Since the MA thinks it's a good idea for us all to move to equally old Hougang, let's look at how prices are in general with the ex-HUDC estates (all now privatised).
Well, it does seem that most are out of our reach even now, and so our paltry $1.3m (excl costs & expenses of the sale etc) won't allow us to side-grade. Wonderful, beautiful, convenient Hougang (sorry all Hougangers who are reading this) might have a few units up for grabs at $1m or so, but I expect with even 50 ex-Tampines Courters scrabbling for a new home, even Hougang's prices will spike and devour the whole of the sales proceeds. These estates are also continually undergoing enbloc disturbances. It's bad here, but it's just as bad elsewhere. Here are excerpts from 2 emails sent from someone in one of the Hougang estates:
In Florence Regency, less than 20% of owners signed the requisition for an en bloc........... yet the MC is allowing them to convene an EOGM after the AGM..............This is seriously very irritating!
Today: You will need to spend a lot on renovating your new maisonette if you were to 'sidegrade' here! Not enough from the paltry payout to render it worthwhile!
Today: You will need to spend a lot on renovating your new maisonette if you were to 'sidegrade' here! Not enough from the paltry payout to render it worthwhile!
Oh joy, let's move to Hougang.
Furthermore, my Hougang source now informs me of the following:
I read over the FAQ leaflet provided by the MA posted on FB. They've stated that the average selling price of units in Rio Casa is 830k. You can point out that the MA has failed to qualify this statement. I viewed 3 units put up for auction by HDB in RC that had no takers since day one. ......... HDB eventually sold 2 under the hammer for 730k (2 #02 units in 349 next to the bin centre) and another on #14 at 840k. All 3 were in their original condition and without any kitchen cabinets - in the original condition you won't like. If nobody wanted them in the 1980s for 190-210k, something isn't right. You can google for it. DTZ auctions marketed the 3 units. You would never get a decent move in condition unit in RC, though remote, at that price! The 2 on the low floor were not even liveable - dead cockroaches on the floor - and difficult to rent out and even I didn't want to buy it at 730k. Add in stamp duty and extensive renovation and you're looking at $830k! Even my vet neighbour who viewed with us said they were absolutely s*** and worth $300k!
The rock bottom auction prices of those units in Rio Casa were featured in the ST alongside a bank sale in Pine Grove at 930k. The third unit which sold at 730k was auctioned separately a few months after the first two were sold*. After checking with the DTZ auctioneer, she said it sold at 730k. ...... this sale is not on the URA database.....
.
The point is that the MA is manipulating statistics and has not discovered the unusual circumstances of the sale. Notice they didn't use Florence Regency prices because they're higher. 3 units sold under the hammer will definitely lower the average PSF price but there's no way you will have sellers let go of their strata titled homes at such rock bottom prices. The ST article on the auction didn't highlight the fact that HDB was the seller!
From Realis:
Projects: Ex-HUDC estates Contract Date: Jan 2016-Aug 2016
The above information can indeed be found on the ST website. The MA boasted tin the FAQ Flyer that the Casa Rio prices were 'based on their extensive research'. So, their extensive research failed to highlight to the owners that these units were unliveable, cockroach infested hellholes that even the HDB could not sell from day 1 and so were sold at auction by the HDB through DTZ after decades of decay. The MA highlighted none of this and instead proffered such bottom-of-the-barrel properties as suitable replacement homes to Tampines Court owners.
So, after we get the sales proceeds there is nothing left but to downgrade, downsize to a privatised cockroach hellhole or HDB.
