9 Amber Gardens #07-23
psf$1357
958 sqf
$1300k
05 May 10
New High for low floor actually.
Newbie
9 Amber Gardens #07-23
psf$1357
958 sqf
$1300k
05 May 10
New High for low floor actually.
Senior
unless my eyesight failed meOriginally Posted by Lou
check the weekend edition of bizz time
Newbie
Any 4 bedroom owner selling?
Junior
Your eyesight did not fail you but your knowledge did.unless my eyesight failed me
check the weekend edition of bizz time
When a price fall isn't a price fall
SISV Services is fixing problem with caveats lodged for some subsale deals. -BT
Mon, Jan 05, 2009
The Business Times
By Kalpana Rashiwala
PRIVATE home prices have fallen but in some cases, the drop may not be as much as suggested by SISV Services' Realink database.
Savills Singapore has spotted more than 60 instances of 'duplicate caveats' listed at different prices for the same transaction and which give the impression of a unit changing hands within a span of a few months at a significantly lower price, when in fact it hadn't.
The common thread running through these cases is that they involved subsale deals transacted in the past six months for projects which either received Temporary Occupation Permit in 2008 or are nearing TOP.
For example, Realink shows a caveat for a 47th floor unit at The Sail @ Marina Bay sold in the subsale market in September for $508,024 or $858 psf, when actually the unit was sold for $1.45 million or $2,450 psf and which was caveated three months earlier (and also shown in Realink). The lower price was the price at which the developer first sold the unit back in 2005.
In another instance, Realink shows a caveat for a unit at Park Infinia at Wee Nam in November for $1.16 million or $868 psf, one-third lower than the $1.77 million or $1,325 psf caveat lodged for the same unit two months earlier. Actually, both caveats were lodged by the same buyer, who paid the higher price.
Rodyk & Davidson LLP partner Tang Woon Ee told BT that it was 'good practice' to advise clients who buy in the subsale market to lodge two caveats. The first is when the buyer exercises his subsale option and has to fully pay up the initial 5 per cent deposit; this caveat will reflect the actual transacted price.
Then, two or three months later, when this subsale transaction is completed and the buyer enters into a fresh sale and purchase agreement (SPA) with the developer, the buyer should lodge another caveat to protect his interest in the unit. This fresh SPA will reflect the original price at which the developer sold the unit, since this is the price it is entitled to collect.
'So if the developer originally sold the unit to Buyer 1 for $1 million and Buyer 1 later sells to Buyer 2 in the subsale market for $1.2 million, the fresh SPA issued by the developer to Buyer 2 will still reflect the $1 million price; the profit (or loss) made by Buyer 1 from his subsale transaction is not relevant to the developer,' Ms Tang explained.
As a result, the original sale price of the unit gets reflected in the second caveat lodged by the purchaser in the latest subsale deal. In this instance, two caveats will be lodged by Buyer 2 for the same transaction - the first at $1.2 million followed by another a few months later at $1 million.
SISV's Realink database, by listing both caveats, gives the impression that the price of the unit has fallen about 17 per cent in the past three months.
Said Ms Tang: 'A caveat is a legal claim against a property. When the developer issues a fresh SPA to a buyer who picked up his unit in the subsale market, it establishes a relationship between the buyer and the developer - that's a caveatable interest.'
SISV Services is in the midst of rectifying the problem, which has been caused by the service provider not eliminating 'duplicate caveats' lodged for subsale transactions which show the original price at which the developer sold the unit a few years ago (and which is listed in the fresh Sale & Purchase Agreement issued by the developer to the latest subsale buyer).
An SISV Services spokesman attributes the problem in Realink to an increase in subsale cases involving projects originally sold on deferred payment schemes (DPS) as the original buyers who may have picked up their units from developers a few years ago are now feeling the pinch from the economic downturn and facing difficulty getting bank loans.
This has led to an increase in subsales being registered and duplicate caveats showing up, according to him.
