Aug 27, 2017

The Thorny SSD Issue

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. 
The penalty for late payment is punitive: 100%-400% of SSD owed :

No forewarning was issued to the affected owners and they are in a quandary as to how to pay such huge sums at such short notice. All SPs need hand-holding in a collective sale and that is why we pay high fees to the 'professionals' so that they take care of the details and tell us what, when, how and where to do the necessary.  They failed on the when, how and where in this instance.

Today the MA has come out with the following on FB:


Some of these owners are flippers, to be sure, but some must be genuine home buyers and I don't believe we should throw anybody under the bus in the rush for riches. I am glad the MA will help these owners in their quandary and get them either a delay in payment until their sales proceeds come in or payment by reasonable instalments. I have it from good authority that the latter is do-able.

5 Sep 2017
Anonymous said:

Rec email confirmation from IRAS SSD payment is deferred till SALES ORDER date...today is the deadline to request for deferment,..i reckon most if not all the owners who are affected by the need to pay seller stamp duty have done the e-stamp and have written to IRAS to request for deferment...another hurdle down..

Aug 26, 2017

SP MEETING 25 Aug 2017

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; 

Aug 24, 2017

Developer Plans for TC


My Sales Proceeds


So...... "How much am I going to get?"

Here is my attempt at doing the 50/50 Method of Apportionment. I am not a Valuer so it is UNOFFICIAL and just for my own amusement and because I like to do my own checking.

First, a few details:
Total Floor Area = 87,988 sqm (according to Huttons)
Total Share Value = (560x4) = 2240
Sales Price - $970,000,000

*Offiicial column added on 29/08/17

Collective Sale Costs & Expenses to be deducted from sales proceeds:
1) Marketing Agent Fee: 1% + GST
2) Legal Fee: 0.28% + GST
3) STB Fee: ($35,000/560) = approx $63 
4) Disbursements (photocopying etc): TBD

How To Check Your Floor Area

Everything is online and it is free to search for your own property details.



My Property details look like this:










How To Calculate Your CPF Refund
I am not going to wade into the Bank - CFP refund area. You can work that out for yourselves.
CPF refund rules changed on 01/01/2013 for those over 55yrs.

In general: The amount of CPF utilised towards the purchase of your property has to be returned to your CPF Ordinary Account, together with the accrued interest. Check your CPF Account

CPF WEBSITE











How to Calculate SSD (Sellers Stamp Duty)
SSD Calculator:





















https://www.iras.gov.sg/IRASHome/Quick-Links/Calculators/
https://www.iras.gov.sg/IRASHome/Other-Taxes/Stamp-Duty-for-Property/
https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/Other-Taxes/Stamp-Duty-for-Property/Working-out-your-Stamp-Duty/Selling-or-Disposing-Property/Seller-s-Stamp-Duty--SSD--for-Residential-Property/
Singapore relaxes SSD rates (Mar 2017)
IRAS e-tax Guide Stamp Duty (seventh edition)

From the REALIS website and Tampines Court Resale Transactions:
  • 48 units changed hands between 10/12/2013 and 26/05/2017. These would be liable for SSD. 
  • 5 units@16%,  21 units@12%,  16 units@8%,  6 units@4%.  
That's between$68k-$278k give or take! The 5 most recent sales escaped the punitive 16% bracket as they fall under the new rate of just 12%.

Today, I called the IRAS and the guy on the phone said the SSD needs to be paid 2 weeks from S&P. I told him there was zero information about SSD payable in Collective Sales on the website.

From a reliable source:
Those who are required to pay SSD will receive letters from the IRAS in due course They will be asked to settle within a stipulated time frame. There's nothing to worry about as they can always appeal for the amount to be paid in instalments."

I would say: CONTACT THE IRAS NOW as the SSD is due 5th SEPTEMBER!

The Retention Sum Until Vacant Possession
Owners will have 6 months to vacate their units upon legal Completion of Sale. The Buyer will retain $50k of your sales proceeds until you hand over the keys.

