SINGAPORE – Property investors with a lower budget but with a longer term perspective towards property purchases may look at the choices available in suburban areas instead of prime locations.

Analysts reckon that prices in upcoming suburban areas are still within reach and units there have upside potential as well, making them good investment opportunities.

Among the new coming areas that potential buyers can consider include Serangoon, Jurong Lake District and Punggol Waterfront Town, market experts said.

Mr Colin Tan, Chesterton Suntec International research and consultancy director, said: “Investors should identify areas with future potential and enter early to secure a pricing more reasonable than some of the developed areas. In the long term, say about five years, the price may rise 20 to 30 per cent.”

Mr Tan noted that since the opening of the Integrated Resorts, property prices in suburban areas have also increased sharply from between $400 and $450 per square foot to about $800 psf.

Experts said some developments within the suburban areas have become popular mainly because of their proximity to the new and less heavily-used Circle Line.

In addition, they observed that more expatriates are settling away from the prime areas as well, creating more rental opportunities for unit owners. “Expatriates are increasingly moving into suburban areas to save on the housing allowances. Meanwhile, a greater proportion of foreign and permanent resident Chinese and Indian buyers are also doing so because of their preference,” said Ms Chua Chor Hoon, senior director of research at property consultancy DTZ.

Among the new upcoming areas that are expected to see a vibrant community when fully developed are Kallang Riverside and Jurong Lakeside District.

When completed, Kallang Riverside will see a new Sports Hub, an additional 400,000 square metres of commercial space, 3,000 hotel rooms and more.

Meanwhile, the Jurong Lakeside district will be developed into a major regional centre, featuring a commercial hub and leisure destinations for locals and tourists.

“The overall development in these areas can give an uplift to prices in the region, ” Ms Chua added.

But industry experts noted that to keep the selling price palatable, developers may build smaller units.

In addition, Mr Tan cautioned: “Because these new sites need at least three to four years to develop fully, investors should be careful about timing the market and be prepared to hold the units.”

Meanwhile, for those with deeper pockets, industry watchers still recommend the prime area properties.

“For investment, it is good to buy into prime areas with good resale and rental value. In these areas, prices have not climbed to its peak and there is more upside, therefore, there is less price resistance,” said Ms Chua.

Source: Today, 30 Jul 2010

When the property market is on a roll, it is easy to forget that property prices move in cycles – that is, prices can and will eventually correct. I know of no mature economy which has seen an uninterrupted and sustained upward cycle. Cycles are part and parcel of the function of the modern economy.

In the early days, the evidence suggested that the Singapore private housing market had a cycle – from boom to bust – of about six to seven years.

For a healthy and growing economy like Singapore’s, these cycles oscillate around an upward sloping long-term trend line – that is, each boom and bust is higher than the previous high and low points.

However, with the onset of globalisation and the opening up of the Singapore economy to the world, our cycles appear to be growing alarmingly shorter and more pronounced after each boom and bust.

The more pronounced and shorter the cycles, the more speculators and investors it will attract because there is big money to be made in double-quick time.

The official price index showed that our most recent down-cycle lasted only four quarters. Our current up-cycle has just completed its fourth quarter. The sharp rebound that began in the second half of last year was peppered with two sets of cooling measures, which some say, helped to extend the life of the current up-cycle.

How much longer will this extension last?

The private housing market these days behaves more and more like the stock market, given the predominance of investors over owner occupiers. Shoebox apartments are akin to penny stocks or warrants, more to speculate with than to live in.

It is quite clear that there is now a “buzz” about the Singapore economy which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said was missing before. Foreign visitors tell me they feel it too, an excitement about the city which they did not experience on their previous trips.

This explains why our properties look extremely attractive to outsiders. Even foreign insiders, Permanent Residents who have lived in Singapore for more than 10 to 15 years and who have not invested in Singapore property in a big way before, are not hesitating to spend lots of cash – and I mean cash – for properties which catch their fancy.

Yes, the homes these people are looking at are all good, solid properties. But even for such properties, there is a fair price. Not one which is only fair 10 years down the road. What good is property as a hedge against inflation when you are already grossly overpaying for it?

But I cannot blame them. If not them, others are more than willing to cough up the cash.

Notwithstanding my red flags, I will also admit that the market will only correct when it is ready to do so. Before that, no amount of logical reasoning can convince the market to behave otherwise. Like a fever, it needs to run its course.

