Is property investing stifling enterprise here?

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#1
Interesting article.
Are we fast becoming a country of landlords?
Has extremisim in any particular asset class been good to anyone in the long run?



Property investment has become so attractive to so many people here, it seems, that it may actually have reached the point where it is increasing risk and crowding out other investments that could be better for the Singapore economy.

In many countries, income from investment in residential property is a blip in overall economic indicators and a small percentage of GDP. Deutsche Bank noted in its Real Assets report, many private households in other regions "mainly hold residential property for owner-occupation".

While home ownership is high here too, residential property investment is so large that it has its own line on GDP data from SingStat called "ownership of dwellings" and individual investors' returns from those investments account for more than 4 per cent of GDP.

Even at that high level, there's a thirst for more. The latest Asia Property Market Sentiment Report last month - prior to last Friday's property market cooling measures - showed that 62 per cent of Singaporeans polled want to buy another property in the next six to 12 months.

As one blogger on Singapore Watch put it, many people will buy an HDB flat as their first property and then slowly save up for their second property. Friends talk about properties they are investing in and the gains they expect, so owning a second property starts to seem like the norm. Many investors, then, aspire to investing in property rather than in the next Google or LinkedIn.



LESS MONEY FOR INNOVATION?

Investing in real estate is not necessarily bad. Research by University of Sydney Professor Maurice Peat, for example, showed that including residential real estate in a well-diversified portfolio can generate significant diversification benefits.

As Prof Peat also found, however, too much focus on real estate and a relatively undiversified set of investments can create additional risk.

One challenge of the focus on property, then, is that a large swathe of Singaporeans may become too dependent on residential property for their financial security. If anything negative happens in the Singapore property market, that security is at risk. The aftermath of the housing bubble in the US shows how severe the risk can be.

Putting so much money into residential property investment may also stifle entrepreneurship and innovation.

Private investors may prefer to put their money into property rather than new ventures. One economist here noted, although data is limited, that capital may be diverted into being landlords rather than business owners or inventors. Private capital that could fund start-ups or business growth may go into real estate instead.

What funding there is for new ventures often comes from younger investors, who may have less money for investment in the first place.

Angel investors in Singapore tend to be younger than in other locations, the Angel Investment Network (AIN)here noted, with the majority being 25-34 years old. And young or old, AIN noted, Singaporean business angels tend to invest more often in the retail and hospitality sectors than in technology.



TWO NECESSARY SHIFTS

For Singapore to be able to grow into the entrepreneurial hub of technology innovation that it aspires to, a shift in focus by investors may be needed. Making that shift happen may involve at least two fundamental changes to shift investors' aspirations.

One change is to orient investors towards a more diversified portfolio. Education could help make this shift occur. Organisations like SIAS or the Singapore Exchange, for example, could do more to educate investors about diversification or provide new avenues for investments other than property.

Given the long-ingrained focus on real estate, however, less popular options like policy shifts to reduce the attractiveness of property investments may be a more viable option.

A second change is then to shift some of the money that would have gone into property into funding new ventures or business growth. It is not necessarily easy to create the buzz about investing in start-ups or business expansion that exists in Silicon Valley. Education could again be a first step, with organisations educating investors on investing in new ventures. Again, though, policy or fiscal shifts may be more likely methods to make change happen.

While there is no harm in some property investments, it is the magnitude here that creates potential imbalances. Admittedly, shifting peoples' aspirations from owning a second or third property to becoming the next big investor in a business growth story like Google is not easy.

If nothing changes, though, Singapore could gradually move towards becoming a nation of landlords, especially at the upper end. It seems better to start shifting now than never, even if change may take a long time to happen.


Richard Hartung is a consultant who has lived in Singapore since 1992.

http://www.todayonline.com/Business/EDC1...prise-here

Reply
#2
Thanks for the article, Arthur. Pretty enlightening.

I must say it's very true that we are becoming a nation of landlords and property investors.

I hear of friends telling me - you can NEVER get rich investing in equities; whereas if you invest in property it's a surefire way. Look at all the rich people in Singapore - they all made it through property.

Another line I've heard recently - property, in the long term, can only go UP. So you are investing in an ever-appreciating asset. Stocks, on the other hand, go up and down. Businesses fail but real estate will still stand (mind the pun).

