Rental rates depend on supply, demand

[investor101]

You feel disappointed because it is most likely you were never in the shoes of those who had their private property acquired at below market prices, and that same property later on was sold for millions, while you were paid far far far less for it.

In most parts of the world, policy makers are not dumb, even if the country is poorly run. In many cases, some policies are made deliberately.

Over here, prices are high often by manipulating supply and demand. If supply is reduced, demand will increase naturally.

If I were a policy maker, it would be in my interest to restrict supply to increase demand. That would help a lot in the collection of state revenue.

If I were a policy maker, especially in a Confucian society, I would not want people to be too rich and seek after an early retirement. I have worked with such people before, and they are often assertive and are less easily intimidated at work. As a policy maker, I would prefer workers to be submissive, who are too busy working to make ends meet, having too many bills to pay, and are too worried to bother about anything else besides having to work to support their family. Such workers are usually too insecure and worried and can be made to work for very long hours.

Coming back to this topic, as a policy maker, I would aim to use the law to acquire land at low prices, hoard the land, and then slowly release it back to the market. But this is to be done such that demand will always outstrip supply, so that even in a recession year, the property and rental rates can have a buffer rate to fall, and they are both a reliable source of income, even in recession period. The same is done with cars and COE.

Yes I am quite disappointed with some posts that seems a little emotional over land acquisition policies.
However it appears there are unintended intention to link them to HDB apartment price which i do not think is appropriate.

I do standby that it has to be priced to market. And to bring the price down, the policies need to gear towards bringing the market price down for all property not just HDB. Using this logic, we can avoid the discussion on cost because the market has already determine the most competitive one.

However i need to reiterate that not meeting demand with supply is the main culprits in the issue today.
Is better to be oversupply than under imo. since housing is one of the single most detrimental to happiness and family life. I fail to understand why our dear policy makers can't see that.

[Temperament]

You feel disappointed because it is most likely you were never in the shoes of those who had their private property acquired at below market prices, and that same property later on was sold for millions, while you were paid far far far less for it.

In most parts of the world, policy makers are not dumb, even if the country is poorly run. In many cases, some policies are made deliberately.

Over here, prices are high often by manipulating supply and demand. If supply is reduced, demand will increase naturally.

If I were a policy maker, it would be in my interest to restrict supply to increase demand. That would help a lot in the collection of state revenue.

If I were a policy maker, especially in a Confucian society, I would not want people to be too rich and seek after an early retirement. I have worked with such people before, and they are often assertive and are less easily intimidated at work. As a policy maker, I would prefer workers to be submissive, who are too busy working to make ends meet, having too many bills to pay, and are too worried to bother about anything else besides having to work to support their family. Such workers are usually too insecure and worried and can be made to work for very long hours.

Coming back to this topic, as a policy maker, I would aim to use the law to acquire land at low prices, hoard the land, and then slowly release it back to the market. But this is to be done such that demand will always outstrip supply, so that even in a recession year, the property and rental rates can have a buffer rate to fall, and they are both a reliable source of income, even in recession period. The same is done with cars and COE.

Yes I am quite disappointed with some posts that seems a little emotional over land acquisition policies.
However it appears there are unintended intention to link them to HDB apartment price which i do not think is appropriate.

I do standby that it has to be priced to market. And to bring the price down, the policies need to gear towards bringing the market price down for all property not just HDB. Using this logic, we can avoid the discussion on cost because the market has already determine the most competitive one.

However i need to reiterate that not meeting demand with supply is the main culprits in the issue today.
Is better to be oversupply than under imo. since housing is one of the single most detrimental to happiness and family life. I fail to understand why our dear policy makers can't see that.

Ah Policy Makers..... You just reminded me again the Chinese saying:-
"天 下 乌 鴉 一 班 黑". We are all but workers (Pai Sing) to them.

We are actually at G's mercy for every 5 year-term. One local professor's (Prof T. Koh) pet peeve is why Singapore up to now can not have an Ombudsman.
Why?
My answer is Singaporeans are still very tolerable or not living uncomfortable enough to want an Ombudsman.
Or our G knows how to psycho us to submission.

