View Full Version : Private funds sue condo developer
http://www.straitstimes.com/Money/Story/STIStory_693670.html
Jul 23, 2011
Private funds sue condo developer
Misrepresentation and breaches of contract over bulk deal alleged
By Esther Teo, Property Reporter
http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/image/20110722/ST_IMAGES_ETGRANGE.jpg
A total of 53 units at the high-end Grange Infinite, jointly developed by Chip Eng Seng and Citadel, were bought by ARA Asia Dragon Fund. -- PHOTO: KAOLEE.COM
PRIVATE funds that bought a bulk lot of units at the high-end condo Grange Infinite are taking the developer to court over what they claim were misrepresentation and contract breaches.
The funds, which are managed by ARA Asset Management, have issued a writ of summons against Grange Properties, an associated company of developer Chip Eng Seng.
They allege breaches of certain terms in the sales and purchase agreement and misrepresentations in relation to the bulk sale. No further details were provided in the statement posted on the Singapore Exchange website yesterday.
Chip Eng Seng said in the statement that the 'allegations are unmeritorious and that Grange Properties has the intention to vigorously defend (itself against them)'.
One of the directors of Pearl Properties - a collection of funds which have issued the writ - is Mr Ng Beng Tiong, who is the fund manager of the ARA Asia Dragon Fund.
The details of the dispute are not clear but the ARA Asia Dragon Fund bought 53 units at the Grange Infinite condo on Grange Road in early 2008 for $388 million - said at the time to be at a price of $2,600 to $2,700 per sq ft (psf).
This meant the apartments cost less than separate flats sold earlier. Most of these changed hands at more than $3,000 psf.
Units in the bulk deal included three-bedroom units, four-bedroom units and penthouses.
The fund was reported to have put all 53 units back on the market in January last year as activity in the high-end residential sector had picked up.
It was reported to have sold units at an average price of $3,200 psf individually in September last year.
The 36-storey upmarket condo is on the former Grange Tower site next to the Indian High Commission. It was jointly developed by Chip Eng Seng and Citadel and completed this year. There are 68 units.
A 2,702 sq ft unit was sold in September 2009 for $9.2 million - or $3,400 psf - according to caveats lodged with the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
The average psf price of the 11 sale transactions from the beginning of last year until June this year was $2,920 psf.
High-end homes are the only segment of the property market yet to surpass their 2007 peak prices.
Experts say that demand remains soft as uncertain global economic conditions such as concerns over the European sovereign debt crisis and the patchy United States recovery have dampened sentiments.
The recently implemented sellers' stamp duty of as much as 16 per cent is also keeping foreign investors - who make up a sizeable portion of the high-end market - at bay.
ARA Asia Dragon Fund had a committed capital of about US$1.1 billion (S$1.3 billion) as of the first quarter this year.
[email protected]
stalingrad
25-07-11, 09:54
another sign that CCR properties are going to die a slow death.
I think it's useful to know what was misrepresented and what constituted the breach of contract.
Wild Falcon
25-07-11, 11:25
If the fund bought at $2700psf, they hardly breakeven or incur losses after transaction costs. Maybe the agents/developer painted a rosy picture on rentals and capital gains in the area which clearly did not materialise. Having said that, the fund should have conducted its own due diligence. During the peak in 2007 and early part of 2008, most of the property experts were recommending purchase of high end luxury property. I still recall in this forum, many forummers (just like the experts) actually predicted Paterson area to hit $5000psf soon because they benchmark against Hong Kong/London blindly which was a stupid thing to do. I have a few friends who dispose off their luxury property purchased during the 2007 peak recently (gg to TOP soon) at a loss because rental yields is pathetic with no guarantee of significant capital gains in sight. So lesson learnt? Sometimes, its better to seek advice from laymen at forums than those experts who have vested interest :)
If the fund bought at $2700psf, they hardly breakeven or incur losses after transaction costs. Maybe the agents/developer painted a rosy picture on rentals and capital gains in the area which clearly did not materialise. ......
buy at $2700psf and sell at average $3200psf. Looks like profit to me (on an individual units basis).
Why do you mention "hardly breakeven or incur losses after transaction costs"? how do you calculate the sums?
stalingrad
25-07-11, 12:14
buy at $2700psf and sell at average $3200psf. Looks like profit to me (on an individual units basis).
Why do you mention "hardly breakeven or incur losses after transaction costs"? how do you calculate the sums?
Read between the lines!!!. If the fund could make money on the units they hold, you think they will sue?
they could only sell a few units at those prices. the remaining units are going to be hard to sell, and losses are likely.
many forummers (just like the experts) actually predicted Paterson area to hit $5000psf soon because they benchmark against Hong Kong/London blindly
And some say that in 10 years time average Singapore apartment size will be like HK and Tokyo. Heard that 10 years ago, and I bet we will hear it 10 years later.
ARA Asset Mgt owned by Cheong Kong Group. Not small fry or ignorant property player.
stalingrad
25-07-11, 12:19
ARA Asset Mgt owned by Cheong Kong Group. Not small fry or ignorant property player.
then, it is even scarier for owners of CCR properties.
