Florence Regency starting a Collective Sale badly

Florence Regency (formally N7 Hougang Ave 2) was privatised in Jan 2014. It is an ex-HUDC estate with 336 units and they have a collective-sale-from-hell going on there at the moment. 

Their annual AGM was held yesterday and suspended half way through to switch to the first Collective Sale EOGM for the purpose of electing a sale committee. They decided to do this in June, even though at that time they did not have the requisite 20%.

Perhaps they had the requisite 20% by Oct BUT they have flouted the rules and undermined the safety measures set out in the LTSA.

The Second Schedule is dedicated to holding enbloc meetings - it  is a legal document and cannot be ignored. The 20% requisition is a must and the meeting cannot start with less than the 30% Quorum reached within a strict 1 hour.  This 30% is HIGHER than the quorum of a regular AGM, which is set at 20%, the importance of which cannot be underestimated. The Collective Sale EOGMs have a HIGHER hurdle to pass. Even if 20% is not reached at a regular AGM, the meeting can proceed regardless. With a Collective Sale EOGM, the meeting cannot proceed without the 30% present or by proxy and and the collective sale attempt is over.

Was the Quorum reached? Was it even checked? You cannot piggyback on the quorum of the AGM - you cannot assume that those at the AGM are going to stay for the EOGM - the two meetings cannot be morphed into one because it weakens the safeguards against abuse.
So, was the quorum ascertained separately?

The Second Schedule cannot be sidelined as if it didn't matter - it seems that this EOGM may in fact be totally invalid.

The incoming MC (of which I believe consist of old and new members) should put an end to this farce and refuse to recognise the newly elected SC. No further EOGMs should be held in their name and the MA should be made to pay for the erroneously held EOGM... before sacking them.

What a mess.

SC Meeting No.15

*Updated 5 Nov

RP revised to motivate SPs to sign.
Completely divorced from the value of the land.

Most SPs were not concerned about the technical details of how the RP was calculated, rather they cared only for the amount that they would get by the collective sale.  

The few SPs who have expressed interest in reviewing the technical details have only been offered a visual glance and so only the sale committee can do 'due diligence' on the figures. I am not confident in the SCs ability do do so when one of the exco members does not even have a grasp of the correct age of the estate. Decisions as to the accuracy of the calculations seem to be taken on first sight - with no independent verification done by the members themselves - during the meetings. With all due respect, calculations need spreadsheet analysis not eyeball evaluation. 

The Sale Committee members are first and foremost SPs in the estate. Since they have access to the RLV then we all should have the same. We are all equal and favourtism cannot be shown to anyone- not even the sale committee. We all should have the RLV in our email boxes if so expressed.

We will be paying this MA over $7 Million, they are under our collective employ, I don't want to pay for this shabby service.

Can't handle the heat

The SC has deleted dozens comments on their FB page as things got too hot for them there, all those SPs pointing out their mistakes was quite distressing for them. They also deleted their own SC member comments as one in particular was damaging their reputation. He didn't even know the correct age of the estate. Anyway, I shall miss him if he has been banned from making further comments on FB. The medium is too volatile for loose canons like himself.

Not only have they deleted the negative comments, they have also deleted

• A ton of posts and comments
• Mr Vasan's letter/SC Response and all the ensuing brouhaha 

Shunfu Ville Going to High Court

Update: 23 Oct 2016

I heard on the grapevine that one of the objections at least has some merit. Apparently, the LTSA mandated 1 yr from 80% in which to sell the estate had expired without a sale. There was a break (I don't know how long) before a supplementary agreement between a different 80% was signed. So was the collective sale dead and can it be resurrected after the time limit has lapsed? Now it is getting interesting.

http://str.sg/4xRd

Bloopers

So, it has come to this. The Sale Committee must come under closer examination in the light of recent irrational remarks on their FB page. They are making all kinds of statements that have no basis in reality or fact.

RAINTREE GARDENS EX-HUDC SALE

175 Owners to receive about $1.9 million each

Contrary to the Sale Committee claim - that 'the RP was set about 2% lower than the GLS in the region'; there are, in fact, no histirocal residential GLS sites in Potong Pasir. The SC has no way of knowing how the RP of Raintree Gardens was set. We would need to see their RLV.

The SC reveal on their FB page  that the GLS site they are referring to is now called The Poiz (on Meyappa Chettiar Rd sold Aug 2014). I am floored by this.

That GLS was slated as 'commercial and residential' with a GPR of 3.5 and now has 731 units and 88 shops & restaurants. This is not apple to apple. They have shot themselves in the foot again by not doing background checks on the information doled out to them by the MA. The Poiz is right next to the MRT station and no doubt will be linked underground the way Bedok Residences is just a lift down to the Bedok MRT station. Raintree Gardens therefore aimed very high if  they compared themselves to this prime site! Excellent job by that smart and gutsy SC.

What does this mean for us? Instead of looking at the poor Tampines Ave 10 GLS - perhaps they should be measuring our RP against  mixed commercial & residential properties beside an MRT station, too.  That should up the RP considerably! If it's good enough for Potong Pasir then it's good enough for us.

At the end of the day.. all this talk using the comparative method means nothing because all we need to see is the RLV.  Developers do not use the comparative method, so neither should we.

The RP is set only by doing a residual land valuation - NOT by linking it to old GLS sales, which serve as a loose indication only. Every site has it's unique set of pros and cons. 

WHERE IS THE RLV?

GIVE IT TO US. 

THIS IS OUR ESTATE AND WE DEMAND TO SEE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE SETTING OF THE RESERVE PRICE. 

Without this in hand, the SC Committee et al. can collectively go to hell.

