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.

Hougang and the MA's "Extensive Research"

Since the MA thinks it's a good idea for us all to move to equally old Hougang, let's look at how prices are in general with the ex-HUDC estates (all now privatised).

Well, it does seem that most are out of our reach even now, and so our paltry $1.3m (excl costs & expenses of the sale etc) won't allow us to side-grade. Wonderful, beautiful, convenient Hougang (sorry all Hougangers who are reading this) might have a few units up for grabs at $1m or so, but I expect with even 50 ex-Tampines Courters scrabbling for a new home, even Hougang's prices will spike and devour the whole of the sales proceeds.  These estates are also continually undergoing enbloc disturbances. It's bad here, but it's just as bad elsewhere. Here are excerpts from 2 emails sent from someone in one of the Hougang estates:


In Florence Regency, less than 20% of owners signed the requisition for an en bloc........... yet the MC is allowing them to convene an EOGM after the AGM..............This is seriously very irritating!

Today:  You will need to spend a lot on renovating your new maisonette if you were to 'sidegrade' here! Not enough from the paltry payout to render it worthwhile! 

Oh joy, let's move to Hougang.

Furthermore,  my Hougang source now informs me of the following:

I read over the FAQ leaflet provided by the MA posted on FB. They've stated that the average selling price of units in Rio Casa is 830k. You can point out that the MA has failed to qualify this statement. I viewed 3 units put up for auction by HDB in RC that had no takers since day one. .........  HDB eventually sold 2 under the hammer for 730k (2 #02 units in 349 next to the bin centre) and another on #14 at 840k. All 3 were in their original condition and without any kitchen cabinets - in the original  condition you won't like. If nobody wanted them in the 1980s for 190-210k, something isn't right. You can google for it. DTZ auctions marketed the 3 units. You would never get a decent move in condition unit in RC, though remote, at that price! The 2 on the low floor were not even liveable - dead cockroaches on the floor - and difficult to rent out and even I didn't want to buy it at 730k. Add in stamp duty and extensive renovation and you're looking at $830k! Even my vet neighbour who viewed with us said they were absolutely s*** and worth $300k!

The rock bottom auction prices of those units in Rio Casa were featured in the ST alongside a bank sale in Pine Grove at 930k. The third unit which sold at 730k was auctioned separately a few months after the first two were sold*. After checking with the DTZ auctioneer, she said it sold at 730k. ...... this sale is not on the URA database.....
.
The point is that the MA is manipulating statistics and has not discovered the unusual circumstances of the sale. Notice they didn't use Florence Regency prices because they're higher. 3 units sold under the hammer will definitely lower the average PSF price but there's no way you will have sellers let go of their strata titled homes at such rock bottom prices. The ST article on the auction didn't highlight the fact that HDB was the seller!

The above information can indeed be found on the ST website. The MA boasted tin the FAQ Flyer that the Casa Rio prices were 'based on their extensive research'. So, their extensive research failed to highlight to the owners that these units were unliveable, cockroach infested hellholes that even the HDB could not sell from day 1 and so were sold at auction by the HDB through DTZ after decades of decay. The MA highlighted none of this and instead proffered such bottom-of-the-barrel properties as suitable replacement homes to Tampines Court owners.

So, after we get the sales proceeds there is nothing left but to downgrade, downsize to a privatised cockroach hellhole or HDB.

It's important to remember that the record price for a Tampines Court unit is $1.25m. The RP at $1.3m is a joke. People laugh when I tell them what the RP is, the general consensus is we are being robbed.

