Jan 1, 2010

Round 1 & 2 Enbloc journey

2005

Dec - Self-appointment of pro-tem En Bloc Committee
Dec - Informal valuation $389,719,233.00

2006
11 Feb - 1st Dialogue session
25 Feb - 2nd Dialogue session
19 April - Draft CSA and cover letter received by owners
14 May - CSA Dialogue session
05 May - First signing of CSA
15th/20th/21st/ 27th May 2006 - CSA signing
09 July - Dialogue session
15 July - CSA Dialogue session
29 July - Update by pro-tem committee tagged after the AGM
05 Aug - Dialogue Session
12 Aug - Dialogue session 
.
NEVER SAW THE SC AGAIN UNTIL AFTER THE SALE>>>
.
2007
21 January - purported 80% threshold reached
23 January - Press Release:- Sea Breeze apartments sold for $53.8 million
The Sea Breeze apartments on Joo Chiat Road have been sold for $53.76 million, which marketing consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) believes to be the highest price yet achieved in the area.
At the transacted price, the 56,376 sq ft site, which has a plot ratio of 2.1, sold for approximately $454 psf per plot ratio (ppr). There is no development charge payable, as a result of the high baseline.
Sea Breeze was sold to Grovehill Pte Ltd, whose directors are linked to the Tiong Aik Group whose last project was the 120-unit The Inspira at Arnasalam Chetty Road.
Sea Breeze can be redeveloped into an 88-unit condominium with a gross floor area of 118,391 sq ft.
JLL regional director and head of investments Lui Seng Fatt said that owners of the existing 56-unit apartments enjoyed a 50 per cent premium over current market prices.
The new development could be launched at an average price of between $850 and $900 psf, he said.
In another proposed deal, Tulip Garden, at the junction of Holland Road and Farrer Road, has been launched for collective sale through expressions of interest. The 20-year-old, 164-unit development is located on a 316,709 sq ft site with a plot ratio of 1.6.
Marketed by Savills Singapore, director Steven Ming said the indicative price guide is $900 psf ppr including development charge. This would give the site a price tag of about $456 million.
Based on the plot ratio, about 253 condo units of 2,000 sq ft in size, or 316 units of 1,600 sq ft, can be built. Mr Ming said almost 80 per cent of the residents have agreed on the proposed collective sale.
At the asking price of $456 million, the break even price is $1,250-$1,300 psf. The estimated launch price could be around $1,500.Mr Ming said average prices for recent launches nearby, like Ford @ Holland and Sixth Avenue Residences, are $1,200 psf and $1,100 psf respectively.
In Tampines, a 22-year-old former HUDC development, Tampines Court, has been put up for collective sale with an indicative value of $527 million, inclusive of development charges and differential premium of about $107 million.
It is marketed by Dennis Wee Group. Investment sales director Jimmy Teng said the 702,458 sq ft site has a plot ratio of 2.8 and a potential gross floor area of at least two million sq ft.
‘The successful developer could build about 1,700 units with an average size of 1,250 sq ft,’ he said, adding that developers also have the option to bid for one of the two subdivided parcels.
Source: The Business Times, 23 January 2007
27 January - Press Release:- Tampines Court up for en bloc sale (Weekend Today)
31 January - Announcement of tender in Straits Times
04 February - 80.00% - Statutory 8 week Notice
12 February - Press release:- Collective sale site in next wave may fetch around $1 billion each 
The record for collective sales in terms of absolute dollar price has been broken twice since the start of the year – Horizon Towers in January with $500 million, and Gillman Heights this month with $548 million.
But in the works are the next wave of collective sale sites about twice that quantum. These include The Claymore, a prime freehold site of about 246,000 sq ft at Claymore Hill, with a price tag said to be about $1.3 billion, and Farrer Court, a privatised HUDC estate, with a land area of 838,500 sq ft and an asking price believed to be about $900 million. Another large scale residential collective sale in the pipeline is Ridgewood Condominium in the Mt Sinai area, said to have an estimated price tag of over $900 million.
The $1.3 billion price being indicated for The Claymore reflects a unit land price of about $2,030 psf per plot ratio inclusive of an estimated $100 million development charge that its developer will have to pay to the state. This would set a new benchmark price for residential land in Singapore.
Apart from these jumbo collective sale sites, there are a slew of others that could be launched this year, although with slightly smaller price tags.This includes Tampines Court, with a $420 million indicative value, and several in the Farrer Rd area such as Leedon Heights (whose indicative price is said to be about $700 million) and Spanish Village (over $400 million). Tulip Garden was launched last month with an asking price of over $420 million.
The big question on many market watchers’ minds is whether there’ll be takers for so many big-ticket sites. Property agents are predictably sanguine.
‘There will be demand for big plots as increasingly you see developers teaming up with financial partners or funds from overseas. And these foreign players are looking for significant-sized acquisitions, otherwise they won’t bother spending resources studying the local market,’ says DTZ Debenham Tie Leung director Tang Wei Leng.
Agreeing, CB Richard Ellis executive director Jeremy Lake observes: ‘The deal size in terms of absolute dollar quantum is less of a hindrance than it might have been a couple of years ago, as there’s plenty of liquidity now. We see developers teaming up with other developers, or developers teaming up with financial partners, for large acquisitions.’
He acknowledges, however, that pricing is an issue. ‘Minimum pricing set by owners in terms of the unit land price (psf per plot ratio) for en bloc sales is being pushed into uncharted territory,’ he said.
But as residential project launches test fresh highs, the unit land prices being sought by some owners may not be completely far-fetched – although they seem high relative to previous benchmark prices for residential land, Mr Lake added.
An important factor that affects developers’ ability to raise prices of their high-end projects is supply in the location, note property players. And supply is one factor developers take into consideration when trying to decide whether or not to buy a collective sale site.
‘If you have just one large en bloc site in the vicinity but no new projects nearby, then the developer will find it easier to control the market and move up his selling prices. But when you have a few big ones in the same location, developers may be less enthusiastic about bidding for big en bloc sites in such micro-markets.’ One such example, say property watchers, is the Farrer Rd area.
However, Savills Singapore managing director Michael Ng, whose firm is marketing three sites including Tulip Garden and Spanish Village, is confident saying that the sites are in District 10, a prime district.
‘The area’s pull will become even stronger when the Farrer MRT Station (under Circle Line) opens,’ he said. ‘In fact, the area is just five minutes’ drive from the Grange Rd area where condo units are commanding $2,000 psf or even higher,’ he added.
Over at Tampines Court, marketing agent Dennis Wee and the appointed lawyer for the majority owners, Phang & Co, plan to make the huge, 702,162 sq ft leasehold site more digestible to prospective developers by dividing it into two smaller plots.
Developers will be invited to bid for one or both sites. The award will seek to maximise the overall sale price achieved for the two sites combined.
‘If one party submits the highest bid for one plot and another for the second plot, then both developers will have to jointly agree to buy the entire site as the two halves must be sold together,’ explains SK Phang, principal in the law firm.
After completion of the sale of the site, the developers would then partition the site into the two halves and each developer will become the sole owner of the half he has bid for.
As far as owners of the 560 units in the estate are concerned, their sale proceeds will be the average of their share value in the estate and the floor area of their unit – regardless of which subdivided plot their unit stands on.
Source: The Business Times, 12 February 2007
 
