A different take on latest property curbs

Let's have more carrots for Singaporeans instead of wielding the stick on foreign buyers.
By Ku Swee Yong


THE latest round of measures to promote what the government claims would be 'a stable and sustainable property market' begs many questions. Let's begin with the basic parameters. First of all, the additional buyer's stamp duty (ABSD) is applicable only to the private residential segment, not to other segments such as office, retail, industrial, HDB shops, HDB flats, Executive Condominiums (ECs), etc. So perhaps a more appropriate claim should be 'a stable and sustainable private real estate sector'.


Next, the key objective listed was 'to promote a sustainable residential property market where prices move in line with economic fundamentals'.

Prices of private residential properties have continued to rise, albeit more slowly in the last two quarters. According to the Urban Redevelopment Authority, prices are now 13 per cent above the peak in Q2 1996 and 16 per cent above the more recent peak in Q2 2008.

In the many overseas seminars I have spoken at, I am always happy to reassure investors that as a broad guiding principle, foreigners and Singaporeans are not treated any differently when investing in Singapore. However, now we have imposed a 10 per cent ABSD on foreigners who purchase residential units. If we apply these stamp duties on the residential real estate asset class, does it imply that other asset types, such as commercial properties, stocks, capital equipment, cars, COEs, etc are also likely future candidates for additional stamp duties if the public perception is that a particular asset is beyond Singaporeans' reach?

Or, if the stock market becomes too hot and the Straits Times Index surpasses the October 2007 peak of 3,850 points by 20 per cent, reaching, say, 4,600 points, will the authorities also implement higher stamp duties on foreigners' stock investments, 'owing to the small market size of the SGX' to make the stocks more affordable for Singaporeans?

What about stamp duty on foreigners' purchase of COEs because the COE pool is limited? What is the significance of measuring our private residential prices against the previous peaks? And what has this got to do with foreigners today, given that in 2006-2008, prime properties such as St Regis Residences, Ardmore II, Sentosa Cove, Orchard Residences and were snapped up mainly by foreigners.

Most foreigners invested in Singapore's long-term future as part of their portfolio diversification and wealth protection for their families. Why were such measures to curb foreign ownership (individuals, families or institutional funds) of residential properties not implemented at that time when the luxury residential sector was booming hot?

I have expressed in several articles that the climb in the private residential index is the result of strong sales at new record prices in mass-market launches. This climb is mainly contributed by Singaporeans and Singapore permanent residents (PRs). The proportion of foreigners purchasing in the mass market is low, at 10-20 per cent as the mass-market residential segment is not considered 'investment grade'. I have also provided data to show that foreigners have not been significant contributors to the increase in mass-market home prices.

The fundamental cause of the climb in mass-market prices has been the strength of HDB resale prices, where the rate of growth is higher than that of the private residential index. Owners of HDB flats feel confident about the rising values of their flats. And since money in savings accounts devalues due to the prolonged 5 per cent inflation, and mortgage costs are low, they look for safe, secure investments. This leads them to purchase private residential properties for rental income and as an inflation hedge.

Unfortunately, the new measures do not address the rising HDB resale prices and so the effect on mass-market private apartment prices may be limited. Likewise, newly launched ECs and ECs that are not yet privatised will not be hit hard in terms of volume and price.

I believe that landed properties may suffer a direct, but limited, impact. A handful of Singaporean investors who buy many landed properties for the long term will be affected. They may not mind paying the extra 3 per cent ABSD if they can find their ideal landed property investments. That said, a Good Class Bungalow (GCB) collector wishing to invest in a $30 million house will be paying around $1.8 million (6 per cent) stamp duty if this were his third or more residential property. If he were to purchase the GCB under a trust, for wealth transfer purposes, a $3 million stamp duty would also apply.

This round of measures will positively benefit the strata office, retail and industrial segments of the property market. Many mass-market investors will surely flock to these products, as well as more exotic overseas properties. We should expect to see more 150-sq-ft retail units or tiny industrial units for sale. Time will tell whether such investments will turn out to be stable and sustainable for the property market, or not.

The biggest impact will be felt by developers of luxury residences who are more dependent on foreign investors. Several developers have overseas sales offices to promote their Singapore residential products. However, foreign investors wishing to buy a $10 million Orchard Road property will now think many times about paying almost $1.3 million (13 per cent) in buyer stamp duties. This is not a measure that increases the amount of equity foreign investors need to put into their properties; it is a tax which once paid cannot be recovered. Our residential market has just got uglier in terms of investment returns.

The other stakeholder group directly hit by the measures are the real estate agents, many of whom are active in promoting Singapore residential properties in Indonesia, China, Malaysia and Hong Kong. Following closely behind would be the relationship managers in private banks active in prospecting foreign high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) and getting them to park their investments under Singapore trusts. Then we have the priority bankers, the mortgage bankers, the contractors and interior designers who serve the high end market. Many rice bowls, if not already shaken by the global jitters, will surely be shaken now.

My main worry remains: What is the signal perceived by foreigners?

There are genuine foreign buyers who prefer to purchase the roofs over their heads. For example, A*Star and our medical fraternity have gone overseas to attract foreign doctors and medical researchers to work in Singapore. They may relocate here for our high quality of medical practice but these professionals also need homes for their families. Not every foreigner likes to pay rent. Many prefer to build up equity through purchasing their own homes and taking bank loans.

There is another group under the MAS Financial Investor Scheme (FIS) worth mentioning. HNW families applying for the FIS invest $10 million into Singapore are allowed to apply $2 million towards the purchase of a residential property for their own use. Probably the most expensive PR scheme in the world, the FIS has a long queue of HNWIs, some having waited over a year for approval. The latest measures mean that if they choose to apply $2 million of their $10 million investment into a residential unit, they need to pay ABSD in excess of $260,000 depending on the value of the property purchased.

Overall, I think these measures will effectively grind the luxury residential segment to a crawl. Foreign residential property funds will also surely stay out while this tax is in place. The measures could be less effective in the mass markets, given the bulk of Outside Central Region (OCR) launches are snapped up by Singaporeans who feel confident about their rising HDB valuations. Recall the queues and fast-paced sales at recent OCR launches.

I would hope for a tweak in the policy to allow foreigners to buy their first home at the existing 3 per cent buyer stamp duty. Many foreigners are here to work and to settle down with their families and they have a genuine need to own one home for shelter. Singapore is a country made successful by the influx of foreigners in the last two centuries and it must remain an open economy in order to survive. The Economic Development Board, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and other government agencies' efforts to attract foreign investors to our shores may be tougher if this signal were read negatively as a protectionist measure.

Foreigners who are already settled here but who have not purchased their homes may feel short-changed by such discriminatory policies, especially when there is insufficient evidence that foreigners are the main cause for the rise in home prices.

With the new measures, are we signalling: Our right hand welcomes you while our left hand blocks you from getting a comfortable life? Would we want the government agencies to slow down the pace in attracting foreign financial institutions and MNCs to expand in Singapore? That will reduce demand for housing but it will also weaken the robust job environment.

This policy aimed at foreigners will harm our reputation as an investment capital. Instead of penalising foreigners with heavy taxes, we could give more incentives to support Singaporeans and Singapore PRs. Already, loan-to-value ratios for purchasing properties are more attractive for Singaporeans than those for foreigners. Let's have more carrots for Singaporeans instead of wielding the stick on foreigners.

The writer is CEO of International Property Advisor Pte Ltd and author of the book: 'Real Estate Riches - Understanding Singapore's property market in a volatile economy'