Home buyers unfazed by loan curbs

[freedom]

so far, I have not seen any genuine locals/PRs living on the street, or cry to his/her MPs for not being able to afford a HDB for his/her income.

so in a way, I believe there are enough housing.

Whether HDB is expensive or not is another matter. From what I see, HDB is more expensive than 10 years ago, but it is still affordable with current income.

I get what you mean. You are right to say that and the scene of not having homeless citizens or PRs crying for shelters do have some clout to your statement.

Anecdotal evidence from friends and relatives however says that rental demand is somewhat high for properties within MRTs walking distance.

Strange though.. Can't get my head around this.

If we could have a statistical measure of the free capacity of rental properties within the market, then it would be a far better measure. Something like the ISM capacity utilization.

I also want to live in GCB, drive a BMW and eat in restaurant every day.

It does not mean I must live in GCB, drive a BMW and eat in restaurant every day, does it?

There got be people living in remote area, people living near MRT, people living private properties and people living GCB. Your income/wealth determines where you should stay, not what you want.

[Temperament]

This is exactly we tried to avoid. Right now we are dancing on thin ice kicking the can down the road to protect a small interest groups of people.
If supply has kept up with demand, there is not much to clear up because most housing is for stay.

please provide any evidence showing that Singapore does not have enough housing for genuine demand(a roof over the head).

Ok just to make myself clear first, I am not pointing fingers at anyone.

But my question would be if anyone has evidence that Singapore has enough housing as of current and the forseeable projected future to accomodate the 6mil population we trying to acheive before 2016?

I can fully understand if someone tells me Singapore has plenty of land to build more. But I am not sure if the projected 27k HDBs and 30k+private properties (for next 2 yrs) would be able to accomodate the increase in pop the garment has bang its fist on table demanding for.

Of cos, in 2015, we will have crying Ministers on national TV again sobbing the people are the masters, the politicians are servants nonsense.

"Of cos, in 2015, we will have crying Ministers on national TV again sobbing the people are the masters, the politicians are servants nonsense."

Unquote:-
HA! HA! HA!
i like the above "reminder".
i can't help laughing.

You may think it's nonsense but 60% of Sinkaporeans accepted it.
i think it should be what Sinkaporeans are famous for though most other Nations have the same characteristics- 4Ks.

i always wonder why can't we have more than 51% spoilt votes or even 80 % spoilt votes?
With maybe 15% to PAPY and 5 % to other parties.
So PAPY is still the GOV, Right? Right...
But where is the face or mandate to govern without "shame", internationally compare to other democratic countries.

My personal's opinion only:-

(Actually, deep down, i think most of the Papies don't care. Why should they? Aren't most of them Millionaires many times over just for one term in GOV? And most of them in GOV. for more than one term. If i am not wrong, even an MP will earn up to 1 $million for just one term? And what does an MP does?
Perhaps Singaporeans are really of one track mind. (brainwashed).

Some people of China say some of our policies are more Communist than the Communists in Communist China.
Even communist countries have their "protesters".
Of course, most of them landed in FOB houses.
Perhaps, Sinkaporean is really Sinka(No hope but kwai kwai) .

NB:
This is only my personal's opinion and it may not be substantiated with facts.
So you can take it with pinch of salt, vinegar or sugar or line, hook and sinker.
Or you simply choose not to believe it.

[corydorus]

This is exactly we tried to avoid. Right now we are dancing on thin ice kicking the can down the road to protect a small interest groups of people.
If supply has kept up with demand, there is not much to clear up because most housing is for stay.

That is exactly we are not in-line

The new rule is to protect the majority, not only on a small interest group

Supply is keeping up with (genuine) demand, while at the same time to curb speculative (false) demand.

(Genuine) demand met is no problem, but (false) speculative demand met can cause a problem if the demand disappear overnight.

Yup we are not align on what is consider genuine and speculative.