It's important to remember that the record price for a Tampines Court unit is $1.25m. The RP at $1.3m is a joke. People laugh when I tell them what the RP is, the general consensus is we are being robbed.From Realis:
| Project Name | Area (sqm) | Type of Area | Transacted Price ($) | Unit Price ($ psf) | Sale Date | Tenure | Completion Date | Planning Area |
| BRADDELL VIEW |
135
|
Strata |
1,070,000
|
736
|
27-APR-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/04/1978 | 1978 | Toa Payoh |
| BRADDELL VIEW |
158
|
Strata |
1,350,000
|
794
|
26-MAY-2016 | 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 | 1981 | Toa Payoh |
| BRADDELL VIEW |
158
|
Strata |
1,300,000
|
764
|
21-MAR-2016 | 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 | 1981 | Toa Payoh |
| BRADDELL VIEW |
167
|
Strata |
1,380,000
|
768
|
20-APR-2016 | 99 Yrs From 29/04/1981 | 1981 | Toa Payoh |
| BRADDELL VIEW |
150
|
Strata |
1,285,000
|
796
|
11-MAR-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/04/1978 | 1978 | Toa Payoh |
| CHANCERY COURT |
189
|
Strata |
2,000,000
|
983
|
28-JAN-2016 | 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 | 1981 | Novena |
| CHANCERY COURT |
189
|
Strata |
1,825,000
|
897
|
19-JAN-2016 | 99 Yrs From 25/03/1981 | 1981 | Novena |
| EUNOSVILLE |
156
|
Strata |
1,200,000
|
715
|
31-MAY-2016 | 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Geylang |
| EUNOSVILLE |
156
|
Strata |
1,120,000
|
667
|
28-APR-2016 | 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Geylang |
| EUNOSVILLE |
158
|
Strata |
1,100,000
|
647
|
24-JUN-2016 | 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Geylang |
| EUNOSVILLE |
158
|
Strata |
1,140,000
|
670
|
23-MAR-2016 | 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Geylang |
| EUNOSVILLE |
156
|
Strata |
1,180,000
|
703
|
15-APR-2016 | 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Geylang |
| EUNOSVILLE |
161
|
Strata |
1,200,000
|
692
|
13-MAY-2016 | 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Geylang |
| EUNOSVILLE |
156
|
Strata |
1,150,000
|
685
|
03-MAY-2016 | 102 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Geylang |
| FLORENCE REGENCY |
158
|
Strata |
888,000
|
522
|
25-APR-2016 | 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 | Unknown | Hougang |
| FLORENCE REGENCY |
157
|
Strata |
900,000
|
533
|
24-MAR-2016 | 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 | Unknown | Hougang |
| FLORENCE REGENCY |
158
|
Strata |
900,000
|
529
|
20-JUN-2016 | 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 | Unknown | Hougang |
| FLORENCE REGENCY |
157
|
Strata |
870,000
|
515
|
20-JUL-2016 | 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 | Unknown | Hougang |
| FLORENCE REGENCY |
158
|
Strata |
930,000
|
547
|
16-JUN-2016 | 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 | Unknown | Hougang |
| FLORENCE REGENCY |
156
|
Strata |
868,000
|
517
|
12-JUL-2016 | 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 | Unknown | Hougang |
| FLORENCE REGENCY |
157
|
Strata |
880,000
|
521
|
12-JAN-2016 | 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 | Unknown | Hougang |
| FLORENCE REGENCY |
156
|
Strata |
861,888
|
513
|
08-APR-2016 | 103 Yrs From 01/12/1985 | Unknown | Hougang |
| IVORY HEIGHTS |
155
|
Strata |
1,000,000
|
599
|
25-APR-2016 | 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Jurong East |
| IVORY HEIGHTS |
158
|
Strata |
1,220,000
|
717
|
22-JUL-2016 | 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Jurong East |
| IVORY HEIGHTS |
158
|
Strata |
1,008,888
|
593
|
18-MAR-2016 | 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Jurong East |
| IVORY HEIGHTS |
181
|
Strata |
1,190,000
|
611
|
15-MAR-2016 | 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Jurong East |
| IVORY HEIGHTS |
158
|
Strata |
1,200,000
|
706
|
15-APR-2016 | 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Jurong East |
| IVORY HEIGHTS |
155
|
Strata |
960,000
|
575
|
07-MAR-2016 | 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Jurong East |
| IVORY HEIGHTS |
158
|
Strata |
1,300,000
|
764
|
07-APR-2016 | 100 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Jurong East |
| LAGUNA PARK |
135
|
Strata |
1,215,000
|
836
|
24-JUN-2016 | 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 | 1978 | Bedok |
| LAGUNA PARK |
135
|
Strata |
1,205,000
|
829
|
21-JUL-2016 | 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 | 1978 | Bedok |
| LAGUNA PARK |
135
|
Strata |
1,160,000
|
798
|
12-APR-2016 | 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 | 1978 | Bedok |
| LAGUNA PARK |
150
|
Strata |
1,450,000
|
898
|
11-MAR-2016 | 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 | 1978 | Bedok |
| LAGUNA PARK |
150
|
Strata |
1,188,888
|
736
|