08 March - Close of Tender
25 March - Sold by private treaty

Purchase price: $395,000,000.00 + $10 million Beta Sum = $405 million
Dev. charge + Dif. Premium = $107 million
$260 psf of potential gross floor area. (pgfa) including developmental charges and differential premium.
*Average gross sale price per unit : ~$705K before adjusting for Alpha sums, deduction of costs and expenses etc
(as stated in property agent letter dated 27 March 2007) 

 
28 March - Press Release:- Tampines Court being sold for $405 million (Business Times)
28 March - Dialogue session
1-April - Dialogue session
21 April - Sale and Purchase presentation
31 March - 80.71% - Statutory 8 week Notice
03 May - Outline Planning Permission (OPP)
25 May - 81.6% - Statutory 8 week Notice
22 June - Upgrading to 99 yrs lease
30 June - Minority Dialogue session
19 July - 81.6% - Statutory 8 week Notice
21 July - EOGM
26 July - RPA in principle date of approval
28 July - AGM
12 Aug -
19, 20 August - Collection of disbursement fee ($781.25) from majority owners
5 September - Appointment of Valuer
12 September - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice
06 November - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice
27 December - Notice of application for Sale in 4 Newspapers
31 December - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice 

2008
TAMPINES COURT CASE: STB 02/2008
07 January - Application for sale to the STB
18-22 January - minority objections filed
29 February - Day 1 minority mediation at the STB . Group of 39 legally represented, plus 4 single objectors with no legal representation.
10 April - Day 2 minority mediation
09 June - Day 3 minority mediation
16,17,18 June - STB Hearing. Group of 32 minority legally represented and 2 independent minority.
19 June - Buyer does not agree to amend the S&P Agreement (Beta Sum)
23 June - Interlocutory Application to Amend Application (in chambers).
Application withdrawn
27 June - Buyer not minded to agree to the extension of time (S&P)
30 June - Interlocutory Application to bring forward the date for the adjourned hearing
02 July - Minority objection to bring date forward
09 July - Arguments for and against presented
10 July - Further arguments added
11 July - Application dismissed by STB
16 July - majority apply to High Court to have the date of hearing brought forward : High Court originating Summons 941 2008/P
18 July - High Court Originating Summons 941 2008/P
Mir Hassan bin Abdul Rahman and Another v Attorney-General[2008] SGHC 147
Court allows date to be brought forward
21 July - STB Hearing day 4 and Majority Oral Submission
22 July - Minority Oral Submission
23 July - Written submission
24 July - Extra submissions?
25 July - STB dismissed the sale. Grounds for dismissal: lack of good faith in sale price and method of distribution.
25 July midnight- Qualifying Certificate expiration, Sales and purchase agreement expires.

