Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 61

Thread: Developers' calls to extend project deadline meet with a "no"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    10,829

    Default Developers' calls to extend project deadline meet with a "no"

    http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/real...meet-with-a-no

    Developers' calls to extend project deadline meet with a "no"

    MOF does not see need to relax 5-year deadline for developers to complete and sell off a project

    By Kalpana Rashiwala

    [email protected]@KalpanaBT

    Owners of Shunfu Ville, the tender for which closes on Oct 27, recently submitted a petition to MOF and IRAS requesting that the site's successful bidder be granted seven years, instead of five, to finish building the project on site and selling all the units.

    Oct 8, 2015


    THE government has rebuffed calls by some developers to extend the five-year deadline for them to complete a residential project and sell all its units - part of a slew of property cooling measures introduced in recent years.

    Meeting the conditions gave developers an upfront remission of the 15 per cent additional buyer's stamp duty (ABSD) on the purchase price of the residential site, but many are struggling to do so because of the sluggish real estate market.

    "Currently, we do not see a need to relax this condition as the deadlines remain relevant and reasonable," a Ministry of Finance spokeswoman told BT.

    The five-year deadline is meant to encourage developers to complete the development and sale of the residential units so as to increase the supply of housing units and help moderate residential property prices, she noted.

    "We assess that five years is a reasonable duration of time for licensed developers to sell the residential units as developers can start selling the units off-plan, before development is completed. In fact, they have already been doing this all along."

    "The government will continue to monitor the market and review our policies periodically," the MOF spokeswoman added.

    She acknowledged that MOF and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore had received appeals from developers for an extension to comply with the ABSD remission conditions, but declined to reveal how many such requests had been received or to give any other details, citing "confidentiality of taxpayers' information".

    Going by market talk, the period of extension requested by developers is one to two years.

    A market watcher suggested that the authorities may find it too early to start entertaining requests for the deadline extension given that there is still more than a year to go before the earliest deadline would be due.

    When the ABSD was first introduced effective Dec 8, 2011, the rate for purchases of residential property (including land) by companies was set at 10 per cent of the purchase price. From Jan 12, 2013, this rate was hiked to 15 per cent.

    The five-year deadline for completing the project on the residential site and selling all its units kicks off from the date of contract or agreement to buy the site - which for collective sales, is the date of the collective sale order granted under the Land Titles (Strata) Act.

    Property agents have been complaining that residential collective sales have been hit by the five-year deadline. For prime district sites, having to sell all the units within this timeframe poses a challenge, given the generally subdued buying sentiment for luxury properties, which had relied significantly on foreign buyers, who now have to pay 15 per cent on their residential property purchases. Singaporean investors too have to pay an ABSD, albeit at lower rates.

    Feedback from developers is that they have also found large en bloc sale sites such as former Housing & Urban Development Company (HUDC) estates risky.

    Each estate can potentially yield a thousand or more new units, which is at least double the size of a typical private housing site offered at state land sales.

    If developers cannot finish selling all the units in time, they will have to pay the ABSD with interest calculated at 5 per cent per annum starting from 14 days after the date of contract or agreement.

    Norman Ho, partner at Rodyk & Davidson, said that he advises clients against writing in to IRAS for an extension of the deadline.

    "It is unlikely IRAS will give you an extension or waiver, because if they did, then all the other developers will also start asking for it. And when you got the upfront remission, you had given an undertaking to comply with the deadline."

    He also noted that the five-year period to finish selling all units in the new project may not be enough amid current market conditions.

    "After a collective sale order has been granted, it takes another three months for the sale to be completed, after which sellers are usually allowed to stay on in their units for a further six months. So you have nine months eating into the five-year period. Things are even worse for big estates like ex-HUDC estates as there are more owners involved."

    Knight Frank chairman Tan Tiong Cheng highlighted that "urban renewal by the private sector is also being inhibited by the difficulty in doing collective sales, in light of this deadline".

    "It may be hard for existing owners in older residential developments that are in deteriorating condition to sell their units individually as prices may be depressed. Refurbishing the building may require more funds from the owners but more fundamentally it could be only a temporary solution - if obsolescence has set in. The most natural exit would be an en bloc sale."

    Not only have some developers been seeking extensions from the authorities, but at least in one case, owners of an estate where an en bloc sale has been launched, are taking the initiative to boost their chance of a sale.

