-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Living in JB 3 (Johore)
- Thread starter wuqi256
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 83
- Points
- 0
You would be amazed how rough calculations people have for real estate price increases. They will often do things like median sales price from one year to the next with no allowance for changes in mix of sales. This falls into the Simpson's Paradox data understanding failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox
Paying attention to price/square foot can help some (as one big factor can be large versus small units) but obviously this is far from complete. Luxury condos v. condos v. bungalows v. link-houses will have different price/square feet. Often you will see price increase at least broken out by condo v. landed housing (but not always) and that is not enough for any but very rough general trends. And if someone says the "market" is up 15% they are not breaking the data that way (it is possible both went up 15% but that is rare - more likely there is a huge issues with Simpson's Paradox (and more data issues) if they quote one figure for a market.
If price comparisons are not market transactions of the same property (which is not often the case) there are all sorts of issues with the data. To think a difference of 10% v 20% increase in prices is significant the very smallest unit of comparison would have to be something like:
- 3+ bedroom condos with over 1,000 square feet in luxury buildings in JB
- 2,000 square foot+ bungalows in high security areas of Nusajaya
- etc
They also have to adjust the median price due to know factors (such as high floor units selling for more, difference between prices of various developments, etc.). You will almost never find this done. They also have to adjust for non-market pricing (for example if prices are inflated for some purpose with artificial givebacks - say to reach a mandated sales price minimum). And while median is the best measure for various reasons (mainly it is least likely to be thrown off by edge cases) there are often big differences between the most expensive, least expensive and other parts of the market...
You also need to consider non-pricing factors. If many people wishing to sell are forced to hold on because they can't get the price they want it can make the market seem much stronger than it is (I don't think the sales market in JB is much more this way than many markets but the rental market is - there are huge numbers of vacant units in JB which is just increasing as more and more units are completed).
This just means the data is extremely rough. And this is even more true in rapidly changing markets; I would classify the luxury portion of the JB market as firmly within the rapidly changing context.
Bottom line is the difference between 10% and 20% quoted price changes in real estate is likely not supported by data. The data likely does not provide enough clarity to distinguish between 10% and 20% on a short term basis (say one year to another). And most of the time it is much more useful to look at smaller segments of the real estate market where you can get a bit clearer picture (though as you get too small it gets to be less reliable due to the small numbers - so it is tricky).
For some reason even most people in the real estate business don't understand some of the simple ideas explained above. This is true worldwide. It is partially explained by the general poor understanding of data by most of people and that often real estate professionals spend most of their time learning sales tactics rather than learning about the real estate market.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 83
- Points
- 0
Quote Originally Posted by PuteriWorld View Post
> Its quite obvious Singapore cannot do without Iskandar. .
It is both. JB should benefit more just because they have more easy gains to make. It is harder the richer the economy gets to make big gains.
Singapore handled the move from poor to middle income to rich extremely well. I have been less impressed with how they are handling the enhancement once they became a rich country. They are failing to appreciate the costs of just trying to grow (by importing huge amounts of labor). They are failing to deal with infrastructure issues well. At the same time they are still making better decisions that almost any other government - but they are creating more problems for themselves than they used to.
Due to their continued focus on growth (versus a more enrichment focus in Scandinavia for example) they need Iskandar. That is to say Singapore could have pursued different strategies about 7-10 years ago that wasn't so dependent on Iskandar. But the choice they have made has made Singapore more dependent on Iskandar. The complete bungling of the transportation between Singapore and Iskandar for the last year has to worry anyone with serious money already committed or thinking of committing to projects dependent on decent infrastructure.
Singapore has options - encouraging companies to keep headquarters in Singapore and expand operations to Indonesia, Vietnam, China etc. but Iskandar is by far the best option for Singapore. All the other options are far greater risks to Singapore's future. None of the other options provides a decent housing alternative (as a strong Iskandar cooperative venture with decent infrastructure could provide).
Malaysia can benefit immensely from a strong Iskandar. It is the most likely candidate to provide the largest economic benefit to Malaysia in the next 15 years. But the path for success is pretty easy. You really have to mess up to lose the benefits (though that doesn't stop governments world wide from doing so [messing up] repeatedly - most fail even to get decent wins from easy situations).
By far the best way (both in terms of largest gains and most secure gains) are with a strong Singapore partner. But even if they continue to bungle the transportation infrastructure links with Singapore and lose much of the potential gains due to those failures (and other less visible failures - if such a visible failure continues for so long it is not likely other stuff is being done nearly as well as it should be), Iskandar can still make great gains. The failures will just greatly reduce the benefits from the level from what is possible if Malaysia and Singapore together manage this decently or well.