If it is successful, then all the investors who buy for renting out can sue the developers successfully if rental yield is below expectation. Ridiculous.
buy at $2700psf and sell at average $3200psf. Looks like profit to me (on an individual units basis).
Why do you mention "hardly breakeven or incur losses after transaction costs"? how do you calculate the sums?
There are 68 units in this development and ASA bought 53 of them.
When they said they sold average price of $3200psf last sep, it could possibly mean they only managed to sell 2 high floor good facing units for $3200psf.
Maybe the problem with this development is the India Embassy right next to it. Which I presume will be very crowded most of the time.
There are only 68 units in this development, but there are 140+ units for sale on propertyguru.
Well, didn't some property in Paterson area already transacted at >$5000 psf already in 2011? Wow! These forumers do have great foresight! :cheers1:
Why your friends need to sell luxury properties at a loss? Rental pathetic? You friend need to depend on the rental to pay instalments & slightly less rental income also cannot stand anymore? Then they shouldn't be buying the property (regardless of luxury or mass market)! :doh:
CCR properties are for people with long term view. In 1997, luxury peak peak price may be just $2xxx psf. In 2011, peak price now $5xxx psf! Let me make a prediction: In 2020, peak price $7xxx psf? :p
Do you think your OCR can hit peak price >$2xxx psf in 2020? :scared-2:
If the fund bought at $2700psf, they hardly breakeven or incur losses after transaction costs. Maybe the agents/developer painted a rosy picture on rentals and capital gains in the area which clearly did not materialise. Having said that, the fund should have conducted its own due diligence. During the peak in 2007 and early part of 2008, most of the property experts were recommending purchase of high end luxury property. I still recall in this forum, many forummers (just like the experts) actually predicted Paterson area to hit $5000psf soon because they benchmark against Hong Kong/London blindly which was a stupid thing to do. I have a few friends who dispose off their luxury property purchased during the 2007 peak recently (gg to TOP soon) at a loss because rental yields is pathetic with no guarantee of significant capital gains in sight. So lesson learnt? Sometimes, its better to seek advice from laymen at forums than those experts who have vested interest :)
Well, didn't some property in Paterson area already transacted at >$5000 psf already in 2011? Wow! These forumers do have great foresight! :cheers1:
Why your friends need to sell luxury properties at a loss? Rental pathetic? You friend need to depend on the rental to pay instalments & slightly less rental income also cannot stand anymore? Then they shouldn't be buying the property (regardless of luxury or mass market)! :doh:
CCR properties are for people with long term view. In 1997, luxury peak peak price may be just $2xxx psf. In 2011, peak price now $5xxx psf! Let me make a prediction: In 2020, peak price $7xxx psf? :p
Do you think your OCR can hit peak price >$2xxx psf in 2020? :scared-2:
I honestly dont think it make any sense to use a single transaction of the Marq at 5800psf as benchmark for super luxury apartment price.
If we exclude those <1000sqft apartment (as I dont classified them as luxury apartments due to their size), there are only 7 apartments on URA listing that transacted above $4000psf, and only 1 units that is above $5000.
It is very unlikely that the misrepresentation is related to "future price" or "rosy picture" or "minimum yield" in any way, as no vendor would warrant or even mention such things. If any of those were in the bulk purchase SPA or side agreement and the vendor failed to deliver, it shouldn't be a litigation over "misrepresentation".
If there were guarantees of any sort, it would had been disclosed as Chip Eng Seng is a SGX listed company
Jonathan0503
25-07-11, 13:29
And some say that in 10 years time average Singapore apartment size will be like HK and Tokyo. Heard that 10 years ago, and I bet we will hear it 10 years later.
What is the average apt size in HK and Tokyo 10 years ago and what's the average size now?
Most likely cause that I can think of: - What you finally got is not what you see in show-room (very common problem - there lies the peril of buying new launch or under construction properties!).
How about the show-room shows very high quality expensive marbles in living, dinning, kitchen, bathrooms flooring and walls etc, high quality big piece sold woods for bedrooms, Miele appliances for fridge, hob, hob, microwave oven, conventional oven, AXOR/Hansgrohe taps, integrated washer-dryer; TOTO / Ideal Standard / Duravit WCs but all changed (obviously to cheap items) in final product? :doh:
As far as I know, few developers guarantee and wrote the brands of these items into their S&P agreement (and hence they can change as they wish). Are there legal recourse? Think quite difficult unless they put these in their official brochure handed out. :simmering:
It is very unlikely that the misrepresentation is related to "future price" or "rosy picture" or "minimum yield" in any way, as no vendor would warrant or even mention such things. If any of those were in the bulk purchase SPA or side agreement and the vendor failed to deliver, it shouldn't be a litigation over "misrepresentation".
If there were guarantees of any sort, it would had been disclosed as Chip Eng Seng is a SGX listed company
devilplate
25-07-11, 14:55
Most likely cause that I can think of: - What you finally got is not what you see in show-room (very common problem - there lies the peril of buying new launch or under construction properties!).