    Some owners of Shunfu Ville in Marymount Road recently signed and submitted a petition to MOF and IRAS requesting that the site's successful bidder be granted seven years, instead of five, to finish building the project on site and selling all the units.

    When contacted, JLL, the sole maketing agent for the collective sale, confirmed that the petition collected more than 200 signatures from owners.

    Among other things, the owners highlighted maintenance issues such as leakage and roofing in the development, which is more than 20 years old.

    The owners are also seeking a fair chance for a successful collective sale; beyond that, they argued that allowing developers more time to complete and sell off a residential project would help other former HUDC estates as well.

    In the first instance, the authorities encouraged privatisation of HUDC estates. In the past, this was greeted warmly by owners as they could attempt an en bloc sale post-privatisation.

    JLL, said, however, that the introduction of ABSD had produced an unintended deterrent to en bloc sales, which is the main option for rejuvenating old estates.

    Shunfu Ville's tender will close on Oct 27. Located a stone's throw from Marymount MRT Station on the Circle Line, the estate is on a site of about 409,000 square feet and zoned for residential with a gross plot ratio of 2.8 under Master Plan 2014. The site could potentially yield about 1,100-plus units with an average size of 1,000 sq ft.

    Currently on site are 358 units in three 16-storey apartment blocks and three low-rise blocks of six-storey maisonettes. Built in the late 1980s by the former HUDC, Shunfu Ville was privatised in 2013.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Good decision!

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

    Default

    Ya, best decision. 5 years cannot build and sell, don't talk cock. 76 Shenton sold out in 1 day and built in 3 years. You want to bid high high, then you can go f yourself.



    Quote Originally Posted by nydeidith View Post
    Good decision!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    113

    Default

    yeah some of these developers full of BS....everything also want in their favour...not confident to sell then just dont bid or do the collective sale...make huge profits that time keep quiet...when times get tough cry mother cry father...i also see some dont hestitate to lower quality to keep their margins...so why shd we care if a few of them make loss or go bankrupt because of their own greed...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default

    There's is no Harm asking. You never ask, you never know.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcachon View Post
    There's is no Harm asking. You never ask, you never know.
    Greedy developers shall be punished.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reporter2 View Post

    Developers' calls to extend project deadline meet with a "no"

    MOF does not see need to relax 5-year deadline for developers to complete and sell off a project

    The five-year deadline is meant to encourage developers to complete the development and sale of the residential units so as to increase the supply of housing units and help moderate residential property prices, she noted.

    "We assess that five years is a reasonable duration of time for licensed developers to sell the residential units as developers can start selling the units off-plan, before development is completed. In fact, they have already been doing this all along."

    If developers cannot finish selling all the units in time, they will have to pay the ABSD with interest calculated at 5 per cent per annum starting from 14 days after the date of contract or agreement.
    Will the workmanship be good and safe with a "rush work"? Will the developer add the cost of the ABSD for not able to sell in time to the buyers?

    For a smaller projects, maybe 5 years is enough but for a bigger projects like few hundred units, maybe it might be a bit difficult in today's market. I have a friend, he got a HDB flat in Punggol some time early this year but the completion date is Year 2020. HDB do not have much facilities like private where there is a swimming pool, gym etc and swimming pool needs to test out first before using to make sure that there is no leakage, this might take a few months to do that, worst if there is a problem, it might drag even longer.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    113

    Default

    workmanship will be surely be lousy when you have lousy/greedy developers...doesn't make a difference how much time you give them...they will still maximize their margin and hand over a sub-par project/unit to you...sure the developer can try pass on the cost of absd to the buyer but obviously that will affect their sales...

    if they are not confident to sell then just don't bid at a price that cannot move the units...simple as that...regulators will obviously not make any exception for anybody...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,438

    Default

    5 years, I don't see the need for rush work. Anyway, quality depends on developer. If the developer sucks, the quality will be bad anyway. There is no difference.

    If they add ABSD cost to buyers, then it really depends on the intelligence of the buyer. I don't believe the developer can jack up the prices because prices is dependant on market. They can jack up still but 0 sales for many months and the next round of ABSD is coming, what do you think the developer will do? LOL.

    HDB don't say la. Different ball game. The average time for a BTO is like 3 years only. Private also pretty similar. 3 to 4 years. So 5 years is more than enough IMO. Unless they building a 7,000 units condo in a land that is the size of sentosa.


