Source : The Business Times, January 7, 2008
WALL STREET INSIGHT
Most economists expect US economy to narrowly avoid recession this year
NO MATTER whether stocks in the US equity market are able to thrive this year or even achieve the slim single-digit gains that most of the Wall Street market strategists The Business Times polled have set for their end of year targets, this year will be amongst the most challenging market environments facing Wall Street in many years.
'2008 will certainly not be a year short of major storm clouds,' said Jim Awad, chairman of WP Stewart, who is forecasting gains of 4 to 6 per cent for blue chip stocks and the broader S&P 500. 'It will be a volatile and difficult year, with the positive pull of export demand from higher growth overseas battling the drag of a domestic slowdown and financial sector troubles.'
The US market's start to the year reflected the daunting challenge, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed 2008's first day of trading with a 220.86-point loss, or 1.67 per cent to 13,043.96, the worst point decline for the Dow at the start of any trading year.
'That's not the way you want to start off a new year, it's certainly bearish as omens go,' said Ryan & Beck senior market strategist Joseph Battipaglia. 'But still, it's only the first day of the year.'
Indeed, and with hundreds more trading sessions to go in 2008, Wall Street analysts expect the good to outweigh the bad this year, if only by the slimmest of margins.
First, the good news. Most stock market strategists expect the US equities markets to move up during the 12 months, registering modest gains. Large capitalisation, multinational companies, especially makers of information technology equipment and software, should lead the way. The US economy should narrowly avoid a recession, beginning to show signs of recovery by the end of the year, most Wall Street economists say.
Economists like Merrill Lynch's David Rosenberg believe the US Federal Reserve will be active in cutting short term interest rates this year, bringing solace to investors focused on the economic slowdown. Mr Rosenberg thinks that data like Wednesday's weak manufacturing report could push the rate-setting committee to order a cut of fifty basis points at its January meeting. 'The voting members are becoming more sanguine about inflation and more concerned about tightening credit conditions and deterioration in the financial market, as noted in the minutes of their last meeting,' he said.
The bad news: That's the best-case scenario for what is expected to be a tumultuous 2008 for stock investors.
Despite the US housing market's year-long collapse in 2007 and over US$40 billion in write-offs by banks looking to clear their books of sub-prime loans and investments, the coming year presents the threat of more of the same. A severely wounded housing market, coupled with loan-wary credit markets, could act together to pull the US economy into a prolonged recession, with several quarters of falling profits for US corporations in the wider economy, not just financial businesses.
'We certainly shouldn't expect to be rescued by corporate profits this year,' said Charles Crane, investment strategist at Scotsman Capital. 'But companies could also end up faring more solidly than many investors seem to be expecting, and that could provide a boost mid-year,' he said.
FedEx, a leading indicator for the US economy, is a good example. The logistics company was one of the first to top out in 1999 and one of the first to bottom out in 2000.
In its last quarterly report FedEx offered downward guidance for the current quarter, which ends next month. But it sounded a more confident note for its first quarter of 2008, which ends in May, indicating it sees a pick-up in business as early as the spring.
Mr Battipaglia believes that, short of an outright melt-down and panic, 'all of the bad stuff is out there already. It could get worse, but it's already very high and printed in bold on investors' radar screens,' positioning stocks for a solid bounce-back later in the year.
Although the increased chance of recession, inflation and even stagflation cannot be dismissed, said Citigroup chief investment strategist Tobias Levkovich, 'should recession be averted, as we currently expect, some of the most beaten-up groups like diversified financials and retailers would most likely act as coiled springs and lead markets higher this year.'
He claimed that market fundamentals 'still argue for double-digit stock price appreciation after a disappointing 2007. Valuation, implied earnings expectations and select sentiment approaches all support respectable upside potential.' He set year-end market targets at 1,675 for the S&P 500 and 15,100 for the Dow.
Mr Crane is not as bullish as Mr. Levkovich, forecasting single digit gains for the major indexes, but he agrees that many stocks are venturing into oversold territory. 'There will be plenty of opportunities to make better returns in individual stocks,' he said.
Monday, January 7, 2008
What Price ‘Posh’ Public Housing? Homing In On The Issue
Source : The Straits Times, Jan 7, 2008
The latest public housing comes at a premium, but YouthInk writers wonder if the cost is worth it.
Going beyond the basics
THE humble, historical background of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) differs significantly from the new and niche flats of the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS).
Some would argue that the latter goes against the original principles of public housing - that is, they must be affordable to all.
Yet these ‘original principles’ must be understood in the context in which they were formulated. A crisis of housing shortages in the 1960s left the Government with little choice.
Since then, public housing has evolved with new schemes and upgrading programmes which go beyond the bare basics. This is an inevitable reflection of a small nation’s social and economic progress. The DBSS flats are no exception.
The historical role of HDB - to provide cheap and simple housing - must be adequately met at all times. But beyond that, let market forces decide.
Koo Zhi Xuan, 21, is a first-year law student at the National University of Singapore (NUS)
It’s the people, not the space
FOR the average working individual in Singapore, a palatial bungalow is hardly a realistic investment.
The majority of our population lives in subsidised housing - arrangements which come with an extensive list of rules. The best consolation is that these restrictions at least come with an increasing structural attractiveness of HDB flats.
But it is a shame when practical functions of a residential community are compromised for new designs. Minimalist rain shelters do little to shield residents from torrential downpours native to Singapore.
Roof-top gardens intended for additional aesthetic value become every resident’s nightmare when perpetual neglect turns them into potential mosquito-breeding grounds.
The price premium undoubtedly comes with a degree of exclusivity. But it is possible to attain unique housing accommodation sans the hefty price tag for superficial exteriors.
In many other cities such as Hong Kong or New York, space is equally scarce, and clustered living is a must. But living in a shoebox is not impossible with a few great interior design ideas.
In the end, it’s the people you live with that make a house your home.
Alicia Ng, 23, is a final-year accountancy student at the Singapore Management University
Do in-depth demand studies
LATELY, the HDB demand-supply imbalance has frustrated some families, and young couples attempting to secure their desired flats.
But there is no short-term solution. The HDB needs to avoid a supply glut - the property plateau in 1997 saw long queues vanish after thousands of flats were built.
Still, there is room for improvement.
I live in Jurong West and my block, six years old, is only half-filled.
Potential buyers, apparently, are deterred by the area’s proximity to industrial estates and lack of vibrancy. Judging by the number of flats currently vacant, these conclusions were not derived prior to construction.
Conducting in-depth studies and surveys on demand patterns now could help prevent such a supply-demand mismatch in future.
Berton Lim, 20, has a place to read business administration at NUS
An attractive option
IN AUSTRALIA, the silent stigma attached to public subsidised housing is very apparent. No one will live in public housing if he can help it.
In contrast, Singapore’s public housing is much sought after. High-quality apartments at affordable rates allow most Singaporeans to be home owners.
Given the high aspirations of young Singaporeans, the HDB’s varied housing choices have become a hit with the younger generation.
The board is still relevant, long after its initial mandate to produce basic units which everyone can afford.
In fact, buyers do not get factory churnouts, because the DBSS allows Singaporeans to personalise their apartments.
And it is this pricier alternative which makes HDB flats an attractive option to
a wider spectrum of discerning home buyers.
Ultimately, being able to own an apartment beats renting one. Yet true to Singaporean culture, very rarely does something come ‘cheap and good’.
Tabitha Mok, 21, is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Western Australia.
The latest public housing comes at a premium, but YouthInk writers wonder if the cost is worth it.
Going beyond the basics
THE humble, historical background of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) differs significantly from the new and niche flats of the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS).
Some would argue that the latter goes against the original principles of public housing - that is, they must be affordable to all.
Yet these ‘original principles’ must be understood in the context in which they were formulated. A crisis of housing shortages in the 1960s left the Government with little choice.
Since then, public housing has evolved with new schemes and upgrading programmes which go beyond the bare basics. This is an inevitable reflection of a small nation’s social and economic progress. The DBSS flats are no exception.
The historical role of HDB - to provide cheap and simple housing - must be adequately met at all times. But beyond that, let market forces decide.
Koo Zhi Xuan, 21, is a first-year law student at the National University of Singapore (NUS)
It’s the people, not the space
FOR the average working individual in Singapore, a palatial bungalow is hardly a realistic investment.
The majority of our population lives in subsidised housing - arrangements which come with an extensive list of rules. The best consolation is that these restrictions at least come with an increasing structural attractiveness of HDB flats.
But it is a shame when practical functions of a residential community are compromised for new designs. Minimalist rain shelters do little to shield residents from torrential downpours native to Singapore.
Roof-top gardens intended for additional aesthetic value become every resident’s nightmare when perpetual neglect turns them into potential mosquito-breeding grounds.
The price premium undoubtedly comes with a degree of exclusivity. But it is possible to attain unique housing accommodation sans the hefty price tag for superficial exteriors.
In many other cities such as Hong Kong or New York, space is equally scarce, and clustered living is a must. But living in a shoebox is not impossible with a few great interior design ideas.
In the end, it’s the people you live with that make a house your home.
Alicia Ng, 23, is a final-year accountancy student at the Singapore Management University
Do in-depth demand studies
LATELY, the HDB demand-supply imbalance has frustrated some families, and young couples attempting to secure their desired flats.
But there is no short-term solution. The HDB needs to avoid a supply glut - the property plateau in 1997 saw long queues vanish after thousands of flats were built.
Still, there is room for improvement.
I live in Jurong West and my block, six years old, is only half-filled.
Potential buyers, apparently, are deterred by the area’s proximity to industrial estates and lack of vibrancy. Judging by the number of flats currently vacant, these conclusions were not derived prior to construction.
Conducting in-depth studies and surveys on demand patterns now could help prevent such a supply-demand mismatch in future.
Berton Lim, 20, has a place to read business administration at NUS
An attractive option
IN AUSTRALIA, the silent stigma attached to public subsidised housing is very apparent. No one will live in public housing if he can help it.
In contrast, Singapore’s public housing is much sought after. High-quality apartments at affordable rates allow most Singaporeans to be home owners.
Given the high aspirations of young Singaporeans, the HDB’s varied housing choices have become a hit with the younger generation.
The board is still relevant, long after its initial mandate to produce basic units which everyone can afford.
In fact, buyers do not get factory churnouts, because the DBSS allows Singaporeans to personalise their apartments.
And it is this pricier alternative which makes HDB flats an attractive option to
a wider spectrum of discerning home buyers.
Ultimately, being able to own an apartment beats renting one. Yet true to Singaporean culture, very rarely does something come ‘cheap and good’.
Tabitha Mok, 21, is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Western Australia.
$5.3b Boost For Marina Bay Sands
Source : TODAY, Monday, January 7, 2008
Weaker US dollar pushing up cost for Las Vegas Sands
LAS Vegas Sands (LVS) said that despite the constricted credit market, it has secured more than US$3.7 billion ($5.3 billion) in loans to build Marina Bay Sands, its proposed integrated resort in Singapore.
The financing package for the complex also includes a capital contribution of about US$558 million in equity from LVS, according to a United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) document filed last Friday.
Mr William Weidner, president and chief operating officer of LVS, said the company would likely not have been able to convince lenders if the project had been outside of Asia.
“We are lucky to have such a strong Singaporean economy as a backdrop,” he said. Mr Weidner said the cost of the Singapore project has increased slightly because of the weakened US dollar and the rise of building and material costs in Singapore’s booming economy. Although he declined to discuss cost details, according to last Friday’s SEC figures, the cost of the project could grow to as much as US$4.6 billion, up from the US$3.6 billion that was first announced.
The Singapore project includes plans for 2,500 hotel rooms; 1.2 million square feet of flexible meeting, convention and exhibition space; 1 million square feet of retail space; and three large entertainment venues.
The Marina Bay Sands is scheduled to open next year. The project represents Sands’ significant push into the Asian market. Last year, the Las Vegas-based company — led by Mr Sheldon Adelson — opened the Venetian Macao, a massive casino hotel in Macau. LVS plans to retire the debt five to eight years after the facility opens, Mr Weidner said. — THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Weaker US dollar pushing up cost for Las Vegas Sands
LAS Vegas Sands (LVS) said that despite the constricted credit market, it has secured more than US$3.7 billion ($5.3 billion) in loans to build Marina Bay Sands, its proposed integrated resort in Singapore.
The financing package for the complex also includes a capital contribution of about US$558 million in equity from LVS, according to a United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) document filed last Friday.
Mr William Weidner, president and chief operating officer of LVS, said the company would likely not have been able to convince lenders if the project had been outside of Asia.
“We are lucky to have such a strong Singaporean economy as a backdrop,” he said. Mr Weidner said the cost of the Singapore project has increased slightly because of the weakened US dollar and the rise of building and material costs in Singapore’s booming economy. Although he declined to discuss cost details, according to last Friday’s SEC figures, the cost of the project could grow to as much as US$4.6 billion, up from the US$3.6 billion that was first announced.
The Singapore project includes plans for 2,500 hotel rooms; 1.2 million square feet of flexible meeting, convention and exhibition space; 1 million square feet of retail space; and three large entertainment venues.
The Marina Bay Sands is scheduled to open next year. The project represents Sands’ significant push into the Asian market. Last year, the Las Vegas-based company — led by Mr Sheldon Adelson — opened the Venetian Macao, a massive casino hotel in Macau. LVS plans to retire the debt five to eight years after the facility opens, Mr Weidner said. — THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Uphill Trek Ahead As Building Costs Keep Rising
Source : The Business Times, January 07, 2008
Study suggests strain on resources, no let-up this year.
The construction boom here is stretching resources, as costs of building materials look set to keep climbing through 2008.
Already, building costs are almost on par with Hong Kong, double that of Beijing, and just 30 per cent below New York.
And according to a report by construction cost consultancy Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB), Singapore prices jumped 12 percentage points to 15 per cent in 2007.
RLB sees the global tender price index (TPI) going up a further 15 per cent this year.
