Latest Posts By pharoah88
- Supreme
About pharoah88
|
|
| 07-Jan-2011 11:40 |
User Research/Opinions
/
! ! ! ! LANDED Property prICes fOr REAL ! ! ! !
 Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
 x 0
 x 0
|
It remains to be seen if the large supply can be supported by demand. It is critical for stakeholders to make informed decisions, thinking through a comprehensive set of real estate data such as housing demolitions, population growth policies, public and private housing TOPs, etc. |
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 07-Jan-2011 11:36 |
User Research/Opinions
/
! ! ! ! LANDED Property prICes fOr REAL ! ! ! !
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
It was a week before last Christmas when we celebrated the Housing and Development Board’s (HDB) completion of 1 million flats.
THE SCOURGE OF SARS The economy dipped in 2001 after the dotcom crash, which was followed by 911, Gulf War II, the Bali bomb blast, and then Sars.
The blip during the Sars crisis was the worst:
A recession with a population exodus of 61,000 in 2003, during which there was an accumulated excess of residential units.
By March 2004, HDB announced it would stop building five-room flats because it had 10,000 units that were waiting to be taken up. At that time, three-bedroom private apartments could easily be had at $500,000 and there was little demand from a population that shrank by 61,000.
The over-supply, apparent since 2001, brought on a revamp of the HDB and the introduction of the Build-To-Order (BTO) scheme. HDB flats will be constructed only when there are enough buyers, allowing the board to adjust supply based on demand from applicants.
In 2002, the registration for flats system was suspended and till today, the BTO scheme remains the main mode of HDB’s sales. The Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) was introduced in 2005 for private sector developers to participate in public housing projects. This scheme contributes about 10 per cent of total new HDB supply.
The period of 2004 to 2005 was one of slow growth as there was excess supply which had to be absorbed by new demand from the population growth before equilibrium could be reached.
Government Land Sales slowed down, leading to the next squeeze.
MARKET RECOVERS AMID EN-BLOC FEVER From 2006 to 2008, real estate prices recovered on a combination of factors, including:
(a) rapid population growth on the back of strong jobs creation;
(b) rosy economic outlook spurred by the promise of the integrated resorts; (c) developers replenishing freehold land bank through en bloc transactions and (d) small number of project starts in 2003 to 2005 leading to low completion numbers in 2006 to 2008. This is an awesome achievement. With 1 million flats averaging about 1,000 sq ft each, the HDB has within 50 years completed and handed over a billion sq ft of residential space. A billion sq ft. One, followed by nine zeros. That is more square footage than the aboveground portion of the Great Wall of China, which spans 6,500km. Now, the actual number of HDB flats that exist today is just below 900,000. [Surpassed 1 million in 2010 ?] According to the HDB’s annual report, as of March 31, 2010, there were 890,212 flats under management. More than 100,000 flats have been demolished since the ’70s, many of them rental flats. Older estates, such as Brickworks and Queenstown, have been upgraded. Over the years, small individual estates have also been amalgamated into towns such as Bukit Merah Town, Clementi New Town, etc, under various estates renewal programmes, such as Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (Sers). The completion of an average of 20,000 flats per year in the HDB’s 50-year history was in tandem with the growth of Singapore’s population. In the last 15 years, from 1995 to 2010, population growth (Singaporean citizens and permanent residents) averaged 50,000 per year, accommodated by the growth of public (additional 13,950 flats a year) and private housing (8,593 units a year). This is an average of one apartment for every two to three Singapore citizens and PRs. If we included nonresidents (Work Permit and Employment Pass holders, for example), then this is an average of one new HDB or private home for every four new people added to the “headcount” in Singapore. Table 1 shows the actual supply of physical units versus population growth. The 15-year data looks balanced. However, within the 15 years, there were several tumultuous periods. Early on, a long queue of up to five years for HDB flats formed due to a perception of supply shortage and rising prices. Executive Condominiums were introduced. The massive construction boom around 1995, with fuel added by en-bloc deals, led to a massive increase of 44,000 residential units per year in the period spanning 1998 to 2000. This is net additional physical supply; that is, demolitions from en-bloc deals have reduced the total count.
|
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 07-Jan-2011 11:26 |
User Research/Opinions
/
! ! ! ! LANDED Property prICes fOr REAL ! ! ! !