    Quote Originally Posted by irisng View Post
    Will the workmanship be good and safe with a "rush work"? Will the developer add the cost of the ABSD for not able to sell in time to the buyers?

    For a smaller projects, maybe 5 years is enough but for a bigger projects like few hundred units, maybe it might be a bit difficult in today's market. I have a friend, he got a HDB flat in Punggol some time early this year but the completion date is Year 2020. HDB do not have much facilities like private where there is a swimming pool, gym etc and swimming pool needs to test out first before using to make sure that there is no leakage, this might take a few months to do that, worst if there is a problem, it might drag even longer.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,438

    Default

    Exactly! If the developer wants to cut corners, they would have done it no matter what. I don't believe in ethics.

    The moment regulator relaxes this rule, it will make a mockery of our system.


    Quote Originally Posted by nydeidith View Post
    workmanship will be surely be lousy when you have lousy/greedy developers...doesn't make a difference how much time you give them...they will still maximize their margin and hand over a sub-par project/unit to you...sure the developer can try pass on the cost of absd to the buyer but obviously that will affect their sales...

    if they are not confident to sell then just don't bid at a price that cannot move the units...simple as that...regulators will obviously not make any exception for anybody...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Cutting corners is the norm, rather than the exception, these days. None are spared including HDB.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5,675

    Default

    There will be a higher proportion of units left unsold after top. So potential buyers get to inspect the actual unit before buying. If workmanship is sub standard then prepare to be left unsold for a long time.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,988

    Cool

    let me be a devil's advocate, and say something from developer's perspective

    I'd say those land bought before ABSD/severe cooling measures were announced has some grounds to argue for extension.

    Reason is simple: when I as a developer bid for a land, I calculated my cost with the expected sales, and expected market risk , as any business would in a market economy. I arrived at a fair price I thought profitable and went for it. If the market turned out badly, like a recession, or I overpriced, I should suffer a loss. That's part and parcel of the business, no problem. Now, after I bought the land, some time down the road, you gov announced ABSD/cooling measures that severely restricted the buying, i.e., my sales, which severely distorted the market. You basically eliminated 50% of my potential customers. This is directly interfering my business. The property business is no longer market driven. To be responsible to shareholder, I have every right to ask you gov to compensate my loss due to your off-market draconian administrative intervention. The game is simply not fair: you cannot start the game and change the rule after.

    This is only applicable to those lands bought before ABSD. For those bought after, developers of course have no grounds whatsoever. You already knew the rules. For the same argument, you cannot start the game and expect the rule to be changed after.

    Those Shunfu guys are dreaming. Now that you know enbloc is not easy huh. Never see you complain when privatising the estate, and blocking out the access path for other HDB blocks.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default

    This is only applicable to those lands bought before ABSD. For those bought after, developers of course have no grounds whatsoever. You already knew the rules. For the same argument, you cannot start the game and expect the rule to be changed after.

    Don't agree, ABSD is after BSD and one of the control measures. The Game rule are very clear, when they announce some win some lose.


  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    Then let me add on to the developer's perspective. "Not only did you lower the sales significantly, you also ordered an cut (ABSD) of 7% (second time local buyers) and 15% (foreigners) for your own coffers. My market projection never included these % cuts."

    Actually I trust the Govt has a bigger plan in place. Some pieces are just invisible to the market. The accommodation of prices is meant for the greater good of all, but it will not be a plan to crash the market. Let's be patient and let them sort it out.


    Quote Originally Posted by amk View Post
    let me be a devil's advocate, and say something from developer's perspective

    I'd say those land bought before ABSD/severe cooling measures were announced has some grounds to argue for extension.

    Reason is simple: when I as a developer bid for a land, I calculated my cost with the expected sales, and expected market risk , as any business would in a market economy. I arrived at a fair price I thought profitable and went for it. If the market turned out badly, like a recession, or I overpriced, I should suffer a loss. That's part and parcel of the business, no problem. Now, after I bought the land, some time down the road, you gov announced ABSD/cooling measures that severely restricted the buying, i.e., my sales, which severely distorted the market. You basically eliminated 50% of my potential customers. This is directly interfering my business. The property business is no longer market driven. To be responsible to shareholder, I have every right to ask you gov to compensate my loss due to your off-market draconian administrative intervention. The game is simply not fair: you cannot start the game and change the rule after.

