Green lodge asking $135m for en bloc deal
Business Times - 31 Dec 2009
Green Lodge Condo up for en bloc sale
Straits Times - 31 Dec 2009
Greenlodge Condominium up for collective sale, asking price $135m
Channel NewsAsia - 31 Dec 2009
.
Project Name:
GREEN LODGE
Address:
19, 19A TOH TUCK ROAD
Type: APARTMENT / CONDO
District: 21
Year Completed: 1984
Tenure: FREEHOLD
Total Units: 80
.
Not a good price - their 40% premium will surely be eroded 1-2 yrs down the line. Already the new projected is projected to be double the price psf. Another case of HALF THE SIZE and DOUBLE THE PRICE. If the owners try to relocate to other established condos in the area they will also find the prices there would have risen on the back of an expected influx of GreenLodge enblocers....
Basing the en bloc price on resale prices of surrounding condominiums in the present market is wrong, wrong, wrong. When will they ever learn!!
Green Lodge will be snapped up at this bargain basement price.
Freehold too!
Dec 31, 2009
Dec 30, 2009
Dec 23, 2009
MAYFAIR GARDENS
Mayfair Gardens plans en bloc sale
Straits Times - 22 Dec 2009
Business Times - 22 Dec 2009
Business Times - 21 Dec 2009
Dec 2, 2009
One and only en bloc sale for 2009
Nov 24, 2009
Pine Grove 3rd? Attempt at Enbloc Sale
Another ex-HUDC trying their luck yet again.
.
Straits Times - 25 Nov 2009
.
Pine Grove is a 99-years leasehold development located at Pine Grove in District 21. Completed in 1984, this privatised HUDC development comprises 660 units.
Facilities at Pine Grove include swimming pool, BBQ pits, gym, tennis courts, clubhouse, convenience store, and playground. 24 hr security
Some homeowners at the Pine Grove estate along Ulu Pandan Road are making another attempt to sell their properties in a collective sale.
This will be their third bid since 2005.
MediaCorp understands that the minimum reserve price for the 660-unit unit estate is S$1.33 billion.
Depending on the size of the unit and the development charge that is payable, owners stand to pocket an average of S$2 million per unit.
The former HUDC estate has a land area of more than 893,000 square feet.
Farrer Court, another former HUDC estate along Farrer Road, was sold for a record S$1.34 billion in 2007.
Pine Grove’s reserve price is higher than the S$1.2 billion price tag that the Laguna Park estate in Marine Parade had expected in its first tender in September.
Even after the price was reduced later to S$967 million, the Laguna Park collective sale was called off last week.
At Pine Grove, there have already been three sessions to collect signatures for the possible enbloc sale since 15 November.
A fourth session is coming up next Thursday.
At the upcoming session, representatives from property consultancy Jones Lang Lasalle and law firm Lee & Lee will be present to answer homeowners’ questions.
ChannelNewsAsia - 24 Nov 2009
This will be their third bid since 2005.
MediaCorp understands that the minimum reserve price for the 660-unit unit estate is S$1.33 billion.
Depending on the size of the unit and the development charge that is payable, owners stand to pocket an average of S$2 million per unit.
The former HUDC estate has a land area of more than 893,000 square feet.
Farrer Court, another former HUDC estate along Farrer Road, was sold for a record S$1.34 billion in 2007.
Pine Grove’s reserve price is higher than the S$1.2 billion price tag that the Laguna Park estate in Marine Parade had expected in its first tender in September.
Even after the price was reduced later to S$967 million, the Laguna Park collective sale was called off last week.
At Pine Grove, there have already been three sessions to collect signatures for the possible enbloc sale since 15 November.
A fourth session is coming up next Thursday.
At the upcoming session, representatives from property consultancy Jones Lang Lasalle and law firm Lee & Lee will be present to answer homeowners’ questions.
ChannelNewsAsia - 24 Nov 2009
FYI
Facilities at Pine Grove include swimming pool, BBQ pits, gym, tennis courts, clubhouse, convenience store, and playground. 24 hr security
| Development Name: | Pine Grove |
| Property Type: | Condominium |
| Developer: | HUDC Housing |
| Tenure: | 99-year Leasehold |
| Construction Year: | 1984 |
| # of Floors: | 16 |
| # of Units: | 660 |
Available Unit Types:
- 2-Bedrooms (1,297 - 1,389 sqft)
- 3-Bedrooms (1,829 - 1,922 sqft)
- Maisonette (1,853 - 1,946 sqft)
Nov 19, 2009
Collective Sale called off
Laguna Park - en bloc sale called off
Over at Meyer Place, owners to start inking deal soon to lower reserve price
The en bloc sale of Laguna Park has been called off for now as the sales committee found it a race against time to get the minimum consent level from owners at a proposed lower price – said to be $967 million or $704 psf per plot ratio, down from the original $1.2 billion or $844 psf ppr reserve price – before the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA) expires next month.
But over at Meyer Place, owners will soon begin signing a supplemental agreement to their original CSA at a lower price of $59 million, down from the original $65 million. BT understands the sales committee is expected to sign an agreement soon for the freehold property’s sale to a joint venture involving property and construction companies – subject to securing at least 80 per cent consent from owners at the lower price.
Meyer Place’s CSA expires around mid-March 2010.
‘The tender for Meyer Place closed on Oct 28 with four expressions of interest received and we are now negotiating with one of these parties,’ says Christina Sim, director, investment, capital markets at Cushman and Wakefield, the marketing agent for the property.
The lower proposed reserve price of $59 million works out to $1,048 psf ppr including an estimated $3 million development charge (DC), down about 9 per cent from the $1,150 psf ppr based on the original $65 million reserve price.
Based on the revised price, the breakeven cost for a new development on the site could be $1,550 to $1,600 psf.
Laguna Park’s sales committee decided to call off the estate’s en bloc sale last week. ‘While it did begin the process of getting owners to sign a supplemental agreement to lower the reserve price, the committee felt it was a race against time as the existing CSA expires next month,’ said Karamjit Singh, managing director of Credo Real Estate, the marketing agent for the property.
Laguna Park comprises 528 units.
‘It would probably be better if owners begin a fresh en bloc initiative next year and sign a fresh CSA which will give them a new 12-month period to find buyers,’ Mr Singh said.
Laguna Park, which has a land area of 677,463 sq ft, failed to find a buyer after its tender closed last month. Although two bids were submitted, no buyer made the downpayment to seal the $1.2 billion deal at the time. Mr Singh said yesterday that although signing of a supplemental agreement at the lower price had started last month, so far no conditional agreement had been inked with any potential buyer for a sale at the lower price.