The odds of the failures to manage Iskandar being so complete that Iskandar fails to deliver great economic gains to Malaysia are small. There are very few areas setup as well as Iskandar for success. With a strong Singapore partner I can't think of any area that has better opportunities. The failures with transportation though are serious and I would be amazed if they are already not delaying investments due to investors not wanting to commit given such a chronic failure. Many investors will still go forward but the problem has lasted far too long without decent solutions that other investors will have to wait to see evidence of what the governments are going to do about that problem and what it says about their commitment to making Iskandar successful in general.
> Its quite obvious Singapore cannot do without Iskandar. .
it's the other way round
It is both. JB should benefit more just because they have more easy gains to make. It is harder the richer the economy gets to make big gains.
Singapore handled the move from poor to middle income to rich extremely well. I have been less impressed with how they are handling the enhancement once they became a rich country. They are failing to appreciate the costs of just trying to grow (by importing huge amounts of labor). They are failing to deal with infrastructure issues well. At the same time they are still making better decisions that almost any other government - but they are creating more problems for themselves than they used to.
Due to their continued focus on growth (versus a more enrichment focus in Scandinavia for example) they need Iskandar. That is to say Singapore could have pursued different strategies about 7-10 years ago that wasn't so dependent on Iskandar. But the choice they have made has made Singapore more dependent on Iskandar. The complete bungling of the transportation between Singapore and Iskandar for the last year has to worry anyone with serious money already committed or thinking of committing to projects dependent on decent infrastructure.
Singapore has options - encouraging companies to keep headquarters in Singapore and expand operations to Indonesia, Vietnam, China etc. but Iskandar is by far the best option for Singapore. All the other options are far greater risks to Singapore's future. None of the other options provides a decent housing alternative (as a strong Iskandar cooperative venture with decent infrastructure could provide).
Malaysia can benefit immensely from a strong Iskandar. It is the most likely candidate to provide the largest economic benefit to Malaysia in the next 15 years. But the path for success is pretty easy. You really have to mess up to lose the benefits (though that doesn't stop governments world wide from doing so [messing up] repeatedly - most fail even to get decent wins from easy situations).
By far the best way (both in terms of largest gains and most secure gains) are with a strong Singapore partner. But even if they continue to bungle the transportation infrastructure links with Singapore and lose much of the potential gains due to those failures (and other less visible failures - if such a visible failure continues for so long it is not likely other stuff is being done nearly as well as it should be), Iskandar can still make great gains. The failures will just greatly reduce the benefits from the level from what is possible if Malaysia and Singapore together manage this decently or well.
The odds of the failures to manage Iskandar being so complete that Iskandar fails to deliver great economic gains to Malaysia are small. There are very few areas setup as well as Iskandar for success. With a strong Singapore partner I can't think of any area that has better opportunities. The failures with transportation though are serious and I would be amazed if they are already not delaying investments due to investors not wanting to commit given such a chronic failure. Many investors will still go forward but the problem has lasted far too long without decent solutions that other investors will have to wait to see evidence of what the governments are going to do about that problem and what it says about their commitment to making Iskandar successful in general.
Agree that both countries must work together.
I said that many times before.
But I still believe MRT won't help much unless well planned with supplementary feeder services.
I said that many times before.
But I still believe MRT won't help much unless well planned with supplementary feeder services.
Everybody knows there are mutual gains to be made if they work together. In Econs 101, it is called Comparative Advantage. But sigh......
Unfortunately, the Malaysian govt, both state and federal, is driven by greed. Extreme greed. They are afraid that the Iskandar growth is not sustainable and would prefer to kill the golden goose than to milk the cow slowly. "Grab the money while the mkt is hot! dunno how long its gonna last."
The way I see it, for Singaporeans, they shouldn't park too much money in Malaysia. Play play ok. Know what I mean? the Malaysian govt lacks the political will to do the right things for the country. they will NEVER get their act together. KL will NEVER be an alpha city. Not in my life time ay least. JB? Even worse. Probably not even in God's life time.
I know Singapore isn't the best place to live in now. Tough place for the middle class. But at least it is home. for me, it is the best place for me to bring up my kids. And that is all that matters.
Malaysia is still liveable (affordable) now cos they allow the PRCs and Viets and Thais and Pinoys and Indons and Banglas to do the crappy jobs. What if the crazy/stupid MY govt decides to turn nationalistic one day and chase away all the foreigners? Would Malaysia still be cheap? Would it still be worthwhile? I know it would be HELL for me! no chicks = no life!!!
Unfortunately, the Malaysian govt, both state and federal, is driven by greed. Extreme greed. They are afraid that the Iskandar growth is not sustainable and would prefer to kill the golden goose than to milk the cow slowly. "Grab the money while the mkt is hot! dunno how long its gonna last."
The way I see it, for Singaporeans, they shouldn't park too much money in Malaysia. Play play ok. Know what I mean? the Malaysian govt lacks the political will to do the right things for the country. they will NEVER get their act together. KL will NEVER be an alpha city. Not in my life time ay least. JB? Even worse. Probably not even in God's life time.