The End of En bloc Round 1
.
26 July - Annual AGM
.

Aug - Aug 2009: general repairs to the estate. New car labels. New Access gate cards. Tree pruning and general landscaping works. New CCTV camera system at guard houses and side gates. Accounting problems solved.
.  
2009
Aug 2009 - Annual AGM. Repainting &  Repair works approved.

Oct 2009 - Repainting of estate, re-tiling of ground floor lift lobby, re-tiling of low-rise ground floor. New letterboxes, signage, dustbins, benches, replacement of corroded water pipes and other R&R works.



2010
April 2010: estate repainting and other R&R works completed.
Over 20% unit turnover since Aug 2008
Gathering of requisitions for a second attempt at a collective sale by a new owner in 2010
29 Nov - letter of requisition for EOGM from less than 20% of owners by share value to the Management Council


2011
10 Jan - Notice of EGM for the purpose of collective sale sent to all SPs with 29 Nov letter showing less than 20% by share value of SP's requisitioning.
24 Jan - Amended Notice of EOGM for the purpose of collective sale with new requisition letter dated 19 Dec 2010 with amended list of requisitionists
29 Jan  - EGM 1 for Collective Sale of Tampines Court


Quorum: 47% at 2.30pm

Number of SPs elected to the sale committee: 12 (6 new owners since 2009, 6 old owners)
One nominee refused to give full disclosure of her interests and that of her associates' interests in the estate. 

Itshometome later unearthed that this SC member had not disclosed :-
a) her co-mortgagee's second unit in the estate and 
b) her sister's holding of 2 units in the estate. 
Subsequent emails to the managing agent to void this member's nomination (in accordance with the Schedule) proved fruitless.
Letter dated Mar 24 to sale committee on the matter also proved fruitless.
Email to en bloc solicitor  went unanswered but was followed shortly by the resignation of the said SC member in Aug 2011 for 'personal reasons'. 
Time taken between EGM 1 and resignation of errant SC member: 7 months. So, no one actally 'voided' her nomination thereby proving that Paragraph (2) of the Third Schedule is bogus :

he shall, before his election, declare at the general meeting convened for such election, the nature and extent of all such conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest.
(2) The election of any person who fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) shall be void.

26 Feb - SC Meeting
16 Apr - SC Meeting: 5 Marketing Agent presentations
03 May - SC Meeting: Shortlisting of Marketing Agents
23 May - Requisition letter to managing agent  for EGM 2
04 Jun -  Notice of EGM 2 sent to SPs (dated 4 Jun)
18 Jun -  SC Meeting: Legal presentation no.1
25 Jun -  SC Meeting: Legal presentation no.2
02 Jul EGM 2  for the purpose of collective sale (2-5.30pm)



Quorum: 30.71% (172 Units with share value 688) at 2.20pm







10 Aug - SC Meeting: Draft CSA
10 Aug - SC Meeting: Resignation of 2 SC members, amended CSA
20 Sep -  SC Meeting: EGM Agenda, Draft CSA, Reserve price, Recess Area
01 Oct -  SC Meeting: CSA discussion with lawyers and SPs
12 Nov - SC Meeting: no quorum:
19 Nov - SC Meeting: SC member resignation, letter of appointment of lawyer and MA, statement of income & expenditure of the SC, the RP, breakdown of En Bloc Fund, consider motion sent in by SP, finalisation of resolutions for EGM 3


DELETED MOST OF ENBLOC ROUND 2 BY MISTAKE!





Dec 31, 2009

GREEN LODGE

Green lodge asking $135m for en bloc deal
Business Times - 31 Dec 2009
Green Lodge Condo up for en bloc sale
Straits Times - 31 Dec 2009
Greenlodge Condominium up for collective sale, asking price $135m
Channel NewsAsia - 31 Dec 2009
.
Project Name:
GREEN LODGE
Address:
19, 19A TOH TUCK ROAD
Type: APARTMENT / CONDO
District: 21
Year Completed: 1984
Tenure: FREEHOLD
Total Units: 80
.
Not a good price - their 40% premium will surely be eroded 1-2 yrs down the line. Already the new projected is projected to be double the price psf. Another case of HALF THE SIZE and DOUBLE THE PRICE. If the owners try to relocate to other established condos in the area they will also find the prices there would have risen on the back of an expected influx of GreenLodge enblocers....
Basing the en bloc price on resale prices of surrounding condominiums in the present market is wrong, wrong, wrong. When will they ever learn!!
Green Lodge will be snapped up at this bargain basement price.
Freehold too!

