ST: Reits 'unlock capital, create jobs' in Asia

BT - Economists Divided Over REIT Impact

(06-03-2014, 11:44 AM)WolfT Wrote:

(05-03-2014, 11:42 PM)Bibi Wrote: I notice Jurong Point there are some tenants which have moved out. Probably rental too high and cant take it anymore. Last weekend, my wife went to a salon there for a hair cut. She told me the salon increased price by S$10 because their rental has increased. I dunno how much is her hair cut cos she refused to tell me when i asked. Scared i nag at her again probably. Assuming S$35 for a cut there, a $10 increase is a lot.

$35 for a haircut is cheap for a woman!
Everytime my wife went into supercut no $300 no tok. I cut at ECcut $12...

When i read the headline i thought i read unlock capital for the owners and create job for reits mgr...whahaha.

I cut at snip avenue $2.80. Hahaha. OT.

What nonsense are the MPs talking about? Are they excluding the government from its responsibility? There is no reason to ask private companies to lower their price. A private company has its own freedom to ask any price they feel right within relevant government regulatory regime. Have the REITs broken any law by asking for higher rental? I don't think so.

If the government or the MPs think the rental is too high for the business, the government can supply more land or more industrial/commercial properties to support local business with lower cost. After all, it is the government that is controlling the supply of the industrial/commercial land.

Why blame the private companies which have done nothing wrong?

Quote:On Tuesday, however, Member of Parliament Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio) called the divestment "a mistaken policy" during the Budget debate. "The government lost the ability to influence rental prices resulting in developers and investors (including Reits) making the money - this is passive income and not productive income benefiting the investors," he said

Hey, that is the problem as pointed out by Inderjit Singh. What kind of society is this where everyone is bent on living with passive income???

Technically, it is a free market but commercial properties' price are sticky and dominated by a few entities. Look at the private residential properties market, the developers have the holding power to keep the unsold properties. Without HDB, all properties' buyers will get slaughtered.

Similarly, JTC or whatever stat board must own a portfolio of commercial properties to keep the rental in check.

I hate to see my favourite hawkers, vehicle repair shops' owners, eateries' workers, restaurants' staffs to work like mad(18x7, 365 days) to pay for rental and have no time to rest every week plus going to holidays yearly.

A hawker that works 18hrsx7days is not gonna cooked good food.

(06-03-2014, 11:44 AM)WolfT Wrote:

(05-03-2014, 11:42 PM)Bibi Wrote: I notice Jurong Point there are some tenants which have moved out. Probably rental too high and cant take it anymore. Last weekend, my wife went to a salon there for a hair cut. She told me the salon increased price by S$10 because their rental has increased. I dunno how much is her hair cut cos she refused to tell me when i asked. Scared i nag at her again probably. Assuming S$35 for a cut there, a $10 increase is a lot.

$35 for a haircut is cheap for a woman!
Everytime my wife went into supercut no $300 no tok. I cut at ECcut $12...

I've been cutting my own hair after I bought my own hair clipper 1.5yr ago. Save time and money. Used to visit QB but they raised price from $10 to $12 citing rental increase.

(06-03-2014, 02:26 PM)cif5000 Wrote:

(06-03-2014, 11:44 AM)WolfT Wrote:

(05-03-2014, 11:42 PM)Bibi Wrote: I notice Jurong Point there are some tenants which have moved out. Probably rental too high and cant take it anymore. Last weekend, my wife went to a salon there for a hair cut. She told me the salon increased price by S$10 because their rental has increased. I dunno how much is her hair cut cos she refused to tell me when i asked. Scared i nag at her again probably. Assuming S$35 for a cut there, a $10 increase is a lot.

$35 for a haircut is cheap for a woman!
Everytime my wife went into supercut no $300 no tok. I cut at ECcut $12...

I've been cutting my own hair after I bought my own hair clipper 1.5yr ago. Save time and money. Used to visit QB but they raised price from $10 to $12 citing rental increase.

Wa u win liao. Anybody here used laser to kill off hair follicles and wear a hair wig instead ?

(06-03-2014, 02:18 PM)yeokiwi Wrote:

Quote:On Tuesday, however, Member of Parliament Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio) called the divestment "a mistaken policy" during the Budget debate. "The government lost the ability to influence rental prices resulting in developers and investors (including Reits) making the money - this is passive income and not productive income benefiting the investors," he said

Hey, that is the problem as pointed out by Inderjit Singh. What kind of society is this where everyone is bent on living with passive income???

Technically, it is a free market but commercial properties' price are sticky and dominated by a few entities. Look at the private residential properties market, the developers have the holding power to keep the unsold properties. Without HDB, all properties' buyers will get slaughtered.

