Jul 31, 2017

Tampines Court Collective Sale Video



Finally, we have our very own Professional Video as a keepsake.


My Version  ,

It's a pity I couldn't figure out how to make my videos slower or lengthen the clips, but hey, I'm just an old lady in a rocking chair learning new tricks.  It was free, too.

One last thought before my departure - I hope many SPs will turn up at the opening of the Tender Box to confirm the number of bids and the bid amounts. If we are to be sold, then let us be sold to the highest bidder. No perfunctory 'due diligence' aka Round 1 please.
We have not seen any Minutes from the SP Meeting held one month ago (they should have been out 2 weeks ago) and so do not have a written record of the MA's Proposed Conditions of the Sale. It is my hope that that sticking to these generous conditions will not be the pretext for accepting a lower bid from a preferred buyer. I can only speak for myself - a single SP, but I would accept reasonable adjustment to any term to secure the highest sale price for all.
For example:
  • I am willing to pay Property Tax as that is the norm 
  • I am willing to pay the MCST fee as that is the norm
  • I am willing to pay for my own utilities etc as that is the norm
  • I am willing to pay a nominal rent to the  Buyer as that is the norm
  • I am willing to remove my furniture & fittings before I leave as that is the norm (though it would only pile up like a mountain of junk at the dustbin centre so it's a no-win situation)
  • I am willing to accept a higher retention sum until vacant possession.
The only condition that I hold firm to is the 6 month vacant possession. This is not an LTSA requirement, but a practical issue affecting many single property owners. It would be foolish to purchase a property before the STB or HC ruling if you are reliant on the sale proceeds only. The only mention of vacant possession is Part VA(2010) 84B.-

(c) a lease affecting any of the lots in the strata title plan (other than a lease held by a subsidiary proprietor) shall, if there is no earlier agreed date, determine on the date on which vacant possession is to be given to the purchaser of the lots and common property.
 
If the SC can negotiate for better terms then well and good. I hope they can keep their eye on the bigger picture - and not get bogged down in minor details. In other words- I hope they don't sweat the small stuff.

Anyway - time for another Hiatus - 
See you all on the other side

CHEERS!

Slán agus Beannacht libh go léir 

Memory Lane and False Facts

Time for a quick stroll down memory lane. 
Our ex-neighbour, ex- sale committee member and ex-employee of our present Marketing Agent has a very snazzy website up and running.  There is a section on Tampines Court  where she sets out the reasons why the TC Round 1 collective sale failed. Her facts are incomplete and her summation wrong. 

It is very tiresome for me and for everyone - but really this issue has to be put to bed once and for all. 
The chronological order of eventss can be found here

Let's look at her version (in blue), my correction (in red):

Tampines Court En Bloc sales history at a glance

By the regulation of Strata Titles Board (STB), the deal of S$405 million for Tampines Court collective sale was closed by the deadline July 25, 2008, which was opened in 2006.
The deadline was indeed 25 July 2008 - the date of expiration of the Qualifying Certificate & the Sales & Purchase Agreement. 
Factual error: The sale was not opened in 2006 but on 28 Mar 2007

The delayed deal was then trapped under the STB deadline.
While the signing date of the deal was July 25, the last hearing date was August-7.
The board made a rough date on June 16 to 18 after listening to the sale objectors taking into account of the availability of all parties and the board members.
The issues are that until the hearing is conducted, the collective sale cannot be sealed and signed.
The reputed dailies understood that the sale committee was willing for a date change- the Frasers Centrepoint and Far East Organization would not extend the deadline for completion.
It was within the Buyer's power to extend the deadline if they so desired. The Sale Committee wanted the extension badly but the Buyer wrote a letter to the SC stating that they did not wish to extend. This happened on 27 June 2008 - one month before the deadline. Extending the deadline would have allowed the proceedings to continue at the preferred dates and crucially, would have allowed the Buyer to pursue the sale through the High Court aka Horizon Towers. Earlier, On 19 Jun 2008 the Buyer had also refused to amend the S&P to take out the BETA SUM - which was the achilles heal of the whole deal. The Beta Sum was a problematic $10m contingency sum hived off the Sales Price to pay off the multiple SPs in Financial Loss & Shortfalls. The Beta Sum was unprecedented in any collective sale and posed huge problems for the SC. They engaged 2 senior counsels in quick succession to try to argue to it's legitimacy but the Tables they produced showed how erratic, non-transparent and unfair the distribution of monies would have been. It was the BETA SUM which sank the sale - the 'bad faith with regard to method of distribution'. 

