Property Market Direction (April 2010)

Singapore Only FREE Quarterly Property Market Magazine

3 | Page A Free Quarterly Magazine published by Sam Gian [The Independent Real Estate Sales Consultant]

((AA)) OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW OOFF TTHHEE LLAARRGGEERR EECCOONNOOMMYY

[A1] US ECONOMIC FRAGILITY AND HOUSING WOES ARE FAR FROM OVER

The fallout of the 2008 ‘free market’ failures in the United States (US) is claiming more

victims in fresh foreclosures in recent months; and more desperate measures are being taken

by the Obama administration to cope with the increasingly desperate situation in the US.

Ironically in Singapore, the government was blamed by private developers for meddling too

much in the free market which the former deemed too speculative for its liking.

�� [[AA..11..11]] NNEEAARR ZZEERROO IINNTTEERREESSTT RRAATTEESS TTOO SSTTAAYY FFOORR SSOOMMEE TTIIMMEE IINN TTHHEE UUNNIITTEEDD SSTTAATTEESS ((UUSS))

On 25 March 2010, the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, told the US

Congress that the record ‘near zero’ interest rates are still needed to rev up the US economic

recovery.

Mr. Bernanke cited the still-fragile economic conditions, and noted that inflation is low,

which gives the Fed leeway to keep interest rates at rock-bottom levels. However, some

analysts believe the rates will have to go up by the second half of the year.

�� [[AA..11..22]] MMOORREE PPRRIIMMEE BBOORRRROOWWEERRSS DDEEFFAAUULLTTIINNGG OONN MMOORRTTGGAAGGEESS

According to a news report from New York on 25 March 2010, more of the prime borrowers

(the opposite of sub-prime borrowers) who make up 68% of all home loans are defaulting

on their mortgages in late 2009.

The delinquency rate of the prime borrowers was nearly 14% in late last year. The increase in

seriously delinquent mortgages was most pronounced among prime borrowers, with an

increase of 16.5% in the fourth quarter of 2009. The sharp rise in seriously delinquent

mortgages is likely to lead to a rise in foreclosure actions.

�� [[AA..11..33]] MMOORREE BBAAIILLOOUUTT PPLLAANNSS FFOORR HHOOMMEE LLOOAANNSS UUNNDDEERR TTHHEE WWAATTEERR

In the meantime, the Obama administration is announcing a plan to reduce the amount

some troubled borrowers owe on their home loans.

The Federal Housing Administration, a government agency that insures home loans against

default will get US$14 billion (S$19.6 billion) to grant new loans to home owners who are

holding on to a negative equity. The fund is on top of the existing US$75 billion foreclosure-

prevention program.

In addition, their existing mortgage companies will be able to receive incentives to lower

their principal balances. The program also includes assistance to help unemployed

homeowners keep paying their mortgages.



Taken in all the above facts, it means that the US housing woes are far from over and the

fragile recovery may still stall due to on-going massive unemployment and other related

problems.

[A2] HIGH INCOME GROUP SUFFER BIGGER FALL IN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

According to a Singapore’s Department of Statistics (DOS) report released in February 2010,

higher income groups in Singapore suffered larger decline in household income in 2009.

Consequently, income distribution among employed households in Singapore has narrowed.

Among all resident households, ‘median monthly household income from work’ dropped by

$100 or 1.9% to S$4,850 in 2009 from a year ago. If CPI* in 2009 was taken into

consideration, income dropped even greater at 2.5%.

*CPI = Consumer price inflation

In 2009, among employed households (those with at least one working person), median

household income from work was S$1,090 for those in HDB one & two-room flats, S$3,190

for HDB three-room flats, S$5,560 for HDB 4-room or larger flats, and S$12,500 for private

flats, condominiums and private houses. All these indices were lower in 2009 when

compared with 2008.

[A3] GROWTH PROJECTION RAISED FOR 2010

The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) said on 19 February 2010 that it expects gross

domestic product to grow by 4.5% to 6.5% in 2010, up from a forecast of 3% to 5% made

earlier in January 2010. For the whole of 2009, Singapore's GDP shrank by 2% following a

revised 1.4% rise in 2008.

The government also raised its 2010 trade growth outlook to a range of 9% to 11%. It

expects non-oil domestic exports to rise by 10% to 12% this year. It lowered its 2010

inflation forecast to 2% to 3% from the previous 2.5% to 3.5% due to a rebasing of the

consumer price index.

However, it remains cautious for the economic outlook for the second half of the year.

[A4] MEASURES TO RID MARKET OF SPECULATORS

On 19 February 2010, the Ministry of National Development (MND), Ministry of Finance

(MOF) and Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) jointly introduced a series of calibrated

measures to rid the property market of speculative elements. The following measures to

ensure a stable and sustainable property market were to take immediate effect, including:

(a) Lowering the LOAN-TO-VALUE (LTV) limit to 80% for all housing loans provided by

financial institutions regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). (However,



purchasers of HDB flats that are financed by HDB’s concessionary loans are not affected by the revised policy.)

(b) Introducing a SELLER’S STAMP DUTY (SSD) on all residential properties and residential

lands that are bought after 19 February 2010 and sold within a year from the date of

purchase.

(c) From January 2011, there will be a 3-TIER PROPERTY TAX RATE for all home owners where

the first $6,000 of ANNUAL VALUE (AV) will be exempted from property tax. The next

$59,000 AV will be taxed at 4% and the balance of AV above $65,000 will be taxed at 6%.

All owner-occupied homes will enjoy tax savings of $240 as a result of the exemption of

the first $6,000 of AV. (The property tax for non-owner-occupied residential properties

as well as other properties will remain at a flat rate of 10% of AV.)

[See ANNEX A for details on the revised property tax rate and implications of the change in Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio and the implementation of the seller’s stamp duty.]

�� [[AA..44..11]] MMOORREE MMEEAASSUURREESS TTOO PPRREEVVEENNTT OOVVEERRHHEEAATTIINNGG OOFF PPRROOPPEERRTTYY MMAARRKKEETT IINN SSIINNGGAAPPOORREE

On 5 March 2010, another series of measures to ensure financial prudence and to prevent

ethnic enclaves in Singapore were introduced by the Housing and Development Board. [See ANNEX B for details on the revised HDB policies.]



((BB)) OOVVEERRAALLLL PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE OOFF PPRRIIVVAATTEE HHOOMMEE SSEEGGMMEENNTT

[B1] JANUARY NEW HOME SALES ROARED BACK TO LIFE

Developers' home sales handed in an impressive report card in the JAN-FEB 2010 period with

the first month of the year recording 1,480 new home units sold and the following month

sustaining the run-up with a weaker, but nonetheless impressive 1,196 units sold.

The January sales volume of 1,476 units was three times higher than the 481 transactions of

new home units in December 2009. A pent-up demand built over the year-end festival period

of 2009 was unleashed, bringing new home market back to life.

TTaabbllee [[11]] –– CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN OOFF NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS SSOOLLDD BBEETTWWEEEENN DDEECCEEMMBBEERR 22000099 AANNDD AANNUUAARRYY 22001100

New home units SOLD

December 2009 JJaannuuaarryy 22001100 FFeebbrruuaarryy 22001100

Core Central Region (CCR) 218 770000 552211

Rest of Central Region (RCR) 150 335522 111122

Outside Central Region (OCR) 113 442288 556633

TOTAL 481 11,,448800 11,,119966

Source of Data: URA website

�� [[BB..11..11]] NNEEWW HHOOMMEE SSAALLEESS PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE IINN CCOORREE CCEENNTTRRAALL RREEGGIIOONN ((CCCCRR))

The 1,480 units sold in January 2010 alone were about 80% of the 1,860 new homes sold in

the entire Q4 2009 and 3 times the sales volume of December 2009.

January's top-selling projects in the primary market were Cube 8 at Thomson Road (167

units), The Shore Residences in the Katong area (144 units), RV Edge along River Valley Road

(91 units), Urban Suites in the Cairnhill area (88 units) and Parvis at Holland Hill (73 units).

[See table 1-A below]

The lowest psf price for a developer sale in January 2010 was for a unit sold at $544 psf at

Oasis@Elias; the highest price of $3,243 psf was for an Orchard View unit. Below shows the

detailed sales data by districts:

TTaabbllee [[11--AA]] –– NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS SSOOLLDD IINN CCCCRR IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100

Project Name Units launched so

far but UNSOLD

Units Sold in

the Month

Highest

Price

($psf)

Lowest

Price

($psf)

Median

Price

($ psf)

1 Cube 8 10 167 1,444 1,163 1,286

2 RV Edge 17 91 1,900 1,441 1,696

3 Urban Suites 19 88 2,921 2,213 2,506

4 Parvis 36 73 1,691 1,233 1,515

5 Holland Residences 9 63 1,843 1,466 1,694

6 Cyan 80 37 2,050 1,702 1,937

7 Espada 121 33 2,771 1,995 2,475

8 Skyline 360° at St Thomas Walk 0 18 2,168 1,786 1,935

9 Trilight 30 18 1,869 1,669 1,754



10 Lincoln Suites 8 13 2,338 1,707 1,762

11 Estrivillas 15 11 725 590 705

12 Shelford Suites 1 9 1,551 1,396 1,433

13 Sophia Residence 19 9 1,562 1,099 1,273

14 Luma 5 7 1,717 1,672 1,705

15 The Wharf Residence 7 7 1,172 1,093 1,120

16 The Trizon 67 6 1,530 1,280 1,423

17 Latitude 9 5 1,899 1,738 1,769

18 The Greenwood (Phase 5) 27 5 950 900 938

19 Adria 31 4 1,619 1,546 1,611

20 Vivace 0 4 1,987 1,469 1,730

21 Attitude at Kim Yam 0 3 1,464 1,379 1,380

22 D'Ixoras 15 3 1,231 1,094 1,167

23 Fifty-Two Stevens 14 3 1,938 1,906 1,938

24 Marina Bay Suites 1 3 2,506 2,325 2,506

25 Martin No 38 0 2 2,154 2,126 2,140

26 Signature At Lewis 7 2 1,358 1,227 1,293

27 Soleil @ Sinaran 42 2 1,675 1,614 1,645

28 The Promont 5 2 2,122 2,115 2,119

29 Waterscape At Cavenagh 0 2 2,010 1,941 1,976

30 Belle Vue Residences 34 1 2,354 2,354 2,354

31 Icon 6 1 1,580 1,580 1,580

32 Kasara 0 1 1,650 1,650 1,650

33 Lumiere 4 1 1,660 1,660 1,660

34 Marina Collection 24 1 2,500 2,500 2,500

35 Miro 6 1 1,642 1,642 1,642

36 Mulberry Tree 7 1 1,299 1,299 1,299

37 Orchard View 0 1 3,243 3,243 3,243

38 Shamrock Villas 10 1 746 746 746

39 Whitley Villas 3 1 812 812 812

TOTAL UNITS SOLD = 700


The launch of Altez, Waterscape at Cavenagh, The Laurels and L’VIV dominated the limelight

in CCR in February 2010 with Altez at Enggor Street (Tanjong Pagar area) topping the chart

with 150 units sold. There were also 10 more projects with at least one transaction compared

with the total of 39 projects in January 2010.

TTaabbllee [[11--BB]] –– NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS SSOOLLDD IINN CCCCRR IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

Project Name Units launched so

far but UNSOLD

Units Sold in

the Month

Highest

Price

($psf)

Lowest

Price

($psf)

Median

Price

($ psf)

1 Altez 53 150 2,397 1,600 1,817

2 Waterscape At Cavenagh 0 82 2,020 1,715 1,877

3 The Laurels 0 41 2,970 2,041 2,741

4 L'VIV 8 40 2,185 1,868 1,981

5 Centennia Suites 11 19 2,175 1,888 2,000

6 Trilight 12 18 1,921 1,670 1,738

7 Cyan 84 17 2,499 1,837 2,001

8 RV Edge 3 14 1,731 1,500 1,679

9 Holland Residences 8 13 1,889 1,520 1,568

10 Espada 110 11 2,650 2,280 2,405

11 Parvis 25 11 1,555 1,458 1,539



12 Cube 8 4 8 1,307 1,235 1,252

13 Adria 24 7 1,635 1,449 1,611

14 Kasara 0 6 1,780 1,580 1,746

15 Martin No 38 0 6 2,470 2,077 2,325

16 Sophia Residence 13 6 1,780 1,272 1,603

17 Vivace 0 6 2,082 1,969 2,035

18 Luma 0 5 1,682 1,664 1,670

19 The Wharf Residence 7 5 1,208 1,169 1,185

20 Urban Suites 14 5 2,693 2,132 2,594

21 Estrivillas 11 4 705 660 698

22 Fifty-Two Stevens 10 4 1,986 1,642 1,811

23 Nassim Park Residences 11 4 3,460 2,903 3,202

24 Shelford Suites 7 4 1,551 1,077 1,396

25 The Trizon 63 4 1,460 1,350 1,419

26 VIVA 0 3 1,310 1,242 1,273

27 8 Rodyk 7 2 1,796 1,642 1,719

28 Illoura 16 2 1,101 1,052 1,077

29 Latitude 7 2 2,074 2,034 2,054

30 The Greenwood (Phase 5) 29 2 945 944 945

31 The Orchard Residences 0 2 3,587 3,506 3,547

32 Belle Vue Residences 33 1 2,043 2,043 2,043

33 Duchess Royale 12 1 1,649 1,649 1,649

34 Estilo 0 1 1,050 1,050 1,050

35 Icon 5 1 1,747 1,747 1,747

36 Landed housing development 4 1 2,024 2,024 2,024

37 Lincoln Suites 7 1 1,900 1,900 1,900

38 Lumiere 3 1 2,000 2,000 2,000

39 Lush on Holland Hill 5 1 1,502 1,502 1,502

40 Marina Bay Suites 0 1 2,333 2,333 2,333

41 Marina Collection 23 1 2,500 2,500 2,500

42 Mulberry Tree 6 1 1,388 1,388 1,388

43 Seven Palms Sentosa Cove 0 1 3,318 3,318 3,318

44 Skyline 360° at St Thomas Walk 0 1 1,833 1,833 1,833

45 Soleil @ Sinaran 41 1 1,640 1,640 1,640

46 The Oliv 0 1 2,242 2,242 2,242

47 The Orange Grove 9 1 2,290 2,290 2,290

48 The Ritz-Carlton Residences Singapore

Cairnhill

0 1 3,762 3,762 3,762

49 Whitley Villas 2 1 1,036 1,036 1,036



�� CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDYY [[11]] –– NNEEWW HHOOMMEE SSAALLEESS IINN CCCCRR

PPRRIICCEE CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN BBEETTWWEEEENN DDEECCEEMMBBEERR 22000099 AANNDD JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100 IINN CCCCRR

Six projects in the Core Central Region (CCR) were selected for this case study to ascertain

the price movements in the most coveted prime areas in Singapore. The transacted prices

and sales volume of the six projects in January 2010 were compared with the performance of

the previous months at the same locality.



�� FFIINNDDIINNGG {{11}} –– OOFF CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDYY [[11]]

SSAALLEESS OOFF NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS SSOOAARREEDD IINN JJAANN 22001100 BBUUTT SSTTAABBIILLIISSEEDD IINN FFEEBB 22001100 IINN CCCCRR

It has been established that the 700 units sold in January 2010 represents a whopping 220%

rise in volume over the 218 new home units sold in the same region in December 2009.

However, the sales volume receded to 521 new units in February 2010.

The February performance was 25.6% drop in sales volume when compared to the more

robust January 2010. However, when compared to the same month last year, this February’s

sales volume in CCR was a whopping 4.8 times spike in primary sales volume.


PPRRIICCEESS OOFF NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS WWOOBBBBLLEEDD

Unlike the volatile sales volume, prices of the new home units in CCR wobbled within a very

narrow range of less than 6%, with equal number of projects sharing the fortune and

misfortune of the price drops and price gains. See selected details below:

PPRRIICCEE CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN FFOORR CCCCRR PPRROOJJEECCTTSS BBEETTWWEEEENN DDEECCEEMMBBEERR 22000099 && JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100

In the drop zone

�� In DECEMBER 2009, 59 units at Urban Suites at Hullet Road were sold at a median price of $2,521 psf,

compared with 88 units sold at a median price of $2,506 psf in JANUARY 2010. It was a 0.6% drop in the

median price.

�� In DECEMBER 2009, 7 units at Trilight at Newton Road were sold at a median price of $1,769 psf, compared

with 18 units sold at a median price of $1,754 psf in JANUARY 2010. It was a 0.85% drop in the median

price.

�� In DECEMBER 2009, 8 units at Lincoln Suites at Khiang Guan Avenue were sold at a median price of $1,939

psf, compared with 13 units sold at a median price of $1,762 psf in JANUARY 2010. It was a 9.13% drop in

the median price.

On the way up

�� In DECEMBER 2009, 21 units at Espada at St Thomas Walk were sold at a median price of $2,337 psf,

compared with 33 units sold at a median price of $2,475 psf in January 2010. This represents a 5.91% rise in

price.

�� In DECEMBER 2009, 21 units at Parvis at Holland Hill were sold at a median price of $1,495 psf, compared

with 73 units sold at a median price of $1,515 psf in January 2010. This represents a 1.34% rise in price.

�� In DECEMBER 2009, 23 units at Cyan at Bt Timah/Keng Chin Road were sold at a median price of $1,905 psf,

compared with 37 units sold at a median price of $1,937 psf in January 2010. This represents a 1.68% rise in

price.

Source of data: URA – Compiled and analysed by Sam Gian



PPRRIICCEE CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN FFOORR CCCCRR PPRROOJJEECCTTSS BBEETTWWEEEENN JJAANNUUAARRYY && FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

In the drop zone

�� In JANUARY 2010, 91 units at RV Edge at River Valley Road were sold at a median price of $1,696 psf.

Compared with the 14 units sold at a median price of $1,679 psf in FEB 2010, it was a 0.87% drop in price.

�� In JANUARY 2010, 63 units at Holland Residences were sold at a median price of $1,694 psf. Compared

with the 13 units sold at a median price of $1,568 psf in FEB 2010, it was a 7.44% drop in price.

��

��

In JANUARY 2010, 33 units at Espada were sold at a median price of $2,475 psf. Compared with the 11 units

sold at a median price of $2,405 psf in FEB 2010, it represents 2.83% drop in price.

In JANUARY 2010, 18 units at Trilight at Newton Road were sold at a median price of $1,754 psf. Compared

with the 18 units sold at a median price of $1,738 psf in FEB 2010, it is a 0.92% drop in price.

On the way up

�� In JANUARY 2010, 73 units at Parvis at Holland Hill were sold at a median price of $1,515 psf. Compared

with the 11 units sold at a median price of $1,539 psf in FEB 2010, this represents a 1.59% rise in price.

�� In JANUARY 2010, 5 units at Latitude at River Valley Road area were sold at a median price of $1,769 psf.

Compared with the 2 units sold at a median price of $2,054 psf in FEB 2010, it is a 16.11% rise in price.

��

��

In JANUARY 2010, 37 units at Cyan at Bt Timah/Keng Chin Road were sold at a median price of $1,937 psf.

Compared with the 17 units sold at a median price of $2,001 psf in FEB 2010, it is a 3.31% rise in price.

In JANUARY 2010, 88 units at Urban Suites at Hullet Road were sold at a median price of $2,506 psf.

Compared with the 5 units sold at a median price of $2,594 psf in FEB 2010, this represents a 3.52% rise in

price.



HHIIGGHHEESSTT AANNDD LLOOWWEESSTT PPSSFF SSAALLEE PPRRIICCEESS OOFF NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS IINN CCCCRR Table [1-A-1] Highest psf prices in January 2010 at CCR

PROJECT NAME SALE PRICE ($PSF)

1 Orchard View 3,243 2 Urban Suites 2,921 3 Espada 2,771 4 Marina Bay Suites 2,506

Source of data: URA

Out of the 39 projects in CCR that recorded at least one transaction in January 2010, the

above four projects had at least one new home unit that was sold at above the psychological

price barrier of $2,500 psf.

Table [1-B-1] Highest psf prices in February 2010 at CCR


1 The Ritz-Carlton Residences Singapore Cairnhill

3,762

2 The Orchard Residences 3,587 3 Nassim Park Residences 3,460 4 Seven Palms Sentosa Cove 3,318 5 The Laurels 2,970 6 Urban Suites 2,693 7 Espada 2,650 8 Marina Collection 2,500

Source of data: URA



The number of projects with units sold above the $2,500 psf psychological price barrier rose

to eight in February 2010.

Table [1-A-2] Lowest psf prices in January 2010 at CCR PROJECT NAME SALE PRICE ($PSF)

1 The Greenwood (Phase 5) 900 2 Whitley Villas 812 3 Shamrock Villas 746 4 Estrivillas 590

Source of data: URA

Table [1-B-2] Lowest psf prices in February 2010 at CCR


1 The Greenwood (Phase 5) 944 2 Estrivillas 660

Source of data: URA

�� CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN –– OOFF CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDYY [[11]]

IIMMPPAACCTT OOFF MMAARRKKEETT IINNTTEERRVVEENNTTIIOONN BBYY GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT UUNNKKNNOOWWNN

The above statistics in Table [1-A-1] to Table [1-B-2] verified that more new home projects

are selling at higher psf prices and fewer are selling at lower psf prices. They clearly showed

a much improved market sentiment in February 2010 over the preceding month.

However, how the slew of negative government measures will impact the real estate market

deserves close monitoring in the next few months, especially after the eventual opening of

the second Integrated Resort (IR) at Marina Bay Sands in late April 2010.

�� [[BB..11..22]] NNEEWW HHOOMMEE SSAALLEESS PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE IINN RREESSTT OOFF CCEENNTTRRAALL RREEGGIIOONN ((RRCCRR))

New home sales in the Rest of Central Region (RCR) took on a roller coastal ride in the

previous three months between December 2009 and February 2010.

TTAABBLLEE [[11--11]] 33--MMOONNTTHH CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN OOFF NNEEWW HHOOMMEE SSAALLEESS VVOOLLUUMMEE IINN RRCCRR FFRROOMM DDEECCEEMMBBEERR 0099 TTOO FFEEBB 22001100

New home units SOLD

December 2009 January 2010 February 2010

Rest of Central Region (RCR) 150 352 112


New home sales volume spiked 230% in January 2010 to 352 units sold from the dismal

showing of 150 units sold in December 2009 (See table [1-1] above). However, it was

followed by a surprised 68.2% drop to only 112 new units sold in February 2010 due to the

lack of new projects launches in that month. Tables [1-C] and [1-D] below show the details.

TTaabbllee [[11--CC]] –– NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS SSOOLLDD IINN RRCCRR IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100

Project Name Units launched so far

but UNSOLD

Units Sold in

the Month

Highest

Price ($psf)

Lowest

Price ($psf)

Median

Price ($ psf)

1 The Shore Residences 117 144 1,418 1,043 1200

2 The Interlace 79 24 1,086 957 1056

3 The Tier 17 20 1,297 1,157 1217

4 Trevista 49 18 1,115 867 947

5 Prestige Heights 8 17 1,506 1,146 1336



6 Clover By The Park 97 16 961 673 844

7 Silversea 184 14 1,886 1,223 1528

8 Dakota Residences 33 12 1,009 945 967

9 Melrose Ville 12 11 1,288 1,093 1196

10 Moda 20 10 1,273 1,172 1221

11 Reflections at Keppel Bay 24 8 2,245 1,634 1670

12 The Peak @ Balmeg 12 6 1,091 1,007 1022

13 Concourse Skyline 30 5 1,880 1,496 1788

14 Floridian 100 5 1,512 1,339 1448

15 Vista Residences 38 5 1,471 1,310 1324

16 Ascentia Sky 15 3 1,371 1,267 1289

17 Jardin 57 3 1,840 1,617 1800

18 Parc Seabreeze 22 3 1,490 1,394 1435

19 The Arte 3 3 1,226 1,106 1132

20 The Seafront On Meyer 31 3 1,496 1,359 1474

21 The Serennia 11 3 1,025 681 935

22 Beacon Heights 25 2 870 855 863

23 Ceylon Residence 8 2 987 835 911

24 Ola Residences 3 2 1,000 978 989

25 Stillz Residence 10 2 961 920 941

26 The Beverly 5 2 762 742 752

27 Aalto 78 1 2,011 2,011 2,011

28 City Studios 0 1 858 858 858

29 Domus 9 1 1,260 1,260 1,260

30 Esta Ruby 39 1 929 929 929

31 Spring @ Langsat 7 1 725 725 725

32 St Michael Regency 21 1 841 841 841

33 Studios @ Marne 9 1 934 934 934

34 The Rochester 0 1 1,330 1,330 1,330

35 Tropics @ Haigsville 0 1 853 853 853


Source of data: URA

As investors trained their eyes on the multiple new home launches in CCR, new home units

in RCR lost their lustre and ended the month with only 112 new units sold. Moreover, there

were no new projects being introduced in RCR in that month.