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Revisiting housing supply
Ku Swee Yong Table 1 Population (‘000) Annual difference (‘000) Private residences HDB residences Year Total S’pore
residents
Nonresidents
Total S’pore
residents
Nonresidents
Available
units*
Annual
difference
Available
units*
Annual
difference
1995 3,524.5 3013.5 511.0 - - - 125,438 - 680,963 -
1996 3670.7 3,068.1 602.6 146.2 54.6 91.6 145,085 19,647 705,771 24,808
1997 3,796.0 3,123.4 672.6 125.3 55.3 70.0 154,484 9,399 731,975 26,204
1998 3,927.2 3,180.0 747.2 131.2 56.6 74.6 166,958 12,474 763,661 31,686
1999 3,958.7 3,229.7 729.0 31.5 49.7 -18.2 179,294 12,336 795,821 32,160
2000 4,027.9 3,273.4 754.5 69.2 43.7 25.5 190,190 10,896 828,148 32,327
2001 4,138.0 3,325.9 812.1 110.1 52.5 57.6 194,984 4,794 849,422 21,274
2002 4,176.0 3,382.9 793.1 38.0 57.0 -19.0 201,776 6,792 862,198 12,776
2003 4,114.8 3,366.9 747.9 -61.2 -16.0 -45.2 207,857 6,081 868,774 6,576
2004 4,166.7 3,413.3 753.4 51.9 46.4 5.5 216,787 8,930 875,887 7,113
2005 4,265.8 3,467.8 797.9 99.1 54.5 44.5 225,432 8,645 879,566 3,679
2006 4,401.4 3,525.9 875.5 135.6 58.1 77.6 230,752 5,320 879,092 -474
2007 4,588.6 3,583.1 1,005.5 187.2 57.2 130.0 233,143 2,391 878,813 -279
2008 4,839.4 3,642.7 1,196.7 250.8 59.6 191.2 237,664 4,521 885,140 6,327
2009 4,987.6 3,733.9 1,235.7 148.2 91.2 57.0 245,864 8,200 883,896 -1,244
2010 5,076.7 3,771.7 1,305.0 89.1 37.8 51.3 254,334 8,470 890,212 6,316
Ave per annum growth from ’96 & ’10 103.5 50.5 52.9 8,593 13,950
Ave per annum growth from ’01 & ’10 104.9 49.8 55.1 6,414 6,206
Ave per annum growth from ’06 & ’10 162.2 60.8 101.4 5,780 2,129 Ave annual growth in peak years ’06 - ’08
*includes rental flats managed by HDB |
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 07-Jan-2011 11:11 |
User Research/Opinions
/
! ! ! ! LANDED Property prICes fOr REAL ! ! ! !
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Colin Tan property@mediacorp.com.sg When the real estate figures for the private housing market for Q3 2010 were released in late October, the landed sector pulled off a huge surprise by going against the market trend.
The writer is Head, Research & Consultancy at Chesterton Suntec International. Instead of slowing down like the rest of the market as it absorbed the impact of the most recent set of cooling measures, prices rose at an accelerated pace. The rate of price increase for high-rise apartments and condominiums slowed from 5 per cent in Q2 to 1.6 per cent in Q3, while that of landed homes rose from 6.2 per cent in Q2 to 7.7 per cent in Q3. The usual reasons were trotted out. The supply remains limited while buyers of landed homes are not hindered by affordability concerns and are therefore better able to cope with price increases. Personally, I think this is a common marketing ploy of real estate agents to get buyers to pay higher prices. Anyone who has been following the market for many years will know that prices of all properties, when faced with the same set of measures or regulations, will behave in the same way — meaning, they follow the same trend, if not the magnitude, of the impact. Since the release of the Q3 statistics, there have been a lot more news reports and articles than usual extolling the appeal of landed homes, especially good class bungalows (GCB). Limited supply is the most common reason given to support the strong growth potential of GCBs. But given the high cost of GCBs, how big really is the market for such properties? Buying one is already such a big commitment; maintaining it thereafter is another. The demand for such properties is inelastic. Whether prices rise or fall, real owner-occupier demand remains more or less the same. How often do we hear of tycoons and CEOs owning and living in two or even three GCBs at the same time? All this means that the surge in demand must come mainly from investors. Rapid price growth in this segment can come about only when investors sell to other investors. This brings me to the other commonly cited factor: Affordability. For owner-occupiers, this is not likely to be a concern. For investors, who tend to fully leverage their cash resources, affordability is definitely a concern, especially if they already have a number of properties on their hands. They carefully weigh the risks against the potential capital gain before investing. Is landed property among the safest buys? For one, when prices of this segment shoot up too rapidly, it is difficult to get valuations to match the purchase price. A large proportion may then have to be paid in cash. As real demand is inelastic, what happens to the last investor holding the property? Yes, you’ve guessed it — he walks away from the deal with a substantial loss. It was therefore not a real surprise that the buyer of the $36 million bungalow in Sentosa Cove walked away from the deal. I hear another similar over-the-top purchase on the island met with the same fate. My sources tell me there are also similar aborted deals on the main island. I personally know of one case. All these aborted