Why the prices of HDB flats must be kept high from a political and economic perspective (Part 2)
By Eugene Yeo and Jeremy Koh
Besides political considerations, it is in the economic interest of the government to keep HDB prices on the high side. Who will be so silly to kill the goose which lays golden eggs?
Increased profits from sale of new flats
Since the prices of new HDB flats are pegged to that of the resale flats in the vicinity, it naturally follows that rising prices of resale flats will enable HDB to price their new flats higher, thereby earning more profits from the sale.
It was announced lately that BBR Holdings has secured a S$104.2-million contract from the Housing & Development Board (HDB) to build seven blocks of flats in Yishun Neighbourhood 4. The work comprises 864 homes, a Child Care Centre, a roof garden, communal amenities and site works, as well as contingency works. (Channel News Asia, 17 August 2009)
Financial Consultant Mr Leong Sze Hian calculated that HDB may make a profit of more than $170,000 for each flat sold upon completion:
“Since there will be 864 HDB flats, the average cost per flat, inclusive of communal amenities, site works and contingency works, is about $120,602 ($104.2 million divided by 864 flats).
With the latest HDB new 4-room flats at Punggol (Punggol Residences BTO) selling at an average price of $293,000 (price range of $264,000 to $322,000 divided by 2), does it mean that the HDB stands to make a profit of about $172,398 per flat, or a profit margin of about 143 per cent?”
[Source: Hardwarezone]
The cost of building HDB flats remain a mystery known only to the government. Ominously, HDB only said that the flats are subisidized, but it never had never claimed that they are sold at cost price to Singaporeans.
Regardless of the real figures, the profit-margin of HDB is likely to increase in view of the record prices set by new and resale flats this year.
Property taxes and resale levies
These are indirect ways in which the government acquire additional revenue from rising prices of HDB flats.
All types of properties in Singapore, including HDB flats, factories and offices are subject to tax.
The amount of property tax payable a year is a 4% of the annual value of the property which is the estimated yearly rent the property can fetch if it were rented out.
If the flat is the seller’s first subsidised flat or a flat bought under the CPF Housing Grant Scheme, he is eligible to sell his flat to a buyer of his choice subject to HDB’s approval.
He will have to pay a resale levy if he buys or takes over the ownership of another subsidised flat or an Executive Condominium sold by a Developer, or an Executive Condominium with outstanding 5-year minimum occupation period. He need not pay the resale levy if the Executive Condominium project is launched after 20 Nov 2007.
The payment of the resale levy is based on the prevailing rules, policies and procedures as determined by HDB from time to time.
Where HDB is appointed by the seller and/or buyer to act in the resale, HDB’s conveyancing fees shall be calculated in accordance with the Housing and Development (Conveyancing Fees) Rules.
Needless to say, in a property boom when there are active transactions going on, HDB will see more “business” and therefore earn more from the resale levies and conveyancing fees.
Attracting foreign investors
The prices of HDB flats provide a support base to that of the private property sector.
Prices of new flats are linked intricably to that of resale flats which in turn will have an impact on that of mass market homes.
Rising prices of HDB flats will exert an upward pressure on the prices of condominiums in the suburbs giving developers the excuse and incentive to mark up their prices at launch since it is inconceivable that prices of private projects will fall below that of public housing.
This in turn will pop up prices in the central and prime districts of Singapore creating a mini-property boom which will make it attractive for wealthy foreigners to invest in Singapore’s property.
A vibrant and active property market will increase the government’s revenue through higher stamp duties which are levied on every property purchased.
Conclusion
HDB flats are cash cows of the government which enjoys a total monopoly over the public housing market in Singapore. In the absence of any competitor, it is free to set and manipulate the prices as it wish.
Though the government can easily bring down the prices of HDB flats, it is in their economic and political interest to continue to leave the prices entirely to market forces.
Unlike in 1996 when the property market was allowed to crash suddenly without warning, the government will be more calibrated in its approach this time to pre-empt wild fluctuations in the prices due to the potential repercussions.
According to London-headquartered Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics), which represents and regulates property professionals and surveyors, Singapore’s residential market rebound may fizzle out by 2010 due to economic uncertainty and the spectre of higher unemployment. (read article: http://temasekreview.com/?p=12848)
Should this scenario occur, the prices of HDB flats will probably stagnate and decline by a little, but will still remain above the levels of 2007. Home-buyers who are waiting for the prices to drop or crash will be disappointed.
Given the narrowing gap between the prices of HDB resale flats and that of mass market condominiums, it may be more prudent and worthwhile for those who can afford forking out an additional $100K or so to buy a private property instead.
8 Responses to “Why the prices of HDB flats must be kept high from a political and economic perspective (Part 2)”
Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Kenneth Jeyaretnam Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.











You know why singapore flats so expensive or not?
Because every inch of singapore soil is GOLD..!!
so all your flats have to be expensive !!
Cannot afford means no flat for you
simple equation:
Got money = HDB flat
More money = Private property
Little money = dream your golden HDB flat only
No money = ask from gov
To Old Guy on Fri, 11th Sep 2009 2:29 pm
No money = ask from gov?????
