"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.

The Shrinking 50% Premium

The marketing tool employed by the MA is the 'Premium over individual sale' method. The 'premium' is an old trick, a fallacious marketing tool used by property agents to entice owners to sign the CSA.  It is never guaranteed, serving only to get people to sign on the dotted line. Once signed (and the 5 day cooling period is over) they are permanently and irrevocably locked in. The premium is not. It quietly erodes over time to disappear altogether. Owners should never lock themselves into a reserve price based on a 'premium' because markets never stand still. Always remember.. we are selling land for redevelopment, not our individual units. The market value of your unit has no bearing whatsoever on the calculations in the RLV from which the RP should be derived. Don't be conned by this trick. 

A comment below (Lee 18 Aug) must have gone through the STB TapeTranscripts of RD 1 and found the telling moment when the property agent finally flinched and told the truth under cross examination. The brilliant lawyer (now a Senior Counsel) was grilling him on the 66% premium. Thanks Lee.

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.

Lee also goes on the say that since the FAQ was published two weeks ago, there have been new caveats lodged and so a new premium calculation is in order. 

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. 
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.

 Whilst I do NOT encourage the use of the premium in any way shape or form, it would be interesting to follow it's disappearance... maybe I'll put in a premium countdown counter if I can find one :P

Since the MA chooses the latest figures, then we must, too. Jun & Jul now turns into Jul & Aug
lets look at those transactions:
(915k+900k+941k) = average $918.7k

Average selling price + 50% premium is (918.7*1.5) = $1.378 / unit

Wow, our RP should be increased immediately to maintain the 50%!

If not , then the premium just sank to 43% 


  1. It can shrink or expand. Such is the nature of the property market. Don't sign if you feel you can get more money selling your apartment individually.

  2. What about those who don't want to sell at all because it's not possible to buy a property of this size, with the amenities provided by this location, easy access to PIE, Green spaces, ample parking for anywhere near what we will be offered.

    Why do I want to sell?

    I'm not waiting for high price or excess money. I just don't want to move because there is nothing comparable to Tampines Court that interests me.

    When the MA understand this and are able to explain this to potential developers then maybe they can value Tampines Court properly. It has nothing to do with the value of a run down unit that is previously leased on a per room basis and sold off cheap. It has all to do with the incalculable value of those who own a unit in Tampines Court, call it home and don't want to move.

  3. More pertinent questions would be:

    Are you getting the best price?

    Do you trust the SC has your interest foremost?

    Do you believe their explanation thus far?

    Has the team shown professionalism, competence, integrity and enterprise?

    Pardon me but what I see is a team lacking direction, in disarray, members in conflict n having completely lost the plot. Their poorly thoughtout explanation only breeds more suspicion n frustration.

    Ask yourself; Are you comfortable that this team has the wherewithal to negotiate our multi million dollar TC?

    I put it to you these are the most important n relevant questions all T Courters must ask ourselves before we commit.

  4. To: itshometome

    Thank you for allowing me to post my views in your blog which contains the most comprehensive information about Tampines Court EnBloc exercises.

    I was extremely impressed by the cross examinations conducted by the minority lawyers during Enbloc 1. A lot of truths about how MA conducted their "Due diligence", how developer put pressure on MA/SC by giving half hour deadline etc were discovered.

    All these precious information will provide references for us to assess if another claim by Enbloc3 MA/SC that "Low RP will make bidders outbid each other" is workable in Enbloc exercise.

    I will share my view if Enbloc3 progress to the bidding stage.

    I also wish to thank you and the minority group for saving TC in Enbloc1.

    Thank you.

  5. To: Above comment "If can shrink or expend..."

    Your comment "Don't sign if you feel you can get more money selling your apartment individually" is the REVERSE of MA/SC's marketing line "Sign and you can get 1.32m 50% premium of average Jun/July 2016 individual resale price."

    But MA/SC do not tell the SPs that $1.32m can only be collected 2-3 years later. I may also sign if I can collect $1.32m 2-3 months later instead of 2-3 years

    If the RP is set too low, the individual sale price can be more than RP in the up market over times. This happened in Enbloc1. The sequence of events were as follows:

    Dec 2005 : MA/SC set RP at $700K+. 66% premium over individual sale.
    Jul 2008 : STB hearing. RP is the same $700K+ after 2 year+. TC sale dismissed.
    Year 2008 : Individual resale price $537K to $633K
    Year 2009 : Individual resale price $485K to $725K
    Year 2010 : Individual resale price $665K to $900K
    Year 2011 : Individual resale price $850K to $1080K

    It is obvious that if you sell in year 2009, you can get more than the RP set in Dec 2005 during Enbloc1.

    Hope that the history of Enbloc1 do not repeat in Enbloc3.

    (Note: Resale figures extracted from this blog.)

  6. Questions before I sign:

    Can I trust this SC puts residents interest's foremost?

    Is the committee effectively led, focused, enterprising, possess sound judgement with healthy scepticism, savvy enough to negotiate this enormous deal?

    I see a team in disarray, members in conflict, rudderless and intellectually challenged, making several missteps:

    1) The revised RP explanation is incomplete n inconsistent(silver zone). This breeds further suspicion. angst and resentment.

    2) The one and only Enbloc I'm aware that officially confirms n broadcast the RP (Adv:Developer, Unwarranted transparency)

    3) Yet RLV calculations denied to inquiring SP ( Handicap SP, Warranted transparency). So I speculate that MA is either unable to reconcile the RP with RLV nbrs or No Valuation was ever done to save money. The frugal MA did try to save on address labels and rentals.

    4) Making a request to MCST that contravenes the BMSM Act. Ignorant of the law yet not using the Legal resources at it's disposal.

    5) The indefensible Payout has severely restricted SP future housing options. MA's solution: RIO CASA only 286 units total.Last I checked (22 Aug), 3 Apts for sale ( 930k, 1.0M, 1.08M )It's ongoing enbloc so may not be available in future. Buy now and pay ABSD. The MA recommendation is unworkable, unrealistic and cannot be serious. It shows contempt to T Courters.

    Many in TC can expect their future housing prospects compromised, face financial and emotional stress suffer a degraded lifestyle with this team in charge.
    Enbloc is suppose to enrich and enhance our lives.

    For my neighbors and my sake: I Won't sign.

    1. Hi, Thank you for your invitation. I strongly believe that this Enbloc3 will not get 80% support with this low RP. I will join if it reaches 80%. Thank you.

  7. Have you checked your letterbox of late. There is another letter from SC and MA trying to instill fear