deals leave me wondering whether the caveats filed for these purchases have added more spice than usual to the price index for landed homes. It will certainly explain the Q3 anomaly. The same reasoning can be applied to semi-detached and terrace houses. However, here, the budgets of owner occupiers are constrained by their wealth and household incomes. You will know when this segment becomes highly speculative. It is when the dirty tricks come out. There is big money to be made and fair play is the least concern of many housing agents. The complaints have been piling up and I am hearing of many of them. I expect the newly-formed Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) to be really busy. Finally, the flash estimates for 4Q 2010 have indicated that price growth of private homes has slowed to reasonable levels. Most of us have been wondering whether another set of cooling measures is imminent. If rapid growth is the main concern of the authorities, I do not expect another set any time soon. |
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 07-Jan-2011 10:56 |
User Research/Opinions
/
! ! ! ! LANDED Property prICes fOr REAL ! ! ! !
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Are landed property prices for real? As real demand is inelastic, what happens to the last investor holding the property? Yes, you’ve guessed it — he walks away from the deal with a substantial loss. |
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 07-Jan-2011 10:51 |
User Research/Opinions
/
! ! ! ! LANDED Property prICes fOr REAL ! ! ! !
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
ARE LANDED PROPERTY PRICES for REAL ? ? ? ? |
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 07-Jan-2011 10:36 |
User Research/Opinions
/
? ? ? ? WHO ? ? ? ? CREATED INCOME GAP ? ? ? ?
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Eugene KB TAN |
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 07-Jan-2011 10:34 |
User Research/Opinions
/
? ? ? ? WHO ? ? ? ? CREATED INCOME GAP ? ? ? ?
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Band-aid measures will not close this IncOme-gap Some say the State should spend more on welfare, but question of who pays and how bears careful thought In his New Year’s message, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong flagged three challenges that Singapore faces.
First is the need to “manage the inflow of foreign workers and immigrants”. [WHATEVER fOreIgn is hOt like fOreIgn MONEY ? ? ? ?] The second challenge is to “keep home ownership affordable to all”. Helping low-income Singaporeans cope with the cost of living is the third challenge. While confident that the Government has the means to tackle these problems, Mr Lee also stated the policy realities in tackling the challenges. Calibrating the number of foreign workers and immigrants [DrIvIng UP InflatIOn & cOst Of lIvIng ? ? ? ?] requires taking cognizance of the policy imperative to keep Singapore “open and welcoming to talent”. In providing affordable HDB flats, there is the need to “preserve the value [DrIvIng UP InflatIOn & cOst Of lIvIng ? ? ? ? and make the RICH RICHER ? ? ? ?] of the flats of 800,000 HDB homeowners”. [jUst brOke 1 mIlliOn in 2010] Similarly, in helping low-income workers, the help rendered has to “strengthen the spirit of self-reliance” among Singaporeans. These issues are not new. [bUt nOt resOlved thrOUghOUt DECADES ? ? ? ?] The Prime Minister’s explicit reference to them is to reassure Singaporeans that they are receiving due attention. The three big issues will likely be hot-button election issues. In recent years, the Government has sought to help the bottom 20 per cent through a variety of schemes such as Workfare, the Resilience Package, CPF top-ups, housing grants and utility rebates. In 2009, these infusions of income constituted a whopping 41.4 per cent of the annual incomes for HDB 1- and 2-room resident households. The Government recognises that there are less well-off Singaporeans who need help but it would not want them to be dependent on the State. Low-income Singaporeans are a heterogeneous group. Some are aged, some are chronically ill, others are poorly educated, some do not want to be helped, and there are those who have a crutch mentality. For this last group, there is a limit to what the State or voluntary welfare organisations can do. Should Singapore tweak or fundamentally reform its social support system? Certainly, as society evolves and changes, what may work in the past may have limited efficacy today. In the past decade, we have seen the social compact being tilted in favour of lower-income Singaporeans. The current approach towards sharing the nation’s wealth is not so much about equality but equity. Not every Singaporean will get the same rebate, subsidy or top-up. Less well-off Singaporeans will get more. State support will invariably increase given growing needs and the smaller tax base. Furthermore, with the restructuring and transformation of our economy, there will be Singaporeans who would need help to cope with the