(16-10-2016, 12:58 PM)Triple70 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2016, 11:33 PM)jjlim84 Wrote: [ -> ]so can it be concluded that Singapore property prices are still comparatively affordable?
I'm quite surprised actually when I read through the affordability indexes and property price to income ratio tables of the world major cities, and found out that Singapore is actually not in top rankings. There are some other countries where people are struggling more to own a property
Cant compare in this manner. Other big cities.. If citizens cant afford to like in the big city, can choose to live in the outskirts where accomodation is very much more affordable. In Sg, even go far flung areas, the prices are not much lower.
Lets not use HDB BTO prices. Most ppl dont qualify to buy at those prices. Have to Add in resale levy for most or the cost to get a spouse.
In european cities like paris, The vast majority rent, and few aspire to own a high price property. The stress level is not comparable.
The reality is that Sg property is massively under supplied AT THE AFFORDABLE PRICE POINT. Properties are not commodities and the high end is in massive oversupply.
Sg need to manage the stress level of living by lowering the cost of accomodation.
That's why we are comparing city to city but not by country. One can live in Jb, the equivalent of "outskirts", and work in Singapore. But it's the traveling time, or probably quality of living that one has to sacrifice
It's more of a satisfaction than stress of owning a home, because in the end the property belongs to you and a home is always the basic of forming a family. Renting has its own "stresses" too, like privacy issues, need to move when the landlord decides not to renew etc
(16-10-2016, 02:18 PM)corydorus Wrote: [ -> ]The Government build housing for more than 80%. Most gov don't even cover 10% in CITIES.
More than 90% has their own housing.
Maybe you can help clarify what do we really mean "massively under supplied AT THE AFFORDABLE PRICE POINT."
Have to understand WHY Sg have such numbers.
Could the private sector have delivered higher numbers when the govt have such a overwhelming landbank?
How did the govt obtain such a large landbank?
Having a high percentage of public housing... is that a good thing?
And.. Sg have the most expensive public housing in the world.. and still have 80% living in them.. is this a healthy indicator?
The cost of housing is unusually high in Sg. The construction cost alone is the purchase price of high end properties in neighbouring countries. The cost of a Home Shelte itself can construct a full unit in other countries. How does these infrastructure contribute to our competitiveness?
In this new era of communications, we have to be a lot more affordable in order to remain competitive. The cost of housing, and the attendant interest costs is the main contributor of the high cost of living.
(17-10-2016, 09:29 AM)Triple70 Wrote: [ -> ] (16-10-2016, 02:18 PM)corydorus Wrote: [ -> ]The Government build housing for more than 80%. Most gov don't even cover 10% in CITIES.
More than 90% has their own housing.
Maybe you can help clarify what do we really mean "massively under supplied AT THE AFFORDABLE PRICE POINT."
Have to understand WHY Sg have such numbers.
Could the private sector have delivered higher numbers when the govt have such a overwhelming landbank?
How did the govt obtain such a large landbank?
Having a high percentage of public housing... is that a good thing?
And.. Sg have the most expensive public housing in the world.. and still have 80% living in them.. is this a healthy indicator?
The cost of housing is unusually high in Sg. The construction cost alone is the purchase price of high end properties in neighbouring countries. The cost of a Home Shelte itself can construct a full unit in other countries. How does these infrastructure contribute to our competitiveness?
In this new era of communications, we have to be a lot more affordable in order to remain competitive. The cost of housing, and the attendant interest costs is the main contributor of the high cost of living.
The fact is 90% and more has their own housing. Fact speaks.
Hi,
Will like to clarify a misconception. In many cities, most of their properties are freehold and not leasehold like us. Therefore, in Singapore, we are effectively renters of a flat but paying upfront sum for a 99 year leasehold.
If a proper comparison is planned, we should compare with some factors: 1) city rental rates per apartment to Singapore HDB prices, 2) Discount our upfront payment or by finding the PV of renting a flat in other cities through a 99 year period.
(17-10-2016, 11:21 AM)CY09 Wrote: [ -> ]Hi,
Will like to clarify a misconception. In many cities, most of their properties are freehold and not leasehold like us. Therefore, in Singapore, we are effectively renters of a flat but paying upfront sum for a 99 year leasehold.
If a proper comparison is planned, we should compare with some factors: 1) city rental rates per apartment to Singapore HDB prices, 2) Discount our upfront payment or by finding the PV of renting a flat in other cities through a 99 year period.
Why does it matters to consider leasehold or freehold other than investment gains consideration ?
Most new couple bought HDB like in early 30s. For 99 years ... is beyond realistic living age. And we have high floors the land below is sub-divided to more than 10 household even if is freehold. Furthermore HDB flats will be recalled way before it.
Cory
(17-10-2016, 11:21 AM)CY09 Wrote: [ -> ]Hi,
Will like to clarify a misconception. In many cities, most of their properties are freehold and not leasehold like us. Therefore, in Singapore, we are effectively renters of a flat but paying upfront sum for a 99 year leasehold.
I didn't have statistic, but common sense should be leasehold ptys, are much more than freehold ones, at least in Asia. I am surprise on the statement. Anyone has statistic to support that.
As far as I know, Malaysia's pty, are mostly leasehold with similar 99 years. China ones are 60 years leasehold. Indonesia ones, should be similar. The 99 leasehold ptys, is not a new concept, but commonly available in the region, as far as I know.
(interesting to know more on the topic)
If memory serves me right, majority of US and Europe are on a freehold title, Japan and Korea had a significant degree of freehold as well but is now moving towards leasehold ppty.
East Asia Region - Many cities adopt the leasehold system.
In terms of value, there is difference in value of leasehold vs freehold. At 99 years lease, the difference is about 4% in the Singapore Land Authority's (SLA) guide. When the lease has 50 years remaining, the difference between them and freehold is 25%. The value of the lease drastically reduces from 22 years remaning and below. When the lease has 22 years remaining, the difference between them and freehold is 50%.
(16-10-2016, 12:58 PM)Triple70 Wrote: [ -> ]Lets not use HDB BTO prices. Most ppl dont qualify to buy at those prices.
What an interesting claim!
In my dictionary, the word "most" refers to >50% of a population. The last time I checked, monthly income ceiling for HDB BTO is $12,000. Therefore, your argument is that most (i.e. >50%) ppl have a combined income exceeding $12,000?
(17-10-2016, 12:29 PM)HitandRun Wrote: [ -> ] (16-10-2016, 12:58 PM)Triple70 Wrote: [ -> ]Lets not use HDB BTO prices. Most ppl dont qualify to buy at those prices.
What an interesting claim!
In my dictionary, the word "most" refers to >50% of a population. The last time I checked, monthly income ceiling for HDB BTO is $12,000. Therefore, your argument is that most (i.e. >50%) ppl have a combined income exceeding $12,000?
https://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default...pp-s22.pdf
According to singtat, 30.4% of the households is above $12000.
Household income refer to the earnings of all the members of the households. For application of BTO, you only need to submit earnings of a couple or a two-member family unit.
But, of course, if you are surrounded by high-flyers, it will seem that most ppl don't qualify to buy BTO.
(17-10-2016, 04:06 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ] (17-10-2016, 12:29 PM)HitandRun Wrote: [ -> ] (16-10-2016, 12:58 PM)Triple70 Wrote: [ -> ]Lets not use HDB BTO prices. Most ppl dont qualify to buy at those prices.
What an interesting claim!
In my dictionary, the word "most" refers to >50% of a population. The last time I checked, monthly income ceiling for HDB BTO is $12,000. Therefore, your argument is that most (i.e. >50%) ppl have a combined income exceeding $12,000?
https://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default...pp-s22.pdf
According to singtat, 30.4% of the households is above $12000.
Household income refer to the earnings of all the members of the households. For application of BTO, you only need to submit earnings of a couple or a two-member family unit.
But, of course, if you are surrounded by high-flyers, it will seem that most ppl don't qualify to buy BTO.
Incidentally, Singstat defined household income from work to include
employer CPF contributions. If that is converted to HDB-speak, income ceiling for HDB BTO is actually $14,000 (to be comparable to Singstat data). So the number of households above $14,000 in Singstat is < 25%.....