Below URA GLS Sites. Figures in RED are my own. GPR is calculated using reverse math where not given

Date of Award	Location	Type of Development Allowed	Lease (years)	Site Area (m2)	Site Area (sqft)	Calcul’d GPR	GFA (m2)	No. of Bids	Successful Tender Price	$psm per GFA or $psm per GPR	$psf ppr	Planning Area
30-Sep-16	Fernvale Road	Residential	99	17,195.9	185,095.1	3.0	51,588	14	$ 287,100,000.00	$ 5,565.25	$‎ 517	Sengkang
1-Jul-16	Martin Place	Residential	99	15,936.1	171,534.8	2.8	44,622	13	$ 595,100,000.00	$ 13,336.47	$‎ 1,239	River Valley
30-May-16	Bukit Batok West Avenue 6	Commercial and Residential	99	14,696.7	158,194.0	3.0	44,091	11	$ 301,160,000.00	$ 6,830.42	$‎ 635	Bukit Batok
13-Apr-16	Jalan Kandis	Residential	99	7,045.6	75,838.2	1.4	9,864	9	$ 51,070,228.00	$ 5,177.44	$‎ 481	Sembawang
26-Feb-16	New Upper Changi Road / Bedok South Avenue 3	Residential	99	24,394.0	262,574.8	2.0	51,228	8	$ 419,380,000.00	$ 8,186.54	$‎ 799	Bedok
18-Jan-16	Siglap Road	Residential	99	19,309.6	207,846.8	3.5	67,584	8	$ 624,180,000.00	$ 9,235.62	$‎ 858	Bedok
11-Dec-15	Clementi Avenue 1	Residential	99	13,037.8	140,337.7	3.5	45,633	6	$ 302,100,000.00	$ 6,620.21	$‎ 615	Clementi
17-Nov-15	Alexandra View	Residential with Commercial at 1st Storey	99	8,398.5	90,400.7	4.9	41,153	10	$ 376,880,000.00	$ 9,158.02	$‎ 851	Bukit Merah
11-Nov-15	Lorong Lew Lian	Residential	99	14,001.5	150,710.9	3.0	42,005	11	$ 321,000,000.00	$ 7,641.95	$‎ 710	Serangoon
13-Aug-15	West Coast Vale	Residential	99	18,908.7	203,531.6	2.8	52,945	6	$ 314,100,000.00	$ 5,932.57	$‎ 551	Clementi
4-May-15	Tampines Avenue 10	Residential	99	15,660.4	168,567.1	2.8	43,850	12	$ 227,780,000.00	$ 5,194.53	$‎ 483	Tampines
1-Apr-15	Paya Lebar Road / Sims Avenue	Commercial	99	39,230.7	422,275.7	4.2	164,769	6	$ 1,671,688,888.00	$ 10,145.65	$‎ 943	Geylang
31-Mar-15	Sturdee Road	Residential	99	6,111.5	65,783.6	3.5	21,391	16	$ 181,189,000.00	$ 8,470.34	$‎ 787	Kallang
12-Mar-15	Jurong West Street 41	Residential	99	17,803.5	191,635.3	2.8	49,850	9	$ 338,118,000.00	$ 6,782.71	$‎ 630	Jurong West
28-Nov-14	Upper Serangoon Road	Residential with Commercial at 1st Storey	99	10,097.1	108,684.3	3.0	30,292	11	$ 276,774,000.00	$ 9,136.87	$‎ 849	Hougang
13-Oct-14	Lorong Puntong	Residential	99	10,502.8	113,051.2	2.1	22,056	18	$ 173,570,000.00	$ 7,869.51	$‎ 731	Bishan
28-Aug-14	Gambas Crescent / Sembawang Avenue	Business 1	30	15,665.0	168,616.7	2.5	NA	4	$ 35,000,000.00	$ 893.71	$‎ 83	Sembawang
20-Aug-14	Meyappa Chettiar Road	Commercial and Residential	99	16,149.4	173,830.7	3.5	56,523	15	$ 471,618,000.00	$ 8,343.82	$‎ 775	Toa Payoh
8-Aug-14	Fernvale Road	Residential	99	16,603.9	178,722.9	3.0	49,812	4	$ 234,933,000.00	$ 4,716.39	$‎ 438	Sengkang
8-Aug-14	Fernvale Road	Residential	99	17,413.9	187,441.7	3.0	52,242	3	$ 252,122,000.00	$ 4,826.04	$‎ 448	Sengkang
4-Jul-14	Woodlands Avenue 12	Business 1 with an integrated Heavy Vehicle Park	30	39,229.1	422,258.5	2.5	NA	5	$ 76,900,000.00	$ 784.11	$‎ 73	Woodlands
21-Apr-14	Prince Charles Crescent	Residential	99	24,964.3	268,713.5	2.1	52,426	7	$ 463,100,000.00	$ 8,833.40	$‎ 821	Bukit Merah
17-Apr-14	Woodlands Square	Commercial	99	18,568.8	199,872.9	3.5	64,991	8	$ 633,999,000.00	$ 9,755.18	$‎ 906	Woodlands
13-Mar-14	Yishun Avenue 9 / Yishun Avenue 6	Residential	99	20,553.8	221,239.3	2.8	57,551	5	$ 278,800,000.00	$ 4,844.40	$‎ 450	Yishun
24-Jan-14	Geylang East Avenue 1	Residential	99	6,238.1	67,146.3	2.8	17,467	16	$ 145,890,000.00	$ 8,352.32	$‎ 776	Geylang
15-Jan-14	Upper Paya Lebar Road	Residential	99	20,077.6	216,113.5	2.8	56,218	7	$ 392,300,000.00	$ 6,978.19	$‎ 648	Serangoon