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.

Signing




36 comments:

  1. Anonymous07 May, 2017

    They shoot themselves on the foot. Wasted yesterday whole day & today only 2 hrs for SPs to sign. Bad move! Time is definitely against us now. !

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous07 May, 2017

    I have signed. This was my thought process:
    Get the money (probably 1-2 years later),..get a smaller (easier to maintain), newer (don’t need to call plumber any more) single level unit (old liao,, cannot climb already) before market takes off in terms of price. Put the balance into a Fixed Deposit/bonds and earn interest.
    Compared to waiting for enbloc 4. Probably get the same money in real terms (after accounting for inflation, increase in top up and Devt charges). Buy at higher price down the road and waste 3 to 5 years of fixed deposit interest/dividends. Makes no sense to me.
    Am I missing something here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous08 May, 2017


      Your assumption is based on receipt of 1.XM, yes? I too believe 1.XM is fair and good payout. I did not sign. Professional negotiators of mega deals are unreasonable, unscrupulous, tough as nails to get the lowest price possible. Reasonableness nor fairness is not their objective. Only RLV flashed to SPs justified a 1.3XM payout. Our SC pleaded quite convincingly, with supporting evidence for all to be realistic and not be too adventurous, even impossible to go above that. Latest RP is in response to GLS, or the cynical will argue just to get the 80%. Our negotiators have compromised themselves. I do not feel reassured or protected by any CSC endorsed 'objective' valuer. The legal challenge will be quite daunting, even insurmountable. But that's our opinion, ordinary residents without legal training. If 80% is reached, in 1-2 years you may get nothing (no buyer), smaller payout than promised (likely) or an SC still in legal quagmire (equally likely, who's paying the legal costs
      (Rp edited by itshometome)

      Delete
    2. Anonymous08 May, 2017

      If all you think is a bad outcome, then no need even to get out of bed because something bad will happen.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous08 May, 2017

      hi. RP is technically the bottom price for the estate to be sold...yes subject to nego..true but you still have a right to say 'No' later if u disagree with any offers that comes along..its not as if you are signing all your rights and home away. You are faced with 2 doors in front of you. The left door says got chance to get the money in 1 to 2 years time. The right door says got chance can get the same money (in real terms) after 5 years. Both are similarly 'got chance' doors...i rather take my chance now...

      Delete
    4. Anonymous08 May, 2017

      What legal challenge? As long as the price is backed by an independent valuation and the sale was no in bad faith it will go through.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous08 May, 2017

      I don't know what u mean by " in 1- 2 years time, we may get nothing (no buyer)". Once tender is awarded to highest bidder (equal or above the latest RP), it's completion stage and for the objectors (SPs) to file their objection. At the current RP I don't think any SPs will suffer financial lost. So unless they can come up with very good grounds to object & the financial muscle to fight their case, the deal will go thru. Neither am I legally trained so just my opinion.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous08 May, 2017

      Point by point rebuttal would be helpful

      Delete
  3. Anonymous08 May, 2017

    Those who want to signed has already done so. The 10% spike is norm just like the last RP raise. We need another 14%. Too little time to achieve that. Not putting too much hope.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous08 May, 2017

    Yes true. Am also getting old and not in good health. Life is very unpredictable, might need the money for treatment and also for rainy days. If sell my unit now, it can only fetch 900+k. Might as well get the money and get a smaller better unit. A bird in hand is worth 2 in the bushes. Just my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous08 May, 2017

    I may not be happy with the way the thing is been run but still, money is never my enemy. The current RP is only the minimum, I may get higher. Yes I may have sentimental reason not to sell but it is more relevant if i am staying in freehold landed property but for 99 leasehold, it is not wise to keep it for too long. So in short,I think I will sign.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous08 May, 2017

    One Tree Hill got enbloc. Residents asked for $72 million but got $65 million instead.

    What if we get 80% approval but Developer offer lesser than the RP. Do we reject or go ahead?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous08 May, 2017

      Not sure but I think the lawyer has removed the clause that prevent the SC for selling lower than the RP price. Which means any counter offer from developer lower than RP has to subject to 80% approval. You may want to post yr question at the official TC Facebook.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous08 May, 2017

      In that case you will need 80% consent again. The CSC needs the mandate to sell below the RP.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous08 May, 2017

      It should be spelled out in the CSA.

      Delete
    4. 46.43% have signed for 1.32m. They are locked in to this minimum RP.
      9.64% have signed for 1.5m. They are locked in to this minimum RP.
      The recent rumoured 10% are locked into the new $1.X RP.
      If a bid comes for, say, 1.5m - then they do not need to find 80% - only (80-46.43-9.64) = 23.93%. Understand?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous09 May, 2017

      Yes mdm. The only hope is developers tendered at the latest RP or higher. We'll see. But first they have to get 80%. Else gane over & nothing to worry abt.

      Delete
  7. Anonymous09 May, 2017

    Those who had signed and got locked in at 1.32m and 1.5m, do they know they are in that position? I assume many don't..they might be thinking they all will get 1.7m

    What going to happen next?