Nov 24, 2009

Pine Grove 3rd? Attempt at Enbloc Sale

Another ex-HUDC trying their luck yet again.
.
Straits Times - 25 Nov 2009
.
Some homeowners at the Pine Grove estate along Ulu Pandan Road are making another attempt to sell their properties in a collective sale.

This will be their third bid since 2005.

MediaCorp understands that the minimum reserve price for the 660-unit unit estate is S$1.33 billion.
Depending on the size of the unit and the development charge that is payable, owners stand to pocket an average of S$2 million per unit.

The former HUDC estate has a land area of more than 893,000 square feet.

Farrer Court, another former HUDC estate along Farrer Road, was sold for a record S$1.34 billion in 2007.

Pine Grove’s reserve price is higher than the S$1.2 billion price tag that the Laguna Park estate in Marine Parade had expected in its first tender in September.

Even after the price was reduced later to S$967 million, the Laguna Park collective sale was called off last week.

At Pine Grove, there have already been three sessions to collect signatures for the possible enbloc sale since 15 November.

A fourth session is coming up next Thursday.

At the upcoming session, representatives from property consultancy Jones Lang Lasalle and law firm Lee & Lee will be present to answer homeowners’ questions.
ChannelNewsAsia - 24 Nov 2009

FYI

Pine Grove is a 99-years leasehold development located at Pine Grove in District 21. Completed in 1984, this privatised HUDC development comprises 660 units.


Facilities at Pine Grove include swimming pool, BBQ pits, gym, tennis courts, clubhouse, convenience store, and playground. 24 hr security
Development Name:Pine Grove
Property Type:Condominium
Developer:HUDC Housing
Tenure:99-year Leasehold
Construction Year:1984
# of Floors:16
# of Units:660
Available Unit Types:
  • 2-Bedrooms (1,297 - 1,389 sqft)
  • 3-Bedrooms (1,829 - 1,922 sqft)
  • Maisonette (1,853 - 1,946 sqft)

Nov 19, 2009

Collective Sale called off

Laguna Park - en bloc sale called off

Over at Meyer Place, owners to start inking deal soon to lower reserve price
The en bloc sale of Laguna Park has been called off for now as the sales committee found it a race against time to get the minimum consent level from owners at a proposed lower price – said to be $967 million or $704 psf per plot ratio, down from the original $1.2 billion or $844 psf ppr reserve price – before the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA) expires next month.


But over at Meyer Place, owners will soon begin signing a supplemental agreement to their original CSA at a lower price of $59 million, down from the original $65 million. BT understands the sales committee is expected to sign an agreement soon for the freehold property’s sale to a joint venture involving property and construction companies – subject to securing at least 80 per cent consent from owners at the lower price.


Meyer Place’s CSA expires around mid-March 2010.


‘The tender for Meyer Place closed on Oct 28 with four expressions of interest received and we are now negotiating with one of these parties,’ says Christina Sim, director, investment, capital markets at Cushman and Wakefield, the marketing agent for the property.


The lower proposed reserve price of $59 million works out to $1,048 psf ppr including an estimated $3 million development charge (DC), down about 9 per cent from the $1,150 psf ppr based on the original $65 million reserve price.


Based on the revised price, the breakeven cost for a new development on the site could be $1,550 to $1,600 psf.


Laguna Park’s sales committee decided to call off the estate’s en bloc sale last week. ‘While it did begin the process of getting owners to sign a supplemental agreement to lower the reserve price, the committee felt it was a race against time as the existing CSA expires next month,’ said Karamjit Singh, managing director of Credo Real Estate, the marketing agent for the property.
Laguna Park comprises 528 units.


‘It would probably be better if owners begin a fresh en bloc initiative next year and sign a fresh CSA which will give them a new 12-month period to find buyers,’ Mr Singh said.


Laguna Park, which has a land area of 677,463 sq ft, failed to find a buyer after its tender closed last month. Although two bids were submitted, no buyer made the downpayment to seal the $1.2 billion deal at the time. Mr Singh said yesterday that although signing of a supplemental agreement at the lower price had started last month, so far no conditional agreement had been inked with any potential buyer for a sale at the lower price.


The unit land price of $704 psf ppr based on the revised $967 million price tag includes payment to the state to intensify the site’s use and top up its lease to a fresh 99-year term.


Meyer Place has a freehold land area of 28,167 sq ft and was completed in the early 1990s, comprising 28 apartments – 24 units in a 13-storey block and four in a conservation house.
The property is zoned for residential use with a 2.1 plot ratio – the ratio of maximum potential gross floor area to land area.


