The real FACTS about Landed property

[fclim]

The ones with real holding power are those with fully paid properties and lots of idle cash, landed or otherwise.

Bottomline, if you lose your job and still owe the banks millions in mortgage loans, it does not matter whether you are a landed or condo owner. Especially in recent years, those who bought landed at ridiculous prices and borrow to the hilt, then I say, good luck to them and thank you.

So, even if I am a landed owner, I will look at my own circumstances rather than feel comforted by what proper-t has concluded about landed owners having more holding power.

[kane]

From a value persprctive, landed cheong more during bull run, but drop more during bear run. It is not a fact but a historical observation.

[proper-t]

Simple.. Cos landed mostly own stay. Condos a lot bought for investment. Those who bought landed or condos in the 80s etc, got it cheap. Do you have data to show that those condo owners who sold bought them in the 80s?

I dont have all the data, but your conclusion based on just comparing transaction percentage is wrong as you do not have the full data. It is naive to say the least.

Btw, how do you know those condo sellers in 1997 period were not landed owners who bought the condos for investments? So these landed owners got holding power or not? I cannot conclude without more data.

If you do not have the data then how can you say I am wrong? You are just making assumptions yourself but what is worse is that you do not even have any hard figures to show or validate your position. So far, all I have heard from you is conjecture. My conclusion could very well be correct but that is something you cannot prove otherwise.

I am stating what the statistics show which is during the crash, the percentage of condo owners that sold off at the distress prices was more than double that the percentage of landed owners and the indications from these figures are that landed owners probably weathered the crash better. Whether readers believe in what I am laying out here, I leave it to them to decide but for you to say that my conclusion is wrong is totally unjustified and I think you should retract your statement unless you have hard figures to prove me wrong.

[proper-t]

From a value persprctive, landed cheong more during bull run, but drop more during bear run. It is not a fact but a historical observation.

During the 1979 to 1986 cycle and the 2006 to 2009 cycle, which segment cheong more and dropped more? Shouldn't those periods also form part of your total historical observation. Your statement therefore is inaccurate as it is not always landed that cheong more during upswings and drop most during the down part of the cycle.

[Ringo33]

From a value persprctive, landed cheong more during bull run, but drop more during bear run. It is not a fact but a historical observation.

landed bull run are being exaggerated by the fact that many old landed houses were bought for rebuilding and A&A before being resold in the market. And URA data doesnt capture that, so if you buy $1m landed, spend $500K in rebuilding and sold at $2m, URA data will capture 100% gain.

When in actual fact there is only 33% gain. (500/1500)

[proper-t]

Despite someone saying that he is done with this thread, that person is extraordinarily active. 5th time he has posted again and gone against his word. I wouldn't put much credence on the postings of someone like that.

I am done with this thread. Good luck to your economic fairytale

[proper-t]

Some people like to cloud the issue here by saying that the gains that people make from landed are over exaggerated etc.

I have already shown that it is not the case for all landed transactions hence you cannot assume that the price index is totally skewed.

The fact of the matter is that the transaction has been sealed and the selling price recorded between a willing buyer and willing seller.

As mentioned by someone else in this thread, I quote:

Simple.. Cos landed mostly own stay. Condos a lot bought for investment.....

The value proposition of a person buying for own stay vs the value proposition of a person buying for pure investment gains or returns is totally different. If you take the assumption that all landed buyers go in with the value proposition like a pure condo investor, then you will definitely end up being confused.

For someone who cannot differentiate between price and value, it might be quite a difficult concept to grasp.

[Kelonguni]

Relax everyone... Relax.

Landed or condo both are good.

Both have pros and cons, and we all know that. Fish sellers say their fish is the freshest, fruit sellers say theirs is the most fragrant.

In fact, HDB also good. Also, no ownership of any type of housing also not bad (although I won't subscribe to this), depending on conditions. They are the only group of so-called first-timers in this current market.

What is great today might not be so tomorrow. To each his own. Let's not douse each others' preference. It's all a matter of perspective anyway.

And within a segment there are also so many different types. For example, there are so many types of landed, or condo available. Each has its own cost structure and merits for the specific lifestyle one wants.

[Ringo33]

Value of property is best measure by what tenants are willing to pay not by what owners think. If you are getting abnormally low yield please don't blame the market for being stupid.

[proper-t]

Still around? Some people just really like to be embarrassed in public.


So a person who buys a landed for own stay will worry about rental yield?

[yowetan]

Hi...I am keen in exchanging my Tiong Bahru 5 room HDB flat to a new landed Pavilion Park in Bukit Gombak area.

