Property News!

[jq75]

Feb 18, 2008
Fair legislation in collective sales needed to protect both buyers and sellers
THE issues in en-bloc sales stem from the rush to redevelop older condos and the resulting lack of mutual benefits between buyers and sellers.
There is absolutely no reason that minority owners should be forced to uproot under the 80/90 per cent rule.

It is ridiculous that majority consenting owners are trying to justify why they should renege the contract they signed when property price increases and not otherwise.

The intrinsic principle and spirit of collective sales for urban renewal in Singapore seem to evaporate into thin air while both parties lock horns in the pursuit of self-benefits. The dynamics of property price fluctuations, distribution of sales proceeds and disputes between aggrieved buyers and sellers only benefit the lawyers.

Looking at the situation from a different angle, I could see some light at the end of tunnel if we address the often-neglected elements of nostalgia as well as the mutual benefit mechanism in a collective sales exercise.

It is impossible to resolve the aspirations of hundreds of condo owners living at the same location for decades. A holistic approach with proper legislation may solve the perennial problems. Redevelopments on the premise of economics may not necessarily be a good thing. Pragmatic measures should be in place to control unnecessary and wonton demolitions for the sake of preserving Singapore's history and people's homes.

To mitigate the element of nostalgia and mutual benefit mechanism, comprehensive legislation is needed to protect the interests of buyers and sellers in the event of collective sales.

First and foremost is to ensure that those who don't want to move to other locations retain the right to exchange a unit of a similar area at no extra cost at the new redevelopment if they wish.

The laws embracing the interests of both willing and unwilling sellers in the event of collective sales should mandate that developers (buyers) must provide alternative options to existing owners in their new redevelopments for exchange or trading with combinations for cash and smaller units on fair terms.

Fair legislation in collective sales built on mutual benefits may eliminate potential sentimental or financial problems.

Paul Chan Poh Hoi

 

[jq75]

Feb 14, 2008
Strata board looks into merits of all en bloc deals
THE report, 'Valuation wrong, so strata board rejects sale of Regent Garden' (ST, Jan 31), on the dismissal of the collective sale application for Regent Garden, quoted a property industry source stating that, in past cases, where there were no objections, the Strata Titles Board 'would just approve a sale without looking into the merits of the case as there was no need to'.
This is incorrect. Under the Land Titles (Strata) Act, the board is required, in all cases, whether objections are filed or not, to satisfy itself that the collective sale transaction was made in good faith, after taking into account the following factors:


The sale price for the whole development;

The method of distributing the proceeds of sale; and

The relationship of the buyer to any unit owner.
It was also reported that the buyer expressed 'surprise' that the board heard the case despite pending court proceedings. The board's action is not incorrect. Unless the collective sale application is withdrawn, or the board is ordered by a court to suspend its proceedings, the board is required to decide on the application.

Prema Rengarajoo (Ms)
For Registrar
Strata Titles Board

 

[jq75]

Feb 9, 2008
Why it's not fair to penalise those who break en-bloc contract
I REFER to Mr George Lim Heng Chye's letter, 'Penalise those who break en-bloc contract' (ST, Feb 5).
I do not agree with his argument. We define en-bloc sellers, usually known as Consenting Subsidiary Proprietors (CSPs), as the owners who have agreed to sign the Collective Sale Agreement.

Needless to say, they had signed the CSA because they had been offered a good premium, usually about 50 per cent above what they would get if they were to sell their property individually in the open market. The higher the premium is, the faster and easier for a Collective Sale to get the 80 per cent threshold required by the Strata Act.

The real problem lies with how the Sales Committee awards the contract. An en-bloc process, from the beginning until a buyer is procured, will need at least six to nine months. In the event the property price escalates - and let's assume that by the time a buyer is procured the premium left is only 10 to 15 per cent - do you think the owners will still be keen to sell? How many per cent of the CSPs will still be keen to proceed? Remember that they had agreed to sign the CSA because of the 50 per cent premium promised to them.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is very important to have the CSP meeting before the Sales Committee awards the contract, to confirm whether they still have the 80 per cent mandate. Otherwise, the 80 per cent mandate they had achieved before would only be symbolic in the number of CSA signed. In reality, the 80 per cent does not exist anymore because the owners are not interested to sell their property anymore.

So, how could you penalise these sellers? Imagine if your agent had sold your property now at a price you told him six months ago without consulting you again, and you knew the price of the property had increased. How will you react?

Hendra Gunawan

 

[jq75]

Feb 9, 2008
Recourse must be available to those who sign contracts because of coercion or undue pressure
I REFER to the letter, 'Penalise those who break en-bloc contracts' (ST, Feb 5).
Let me declare that I am not one of those who have signed an agreement in an en-bloc sale and have now decided to renege on the agreement.