changes. Our social welfare approach, while staunchly anti-welfare, seeks to promote the dignity of work, the ‘many helping hands’ approach, and the family as the first stop for assistance. The abiding theme is that of self-reliance first, family as an important resource and support for the individual, with the community also doing its part for the less fortunate – and when all else fails, the State as a last resort. Should the Government have more ‘heart’ and spend more on welfare support and the like? More pertinently, are Singaporeans prepared to pay more in taxes (direct and indirect), or accumulate budget deficits, or even advocate drawing down current reserves? So while it is desirable to wish for more welfare support, the question of who pays and how to pay must be carefully thought through as well. Ultimately, the question is whether the system that we have or that we aspire to sustains our social cohesion well enough. Does it enjoy the support of the population, and is it seen as a legitimate expression of the social compact not just between citizens and the State, but among citizens as well? There is an urgent need to mitigate the income gap but not through band-aid measures that merely patch the income gap. Such efforts, while well-intended, are not sustainable and may well generate a handout mentality. We must strive to make our social assistance system more pro-active, robust and integrated so that no one falls through the cracks. A coordinated system — of helping those truly in need and determined to break out of the poverty trap, by providing targeted assistance and perhaps even interventionist measures — can help the poor avoid being entrenched in the have-nots zone. In this regard, the children of less welloff Singaporeans deserve close attention to avoid the perpetuation of an underclass. There is room to refine and enhance our welfare policy so that it rapidly adapts to changing times and needs. The measure of success is whether we reduce the number of chronically poor Singaporeans, and whether we are able to break the vicious cycle that afflicts families on assistance. Otherwise, there will be a stark division between the haves and the have-nots in society. If this comes to pass, the ethos of our society will be fundamentally different and social tensions will increase. |
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 07-Jan-2011 10:14 |
User Research/Opinions
/
Unethical manipulated share counter list. AVOID!!!
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
O V E R H E A R D MANAGEMENT & AUTHORITIES HATE WHISTLE-BLOWERS *TRUTH REVEALERS*
|
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 07-Jan-2011 10:11 |
User Research/Opinions
/
? ? ? ? WHO ? ? ? ? CREATED INCOME GAP ? ? ? ?
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
? ? ? ? WHO ? ? ? ? CREATED INCOME GAP ? ? ? ? | |||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 03-Jan-2011 11:46 |
User Research/Opinions
/
&&&& Population Growth Vs Market Growth $$$$
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
6.5m people, more or less? Letter from Ng Ya Ken THE Government has yet to announce any official population projection for the next few decades, although it has been using a 6.5 million population parameter for physical planning for the next 30 to 40 years. It has repeatedly said that the 6.5 million figure is not a target. In contrast, Hong Kong’s Census and Statistical Office frequently updates its population forecast, with the latest one made in July last year, showing that its 7 million population in 2009 would expand to 8.89 million by 2039. Why does Hong Kong — with a fertility rate lower than ours — want to tell the world that its population will expand by 27 per cent over the next 30 years? One of the purposes is to convince the world that it has an expanding workforce to meet the need of economic growth for the next three decades — as a tool for boosting business confidence and attracting foreign investments in a territory where local the population is declining. It also shows that the Hong Kong authorities are not avoiding the hard questions on immigration issues, since future population growth will have to rely solely on immigration. It also serves as a reminder to the locals to face up to the unavoidable reality of having to work and live with more immigrants in future years. The Hong Kong release, which shows forecasts at five-year intervals till 2039, can be used for not only urban planning but also for planning in education, health and other social services. Businesses can also use it to plan their investments, especially those that depend on the mass market or take longer to fully reap the profits. Should we not do the same as Hong Kong, so that a common population forecast and its accompanying assumptions can be used for planning purposes among the various ministries in the Government? In projecting long-term population figures, we are forced to take a harder look at factors and possible scenarios affecting not only population growth but also economic growth and other aspects of our future. Population projection can be a very profound, deep-thinking and forward-looking process, from which we as a nation can learn many valuable things. The Government should not be unduly concerned about how the people will react to the projection as long as it is conducted with the nation’s best interests being placed as the ultimate goal. We should, like Hong Kong, have an official population projection |