Can someone shed some insights on the potential upsides and downsides? TIA.

[proper-t]

Relax everyone... Relax.

Landed or condo both are good.

Both have pros and cons, and we all know that. Fish sellers say their fish is the freshest, fruit sellers say theirs is the most fragrant.

In fact, HDB also good. Also, no ownership of any type of housing also not bad (although I won't subscribe to this), depending on conditions. They are the only group of so-called first-timers in this current market.

What is great today might not be so tomorrow. To each his own. Let's not douse each others' preference. It's all a matter of perspective anyway.

And within a segment there are also so many different types. For example, there are so many types of landed, or condo available. Each has its own cost structure and merits for the specific lifestyle one wants.

Thanks for the perspective. I am very relaxed as this is quite entertaining. I thought somebody was done here but they keep crawling back for more punishment...

I am done with this thread. Good luck to your economic fairytale

[bullman]

landed bull run are being exaggerated by the fact that many old landed houses were bought for rebuilding and A&A before being resold in the market. And URA data doesnt capture that, so if you buy $1m landed, spend $500K in rebuilding and sold at $2m, URA data will capture 100% gain.

When in actual fact there is only 33% gain. (500/1500)

Do you own the construction company? $500k for a rebuild? In your dreams?

Oh Its possible.... You meant buying a single storey IT and rebuilding it as a brand new single storey. Smart move pal.

[bullman]

Kudos to the TS for this thread so that all facts/myths can be scrutinised and debated upon. At the end of the day, its good learning for everyone.

For all that is being discussed and said, the landed market is still moving. The caveat is where. I guess the cliche saying would be : Location Location Location

[fclim]

If you do not have the data then how can you say I am wrong? You are just making assumptions yourself but what is worse is that you do not even have any hard figures to show or validate your position. So far, all I have heard from you is conjecture. My conclusion could very well be correct but that is something you cannot prove otherwise.

I am stating what the statistics show which is during the crash, the percentage of condo owners that sold off at the distress prices was more than double that the percentage of landed owners and the indications from these figures are that landed owners probably weathered the crash better. Whether readers believe in what I am laying out here, I leave it to them to decide but for you to say that my conclusion is wrong is totally unjustified and I think you should retract your statement unless you have hard figures to prove me wrong.

You just want to interpret data according to what you want to hear. Yes, less percentage of landed owners sold during crisis. Does that mean landed got more holding power?

Can you answer the following backed up with FACTS and DATA?

1. Those condo owners who sold are not themselves landed owners?
2. Those condo owners who sold had multiple properties and those they sold were not own stay, but investment homes?
3. Those condo owners who sold ALL made huge losses?
4. Those landed owners who held onto their property actually bought them cheap in the 70s and 80s? How many percent?
5. ALL those condo owners who sold because they couldn't hold on to their properties?

I am not claiming anything. I am just saying that you cannot conclude anything based on those data alone.

A dog has four legs. But, it does not mean that any animal with four legs are dogs. GET IT?

[proper-t]

Thanks to bullman for the compliments. Now that the noise has died down abit, lets touch on some of the concerns that some people have raised here about how some of the data I have shown only provides cold comfort to landed buyers.

4. Debt Service Capability of Landed Buyers

Let's forget about 1997 and focus on the now since this is where it matters

As at 3Q 2012, this is the position of all housing loans in Singapore (data source : LoanGuru)



The total housing loans stood at about $16bil with condo buyers forming almost 60% of the total, landed buyers accounting for just slightly over 19% and the rest for HDB/EC..

LoanGuru has analysed the data of each type of loan as well as the income profile of each borrower and derived an average figure as well as debt service capability.



I% is the all-in interest rate, MI stands for monthly instalment, DSR stands for Debt Servicing Ratio which is a common ratio used by banks to determine the debt servicing capability of borrowers. It is derived by dividing the MI over the monthly income of the borrower. The rough rule of thumb used by banks is that the lower the DSR, the better. Below 0.3 is considered healthy whereas between 0.3 to 0.4 is still manageable but between 0.4 to 0.5 is indicative of difficulties in servicing the loan.

I think the numbers speak for themselves. The 1X was used to illustrate sensitivity analysis and I shall not go into the details as you can just play around with the interest rate yourselves. I also hope this will address fclim's concerns.

[Rosy]

Going forward if u think our rich and poor gap will widen further, then landed property could be the best investment in future. Furthermore, new supply of FH landed is non existant.

However u must have the holding power to ride through the down cycle as rental yield is very low.

