Bishan HDB executive maisonette changes hands for record $980,000

[corydorus]

Maybe need to understand in the past do young couple has same level of difficulty in getting into mature estates before we jump to conclusion.

[yeokiwi]

What should young people (21-35) or singles looking for their first housing do? Based on the average income of this group, banks will not loan them enough to buy anything other than a HDB in the outlying areas. And if they're not married, can't even get that HDB in Jurong West. So think about it, the government has to please this group before 2016, they will probably:
1) tighten immigration and HDB policies regarding PRs
2) introduce more cooling measures or restrictions for HDB.

Bottom line is that I think the govt will cool the HDB market (already doing so with 25000 BTOs) so watch out for the price to fall.

There is an even LARGER LARGER group that does not wish to see any drop in property price.
Solution?
Neither up nor down which is a piece of cake to gov as long as the unemployment rate is low.

[snowcap]

My point is actually that housing price growth has far outstripped wage growth. See the following stats:
http://www.mom.gov.sg/statistics-publica...wages.aspx
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10321p.nsf/...enDocument

Wage growth 2001 to 2011 = $2387 to $3249 = 36%
HDB flat price index (4Q)2001 to (4Q)2011 = 96.3 to 190.4 = 98%

So it seems like those who are entering the market now are severely disadvantaged compared to those 10 years ago.

---

There is an even LARGER LARGER group that does not wish to see any drop in property price.
Solution?
Neither up nor down which is a piece of cake to gov as long as the unemployment rate is low.

When prices outstrip fundamentals they will eventually revert to the mean. People who pay $200,000 COV, cannot expect the govt to protect their assets from being devalued. If they buy at inflated prices, they take the risk. If govt protects these people it is a moral hazard. Tomorrow I will pay $350,000 COV, and shout at the govt not to devalue my asset or I vote them out. I don't think this is a responsible thing for me to do, and I will be disappointed if the govt heeds the call of such people.

[CityFarmer]

What should young people (21-35) or singles looking for their first housing do? Based on the average income of this group, banks will not loan them enough to buy anything other than a HDB in the outlying areas. And if they're not married, can't even get that HDB in Jurong West. So think about it, the government has to please this group before 2016, they will probably:
1) tighten immigration and HDB policies regarding PRs
2) introduce more cooling measures or restrictions for HDB.

Bottom line is that I think the govt will cool the HDB market (already doing so with 25000 BTOs) so watch out for the price to fall.

There is an even LARGER LARGER group that does not wish to see any drop in property price.
Solution?
Neither up nor down which is a piece of cake to gov as long as the unemployment rate is low.

Base on the population as of 2011, the group of 25-34 is only 14.8%, while group 35-65 and beyond is 54.8%

The group of 25-34 represent those looking for their 1st house, while group 35-65 and beyond are house owners.

The statistic is to prove yeokiwi is right.

[snowcap]

Base on the population as of 2011, the group of 25-34 is only 14.8%, while group 35-65 and beyond is 54.8%

The group of 25-34 represent those looking for their 1st house, while group 35-65 and beyond are house owners.

The statistic is to prove yeokiwi is right.

By the way, I am in the over 35 group. I bought my Toa Payoh flat in 2000 under the Sale of Balance Flats (SERS - Mature Estate) Scheme. 4 room flat at Lorong 7 for $260,000. Today the market price is about $530k to $550k. Yes I am a beneficiary, but who suffers? It is the younger generation. We are making money at the expense of the future generations. How different is this from the western profligate countries that are now in trouble?

People (both the population and the govt) need the moral courage to say we don't need to make money at the expense of the future. Housing is for housing, if you want wealth creation you can go try commercial property, buy gold, start a business, or visit valuebuddies to learn Value Investing!

[CityFarmer]

By the way, I am in the over 35 group. I bought my Toa Payoh flat in 2000 under the Sale of Balance Flats (SERS - Mature Estate) Scheme. 4 room flat at Lorong 7 for $260,000. Today the market price is about $530k to $550k. Yes I am a beneficiary, but who suffers? It is the younger generation. We are making money at the expense of the future generations. How different is this from the western profligate countries that are now in trouble?

People (both the population and the govt) need the moral courage to say we don't need to make money at the expense of the future. Housing is for housing, if you want wealth creation you can go try commercial property, buy gold, start a business, or visit valuebuddies to learn Value Investing!

Base on your logic, each generation was making money at the expense of the next generation, probably difference by intensity

I remember during 1990, 5-room is ONLY cost around 100k, so you had suffered with 260k purchase price in 2000. So probably next generation should have their fair share of suffering.