How about the show-room shows very high quality expensive marbles in living, dinning, kitchen, bathrooms flooring and walls etc, high quality big piece sold woods for bedrooms, Miele appliances for fridge, hob, hob, microwave oven, conventional oven, AXOR/Hansgrohe taps, integrated washer-dryer; TOTO / Ideal Standard / Duravit WCs but all changed (obviously to cheap items) in final product? :doh:
As far as I know, few developers guarantee and wrote the brands of these items into their S&P agreement (and hence they can change as they wish). Are there legal recourse? Think quite difficult unless they put these in their official brochure handed out. :simmering:
So far those projects tat i bot dun hf such problems.....i will take tons of pictures whenever i buy from developer including the appliances n fittings
There is only once tat the marble flooring looks abit diff from showflat....
Mabe those small small hit n run developers may cheat on these stuff lor...but dun tink big players will stoop so low la....
Condo Kaiser
25-07-11, 16:32
confirm not because of pricing or rental prospect la.... the nature of any transaction is price is something that is mutually agreed...
i am guessing it will be along the lines of certain terms in their transaction... the developer could have agreed to a clause embedded in the contract but didn't carry it out...
if can sue just because the fund think it has over paid.. then who will still lose money?
Condo Kaiser
25-07-11, 16:36
people will latch onto anything to twist into a horror story that CCR is going down....
don't even bother to argue anymore... let you win... JLD / Bedok waterfront / Serangoon will all become 3000 psf and overtake paterson / robertson / grange / ardmore.....
people will latch onto anything to twist into a horror story that CCR is going down....
don't even bother to argue anymore... let you win... JLD / Bedok waterfront / Serangoon will all become 3000 psf and overtake paterson / robertson / grange / ardmore.....
Hahahhahaha
By the way, just a wild guess, could it because that there are unit which are not part of the bulk purchase deal and now are put up for sale by the developer and undercut the bulk purchaser?
Just checked propertyguru and found the asking psf varies by a wide range
By the way, now there is a pop-up ad by FEO when entering the propertyguru website! FEO is really everywhere
bargain hunter
25-07-11, 18:53
the fund bot 53 units. sueing for 41 units means they likely sold 12 units. there are 11 caveats since their reported sale started last jan. the average is most definitely NOT 3200psf based on the caveats. look them up, only 2 of 11 caveats are at 3200psf. the rest are below 3000psf. In fact, 9 units are sold between 2750 to 2901psf. they are hardly breaking even.
buy at $2700psf and sell at average $3200psf. Looks like profit to me (on an individual units basis).
Why do you mention "hardly breakeven or incur losses after transaction costs"? how do you calculate the sums?
bargain hunter
25-07-11, 18:59
i agree. hope we can get some detailed info on what reasons we can sue developers for misrep. :)
i also think its the finishing that is not up to what they thought they would get.
It is very unlikely that the misrepresentation is related to "future price" or "rosy picture" or "minimum yield" in any way, as no vendor would warrant or even mention such things. If any of those were in the bulk purchase SPA or side agreement and the vendor failed to deliver, it shouldn't be a litigation over "misrepresentation".
If there were guarantees of any sort, it would had been disclosed as Chip Eng Seng is a SGX listed company
bargain hunter
25-07-11, 19:03
in fact, the june 2011 caveat is the lowest psf recorded for this project in the past 2 years at 2750psf.
the fund bot 53 units. sueing for 41 units means they likely sold 12 units. there are 11 caveats since their reported sale started last jan. the average is most definitely NOT 3200psf based on the caveats. look them up, only 2 of 11 caveats are at 3200psf. the rest are below 3000psf. In fact, 9 units are sold between 2750 to 2901psf. they are hardly breaking even.
bargain hunter
25-07-11, 19:09
it is not correct to say ARA is owned by CK. CK owns between 15.62% of ARA and is a passive investor. John Lim who owns a deemed interest of 36.59% is the one running the show.
Agree with you that they are not ignorant. I am really curious what sort of misrep they are suing for. :)
ARA Asset Mgt owned by Cheong Kong Group. Not small fry or ignorant property player.
in fact, the june 2011 caveat is the lowest psf recorded for this project in the past 2 years at 2750psf.
Why I get a feeling it's CES who's been selling all this while at these low psf numbers undercutting the fund. The fund probably has a clause that says developer cannot sell lower than x for remaining units...
bargain hunter
25-07-11, 19:28
no leh. during the last peak, CES sold 15 out of the 68 units at 3xxxpsf. then just after the bubble burst, ARA's dragon fund came in and bought the remaining 53 units at 2700psf average. so the project was already fully sold after early 2008.
Why I get a feeling it's CES who's been selling all this while at these low psf numbers undercutting the fund. The fund probably has a clause that says developer cannot sell lower than x for remaining units...
bargain hunter
25-07-11, 19:30
the dragon fund then put the 53 units back on the market in early 2010 and seems like they have successfully sold 12 units. hence they are suing for 41 units as per CES announcement:
http://info.sgx.com/webcoranncatth.nsf/VwAttachments/Att_A81AE9060E370F80482578D5002C0362/$file/CES_Legal_Proceedings_against_Grange_Properties.pdf?openelement
so it is more likely that the 11 caveats since early 2010 is for the 12 units sold by the dragon fund.
devilplate
25-07-11, 19:34
the dragon fund then put the 53 units back on the market in early 2010 and seems like they have successfully sold 12 units. hence they are suing for 41 units as per CES announcement:
http://info.sgx.com/webcoranncatth.nsf/VwAttachments/Att_A81AE9060E370F80482578D5002C0362/$file/CES_Legal_Proceedings_against_Grange_Properties.pdf?openelement
so it is more likely that the 11 caveats since early 2010 is for the 12 units sold by the dragon fund.