Some have commented that even if prices were to correct, they will never return to the levels five years ago. Normally, I would agree. But these are not normal times. Interest rates have been abnormally low for the longest sustained period ever. I would not be surprised even if prices were to descend to below those previous levels.

The market is surely building itself up to possibly the greatest crescendo in Singapore’s short property history. We are setting records – buying and supplying more than we have ever done before in the past twelve months.

Most investors tell me they are long-term players and they have the resources to hold onto their properties. What do they actually mean?

It was not so long ago that the Government was trying just to get every Singaporean household to own their homes.

Have we progressed so far and so fast that many households are now able to buy their second or third properties? Do these investors mean they can fully pay for all their properties to maturity?

Or do they mean they can comfortably service their loans for up to two or three years under current conditions. What happens when these conditions change? Are they taking low interest rates as a given?

The writer is head of research and consultancy at Chesterton Suntec International.

Source: Today, 30 Jul 2010

Why are freehold properties preferred to leasehold properties? Given that the current median life span in Singapore stands at 81.4 years, a 99-year leasehold property, whose ownership reverts to the State after this period, offers a more than adequate home for any one generation.

But setting aside owner-occupation, if you expect your property to be an investment for wealth preservation or a legacy for future generations, then a freehold home, which allows you to hold the property in perpetuity, makes more economic sense.

This argument holds even for 999-year leasehold properties, which effectively function like freehold properties, although technically and legally they are in effect still leasehold properties.

Against this backdrop, the preference for freehold property over leasehold property is simple economics – if supply is limited and demand increases, prices go up. We studied resale prices of freehold versus leasehold properties and found that the difference was between 10 and 15 per cent.

There are many factors that can affect resale prices over time. Location, proximity and unit types are among the variables.

Admittedly, it is quite difficult to find freehold land and leasehold developments in close proximity. Nonetheless, there are still some locations that fit our selection criteria. Also, in arriving at our 10- to 15-per-cent figure, we categorised transactions by floor area, to eliminate discounts of larger units.

But this differential between freehold and leasehold properties is also affected by market conditions. During a downturn, both freehold and leasehold properties slide in tandem with the broader market.

At times, the price differences narrow. This then becomes a window of opportunity to buy that coveted freehold property.

Interestingly, when the broader market recovers, freehold properties, in particular those with significant en-bloc potential were observed to appreciate faster than leasehold properties. In some cases, the price premium reached more than 25 per cent.

But before you splurge on that dream freehold property, there are a few points to note. The first is that despite the property being freehold – age matters. Older developments command lower prices and also have a slower rate of capital appreciation. This is because of a variety of factors. Among them: The greater cost of maintenance and a general preference among Singaporeans for newer properties with fancy fixtures and fittings.

But when it comes to buying property, whether for consumption or investment, it is important to understand your budget, needs and holding horizon. For example, when the market sees a short-term spike, the tenure of the property does not really matter especially if you’re looking for a quick gain and price momentum is all that matters. In the longer run, however, freehold properties are less risky in terms of returns and volatility.

This is not to say that leasehold properties are always poor cousins to freehold.

In fact, we noted that some new leasehold properties have seen their prices rise faster than new freehold properties. And if rental yields are what you are concerned with, leasehold properties are able to give a better return compared to their freehold counterparts, all things being equal. After all, why would a tenant care if the property was leasehold or freehold?

But again, even for leasehold properties – age is a factor. Once the tenure of a leasehold property goes below 30 years, its value declines sharply as prospective buyers will not be able to withdraw funds from their Central Provident Fund account or secure a loan for the property purchase.

Mr Png Poh Soon is senior manager and Miss Jing Tang is an analyst at Knight Frank’s consultancy and research department.

Source: Today, 30 Jul 2010

In Asia-Pac, it’s now fourth, after Tokyo, Osaka, HK: survey

SINGAPORE is the 11th most expensive city in the world for expatriates, one place lower than its 10th position last year, says HR consultancy firm Mercer.

But the city moved up a notch to fourth place among cities in Asia-Pacific – which for the first time has three cities in the top 10 list of the dearest places for expats.

Tokyo remains the most expensive city in Asia-Pacific, with sister city Osaka second, and Hong Kong third. Singapore and Seoul round out the top five.

Cathy Loose, Asia-Pacific global mobility leader at Mercer’s information product solutions business, said: ‘Cities in Asia, such as Tokyo and Osaka, continue to be the most expensive cities given the relatively strong yen against other major currencies such as the US dollar.

‘Other high-ranking cities such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Beijing remain relatively the same in terms of overall cost-of-living ranking.’

Part of the reason Asian cities feature more prominently in the worldwide top 10 list is the rise in residential property prices in the region, said Mercer senior researcher Nathalie Constantin-Metral.

‘At the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010, residential property prices in many Asian countries rose as the economic environment began to stabilise and demand for good expat housing increased,’ said Ms Constantin-Metral.

Among the 214 cities surveyed by Mercer, Tokyo was ranked second worldwide, giving up its place as the world’s most costly city for expats to Angola’s capital Luanda.

Ndjamena, in the central African nation of Chad, was placed third, followed by Moscow, then Geneva.

Mercer said the high living costs in some African cities reflects the continent’s increasing economic importance across all business sectors.

‘We’ve seen an increase in demand for information on African cities from across the business spectrum – mining, financial services, airlines, manufacturing, utilities and energy companies,’ said Ms Constantin-Metral. ‘Many people assume that cities in the developing world are cheap, but this isn’t necessarily true for expatriates working there.’

In particular, the cost of good, secure accommodation can be ‘extraordinarily high’, she said.

Mercer’s Cost of Living survey covers 214 cities across five continents and measures the comparative cost of more than 200 items in each location, including housing, transport, food, clothing, household goods and entertainment.

New York is used as the base city for the index, and all cities are compared against the Big Apple. Currency movements are measured against the US dollar.

The cost of housing – often the biggest expense for expats – plays an important part in determining where cities are ranked.

Source: Business Times, 30 Jun 2010

SINGAPORE is the third most liveable city in the world, going by preliminary findings from a broad-based study commissioned by a think-tank here.

The Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) released initial results from its Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI) at the World Cities Summit (WCS) yesterday. Of the 64 cities assessed, Geneva emerged tops and Zurich second. Copenhagen and Helsinki tied at fourth.

Asia-Pacific cities which made it to the top 20 include Hong Kong (eighth), Melbourne (10th), Osaka (16th) and Tokyo (18th).

CLC got the study going in 2008 to assess cities’ liveability in five areas: economic vibrancy and competitiveness; environmental friendliness and sustainability; domestic security and stability; quality of life and diversity; and governance and leadership.

GLCI is still a piece of work in progress, but CLC and some of the study’s co-authors will present it at a WCS session today to gather feedback on its criteria and methodology.

‘In terms of looking at liveability from a more holistic and balanced framework, I think there are probably very few, if any, such set of indicators that are around,’ CLC director and National Environment Agency CEO Andrew Tan told the press yesterday.

Across the five areas which the GLCI looked at, Singapore fared best in domestic security, coming in first. It scored fairly well in terms of governance, quality of life and economic vibrancy. But its showing in eco-friendliness was weakest, at 14th place.

According to Tan Khee Giap, a co-author of the GLCI and associate professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore’s green efforts could be underrated. He cited an example: the country did well in water management, but this was not reflected because comparable data was lacking in other cities.

Source: Business Times, 30 Jun 2010

Singapore has emerged as the most liveable Asian city in a new index. It was ranked third worldwide coming in behind Geneva and Zurich in the Global Liveable Cities Index.

Published by Singapore’s Centre for Liveable Cities, the index looked at 64 cities including 36 from Asia.

When it comes to liveability, Singapore has been ranked up there with some of Europe’s best cities.

In individual rankings, it came in first for domestic security and stability and third for good governance and leadership.

And it ranked 5th for economic vibrancy and quality of life.

But Singapore paled in the area of eco-friendliness and sustainability which looked at things like pollution and environmental initiatives.

Dr Tan Khee Giap, lead researcher, Global Liveable Cities Index, said: “We did very well on water management but this data is not available to most cities. Data which is available in Singapore but not available in most of the 64 cities we studied, will not be used.”

Dr Tan said cities can work with the centre if they want to improve their ranking.

He said: “We do simulations by looking at cities and identify 20 weakest indicators among the more than 100 indicators we have. And hypothetically, if you improve your weakest 20%, how would your ranking be raised? So in that sense, it is more constructive than just doing a ranking which can be a beauty contest.”

These preliminary findings of the index were unveiled at the World Cities Summit on Tuesday.

The Centre for Liveable Cities said the index is still a work in progress.

While the index is comprehensive and covers 135 indicators, it is by no means complete.

Dr Tan said that they may be looking to include more factors such as gender bias.

Other cities, such as Penang and Tatarstan, have also indicated interest in being included in the index.

The index’s framework will be put up for further discussion during a workshop at the summit on Wednesday.

The Centre for Liveable Cities said its index stands out from other current rankings as it takes a more balanced approach.

But the way it’s computed will be discussed and refined further.

Andrew Tan, director, Centre for Liveable Cities, said: “In terms of looking at liveability from a more holistic and balanced framework, I think there are probably very few, if any, such set of indicators around.”

Separately, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan also proposed a “Learning Network for Cities,” to share the best practices in building a liveable city.

He said: “Cities differ from one another in size and character. They are shaped by their own demographics, cultures and traditions, their history and geography.

“But there are some recurring themes in the sustainable development practices of successful cities. These themes include strong governance, citizen engagement, balancing development and the environment, and international collaborations.”

The push for sustainable urban living comes at a time when cities are growing at an unprecedented rate.

Every day, about 200,000 people move in cities and towns and by 2050, seven in 10 people will live in cities.

This presents challenges for governments to provide access to clean water, affordable housing and good sanitation.

Source: Channel News Asia, 29 Jun 2010

Singapore is among the world’s most liveable cities, say women delegates due to attend World Cities Summit here

LIVEABLE cities are best designed by diverse planners, say high-ranking women due to attend the World Cities Summit in Singapore next week.

A wide range of perspectives is unmistakably important in planning for practical lifestyles and a safe and comfortable living environment, says Fumiko Hayashi, the mayor of Yokohama, Japan.

‘It is said that half of the world’s population currently dwell in cities and that percentage is certain to continue to grow in the future,’ she told BT. ‘If that happens, there will be more and more opportunities for people with a variety of values to live in the same city.’

Today’s culturally diverse cities require culturally diverse planners who can bring different lifestyle and value perspectives, says Vishakha Desai, president of the Asia Society.

And Louise Cox, president of the International Union of Architects, likewise believes that diversity among planners is essential: ‘Otherwise, a city becomes boring, unloved and unused, so unfortunate things happen that do not need to happen to people and places.’

Diversity is where having women on a planning committee comes in handy. Saskia Sassen, a professor of sociology at Columbia University’s Department of Sociology & Committee on Global Thought, says that women’s concerns may be different from men’s. ‘Many women will mention security as the key issue, and some sense of privacy. So we have women-only carriages in crowded commuter trains in India and Japan, for example,’ she points out.

Ms Cox agrees that security is a major concern for women: ‘As a woman I view safety in a city and on its public transport as an enormous consideration.’

Some big cities, for example, have office areas that are virtually deserted after work – which can make a lone person walking down these streets at midnight vulnerable, she says. Lonely parks are another worry.

‘These situations should and can be avoided,’ says Ms Cox. ‘It is more economical for a building or place to be used all the time instead of only eight hours a day.’

The women identify Singapore, New York, Paris and Sydney as some of the most ‘liveable’ cities.

And what makes these places stand out is how their quality urban environments – with excellent architecture and urban design – bring tangible economic and financial benefits, foster creativity, attract brains and businesses and engender a sense of rootedness among citizens.

Liveable and sustainable cities are those which can successfully balance economic growth, cultural diversity and social dynamism with a high quality of life, says Cheong Koon Hean, chief executive of Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). ‘A great, liveable city must also provide a diversity of experiences for its people – diversity in housing options, diversity of working environments, and diversity in leisure offerings,’ she adds.

Amanda Burden, chair of New York City’s planning commission and director of the department of city planning, says that when she first became commissioner, her team looked at areas where the city can grow and foster economic opportunity – not just established business districts such as Midtown or Lower Manhattan, but wherever there is potential, such as in Jamaica (in Queens) and Downtown Brooklyn. ‘We transformed long neglected areas into thriving centres of economic activity,’ she says. ‘Through long-range comprehensive plans we ensure that development can flourish in districts located near transport hubs, providing new jobs and tax revenue for the city and its residents.