After paying off:
  • SSD (if applicable)
  • Collective Sale Costs & Expenses
  • Outstanding Mortgage Loan Amount 
  • Mortgage loan Pre-Payment Penalties
  • CPF Monies Utilised & Interest Accrued
  • Other costs (eg property Tax, Maintenance fees etc)
Some owners might suffer what is called a 'Shortfall'  - in other words, they might not have enough money for the $50k Retention Sum. I talked about this 10 years ago here  & here 

They will need to pay this sum in cash if no provision is made for them.

Aug 23, 2017

TAMPINES COURT SOLD


    Our Beloved Estate has been SOLD   
       S&P Conditions unknown       



To the happy Majority - you got here at last. Mostly by luck if truth be told. It is not over yet, there are still some hurdles to cross but it looks like your dreams will indeed come true. 



 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.


To the neutral Minority - You did well to stay out of the fray, keep to the sidelines and be true to the notion of neutrality. Sell or Stay makes no real difference to you. It is not over yet, but you will probably do the sensible thing and wait for STB approval before buying another home.

http://www.straitstimes.com/business/property/sim-lian-bags-tampines-court-for-s970m-in-biggest-en-bloc-sale-here-in-decade


What is this CSC member talking about?

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?

His reply:

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.

So - in order to counter this FAKE need let me say:

a) The money will not come any faster if the present majority is increased.
b) New signatures will have no effect on the process and serves no purpose. 
c) New signatories will give up their rights for no reason whatsoever.
d) 100% consent is impossible



Tamines Court Bagged

TC Clinched for $970m



Aug 22, 2017

Florence Regency up for Collective Sale


Worse Case Scenario possibly unfolding - alas, just FAKE NEWS from TOP HUTTONS REP!!!

It looks like our ex-CSC member / Huttons Top Rep / ex-TC resident is about to spill the beans on the Terms and Conditions of the S&P on her website here. 

She bills them as "Mystery Conditions" but leaks that 'they need 80% of the owner's signature again'

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...

Does this mean that the Sales Price has gone below the RP?  Will the CSC be asking owners to sign again for less than $1.7m/unit? Will our estate be sold for a pittance? Are we following Shunfu and their yo-yo RP (though we'll be the losers in the end)? Did the $1million bidding fee follow market practice or was it to scare away potential bidders? 

In which case the power now lies with the Owners to accept the Sales Price being offered and the conditions along with it. Good Grief, please say No! We can always go back to the drawing board, and go through the stages quickly with a more competent team. This is not the last chance saloon. I warned of this again and again 

What does she mean by 'One Final Signature needed to make En Bloc history'??

Turns out this is FAKE NEWS from a TOP HUTTONS REP! 
Tracy G. is a 'Senior Division Director of Huttons Real Estate Group. 
She was the recipient of the Top Producer Award 2016
She sold her unit(s) before the increase in RP
She is registered with CEA as a Huttons employee

The CSC has come out with a disclaimer on their FB page
They also claim she has left Huttons. This fact is not reflected in her webpage nor the CEA- so it must be pretty recent.

Storm in a tea-cup -- but a total lack of professionalism being shown here.
A case of sour grapes, perhaps?

Aug 18, 2017

NEXT SP Meeting date set to 25th Aug 2017

According to their FB page, the second SP meeting of the Third Schedule will be held on Friday 25 August at the MA's offices in Bishan at 7pm.  Inconvenient. If owners are made to sign a non-disclosure form then it is also unnecessarily secretive.  I laugh at their idea of transparency - what are they afraid of?

Technically, the CSC has 10 weeks to enter into a S&P with a Buyer either through the tender exercise or private Treaty. So, technically, the CSC has until 15 Oct 2017 to inform the Buyer of it's decision. Given that they have said they will make their decision within 2 weeks, it is clear that this 2 week deadline must be a Buyer condition. So the last date of acceptance is probably 29 Aug 2017.

The CSC has already set the date for the SP Meeting on the 25th, I believe by then  the deal would have been finalized and conditions agreed upon..  The Buyer has all the power since he is the only runner in the race, he can dictate the terms. With the lower than hoped for Sales Price, let's hope we are not saddled with less than favourable conditions. Single unit owners will require the 6 months to move out. It will be harrowing enough for those who view TC as their home for the last 30 yrs without rubbing salt in the wound. Moving out will be a trying time for many in the minority. Money is not always king - it is a poor knave at best.