[Ringo33]

I really wonder why proper-t doesnt want other to read the article for themselves to see what its all about. Instead he would like to quote pcs of the article without giving any links, and give his own silly interpretation like he is an GURU.

If someone cant even get the basic fundamental of supply and demand effect on property price, you will need to stop reading his nonsense.

[proper-t]

Going forward if u think our rich and poor gap will widen further, then landed property could be the best investment in future. Furthermore, new supply of FH landed is non existant.

However u must have the holding power to ride through the down cycle as rental yield is very low.

If what the below forumer thinks is true and most landed is for own stay, then rental yield is a non-issue. In fact, the roof over their heads will be the singular most important asset that they own and I doubt if any owner will want to take excessive financial risk to fund it. Furthermore, if its for own stay, a low rental yield is beneficial as it translates to a low annual value and hence lower property tax.

Simple.. Cos landed mostly own stay. Condos a lot bought for investment.....

[Ringo33]

Going forward if u think our rich and poor gap will widen further, then landed property could be the best investment in future. Furthermore, new supply of FH landed is non existant.

However u must have the holding power to ride through the down cycle as rental yield is very low.

Yes and no.

Yes : Rich and poor gap is widening, and thats the reason why you are seeing record prices for GCB and landed property in Sentosa

No : Not all landed owners are wealthy and not all landed properties are attractive to rich people.

[proper-t]

I really wonder why proper-t doesnt want other to read the article for themselves to see what its all about. Instead he would like to quote pcs of the article without giving any links, and give his own silly interpretation like he is an GURU.

If someone cant even get the basic fundamental of supply and demand effect on property price, you will need to stop reading his nonsense.

It is quite sad when some folks have to continually swallow their pride and come crawling back to a thread that they have declared they are done with it just to throw taunts at other people. If they are not even contributing to the discussion by offering substantive and logical statements, then what's the point of even being in a forum ?

I am done with this thread. Good luck to your economic fairytale

There is nothing to hide as I just state facts. Here is the link for all to read and digest:

http://blog.loanguru.com.sg/1082/3-g...quisition.html

[MLP]

Haha, Ringo.....Ringo..... You like to talk bullshit, don't you? Since you implied that you know supply and demand effect on property, so please advise what is the supply pipeline of landed properties in Singapore? How about the demand of landed properties from new citizens? In fact, the number of FREEHOLD landed properties are shrinking due to enbloc of existing landed properties sitting on land with plot ratio of 1.4 and above. Don't try to mislead people in this forum by talking down landed properties based on your illogical logic.

If someone cant even get the basic fundamental of supply and demand effect on property price, you will need to stop reading his nonsense.

[Ringo33]

There is nothing to hide as I just state facts. Here is the link for all to read and digest:

http://blog.loanguru.com.sg/1082/3-g...quisition.html

In the article, they only did a theoretical comparison how DSR will move if interest rate rises etc, but it fail to talk about what happen to landed property during a crisis.

In the table, they are using average MI/ Average income.

So my question is consider the massive price gap of landed property and buyer profile for landed property in Singapore, where one end of the spectrum could be a billionaire buying his 3 or 4th investment GCB property costing $20-30m each and bought it with cash, while on the other end could be a average income salary man buying a LH terrace houses that cost <1.5m with 80% loan.

So if 20% of the landed property buyers have an annual income of say >$2m per year and bought their property with minimal or zero loan, will that give you a false impression that most landed owners are making $22k income per month and their average loan about is 1.9m?


The article also mentioned that in 2003, interest rate rises and all segment except landed property owner exceeded 50% DSR. So my question is, did you see an dip in condo or apartment prices in 2003/4 (see the reality URA Chart)

And IIRC, the interest rate for during 2000 and 2008 were pretty stable, however we did see a massive price correction of landed property during both period, which I believe DSR for landed owners were clearly <50%.

So my question is, does this article mean anything in real world?

And if indeed landed property owners have such good holding power, then why detach houses suffer to most massive price correction during 97-99? where landed property owners different from those we see today?

[Ringo33]

Haha, Ringo.....Ringo..... You like to talk bullshit, don't you? Since you implied that you know supply and demand effect on property, so please advise what is the supply pipeline of landed properties in Singapore? How about the demand of landed properties from new citizens? In fact, the number of FREEHOLD landed properties are shrinking due to enbloc of existing landed properties sitting on land with plot ratio of 1.4 and above. Don't try to mislead people in this forum by talking down landed properties based on your illogical logic.

Oh please dont cut into this discussion and start talking about something else. Please have the courtesy to read what was written before commenting.

reading will actually make a person more knowledgeable.