The unit land price of $704 psf ppr based on the revised $967 million price tag includes payment to the state to intensify the site’s use and top up its lease to a fresh 99-year term.
Meyer Place has a freehold land area of 28,167 sq ft and was completed in the early 1990s, comprising 28 apartments – 24 units in a 13-storey block and four in a conservation house.
The property is zoned for residential use with a 2.1 plot ratio – the ratio of maximum potential gross floor area to land area.
Although Meyer Place is a relatively new development, it has redevelopment potential as its plot ratio in the 2008 Master Plan has not been fully utilised. ‘The apartment block could be torn down and rebuilt into smaller units,’ said Cushman’s Ms Sim.
Market watchers point out that the buyer of Meyer Place could also seek to enlarge the plot by purchasing surrounding properties. Just in front of Meyer Place, at No. 40 Meyer Road, is a small apartment block with a site area of about 6,000 sq ft. There is also another plot behind Meyer Place housing two old bungalows at 18D and 18E Fort Road – adding up to more than 20,000 sq ft of land – that could potentially be purchased and amalgamated.
Last month, Roxy-Pacific signed an agreement to buy Dragon Mansion for $100.8 million or $863 psf ppr including DC – lower than the owners’ previous asking price of $120 million or $1,020 psf ppr. Signing by owners of a supplemental agreement to the original CSA at the revised price is still in progress. The majority owners have up to January next year to make an application for a collective sale to the Strata Titles Board.
Business Times - 19 November 2009
The en bloc sale of Laguna Park has been called off for now as the sales committee found it a race against time to get the minimum consent level from owners at a proposed lower price – said to be $967 million or $704 psf per plot ratio, down from the original $1.2 billion or $844 psf ppr reserve price – before the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA) expires next month.
But over at Meyer Place, owners will soon begin signing a supplemental agreement to their original CSA at a lower price of $59 million, down from the original $65 million. BT understands the sales committee is expected to sign an agreement soon for the freehold property’s sale to a joint venture involving property and construction companies – subject to securing at least 80 per cent consent from owners at the lower price.
Meyer Place’s CSA expires around mid-March 2010.
‘The tender for Meyer Place closed on Oct 28 with four expressions of interest received and we are now negotiating with one of these parties,’ says Christina Sim, director, investment, capital markets at Cushman and Wakefield, the marketing agent for the property.
The lower proposed reserve price of $59 million works out to $1,048 psf ppr including an estimated $3 million development charge (DC), down about 9 per cent from the $1,150 psf ppr based on the original $65 million reserve price.
Based on the revised price, the breakeven cost for a new development on the site could be $1,550 to $1,600 psf.
Laguna Park’s sales committee decided to call off the estate’s en bloc sale last week. ‘While it did begin the process of getting owners to sign a supplemental agreement to lower the reserve price, the committee felt it was a race against time as the existing CSA expires next month,’ said Karamjit Singh, managing director of Credo Real Estate, the marketing agent for the property.
Laguna Park comprises 528 units.
‘It would probably be better if owners begin a fresh en bloc initiative next year and sign a fresh CSA which will give them a new 12-month period to find buyers,’ Mr Singh said.
Laguna Park, which has a land area of 677,463 sq ft, failed to find a buyer after its tender closed last month. Although two bids were submitted, no buyer made the downpayment to seal the $1.2 billion deal at the time. Mr Singh said yesterday that although signing of a supplemental agreement at the lower price had started last month, so far no conditional agreement had been inked with any potential buyer for a sale at the lower price.
The unit land price of $704 psf ppr based on the revised $967 million price tag includes payment to the state to intensify the site’s use and top up its lease to a fresh 99-year term.
Meyer Place has a freehold land area of 28,167 sq ft and was completed in the early 1990s, comprising 28 apartments – 24 units in a 13-storey block and four in a conservation house.
The property is zoned for residential use with a 2.1 plot ratio – the ratio of maximum potential gross floor area to land area.
Although Meyer Place is a relatively new development, it has redevelopment potential as its plot ratio in the 2008 Master Plan has not been fully utilised. ‘The apartment block could be torn down and rebuilt into smaller units,’ said Cushman’s Ms Sim.
Market watchers point out that the buyer of Meyer Place could also seek to enlarge the plot by purchasing surrounding properties. Just in front of Meyer Place, at No. 40 Meyer Road, is a small apartment block with a site area of about 6,000 sq ft. There is also another plot behind Meyer Place housing two old bungalows at 18D and 18E Fort Road – adding up to more than 20,000 sq ft of land – that could potentially be purchased and amalgamated.
Last month, Roxy-Pacific signed an agreement to buy Dragon Mansion for $100.8 million or $863 psf ppr including DC – lower than the owners’ previous asking price of $120 million or $1,020 psf ppr. Signing by owners of a supplemental agreement to the original CSA at the revised price is still in progress. The majority owners have up to January next year to make an application for a collective sale to the Strata Titles Board.
Business Times - 19 November 2009
.
Straits Times- 19 November 2009
Condo Mischief-maker Fine Quadrupled
Laguna Park man's fine quadrupled
By Selina Lum
Lee Kok Leong, who was fined $1,200 in April for glueing his neighbours' locks, had laughed off the penalty and made disparaging remarks.
HE HAD laughed off his $1,200 fine for mischief, telling reporters that he spends much more money on karaoke a night.
Lee Kok Leong's words came back to bite him yesterday, when a judge quadrupled the fine to $4,800.
Justice Chao Hick Tin told him: 'I hope you are truly sorry this time round and not leaving this court and muttering something else after I give my sentence.'
The former chairman of the Laguna Park management committee told reporters in April, after he was fined for putting glue in his neighbours' locks, that he was not at all sorry for what he had done.
After his disparaging remarks made the news, the prosecution dragged him back to court to appeal for a stiffer sentence because he had mocked the criminal justice system.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Jwee Nguan asked for a 'sentence of sufficient gravity' to deter Lee and like-minded individuals, although he stopped short of pressing for a jail term.
For his acts of mischief, Lee could have been fined up to $10,000 and jailed for up to a year on each charge.
His lawyer, Mr Ramesh Tiwary, countered: 'Everything said and done, does he really deserve to go to prison because he told some reporters, 'I can afford it'?'
The judge said those remarks were 'wholly deplorable'. 'This is not conduct which the court condones,' he added.
Justice Chao asked Lee, 63, if he was a grandfather. When Lee said yes, the judge continued: 'We are supposed to act more responsibly.
