I attended the above meeting and stayed for the two sessions. There were 2 sessions because too many people turned up for the first and the second was held for the overflow. This post is just my own summation - not verbatim as to what was said.
Huttons started with a powerpoint presentation of their Feasibility Study of TC. I am not going to go through everything just some highlights.
- 39 parties collected the Tender Document, Investment Memorandum & Feasibility Study
- 7 Site inspections were conducted & 11 presentations
They listed 7 Negatives about the estate - the size of the new development, the 5 yr development timeframe (which to me, is not a concern as it applies to every single development in Singapore), possible DC increase in Sept, Height Restriction, Traffic restriction (oddly he linked this to having to build larger units), Higher construction costs and finally the large number of Minority.
They listed 4 Positives about the estate - cheap compared to other collective sales, Tampines is a mature estate, Convenient to Tampines Central & Amenities and finally, no other launches in the area.
Official Valuation Report at Close of Tender
United Valuers and the market value of the land as of 15th Aug 2017 was $940 million.
We didn't see the Valuer's workings (RLV).
Sale Price Analysis Slide
- The Differential Premium (DP) was $$243,724,555
- The Lease Upgrading Premium (LUP) was $115,000,000
I noticed they gave the existing plot ratio as '
1.55 (subject to confirmation)'.
THIS IS HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT!
At the 6th SC Meeting held on 12 Dec 2015, Colliers International was one of the shortlisted marketing agents. They said the following about the baseline plot ratio:
So.... if the baseline plot ratio does indeed turn out to be 1.71 then Tampines Courters are being shortchanged! No where does it say that the sales proceeds will be increased!
The Sales Proceeds for each unit is pretty much the same as in my table. You will get the official figure next week in a Letter which has already been sent out to all owners.
The Timeline
Everyone is interested in the Timeline. The CSC has the intention to make an Application to the STB within 1 month. I hope they won't mind if I just insert their slide ... it's easier pictorially than in writing.
So, tentative date of Application is 22 Sep 2017 (end date should be 22/8/2018)
The Retention Sum is $50k. The Buyer will return the $50k to you when you hand them your keys on vacating your unit. The MA advised owners not to buy a new property until the order of sale from the STB. This is sound advice - unless of course you can afford to own 2 properties at the same time.
The MA also said that Huttons would assist owners in finding new homes for free. So no Agent fee if you use their services. I have since found out that this is the normal market practice. The Buyer does not pay gent fees, the buyer's agent will get his commission from the Seller or share the Seller's agent commission.
Next up was the lawyer and the Letter in the post to all owners (you should have it by Wed).
Sellers Stamp Duty (important if you purchased your unit on or after 23 Aug 2013)
You are liable to pay varying amounts of SSD by 5 SEPTEMBER 2017. All affected owners have to pay including Minority owners.
I feel they are very slow in getting this information out, especially as their 'Letter' wont arrive until the middle of next week. The penalty for late payment is 100% -400% and the quantum is quite huge. This is a huge disservice to the approx 48 owners who fall under this category. The CSC have not served them well. The amount of SSD payable in the letter is incorrect - so beware. The legal firm has offered 'legal or administrative assistance' on the payment of SSD, for a fee! Crikey! They give very little warning to SSD owners, get their SSD payments wrong and have the audacity to charge for their service! So get your skates on and approach the IRAS to see if you can get special consideration such as paying in instalments or whatever.
There was an audible shock in the audience when the payment date for SSD (5th September;) was announced.
The Lawyer said that if an owner didn't pay, then the amount would be deducted from the sales proceeds. This is worrying as the penalty by then would be 400%! Imagine if you owed 250k in SSD and got the shock of your life when they deduct over $1m! Though he did promise that there would be no penalty. How can he manage that, I wonder? Was it a slip of the tongue or can all SSD owners now sit back, do nothing and pay at the end? This needs to be clarified.
I am not a SSD owner, I have no sympathy for the flippers but a genuine new owner caught out by this deserves attention.
Other issues you can read for yourselves next week.
The Sales & Purchase Agreement.
He didn't go through it clause by clause but instead highlighted salient points and scrolled through the rest.