[MLP]

Haha, Ringo.....Ringo.....Some people like you are destined to be a loser and can only envy people living in a landed property. Meanwhile, I am going to swim a few laps in my private pool. LOL

Oh please dont cut into this discussion and start talking about something else. Please have the courtesy to read what was written before commenting.

reading will actually make a person more knowledgeable.

[proper-t]

Since you continually want to come here to be embarrassed, so be it. Please stop posting that silly chart and lumping all your incoherent thoughts together if you expect a logical answer in return. Please see my replies in red.

In the article, they only did a theoretical comparison how DSR will move if interest rate rises etc, but it fail to talk about what happen to landed property during a crisis.

In the table, they are using average MI/ Average income.

So my question is consider the massive price gap of landed property and buyer profile for landed property in Singapore, where one end of the spectrum could be a billionaire buying his 3 or 4th investment GCB property costing $20-30m each and bought it with cash, while on the other end could be a average income salary man buying a LH terrace houses that cost <1.5m with 80% loan.

So if 20% of the landed property buyers have an annual income of say >$2m per year and bought their property with minimal or zero loan, will that give you a false impression that most landed owners are making $22k income per month and their average loan about is 1.9m?

Your question already shows that you read but you don't even understand the data or how it is collated. Firstly, if a person bought it with cash, it wouldn't even be captured in the data as it only tracks BORROWERS.


The article also mentioned that in 2003, interest rate rises and all segment except landed property owner exceeded 50% DSR. So my question is, did you see an dip in condo or apartment prices in 2003/4 (see the reality URA Chart)

Here is where you read but don't do your own research. The run-up in interest rate started in 2003 and peaked somewhere in 2006/7. see chart below showing SIBOR rates in blue.



Because of the lag effect of an interest rate adjustment, this hit home hard in 2008 which btw caused APTs and CONDOS to tumble the most.


And IIRC, the interest rate for during 2000 and 2008 were pretty stable, however we did see a massive price correction of landed property during both period, which I believe DSR for landed owners were clearly <50%.

Do you even know how to interpret you own chart? In 2000, almost all segments were at the same level so how can you say there was a massive price correction just for landed. In 2008, what tumbled the most was APTS followed by CONDOS and NOT landed. Why it happened is explained in my previous answer. Go see the interest rate chart. It just shows that some people read without thinking

So my question is, does this article mean anything in real world?

The answer is YES but only for those who know how to read and understand it properly

And if indeed landed property owners have such good holding power, then why detach houses suffer to most massive price correction during 97-99? where landed property owners different from those we see today?

You have obviously not been following this thread, go back to the beginning and read.

[proper-t]

For someone who has posted and used this chart numerous times as their calling card, it is not only roll on floor hilarious but clearly demonstrates the intelligence level of the person when they can't even interpret their own chart properly. Next he'll give an excuse that he is colour blind...

And IIRC, the interest rate for during 2000 and 2008 were pretty stable, however we did see a massive price correction of landed property during both period, which I believe DSR for landed owners were clearly <50%.

[Ringo33]

I am not sure why do you even need to crop the URA chart. The only reason I can think of is you trying to hide the bad things and only show the good things.

While you are trying to tell us landed property owner has got better holding power etc, however the chart doesnt quite reflect that.

1) The correction in 2000 to 2003 was due to dot com bubble and SARS, nothing to do with interest rate,

2) The 2008 correction again is due to financial crisis, nothing to do with interest rate.


So proper-T, please stop trying to smoke us with all you nonsensical cut and paste lah.

[proper-t]

The reason for the crop is simple. Please explain to readers here your statement below (especially the part in red) ,in relation to the chart. I crop it Big in case you are colour blind.Can you tell all here which segments drop the most in 2000 & 2008?

And IIRC, the interest rate for during 2000 and 2008 were pretty stable, however we did see a massive price correction of landed property during both period, which I believe DSR for landed owners were clearly <50%.

I am not sure why do you even need to crop the URA chart. The only reason I can think of is you trying to hide the bad things and only show the good things.

While you are trying to tell us landed property owner has got better holding power etc, however the chart doesnt quite reflect that.

1) The correction in 2000 to 2003 was due to dot com bubble and SARS, nothing to do with interest rate,

2) The 2008 correction again is due to financial crisis, nothing to do with interest rate.


So proper-T, please stop trying to smoke us with all you nonsensical cut and paste lah.

[may2012]

can share how the burglar enter your house through your neighbour's house?

that neighbour's house was under construction, so its easy to get in. just hv to climb up the top of roof and walk to any unit they like and climb down with the help of pipes outside the house to ur unit. they manage to break the sliding window and grille.