TTaabbllee [[11--DD]] –– NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS SSOOLLDD IINN RRCCRR IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

Project Name

Cumulative Units

Launched but

Unsold

Units Sold in

the Month

Lowest

Price ($psf)

Highest

Price ($psf)

Median

Price ($psf)

1 Trevista 31 18 1,118 872 981

2 The Shore Residences 106 15 1,436 1,129 1,262

3 Silversea 173 11 1,946 1,273 1,486

4 Clover By The Park 87 10 897 655 824

5 Floridian 195 5 1,444 1,340 1,430

6 The Serennia 6 5 930 900 910

7 The Tier 12 5 1,281 1,165 1,236

8 Meier Suites 0 4 1,444 1,338 1,378

9 Vista Residences 35 4 1,346 1,218 1,325

10 Dakota Residences 31 3 980 947 978

11 Prestige Heights 5 3 1,467 1,337 1,376

12 The Interlace 76 3 1,059 950 1,004



13 The Peak @ Balmeg 9 3 1,007 1,000 1,007

14 The Verve 0 3 921 597 624

15 Concourse Skyline 29 2 1,939 1,697 1,818

16 Jardin 55 2 1,903 1,626 1,765

17 Reflections at Keppel Bay 22 2 2,306 2,014 2,160

18 The Seafront On Meyer 29 2 1,470 1,465 1,468

19 Aalto 77 1 1,648 1,648 1,648

20 Ascentia Sky 14 1 1,250 1,250 1,250

21 Centrina 7 1 960 960 960

22 Ceylon Residence 7 1 820 820 820

23 Haig Residences 11 1 1,146 1,146 1,146

24 Heritage 9 0 1 1,422 1,422 1,422

25 Melrose Ville 11 1 1,104 1,104 1,104

26 Parc Aston 8 1 900 900 900

27 Parc Seabreeze 21 1 1,265 1,265 1,265

28 Spring @ Langsat 6 1 855 855 855

29 St Michael Regency 20 1 860 860 860

30 The Ariel 2 1 766 766 766


Source of data: URA

�� CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDYY [[22]] –– NNEEWW HHOOMMEE SSAALLEESS IINN RRCCRR

PPRRIICCEE CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN BBEETTWWEEEENN JJAANNUUAARRYY AANNDD FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100 IINN RRCCRR

SIX (6) projects were selected for this case study to ascertain the price movements in the

Rest of Central Region (RCR). The sale performance of February and January 2010 of the

selected projects in RCR were compared so as to determine which way new home prices are

heading.


SSAALLEESS OOFF NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS TTOOOOKK AA TTUUMMBBLLEE IINN FFEEBB 22001100 IINN RRCCRR

In January 2010, a total of 35 new home projects in RCR reported at least one transaction,

with The Shore Residences at Katong selling 144 units for at least $1,043 psf. Altogether,

RCR started the new year with a respectable 352 transactions. However, its sales

performance was upstaged by five new projects being launched in the Core Central Region

(CCR) in February 2010.

Price wise, the rise and fall were all restricted to a narrow range of below 6% difference. See

price comparison below:

PPRRIICCEE CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN OOFF RRCCRR PPRROOJJEECCTTSS BBEETTWWEEEENN JJAANNUUAARRYY && FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

In the drop zone

�� In JANUARY 2010, 24 units at The Interlace at Depot Road were sold at a median price of $1,056 psf.

Compared with 3 units sold at a median price of $1,004 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, it was a 4.93% drop in the

median price.

�� In JANUARY 2010, 14 units at Silversea at Amber Road were sold at a median price of $1,528 psf.

Compared with the 11 units sold at a median price of $1,486 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, it was a 2.75% drop in

the median price.

�� In JANUARY 2010, 16 units at Clover by the Park at Bishan St 25 were sold at a median price of $844 psf.



Compared with the 10 units sold at a median price of $824 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, it was a 2.37% drop in

the median price.

On the way up

�� In JANUARY 2010, 144 units at The Shore Residences at Katong were sold at a median price of $1,200 psf.

Compared with the 15 units sold at a median price of $1,262 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, this represents a 5.17%

rise in price.

�� In JANUARY 2010, 20 units at The Tier at Pegu Road were sold at a median price of $1,217 psf. Compared

with the 5 units sold at a median price of $1,236 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, this represents a 1.57% rise in price.

��

In JANUARY 2010, 18 units at Trevista at Lorong 3 Toa Payoh were sold at a median price of $947 psf.

Compared with the 18 units sold at a median price of $981 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, this represents a 3.59%

rise in price.



HHIIGGHHEESSTT AANNDD LLOOWWEESSTT PPSSFF SSAALLEE PPRRIICCEESS OOFF NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS IINN RRCCRR The objective of this case study is to ascertain the extend of the current market confidence

by looking at the number of home units transacted beyond the psychological price barrier at

the respective regions, including CCR, RCR and OCR.

TTaabbllee [[11--CC--11]] HHIIGGHHEESSTT PPSSFF PPRRIICCEESS IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100 AATT RRCCRR PROJECT NAME SALE PRICE ($PSF)

1 Reflections at Keppel Bay 2,245 2 Aalto 2,011 3 Silversea 1,886 4 Concourse Skyline 1,880 5 Jardin 1,840 6 Floridian 1,512 7 Prestige Heights 1,506

Source of data: URA

Out of the 35 projects in RCR that recorded at least one transaction in January 2010, seven

projects had at least one new home unit that was sold above the $1,500 psf psychological

barrier for new homes in RCR.

TTaabbllee [[11--DD--11]] HHIIGGHHEESSTT PPSSFF PPRRIICCEESS IINN FFeebbrruuaarryy 22001100 AATT RRCCRR PROJECT NAME SALE PRICE ($PSF)

1 Reflections at Keppel Bay 2,306 2 Silversea 1,946 3 Concourse Skyline 1,939 4 Jardin 1,903 5 Aalto 1,648

Source of data: URA

However, primary home sales in RCR took a tumble in February 2010 recording only 112 new

home units sold in 30 projects. Only five projects had at least one new home unit sold at

above the $1,500 psf psychological barrier for new homes in RCR. This could mean either the

price gap between the two regions (i.e. CCR and RCR) has narrowed; or the number of

investors has drastically reduced. Let’s examine the price gap between the two regions.



Out of the 49 projects in CCR in February 2010 which recorded at least one transaction, 14 of

them had sold at least one unit at lower than $1,500 psf which is the price barrier of RCR.

This confirms the narrowing of the price gap between the two regions – at least for February

2010. It remains to be seen whether this will become a trend.

TTaabbllee [[11--CC--22]] LLOOWWEESSTT PPSSFF PPRRIICCEESS IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100 AATT RRCCRR PROJECT NAME SALE PRICE ($PSF)

1 Clover By The Park 673 2 The Serennia 681 3 Spring @ Langsat 725 4 The Beverly 742

Source of data: URA

TTaabbllee [[11--DD--22]] LLOOWWEESSTT PPSSFF PPRRIICCEESS IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100 AATT RRCCRR PROJECT NAME SALE PRICE ($PSF)

1 The Verve 597 2 Clover By The Park 655 3 The Ariel 766

Source of data: URA

The psychological threshold for RCR new home appears to be rock solid as very few new

home projects need to lower their asking price to sub-$800 psf level. This can be seen from

the fact that despite the tumble in volume, very few new home units were sold below the

threshold of $800 psf.

�� [[BB..11..33]] PPRRIIMMAARRYY HHOOMMEE SSAALLEESS RREEGGAAIINNEEDD ‘‘LLOOSSTT GGRROOUUNNDD’’ IINN OOCCRR

In January 2010, the primary home sales segment in OCR regained much ‘lost ground’ and

rebounded with a flurry.

The 428 new home units sold in January 2010 was followed by an improvement of 135 more

home units sold, bringing the total new home units old in OCR in February 2010 to 563 new

home units sold. The sales growth was 31.5% over the preceding months, with more units

sold at moderately highly psf median prices. Below are the details.

TTaabbllee [[11..EE]] –– NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS SSOOLLDD IINN OOCCRR IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100

Project Name Cumulative Units

Launched but Unsold

Units Sold in

the Month

Lowest

Price ($psf)

Highest

Price ($psf)

Median

Price ($psf)

1 Livia 7 59 673 618 645

2 Siglap V 0 50 1,634 1,152 1508

3 Residences Botanique 8 32 1,246 844 1015

4 Double Bay Residences 14 31 746 560 697

5 Waterfront Key 180 27 944 709 763

6 Meadows @ Peirce 97 23 1,146 736 915

7 Cerelia Vista 0 21 393 353 388

8 Eastwood Regency 19 18 1,218 938 1198

9 Mi Casa 84 15 828 680 731

10 Oasis @ Elias 27 14 665 544 618

11 Kovan Residences 16 13 1,009 861 954

12 Suites @ Kovan 2 11 1,225 849 1196

13 The Parc Condominium 23 11 1,049 880 900

14 The Cotz 6 9 1,237 1,161 1185

15 Centro Residences 73 7 1,233 1,164 1170



16 Pavilion Park (Phase 2) 1 7 932 791 792

17 Waterfront Waves 21 7 925 729 747

18 Glasgow Residence 10 6 1,285 959 1219

19 Luxus Hills 2 6 1,158 988 1128

20 The Gale 22 6 788 728 745

21 Elliot at the East Coast 9 5 1,538 883 1056

22 Hundred Trees 12 5 922 891 909

23 The Lenox 8 5 1,006 849 911

24 Hillvista 62 4 1,095 1,022 1066

25 St Patrick's Residences 9 4 1,048 964 1046

26 Wembly Residences 3 4 919 812 906

27 Rosewood Suites 5 3 611 548 609

28 Whitescape 9 3 1,161 1,003 1123

29 Aston Green 6 2 425 418 422

30 Cabana 27 2 610 600 605

31 D'Pavilion 26 2 988 980 984

32 Envio 17 2 985 960 973

33 Fontaine Parry 4 2 908 631 770

34 CuBik 0 1 1,218 1,218 1,218

35 Dunsfold Residences 4 1 451 451 451

36 Evania 2 1 700 700 700

37 Idyllic East 0 1 800 800 800

38 La Dolce Vita 1 1 850 850 850

39 Landed housing development 5 1 878 878 878

40 Riz Haven 7 1 752 752 752

41 Serangoon Garden View 2 1 682 682 682

42 Suncottages 21 1 800 800 800

43 The Amery 23 1 947 947 947

44 The Lattiz 8 1 817 817 817

45 Verdana Villas 38 1 642 642 642


Source of data: URA

The buying interests in OCR continued into February 2010 with the launch of The Estuary at

Yishun which mesmerised buyers from the immediate HDB heartlands. The water-front

project sold 386 units and single-handedly revived the fortune of OCR in February 2010.

TTaabbllee [[11..FF]] –– NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS SSOOLLDD IINN OOCCRR IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

Project Name Units launched so far

but UNSOLD

Units Sold in

the Month

Lowest

Price ($psf)

Highest

Price ($psf)

Median

Price

($ psf)

1 The Estuary 64 386 921 633 757

2 The Ebony 7 25 1,333 1,084 1265

3 Meadows @ Peirce 75 22 1,110 737 924

4 The Parc Condo 9 14 1,031 777 925

6 Residences Botanique 28 13 1,333 910 1063

5 Mi Casa 71 13 794 686 727

7 Double Bay Residences 2 12 705 572 687

8 Waterfront Key 169 11 965 732 775

9 Livia 0 7 648 633 638

10 Centro Residences 68 5 1,223 1,161 1220

11 Waterfront Waves 17 5 914 787 900



13 Elliot at the East Coast 8 4 1,077 806 1025

12 Cerelia Vista 17 4 450 450 450

16 St Patrick's Residences 6 3 1,055 919 930

15 Pavilion Park (Phase 2) 1 3 960 905 905

14 Envio 14 3 998 868 950

17 Wembly Residences 0 3 949 861 947

19 CuBik 0 2 1,367 1,367 1367

20 Eastwood Regency 17 2 1,247 1,247 1247

24 The Cotz 4 2 1,185 1,174 1180

23 Luxus Hills 0 2 1,131 912 1022

21 Hundred Trees 10 2 922 908 915

22 Landed housing 12 2 979 704 842

18 Aston Green 4 2 415 413 414

30 Hillvista 61 1 1,131 1,131 1,131

28 D'Pavilion 25 1 973 973 973

40 Whitescape 9 1 900 900 900

31 Kovan Residences 15 1 893 893 893

32 La Dolce Vita 0 1 875 875 875

27 D'Oasia 5 1 842 842 842

38 The Lattiz 7 1 829 829 829

29 Fontaine Parry 3 1 824 824 824

37 The Gale 21 1 766 766 766

25 3@Sandilands 1 1 701 701 701

35 Oasis @ Elias 26 1 646 646 646

39 Verdana Villas 37 1 644 644 644

26 Coastal Breeze Residences 13 1 532 532 532

36 Rosewood Suites 4 1 530 530 530

33 Lynwood Eight 0 1 518 518 518

34 Matlock Residences 3 1 466 466 466


Source of data: URA

�� CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDYY [[33]] –– IINN OOUUTTSSIIDDEE CCEENNTTRRAALL RREEGGIIOONN ((OOCCRR))

PPRRIICCEE CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN BBEETTWWEEEENN JJAANNUUAARRYY AANNDD FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

New home sales in OCR bounced back from the December slip by registering a respectable

volume of 428 transactions in January 2010. The buying momentum was carried forward into

February 2010 to reach 563 new home transactions. The sales growth was 31.6% over

January 2010.