To fix the problem, SISV Services has added a 'history' button, next to transactions with two or more caveats lodged, for the professional version of Realink. 'Users can view the caveats' history and if they see the latest price is identical to the initial transaction in the primary market say a couple of years ago, they can disregard the latest caveat as being a 'duplicate',' the spokesman said.
'For the free version of Realink available to the public, we are in the process of devising a computer programme to help us identify the duplicates, so we may remove them.
'We didn't remove the duplicate caveats earlier because we could not determine readily that they were 'duplicates' as we do not have the buyers' names in the raw caveats data that we buy from SLA (Singapore Land Authority).'
Savills Singapore compiled a list of over 60 subsale transactions covering projects like The Sail, Cosmopolitan, The Esta, Park Infinia at Wee Nam, The Sea View, The Azure, Watermark, The Calrose and Parc Emily where Realink's database showed latest caveats at significantly lower prices than caveats lodged for the same units just a few months earlier. Typically, the latest caveated price was also the original transacted price for the unit a few years ago.
Savills did individual searches for a few of these cases using Singapore Land Authority's Inlis system and, in each instance, found two caveats being lodged for the property by the same buyer, just a few months apart - and with the second caveat at a lower price than the first.
Raw caveats data that SISV Services purchases from SLA does not contain information on the buyers' or sellers' identities to protect privacy.SLA confirmed that it provides identical data to both SISV Services and the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Interestingly, URA's Realis system does not list these 'duplicate caveats' that do not reflect the latest transacted prices.
When asked how it sifts out caveats lodged when developers issue a fresh SPA based on original sale price, a URA spokeswoman said: 'If a caveat is lodged against a developer, we will ascertain whether it is a new sale or a fresh agreement arising from a subsale.
'We do this by checking whether a caveat for the same unit has been lodged against the sub-seller, whether a previous caveat has been lodged for the unit when it was originally sold and also against our database on new sales compiled from monthly surveys of developers. If the caveat is lodged against a developer arising from a sub-sale, we will not show the record in Realis.'
On the duplicate caveats in SISV Services' Realink database, Savills Singapore director for investment sales and prestige homes Steven Ming said: 'Analysts who do not distil the information carefully can come to very wrong conclusions of the market, thus further aggravating the already weak market conditions.
'Had end-users, investors and property owners relied on such data without first seeking a professional opinion, they can easily be making a misinformed decision as a result.'
There may also be a minority of rogue agents who may use such erroneous low-priced caveats to their advantage in convincing less savvy owners to close on low offers given market conditions, he added.
This article was first published in The Business Times on January 03, 2009.
Senior
Your eyesight did not fail you but your knowledge did.
When a price fall isn't a price fall
SISV Services is fixing problem with caveats lodged for some subsale deals. -BT
Mon, Jan 05, 2009
The Business Times
By Kalpana Rashiwala
PRIVATE home prices have fallen but in some cases, the drop may not be as much as suggested by SISV Services' Realink database.
Savills Singapore has spotted more than 60 instances of 'duplicate caveats' listed at different prices for the same transaction and which give the impression of a unit changing hands within a span of a few months at a significantly lower price, when in fact it hadn't.
The common thread running through these cases is that they involved subsale deals transacted in the past six months for projects which either received Temporary Occupation Permit in 2008 or are nearing TOP.
For example, Realink shows a caveat for a 47th floor unit at The Sail @ Marina Bay sold in the subsale market in September for $508,024 or $858 psf, when actually the unit was sold for $1.45 million or $2,450 psf and which was caveated three months earlier (and also shown in Realink). The lower price was the price at which the developer first sold the unit back in 2005.
In another instance, Realink shows a caveat for a unit at Park Infinia at Wee Nam in November for $1.16 million or $868 psf, one-third lower than the $1.77 million or $1,325 psf caveat lodged for the same unit two months earlier. Actually, both caveats were lodged by the same buyer, who paid the higher price.
Rodyk & Davidson LLP partner Tang Woon Ee told BT that it was 'good practice' to advise clients who buy in the subsale market to lodge two caveats. The first is when the buyer exercises his subsale option and has to fully pay up the initial 5 per cent deposit; this caveat will reflect the actual transacted price.
