Thinking out of the box. Here are two estates which will go back to owners for reaffirmation before accepting any bid or offer.
Oct 11, 2011
Reaffirmation in action
Thinking out of the box. Here are two estates which will go back to owners for reaffirmation before accepting any bid or offer.
Oct 7, 2011
We need to see the MA's calculations
The Marketing Agent put forward a few slides at the EGM 3 to explain his Reserve Price.
I sent an email off to the sale committee requesting a copy of the data on the screen.
Naturally, they gave no answer.
Anyhow, I did note down a few figures and have waited until now to plug them into the equations. If you ask me, they just don't make sense.
Their claim that 10% in size does not amount to much difference flies in the face of logic.
I wish I could post the figures here for you to see, but obviously I can't.
The Sale Price $xxx is the RP.
Comparing $A and $B the marketing agent said there was 'not much difference'.The difference ($A-$B) being around $27 psf ppr. The Purchaser pays $27 psfppr less for higher GFA. $27 * 2,162,659 = ~$57m, so is the purchaser getting a discount of $57m even with a higher DP/Top up? Huh? Do they understand how nutty their rationalization looks? If the 10% was factored into the residual calculation, the benefit would go to the owners, and they would see the RP raised and about $100k added onto the sales proceeds of each unit.
I could reproduce $A and $B easy enough... they seemingly did not recalculate the actual residual calculation. Do they want us to believe that a 10% difference in GFA is only a figure used as a denominator after the other residual calculations have been done? That it will have no effect whatsoever on the Gross Development Value (and subsequently the Sale Price)? I have checked back with the two independent residual valuations given at the STB in round 1 and the larger potential GFA and DC for Balcony bonus was incorporated in their workings. Looking at the MA's original residual calculation in their original proposal, it is not clear what they did as they just gave a lump sum for DP/Top up and did not factor in the 10% Bonus GFA. Their 'justification' now does nothing to correct this. So, it remains a mystery as to why they tweaked the DP/Top-up and have not produced a proper residual recalculation for us all. What are they afraid of?
Therefore, without their complete workings, these figures mean absolutely nothing and their justification remains highly questionable. I am just a regular owner who knows nuts about these things, but I do know when I don't have enough info to draw concrete conclusions. I really dislike being thrown snippets of data at EGMS and having to try and paste a complete picture by filling in the blanks afterward.
Owners should be able to see these NEW calculations on request, since they differ from the original proposal. Just because 137 owners in the estate voted for this RP doesn't make it correct.
Oct 4, 2011
Let Owners decide on 'in kind'
Now that we have an UNDERVALUED RESERVE PRICE, and a clause 8.1.3 that will make the lowering of this already low RP a strong likelihood - it becomes even more imperative that owners can switch to the 'in kind' payment option in order to preserve the equity in their homes. Now 1-for -1 payment need not necessarily be an exact exchange on a square footage basis, Owners should have the flexibility to have a smaller apartment and the remainder in cash on a pro-rata basis. It is for owners to look after their own interests - the forces out there want a cash sale only because it is more controllable and they have a vested interest in seeing it succeed. The CSA takes care to include contingencies that aid the Purchaser. There are no contingencies that protect the Vender.
Look at it as a form of Insurance Policy: To protect ourselves we must insist on this 'in kind' payment option in case things turn ugly and owners are faced with a massive shortfall in a rising market, a forced downgrade or hitherto unknown tricks that may be employed to prize our asset from our hands. How much better it would have been for Waterfront View/Gillman Heights owners had they protected their flanks with this option. They could now be moving into a smaller but brand new Waterfront Waves/The Interlace apartment with the difference in cash. Their new homes would have been pegged to the present day market price and so would have lost no equity. Instead, many are now back where they started 25 years ago; their replacement home is an old HDB with little or no cash in the bank to show for their efforts. Their prime land gone, their share in private property evaporated.
Without an 'in kind' option as an insurance policy, I am afraid this collective sale becomes a high risk roll of the dice. Forget about clause 8.1.14; it is complete garbage. Owners in Gillman and Waterfront were 'invited' and were shocked at the prices of the units offered.
TWICE THE PRICE /HALF THE SIZE.
Not only that, they were treated like dirt.
RE: response from subsidiary proprietor to my post here :
Look at it as a form of Insurance Policy: To protect ourselves we must insist on this 'in kind' payment option in case things turn ugly and owners are faced with a massive shortfall in a rising market, a forced downgrade or hitherto unknown tricks that may be employed to prize our asset from our hands. How much better it would have been for Waterfront View/Gillman Heights owners had they protected their flanks with this option. They could now be moving into a smaller but brand new Waterfront Waves/The Interlace apartment with the difference in cash. Their new homes would have been pegged to the present day market price and so would have lost no equity. Instead, many are now back where they started 25 years ago; their replacement home is an old HDB with little or no cash in the bank to show for their efforts. Their prime land gone, their share in private property evaporated.
Without an 'in kind' option as an insurance policy, I am afraid this collective sale becomes a high risk roll of the dice. Forget about clause 8.1.14; it is complete garbage. Owners in Gillman and Waterfront were 'invited' and were shocked at the prices of the units offered.
TWICE THE PRICE /HALF THE SIZE.
Not only that, they were treated like dirt.
RE: response from subsidiary proprietor to my post here :
Item 24 on my list: By LTSA , payment can be 'in cash or kind or both', yet the CSA only has a cash option.
His response was 'The situation of payment in kind is not being envisaged'
Why has it not been envisaged? What right has the sale committee to casually dismiss a statutory option - a vital option for some owners? Does the SC know how many would want this option? Have they sent out a single survey form on any matter, let alone this one?
The LTSA does not empower the Sale Committee to propose the Terms and Conditions of the CSA. Owners were supposed to vote on those powers at the First EGM under a statutory resolution 'Powers, duties or function of the SC' but were inexplicably denied that right. I note that in 4.4.3 of the draft 2 CSA , the sale committee now seek to empower themselves to propose all the terms and conditions in the Agreement and this is done retroactively. Is the SC proud of the terms it now proposes?
Our Minister of Law Mr. Shanmugam has explicitly stated that owners have the ultimate say and that the sale committee must act in accordance to the owners wishes as stated in the CSA. (Second Reading of the LTSA Amendment Bill, 18 may 2010):
The LTSA does not empower the Sale Committee to propose the Terms and Conditions of the CSA. Owners were supposed to vote on those powers at the First EGM under a statutory resolution 'Powers, duties or function of the SC' but were inexplicably denied that right. I note that in 4.4.3 of the draft 2 CSA , the sale committee now seek to empower themselves to propose all the terms and conditions in the Agreement and this is done retroactively. Is the SC proud of the terms it now proposes?
Our Minister of Law Mr. Shanmugam has explicitly stated that owners have the ultimate say and that the sale committee must act in accordance to the owners wishes as stated in the CSA. (Second Reading of the LTSA Amendment Bill, 18 may 2010):
.
"A Sale Committee has to act in accordance with the mandate specified in its CSA. Thus, it really depends on what mandate is given to the Sale Committee."
"Owners have the ultimate say, they can ask for what they think is necessary for the process, or for them to participate in the process."
"The real point is that owners are free to adopt these measures if they are suitable for their particular circumstances. Thus, the ultimate choice is with the owners themselves on how the sale should be conducted."
The CSA has not yet been approved and so the sale committee does not have the power or sanction of 4.4.3 to propose all the terms and conditions.
I sent in my request to have this 'in kind' option put to the vote in a resolution in the EGM 3, but it was binned. The sale committee has ignored this owner's serious proposal but took care to insert inconsequential resolutions, such as 'allowing free access to the meeting room' instead.
The CSA has not yet been approved and so the sale committee does not have the power or sanction of 4.4.3 to propose all the terms and conditions.
