Saturday, April 11, 2009

新加坡各房地产公司 加速在西安发展步伐

Source : 《联合早报》Apr 11, 2009

虽然面临经济危机,新加坡公司在陕西发展的脚步不但没有停止反而加快。新加坡房地产巨头嘉德置地(中国称为凯德置地)、盛邦、淡马锡属下的丰树、雅诗阁在西安的项目正如火如荼地建设。越来越多的新加坡中小企业也来到陕西寻求发展机会。

去年11月,新加坡百乐酒店集团(Park Hotel Group )从高盛手中收购了西安五星级酒店-城堡酒店,一时间成为当地媒体争相报道的新闻。当时美国的金融危机已经爆发,很多外国企业都放慢在中国发展的脚步。而就在此时,一家新加坡公司出手收购了西安市具有标志性的城堡酒店,当然会引起媒体的关注。

据了解,这项交易标的价格为4亿元人民币左右(约8800万新元)。在2005年,高盛通过对日本上市公司滕田株式会社收购完成了对这家酒店的控股,并在2007年接手了剩余的中方产权。

如今,这座位于西安古城墙附近的酒店已经更名为“西安君乐城堡酒店”,百乐集团当时收购时,酒店刚刚完成全面装修。因为地理位置得天独厚,酒店经营前景良好。百乐选派了两位高级管理人员来西安管理这家酒店,如今它已经成为在西安工作的新加坡人聚会的地点。

同样在去年,新加坡大型房地产企业凯德置地在西安的商业项目“新地城”动工,它位于西安南二环。该项目是凯德与中国著名开发商万达合作开发的项目,凯德将负责这个项目的商业地产的运作。项目的负责人唐小茹曾担任新加坡国际企业发展西安办事处主任,去年加入凯德。

就在凯德项目不到几百米的地方,是新加坡丰树产业私人有限公司与西安海星集团共同组建的西安亚建房地产开发有限公司开发的“未来城”购物中心。它采用新加坡怡丰城(Vivo City)模式,在西安建设首个具有新加坡特色的购物中心。

雅诗阁在西安已经有两个高级服务公寓,如今正在积极寻找第三个。新加坡国际企业发展局(IE Singapore)西安办公司主任李一幔,近日接受本报采访时透露,我国另外一个大型房地产企业吉宝置地也正在积极寻找项目。

她认为,目前陕西的机遇大于挑战。她说:“陕西属于内陆省份,外向型经济比重比较小,因此这次的经济危机对陕西的影响很小。目前,中国东部的产业开始向陕西转移,因为这里的人力资源丰富、素质较高,但成本比沿海低很多。西安处于中国东、西部的交汇点,去中国东西部的城市都是两个小时的飞行距离,而总的成本只有东部的三分之一或四分之一,因此陕西对外来投资具有很强的吸引力。”

她说,过去两年,来陕西投资的新加坡企业,尤其是大企业明显增加。主要集中在地产、物流、通讯和工业园建设等领域。此外,近年来,新加坡中小企业也纷纷到陕西投资,主要集中在学前教育、职业教育、航空领域。如新加坡爱儿坊、伊顿已经在西安开办了幼儿园和国际学校。

据企发局提供的资料,目前在陕西投资的新加坡企业有112家,总投资金额近10亿美元,在陕西外国投资排名中,新加坡排名第三。

李一幔介绍说,新加坡企业大多是在07-08年进入西安,很多项目是在之前就已经考察确定的,即使面临全球性的经济危机,已经确定的项目都在正常运转,资金也按计划进入,并没有停滞拖延或者撤资减资。

她透露,陕西省委书记赵乐际本月20日到新加坡访问,他会与在陕西投资的新加坡企业负责人见面;本月中国东方航空公司将开通西安到新加坡直航,这些都将为新加坡企业来新加坡发展创造有利条件,同时方便新加坡人来陕西旅游。

Not The End For En Bloc Sales

Source : The Straits Times, April 10, 2009

Horizon Towers ruling restores care back to selling of homes

THE Horizon Towers ruling has taken the property market by surprise, with some experts saying that the days of the 'en bloc jackpot' are well and truly over.

As it is, the rules around collective sales have already been toughened up. Amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act in late 2007 made the sale process more complex, costly and lengthy.

And last Thursday's Court of Appeal ruling shone such a harsh light on the way the estate's sale committee operated that some fear owners will shy away from serving on such bodies because the legal risks are too great.

The Court of Appeal's 117-page judgment, penned by Justice V.K. Rajah, exposed the fact, for example, that the need for an estate's rejuvenation or upgrading had been periodically hijacked by buyers' profit motives.

'The lure of 'windfall profits' has been a siren song for many (especially absent landlords and speculators), to the detriment of those who do not want to lose their homes at any prices,' it said.

It also likened the role of a sale committee to that of a trustee. Thus, even if it is largely made up of home owners wanting to sell, it must still hold 'an even hand' between all parties and take heed of the interests of objectors.

The court also stressed that the committee must not place itself in a position where there may be conflicts of interest - whether existing or 'potential'. It must also 'act conscientiously' to get the best price.

'It is the first time the minority group has won on the basis that the sale was not in good faith, and not on a technicality,' said Mr Philip Fong of Harry Elias Partnership, who represented the objectors.

The judgment has been met by howls of protest from many in the property sector. The fear is that the bar has been set so high that any future deals will be impossible. They say the balance has been shifted too far in favour of en bloc dissenters, such that an en bloc deal becomes vulnerable to even the smallest objections.

'It has become a thankless job, and there are so many restrictions and fiduciary duties. And you have the potential to be sued,' said Mr Shaun Poh, DTZ's senior director for investment advisory services and auction.

These are valid concerns, but the ruling must also be seen in broader terms.

It is a landmark judgment that has helped to level the playing field for minority owners, who have tended to be sidelined in the sale process.

And in the process, it will bring sanity back to a collective sale market that can get out of control easily, as shown by the numerous court cases in the past two years.

To be fair, some ageing residential estates are fast deteriorating, and deserve to be sold en bloc before they turn into urban eyesores.

But in the last property boom, developments that were just over 10 years old - or even newer than that - were also attempting a collective sale.

The pace of destruction was unwarranted, and I think it is a pity the pursuit of money so easily triumphed over the importance of preserving a country's architectural heritage and sense of place - something no amount of money can buy.

For many minority owners, what was also at stake were their own memories and a level of comfort that is not easily replaced. (During the boom, sale proceeds were often insufficient to get a similar replacement home.)

In dynamic Singapore where we are always buffeted by economic and social changes, the familiarity of home is perhaps more important than ever.

Yet minority owners have been pushed aside as sale committees single-mindedly work towards achieving a collective sale and hitting jackpot earnings.

At times, they have been at the complete mercy of indifferent speculators, who go around buying up units in old estates and then agitating for a collective sale.

Covering the boom and bust of the property market in recent years, I have heard many stories about these sales tactics. People have told me how those home owners who oppose collective sales of their estates are routinely banned from owners' meetings. There was one instance of a sale where no minutes of any committee meeting were kept.

Minority owners have had their cars scratched and families threatened.

Some have even hit the headlines by taking irrational action to save their homes. In 2007, one family refused to move out of their Newton area condominium, even as the building was being prepared for demolition.

For these people, the judgment is a welcome step forward in the right direction.

The question, of course, is whether the court has gone too far.

Will this judgment spell the death of all collective sales, and the happy windfall profits often associated with them?

Worse still, does it create the opposite problem - an unhealthy aversion to en bloc deals?

Not necessarily.

The fact remains that if an estate is ripe for renewal, and most of its residents agree, it can - and will - be sold en bloc.

'As long as sale committee members act on behalf of all owners and transparently, it shouldn't be a problem,' said Knight Frank investment sales head Foo Suan Peng.

And herein lies the real significance of the Horizon Towers saga, with all its twists and turns.

It restores the requisite level of care and attention that should be paid when people contemplate selling something they are as emotionally attached to as their homes.

And if society in general eventually learns to be guided by principles other than monetary gains, then it can only be a good thing.