Then, two or three months later, when this subsale transaction is completed and the buyer enters into a fresh sale and purchase agreement (SPA) with the developer, the buyer should lodge another caveat to protect his interest in the unit. This fresh SPA will reflect the original price at which the developer sold the unit, since this is the price it is entitled to collect.
'So if the developer originally sold the unit to Buyer 1 for $1 million and Buyer 1 later sells to Buyer 2 in the subsale market for $1.2 million, the fresh SPA issued by the developer to Buyer 2 will still reflect the $1 million price; the profit (or loss) made by Buyer 1 from his subsale transaction is not relevant to the developer,' Ms Tang explained.
As a result, the original sale price of the unit gets reflected in the second caveat lodged by the purchaser in the latest subsale deal. In this instance, two caveats will be lodged by Buyer 2 for the same transaction - the first at $1.2 million followed by another a few months later at $1 million.
SISV's Realink database, by listing both caveats, gives the impression that the price of the unit has fallen about 17 per cent in the past three months.
Said Ms Tang: 'A caveat is a legal claim against a property. When the developer issues a fresh SPA to a buyer who picked up his unit in the subsale market, it establishes a relationship between the buyer and the developer - that's a caveatable interest.'
SISV Services is in the midst of rectifying the problem, which has been caused by the service provider not eliminating 'duplicate caveats' lodged for subsale transactions which show the original price at which the developer sold the unit a few years ago (and which is listed in the fresh Sale & Purchase Agreement issued by the developer to the latest subsale buyer).
An SISV Services spokesman attributes the problem in Realink to an increase in subsale cases involving projects originally sold on deferred payment schemes (DPS) as the original buyers who may have picked up their units from developers a few years ago are now feeling the pinch from the economic downturn and facing difficulty getting bank loans.
This has led to an increase in subsales being registered and duplicate caveats showing up, according to him.
To fix the problem, SISV Services has added a 'history' button, next to transactions with two or more caveats lodged, for the professional version of Realink. 'Users can view the caveats' history and if they see the latest price is identical to the initial transaction in the primary market say a couple of years ago, they can disregard the latest caveat as being a 'duplicate',' the spokesman said.
'For the free version of Realink available to the public, we are in the process of devising a computer programme to help us identify the duplicates, so we may remove them.
'We didn't remove the duplicate caveats earlier because we could not determine readily that they were 'duplicates' as we do not have the buyers' names in the raw caveats data that we buy from SLA (Singapore Land Authority).'
Savills Singapore compiled a list of over 60 subsale transactions covering projects like The Sail, Cosmopolitan, The Esta, Park Infinia at Wee Nam, The Sea View, The Azure, Watermark, The Calrose and Parc Emily where Realink's database showed latest caveats at significantly lower prices than caveats lodged for the same units just a few months earlier. Typically, the latest caveated price was also the original transacted price for the unit a few years ago.
Savills did individual searches for a few of these cases using Singapore Land Authority's Inlis system and, in each instance, found two caveats being lodged for the property by the same buyer, just a few months apart - and with the second caveat at a lower price than the first.
Raw caveats data that SISV Services purchases from SLA does not contain information on the buyers' or sellers' identities to protect privacy.SLA confirmed that it provides identical data to both SISV Services and the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Interestingly, URA's Realis system does not list these 'duplicate caveats' that do not reflect the latest transacted prices.
When asked how it sifts out caveats lodged when developers issue a fresh SPA based on original sale price, a URA spokeswoman said: 'If a caveat is lodged against a developer, we will ascertain whether it is a new sale or a fresh agreement arising from a subsale.
'We do this by checking whether a caveat for the same unit has been lodged against the sub-seller, whether a previous caveat has been lodged for the unit when it was originally sold and also against our database on new sales compiled from monthly surveys of developers. If the caveat is lodged against a developer arising from a sub-sale, we will not show the record in Realis.'
On the duplicate caveats in SISV Services' Realink database, Savills Singapore director for investment sales and prestige homes Steven Ming said: 'Analysts who do not distil the information carefully can come to very wrong conclusions of the market, thus further aggravating the already weak market conditions.
