Shoebox influx in 2017

Investors of shoebox units may face some difficulty renting them out, reported The Straits Times.

This is because a bumper supply of shoebox units are expected to enter the market, peaking by around 2017, revealed R’ST Research data. Leasing demand for such units is also untested, with fewer foreigners able to afford them.

“Increasingly, many (overseas nationals) can’t even afford renting a single shoebox unit, but would instead rent a room in an apartment… Rents will be under further pressure,” noted Alan Cheong, research head at Savills Singapore.

Based on caveats lodged, majority of the supply will come from District 19Sengkang, Hougang and Punggol – with at least 700 units expected to be completed during this period.

R’ST Research noted that at least 527 shoebox units could come from District 14, and at least 383 units from District 12. Over in the suburbs, districts 17 and 22 will contribute at least 224 units and 151 units respectively.

In the Guillemard to Changi Road area (Districts 14 and 15), Cheong stated that prices of newly-completed shoebox units stood at around $1,350 psf in 2013, increasing to more than $1,400 psf late last year and this year.

However, rents for such units fell from $2,600 per month in 2013 to around $2,000 to $2,200, bringing the gross yield down from 5.2 percent in 2013 to 4.1 percent.

Most shoebox owners have holding power, opting to keep their units rather than sell them at a low price. Hence, yields have more room to fall into the mid-three percent level in more accessible areas such as District 14, where rents stood at less than $2,500 per month.

“Once we venture into the new developments in the outlying HDB estates, the market is untested. There, yields may tend closer to three percent or even dip below that,” said Cheong.

Overall, prices of shoebox units fell by about 10 percent from their last peak in August 2013, based on flash estimates of the NUS Singapore Residential Price Index. Prices dropped about 1.1 percent in June from the month before.

R’ST Research director Ong Kah Seng said while prices of shoebox units keep falling due to growing supply, such units are still relevant.

“These tend to be occupied by younger tenants or owners, who will bring energy to the development and area – especially important for newer residential areas like Bartley, or those undergoing rejuvenation like Hillview and Lakeside.”

Court throws out claim of secret will

The youngest child of late Chinese businessman Lian Seng Peng has lost a bid to have a secret handwritten will by his father recognised, after a High Court judge found the surrounding circumstances to be “suspicious”, reported The Straits Times.

The elder Lian died in December 2012 at the age of 93, leaving behind $7 million worth of assets, the bulk of which is a home in Siglap.

Under a will prepared by a lawyer on 18 December 2010 and witnessed by the family doctor, he left the house to his wife while his other assets were to be shared equally by his six grandchildren.

Last year, Mr Lian’s only son Lian Kok Hong sued his sister Bee Leng and niece Hui Ying, executors of his father’s 2010 will.

Kok Hong, who runs a chemical company, had previously stopped both women from distributing his father’s assets according to the 2010 will, claiming that he was holding on to the final will.

The will was dated 10 June 2012, but amended to 10 August 2012 and counter-signed by Mr Lian.

Kok Hong testified that he visited his father in August of that year along with five of his employees. He revealed that they had with them the draft will that was given to him by his father in June. They also took photos of him signing the will in the presence of two witnesses – Zhu Jintian and Goh Tay Sin.

Under the August 2010 will, Mr Lian left each of his six grandchildren $100,000 and instructed that the home in Jedburgh Gardens be sold. The proceeds of the sale were allegedly to be used to establish a charity fund – $1 million would be donated to a school in Mr Lian’s hometown in China and S$1 million will be donated to Thong Chai Medical Institution.

In her decision, Justice Judith Prakash rejected Kok Hong’s claim and ruled in favour of the 2010 will.

She noted that the circumstances surrounding the 2012 handwritten will were “sufficiently suspicious” and that Kok Hong failed to prove that his father consented and knew the terms of the will.

“To me, the plaintiff’s account has all the hallmarks of a deliberate attempt to set up the execution of the August 2012 will in such a way that its validity could not be questioned later,” she said.

Justice Prakash noted that Mr Lian had unequivocally stated in an April 2012 video that even if he wrote a will, he would not show it to Kok Hong. She found no explanation for Mr Lian’s change of heart when he allegedly gave the draft will to Kok Hong two months later.