RLB managing partner Winston Hauw said: 'It will be a very challenging year for the construction market in 2008, given the high demand on construction resources from existing and new development commitments this year.'
RLB's international tender price matrix is based on the pricing of standard commercial and residential building models for the various cities.
For Hong Kong, Beijing and London, the TPI rose by one percentage point, while in New York and Dubai, it fell 4.5 and 5 percentage points in 2007 respectively.
In its analysis of building costs worldwide - which is based on similar construction-related costs - Singapore ranks below these cities, except for Beijing.
Building costs for premium office buildings in London and New York start at $5,916 and $2,857 per square metre respectively. In Asia, the costs for premium office buildings in Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore start at $2,810, $2,368 and $2,150 psm respectively.
While some factors contributing to building costs are universal, Mr Hauw said construction demand in Singapore has doubled from about $11 billion two years ago, putting a strain not just on material costs, but on labour, equipment and management staff costs as well.
Although the building costs in Singapore are just a fraction below Hong Kong's, rental returns for landlords are higher.
According to the latest data by DTZ Debenham Tie Leung, Grade A office base rents in Hong Kong are $20.67 psf per month, compared to $12.15 psf per month here.
In both cities, vacancy for Grade A office space is 2.8-2.9 per cent.
DTZ executive director Ong Choon Fah said building costs and rental returns alone do not determine the investment potential of a city. 'It also has to do with how these investors choose to allocate their funds,' Ms Ong said. And with regard to Hong Kong, she added: 'It is still very much a China play.'
In a recent report by CB Richard Ellis (CBRE), estimated initial yields (gross) for the prime office sector in Beijing, Hong Kong and Singapore were 7-9 per cent, 4.5 per cent and 4.3 per cent respectively.
For the luxury residential sector, yields were 6-8 per cent, 3.5 per cent and 2.6 per cent respectively.
CBRE executive director for research Li Hiaw Ho said building costs may have some impact when calculating overall yields, but he believes this is minimal.
Instead, in Singapore, as well as Hong Kong, land costs are a much bigger factor. He also noted that while Singapore's land costs are high, Hong Kong's are higher.
On the lower yields here, Mr Li said: 'Lower yields can also mean that there are lower risks appttached to investing here.'
Knight Frank director of research and consultancy Nicholas Mak believes that for potential developers, building cost ranks below land cost, financing cost, and investor rate of return.
'When advising clients during the feasibility study stage, we find they are more concerned with pinning down land costs,' he said.
With respect to building costs, Mr Mak said: 'In a buoyant market, developers are more likely to pass on higher building costs to the buyer, while in a quiet market, the developers may have to absorb this.'
Study suggests strain on resources, no let-up this year.
The construction boom here is stretching resources, as costs of building materials look set to keep climbing through 2008.
Already, building costs are almost on par with Hong Kong, double that of Beijing, and just 30 per cent below New York.And according to a report by construction cost consultancy Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB), Singapore prices jumped 12 percentage points to 15 per cent in 2007.
RLB sees the global tender price index (TPI) going up a further 15 per cent this year.
RLB managing partner Winston Hauw said: 'It will be a very challenging year for the construction market in 2008, given the high demand on construction resources from existing and new development commitments this year.'
RLB's international tender price matrix is based on the pricing of standard commercial and residential building models for the various cities.
For Hong Kong, Beijing and London, the TPI rose by one percentage point, while in New York and Dubai, it fell 4.5 and 5 percentage points in 2007 respectively.
In its analysis of building costs worldwide - which is based on similar construction-related costs - Singapore ranks below these cities, except for Beijing.
Building costs for premium office buildings in London and New York start at $5,916 and $2,857 per square metre respectively. In Asia, the costs for premium office buildings in Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore start at $2,810, $2,368 and $2,150 psm respectively.
While some factors contributing to building costs are universal, Mr Hauw said construction demand in Singapore has doubled from about $11 billion two years ago, putting a strain not just on material costs, but on labour, equipment and management staff costs as well.
Although the building costs in Singapore are just a fraction below Hong Kong's, rental returns for landlords are higher.
According to the latest data by DTZ Debenham Tie Leung, Grade A office base rents in Hong Kong are $20.67 psf per month, compared to $12.15 psf per month here.
In both cities, vacancy for Grade A office space is 2.8-2.9 per cent.
DTZ executive director Ong Choon Fah said building costs and rental returns alone do not determine the investment potential of a city. 'It also has to do with how these investors choose to allocate their funds,' Ms Ong said. And with regard to Hong Kong, she added: 'It is still very much a China play.'
In a recent report by CB Richard Ellis (CBRE), estimated initial yields (gross) for the prime office sector in Beijing, Hong Kong and Singapore were 7-9 per cent, 4.5 per cent and 4.3 per cent respectively.
For the luxury residential sector, yields were 6-8 per cent, 3.5 per cent and 2.6 per cent respectively.
CBRE executive director for research Li Hiaw Ho said building costs may have some impact when calculating overall yields, but he believes this is minimal.
Instead, in Singapore, as well as Hong Kong, land costs are a much bigger factor. He also noted that while Singapore's land costs are high, Hong Kong's are higher.
On the lower yields here, Mr Li said: 'Lower yields can also mean that there are lower risks appttached to investing here.'
Knight Frank director of research and consultancy Nicholas Mak believes that for potential developers, building cost ranks below land cost, financing cost, and investor rate of return.
'When advising clients during the feasibility study stage, we find they are more concerned with pinning down land costs,' he said.
With respect to building costs, Mr Mak said: 'In a buoyant market, developers are more likely to pass on higher building costs to the buyer, while in a quiet market, the developers may have to absorb this.'
All May Gain If Goodman Bags JTC Reit
Source : The Business Times, January 07, 2008
AUSTRALIA'S Goodman group is reportedly expected to clinch the job of being the manager of a proposed real estate investment trust that will hold about S$1.6 billion of industrial properties to be divested by JTC Corp. No official announcements have been made so far.
Market watchers expect Goodman to exit an existing business in Singapore - its 40 per cent stake in Ascendas-MGM Funds Management, the manager of Ascendas Real Estate Investment Trust (A-Reit). JTC's subsidiary Ascendas holds the remaining 60 per cent.
Some industry players suggest that giving up its stake in the A-Reit manager was probably a condition JTC laid down for Goodman if it wants to manage the new Reit.
That makes sense. For one, it removes conflict of interest. Goodman can't be having an interest in two Singapore industrial Reit managers who may compete for the same assets and tenants.
For Goodman, instead of having to divide its energies between managing two Reits in Singapore, it may be better to focus on just one Reit.
Another compelling reason for it to choose to manage JTC's impending Reit and give up its stake in A-Reit's manager is that Goodman can have full control of the JTC Reit manager, unlike A-Reit, whose Reit management company it controls jointly with JTC subsidiary Ascendas.
JTC may still keep a stake in the impending Reit - perhaps to assuage concerns of some of its tenants that the statutory board's properties divestment will be accompanied by an increase in their occupation costs. But Goodman will clearly be in the driver's seat for this new Reit.
Market watchers also expect Goodman to be a sponsor for the new trust, holding a stake of at least 20-30 per cent, in addition to having full ownership of the Reit manager.