'Had end-users, investors and property owners relied on such data without first seeking a professional opinion, they can easily be making a misinformed decision as a result.'
There may also be a minority of rogue agents who may use such erroneous low-priced caveats to their advantage in convincing less savvy owners to close on low offers given market conditions, he added.
This article was first published in The Business Times on January 03, 2009.
precisely thats what i saw 5 may 2010
how do i know business times also can make such mistake ?
then u use a 2009 report to criticise my knowledge
if we cannot trust our newspaper ...then we should not report anything from the papers in this forum at all
for all you know all those past report you repost could also be faulty
right ???
Junior
The Business Times did not make a mistake as it is just reproducing "Information provided by SISV Services Pte Ltd".
SISV Services Pte Ltd also did not make a mistake as it is just recording the caveats lodged.
As the lawyers have clarified in the above article:
"Rodyk & Davidson LLP partner Tang Woon Ee told BT that it was 'good practice' to advise clients who buy in the subsale market to lodge two caveats. The first is when the buyer exercises his subsale option and has to fully pay up the initial 5 per cent deposit; this caveat will reflect the actual transacted price.
Then, two or three months later, when this subsale transaction is completed and the buyer enters into a fresh sale and purchase agreement (SPA) with the developer, the buyer should lodge another caveat to protect his interest in the unit. This fresh SPA will reflect the original price at which the developer sold the unit, since this is the price it is entitled to collect."
Hence there are no mistakes at all and it is quite obvious to any savvy property investor (especially if the discrepancy is so huge in this case) that this is the original price in the developer's sale back in 2006 and not a "new low for One Amber".
Senior
Hence there are no mistakes at all and it is quite obvious to any savvy property investor (especially if the discrepancy is so huge in this case) that this is the original price in the developer's sale back in 2006 and not a "new low for One Amber".[/quote]
why then does BT print 5 may 2010 with a 730 psf ? and not say 2006 ?
Newbie
the answer is
- OA was sold on deferred payment
- buyer may have just taken a loan and lodged the
caveat in 2010 instead of at time of paying the 20% down
payment
no need to argue and get "hot" - plain common sense helps
Exalted
as deferred payment scheme is gone...u will not see such cases often in future...it may still happen to those who only wish to take 70% or lesser loan.
bank loan penalty is 1% for BUC projects, so some may choose not to take bank loan till the last min ..in case they sold it b4 they nid the loan
Senior
let me clarify
i saw th caveat on weekend on BT
i was surprised to see 730 psf registered for 5th may 2010
so i posted a question, asked if anyone has seen it as well ?
and asked is tat a new low for one amber
instead of getting informative and matured replies, i got someone suaning me..for my lack of knowledge
is that necessary ?
a simple query turned out to be one where people belittle others ?
Newbie
Chill bro,
These are bulls here, can't fight them. Every time we try to highlight a 'low', they get all hyper, which i can understand since its their personal survival at stake.
Global recession is coming....
There are bulls but there are also bears. What is more important is that the information presented is genuine and true, not lies or trying to misleads. To the extend of "Personal survival at stake" seems a little belittling. That tone sounds like a mega bear talking to a bull?
Newbie
The truth is - you just talk no action.There are bulls but there are also bears. What is more important is that the information presented is genuine and true, not lies or trying to misleads. To the extend of "Personal survival at stake" seems a little belittling. That tone sounds like a mega bear talking to a bull?
The truth is - you can't afford, so condemn it
The truth is - you are living in a dream world
The truth is - you have 1000+ posts but nothing is the truth
Newbie
teddybear is a big-time Esta supporter!There are bulls but there are also bears. What is more important is that the information presented is genuine and true, not lies or trying to misleads. To the extend of "Personal survival at stake" seems a little belittling. That tone sounds like a mega bear talking to a bull?
He will bleed for Esta if the need arise!
I salute you teddy!
Newbie
1 Amber Gardens #22-03 flipped for $1409psf on 4th June, bought for $1150psf on 9th Dec 2009.
A cool $250k in 6 months, not bad!
Junior
Heard One Amber a big disapppointment till now. What is happening?
Senior
i was in a cab 2 weeks ago when in spore .. passing by One Amber and The Esta ..
i must say Esta looks better ..
and OA somehow doesnt appeal to me , from the exterior appearance
on my way to Airport, on ECP .. i saw a dindgy beigy colored condo .. i wonder what was that .. anyone any clue ? looks like its in front of OA from ECP
anyway i feel OA too cramped .. some has seaview, some kana blocked by The Seaview ..
those with rear city view will be blocked by The Shore .. maybe thats why OA is not so hot now ...
Newbie
one amber block by The Seaview?
Senior
i am not sure
cos when i was on ECP ..i dun see OA
Exalted
esta more cramped den OA
Newbie
Esta is on much smaller plot of land than OA, and there are more blocks than OA, so how is OA cramp compared to Esta? Sorry I don't get your logic, proud owner of Esta..
All the eastern condo are blocked except for seafront, aalto, silversea, makena, belve, amber point, sovereign, etc (those facing sea). Seaview will eventually be blocked by silversea.
at least there is no view blockage on the western side of OA.. unlike Esta
Senior
dont get me wrong
i dun own anything on east coast
i said it looked cramped when i saw it from outside
in your opinion OA is better ..perhaps you know something we dont
care to share ?
and why OA is not doing well compared to esta ? thats the impression many get
Senior
you are right, everyone getting so touchy on this forum.
Newbie
OA just had a couple of transaction at 1400+, so is that an indication it is not doing well? I just check the caveats and OA has more sales in May and June than Esta, so can I ask what do you mean by "OA not doing well compared to Esta?"
The layout of Esta is good? half of their residents are facing each other.. East of Esta facing OA, West is facing The Shore and Seaview, South is facing Amberglades/Vertis.
Let me repeat again if you have missed my earlier post. Esta land area is about 2/3 of OA, and there are 5 blocks as opposed to OA's 4. And OA is cramped? Are you driving in Johor Bahru when you see OA?
Exalted
best is to pay a visit to both condos b4 giving ur comments
i haf seen both projects and esta is definitely more cramped den OA....dun hf to argue...u look at the site plan from internet also can tell
frankly speaking, OA is doing ok by looking at caveats
the seaview still da best la...haha
Newbie
Seaview is in another price category.. but it has a much bigger plot of land (300+K sf) compared with OA (250k sf) and there is more space.best is to pay a visit to both condos b4 giving ur comments
i haf seen both projects and esta is definitely more cramped den OA....dun hf to argue...u look at the site plan from internet also can tell
frankly speaking, OA is doing ok by looking at caveats
the seaview still da best la...haha
Though I have to say Seaview will change name to "Seaview only for another 2 years"
Newbie
I have paid visit to two condos...seen Esta before OA TOP and thought Esta was so so...now after OA TOP, I told Esta is better...y? Simple...have anyone seen a poorer design than OA when you first come open the door of OA?? How can anyone like a design that separates the dinning and living area? It makes the whole house looks damn small....because of this design....i fail to understand who design such house???I prefer an open living room where the dinning and sitting room is together...it makes the living room look spacious...its a disappointment when I first see the OA layout..best is to pay a visit to both condos b4 giving ur comments
i haf seen both projects and esta is definitely more cramped den OA....dun hf to argue...u look at the site plan from internet also can tell
frankly speaking, OA is doing ok by looking at caveats
the seaview still da best la...haha
Newbie
Apparently 562 owners like the design. This is fact. And looking at the sub-sales market and secondary market, there are more than 562 admirers of the OA layout.
If you like big open dining/living area, why don't you consider the remaining kampong in Singapore, or Malaysia?
Exalted
y u quote me? we r toking about different stuff...i was refering to the site plan and not floor plan...lol
anyw, ur point is very subjective.
Junior
Taste is subjective leh. While I hate the latest trend "long corridor" design (i.e. unit has no "depth", i.e. 1500 sqft = 15ft x 100 ft), some people like it because they say no depth means maximum light gets into the house. To each his own.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