The collective sale agreement was going to lapse on July 25. The developers had the option to easily walk away from the deal, which is less compelling.
What does she mean less compelling? The Buyers chose to walk away a whole month before the deal's deadline- probably because winning at the High Court seemed remote. The Buyer paid stamp duty on the Beta Sum which meant it would be seen as being part of the sales price and not separate as argued by the senior counsels. There was no provision in the CSA for a Beta Sum and so it was completely illegal. 

This deal failure brought a smile to some of the owners of the estate. When the privatized deal is going on S$550 to S$700 psf, they were offered with only S$430 psf. 
Probably, the deadline crisis was made by sales committee for some reasons. 
Since Ms Goh's source of information was probably the newspaper articles at the time - she would not have known the complexities of the sale. The media had no clue what was going on. 

The sales agreement and all conditions were met on July 25, 2007, but the committee delayed for forwarding the deal for the approval of STB until Jan 7, 2007.
Factual error: the application was made on 07 Jan 2008.  not 2007

The committee informed that it was waiting for legal challenges over the Gillman Heights sale. 
If Gillman Heights sale was halted for the majority consent issues, the Tampines Court would be futile.
Factual error: what does 'majority consent issue' even mean? The Objectors main issue was the date of TOP/CSC for HUDC estates. The STB delivered it's decision on 21 Dec 2007 in favour of the sale.

The minority owners of Gillman Heights appalled (appealed) to the High Court claiming that the former HUDC estates were not under the en bloc sale. Being an HUDC estate, any claim against the Gillman Heights might dismiss the deal.
The Justice Choo Han Teck declared the HUDC estates can be arranged (?) for en bloc sale if the requisite conditions are met. This also cleared the way for the collective sale of Tampines Court.
The register of STB pointed out about the deadline and the committee has spent time (had wasted) waiting for the ruling of the High Court. The committee did not have enough time for the ruling before the date of expiry. He added that this is an eventual risk that they would have to accept.
(I have my own theory why the application to the STB was delayed - the 80% included at least 4 conditional signers who had been promised higher sums for their signatures. Once the objecting minority put out a letter informing the remaining SPs that they need not sign then the signature collection halted. The conditional signers were probably dropped and so the consenting majority fell to below 80% and so no Application could be made at that time). 

Ku Swee Yong, a director of business and marketing development, declared that the cost of construction and development have been increased many times after the deal was launched in July.
Unsurprisingly, the project was losing its attractiveness in the market- he added.
At $260 psf ppr - the estate was dirt cheap - Mr Yong was talking through his hat. Waterfront View was sold for $255 psfppr and the Waterfront Collection sold - not at the rule of thumb double at $500 psf - but at $700-850psf. Massive profits. Gillman Heights was sold at $363 psfppr and the new development units at around $1050 psf. 

The remarkable proceedings
March 25, 2007– The sales committee of Tampines Court entered the purchasing deal with Frasers Centrepoint and Far East Organization.
July 25, 2007- The terms and conditions fulfilled.
Jan 7, 2008- The sales committee applied for the approval to STB, and minority owners raised the objection and filed it.
Missing facts: 
29 Feb-09 Jun 2008 :
  • Mediation. The mediation failed and the objection to the sale went forward to the next phase - 4 days of Hearing before a 5 member STB panel.  Remember, the STB panel in 2008 acted like a proper Court of Law with lawyers on both sides / discovery / witnesses / cross examinations  / expert witnesses etc. 
June 16 to18- 
Missing facts: 4 Days of STB Hearing : 
16 Jun: Day 1 of STB Hearing
  • Opening Statement by Senior Counsel for the Majority
  • Cross Examination of Majority Lawyer
  • Cross Examination of Majority Accountant & Beta Sum Table (A2)
  • Cross Examination of Sale Committee Member
  • Cross Examination of Property Agent 
17 Jun: Day 2 of STB Hearing
  • Cross Examination of Property Agent cont. (his last words were " Actually, at that moment in time (whether or not to go after a higher bid) the sales committee was totally confused on what to do")
  • Cross Examination of Managing Agent
  • Cross Examination of Majority Valuer
18 Jun; Day 3 of STB Hearing
  • Interlocutory Application
  • Cross Examination of Minority Valuer
The STB sets the hearing for August 7. 
Ms Goh thinks there was only 1 Day of Hearing when in fact there were 4 in total. It was the 4th day of hearing that was originally scheduled for the 7 Aug but later rescheduled to 21 Jul - 4 days before the deadline)
19 Jun: 
  • BUYER DOES NOT AGREE TO AMENDING THE S&P
23 Jun: 
  • Interlocutory Application to Amend Application (in chambers) Application withdrawn 
27 Jun:
  •  BUYER DOES NOT AGREE TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME 
June 30- The sales committee applies to bring the date of hearing before sales expiry date of July 25   This was the Interlocutory Application to bring forward the date for the adjourned hearing. The Committee were now desperate, panicky even; the Buyer was not cooperating and was clearly opting out of the sale. 

02 Jul: 
  • Minority objection to bring date of hearing  forward
09 & 10 Jul: 
  • Arguments for and against presented 
July 11- The request of the sales committee was dismissed!
This is where poor Ms Goh thinks the sale was dismissed! 
Not so......
Jul 11- 
  • Application to bring the last day of hearing forward dismissed by the STB. 
16 Jul: 
  • Sale Committee apply to the High Court to have the Date of the last day of hearing brought forward (High Court originating Summons 941 2008/P). This was the Sale Committee's last ditch effort to get the last day of hearing and final judgement out before the sale expiry. They were on their own - the Buyer was just waiting for the clock to wind down.
18 Jul: 
  • High Court originating Summons 941 2008/P
HIGH COURT ALLOWS DATE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD to 21 Jul 2008

21 Jul: Day 4 of STB Hearing: 
The Sale Committee rejoiced in getting the hearing date before the expiry even though this was prejudicial to the Objectors who had only 2 days to prepare instead of 2 weeks. They still had hopes of securing the STB approval for the sale by the 25th July
  • Cross Examination of Sale Committee Chairman, 
  • Cross Examination of Minority Witnesses
22 Jul:- Minority Oral Submission
23 Jul: Written Submissions
So Tampines Court went through the full STB process at that time. 

25 Jul (afternoon) : FINAL JUDGEMENT (oral though a written judgement would follow if necessary) :
STB DISMISSES SALE: GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL: LACK OF GOOD FAITH IN SALE PRICE & METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION
Sale Committee were in shock and looked thoroughly dejected. The judgement was delivered before expiry as the SC had wanted  but the judgement went against them. They had gambled and lost. The SC did not run out of time, all proceedings were completed.

25 Jul (midnight): QC expiration, S&P expiration

Mixed reaction form the Majority - some rejoiced, others cried. 
TC would not be here today without the Objecting Minority of 2007. 

In 2011, Tampines Court again went for en bloc sale 2nd time

The second attempt of collective sale was dismissed having failed to collect the required acquisition from the minority owners. 
No details whatsoever even though she was heavily involved in this enbloc attempt. It was shambolic from turbulent beginning to miserable end. 

Jul 28, 2017

A Market Climbing Higher at Every Turn


Hot on the heals of the 25th July collective sale of Serangoon Ville comes the Serangoon North GLS on 27th July 2017

16 Bidders for this 99yr leasehold plot of land that is no where near an MRT nor even a shopping centre. It is opposite HDBs and as far as I can tell, not very exciting in terms of location.

Yet it attracted a large number of astronomical bids.

'The price works out to about $964.8 psf ppr for the 99-year leasehold plot, which could yield 505 private homes.' Straits Times

“A total of 16 bids were submitted, which indicated a very healthy level of participation from the developers even though the subject site is not located within walking distance to the nearest MRT station and retail shops,” he said.
The top bid from Corson and Wingjoy was 6.6 per cent higher than the S$418.7 million second best bid submitted by FCL Residences, a Frasers Centrepoint unit.
“The top bid today can be considered to be very bullish and aggressive as it was about 16 per cent higher than the land price of the Serangoon Ville land parcel which was acquired yesterday by the Oxley-led consortium at S$835 psfppr (including estimated charges for intensifying the use of land and to top up the lease to a fresh 99 years),” said Mr Mak, referring to the latest en bloc acquisition.
Based on the top bid, the developer of this project would have to launch the residential units at above S$1,600 psf, which is significantly higher than the recent private condominium launches in the vicinity, he said.' Today 26 July 2017

With this record setting GLS sale of a so-so 99yr site, we should not sit on our hands with regard to our RP.   Our RP is not in sync with the market and needs adjusting now.

Jul 26, 2017

Serangoon Ville SOLD

The tender closed on 25 Jul @ 4pm


Buyer: Oxley Serangoon (this is the same consortium -Oxley, KSH, Lian Beng and Apricot Capital- that bought Rio Casa (ex HUDC in Hougang) in May 2017 for S$575 million.