‘The heart of this approach is to recognise the potential of new ways of doing business, take innovative approaches to unlock the potential of new places and make strategic investments today for the long-term health and stability of the city.’

But when all is said and done, the ‘energy’ of the people living in a city is crucial to its vitality and sustainable development, says Ms Hayashi. ‘Citizens loyal to the cities they live in are active in all aspects of business and life, and I believe that this loyalty is what gives rise to safe, comfortable cities. We must gather the collective wisdom of these citizens to overcome global issues such as global warming, energy and poverty, and create sustainable cities together,’ she says.

Adds Mrs Cheong: ‘I believe that a successful city is not about being the biggest or having the tallest buildings, but it should focus on being a place where people want to be and can call it a home.’

Source: Business Times, 26 Jun 2010

Its score remained the same while other markets improved theirs

SINGAPORE has slipped two places to 16th in a ranking of the transparency of major real estate markets worldwide.

The city-state’s position in the latest Global Real Estate Transparency Index compiled by Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) fell as other countries’ scores improved, while Singapore’s remained the same.

Singapore scored 1.73, which placed it 14th in the previous index. But with the same score this year, Singapore has taken 16th spot, as several European nations including Sweden, Ireland and France improved their scores. A score of one is the best and five is worst.

According to the index, Australia is now the world’s most transparent real estate market. In the Asia-Pacific, Australia and New Zealand (fourth globally) are the region’s most transparent markets, followed by Singapore and Hong Kong (18th globally).

The greatest improvements in transparency in the region were recorded in China and India.

‘The big improvement for China and India has been mainly due to increased data availability and ongoing regulatory changes,’ said Jane Murray, JLL’s head of research for the Asia-Pacific.

In both markets, a recent boom in real estate contributed to the improvements as public and private sector players took steps to promote transparency, she said. ‘International corporate occupiers and investors are increasingly demanding better information on market fundamentals, while government agencies and market regulators have made slow but steady progress on the regulatory and legal front.’

Singapore and Hong Kong are classified as ‘transparent’ but not ‘highly transparent’ because there is room for improvement in two areas for both markets, Dr Murray said. Both countries lack investment performance indices, for example, she said.

In light of the global financial crisis, the index assessed – for the first time – the transparency of the real estate debt markets in terms of the breadth and depth of data available on commercial real estate debt.

Factors such as outstanding balances, maturities and defaults, as well as how thoroughly real estate debt on banks’ balance sheets is monitored, were considered. Singapore did well in this aspect, scoring high for its regulatory and legal environment.

Alastair Hughes, JLL’s chief executive for the Asia-Pacific, said one of the chief concerns for international real estate investors is where to place their capital safely.

The index helps investors and occupiers operating in foreign markets to anticipate challenges, he said. And for governments and industry organisations, the index provides a gauge to help improve transparency in their home markets.

Source: Business Times, 24 Jun 2010

The heaviest concentration of wealth, however, is still in the US

(SINGAPORE) Wealth among millionaires in the Asia-Pacific region has surpassed Europe for the first time, even as the number of millionaires hits parity with Europe.

The latest World Wealth Report by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini found that the size of the Asia Pacific’s wealth pie expanded by 30 per cent to US$9.7 trillion. Europe’s wealth at US$9.5 trillion saw an expansion of 14.2 per cent.

The number of high net worth individuals hit three million in the Asia Pacific, equal to Europe’s number.

The largest concentration of wealth is still in the US with US$10.7 trillion in assets. The number of HNWI (high net worth individuals) in the US at 3.1 million is within touching distance of the Asia Pacific.

In a statement, Bertrand Lavayssiere, Capgemini’s global financial services managing director, said: ‘The last few years have been significant for wealthy investors. While in 2008 global HNWI wealth showed an unprecedented decline, a year later, we are already seeing distinct signs of recovery, and in some areas a complete return to pre-crisis levels of wealth and growth.’

The report said the Asia Pacific is set to be the ‘powerhouse of HWNI growth in coming years’, driven by India and China. Last year eight out of 10 countries with the highest growth in HNWI population were from the region, led by Hong Kong with a stunning growth of 104 per cent.

Singapore, also among the top 10, showed an expansion of 32.7 per cent in the ranks of HNWI to over 80,900.