From Realis:
Projects: Ex-HUDC estates  Contract Date: Jan 2016-Aug 2016


Project Name Area (sqm) Type of Area Transacted Price ($) Unit Price ($ psf) Sale Date Tenure Completion Date Planning Area
BRADDELL VIEW
135
Strata
1,070,000
736
27-APR-2016 99 Yrs From 01/04/1978 1978 Toa Payoh
BRADDELL VIEW
158
Strata
1,350,000
794
26-MAY-2016 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 1981 Toa Payoh
BRADDELL VIEW
158
Strata
1,300,000
764
21-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 1981 Toa Payoh
BRADDELL VIEW
167
Strata
1,380,000
768
20-APR-2016 99 Yrs From 29/04/1981 1981 Toa Payoh
BRADDELL VIEW
150
Strata
1,285,000
796
11-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 01/04/1978 1978 Toa Payoh
CHANCERY COURT
189
Strata
2,000,000
983
28-JAN-2016 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 1981 Novena
CHANCERY COURT
189
Strata
1,825,000
897
19-JAN-2016 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 1981 Novena
EUNOSVILLE
156
Strata
1,200,000
715
31-MAY-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
EUNOSVILLE
156
Strata
1,120,000
667
28-APR-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
EUNOSVILLE
158
Strata
1,100,000
647
24-JUN-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
EUNOSVILLE
158
Strata
1,140,000
670
23-MAR-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
EUNOSVILLE
156
Strata
1,180,000
703
15-APR-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
EUNOSVILLE
161
Strata
1,200,000
692
13-MAY-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
EUNOSVILLE
156
Strata
1,150,000
685
03-MAY-2016 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Geylang
FLORENCE REGENCY
158
Strata
888,000
522
25-APR-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
FLORENCE REGENCY
157
Strata
900,000
533
24-MAR-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
FLORENCE REGENCY
158
Strata
900,000
529
20-JUN-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
FLORENCE REGENCY
157
Strata
870,000
515
20-JUL-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
FLORENCE REGENCY
158
Strata
930,000
547
16-JUN-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
FLORENCE REGENCY
156
Strata
868,000
517
12-JUL-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
FLORENCE REGENCY
157
Strata
880,000
521
12-JAN-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
FLORENCE REGENCY
156
Strata
861,888
513
08-APR-2016 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 Unknown Hougang
IVORY HEIGHTS
155
Strata
1,000,000
599
25-APR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
IVORY HEIGHTS
158
Strata
1,220,000
717
22-JUL-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
IVORY HEIGHTS
158
Strata
1,008,888
593
18-MAR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
IVORY HEIGHTS
181
Strata
1,190,000
611
15-MAR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
IVORY HEIGHTS
158
Strata
1,200,000
706
15-APR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
IVORY HEIGHTS
155
Strata
960,000
575
07-MAR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
IVORY HEIGHTS
158
Strata
1,300,000
764
07-APR-2016 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Jurong East
LAGUNA PARK
135
Strata
1,215,000
836
24-JUN-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedok
LAGUNA PARK
135
Strata
1,205,000
829
21-JUL-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedok
LAGUNA PARK
135
Strata
1,160,000
798
12-APR-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedok
LAGUNA PARK
150
Strata
1,450,000
898
11-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedok
LAGUNA PARK
150
Strata
1,188,888
736
11-APR-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedeck
LAGUNA PARK
150
Strata
1,340,000
830
08-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 1978 Bedok
LAKEVIEW ESTATE
150
Strata
1,200,000
743
31-MAY-2016 99 Yrs From 01/06/1977 1977 Bishan
PINE GROVE
155
Strata
1,050,000
629
29-JUN-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
155
Strata
1,075,000
644
27-JUL-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
155
Strata
938,000
562
25-MAY-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
162
Strata
1,145,000
657
25-JUL-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
163
Strata
1,450,000
826
25-JAN-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
155
Strata
1,200,000
719
18-JUL-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
158
Strata
1,360,000
800
17-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
163
Strata
1,290,000
735
17-JUN-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
155
Strata
1,120,000
671
10-MAR-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
155
Strata
1,010,000
605
08-JUL-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
108
Strata
890,000
766
04-AUG-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
155
Strata
1,050,000
629
03-JUN-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
162
Strata
1,080,000
619
03-AUG-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
163
Strata
1,420,000
809
03-AUG-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
PINE GROVE
109
Strata
910,000
776
02-AUG-2016 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 Unknown Bukit Timah
RIO CASA
156
Strata
840,000
500
30-MAR-2016 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Hougang
RIO CASA
153
Strata
840,000
510
29-FEB-2016 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Hougang
RIO CASA
151
Strata
845,000
520
19-MAY-2016 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Hougang
RIO CASA
156
Strata
730,000
435
13-APR-2016 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 Unknown Hougang

15 comments:

  1. Why not consider a maisonette or executive HDB flat? Well below 1 million, plenty of mature estates in more central locations, build in the 90s. All about 150sqm in size.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To: Above comment - Why not consider a HDB maisonette?

    1. HUDC was under the management of HDB in the 90s. Our government came out with the privatisation program for HUDC to UPGRADE to private estate.
    It is a joke we go enbloc and move back to HDB. Enbloc should enable us to upgrade to condo and with some cash windfall.

    2. The problem with this enbloc is SC/MA set the RP too low. We should deal with the low RP problem and not asking residents to downgrade to HDB.

    3. The MA/SC always intentionlly based on the current resale price to try to convince the low RP can by e.g. $800K+ Hougang ex-HUDC. They purposely never tell
    you that we cannot but NOW but 2-3 years later when we get the sales proceed. Will the price of Hougang ex-HUDC remained at $800K+ 2-3 years later ?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be frank, to me getting a HDB will be a sidegrade, not a downgrade. What's the difference between an executive HDB apartment in a mature estate and Tampines Court? A strata title with a similar lease on it is a moot point in my opinion.

      Of course i understand that to many people TC has been there home for many years and they are attached to it. This is something that cannot be quantified.

      Just looking at the face value of things for discussion sake.

      Delete
    2. How is it a side-grade? HDB to HDB is a side-grade. Private to HDB is a downgrade. The HDB have a myriad of rules regarding selling/buying and who you can leave your house to after you die. That is an important point for some people. It is not easy to leave your estate to sons/daughters unless they fulfil HDB requirements. There are no restrictions on private homes. The difference between HDB and Private is that one is Stat Board controlled and the other is under your control (except in cases on enbloc).