Later develop a crutch mentality how?
How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?
Later Singapore women become maids in foreign countries (bad) and not maids in our country (good) then you know.
But as the nation a history of coming up with a budget “no other country on earth has introduced with so much compassion” we should help the less well off.
I propose a GST hike to help the poor even more.
It is a sad day for Singapore, at least to football fans in Singapore.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cna/20090910/tap-160-national-player-noh-alam-shah-sl-231650b.html
While some might say Nor Alam Shah’s comments were uncalled for, what he is saying actually reveals what is really happening on the ground.
If my research is correct, Mr Mah Bow Tan took over as president of the FAS to replace Mr Ibrahim Othman in 1995. We pulled out of Malaysia Cup and formed the S-league – to see to the urgent need to develop the local leagues and increase the local talent pool.
Mr Mah initiated the goal 2010 to bring Singapore to the world cup.
Today, 14 years on, we are nowhere near Asian Cup qualifications, even though we brought in several foreign talents. On the other hand, our home grown talents are leaving to play abroad. Our league attendance is a shame.
Who is to blame? The supporters, the departing local players or the FAS?
Economically, they say we need a bigger population to boost domestic demand. Hence, foreign talents flooded Singapore and we hit the 5 Million mark.
What have we achieved? A stronger economy? Maybe. But the truth is that Singaporeans find it tougher to survive, with the influx of PRs and low supply of HDB flats. How are we going to ever bear enough children to replace ourselves when we can’t afford to feed ourselves? It’s so crowded and expensive I can’t even breathe.
I am starting to believe that my family would be happier in a foreign land, rather than stressing our lives away in Singapore. At least I get to chance to choose a slow pace of life, where I can spend more time to enjoy family life.
Given a choice, would you rather have Singaporeans bearing more children or having more foreigners in our island? I would believe that Singaporeans are not having more children because of affordability issues rather than lifestyle choices.
Who is to blame for the low birth rate? The PRs, the leaving Singaporeans or the government?
By pricing a 4 room flat at $270,000, the government doesn’t want you to collect a single cent from CPF.
If you take a 30 year loan with a 10% down payment, the amount you paid for the flat will come up to $500,000 effectively wiping out whatever CPF contribution you made during you adult working life.
good call, anonymous.
PAP gahmen IS the Biggest AND THE ONLy LAND owner in Singapore!!!… Because … Leasehold land CAN at ANYTIME BE taken back BY PAP … with just the stroke of a pen!!!
FREEHold??? That’s a different story altogether as you check out how many percent of these belong to STATE-OWN … meaning PAP owned Corporations … THE Most Visible one being “CaPiTaLAND!!! …
What more need be said???
In developed markets, owning property has a deep meaning for people – to get out of the rent game and accumulate wealth – real, long lasting wealth that can be passed down to the next generation so they may build on what you have created for them. In such environments, the hardworking and financially prudent are rewarded with class mobility, and there is a higher likelihood for the middle and lower classes to break the class ceiling to grow generational wealth over time.
Singapore’s model of property ownership – the prevalent 99-year leasehold framework, combined with the aggressive extraction of profit margins both on the sale of flats and on the long term interest payments via HDB’s loan program creates some very worrying economic symptoms:
1. Paying more for property of lesser value | Since income ceilings are capped for HDB purchases (as of my current knowledge, $8000/m, despite the high home prices), we are liable to pay MUCH MORE for our HDB properties than what they are worth over time because of the long term interest we would have to service against the loans – 30-years for many. So buying a HDB flat ends up becoming less of an investment, and instead a negative interest bank account for most.
2. Trans-generational wealth is difficult to realise | it does not get easier for property owning citizens to transfer their savings (I say “savings” and not investment because of point 1) beyond 3 generations. The 99-year leasehold framework is essentially a “reset” button, that causes accumulated value (property/savings) to flow back into the establishment, in a way ‘recycled’ for further revenue extraction.
I am not suggesting that any of these symptoms were intentional, because surely no patriotic soul in Singapore would wish this upon ourselves. Quite to the contrary, I think these were symptoms born out of our very aspirations to aggressively grow our young nation. On one end, this is a system that has allowed our housing board to scale to its current revenues which enable it to invest in the massive upgrading schemes and quality of upkeep in our estates, on the other hand this very system has not managed to create any sustainable VALUE for us.
Shouldn’t we now refocus our sights on newer objectives? Does building long lasting property value for our citizens sound like a bad idea? Surely we can figure out a way to do this without tearing down everything we’ve achieved. Could we adjust loan terms to put more money in the pockets of the hardworking Singaporean? If we cannot narrow the income gap, could we curb slightly the sky-rocketing prices? Maybe revisit the 99-year leasehold term?
When evaluating policy, be it housing, labor, taxation, we as Singaporeans need to ask “how is this ultimately serving us?”. It’s a simple, commonsensical question.
Where is your part 1? You should cross-link your multi-part articles. It is currently difficult to track and find your articles now that you have expanded. Some of the new articles just 2-3 days ago also seemed to disappear into great number.
You need to start organise properly.