By Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article “895 HDB flats repossessed since 2003” (TODAY, Feb 28).

It states that “seven per cent of those who took HDB mortgage loans were in arrears of at least 3 months”.

As at the end of last year, banks have completed the mortgagee sale of 895 HDB flats financed with bank loans since the start of bank origination in January 2003. In recent months, the rate is about 60 cases a month.

Seven per cent of the 89,000 HDB flats with bank loans means that about 6,230 HDB flat owners have not been able to pay for more than 3 months. Some of these may become foreclosures.

As more Singaporeans have no choice but to take bank loans, because they have used up the two HDB concessionery loans allowed by just upgrading once by themselves or with their parents, more may lose their flats.

If there is a shortfall between the foreclosure sale proceeds of the flat and the housing loan outstanding, banks have sued such flat-owners for bankruptcy.

Banks have repossessed 1,445 flats since HDB bank loans started in January 2003, and have sold 895 of them. This means that 1.6 per cent of HDB flats on bank loans have been foreclosed.

As I understand that there are about 800,000 HDB flat-owners, if they had all been with bank loans, just imagine the amount of misery in Singapore with about 12,800 flat-owners having been foreclosed (1.6% foreclosure rate). If the average number of members in a flat is four, it translates to about 51,200 people who may be adversely affected. We should be concerned that every month, about 60 families are losing their homes.

In countries like the United States, which is arguably the highest credit-consuming country in the world, the delinquency rate is 2.11 per cent, the highest in four years, for real estate home loans which are over 90 days post-due or in foreclosure.

Singapore’s current rate of over seven per cent (seven per cent in arrears over three months plus 1.6 per cent foreclosure) may be about three times that of the United Sates.

How do we compare with other countries, particularly our neighbours ? I think at the rate that we are going, we may chalk up another top world ranking in this regard.

As to “from 2002 to 2006, some 360 households voluntarily surrendered their flats after defaulting on their mortgage loan repayments”, can the HDB please clarify what do they mean by “voluntarily surrendered”? Are they implying that no one has ever been forced to vacate a flat ? I am somewhat puzzled as to why anyone would “voluntarily” give up the family home, all the CPF life savings of the owners, and maybe continue be in debt to the HDB for any shortfall between the market valuation and loan outstanding ?

A key finding of a research paper by Associate Professor Ong Seow Eng, Research Director of the Centre for Real Estate Studies at the National Univesity of Singapore, is that protecting the CPF utilised in a mortgage, reduces significantly the tendency of borrowers to be delinquent on their mortgages. Why are HDB concessionary loan mortgages not on a non-recourse basis, like practically all residential mortgages in the United States ?

On non-recourse mortgages, the borrowers are not liable for any shortfall between the repossessed flat’s market value and the outstanding loan balance.

Perhaps the only salvation for the thousands who are in arrears (HDB’s annual report said that it provided financial assistance to 28,386 flat-owners in its last financial year), is for their flats’ value to increase at a rate higher than the 2.6 per cent accruing on their indebtedness, into the future.

How many more Singaporeans have to lose their homes and CPF, before we continue to describe a 1.6% foreclosure rate as being not very high?

——————————

About the author:

Sze Hian has 5 degrees and 13 professional qualifications. A Wharton Fellow, alumnus of Harvard University and the United Nations University International Leadership Academy, he has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, Representative of the Inter-American Economic Council, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding Advisor to the Financial Planning Association of Indonesia. He has been invited to speak more than 100 times in over 15 countries on 5 continents, authored 3 books and quoted over 700 times in the media.

Sze Hian’s website is here.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Iris images to be collected from Singaporeans and PRs starting 1 January

Ministry of Home Affairs (MFA) has announced that the amendments to the…

WP’s Gerald Giam helps residents set up TraceTogether app during his house visits

The Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP) for Aljunied GRC Gerald…

企图以假炸弹驱赶示威者 男子承认触犯骚扰罪

为了向示威者发出警告,一名男子在芳林公园附近的地铁站出口处,放置一个装满旧玩具,包括一个玩具手榴弹的袋子,因此在《防止骚扰法令》下被逮捕。 59岁的司机何喜秀(Ho Hee Hew,译音)今日在庭上承认有关的控状。 据文案指出,嫌犯于2017年9月16日下午在克拉码头地铁站骑脚车,并在经过该地铁A出口的台阶时停下。 副检察官Thiagesh Sukumaran指出,男子当时带着早前在其他地方发现,装有一塑料盒子旧玩具的棕色纸袋,并将袋子中的部分东西丢出来,随后一边环规四周查看是否有其他人,一边将棕色袋子丢在距离芳林公园很近的地铁站A出口处。 他指出,当时有约800人在该公园举行静坐示威,抗议当届总统选举实施保留制度。该示威活动是在哈莉玛宣誓就任总统后的周末展开。 在何喜秀离开现场后,地铁站的站长发现有关“可疑”袋子,并且联络警察部队的公共交通保安指挥处(Transcom)。而为了调查该袋子,地铁站出口处被封闭了约15分钟,影响了20名乘客。 法庭指出,公交保安指挥处官员调查发现袋子中物件并没有威胁性物件,而且也没有干扰到示威活动,当局也透过闭路电视录像,成功将何喜秀逮捕归案。 被告表示,他不同意示威者的意图,因此留下袋子希望惊动示威者,并迫使他们离开。 副检察官对法官表示,男子的上述行为应该给予5000元的罚款,以作为警惕。…

声称可治疗近视 卫生科学局调查视力明和ICC Visioncare

广告声称可治疗近视,卫生科学局接获投诉,针对两家视力保健公司展开调查。 这两家公司便是视立明(SLM Visioncare)和ICC Visioncare,当局正调查他们是否违反“保健产品(医疗器材)条例”。另一方面,当局还还接获总共六起针对视力明的投诉。 据《今日报》报导,视力明在官网声称能以物理疗法协助“改善眼睛睫状肌的血液流通河弹性”,协助从近视中恢复;也宣称对于6至16岁孩童“特别有效”。 与此同时,ICC Visioncare则宣称协助多达10万视力障碍患者,透过他们的疗程恢复视力。 不过,视力明则告知《今日报》,质疑有关投诉的真实性,仍宣称有30年在中港台以及新加坡运营的经验,几乎不曾接到任何投诉。 除了这次被卫生科学局调查,社交媒体脸书上,也有声称是该公司前雇员开设的群组,揭露一名马国女生邱玉莉遭受职场霸凌最终轻生,人力部亦为此展开调查。 至于卫生部则提醒,根据《药品法(广告与销售)》,任何提供医疗保健服务的公司,都不能针对任何疾病(包括近视)的治疗之服务和技术进行宣传,以避免误导消费者。 据了解,其中一名投诉者Daniel Wang,告知《今日报》他为自己10岁的孩子,花了2千490元在视力明接受每周三次、为期三个月的近视治疗。…