Although Meyer Place is a relatively new development, it has redevelopment potential as its plot ratio in the 2008 Master Plan has not been fully utilised. ‘The apartment block could be torn down and rebuilt into smaller units,’ said Cushman’s Ms Sim.


Market watchers point out that the buyer of Meyer Place could also seek to enlarge the plot by purchasing surrounding properties. Just in front of Meyer Place, at No. 40 Meyer Road, is a small apartment block with a site area of about 6,000 sq ft. There is also another plot behind Meyer Place housing two old bungalows at 18D and 18E Fort Road – adding up to more than 20,000 sq ft of land – that could potentially be purchased and amalgamated.


Last month, Roxy-Pacific signed an agreement to buy Dragon Mansion for $100.8 million or $863 psf ppr including DC – lower than the owners’ previous asking price of $120 million or $1,020 psf ppr. Signing by owners of a supplemental agreement to the original CSA at the revised price is still in progress. The majority owners have up to January next year to make an application for a collective sale to the Strata Titles Board.

Business Times - 19 November 2009
.
Straits Times- 19 November 2009

Condo Mischief-maker Fine Quadrupled

Laguna Park man's fine quadrupled

By Selina Lum


Lee Kok Leong, who was fined $1,200 in April for glueing his neighbours' locks, had laughed off the penalty and made disparaging remarks.

HE HAD laughed off his $1,200 fine for mischief, telling reporters that he spends much more money on karaoke a night.

Lee Kok Leong's words came back to bite him yesterday, when a judge quadrupled the fine to $4,800.

Justice Chao Hick Tin told him: 'I hope you are truly sorry this time round and not leaving this court and muttering something else after I give my sentence.'

The former chairman of the Laguna Park management committee told reporters in April, after he was fined for putting glue in his neighbours' locks, that he was not at all sorry for what he had done.

After his disparaging remarks made the news, the prosecution dragged him back to court to appeal for a stiffer sentence because he had mocked the criminal justice system.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Jwee Nguan asked for a 'sentence of sufficient gravity' to deter Lee and like-minded individuals, although he stopped short of pressing for a jail term.

For his acts of mischief, Lee could have been fined up to $10,000 and jailed for up to a year on each charge.

His lawyer, Mr Ramesh Tiwary, countered: 'Everything said and done, does he really deserve to go to prison because he told some reporters, 'I can afford it'?'

The judge said those remarks were 'wholly deplorable'. 'This is not conduct which the court condones,' he added.

Justice Chao asked Lee, 63, if he was a grandfather. When Lee said yes, the judge continued: 'We are supposed to act more responsibly.

'I would expect things like this to be said by a youngster trying to 'act hero'...but I don't expect such things to be said by you, especially after serious proceedings in court.'

Justice Chao said he decided against sending Lee to jail on account of his age and medical condition. Lee suffers from depression and obstructive sleep apnoea, for which he needs a machine to sleep.

He also has a lesion in his brain; doctors have yet to determine if it is benign or malignant.

Said Justice Chao: 'I hope this will be the last lesson you learn from the court and do not act in a manner as foolish as this.' Lee said: 'I promise I won't do it again.'

In August last year, Lee had glued the locks of two neighbours - against the backdrop of disputes over whether the condominium should be sold en bloc.

He was caught in the act by a surveillance camera installed by a neighbour.

Yesterday, Mr Tiwary said his client's acts of mischief were 'exceedingly silly' because he knew the cameras were there. The judge agreed, saying: 'This whole thing is silly. It's absurd.'

Lee kept mum when reporters approached him after his sentence. Staring blankly ahead, he drew a circle with his forefinger around his mouth.

selinal@sph.com.sg

Straits Times 19 Nov 2009

Oct 30, 2009

Botanic Gardens View

Here they go again at the BGV estate. I have been keeping a close eye on the goings on there for quite a while - a few owners keep demanding transparency and consideration, yet the SC and the property agent (surprise, surprise as to who they are, do they have their fingers in ALL the pies?) seemingly bulldoze ahead regardless.


It looks like the SC are seeking ratification for their CSA through the mail - and giving owners very short notice to respond. As I have heard time and time again - if an owner does not object or make his opinions known then he is supposed to have acquiesced to the proposal/decision.
The SC and property agent are being very bullish and high handed in their dealings here. They are also ignoring the directive given by the then DPM Prof S Jayakumar in the Second Reading Speech on Land Titles (Strata)(Amendment) Bill on 20 Sep 2007; in which he said

"12. The sale committee shall convene general meetings to consider key issues such as the appointment of any lawyer, property consultant or marketing agent, the apportionment of sales proceeds, the terms and conditions of the CSA; and the terms and conditions of the S&P agreement. These changes will ensure that the owners will have the opportunity to discuss key issues before consenting to them."