I know Singapore isn't the best place to live in now. Tough place for the middle class. But at least it is home. for me, it is the best place for me to bring up my kids. And that is all that matters.
Malaysia is still liveable (affordable) now cos they allow the PRCs and Viets and Thais and Pinoys and Indons and Banglas to do the crappy jobs. What if the crazy/stupid MY govt decides to turn nationalistic one day and chase away all the foreigners? Would Malaysia still be cheap? Would it still be worthwhile? I know it would be HELL for me! no chicks = no life!!!
I was one of them who got stuck/contributed to the jam around 3pm from JB to SG. I cleared it in 1 hr. It arose from the choke-point at Singapore side, which is the boot-inspection area. Almost all the booths at JB and SG were open. So the entire CIQ in SG has to be re-designed and re-built. More booths will not work at 1st link anymore.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 273
- Points
- 0
Living in KL/malaysia they are more choice and varierty, flexible & happening than sg.
KL is not bad. the rest of your post is spot on though
Insightful thoughts, cat. However, a lot of analysis are predicated on the assumptions that m'sia is indeed politically strong enough to carry through their vision of enabling Iskandar as an alternative hub for economic activity (a singaporean hinterland), thus benefiting both parties. My personal view is that the political landscape, very much affected by the rakyat, lacks the unity and sustainability of their singaporean counterparts. Currently it all appears very much like a land / gold rush mentality with land being sold at record high prices and every other launch being targeted to foreigners in nusajaya. While with the increasing population and crowds in singapore these days, there will inadvertantly be a push towards semi-migration of segments of the singaporean populace to Iskandar, I have also noticed not an insignificant number of 'migrators' actually returning to singapore (and heaving a sigh of relief in not braving the jams every day). if the traffic situation worsens (likely) we would probably see the number of migrations reduce over the next few years. Also note that the value proposition of iskandar (pricing of residential / commercial) has dropped due to escalation of costs (re: 1M foreigner floor prices for residential). The policy changes made by the malaysian government was quite sudden and certainly left many who had bought in iskandar with a bad taste. These sudden policy shifts are to be expected given a government that is currently trying to pacify the rakyat amid growing influence from a noisy opposition alliance making huge inroads especially in urban centres.
The other thing that no one mentions is the "sponge" effect of being in close proximity to a more affluent neighbour. A lot of cheap labour is just crossing the links to earn the stronger currency, thus leaving iskandar with a shortage of manpower. Thus ironically, the very factor that is a push for iskandar (cheaper alternatives of living and working) is also working against the economic sustainability of iskandar in the long term.
Given these potential pitfalls to investing in Iskandar at this point in the market cycle, i would suggest caution. the current 'thaw in relations' between both countries could just be temporary. Najib appears smart and pro -business. What if a firebrand cleric manages to be PM in the next election? At most, iskandar is the result of an uneasy alliance. But Malaysia needs the capital inflow from its' neighbour, whereas singapore can always just be insular again and concentrate on creating value from new pillars of growth. A hinterland is good to have, and gives singapore options, that's all. Remember that malaysia was wooing arab oil money during the early days of iskandar, and the sheikhs weren't all that interested. Singapore wasn't even malaysia's first choice of 'partners' initially.
Living in KL/malaysia they are more choice and varierty, flexible & happening than sg.
yup, KL is happening.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2012
- Messages
- 2,705
- Points
- 48
yup, KL is happening.
china's tiers 2 cities good also, shanghai lagi better, weather cold cold and many things to see..
china's tiers 2 cities good also, shanghai lagi better, weather cold cold and many things to see..
aiyaaa we talking about within driving distance laa. orchard rd oso manyting to see wat...
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2012
- Messages
- 2,705
- Points
- 48
aiyaaa we talking about within driving distance laa. orchard rd oso manyting to see wat...
Dun shut yr @@ mah.. retire there also not bad.
The CPF Minimum Sum will be raised to S$155,000, up from S$148,000, from 1 July. This will apply to CPF members who turn 55 between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2015, the Central Provident Board (CPF) and the Manpower Ministry said in a joint statement.
Lidat how to retire.....:o
Last edited:
Empty the CPF to buy house and rent out. Stay in JB to enjoy your retirement. Simple!
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2012
- Messages
- 2,705
- Points
- 48
Now have to reserve 77.5k in cpf. Pui!
The increase is just a reflection of inflation i.e. to buy the same quality of products/services during your retirement, you simply need more cash. CPF Board is just doing the necessary evil to prevent over-burdening the younger generation with more taxes.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2012
- Messages
- 2,705
- Points
- 48
Sell current flat and buy another flat/condo. Then no need to reserve 77.5k in CPF liao, since it's first house.
- Status
Similar threads
