How much are you wasting? $100K divided by 448 (80%) = $223. Or if divided by 560, is $178. Come to think about it, those who think only of wasting $178 - $223 is either stupid or desperate.
    If valuation is an art get a great famous artist. If it is science, then get a great famous scientist. - With a reputation to keep so that they will not anyhow valuate to give any o how number...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous25 July, 2011

    Pine Grove is asking for $1.7Billion, ERA is getting TC to en-bloc at (RP deleted by itshometome). ERA had used the architect come up with some suggestion of how the land is to be used, and then used that low efficiency to press the price down for cheap sale. I am sure the developer's own architect will be better at land efficiency then this one. Want to bet?
    If you are developer, you'll consider that TC has 2 MRT stations and shopping malls nearby, and a new Station coming up. Plus the NEW Town Hub coming within the next 5 years, it will have International schools and SUTD in this mature estate with served by expressways at half the price of Pine Grove which does not have any of the above, what do you think?
    - I think ERA has justed lay-long TC away if the owners bite into it...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous25 July, 2011

    Wow, which means that there is a Giant Loop Hole in the en-bloc rule for independent valuation at close of tender. So if the RP is set at 9deleted by itshometome) like ERA suggested, all the MA, SC needs to do is get independent valuation to be below (deleted by itshometome) - TC is sold for a song...
    "Do not waste our money"... So if because not wasting money (like the first en-bloc people say), and owners simply follow the artistic valuation of ERA's architect and sells it for (deleted) and while another valuation by expert with better art values TC at (deleted) - then aren't we losing even more?
    $100k divided by 560 is only $178 per unit.
    Whereas, $50mil difference in RP will mean a lost of $89,285 per unit.
    Tell me how much do you want to risk losing, $178 or $89K per unit?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous27 July, 2011

    hi guys, did you guys get the MAs to bid competitively before selecting the MA? You should have gotten them to bid aggressively for a high RP. Then you do not need to consider a Independent Valuation. In fact, do you know how to use the independent valuation in the first place?

    ReplyDelete