[opmi]

You feel disappointed because it is most likely you were never in the shoes of those who had their private property acquired at below market prices, and that same property later on was sold for millions, while you were paid far far far less for it.

In most parts of the world, policy makers are not dumb, even if the country is poorly run. In many cases, some policies are made deliberately.

Over here, prices are high often by manipulating supply and demand. If supply is reduced, demand will increase naturally.

If I were a policy maker, it would be in my interest to restrict supply to increase demand. That would help a lot in the collection of state revenue.

If I were a policy maker, especially in a Confucian society, I would not want people to be too rich and seek after an early retirement. I have worked with such people before, and they are often assertive and are less easily intimidated at work. As a policy maker, I would prefer workers to be submissive, who are too busy working to make ends meet, having too many bills to pay, and are too worried to bother about anything else besides having to work to support their family. Such workers are usually too insecure and worried and can be made to work for very long hours.

Coming back to this topic, as a policy maker, I would aim to use the law to acquire land at low prices, hoard the land, and then slowly release it back to the market. But this is to be done such that demand will always outstrip supply, so that even in a recession year, the property and rental rates can have a buffer rate to fall, and they are both a reliable source of income, even in recession period. The same is done with cars and COE.

Yes I am quite disappointed with some posts that seems a little emotional over land acquisition policies.
However it appears there are unintended intention to link them to HDB apartment price which i do not think is appropriate.

I do standby that it has to be priced to market. And to bring the price down, the policies need to gear towards bringing the market price down for all property not just HDB. Using this logic, we can avoid the discussion on cost because the market has already determine the most competitive one.

However i need to reiterate that not meeting demand with supply is the main culprits in the issue today.
Is better to be oversupply than under imo. since housing is one of the single most detrimental to happiness and family life. I fail to understand why our dear policy makers can't see that.

Govt policy is only 1 part of the equation. I dont think SG Govt has all the levers to control the property market. The big gun is control of credit via bank. Whereas GLS supply is a quite crude instrument. Note that the property market did not stall until MAS bring out TDSR via closing of the loopholes.

All the property issues are not new. 1990s seen the same problems. The boom only stopped when the Govt showed the will to deflate the boom with the capital gains taxes.

Investor101, you are describing HK rather than SG. Where land revenue is big % of budget, during British colony previously and now PRC colony. It wont work in a democracy like SG coz the Govt will be booted out. PAP is
too smart to

corydorus, not just housing. the whole system is screwed up by 'seat-warmer' regime policies and principles. We need to unravel the multiple feedback loops in CPI and Asset inflation. & BTO-Resale-GLS-Pte Prop loop.

Temperament, not all policy makers are all bad. Public housing policy in SG still is the envy of Asia. Just ask any HKee or Taiwanese. Our healthcare financing is also quite good. Public healthcare system also quite good. You and I are products of good policies made in the past.

[viruskbs]

Temperament, not all policy makers are all bad. Public housing policy in SG still is the envy of Asia. Just ask any HKee or Taiwanese. Our healthcare financing is also quite good. Public healthcare system also quite good. You and I are products of good policies made in the past.

if 1 policy is good it does not mean that all policies made by the system will be good.

The policies seem good at that time but may have unintended consequences. Its true that policymakers are not fortune tellers but u can make reasonable estimates that how your policy is going to affect the people & conditions in the long term. It is called common Sense.

Another thing i would like to add that if a policy was good in the past does not not necessarily mean it is going to remain good in the future. Think Kodak, Nokia, 5 star travels. we need to change with time & so do the policies & some times fine tweaking is not enough.

It may be time to go back to fundamentals & see whether the policy is really required if the Fine tunning is not working.

[opmi]

Some HK stats - 718k in rental flats.
Out of 7.18m population. 10%.

Need regular means testing.