That gives Goodman leeway to expand the new Reit as it deems best. The new Reit can ride on the Goodman group's substantial clout - the group owns, develops and manages industrial and business space globally and has total assets of A$37 billion (S$46.5 billion) with over 700 properties under management. In Asia too, Goodman has a substantial presence in China, Hong Kong and Japan.
Goodman's new Singapore Reit will be able to mine Goodman's huge customer base for tenants for its existing and future properties as they expand across Asia. Goodman could also open the door for the Reit to acquire assets in the region.
These are some of the reasons why it makes sense for Goodman to choose sole control of the new Reit manager over continuing joint control of the A-Reit manager.
Its partner in the A-Reit manager, Ascendas, too may feel freer to grow the trust after Goodman leaves.
Since its listing on the Singapore Exchange in November 2002, A-Reit has focused exclusively on Singapore. No doubt its asset size has grown impressively - from an initial portfolio of eight properties worth S$607 million at the time of listing to 78 properties totalling S$3.3 billion as at Sept 30, 2007. But eventually, relying exclusively on the home market limits A-Reit's expansion prospects.
Industry insiders say that A-Reit has never expanded overseas because of an understanding between Ascendas and Macquarie-Goodman (Macquarie and Goodman parted ways about 18 months ago although a name change to just 'Goodman' was effected only last year) that A-Reit will not venture overseas, where both Goodman and, at the time, Macquarie, have considerable interests. In a nutshell, it was to avoid conflict among the three parties overseas. Ascendas may have agreed to such conditions because back then, it needed to ride on Macquarie-Goodman's brand name in industrial property funds management. Don't forget, back in late 2002 when A-Reit was floated, Reits were still relatively novel here.
But five years on, Ascendas has gained considerable property fund management expertise, not only managing A-Reit but setting up property funds holding Indian properties, including the Ascendas India Trust (a-i Trust) which was last year floated as Singapore's first listed Indian property trust.
Overseas markets
Ascendas also has significant presence in China and South Korea and is fast expanding in Vietnam. Ascendas may well decide to float separate Reits holding assets in various respective overseas markets. Or it may decide to park assets in some overseas markets in A-Reit. This will be an internal strategy Ascendas will have to sort out. But at least A-Reit will no longer be fettered from overseas expansion.
So if Goodman and Ascendas decide to part ways in the A-Reit manager, that may be a good thing, for both parties, as well as for A-Reit itself.
In July last year, JTC said it had shortlisted seven candidates to manage the Reit that will hold assets to be divested by the stat board. JTC is understood to have narrowed down on the final few candidates based partly on their track records and of these, Goodman probably offered the highest value for the assets that JTC will sell to the Reit.
If JTC does eventually pick Goodman to manage the new Reit, it should help smoothen ongoing negotiations on the price Goodman will receive for selling its 40 per cent stake in A-Reit's manager.
AUSTRALIA'S Goodman group is reportedly expected to clinch the job of being the manager of a proposed real estate investment trust that will hold about S$1.6 billion of industrial properties to be divested by JTC Corp. No official announcements have been made so far.
Market watchers expect Goodman to exit an existing business in Singapore - its 40 per cent stake in Ascendas-MGM Funds Management, the manager of Ascendas Real Estate Investment Trust (A-Reit). JTC's subsidiary Ascendas holds the remaining 60 per cent.
Some industry players suggest that giving up its stake in the A-Reit manager was probably a condition JTC laid down for Goodman if it wants to manage the new Reit.
That makes sense. For one, it removes conflict of interest. Goodman can't be having an interest in two Singapore industrial Reit managers who may compete for the same assets and tenants.
For Goodman, instead of having to divide its energies between managing two Reits in Singapore, it may be better to focus on just one Reit.
Another compelling reason for it to choose to manage JTC's impending Reit and give up its stake in A-Reit's manager is that Goodman can have full control of the JTC Reit manager, unlike A-Reit, whose Reit management company it controls jointly with JTC subsidiary Ascendas.
JTC may still keep a stake in the impending Reit - perhaps to assuage concerns of some of its tenants that the statutory board's properties divestment will be accompanied by an increase in their occupation costs. But Goodman will clearly be in the driver's seat for this new Reit.
Market watchers also expect Goodman to be a sponsor for the new trust, holding a stake of at least 20-30 per cent, in addition to having full ownership of the Reit manager.
That gives Goodman leeway to expand the new Reit as it deems best. The new Reit can ride on the Goodman group's substantial clout - the group owns, develops and manages industrial and business space globally and has total assets of A$37 billion (S$46.5 billion) with over 700 properties under management. In Asia too, Goodman has a substantial presence in China, Hong Kong and Japan.
Goodman's new Singapore Reit will be able to mine Goodman's huge customer base for tenants for its existing and future properties as they expand across Asia. Goodman could also open the door for the Reit to acquire assets in the region.
These are some of the reasons why it makes sense for Goodman to choose sole control of the new Reit manager over continuing joint control of the A-Reit manager.
Its partner in the A-Reit manager, Ascendas, too may feel freer to grow the trust after Goodman leaves.
Since its listing on the Singapore Exchange in November 2002, A-Reit has focused exclusively on Singapore. No doubt its asset size has grown impressively - from an initial portfolio of eight properties worth S$607 million at the time of listing to 78 properties totalling S$3.3 billion as at Sept 30, 2007. But eventually, relying exclusively on the home market limits A-Reit's expansion prospects.
Industry insiders say that A-Reit has never expanded overseas because of an understanding between Ascendas and Macquarie-Goodman (Macquarie and Goodman parted ways about 18 months ago although a name change to just 'Goodman' was effected only last year) that A-Reit will not venture overseas, where both Goodman and, at the time, Macquarie, have considerable interests. In a nutshell, it was to avoid conflict among the three parties overseas. Ascendas may have agreed to such conditions because back then, it needed to ride on Macquarie-Goodman's brand name in industrial property funds management. Don't forget, back in late 2002 when A-Reit was floated, Reits were still relatively novel here.
But five years on, Ascendas has gained considerable property fund management expertise, not only managing A-Reit but setting up property funds holding Indian properties, including the Ascendas India Trust (a-i Trust) which was last year floated as Singapore's first listed Indian property trust.
Overseas markets
Ascendas also has significant presence in China and South Korea and is fast expanding in Vietnam. Ascendas may well decide to float separate Reits holding assets in various respective overseas markets. Or it may decide to park assets in some overseas markets in A-Reit. This will be an internal strategy Ascendas will have to sort out. But at least A-Reit will no longer be fettered from overseas expansion.
So if Goodman and Ascendas decide to part ways in the A-Reit manager, that may be a good thing, for both parties, as well as for A-Reit itself.
In July last year, JTC said it had shortlisted seven candidates to manage the Reit that will hold assets to be divested by the stat board. JTC is understood to have narrowed down on the final few candidates based partly on their track records and of these, Goodman probably offered the highest value for the assets that JTC will sell to the Reit.
If JTC does eventually pick Goodman to manage the new Reit, it should help smoothen ongoing negotiations on the price Goodman will receive for selling its 40 per cent stake in A-Reit's manager.