I am of the opinion that nothing now can stop the sale save the Buyer withdrawing over some condition or other.

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. 

The Buyer has sensed our weakness and is going in for the kill.

I presume owners will be allowed to air their views at the upcoming meeting, but to what end now.  We shall all receive the S&P by registered post in the near future anyhow.

Aug 16, 2017

Tampines Court Not Quite Sold

https://www.srx.com.sg/singapore-property-news/39972/s970m-for-tampines-court

Was there only one bid??? Name of buyer already leaked in the above link.
 (I am struggling to write this on a tiny phone screen overseas with iffy wifi)

"these conditions include completing the new development within 5 years of the collective sale order granted by STB or Court. The successful bidder of TC will also factor in the expected increase in DC rates come Sep 1....."

The 5 yr completion deadline is a complete red herring, as these rules do not apply to local developers. There are also loopholes developers can use to bypass the ABSD , namely delisting from the Stock Exchange or bulk buying unsold units. According to a TC resident, Sim Lian Group is a well established local developer formerly listed on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Singapore but was privatized and delisted from SES w.e.f 1 Nov 2016. (Thanks for that info TC Owner Guna).

I don't think the height restriction will be an issue seeing how this potential Buyer is well acquainted with Tampines & Simei, having built The Premier, Centrale 8, Tampines Trilliant and Parc Lumiere@Simei. They cannot claim ignorance and make building to 36 floors a condition.

Tampines Court has already gotten  CAAS (Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore) approval to build up to 49 AMSL - that's the same as My Manhatten in Simei and all the buildings that are in our area.

Since there was only one bid, Sim Lian will have the upper hand in negotiation. They could have multiple conditions and exit clauses.

I know nothing more about the details, just what was said in the media.
The bid was very near the RP. ( surprise surprise)

The Sale Price is low vis a vis the recent Hudc collective sales, we really cannot drop to anything lower should their conditions not be met.

Let's hope the team has the strength to reject anything lower.  It's already a disappointment.

Aug 8, 2017

Statutory Notices

LTSA, First Schedule 1(b) affix to a conspicuous part of each building comprised in the strata title plan or the development to which section 84D or 84E applies, as the case may be, a notice in the 4 official languages specifying —..   (ii).......within 4 weeks after the start of the permitted time and thereafter at intervals of not more than 4 weeks from the date of the last notice under this sub-paragraph;

FIRST SIGNATURE TO CSA1 AND START OF THE PERMITTED TIME: 24 JUNE 2016
LAST LEGAL DAY TO SIGN CSA 16 JUNE 2017  (5 DAYS COOLING OFF PERIOD)
80% - 1 JUNE 2017


As of 01 Sep 2017, 83.57% of the total share values and making up 83.58% of the total area of all lots have signed the CSA

That is 468 units out of 560

A Total of  6 Units have signed since 08 Aug 2017
A total of 92 units have nor signed the CSA

Aug 1, 2017

Development Charge Rate Sep 2017

Aug 2017
https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/media-room/news/2017/Aug/pr17-57

Development Charge Rate has increased to $4200 for Tampines Court
This is an increase of $700

https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/media-room/news/2017/Aug/pr17-57

It isn't too difficult to calculate the Differential Premium (DP) for TC using the government tables and following their worked examples.

I don't think there is any need to panic over the new DC rates because TC was sold 22 Aug 2017 - before the new rate increase so maybe they will apply the Mar 2017 rates instead.

The DP & LUP calculation factors into the computation of the land value in the RLV.

Remember I queried  the '1.55 to be determined' at the meeting? We thought it was 1.71 from the two official valuations from Enbloc Rd 1. Surely they both couldn't have got it wrong?

We will need to see the exact Clauses in the S&P covering the DP/LUP. Does the buyer have an exit if it exceeds the agreed Total?  Is the difference (if it is more) absorbed by the buyer or the owners?  The devil is in the details, so we shall wait and see.

Note: Sale Price Analysis slide at SP Meeting 25 Aug 2017 showed 
 DP: $243,724,555 and estimated LUP $115,000,000
Total payable by Buyer: $358, 724,555

Naturally, I can't get these exact figures but close is good enough for me

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.