My steadfast refusal to pump money into property is due to the leverage and regulatory risks. In essence, if you own an investment property and are servicing two mortgages, this means:-

1) You and your spouse better keep their jobs, or not suffer a pay cut, to be able to afford the installments.
2) Neither one of you better get seriously ill, or be involved in an accident
3) You should always be able to find a tenant
4) Your property values should always keep rising. If they fall, the bank may do a margin call on you and you will be in negative equity.
5) Interest rates should stay low indefinitely, or else you end up having to refinance at higher rates
6) You hope there is no major black swan event which will impact the value of your property

That's quite a lot of conditions to fulfill just to make sure you can sleep well! Tongue
My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
#3
Money that goes into real estates normally does not yield much benefits for most of the populations.
It will force the property prices to go higher and rental to go higher. After that, the food prices and groceries' price will have to rise to offset the rental cost.

I do not particularly favour having the foreigners to invest in the local properties. I will prefer them to spend their money on hotels and service apartments if they wish to invest in local properties. At least, these properties create jobs and add values to economy.

It is also not helping that our government is also acting like a free market landlord for several years.
Somehow, they should rethink the linking the price of the resale flats and new flats. I am in favour of reducing the price of the new flats but increases the resale levy. The resale levy should be in percentage term of the gains above the price of the initial purchase price of the new flats.

The resale levy should be applied to all resale transactions.

It will help to balance the lottery effect of the HDB ballot system.
Reply
#4
I also think JTC needs to stop divesting their properties into leech funds like Mapletree et al who will then proceed to squeeze their tenants for more rental, to satisfy shareholders demand for DPU growth. They are transferring value from the SMEs (of which already little trickles into people employed into this sector) into the rent-seeking investor class (including Temasek holdings etc).
Reply
#5
Richard Hartung might be a good (property?) consultant but an economist or analyst he is NOT. I see a number of fallacious arguments in his article. Will explain my view when I can find the time. Cool

P.S. I have living in Singapore for >40 years but it still does not make me an expert in property at all....
Reply
#6
Money going into property != less money going into innovation.

I don't think it is fair to draw a casual relationship between the two as it implies that money come from the same pot and one will lose at the expense of the other.

If anything else, herd mentality plays a strong role here when it comes to property buying nowadays.

Coming from the tech sector myself, I do see one aspect which we are lacking and that's the ability to execute and compete with the big boys. Most good companies, startups just look for a good exit strategy. We have our talents like Ong Peng Tsin, Eddie Chau and Darius Cheung but who is next to step up the plate?
You can count on the greed of man for the next recession to happen.
Reply
#7
(10-10-2012, 09:13 AM)LionFlyer Wrote: Money going into property != less money going into innovation.

I don't think it is fair to draw a casual relationship between the two as it implies that money come from the same pot and one will lose at the expense of the other.

If anything else, herd mentality plays a strong role here when it comes to property buying nowadays.

Coming from the tech sector myself, I do see one aspect which we are lacking and that's the ability to execute and compete with the big boys. Most good companies, startups just look for a good exit strategy. We have our talents like Ong Peng Tsin, Eddie Chau and Darius Cheung but who is next to step up the plate?

My take is that money that goes into properties contribute little to the economy in the long run since the property does not generate much jobs and zero product.

Foreigners like Jackie Chan bought properties in Singapore in millions but only the agents and lawyers get some money out of it.
Ikea spends millions in singapore to setup furniture retail outlets. They earn the money but at the same time, Ikea creates employment opportunities and jobs for local SMEs(renovation, logistics, stationaries, POS systems etc).

The amount invested for both are large but the effects to the economy is very different.
Reply
#8
Taiwan is another country that were so into property and landlords.

What has resulted is high property prices beyond the 30s in Central Taipei region without their parent helps while fresh grad salary has stagnant for 20 years ( I am not joking ). Many working class rents or live with their parent helps.

Taiwan Graduate Salary

Their taxi driver 20 years ago also earn more than today driver earning. If we have included inflation, it will be alot worst.

Money into property kills Export and Innovations, therefore jobs.

Cory

Just my Diary
corylogics.blogspot.com/


Reply
#9
Land, labour, capital and innovations are 4 factors of production. Land and property itself produces nothing for the society at large. They are major beneficiary on the demand for those factors of production as land is the least mobile of the 4. High cost of these factors has to be compensated by higher value chain and productivity else it will stifle the economy in the longer term.
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward

Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)