Shd let us manage the fund? Hehe:rolleyes:
bargain hunter
25-07-11, 19:48
lifted from http://singaporestockmarketnews.blogspot.com/2010/03/reit-time.html
"The fund bought 53 luxury apartment units at the Grange Infinite in 2008 costing $388 million, under a deferred payment scheme from developer Chip Eng Seng."
"However, Lim waves off questions about how these investments are doing. “I’m not too keen to talk about it because it’s irrelevant,” he says. “I’m not a developer. The project I bought in Singapore, whether it makes $10 million or $100 million, will not improve ARA’s bottom line. We just get an incentive fee.” "
:confused:
ok, i agree, we can do a better job. LOL.
Why I get a feeling it's CES who's been selling all this while at these low psf numbers undercutting the fund. The fund probably has a clause that says developer cannot sell lower than x for remaining units...
That's what I think. Maybe the 15 unites sold earlier by CES were returned to the developer before the completion of the bulk purchase and CES rep it as all the 15 units are sold. Anyway, let's see how this will turn out but I guess at the end there will be no case
what about those developers who put non standard size beds in their showrooms? Does that constitute misrepresentation?
bargain hunter
25-07-11, 21:49
rules for that will only kick in later this year. (what took them so many years to implement?!)
currently, its not written anywhere that the beds in the showrooms are standard sized rite? ;)
what about those developers who put non standard size beds in their showrooms? Does that constitute misrepresentation?
what about those developers who put non standard size beds in their showrooms? Does that constitute misrepresentation?
No, cos only the bed is misrepresented :D And the house is not sold with the bed. Best bet is to bring our own measuring tape. I thought the bed in Floridian showflat common room was shorter than normal but the agent insisted that it was the normal length. Maybe I'm wrong :beats-me-man:
transactions from 2008 till now
27 Grange Road #07-02 2,250 $6,188k $2,750 Jun 30, 2011 2011 Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #09-01 2,121 $5,980k $2,820 May 19, 2011 2011 Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #28-02 2,680 $8,600k $3,209 Feb 1, 2011 2011 Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #11-03 2,368 $6,800k $2,872 Jan 21, 2011 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #20-01 2,529 $8,096k $3,201 Jan 3, 2011 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #13-02 2,250 $6,525k $2,900 Oct 18, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #12-02 2,217 $6,318k $2,850 Jul 23, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #10-01 2,088 $5,950k $2,849 May 10, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #11-01 2,120 $6,151k $2,901 May 7, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #13-01 2,120 $6,151k $2,901 May 7, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #09-03 2,368 $6,778k $2,862 Apr 23, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #25-02 2,702 $9,186k $3,400 Sep 30, 2009 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #20-03 6,039 $10,568k $1,750 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #34-01 5,339 $10,144k $1,900 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #35-01 5,436 $10,328k $1,900 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #36-01 9,461 $14,882k $1,573 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #10-02 2,217 $7,300k $3,292 Jan 29, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
bargain hunter
25-07-11, 22:44
that means the recently sold units are likely from ara right? unless those 15 who paid 3xxxpsf are cutting loss hahaha.
hmm, they paid such low psf for the penthouses and yet their average price is still 2600 to 2700psf?
transactions from 2008 till now
27 Grange Road #07-02 2,250 $6,188k $2,750 Jun 30, 2011 2011 Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #09-01 2,121 $5,980k $2,820 May 19, 2011 2011 Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #28-02 2,680 $8,600k $3,209 Feb 1, 2011 2011 Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #11-03 2,368 $6,800k $2,872 Jan 21, 2011 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #20-01 2,529 $8,096k $3,201 Jan 3, 2011 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #13-02 2,250 $6,525k $2,900 Oct 18, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #12-02 2,217 $6,318k $2,850 Jul 23, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #10-01 2,088
$5,950k $2,849 May 10, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #11-01 2,120 $6,151k $2,901 May 7, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #13-01 2,120 $6,151k $2,901 May 7, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #09-03 2,368 $6,778k $2,862 Apr 23, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #25-02 2,702 $9,186k
$3,400 Sep 30, 2009 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #20-03 6,039 $10,568k $1,750 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #34-01 5,339 $10,144k $1,900 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #35-01 5,436 $10,328k $1,900 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #36-01 9,461
$14,882k $1,573 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #10-02 2,217 $7,300k $3,292 Jan 29, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
No, cos only the bed is misrepresented :D And the house is not sold with the bed. Best bet is to bring our own measuring tape. I thought the bed in Floridian showflat common room was shorter than normal but the agent insisted that it was the normal length. Maybe I'm wrong :beats-me-man:
slight digression, some of the beds look like they are for hobbits!
slight digression, some of the beds look like they are for hobbits!
The door mats are big too! :D
slight digression, some of the beds look like they are for hobbits!
I got the same feel. The queen size bed in MM showrooms look suspiciously small. Might fall off the bed if sleep on it :scared-3:
I got the same feel. The queen size bed in MM showrooms look suspiciously small. Might fall off the bed if sleep on it :scared-3:
I don't think I would fall off but I think my feet might dangle out in mid edge off the ends of the bed.
proud owner
26-07-11, 08:35
I don't think I would fall off but I think my feet might dangle out in mid edge off the ends of the bed.
worse case for me is when the bed is almost my height ... with my heel hitting the bedframe all the time ...
transactions from 2008 till now
27 Grange Road #07-02 2,250 $6,188k $2,750 Jun 30, 2011 2011 Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #09-01 2,121 $5,980k $2,820 May 19, 2011 2011 Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #28-02 2,680 $8,600k $3,209 Feb 1, 2011 2011 Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #11-03 2,368 $6,800k $2,872 Jan 21, 2011 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #20-01 2,529 $8,096k $3,201 Jan 3, 2011 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #13-02 2,250 $6,525k $2,900 Oct 18, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #12-02 2,217 $6,318k $2,850 Jul 23, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #10-01 2,088
$5,950k $2,849 May 10, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #11-01 2,120 $6,151k $2,901 May 7, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #13-01 2,120 $6,151k $2,901 May 7, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #09-03 2,368 $6,778k $2,862 Apr 23, 2010 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #25-02 2,702 $9,186k $3,400 Sep 30, 2009 Uncompleted Freehold Sub Sale
27 Grange Road #20-03 6,039 $10,568k $1,750 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #34-01 5,339 $10,144k $1,900 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #35-01 5,436 $10,328k $1,900 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #36-01 9,461 $14,882k $1,573 Mar 7, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
27 Grange Road #10-02 2,217 $7,300k $3,292 Jan 29, 2008 Uncompleted Freehold New Sale
If I have enough balls and money, I would buy the single storey penthouses and split the strata title into 2-3 strata titles. from 1750-1900psf become 2800psf. :)
Unfortunately I dont have enough balls and money. :beats-me-man:
that means the recently sold units are likely from ara right? unless those 15 who paid 3xxxpsf are cutting loss hahaha.
hmm, they paid such low psf for the penthouses and yet their average price is still 2600 to 2700psf?
I think this PH is not by them.... funds normally dun lodge caveats at all.
and yes looks like all the recent sales are by them.. very unlikely someone buying at 3xxx psf is willing to sell at 28xx in 2011. only the fund has the capacity to sell at 28xx and yet still making a profit. this is defer payment, so funding need is very small.
bargain hunter
26-07-11, 12:08
http://arthurkwok.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/private-fund-buys-remaining-53-grange-infinite-units/
"The average price for typical three and four-bedroom units in the transaction is believed to be about $2,900 per square foot (psf).
However, for all 53 units sold under the deal, the average price is said to be slightly lower, at $2,600-$2,700 psf, as the three penthouses and other larger units included in the transaction were priced lower."
oops, that means they sold the 12 regular sized units at a loss!
and yes, they bot the penthouses.
I think this PH is not by them.... funds normally dun lodge caveats at all.
and yes looks like all the recent sales are by them.. very unlikely someone buying at 3xxx psf is willing to sell at 28xx in 2011. only the fund has the capacity to sell at 28xx and yet still making a profit. this is defer payment, so funding need is very small.
bargain hunter
26-07-11, 12:16
15 units were sold in Sep 2007 at 3025 to 3299psf
1 unit was returned the next month and
1 unit sold in jan 2008 at 3292psf
53 units were sold in Mar 2008 at 2600psf median. (range 1573 to 3300)
stalingrad
26-07-11, 12:17
http://arthurkwok.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/private-fund-buys-remaining-53-grange-infinite-units/
"The average price for typical three and four-bedroom units in the transaction is believed to be about $2,900 per square foot (psf).
However, for all 53 units sold under the deal, the average price is said to be slightly lower, at $2,600-$2,700 psf, as the three penthouses and other larger units included in the transaction were priced lower."
oops, that means they sold the 12 regular sized units at a loss!
and yes, they bot the penthouses.
the principle seems to be:
if making money, laugh all the way to the bank. Else, sue.
but I know the developer. CES is no angel either.
http://arthurkwok.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/private-fund-buys-remaining-53-grange-infinite-units/
"The average price for typical three and four-bedroom units in the transaction is believed to be about $2,900 per square foot (psf).
However, for all 53 units sold under the deal, the average price is said to be slightly lower, at $2,600-$2,700 psf, as the three penthouses and other larger units included in the transaction were priced lower."
oops, that means they sold the 12 regular sized units at a loss!
and yes, they bot the penthouses.
It is refreshing to read some of the article from the archives.
The sky was the really the limit for luxury properties in Singapore during that time.
stalingrad
26-07-11, 12:50
It is refreshing to read some of the article from the archives.
The sky was the really the limit for luxury properties in Singapore during that time.
both bargain hunters and I visited duchess residences in 2007, and we both drew the conclusion that the buyers would get burned.
