Tampilkan postingan dengan label property. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label property. Tampilkan semua postingan

The Inexact Science of Property Valuation

Saw this in the Today newspaper:

These sellers are not serious
Flat owners re-valuing flats for profits
Letter from Gurmit Singh Kullar

THE latest cooling measures have admittedly had some effect in curbing the cash over valuation (COV) for resale HDB flats but we are still unlikely to see any decrease in valuations.

I have come across some sellers who have had their flats re-valued even before their current valuations expired so as to lock in a further gain.

A flat owner who rejected my offer did exactly that because he was convinced by property agents that his flat was "too cheap".

In another case, a property agent tried to convince me to buy a particular flat because the valuation had increased by $10,000 since the last assessment two months earlier.

Is this practice of multiple valuations for a HDB flat across such a short period condoned? Can the value of a flat really increase so rapidly?

Since valuation prices are based partly on previous assessments, frivolous seller behaviour causes unjustified increases in baseline prices.

In addition to focusing on buyers, I feel that the HDB also should introduce steps to weed out non-serious sellers ....
Gurmit is wrong. In the current market, sellers who constantly seek revaluations are not only serious, but savvy.

Property valuation is not a science. We should think of it more as an art. Or even better, just as an opinion. Supposedly an independent, educated and informed opinion - but in any event, still just an opinion.

So for instance, let's say that we simultaneously ask for three property valuations of the same HDB flat. Even though all valuations are done at the same time, the first valuer might say "$500,000"; the second valuer might say "$520,000"; and the third valuer might say "$540,000".

In all three cases, the respective valuer will support his opinion by citing a list of relevant factors in his report. For example, he would look at the recent sale prices of similar properties in the same neighbourhood. He would consider the nearby amenities (is there an MRT station nearby? Or any top school? Or a good shopping area?). He would also take note of the physical state of the apartment itself (for example, whether it has a good view, or has been renovated nicely).

But all these factors have subjective elements. For example, what is a "good" view? Which schools are "top"? How faraway can an MRT station be, and still be considered "near"? Since the answers to these questions are merely opinions, it should be obvious that the valuation figure itself is also merely an opinion.

Particularly in a rising market, a savvy seller may seek revaluations. Why? Because, as I mentioned earlier, property valuers will consider the recent actual sale prices of similar properties in the same neighbourhood. If market prices are generally on an uptrend, the valuation you get in January is likely to rise by April. That's because the April valuation would have taken into consideration data on sale prices that had become available only in February and March.

Although property valuations are merely opinions, they have a lot of practical significance. Among other things, they determine the maximum amount that a bank would be willing to lend to the buyer. In turn, this influences the price that the buyer is willing to offer to the seller.

So Gurmit is both wrong and right. He is wrong to say that the sellers are not serious. He is right to say that they are out to make money. The sellers are serious. They are serious about making money.
Gadis Bispak Imut

Letters From Our World-Class Government

Two posts ago, I featured a letter in the TODAY newspaper. The writer, Ee Teck Siew, suggested that when a customer seeks a housing loan, some kind of risk profiling should be done to help the customer determine whether he is able to afford this long-term obligation.

You may or may not agree with this suggestion, but Teck Siew certainly did express his idea clearly enough. His last sentence sums it up: "It is high time a more rigorous regulatory regime, one with a focus on educating consumers, be added to help Singaporeans in their financial decisions."

The Ministry of National Development has now replied. Rather predictably, its response was mostly irrelevant and rather inane:
Monday • December 22, 2008
Letter from Lim Yuin Chien
Deputy Director (Corporate Communications),
Ministry of National Development

In “Risk profiling for homebuyers?”(Dec 17), Mr Ee Teck Siew suggested that the Government and industry associations consider implementing a “fact finding process” to ensure that potential home buyers buy properties they can afford, based on their abilities to service mortgage loans.

Most homebuyers would need to obtain a bank loan upfront. The homebuyers would therefore be subject to credit screening by the banks, which will ensure that the home-buyers can afford the properties they intend to buy. In the credit checks, the banks would typically take into consideration the homebuyer’s income, age and other debt commitments.

Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat buyers taking HDB concessionary loans are required to obtain a HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) letter before committing to the flat purchase. The HLE letter similarly takes into account the flat buyers’ age, income and other financial commitments to calculate the maximum loan quantum and the expected monthly installments to ensure that the flat buyer is not financially overstretched.

We thank Mr Ee for his feedback.
As I had already explained in my earlier post, it is quite true that the bank will definitely check its customer's credit, before granting him a housing loan. However, as I had also already explained, the bank performs these credit checks for its own benefit, not for the benefit of the customer. Furthermore the bank has no duty to advise the client.

Now if you were going to take a 30-year mortgage to buy a new home, here are some of the issues that you would want to think about first. How many children do you have, or plan to have? Do you expect them to go for higher education, and if so, how much do you plan to save for that? How much are you saving for your own retirement? If you were to become unemployed for six months, would you still be able to meet your mortgage payments?

Do you have aged parents to support? How much money might you need to do that? What are your own career prospects, at least for the foreseeable future? Will you be needing extra capital, to run your own business? How much does your current lifestyle cost to maintain? Does your spouse work, or is yours a single-income family? If the latter is the case, what's the game plan if that sole breadwinner were to lose his job, become ill or die?

You have to think about these kinds of questions, before you decide how much you can afford to borrow. The future can't be predicted with 100% certainty, but that's precisely why you need to do your planning.

These are also the kinds of questions which neither the banks nor the HDB will help you with. Therefore Teck Siew's suggestion was that perhaps some kind of regulatory process could be put in place to help Singaporeans work through such questions.

In its reply, the Ministry failed to address any of the above. It was really a nothing sort of reply. Almost completely meaningless.

Gadis Bispak Imut