SG public housing very good. If low income,
govt will give lots of grants to own flats. I think
a lot of low income group benefited. (Provided they don't
sabo themselves via gambling and overspending)

http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?gui...e=20140204

有樓有舖揸波子　老闆霸住公屋
老闆執董住公屋　揸波子BENZ咁SO
【本報訊】公屋供應緊絀，政府去年加碼打擊濫用公屋。但《蘋果》發現仍有疑似富戶「大鱷」安居公屋多年卻未被揪出，包括揸波子養Benz炒賣樓舖的水電工程老闆，以及年薪74萬元的上市公司執董；亦有新移民改裝公屋單位，設神壇上香收費。關注團體批評現行的審查政策容易被租戶「造數」避審查，促政府加強監管。


記者：李雅雯　袁柏恩


■姓麥水電工程舖老闆擁兩名車，但他堅稱非富戶。
房署資料顯示，截至去年九月全港有71.8萬公屋租戶。根據現行政策，公屋住戶住滿十年後，每兩年需申報家庭入息，全港約半住戶須申報，若入息及資產兩項同時超出輪候冊入息3倍及84倍上限便需交出公屋，但僅兩萬餘戶被視作「富戶」，佔整體不足3%。但實際富戶或遠超此數，審計署去年指出每年平均只有約17.1萬戶申報，填報家庭入息時毋須提交證明文件，房署每年只抽查當中2.4%，即約3,700宗個案，認為當局在深入審查和跟進行動可予改善。


本報接連發現疑為漏網之魚的富戶。在赤柱的馬坑邨停車場，寶馬、Benz、Land Rover、Audi等數十萬至百萬元的名車泊滿公屋住戶的月租泊位。居於觀馬樓姓麥的水電工程舖老闆，名下兩輛歐洲名車，銀灰色保時捷開篷跑車及銀色Benz長泊停車場，每日傍晚，麥太駕着Benz買餸，生活富泰。街坊透露麥是馬坑甲村原居民，一家四口因政府拆村獲分配公屋。

住客包括上市公司執董
麥在西環開設水電工程公司，於00年及01年分別購入般咸道金風大廈單位及慶英大廈地舖，兩、三年前出售，賬面獲利700萬元。麥接受記者查詢時，承認是租戶登記人，更堅稱不是富戶，亦無繳付過公屋雙倍租金。麥稱有申報入息但沒超出限額：「呢度大把人有錢過我，你有乜嘢問房署囉！」根據運輸署車牌登記資料，麥擁有兩車合共97萬元，超出現時公屋租戶四人家庭總資產值限額逾倍。


上市公司e-print的執董兼企業管理部經理徐柏煒，於招股書填報住址為樂富橫頭磡邨宏業樓，與父母同住，據悉徐去年年薪74萬元，已超出三人家庭入息限額逾三倍。記者日前登門造訪，徐父稱兒子早年失業了一段日子，直至近年獲賞識升做管理層後，便搬出外自住，現公屋單位只餘兩老居住。徐父又贊成政府加強審查，讓單位留給有需要的人。徐柏煒透過公關公司回覆指事件已得到適當處理。


■麥姓老闆名下保時捷開篷跑車及銀色Benz長泊赤柱馬坑邨停車場。李雅雯攝
內地物業根本無法查核
房委會資助房屋小組委員會委員黃成智坦言，不少公屋戶的入息及資產根本無法查核，最常見包括在內地有物業的公屋戶。公屋聯會主席王坤批評現行政策易被租戶「造數」避審查，過去就有老闆級公屋富戶「造數」，令入息不超額，建議房署應收緊審查制度。王又指當年訂立雙軌審查制原意是保障公務員的公屋福利，因公務員退休後獲得大額退休金，易超出公屋資產上限，若審查只憑資產或入息，基層公務員退休後的公屋福利就不受保障。


■赤柱馬坑邨
影子長策會成員陳紹銘認為，抽查不宜太密及太多以免造成滋擾，但上述個案過份，房署日後若遇到這類合理懷疑的嚴重富戶，應立即調查。


房署回覆指全港公屋租戶住滿10年要申報入息及資產，租戶擁有的資產、經營業務衍生的入息均須申報，不會評論上述疑濫用公屋個案。除了抽查2.4%個案，房署中央小組過去平均每年調查約8,000宗懷疑濫用公屋個案，13/14年度額外審查5,000宗入息及資產申報個案，預計今年3月底前完成。

[viruskbs]

We have a tendency to comapre Singapore to other vibrant cities of the world. But we forget that Singapore is a country also.
So there should be a difference in how to run a country (singapore) to a city (HK).