    This is only applicable to those lands bought before ABSD. For those bought after, developers of course have no grounds whatsoever. You already knew the rules. For the same argument, you cannot start the game and expect the rule to be changed after.

    Those Shunfu guys are dreaming. Now that you know enbloc is not easy huh. Never see you complain when privatising the estate, and blocking out the access path for other HDB blocks.
    The three laws of Kelonguni:

    Where there is kelong, there is guni.
    No kelong no guni.
    More kelong = more guni.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amk View Post
    let me be a devil's advocate, and say something from developer's perspective

    I'd say those land bought before ABSD/severe cooling measures were announced has some grounds to argue for extension.

    Reason is simple: when I as a developer bid for a land, I calculated my cost with the expected sales, and expected market risk , as any business would in a market economy. I arrived at a fair price I thought profitable and went for it. If the market turned out badly, like a recession, or I overpriced, I should suffer a loss. That's part and parcel of the business, no problem. Now, after I bought the land, some time down the road, you gov announced ABSD/cooling measures that severely restricted the buying, i.e., my sales, which severely distorted the market. You basically eliminated 50% of my potential customers. This is directly interfering my business. The property business is no longer market driven. To be responsible to shareholder, I have every right to ask you gov to compensate my loss due to your off-market draconian administrative intervention. The game is simply not fair: you cannot start the game and change the rule after.

    This is only applicable to those lands bought before ABSD. For those bought after, developers of course have no grounds whatsoever. You already knew the rules. For the same argument, you cannot start the game and expect the rule to be changed after.

    Those Shunfu guys are dreaming. Now that you know enbloc is not easy huh. Never see you complain when privatising the estate, and blocking out the access path for other HDB blocks.
    No harm asking, but it is correct for government to say no. Government has already said it wants to cool property. This was made known to everyone. All fair and square. Developer bidding high price is just a gamble that fails to pay off. Bet right you win big, if not too bad lor.

    Actually rules in Singapore is already very transparent with warning. The measures imposed by the government was incremental and in fact a tad slow. Developers have plenty of time to make less, cut loss and exit. The real killer was TDSR which was imposed in 2013.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    that's not true. Prior to 2010, there was no such thing as "gov having clear message to cool the market", as the mkt at that time was completely down. Many enbloc done prior to that did not have the expectation that gov is going to "cool the mkt imminently". It is completely valid for developer to argue about fairness.

    Obviously what gov did is "for the greater good". But as a business, which employs thousands of employees, this is really hard time. Think of your friends or relatives who work for a developer. Current situation is almost entirely gov man-made.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amk View Post
    let me be a devil's advocate, and say something from developer's perspective

    I'd say those land bought before ABSD/severe cooling measures were announced has some grounds to argue for extension.

    Agree.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,810

    Default

    It is just like getting a loan from a bank, once contract is signed, whether the interest goes up or down, the bank has no right to change it unless the borrower is willing to give up and get penalty.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    974

    Default

    As a business entity, the company is operating in a business environment which are highly effected by external environment including social, economic and political. Many experience companies had already offloaded their inventories or sold their assets as Reits when they saw prices reaching insatiable level by 2011. The less experience companies or late comers would end up holding inventories they could not sell. It is like savvy property buyers know when to buy and when to get out of the market. This is how the market works. Many companies make profits but some will end up losers.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leeds View Post
    As a business entity, the company is operating in a business environment which are highly effected by external environment including social, economic and political.
    I just knew someone will say something like this. This is just grand and hollow slogan. We are not in China. A business is not dictated by the state. SG is supposed to be free market economy. Business is ran with all business risks, but with minimal "political" risk. This is how people have confidence in the system. This is critical. This is what SG offers, that politics is not meddling around free market. Had SG become Malaysia where business rules can be changed at whim, or "a business environment .. highly affected by ... politics", we will lose competitiveness immediately. As a matter of fact, when politics adversely affects business, in normal circumstances, SG gov helps the business. For example, for the social good, gov has to limit/reduce foreign workers, and while doing that, gov is trying to find ways to help affected businesses.

    Look , even the generals in Thailand knew this. Politics in Thailand is not stable, but all the generals always want to tell businessman "everything is normal not affected, please continue to do what you are doing".

    I knew nobody likes developers. That's why I want to be a devil's advocate and look at things from business angle. This trade is capital intensive, involves massive investment, comes with high risk. Economists can't even agree with each other on the GDP growth of next quarter, and here this trade requires betting on economy condition in a few years. And dun forget all the downstream businesses it employs. So be fair when you want to change rules.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    974

    Default

    I
    Quote Originally Posted by amk View Post
    I just knew someone will say something like this. This is just grand and hollow slogan. We are not in China. A business is not dictated by the state. SG is supposed to be free market economy. Business is ran with all business risks, but with minimal "political" risk. This is how people have confidence in the system. This is critical. This is what SG offers, that politics is not meddling around free market. Had SG become Malaysia where business rules can be changed at whim, or "a business environment .. highly affected by ... politics", we will lose competitiveness immediately. As a matter of fact, when politics adversely affects business, in normal circumstances, SG gov helps the business. For example, for the social good, gov has to limit/reduce foreign workers, and while doing that, gov is trying to find ways to help affected businesses.

    Look , even the generals in Thailand knew this. Politics in Thailand is not stable, but all the generals always want to tell businessman "everything is normal not affected, please continue to do what you are doing".

    I knew nobody likes developers. That's why I want to be a devil's advocate and look at things from business angle. This trade is capital intensive, involves massive investment, comes with high risk. Economists can't even agree with each other on the GDP growth of next quarter, and here this trade requires betting on economy condition in a few years. And dun forget all the downstream businesses it employs. So be fair when you want to change rules.
    A society or an economy cannot operate without rules and policies. Market is inefficient and hence rules, policies and government's interventions are necessary to maintain market order and social equity. Any responsible government must be effective in ensuring market order to achieve social equity and economic stability.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amk View Post
    I just knew someone will say something like this. This is just grand and hollow slogan. We are not in China. A business is not dictated by the state. SG is supposed to be free market economy. Business is ran with all business risks, but with minimal "political" risk. This is how people have confidence in the system. This is critical. This is what SG offers, that politics is not meddling around free market. Had SG become Malaysia where business rules can be changed at whim, or "a business environment .. highly affected by ... politics", we will lose competitiveness immediately. As a matter of fact, when politics adversely affects business, in normal circumstances, SG gov helps the business. For example, for the social good, gov has to limit/reduce foreign workers, and while doing that, gov is trying to find ways to help affected businesses.

    Look , even the generals in Thailand knew this. Politics in Thailand is not stable, but all the generals always want to tell businessman "everything is normal not affected, please continue to do what you are doing".

    I knew nobody likes developers. That's why I want to be a devil's advocate and look at things from business angle. This trade is capital intensive, involves massive investment, comes with high risk. Economists can't even agree with each other on the GDP growth of next quarter, and here this trade requires betting on economy condition in a few years. And dun forget all the downstream businesses it employs. So be fair when you want to change rules.
    I know a colleague in the 90's came in to the office and say he have just register his name in his relative project.

    A few days later, he sold the property, make a profit with no money down.

    News reporting is what I want you to know.

    Don't tell me you don't know about this before.

    The Rule of the game is very clear, at your own risk.

    HDB may increase BTO flat supply next year: MND's Lawrence Wong

    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/....html?cid=fbsg

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Govt should consider removing ABSD for Sporean homeowners who are switching homes, i.e. selling the home they currently stay in and buying a replacement home. Some of them are affected by ABSD as they may happen to own investment property.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leeds View Post
    As a business entity, the company is operating in a business environment which are highly effected by external environment including social, economic and political. Many experience companies had already offloaded their inventories or sold their assets as Reits when they saw prices reaching insatiable level by 2011. The less experience companies or late comers would end up holding inventories they could not sell. It is like savvy property buyers know when to buy and when to get out of the market. This is how the market works. Many companies make profits but some will end up losers.
    Talking residential property here, not commercial. What reits? Stay on thread please.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by august View Post
    Talking residential property here, not commercial. What reits? Stay on thread please.
    If you only look at the residential market only rather than the real estate market as a whole, than just take away the Reits portion. The scenario remains the same.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    113

    Default

    free market without regulation! you got to be kidding...corporations are not people so we cannot expect them to act with responsibility...by nature they need to generate profit....leave them alone you can be assured they will use whatever means possible including illegal and unethical ones...the developers can go f*** off if they don't like the rules here....but then you can be assured they will stick around like leeches.....the property business is lucrative...