Several MRT Station 'Hot Spots' Likely In The Future
Source : The Straits Times, Jan 7, 2008
Interest in these areas rises as Govt readies review of land use masterplan
A MAJOR review of the town plan governing the development of land across Singapore is due this year - and keen interest centres on the use of land near MRT stations.
Property analysts have identified several MRT station 'hot spots', but they are playing down the possibility that the Government may allow more intensive development in these areas for now.
The five-yearly review of Singapore's Master Plan, due around the middle of this year, will examine plot ratios - the level of intensity of development on a given site.
MRT stations hold interest for planners and industry watchers for the obvious reason that vast numbers of people use them every day. A new Jones Lang LaSalle report on higher plot ratios near Circle Line stations picked Paya Lebar, Buona Vista, Telok Blangah and Harbourfront as new hot spots.
The Master Plan shows the permissible land use and density for every parcel of land in Singapore. Property analysts say over time, plot ratios will have to increase in selected areas to cater to a growing population. What is uncertain is the timing.
For the purpose of planning land use and transportation in the next 40 to 50 years, the Government is using a projected population of 6.5 million, as opposed to the current population of 4.5 million.
Maximising the use of land around MRT stations is an obvious choice.
'You can then minimise car usage, and the masses get the best accessibility,' said Dr Chua Yang Liang, the head of research for South-east Asia at Jones Lang LaSalle. 'From the planning perspective, it is about maximising your investment dollars and social benefits.'
'Yes, the plot ratios may rise, but people should not count too much on that,' said Knight Frank director of research and consultancy Nicholas Mak. 'I don't think the Government will be creating a lot of windfalls for private property owners, as there is no compelling reason to do so.'
Besides, some of the areas along the Circle line are fairly built-up, he said.
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said in June there was no need for an across-the-board change in plot ratios, as the land available today would be sufficient to meet needs over the next 10 to 15 years.
That, however, has not deterred some property owners from dreaming of a windfall.
Some recalled that certain sites above or near key MRT stations had their plot ratios raised after plans for the North-
East Line (NEL) were finalised more than 10 years ago. A prime example was the land around the Dhoby Ghaut MRT station, when it was also made the NEL interchange.
There is no need for significant increases in plot ratios along the Circle Line in the upcoming Master Plan because the line will not be ready until 2012, said Mr Ku Swee Yong, the director of marketing and business development at Savills Singapore.
Generally, the areas likely to see a significant revision in development density will be vacant state land around the Circle Line stations. Paya Lebar certainly has some. It is slated to be a regional commercial centre, so it is possible that the Government will allow a higher land density around the station, said Mr Ku.
It may happen at the Buona Vista stations, he said, as the area is a biotech hub.
Places such as Bishan and Dhoby Ghaut have been ruled out because there is little empty state land there. Also, plot ratios in Dhoby Ghaut are already very high, said Dr Chua.
'So you can't raise them further. Otherwise, you will upset the urban streetscape.'
Interest in these areas rises as Govt readies review of land use masterplan
A MAJOR review of the town plan governing the development of land across Singapore is due this year - and keen interest centres on the use of land near MRT stations.
Property analysts have identified several MRT station 'hot spots', but they are playing down the possibility that the Government may allow more intensive development in these areas for now.
The five-yearly review of Singapore's Master Plan, due around the middle of this year, will examine plot ratios - the level of intensity of development on a given site.
MRT stations hold interest for planners and industry watchers for the obvious reason that vast numbers of people use them every day. A new Jones Lang LaSalle report on higher plot ratios near Circle Line stations picked Paya Lebar, Buona Vista, Telok Blangah and Harbourfront as new hot spots.
The Master Plan shows the permissible land use and density for every parcel of land in Singapore. Property analysts say over time, plot ratios will have to increase in selected areas to cater to a growing population. What is uncertain is the timing.
For the purpose of planning land use and transportation in the next 40 to 50 years, the Government is using a projected population of 6.5 million, as opposed to the current population of 4.5 million.
Maximising the use of land around MRT stations is an obvious choice. 'You can then minimise car usage, and the masses get the best accessibility,' said Dr Chua Yang Liang, the head of research for South-east Asia at Jones Lang LaSalle. 'From the planning perspective, it is about maximising your investment dollars and social benefits.'
'Yes, the plot ratios may rise, but people should not count too much on that,' said Knight Frank director of research and consultancy Nicholas Mak. 'I don't think the Government will be creating a lot of windfalls for private property owners, as there is no compelling reason to do so.'
Besides, some of the areas along the Circle line are fairly built-up, he said.
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said in June there was no need for an across-the-board change in plot ratios, as the land available today would be sufficient to meet needs over the next 10 to 15 years.
That, however, has not deterred some property owners from dreaming of a windfall.
Some recalled that certain sites above or near key MRT stations had their plot ratios raised after plans for the North-
East Line (NEL) were finalised more than 10 years ago. A prime example was the land around the Dhoby Ghaut MRT station, when it was also made the NEL interchange.
There is no need for significant increases in plot ratios along the Circle Line in the upcoming Master Plan because the line will not be ready until 2012, said Mr Ku Swee Yong, the director of marketing and business development at Savills Singapore.
Generally, the areas likely to see a significant revision in development density will be vacant state land around the Circle Line stations. Paya Lebar certainly has some. It is slated to be a regional commercial centre, so it is possible that the Government will allow a higher land density around the station, said Mr Ku.
It may happen at the Buona Vista stations, he said, as the area is a biotech hub.
Places such as Bishan and Dhoby Ghaut have been ruled out because there is little empty state land there. Also, plot ratios in Dhoby Ghaut are already very high, said Dr Chua.
'So you can't raise them further. Otherwise, you will upset the urban streetscape.'
