| BY FEILY SOFIAN & ESTHER HOON |

A total of 96 units at The Premiere @ Tampines, Sin-gapore’s maiden Design, Build and Sell Scheme pro-ject, have changed hands in

the resale market. More DBSS units will come onstream next year as pro-jects such as City View @ Boon Keng and Park Central @ AMK fulfil their five years minimum occupation pe-riod (MOP). Although this pioneer batch of sellers pocketed hefty profits of between $200,000 and $300,000, sellers of resale HDB flats beat them in terms of profit margin.

Four-room flats at The Premiere were launched at an average price of $344,000 back in 2006. In 2014 and 2015, four-room flats in the pro- CONTINUES PAGE EP4

Spectre of global defl ationHow this will affect Singapore real estate PG2

Gauging investor sentimentHow do investors form their expectations? PG3

Win, draw, lose How has Singapore’s fi rst DBSS project fared against resale HDBs?

Read this copy online @ theedgeproperty.com

A PULLOUT WITH

M A K E B E T T E R D E C I S I O N SMCI (P) 046/03/2015 PPS 1519/09/2012 (022805)

THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 694

Prices of four- and fi ve-room resale HDB fl ats in Tampines increased faster than those at The Premiere

ject changed hands at an average price of $577,000, netting sellers an imputed profit of $233,000, or 68% (see Table 1).

Meanwhile, four-room resale HDB flats that are within 500m of Tamp-ines MRT station sold for $259,000 on average in 2006. In 2014 and 2015, they were transacted at an average price of $483,000, reflecting a price upside or imputed profit of 86%. While sellers of HDB resale flats paid a much lower

price for their properties, they have the opportunity of netting profits of more than $200,000, on a par with DBSS sellers at The Premiere, resulting in a bigger profit margin. The trend is also observed for five-room units.

In fact, the overall price of resale HDB flats in Tampines, including those not located near the MRT station, has fared as good as, if not better than, The Premiere. The average price of resale four-room flats in Tampines as

a whole appreciated 78% between 2006 and 2014/15 while that of five-room resale flats was up 77% over the same period.

The DBSS w as first introduced by then Minister for National Develop-ment Mah Bow Tan in 2005 to in-volve developers in the building of public housing and to offer buyers with higher disposable incomes a wider variety of housing. Because of their better design and finishes, DBSS

projects usually command a higher premium than Built-to-Order and re-sale HDB flats. Sale of DBSS sites has been discontinued since 2011 follow-ing a public outcry over the hefty price tags of newer projects. Thirteen DBSS projects have been launched to date, out of which only The Pre-miere at Tampines has hit the resale market, having fulfilled its five-year MOP more than a year ago.

Table 1

HDB,

THE

EDG

E PR

OPE

RTY

FLAT TYPE THE PREMIERE @ TAMPINES DBSS RESALE HDB NEAR TAMPINES MRT STATION OVERALL RESALE HDB IN TAMPINES 2006 ($) 2014/15 ($) CHANGE 2006 ($) 2014/15 ($) CHANGE 2006 ($) 2014/15 ($) CHANGE

4-room 344,000 577,000 233,000/68% 259,000 483,000 224,000/86% 248,000 441,000 193,000/78%5-room 379,000 671,000 292,000 /77% 291,000 567,000 276,000/95% 299,000 528,000 229,000/77%

EP2 • THEEDGE SINGAPORE | SEPTEMBER 14, 2015

EDITORIALEDITOR | Ben Paul SECTION EDITOR | Cecilia ChowCOPY-EDITING DESK | Elaine Lim, Evelyn Tung, Chew Ru Ju, Tan Gim Ean, Choy Wai FongPHOTO EDITOR | Samuel Isaac ChuaPHOTOJOURNALIST | Bryan TayEDITORIAL COORDINATOR | Rahayu MohamadDESIGN DESK | Tan Siew Ching, Christine Ong, Monica Lim, Nik Edra,Mohd Yusry, Henry Lee

RESEARCH TEAMHEAD OF RESEARCH | Feily Sofi an ANALYSTS | Esther Hoon, Lin Zhiqin, Tan Chee Yuen

ADVERTISING + MARKETING HEAD | Edward StanislausGROUP SALES MANAGER | Cecilia KaySENIOR MANAGER | Windy TanMANAGERS | Jack Lin, Mabel Wong, Danna Pusta, Elaine Tan

THE EDGE PROPERTY

GROUP SALES MANAGER | Cowie TanSENIOR MANAGERS | Diana Lim,Cheryann Yeo

EVENTS MARKETING

SENIOR MANAGER | Sivam Kumar

DIGITAL MARKETING ASSISTANT | Tim JacobsCOORDINATOR | Nor Aisah Bte Asmain

CIRCULATIONMARKETING

MANAGER | Coleman LimOPERATIONS

MANAGER |Cesar Banzuela De Jesus, Jr EXECUTIVES | Gerald Aw, Hannah Wong, Malliga Muthusamy

CORPORATE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER | Ben PaulMANAGING DIRECTOR | Edward StanislausCORPORATE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR | Ng Say Guan

PUBLISHERThe Edge Publishing Pte Ltd150 Cecil Street #08-01Singapore 069543Tel: (65) 6232 8622Fax: (65) 6232 8620

PRINTERKHL Printing Co Pte Ltd57 Loyang DriveSingapore 508968Tel: (65) 6543 2222Fax: (65) 6545 3333

We welcome your commentsand criticism: propertyeditor.sg@bizedge.com

Pseudonyms are allowed but please state your full name, address and contact number for us to verify.

Global deflation and its effecton Singapore real estate

THEEDGE P R O P E R T Y PROPERTY TAKE

FUN

FACT

Executive HDB fl ats

were launched in the

1980s in response to demand for

bigger fl ats

All Commodity Price Index, 2005=100, includes bothFuel and Non-Fuel Price Indices

July

200

5

Dec

200

5

May

200

6

Oct

200

6

Mar

ch 2

007

Aug

200

7

Jan

2008

June

200

8

Nov

200

8

Apr

il 20

09

Sep

t 200

9

Feb

201

0

July

201

0

Dec

201

0

May

201

1

Oct

201

1

Mar

ch 2

012

Aug

201

2

Jan

2013

June

201

3

Nov

201

3

Apr

il 20

14

Sep

t 201

4

Feb

2015

July

201

5

250

200

150

100

50

0

IMF

Real estate yields and inflation in Japan

WO

RLD

BAN

K, S

AVIL

LS JA

PAN

, VAR

IOUS

STO

CK B

ROKI

NG

HO

USE

S

1H20

15

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Inflation rateRetail street shopMid-market residential

Grade A office cap rateSuburban shopping centre

100

8

6

4

2

0

-2

%

This may seem like heavy reading, but it is a topic that needs to be addressed before it develops into a major issue. After the global financial crisis (GFC), real and financial economic markets

have been performing much less ideally than expected by many central banks. Wild swings in global financial markets and commodity prices have left people looking for answers. In the fixed-income space, warnings abound that the market is facing the danger of illiquid-ity (arising from the US Federal Reserve’s pur-chases of Treasuries) rather than the common understanding that there is too much liquidi-ty. Markets are becoming stranger by the day.

Now, there is increasing talk of deflation. Since the prices of oil and commodities came off sharply in late 2014 (Chart 1), this inver-sion from inflation to deflation has become a more commonly heard line among global fund managers and in IMF publications as well.

On top of this, there are strong top-down (normalising interest rates, fanning expectations of rising interest rates and so on) and bottom-up (so-called prudent controls on credit and increased regulations to restrain exuberance in credit growth worldwide) measures, making for a plausible disinflationary scenario in the short term with a high risk of deflation in the medium term (if these top-down and bottom-up measures are overdone). The top-down factors keep the monetary base restrained, while the bottom-up factors discourage the speeding up of the velocity of money circulation.

China’s recent devaluation of the renminbi has also not helped the cause of keeping export prices stable in the world’s manufacturing engine.

While global financial markets have been plagued by these three issues, the real es-

on the ground? Let us use Japan as a case study.

Chart 2 shows that when deflation was pronounced in the early part of the last decade, real estate yields in Japan remained high. When deflationary pres-sures began to ease towards 2006, yields fell. In 2008, when inflation spiked, yields came down to a trough before rising significantly in 2009, when defla-tion returned. Lately, when inflation in Japan stood well above zero, yields be-gan to come off.

In practically all countries excluding Japan, inflation ruled and it was hard

to ascertain how yields would behave when deflation set in. Previously, this did not really matter because Ja-pan seemed like an isolated case. Now that deflation is increasingly being floated among global money man-agers, we should be more wary of how real estate re-turns would function in such an environment. Looking at how Japan’s real estate performed in the last decade may provide the best indication of how our real estate market will function if deflation does set in.

Yield in real estate is defined as annual income divid-ed by the capital value. This yield or capitalisation rate has two components: the current rental element and fu-ture growth in rents. Therefore, if we say that the yield of Grade A offices here is 3.75%, it is a percentage that has taken into account the future rental growth. If the average long-term rental growth is 4% a year, then yield under zero rental inflation should be 7.75% (3.75% + 4%). This 7.75% represents the required rental return for Grade A offices where there are no rental increases. Most of the time, we take yield for granted, forgetting about the return if no positive lease reversions occur. However, when deflation is in play, this number becomes important because it becomes the base from which to ascertain what the yield or capitalisation rate should be if rental growth reversions are zero or negative. To illustrate, if rental deflation is 1% a year, then instead of subtracting this from 7.75%, it should be added to it, giving us an 8.75% yield or cap rate.

Infl ation and yieldsWith the technical bit behind us, we now have a clear-er understanding of why, in a deflationary environment, yields increase. Empirically, we saw that being played out in Japan. The explanation is that when there is neg-ative rental growth, one would require a higher pres-ent yield to offset future reversionary losses. It must be pointed out that other factors are also at play in deter-mining yield. These factors include interest rates, pol-itics and specific factors pertaining to the type of real estate, such as its age and tenure. Nevertheless, it is un-deniable that in the case of Japan, inflation and its re-verse affect yields.

Returning to Grade A offices here, we find that the 10-year average net yield from 2Q2003 to 1Q2013 was 5.3%, with rents growing at 4.5% a year. From 2Q2005 to 2Q2015, net yields averaged 4.9%. However, with lower yields came higher rental growth, which aver-aged 6.6% a year. In some way, this gives a hint that the net yield compression effect being a trade-off for higher rental growth also applies to Singapore’s Grade A offices.

If we take the analysis a step further by removing the impact of interest rates — that is, we take the dif-ference between office yields and the 10-year govern-ment bond — the result does not change (see Chart 3 on Page EP6). From 1990 to 2Q2008, office rental growth in the Central Area was flat. In 2007, anyone building a spreadsheet would have used the previous 10- to 15-year negligible rental growth to input into the capitalisation rate. This probably explained why the yield spread from 2000 to 2Q2008 had been generally higher than in the last couple of years. From 3Q2008

CONTINUES ON PAGE EP6

| BY ALAN CHEONG |

tate industry has been car-rying on as normal — partly because these developments only came to a head recent-ly when the Chinese econo-my started to decelerate and with it came the chill of a li-quidity winter. Despite the outbreak of a crisis in Europe and the US economy still lan-guishing, Asia brushed these aside and commentators have been quick to opine that Asia is still the engine of growth. In countries in which the real es-tate markets had experienced long-term rent-al and capital appreciation, the risk is that of unexpected deflation. Should deflation trades become an entry in global money managers’ new playbook, how will real estate prices be-have as the reactions in the financial markets spill over to property?

What happens in defl ationary environment?We have been indoctrinated with the adage that real estate is a hedge against inflation, never asking what happens if the environment is de-flationary rather than inflationary. What hap-pens when things are in reverse gear?

The income capitalisation formula can pro-vide some insights. In this math, future income growth is deducted from the yield (r - g) to give us the capitalisation rate (r is the required rate of return and g is the rental growth rate). However, in a deflationary environment, that growth turns negative and will therefore be added back to the yield factor. This means that in a deflationary environment, yields should be higher. Does this financial math pan out

Chart 1

Chart 2

If you wish to contribute columns, please write in to propertyeditor.sg@bizedge.com

THEEDGE SINGAPORE | SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 • EP3

THEEDGE P R O P E R T Y PROPERTY TAKE

How do investors form their expectations?

If you wish to contribute columns, please write in to propertyeditor.sg@bizedge.com

How do investors form and update their expectations?” This question recently attracted much attention in academ-ic literature. It has been puzzling how

real estate investors and developers form and review their expectations about real estate re-turns amid market uncertainties. Past studies have shown that many investors use information in their own buildings as references to make their projections about future price gyrations. In this context, when investors of residential apartments observe unpredictable shocks that affect returns, they ought to be more capable than other investors in office and industrial buildings to evaluate the impact of shocks on residential apartment returns.

There are two schools of thought about in-vestors’ expectation formation. The first school argues that investors are rational and they could adjust their expected rate of returns ef-ficiently in responding to ex-post fundamental changes (such as rent increases). They believe that investors make incredibly (but unrealisti-cally) optimistic predictions of future income growth rates after prices have risen. The sec-ond school finds that investor sentiment sig-nificantly drives expected real estate market returns. In the US, institutional investor sur-vey data collected by commercial firms such as PwC and Real Estate Research Corp have been used to derive proxies to measure inves-tor sentiment. Studies using this survey-based data have found significant evidence of sen-timent-induced mispricing in public commer-cial real estate markets.

Developing the first real estate sentiment index in SingaporeThe real estate market is an important com-ponent of the Singapore’s economy. Effects of economic fundamentals and market sentiment in driving real estate market cycles and perfor-mance are not mutually exclusive. Thus, it is important to develop a market sentiment index for the purposes of understanding and fore-casting future movements in real estate prices.

The Singapore government, via its two agen-cies — the Economic Development Board (EDB) and the Department of Statistics (DOS), con-ducts two independent quarterly business ex-pectations surveys for the manufacturing and services industries, respectively. These two

business confidence indicators are wide-ly used by policymakers and investors in financial markets. Details of the two sur-veys are summarised below:• The Business Expectations Survey by

EDB is a quarterly survey focusing on the six-month business outlook for the manufacturing sector, including chem-ical, transport engineering, electronics and precision engineering. It covers 400 firms, and respondents are asked to indi-cate their expectations on general busi-ness conditions and other indicators such as output and employment; and

• The Business Expectations Survey by DOS is a quarterly survey focusing on the six-month business outlook for the services sector. The sample includes some 1,400 enterprises in wholesale trade, retail trade, transport and storage services, hotels, ca-tering trade, information and communica-tions services, financial and insurance ser-vices, real estate and business services. Despite the importance of the real estate

sector, there was no formal indicator to track the sentiment of developers in the local real estate market until 2010. The real estate de-velopers’ body of Singapore, the Real Estate Developers’ Association of Singapore (Redas), collaborated with the National University of Singapore’s Department of Real Estate (DRE) in 1Q2010 to initiate a project to create a Real Estate Sentiment Index (Resi) in Singapore. Resi is intended to be an established barometer for the health of the local real estate market.

About ResiResi measures the perceptions and expecta-tions of real estate development and market conditions in Singapore. It aims to provide a timely and useful indicator for market players such as developers, financial institutions and consultants in formulating their market strat-egies and forecasts. It can also provide useful market inputs for government agencies in the urban planning and policymaking process.

A survey based on a structured question-naire is conducted among senior executives of Redas member firms. The survey will be con-ducted quarterly in March, June, September and December. Responses from the sample firms will be managed with the utmost care

January September

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Mid Mar: Email 1Q questionnaire to members

End-Jan: Release of 4Q RESI

October

November

December

End-Apr: Release of 1Q RESI

End-Jul: Release of 2Q RESI

End-Oct:Release of 3Q RESI

Mid Jun: Email 2Q questionnaire to members

Mid Sept: Email 3Q questionnaire to members

Early Dec: Email 4Q questionnaire to members

Mid Apr: Collate completed 1Q questionnaire

Mid Jul: Collate completed 2Q questionnaire

Mid Oct: Collate completed 3Q questionnaire

Mid Jan: Collate completed 4Q questionnaire

Deteriorate0 5 10

ImproveNo Change1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9

Real Estate Sentiment Indices at 2Q2015

Composite Resi, stock return and private property returns

RESI

, @N

US A

ND

REDA

SCO

MPO

SITE

RES

I; UR

A PP

I; ST

I

10.0

7.0

4.0

9.0

6.0

3.0

8.0

5.0

2.0

01.0

10.0

7.0

4.0

9.0

6.0

3.0

8.0

5.0

2.0

01.0

50

20

-10

40

10

-20

30

0

2Q10

2Q11

2Q12

2Q13

2Q14

2Q15

4Q10

4Q11

4Q12

4Q13

4Q14

3Q10

3Q11

3Q12

3Q13

3Q14

1Q11

1Q12

1Q13

1Q14

1Q15

2Q10

2Q11

2Q12

2Q13

2Q14

2Q15

4Q10

4Q11

4Q12

4Q13

4Q14

3Q10

3Q11

3Q12

3Q13

3Q14

1Q11

1Q12

1Q13

1Q14

1Q15

Composite Sentiment Index STI Price Return (%)

to maintain strict confidentiality. The survey responses are used to construct three indices. Resi comprises a Current Sentiment Index and a Future Sentiment Index, which track mar-ket sentiments over the past and following six months, respectively, and a Composite Senti-ment Index, which is the derived indicator for the current overall market sentiment.

What do the indices measure? The questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first part of eight questions cover recur-rent questions to quantify respondents’ per-ceptions and expectations on the current and future conditions of the local real estate mar-ket conditions. The questions include: • Assessment of real estate market conditions

in the past six months as well as expecta-tions for the next six months;

• Assessment of performance of individual asset classes in the previous six months as well as likely future trends in the next six months;

• Views on the current equity and debt cap-ital markets compared with the past six months as well as the six-month outlook;

• Six-month outlooks with regard to govern-ment land sales (GLS), en-bloc sales, pro-ject launches and unit pricing; and

• Identifying the level of concern on devel-opment cost over the next six months.

Resi scores range from 0 to 10 and are used to measure the extent of pessimism or optimism of the survey respondents (“0” = Deteriorate; “5” = No Change; “10” = Improve) (Chart 1):

A simple average methodology is adopted to compute the scores for the Current Sentiment Index and Future Sentiment Index. A Compos-ite Sentiment Index is calculated by taking the

simple weighted average of the two indices.A “net balance percentage” approach

is adopted to derive the scores for key de-terminants of the real estate market sen-timent. The net balance is defined as the difference between the proportion of re-spondents who have selected the positive options (“Better” and “Increase”) and those who have selected the negative options (“Worse” and “Decrease”). The respond-ents who have selected the neutral option (“Same” and “Maintain”) are omitted from the calculation in this exercise.

Part II consists of two “hot topics”, which are used to obtain respondents’ views and feed-back on public policies affecting real estate mar-kets. The quarterly Resi survey results are re-leased and made available on the 28th day of January, April, July and October (see Chart 2).

Real estate sentiment in 2Q2015Since its launch in 2Q2010, NUS-Redas Resi has been providing alternative measures for real estate market outlooks and performance. Chart 3 shows that the three Resi indices con-verged to 3.9 as in 2Q2015. Chart 4 shows that the real estate market sentiment that has been deteriorating since the start of Resi has seemed to reflect the declines in private property mar-ket prices as indicated by the URA index. The correlations between the Composite Index and the URA Private Property Price Return and the Straits Times Index Return were estimated at 0.71 and 0.65, respectively.

Looking aheadResi is not meant to substitute the existing trans-action-based real estate price indices by URA-PPI and NUS-IRES SRPI. Instead, it supplements the existing indices and offers an alternative in-dicator, which is a more forward-looking meas-ure that could capture information that is not correlated with market fundamentals.

Sing Tien Foo is dean’s chair associate professor at and deputy director of the Institute of Real Estate Studies; and deputy head of the Depart-ment of Real Estate at the National University of Singapore. Lim Benjamin is research analyst at the Real Estate Developers’ Association of Singapore. They can be reached at rststf@nus.edu.sg and benjamin@redas.com respectively.

Chart 1

Chart 2

Chart 3

Chart 4

| BY SING TIEN FOO & LIM BENJAMIN |

E

Resi score

Quarterly Resi survey results

rstst

benjcom

EP4 • THEEDGE SINGAPORE | SEPTEMBER 14, 2015

THEEDGE P R O P E R T Y COVER STORY

Rental yields of four- and fi ve-room resale HDB fl ats within 500m of Tampines MRT station

Four- and fi ve-room rental yields at The Premiere comparably lower than nearby resale HDBCity View @ Boon Keng and Park Central @

AMK will likely net profi ts for the sellers

Table 2

Table 3Table 4

Many DBSS projects located in central areas and near MRT stations

HDB resale projects offer better rental yieldsFour- and five-room units at The Premiere command relatively low-er rental yields ranging from 4.4% to 5.3% compared with nearby re-sale HDB flats, which posted rent-al yields of above 5.5% based on the transactions over the past year (see Tables 2 and 3). Rental yields for The Premiere and nearby resale HDB flats were generated using the “Location Scan” tool on TheEdge-Property.com. The tool allows users to scan for properties within a 100m to 3km radius of a selected location or landmark, and obtain informa-

tion on their prices, rents and yields.Notwithstanding the stronger

price and rental performance of re-sale HDB flats, many DBSS projects still hold the trump card of being lo-cated in central areas and near MRT stations. Early DBSS projects have also ridden the HDB price rally over the years. It is quite safe to say DBSS projects City View @ Boon Keng and Park Central @ AMK, which will hit the resale market next year, will net profits for their sellers. Notably, new resale HDB flats near City View @ Boon Keng and Park Central @ AMK were recently transacted above the launch price of the two projects (see Table 4).

TABL

ES: H

DB, T

HE E

DGE

PRO

PERT

Y

PROJECT LEASE COMPLETION AVG PRICE SALES AVG RENT RENTAL RENTALNAME START ($ PSM) VOLUME ($ PSM PM) VOLUME YIELD (%)

401 Tampines 99 years 1985 4,537 4 28.7 4 7.6Street 41 from 1985159 Tampines 99 years 1984 5,149 3 28.6 7 6.7Street 12 from 1984237 Tampines 99 years 1984 4,582 3 23.3 5 6.1Street 21 from 1984503 Tampines 99 years 1990 4,701 4 23.3 8 6.0Central 1 from 1990241 Tampines 99 years 1985 4,833 3 24.3 4 6.0Street 21 from 1985268 Tampines 99 years 1984 4,279 6 19.7 6 5.5Street 21 from 1984

PROJECT LEASE COMPLETION AVG PRICE SALES AVG RENT RENTAL RENTALNAME START ($ PSM) VOLUME ($ PSM PM) VOLUME YIELD (%)

515A Tampines 99 years 2008 6,021 6 26.8 2 5.3Central 7 from 2008515B Tampines 99 years 2008 6,131 7 23.8 4 4.7Central 7 from 2008515C Tampines 99 years 2008 6,130 8 24.1 3 4.7Central 7 from 2008518A Tampines 99 years 2008 6,275 2 23.1 5 4.4Central 7 from 2008518B Tampines 99 years 2008 6,174 8 23.1 5 4.5Central 7 from 2008518D Tampines 99 years 2008 6,114 6 25.3 4 5.0Central 7 from 2008

FROM PAGE EP1

PROJECT ROOM LAUNCH RECENT HDB NO OFNAME TYPE PRICE ($) RESALE PRICES ($)* TRANSACTIONS

City View @ 4-Room 523,000 675,000 1Boon Keng to 597,000 5-Room 536,000 800,000 1 to 727,000 Park Central 4-Room 400,000 500,000 7@ AMK to 500,000 to 633,000 5-Room 600,000 760,000 2 to 700,000 to 780,000

*Based on HDB projects sold in 2015 that are located within 500m from the respective DBSS project and completed after year 2000

E

THEEDGE SINGAPORE | SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 • EP5

FROM PAGE EP2

to 2Q2015, the rental trend line was positive and we see the yield spread falling.

The relationship between yield and capital value is an exponential decay function — as yield increases or decreases from a low base, capital value falls and increases fast respec-tively. The sensitivity of capital values to net yield changes becomes especially pronounced when the latter are at very low levels. A small increase or decline in yields will exacerbate val-ue changes down and up respectively.

Singapore’s office net yields are current-ly hovering in the lower end of the historical 15-year range and that is not a very comfort-ing zone to be in because if long-term rental deflation (or even disinflation) becomes the baseline scenario, its effect on capital val-ues will be significant and in a direction that many will find discomforting. Although, for an open economy like Singapore, it is hard to sterilise the economy entirely from exter-nalities such as inflation, there are several paths within the real estate sector that play-ers can manoeuvre to mitigate any ill-winds of deflation.

Measures to counter rental defl ationFor the office sector, one measure that could be taken to dampen the negative effect of rent-al deflation is restricting the supply of govern-ment land sales for commercial developments. Instead of offering large blocs, consider offer-ing smaller office developments that cater to

businesses that require less space. The other measure may be to tighten the definition of what is allowed in a business park space to reduce demand seepages from traditional of-fice space users. Another control, which af-fects lower-grade office space, is to increase enforcement against the illegal use of indus-trial spaces. Other broader strategies include a relook at the necessity of developing large regional centres.

For landlords of buildings with large floor plates who believe their properties face medi-um- to long-term negative rental reversions, exploring ways to subdivide the space may be a viable option. Having said that, the lati-tude a landlord has to combat negative rental

reversions is less than that available to those who make macro policy decisions.

Real estate professionals are used to work-ing in an environment where the assump-tion of a long-term increase in both price and rental is a given. Should the reverse occur, it will certainly throw seasoned players off bal-ance because the existence of loans and legal covenants does not facilitate a seamless sym-metrical shift to reverse gear. There shall be great angst. The industry may not be think-ing about this seriously because spreadsheets are still constructed assuming positive rental reversions and institutions of higher learning continue to explicate the view (not incorrect, though) that real estate is a hedge against in-

flation. For lenders, they are lending based on valuation methods that either assume the ex-istence of inflation in a discounted cash flow analysis or, if adopting a market comparable approach, a strong inflationary bias.

To be honest, whether deflation occurs in our real estate market is moot. Policymakers may reverse their actions and reopen the credit spigots again. Cooling measures could be lifted or rolled back. Even if deflation does exist in the consumer market, it is not clear how it will affect the various real estate sectors. The office sector may be driven by its own set of deter-minants. However, for certain sectors such as retail, there are definitely price pressures. The proliferation of online shops is driving down prices. This price decline is largely owing to a structural change in the business of retailing.

Nevertheless, deflation may not be entirely bad, as new opportunities will appear. For exam-ple, in the retail real estate sector, the burgeoning online market spurs demand for logistics space. For the private residential leasing sector, lower rental-paying capacity will increase the attrac-tiveness of multi-room abodes that are let out to multiple tenants. Still, in these strangest of times, the level of vigilance must be increased. Those in the real estate and related industries should start looking hard into this issue of what if we don’t have rental increases.

Alan Cheong is head of research and consul-tancy at Savills Singapore. He can be reached at alan.cheong@savills.com.sg.

Deflation may not be entirely bad

E

Chart 3

THEEDGE P R O P E R T Y PROPERTY TAKE

Yields under deflationary and inflationary rental periods

URA

, SAV

ILLS

RES

EARC

H &

CO

NSU

LTAN

CY

%

1Q20

15

1Q20

14

1Q20

13

1Q20

12

1Q20

11

1Q20

10

1Q20

09

1Q20

08

1Q20

07

1Q20

06

1Q20

05

1Q20

04

1Q20

03

1Q20

02

1Q20

01

1Q20

00

1Q19

99

1Q19

98

1Q19

97

1Q19

96

1Q19

95

1Q19

94

1Q19

93

1Q19

92

1Q19

91

1Q19

90

250

200

150

100

50

0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0

Central Area Rental Index 1990-2005Central Area Rental Index 2006-2Q2015Yield Spread to 10-year Govt Bond (RHS)Linear (Central Area Rental Index 1990-2005)Linear (Central Area Rental Index 2006-2Q2015)Linear (Yield Spread to 10-year Govt Bond (RHS))

Grand Mandarina (御华庭) is a fi ne dining restau-rant serving Cantonese cuisine with a touch of modern fusion. Centrally located in the heart of Singapore’s Chinatown, it is one of a few restau-rants in Singapore serving the legendary Empurau — one of the most expensive freshwater fi shes in the world. The roasts have also been highly recom-mended by local food critic Wong Ah Yoke.

The restaurant has modern black and gold furnishings and high ceilings, refl ecting grandeur and elegance. Seating on the second storey provides a private dining experi-ence for parties of up to 18 in its VIP rooms. The restaurant with a full seating capacity of 150 (80 pax on the fi rst level and 70 pax on the second level) is also equipped with projectors and fl at screen televisions, making it ideal for corporate presentation events. It has hosted numerous functions from simple wedding dinners to corporate talks and luncheons. Grand Mandarina’s lush enviroment coupled with its friendly service staff and delectable cuisine, makes it an excellent venue for any event.

SAVE 52%

FREE! $50 dining voucher at Grand Mandarina

GRAND MANDARINA RESTAURANT325 New Bridge Road

#01/02-00Singapore 088760

www.grandmandarina.com.sg

Operating Hours:Lunch: 11:30am to 2:30pm

Dinner: 6:30pm to 10:00pmFor reservations, please call: 6222 3355

VALUE PLAN1-Year subscription at

$124 onlyThe Edge Singapore

(Print + 1 digital access)

YES! Start my annual subscription now.

$138.00 (Inclusive of GST) for The Edge Singapore All-in-one Plan

Print + 3 digital access on any of your preferred devices

$124.00 (Inclusive of GST) for The Edge Singapore Value Plan and save 52%

Print + 1 digital access on any of your preferred device

Desktop

Tablet

Smartphone

(Please select only one)

$118.00 (Inclusive of GST) 52 issues of The Edge Singapore in print only

TYPE OF SUBSCRIPTION

Corporate

Personal

Gift

Last name (Mr/Ms/Dr )

First name

Company

Job Title

Delivery Address

Home

Offi ce

Postal Code

Tel Fax

Mobile Email

Date Of Birth

PAYMENT OPTIONS

1. Credit Card. Please charge to my credit card

American Express

MasterCard

Visa

Cardholder’s name

Contact No Email

Card no

Expiry date Signature

2. Cheque. My cheque payable to “The Edge Publishing Pte Ltd” is enclosed

Cheque no

3. Online. Visit subscribe.theedgesingapore.com

4. Phone. Please call 6232 8622 (Monday to Friday 9am to 5.30pm)

Mail the duly completed subscription form and cheque to:

The Edge Publishing Pte Ltd

150 Cecil Street #08-01 Singapore 069543

Tel: 6232 8622 Fax: 6232 8630 Email: hotlinespore@bizedge.com

*This special promotion ends on September 30, 2015. Subscription to The Edge Singapore is non-cancellable and non-refundable.

The Edge Singapore (print version): Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery to commence. Delivery charges apply for

non-Singapore addresses. Dining voucher limited to fi rst 200 subscribers each month.

(for access to the digital replica of The Edge Singapore)

(if different from above)

TES694/GRAND MANDARINA

(NOTE: CVV number is not required for processing payment)

EP6 • THEEDGE SINGAPORE | SEPTEMBER 14, 2015

THEEDGE SINGAPORE | SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 • EP7

THEEDGE P R O P E R T Y FACTS + FIGURES

Commercial transactions

New caveats published on Aug 28 and Sept 1

PROJECT PRICE ($) PRICE ($ PSF) FLOOR AREA (SQ FT) TENURE COMPLETION DATE TYPE OF SALE DISTRICT CONTRACT DATENON-LANDED Core Central Region 1 Ardmore Park 8,000,000 2,773 1 to 5 2,885 Freehold 2001 Resale 10 12-Aug-152 Leedon Residence 4,660,000 1,753 6 to 10 2,659 Freehold 2015 New Sale 10 23-Aug-153 Leedon Residence 4,510,890 2,117 6 to 10 2,131 Freehold 2015 New Sale 10 17-Aug-154 Leedon Residence 4,459,000 2,092 6 to 10 2,131 Freehold 2015 New Sale 10 18-Aug-155 Leedon Residence 4,437,990 2,082 6 to 10 2,131 Freehold 2015 New Sale 10 17-Aug-15Rest of Central Region 1 Silversea 4,938,000 2,003 16 to 20 2,465 99 years 2014 Resale 15 20-Aug-152 Pebble Bay 4,250,000 1,390 1 to 5 3,057 99 years 1997 Resale 15 11-Aug-153 Sennett Residence 3,700,000 1,074 16 to 20 3,444 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 13 20-Aug-154 Costa Rhu 3,080,000 1,376 11 to 15 2,239 99 years 1997 Resale 15 11-Aug-155 Sky Habitat 2,864,070 1,632 26 to 30 1,755 99 years 2015 New Sale 20 20-Aug-15Outside Central Region 1 Flamingo Valley 3,138,000 1,220 1 to 5 2,573 Freehold 2014 New Sale 15 21-Aug-152 Parc Palais 2,620,000 978 6 to 10 2,680 Freehold 1999 Resale 21 20-Aug-153 Carabelle 2,300,000 1,107 11 to 15 2,077 956 years 2009 Resale 5 12-Aug-154 The Hacienda 2,196,000 1,000 1 to 5 2,196 Freehold 1986 Resale 15 17-Aug-155 Chestnut Ville 2,180,000 827 NA 2,637 999 years 1984 Resale 23 14-Aug-15Shoebox 1 Robin Residences 1,260,000 2,341 1 to 5 538 Freehold Uncompleted New Sale 10 19-Aug-152 8M Residences 950,000 1,801 1 to 5 527 Freehold Uncompleted New Sale 15 23-Aug-153 Hilbre28 798,892 1,613 1 to 5 495 999 years Uncompleted New Sale 19 23-Aug-154 Kingsford . Hillview Peak 747,000 1,416 6 to 10 527 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 23 19-Jul-155 Rezi 3Two 707,000 1,428 6 to 10 495 Freehold Uncompleted New Sale 14 23-Aug-15LANDED STREET NAME PRICE ($) PRICE ($ PSF) PROPERTY TYPE AREA (SQ FT) TENURE COMPLETION DATE TYPE OF SALE DISTRICT CONTRACT DATE1 Coronation Road 6,000,000 1,549 Semi-Detached 3,875 Freehold Uncompleted New Sale 10 13-Aug-152 Sixth Avenue 5,360,000 1,104 Semi-Detached 4,855* Freehold 2015 Resale 10 18-Aug-153 Sixth Avenue 4,907,880 1,068 Semi-Detached 4,596* Freehold 2015 Resale 10 10-Jul-154 Jalan Lembah Thomson 4,800,000 1,044 Detached 4,596 Freehold Unknown Resale 20 20-Aug-155 Siak Kew Avenue 4,500,000 1,334 Semi-Detached 3,369 Freehold 2015 Resale 13 12-Jun-15HDB STREET NAME PRICE ($) FLOOR FLAT TYPE AREA (SQ FT) TENURE COMPLETION DATE TYPE OF SALE TOWN REGISTRATION DATE1 120A Kim Tian Place 783,888 16 to 18 4-Room 1,076 99 years 2001 Resale Bukit Merah 24-Aug-152 232 Bain Street 730,000 22 to 24 4-Room 882 99 years 1980 Resale Central Area 24-Aug-153 1 Everton Park 720,888 7 to 9 5-Room 1,367 99 years 1980 Resale Bukit Merah 24-Aug-154 125 Tampines Street 11 670,000 1 to 3 Executive 1,582 99 years 1985 Resale Tampines 24-Aug-155 116 Bukit Merah Central 660,000 4 to 6 5-Room 1,259 99 years 1977 Resale Bukit Merah 24-Aug-15

PROJECT PRICE ($) PRICE ($ PSF) FLOOR AREA (SQ FT) TENURE COMPLETION DATE TYPE OF SALE DISTRICT CONTRACT DATENON-LANDED Core Central Region 1 Mulberry Tree 1,030,000 1,622 1 to 5 635 Freehold 2010 Resale 11 19-Aug-152 One Shenton 1,057,420 1,819 11 to 15 581 99 years 2011 Resale 1 17-Aug-153 Wilkie Studio 1,300,000 1,632 1 to 5 797 Freehold 2010 Resale 9 17-Aug-154 St Martin Residence 1,308,000 2,095 1 to 5 624 Freehold 2001 Resale 10 18-Aug-155 The Pier At Robertson 1,350,000 1,991 1 to 5 678 Freehold 2006 Resale 9 18-Aug-15Rest of Central Region 1 Sims Urban Oasis 831,546 1,332 1 to 5 624 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 14 13-May-152 Haig 162 840,000 1,394 1 to 5 603 Freehold 2013 Resale 15 3-Jul-153 Sunflower Court 860,000 824 6 to 10 1,044 Freehold 2001 Resale 14 20-Aug-154 Sims Urban Oasis 900,000 1,442 16 to 20 624 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 14 29-May-155 Kemaman Point 940,000 1,105 11 to 15 850 Freehold 1993 Resale 12 13-Jul-15Outside Central Region 1 High Park Residences 667,000 984 1 to 5 678 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 28 16-Aug-152 Vue 8 Residence 668,800 1,036 1 to 5 646 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 18 23-Aug-153 High Park Residences 680,000 1,003 16 to 20 678 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 28 15-Aug-154 Vacanza @ East 715,000 1,277 1 to 5 560 Freehold 2014 Resale 14 5-Aug-155 Rivervale Crest 725,000 774 1 to 5 936 99 years 2002 Resale 19 17-Aug-15Shoebox 1 High Park Residences 407,000 970 1 to 5 420 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 28 15-Aug-152 Kingsford Waterbay 538,000 1,111 1 to 5 484 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 19 19-Aug-153 Kingsford Waterbay 538,000 1,136 6 to 10 474 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 19 11-Aug-154 Kingsford Waterbay 540,000 1,140 6 to 10 474 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 19 13-Aug-155 Kingsford Waterbay 543,000 1,121 6 to 10 484 99 years Uncompleted New Sale 19 11-Aug-15LANDED STREET NAME PRICE ($) PRICE ($ PSF) PROPERTY TYPE AREA (SQ FT) TENURE COMPLETION DATE TYPE OF SALE DISTRICT CONTRACT DATE1 Loyang Rise 1,430,000 874 Terrace 1,636 99 years 1995 Resale 17 17-Aug-152 Westwood Avenue 1,618,000 752 Terrace 2,153 99 years 1997 Resale 22 30-Jun-153 Chiap Guan Avenue 1,730,000 1,000 Terrace 1,733 999 years Unknown Resale 19 13-Aug-154 Swan Lake Avenue 1,800,000 1,138 Terrace 1,582 Freehold Unknown Resale 15 20-Aug-155 Macpherson Road 1,880,000 1,171 Terrace 1,604 Freehold 1958 Resale 13 18-Aug-15

PROJECT PRICE ($) PRICE ($ PSF) FLOOR AREA (SQ FT) TENURE TYPE OF SALE PLANNING AREA CONTRACT DATESHOPHOUSE1 Haji Lane 4,400,000 8,753 NA 506 999 years Resale Rochor 17-Aug-152 Beatty Road 1,600,000 1,260 NA 1,270* Freehold Resale Kallang 18-Aug-15RETAIL1 City Gate 2,000,000 4,039 1 to 5 495 99 years New Sale Kallang 12-May-152 Far East Plaza 1,800,000 5,972 1 to 5 301 Freehold Resale Orchard 17-Aug-153 Alexis 1,150,000 4,452 1 to 5 258 Freehold Resale Queenstown 14-Aug-154 Beauty World Plaza 950,000 2,847 1 to 5 334 999 years Resale Bukit Timah 17-Aug-155 High Park Residences 861,000 2,500 1 to 5 344 99 years New Sale Sengkang 18-Aug-156 Cuppage Plaza 842,868 2,175 1 to 5 388 99 years Resale Orchard 5-Aug-157 Cuppage Plaza 797,132 2,178 1 to 5 366 99 years Resale Orchard 5-Aug-158 Cavan Suites 750,000 1,935 1 to 5 388 Freehold Resale Kallang 18-Aug-15OFFICE 1 Vision Exchange 2,836,000 2,160 16 to 20 1,313 99 years New Sale Jurong East 22-May-152 Paya Lebar Square 2,050,000 1,924 6 to 10 1,066 99 years Sub Sale Geylang 4-Aug-153 Vision Exchange 1,766,000 2,311 6 to 10 764 99 years New Sale Jurong East 24-Jul-154 International Plaza 1,010,000 2,182 16 to 20 463 99 years Resale Downtown Core 18-Aug-15STRATA INDUSTRIAL 1 Tuas Road 2,500,000 139 NA 17,965 30 years Resale Tuas 6-Aug-152 Eastpoint Terrace 2,344,650 330 NA 7,104 30 years Resale Bedok 14-Aug-153 Enterprise One 1,253,840 560 1 to 5 2,239 60 years Resale Bedok 6-Aug-154 Tannery House 1,253,760 640 1 to 5 1,959 Freehold Resale Geylang 20-Aug-155 Da Jin Factory Building 1,080,000 843 1 to 5 1,281 Freehold Resale Hougang 17-Aug-156 Toh Guan Centre 1,028,000 415 1 to 5 2,476 60 years Resale Clementi 18-Aug-157 North Link Building 900,000 173 1 to 5 5,188 60 years Resale Sembawang 11-Aug-158 iSpace 815,000 476 1 to 5 1,711 30 years Resale Jurong West 17-Aug-159 Eco-Tech@Sunview 665,660 256 1 to 5 2,605 30 years New Sale Boon Lay 31-Jul-1510 Empire Technocentre 650,000 387 1 to 5 1,679 60 years Resale Bedok 11-Aug-1511 Eco-Tech@Sunview 636,365 244 1 to 5 2,605 30 years New Sale Boon Lay 4-Aug-1512 Pantech Business Hub 565,000 469 1 to 5 1,206 99 years Resale Clementi 18-Aug-15

TABL

ES: H

DB, U

RA, T

HE E

DGE

PRO

PERT

Y

Bottom 5 deals (by transacted price)

Top 5 deals (by transacted price)

*Refers to strata area. Otherwise, area stated for shophouses and landed properties refers to land area.

EP8 • THEEDGE SINGAPORE | SEPTEMBER 14, 2015

NON-LANDED

PROJECT DISTRICT AREA (SQ FT) SOLD ON SALES PRICE ($) BOUGHT ON PURCHASE PRICE ($) PROFIT ($) PROFIT (%) HOLDING PERIOD (YEARS)

1 Marina Bay Residences 1 1,636 17-Aug-15 4,390,000 20-Jan-09 2,500,000 1,890,000 76 6.6 2 Trevose Park 11 1,927 19-Aug-15 2,700,000 16-Jun-05 1,068,000 1,632,000 153 10.2 3 Montview 10 1,679 17-Aug-15 2,150,000 4-Jan-06 1,147,205 1,002,795 87 9.6 4 The Berth By The Cove 4 1,884 11-Aug-15 2,500,000 22-Dec-04 1,542,840 957,160 62 10.6 5 Casabella 10 1,292 13-Jul-15 2,100,000 22-Dec-08 1,150,000 950,000 83 6.6 6 Emerald Park 3 1,163 29-Jul-15 1,420,000 29-Jun-06 512,000 908,000 177 9.1 7 Citylights 8 926 8-Jul-15 1,400,000 29-Dec-04 556,200 843,800 152 10.5 8 Pavilion 11 11 1,485 20-Aug-15 2,064,000 18-Apr-07 1,236,750 827,250 67 8.3 9 Ardmore Park 10 2,885 12-Aug-15 8,000,000 20-Jun-07 7,200,000 800,000 11 8.2 10 Aspen Heights 9 1,582 18-Aug-15 2,325,000 15-Feb-07 1,550,000 775,000 50 8.5 LANDED

1 Semi-Detached/Lorong 1 Realty Park 19 5,070 19-Aug-15 3,900,000 6-Jun-07 1,430,000 2,470,000 173 8.2 2 Semi-Detached/Crowhurst Drive 19 4,209 23-Jul-15 3,980,000 27-Jul-07 2,000,000 1,980,000 99 8.0 3 Semi-Detached/Gray Lane 15 3,778 20-Aug-15 4,000,000 9-Oct-09 2,100,000 1,900,000 90 5.9 4 Terrace/Cardiff Grove 19 3,003 17-Aug-15 3,400,000 6-Jan-11 2,100,000 1,300,000 62 4.6

5 Terrace/Pasir Panjang Road 5 1,905 13-Aug-15 3,180,000 12-Aug-09 2,000,000 1,180,000 59 6.0

PROJECT DISTRICT AREA (SQ FT) SOLD ON SALES PRICE ($) BOUGHT ON PURCHASE PRICE ($) LOSS ($) LOSS (%) HOLDING PERIOD (YEARS)

1 Draycott Eight 10 1,647 11-Aug-15 2,930,000 9-May-07 3,400,000 470,000 14 8.3 2 Woodsville 28 13 1,399 6-Aug-15 1,155,000 9-Dec-11 1,480,000 325,000 22 3.7 3 Cairnhill Crest 9 1,733 17-Aug-15 3,220,000 18-May-06 3,368,000 148,000 4 9.3 4 Jupiter 18 15 388 18-Aug-15 585,000 10-Mar-11 680,000 95,000 14 4.4 5 Neptune Court 15 1,270 24-Jul-15 880,000 4-Apr-11 970,000 90,000 9 4.3 6 The Rochester 5 1,701 18-Aug-15 2,330,000 2-Oct-07 2,403,101 73,101 3 7.9 7 Dahlia Park Condominium 17 1,119 14-Aug-15 815,000 18-Apr-11 846,000 31,000 4 4.3 8 Shiro 15 904 17-Aug-15 1,070,000 15-Jun-12 1,098,518 28,518 3 3.2 9 Ascentia Sky 3 1,851 14-Aug-15 2,578,888 9-Nov-11 2,581,700 2,812 0 3.8

New caveats published on Aug 28 and Sept 1

TABL

ES: U

RA, T

HE E

DGE

PRO

PERT

Y

Most profi table deals

Non-profi table deals

URA

, THE

EDG

E PR

OPE

RTY

Market trend

Weekly location scan: The Japanese School Singapore

HDB

, THE

EDG

E PR

OPE

RTY

Price statistics of resale projects within 1km of The Japanese School Singapore Rental statistics of resale projects within 1km of The Japanese School Singapore

Minimum Average Maximum

($) ($ per month)

HDB 4-Room, Clementi

Price ($ psf)

Price ($ psf)

Resale volume(units)

Resale volume(units)

Varsity Park Condominium

The Vision

Blue Horizon

ClementiwoodsCondominium

Varsity Park Condominium

The Vision

Blue Horizon

ClementiwoodsCondominium

0 0500,000 2,0001,000,000 4,0001,500,000 6,0002,000,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

HDB 3-Room, Clementi

The ‘location scan’ tool is available on TheEdgeProperty.com for registered users. Please write in to propertyeditor.sg@bizedge.com to request for access.

Market trend is available on TheEdgeProperty.com under ‘Analytics’

THEEDGE P R O P E R T Y FACTS + FIGURES

p

Average Price Resale Volume Average Price Resale Volume