Similarly, JTC or whatever stat board must own a portfolio of commercial properties to keep the rental in check.

I hate to see my favourite hawkers, vehicle repair shops' owners, eateries' workers, restaurants' staffs to work like mad(18x7, 365 days) to pay for rental and have no time to rest every week plus going to holidays yearly.

A hawker that works 18hrsx7days is not gonna cooked good food.

HDB/JTC/URA/SLA/ENV cannot just own properties. Need to manage them competitively and with a social objective.

E.g. owned a bunch of HDB malls. No traffic. Tenant mix sucks. Tenants stick around too long, hoping to sublet and free ride.
If these malls are competitively managed and attract tenants, that would give a run for the REITs money.

Govt mission is NOT profit maximisation. This place is NOT Singapore INC, concept promoted during the seat-warmer regime.

Tenants want lower rents , as low as possible.
Landlords want Higher rents , as high as possible.
Even HDB chief tenants also try to secure higher rental.

(06-03-2014, 02:18 PM)yeokiwi Wrote:

Quote:On Tuesday, however, Member of Parliament Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio) called the divestment "a mistaken policy" during the Budget debate. "The government lost the ability to influence rental prices resulting in developers and investors (including Reits) making the money - this is passive income and not productive income benefiting the investors," he said

Hey, that is the problem as pointed out by Inderjit Singh. What kind of society is this where everyone is bent on living with passive income???

Technically, it is a free market but commercial properties' price are sticky and dominated by a few entities. Look at the private residential properties market, the developers have the holding power to keep the unsold properties. Without HDB, all properties' buyers will get slaughtered.

Similarly, JTC or whatever stat board must own a portfolio of commercial properties to keep the rental in check.

I hate to see my favourite hawkers, vehicle repair shops' owners, eateries' workers, restaurants' staffs to work like mad(18x7, 365 days) to pay for rental and have no time to rest every week plus going to holidays yearly.

A hawker that works 18hrsx7days is not gonna cooked good food.

On the contrarary, almost every hawker stall in HDB's heartland has the luxury to close for at least one day per week. Some do so well that they can take longer holidays during the school holiday seasons.
That is not to say they don't work very hard for their money. i think hawkers deserve every cents they earn from their "blood, sweats and tears". Especially those hawkers' food that are "yummy".
i always think it is no fly in the park, earning your living as a hawker.
if not i would have been one instead of working for somebody.

(06-03-2014, 04:32 PM)Temperament Wrote:

(06-03-2014, 02:18 PM)yeokiwi Wrote:

Quote:On Tuesday, however, Member of Parliament Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio) called the divestment "a mistaken policy" during the Budget debate. "The government lost the ability to influence rental prices resulting in developers and investors (including Reits) making the money - this is passive income and not productive income benefiting the investors," he said

Hey, that is the problem as pointed out by Inderjit Singh. What kind of society is this where everyone is bent on living with passive income???

Technically, it is a free market but commercial properties' price are sticky and dominated by a few entities. Look at the private residential properties market, the developers have the holding power to keep the unsold properties. Without HDB, all properties' buyers will get slaughtered.

Similarly, JTC or whatever stat board must own a portfolio of commercial properties to keep the rental in check.

I hate to see my favourite hawkers, vehicle repair shops' owners, eateries' workers, restaurants' staffs to work like mad(18x7, 365 days) to pay for rental and have no time to rest every week plus going to holidays yearly.

A hawker that works 18hrsx7days is not gonna cooked good food.

On the contrarary, almost every hawker stall in HDB's heartland has the luxury to close for at least one day per week. Some do so well that they can take longer holidays during the school holiday seasons.
That is not to say they don't work very hard for their money. i think hawkers deserve every cents they earn from their "blood, sweats and tears". Especially those hawkers' food that are "yummy".
i always think it is no fly in the park, earning your living as a hawker.
if not i would have been one instead of working for somebody.

Those hawkers who had made it would have already have their pot of gold, Those that exist for many years I also believe their rental rates are from old days and it can be really affordable thus making their margin profitable. I think pt here is how does such society nurture and cultivate entreprenuership in such high cost of living? You make your keeps and pay the rental.. Ultimate winner is the landlord. Eventually, you see most shop hold big names such as coffeebean, starbucks, toastbox who can afford and hold the rent.

From an investor pt of view, I always see REITs as a form securitization & monetising assets for the property developers. This is what we call financial engineering is all about.. In all fairness, if the net benefit of such pdts create more jobs, better standard of living it is economically profitable instrument.

I just had a glance at Vision exchange@Jurong ofc rates. PSF of $2200 is just ludicrous to me. But for many of the bigger congo & SME, they see otherwise.