[KopiKat]

Base on the population as of 2011, the group of 25-34 is only 14.8%, while group 35-65 and beyond is 54.8%

The group of 25-34 represent those looking for their 1st house, while group 35-65 and beyond are house owners.

The statistic is to prove yeokiwi is right.

By the way, I am in the over 35 group. I bought my Toa Payoh flat in 2000 under the Sale of Balance Flats (SERS - Mature Estate) Scheme. 4 room flat at Lorong 7 for $260,000. Today the market price is about $530k to $550k. Yes I am a beneficiary, but who suffers? It is the younger generation. We are making money at the expense of the future generations. How different is this from the western profligate countries that are now in trouble?

People (both the population and the govt) need the moral courage to say we don't need to make money at the expense of the future. Housing is for housing, if you want wealth creation you can go try commercial property, buy gold, start a business, or visit valuebuddies to learn Value Investing!

Hey! that's why we're here! Right? Or am I in the wrong forum?

[snowcap]

I suppose it's where you draw the line. My parents bought a 3 room flat in Toa Payoh in 1970s for $8,000. Assuming we pay using CPF only, this is trend of how long it takes to pay off the loan:

1970s: 6-8 years
1980s: 10-15 years
1990s: 15-20 years
2000s: 30 years
2010s: 50 years?

We are reaching a point where we can no longer service the loan in one generation, and we can die off with debts for our children to settle. I am not complaining because I have already past that stage of life (in govt terms I already "had my bite of the cherry"). I am writing because I feel it is not a responsible thing to do (to let prices soar beyond the reach of today or tomorrow's young people). I do not view the people who made money in the 1990s as having done so at my expense, because when it was my turn, I could still service the loan within my working life, and by choosing a small flat I could still have some money to spend on lifestyle, savings and investment, and not worry about paying the loan in case of retrenchment.

My point is that when prices outpace wages, eventually enough people will have their loan applications rejected by the banks (because their debt servicing ratio exceeds the banks' prudence limits). When this happens and they cannot buy new or resale flats, the market will fall. So whether the HDB/MND cools the market or not, eventually reality will hit. Of course the banks can loosen their standards (UOB is doing that with the 50-year loan), but again, that is pushing the problem to the future. We don't need to wait 10-20 years to face the problem, and then say "oh Sh**" when Sh** happens. We just need to look at other countries that have already walked this path. US sub-prime crisis is one example.

This is just my view. We can agree to disagree. I may be wrong.

---

Hey! that's why we're here! Right? Or am I in the wrong forum?

Hi, I'm just saying that HDB prices should not outpace wage growth. The mission of HDB was supposed to be providing affordable housing, not make people rich. Because if prices rise more than wages, over time the younger generation won't be able to afford.

We all want to make money (that's why I'm here too). But in the process of doing so we must not make others poorer, or deprive them of a basic thing like shelter. There are many ways of making money. I believe we here in valuebuddies like the fact that Value Investing - unlike trading - is not a zero sum game.

[yeokiwi]

When prices outstrip fundamentals they will eventually revert to the mean. People who pay $200,000 COV, cannot expect the govt to protect their assets from being devalued. If they buy at inflated prices, they take the risk. If govt protects these people it is a moral hazard. Tomorrow I will pay $350,000 COV, and shout at the govt not to devalue my asset or I vote them out. I don't think this is a responsible thing for me to do, and I will be disappointed if the govt heeds the call of such people.

HDB, being the largest property developer in Singapore, is the one that controlled the base property price. So, no matter how much COV is being coughed out, HDB just needs to maintain its base price to control the HDB resale market.
As long as there are mass supply of new flats, the property price is likely to remain steady. Since the last election, the HDB resale index for the last 3 quarters is less than 2% due to the roll out of many BTO projects. Going forward, if the momentum of building new flats continue, they should be able to maintain at close to 0% or even with a slight negative index decline.

To the gov, the middle ground of holding the price steady is probably the most acceptable solution without incurring a mass wrath from the buyers and the owners.
As long as wage continues to increase, the gov has a chance to reduce the effect of their mistakes in the 2000s.

[CityFarmer]

I heard your view crystal clear, with respect

But i do feel that the housing issue has been exaggerated, by media(?). I do agree housing cost is outpace wages. I do agree it take longer to service housing loan now compare with old generations. But I do not agree it take more than one generation to service it. Of course, exclude the few exceptions.

We have to agree that lifestyle changes between generations. People are more willing to pay more for better quality and better locations with larger part of their increased wages.

How many of younger generation (oop. sound like a old man now) willing to start with 3-rooms flat, rather than 4-rooms or even 5-rooms flat?

How many of younger generation willing to settle with only necessity renovation, instead of spending tenth of thousands renovation, before moving into the new house, with help from bank loan?