Significant Property News & Discussions

[Secretariat]

Aiyah, office boy, relak. The world is made up of all kinds of people. Because of this diversity, isn't is fun. Can u imagine going office and everyone talk about say bowling and bowling only. Wa, I die man.
I have learn to accept, appreciate and embrace the diversity. You should try it too.
I really cannot imagine everyone agreeing that prices will go up. If everyone thinks prices will go up. We are at the end of the cycle. This is called euphoria.
So relak and take a deep breath and enjoy what is around u. Take time to smell the roses and remember to do small deeds for the less fortunate.
Money is not everything but I agree money is something.

Please take it as I tcss if you don't like my statements. I am very bad at expressing myself when typing.

With all the right holes you have been getting, I am certain that you have the talent other than investment...oops, hahaha

[chestnut]

With all the right holes you have been getting, I am certain that you have the talent other than investment...oops, hahaha

Of course. I wanted to be a DJ in younger days. Free drinks, talking crap over the mic, and chicks chat you up. Then realised, need money. So did not do it. So yes, you are right on the holes part. Could have gotten a lot of those. Hahaha. Better stop here. Time to work.

[teddybear]

Another forum article asking govt to help them to make money by raising interest rates because they happened to bet wrongly & now stuck with CASH depreciating in value very quickly?


------------------------------
A Bishan site was recently sold for 1.8 per cent lower, or S$853 per square foot (psf) per plot ratio (ppr), compared to a neighbouring site last year.

My initial conclusion was that the property cooling measures are starting to work. But I may have been wrong: Last year, save for the same winning bidder, no one tendered above S$700 psf ppr for the neighbouring site. This year, seven developers bid above S$700 psf.

The probable selling price has been estimated to be between S$1,650 and S$1,700 psf. Last year, only one developer believed it could sell a Bishan condo at S$1,700 psf.

It seems that more developers are feeling bullish about future property prices compared to last year.

What is going on?

The cooling measures are like a dam built to prevent money from flooding our property market. As the water level rises, we try to build a higher dam, which only leads to the money flowing to industrial properties, shophouses, et cetera.

So long as borrowing costs are too cheap, million-dollar homes will seem affordable in terms of monthly mortgage payments, and developers, investors and home buyers would have the confidence to pay higher.

One may warn about not borrowing too much, but after a few years of such low interest rates, people start to ignore the advice.

So can the Monetary Authority of Singapore buck the trend and set reasonable interest rates to encourage savings here?

[teddybear]

200 out of 653 EC units are Dual-Key units! That is 30.6% !!!

Sandwiched class earning <$12k household income can afford these big DK units?



============================

URA investigating sale of Forestville EC units
Posted: 31 December 2012 1954 hrs





SINGAPORE: The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) said it is still investigating the proposed sale of Forestville executive condominium (EC) on 28 December.

In a response to queries from Channel NewsAsia, URA said the Controller of Housing (COH) had instructed the developer, Hao Yuan Investments, on 28 December not to sell units in the Forestville EC project, pending further investigations.

The statement added "the developer has launched the project with some proposed changes to the development's plans which had not been approved, and this is not allowed."

Channel NewsAsia understands that the developer had initially received the necessary approvals from URA for the sale.

However, the company had made some changes to the development plans at the eleventh hour and this has prompted URA to step in and stop the sale.

It is believed the URA is currently looking into the entire process leading up to the intended sale.

This includes ensuring the proposed changes to the development plans are in good order.

URA added that "the results of the investigation will help us determine what further actions to take".

Hao Yuan issued a statement on Saturday to clarify that "there were no bookings of units for Forestville EC as originally intended on Dec 28."

Instead, the company said "the balloting process proceeded as usual in order to determine the sequencing order of the applicants."

It added that there were also no booking fees collected and as such there will be no forfeiture.

This came following reports on Friday claiming that about 20 per cent of the dual-key units at Forestville were snapped up within two and a half hours of the launch.

The developers have included about 200 such units in the 653-unit project.

Dual-key units are designed to contain separate living spaces under one roof.

[teddybear]

Yes, we missed a lot of things!

Firstly, we came to hear that industrial properties jumped from $200+ psf to almost $1000 psf! But yet there is not a single cooling measure to cool these industrial properties!

Secondly, commercial properties prices also jumped. The REITs (many of them GLCs controlled) are controlling the rental of the retail shops, etc and jacking up rentals like nobody's business, yet there is not a single cooling measure to tackle this escalating cost of living that has been passed on from businesses due to escalating shops' rental costs!

Take for example, recently agent sought buying interest for a commercial shophouse, land area only $1600 sqft asking for $8m yet only tenanted for $14k. That is $5k psf of land and rental yield of 1.75% pa! Anybody buying will be an idiot because we know commercial properties have limited upside in price and hence you can only look at the yield and the yield sucks! And because rental escalation in commercial properties immediately will be passed on to consumers causing escalating costs of living, why are we not seeing cooling measures for commercial properties?



==========================
ABSD: Are we missing something?

HDB prices are still high, curbs have not damped speculation in other sectors, and foreign investors have value in market


The Business Times - February 6, 2013
By: Ku Swee Yong
DESPITE four sets of cooling measures imposed from 2009 to late 2011, the private residential property price index still rose 5.9 per cent in 2011. In a world flush with cheap credit and incessant money printing by the western nations, Singapore's authorities were concerned that the "investment flows into our property market are now larger than before, and unlikely to recede as long as interest rates remain low". So on Dec 7, 2011, the Additional Buyer Stamp Duty (ABSD) was introduced to "cool investment demand, and avoid the prospect of a major, destabilising correction further down the road".
It has been over a year since this stamp duty was introduced for private residential properties.