'I would expect things like this to be said by a youngster trying to 'act hero'...but I don't expect such things to be said by you, especially after serious proceedings in court.'
Justice Chao said he decided against sending Lee to jail on account of his age and medical condition. Lee suffers from depression and obstructive sleep apnoea, for which he needs a machine to sleep.
He also has a lesion in his brain; doctors have yet to determine if it is benign or malignant.
Said Justice Chao: 'I hope this will be the last lesson you learn from the court and do not act in a manner as foolish as this.' Lee said: 'I promise I won't do it again.'
In August last year, Lee had glued the locks of two neighbours - against the backdrop of disputes over whether the condominium should be sold en bloc.
He was caught in the act by a surveillance camera installed by a neighbour.
Yesterday, Mr Tiwary said his client's acts of mischief were 'exceedingly silly' because he knew the cameras were there. The judge agreed, saying: 'This whole thing is silly. It's absurd.'
Lee kept mum when reporters approached him after his sentence. Staring blankly ahead, he drew a circle with his forefinger around his mouth.
selinal@sph.com.sg
Straits Times 19 Nov 2009
By Selina Lum
Lee Kok Leong, who was fined $1,200 in April for glueing his neighbours' locks, had laughed off the penalty and made disparaging remarks.
HE HAD laughed off his $1,200 fine for mischief, telling reporters that he spends much more money on karaoke a night.
Lee Kok Leong's words came back to bite him yesterday, when a judge quadrupled the fine to $4,800.
Justice Chao Hick Tin told him: 'I hope you are truly sorry this time round and not leaving this court and muttering something else after I give my sentence.'
The former chairman of the Laguna Park management committee told reporters in April, after he was fined for putting glue in his neighbours' locks, that he was not at all sorry for what he had done.
After his disparaging remarks made the news, the prosecution dragged him back to court to appeal for a stiffer sentence because he had mocked the criminal justice system.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Jwee Nguan asked for a 'sentence of sufficient gravity' to deter Lee and like-minded individuals, although he stopped short of pressing for a jail term.
For his acts of mischief, Lee could have been fined up to $10,000 and jailed for up to a year on each charge.
His lawyer, Mr Ramesh Tiwary, countered: 'Everything said and done, does he really deserve to go to prison because he told some reporters, 'I can afford it'?'
The judge said those remarks were 'wholly deplorable'. 'This is not conduct which the court condones,' he added.
Justice Chao asked Lee, 63, if he was a grandfather. When Lee said yes, the judge continued: 'We are supposed to act more responsibly.
'I would expect things like this to be said by a youngster trying to 'act hero'...but I don't expect such things to be said by you, especially after serious proceedings in court.'
Justice Chao said he decided against sending Lee to jail on account of his age and medical condition. Lee suffers from depression and obstructive sleep apnoea, for which he needs a machine to sleep.
He also has a lesion in his brain; doctors have yet to determine if it is benign or malignant.
Said Justice Chao: 'I hope this will be the last lesson you learn from the court and do not act in a manner as foolish as this.' Lee said: 'I promise I won't do it again.'
In August last year, Lee had glued the locks of two neighbours - against the backdrop of disputes over whether the condominium should be sold en bloc.
He was caught in the act by a surveillance camera installed by a neighbour.
Yesterday, Mr Tiwary said his client's acts of mischief were 'exceedingly silly' because he knew the cameras were there. The judge agreed, saying: 'This whole thing is silly. It's absurd.'
Lee kept mum when reporters approached him after his sentence. Staring blankly ahead, he drew a circle with his forefinger around his mouth.
selinal@sph.com.sg
Straits Times 19 Nov 2009
Oct 30, 2009
Botanic Gardens View
Here they go again at the BGV estate. I have been keeping a close eye on the goings on there for quite a while - a few owners keep demanding transparency and consideration, yet the SC and the property agent (surprise, surprise as to who they are, do they have their fingers in ALL the pies?) seemingly bulldoze ahead regardless.
It looks like the SC are seeking ratification for their CSA through the mail - and giving owners very short notice to respond. As I have heard time and time again - if an owner does not object or make his opinions known then he is supposed to have acquiesced to the proposal/decision.
The SC and property agent are being very bullish and high handed in their dealings here. They are also ignoring the directive given by the then DPM Prof S Jayakumar in the Second Reading Speech on Land Titles (Strata)(Amendment) Bill on 20 Sep 2007; in which he said
"12. The sale committee shall convene general meetings to consider key issues such as the appointment of any lawyer, property consultant or marketing agent, the apportionment of sales proceeds, the terms and conditions of the CSA; and the terms and conditions of the S&P agreement. These changes will ensure that the owners will have the opportunity to discuss key issues before consenting to them."
Seeing as the last EOGM was 14 months ago; the proper thing to do would be to hold another EOGM to discuss further with the owners the important matter of the terms and conditions set out in the CSA and the method of apportionment of sales proceeds. A decent SC would do the decent thing - a group of gangsters will try to push it through as fast as they can, sailing very close to the minimum requirements of the LTSA.
Note:
The SC are in power indefinitely as their tenure is only fixed to one year from first date of signing the CSA, which hasn't begun yet. Any future SC in Tampines Court should have their pre-CSA tenure fixed to 6 months, otherwise the estate is left hanging in the wind. Owners must demand this.
From the THIRD SCHEDULE
7.-(1) The collective sale committee shall convene one or more general meetings of the management corporation in accordance with the Second Schedule for the following purposes:-
Before CSA signing begins 7-(2)
a) to consider the appointment of Enbloc lawyer and Property Agent (no 2)
b) to consider the apportionment of sale proceeds (no 3)
c) to consider the terms and conditions of the CSA (n0 4).
Oct 26, 2009
Laguna Park Tender Fails
Home owners at the Laguna Park condominium in Marine Parade are now faced with the choice of selling their homes at an average of 20 per cent lower than their initial asking price.
This comes after a failed tender earlier this month.
Then, the site received a bid from an Indonesian-owned, locally incorporated company of S$1.728 billion, but a downpayment could not be made in time.
Since then, the collective sale committee has circulated a letter informing owners of a new potential selling price of S$967 million.
Under en bloc sale regulations, 80 per cent of owners need to vote in favour of this price tag before the sale can proceed.
When Laguna Park opened for tender in September, most owners stood to gain around S$2.1 million to S$2.3 million each. Penthouse owners would have gotten between S$3.5 million and S$4.1 million each.
But at the new price being considered now, owners will get almost 20 per cent less or about S$1.8 million.
Some analysts said this price might be too low to be attractive to sellers. But they said sellers need to take into consideration some of the less positive aspects of the property.