I guess we just had more common sense than most. :D
both bargain hunters and I visited duchess residences in 2007, and we both drew the conclusion that the buyers would get burned.
I guess we just had more common sense than most. :D
what was the launch price in 2007?
bargain hunter
26-07-11, 12:57
launch price? depends on who you are!
if u r wee cho yaw, u get it at 15xx, his relatives and friends? 16xx to 17xx. very next day, VVIP 18xx to 20xx. some pple paid 2100 to 2200 (on VVIP day itself) for a few units, not sure why/how it happened.
what was the launch price in 2007?
stalingrad
26-07-11, 13:15
launch price? depends on who you are!
if u r wee cho yaw, u get it at 15xx, his relatives and friends? 16xx to 17xx. very next day, VVIP 18xx to 20xx. some pple paid 2100 to 2200 (on VVIP day itself) for a few units, not sure why/how it happened.
Now most units transacted in the 1800 to 1900psf range. so, except Mr Wee, all the buyers have been under water.
I mentioned this as a cautionary tale. I am sure you saw the mountains of flip flops and shoes at the entrance. I am sure you would remember that bus ferrying people from a far away carpark. I am sure you also remember the way that at the showflats, people bought like there was no tomorrow. such was the speculative fervor.
people will never learn.
bargain hunter
26-07-11, 13:22
most likely the recent 18xx sales are sold by the associates who bot from 16xx to 17xxpsf. VVIP FROM 1800psf can't even make money. at that time, even the 2700 to 3000 sq ft garden mansionettes and penthouses were sold at the same psf ie 18xx to 21xx. in jan this year, UOL sold 1 of the 2 returned garden mansionettes at 1680psf. not sure why they are still advertising for 2 garden mansionettes now. maybe another one defaulted again and cannot pay up during key collection.
Now most units transacted in the 1800 to 1900psf range. so, except Mr Wee, all the buyers have been under water.
I mentioned this as a cautionary tale. I am sure you saw the mountains of flip flops and shoes at the entrance. I am sure you would remember that bus ferrying people from a far away carpark. I am sure you also remember the way that at the showflats, people bought like there was no tomorrow. such was the speculative fervor.
people will never learn.
stalingrad
26-07-11, 13:26
most likely the recent 18xx sales are sold by the associates who bot from 16xx to 17xxpsf. VVIP FROM 1800psf can't even make money. at that time, even the 2700 to 3000 sq ft garden mansionettes and penthouses were sold at the same psf ie 18xx to 21xx. in jan this year, UOL sold 1 of the 2 returned garden mansionettes at 1680psf. not sure why they are still advertising for 2 garden mansionettes now. maybe another one defaulted again and cannot pay up during key collection.
I remember our agent quoted me a price of close to $2000psf for one of the maisonettes. all the condos were sold when we arrived, but our agent told me that if really wanted one, he could arrange a subsale to me at more than 2,300psf. I am sure he was the proud owner of that unit.
hey hey hey how come we are at this wonderful duchess residences story again ? ;)
bargain hunter: the Jan option had been returned. (and btw the named Wee & Co.'s units have already been sold at 1900psf.)
bargain hunter
26-07-11, 14:02
WCY and Co. sold at 1900psf?!?!?!
but jan option has caveat lodged leh, where got option returned?
i think stalin simply can't hold back on DR at every opportunity. but i agree that its a nice warning. newer members haven't heard the story before mah. :ashamed1:
hey hey hey how come we are at this wonderful duchess residences story again ? ;)
bargain hunter: the Jan option had been returned. (and btw the named Wee & Co.'s units have already been sold at 1900psf.)
WCY and Co. sold at 1900psf?!?!?!
but jan option has caveat lodged leh, where got option returned?
i think stalin simply can't hold back on DR at every opportunity. but i agree that its a nice warning. newer members haven't heard the story before mah. :ashamed1:
thanks for sharing. Is there any other similar stories to share? :D
bargain hunter
26-07-11, 14:19
amk, see, jadey enjoyed our story. :ashamed1:
the rest r not well documented in newspapers. but a check at sentosa condo caveats during 2007 peak vs current caveats will tell a similar story.
thanks for sharing. Is there any other similar stories to share? :D
bargain hunter
26-07-11, 14:22
hey wait...the prices of grange infinite i listed earlier shows that prices now are lower than then! and with quantum a big concern these days, not easy to find another 41 buyers with a minimum entry price above 6m. ;) and who knows, maybe finishing is substandard and misrepresented. :doh:
thanks for sharing. Is there any other similar stories to share? :D
stalingrad
26-07-11, 14:27
thanks for sharing. Is there any other similar stories to share? :D
virtually all D10 prime properties have suffered the same fate. I am SC Global has the dubious distinction of being the developer of more loser condos than any other developers in Singapore.
virtually all D10 prime properties have suffered the same fate...
staling staling, u r so excited .... ;)
bargain hunter
26-07-11, 15:00
so when did WCY and co. sell their units? recently at 1900psf? no caveats?