    You must be kidding yourself if you think SG is "free-market"....the biggest company here is Singapore Inc (our government).....the biggest property developer is HDB....SG government is good because they are pro-active to take measures to address the needs of the greater society...if they 'free-market' like some of you suggest....the property bubble would have burst long long long ago....took so many rounds of cooling measures before the crazy property speculation stopped....and look at the damage done.....hugely inflated housing price and lagging wages...

    Singapore govt dont change rules for fun....

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    113

    Default

    free market without regulation! you got to be kidding...corporations are not people so we cannot expect them to act with responsibility...by nature they need to generate profit....leave them alone you can be assured they will use whatever means possible including illegal and unethical ones...the developers can go f*** off if they don't like the rules here....but then you can be assured they will stick around like leeches.....the property business is lucrative...

    You must be kidding yourself if you think SG is "free-market"....the biggest company here is Singapore Inc (our government).....the biggest property developer is HDB....SG government is good because they are pro-active to take measures to address the needs of the greater society...if they 'free-market' like some of you suggest....the property bubble would have burst long long long ago....took so many rounds of cooling measures before the crazy property speculation stopped....and look at the damage done.....hugely inflated housing price and lagging wages...

    Singapore govt dont change rules for fun....

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    what does "lagging wages" have anything to do with developer business ? "hugely inflated housing", not really. had it been that huge, you dun see ppl snapping up HighPark units.
    you are taking it to the extreme and wants gov to take care of everything. No market is "totally free". What we have is transparent, stable, predictable, and fair, business friendly environment. It must remain as such.
    No one is doubting the validity of these measures. what is in dispute is just a small portion that has valid reasons to appeal. the majority of sites are bought with the knowledge of gov measures/message "that property investment business is not encouraged now", so have no grounds to argue. This is what we called fair.

    Govt should consider removing ABSD for Sporean homeowners who are switching homes, i.e. selling the home they currently stay in and buying a replacement home
    I concur. in fact, ABSD should be removed all together. TDSR ensures financial prudence; SSD discourages flipping ; ABSD for what ? simply to artificially suppress demand. It's like China, simply forbid ppl buying 2nd home, even when ppl have real genuine reasons. HDB market could be tightly/carefully regulated as it's public service , private residential business should be left to private business.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,438

    Default

    Isn't Government intervention a business risk? If they failed to see that, then it is too bad. Suck it up.



    Quote Originally Posted by amk View Post
    let me be a devil's advocate, and say something from developer's perspective

    I'd say those land bought before ABSD/severe cooling measures were announced has some grounds to argue for extension.

    Reason is simple: when I as a developer bid for a land, I calculated my cost with the expected sales, and expected market risk , as any business would in a market economy. I arrived at a fair price I thought profitable and went for it. If the market turned out badly, like a recession, or I overpriced, I should suffer a loss. That's part and parcel of the business, no problem. Now, after I bought the land, some time down the road, you gov announced ABSD/cooling measures that severely restricted the buying, i.e., my sales, which severely distorted the market. You basically eliminated 50% of my potential customers. This is directly interfering my business. The property business is no longer market driven. To be responsible to shareholder, I have every right to ask you gov to compensate my loss due to your off-market draconian administrative intervention. The game is simply not fair: you cannot start the game and change the rule after.

    This is only applicable to those lands bought before ABSD. For those bought after, developers of course have no grounds whatsoever. You already knew the rules. For the same argument, you cannot start the game and expect the rule to be changed after.

    Those Shunfu guys are dreaming. Now that you know enbloc is not easy huh. Never see you complain when privatising the estate, and blocking out the access path for other HDB blocks.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    -: 19-10-21, 17:16
  2. New "IN" thing beside the location to help boost property price - Primary school?
    By ay123 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 44
    -: 27-07-12, 13:46
  3. Developers rush to meet marketing rules deadline
    By reporter2 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 22-05-12, 23:22
  4. ST May 15 - Developers rush to meet marketing rules deadline this Friday
    By carbuncle in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 15-05-12, 12:38
  5. "Exclusive Agent" VS "open listing"
    By Ronan Loh in forum District 9
    Replies: 42
    -: 09-09-10, 13:27

Posting Permissions

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