Nicholas Mak, property consultant, said: “They must be aware that this is an ageing development and the lease of 99 years has been run down significantly.”
He added that sellers who are planning to buy similar properties that also have a view of the sea will probably have to pay as much as SS$2 million.
And he expects most owners to have to have to downgrade from their older, but more spacious units, to smaller new homes.
Charges to top up the lease to a 99-year term and to increase the site’s plot ratio comes up to about S$440 million.
Earlier, buyers would have been looking at paying around S$850 per square foot per plot ratio – a price many analysts considered expensive.
At the new prices, the cost comes down to S$700 per square foot per plot ratio for the 528-unit leasehold Marine Parade project.
Property consultancy Colliers said S$967 million is a more realistic selling price, and could lead to some developers re-considering the tender.
However, many analysts also noted that the total price is still very hefty for any one local developer in today’s market.
Laguna Park has a land area of 677,463 square feet, which means about 1,500 apartments can be built on the site.
According to the development’s marketing agent Credo, the sales committee has until around mid-November to strike a deal with a buyer, before the collective sale agreement expires on December 19.Channel NewsAsia: 26 Oct 2009
.
$1.2b Laguna park en bloc sale bid fails
Straits Times: 17 Oct 2009
$1.2b Laguna park en bloc sale bid fails
OWNERS of East Coast condominium Laguna Park have failed in their bid to sell the property en bloc for $1.2 billion through a tender process.
Industry analysts say the result was not surprising, considering the high asking price.
However, in a curious twist of events, one company had submitted a bid for $1.728 billion – only to withdraw the offer on Thursday night.
The estate’s marketing agent, Credo Real Estate, said yesterday in a statement that it had received two submissions at the close of the tender on Oct 13.
One of them was from a locally incorporated firm which offered the eye-popping $1.728 billion bid. The other expression of interest was from a ‘local and prominent developer’, which was believed to have made an offer below the reserve price.
Credo declined to name both firms, citing confidentiality agreements.
But it is understood that principal shareholders of the first firm which had offered above the reserve price are based in Indonesia, said Credo.
The firm was due to submit the tender deposit on instructions specified by the owners, but the firm’s lawyers wrote in on Thursday night to withdraw the offer. They said the firm faced ‘difficulty in their bankers processing the funds and remitting them to Singapore’, said Credo.
Owners of the 528-unit development at Marine Parade yesterday said they had not heard any news officially from the sales committee, although a meeting for owners has been slated for tomorrow.
One owner, who declined to be named, said she was neutral as to whether the sale went through or not. ‘Whether it sells or not, it doesn’t really matter,’ she said.
Chesterton Suntec International’ s research and consultancy director Colin Tan said the condo’s failure to find a buyer ‘simply confirms that developers are not going to pay unrealistic prices’.
‘Developers are signalling to sellers that if you’re not realistic, we won’t be interested in putting in bids.
‘They are mindful of the ability of home buyers to pay even higher prices. This is not sustainable so they’re not willing to bear higher risks,’ said Mr Tan.
Ngee Ann Polytechnic real estate lecturer Nicholas Mak noted that en bloc deals have not seen much success this year.
Dragon Mansion in Spottiswoode Park, as well as Changi Garden Condominium at Jalan Mariam, have been tendered with no deals done.
‘Owners are still expecting pre-crisis price levels which developers are now not prepared to pay. Either the owners wait even longer, or prepare to accept a lower price,’ said Mr Mak.
This might prove difficult. As another Laguna Park resident put it: ‘I don’t think anybody will sell at a lower price.’
Credo said it is still in negotiations with the local developer on a possible deal. Owners have until mid-December, when the collective sales agreement expires, to sell the estate via private treaty.
The former HUDC estate has a large land area of about 677,493 sq ft and a gross plot ratio of 2.8.
The sprawling 30-year-old condominium has been in the headlines over a spate of vandalism attacks on the property of residents who were not keen on the sale.Straits Times: 17 Oct 2009
Tender for Laguna Park en bloc closes unsuccessfully
The tender for the Laguna Park en bloc sale has closed unsuccessfully.
Credo Real Estate said there were two bids for the 528-unit development at Marina Parade at the close of the tender on Tuesday.
A local company whose shareholders are based in Indonesia had offered a price of S$1.7 billion, well above the owners’ Reserve Price of S$1.2 billion.
But Credo said by Thursday evening, the firm decided to withdraw its offer, citing difficulties in their bankers’ ability to process the funds and remit them to Singapore.
The second bid was from a prominent local developer who expressed interest to pursue negotiations with the majority owners.
MediaCorp understands the local developer will settle on a bid price after negotiations with the owners.
Credo said the majority owners have about a month to enter into any private treaty deal before the collective sale agreement expires in December.
Executive director of property consultancy DTZ, Ong Choon Fah, said she is not too surprised by the announcement.
“With the government land sales and the confirmed list restarting next year, and we still have land parcels in the reserved list, there will be an alternative source of land for the developers,” Ong said.
“For example, recently the site at Serangoon Ave 3 which saw 15 developers bidding for it… at prices that had surpassed market expectations,” she added.
ChannelNewsAsia: 16 Oct 2009
'The second bid was from a prominent local developer who expressed interest to pursue negotiations with the majority owners.'
This doesn't sound unsuccessful to me.
Local developers like their closed door sessions to strong-arm weak committees with unreasonable deadlines. I hope their sale committee knows how to play hardball and ALL owners are kept in the loop as to what is happening.
This doesn't sound unsuccessful to me.
Local developers like their closed door sessions to strong-arm weak committees with unreasonable deadlines. I hope their sale committee knows how to play hardball and ALL owners are kept in the loop as to what is happening.
Oct 21, 2009
Dragon Mansion
Roxy-pacific to buy Dragon mansion in en-bloc dealBusiness Times:-21 Oct 2009
.
Dragon mansion en bloc sale sees lower offer
Straits Times:-21 Oct 2009
Oct 19, 2009
Face-Off over lowering of Sale Price after failed tender
Laguna Park owners mull lower sale price
Business Times: 19 Oct 2009
Business Times: 19 Oct 2009
These were some of the numbers discussed at a meeting of about 200 Laguna Park residents yesterday afternoon, called to consider the results of the failed tender and discuss possible options.
.
Laguna Park owners consider selling at lower price
Channel NewsAsia: 19 Oct 2009
.
Will Laguna park owners settle for less?
Today: 19 Oct 2009
.