      Delete
    3. Buying and selling rules are really no hindrance when you are looking for a home to stay long-term. There are plenty of nice mature estates out there, something gotta fit. After the lease is up it goes back to the state, no matter if private or HDB. Same goes for passing the home on to your spouse or children.

      The only real value-add to going private is security (fence and/or guards) and facilities. Personally i never cared much for facilities. Added security can be comforting if the estate had issues before but i think it's pretty safe anywhere in Singapore. It's a status symbol at most in my opinion.

      To some, going private is just a stepping stone to en-bloc.

      Delete
  3. don't want to go into details, just sufficient to say that when 2 agents came to give out flyers and explain the sequence that they (Hutton) changed the RP lower, the one has to correct the other saying, "Not like that, it's ..." so even their own agents didn't get their story or act together... I suppose after talking to me with that discrepancy in story, they have to go back and re-calibrate among themselves..

    ReplyDelete
  4. To those who are OK living in public housing, I respect your choice: sell your TC apt and get that HDB exec flat you so yearn with cash to spare for a comfortable life.

    It's disingenuous to claim understanding for those who regard TC as our much loved home and yet advocate this forced sale. Stressing and disrupting their neighbors lives unnecessarily.

    Do They Care?

    To be frank, it's selfish, insensitive and downright greedy!

    Enuff said

    ReplyDelete
  5. In MA/SC's Collective sale FAQ, it was stated that "The recent sales transacted at Tampines Court were in the range of $843,000 to $915,000 (based on caveats lodged in June and July 2016) ). At about $1.32m gross sales proceeds per unit, this translates to approximately a 50% premium over its current transacted price on average."

    Today is 18 August, just about two weeks (their cutoff is Jul 2016) after MA's 50% premium calculation, there are new transactions in Jul and Aug 2016 in the range of $844K to $941K, the average for the eight latest transactions ($941K+$900K+$915K+$865K+$844K+902K+$910K+$850K from URA caveats) is $890.88K.

    If MA/SC is to maintain the premium at 50%, the the RP should be adjusted upward to ($890.88 * 1.5) $1.336M.

    The increase is ($1.336M - $1.32M) $16,000 per unit which is not a small sum of money.

    If MA/SC is using this marketing tool to convince the SPs, then they should monitor TC resale price and adjust the RP whenever there are new resale transactions.

    Hope that MA/SC is viewing this comment and take positive action to adjust the RP.

    If average resale prices of TC increased and RP is not adjusted, where is the premium goes to ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Post that on their FB ... I prefer 50% premium of last highest transacted price (943*1.5) $1.41m or better yet (1.25*1.5) $1.87m. Surely they need to keep their marketing tool current :P. In any case, we should keep them informed of any erosion.

      Delete
    2. They cannot raise the RP. It would render this collective sale unworkable. Sorry

      Delete
    3. Uhm, this isn't going anywhere. You can't possibly adjust the RP every time a unit is selling. Besides, the premium is determined by the current land valuation. The developer is buying land, not apartments.

      Delete
    4. Of course not, I was being sarcastic . Notice the :P ?
      :)

      Delete
    5. Yes, the RP should be determined by Residual Land Valuation method but MA/SC is no showing the calculation.

      In their FAQ "Why should I sell at 1.32m", the MA/SC linked the RP to 50% premium of individual unit selling prices in Jun-Jul 2016 period. There is no mention of land value of Tampines Court. (or $1.32m*560 is the land value ?)

      As a layman and also to protect my interest, it is logical to ask MA/SC to maintain 50% premium whenever individual resale price is increased. If not, the 50% premium will disappear over times. You can see in just two weeks, the premium is decreased to 48% when average selling price increased to $890k.

      Below is extracted from Enbloc 1 cross examination of property agent(A) by minority lawyer(Q):

      Q. So how does the sale price of an individual unit have an impact or
      relationship to the sale price of the entire site en bloc?
      A. The impact will show actually that we work out the whole en bloc, okay,
      whether the owner suffer any losses.

      Q. So the impact is it’s a marketing tool to encourage owners to go en bloc;
      am I right?
      A. Yes.

      Q. But it has nothing to do with the price they get en bloc? It doesn’t impact
      the price they get; am I right?
      A. Yes.

      Delete
  6. Another question is that who set the premium when they use this marketing tool? SC/MA or SPs? 50% or 66% ?

    If we use En bloc 1's premium (66%), the RP should be (890.88*1.66) 1.478M.

    The MA/SC need to show all SPs the proper calculation to convince $1.32M is right RP.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So MA/SC's FAQ is out-dated now.

      MA/SC should amend their FAQ "Why should I sell at 1.32m" to :

      The recent sales transacted at Tampines Court were in the range of $844,000 to $941,000 (based on caveats lodged in June and Aug 2016) ). At about $1.32m gross sales proceeds per unit, this translates to approximately a 48% premium over its current transacted price on average."

      Delete