    These grey area never got discussed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No! - perhaps my explanation is not clear.They are 'locked in' in the sense that they will not be asked a second time to agree to a sales price that is AT or ABOVE their agreed and signed for RP. People have the false impression that a FRESH 80% is required if the sales price is under the new $1.Xm, when only the difference is required. Everyone gets the same amount od $sales proceeds in the end.

      Delete
  8. Anonymous09 May, 2017

    Look at cars here, r ppl v rich? Is close to $1m significant to change their quality life better? Home is where ur loved one are, not dead concrete !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09 May, 2017

      Wow, you throw a word like $1m around easily. Maybe I am a minority in TC.

      For me, $1m is more than 10 years of my savings. It is 10 years of hard work, waking up every day at 6am and sleeping after 1am.

      Loved ones and home are important, and that's exactly why I want a better and newer place for them. I can't give my kids much, and I don't have many chances in this lifetime. Even the chances in previous enblocs did not materialise.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous09 May, 2017

      Exactly! 1mil is a lot of money to us too. especially for rainy days. I also don't want to continue to pay for maintenence fees here every month where there are no facilities.And with pipes leaking and repair works, it s just not worth paying more.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous09 May, 2017

      Wouldn't the maintenance be easier if SPs living here or those renting their properties (SPs and tenants) took better care of the estate. How embarrassing that we now have people throwing faeces out of their property.

      Bagging our garbage properly before putting it in the garbage chute, allowing our pets to go to the bathroom in appropriate locations (not the void decks), ensuring our children are well behaved (not breaking off lumps of concrete at the base of the lampposts or garbage bins), using our new lifts appropriately and not damaging them by transporting oversized mobility vehicles in them.

      I could go on but there's so much we can do to look after our estate better. These are signs of a lack of self respect. While we allow this to continue I have no patience for the maintenance fee argument. We only have ourselves to blame for taking this estate and it's upkeep for granted.

      Delete
  9. Anonymous09 May, 2017

    Are u sure u have all the facts about getting the mandate for selling below RP? Its a collective sale based on a reserve price for the whole estate. No one single unit is locked into any price. End of the day, whatever proceeds dished out will be based on the average price each unit is getting. Your writing seems to suggest you need only 23.93% to get approval for selling below RP...a very low hurdle to cross..i don't think that is correct. What i know is when an offer below RP is offered, an EOGM has to be convened within 7 days to get a fresh 80% mandate. The SC/MA only has mandate to sell at or above RP. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09 May, 2017

      It's quite simple. 80% need to endorse the actual selling price. That's all.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous09 May, 2017

      I also think this way. Technically SPs only give permission for the SC to sell at RP price (the latest) or higher. Any offer from developer is consider as counter offer and has to get 80% mandate from all 80% SPs

      Delete
    3. Anonymous09 May, 2017

      Read the CSA. Downward revision should be spelled out in there. This is actually also subject of the Shunfu court case. The court of appeal decision on it is imminent.

      Delete
    4. Shunfu is different as the eventual Sales Price was 30m below the original RP - so 80% would have had to sign either the 1stSA at $628 or the 2ndSA at $638.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous09 May, 2017

      Update: Shunfu appeal was dismissed

      Delete
  10. No, I am not sure. hence this is going to be the subject of my next post and a question for our estimable SC to answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09 May, 2017

      SC won't answer in yr blog lah. Post in their official facebook & see if they will answer u lor.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous09 May, 2017

      Dont expect an official answer from the CSC on Facebook or a public blog. Such information might be privileged to SPs of Tampines Court. It is not wise to discuss this in public domains where the identity of the person asking can not be verified.

      Delete
    3. How can it be privileged? This is basic information which would be the same for all collective sales. I am just too lazy to hunt through the decisions at the moment- but I am sure there is a precedent there somewhere.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous10 May, 2017

      its should be public info for lawyers to reply, though dont think SC/MA are going to reply you in double quick time since as you have stated clearly, you are not signing regardless, and this situation will not happen since your strong public stance has been that SC/MA are underpricing not overpricing TC (unless you now say that the current RP is too high).

      Delete
    5. Anonymous10 May, 2017

      Issue is not individual opinion of RP quantum but effectively/applicability of earlier agreement if current RP that takes SC past 80% is lowered to effect the sale. SC stout defence of original, lower RP makes this a likely scenario. Ordinary SPs have expressed many different opinions on this matter. SC & Eldan Law must now clarify the law as it applies to Tampines Court collective sale. It would be remiss of SC to proceed with signings with this matter unresolved.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous09 May, 2017

    The high courts will always consider fiduciary duty on top of contractual duty when it comes to deciding whether SC/MA has acted in good faith in discharging their duties. I cannot imagine a fresh mandate is not seeked when SC/MA tries to sell below RP. It cannot stand up to the fiduciary duty test. So we are not frivolously signing away our homes and MA/SC cannot just suka suka lower the RP and sell at huge discount. There are precedents in the high courts regarding this. So it baffles me when people reject a lottery ticket for an immediate draw instead choosing to wait for the next draw (same prize in real terms) which is don't know how many donkey years away. I prefer to participate in as many lucky draws as possible. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete