Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 31

Thread: Developers' body wants extension of sales period

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,368

    Default Developers' body wants extension of sales period

    THE Government is studying a proposal from the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (Redas) to extend the two-year period in which developers must sell units in new projects after they have been completed.
    The Ministry of Law said in a statement that it was 'considering the feedback' from Redas.
    The Straits Times understands that developers of about half a dozen projects have sought extensions to the two-year window. Of the six, extension charges have been paid by three.
    Developers pay 8 per cent, 16 per cent and 24 per cent of the property purchase price for the first, second and third extra years, respectively. The amount is pro-rated based on the proportion of unsold units.
    Experts said the projects needing extensions are likely to be high-end ones in prime areas rather than mass-market homes, which have been selling well due to cheaper absolute prices.
    Under the Residential Property Act, housing developers whose shareholders and directors are not all Singaporeans have to get a Qualifying Certificate (QC) to buy residential property.
    'QC holders are given permission to purchase residential land and property solely for development and sale of the units, and not for investment purposes. These conditions are imposed to control foreign ownership of land in Singapore,' the Singapore Land Authority said.
    This requires them to sell all units within two years of obtaining the temporary occupation permit (TOP). They are not allowed to rent out unsold units.
    Redas president Wong Heang Fine told reporters yesterday on the sidelines of a Redas seminar at Mandarin Orchard hotel that since 'projects are getting bigger', it is 'quite reasonable' to expect them to take longer to sell.
    One of those that requested an extension is believed to be Lafe (Emerald Hill) Development, whose Residences at Emerald Hill received its TOP in June last year. It has until June next year to sell all its units.
    The developer, listed Lafe Corp, had recently posted an announcement on the Singapore Exchange saying that the SLA had not granted its request to rent out its unsold units.
    A check on the Urban Redevelopment Authority website shows that none of its 33 units has been sold.
    'Projects that have unsold units are mostly high-end properties targeted at high-net-worth buyers, who include many foreigners,' said Mr Lee Liat Yeang, a partner at Rodyk & Davidson's Real Estate Practice Group.
    'The prices of such properties are so high that a mere reduction in price may not draw in buyers immediately,' he added.
    R'ST Research director Ong Kah Seng said lowering prices too much would 'affect goodwill' with previous buyers and place the developer at risk of not recovering its investment.
    'Companies are cautious in expatriates' housing allowances, hence leasing demand is experiencing some soft landing,' he added.
    The Law Ministry said in its statement: 'Variations in market conditions are generally not considered as valid grounds for waiver of the charge for extension of time to sell the units.'
    Cushman & Wakefield managing director John Stinson said lengthening the sales window for developers would stabilise the market.
    'Developers will sell their property in a more orderly manner... I think what the Government would like to do is remove the speculation element.'
    Foreigners and firms account for just 7 per cent of total private home purchases now, a significant drop from last year when the proportion was 20 per cent, National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said on Tuesday.
    [email protected]
    The Straits Times understands that developers of about half a dozen projects have sought extensions to the two-year window. Of the six, extension charges have been paid by three. Developers pay 8 per cent, 16 per cent and 24 per cent of the property purchase price for the first, second and third extra years, respectively.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,368

    Default

    Wah lau. Can change rule for developer one ar? These developers build these condos knowing the new rules - i.e. complete within 3 years and sell within 2 years - 5 years to sell the property. It is not fair if rules can be tweaked for developers (who make lots of money anyway) and not for ordinary buyers. If a developer can't even sell few units within 5 years, it just means the freaking price is wrong. Just lower the price and sell lah. Or else just follow law and pay the penalty for hoarding precious land.
    Last edited by Wild Falcon; 13-07-12 at 10:28.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,438

    Default

    The Government should not change the rule. If developers want to bid sky high and sell at super high, then they have to bear the risk mah. No risk, no gain.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    hai ya all under one roof u scratch my back i scratch urs...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Falcon
    Wah lau. Can change rule for developer one ar? These developers build these condos knowing the new rules - i.e. complete within 3 years and sell within 2 years - 5 years to sell the property. It is not fair if rules can be tweaked for developers (who make lots of money anyway) and not for ordinary buyers. If a developer can't even sell few units within 5 years, it just means the freaking price is wrong. Just lower the price and sell lah. Or else just follow law and pay the penalty for hoarding precious land.

    To me, developers are the biggest property speculators in Singapore. When they can't sell at sky-high prices they want, they choose to rent it instead while slowly waiting for suckers to come and buy at their sky-high prices. This had caused property prices to shoot up and allowed developers like FEO to make huge profits and be amongst the richest people in Singapore for many years.

    This CM rule is especially designed to stop developers' property speculation and reduce prices for Singaporean consumers. But instead of cutting prices to attract demand, these shameless developers choose to whine and complain to the Govt to change policies and allow them to continue the old way of squeezing as much blood from Singaporeans consumers.

    These whole bunch of developers have shown to be despicable and inhumane, hope they get burnt for their greed.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Falcon
    Wah lau. Can change rule for developer one ar? These developers build these condos knowing the new rules - i.e. complete within 3 years and sell within 2 years - 5 years to sell the property. It is not fair if rules can be tweaked for developers (who make lots of money anyway) and not for ordinary buyers. If a developer can't even sell few units within 5 years, it just means the freaking price is wrong. Just lower the price and sell lah. Or else just follow law and pay the penalty for hoarding precious land.
    MONEY NO ENOUGH my friend... for everyone incl dev and govt and you and me. Just try not to be caught on the losing end each turn... it's a tough game.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seletar
    To me, developers are the biggest property speculators in Singapore. When they can't sell at sky-high prices they want, they choose to rent it instead while slowly waiting for suckers to come and buy at their sky-high prices. This had caused property prices to shoot up and allowed developers like FEO to make huge profits and be amongst the richest people in Singapore for many years.

    This CM rule is especially designed to stop developers' property speculation and reduce prices for Singaporean consumers. But instead of cutting prices to attract demand, these shameless developers choose to whine and complain to the Govt to change policies and allow them to continue the old way of squeezing as much blood from Singaporeans consumers.

    These whole bunch of developers have shown to be despicable and inhumane, hope they get burnt for their greed.
    totally agree about time they got BURNT...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by radha08
    totally agree about time they got BURNT...
    Me no wan them BURNT yet... me still got projects haven't TOP or hand over to MCST yet hahaha

    One of my dev was kind enough to rectify workmanship defect that turned up suddenly after 1.5 yrs.... out of warranty period.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seletar
    To me, developers are the biggest property speculators in Singapore. When they can't sell at sky-high prices they want, they choose to rent it instead while slowly waiting for suckers to come and buy at their sky-high prices. This had caused property prices to shoot up and allowed developers like FEO to make huge profits and be amongst the richest people in Singapore for many years.

    This CM rule is especially designed to stop developers' property speculation and reduce prices for Singaporean consumers. But instead of cutting prices to attract demand, these shameless developers choose to whine and complain to the Govt to change policies and allow them to continue the old way of squeezing as much blood from Singaporeans consumers.

    These whole bunch of developers have shown to be despicable and inhumane, hope they get burnt for their greed.
    Agree. Some of them sell leasehold at freehold prices. Depends on marketing and gimmicks to sell. Hoard land as well.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carbuncle
    Me no wan them BURNT yet... me still got projects haven't TOP or hand over to MCST yet hahaha

    One of my dev was kind enough to rectify workmanship defect that turned up suddenly after 1.5 yrs.... out of warranty period.
    ok all get burnt except your developer....

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,368

    Default

    Ordinary buyers like you and me played by the rules, we pay SSD, ABSD, or whatever new duties or taxes the govt impose. Developers should not be given special treatment. They know full well the requirement to sell within 2 years after TOP. And if they don't want to lower the price to move the units, they always have the option to pay the charges are stipulated to extend the sale period. Just play for the rules and don't ask the rule to change just because u want to make more profits.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Developers = Too Big to Fail...
    Ordinary ...well the word says it all....

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Falcon
    Ordinary buyers like you and me played by the rules, we pay SSD, ABSD, or whatever new duties or taxes the govt impose. Developers should not be given special treatment. They know full well the requirement to sell within 2 years after TOP. And if they don't want to lower the price to move the units, they always have the option to pay the charges are stipulated to extend the sale period. Just play for the rules and don't ask the rule to change just because u want to make more profits.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,318

    Default

    http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/...ry_822986.html

    Straits Times Forum
    17 July 2012

    Developers shouldn't be allowed extension


    I AM dismayed by the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore's move to lobby the Government to extend the two-year period in which developers must sell units in new projects after completion ('Developers' body wants extension of sales period'; last Friday).

    This is akin to changing the rules of the game when results are not going their way.

    Developers are astute investors and have been making supernormal profits; bidding for land at high prices and selling developed units at even higher prices.

    Market and regulatory risks are part and parcel of doing business when they bid for land at high prices.

    It is not the Government's responsibility to ensure the profitability of developers.

    The Government should ensure that developers are well capitalised enough to weather any slide in demand before accepting high bids for land.

    No developer should be too big to fail, and prices should be allowed to fall in accordance with reducing demand and increasing supply.

    Property regulations and rules exist to serve the greater good of society and Singapore. They cannot be seen as serving only a selected group.

    Alvin Ang

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,926

    Default

    Only listed companies right? FEO is private and can rent out holding stocks??
    Ride at your own risk !!!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom_opera
    Only listed companies right? FEO is private and can rent out holding stocks??
    i think whatever rules are across the board. if not would not be on fair ground...

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seletar
    http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/...ry_822986.html

    Straits Times Forum
    17 July 2012

    Developers shouldn't be allowed extension


    I AM dismayed by the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore's move to lobby the Government to extend the two-year period in which developers must sell units in new projects after completion ('Developers' body wants extension of sales period'; last Friday).

    This is akin to changing the rules of the game when results are not going their way.

    Developers are astute investors and have been making supernormal profits; bidding for land at high prices and selling developed units at even higher prices.

    Market and regulatory risks are part and parcel of doing business when they bid for land at high prices.

    It is not the Government's responsibility to ensure the profitability of developers.

    The Government should ensure that developers are well capitalised enough to weather any slide in demand before accepting high bids for land.

    No developer should be too big to fail, and prices should be allowed to fall in accordance with reducing demand and increasing supply.

    Property regulations and rules exist to serve the greater good of society and Singapore. They cannot be seen as serving only a selected group.

    Alvin Ang
    where was Alvin Ang in 08/09 when govt granted various extensions to developers?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,013

    Default

    Can a buyer ask for waiver of ABSD or a seller ask for reduction to the 16% SSD?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom_opera
    Only listed companies right? FEO is private and can rent out holding stocks??
    Not with absd, remember its residential not commercial units. Would be hit with 10% absd.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5,675

    Default

    So 2 years later we will have alot of durians to pick?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7,482

    Default

    I agree. If they slashed their prices by 100-200psf. Their showrooms will be full. They bid with their eyes wide open. Nobody forced them to make a high bid.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by azeoprop
    So 2 years later we will have alot of durians to pick?
    i think maybe no need to wait two yrs...

    this is a good one in my opinion, waiting for the durians...."Cat Mountain King"....

    http://www.propertyguru.com.sg/new-h...liney-118-5616

    30 units - 7 sold - 23 in the loose....

    the one bedder looks ok.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lajia
    i think maybe no need to wait two yrs...

    this is a good one in my opinion, waiting for the durians...."Cat Mountain King"....

    http://www.propertyguru.com.sg/new-h...liney-118-5616

    30 units - 7 sold - 23 in the loose....

    the one bedder looks ok.
    Such development at prime location.. think the maintenance fee will be very high base on only 30 units..

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    201

    Default

    some developers are really like scum of the earth. want to earn huge profits, never share with us, when faced with making less profits (mind you, its less profits, NOT losses), try to change the rules and ask for extensions

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cartman
    some developers are really like scum of the earth. want to earn huge profits, never share with us, when faced with making less profits (mind you, its less profits, NOT losses), try to change the rules and ask for extensions
    Yup - no sympathy for such developers !!!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cartman
    some developers are really like scum of the earth. want to earn huge profits, never share with us, when faced with making less profits (mind you, its less profits, NOT losses), try to change the rules and ask for extensions

    why blame the developers? blame the one who (may or may not) approve the extensions.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    Who are these developers? Any news on the appeal?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    aiyah dont always shout die die die... why all miss the boat want to buy cheap? anyway if developers default.. the banks that finaince them get in trouble. then the inter bank rate all go up. every home owner in sgp also suffer....

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    Huh?? What die and what default?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,943

    Default

    In the first instance, why should the GOvt introduce this tax?
    no logic, let the market works it out. The developers carry the risk.

    Do u impose taxes on car if they can't sell? they just reduce the price?
    for food, once expired, just throw away.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    979

    Default

    .....with so many of you waiting to pick durian......they should be gone the moment they ripen, and maybe even before hey hit the ground.....

Similar Threads

  1. Developers paid S$380m in ABSD, QC extension charges
    By reporter2 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 13-02-18, 18:58
  2. Developers looking at S$100m of extension charges
    By reporter2 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 19-02-16, 18:00
  3. Developers face hefty extension charges over unsold units (Amended)
    By reporter2 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 27-05-15, 23:00
  4. SC Global to pay $5.5m for sales extension
    By reporter2 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 10-01-13, 17:46
  5. Developers' body wants extension of sales period
    By reporter2 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 1
    -: 20-07-12, 20:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •