Shoebox Sales Data: Falling Demand Or Falling Supply?

Last week, both The Sunday Times and Business Times carried stories on the rise in demand for bigger homes. I plan to address the market gap for spacious new homes within the $2.5-3.5M budget in a later post, but for today let’s discuss the perceived drop in demand for shoebox units, and the future of home affordability.

In his article “Bigger Homes Back in Demand” published in The Sunday Times on 4th October 2020, Invest Editor Tan Ooi Boon observed the following:

“The data shows a drop in the demand for so-called shoebox-size apartments – those under 506 sq ft in the second quarter. These units accounted for only 10 per cent of total new transactions, down from 14% in the first quarter, when most office workers were still on site.”

Let’s talk actual figures. There were 290 shoebox units transacted in the first quarter, and 193 transacted in the second quarter. Clearly, a fall in numbers transacted – but I disagree with his presumption that this is due to a drop in demand. If you’re a seasoned market observer, you should know that new sales numbers are closely correlated to numbers of units launched during any given period, particularly for in-demand unit types. As a realtor on the ground, working with home buyers and tenants on a daily basis, I know how strong demand is for compact but well-appointed homes. My assertion is that transaction numbers for shoebox units are more reflective of limited supply rather than reduced demand.

In 2012, URA had already introduced guidelines to moderate excessive development of shoebox units – the maximum number of dwelling units (DU) was derived by dividing the proposed gross floor area (GFA) by 70 square metres (~753 sq ft). Four areas, Telok Kurau, Kovan, Joo Chiat and Jalan Eunos, were subject to a more stringent requirement of 100 square metres (~1076 sq ft), to avoid stressing local infrastructure capacity concerns of these high-density residential areas. (I will discuss further tightening on these restrictions later in this post.)

As such, the number of shoebox units offered on the primary market has been steadily dwindling. For example, at one popular new launch project this year, The Woodleigh Residences, none of the 667 homes being built are “shoebox” units – the smallest unit size being 570 sq ft. There are 55 units of this layout (A1a) being built, of which only 3 remain available for purchase at time of writing.

So what accounts for the seemingly dramatic drop in demand for shoebox units? If you’ve been tracking the hot launches this year, you would probably be able to guess – The M. This Bugis project was launched in late February of this year, 138 of the 522 homes launched were below 506 sq ft. These units were sold out in a matter of days, with snaking queues outside the showflat despite the looming pandemic situation at that point in time – the 6 shoebox deals you see transacting at The M after Q1 2020 were in fact bounced-out units- these were very quickly snapped up upon being re-released onto the market.

The fact that there were 138 shoebox units launched and quickly sold (in 2 days!) is reflective of the limited supply and real consumer demand for such homes. The writers’ observations on the fall in shoebox transactions from 290 to 193 – the difference of 97 units between Q1 and Q2 is more than covered by The M’s performance in Q1!

And if we’re to look at Q2 shoebox demand levels – consider Forett @ Bukit Timah – 76 of the 633 homes here are under 500 sq ft, and 32 of these units (roughly 42%) have been sold within 2 months of launch – a rather strong showing considering the location is more suited to families who drive, rather than the typical shoebox dweller. The difference in reception for Forett versus The M shoebox units is illustrative of the combination of features that sit well with shoebox buyers – nobody heads out into the market looking for a tiny home! Demand for shoebox units is primarily a demonstration of demand for the most affordable homes in any given project and neighbourhood.

When we invest today, we need to project our expected returns against the landscape our property holdings will be competing against in 3-5, 10, 20 years time, not based on today’s flavour of the day but our own investment timeline. We should also be careful not to confuse demand and supply from very different market segments – the increase in demand for units larger than 1,200 sq ft post-circuit breaker had little correlation with the fall in transaction numbers for shoebox units, which was more a result of fewer shoebox units being offered up for sale rather than an indicator of falling demand.

What we see offered up on the primary sales market today is what was planned for prior to additional changes to URA’s earlier mentioned building guidelines. For building plans submitted after January 2019, a tighter set of guidelines (first announced in October 2018) will bring average unit sizes even higher. Number of dwelling units for a given plot of land will be calculated based on a Total GFA divided by 85 square metres, a 21% increase from the earlier 70 square metres. In addition, areas under the stricter 100 sq metre formula will increase from the previous 4 to a total of 9: Marine Parade, Joo Chiat-Mounbatten, Telok Kurau- Jalan Eunos, Balestier, Stevens-Chancery, Pasir Panjang, Kovan-How Sun, Shelford and Loyang.

Image credit : URA

What does this bode for the future? For each new shoebox unit built outside of the central region, a corresponding unit of at least 123 sq metres (1323 sq ft), or 153 sq metres (1647 sq ft) if falling within the nine areas identified as high-density, would need to be built. So whilst land bids in future will need to fall to accommodate increased building costs, more challenging sales climate and stricter anti-shoebox planning restrictions, affordability is not going to come down – instead, private home ownership rates will.

To illustrate, I’ve done up a table of all District 3 pipeline projects, as well as the shoebox units or smallest available units in the case of projects that will not be building any homes within 506 sq ft. This gives you an indication of entry prices for new homes in District 3 in the next few years. Note though, that the “Starting Price” indicated is for the lowest done deal from developer whilst “Last Done Price” would be the last recorded price for any shoebox sized unit within the project, or smallest unit size in the case of ARTRA & Riviera as of today. It’s telling to note that whilst shoebox units form just 9.4% of total pipeline, they form 12% of total sold units – and the 63 units left unsold are currently all listing above $1M.

How does one act upon such knowledge? It really depends on what your specific home and investment needs are, but I would advise those who are looking for a centrally-located new home with budgets capped at $850K-1.2M to intensify their search now, and consider the future impact that the URA building guidelines will have when currently available projects planned prior to its coming into effect are already showing a shift upwards in size and affordability.

I’d also advise you to do plenty of homework, not just on paper, but get a real feel of the situation on the ground by visting showflats, and talking to those involved in the market (not just those observing from behind a desk!)- as I hope you’ve come to see, not everything reported in the papers is completely accurate.

You’ll need to be fast and decisive, whilst refraining from being impulsive or allowing yourself to become pressured into a decision. Knowing the market well will help tremendously. Oftentimes data doesn’t convey the full strength of demand – to illustrate, the 36 shoebox units at Avenue South Residences were snapped up within the space of 2 days, on 6-7 September 2019 (These were in addition, much-lauded heritage units that will give future occupants the rare opportunity of living in homes reminiscent of Tiong Bahru walk-ups, yet with modern full-facilities and private lifts!) The 4 deals recorded after these two days were in fact withdrawal units, that were snapped up almost instantaneously upon being bounced out.

I would want to delve further into the demand for compact homes on the rental market, but I’ve already went on for longer than I’d planned! Let’s revisit that in another post! Till then, keep your story ideas and questions coming!

Affordable homes in Singapore? Looking beyond cooling measures.

The 8th round of property cooling measures announced by MAS on 28th June is intended to be a long-term one, put in place not just to tackle the current market situation, but to maintain prudent credit controls in the years to come.

I think at this point it would be timely to remind ourselves why Singapore’s government is so fixated on avoiding a property bubble. Sure, housing affordability is always of certain political significance in any country, but I struggle to think of any other nation where the government is quite so heavily involved in the property market. Having chosen to take on the mantle of providing public housing to over 80% of the population for all these decades and being so closely involved in the control of the private housing market too, it is unsurprising that the electorate considers the health of the housing market a key element when assessing their overall satisfaction with the ruling party’s performance.

As Minister Khaw has pointed out previously, he faces the delicate task of balancing the public’s call for affordable housing, with the need to maintain stable property prices to protect the interests of many Singaporeans whose homes and real estate holdings represent the bulk of their total net assets. Thus in the government’s efforts to provide affordable public housing, they must at the same time avoid a property crash at all costs.

Bending over backward to balance
Bending over backwards to balance

The main focus thus far has been on beefing up rules and regulations: hiking stamp duties imposed on buyers and sellers, and reducing the availability of financing by lowering loan-to-value ceilings, restricting loan tenures, and general tightening of credit controls. But as any honest draftsman or legislator would be able to tell you, it is near impossible to draft a completely watertight book of rules without becoming unwieldy and impractical to implement. And in any case, is there substantive proof that heavy regulatory control is better at maintaining a stable market than free market forces?

An increasingly complex, convoluted series of rules and regulations governing the property market certainly poses a challenge for layperson consumers seeking to purchase or deal with their property holdings. I believe it would be helpful to take a look at trends that have been taking place both in Singapore and other cities for alternative means of coping with rising home prices. Continue reading “Affordable homes in Singapore? Looking beyond cooling measures.”

Hot off the Press: MAS Introduces Debt Servicing Framework for Property Loans

MAS has just announced the introduction of a debt servicing ratio framework, with effect from tomorrow, 29 June 2013.

Whilst the cap of 60% on debt servicing ratios (monthly debt obligations versus monthly income) is not something drastically different from banks’ current practices, my focus would be the impact of the following restrictions:-

  • borrowers named on a property loan must now also be mortgagors (ie. co-owners) of the residential property for which the loan is taken;
  • “guarantors” who are standing guarantee for borrowers otherwise assessed by the bank at the point of application for the housing loan not to meet the TDSR threshold for a property loan are to be brought in as co-borrowers (and therefore, must also become co-owners); and
  • in the case of joint borrowers, that banks use the income-weighted average age of borrowers (based on borrowers’ gross monthly income) when applying the rules on loan tenure (i.e. lower LTV-ceilings for loan tenures exceeding 30 years or extending past a borrower’s 65th birthday ). Continue reading “Hot off the Press: MAS Introduces Debt Servicing Framework for Property Loans”

Singapore Luxury Property: A Dormant Market Worth Exploring

With personal income tax capped at a modest 20% and no capital-gains tax, it’s unsurprising that Singapore has become a magnet for wealth around the region. In a recent survey of 1,000 mobile millionaires, Singapore was deemed the most desirable place to call home in Asia – billionaires Richard Chandler and Eduardo Saverin are amongst the notable individuals who have chosen Singapore as their home-away-from-home.

According to Boston Consulting Group’s 2012 Global Wealth Report, Singapore has the world’s highest density of millionaire households at 17.1% or 188,000 households. At the same time, its popularity as an offshore banking hub is also growing in leaps and bounds, with wealth under management set to overtake Switzerland by 2020. Switzerland currently manages some $2.8trillion in assets, whereas Singapore has seen assets under management grow from just $50billion in 2000, to $550billion by end-2011.

It is somewhat counter-intuitive then that Singapore’s luxury property market has performed dismally in recent years, particularly when the property market as a whole has had a spectacular run. One could blame it all on the whopping 15% additional buyer’s stamp duty payable by foreigners, but ABSD was initially introduced only in December 2011 and raised only recently in January 2013, whereas the luxury market has been slow since the financial crisis of 2008, never recovering its shine unlike the mass-market sector which experienced a rapid rebound beyond previous highs. Sales of non-landed homes above S$5M screeched to a halt between October 2008 to March 2009, and barely hit 400 transactions in the whole of 2012. In 2007, there were more than triple that number of transactions, at a time when there was a lot less money and a lot more exciting alternative investment options competing for a share of the pie.

The Marq by SC Global
The Marq by SC Global

The Ritz-Carlton Residences
The Ritz-Carlton Residences

Continue reading “Singapore Luxury Property: A Dormant Market Worth Exploring”

Beware the Waiting Game: Some Points to Ponder While You Wait.

dreamhome
Market naysayers claim that cheap financing has resulted in hot money, which has in turn created an unsustainable property bubble. While I constantly remind young, first-time home buyers not to overstretch their budgets by projecting affordability on the basis on today’s abnormally low interest rates, the continued upward march of property prices here was certainly not due to low interest rates alone. In any case, with the various phases of loan-to-value and loan tenure restrictions introduced since February 2010, the capacity for interest rates to create heat in the property investment market has been brought down to a minimum. (After the latest cooling measures in January 2013, the maximum loan-to-value in certain situations is a mere 20%.)

And so, when a property agent friend recently asked me for my opinion on whether she should advise her home-buyer client to “wait for property prices to drop”, I responded with a question in kind, “how long can she wait?” If you ask me for my honest opinion, today’s market is indeed a challenging one for buyers seeking an investment unit in the residential sector, and it takes a sharp eye to spot a gem worth surmounting the ABSD payable(there ARE such gems out there, I can personally vouch for that!). However, for those without a home to their names hoping to eventually get out of the rental cycle, I silently worry when they confide that they are waiting for prices to drop. (I stay silent in such cases, as my policy is never to give unsolicited advice, the opinions shared on this blog are for you to consider only if you choose to.)

Continue reading “Beware the Waiting Game: Some Points to Ponder While You Wait.”

Tightening on Mortgage-Servicing-Ratios Expected

After murmurs on the subject have been rippling through the market for weeks, I believe the move to further restrict Mortgage Servicing Ratios (MSR) on private residential property is on the cards over the coming week, possibly as early as tomorrow.

belttightening
According to multiple sources, MSRs are likely to be brought down from the current 30-60% to just 30-40%. To illustrate what this means in practical terms, let’s take the example of a $1.5M property:-

A $1.5M home with 30-year, 80% loan-to-value housing loan of $1.2M at an interest rate of 1.5%p.a. ($4,141.44 monthly installment) would previously require a monthly income of $10,353.60 to support a 40% MSR threshold. When MSR is reduced to 30%, a corresponding one-third increment is monthly income is necessary to support the same loan.($13,804.80/month). Alternatively, the buyer with a $10,000/mth income would need to reduce his loan to $900K and either come up with more cash or assuming he maintains his cash/CPF downpayment at $300K, shift his sights toward properties $1.2M or below.

Continue reading “Tightening on Mortgage-Servicing-Ratios Expected”