Have we stamped out the flows of money into our property market?
A. YES: The proportion of foreigners purchasing private residences (excluding landed properties and Executive Condominiums (ECs)) fell from an average of 19.4 per cent during the 12-month period of Jan-Dec 2011 to 7.1 per cent in the subsequent 12 months. In absolute terms, foreigners purchased 2,053 private residences in 2012, a drop of 62 per cent from the 5,480 units clocked in 2011. Obviously the ABSD was a successful deterrent in shutting out foreign interests in Singapore's residences.
B. NO: Developers' sales of private residences set a record high of 22,197 units in 2012. New records were also achieved for prices of mass market condominiums and ECs. The private residential price index continued its ascent, gaining 2.8 per cent in 2012. This was backed by the strong price increase of 6.5 per cent in Outside Central Region (OCR) which was in turn supported by the northward march of HDB resale prices, up 6.6 per cent.
C. NO: Recall the long lines of blank cheques queuing at commercial and industrial property launches. All five rounds of property cooling measures were aimed at cooling the residential segment but the the strata industrial and office segments were left alone to boil over. New launch strata industrial properties have crossed S$1,000 psf with an expected rental yield of 2-3 per cent, on par with freehold luxury residences.
D. NO: We needed round six of cooling measures in October 2012 to restrict borrowing limits for residential properties. But that did not prevent new record prices from being set even in the supposedly sandwiched segment of ECs at the end of 2012.
E. Still NO: Now that Japan has joined the money printing frenzy to stimulate its economy to achieve positive real inflation, we needed round seven of cooling measures on Jan 12, 2013. Investors are further penalised upfront through higher ABSD, stiffer requirements on CPF versus cash equity, mortgages and lending limits, and for once outside of the residential segment, a curb on speculation in the industrial segment through a three-year Seller Stamp Duty (SSD).


Where is the money flowing from?
Singaporeans purchased 25,081 private residences in 2012, a rise of 18.9 per cent from the 21,101 units in 2011. These numbers include landed residences and exclude ECs but we know both EC launches and HDB BTOs volumes were at record highs last year. These numbers should put to rest the finger pointing on foreigners and their hot money flow destabilising Singaporeans' home values. However, this calls into question why the latest set of cooling measures are even tougher on foreigners.
The January 2013 measures punish foreigners more with ABSD increased to 15 per cent. Why so when their numbers are already down? It seems counter-intuitive to further consider that the 2013 Population White Paper pointed to a need for more foreigners and PRs as we grow Singapore towards a target population of 6.5-6.9 million by 2030. We want foreigners and PRs to assist us in sustaining economic growth of 2-3 per cent per annum up till year 2030, but on another hand, we make it exorbitant for foreigners to own their own homes.


Are we missing something here?
I am not completely clear about the rationale behind the cooling measures.
If the cooling measures are purely to safeguard the residential segment and protect the home values of Singaporeans, then why did we not start at the bottom?


First, cool the growth of HDB resale prices.
It is difficult to rein in the price growth of private residences when HDB upgraders feel that their HDB asset values are climbing faster than private home prices. The HDB resale market remains tight despite three years of record breaking new supply of more than 20,000 BTOs per year. Unless we can construct the BTOs quickly, the waiting time of three to four years is simply too long for young families that require their own homes. Some HDB owners affected by SERS (Selective Enbloc Relocation Scheme) may choose to purchase resale flats for immediate relocation.
However, to prevent speculative and frequent trading of HDB flats, the recent measures on HDB ownership, borrowing limits and increased Minimum Occupation Periods has caused the pool of resale flats to shrink. Tightening the noose even more is HDB's sub-letting policy which further diminishes the resale pool. Every quarter over the last six years the number of flats with approvals for subletting has been increasing.
In the fourth quarter of 2012, the number stood at 43,508, almost 5 per cent of the total stock of about 917,000. Two years ago, in fourth quarter of 2010, the total was 35,000 flats, representing a 24 per cent increase. However, when compared to the 17,400 flats with approval for subletting in fourth quarter 2007, the increase is a whopping 150 per cent over five years.
Surely the more HDB flats are approved for subletting, the less resale units would be available in the market, thereby pushing up Cash over Valuations (CoVs). More Singaporeans now view HDB flats as investment assets. Until the valuation of the 917,000 HDB flats stops increasing, there will always be upward pressure on the valuation of the 278,000 private residences.
Another objective of the cooling measures that I find confusing is the concern about the inflow of foreign hot money into Singapore's real estate. If there were real risks of large inflows of foreign hot money, why did we not apply the anti-speculation measure such as SSD and ABSD to all property segments, including office, shops, hotels, etc? And now that foreigners' purchases of private residences are reduced, why is the ABSD increased instead?
Are the authorities similarly concerned about foreign hot money scooping up overpriced emerging market perpetual bonds with 60 per cent or even 80 per cent leverage in Singapore? Would we see anti-speculation measures in the bonds and equities markets then?


Unintended consequence
At the luxury end of the market where freehold residences such as Ardmore Park yield 2 per cent per annum, a foreigner would rather pay eight years of rental than to fork out the 15 per cent ABSD and 3 per cent (minus $5,400) normal stamp duty upfront. A $10 million apartment in Ardmore Park will cost close to $1.8 million in total stamp duties at purchase, so why not pay the $17,000 per month rental over the next 96 months?
We can therefore expect more foreigners to stay on the sidelines of the Singapore property scene. However, after a while we might just become unattractive to foreign investors. Foreigners will leave the sidelines as their home markets become more attractive and profitable to invest in. This is certainly how Indonesian and Filipino investors view the Jakarta and Manila real estate markets respectively: better capital upside potential than Singapore.
The luxury residential segment in the doldrums, prices in the Core Central Region (CCR) rose by only 0.8 per cent in 2012. With an overhang of completed stock that remains unsold in the CCR, developers have little incentive to invest in building high quality and well anointed bespoke homes if they cannot be sold at a reasonable pace. With an average of two property curbs per year and the harsh measures on foreign buyers, will Singapore lose its sparkle in the eyes of foreign high net worth families?


Where do we go from here?
I believe the public would accept a moderate population growth and if we took the low end of the Population White Paper 2013, we might expect total population to be 6.5 million in the year 2030. Accounting for emigration, mortality and PRs who leave, we would need to continue attracting up to 100,000 foreigners and PRs every year for the next 17 years.
And life would have to be comfortable for them such that some may consider Singapore their long term home and take up Singapore citizenship. Do they have to wait till they become Singaporeans before they should purchase their first private home? Do we really fear that the high net worths who want a home in Singapore are depriving Singaporeans of affordable private residences?
The SSD has effectively taken out the speculative wind in the residential segment. So to prevent foreign elements from disrupting home prices for Singaporeans, and yet encourage high quality foreign professionals and business owners to set up their homes here in the next decade, we might tweak the ABSD for foreigners and PRs:
A. For all residences of over $5 million value, cut ABSD to 5 per cent for Singaporeans (second property onwards), foreigners and PRs;
B. For completed residences of over $5 million value which are purchased for own stay (the investor has to register his residential address there for at least three years), cut ABSD to 3 per cent for Singaporeans (second property onwards), foreigners and PR. A completed property is less of a speculative investment due to a larger proportion who buy for immediate own use and also due to payment requirements.
From Table 1, we see that Singaporeans account for only about 150 units of non-landed residences of above $5 million value. Many Singaporeans with that budget prefer to look at landed properties. There is no risk that foreigners and PRs will deprive Singaporeans of homes at the $5 million category. Therefore a reduction of ABSD will let Singapore attract foreigners and PRs to drop anchor here. And with such a large commitment, it is more likely to be for the long term.
The government's coffers are not short of money. Therefore the imposition of higher taxes to cool the property market should not be overdone. If further cooling measures were needed, perhaps in the other property segments or even in the bonds and equities markets, I rather prefer the introduction of non-monetary and non-tax restrictions such as higher cash components and reduced loan tenures. However, we need to be mindful that an overcooled market may turn foreign investors away, completely.


The writer is the CEO of real estate agency International Property Advisor Pte Ltd

[teddybear]

Yes cost of living escalating! What is causing that? Answers:

1) Escalating commercial properties prices and hence rentals!
2) Escalating industrial properties prices and hence rentals!
3) Increasing number of REITs as a whole monopolising the commercial properties market and jacking up shops' rentals like nobody's business!
4) The Govt themselves! For not implementing any cooling measure on commercial properties, industrial properties, and to rein in the REITs for monopolizing the market! (and many of the REITs are controlled by GLCs!) even when they have introduced 7 cooling measures on private properties market!

Suggestions to govt is that they should bring whatever they introduce to private properties market to commercial and industrial properties market!:
1) Any citizen or 100% citizen-owned business entity buying second property must pay 7% ABSD and 15% ABSD for 3rd property etc
2) Any foreigner or non-100% citizen-owned business entity buying first property must pay 15% ABSD and buying second must pay 30% ABSD!

[teddybear]

Can't take it anymore! Must say a word on this, even if I am affected.
They say it is correct to tax wealth over income right? Then why they remove ESTATE DUTY? Isn't estate duty about taxing the wealth, in fact the wealthiest 1% in Singapore? and they removed estate duty numerous years ago! Now then they say they want to tax wealth? And this tax wealth is spreaded to the top 30% income earners instead of the top 1%?


===========================
Published February 28, 2013
REACTIONS TO BUDGET 2013
It's sound to tax wealth over income: analysts
But S'pore may have to raise income or consumption levies in the future
By
kenneth lim








But there are limits to how far wealth can be taxed, and Singapore may eventually have to consider raising income or consumption levies in the future for additional revenue







[SINGAPORE] The progressive tax measures unveiled in this year's Budget will raise duties on those who own a lot rather than those who earn a lot, a subtle distinction lauded by observers.

But there are limits to how far wealth can be taxed, and Singapore may eventually have to consider raising income or consumption levies in the future for additional revenue.

Described as a tax on wealth by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam in his Budget speech on Monday, the Budget's progressive tax measures include tiered tax rates for property and vehicle ownership.

Those tax changes are not necessarily aimed at wealth gaps only.

[kane]

200 out of 653 EC units are Dual-Key units! That is 30.6% !!!

Sandwiched class earning <$12k household income can afford these big DK units?



============================

URA investigating sale of Forestville EC units
Posted: 31 December 2012 1954 hrs





SINGAPORE: The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) said it is still investigating the proposed sale of Forestville executive condominium (EC) on 28 December.

In a response to queries from Channel NewsAsia, URA said the Controller of Housing (COH) had instructed the developer, Hao Yuan Investments, on 28 December not to sell units in the Forestville EC project, pending further investigations.

The statement added "the developer has launched the project with some proposed changes to the development's plans which had not been approved, and this is not allowed."

Channel NewsAsia understands that the developer had initially received the necessary approvals from URA for the sale.

However, the company had made some changes to the development plans at the eleventh hour and this has prompted URA to step in and stop the sale.

It is believed the URA is currently looking into the entire process leading up to the intended sale.

This includes ensuring the proposed changes to the development plans are in good order.

URA added that "the results of the investigation will help us determine what further actions to take".

Hao Yuan issued a statement on Saturday to clarify that "there were no bookings of units for Forestville EC as originally intended on Dec 28."

Instead, the company said "the balloting process proceeded as usual in order to determine the sequencing order of the applicants."

It added that there were also no booking fees collected and as such there will be no forfeiture.