DC/DP: $195m
No Units: 244
Site area: 296,913 sqft
$psfppr: $835

Sale price per unit: $499/244 = $2.04m/unit

ex-HUDC's sold to date

So, the last 5 ex-HUDCs have been sold in the $700-$900 psfppr range
  • ShunfuVille - May 2016 - $747 psf ppr
  • Raintree Gardens - Oct 2016 - $797 psf ppr
  • Rio Casa - May 2017 - $706 psf ppr
  • Eunosville - May 2017 - $909 psf ppr
  • Serangoon Ville - Jul 2017 - $835 psf ppr

See also: 

Tampines Court should not go for anything less than $700 +psf ppr which would mean a Sale Price of over $1+ billion. This figure might seem like a fairytale figure to some but it is well in keeping with the potential profit to be made from a redeveloped site. New units at TC will sell like hotcakes and the developers know it. 

Tampines Court Owners should not expect anything less than $2,000,000 each for their units. This is not pie in the sky - we have 5 precedents in our favour and a skyrocketing market. This is where our Team should show leadership and let our RP rise in tandem with the market. It is their job - to read the signs and forge ahead. 

The signs are all pointing upwards.

My Armchair RLV

Please note, I am not in any way shape or form connected to the real estate industry. My calculations are based on looking at RLV's done by various marketing agents in Round 1 and Round 2 as well as the URA website. There is no golden standard or set way of doing this calculation unfortunately. 


At the time, this RLV was considered 'too rich' and unattainable but I think it has served well. It may not be 100% accurate but it did raise (some) people's expectations and perhaps spurred others to ponder on the basis of the Reserve Price. RP should be based on calculation rather than desperation or wishful thinking.

25 June 2016 or thereabouts

TAMPINES COURT
Note: It doesn't matter if I use 1.55584 or 1.71 in the Residual Calculation - it only matters when calculating the DP for Increase in Intensity. In the example above, I gave a round estimate of $300m for the DPs. Broadly speaking, the lower the development baseline, the higher the DP. So using 1.55584 would give you a higher DP and thereby reducing the Net site value and ultimately your sales proceeds. I chose to use 1.71 because it was used in official valuations in 2008.

Jul 8, 2017

All Those Collective Sale Videos


Alas, TC does not have an official video.   
My free, amateurish, hack of a video can be found here   in my private Dropbox account and not for public-at-large consumption - in case it gets mistaken for the real McCoy..... as if 😜. I love the comment about Tampines Court not being a secret military base, it made me laugh.  You'd swear I had let loose some evil video powerful enough to influence those with a billion dollars to spend. That I had spilled the beans on the plot ratio, the top secret number of malls nearby and the hush-hush location of the airport. All positive things about the estate, mind you. It was basically just Google Earth set to music! I don't really get all the complaining.

Well, since the first one obviously bombed with the  Majority crowd, how about a Bollywood version here? No idea what the music lyrics are about... probably totally inappropriate.
Wish I had a few shots of TC owners dancing around trees 😎. 


How the professionals do it:






Jul 4, 2017

TC Tender Advertisement 4 Jul 2017

Advertised in Business Times & Straits Times 4 July 2017

Is there an aerial view of the estate?
Come on, guys, employ modern methods to widen our appeal.

Make no mistake, TC is a magnificent piece of prime land. The size alone will be a huge draw. 
A developer can build 2 to 4 different condos with a staggered TOP to maximise the $psf.ppr
We are the Jewel of Tampines. 
Developers cannot get their hands on such a gigantic plot through GLS, this is a very rare opportunity for them. We are the only ex-HUDC in Tampines, their only chance to buy into the matured and sought after end of Tampines.  It is entirely possible to get $2m for our units. 

Actual size in paper...... a tad small, don't you think


TC Collective Bid in Straits Times 01 July 2017

Jul 1, 2017

SP Meeting 1st July

Venue: Blk 130 void deck, slide presentation
Present: Layer, MA & CSC
Crowd: Large I estimated over 300
Atmosphere: Nasty
Heckling: Maximum, directed at blogger only

This post is going to be really long so, I'll add & edit bits as I go along.

The talk started with a quick greeting from the Chairman who then handed the microphone over to the vice-Chairman. GW talked about how the SC was formed and the difficulties they faced. He mentioned the resignation of the MA due to their 'disappointment' and how the SC managed to get them back. The audience gave them a round of applause. He also thanked the SC for their hard work. The SC congratulating themselves. Round of applause.