staling staling, u r so excited .... ;)
stalingrad
26-07-11, 15:15
staling staling, u r so excited .... ;)
but am I right or not? Simon C said he is not eager to sell because there is so little prime land is Singapore and prices will eventually catch up. I think he is totally wrong. There are so many condos waiting for en bloc just along Farrer road. tulip garden and sommerville park, and....
when prices do recover in D10, all these condos will be sold en bloc, and boost supply. I really think Simon C is cooked.
so when did WCY and co. sell their units? recently at 1900psf? no caveats?
got what:
110 Duchess Avenue #03-23 29/4/2011 1485 1900 2821000
106 Duchess Avenue #02-09 24/6/2011 1602 1951 3130000
but am I right or not? Simon C said he is not eager to sell because there is so little prime land is Singapore and prices will eventually catch up. I think he is totally wrong. There are so many condos waiting for en bloc just along Farrer road. tulip garden and sommerville park, and....
when prices do recover in D10, all these condos will be sold en bloc, and boost supply. I really think Simon C is cooked.
I believe YTL is still holding on to the Westwood Apartment which he bought in 2007 at $2500psf. Guess he will be holding on to that for awhile.
stalingrad
26-07-11, 15:27
I believe YTL is still holding on to the Westwood Apartment which he bought in 2007 at $2500psf. Guess he will be holding on to that for awhile.
precisely. it is just silly to argue there is a limited supply of prime land in singapore. it stretches as far as eyes can see in D10, 9 and 11. don't forget there are 1000 plus units at D'leedon.
bargain hunter
26-07-11, 15:27
my next qn is, why are pple willing to buy from WCY & Co at 1900 and 1951 when other units are transacted at 18xxpsf? i do not see significant difference in views (also u see me, i see u wat).
is it just becoz the unit was formerly owned by the rich and famous hence they are willing to pay more? :doh:
got what:
110 Duchess Avenue #03-23 29/4/2011 1485 1900 2821000
106 Duchess Avenue #02-09 24/6/2011 1602 1951 3130000
Just drove along namely road and area in D10. OMG the houses there are beautiful! Serene and beautiful. Kao, rich pple damn shiok. beautiful community. Strike TOTO also hard to buy a place there!
but am I right or not? Simon C said he is not eager to sell because there is so little prime land is Singapore and prices will eventually catch up. I think he is totally wrong. There are so many condos waiting for en bloc just along Farrer road. tulip garden and sommerville park, and....
when prices do recover in D10, all these condos will be sold en bloc, and boost supply. I really think Simon C is cooked.
if SC thinks like you, he won't be as rich as he is today ;)
Just drove along namely road and area in D10. OMG the houses there are beautiful! Serene and beautiful. Kao, rich pple damn shiok. beautiful community. Strike TOTO also hard to buy a place there!
GCB is commanding about $30 to 50K rental today. Even if can afford to buy, small fly like me might choose not to stay. :D
stalingrad
26-07-11, 15:40
if SC thinks like you, he won't be as rich as he is today ;)
I believe Sc is peeing in his pants now. He can hold on to his unsold prime condos for one or two years, but longer than that his bankers will get worried.
GCB is commanding about $30 to 50K rental today. Even if can afford to buy, small fly like me might choose not to stay. :D
Bro if one can afford to buy that kind of house, u cannot be called small fly. At least can address as "ultra fat" fly
devilplate
26-07-11, 16:22
worse case for me is when the bed is almost my height ... with my heel hitting the bedframe all the time ...
U r more den 1.8m? Standard bed length is about 1.9m.....so u always custom made to 2m?
devilplate
26-07-11, 16:23
If I have enough balls and money, I would buy the single storey penthouses and split the strata title into 2-3 strata titles. from 1750-1900psf become 2800psf. :)
Unfortunately I dont have enough balls and money. :beats-me-man:
Can anyhow split strata title meh? Smthing new to me:beats-me-man:
Can anyhow split strata title meh? Smthing new to me:beats-me-man:
read it before...
http://propertylaunch.sg/propertynews/owner-gets-nod-to-split-penthouse/
bargain hunter
26-07-11, 17:23
rarely granted and also the 2 floors are liveable on their own. not so sure about grange infinite one, but seems unlikely.
read it before...
http://propertylaunch.sg/propertynews/owner-gets-nod-to-split-penthouse/
worse case for me is when the bed is almost my height ... with my heel hitting the bedframe all the time ...
hate that feeling of being constrained by the ends of the bed.
bargain hunter
03-08-11, 12:20
a returned unit somemore and at a lower price than original. From ST today:
THE high-end condominium Grange Infinite has found a buyer for its last unit, despite an ongoing legal dispute with private fund manager ARA Asset Management.
Developer Chip Eng Seng has granted a foreign buyer an option to purchase the 2,368 sq ft unit for $6.6 million - or $2,808 per sq ft (psf).
The Straits Times understands that the eighth- floor apartment was initially sold in October 2007 for $7.2 million, but then returned. It is unclear why.
The 36-storey block of 68 units was jointly developed by Chip Eng Seng and Citadel on the former Grange Tower site next to the Indian High Commission in Grange Road, and completed this year.
A Straits Times report noted last month that a legal dispute had flared between the developer and private funds, collectively known as Pearl Properties, managed by ARA Asset Management.