One woman who declined to be named told MediaCorp: "It was obvious there were two camps at the meeting. One camp was a group of people who were pretty desperate to sell, and another camp felt we should just wait as we're sitting on a very nice property here, and it should not go for less than what we've decided on."
One male resident felt the sale committee was trying to "get people worked up since there are only six to eight weeks left, to lower their price, get 80 per cent, then go for a closed tender. To me that's totally wrong. I don't want a closed tender, especially at this amount".
Laguna Park owners consider selling at lower price
Channel NewsAsia: 19 Oct 2009
.
Will Laguna park owners settle for less?
Today: 19 Oct 2009
.
One woman who declined to be named told MediaCorp: "It was obvious there were two camps at the meeting. One camp was a group of people who were pretty desperate to sell, and another camp felt we should just wait as we're sitting on a very nice property here, and it should not go for less than what we've decided on."
One male resident felt the sale committee was trying to "get people worked up since there are only six to eight weeks left, to lower their price, get 80 per cent, then go for a closed tender. To me that's totally wrong. I don't want a closed tender, especially at this amount".
.
The desperadoes v's the cool-headers. That so few owners turned up at the meeting is quite surprising, seeing as their very homes are at stake. This either means they are nonchalant as to the outcome or that they have already made up their minds one way or the other.
.
Will the property agent/sale committee trot out the usual scare tactics over the next few weeks?
.
Will the mystery developer decide to play hardball and put down a take-it-or-leave it type offer; confident that the owners will cave in eventually, as they always do?
.
Will some money grease a few palms in order to ease the signing along? Remember Regent Garden whereby the developer paid an extra sum to the dissenters to secure the 100% with the withdrawal of their objections from the STB and the High Court deemed that to be kosher. But that was after the 80% had been reached.
.
There was one case whereby the last 3 signatories to the 80% were paid sums differing from the rest of the majority, and that sale was thrown out by the STB on grounds of bad faith.
The estate? Finland Gardens
The property agents? Same boy-os
Will they try this trick again?
.
Can the majority sign a supplemental CSA extending the life of the original CSA and tenure of sale committee by another 6 months - (though not necessarily reducing the reserve price)? Would this be a circumvention of the rules?
.
Honestly, I rule nothing out anymore.
They have until the 19th December to find consensus on lowering the reserve price. Failing which the CSA expires and the whole shebang falls apart.
Oct 14, 2009
Property Agents
Seller can try mystery caller test to check on their property agentStraits Times: 14 Oct 2009
Meanwhile, we would offer her suggestion of a ‘mystery caller test’ to sellers who have appointed estate agents to represent them in their HDB resale transactions. Sellers can administer this test to ferret out instances when their appointed agents refuse to e
ntertain offers presented by prospective buyers who do not intend to use the latter’s services.
CEO of Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies.
.
Move to ban 'one agent for buyer and seller' under studyCEO of Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies.
.
Straits Times: 13 Oct 2009
.
Commissions and property agents
Straits Times: 13 Oct 2009
.
People should just advertise on their own and find a buyer without any agent involvement. How difficult can it be! Agents will always have a vested interest in seeing the property sold quickly and not necessarily at the highest price. That way, you will know all the bids and not wonder whether your agent is holding back on a higher offer that doesn't come with an extra 1% commission. Either that or put in a few bogus offers and see what he does.
.
A sterner deal for property agents now
Business Times: 13 Oct 2009
Mandatory accreditation for all real estate agents could be introduced soon
Straits Times: 12 Oct 2009
.
A sterner deal for property agents now
Business Times: 13 Oct 2009
Mandatory accreditation for all real estate agents could be introduced soon
Straits Times: 12 Oct 2009
.
The proposals include setting up an independent body to ensure compulsory accreditation for all property agents, introducing a demerit point system to penalise errant agents and agencies and having a public central registry which lists agents’ qualifications, employment history and track record.
Mr Lim added: “Licensing seems to be more serious, something which the individual agents would be more careful of because now they carry an individual license and if they don’t meet the service standards or if they don’t perform or if they do something wrong, then their license may be suspended and they may not be allowed to practice.”
Property agents to be regulated
Straits Times – 5 Oct 2009
'The Straits Times understands that an independent body will be set up and chaired by a neutral party appointed by the Government. It will also house a dispute resolution centre to mediate between agents and consumers.'
'There are also suggestions that agents will have to buy indemnity insurance protecting customers for losses resulting from negligent or unethical conduct.'
.
Perhaps this a new avenue Owners can utilize if errant property agents harass or peddle mis-information during en bloc. I thought property agencies already had this kind of professional insurance, but obviously not. Proving negligence or unethical conduct is difficult but if you have everything documented or transcribed; it becomes a lot easier.
'There are also suggestions that agents will have to buy indemnity insurance protecting customers for losses resulting from negligent or unethical conduct.'
.
Perhaps this a new avenue Owners can utilize if errant property agents harass or peddle mis-information during en bloc. I thought property agencies already had this kind of professional insurance, but obviously not. Proving negligence or unethical conduct is difficult but if you have everything documented or transcribed; it becomes a lot easier.
.
See my other post 'Indemnity' in which I spoke about indemnifying yourself against the sales committee and any liability or legal obligations they might create in their eagerness to close the deal. You could extrapolate that to include property agents and en bloc lawyers for damages resulting from their negligent or unethical conduct.
It seems perverse that owners willingly indemnify these 'professionals' and fellow neighbours without thought to their own position. It is only when they are left high and dry do they realise the depth of their folly.
Oct 2, 2009
A Sellers Cautionary Tale
This is what we all know - more proof of en bloc proceeds being only enough for a unit HALF the size or DOUBLE the price in the same area! Unlocking the value of your home ... for the benefit of the DEVELOPERS!
A Seller's Cautionary Tale
I AM compelled to share my experience as a cautionary tale after reading the report, ‘Private homes still seeing high demand’ (Sept 22). I was a flat owner of Gillman Heights, which was sold in a collective property sale exercise and for which I received $887,000 (around $520 per sq ft) for my 1,700 sqft three-bedroom unit.
By the time I received my money, I could only afford a similar unit far from the city and certainly not as central as Gillman Heights.
Former owners like me were assured we would receive priority in buying units in the new condominium – The Interlace – on the site of our former home.
But at $1,000 psf, I would have been effectively downgraded to a much smaller apartment at the same location. Worse, we were given only three days’ advance notice of the exclusive preview for us to choose our units at the Shenton Way office of the developer, CapitaLand Residential.
The preview, like the units offered to us, was unfavourable. We were not given brochures and all we had to gauge the new condo visually was an amateurish miniature model which was a stark contrast to the sleek, three-dimensional and professionally crafted model displayed at the sales office at the public launch.
The preview seemed like a half-hearted attempt by the developer to meet its obligations under the sales pact.
Was the professional Interlace model completed and ready for viewing at the off-site sales office, and if yes, why was the ‘private preview’ not held at CapitaLand’s temporary River Valley Road sales office instead?
Why were the preview for ex-owners and the public launch of The Interlace so starkly different? Former owners were not offered a discount and while it may seem like a public relations coup to announce that ex-owners of Gillman Heights would receive priority in selection of apartments in the new project, the ones we were offered were some of the most unfavourable.
So, if there is a moral to my experience for flat owners contemplating collective sale, I would say potential seller beware: Read the fine print over matters like priority purchase of the new condo.
Reginald Tan
Straits Times - 02-Oct 2009
Straits Times - 02-Oct 2009
Sep 28, 2009
Property agent appeal
The poor property agents aren't making any money from enbloc anymore hence their plea for ...Room for improvement in en bloc laws
Business Times – 24 Sep 2009
Rather a long-winded boring letter, no one needs a history lesson on en bloc, we've all lived through it for 10 years. Apart from mooting a change from 10 yrs to 15 yrs (which wouldn't have much effect anyway), the author wasn't able to verbalise explicitly what he wanted. What property agents want is a return to the working model of non- transparency and unaccountability which worked so well for them in the past. Sale committees don't want to say up front they are flippers, bankrupts, jobless etc, property agents don't want their nicely pre-arranged deals unravelling by returning to the majority for approval. If you ask me, en bloc in it's present form is dead. The government can't turn the clock back to the corrupt practices of the past. It is an appeal in futility.
.
Extracts: To mitigate the effects of ‘majority rule’, safeguards were put in place to protect the rights of the non-consenting minority owners. The key tenet was that any deal must be entered in good faith..
.
In good faith being the operative word here. Mr Singh seems to forget about that later in the letter...
While the increase in property prices did contribute to the increase, the ability to maximise development potential and extract value was the major factor.
I have no doubt that 'extra value' was extracted from these developments, but am leery as to whom it went to.
It was also during this period that the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDC), a unit of the government, started building affordable flats on a large scale for the then ’sandwiched’ group of middle-income families. Among them were Farrer Court, Pine Grove, Gillman Heights and Laguna Park.
These projects are now close to 40 years old. Soon, they will start looking old and tired. In many countries, old and dilapidated buildings become breeding grounds for crime and vice. While this is not likely in Singapore, the real danger is that these developments may become enclaves of older Singaporeans. This is clearly not the way to go for a dynamic and vibrant Singapore.
Old and tired? Dilapidated? There are rules requiring the management council to keep the estate up to the mark. Painting every 5 years etc and a lot falls on the owners themselves to spruce the place up.
But the real insult here is the "ENCLAVE FOR OLDER SINGAPOREANS'! And that such people are deemed to be "NOT THE WAY TO GO FOR DYNAMIC AND VIBRANT SINGAPORE!'.
So people in the same neighbourhood should not be allowed to grow old together? That there comes a time, perhaps, when they must move in order not to be seen to bunch together?? We have HDB Block quotas for races but none, I think, for old people. Are private owners to keep tabs on how old their neighbours are getting relative to themselves in order to calculate when the time is ripe for them to move out? What is wrong with older people anyway? Is Mr. Singh guilty of ageism? Old dilapidated, tired buildings full of old dilapidated tired people MUST be en blocked for the good of Singapore! They are in the way - move them out, shunt them elsewhere, (JB was once suggested by our good Minister of Health, Mr Kaw). We really can't have these old people cluttering up good land, now can we. New estates must be peopled with young couples (with lots of money) - out with the old, in with the new. Mr. Singh conveniently forgets that private estates have a way of rejuvenating themselves - hasn't he heard of the resale market? Tampines Court has had a 10% turnover since Aug 2008, and while I don't have any information on the demographics of either the sellers or buyers - I can rationally assume that they weren't all old fogies selling and all geriatrics buying. The picture Mr. Singh paints of older estates and their owners is patently not true.
In Europe, buildings built centuries ago still remain habitable, besides being rich in character, history and beauty. The city centres of London, Paris and Prague have buildings that are hundreds of years old. Sadly, this is not the case in Singapore. In the immediate post-independence period, the real estate and construction industry was not inspired to build legacies of lasting beauty, but instead put up affordable, practical homes. As such, not many buildings of the 1960-70s are serious contenders for preservation on architectural grounds; and they have little if no historical significance. It is mainly the colonial era buildings that the planners feel should be conserved.
Architecturally, Singapore has no great buildings to speak of post colonial era. But architectural grounds have not been behind any minority objection that I can think of. And just because a building is not exactly top-of-the-charts in beauty, it should not automatically qualify for demolition at age 10yrs+ . Besides buildings alone do not make for a dynamic and vibrant Singapore - people do. And people don't want their neighbourhoods, their childhood memories, their friendships, landmarks and connections all destroyed for profit.
.
If Singapore did not have the law that allowed for the majority of the owners to push through an en bloc sale, probably the only other way to rejuvenate these ageing developments would be for the government to acquire them compulsorily. However, the owners would at best be paid market value of the individual apartments, without any benefit of the redevelopment potential factored in. It would also bring the government into a sector where there is no immediate public interest at stake.
.
'The only other way'? Surely not. If the Government wanted to do right by the owners it would make it mandatory for owners to be given 2 options - a cash sale or a decent 1-for-1 exchange in the new estate, thus preserving all the ties necessary for owners to stay and make for that vibrant and dynamic place.
The 80 per cent en bloc law made it possible for the private sector to take the lead in maximising the value of scarce land, rejuvenating old developments and allowing owners, rather than the government or developers, to benefit from increasing property prices.
.
Ask Waterfront View HUDC owners, Gillman Heights owners how they feel about being shortchanged! Ask them if they can stay in their preferred area. Ask the developers how much money they are making with their new developments! The truth is xx-HUDC owners downgrade and downsize - developers double/triple their profits and treat ex-owners like dirt..
It must be conceded that the manner in which the 80 per cent legislation was drafted in 1999 was not highly elaborate nor perfect. But it was principle-driven and worked well for a good eight years. It got the job done in facilitating urban renewal.
But where have the original owners moved to; Woodlands?