Seeing as the last EOGM was 14 months ago; the proper thing to do would be to hold another EOGM to discuss further with the owners the important matter of the terms and conditions set out in the CSA and the method of apportionment of sales proceeds. A decent SC would do the decent thing - a group of gangsters will try to push it through as fast as they can, sailing very close to the minimum requirements of the LTSA.

Note:
The SC are in power indefinitely as their tenure is only fixed to one year from first date of signing the CSA, which hasn't begun yet. Any future SC in Tampines Court should have their pre-CSA tenure fixed to 6 months, otherwise the estate is left hanging in the wind. Owners must demand this.


7.-(1) The collective sale committee shall convene one or more general meetings of the management corporation in accordance with the Second Schedule for the following purposes:-
Before CSA signing begins 7-(2)
a) to consider the appointment of Enbloc lawyer and Property Agent (no 2)
b) to consider the apportionment of sale proceeds (no 3)
c) to consider the terms and conditions of the CSA (n0 4).

Oct 26, 2009

Laguna Park Tender Fails

Laguna Park could go at 20% discount to initial tender
Home owners at the Laguna Park condominium in Marine Parade are now faced with the choice of selling their homes at an average of 20 per cent lower than their initial asking price.
This comes after a failed tender earlier this month.
Then, the site received a bid from an Indonesian-owned, locally incorporated company of S$1.728 billion, but a downpayment could not be made in time.
Since then, the collective sale committee has circulated a letter informing owners of a new potential selling price of S$967 million.
Under en bloc sale regulations, 80 per cent of owners need to vote in favour of this price tag before the sale can proceed.
When Laguna Park opened for tender in September, most owners stood to gain around S$2.1 million to S$2.3 million each. Penthouse owners would have gotten between S$3.5 million and S$4.1 million each.
But at the new price being considered now, owners will get almost 20 per cent less or about S$1.8 million.
Some analysts said this price might be too low to be attractive to sellers. But they said sellers need to take into consideration some of the less positive aspects of the property.
Nicholas Mak, property consultant, said: “They must be aware that this is an ageing development and the lease of 99 years has been run down significantly.”
He added that sellers who are planning to buy similar properties that also have a view of the sea will probably have to pay as much as SS$2 million.
And he expects most owners to have to have to downgrade from their older, but more spacious units, to smaller new homes.
Charges to top up the lease to a 99-year term and to increase the site’s plot ratio comes up to about S$440 million.
Earlier, buyers would have been looking at paying around S$850 per square foot per plot ratio – a price many analysts considered expensive.
At the new prices, the cost comes down to S$700 per square foot per plot ratio for the 528-unit leasehold Marine Parade project.
Property consultancy Colliers said S$967 million is a more realistic selling price, and could lead to some developers re-considering the tender.
However, many analysts also noted that the total price is still very hefty for any one local developer in today’s market.
Laguna Park has a land area of 677,463 square feet, which means about 1,500 apartments can be built on the site.
According to the development’s marketing agent Credo, the sales committee has until around mid-November to strike a deal with a buyer, before the collective sale agreement expires on December 19.
Channel NewsAsia: 26 Oct 2009
.





$1.2b Laguna park en bloc sale bid fails
OWNERS of East Coast condominium Laguna Park have failed in their bid to sell the property en bloc for $1.2 billion through a tender process.
Industry analysts say the result was not surprising, considering the high asking price.
However, in a curious twist of events, one company had submitted a bid for $1.728 billion – only to withdraw the offer on Thursday night.
The estate’s marketing agent, Credo Real Estate, said yesterday in a statement that it had received two submissions at the close of the tender on Oct 13.
One of them was from a locally incorporated firm which offered the eye-popping $1.728 billion bid. The other expression of interest was from a ‘local and prominent developer’, which was believed to have made an offer below the reserve price.
Credo declined to name both firms, citing confidentiality agreements.
But it is understood that principal shareholders of the first firm which had offered above the reserve price are based in Indonesia, said Credo.
The firm was due to submit the tender deposit on instructions specified by the owners, but the firm’s lawyers wrote in on Thursday night to withdraw the offer. They said the firm faced ‘difficulty in their bankers processing the funds and remitting them to Singapore’, said Credo.
Owners of the 528-unit development at Marine Parade yesterday said they had not heard any news officially from the sales committee, although a meeting for owners has been slated for tomorrow.
One owner, who declined to be named, said she was neutral as to whether the sale went through or not. ‘Whether it sells or not, it doesn’t really matter,’ she said.
Chesterton Suntec International’ s research and consultancy director Colin Tan said the condo’s failure to find a buyer ‘simply confirms that developers are not going to pay unrealistic prices’.
‘Developers are signalling to sellers that if you’re not realistic, we won’t be interested in putting in bids.
‘They are mindful of the ability of home buyers to pay even higher prices. This is not sustainable so they’re not willing to bear higher risks,’ said Mr Tan.
Ngee Ann Polytechnic real estate lecturer Nicholas Mak noted that en bloc deals have not seen much success this year.
Dragon Mansion in Spottiswoode Park, as well as Changi Garden Condominium at Jalan Mariam, have been tendered with no deals done.
‘Owners are still expecting pre-crisis price levels which developers are now not prepared to pay. Either the owners wait even longer, or prepare to accept a lower price,’ said Mr Mak.
This might prove difficult. As another Laguna Park resident put it: ‘I don’t think anybody will sell at a lower price.’
Credo said it is still in negotiations with the local developer on a possible deal. Owners have until mid-December, when the collective sales agreement expires, to sell the estate via private treaty.
The former HUDC estate has a large land area of about 677,493 sq ft and a gross plot ratio of 2.8.
The sprawling 30-year-old condominium has been in the headlines over a spate of vandalism attacks on the property of residents who were not keen on the sale.
Straits Times: 17 Oct 2009