The Boston Consulting Group’s recent wealth report named Singapore as the market with the highest growth in millionaire households. Based on BCG data, there were about 122,700 households with at least US$1 million in net investible assets, growing about 35 per cent last year.

Merrill Lynch and Capgemini noted that market capitalisation was a powerful driver of wealth in Hong Kong. Market cap surged 73.5 per cent in 2009, after plunging 50 per cent in 2008.

The territory’s market cap to GDP ratio is about 11 times, compared to the global average of 0.8 times. ‘That ratio makes Hong Kong particularly vulnerable to losses in wealth when the market declines as it did in 2008, but also produces outsized gains in wealth when stock prices rise.’

Singapore’s market cap to GDP ratio last year was about 1.75 times.

India, whose high net worth population grew 50 per cent in 2009, has a market cap to GDP ratio of two times.

In terms of asset allocation, the wealthy showed a preference for stability, reducing holdings in cash in favour of fixed income. Equities’ allocation rose from 25 per cent in 2008 to 29 per cent but still falls shy of the 2007 weighting of 33 per cent.

The wealthy in Asia Pacific ex-Japan showed a marked preference for real estate, as investments jumped 56 per cent in the second half of 2009 to US$25 billion.

By the year-end, the allocation to real estate stood at 28 per cent compared to 23 per cent previously.

The region’s wealthy also had the highest exposure to residential real estate at 60 per cent.

Meanwhile the study found that the wealthy’s investor psyche has shifted towards caution and conservatism. Clients are also more engaged in financial affairs, opting to educate themselves on products, disclosures and investment risks before conferring with advisers.

Capgemini director of financial services solutions Foong Lai Kiun said clients appeared to have regained trust in their advisers and wealth management firms to some degree, but they have yet to regain trust in regulatory bodies that were supposed to monitor markets.

A small number of firms are understood to be seeking to incorporate behavioural finance into their advisory process. But the challenge is to develop a model that is scalable and profitable.

Source: Business Times, 24 Jun 2010

SINGAPORE is ranked the third most transparent property market in Asia-Pacific, according to a key industry index.

The league table places Singapore at 16th worldwide, two spots ahead of Hong Kong but behind regional rivals Australia, ranked first, and New Zealand at fourth.

Singapore has slipped two places from the last survey in 2008. Its score has remained unchanged but other countries have moved up the ladder.

‘Rising levels of transparency are associated with rising levels of foreign direct investment, a powerful incentive for encouraging the free flow of information and the fair and consistent application of local property law,’ said Jones Lang LaSalle, which compiled the index with its unit LaSalle Investment Management.

More transparent market conditions allow for quicker investment deals between one foreign investor and another, it said.

The index, which was started in 1999 and is updated every two years, covers all property sectors, though the bulk comprises commercial real estate.

It assessed 81 markets under five categories – performance measurement, market fundamentals, listed vehicles, legal and regulatory environment and the transaction process.

Jones Lang LaSalle’s South-east Asia research head, Dr Chua Yang Liang, said the index showed that Singapore’s strength lies in its regulatory and legal environment.

‘The transparency of our regulatory framework supported the influx of US$4.7 billion (S$6.4 billion), which is more than half of the total dollar value investments, into the commercial asset market during the peak in 2007,’ he said.

Singapore can lift its ranking by improving market performance and the transaction process such as introducing more openness, said Jones Lang LaSalle Asia-Pacific research head Jane Murray.

Dr Chua cited the launch of the National University of Singapore residential price index, an alternative to the Urban Redevelopment Authority service, as a move in the right direction.

He added that recent government moves to increase the level of professionalism and general practices of real estate agents are long overdue.

‘As a key vital component in the real economy, the real estate industry needs to strengthen its ethical standards and the eventual regulatory structure if enforced will surely push Singapore further up on the rankings,’ said Dr Chua.

In Asia-Pacific, Singapore ranks one place ahead of Hong Kong after new questions on commercial real estate debt – a contributing factor of the financial crisis – were considered.

Hong Kong is ‘more laissez-faire’ in the regulatory sector and its monitoring of debt is slightly less rigorous than in Singapore, Dr Murray said.

Overall, the index showed a notable slowdown in the progress of real estate transparency over the past two years, suggesting that industry players were focusing on survival rather than market advancement during the financial turmoil.

Source: Straits Times, 24 Jun 2010