However, in 2007, the complexion of the en bloc sale process changed as the market heated up. There were mounting complaints that some majority owners were not entirely fair or transparent in their conduct. Minority sellers cried out for greater protection. Owners and developers got embroiled in litigation. Non-consenting owners challenged consenting owners in court. Developers threatened to sue owners who were attempting to back out of deals. The irony is that it was often the consenting owners who were fighting to back out of the very deal that they inked and were earlier championing.
.
True! and why was that? Unscrupulous sales committees, lawyers and property agents following the letter of the LTSA/CSA but not the spirit! Vested interest trumped fiduciary duty to majority owners and it was left to the minority owners to takes matters to the STB.
Fights grew more intense with cases going all the way to the Court of Appeal. About 10 cases went to the courts, with half of them making headlines for the bitter feuding. All of a sudden, en bloc sales became synonymous with trouble, disharmony and disorder. The principle behind the 80 per cent rule began to be questioned.
And whose fault was this? Not the minority owners - remember the tenet of the law was based on the deal being doe in GOOD FAITH - and clearly some were not up to that standard.
The cases that went to court did not reflect the reality of the matter. During the property bull run in 2006 and 2007, as many as 162 en bloc projects were sold successfully; but it was largely the five to 10 troubled cases that dominated the headlines.
You can't believe everything you read in the newspapers - the reality was much graver than the few cases that hit the headlines. In truth, the STB had a backlog the length of your arm, all minority owners outraged for one reason or another.
This created the perception that the en bloc laws were flawed.
.
If Singapore did not have the law that allowed for the majority of the owners to push through an en bloc sale, probably the only other way to rejuvenate these ageing developments would be for the government to acquire them compulsorily. However, the owners would at best be paid market value of the individual apartments, without any benefit of the redevelopment potential factored in. It would also bring the government into a sector where there is no immediate public interest at stake.
.
'The only other way'? Surely not. If the Government wanted to do right by the owners it would make it mandatory for owners to be given 2 options - a cash sale or a decent 1-for-1 exchange in the new estate, thus preserving all the ties necessary for owners to stay and make for that vibrant and dynamic place.
The 80 per cent en bloc law made it possible for the private sector to take the lead in maximising the value of scarce land, rejuvenating old developments and allowing owners, rather than the government or developers, to benefit from increasing property prices.
.
Ask Waterfront View HUDC owners, Gillman Heights owners how they feel about being shortchanged! Ask them if they can stay in their preferred area. Ask the developers how much money they are making with their new developments! The truth is xx-HUDC owners downgrade and downsize - developers double/triple their profits and treat ex-owners like dirt..
It must be conceded that the manner in which the 80 per cent legislation was drafted in 1999 was not highly elaborate nor perfect. But it was principle-driven and worked well for a good eight years. It got the job done in facilitating urban renewal.
But where have the original owners moved to; Woodlands?
However, in 2007, the complexion of the en bloc sale process changed as the market heated up. There were mounting complaints that some majority owners were not entirely fair or transparent in their conduct. Minority sellers cried out for greater protection. Owners and developers got embroiled in litigation. Non-consenting owners challenged consenting owners in court. Developers threatened to sue owners who were attempting to back out of deals. The irony is that it was often the consenting owners who were fighting to back out of the very deal that they inked and were earlier championing.
.
True! and why was that? Unscrupulous sales committees, lawyers and property agents following the letter of the LTSA/CSA but not the spirit! Vested interest trumped fiduciary duty to majority owners and it was left to the minority owners to takes matters to the STB.
Fights grew more intense with cases going all the way to the Court of Appeal. About 10 cases went to the courts, with half of them making headlines for the bitter feuding. All of a sudden, en bloc sales became synonymous with trouble, disharmony and disorder. The principle behind the 80 per cent rule began to be questioned.
And whose fault was this? Not the minority owners - remember the tenet of the law was based on the deal being doe in GOOD FAITH - and clearly some were not up to that standard.
The cases that went to court did not reflect the reality of the matter. During the property bull run in 2006 and 2007, as many as 162 en bloc projects were sold successfully; but it was largely the five to 10 troubled cases that dominated the headlines.
You can't believe everything you read in the newspapers - the reality was much graver than the few cases that hit the headlines. In truth, the STB had a backlog the length of your arm, all minority owners outraged for one reason or another.
This created the perception that the en bloc laws were flawed.
But the en bloc laws were flawed, you said it yourself 'It must be conceded that the manner in which the 80 per cent legislation was drafted in 1999 was not highly elaborate nor perfect'!. Are you saying the authorities reacted in a knee jerk reaction without first thinking the situtaion through? Do you not recall the Public Consultation that was held in 2007 and the parliamentary discussion thereafter? Were they all wrong?
The laws that had worked well for eight years suddenly seemed to need fixing. In October 2007, the government reacted by tightening the laws to raise the bar on transparency and accountability on the part of the majority owners handling the sale process, and further safeguards were put in place.
.
.
As a result, owners who would have otherwise happily volunteered to serve in the collective sale committee, today fight shy of getting involved. The fear of being sued by minorities or purchasers and exposure to liability keeps them on the sidelines.
.
Absoutley! I don't want a 'happy volunteer' who is also an idiot underselling my home! Get rid of the sale committee altogether - devise a new way!.
.
We believe the law makers should look towards moderating some of the new provisions. There is no way that any rule can please everyone. Democracy goes by majority rule.
.
Majority rules - but only with GOOD FAITH.
.
For minority owners who genuinely do not wish to be forced to sell their homes, perhaps the authorities could consider raising the threshold age of a development for which the 80 per cent rule would apply, from the current 10 years to 15 years.
Not enough. The problem lies with the cowboy tactics of the players involved. Upping the age fixes nothing.
There are bound to be other approaches to renewal and maximisation of land use, but making en bloc sales difficult will take us back to the situation 10 years ago. Until a new solution is found, we need to ensure that en-bloc sales remain workable.
.
SOLUTION: (I never tire of repeating this).... 1-4-1-exchange.
By KARAMJIT SINGH AND PAMELA KOW – managing director and manager at Credo Real Estate respectively
Not enough. The problem lies with the cowboy tactics of the players involved. Upping the age fixes nothing.
There are bound to be other approaches to renewal and maximisation of land use, but making en bloc sales difficult will take us back to the situation 10 years ago. Until a new solution is found, we need to ensure that en-bloc sales remain workable.
.
SOLUTION: (I never tire of repeating this).... 1-4-1-exchange.
By KARAMJIT SINGH AND PAMELA KOW – managing director and manager at Credo Real Estate respectively
Sep 24, 2009
When Flippers flop
Property sub sales; who wins and who loses
Business Times – 26 Aug 2008
Some bleed from sub-sales, but most come out ahead
Business Times – 19 Mar 2009
Like a ponzi scheme, if you get out early you are ok, and the last ones holding the bag are the ones who get burned. If that happens to be a flipper - well then, that's poetic justice.