Tender for Laguna Park en bloc closes unsuccessfully
The tender for the Laguna Park en bloc sale has closed unsuccessfully.
Credo Real Estate said there were two bids for the 528-unit development at Marina Parade at the close of the tender on Tuesday.
A local company whose shareholders are based in Indonesia had offered a price of S$1.7 billion, well above the owners’ Reserve Price of S$1.2 billion.
But Credo said by Thursday evening, the firm decided to withdraw its offer, citing difficulties in their bankers’ ability to process the funds and remit them to Singapore.
The second bid was from a prominent local developer who expressed interest to pursue negotiations with the majority owners.
MediaCorp understands the local developer will settle on a bid price after negotiations with the owners.
Credo said the majority owners have about a month to enter into any private treaty deal before the collective sale agreement expires in December.
Executive director of property consultancy DTZ, Ong Choon Fah, said she is not too surprised by the announcement.
“With the government land sales and the confirmed list restarting next year, and we still have land parcels in the reserved list, there will be an alternative source of land for the developers,” Ong said.
“For example, recently the site at Serangoon Ave 3 which saw 15 developers bidding for it… at prices that had surpassed market expectations,” she added.
ChannelNewsAsia: 16 Oct 2009

'The second bid was from a prominent local developer who expressed interest to pursue negotiations with the majority owners.'

This doesn't sound unsuccessful to me.

Local developers like their closed door sessions to strong-arm weak committees with unreasonable deadlines. I hope their sale committee knows how to play hardball and ALL owners are kept in the loop as to what is happening.


Oct 21, 2009

Dragon Mansion

Roxy-pacific to buy Dragon mansion in en-bloc deal
Business Times:-21 Oct 2009
.
Dragon mansion en bloc sale sees lower offer
Straits Times:-21 Oct 2009

Oct 19, 2009

Face-Off over lowering of Sale Price after failed tender

Laguna Park owners mull lower sale price
Business Times: 19 Oct 2009

These were some of the numbers discussed at a meeting of about 200 Laguna Park residents yesterday afternoon, called to consider the results of the failed tender and discuss possible options.
.
Laguna Park owners consider selling at lower price
Channel NewsAsia: 19 Oct 2009
.
Will Laguna park owners settle for less?
Today: 19 Oct 2009
.
One woman who declined to be named told MediaCorp: "It was obvious there were two camps at the meeting. One camp was a group of people who were pretty desperate to sell, and another camp felt we should just wait as we're sitting on a very nice property here, and it should not go for less than what we've decided on."

One male resident felt the sale committee was trying to "get people worked up since there are only six to eight weeks left, to lower their price, get 80 per cent, then go for a closed tender. To me that's totally wrong. I don't want a closed tender, especially at this amount".
.

The desperadoes v's the cool-headers. That so few owners turned up at the meeting is quite surprising, seeing as their very homes are at stake. This either means they are nonchalant as to the outcome or that they have already made up their minds one way or the other.
.
Will the property agent/sale committee trot out the usual scare tactics over the next few weeks?
.
Will the mystery developer decide to play hardball and put down a take-it-or-leave it type offer; confident that the owners will cave in eventually, as they always do?
.
Will some money grease a few palms in order to ease the signing along? Remember Regent Garden whereby the developer paid an extra sum to the dissenters to secure the 100% with the withdrawal of their objections from the STB and the High Court deemed that to be kosher. But that was after the 80% had been reached.
.
There was one case whereby the last 3 signatories to the 80% were paid sums differing from the rest of the majority, and that sale was thrown out by the STB on grounds of bad faith.