选购权书日期有差误 公寓买卖双方闹上庭 买主胜诉
《联合早报》Jan 06, 2008
一对夫妇要以380万元购买史蒂芬路的豪华公寓，可是在签署了选购权书及支付选购权费后竟然波折重重，一场购屋风波最终闹上高庭。
风波是从屋主听房屋经纪说有人肯开出比这对夫妇更高的价钱买下公寓后开始的。屋主最初通过房屋经纪问买主夫妇是否肯放弃选购权，并表明愿意作出赔偿。
接着，当两夫妇坚持购买公寓及取得禁止转售令后，房屋经纪又说屋主要她转告他们，公寓有白蚁及漏水问题。
买主夫妇一心要购买公寓，不料他们按照选购权书要求，通过律师寄出定金后，接到屋主律师的回信说，公寓选购权已因为过期而失效，让他们震惊不已。
原来，买主夫妇所持有的选购权书上写明有14天的时间执行选购权，可是屋主出示的选购权书上却指出，夫妇俩的选购权在他们签署选购权书的第二天下午4时就到期。
买主夫妇于是入禀高庭，起诉屋主。
高庭法官李兆坚在审理这起案件后，裁定夫妇胜诉，相信他们确实有及时执行选购权，并且下令屋主支付堂费。由于屋主不服所判，提出上诉，法官因此发表书面判词，解释判案原因。
法官说：“有许多重要的问题需要解答，可是答辩人却没有回答或者没有作出令人满意的答复。”
他问，如果公寓选购权是在买主夫妇签署选购权书的第二天下午到期，那么屋主为何不马上对他们这么说？却还要一再拖延，叫房屋经纪问他们是否要放弃选购权，又提出有关赔偿以及房子有白蚁及漏水的问题？本案起诉人夫妇是阿胡扎和萨达娜，答辩人则是苏堪达。双方争议的焦点，是在德雷葛园位于24层楼的一个公寓单位。
起诉人夫妇指出，根据去年4月1日的选购权书，答辩人已同意给予他们以380万元购买该公寓单位的有效选购权。他们在同月11日执行了选购权，并须最迟在同年7月4日完成房屋交易。
夫妇俩供称，他们是在去年3月间在报章上看到售屋广告，联络上刊登广告的ERA房地产公司女房屋经纪黄丽华，以安排参观公寓。
去年4月1日，他们表明愿意以380万元买下公寓，并且签发志银3万8600元的支票交给黄丽华，这笔款项相等于1％选购权费。
他们也指示黄丽华，要她在答辩人接受他们提出的价钱并发出签好名的选购权书后，才把支票交给对方。
第二天傍晚，黄丽华把答辩人在前一天签下的选购权书交给起诉人中的妻子萨达娜。萨达娜发现有关选购权到期的日期并没有填上，黄丽华于是写上14天的期限，即到同月15日才到期。
可是，同天傍晚，黄丽华却拨电给萨达娜，告诉她说有人向答辩人开更高的价钱，问她是否会执行选购权。萨达娜答说她会那么做。
第二天，黄丽华又拨电通知萨达娜，问她是否同意放弃选购权，以换取答辩人的赔偿。萨达娜坚持执行选购权。
取得公寓禁售令
夫妇俩在同月5日通过律师取得公寓禁止转售令。同月9日，黄丽华联络上萨达娜，说答辩人要她转告他们，公寓有白蚁及漏水问题。夫妇俩找来灭虫公司的代表到公寓查看后，还是决定执行选购权。
两天后，夫妇俩通过律师执行了选购权，并寄出志银15万余元的5％定金给答辩人的律师。
可是，同月16日，答辩人律师回信说，选购权期限已过，并指出答辩人的选购权书副本显示，期限是在去年4月2日下午4时，可是起诉人夫妇的选购权书却被改成该月15日。
李兆坚法官在判词中指出，答辩人女儿跟黄丽华签署的一份合约授权房地产公司有90天时间售卖公寓。合约也列明执行选购权的期限是14天。因此，他认为黄丽华有权在选购书上填上选购权到期的日子。
“经纪处理文件做法相当可疑”
针对答辩人对起诉人夫妇提出反诉，法官指出，黄丽华处理文件的做法相当可疑，不仅漏掉选购权期限，也没有叫答辩人在列明她佣金的文件上签名，而这些事情都与起诉人夫妇无关。若答辩人要索偿的话，也该是向黄丽华索偿。
一对夫妇要以380万元购买史蒂芬路的豪华公寓，可是在签署了选购权书及支付选购权费后竟然波折重重，一场购屋风波最终闹上高庭。
风波是从屋主听房屋经纪说有人肯开出比这对夫妇更高的价钱买下公寓后开始的。屋主最初通过房屋经纪问买主夫妇是否肯放弃选购权，并表明愿意作出赔偿。
接着，当两夫妇坚持购买公寓及取得禁止转售令后，房屋经纪又说屋主要她转告他们，公寓有白蚁及漏水问题。
买主夫妇一心要购买公寓，不料他们按照选购权书要求，通过律师寄出定金后，接到屋主律师的回信说，公寓选购权已因为过期而失效，让他们震惊不已。
原来，买主夫妇所持有的选购权书上写明有14天的时间执行选购权，可是屋主出示的选购权书上却指出，夫妇俩的选购权在他们签署选购权书的第二天下午4时就到期。
买主夫妇于是入禀高庭，起诉屋主。
高庭法官李兆坚在审理这起案件后，裁定夫妇胜诉，相信他们确实有及时执行选购权，并且下令屋主支付堂费。由于屋主不服所判，提出上诉，法官因此发表书面判词，解释判案原因。
法官说：“有许多重要的问题需要解答，可是答辩人却没有回答或者没有作出令人满意的答复。”
他问，如果公寓选购权是在买主夫妇签署选购权书的第二天下午到期，那么屋主为何不马上对他们这么说？却还要一再拖延，叫房屋经纪问他们是否要放弃选购权，又提出有关赔偿以及房子有白蚁及漏水的问题？本案起诉人夫妇是阿胡扎和萨达娜，答辩人则是苏堪达。双方争议的焦点，是在德雷葛园位于24层楼的一个公寓单位。
起诉人夫妇指出，根据去年4月1日的选购权书，答辩人已同意给予他们以380万元购买该公寓单位的有效选购权。他们在同月11日执行了选购权，并须最迟在同年7月4日完成房屋交易。
夫妇俩供称，他们是在去年3月间在报章上看到售屋广告，联络上刊登广告的ERA房地产公司女房屋经纪黄丽华，以安排参观公寓。
去年4月1日，他们表明愿意以380万元买下公寓，并且签发志银3万8600元的支票交给黄丽华，这笔款项相等于1％选购权费。
他们也指示黄丽华，要她在答辩人接受他们提出的价钱并发出签好名的选购权书后，才把支票交给对方。
第二天傍晚，黄丽华把答辩人在前一天签下的选购权书交给起诉人中的妻子萨达娜。萨达娜发现有关选购权到期的日期并没有填上，黄丽华于是写上14天的期限，即到同月15日才到期。
可是，同天傍晚，黄丽华却拨电给萨达娜，告诉她说有人向答辩人开更高的价钱，问她是否会执行选购权。萨达娜答说她会那么做。
第二天，黄丽华又拨电通知萨达娜，问她是否同意放弃选购权，以换取答辩人的赔偿。萨达娜坚持执行选购权。
取得公寓禁售令
夫妇俩在同月5日通过律师取得公寓禁止转售令。同月9日，黄丽华联络上萨达娜，说答辩人要她转告他们，公寓有白蚁及漏水问题。夫妇俩找来灭虫公司的代表到公寓查看后，还是决定执行选购权。
两天后，夫妇俩通过律师执行了选购权，并寄出志银15万余元的5％定金给答辩人的律师。
可是，同月16日，答辩人律师回信说，选购权期限已过，并指出答辩人的选购权书副本显示，期限是在去年4月2日下午4时，可是起诉人夫妇的选购权书却被改成该月15日。
李兆坚法官在判词中指出，答辩人女儿跟黄丽华签署的一份合约授权房地产公司有90天时间售卖公寓。合约也列明执行选购权的期限是14天。因此，他认为黄丽华有权在选购书上填上选购权到期的日子。
“经纪处理文件做法相当可疑”
针对答辩人对起诉人夫妇提出反诉，法官指出，黄丽华处理文件的做法相当可疑，不仅漏掉选购权期限，也没有叫答辩人在列明她佣金的文件上签名，而这些事情都与起诉人夫妇无关。若答辩人要索偿的话，也该是向黄丽华索偿。
浩然大厦Horizon Towers九业主上诉反对出售判决
《联合早报》Jan 06, 2008
2007年最受人瞩目的集体出售项目浩然大厦(Horizon Towers)事件，将继续在2008年在庭上僵持。九个提出反对的少数业主昨天向高庭申请上诉。
这将是浩然大厦案子第二度闹上高庭。所有向分层地契局申请反对出售的少数业主，因不满分层地契局在上个月7日批准浩然大厦集体出售的决定，在28天上诉期限的最后一天对这项裁决提出上诉。
陈国洸律师事务所的拉美斯(Kannan Ramesh)昨天接受本报询问时证实这个消息。
他表示，少数业主原本想等到分层地契局发出判决理由(Grounds of Decision)后再决定是否上诉，但至今仍未获得书面判词。
他说：“已到了期限的最后一天，少数业主为了维护家园别无选择。到了高庭，他们只能以分层地契局在诠释法律论点（point of law）上有错，提出上诉。”
据本报了解，由于上诉程序会导致他们面对高昂的诉讼费用，而且成功的希望也不高，一些少数业主原本在上个月决定不要上诉。
后来，在找到更多反对论据，显示房地产代理和销售委员诚信缺失(bad faith)下，少数业主决定再尝试。
其中一名反对集体出售计划的业主黄匡胜通过女儿向本报重申，反对出售不是为了金钱利益，而既然已奋斗到了这个阶段，他们会继续据理力争。
另外，过去半年在分层地契局为自己辩护的少数业主卢佩生和郭庆成，则聘请了由彭律师事务所委任的黄锡义高级律师，代表他们向高庭上诉。黄锡义同时是另一名少数业主Canterford Limited的代表律师。
卢佩生告诉本报，这么做是由于自己无法在高庭上为自己辩护，而为了表明为保家园，不愿出售的立场，他决定聘请律师为他上诉。
他说：“我决定上诉是因为房地产代理和销售委员会没有尽他们的责任，是原则上的问题。何况，我们的案子和凤凰楼(Phoenix Court)的情况不同，分层地契局把两个公寓相提并论，推翻我们的反对论据有欠公平。”
据了解，高庭听审原定在2月初过堂，但如果少数业主在本月底之前还无法得到分层地契局的书面判词，听审可能会延后举行。
在2007年下半年闹得沸沸扬扬的浩然大厦集体出售交易可追溯到去年2月。由旅店置业(HPL)和两家外国投资基金Morgan Stanley及Qatar Investments组成的HPPL，当时以5亿元购买浩然大厦。
然而，分层地契局于8月3日因技术上不符合规定的理由，不批准集体出售委员会的集体出售令申请。
HPPL之后入禀高庭告业主违反选购权，要求同意出售的业主尽其所能重新向分层地契局申请并获得集体出售令，否则得归还之前所收取的5000万元定金，还可能面对10亿元的索赔官司。
在面对官司的压力下，同意出售的业主后来同意把交易完成期限延迟到12月11日，同时向高庭上诉分层地契局的决定。高庭后来批准上诉，该局于11月30日继续审理申请。
经过11天的审讯和两个星期的斟酌后，分层地契局认为以上论据不足以损害少数业主的利益，在12月7日推翻少数业主反对论据，批准该公寓集体出售。
如果上诉失败还可上诉最高法院
如果少数业主这次的上诉败诉，他们还有机会到最高法院上诉庭(Court of Appeal)提出上诉。买方也同样能在少数业主得直的情况下，向最高法院上诉庭上诉。
2007年最受人瞩目的集体出售项目浩然大厦(Horizon Towers)事件，将继续在2008年在庭上僵持。九个提出反对的少数业主昨天向高庭申请上诉。
这将是浩然大厦案子第二度闹上高庭。所有向分层地契局申请反对出售的少数业主，因不满分层地契局在上个月7日批准浩然大厦集体出售的决定，在28天上诉期限的最后一天对这项裁决提出上诉。
陈国洸律师事务所的拉美斯(Kannan Ramesh)昨天接受本报询问时证实这个消息。
他表示，少数业主原本想等到分层地契局发出判决理由(Grounds of Decision)后再决定是否上诉，但至今仍未获得书面判词。
他说：“已到了期限的最后一天，少数业主为了维护家园别无选择。到了高庭，他们只能以分层地契局在诠释法律论点（point of law）上有错，提出上诉。”
据本报了解，由于上诉程序会导致他们面对高昂的诉讼费用，而且成功的希望也不高，一些少数业主原本在上个月决定不要上诉。
后来，在找到更多反对论据，显示房地产代理和销售委员诚信缺失(bad faith)下，少数业主决定再尝试。
其中一名反对集体出售计划的业主黄匡胜通过女儿向本报重申，反对出售不是为了金钱利益，而既然已奋斗到了这个阶段，他们会继续据理力争。
另外，过去半年在分层地契局为自己辩护的少数业主卢佩生和郭庆成，则聘请了由彭律师事务所委任的黄锡义高级律师，代表他们向高庭上诉。黄锡义同时是另一名少数业主Canterford Limited的代表律师。
卢佩生告诉本报，这么做是由于自己无法在高庭上为自己辩护，而为了表明为保家园，不愿出售的立场，他决定聘请律师为他上诉。
他说：“我决定上诉是因为房地产代理和销售委员会没有尽他们的责任，是原则上的问题。何况，我们的案子和凤凰楼(Phoenix Court)的情况不同，分层地契局把两个公寓相提并论，推翻我们的反对论据有欠公平。”
据了解，高庭听审原定在2月初过堂，但如果少数业主在本月底之前还无法得到分层地契局的书面判词，听审可能会延后举行。
在2007年下半年闹得沸沸扬扬的浩然大厦集体出售交易可追溯到去年2月。由旅店置业(HPL)和两家外国投资基金Morgan Stanley及Qatar Investments组成的HPPL，当时以5亿元购买浩然大厦。
然而，分层地契局于8月3日因技术上不符合规定的理由，不批准集体出售委员会的集体出售令申请。
HPPL之后入禀高庭告业主违反选购权，要求同意出售的业主尽其所能重新向分层地契局申请并获得集体出售令，否则得归还之前所收取的5000万元定金，还可能面对10亿元的索赔官司。
在面对官司的压力下，同意出售的业主后来同意把交易完成期限延迟到12月11日，同时向高庭上诉分层地契局的决定。高庭后来批准上诉，该局于11月30日继续审理申请。
经过11天的审讯和两个星期的斟酌后，分层地契局认为以上论据不足以损害少数业主的利益，在12月7日推翻少数业主反对论据，批准该公寓集体出售。
如果上诉失败还可上诉最高法院
如果少数业主这次的上诉败诉，他们还有机会到最高法院上诉庭(Court of Appeal)提出上诉。买方也同样能在少数业主得直的情况下，向最高法院上诉庭上诉。
文庆路私人组屋发售反应热烈
《联合早报》Jan 06, 2008
打着“最靠近市区私人组屋”旗帜的City View@Boon Keng果然魅力不凡，尽管售价比一般组屋高出许多，发售第一天就吸引了近8000人参观示范单位，近1100人上网登记申购。
本报记者昨天下午2时到场采访发现，发展商在销售场外设立帐篷和摆放椅子，让公众轮候入场，但帐篷内已满座，排队等着进入帐篷的人龙已延伸到附近组屋底层。
负责销售的HSR经纪行董事刘凯丽告诉记者，示范单位上午9时开放前，就已有数百人排队。傍晚6时示范单位关了门，仍有数百人在场外流连观望。
坐落在文庆路的City View@Boon Keng组屋由海峡双威（Hoi Hup Sunway）设计、兴建和销售，是继森联集团The Premiere@Tampines后的第二批私人组屋。
受访公众许多认为City View@Boon Keng的售价很贵，不过有兴趣购买者大有人在。截至下午1时，已有700人登记申购。
发展商虽然在销售场外设立帐篷和椅子让公众等候入场，但帐篷内已坐满了人和排起人龙，人龙甚至延伸到附近组屋底层。（萧紫薇摄）
刘凯丽说，文庆路一带的五房式组屋转售价已高达68万，四房式也达58万，所以她认为发展商的定价符合市场价位。
购买73万元的五房式组屋，分期付款每个月要摊还多少钱呢？Dennis Wee房地产经纪行的董事许家荣受访时说，以3.5%利率和贷款30年计算，分期付款每个月要摊还超过2800元。
City View@Boon Keng的申购截止日期是本月16日，位于文庆路和明地迷亚路交界处的示范单位开放至本月31日，公众可以浏览发展商网站（www.hoihup.com）或拨电62585955了解更多详情。
听听参观者怎么说……
住在蔡厝港的林连成（49岁，工程师）就对这批私人组屋感兴趣，参观了示范单位，便查询是否符合申购资格。他认为，优越地点是最吸引人之处，虽然组屋面积有点小，但设计装潢很像私人公寓；售价是高了一些，不过还是比私人公寓价格来得低。
护理人员黄丽凤（40岁）只看了四房式示范单位就在现场登记申购。她和丈夫在约半年前把组屋卖掉，一直没有买到房子，目前暂住弟弟的家。
她说：“这里靠近我弟弟家，最重要的是靠近地铁站，而且它的设计很美。因为只有我和我丈夫两个人住，所以我们觉得三房就够了。三房卖30多万元，价钱算合理。”
住在波东巴西的家庭主妇成黎（43岁）原本兴致勃勃想和丈夫买一间，可是参观示范单位后发现，售价其实很高，而且面积很小，特别是厨房。
她说：“我们现在住的四房式以前买的时候才25万，这里的要50多万，差别非常大。五房虽然比较大，但是价钱也更贵，我得衡量一下家里的收入。而且，它的示范单位虽然做得很漂亮、很吸引人，但买下来之后可能还要花一笔不小的钱，才能做得像示范单位那么漂亮。”
陪同父母前往参观示范单位和登记申购的兰吉星（34岁）也认为售价订得过高，因为两人月入8000元，购买70多万元的五房式，仍会让自己的经济状况过于紧张。
他说：“售价订得那么高，主要取决于其地点的优越性，并没有其他更值得这个价钱的因素。以我个人来说，我并不是很愿意付这个钱来买这个组屋。我的父母对它非常感兴趣，主要是因为它地点好，潜质强，以后可以传给我弟弟。不过，他们还在衡量自己有没有能力负担。”
打着“最靠近市区私人组屋”旗帜的City View@Boon Keng果然魅力不凡，尽管售价比一般组屋高出许多，发售第一天就吸引了近8000人参观示范单位，近1100人上网登记申购。
本报记者昨天下午2时到场采访发现，发展商在销售场外设立帐篷和摆放椅子，让公众轮候入场，但帐篷内已满座，排队等着进入帐篷的人龙已延伸到附近组屋底层。
负责销售的HSR经纪行董事刘凯丽告诉记者，示范单位上午9时开放前，就已有数百人排队。傍晚6时示范单位关了门，仍有数百人在场外流连观望。
坐落在文庆路的City View@Boon Keng组屋由海峡双威（Hoi Hup Sunway）设计、兴建和销售，是继森联集团The Premiere@Tampines后的第二批私人组屋。
受访公众许多认为City View@Boon Keng的售价很贵，不过有兴趣购买者大有人在。截至下午1时，已有700人登记申购。
发展商虽然在销售场外设立帐篷和椅子让公众等候入场，但帐篷内已坐满了人和排起人龙，人龙甚至延伸到附近组屋底层。（萧紫薇摄）刘凯丽说，文庆路一带的五房式组屋转售价已高达68万，四房式也达58万，所以她认为发展商的定价符合市场价位。
购买73万元的五房式组屋，分期付款每个月要摊还多少钱呢？Dennis Wee房地产经纪行的董事许家荣受访时说，以3.5%利率和贷款30年计算，分期付款每个月要摊还超过2800元。
City View@Boon Keng的申购截止日期是本月16日，位于文庆路和明地迷亚路交界处的示范单位开放至本月31日，公众可以浏览发展商网站（www.hoihup.com）或拨电62585955了解更多详情。
听听参观者怎么说……
住在蔡厝港的林连成（49岁，工程师）就对这批私人组屋感兴趣，参观了示范单位，便查询是否符合申购资格。他认为，优越地点是最吸引人之处，虽然组屋面积有点小，但设计装潢很像私人公寓；售价是高了一些，不过还是比私人公寓价格来得低。
护理人员黄丽凤（40岁）只看了四房式示范单位就在现场登记申购。她和丈夫在约半年前把组屋卖掉，一直没有买到房子，目前暂住弟弟的家。
她说：“这里靠近我弟弟家，最重要的是靠近地铁站，而且它的设计很美。因为只有我和我丈夫两个人住，所以我们觉得三房就够了。三房卖30多万元，价钱算合理。”
住在波东巴西的家庭主妇成黎（43岁）原本兴致勃勃想和丈夫买一间，可是参观示范单位后发现，售价其实很高，而且面积很小，特别是厨房。
她说：“我们现在住的四房式以前买的时候才25万，这里的要50多万，差别非常大。五房虽然比较大，但是价钱也更贵，我得衡量一下家里的收入。而且，它的示范单位虽然做得很漂亮、很吸引人，但买下来之后可能还要花一笔不小的钱，才能做得像示范单位那么漂亮。”
陪同父母前往参观示范单位和登记申购的兰吉星（34岁）也认为售价订得过高，因为两人月入8000元，购买70多万元的五房式，仍会让自己的经济状况过于紧张。
他说：“售价订得那么高，主要取决于其地点的优越性，并没有其他更值得这个价钱的因素。以我个人来说，我并不是很愿意付这个钱来买这个组屋。我的父母对它非常感兴趣，主要是因为它地点好，潜质强，以后可以传给我弟弟。不过，他们还在衡量自己有没有能力负担。”