You will have to wait for the STB 'Bundle'* to view it - nothing shocking stood out. The usual conditions; I don't know why they spent 1 week hammering them out.
- 6 months to vacate
- $50k retention sum
- No rent for the 6 mths
- Owner pays maintenance fees
- Management & Sinking Fund to go back to the Owners after auditing by the Buyer. This is Law so it's not really a condition. I am not sure if the Buyer doing the auditing is a concern, I don't know the market practice for this.
- Something about Owners to remove furniture on vacating (only to pile up at the dustbin centre like a mountain). You can take light fittings and the aircon with you ... I believe.
Can't think of anything else at the moment...
Bundle*:- LTSA Frist Schedule:
1. e) serve notice of the proposed application on all the subsidiary proprietors of all the lots and
common property in the strata title plan concerned and, if applicable, on the subsidiary proprietors
in reversion of the leasehold estate in the lots, or on all the proprietors of all flats in the
development concerned, as the case may be, by letter by registered post notifying everyone of them
of the proposed application accompanied by a copy each of the following documents, and stating
that copies of the documents may also be obtained from the marketing agent or the collective sale
committee:
(i) the collective sale agreement referred to in sub-paragraph (a);
(ii) the sale and purchase agreement which is to be the subject of the application to the Board;
(iii) a statutory declaration made by the purchaser under the sale and purchase agreement on the
nature of his relationship (if any) or, if the purchaser is a body corporate, the nature of the
relationship of every one of its directors (if any), to any subsidiary proprietor of any lot comprised
in that strata title plan or any proprietor of any flat in the development, as the case may be;
(iv) the advertisement referred to in sub-paragraph (d);
(v) a valuation report from an independent valuer on the value of the development as at the date of
the close of the public tender or auction; and
(vi) a report by an independent valuer on the proposed method of distributing the proceeds of the
sale due under the sale and purchase agreement;
(i) information on the development ie name, land lot number & address
The SSD Issue: About 49 SPs face paying Sellers Stamp Duty since they all bought their units after 22 Aug 2013. They may have known they would be liable to pay, but not how or when. Those at the meeting on 25th Aug 2017 were shocked to find out that the SSD is due 2 weeks after the Date of Sale of Tampines Court. In other words the due date is Tuesday 5th Sept 2017 (not next week as I incorrectly posted earlier- woohoo, I have 1 more week of holiday before going back to work on the 4th :)). To the left is a table of the 49 owners with caveats lodged since 22 Aug 2013 and how much they approximately owe. 
So...... "How much am I going to get?"
To the sad Minority - for 10 years you have warded off those who would sell your home from under you. Your sentiments and sense of injustice is not assuaged by the talk of money. Your Home is sacrosanct and full of memories. It is not over yet, there are still some hurdles to cross, some of you might make an objection at the STB, but I feel it might be futile. My condolences to this group of owners.
Why do people NEED to sign after the deal is closed? Either it is closed or it is not. The Law requires 80% only and even if they get 99% it will make no difference to the timeline. So, CSC... is the deal done or are there outstanding conditions that need fulfilling? It is indeed frivolous and unnecessary for Minority owners to sign now. It will not hasten the process and only binds them to costs should the deal be abandoned later. I have no intention of signing and I do not like to be given false reasons to sign. So, I ask this CSC member... why is there a NEED?
So, there is NO NEED after all as the deal is indeed signed and sealed. The Buyer is brimming with confidence as he just signed a near billion dollar deal - no sign of a wobble there.
AGAIN! The horror! This is the worse case scenario if it is true. It could be a typo error on her part as her website is full of grammatical errors (a great website none the less), and she was entirely wrong about TC Rd 1...... but if I take what she has written literally then...
The meeting itself will not produce anything as the majority gave the CSC carte blanche to sign at or above the RP. The meeting is to 'provide information' only on the bids and the terms and conditions of the S&P. From the grapevine, I heard that there might be as many as 33 conditions to iron out. I hope none of them are designed to shave off our 'bonus' $20 million and leave us with the bare RP. Unfortunately, this is probably what will happen - so be prepared for all sorts of justifications from out CSC. 