11-APR-2016 | 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 | 1978 | Bedeck |
| LAGUNA PARK |
150
|
Strata |
1,340,000
|
830
|
08-MAR-2016 | 99 Yrs From 24/08/1977 | 1978 | Bedok |
| LAKEVIEW ESTATE |
150
|
Strata |
1,200,000
|
743
|
31-MAY-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/06/1977 | 1977 | Bishan |
| PINE GROVE |
155
|
Strata |
1,050,000
|
629
|
29-JUN-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
155
|
Strata |
1,075,000
|
644
|
27-JUL-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
155
|
Strata |
938,000
|
562
|
25-MAY-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
162
|
Strata |
1,145,000
|
657
|
25-JUL-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
163
|
Strata |
1,450,000
|
826
|
25-JAN-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
155
|
Strata |
1,200,000
|
719
|
18-JUL-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
158
|
Strata |
1,360,000
|
800
|
17-MAR-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
163
|
Strata |
1,290,000
|
735
|
17-JUN-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
155
|
Strata |
1,120,000
|
671
|
10-MAR-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
155
|
Strata |
1,010,000
|
605
|
08-JUL-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
108
|
Strata |
890,000
|
766
|
04-AUG-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
155
|
Strata |
1,050,000
|
629
|
03-JUN-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
162
|
Strata |
1,080,000
|
619
|
03-AUG-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
163
|
Strata |
1,420,000
|
809
|
03-AUG-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| PINE GROVE |
109
|
Strata |
910,000
|
776
|
02-AUG-2016 | 99 Yrs From 01/11/1984 | Unknown | Bukit Timah |
| RIO CASA |
156
|
Strata |
840,000
|
500
|
30-MAR-2016 | 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Hougang |
| RIO CASA |
153
|
Strata |
840,000
|
510
|
29-FEB-2016 | 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Hougang |
| RIO CASA |
151
|
Strata |
845,000
|
520
|
19-MAY-2016 | 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Hougang |
| RIO CASA |
156
|
Strata |
730,000
|
435
|
13-APR-2016 | 104 Yrs From 01/02/1986 | Unknown | Hougang |
Why not consider a maisonette or executive HDB flat? Well below 1 million, plenty of mature estates in more central locations, build in the 90s. All about 150sqm in size.
ReplyDeleteTo: Above comment - Why not consider a HDB maisonette?
ReplyDelete1. HUDC was under the management of HDB in the 90s. Our government came out with the privatisation program for HUDC to UPGRADE to private estate.
It is a joke we go enbloc and move back to HDB. Enbloc should enable us to upgrade to condo and with some cash windfall.
2. The problem with this enbloc is SC/MA set the RP too low. We should deal with the low RP problem and not asking residents to downgrade to HDB.
3. The MA/SC always intentionlly based on the current resale price to try to convince the low RP can by e.g. $800K+ Hougang ex-HUDC. They purposely never tell
you that we cannot but NOW but 2-3 years later when we get the sales proceed. Will the price of Hougang ex-HUDC remained at $800K+ 2-3 years later ?
To be frank, to me getting a HDB will be a sidegrade, not a downgrade. What's the difference between an executive HDB apartment in a mature estate and Tampines Court? A strata title with a similar lease on it is a moot point in my opinion.
DeleteOf course i understand that to many people TC has been there home for many years and they are attached to it. This is something that cannot be quantified.
Just looking at the face value of things for discussion sake.
How is it a side-grade? HDB to HDB is a side-grade. Private to HDB is a downgrade. The HDB have a myriad of rules regarding selling/buying and who you can leave your house to after you die. That is an important point for some people. It is not easy to leave your estate to sons/daughters unless they fulfil HDB requirements. There are no restrictions on private homes. The difference between HDB and Private is that one is Stat Board controlled and the other is under your control (except in cases on enbloc).
DeleteBuying and selling rules are really no hindrance when you are looking for a home to stay long-term. There are plenty of nice mature estates out there, something gotta fit. After the lease is up it goes back to the state, no matter if private or HDB. Same goes for passing the home on to your spouse or children.
DeleteThe only real value-add to going private is security (fence and/or guards) and facilities. Personally i never cared much for facilities. Added security can be comforting if the estate had issues before but i think it's pretty safe anywhere in Singapore. It's a status symbol at most in my opinion.