New home units SOLD

December 2009 JJaannuuaarryy 22001100 FFeebbrruuaarryy 22001100

Outside Central Region (OCR) 113 442288 556633



SSAALLEESS OOFF NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS IINN OOCCRR RREEGGAAIINNEEDD MMOOMMEENNTTUUMM FFRROOMM DDEECCEEMMBBEERR SSLLIIPP

OCR was the only region which still grew despite the slew of government measures to curb

excessive speculation. This may be due to the fact that traditionally, foreign buyers do not

favour OCR and as such the sales volume is less volatile as in the other two regions.




MMOORREE NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS IINN OOCCRR SSOOLLDD AATT SSLLIIGGHHTTLLYY HHIIGGHHEERR PPSSFF PPRRIICCEESS

Price wise, there were more ups than downs in OCR, though the quantum of the price

increase was small.

On the way up

�� In JANUARY 2010, 32 units at Residences Botanique at Sirat Road were sold at a median price of $1,015

psf. Compared with the 13 units sold at a median price of $1,063 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, this represents a

4.73% rise in price.

�� In JANUARY 2010, 7 units at Waterfront Key at Bedok Reservoir Road were sold at a median price of $763

psf. Compared with the 11 units sold at a median price of $775 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, this represents a


�� In JANUARY 2010, 7 units at Centrol Residences at Ave Mo Kio Ave 8 were sold at a median price of $1,170

psf. Compared with the 5 units sold at a median price of $1,220 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, this represents a


�� In JANUARY 2010, 11 units at The Parc Condo at West Coast Walk were sold at a median price of $900 psf.

Compared with the 14 units sold at a median price of $925 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, this represents a 2.78%

rise in price.

��

In JANUARY 2010, 23 units at Meadows@ Peirce Upper Thomson Road were sold at a median price of

$915 psf. Compared with the 22 units sold at a median price of $924 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, this represents

a 0.99% rise in price.

In the drop zone

�� In JANUARY 2010, 31 units at Double Bay Residences at Simei Street 4 were sold at a median price of $697

psf. Compared with the 12 units sold at a median price of $687 psf in FEBRUARY 2010, it was a 1.44% drop

in the median price.



HHIIGGHHEESSTT AANNDD LLOOWWEESSTT PPSSFF SSAALLEE PPRRIICCEESS OOFF NNEEWW HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS AATT OOCCRR TTaabbllee [[11--EE--11]] HHIIGGHHEESSTT PPSSFF PPRRIICCEESS IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100 AATT OOCCRR


1 Siglap V 1,634 2 Elliot at the East Coast 1,538 3 Glasgow Residence 1,285 4 Residences Botanique 1,246 5 The Cotz 1,237 6 Centro Residences 1,233 7 Suites @ Kovan 1,225 8 Eastwood Regency 1,218 9 CuBik 1,218

Source of data: URA

Out of the 45 projects in OCR that recorded at least one transaction in January 2010, the

above nine projects had at least one new home unit that was sold above the $1,200 psf

psychological barrier for new homes in OCR.



TTaabbllee [[11--FF--11]] HHIIGGHHEESSTT PPSSFF PPRRIICCEESS IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100 AATT OOCCRR PROJECT NAME SALE PRICE ($PSF)

1 CuBik 1,367 2 Eastwood Regency 1,247

Source of data: URA

However, despite the 31.6% rise in primary home sales and the general and slight price

increases in OCR, only TWO projects had at least one new home unit that was sold above the

$1,200 psf psychological barrier for new homes in OCR. On the other hand, more new home

units in OCR were sold at cheaper prices in February 2010. This could be due to the fact that

buyers in OCR are more ‘price-sensitive’ as compared with investors prowling in CCR or RCR

for opportunities.

TTaabbllee [[11--EE--22]] LLOOWWEESSTT PPSSFF PPRRIICCEESS IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100 AATT OOCCRR PROJECT NAME SALE PRICE ($PSF)

1 Cerelia Vista 353 2 Aston Green 418 3 Dunsfold Residences 451 4 Oasis @ Elias 544 5 Rosewood Suites 548 6 Double Bay Residences 560

Source of data: URA

TTaabbllee [[11--FF--22]] LLOOWWEESSTT PPSSFF PPRRIICCEESS IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100 AATT OOCCRR


1 Aston Green 413 2 Cerelia Vista 450 3 Matlock Residences 466 4 Lynwood Eight 518 5 Rosewood Suites 530 6 Coastal Breeze Residences 532 7 Double Bay Residences 572

Source of data: URA

Figures at Tables [1-E-2] and [1-F-2] showed that more new home units were sold at

competitive unit psf prices in January-February period in OCR. The support price level for

new home units in OCR appears to be at the sub-$600 psf level, which means that few

property developers would need to resort to pricing below the threshold of $600 psf at this

uncertain moment where the government favours a larger role and pro-active intervention

to prevent a property price bubble.



[B.2] PRIVATE RREESSAALLEE VOLUME SOARED IN JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010 PERIOD

There were 1,128 resale deals in January 2010 and 1,167 resale deals in February 2010 and

these are 437% rise over the 210 resale deals in January 2009 and 382% rise over the 242 resale deals in February 2009.

�� [[BB..22..11]] WWHHOO OONN EEAARRTTHH AARREE BBUUYYIINNGG TTHHOOSSEE HHOOUUSSEESS??

It has always been assumed that property rallies in Singapore are caused by massive foreign

participation, especially at this moment with the inflow of ‘cheap money’ from Europe and

the United States. It has also been frequently theorised that it was HDB flat dwellers that are

cashing in on the appreciated value of HDB flats to move upscale into private homes.

Was it really an ‘upward mobility’ of the middle-income households who have so far been

living modestly in the heartlands? Are we witnessing the ‘flight to quality’ due to an

improved socio-economic circumstance of the middle-income groups in Singapore? Or is it

a case of a typical property speculation gathering momentum?

The following TWO case studies seek to ascertain whether the recent property rally was

fuelled:

(1) by the soaring resale prices of HDB flats; and/or

(2) by foreign participation.

Particular attention has been paid to two areas: (1) the purchaser’s profile of Singaporean

purchasers; and (2) the nationalities of foreign purchasers with emphasis placed on the

supposed participation of buyers from Europe, United Kingdom (U.K.) and the United States

of America (USA) where most of the so-called ‘cheap money’ originated.

�� CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDYY [[44]] –– DDIIDD TTHHEE HHDDBB FFLLAATT OOWWNNEERRSS DDOO IITT??

PPRRIIVVAATTEE HHOOMMEE OOWWNNEERRSS VVEERRSSUUSS HHDDBB FFLLAATT DDWWEELLLLEERRSS

The case study pitted private home owners against HDB flat dwellers so as to ascertain ‘who’

bought more of the houses in the first two months of the year. Table [2] shows that

purchasers with private property addresses dominated the proceeding at popular and prime

areas such as Districts 1, 4, 9, 10 and 11 in both January & February 2010

TTaabbllee [[22--AA]] –– PPRROOFFIILLEE OOFF PPUURRCCHHAASSEERRSS IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100

Resa

le

Tra

nsa

ctio

ns

Purchasers

with private

home

addresses

Purc

hase

rs

with H

DB fla

t

addre

sses

Resa

le

Tra

nsa

ctio

ns

Purchasers

with private

home

addresses

Purc

hase

rs

with H

DB fla

t

addre

sses

DD11 21 15 71.4% 6 28.6% DD1155 137 94 68.6% 43 31.4%

DD22 6 3 50% 3 50% DD1166 74 45 60.8% 29 39.2%

DD33 33 22 66.7% 11 33.3% DD1177 25 13 52% 12 48%

DD44 25 21 84% 4 16% DD1188 61 33 54.1% 28 45.9%

DD55 41 27 65.9% 14 34.1% DD1199 90 52 57.8% 38 42.2%

DD77 2 1 50% 1 50% DD2200 37 26 70.3% 11 29.7%



DD88 39 22 56.4% 17 43.6 DD2211 65 43 66.2% 22 33.8%

DD99 63 53 84.1% 10 15.9% DD2222 33 16 48.5% 17 51.5%

DD1100 81 67 82.7% 14 17.3% DD2233 119 55 46.2% 64 53.8%

DD1111 49 36 73.5% 13 26.5% DD2255 9 4 44.5% 5 55.5%

DD1122 29 16 55.2% 13 44.8% DD2266 8 4 50% 4 50%

DD1133 10 5 50% 5 50% DD2277 15 4 26.7% 11 73.3%

DD1144 58 31 53.5% 27 46.5% DD2288 15 7 46.7% 8 53.3%


TTaabbllee [[22--BB]] –– PPRROOFFIILLEE OOFF PPUURRCCHHAASSEERRSS IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

Resa

le

Tra

nsa

ctio

ns

Purchasers

with private

home

addresses

Purc

hase

rs

with H

DB fla

t

addre

sses

Resa

le

Tra

nsa

ctio

ns

Purchasers

with private

home

addresses

Purc

hase

rs

with H

DB fla

t

addre

sses

DD11 15 9 60% 6 40% DD1155 160 120 75.0% 40 25.0% DD22 7 7 100% 0 0% DD1166 107 76 71.0% 31 29.0% DD33 39 26 66.7% 13 33.3% DD1177 21 12 57.2% 9 42.8% DD44 28 23 82.1% 5 17.9% DD1188 49 33 67.4% 16 32.6% DD55 50 29 58% 21 42% DD1199 55 31 56.4% 24 43.6% DD77 10 6 60% 4 40% DD2200 36 25 69.5% 11 30.5% DD88 32 21 65.6% 11 34.4% DD2211 71 47 66.2% 24 33.8% DD99 80 65 82.1% 15 17.9% DD2222 30 14 46.7% 16 53.3% DD1100 97 84 86.6% 13 13.4% DD2233 88 42 47.7% 46 52.3% DD1111 73 60 82.2% 13 17.8% DD2255 9 3 33.3% 6 66.7% DD1122 40 20 50% 20 50% DD2266 16 8 50% 8 50% DD1133 12 5 41.7% 7 58.3% DD2277 23 8 34.8% 15 65.2% DD1144 50 27 54% 23 46% DD2288 19 7 36.8% 12 63.2%


TTaabbllee [[22--CC]] –– SSUUMMMMAARRYY OOFF TTHHEE PPUURRCCHHAASSEERR’’SS PPRROOFFIILLEE

Resale

Transactions

Purchasers’ Profile

Those with private

home addresses

Those with HDB flat

addresses

Units Sold % Units Sold %

JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100 1,145 715 62.45% 430 37.56%

FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100 1,217 808 66.4% 409 33.6%

TTOOTTAALL 2,362 1,523 64.5% 839 35.5% Source of data: URA – Compiled and analysed by Sam Gian


FFiirrsstt tthhiinngg ffiirrsstt.. TThheerree wwaass nnoo eevviiddeennccee lliinnkkiinngg HHDDBB ffllaatt oowwnneerrss ttoo tthhee rreecceenntt pprrooppeerrttyy rraallllyy..

FFrroomm TTaabbllee [[22--CC]],, iitt iiss cclleeaarr tthhaatt iitt wwaass pprriivvaattee hhoommee oowwnneerrss wwhhoo hhaavvee bbeeeenn ssnnaappppiinngg uupp

mmoorree uunniittss iinn tthhee pprriivvaattee rreessaallee mmaarrkkeett..

Here are the detailed numbers: out of the total 1,145 private resale transactions selected for

the case study, only 430 deals or 37.56% were done by purchasers with HDB addresses while

715 or 62.45% of the transactions were by purchasers who used private home addresses.

TThhiiss ssiimmppllyy mmeeaannss tthhaatt pprriivvaattee hhoommee oowwnneerrss aaccccoouunntteedd ffoorr ffaarr mmoorree pprriivvaattee hhoommee ppuurrcchhaasseess

iinn mmoosstt ooff tthhee llooccaattiioonnss iinn tthhee JJaannuuaarryy--FFeebbrruuaarryy 22001100 ppeerriioodd..



TThhee ffiinnddiinngg ooff tthhiiss ccaassee ssttuuddyy iiss iinnccoonnssiisstteenntt wwiitthh tthhee nnoottiioonn tthhaatt tthhee ccuurrrreenntt pprrooppeerrttyy rraallllyy

wwaass ssuuppppoorrtteedd bbyy ssooaarriinngg pprriicceess ooff rreessaallee HHDDBB ffllaattss.. WWhhiillee iitt iiss ttrruuee tthhaatt HHDDBB rreessaallee pprriicceess

hhaavvee ggrroowwnn ffrroomm ssttrreennggtthh ttoo ssttrreennggtthh,, pprriivvaattee hhoommee oowwnneerrss sseeeemmeedd ttoo hhaavvee oouutt--mmuusscclleedd

HHDDBB ffllaatt ddwweelllleerrss iinn tthhee pprriivvaattee rreessaallee mmaarrkkeett iinn tthhee JJaannuuaarryy--FFeebbrruuaarryy 22001100 ppeerriioodd..

�� CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDYY [[55]] –– DDIIDD TTHHEE FFOORREEIIGGNNEERRSS DDOO IITT??

FFOORREEIIGGNN BBUUYYEERRSS VVEERRSSUUSS SSIINNGGAAPPOORREEAANNSS

Table [3-A] shows the number of private non-landed home units purchased by foreigners in

January 2010 – the figures include primary sales and secondary sales (but exclude sub-sales).

TTaabbllee [[33--AA]] –– RRAANNKKIINNGG OOFF TTOOPP BBUUYYEERRSS BBYY NNAATTIIOONNAALLIITTIIEESS IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100

Malaysia

China

Indonesia

India

Others

SINGAPOREAN

TOTAL

D1 2

2

1 1166 21

D2 2 1 22 5

D3 3 5 1 3 5 1188 35

D4 5

2 5 2244 36

D5 5 2

2 5 3322 46

D7 1 44 5

D8 1 3 2 3 10 2200 39

D9 7 5 22 5 19 5522 110

D10 12 3 18 5 16 8800 134

D11 11 5 6 1 7 4455 75

D12 8 3 4 1 4 4466 66

D13 1 1 88 10

D14 2 2

8 5544 66

D15 20 15 7 9 27 119944 272

D16 4 5 2 6 9 8811 107

D17 1

3 2222 26

D18 6 4 1 9 7 7766 103

D19 4 6 3 6 6 8833 108

D20 5 2 3 1 1 3322 44

D21 4 3 2 1 6 5511 67

D22 2 5 1 1 4 2200 33

D23 16 13 4 6 7 7788 124

D25 2 2

2

77 13

D26

5 1 1 66 13

D27 4

1111 15

D28 1

2 1122 15

Total 120 93 84 65 152 11,,007744 1,588 % 7.55% 5.86% 5.28% 4.10% 9.57% 6677..6644%% 100% Source of data: URA – Compiled and analysed by Sam Gian

In all, a total of 514 foreign buyers accounted for 32.37% of all the 1,588 private home

purchases (including primary & secondary sales but excluding sub-sales) in January 2010.



Table [3-B] shows the number of private non-landed home units purchased by foreigners in

February 2010 – the figures include primary sales and secondary sales (but exclude sub-sales).

TTaabbllee [[33--BB]] –– RRAANNKKIINNGG OOFF TTOOPP BBUUYYEERRSS BBYY NNAATTIIOONNAALLIITTIIEESS IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

Malaysia

China

Indonesia

India

Others

SINGAPOREANS

TOTAL

D1 1 2 1133 16

D2 3 1 22 6

D3 2 5 1 5 3 2233 39

D4 1 3 1 1 7 1188 31

D5 2 3 7 1 2 3355 50

D7 2 2 66 10

D8 2 2 3 4 10 1133 34

D9 4 1 6 20 5500 81

D10 3 4 7 18 6655 97

D11 3 3 3 4 10 5500 73

D12 1 1 2 5 3311 40

D13 1 1 1 99 12

D14 4 4 1 4 3388 51

D15 14 8 6 7 35 9900 160

D16 13 5 11 2 8 6688 107

D17 1 1 3 1166 21

D18 16 5 1 2 2255 49

D19 5 4 3 2 6 3355 55

D20 2 1 3 3300 36

D21 1 2 3 2 6 5566 70

D22 1 1 7 1 2200 30

D23 10 9 7 7 5566 89

D25 1 2 66 9

D26 1 1 2 1122 16

D27 1 1 1 1 1199 23

D28 1199 19

Total 76 71 65 49 158 880055 1,224

% 6.2% 5.8% 5.3% 4.0% 12.9% 6655..88%% 100% Source of data: URA – Compiled and analysed by Sam Gian

In February 2010, due to the slight drop in the private resale volume, a total of 419 foreign

buyers accounted for 34.2% of all the private home purchases. Though the absolute number of

foreign buyers dropped in February 2010, the percentage of foreign buyers actually inched up

due to the lower resale private volume.

That said, however, Singaporean buyers still featured prominently in the private resale market.

In fact, local buyers as an independent category of buyers have decidedly out-purchased any

other nationalities in the private resale purchases.

Table [3-C] shows the market shares of Singapore properties owned by foreign buyers from

the European Union (EU), the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) in

the January-February 2010 period.



�� CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDYY [[55--11]] –– DDIIDD TTHHEE AANNGGMMOOSS DDOO IITT??

FFOORREEIIGGNN BBUUYYEERRSS FFRROOMM TTHHEE RRIICCHHEERR ‘‘WWEESSTTEERRNN’’ CCOOUUNNTTRRIIEESS

TTaabbllee [[33--CC]] –– CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN OOFF BBUUYYEERRSS FFRROOMM ‘‘RRIICCHH NNAATTIIOONNSS’’ IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY && FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

EU USA U.K. JAN FEB JAN FEB JAN FEB

D1 2 1 D2 1 D3 1 2 1 D4 1 1 1 D5 1 1 4 D7 1 D8 2 2 1 1 D9 1 1 3 5 10 D10 5 6 4 D11 1 1 2

D12-13 D14 2 1 1 D15 1 5 2 1 1 6 D16 2 2 D17 1 2 D18 2 D19 2 D20 1 D21 1 1 2 D22 1 D23 1 2 2 D25 1 D26 1 Total 14 25 3 11 28 31 % 0.89% 1.50% 0.66% 1.76% 1.86%



The much-hyped about jostle by foreigners coming to buy Singapore properties has

been debunked by official statistics. While it is true that the foreigner’s market share of

private homes in Singapore has grown over recent months, the absolute quantum is

negligible to say the least.



[B.3] LANDED HOME SALES VOLUME GOING THROUGH LULL PERIODS

There were a total of 227766 conventional* landed home transactions in January 2010, in both

the primary and secondary markets.

*Conventional landed home do not include strata-titled landed homes including Cluster houses and townhouses.

Out of the total transactions, 37 were detached houses, 87 semi-detached houses, and 152 terrace houses. Another 28 strata-titled landed home transactions brought the total

transactions to 305 houses sold (including the strata-titled landed houses) in the first month

of the year. Table 2[A] to 2 [C] provide the detailed numbers.

TTaabbllee [[44--AA]] –– SSAALLEESS PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE OOFF DDEETTAACCHHEEDD HHOOUUSSEESS iinn JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100

D4 1 D14 3 D19 3

D10 4 D15 8 D21 3

D11 8 D16 3 D26 1

D13 1 D17 1 D27 1 Source of data: URA Total = 37

TTaabbllee [[44--BB]] –– SSAALLEESS PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE OOFF SSEEMMII--DD HHOOUUSSEESS IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100

D4 1 D15 12 D22 1

D5 4 D16 11 D23 3

D10 7 D17 1 D26 5

D12 1 D19 10 D27 1

D13 1 D20 6 D28 14

D14 4 D21 5 Source of data: URA Total = 87

TTaabbllee [[44--CC]] –– SSAALLEESS PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE OOFF TTEERRRRAACCEE HHOOUUSSEESS IINN JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100

D5 5 D16 12 D22 1

D8 2 D17 3 D23 4

D9 5 D18 1 D25 3

D11 4 D19 34 D26 7

D13 12 D20 15 D27 1

D14 3 D21 3 D28 12

D15 25 Source of data: URA Total = 152

In February 2010, transactions of conventional landed home units eased 13.4% and came

down a shade to 223399 landed home units sold in both the primary and secondary markets.

Out of the total transactions, 36 were detached houses, 69 semi-detached houses, and 134 terrace houses. Another 24 transactions of strata-titled home units brought the second

month’s total transactions to 226633 houses sold (including the strata-titled landed houses).

The detailed statistics are at Tables [4-D], [4-E], and [4-F] below.



TTaabbllee [[44--DD]] –– SSAALLEESS PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE OOFF DDEETTAACCHHEEDD HHOOUUSSEESS IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

D4 4 D13 3 D17 1

D5 1 D14 2 D19 5

D10 9 D15 5 D21 1

D11 5 Source of data: URA Total = 36

TTaabbllee [[44--EE]] –– SSAALLEESS PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE OOFF SSEEMMII--DD HHOOUUSSEESS IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

D10 11 D16 4 D23 3

D11 5 D17 1 D26 5

D13 1 D19 18 D27 2

D14 2 D20 1 D28 8

D15 2 D21 6 Source of data: URA Total = 69

TTaabbllee [[44--FF]] –– SSAALLEESS PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE OOFF TTEERRRRAACCEE HHOOUUSSEESS IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

D5 4 D14 5 D21 5

D8 2 D15 25 D22 2

D9 1 D16 13 D23 4

D10 1 D17 4 D25 1

D11 2 D18 1 D26 5

D12 1 D19 34 D27 1

D13 9 D20 12 D28 5 Source of data: URA Total = 134

�� [[BB..33..11]] CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN OOFF LLAANNDDEEDD HHOOMMEE SSAALLEESS VVOOLLUUMM IINN TTHHEE JJAANN--FFEEBB 22001100 PPEERRIIOODD

It is still early days trying to collate sufficient transaction data, let alone spotting a trend or

making any meaningful forecast in the landed home segment. However, it is not difficult to

see that there were fewer transactions in February 2010 compared with the preceding month

(See Table 4-G below), probably due to the shorter month and the prolonged festive

holidays. However, the sales volume in the spirited non-landed home segment (i.e.

condos/apartments) was not affected by the recently-ended festive season. As such,

argument wise, the slight decline in landed home segment cannot be disassociated with the

larger economic situation.

A summary of the sales volume in the first two months is shown in Table [4-G] below.

TTaabbllee [[44--GG]] –– SSUUBB--TTOOTTAALL SSAALLEESS VVOOLLUUMMEE SSOO FFAARR IINN TTHHEE FFIIRRSSTT TTWWOO MMOONNTTHHSS OOFF 22001100

2010 Detached Semi-D Terrace Total

JAN 37 87 152 276

FEB 36 69 134 239

Sub-total 73 156 286 515

Source of data: URA

Compared with the past year, the respective 305 and 263 landed home transactions in

January and February 2010 can be considered to be on the ‘quiet’ side; and they can be

compared with the lull periods of April-May 2009 and November-December 2009. [See table

4[H] below for comparison]



TTaabbllee [[44--HH]] –– SSAALLEESS PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE OOFF LLAANNDDEEDD HHOOMMEE UUNNIITTSS IINN 22000099

2009 Detached Semi-D Terrace Total

JAN 13 35 49 97

FEB 8 22 57 87

MAR 21 50 99 170

APR 37 87 134 261

MAY 54 97 171 324

JUN 64 158 246 473

JUL 73 116 350 539

AUG 68 109 271 443

SEPT 44 100 191 340

OCT 59 90 206 355

NOV 32 86 190 308

DEC 31 58 133 222

TOTAL 504 1,008 2,097 3,609

Source of data: URA

�� [[BB..33..22]] PPRRIICCEE CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN OOFF LLAANNDDEEDD HHOOMMEESS

The approach adopted in this case study is by comparing two sets of transacted prices for

landed home units in different time periods [i.e. February 2009 and February 2010] using two

sets of transacted prices – one tests the PSYCHOLOGICAL PRICE BARRIER i.e. beyond $1,200 psf

for a landed home unit, and another set tests the SUPPORT PRICE LEVEL of $600 psf for

detached houses, and $500 psf as the base price for semi-D and terrace houses.

In this way, we can determine both the extend of the market confidence and the

fundamental support price level for landed home units being marketed at this present

moment. Let’s first look at the psychological barrier

�� CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDYY [[66]] –– AASSCCEERRTTAAIINNIINNGG TTHHEE PPSSYYCCHHOOLLOOGGIICCAALL PPRRIICCEE BBAARRRRIIEERR

Only transaction records of conventional landed houses are used in the comparison so that a

more realistic picture of the land value can be ascertained. Tables [4-I-1] to [4-I-3] show the

highest unit psf land price of the different landed housing forms in February 2010.

TTaabbllee [[44--II--11]] –– UUNNIITT PPRRIICCEESS OOFF DDEETTAACCHHEEDD HHOOUUSSEESS TTHHAATT WWEENNTT BBEEYYOONNDD $$11,,220000 PPSSFF IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

LAND SIZE

(SQ FT)

SALE PRICE

($ MILLION)

$PSF

4 9,464 13.25 1,400

10 4,573 6.78 1,483

11 4,316 6.85 1,587

4 7,334 12.0 1,636

4 7,010 12.5 1,783

11 4,722 8.75 1,853

4 6,785 13.68 2,016 Source of data: URA – Compiled and analysed by Sam Gian

Out of the 36 detached houses transacted in February 2010, 7 transactions (or 19.44% of all

detached house transactions) exceeded the $1,200 psf psychological barrier.