The estate? Finland Gardens

The property agents? Same boy-os

Will they try this trick again?
.
Can the majority sign a supplemental CSA extending the life of the original CSA and tenure of sale committee by another 6 months - (though not necessarily reducing the reserve price)? Would this be a circumvention of the rules?
.
Honestly, I rule nothing out anymore.

They have until the 19th December to find consensus on lowering the reserve price. Failing which the CSA expires and the whole shebang falls apart.

Oct 14, 2009

Property Agents

Seller can try mystery caller test to check on their property agent
Straits Times: 14 Oct 2009

Meanwhile, we would offer her suggestion of a ‘mystery caller test’ to sellers who have appointed estate agents to represent them in their HDB resale transactions. Sellers can administer this test to ferret out instances when their appointed agents refuse to e
ntertain offers presented by prospective buyers who do not intend to use the latter’s services.
CEO of Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies.
.
Move to ban 'one agent for buyer and seller' under study
Straits Times: 13 Oct 2009
.
Commissions and property agents
Straits Times: 13 Oct 2009
.
People should just advertise on their own and find a buyer without any agent involvement. How difficult can it be! Agents will always have a vested interest in seeing the property sold quickly and not necessarily at the highest price. That way, you will know all the bids and not wonder whether your agent is holding back on a higher offer that doesn't come with an extra 1% commission. Either that or put in a few bogus offers and see what he does.
The proposals include setting up an independent body to ensure compulsory accreditation for all property agents, introducing a demerit point system to penalise errant agents and agencies and having a public central registry which lists agents’ qualifications, employment history and track record.

Mr Lim added: “Licensing seems to be more serious, something which the individual agents would be more careful of because now they carry an individual license and if they don’t meet the service standards or if they don’t perform or if they do something wrong, then their license may be suspended and they may not be allowed to practice.”

Property agents to be regulated
Straits Times – 5 Oct 2009


'The Straits Times understands that an independent body will be set up and chaired by a neutral party appointed by the Government. It will also house a dispute resolution centre to mediate between agents and consumers.'

'There are also suggestions that agents will have to buy indemnity insurance protecting customers for losses resulting from negligent or unethical conduct.'
.
Perhaps this a new avenue Owners can utilize if errant property agents harass or peddle mis-information during en bloc. I thought property agencies already had this kind of professional insurance, but obviously not. Proving negligence or unethical conduct is difficult but if you have everything documented or transcribed; it becomes a lot easier.
.

See my other post 'Indemnity' in which I spoke about indemnifying yourself against the sales committee and any liability or legal obligations they might create in their eagerness to close the deal. You could extrapolate that to include property agents and en bloc lawyers for damages resulting from their negligent or unethical conduct.

It seems perverse that owners willingly indemnify these 'professionals' and fellow neighbours without thought to their own position. It is only when they are left high and dry do they realise the depth of their folly.

Oct 2, 2009

A Sellers Cautionary Tale

This is what we all know - more proof of en bloc proceeds being only enough for a unit HALF the size or DOUBLE the price in the same area! Unlocking the value of your home ... for the benefit of the DEVELOPERS!


A Seller's Cautionary Tale
I AM compelled to share my experience as a cautionary tale after reading the report, ‘Private homes still seeing high demand’ (Sept 22). I was a flat owner of Gillman Heights, which was sold in a collective property sale exercise and for which I received $887,000 (around $520 per sq ft) for my 1,700 sqft three-bedroom unit.

By the time I received my money, I could only afford a similar unit far from the city and certainly not as central as Gillman Heights.

Former owners like me were assured we would receive priority in buying units in the new condominium – The Interlace – on the site of our former home.

But at $1,000 psf, I would have been effectively downgraded to a much smaller apartment at the same location. Worse, we were given only three days’ advance notice of the exclusive preview for us to choose our units at the Shenton Way office of the developer, CapitaLand Residential.

The preview, like the units offered to us, was unfavourable. We were not given brochures and all we had to gauge the new condo visually was an amateurish miniature model which was a stark contrast to the sleek, three-dimensional and professionally crafted model displayed at the sales office at the public launch.

The preview seemed like a half-hearted attempt by the developer to meet its obligations under the sales pact.

Was the professional Interlace model completed and ready for viewing at the off-site sales office, and if yes, why was the ‘private preview’ not held at CapitaLand’s temporary River Valley Road sales office instead?

Why were the preview for ex-owners and the public launch of The Interlace so starkly different? Former owners were not offered a discount and while it may seem like a public relations coup to announce that ex-owners of Gillman Heights would receive priority in selection of apartments in the new project, the ones we were offered were some of the most unfavourable.

So, if there is a moral to my experience for flat owners contemplating collective sale, I would say potential seller beware: Read the fine print over matters like priority purchase of the new condo.
Reginald Tan

Straits Times - 02-Oct 2009