This came following reports on Friday claiming that about 20 per cent of the dual-key units at Forestville were snapped up within two and a half hours of the launch.

The developers have included about 200 such units in the 653-unit project.

Dual-key units are designed to contain separate living spaces under one roof.

Just came across this article.

No wonder it was stopped from selling, they were trying to help 200 owners get subsidised living during the 5 years MOP period. lol.

back to the tax issue. well those top 2% who buy Ferrari/Lambo is being taxed gao gao as well no?

[teddybear]

No, they enjoyed tax reduction from 25% to 20% since GST was implemented. (GST was implemented so that they can enjoy 5% tax reduction!).

Just came across this article.

No wonder it was stopped from selling, they were trying to help 200 owners get subsidised living during the 5 years MOP period. lol.

back to the tax issue. well those top 2% who buy Ferrari/Lambo is being taxed gao gao as well no?

[kane]

No, they enjoyed tax reduction from 25% to 20% since GST was implemented. (GST was implemented so that they can enjoy 5% tax reduction!).

those people got 5 cars in the house at least 3 will probably in that 180% ARF bracket. I think it will make up for the difference of that 5% lah.

Buy on ferrari now can get 1 maserati free last time.

[proud owner]

[quote=teddybear]Can't take it anymore! Must say a word on this, even if I am affected.
They say it is correct to tax wealth over income right? Then why they remove ESTATE DUTY? Isn't estate duty about taxing the wealth, in fact the wealthiest 1% in Singapore? and they removed estate duty numerous years ago! Now then they say they want to tax wealth? And this tax wealth is spreaded to the top 30% income earners instead of the top 1%?


bro i think tax and estate duty are 2 diff thingy


if i remember correctly cant recall where i read it ...

Estate duty

in olden days the king gave the land to the people ... to use, farm...and make a living

when he dies he can pass on the land to his son ...
BUT the king wants 40 pct of the wealth that the decease ...

spore being a british colony previously... which explain why we had estate duty

but after so many years ... probably people started to question amd govt paisei ...having made so much money already ... agreed and abolished estate duty

since we were NEVER given the land (did someone think he was a KING at that time ) heheh

so removing estate duty is not about taxing the wealth .. previously in spore ..as long as one who owns land ..and dies ..has to pay estate duty ..

[teddybear]

If got 5 branded cars in house means earn $10m a year?
$10m x 5% = $500k savings in tax per year or $5m over 10 years.

Buy 5 cars, pay extra PAR of 5 * $100k = $500k can use for 10 years.
Still savings of $4.5m!!!

those people got 5 cars in the house at least 3 will probably in that 180% ARF bracket. I think it will make up for the difference of that 5% lah.

Buy on ferrari now can get 1 maserati free last time.

[kane]

The brighter side is it wasn't outright savings of the full $5m.

Then consider also the number of properties they might buy an the absds.... woo.

[teddybear]

But, it is undeniable fact that estate duty is a tax on the "Wealth" and it has been there for so long, not related to land & king in Singapore's context. Since there the wealthy got so much wealth, the tax is reasonable according to our Finance Minister. However, their new wealth tax hits 30% of the top wealthy people and not just top 1% (which is what Estate Duty is meant to target)! and the top 10-30% wealthy people are not really "wealthy", just "upper-middle" income/wealthy!


[quote=proud owner]

Can't take it anymore! Must say a word on this, even if I am affected.
They say it is correct to tax wealth over income right? Then why they remove ESTATE DUTY? Isn't estate duty about taxing the wealth, in fact the wealthiest 1% in Singapore? and they removed estate duty numerous years ago! Now then they say they want to tax wealth? And this tax wealth is spreaded to the top 30% income earners instead of the top 1%?


bro i think tax and estate duty are 2 diff thingy


if i remember correctly cant recall where i read it ...

Estate duty

in olden days the king gave the land to the people ... to use, farm...and make a living

when he dies he can pass on the land to his son ...
BUT the king wants 40 pct of the wealth that the decease ...

spore being a british colony previously... which explain why we had estate duty

but after so many years ... probably people started to question amd govt paisei ...having made so much money already ... agreed and abolished estate duty

since we were NEVER given the land (did someone think he was a KING at that time ) heheh

so removing estate duty is not about taxing the wealth .. previously in spore ..as long as one who owns land ..and dies ..has to pay estate duty ..

[teddybear]

Ok ok, below too generalized and based on my perception, so some rubbish people will try to "rubbish" me off, now I check and provide facts, irrefutable facts!

According to the data I have on hand, it says:
Since 2009Q3, (over past 3+ years), Industrial PPI +102.8% vs residential PPI +34.9% !!!

Come on! Businemen needs the industrial property prices and rentals low so that inflation will not be shoot up, which in turn will be passed down to consumers.

Look at Residential PPI that has increased by 34.9% over past 3+ years, we get 7 Cooling measures!

Look at Industrial PPI (Property Price Index) increassed by 102.8% over 3+ years, we get 1 half-baked cooling measure (3years SSD) only!!!

As I said before, 3 years SSD is not really cooling measure if people are buying new launch as by the time the property is ready, 3 years is over! What cooling measure is that?!
What is your conclusion based on the above facts?

Is it any wonder Breadtalk up prices by 5%-10% recently?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by teddybear
Correction:
commercial / industrial / retail RENTAL gone up by >100% in past 6 years!
commercial / industrial / retail PRICES gone up by >100% in past 6 years!




Quote:
Originally Posted by teddybear
I went breadtalk bought bread, all breads went up by 10 cts to 20 cts!
They so concern about private property prices and rentals? But private property rentals only up <50% in past 10 years, but commercial / industrial / retail rental gone up by >300% in past 10 years! The prices also gone up by >100% in past 10 years! Wow! But strangely, we don't see cooling measures for commercial / industrial / retail properties & rentals!




Quote:
Originally Posted by [phantom_opera]

just now went to suntec food republic prices of Yong soon soy milk up 10c to 1.60 and other stalls prices up also

I can also say rental price of REIT unacceptable

if u go china their malls always empty also high price due to high land cost, never say anything also

teddybear is right..they are just double standard ??

[teddybear]

Previously I talked about industrial properties prices and rentals, now I try to peeped at retail rentals! I looked at Food Junction, the food court operators reports and got the following:
FY2011 FY2007 Change (over 4 yrs)
lease expenses = $20.98m S$12.96m +62.0%
Personnel expenses = $15.13m S$11.21m +34.9%
Revenue = $55.71m S$44.08m +26.4%

So, you can see that retail rental expenses increased 62% over 4 years or average 15.5% per year!
Also, you can see that space rental expenses is the single biggest cost item for a F&B business company like Food Junction and not manpower costs!

Did we see private residential properties' rental goes up 62% over the past 4 years period? The answer is a big NO!

So why retail properties no at least 7 COOLING MEASURES despite rental up 62% over past 4 years (vs private residential like up only 20+%)?!

Ok ok, below too generalized and based on my perception, so some rubbish people will try to "rubbish" me off, now I check and provide facts, irrefutable facts!

According to the data I have on hand, it says:
Since 2009Q3, (over past 3+ years), Industrial PPI +102.8% vs residential PPI +34.9% !!!

Come on! Businemen needs the industrial property prices and rentals low so that inflation will not be shoot up, which in turn will be passed down to consumers.

Look at Residential PPI that has increased by 34.9% over past 3+ years, we get 7 Cooling measures!

Look at Industrial PPI (Property Price Index) increassed by 102.8% over 3+ years, we get 1 half-baked cooling measure (3years SSD) only!!!

As I said before, 3 years SSD is not really cooling measure if people are buying new launch as by the time the property is ready, 3 years is over! What cooling measure is that?!
What is your conclusion based on the above facts?

Is it any wonder Breadtalk up prices by 5%-10% recently?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by teddybear
Correction:
commercial / industrial / retail RENTAL gone up by >100% in past 6 years!
commercial / industrial / retail PRICES gone up by >100% in past 6 years!




Quote:
Originally Posted by teddybear
I went breadtalk bought bread, all breads went up by 10 cts to 20 cts!
They so concern about private property prices and rentals? But private property rentals only up <50% in past 10 years, but commercial / industrial / retail rental gone up by >300% in past 10 years! The prices also gone up by >100% in past 10 years! Wow! But strangely, we don't see cooling measures for commercial / industrial / retail properties & rentals!




Quote:
Originally Posted by [phantom_opera]

just now went to suntec food republic prices of Yong soon soy milk up 10c to 1.60 and other stalls prices up also

I can also say rental price of REIT unacceptable

if u go china their malls always empty also high price due to high land cost, never say anything also

teddybear is right..they are just double standard ??

[teddybear]

Wow! I just saw MND said fair property price should be around 4 years of income of buyers! So, they are telling us that BTO HDB flats are all along over-priced? They have full control over what price to charge and they have been over-pricing all along without telling until now?!

Let's take 4rm HDB BTO flats in non-mature estate:

Flat Type
New Flat Selling Price in 2012
Median Household Income of Applicants

4-room
$303,000
$4,100

Based on $4100 pm median income pm for 4 years => 4rm BTO flat should be priced at $196.8k to be considered fair price! BUT HDB selling at $303k! Over-priced by $106.2k or by more than 54%!
(actually, they should price at even 10% cheaper because the size has shrunk by 10% since the start of the property cycle that they are using to compare with!)

HDB flats seem to be priced many times my annual income. How can I afford one?

Posted on 01 Mar 2013 |


HDB offers a wide variety of flat types in both standard and premium designs in various areas across Singapore at different times of the year. You should be able to find a suitable flat priced within your means.
Some measures of housing affordability use the Home Price-Income ratio (HPI), where a figure of 6, for instance, would indicate that the property being purchased is priced at six times the buyer’s current annual income.
There is no international consensus on what figure signifies whether a property is affordable or not. In some leading international cities, such as Hong Kong or London, the HPI could be quite high, with some sources putting the HPI for Hong Kong in the double digits. In other countries, in areas away from centres of population or economic activity, the HPI could be lower.
In Singapore, HDB uses the Debt Servicing Ratio, or DSR as a more accurate indicator of actual housing affordability. The DSR refers to the proportion of the monthly household income set aside for housing instalments..
This measurement takes into account interest payments, which the HPI does not. It is calculated on an assumed 30 year loan, and the figure would rise if the loan tenure were shortened. Correspondingly, a working household may reasonably expect salary increases over time, and, assuming a fixed tenure period, the actual DSR in later years of repayment may fall.
HDB’s commitment to Singaporean households centres on the provision of new BTO flats. A typical first-time home buyer of a new flat in a non-mature estate used on average, less than a quarter of their monthly income (at the point of application) to pay for their housing loans. This means that most buyers are able to pay for their monthly instalments using CPF, with no or minimal cash outlay.
Table 1: DSR for New HDB Flats Offered in Non-Mature Estates in 2012

Flat Type
New Flat Selling Price in 2012
Median Household Income of Applicants
Eligible Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG)
Eligible Special CPF Housing Grant (SHG)
Nett Selling Price (Less Grants)
Monthly Instalment for Mortgage Loan
Monthly Instalment to Income Ratio
Instalment Payable
by Cash

2-room
$112,000
$1,500
$40,000
$20,000
$52,000
$164
11%
$0

3-room
$194,000
$2,500
$30,000
$0
$164,000
$579
23%
$4

4-room
$303,000
$4,100
$10,000
-
$293,000
$1,052
26%
$109

5-room
$384,000
$5,800
$0
-
$384,000
$1,384
24%
$50

Weighted Average
24%

Note:

1. Selling prices are based on new flats offered in 2012 in non-mature estates.

2. Median household income is based on first-timer applicants in 2012 in non-mature estates.

3. Monthly mortgage instalments based on concessionary interest rate of 2.6% over 30 years.

4. The Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG) and Special CPF Housing Grant (SHG) are used to offset the 90% maximum loan where applicable, assuming that buyers have sufficient savings for the 10% downpayment.

5. The stamp, conveyancing and other fees payable to buy a flat are not included in the table above.


For example, a buyer, with a lower monthly income of $2,500 may opt for a smaller 3-room flat in a non-mature estate, to be financially prudence. This buyer will only need to come up with a very minimal cash outlay of $4 for the monthly instalments.
The DSR levels for new HDB flats is set well within the acceptable international affordability benchmarks of 30-35 percent. With generous and targeted grants for the lower income, the typical buyers of smaller 2- and 3-room flats can enjoy a lower DSR, some with zero cash outlay.
While HDB works to ensure that new BTO flats are priced within reach of most working Singaporean families, individual households also need to adopt a prudent approach, and look for flat options that are within their means, after taking into account their other financial commitments over the long term.

[leesg123]

Median household income in 2012 is $7570 pm.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/news/news/press20022013.pdf

Hence annual is $90840. 4 yrs would be $363360. BTO fairly priced.

Wow! I just saw MND said fair property price should be around 4 years of income of buyers! So, they are telling us that BTO HDB flats are all along over-priced? They have full control over what price to charge and they have been over-pricing all along without telling until now?!

Let's take 4rm HDB BTO flats in non-mature estate:

Flat Type
New Flat Selling Price in 2012
Median Household Income of Applicants

4-room
$303,000
$4,100

Based on $4100 pm median income pm for 4 years => 4rm BTO flat should be priced at $196.8k to be considered fair price! BUT HDB selling at $303k! Over-priced by $106.2k or by more than 54%!
(actually, they should price at even 10% cheaper because the size has shrunk by 10% since the start of the property cycle that they are using to compare with!)

HDB flats seem to be priced many times my annual income. How can I afford one?

Posted on 01 Mar 2013 |


HDB offers a wide variety of flat types in both standard and premium designs in various areas across Singapore at different times of the year. You should be able to find a suitable flat priced within your means.
Some measures of housing affordability use the Home Price-Income ratio (HPI), where a figure of 6, for instance, would indicate that the property being purchased is priced at six times the buyer’s current annual income.
There is no international consensus on what figure signifies whether a property is affordable or not. In some leading international cities, such as Hong Kong or London, the HPI could be quite high, with some sources putting the HPI for Hong Kong in the double digits. In other countries, in areas away from centres of population or economic activity, the HPI could be lower.
In Singapore, HDB uses the Debt Servicing Ratio, or DSR as a more accurate indicator of actual housing affordability. The DSR refers to the proportion of the monthly household income set aside for housing instalments..
This measurement takes into account interest payments, which the HPI does not. It is calculated on an assumed 30 year loan, and the figure would rise if the loan tenure were shortened. Correspondingly, a working household may reasonably expect salary increases over time, and, assuming a fixed tenure period, the actual DSR in later years of repayment may fall.
HDB’s commitment to Singaporean households centres on the provision of new BTO flats. A typical first-time home buyer of a new flat in a non-mature estate used on average, less than a quarter of their monthly income (at the point of application) to pay for their housing loans. This means that most buyers are able to pay for their monthly instalments using CPF, with no or minimal cash outlay.
Table 1: DSR for New HDB Flats Offered in Non-Mature Estates in 2012

Flat Type
New Flat Selling Price in 2012
Median Household Income of Applicants
Eligible Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG)
Eligible Special CPF Housing Grant (SHG)
Nett Selling Price (Less Grants)
Monthly Instalment for Mortgage Loan
Monthly Instalment to Income Ratio
Instalment Payable
by Cash

2-room
$112,000
$1,500
$40,000
$20,000
$52,000
$164
11%
$0

3-room
$194,000
$2,500
$30,000
$0
$164,000
$579
23%
$4

4-room
$303,000
$4,100
$10,000
-
$293,000
$1,052
26%
$109

5-room
$384,000
$5,800
$0
-
$384,000
$1,384
24%
$50

Weighted Average
24%

Note:

1. Selling prices are based on new flats offered in 2012 in non-mature estates.

2. Median household income is based on first-timer applicants in 2012 in non-mature estates.

3. Monthly mortgage instalments based on concessionary interest rate of 2.6% over 30 years.

4. The Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG) and Special CPF Housing Grant (SHG) are used to offset the 90% maximum loan where applicable, assuming that buyers have sufficient savings for the 10% downpayment.

5. The stamp, conveyancing and other fees payable to buy a flat are not included in the table above.


For example, a buyer, with a lower monthly income of $2,500 may opt for a smaller 3-room flat in a non-mature estate, to be financially prudence. This buyer will only need to come up with a very minimal cash outlay of $4 for the monthly instalments.
The DSR levels for new HDB flats is set well within the acceptable international affordability benchmarks of 30-35 percent. With generous and targeted grants for the lower income, the typical buyers of smaller 2- and 3-room flats can enjoy a lower DSR, some with zero cash outlay.
While HDB works to ensure that new BTO flats are priced within reach of most working Singaporean families, individual households also need to adopt a prudent approach, and look for flat options that are within their means, after taking into account their other financial commitments over the long term.

[teddybear]

Really? I thought MND said 30% overpriced? You are MND?
But my calculation shows otherwise?!
and by the way, your calculation is flawed. If based on your way of calculation where you take the national median and not the median income of household who will buy & own the respective size HDB flats, then forever 5rm HDB flat is overpriced!
And obviously, their EC even more heavily over-priced!

Median household income in 2012 is $7570 pm.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/news/news/press20022013.pdf

Hence annual is $90840. 4 yrs would be $363360. BTO fairly priced.

[may2012]

i also agree that gov shd do more CM for ind, comm, retail, sectors cos these can have a very direct impact on living costs.

could it be that they are mostly linked to GLC?

[DKSG]

i also agree that gov shd do more CM for ind, comm, retail, sectors cos these can have a very direct impact on living costs.

could it be that they are mostly linked to GLC?

Comm, Retail, Industrial ... these are priced by the market. People can choose not to rent. But not for residential, they cannot choose to stay inside MRT or bus stops right ?

Thats why, more free market approach is used for these sectors.

If you artificially depress rentals, then our land will not be optimised.

Dont forget, cheaper land sold means less money for every Singaporean.

DKSG

[august]

Comm, Retail, Industrial ... these are priced by the market. People can choose not to rent. But not for residential, they cannot choose to stay inside MRT or bus stops right ?

Thats why, more free market approach is used for these sectors.

If you artificially depress rentals, then our land will not be optimised.

Dont forget, cheaper land sold means less money for every Singaporean.

DKSG

wrong, the wealth is never evenly distributed to every sporean.

[teddybear]

Who are those vested in retail, commercial, industrial, hotels, service apartments etc?

Capital Mall Trust
Capital Commercial Trust
Frasers
Ascendas
Mapletree
Keppel REITs
GLPs
SMRT
ComfortDelgro
Keppel Land
Capital Land
F&N
SPH
SPH REITs (coming sooonnnnnnnn!!)
......???.........

Which one of the above is not a GLC?

i also agree that gov shd do more CM for ind, comm, retail, sectors cos these can have a very direct impact on living costs.

could it be that they are mostly linked to GLC?

[DKSG]

Who are those vested in retail, commercial, industrial, hotels, service apartments etc?

Capital Mall Trust
Capital Commercial Trust
Frasers
Ascendas
Mapletree
Keppel REITs
GLPs
SMRT
ComfortDelgro
Keppel Land
Capital Land
F&N
SPH
SPH REITs (coming sooonnnnnnnn!!)
......???.........

Which one of the above is not a GLC?

Thats why they wont disturb the commercial properties.
And it is rare that a commercial property is available to the public to buy. Imagine - if you can now buy a unit at Ion Orchard ? Wont people Q from Orchard to Second Link ?

DKSG

[Leo.Cheng]

Thats why they wont disturb the commercial properties.
And it is rare that a commercial property is available to the public to buy. Imagine - if you can now buy a unit at Ion Orchard ? Wont people Q from Orchard to Second Link ?

DKSG

may i know commercial property got cooling measures or not har?

Thanks in advance.

[dtrax]

BEIJING (REUTERS) - China's home price inflation may be steeper than official data suggest, with a near quadrupling of home sales in the capital last week after the government unveiled tax plans to curb speculation, a sign that investors have giant gains to lock in.

Pre-owned home sales in Beijing soared 280 per cent year-on-year in the week of March 2-8, according to local government data, and were up 141 per cent on the previous week.

The government announced on March 1 plans to introduce a 20 per cent capital gains tax and higher downpayments for second-time home buyers to dampen expectations of more price rises.

Analysts say the strong transaction data reinforces an emerging view that the government believes demand is running hotter than official measures of headline price rises imply and decided to rein them in.

[teddybear]

HDB New Flat Prices to Fall by 30%?
By Mr. Propwise

New flat prices unlikely to fall by 30% on
an apples-to-apples basis
However, I believe such an outcome is very
unlikely to happen.
First, it is unclear what combination of
household income base and flat type Minister
Khaw is referring to. Even currently, most
households earning the median household
income can afford 4-room BTO flats in nonmature
estates. Over the last two years, there
has been a gradual de-linking of BTO prices
from the resale market by increasing
subsidies and keeping BTO prices stable
even as resale prices rise. Now almost all
HDB first-timers buy new flats instead of
resale flats, reflecting the current attractive
pricing of BTO flats, at least on a relative
basis.
Also, the characteristics of such cheaper flats
could be different from the current HDB flats.
They could be smaller, have shorter leases or
be located in less desirable estates. Thus it
would not be an apples-to-apples
comparison.
We should not forget that home ownership
has crossed 90% in Singapore, one of the
highest levels in the world. Policies that are
implemented will have to avoid negatively
impacting the majority of Singaporeans who
already own a home. Thus while drastic
policies such as reinstating a pre-1971 rule
that HDB flats can only be sold back to the
Housing Board have been suggested, I
believe that they are highly unlikely.
I also believe that it’s unlikely that we will see
new BTO launches of flats at prices that are
30% lower than those of recent neighboring
launches. Imagine the angry outcry from
those who had previously bought! The whole
point of these changes to the housing policy
is to placate angry Singaporeans, and not
piss off the “silent majority” who already own
property.

[cbsh38584]

The members of the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC), the policy advisory committee of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have selected Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Finance of Singapore, as Chairman of the Committee. Minister Tharman succeeds Dr. Youssef Boutros-Ghali, Egypt’s former Minister of Finance, who resigned on February 4, 2011. Minister Tharman has accepted the IMFC’s chairmanship for a term of up to three years.


Our minister is the IMFC chairmanship. He must have the hard information on the health of world the financial system. I believe he is seeing real big trouble ahead in 2-3 years time through IMFC. That why he is doing whatever it take to really cool down the property. Make sure S'porean do not exposure too much on property by rising the ABSD 10% for 2nd property as well as paying 40-60% cash as down payment.More CM to come if S'porean are still not aware of the risk. Cash maybe king is due time.