It is worth noting that all the above 7 transactions occurred in high-end segments including

Sentosa Cove, and prime Districts 10 and 11. In other words, it may be tough for buyers to

be willing to fork out such a high price for a detached house outside the prime areas.

TTaabbllee [[44--II--22]] –– UUNNIITT PPRRIICCEESS OOFF SSEEMMII--DD HHOOUUSSEESS TTHHAATT WWEENNTT BBEEYYOONNDD $$11,,220000 PPSSFF IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

LAND SIZE

(SQ FT)

SALE PRICE

($ MILLION)

$PSF

10 3,155 4.2 1,331

11 2,399 3.22 1,344

10 3,615 5.27 1,459

10 3,385 5.0 1,477

10 2,733 4.3 1,573

10 3,483 5.5 1,579

11 2,175 4.03 1,856

10 2,373 4.68 1,972


Out of the 69 conventional semi-detached houses transacted, 8 transactions (or 11.6% of all

semi-detached house transactions) exceeded the $1,200 psf psychological barrier.

Likewise, all the transactions occurred in prestigious areas such as Districts 10 and 11.

TTaabbllee [[44--II--33]] –– UUNNIITT PPRRIICCEESS OOFF TTEERRRRAACCEE HHOOUUSSEESS TTHHAATT WWEENNTT BBEEYYOONNDD $$11,,220000 PPSSFF IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

LAND SIZE

(SQ FT)

SALE PRICE

($ MILLION)

$PSF

8 1,525 1.88 1,232

15 1,467 1.81 1,233

21 1,854 2.29 1,235

15 1,614 2.1 1,301

11 1,872 2.5 1,335

15 834 1.23 1,471

11 1,763 2.6 1,474

10 2,275 3.5 1,538

9 1,246 3.468 2,782


In February 2010, the price barrier was further accentuated as out of the 134 conventional

terrace houses transacted, only 9 transactions (or 6.7% of all terrace house transactions)

exceeded the $1,200 psf psychological barrier. Moreover, out of the 9 transactions, 7 of them

occurred in prime districts, e.g. Districts 9, 10, 11, and popular area such as District 15. In

other words, it is unlikely for prices of terrace houses in most parts of Singapore to exceed

the psychological barrier if there is no major breakthrough in the general economy.

�� CCAASSEE SSTTUUDDYY [[77]] –– AASSCCEERRTTAAIINNIINNGG TTHHEE BBAASSEE PPRRIICCEE LLEEVVEELL

Two sets of base price statistics were compared to ascertain the support price level for

detached houses in February 2010. See Tables [4-J-1] and [4-J-2] below for details.



TTaabbllee [[44--JJ--11]] –– UUNNIITT PPRRIICCEESS OOFF DDEETTAACCHHEEDD HHOOUUSSEESS TTHHAATT WWEENNTT BBEELLOOWW $$660000 PPSSFF IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100 LAND SIZE

(SQ FT)

SALE PRICE

($ MILLION)

$PSF

D17 6,243 3.0 480

D13 5,134 2.63 512

D14 4,994 2.768 554

D15 7,631 4.25 557 Source of data: URA – Compiled and analysed by Sam Gian

TTaabbllee [[44--JJ--22]] –– UUNNIITT PPRRIICCEESS OOFF DDEETTAACCHHEEDD HHOOUUSSEESS TTHHAATT WWEENNTT BBEELLOOWW $$660000 PPSSFF IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22000099 LAND SIZE

(SQ FT)

SALE PRICE

($ MILLION)

$PSF

19 4,219 1.67 396

27 4,531 1.8 398

19 3,853 1.8 467

10 8,783 4.2 478

15 5,586 3.0 537


�� FFIINNDDIINNGG {{11}} –– SSUUPPPPOORRTT PPRRIICCEE LLEEVVEELL FFOORR DDEETTAACCHHEEDD HHOOUUSSEESS

DDEETTAACCHHEEDD HHOOUUSSEE PPRRIICCEESS UUNNLLIIKKEELLYY TTOO FFAALLLL BBEELLOOWW $$660000 PPSSFF

Out of the 36 detached house transactions in February 2010, only 4 transactions (or 11.11%

of all detached house transactions) went below the base price of $600 psf. However, due to

the lack of market direction in February 2009, 62.25% of detached house transactions in the

same time period last year went below the base price of $600 psf.

The finding of this case study has produced evidence to show that in the near term the

support price level for detached houses should be around $600 psf. This is because demand

for landed home units is healthy at this moment and if a detached house were to be put up

for sale at below the $600 psf unit price level, buyers will rush in to snap up the property.

Let’s now look at transactions of semi-detached houses in February 2010 that fell below the

threshold of $500 psf. See Tables [4-K-1] and [4-K-2] below for comparison of support price

level for semi-detached houses in February 2010.

TTaabbllee [[44--KK--11]] –– UUNNIITT PPRRIICCEESS OOFF SSEEMMII--DD HHOOUUSSEESS TTHHAATT WWEENNTT BBEELLOOWW $$550000 PPSSFF IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

LAND SIZE

(SQ FT)

SALE PRICE

($ MILLION)

$PSF

D21 3,638 990k 272

D27 3,971 1.69 426

D19 5,371 2.4 447

D28 4,951 2.3 465

D14 4,477 2.15 481

D14 4,036 1.95 483

D17 3,272 1.59 487 Source of data: URA – Compiled and analysed by Sam Gian

TTaabbllee [[44--KK--22]] –– UUNNIITT PPRRIICCEESS OOFF SSEEMMII--DD HHOOUUSSEESS TTHHAATT WWEENNTT BBEELLOOWW $$550000 PPSSFF IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22000099

LAND SIZE

(SQ FT)

SALE PRICE

($ MILLION)

$PSF

27 3,638 1.25 343

15 3,788 1.5 396



28 3,702 1.5 405

26 3,670 1.5 409

19 3,597 1.5 417

5 5,714 2.48 434

19 3,887 1.8 463

20 3,336 1.55 465

26 3,444 1.61 468

16 3,433 1.68 489 Source of data: URA – Compiled and analysed by Sam Gian

�� FFIINNDDIINNGG {{22}} –– SSUUPPPPOORRTT PPRRIICCEE LLEEVVEELL FFOORR SSEEMMII--DDEETTAACCHHEEDD HHOOUUSSEESS

SSEEMMII--DDEETTAACCHHEEDD HHOOUUSSEE PPRRIICCEESS UUNNLLIIKKEELLYY TTOO FFAALLLL BBEELLOOWW $$550000 PPSSFF

Out of the 69 semi-detached house transactions in February 2010, only 7 transactions (or

10.14% of all semi-D transactions) went below the base price of $500 psf. However, at the

same time period last year, a high 45.5% of semi-D transactions were done at below the

base price of $500 psf.

A much improved economy in 2010, though still convalescent, has escalated the support

price level to $500 psf. In other words, if any semi-detached were to be put up for sale at

below the support price level, buyers would react quickly to snap it up.

See Tables [4-L-1] and [4-L-2] below for comparison of support price level for terrace houses

in February 2010.

TTaabbllee [[44--LL--11]] –– UUNNIITT PPRRIICCEESS OOFF TTEERRRRAACCEE HHOOUUSSEESS TTHHAATT WWEENNTT BBEELLOOWW $$550000 PPSSFF IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22001100

LAND SIZE

(SQ FT)

SALE PRICE

($ MILLION)

$PSF

19 3,272 510k 156

19 3,229 658k 204

22 4,477 1.48 332

19 5,403 1.98 366

19 4,144 1.76 425

23 3,100 1.32 425

5 4,004 1.83 460

19 3,616 1.8 497


TTaabbllee [[44--LL--22]] –– UUNNIITT PPRRIICCEESS OOFF TTEERRRRAACCEE HHOOUUSSEESS TTHHAATT WWEENNTT BBEELLOOWW $$550000 PPSSFF IINN FFEEBBRRUUAARRYY 22000099

LAND SIZE

(SQ FT)

SALE PRICE

($ MILLION)

$PSF

28 9,854 2.03 206

27 2,909 928k 319

25 2,343 900k 384

19 2,176 838k 385

18 3,737 1.48 396

18 2,648 1.07 404

19 2,709 1.10 406

19 2,348 958k 408

19 2,712 1.18 435

5 5,360 2.4 448

19 2,793 1.285 460

28 2,159 1.0 463



19 1,802 838.3k 465

26 3,014 1.42 471

20 1,849 895k 484

23 2,066 1.0 484

15 3,319 1.63 491


Out of the 134 transactions of conventional terrace houses in February 2010, only 8 transactions (or 5.97% of all terrace house transactions) went below the base price of $500

psf, unlike in February 2009 where 17 transactions or 29.8% of all terrace house transactions

went below the base price. Given the keen interests on landed home units at this moment, it

is unlikely that the support price level of terrace houses would fall below the $500 psf level.

�� FFIINNDDIINNGG {{44}} –– SSUUPPPPOORRTT PPRRIICCEE LLEEVVEELL FFOORR TTEERRRRAACCEE HHOOUUSSEESS

TTEERRRRAACCEE HHOOUUSSEE PPRRIICCEESS UUNNLLIIKKEELLYY TTOO FFAALLLL BBEELLOOWW $$550000 PPSSFF

Likewise, the finding for the support price level for terrace houses is the same as the other

larger house types, i.e. terrace house prices are unlikely to fall below the current support

level of $500 psf.

�� CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN

The exuberance seen in the non-landed (condo / apartments) segment where hopes were

sky-high and sales volume was feverish was conspicuously absent in the landed home

segment. Though the psychological support level and the base price for landed home units

are firm for the time being, buyer’s cautiousness can be clearly felt in this particular housing

segment. There could be a couple of reasons for the tranquillity at this particular housing

segment:

(1) the lack of speculative elements in this particular home segment; and,

(2) the different psyche of landed home owners (and aspiring owners) who tend to be

business owners who may have to bear the brunt of any sudden economic downturn,

given the fragility in the economy.

Business owners face the unnerving prospect of the withdrawal of the Job Credit Scheme in

July 2010, a government subsidy that has thus far succeeded in keeping many businesses

afloat. And the aspiring landed home owners may be trying to keep their powder dry in the

interim until more certainties materialise in the business environment.



[B.4] PRIVATE HOME RENTS REGAINED STABILITY IN JANUARY 2010

Private home rents have generally gone up in January 2010 compared with the same time

last year. A search on the URA rental records revealed that out of the 80 street locations

selected for this analysis, 50 such locations experienced healthier rents while 30 other

registered slight drops in rents.

�� [[BB..44..11]] CCOOMMPPAARRIINNGG JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100 RREENNTTSS WWIITTHH LLAASSTT JJAANNUUAARRYY ((BBYY SSTTRREEEETT NNAAMMEESS))

Median rents in popular locations such as District 9 and 10 experienced a more robust

growth than other outlaying areas. For example, in Devonshire Road (item 13 at Table [5-A]

below), the median home rent rose by 61% or $2.13 psf/ per month when compared with the

same time last year. However, rent rises in other locations were moderate, for example the

4.24% increase in median rent at Alexandra Road (item 1 at Table [5-A]).

