The CSA Rd III

Just received the CSA today and saw the RP for the first time. I am shocked at how low it is! Does the SC realise that this RP will have to hold it's value for 2 to 3 years until the completion of sale? Do they really believe that this figure will look good in 3 year's time when it comes to replacing our units? Never mind the waffle about 'raising' it later, if you set your sights so low at the beginning, nothing is going to materialise. You won't reach 40% with that RP.

Under 2 Apportionment method for proceeds of sale, it does not actually say what method they used. But looking at the figures it can be deduced that it's the 50/50 method (Share value/Strata area). This is the same method that was used in Rd I and Rd II. The proceeds difference between the biggest and smallest units is only $30k. 

Under 3 SC conducts and controls the collective sale
The phrase 'one or more supplementary contracts' needs clarification.

Under 4 Authorised representatives
'To take any action' is too sweeping. There must be some limits on the SC powers, they cannot be given a blank cheque. We know from experience this can be costly indeed. Our puny sales proceeds would be punier still.

Under 6.3.1 'The completion date of sale' will be no earlier than 3 months after the ...etc
So it is later than 3 months... in other words 'whenever'.

Under 6.4.3  'may also have to pay rent' . I think we can push the SC to negotiate for a nominal rent only. In Rd I the rent was $1.00. 

Under 12.1 'Amendment of CSA' . The phrase 'a non-substantial nature' is highly subjective and open-ended. Better to agree to any amendment at the EOGM and stick to that. 

The good things about this CSA- it is mercifully free of the worst kind of legal jargon and without the menacing clauses prevalent in previous CSAs. Pity they didn't include the marketing agent's workings on the residual land valuation  (if any).

EOGM 3

Caught only the last 20 minutes, so I have no idea what transpired in the main. 

My impression: a small group of dedicated enbloc residents. The Sale Committee and Co. would have been speaking to the converted I imagine. Any protestation would have fallen on deaf ears also. I had no intention of speaking but really, when a resident suggested that the sale committee be allowed to sell below the valuation, well, that was just too much to swallow. The Valuation at time of tender is a LTSA safeguard to protect the minority from an over zealous SC from underselling the estate.  I asked someone at the back who was just there for a look-see like myself if anyone challenged the MA's figures... apparently not. 

Well, as I said - the converted need no persuasion. 

The RP is a pittance any which way you look at it. 

The signing of the CSA began after the meeting, so they have until 24 Jun 2017 to reach 80%. Expect Notices every 4 weeks on the notice board. 

Psf ppr Vs Psf of new units

Let us do a quick comparison between the cost of land to the developer (the price paid psf ppr) and the sale price of new launches (psf) on the SAME piece of land. 

Let us take the newest developments in our area... the Santorini and Q Bay. Hidious developments, to be sure, along Tampines Ave 10. mostly comprising of shoe box units, but that is irrelevant.

First the map:

Q Bay was bought  in May 2012 at a cost of $418 psfppr.
Santorini was bought in Jul 2013 at a cost of $562 psfppr.

According to the URA website the most recent sale price psf is as follows:

So, you see, you NEVER have to worry about the developers ability to profit from their adventures... they always find a way.