I disagree with the writer that once someone has signed a contract, he should not be allowed to use the law to attempt to reverse it under any circumstances. Sometimes, people sign contracts because of coercion or undue pressure, or because of misrepresentation.

Let me give an example. There have been many people, including highly-educated ones, who have signed up timeshare schemes because of high-pressure sale tactics or misrepresentation about the terms of these schemes. Does the writer believe that those who have signed these contracts under such situations have no right to try to reverse these contracts? So, organisations like Case should not waste their time helping these people?

There was a presentation by an en-bloc sales committee chairman who, at a meeting of owners, said that signing a collective sales agreement is to go on a 'fishing expedition'. If I do this, I can choose to let the fish back into the water if I catch it. I don't have to eat it.

The analogy with a fishing expedition may well be a throwaway comment but can clearly be misleading. When signatures are gathered after such a presentation, would everyone really know the implications of what they were signing?

Some may not know that the sales committee did not have to go back and check with the owners whether they want the fish. And lawyers acting for the sales committee often have no real interest in explaining the full implications because they are acting for those wanting to sell. So, what is an elderly couple who do not know much about the legal implications to do when pushed to sign? Engage their own lawyer for advice?

Not everyone who has signed the agreement may be trying to renege because the property market has gone north. When we talk about integrity of the seller, how about the integrity of those on the other side? If a sales committee did not act with integrity, why should those who have signed not have any recourse?

There is no need to feel sorry about the 'time, money and tears' shed by the 'aggrieved buyers'. They have far more resources to fight a protracted legal case than those who object to the sale because our legal system is not designed with a view to levelling the playing field between the 'Davids' and the 'Goliaths'. And most of the tears will be shed by those who are forced out of their homes.

The writer mentioned about teaching integrity and 'keeping one's word' to our children. I would also suggest teaching things like being willing to stand up for one's rights, being more sensitive to our environment by not supporting the demolition of perfectly good buildings and, most importantly, not doing things just for the sake of money.

Those who want to sell in an en-bloc sale want the money. I respect that, for some, their circumstances may have changed and they need the money.

However, the minority owners who do not want to sell because they do not put money above everything else should not be portrayed as the selfish ones. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in some cases.

Mak Yuen Teen

 

[jq75]

Feb 5, 2008
Penalise those who break en-bloc contracts
I REFER to the report, 'CapitaLand tells Gillman Heights owners to honour sale' (ST, Feb 2). The news, like that of Horizon Towers and Regent Garden, bears similar learning lessons. They concern sellers in a collective property sale who refuse to accede to the terms of the contract they signed with the buyers. The lessons we can draw from these three examples are:
Collective sellers can disregard the terms of a signed contract by simply challenging the rules and rescinding it;

If enough sellers withdraw from a signed contract, the law may not be swift enough to give the buyers due protection as a result of the broken promise made by the sellers; and

Lawyers are the only clear winners in the arena of failed agreements between willing sellers and buyers.

A contract, in the simplest definition, is a promise enforceable by law. In the recent cases, it is crystal clear the sellers went back on their word because the agreed sale price was 'too low'. I feel the courts should have just enforced penalties here, rather than let the subsequent chain of events run.

So the buyers had to threaten these sellers with lawsuits. The latter responded with a host of 'reasons' why the sale agreement should be cancelled. Yet the courts are obliged to hear out both plaintiffs and defendants. Lawyers are hired to represent their respective clients.

All these legal disputes are counter productive, especially for the aggrieved buyers who have the commercial right to proceed with their legal suits against the sellers. Time, money and tears are shed over something that could have been easily resolved by the courts.

An agreement, commercial or social, remains an agreement. If the irresponsible party defaults on the terms of the contract so the aggrieved party takes the issue to court, the court should immediately arrive at a verdict. Penalties should be meted out swiftly against the wrongdoer.

Our society needs to be confident in carrying out the terms of commercial and social contracts. Our children and the next generation are watching us closely in the way we make just decisions. Foreign businesses and enterprises are watching us to see how we deal with simple issues such as breaking a basic contractual agreement.

In this regard, I suggest the Ministry of Education introduce a basic civics education module for students on 'Keeping one's word'. Schools should emphasise time-honoured values such as 'Integrity at all costs' to children.


George Lim Heng Chye

 

[jq75]

Feb 19, 2008
Merchant Square on sale for $73m
By Joyce Teo
A MODEST office development with well-known cosmetics company Estee Lauder as its anchor tenant is up for sale at an indicative price of $73 million.
The price for the 99-year leasehold Merchant Square - located in Merchant Road, opposite Riverside Point - works out to $1,450 per sq ft (psf) of net lettable area.