TTaabbllee [[55--AA]] –– 5500 LLOOCCAATTIIOONNSS WWHHEERREE MMEEDDIIAANN HHOOMMEE RREENNTTSS HHAAVVEE RRIISSEENN

25th

Percentile

Median 75th

Percentile

1 ALEXANDRA ROAD JAN 2009 2.63 2.83 3.17

JAN 2010 2.66 2.95 3.35

2 AMBER GARDENS JAN 2009 1.69 1.82 2.24

JAN 2010 2.17 2.83 3.01

3 ANG MO KIO CTR 3 JAN 2009 2.47 2.67 2.81

JAN 2010 2.84 3.01 3.06

4 ARDMORE PARK JAN 2009 5.38 5.6 5.96

JAN 2010 6.05 6.33 6.46

5 BAYSHORE ROAD JAN 2009 2.44 2.67 2.93

JAN 2010 2.53 2.8 3.17

6 BT BATOK CTR LINK JAN 2009 3.08 3.1 3.18

JAN 2010 2.89 3.26 3.62

7 CHARLTON ROAD JAN 2009 1.67 1.88 2.08

JAN 2010 1.88 2.09 2.16

8 CHOA CHU KANG LOOP JAN 2009 1.94 2.18 2.46

JAN 2010 2.13 2.48 2.6

9 CLAYMORE ROAD JAN 2009 4.53 4.69 5.07

JAN 2010 4.74 4.77 5.02

10 CORNWALL GARDENS JAN 2009 3.88 4.32 4.61

JAN 2010 4.36 4.62 4.95

11 CORONATION RD WEST JAN 2009 3.53 4.17 4.55

JAN 2010 3.91 4.39 4.59

12 DAIRY FARM ROAD JAN 2009 1.93 1.96 2.01

JAN 2010 1.99 2.14 2.19

13 DEVONSHIRE ROAD JAN 2009 3.38 3.54 4.03

JAN 2010 4.69 5.67 6.79



14 DUCHESS AVENUE JAN 2009 3.39 3.86 4.33

JAN 2010 3.41 4.32 5.03

15 DUNEARN ROAD JAN 2009 2.56 3.04 3.57

JAN 2010 3.02 3.42 3.69

16 EAST COAST ROAD JAN 2009 1.76 2.11 2.4

JAN 2010 2.16 2.46 2.78

17 EWE BOON ROAD JAN 2009 2.81 3.17 3.32

JAN 2010 3.22 3.42 3.46

18 GERALD DRIVE JAN 2009 2.2 2.25 2.3

JAN 2010 2.28 2.28 2.28

19 GRANGE ROAD JAN 2009 2.11 2.51 3.88

JAN 2010 3.66 4.32 4.82

20 HACIENDA GROVE JAN 2009 2.05 2.36 2.62

JAN 2010 2.97 2.97 2.97

21 HILLVIEW AVENUE JAN 2009 1.81 2.0 2.19

JAN 2010 1.95 2.08 2.19

22 HOUGANG ST 92 JAN 2009 2.03 2.13 2.28

JAN 2010 2.32 2.32 2.37

23 JLN BT HO SWEE JAN 2009 3.99 4.21 4.33

JAN 2010 5.18 5.2 5.67

24 JLN KEMBANGAN JAN 2009 3.59 3.82 3.83

JAN 2010 4.16 4.16 4.16

25 JLN LIM TAI SEE JAN 2009 2.89 2.89 2.89

JAN 2010 3.3 3.7 4.1

26 JLN TUA KONG JAN 2009 1.74 1.74 1.74

JAN 2010 1.66 1.91 2.24

27 KOVAN ROAD JAN 2009 2.22 2.39 3.29

JAN 2010 2.76 2.96 3.45

28 LAKEPOINT DRIVE JAN 2009 1.59 1.65 1.85

JAN 2010 1.6 2.11 2.48

29 LEONIE HILL JAN 2009 2.25 2.66 3.52

JAN 2010 2.69 3.47 4.79

30 LOR 1 TOA PAYOH JAN 2009 2.68 3.07 3.22

JAN 2010 2.81 3.37 3.95

31 LOR CHUAN JAN 2009 1.87 1.96 2.4

JAN 2010 2.05 2.11 3.07

32 LOYANG RISE JAN 2009 1.15 1.32 1.43

JAN 2010 1.45 1.45 1.45

33 MARINE PARADE ROAD JAN 2009 2.91 3.55 3.66

JAN 2010 3.28 3.71 3.87

34 MEYER ROAD JAN 2009 2.18 2.34 2.71

JAN 2010 2.41 2.58 2.75



35 MOUNT EMILY ROAD JAN 2009 4.09 4.3 4.5

JAN 2010 5.13 5.28 5.5

36 MOUNT SINAI DRIVE JAN 2009 1.81 2.15 2.45

JAN 2010 2.57 2.65 2.97

37 ORANGE GROVE ROAD JAN 2009 3.07 3.14 3.37

JAN 2010 4.53 4.99 5.44

38 PASIR PANJANG HILL JAN 2009 2.5 2.56 2.73

JAN 2010 2.97 3.21 3.33

39 PINEWOOD GROVE JAN 2009 1.69 1.69 1.69

JAN 2010 2.0 2.31 2.61

40 QUEENSWAY JAN 2009 2.21 3.43 4.57

JAN 2010 4.15 4.3 4.79

41 RHU CROSS JAN 2009 2.53 2.71 3.05

JAN 2010 2.58 2.87 3.05

42 RIVER VALLEY CLOSE JAN 2009 1.77 1.94 2.73

JAN 2010 2.62 3.29 3.53

43 SIMEI RISE JAN 2009 2.34 2.42 2.52

JAN 2010 2.46 2.63 2.73

44 SOMMERVILLE WALK JAN 2009 1.47 1.47 1.47

JAN 2010 1.64 1.64 1.64

45 STEVENS DRIVE JAN 2009 4.15 4.33 4.55

JAN 2010 5.24 5.64 5.83

46 TANGLIN RISE JAN 2009 3.58 3.58 3.58

JAN 2010 3.42 4.02 4.63

47 TANJONG RHU ROAD JAN 2009 2.43 2.93 3.42

JAN 2010 2.74 3.19 3.47

48 THOMSON ROAD JAN 2009 2.38 2.77 4.28

JAN 2010 2.56 3.14 3.49

49 UPPER THOMSON ROAD JAN 2009 1.46 1.46 1.46

JAN 2010 1.71 1.74 1.89

50 WEST COAST WAY JAN 2009 1.68 1.82 2.21

JAN 2010 1.95 2.61 2.9

Source of data: URA

�� FFIINNDDIINNGG {{11}}

MMOORREE SSPPEECCTTAACCUULLAARR RREENNTT RRIISSEESS IINN PPRRIIMMEE LLOOCCAATTIIOONNSS

Apparently, the ‘flight to quality’ has occurred in some parts of the prime areas, resulting in a

small pocket of high-end projects experiencing spectacle RISES in rent in January 2010. Here

are some examples of high-end projects where median rents had gone up by more than 50%

when compared year-on-year (i.e. January 2010 compared with January 2009):



�� AAtt OOrraannggee GGrroovvee RRooaadd,, aavveerraaggee mmeeddiiaann rreenntt cclliimmbbeedd $$11..8855 ppssff//ppeerr mmoonntthh ((oorr ffrroomm $$33..1144 ttoo $$44..9999 ppssff//ppmm)).. TThhee ppeerrcceennttaaggee rriissee wwaass 5599%% oovveerr tthhee ssaammee ttiimmee llaasstt yyeeaarr..

�� AAtt RRiivveerr VVaalllleeyy CClloossee,, aavveerraaggee mmeeddiiaann rreenntt rroossee $$11..3355 ppssff//ppeerr mmoonntthh ((oorr ffrroomm $$11..9944 ttoo $$33..2299 ppssff//ppmm)).. TThhee ppeerrcceennttaaggee rriissee wwaass aann iimmpprreessssiivvee 7700%% oovveerr JJaannuuaarryy 22000099..

�� AAtt GGrraannggee RRooaadd,, aavveerraaggee mmeeddiiaann rreenntt ssooaarreedd bbyy $$11..8811 ppssff//ppeerr mmoonntthh ((oorr ffrroomm $$22..5511 ttoo $$44..3322 ppssff//ppmm)).. BByy ppeerrcceennttaaggee tteerrmm,, iitt wwaass aa wwhhooppppiinngg 7733%% ssppiikkee iinn mmeeddiiaann rreenntt oovveerr llaasstt JJaannuuaarryy..

However, by and large, there are more projects which experienced moderate rises in median

rents such as the following:

�� AAtt AArrddmmoorree PPaarrkk,, aavveerraaggee mmeeddiiaann rreenntt rroossee $$00..7733 ppssff//ppeerr mmoonntthh ((oorr ffrroomm $$55..66 ttoo $$66..3333 ppssff//ppmm)).. TThhee ppeerrcceennttaaggee rriissee wwaass 1133%% oovveerr tthhee ssaammee ttiimmee llaasstt yyeeaarr..

�� AAtt MMtt EEmmiillyy RRooaadd,, aavveerraaggee mmeeddiiaann rreenntt rroossee $$00..9988 ppssff//ppeerr mmoonntthh ((oorr ffrroomm $$44..33 ttoo $$55..2288 ppssff//ppmm)).. TThhee ppeerrcceennttaaggee rriissee wwaass 2222..88%% oovveerr JJaannuuaarryy 22000099..

�� AAtt QQuueeeennsswwaayy,, aavveerraaggee mmeeddiiaann rreenntt rroossee $$00..8877 ppssff//ppeerr mmoonntthh ((oorr ffrroomm $$33..4433 ttoo $$44..33 ppssff//ppmm)).. TThhee ppeerrcceennttaaggee rriissee wwaass 2266%% oovveerr JJaannuuaarryy 22000099..

Let’s now look at projects where median rents had fallen.

TTaabbllee [[55--BB]] –– 3300 LLOOCCAATTIIOONNSS WWHHEERREE MMEEDDIIAANN HHOOMMEE RREENNTTSS HHAAVVEE FFAALLLLEENN

25th

Percentile

Median 75th

Percentile

51 BINJAI PARK JAN 2009 2.55 3.23 3.9

JAN 2010 1.92 1.92 1.92

52 BISHAN ST 21 JAN 2009 2.92 3.19 3.52

JAN 2010 2.75 2.88 3

53 CAIRNHILL CIRCLE JAN 2009 4.65 5.4 5.64

JAN 2010 4.04 4.31 5.17

54 CHUN TIN ROAD JAN 2009 3.5 3.77 3.85

JAN 2010 2.44 2.91 2.99

55 DRAYCOTT PARK JAN 2009 4.4 6.79 7.45

JAN 2010 6.03 6.62 7.01

56 DUNMAN ROAD JAN 2009 2.69 2.94 2.98

JAN 2010 2.29 2.5 2.52

57 FORD AVENUE JAN 2009 5.4 5.46 5.52

JAN 2010 4.04 4.32 5.49

58 GOPENG ST JAN 2009 6.01 6.32 7.63

JAN 2010 5.91 6.13 6.56

59 HAVELOCK ROAD JAN 2009 3.98 4.45 4.85

JAN 2010 3.73 4.18 4.51



60 HOLLAND GROVE LANE JAN 2009 4.02 4.02 4.02

JAN 2010 3.52 3.52 3.52

61 HOLLAND HILL JAN 2009 2.68 2.84 2.91

JAN 2010 2.61 2.77 4.31

62 HOLLAND PARK JAN 2009 2.84 3.27 3.59

JAN 2010 2.4 2.66 2.92

63 HOLLAND ROAD JAN 2009 2.31 2.83 3.5

JAN 2010 2.4 2.54 3.23

64 INDUS ROAD JAN 2009 3.21 3.32 3.77

JAN 2010 2.11 2.89 3.14

65 JLN MUTIARA JAN 2009 4.3 4.37 4.44

JAN 2010 3.75 4.26 4.72

66 JERVOIS ROAD JAN 2009 2.75 4.1 5.96

JAN 2010 2.45 2.68 2.71

67 JURONG EAST ST 32 JAN 2009 2.65 3.02 3.04

JAN 2010 2.48 2.6 2.8

68 KENSINGTON PARK

DRIVE

JAN 2009 2.48 3.1 3.3

JAN 2010 2.48 2.48 2.48

69 KEPPEL BAY DRIVE JAN 2009 5.23 5.79 6.57

JAN 2010 4.89 5.36 5.86

70 LADY HILL ROAD JAN 2009 8.41 8.72 9.03

JAN 2010 7.85 7.85 7.85

71 NASSIM ROAD JAN 2009 4.51 6.24 6.74

JAN 2010 4.02 4.42 4.56

72 NEWTON ROAD JAN 2009 4.12 5.24 6.94

JAN 2010 3.69 4.26 4.97

73 NORMANTON PARK JAN 2009 2.39 2.53 2.85

JAN 2010 2.17 2.26 2.44

74 ORCHARD BOULEVARD JAN 2009 2 2.24 2.68

JAN 2010 1.97 2.07 2.28

75 PANDAN VALLEY JAN 2009 1.88 2.15 2.45

JAN 2010 2.08 2.13 2.51

76 RIVER VALLEY ROAD JAN 2009 2.94 3.51 3.86

JAN 2010 3.06 3.43 3.68

77 SCOTTS ROAD JAN 2009 4.69 4.74 4.78

JAN 2010 4.5 4.61 4.71

78 SOUTH BUONA VISTA

ROAD

JAN 2009 2.3 3.04 3.21

JAN 2010 2.32 2.69 3.32

79 WILBY ROAD JAN 2009 4.2 5.78 6

JAN 2010 5.34 5.46 5.66

80 YISHUN ST 81 JAN 2009 2.07 2.18 2.21



JAN 2010 2.09 2.17 2.24

Source of data: URA

�� FFIINNDDIINNGG {{22}}

LLOOCCAATTIIOONNSS WWHHEERREE MMEEDDIIAANN HHOOMMEE RREENNTT HHAASS FFAALLLLEENN

Compared with rent rises, rent falls were restricted to within a narrow range of between 8-

cent psf/per month or 2.27% rent fall at River Valley Road (item 76 at Table [5-B] above) and

$0.43 psf/per month or 7.43% rental fall at Keppel Bay Drive (item 69 at the same Table [5-B])

when compared year-on-year.