They are likely to be part of the ARA Asia Dragon Fund, which bought 53 units in the estate in early 2008 for $388 million, or about $2,600 psf.
The funds issued a writ of summons against Grange Properties, an associated company of Chip Eng Seng, claiming that certain terms in the sales and purchase agreement were breached.
They also allege misrepresentations in relation to the bulk sale.
Chip Eng Seng said that the 'allegations are unmeritorious and that Grange Properties has the intention to vigorously defend itself' against them.
bargain hunter
19-08-11, 10:07
:ashamed1:
Condo's buyers list litany of complaints
INVESTORS who bought 53 units at the upmarket condo Grange Infinite in the Orchard Road area have launched a High Court action claiming they are not as luxurious, stylish or elegant as promised.
In a litany of complaints, the buyers - a group of investment funds which spent $388 million in all - also say the fittings in the units are not 'exceptionally superior' as advertised.
In a rarely seen showdown, the funds - managed by ARA Asset Management - issued a writ of summons last month against Grange Properties, an associated firm of listed developer Chip Eng Seng.
Investors who buy apartments in bulk might attempt to sell the units individually to secure higher prices or offload them en bloc as prices head north.
The funds allege breaches of some terms in the sales and purchase agreement and misrepresentations in relation to the bulk sale in March 2008.
While disputes between owners and developers are not uncommon, the escalation of such disputes to legal action is rare, as developers are usually keen to protect their reputations, experts say.
For example, in February, City Developments was sued by residents of Emery Point, who had accused it of being negligent over defects there. The case was ultimately resolved amicably out of court.
ARA claims marketing for the 68-unit Grange Infinite said it would be of 'exceptionally high standard of luxury, style and elegance' and have exceptionally superior furnishings. Australian architecture firm Hassell was also to have played a significant part in the project, the writ said.
However, these claims were untrue and the representations were made either fraudulently or negligently, the statement added. Hassell did not have a significant role in the construction and the project had numerous design flaws, it said.
These included the lack of a smoke extraction system at the outdoor cooking area and a spa pool located right next to it, resulting in a lack of privacy for groups using both facilities concurrently.
The writ also said the project was neither safe nor fit for human habitation at the time of notice of vacant possession, as stainless steel handrails and studs supporting balcony glass barriers and elsewhere were incompletely welded.
This posed a danger to residents, it claimed, as the barriers could dislodge and fall from the balconies. Any rectification was also carried out in a sloppy and slipshod manner with no regard to aesthetics, it said.
The funds carried out improvement works on some of the units to make them more saleable - and intends to do so for the rest of the unsold units as well.
Losses and expenses will be incurred as a result of missing out on potential buyers and hiring experts to look at the defects, among other things, they say.
ARA made the bulk purchase at a discounted price of about $2,600 per sq ft (psf) even as some units were individually sold for about $3,200 psf then.
Twelve of their units were sold before the project was completed, leaving 41 units that are now the subject of the suit. Three were sold after improvement works, leaving 38 units still in the funds' possession.
In its defence issued on Monday via its lawyers, however, Chip Eng Seng denied all allegations, emphasising that the plaintiffs are sophisticated and experienced property investors.
It maintained that the development has attained 'an exceptionally high standard of luxury' and that the funds had entered into the bulk purchase partly due to the discounted price.
Each unit, for example, is served by a private lift and equipped with fittings from high-end brands such as Gaggenau for its kitchen appliances.
On the incomplete welding of the stainless steel handrails, Chip Eng Seng said it took immediate steps and the issue has been - or is nearly - resolved. Hassell is also the architect that designed the project, the firm maintained.
The 36-storey upmarket condo is on the former Grange Tower site, next to the Indian High Commission. It was jointly developed by Chip Eng Seng and Citadel and completed this year.
Chesterton Suntec International research head Colin Tan said that the potential loss for ARA might have been huge for them to resort to legal action for a project that they are trying to sell.
'It could be because the luxury market is not moving and prices have not recovered. This is compounded by the fact that the development is already completed.'
Just this month, Chip Eng Seng granted an option to purchase the remaining 2,368 sq ft unit at Grange Infinite for $6.6 million - or $2,808 psf.
Luxury non-landed home prices are still about 6 per cent below their 2008 peak, despite the property boom that has seen all other segments surpass their historical highs.
In fact, some high-end projects are still struggling to find buyers despite already being completed, as sales volumes and interest remain relatively muted.
Chip Eng Seng denies all allegations, emphasising that:
Plaintiffs are sophisticated and experienced property investors.
'An exceptionally high standard of luxury' was attained for the development.
The funds had entered into the bulk purchase partly due to the discounted price.
devilplate
19-08-11, 10:47
however quality is very subjective....hehe
now the criteria for TOP cert is very questionable:rolleyes:
is the actual product very very different from the showflat?
Wa.. if the funds win .. then all of us can start suing.
Almost every brochure I come across states "LUXURIOUS"
why would the funds give their project a bad name?
now people know the project is not so luxurious.
stalingrad
19-08-11, 20:26
Wa.. if the funds win .. then all of us can start suing.
Almost every brochure I come across states "LUXURIOUS"
I know CES. It is no angel either.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.