The latest office property transaction in the vicinity involved the Apollo Centre, sold last December for $1,378 psf.

Merchant Square, completed in 1996, comprises a four-storey office tower integrated with two blocks of conserved shophouses.

** Richard Ellis, which is marketing the property, said potential buyers can expect substantial rental appreciation in the short to medium term.

Nearly 50 per cent of the property's leases will expire over the next two years.

Some of the leases were signed at rates as low as $3 to $4 psf, while others are at the current rates of $5 to $5.50 psf.

The Merchant Square vicinity is quiet - a far cry from the other side of the road where Riverside Point and Clarke Quay are located. It is currently 96 per cent occupied.

Estee Lauder takes up 1-1/2 floors, or about 15 per cent, of the space.

Merchant Square has a net lettable area of 50,262 sq ft and sits on a 28,083 sq ft plot. There are two basement carpark levels with 76 lots.

It was originally intended to be a retail project.

Back in 1995, however, owner Jackson International reportedly took advantage of the narrowing gap between office and retail rents to convert three of four shop floors in the development into offices.

Jackson owns one industrial building, but its main business is as a carpet and rugs distributor and manufacturer.

The tender for the property closes on March 12.

 

[jq75]

Feb 22, 2008
Quieter property market but outlook favourable in long run
By Joyce Teo, Property Correspondent & Fiona Chan, Property Reporter
THE real estate roller coaster that developers have ridden in recent years has taken a sharp turn, thanks to United States sub-prime woes, and left the industry wondering what is coming next.
'Six months ago, we were concerned about the market exuberance,' said Mr Simon Cheong, the president of the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (Redas), yesterday. 'These coming six months, we will be wondering when the market will turn around.'

After an exceptional year of strong prices and sales, the sector has slipped into the doldrums, with buyers and sellers taking cover from the onslaught of a global economic uncertainty, America's sub-prime mortgage crisis, stock market turmoil and escalating building costs.

Mr Cheong told a Redas Chinese New Year lunch: 'Though Asia's economy has a strong buttress - China - the temporary effect of weak sentiment from sub-primes will affect buying for at least the first half of this year.'

Sellers are also lying low, with developers delaying launches and pushing back project completion dates amid the construction squeeze.

Building costs have climbed at an 'unprecedented rate', added Mr Cheong, who is also chairman and chief executive of SC Global Developments. 'What is clear is that developers are bearing the brunt of higher construction costs. Something's got to give eventually.'

Developers will have to factor in high construction costs when they replenish their land bank, he said.

However, in the longer run, the market outlook is favourable, considering the Singapore economy's sound fundamentals.

'Rental yields will eventually dictate and underpin what capital values will be for property,' said Mr Cheong. The expected slowdown in supply will support the rental market.

Minister of State for National Development Grace Fu told the media during the lunch that the market may be quiet, but prices are firm while demand for commercial property is still resilient.

Those sentiments were echoed by consultancy Savills Singapore, which expects the office sector to stay buoyant.

Deputy managing director Simon Smith told a press conference that average prime rents should match Hong Kong's by the second quarter and surpass them by year-end.

This is because Hong Kong will see a lot of new supply coming onstream this year while Singapore's supply will remain tight in the short term, he said.

But higher rents in Singapore may not be enough to push businesses to Hong Kong. 'Many clients we see switching between the cities tend to do so because of strategic reasons rather than cost reasons,' said Mr Smith.

 

[jq75]

Feb 22, 2008
Development fees may jump for non-residential sites
For residential areas where strong land sales have lifted values, charges could surge
By Fiona Chan
DEVELOPERS may soon have to pay more to redevelop non-residential sites such as land for hotels or hospitals.
A key government fee for redeveloping sites will be revised again next month, and property consultants expect it to be raised for land used for purposes other than to build homes.

The good news is: Development charges should not jump much for residential plots this time, after already having been jacked up a few times last year.

Selected areas, however, could still see bigger fee hikes, said consultants. These include Novena, Geylang, Ang Mo Kio and Orchard Boulevard, where recent strong land sales have pushed up values.

Development charges, which can amount to millions of dollars, are based on recent land and property values. They are calculated based on sectors and 118 locations, and adjusted in March and September every year to keep them up to date.

A rise in these charges for residential sites in some areas means that, for instance, it would be more expensive for developers to buy and redevelop collective sale estates in these parts of Singapore.

Overall, however, the current slowdown in the housing market means that the upcoming round of revisions should result in only very moderate rises for most residential sites.

Development charges for non-landed residential sites are likely to go up by only 10 per cent on average, compared to 58 per cent last September, said Ms Tay Huey Ying, the director of research and consultancy at Colliers International.

