PDA

View Full Version : Are completed properties bearing brunt of cooling measures?



mr funny
12-04-11, 16:20
http://www.todayonline.com/Business/Property/EDC110408-0000349/Are-completed-properties-bearing-brunt-of-cooling-measures?

Are completed properties bearing brunt of cooling measures?

by Colin Tan

04:46 AM Apr 08, 2011


The latest flash estimates showed private property prices rose by a slower 2.1 per cent in the first quarter from the preceding three months while HDB resale prices increased just 1.6 per cent.

I must admit that I did not think it was possible to rein in HDB resale price rises so soon. This is because the problem here is not so much of dealing with strong demand but the lack of supply. Owners have to occupy their HDB flats for five years before they can be sold on the resale market, so the supply of such flats is almost completely inelastic.

However, there will always be an inelastic core who need their flats urgently. You can close the door to investors and persuade others to apply for BTO (Built-To-Order) flats with more attractive pricing plans. You can clamp down on abuse and get existing owners to think about selling off their HDB investments. Once all of this is done, there is nothing much else left.

I have to take my hat off to the HDB for having achieved this and with lower cash-over-valuation premiums to boot. However, the upward pressure will remain for some time until a greater supply of resale units hits the market.

In hindsight, the release of several iconic HDB projects must have helped persuade some with urgent needs to postpone their purchase for a better deal with these attractive and competitively priced BTO flats.

The most recent cooling measures, announced mid-January, have also succeeded in reining in price growth in the private housing sector. If we include completed properties, the sales volume has been drastically reduced - down to almost half by some estimates.

On the other hand, monthly developers' sales figures show the decline in purchases for project launches has been less significant.

Indeed, if we juxtapose the official flash estimates with the monthly price index produced by the NUS, it appears that the brunt of the cooling measures is borne by completed apartments outside the central areas and less so with new launches.

The NUS index covers only completed apartments. It has sub-indexes for only two locations - Central and Non-Central. While overall prices softened by 0.4 per cent in February, the sub index for Central rose 1 per cent in February while that for Non-central dipped 1.5 per cent.

The sub index for Central had risen by 3.1 per cent in January while the rise for Non-central was 2.8 per cent. This means the overall slide for Non-central is 4.3 per cent.



Will the slide continue into March?

On the other hand, the URA index covers all properties. It has three location categories - Core Central, Rest of Central and Outside Central. The index for Core Central rose 0.9 per cent, slower than the 2.2 per cent for the previous quarter. However, those for Rest of Central and Outside Central registered higher growth rates.

The index for Rest of Central increased 2.2 per cent in Q1 - a bigger gain than the 1.9 per cent gain in Q4 2010. The index for Outside Central posted a 3.1 per cent rise in the first three months of this year, after rising 2.1 per cent in Q4 2010.

Are we seeing the beginnings of a price divergence between uncompleted and completed apartments? Of course, the differences could be due to price changes for landed properties and I will stand corrected.

Finally, it appears that nothing will be done about the proliferation of shoebox apartments. Latest reports show they are still selling well. If people are prepared to buy them, why should we stop them? But why do we impose a $100 charge on citizens and PRs who visit our casinos? It is because we recognise that there are social costs.

Many in the real estate industry have spoken out against shoebox units because they foresee such costs even if there are no well-documented studies to prove their case. All I can say is that their opinions are based on their combined wealth and length of property experience. Can we afford to ignore this feedback?

Negative comments have also come from outside the industry and cut across diverse occupations. The call is not for a ban but some form of curtailment, such as a cap on the proportion of shoebox units within a project.

The problem comes about when such units totally dominate in projects in far-flung locations. Everything is fine when the market is rising. In a decline, they are abandoned for bigger units. With time, they acquire a stigma which further affects its value. Eventually, they become a focal point for socially undesirable activities.

Unlike other policies which may be easily reversed, mistakes here are literally cast in stone.



Colin Tan is Head, Research & Consultancy at Chesterton Suntec International.

mcmlxxvi
12-04-11, 16:46
One sided attack on MMs notwithstanding, his articles are messy, thoughts all over the place, unbalanced, and a real pain to read.

hyenergix
12-04-11, 19:37
Given the high price of condos, MM is in fact a stepping stone to mass market condo for some. I'm not so sure if couples really plan to have children based on size of house rather than affordability. If they spend bulk of their income on servicing housing loan for large condos and can't afford to have children, then this will be the real social cost.

Some developers who are stuck with unsold large units could be one of the groups making the most noise. They want to wipe out MMs so that the market will have no choice but buy their unsold units. Another group making the noise could be owners with large units still waiting to be rented out.

kane
12-04-11, 21:27
However affordable MMs are, couples will realize the space constraints when they receive their first born.

ysyap
12-04-11, 21:34
Given the high price of condos, MM is in fact a stepping stone to mass market condo for some. I'm not so sure if couples really plan to have children based on size of house rather than affordability. If they spend bulk of their income on servicing housing loan for large condos and can't afford to have children, then this will be the real social cost.

Some developers who are stuck with unsold large units could be one of the groups making the most noise. They want to wipe out MMs so that the market will have no choice but buy their unsold units. Another group making the noise could be owners with large units still waiting to be rented out.

Those developers stuck with unsold large units cannot be pushing away MMs in order to convince people to buy their large units. These large units cater to an absolutely different group of buyers. Those with large family who can afford as well as investors who can afford. Doing away with MM units will not guarantee their large units will eventually be sold. If no :2cents:, even removing MM units also cannot afford large units unless these developers sell their 1200sq ft units at $500K. :banghead: One of the primary reasons why MM are more popular now is precisely because investors cannot afford those larger units going at > $1k psf. :spliff:

hyenergix
12-04-11, 21:59
However affordable MMs are, couples will realize the space constraints when they receive their first born.

They can always shift to a bigger unit, i.e. upgrade step-by-step. This is financially more prudent than initially biting a large condo with huge quantum.

mantrix
12-04-11, 22:03
They can always shift to a bigger unit, i.e. upgrade step-by-step. This is financially more prudent than initially biting a large condo with huge quantum.

question is - can they sell their MM for solid capital gains? Will demand outstrip supply? Or will it be the other way round?

Geylang OKT
12-04-11, 22:13
However affordable MMs are, couples will realize the space constraints when they receive their first born.

Can put the baby on the a/c window ledge lah :D

sh
12-04-11, 22:15
Can put the baby on the a/c window ledge lah :D

yeah.... nice, big and warm... :D

Geylang OKT
12-04-11, 22:17
Those developers stuck with unsold large units cannot be pushing away MMs in order to convince people to buy their large units. These large units cater to an absolutely different group of buyers. Those with large family who can afford as well as investors who can afford. Doing away with MM units will not guarantee their large units will eventually be sold. If no :2cents:, even removing MM units also cannot afford large units unless these developers sell their 1200sq ft units at $500K. :banghead: One of the primary reasons why MM are more popular now is precisely because investors cannot afford those larger units going at > $1k psf. :spliff:

Let's take the example of Geylang, say Lorong 6 where the Royces Residences are selling at $1130psf while the conventional sized units are selling for way below that kind of price. Does it make any sense at all? :tongue3: :cool: :p :D

devilplate
12-04-11, 22:58
Let's take the example of Geylang, say Lorong 6 where the Royces Residences are selling at $1130psf while the conventional sized units are selling for way below that kind of price. Does it make any sense at all? :tongue3: :cool: :p :D

in the first plc, geylang only meant for kok kok guay:p

Geylang OKT
12-04-11, 23:01
in the first plc, geylang only meant for kok kok guay:p

but then hor.... for kok kok koay.... why pay so much to bang in a $1130psf 380sqft apartment leh? Fragrance Hotel (Lor 6 and Lor 10) only $20 to $25 respectively for the 1st two hours leh :scared-1: :scared-3: :scared-4: :rolleyes: :confused:

Geylang OKT
12-04-11, 23:03
yeah.... nice, big and warm... :D

so true :D :D :D

devilplate
12-04-11, 23:07
but then hor.... for kok kok koay.... why pay so much to bang in a $1130psf 380sqft apartment leh? Fragrance Hotel (Lor 6 and Lor 10) only $20 to $25 respectively for the 1st two hours leh :scared-1: :scared-3: :scared-4: :rolleyes: :confused:

nid to cater for 'mid-long term' escorts biz?:rolleyes: