ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

I am surprised that the govt is actually against 50 years loan.

1. The govt has been advocating that "affordability" depends on the % of your household salary that you use to service your monthly mortgage payment. Wouldn't the 50 year loan make homes more "affordable"?

2. The govt has been advocating that increasing home prices are beneficial to home owners. Hence, if more people take up such loans, wouldn't that increase the assets of home owners?

IMO, I find loans of more than 20 years ridiculous. Affordability should be a function of the home price to medium income, and not a function of monthly mortgage payment to monthly household salary. If the govt wants to stick to their definition of affordability, then they should have the cojones to support the 50 years loan. Else, they should do something about the current ridiculous govt housing prices.

(Not vested in property)

I also thought our govt will support these 50 years loan. They have always preach we are living longer, working longer. So should be able to pay loans for 50 years before one die.

If everyone can borrow more by extending the loan period, what happens to housing prices?

I thought we had reached the limit when they allow (actually require) people to use their retirement funds as a deposit on a 99-year flat. Looks like they've found a new way to keep blowing up the bubble.

(07-08-2012, 09:44 PM)BlackCat Wrote: [ -> ]If everyone can borrow more by extending the loan period, what happens to housing prices?

I thought we had reached the limit when they allow (actually require) people to use their retirement funds as a deposit on a 99-year flat. Looks like they've found a new way to keep blowing up the bubble.

Nah, i dont think anyone can borrow 50 year loan. UOB say they target young executives. I believe in stable govt job. But as we know, there has been an increasing number of pp contracting cancer at a young age 35 to 50.

(07-08-2012, 09:50 PM)Bibi Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2012, 09:44 PM)BlackCat Wrote: [ -> ]If everyone can borrow more by extending the loan period, what happens to housing prices?

I thought we had reached the limit when they allow (actually require) people to use their retirement funds as a deposit on a 99-year flat. Looks like they've found a new way to keep blowing up the bubble.

Nah, i dont think anyone can borrow 50 year loan. UOB say they target young executives. I believe in stable govt job. But as we know, there has been an increasing number of pp contracting cancer at a young age 35 to 50.

Cancer at young age? No worry! There is always mortgage insurance which is compulsory if you take a home's mortgage loan.

I think its the government policy and stand to try to balance between debt management and affordability. If we look at the extreme of the zero debt and full asset financed by savings, it will mean the entire singapore capital is locked in real estate and there is no liqudity flowing around. This discourages foreign investment sentiment etc etc. But if we look at full debt (let say 100 years extreme) then there will be too much liquidity and inflation will be very prevalent. I guess the government knows that the paper money we have are sort of transient as the HDB we live in which is only a leasehold and that is why the government encourages certain amount of debt. My 2 cents

You are spot on.
The more debt the better as far as HDB flats are concerned.
And who actually owns the HDB?
The Papys right?
You can don't buy a car in Sinkapore but can you rent a house in Singapore from the Papys?
Yes you can but only for those who are down and out.
And usually only temporary.
This is akin to "Slavery of the People" in the past.
“天 下 乌 鸦 一 班 黑”

How selfish can Singaporeans be?
Or rather, how money-faced can Singaporeans be...

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/s...83/1/.html

SINGAPORE: The Government's aggressive ramping up of the supply of Build-to-Order (BTO) flats has got at least one group of residents unhappy.

At Ang Mo Kio St 52, some residents of a Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) project are upset over plans to build a BTO project less than 50 metres from their development.

The new 710-unit BTO project is expected to be launched next month and the concerns of some of the residents at Park Central - who obtained the keys to their homes less than a year ago - include the dust and noise that would be generated, and whether there are sufficient amenities, including car park lots, to cater to another cluster of flats.

The upset residents have voiced their unhappiness on the Facebook page of their Member of Parliament, Mr Ang Hin Kee.

A user, "James Lim", questioned the location of the new BTO project: "The land is fully surrounded by residents and a primary school. How would HDB ensure the cleanliness and safety of the children and residents in the area during construction levelling and piling?"

Describing Ang Mo Kio as "already overcrowded", another user, "Siew Ern", said: "Is there adequate amenities for everyone? Can the transport system cope with the existing community?"

A Park Central resident, Mr Alex Wong, 37, said the residents will be setting up a committee to "try to stop" the building of the BTO project.

The equity dealer pointed out that by building the BTO now, Park Central residents have little choice but to put up with it.

Said Mr Wong: "If they (build) it after five years, after the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP), then residents would have a choice to move."

However, another resident, Mr Aruumugam, 43, felt that the situation required some give-and-take. "We will have to live with it as it satisfies a need and the Government is doing it for the people," the operations manager added.

Mr Ang said he is working with the HDB to look into their concerns and come up with alternatives. He assured that he will "make sure that the issues raised are addressed adequately and attended to".

He added: "I empathise with the residents as they have just moved into the estate not long ago and, after all the moving in, renovation and settling (of) teething problems... there's construction again."

However, property analysts were less sympathetic.

Given the scarcity of land here, the residents should be prepared for the vacant land to be utilised for housing.

SLP International head of research and consultancy Nicholas Mak said: "HDB has a rather packed building programme, so they have to find vacant land somewhere... if there is vacant land near the DBSS project, there is a possibility that the Government could develop HDB flats on (it)."

ERA Key Executive Officer Eugene Lim said: "What is there to complain or be unhappy about?"

He added: "I don't think the lessor will go ask the lessee for permission to build more flats in the vicinity."

(08-08-2012, 01:47 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]How selfish can Singaporeans be?
Or rather, how money-faced can Singaporeans be...

He added: "I don't think the lessor will go ask the lessee for permission to build more flats in the vicinity."

Singaporeans are getting more and more materialistic by the generation.....

And I like this last line - why should HDB ask for permission to build? It's not as if Park Central residents OWN the land adjacent to their DBSS flat, right? Ridiculous.

(08-08-2012, 01:57 PM)Musicwhiz Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-08-2012, 01:47 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]How selfish can Singaporeans be?
Or rather, how money-faced can Singaporeans be...

He added: "I don't think the lessor will go ask the lessee for permission to build more flats in the vicinity."

Singaporeans are getting more and more materialistic by the generation.....

And I like this last line - why should HDB ask for permission to build? It's not as if Park Central residents OWN the land adjacent to their DBSS flat, right? Ridiculous.

They think they are in Australia.