[natnavi]

I think it is unfair to say that the government is just "wayanging" when it comes to this issue.
One thing to note is that they are indeed trying to do something with the property market.
Non homeowners may say that the government is not doing enough to cool the property market, while on the other hand, property investors say that this measure is too drastic.
The government is trying to strike a balance between the two ends. The government is just like a aircraft designer who tries to get the right thickness of the wing by balancing between structural integrity and aerodynamic efficiencies. Either extreme will not do any good.
Imagine if the government were to implement hard measures right this moment. True, it may help many Singaporeans to buy an affordable place to live (this includes myself). On the other end, many Singaporeans will suffer.

IMHO, I think the latest policy will
1) prevent cash strapped speculators from over leveraging
2) prevent cash strapped "potential" speculators from being tempted to get into the game after hearing from his friends how much he has "lost" by standing in the sidelines.

while
1) allowing genuine buyers to still have a chance to get a loan for their future homes
2) allowing cash rich investors to continue buying their properties

At the end of the day, when the sh*t hits the fan, those cash strapped speculators will be the ones hurting the most.

Personally, I do not own any property, and I hope that the property price will drop soon so that I can buy one to house my family.

[camelking]

Actually, i got a win-win solution for the government

Why not impose a 2% government levy on the interest rate charged by banks?
In this way, you can dampen the property price and made money for Singapore Limited (sorry, government)... Just like the classic way government control car and foreign workers population (COE, worker levy and etc)

So, 1% (bank spread) + 2% (government levy) + 3mth Libor (0.38%) = 3.38%

[CityFarmer]

Actually, i got a win-win solution for the government

Why not impose a 2% government levy on the interest rate charged by banks?
In this way, you can dampen the property price and made money for Singapore Limited (sorry, government)... Just like the classic way government control car and foreign workers population (COE, worker levy and etc)

So, 1% (bank spread) + 2% (government levy) + 3mth Libor (0.38%) = 3.38%

Dampen property price is not the ultimate aim. Dampen the build-up of property bubble is the ultimate aim

Your proposal seem is a lose-lose solution.
- Government lose the popularity, might lose more vote next election
- bank lose due to reduce revenue after higher borrowing cost
- property buyer lost due to more "tax" paid.

[camelking]

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

― George Carlin

[kichialo]

I think it is unfair to say that the government is just "wayanging" when it comes to this issue.
One thing to note is that they are indeed trying to do something with the property market.
Non homeowners may say that the government is not doing enough to cool the property market, while on the other hand, property investors say that this measure is too drastic.
The government is trying to strike a balance between the two ends. The government is just like a aircraft designer who tries to get the right thickness of the wing by balancing between structural integrity and aerodynamic efficiencies. Either extreme will not do any good.
Imagine if the government were to implement hard measures right this moment. True, it may help many Singaporeans to buy an affordable place to live (this includes myself). On the other end, many Singaporeans will suffer.

IMHO, I think the latest policy will
1) prevent cash strapped speculators from over leveraging
2) prevent cash strapped "potential" speculators from being tempted to get into the game after hearing from his friends how much he has "lost" by standing in the sidelines.

while
1) allowing genuine buyers to still have a chance to get a loan for their future homes
2) allowing cash rich investors to continue buying their properties

At the end of the day, when the sh*t hits the fan, those cash strapped speculators will be the ones hurting the most.

Personally, I do not own any property, and I hope that the property price will drop soon so that I can buy one to house my family.

I actually think these measures protect the banks more than home buyers.

Because home buyers now have to plonk in more cash for the down payment, this means they have less cash reserve.

When sh*t hits the fan, and these home buyers lose their jobs or cannot find tenants to rent their property, they will have little cash reserve anyway. Where does the protection come from?

[CityFarmer]

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

― George Carlin

“大智若愚”- 宋苏轼

“外智而内愚，实愚也；外愚而内智，大智也” -《词源》

[yeokiwi]

I actually think these measures protect the banks more than home buyers.

Because home buyers now have to plonk in more cash for the down payment, this means they have less cash reserve.

When sh*t hits the fan, and these home buyers lose their jobs or cannot find tenants to rent their property, they will have little cash reserve anyway. Where does the protection come from?

The measures are not targeting first timers.
I think there is no requirement to protect home buyers that are buying properties for investment or rental income.

I also do not receive any protection from investing in stock market.