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 03-Jan-2011 11:40 |
User Research/Opinions
/
&&&& Population Growth Vs Market Growth $$$$
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 1
x 0
|
Will POPULATION GROWTH lead to MARKET GROWTH ? | |||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 27-Dec-2010 15:50 |
Trading Techniques
/
0 0 0 0 NAKED SHORTING 0 0 0 0
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
http://www.vagsg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35778 | |||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 27-Dec-2010 15:48 |
Trading Techniques
/
0 0 0 0 NAKED SHORTING 0 0 0 0
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 27-Dec-2010 15:47 |
Trading Techniques
/
0 0 0 0 NAKED SHORTING 0 0 0 0
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 27-Dec-2010 15:45 |
Trading Techniques
/
0 0 0 0 NAKED SHORTING 0 0 0 0
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
http://www.vagsg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35778
|
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 27-Dec-2010 15:18 |
Trading Techniques
/
0 0 0 0 NAKED SHORTING 0 0 0 0
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Naked Shorting What Does Naked Shorting Mean?
The illegal practice of short selling shares that have not been affirmatively determined to exist. Ordinarily, traders must borrow a stock, or determine that it can be borrowed, before they sell it short. But due to various loopholes in the rules and discrepancies between paper and electronic trading systems, naked shorting continues to happen. While no exact system of measurement exists, most point to the level of trades that fail to deliver from the seller to the buyer within the mandatory three-day stock settlement period as evidence of naked shorting. Naked shorts may represent a major portion of these failed trades.  Investopedia explains Naked Shorting
Naked shorting is illegal because it allows manipulators a chance to force stock prices down without regard for normal stock supply/demand patterns. In 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amended Regulation SHO to further limit possibilities for naked shorting by removing loopholes that existed for some broker/dealers. Regulation SHO requires lists to be published that track stocks with unusually high trends in "fail to deliver" shares. Some analysts point to the fact that naked shorting, albeit inadvertently, may help markets stay in balance by allowing the negative sentiment to be reflected in certain stocks' prices. |
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 27-Dec-2010 15:16 |
Trading Techniques
/
0 0 0 0 NAKED SHORTING 0 0 0 0
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
NAKED SHORTING | |||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 27-Dec-2010 15:14 |
Genting Sing
/
Traders Lounge - Daily opportunities for everyone
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Naked ShortingWhat Does Naked Shorting Mean?
The illegal practice of short selling shares that have not been affirmatively determined to exist. Ordinarily, traders must borrow a stock, or determine that it can be borrowed, before they sell it short. But due to various loopholes in the rules and discrepancies between paper and electronic trading systems, naked shorting continues to happen. While no exact system of measurement exists, most point to the level of trades that fail to deliver from the seller to the buyer within the mandatory three-day stock settlement period as evidence of naked shorting. Naked shorts may represent a major portion of these failed trades. Investopedia explains Naked Shorting Naked shorting is illegal because it allows manipulators a chance to force stock prices down without regard for normal stock supply/demand patterns. In 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amended Regulation SHO to further limit possibilities for naked shorting by removing loopholes that existed for some broker/dealers. Regulation SHO requires lists to be published that track stocks with unusually high trends in "fail to deliver" shares. Some analysts point to the fact that naked shorting, albeit inadvertently, may help markets stay in balance by allowing the negative sentiment to be reflected in certain stocks' prices.
|
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| 27-Dec-2010 15:08 |
User Research/Opinions
/
* * * * HEAVENLY MATCH * * * * 天仙配 ＊＊＊＊
Go to Message
|
|||||||||||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Search Results
|
|||||||||||||
| Good Post Bad Post | ||||||||||||||
| First < Newer 2881-2900 of 13894 Older> Last |