Tampines on the Up & Up

HUDC PRIVATISATION JOURNEY (from HDB website)

The HUDC Privatisation Journey


http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/doc/corporate-pr-17032017-annex

Work in progress:

Rio Casa SOLD

I have no idea what is happening in the market - there is no doubt collective sales are back in favour and there are very hungry developers forming consortiums with deep pockets on the prowl.  I may be a fervent minority owner but even I can't deny that the market is hot at the moment.  Note, the last 3 HUDC collective sales have all been over $700 psf ppr. 

• ShunfuVille - May 2016 - $747 psf ppr
• Raintree Gardens - Oct 2016 - $797 psf ppr
• Rio Casa - May 2017 - $706 psf ppr

I see in the Business Times article give a little more information:

Error fixed

You see, RLV's matter in this Game of Enblocs, where is ours?

My June 2016 Armchair RLV was $637 psf ppr  (RP: $952M) and it looks like it should be well within reach in the present crazed market. 

I have no further qualms about the RP for the moment - but will stay on the SC/MA's tail should the market go up any further.  One thing for sure - there is no going back from the present RP to a lower figure. Those who sign now have the power to hold the line. 

 EUNOSVILLE (ex-HUDC) enbloc tender closing on 31st May. 

The Stop Button

And that, my friends, is the sanest comment of them all - and is exactly what I am going to do. We can all chill out and I will be back when the show is either at Stage 2 or Over - or interesting news pops up like Rio Casa. 

Thank you Anonymous

The Play Button

I don't think I can stand 31 more days of this never-ending thrashing of Tampines Court.

I suspect many of the contributors are property agents because of the similarity in language with their 'un's', ''dun's, and 'pple's.  They delight in talking down the estate. Thank you very much but I do not live in a slum, and I am not surrounded by foreign workers. It is very peaceful and quiet in my corner of the estate and I am surrounded by greenery, being only on the 2nd level. My home is large and airy and there is plenty of room inside for 33yrs of accumulated stuff. 

* I don't want to wade into the replacement issue here - this is a huge topic and needs more careful research than just a quick glance at PropertyGuru. There are many options out there with the present RP - it all depends on your preferences and priorities. My priority happens to be space, a balcony, greenery and not in Tuas.  

I am sure there are 1000 other reasons to sign/not to sign - we all have out reasons and some are more valid than others - eg the lady who said her 85yr old mother can't handle the stairs up to their walk-up apt has a valid reason to sign. The person who says that units are overcrowded with tenants does not have a valid reason, because the solution is to call the URA and get it cleared.

No one is obliged to reveal their reasons to anyone, you do not need to defend your point of view. The minority have a Statutory Right not to sign however irksome it may be to the majority. 

The pros & cons of enbloc are not the focus of this blog - sometimes even I lose my bearings - but the process is, the twists and turns and the actions/inaction of the sale committee as they are at the very centre and ultimately accountable to everyone.  

The Pause Button

I shall not be 'influencing'* the last 6.79% of signatures with my 'negative' comments.  Let the 80% be reached unimpeded by the dastardly influence of a single blogger.

This will make both the impending 80% happy and provide me with the space I need to polish up old posts without attracting menacing comments and me losing my cool in the process.

I need to step back.

That's my plan for the moment, anyway :)

*Note: this is an example of sarcasm as I obviously do not think my opinion can sway 7% one way or the other. After all, 73% have already happily ignored me! 

A secret no more

Well, it looks like Tampines Court might just well reach the hallowed 80% with the latest RP

The RP has been revealed on the FB page again

Note how they were very careful not to mention it on their FB page up until now. It should not have happened, open secret or not - they should show some restraint.

Jointly owned units whereby only one owner has signed cannot be counted as going towards the 80%.

Last Signing Sessions

So, the 'last signing sessions' are coming up. There is still a chance for them to reach the 80% - many estates have reached the 80% only on the last day (Shunfu for example) and there are those who specifically hang back until the very end. They might come out of the woodwork this weekend. They are currently at 69% (from their FB page).

What is clear is that there is a strong appetite for a collective sale in this estate - perhaps even 80%- which the SC/MA failed to harness from the start. Contrary to all the comments on this blog, the estate does not necessarily have to wait 2 years for another attempt, if 50% sign for a requisition then they can fire up at will  .... but more about that later.

Goodbye

Goodbye to our Huttons agent (ex-Sale Committee member) who sold her unit in our estate (Nov 2009-Mar 2017). She was a forceful member of the Sale Committee in both Round 2 & 3.

This is for FYI only - comments for this post will not be published.

Mechanism to Lower the RP Part 1

There is an open question about the exact mechanism of lowering the RP.

My question of FB (posted yesterday 9 may 2017)

This is what we know:

The CSA says the following (not verbatim):

• An EOGM is required to lower the RP
• A simple majority of those attending the meeting agree to reduce the RP 
• 80% sign a Supplemental Agreement

Armchair opinion No.1:
Owners do not sign again for a reserve price that is equal or higher than the RP they signed for originally. Owners will have to sign again if the new RP is lower than their signed for RP
eg:
This SP either signed for $1.32m or $1.5m
The RP is now $1.Xm
If the RP were lowered (by EOGM mandate) to $1.4M then would the SP need to sign again?
If she signed for the original RP at $1.32, then No. If she signed for the 2nd RP at $1.5M then  Yes.