Pls really analysis deeply b4 you invest into property as a investment. Dont follow the herd if U are not cash rich. Put your cash into your children education & make sure your family insurance are fully cover for unforseen health crisis.


rdgs,
Vic

[teddybear]

Don't think the appointment has anything to do with being able to read tea leaves. Don't think anybody has the ability to do so, and economists are the worst to say the least.

However, having said that, based on the facts that the big 4 Currencies are engaged in QEs and competitive and comparative depreciation of their currencies against each other, I am sure that CASH value is going to drop like stone in the next 5-10 years! If you hold cash from now for that long, it could be worth less than half to even a third of what it is worth now (in terms of purchasing power)!

The members of the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC), the policy advisory committee of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have selected Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Finance of Singapore, as Chairman of the Committee. Minister Tharman succeeds Dr. Youssef Boutros-Ghali, Egypt’s former Minister of Finance, who resigned on February 4, 2011. Minister Tharman has accepted the IMFC’s chairmanship for a term of up to three years.


Our minister is the IMFC chairmanship. He must have the hard information on the health of world the financial system. I believe he is seeing real big trouble ahead in 2-3 years time through IMFC. That why he is doing whatever it take to really cool down the property. Make sure S'porean do not exposure too much on property by rising the ABSD 10% for 2nd property as well as paying 40-60% cash as down payment.More CM to come if S'porean are still not aware of the risk. Cash maybe king is due time.


Pls really analysis deeply b4 you invest into property as a investment. Dont follow the herd if U are not cash rich. Put your cash into your children education & make sure your family insurance are fully cover for unforseen health crisis.


rdgs,
Vic

[teddybear]

I think this is a joke! Banks on brinks of failing, and the fault has been blamed on the depositors?! It seems that the banks are speculating with depositors money, over-leveraged, suffered from failed Greece bonds investment etc which has been sliced by the same people who now say depositors need to shoulder the responsibility for the banks failing!



Business News Eurogroup chief faces heavy flak over Cyprus deal
Posted: 26 March 2013 2200 hrs
Click to enlarge Photos 1 of 1
The head of the Eurozone finance ministers Jeroen Dijsselbloem (AFP/ANP/File/Evert-Jan Daniels)
Related News • Cyprus leader defends bailout • Cyprus bailout stems turmoil with bank sector reform • Cyprus sacrifices top banks to resurrect EU bailout

BRUSSELS: Two months into the job as head of Eurozone finance ministers, Jeroen Dijsselbloem's handling of the Cyprus bailout and his suggestion it might apply elsewhere have sparked sharp questions over the Dutchman's readiness for the post.

The 43-year-old Dijsselbloem was on the rack Tuesday after controversial decisions to wind up Laiki (Popular Bank) and to hit large depositors at Bank of Cyprus with hefty losses in a re-negotiated rescue deal reached early Monday.

In interviews afterwards, Dijsselbloem suggested that the Cyprus approach, with its "bail-in" provision for depositors above 100,000 euros (Us$129,000), could be used again to avoid having taxpayers carry the burden, as they have done up now in the three-year old crisis.

"Taking away the risk from the financial sector and taking it on to the public shoulders is not the right approach," Dijsselbloem said.

"If we want to have a healthy, sound financial sector, the only way is to say: 'Look, there where you take the risks, you must deal with them, and if you can't deal with them you shouldn't have taken them on and the consequence might be that it is end of story."

That final comment sent global markets into a tailspin. Currency analysts Moneycorp labelled Dijsselbloem "a loose cannon" responsible for 13 billion euros being wiped off the value of Eurozone financial companies in a day.

While his office testily rejected suggestions that he was suggesting any "template" for possible new bailouts, the damage was done.

Veteran predecessor and Luxembourg Premier Jean-Claude Juncker had already criticised what he said was a botched initial attempt to impose a levy on all Cyprus bank deposits, including those below 100,000 euros, which are supposed to be protected under EU law.

And on Monday, a senior EU adviser, echoing the thoughts of many, said Dijsselbloem's interview slip was a "communication error ... but what an error it was."

Financial analysts were equally unforgiving.

ING credit strategist Jeroen van den Broek said the Eurogroup chairman must show that he understands "the full weight, meaning and context of the words 'bail-in, resolution framework, subordinated, senior, covered bond, hybrid capital, secured, unsecured ... and even deposit'."

Erik Nielsen, chief economist with UniCredit Research, highlighted what he saw as "hypocrisy" just weeks after the Dutch government nationalised SNS Reaal, "saving its depositors and others at the expense of Dutch pensioners and other taxpayers."

Dijsselbloem stood his ground Tuesday, telling Dutch newspaper Volkskrant the fresh euro-crisis uncertainty was whipped up by "journalists, politicians and opinion makers."

He told the daily that Juncker apologised after calling the idea of taxing all savings a "deficient" decision, basically "because I wasn't there."

It was "intended as a joke," said Dijsselbloem.

"I don't feel damaged - on the contrary, it has strengthened me," he added.

The finance minister, meanwhile, was not entirely without support.

Sharon Bowles, who chairs the European Parliament's economics committee, had been critical of him over a first Cyprus bailout, agreed March 16.

But Bowles told AFP on Tuesday it was mischievous to attribute the market wipe-out entirely to his remarks.

Dijsselbloem had "behaved honourably and competently" by "not sneaking round the (deposit) guarantee" during their meetings, she said.

"He took it on the chin, as he did so in a fairly robust private session we had," she said.

"The fact is, bank resolution has now entered the sovereign bailout toolbox - that tool is being used, sharpened, and we will see it again," Bowles said.

"Yes, (Dijsselbloem) needs more ringcraft - but I give him points for being honest ... I think, in the end, he'll get there."

-AFP/fl