However, there were also a very small number of high-end private condos in prime areas

which experienced more pronounced rent falls, such as the trio below:

�� AAtt JJeerrvvooiiss RRooaadd,, aavveerraaggee mmeeddiiaann rreenntt ffeellll $$11..4422 ppssff//ppeerr mmoonntthh ((oorr ffrroomm $$44..11 ttoo $$22..6688 ppssff//ppmm)).. RReennttaall iinnccoommee wwaass sseettbbaacckk bbyy 3355%% wwhheenn ccoommppaarreedd wwiitthh llaasstt JJaannuuaarryy..

�� AAtt NNaassssiimm RRooaadd,, aavveerraaggee mmeeddiiaann rreenntt ffeellll $$11..8822 ppssff//ppeerr mmoonntthh ((oorr ffrroomm $$66..2244 ttoo $$44..4422 ppssff//ppmm)).. TThhee rreenntt ffaallll wwaass 3300%% oovveerr tthhee ssaammee ttiimmee llaasstt yyeeaarr..

�� AAtt CCaaiirrnnhhiillll CCiirrccllee,, aavveerraaggee mmeeddiiaann rreenntt ffeellll $$11..0099 ppssff//ppeerr mmoonntthh ((oorr ffrroomm $$55..44 ttoo $$44..3311 ppssff//ppmm)).. BByy ppeerrcceennttaaggee tteerrmm,, iitt wwaass aa 2200..22%% ffaallll oovveerr llaasstt JJaannuuaarryy..

�� [[BB..44..22]] CCOOMMPPAARRIINNGG JJAANNUUAARRYY 22001100 RREENNTTSS WWIITTHH LLAASSTT JJAANNUUAARRYY ((BBYY PPOOSSTTAALL DDIISSTTRRIICCTTSS))

However, when median home rents are compared using a different yardstick, such as by

postal districts, the rise/fall movements are less pronounced. One can see subdued rental

price movements ranging from a two-cent psf/per month increase to 58-cent psf/per month

rise. Though there was a $1.77 psf/per month spike in District 1, that was an isolated case

not repeated anywhere else across the island.

TTaabbllee [[55--CC]] –– 1199 DDIISSTTRRIICCTTSS WWHHEERREE MMEEDDIIAANN HHOOMMEE RREENNTTSS HHAAVVEE RRIISSEENN

Districts Period 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile

D1 JAN 2009 2.3 3.23 3.58

JAN 2010 3.69 5 5.73

D4 JAN 2009 2.65 4.6 5.8

JAN 2010 3.77 4.62 5.37

D8 JAN 2009 1.23 2.37 3.49

JAN 2010 2.06 2.86 4.35

D9 JAN 2009 2.72 3.73 4.68

JAN 2010 2.95 3.92 5.07

D10 JAN 2009 2.72 3.53 4.37

JAN 2010 2.99 3.7 4.9

D11 JAN 2009 2.56 3.25 4.37

JAN 2010 2.65 3.43 4.15

D12 JAN 2009 1.66 2.31 2.82

JAN 2010 2.03 2.49 3.14



D13 JAN 2009 1.15 1.25 1.54

JAN 2010 1.39 1.83 2.43

D15 JAN 2009 1.96 2.42 2.87

JAN 2010 2.24 2.67 3.18

D16 JAN 2009 1.95 2.37 2.7

JAN 2010 2.19 2.51 2.78

D17 JAN 2009 1.64 2.08 2.38

JAN 2010 1.74 2.16 2.47

D18 JAN 2009 2.16 2.3 2.46

JAN 2010 2.29 2.39 2.58

D19 JAN 2009 1.76 2.09 2.45

JAN 2010 1.77 2.22 2.68

D20 JAN 2009 1.9 2.44 2.86

JAN 2010 1.99 2.6 2.98

D21 JAN 2009 1.94 2.25 2.68

JAN 2010 2.01 2.3 2.8

D22 JAN 2009 2.2 2.45 3.04

JAN 2010 2.28 2.53 2.98

D23 JAN 2009 1.85 2.11 2.32

JAN 2010 1.98 2.16 2.49

D25 JAN 2009 2.23 2.33 2.56

JAN 2010 2.09 2.32 2.64

D26 JAN 2009 1.95 2.19 2.47

JAN 2010 1.97 2.25 2.58

D27 JAN 2009 1.28 2.07 2.22

JAN 2010 1.88 2.11 2.24

Source of data: URA

TTaabbllee [[55--BB]] –– 55 DDIISSTTRRIICCTTSS WWHHEERREE MMEEDDIIAANN HHOOMMEE RREENNTTSS HHAAVVEE FFAALLLLEENN

Districts Period 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile

D2 JAN 2009 2.36 5.61 6.35

JAN 2010 2.45 4.93 6.13

D3 JAN 2009 2.8 3.68 4.21

JAN 2010 2.67 3.44 4.01

D7 JAN 2009 3.26 4.71 8.34

JAN 2010 3.45 3.88 4.23

D14 JAN 2009 2.09 2.43 2.85

JAN 2010 1.76 2.22 2.58

D28 JAN 2009 1.46 1.68 2.24

JAN 2010 1.45 1.6 2.09

Source of data: URA



((CC)) CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN

So, it was not the HDB flat dwellers nor was it the foreigners who were to be accountable

for the spike in the sales volume to an inexplicable height amidst an uncertain economy.

No one is able to pinpoint the reasons for the property rally as the global economic

fundamentals, which underpin any advanced economies’ performance – Singapore’s

included, are still convalescent and fragile. At the moment, the ‘cheap money’ factor

appears to be the main culprit. This factor can be corroborated by the fact that more than

70% of the buyers of private home units are private property owners themselves –

presumably the middle- and higher-income groups.

The next thing that was like fuel to fire is the high hope pined by the indigenous

investors/speculators, as well as ordinary home owners, on the certain success of the two

Integrated Resorts (IRs).

For now, buying real estate appears to be the wisest thing to do as the costs of property

ownership is really ‘dirt cheap’. Moreover, real estate as the best hedge against inflation is

the most fashionable currency in thoughts and the most intelligent thing to talk about

whether at an upscale cafe or a coffee shop at a HDB estate.

However, most property buyers appear to have been totally blind-sided by the

development in the private home rent segment as rents remain flat and its immediate

future uncertain, especially with more than 10,000 quality condo units to be ready for

vacant possession by the end of this year.

We should brace ourselves for some unpleasant surprises in the near future.



ANNEX A – REVISED PROPERTY TAX

RREEVVIISSEEDD PPRROOPPEERRTTYY TTAAXX RRAATTEESS

From January 2011, there will be a three-tier property tax rate for all home owners. The first

$6,000 of ANNUAL VALUE (AV) will be exempted from property tax. The next $59,000 AV will

be taxed at 4% and the balance of AV above $65,000 will be taxed at 6%.

The property tax for non-owner-occupied residential properties as well as other properties

will remain at a flat rate of 10% of AV.

As a result of the rate change, all owner-occupied homes will enjoy tax savings of $240 due

to the exemption of the first $6,000 of AV. Owners of high-end properties will see increases

in tax payable as follows:

WORKINGS OF THE NEXT TAX RATES

Household A

AV of $80,000

Household B

AV of $120,000

1st tier $6,000 = $0 First $6,000 = $0

2nd tier $59,000 x 4% = $2,360 $59,000 x 4% = $2,360

3rd tier $15,000 x 6% = $900 $55,000 x 6% = $3,300

New Tax payable $3,260 $5,660

Old Tax payable $80,000 x 4% = $3,200 $120,000 x 4% = $4,800

New Tax Rate $3,260 $5,660

Difference in tax Household pays $60 more Household pays $860 more

RREEVVIISSEEDD LLOOAANN--TTOO--VVAALLUUEE ((LLTTVV)) RRAATTIIOO

A home buyer will have to fork out more cash to buy a property with the latest change in the

stamp duty rules. Besides, he will reap a smaller profit if he sells it within a year. Take, for

example, a buyer who pays $1 million for a home before the rules changed and sold it in less

than a year for $1.1million.

BEFORE THE NEW MEASURES

The buyer could enjoy LTV of 90% - so he could purchase the property with only $100,000 as

a down-payment. By selling, he would have made a fast $100,000, less the stamp duty he

paid when he bought the property - $24,600 under the stamp duty formula. That means he

would pocket a profit of $75,400. [Return on capital: 75,400/100,000 = 75.4%]

AFTER THE NEW MEASURES

The buyer can only enjoy LTV of only 80% of the price which means a down-payment of

$200,000. He would have made $100,000 minus his original buyers' stamp duty ($24,600),

and now minus an additional sellers' stamp duty, of $27,600. This means a greatly reduced

profit of $47,800. [Return on capital: 47,800/200,000 = 23.9%]



ANNEX B – REVISED HDB POLICIES

On 5 March 2010, the Ministry of National Development introduced a series of measures to

ensure financial prudence and to prevent ethnic enclaves in Singapore. This is hot on the

heel of an earlier round of measures which saw the implementation of seller’s Stamp Duty

for private properties sold within a year of its purchase; and the introduction of a three-tier

property tax rate.

(A) In Support of an Inclusive and Cohesive Home

[[AA--11]] EEMMPPHHAASSIISS OONN SSIINNGGAAPPOORREE CCIITTIIZZEENNSSHHIIPP

� The amount of CPF Housing Grant is reduced by $10,000 for families with only one

Singapore Citizen (SC) and at least one Singapore Permanent Resident (SPR)

� SPR can apply for a $10,000 Citizen Top-Up if they take up citizenship or if the couple

has an SC child while still in ownership of the flat

[[AA--22]] PPRREEVVEENNTTIINNGG SSPPRR EENNCCLLAAVVEESS FFRROOMM FFOORRMMIINNGG

With the above objective in mind, the following policies have been introduced:

� A new SPR Quota for non-Malaysian SPR families buying resale flats

� SPR families cannot buy flats in areas that have exceeded the 8% (block) quota and 5%

(Neighbourhood) quota except from non-Malaysian SPR sellers.

� The principle of SPR Quota is similar to Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) – i.e. when the SPR

quota is filled, SPR can only buy a flat from a non-Malaysian SPR

[[AA--33]] RREESSPPOONNDDIINNGG TTOO CCHHAANNGGIINNGG DDEEMMOOGGRRAAPPHHIICCSS

� For the Ethnic Integration Policy, the limits for the Indian/Others ethnic group have been

increased by two percentage points to 12% at the Neighbourhood level and 15% at the

Block level, in view of Singapore’s changing demographics

� See below for EIP table

Ethnic Group Maximum Ethnic Limits

Neighbourhood Block Malays (no change) 22% 25% Chinese (no change) 84% 87% Indians & Others 12% 15%

� The status of changes of ethnic proportions is updated on a monthly basis.



(B) Reinforcing of Owner-Occupation Among HDB Flat Owners

� The Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) for resale of non-subsidised flats (i.e. resale flats

bought without CPF Housing Grant) is increased to 3 years.

� The increase in MOP is regardless of whether the buyer takes an HDB loan, a bank loan

or no loan at all.

� The revised MOP policy will apply to resale transactions where applications are received

by HDB from 5 Mar 2010 onwards.

� Existing lessees of non-subsidised flats will not be affected, i.e. the original MOP of 2.5

or 1 year continues to apply to them.

(C) In Support of Right-sizing and Financial Prudence

� Second-timer households are no longer required to buy bigger flats to qualify for a

second concessionary loan from HDB.

� The second concessionary loan will be made available to all eligible households

regardless whether they upgrade, downsize or move to the same flat type

� HDB has reduced the amount of the second concessionary loan by the full CPF proceeds and part of the cash proceeds from the sale of the existing or immediate past HDB flats.

� Flat buyers can keep half of the cash proceeds (including the cash deposit received) or

$25,000 in cash, whichever is greater.

[[CC--11]] TTHHOOSSEE WWHHOO BBUUYY TTHHEE NNEEXXTT FFLLAATT AAFFTTEERR SSEELLLLIINNGG TTHHEE EEXXIISSTTIINNGG OONNEE

� Must use up to 50% cash proceeds from the sale of the immediate past HDB flat and all CPF balance to finance the purchase of the next flat.

� This will apply regardless of when the previous HDB flat was sold

[[CC--22]] TTHHOOSSEE WWHHOO BBUUYY TTHHEE NNEEXXTT FFLLAATT BBEEFFOORREE SSEELLLLIINNGG TTHHEE EEXXIISSTTIINNGG OONNEE

� HDB will first grant them a bigger loan at commercial interest rates.

� After the sale of their existing flat, they will have to redeem this loan with the full CPF refund and part of the cash proceeds.

� Upon redemption, the loan will be converted to a concessionary rate loan

(D) Lease Buyback Scheme to Benefit More Elderly HDB Households

� To enable more lessees to benefit from the Lease Buyback Scheme, HDB has extended it

to those owning 4-room and bigger flats.

Property Market Direction (April 2010)

Documents

Transcript of Property Market Direction (April 2010)