I am resubmitting my request for the '1-for-1 exchange' and 'reaffirmation of sale price' to be included in EGM 4 as resolutions to be voted on by the owners. In Shan's words; I am asking for what I think is necessary for the process. The ultimate choice is with the owners - not me alone, not the sale committee, not the Solicitor and not the marketing agent.
Oct 1, 2011
SC Meeting: 01 Oct 2011
To be fair, this was a sale committee meeting - not a 'meet-the-blogger' meeting.
It started off friendly enough, here was an opportunity to ask real questions, stupid questions even, but after a while, it became clear I had more questions than they were prepared to answer, and the resistance set in. This is what always happens so no surprises there, it's all right to ask questions, so long as there are no more than 3. But I always have 20 where another person has only 1 and people's patience quickly wears thin. I went in armed with over 100 questions typed out but lost the plot early. I failed, simple as that. I know as little now as I did 3 hours ago*.
It started off friendly enough, here was an opportunity to ask real questions, stupid questions even, but after a while, it became clear I had more questions than they were prepared to answer, and the resistance set in. This is what always happens so no surprises there, it's all right to ask questions, so long as there are no more than 3. But I always have 20 where another person has only 1 and people's patience quickly wears thin. I went in armed with over 100 questions typed out but lost the plot early. I failed, simple as that. I know as little now as I did 3 hours ago*.
Note to self: never attend any of these meetings again, especially on my birthday.
There was a suggestion to meet the solicitor privately. I have thought about it and I think not. Questioning ought to be done in public where the owners can hear the answers for themselves - or the non-answers as the case may be. I am also wary of the legal position that that might put me in vis-a-vis this blog. Quoting or misquoting him is out of the question, as that would open me up to being sued. I have already been warned as much. So there is no point in me asking the solicitor anything directly as a) I can't relay the answers and b) I might be stonewalled with the stock reply about the solicitor in an en bloc being there to advise the sale committee only and not individual SPs. So, today's meeting was a waste of everyone's time, mine included. A second reason is that owner questioning at the EGM 3 was stopped and deferred to this meeting. Observer questioning at this meeting was curtailed and deferred to EGM 4. I am being given the run-around so this is what I am going to do:
I shall most probably be overseas when the next EGM 4 is called. I wont be there to ask annoying questions and waste everyone's time. It is only when I come back and see that the CSA has been approved in all it's glory, only then will I state up front and put at the top of this blog that I am in the anti-enbloc camp, because that's when owners really make up their minds.
There was a suggestion to meet the solicitor privately. I have thought about it and I think not. Questioning ought to be done in public where the owners can hear the answers for themselves - or the non-answers as the case may be. I am also wary of the legal position that that might put me in vis-a-vis this blog. Quoting or misquoting him is out of the question, as that would open me up to being sued. I have already been warned as much. So there is no point in me asking the solicitor anything directly as a) I can't relay the answers and b) I might be stonewalled with the stock reply about the solicitor in an en bloc being there to advise the sale committee only and not individual SPs. So, today's meeting was a waste of everyone's time, mine included. A second reason is that owner questioning at the EGM 3 was stopped and deferred to this meeting. Observer questioning at this meeting was curtailed and deferred to EGM 4. I am being given the run-around so this is what I am going to do:
- I may or may not post a list of questions on this blog, but only after the next draft CSA has been issued to all owners.
- They can do with it what they like. This blog is not the 'voice of the people', not read by all owners and if they attach importance to it then that is their look out.
- If the sale committee answer any of the questions, they should state whether it is a layman opinion or whether it is after consultation with the lawyer.
I shall most probably be overseas when the next EGM 4 is called. I wont be there to ask annoying questions and waste everyone's time. It is only when I come back and see that the CSA has been approved in all it's glory, only then will I state up front and put at the top of this blog that I am in the anti-enbloc camp, because that's when owners really make up their minds.
*Actually, I found out a couple of interesting things, but more about them later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)