[opmi]

Temperament, not all policy makers are all bad. Public housing policy in SG still is the envy of Asia. Just ask any HKee or Taiwanese. Our healthcare financing is also quite good. Public healthcare system also quite good. You and I are products of good policies made in the past.

if 1 policy is good it does not mean that all policies made by the system will be good.

The policies seem good at that time but may have unintended consequences. Its true that policymakers are not fortune tellers but u can make reasonable estimates that how your policy is going to affect the people & conditions in the long term. It is called common Sense.

Another thing i would like to add that if a policy was good in the past does not not necessarily mean it is going to remain good in the future. Think Kodak, Nokia, 5 star travels. we need to change with time & so do the policies & some times fine tweaking is not enough.

It may be time to go back to fundamentals & see whether the policy is really required if the Fine tunning is not working.

Agreed.

To give example, the stupid 100% car loan. The policy makers very slow
in reacting. Then overreact with 50% rule. Then backtrack. Lose credibility.
Maybe ministries in silo thinking. LTA and MAS not thinking.

I think SG need a citizens lobby group to counter the influence
of industry lobby groups ($property$ and $motor cars$). These industry lobby
groups has ears of policy makers via networks or GRC CCMCs.

Whereas masses has 'meet the people' sessions and REACH.
一盘散沙。no bargaining power. need a non partisan independent
group to speak up. Civil societies?

[egghead]

To give example, the stupid 100% car loan. The policy makers very slow
in reacting. Then overreact with 50% rule. Then backtrack. Lose credibility.
Maybe ministries in silo thinking. LTA and MAS not thinking.

Side track to car loan a bit.

By 50% rule, I'm not sure if you are referring to last year loan curb. If so, I think that is the right policy. I have posted before that I feel the COE component should be excluded for loan - i.e. paid for by cash. Even though the loan curb last year did not come in the form as per my thinking, the end results is similar; i.e. the cash payment upfront has gone up to about the value of COE for most people. Of course for cars costing $200k upwards, the cash upfront is much higher than COE but that only affects the minority.

[yeokiwi]

To give example, the stupid 100% car loan. The policy makers very slow
in reacting. Then overreact with 50% rule. Then backtrack. Lose credibility.
Maybe ministries in silo thinking. LTA and MAS not thinking.

Side track to car loan a bit.

By 50% rule, I'm not sure if you are referring to last year loan curb. If so, I think that is the right policy. I have posted before that I feel the COE component should be excluded for loan - i.e. paid for by cash. Even though the loan curb last year did not come in the form as per my thinking, the end results is similar; i.e. the cash payment upfront has gone up to about the value of COE for most people. Of course for cars costing $200k upwards, the cash upfront is much higher than COE but that only affects the minority.

Basically, my conclusion is that they can never make the whole nation happy with any car ownership policy without creating deadlocks in Singapore roads. The COE may drop in the future due to many COEs that will lapse in a few years time. But, still, it will not be available to all.

I rather they delist the transport companies to improve the transport system and the welfare of the transport workers than doing useless tinkering of the car ownership policies.

[viruskbs]

To give example, the stupid 100% car loan. The policy makers very slow
in reacting. Then overreact with 50% rule. Then backtrack. Lose credibility.
Maybe ministries in silo thinking. LTA and MAS not thinking.

Side track to car loan a bit.

By 50% rule, I'm not sure if you are referring to last year loan curb. If so, I think that is the right policy. I have posted before that I feel the COE component should be excluded for loan - i.e. paid for by cash. Even though the loan curb last year did not come in the form as per my thinking, the end results is similar; i.e. the cash payment upfront has gone up to about the value of COE for most people. Of course for cars costing $200k upwards, the cash upfront is much higher than COE but that only affects the minority.

if COE component is excluded it will cause a further imblance in the market as only the rich will be able to afford the cars shutting out the middle class totally.

A better alternative will be to link the COE as a % of OMV. if u buy a ferrari jolly well pay more. but if I need a KIA I pay less.

I know it has been shot down by the govt many times giving many funny excuses but it will be a better solution for everyone.