Armchair opinion No.2
All Supplementary Agreements to lower the RP must have fresh signatures regardless of RP-  80% need to sign the new document.

Sale Committee Answer : 
14 May 2017

So, in other words, Armchair Opinion no 1 

NOTE: 'A majority vote at an EOGM' means a simple majority vote of those attending the EOGM and not a majority of SPs in the estate or a majority of the 80% signatories. 
A simple majority vote is 50% + 1person

It is necessary to understand all the nitty-gritty details.

After thinking about this long and hard and talking it over with a very learned friend I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Vasan is right and the Lawyer is wrong.  

In the meantime, Mr Vasan posted his concerns on FB and got a very swift reply from the Lawyers:

Mr Vasan is not yet convinced-

Shunfu Ville , perfunctory tenders and co-existence of double RPs

The Court of Appeal decision is out. The collective sale of the ex-HUDC estate ShunfuVille will proceed.

The decision can be found here 

This decision will have ramifications for all collective sales in progress. Our SC/MA will be dancing in the aisles with this decision. The Minority Objector focused on points that were plainly unwinnable, but I am going to focus on one issue that was not even raised (just something I latched on to in the reading).. RPs and how two can exist at the same time .

We have always been told that signing the CSA was a 'big step', that we would be legally binding ourselves hand & foot to a legal document until the very end. Sure, there was a brief 5 day 'cooling off' window in which we could change our minds, but after that, we were well and truly hooked. Voluntarily, I might add.

We all believed there could only be ONE RP, and to make sure we were all signing on the same page, we were given the added safety measure of having the signing done in the presence of a lawyer (rather than some smooth-talking marketing agent ambushing old people in their living rooms).

It is common practice that if the RP were raised in the course of the collective sale attempt, then those who had signed for the lower RP would rise with the tide and be party to the new, higher RP along with the new signatories.

Along comes ShunfuVille and the notion of ONE RP goes out the window with the crystallisation of Supplemental Agreements and their vastly different RPs that operate in a kind of legal-limbo.

I am not legally trained, but I do believe a person cannot legally sign for two different RPs on 2 different documents and have them both operational at the same time. One has to give way to the other - the same way you cannot legally be married to 2 different people at the same time.

So, how do you keep one RP alive and legally kicking whilst collecting fresh signatures for a lower RP?

Simple - throw out the idea that your signature is legal the moment you put ink to paper - and instead make a provision in the CSA that says it is only binding when 80% is reached for that particular  RP.  

So, there are 2 kinds of RPS - one that locks you in at the start and one that locks you in at the  80%.

This rule-bending allows for two RPs to co-exist side-by-side until the lower one has the muscle to take over the reins of the 80%.

The ShunfuVille CSA 'had a clause about a Supplemental Joint Agreement taking effect only if the consent of subsidiary proprietors representing at least 80% of the total share value and total strata area of the Property was obtained.' (COA 24) '

Check out out Tampines Court CSA.... Clause 1.4(c)

So, this is common practice, so you say, all Collectives Sales have this provision for a supplementary agreement in their CSA.

True, but now we have a case study - a successful template - and one which will be applied to many collective sales from now on. TC included.

One benefit (or drawback) is that the original 80% mandate remains in force for 12 months from date of first signature and it can be used to hold as many tenders that fit in the time frame. Shunfu used it for 2 tenders at the highest RP. The 2nd open tender was used as a bridge to the 10 weeks following an open tender provided for in the LTSA to find a private buyer  The buyer had already been found, they just needed the legal framework and an extension of time to garner the necessary signatures to get the deal done.

All very clever, I must say, but there's a deviousness underneath it all that really irks me.

At the end of the day, 80% knowingly signed that supplemental joint agreement, they were fresh signatures, and I for one, would not have attempted to take this case to High Court, never mind the COA. This template is an  'enbloc winner' from now on.

Signing

Discrepancy

If the postal date was 4 May, then the letter was not sent before the announcement of the $200k rise in RP either  on 25 April  (original posting on FB 25 Apr 2017 at 20:57, though this later changed to 26 April at 11:52) or  on 28th Apr (18th SC Meeting).. Singpost is far more efficient than that. Possible reasons:

1. The RP is still not official - perhaps it has to be ratified with a new CSA from the legal department. 
2. There are 2 RPS out there - one for residents  and another for non-residents.

I am very sceptical about all this. Are they going ahead with signing sessions before the RP has been officially raised? The CSA signing page has no RP listed on it - so how is the SP to know which RP is is signing for?  

I would demand some form of written assurance that the RP is now the higher $1.X (with added $200k) before signing any blank piece of paper. 

• Are we to get any legal affirmation for the new RP? 
• Why are some SPs receiving letters and others not? Selective dissemination of information is very worrying.