Business Times – 26 Aug 2008
Some bleed from sub-sales, but most come out ahead
Business Times – 19 Mar 2009
Some 'flippers' took big hit in sub-sale deals
Straits Times – 23 Sep 2009.
'the hefty losses some suffered earlier this year suggest they might be deserving of some sympathy.'
.
Are they asking for any? I don't think so - it is in their nature to roll the dice and take the tumble if they have to. If a high roller were to lose $1 million dollars at the table, would we be tut-tutti
ng and offering our condolences? What about the Blackjack player who bets on the next card being an Ace, or the poker player hoping for a Royal Flush but instead draws a 2? Anyone who buys a property on a wing and a prayer in the hope of making a killing before his bluff is called is suffering from a colossal failure of common sense - but half of mankind suffers from that particular insufficiency.
.
Since it is their personal choice to enter the market without sufficient financial backing, flippers cannot (and do not) expect public sympathy. It is their money after all, their future, their livelihood they are putting on the line. Are they not just doing the capitalistic thing - buying low and selling high and shouldn't we be applauding their entrepreneurial spirit? The media does.
.
Straits Times – 23 Sep 2009.
'the hefty losses some suffered earlier this year suggest they might be deserving of some sympathy.'
.
Are they asking for any? I don't think so - it is in their nature to roll the dice and take the tumble if they have to. If a high roller were to lose $1 million dollars at the table, would we be tut-tutti
ng and offering our condolences? What about the Blackjack player who bets on the next card being an Ace, or the poker player hoping for a Royal Flush but instead draws a 2? Anyone who buys a property on a wing and a prayer in the hope of making a killing before his bluff is called is suffering from a colossal failure of common sense - but half of mankind suffers from that particular insufficiency..
Since it is their personal choice to enter the market without sufficient financial backing, flippers cannot (and do not) expect public sympathy. It is their money after all, their future, their livelihood they are putting on the line. Are they not just doing the capitalistic thing - buying low and selling high and shouldn't we be applauding their entrepreneurial spirit? The media does.
.
Flippers, speculators of all kinds are all in the business of making money; they produce nothing and offer no service. They are the engines of giant ponzi schemes.
Property flippers usually justify their unearned profit in one of two ways. They can claim they were lucky in securing a property at developer's price or lower or they assert they are just plain smarter than other buyers in the market and saw unrecognised value in an older property that they subsequently sold for a higher sale price. The sneakier ones prey on ill-informed owners to sell their 'old, dilapidated, badly maintained' properties to them at an 'above market' price (yet well below the true value of the property if it were sold enbloc).
Flippers rarely do any improvement to the property to justify a higher selling price. They add no value. It's all about 'timing'. Flippers say that if someone is willing to pay the price then that is how much the property is worth. "The value of a property is what the the market is willing to pay" - a favourite mantra of property agents everywhere. But sales price and market value are not synonymous. When the Government puts up a land parcel for sale and attracts low bids, it does not sell to the lowest bidder if it is deemed to be below the true value. Property is not like a car and the price is not set through a COE bidding type process; no property goes for $1 if that were the only bid in an open tender..
But is that all? Does it stop there? What damage, other than to themselves, do they inflict on society as a whole? Since property flipping is epidemic in Singapore, shouldn't we be looking at it's negative consequences at a societal level more closely.
.
Flippers skew the market by creating a false demand. Hoards of speculators queueing up before a property launch create the illusion that things are 'picking up'. Genuine buyers join the queue in fear of losing out - the power of kiasuism and herd mentality intertwining to make for a heady mixture indeed.
.
Flippers skew the market by creating a false demand. Hoards of speculators queueing up before a property launch create the illusion that things are 'picking up'. Genuine buyers join the queue in fear of losing out - the power of kiasuism and herd mentality intertwining to make for a heady mixture indeed.
.
Flippers are instrumental in price escalation. Markets impacted by flipping are not rational markets. Each flipped sale is an incorrect price signal which then permeates throughout he market and other buyers and sellers make inferences about what their properties are worth based on these flips, without truly realising (or maybe they just turn a blind eye) to that fact they are not true market sales. Flipped sales act like viruses that corrupt the whole market. Even the HDB market is affected as the subsidised rate of new flats is pegged to the market value of similar flats in the area. Ultimately, property flipping makes it harder for ordinary folk to buy a decent home.
Flippers are instrumental in price escalation. Markets impacted by flipping are not rational markets. Each flipped sale is an incorrect price signal which then permeates throughout he market and other buyers and sellers make inferences about what their properties are worth based on these flips, without truly realising (or maybe they just turn a blind eye) to that fact they are not true market sales. Flipped sales act like viruses that corrupt the whole market. Even the HDB market is affected as the subsidised rate of new flats is pegged to the market value of similar flats in the area. Ultimately, property flipping makes it harder for ordinary folk to buy a decent home.
.
Flippers create havoc in quiet estates by relentlessly pushing for enbloc. This causes uncertainty, anxiety and confusion. They may join the management council and run the estate down.
Flippers create havoc in quiet estates by relentlessly pushing for enbloc. This causes uncertainty, anxiety and confusion. They may join the management council and run the estate down.
.
Flippers are happy to force others into selling in order to realise their gains. They act without conscience or moral responsibility as their ends always justify the means. I am not talking about Tampines Court here, but in the many other estates that I have watched and had information on.
Flippers are happy to force others into selling in order to realise their gains. They act without conscience or moral responsibility as their ends always justify the means. I am not talking about Tampines Court here, but in the many other estates that I have watched and had information on.
.
Flipper activity might even be outright fraud - as in the case recently whereby the property agent sold a property to his immediate boss who then put it on the market at a higher price the very next day. That case went to court, how many more passed unnoticed, beneath the radar? Fraud can be perpertated in a variety of ways and I suspect some flippers might even work in concert; buying and selling property to each other, securing higher and higher loans and pocketing the difference. It happened in the US, so why not here.
.
Flipper activity will always reach a point where a market correction is inevitable it is after all, unsustainable. Flippers were one of the major causes of the sub-prime woes in the USA.
Flipper activity will always reach a point where a market correction is inevitable it is after all, unsustainable. Flippers were one of the major causes of the sub-prime woes in the USA.
Like a ponzi scheme, if you get out early you are ok, and the last ones holding the bag are the ones who get burned. If that happens to be a flipper - well then, that's poetic justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)