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.

What awaits us Part 2

It is my guess that only those following the sale committee's Facebook page would have known about the drama of the marketing agent quitting and returning to the collective sale. No minutes of any meeting regarding the matter was ever put on the Notice Board for general viewing - so the SC raising the RP must just seem like a welcome surprise.


After declaring that the higher RP was unworkable and resigning in a huff - the marketing agent is back in force and carrying on as if nothing happened.  Indeed, to the many SPs still in the dark, nothing did happen. So, why is the MA so invested in this 'unworkable' RP? Why are 10-12 agents giving up their precious weekends to mill about the void deck, springing data on passing owners, fishing for signatures? 

Their viewpoint 2 months ago was that that the additional time, effort and resources will be spent for naught.  Somehow they are now happily expending that additional time, putting in a huge amount of effort but with still minimal resources for ......... what exactly? What is afoot?

Call me paranoid, but the smell of money is always at the root of such feverish activity.

One possible explanation for this U-turn could be that there is a strong, interested party waiting in the wings - not at the current revised RP1 - but at the original low RP0 and that a plan of action has been put into place. 

They are running out of time. They have 5 months left on the clock before all is lost. They need to reboot a new 12 months and the best way to do that is to get the 80% asap. It does nor matter if it is at the higher RP1 because it's just a carrot to buy them more time.

Twelve more months to convince 34% of the remaining 54% to lower their expectations , hold empty public tenders and persuade us that the only private offer available is the best we can ever hope for, If 34% add their names to the 46% then it's sayonara Tampines Court. Only then will they apply to the STB for collective sale. 

A year is a long time.  

In the meantime, the sale committee continue on with their un-minuted chit-chats.


9 comments:

  1. All that stealthy, under the radar discussion. Leaving Homeowners out of the loop. I concur shhhhh.........

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's odd that Huttons, despite now having the upper hand, decide to happily continue without SC complying to a single of MA's previous set of demands. All this during this Chinese New Year season no less. Charity?
    Who is the convincing Ace Deal maker, Top notch negotiator in our SC? Tell us how you did it? Please.

    ReplyDelete
  3. MA's resignation opened up to SC a fortuitous opportunity to seek new partners. This MA was unpopular because his selection process was not aboveboard, unambitious RP and even Chairman doubted his good faith by describing his hefty RP reduction as 'have no basis and unconvincing'. It was shocking to learn of a reconciliation with Huttons. Stranger still, Huttons agreed to return, Sans earlier demands. Any responsible manager would have put in additional safeguards before committing to a challenging endeavour that's 'unworkable and a waste of time, effort and resources.' Well, maybe they did do a risk-reward analysis during those 2 weeks it took them to decide. We're not privy to those stakeholders meetings at Huttons.

    SC, was there any enticements offered to tease Huttons back?

    In the absence of any proper minuted meetings after 5 Nov 2016, SPs are unaware of what other options available for Tampines Court, decision making processes and accountability for the final SC decision.
    Mr Chairman, tell us how many and who are the other property consultants invited.
    Divulge the original withdrawal letter of MA and all correspondence with Huttons, including that on the 8, 14 and 23 Dec 2016.

    We, SPs of Tampines Court have a right to know. We ought to have a say. It's our homes at stake.






    ReplyDelete
  4. Chairman and company seem quite tolerant and obliging with their cherished MA. They respectfully acquiescence to MA's baseless RP reduction despite serious misgivings. Snippets from Mr TF and TTW emails of 21.06.16:
    "Huttons...say that the real value of TC exceed the RP they recommend"
    "increase of construction costs of it's location and site constraint...has NO basis"
    "Dr Tan and Mr Vasan notes... insight that concluded TL respond not convincing"
    "I am of the opinion that the RP should be reinstated" (Explosive letter from SC V Chmn Mr Vasan. 18.09.16)

    Mr Dillon Loi, legally trained MA of Mt Everest Properties, shortlisted for final round was dropped due 'laying down conditions' and attempting to 'orchestrate' proceedings. Mr Loi had participated in other Collective Sales before and after TC and had NEVER before demanded to be last speaker nor asked for common RP and commission for all participating agencies.
    It is now known that former SC Secretary is an associate of winning MA.
    Is Mr Loi's seemingly irreverent but valid request a greater wrong than a potential Conflict of Interest? Was Mr Loi trying to level the playing field? (Mtg9)
    SPs don't really know. We want to know.
    Chairman need to divulge Mr Dillon Loi's letter in full.