She said the soaring land prices that sent development charges surging last year have 'screeched almost to a halt' since last September.

In particular, the collective sale market - previously the main driver of spikes in development charges - has quietened to near-silence in the last few months.

Consultancy ** Richard Ellis also said it expects only 'moderate increases' in selected locations. These include Sixth Avenue and Sentosa for landed sites and Ardmore and Orchard Boulevard for non-landed sites.

It suggested that the Government may also slow the rate of rises in development fees after taking into consideration the 'subdued state' of the residential market. The once-frenzied response to both development sites and new home launches has waned significantly.

On the other hand, non-residential sites - including hospital, hotel, office and industrial land - are still seeing buoyant activity and could be subject to heftier fee hikes.

Hospital land could see the biggest overall hike in charges, boosted by the recent record bid for a state-owned site at Novena, said Colliers' Ms Tay. She is projecting a rise of between 15 per cent and 20 per cent on average for hospital sites.

DTZ Debenham Tie Leung added that funds have been moving their investments into hospital assets in Singapore, which could also prompt a rise in the development fees for this sector.

Also, industrial land - which saw a rise in development fees of just 2 per cent in the last round - should experience a much bigger jump, said consultants.

Office and hotel plots are also expected to have their development charges raised, by at least 30 per cent, said Jones Lang LaSalle.

Its director for South Asia research, Mr Chua Yang Liang, said the fees could be pushed up by recent office land sales at Jalan Sultan and Toa Payoh, and hotel plot sales at Upper Pickering Street and New Market Road.

 

[jq75]

Feb 21, 2008
Restrict frequency of costly en bloc EGMs
Each meeting costs $15,000; depletes management funds
THE process of calling for extraordinary general meetings (EGMs) for the purpose of an en bloc sale can be abused because of a legislative loophole.
Over the past five months, three such costly meetings have been held in my condominium estate, Bayshore Park, in a bid to form a collective sales committee.

The first, which was held on Sept 29 last year, was void because it did not follow the new law for collective sales. At that time, the pro-tem sales committee did not heed the prudent advice to wait for the new law which was about to be enforced. The committee went ahead and held the EGM under the old law. As a result, almost $15,000 of our management and sinking funds was spent wastefully.

The second meeting, on Jan 12 this year, was cancelled as a quorum in share value could not be reached on time. Again, $15,000 more from our funds was expended.

To my dismay, a request for a third meeting was submitted to the Management Committee four days after the second was cancelled. The third meeting is now scheduled to be held on Saturday. Guess what: We will have to use $15,000 more from the funds to organise the meeting.

I do not know if this meeting will succeed. But I am quite certain that if it fails, yet another attempt will be made to hold a fourth, draining even more money from our fund.

Under the current law, there are no restrictions on the frequency with which such meetings for the appointment of a collective sales committee can be requested. As a result, residents of condominiums like mine are exposed to a virtually endless stream of EGM requests. These threaten to deplete a condominium's management and sinking funds.

Private estates like Bayshore Park need help from the Government and the Strata Titles Board to regulate the frequency of requests for such meetings in the bid by some to form a sales committee.

Please set a reasonable guideline for the frequency with which these meetings can be called.

I understand that laws for en bloc sales must remain flexible to allow property owners to take advantage of the opportunities that may arise in the property market. But the property market doesn't change as dramatically as the frequency with which such meetings were called in my estate.

I hope the Strata Titles Board will address this legislative loophole, to protect our management and sinking funds, and prevent the deterioration of the maintenance and value of our homes.

Mona Liew Tan Lee (Mdm)

 

[jq75]

Feb 21, 2008
CapitaLand, HPL sue eight owners of Gillman Heights
Developers claim contract breach as owners seek ruling over validity of sale
By Fiona Chan
A GROUP of home owners in Gillman Heights Condominium are being sued by the estate's buyers for alleged breach of contract.

They face legal action by CapitaLand and Hotel Properties (HPL), which have agreed to buy the sprawling 607-unit estate in Alexandra Road.

The eight owners, who together own four units, had filed an application to the High Court last Monday. They want to know if a supplementary deal to the original collective sale agreement is valid.

The developers responded yesterday, claiming the action breached the owners' contractual obligations, which includes an undertaking not to do anything detrimental to the sale process.

However, the owners argue that they need their question about the sale deal answered by the High Court before they can be said to have assumed such contractual obligations.

Their question stems from Gillman Heights' unusually complex sale process, which involved two collective sale agreements. The original expired on June 22 last year, and a supplementary agreement was tacked on to extend it. Most majority sellers signed both; minority owners did not sign either one.

The eight owners being sued said they, and some others, signed the first deal but not the supplementary one.

They say they are caught in a unique position between the majority and minority owners. The group also claims that some of the signatures on the supplementary agreement came in after the deadline. If these tardy signings were excluded, the second agreement may not reach the required 80 per cent owners' consent.

'All they want is a judge to decide whether there was a valid extension or not, and if not, what are the consequences,' said lawyer N.Sreenivasan of Straits Law, which is representing the eight owners.

'Collective sales are in fact a form of compulsory acquisition, and even those who have signed the collective sale agreement have only agreed to tie themselves up for a fixed period of time.'

Mr Pang Tee Lian and his wife are among the eight owners facing legal action. Mr Pang, 59, said yesterday: 'We know we're fighting someone with very deep pockets, so we're scared. But we're also frustrated.'

'In my mind, a collective sale is a win-win situation, with a happy seller and happy buyer. We're not out to make an extra buck for the fun of it,' added Mr Pang, a general manager at an architectural firm. 'We just don't know where we stand: Are we the majority or minority?'

In fact, groups representing both majority and minority owners have also clashed with CapitaLand and HPL, which last year agreed to pay $548 million for Gillman Heights.

At least one unhappy majority seller circulated letters among his neighbours earlier this year calling for a concerted action to invalidate the sale. CapitaLand responded with a series of legal letters threatening to sue for breach of contract.

In the meantime, the condo's minority owners want the High Court to overturn the sale, which got the go-ahead in December from the Strata Titles Board, the body that governs collective sales.

Their appeal hearing will take place next Monday.

This series of legal clashes is fast becoming an eerie echo of the prolonged tussle over the collective sale of Horizon Towers in Leonie Hill.

That struggle started last May after some majority owners tried to back out of the deal. They were subsequently sued by the buyers - which incidentally include HPL - while minority owners are now appealing against the sale.

 

[jq75]

Holland Hills en bloc sale will go ahead

Wednesday • February 20, 2008

A last-ditch attempt by Dynamic Investments to thwart the Holland Hills Mansion en bloc sale was over in less than 20 minutes yesterday.

In a Court of Appeal hearing, three judges, including Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, upheld last October's High Court ruling that the Strata Titles Board had approved the $292-million sale in good faith.

The issue in contention was the board's approval of the sale proceeds distribution by the 50:50 method — 50 per cent based on share value and 50 per cent on floor area.

Dynamic, which owned the largest unit in the block, had wanted the distribution to be based solely on floor area, or it would stand to lose about $2.4 million. The 642-square-metre penthouse it owned had a share value of six while the smallest unit, measuring about 57 sq m, had a share value of three.

Noting that no fresh evidence was adduced in the appeal hearing, Dynamic's lawyer Clarence Tan told Today the hearing lasted "all of 17 minutes". He added: "My clients have no more avenues to appeal. Obviously, the judges found that I couldn't prove the 'bad faith' element." — LOH CHEE KONG

 

[sabirin]

IS toa payoh area is not worth property?

my friend is an agent and told me not to buy in toa payoh coz that estate are old and the price are rediculous.so which are is worth to buy?im thinking buying 3rm flat.any idea anyone?

 

[vjjam]

3 roon must earn $3k or less, combined total.

 

[jq75]

March 11, 2008
Kuwait fund pulls out of bulk purchase of high-end homes
It allows options for 97 condo units at Goodwood Residence to lapse
By Joyce Teo
A KUWAIT bank fund that agreed in December to buy 97 units at posh Goodwood Residence for $818.4 million has let the purchase option lapse.
Kuwait Finance House has given no reason for the move, which could result in the firm having to pay developer GuocoLand multimillion-dollar penalties.

It could also be the first time a foreign institutional investor in Singapore has pulled out of such a deal, raising concerns that the property market, already hit by weaker sentiment, may be heading into a downturn.

'While the current market is cautiously optimistic, news of such a pullout might cause it to turn more cautious,' said Cushman and Wakefield managing director Donald Han.

GuocoLand did not provide a direct reason for the lapse but said in a statement yesterday that the private residential market in Singapore appears cautious.

The developer also said it is in talks with Kuwait Finance House, an Islamic investment bank, with 'a view to a grant of fresh options for units in the development'.

The firm declined to comment further, citing ongoing talks. Kuwait Finance House also declined comment for the same reason.

Kuwait Finance House's huge deal was for 97 four-bedders ranging from 2,500 sq ft to 3,900 sq ft at the former Casa Rosita site in Bukit Timah Road, near Newton Circus.

The condo has 210 freehold units on a large 24,845 sq m site fronting Goodwood Hill. The Kuwait fund's purchase would have been the single-largest purchase of residential units under construction in Singapore.

Kuwait Finance House had agreed to buy the units at a median price of $3,200 per sq ft (psf), which would have set price benchmarks for the area. Industry sources said the price was way too high, considering that bulk purchases typically come with a discount.

'If it were to have bought at an average of, say, $2,700 psf last December, it would still be a record for the Newton Circus area,' said an industry source who declined to be named.

'If it had held on for 15 to 20 years and leased the units for up to a 5 per cent yield, it may have been able to justify the deal. But if it had wanted to buy and sell, why didn't it bargain for a rock-bottom price as the property had not been launched?'

It is believed that Kuwait Finance House was keen on flipping the units as they were marketed in Dubai recently, but the sale campaign was unsuccessful.

Another industry source, who declined to be named, said: 'The pullout may be due to the terms of the deal. The buyer could have realised that it had bought at a higher-than-expected price, had problems flipping the units and wanted to cut its losses.

'It could also reflect the current market and the possibility that the property market may stagnate in the next two to three years.'

The stale market appeared to have led GuocoLand to put off the launch of Goodwood Residence, scheduled initially for the first quarter.

Many developers are following suit, delaying launches until keen interest returns to the sector, which is in the doldrums with buyers and sellers staying on the sidelines.

A GuocoLand spokesman said: 'We would be tapping selected overseas markets when we decide to launch Goodwood Residence at a later date.'

It added in its statement that the expiry of the options will not have any material financial effect on its net tangible assets per share or earnings per share for the financial year ending June 30.

joyceteo@sph.com.sg

 

[jq75]

March 13, 2008
No major property launches expected in the next 3 months
Kuwaiti pullout from $818m deal, low top bid for Jurong West site unnerve market
By Joyce Teo
MAJOR residential property launches are unlikely for at least three months after the already nervous market was spooked by two sobering events this week, market analysts said.
The first was the pullout of a Kuwaiti investor, Kuwait Finance House, from an option to buy $818 million worth of 97 units at Goodwood Residence.

The second was when the top bid by a property developer for a Jurong West landed housing site came in at less than half what had been expected.

Market sentiment was already jumpy given general market uncertainty, in the wake of the United States sub-prime crisis.

Developers were already saying they are prepared to delay their launches. Property consultants now do not expect any major condominium launches in the next three months. Some developers could even postpone their launches indefinitely, they said.

Still, prices are generally holding steady for now and smaller players will still launch small projects in the months ahead.

Industry sources speculated that Kuwait Finance House had pulled out as it had bought the units at a very high price that could not be supported by the current market.

As for the Jurong West site, sources said the low bid of $78 per sq ft of land area reflected rising building costs and current sentiment. If the Government awards the tender, sale prices of below $1 million per unit will fit in well with upgraders' expectations and needs, they say.

An industry source said: 'The Kuwaiti pullout is bad news but it's not as if things have suddenly changed drastically.' The fundamentals in Singapore are intact but sentiment has deteriorated, he said.

'There are people who have money to buy but they just want to wait and see.' With buyers and sellers largely waiting on the sidelines, there is little action.

Developers prefer to err on the side of caution and even if they offer homes for sale, they are doing it quietly, sources said.

Indeed, so far this year, the 405-unit Waterfront Waves in Bedok Reservoir has been the only new major condo launch. A few blocks have been launched and 110 units have been sold.

Small, quiet releases include the 47-unit Cosmo in Guillemard Crescent and some projects in Telok Kurau. Despite the sluggish market, some of these small projects such as Cosmo and Suites@Owen in Owen Road have sold well.

A consultant said: 'There are foreign funds and investors still in the market that are on the lookout for bulk condo purchases.'

Among high-end properties, a fund recently agreed to buy - at a discount - the remaining units at Grange Infinite, sources said. The 68-unit freehold condo in Grange Road has more than 40 units left.

There is no lack of high-end condo projects - with quite a few ready or nearly set for launch.

These include Far East Organization's Silversea in Amber Road, UOL Group's Breeze by the East in Upper East Coast Road, and City Development's condo project in Thomson Road.

But financially strong developers are likely to delay launches to the second half, said a consultant.

While the bigger players may not act soon, Evan Lim & Co's EL Development is preparing to launch its 51-unit Parc Centennial in Kampong Java Road soon.

'Not everyone can hold back their launches for a long time,' said another consultant. 'But nobody is ready to lower their prices yet.'

He added: 'There's the possibility of prices falling but I haven't seen people panicking.'

In the short term, prices are likely to remain flat.

'It is good for the property market to have a sustainable and affordable price level for the mass market,' said a property developer. He added that demand as well as unprecedentedly high construction costs were problems.

joyceteo@sph.com.sg



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


STILL STRONG

'The Kuwaiti pullout is bad news but it's not as if things have suddenly changed drastically.'

AN INDUSTRY SOURCE, who adds that the fundamentals are intact

STILL WAITING

'Not everyone can hold back their launches for a long time. But nobody is ready to lower their prices yet.'

A CONSULTANT

 

[jq75]

March 13, 2008
Some Gillman Heights owners fight on for their homes
By Joyce Teo
PROPERTY market sentiment may be souring but a group of owners at Gillman Heights Condominium is still fighting hard to stop the $548 million sale of their property.

The deal was struck when the market was in full flight in February last year - but now en bloc deals have dried up.

Their stated reason? They love their homes.

The owners opposing the sale of the Alexandra Road estate turned up to day one of a High Court appeal on Thursday wearing specially-made T-shirts with the condo's name emblazoned on them.

Said one: 'We made it for the appeal to show our unity and our love for our home.'

The group of 22 minority owners is trying to overturn the collective sale of their estate to CapitaLand, Hotel Properties (HPL) and two private funds.

They are appealing on various grounds, including the way the sale process was conducted, how the ex-HUDC estate's age was calculated, and how its price was achieved.

Three other groups representing 18 owners are also in court opposing the appeal.

One is made up of eight owners from four units who want to know if a supplementary deal to extend the original collective sale agreement is valid. They face legal action from the buyers for alleged breach of contract.

The Strata Titles Board (STB) approved the sale of the 607-unit 99-year leasehold estate late last year. The sale was inked in February lsat year at $363 per sq ft (psf) of potential gross floor area.

Apartment owners stand to reap about $870,000 to $950,000 per unit, which was then about 40 to 55 per cent above the levels they would got in an individual sale.

Still, some owners never wanted to sell.

 

[jq75]

March 17, 2008
Property market remains sluggish - only half of new units sold in Feb
By Fiona Chan
THE lethargy in the housing market continued last month, with only half of the new units launched snapped up by buyers.
Property developers launched 343 new homes in February but sold only 185, down from the 328 that they sold in January.

Among the best performers were Cosmo at Guillemard Crescent and Waterfront Waves at Bedok Reservoir.

Cosmo, which was almost sold out within a week of its launch, sold 41 of its 45 units at a median price of $1,098 per sq ft (psf). Waterfront Waves saw 26 units sold at a median $808 psf.

Generally, home prices still held steady, even rising in some cases. Where they fell, the dips were marginal.

At Hong Leong Holdings' Aalto in Jalan Kechil, three units were sold in January for a medain $2,078 psf.

Last month, two units were sold at higher prices: one at $2,336 psf and the other at $2,902 psf.

But prices dropped slightly at Mount Sophia Suites in Sophia Road. Twelve units were sold there at a median $1,719 psf in January, but only five were sold last month at a lower median price of $1,709 psf.

 

[jq75]

March 17, 2008
En-bloc sales eroding our 'sense of kampung'
PLEASE refer to last Friday's article, 'Some Gillman Heights owners fight on for their homes'.
Gillman Heights is an excellent example of what is happening on the collective property sale scene today:

Minority owners fight desperately to keep their homes;

Minority and majority owners find replacement value like-for-like, in terms of location, size and price, does not result in a win-win situation for sellers; and

Collective property sales create social tension in private housing estates, which erodes the fabric of society and our 'sense of kampung'.

The bitter jeers and ugly scenes reported recently at the Bayshore Park extraordinary general meeting, where the minority were not allowed a proper hearing, are becoming typical of collective property sale meetings across the island: Neighbour is pitted against neighbour.

The increasing litigation that accompanies virtually all recent sales attempts is a symptom of a sickness from which society needs relief. This, coupled with an increasing awareness that, in Singapore, your home is not really your home and can be taken from you by your neighbours. All these factors erode our sense of home and innate security.

Finally, many sellers realise too late that, after they have signed on the dotted line, what they thought would be a windfall is actually a shortfall. It takes two to four years to get sales proceeds - by which time the market has negated profits and resulted in sellers having to downgrade or take a loan to pay for their replacement home. The dislocation to the elderly is especially poignant.

What price will we pay for eroding our sense of kampung? What price have we paid already?


Susan Prior (Ms)

 

[jq75]

March 17, 2008
Property market remains sluggish - only half of new units sold in Feb
By Fiona Chan
THE lethargy in the housing market continued last month, with only half of the new units launched snapped up by buyers.
Property developers launched 343 new homes in February but sold only 185, down from the 328 that they sold in January.

Among the best performers were Cosmo at Guillemard Crescent and Waterfront Waves at Bedok Reservoir.

Cosmo, which was almost sold out within a week of its launch, sold 41 of its 45 units at a median price of $1,098 per sq ft (psf). Waterfront Waves saw 26 units sold at a median $808 psf.

Generally, home prices still held steady, even rising in some cases. Where they fell, the dips were marginal.

At Hong Leong Holdings' Aalto in Jalan Kechil, three units were sold in January for a medain $2,078 psf.

Last month, two units were sold at higher prices: one at $2,336 psf and the other at $2,902 psf.

But prices dropped slightly at Mount Sophia Suites in Sophia Road. Twelve units were sold there at a median $1,719 psf in January, but only five were sold last month at a lower median price of $1,709 psf.

March 18, 2008
New home sales nosedive in Feb
Only 185 out of 343 units sold, down from 328 in January, but prices are holding steady
By Fiona Chan
SALES of new homes slowed almost to a standstill last month, delivering another blow to the already-weak housing market here.
Property developers yesterday said they sold only 185 new units in February, about half of the 343 they launched in the month and well down from the 328 sold in January.

This anaemic performance, coupled with the continuing quietness of the market this month, prompted some experts to predict that new home sales this quarter could hit one of the lowest levels ever seen here.

'The current weak market sentiment is likely to stay, which means that the total number of new homes sold in the quarter may be 700 to 800 units,' said Mr Li Hiaw Ho, executive director of ** Richard Ellis Research.

He said this could be worse than during the Asian financial crisis, when just 894 new units were sold in 1997's last quarter. Only Sars in 2003 saw fewer new homes sold: 427.

In contrast, developers sold 14,811 new homes in the exuberant boom last year, or an average of 3,700 homes each quarter.

Property consultants say they were not surprised by last month's feeble numbers, given the Chinese New Year holiday and the snowballing global financial crisis originating from the United States.

But even as some admitted the contraction was 'worse than expected', they stressed the silver lining: home prices are still holding steady.

At Hong Leong Holdings' Aalto in Jalan Kechil, two units were sold for a median price of $2,619 per sq ft (psf), up from the median $2,078 psf fetched by three units in January.

'There are strong fundamentals to support home prices,' said Mr Chua Yang Liang, Jones Lang LaSalle's head of South-east Asia research.

'En bloc sellers have to look for housing and they are cash-rich. We still believe in the 'remaking Singapore' story and with more foreigners coming in, property prices are likely to hold in the coming months.'

But market confidence will 'remain shaky' until the extent of the US recession can be measured, said Ms Tay Huey Ying, director of research and consultancy at Colliers International. She expects market activity to remain lacklustre until June.

At some projects, prices have started to dip slightly. At Ritz-Carlton Residences in Cairnhill, only one unit was sold last month at $4,140 psf. None was sold in January, but five were taken up in December for between $5,053 and $5,146 psf.

The best performer last month was the Cosmo condominium in Guillemard Crescent, where 41 out of 45 units were sold, mostly within the first week of its launch, for between $1,048 psf and $1,152 psf.

fiochan@sph.com.sg

 

[jq75]

Higher price not negotiated because of 'commission agreement', court told

Thursday • March 20, 2008

Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg

THE property agent of a condominium locked in an en bloc tussle had colluded with the potential buyer, and did not seriously negotiate for a higher price because of a "commission agreement".

So asserted a minority owner of embattled Horizon Towers, and in so doing, Ms Jasmine Tan — who represented herself in the High Court yesterday — applied for the minutes of meetings and correspondences between the consortium and First Tree Properties to be revealed.

The consortium (HPPL) comprises Hotel Properties Limited, Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority.

Ms Tan also asked for documents and minutes of the consortium discussing the $500 million sale price for the development, be revealed. These would show that there was a conflict of interest when First Tree Properties revealed the reserve price to the consortium, failing to "seriously" negotiate for a higher price, she said.

Citing unnamed sources inside the consortium as well as residents, Ms Tan described HPPL as "laughing all the way to the bank" because it was prepared to offer as much as $600 million.

But Justice Choo Han Teck rejected her application.

Two months after the Strata Titles Board (STB) decided that the controversial $500 million sale could proceed, residents and their lawyers met in court again yesterday after its minority owners appealed against the STB's decision.

The en bloc process for Horizon Towers began in May 2006 and a deal was sealed eight months later. But some majority owners tried to back out of the sale, after seeing how nearby properties, such as Grangeford, had revised their reserve price upwards.

At the height of the wrangle last year, the majority owners managed to stave off a $1-billion lawsuit HPPL had brought against them for loss of profits, when they successfully appealed against the board's original decision in August to throw out the deal over technical irregularities.

Firing the first salvo in yesterday's appeal, Senior Counsel Harry Elias, the lawyer for other minority owners, said that the sale committee had not acted in good faith since it "suppressed" a higher offer of $510 million for the estate from a foreign firm. The hearing continues.