To some, going private is just a stepping stone to en-bloc.
don't want to go into details, just sufficient to say that when 2 agents came to give out flyers and explain the sequence that they (Hutton) changed the RP lower, the one has to correct the other saying, "Not like that, it's ..." so even their own agents didn't get their story or act together... I suppose after talking to me with that discrepancy in story, they have to go back and re-calibrate among themselves..
ReplyDeleteTo those who are OK living in public housing, I respect your choice: sell your TC apt and get that HDB exec flat you so yearn with cash to spare for a comfortable life.
ReplyDeleteIt's disingenuous to claim understanding for those who regard TC as our much loved home and yet advocate this forced sale. Stressing and disrupting their neighbors lives unnecessarily.
Do They Care?
To be frank, it's selfish, insensitive and downright greedy!
Enuff said
In MA/SC's Collective sale FAQ, it was stated that "The recent sales transacted at Tampines Court were in the range of $843,000 to $915,000 (based on caveats lodged in June and July 2016) ). At about $1.32m gross sales proceeds per unit, this translates to approximately a 50% premium over its current transacted price on average."
ReplyDeleteToday is 18 August, just about two weeks (their cutoff is Jul 2016) after MA's 50% premium calculation, there are new transactions in Jul and Aug 2016 in the range of $844K to $941K, the average for the eight latest transactions ($941K+$900K+$915K+$865K+$844K+902K+$910K+$850K from URA caveats) is $890.88K.
If MA/SC is to maintain the premium at 50%, the the RP should be adjusted upward to ($890.88 * 1.5) $1.336M.
The increase is ($1.336M - $1.32M) $16,000 per unit which is not a small sum of money.
If MA/SC is using this marketing tool to convince the SPs, then they should monitor TC resale price and adjust the RP whenever there are new resale transactions.
Hope that MA/SC is viewing this comment and take positive action to adjust the RP.
If average resale prices of TC increased and RP is not adjusted, where is the premium goes to ?
Post that on their FB ... I prefer 50% premium of last highest transacted price (943*1.5) $1.41m or better yet (1.25*1.5) $1.87m. Surely they need to keep their marketing tool current :P. In any case, we should keep them informed of any erosion.
DeleteThey cannot raise the RP. It would render this collective sale unworkable. Sorry
DeleteUhm, this isn't going anywhere. You can't possibly adjust the RP every time a unit is selling. Besides, the premium is determined by the current land valuation. The developer is buying land, not apartments.
DeleteOf course not, I was being sarcastic . Notice the :P ?
Delete:)
Yes, the RP should be determined by Residual Land Valuation method but MA/SC is no showing the calculation.
DeleteIn their FAQ "Why should I sell at 1.32m", the MA/SC linked the RP to 50% premium of individual unit selling prices in Jun-Jul 2016 period. There is no mention of land value of Tampines Court. (or $1.32m*560 is the land value ?)
As a layman and also to protect my interest, it is logical to ask MA/SC to maintain 50% premium whenever individual resale price is increased. If not, the 50% premium will disappear over times. You can see in just two weeks, the premium is decreased to 48% when average selling price increased to $890k.
Below is extracted from Enbloc 1 cross examination of property agent(A) by minority lawyer(Q):
Q. So how does the sale price of an individual unit have an impact or
relationship to the sale price of the entire site en bloc?
A. The impact will show actually that we work out the whole en bloc, okay,
whether the owner suffer any losses.
Q. So the impact is it’s a marketing tool to encourage owners to go en bloc;
am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. But it has nothing to do with the price they get en bloc? It doesn’t impact
the price they get; am I right?
A. Yes.
Another question is that who set the premium when they use this marketing tool? SC/MA or SPs? 50% or 66% ?
ReplyDeleteIf we use En bloc 1's premium (66%), the RP should be (890.88*1.66) 1.478M.
The MA/SC need to show all SPs the proper calculation to convince $1.32M is right RP.
So MA/SC's FAQ is out-dated now.
DeleteMA/SC should amend their FAQ "Why should I sell at 1.32m" to :
The recent sales transacted at Tampines Court were in the range of $844,000 to $941,000 (based on caveats lodged in June and Aug 2016) ). At about $1.32m gross sales proceeds per unit, this translates to approximately a 48% premium over its current transacted price on average."