    MA had a set of demands for SC to meet before agreeing to continue representing TC. Some conditions were in breach of Tampines Court bye-laws, others would incur costs to our SC. Yet there was no outcry of 'unreasonable conditions' or accusations of 'orchestrating' this Enbloc. (Mtg16)
    SC, true to form, dutifully complied.

    Some Agencies are more equal than others.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SC is willing to pay to comply and retain this MA and yet balk at a FREE of CHARGE valuation offer? It's looking very suspicious.
      Mr Chairman, serious explanation required.

      Delete
  5. "Twelve more months to convince 34% of the remaining 54% to lower their expectations" - given the low first RP and the current cost of replacement homes i find it very unlikely to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This MA is incessantly lowballing Tampines Court.
    * They mischievously state reasons which are intrinsic to all Enbloc sites as peculiar to TC to depress our RP eg not a clean site, longer pre-construction period, 6 mths vacant possession, High Court proc...
    * Make unfair comparisons: Poiz(commercial cum residential, GPR 3.5) with Raintree Gdns(residential only GPR 2.8)
    Tampines Ave 10 condos (inferior site on fringes of Tampines) with Tampines Court (smack in the sweet spot)
    * Questionable methodology in his RLV calculations:
    Ignores prescribed RLV method mutually agreed by opposing Senior Council and 5 Board members in TC Enbloc 1 challenge at STB.
    Cites irrelevant, outdated efficiency references applied prior to introduction of 10% bonus balcony scheme. ( a non sequitur deemed more worthy of mention than far reaching Valuation offer. tsk tsk SC, How could you. Mtg 16)
    * Crooked inventiveness to dupe SC with 'Alternate construction methods' Yet to be substantiated with official engineering reports.
    It is therefore not surprising that TC payout pales in comparison with other recent HUDC collective sale.
    When SC selective research uncovers data (which Dev and when TOP?) in support of a low RP in harmony with MA, they betrayed their tight association and common cause (undersell) with MA.
    When Principal Officers kept from us, and did not take up a valuation offer, it exposed an SC that is uncomfortable, uninterested or afraid to know the true value of TC.
    This new RP is just a ploy to attain that elusive 80%.
    Indeed, recent signers were 'prep'to expect a lower RP than what they signed for.

    Do our Representatives have the Courage of their Conviction to do the right thing?
    Or are they intimidated, distressed, tired, weak, lazy or is it just for their selfish personal gain? It really doesn't matter anymore.
    SC has FAILED to rein in this MA. There are NO checks and balance.
    Tampines Court is compromised.

    MA is the de facto leader of this Enbloc.
    He alone will rule on the 'fair' price of TC, protected by his own exclusively selected valuer.
    SC presence is only to make it legal.

    Sign at your own peril.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MA/SC Combo is obligated to seek 'best price'. Instead they pursued the 'lowest defensible' price option for a guaranteed, no fuss quick sell.
      Their actions seem to confirm this.

      Delete
  7. In response to feedback from concerned SPs, SC have carefully deliberated and will now revise the RP to a Double Plus Impossible $1000 Million.
    A perfectly realistic, achievable Start price point for serious and genuine land starved Developers to competitively bid in land scarce Singapore with projected population of 10 million in 2026.( SC/MA confidential population studies circa 2016)

    You can promise anything if you have no intention of honoring.
    Should not have started the ball rollin with 1984 prices. (pardon my 'Newspeak' and 'Doublethink'

    ReplyDelete