re1104 valuation report

!

"!

!

#$%%&'(!

!

!

!

!

!

! " # $ % " & ' # ' " % ( # $ ) # ' * + , %!

!"#$%&'()*"+&,'("&,%&$-''.!*"%&+'/0'

!"#$%&#'%()%*+,--.-/012%

3)4#567%3#56$48#%9$78$:)7%*+,--.;;/<2%

=$7%>$7?%+7%&)@7$4A%*+,--B0B,32%

=$7%C#%1#7?%*+,--.D0-E2%

967@7$%+5#F%*+,--/0.,<2%

!

!

!

!

#$%%&'(!

Table of Content

1. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ........................................................................................... 1

2. Property Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 2

2.2 Location ........................................................................................................................................ 2

3. Development Proposal ..................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Space Allocation .......................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Rationale for Units Types & Distribution ..................................................................................... 3

4. Market Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 5

4.1 Macro Level ................................................................................................................................. 5

4.1.1 Economic Conditions ....................................................................................................... 5

4.1.2 Property Market Condition .............................................................................................. 6

4.1.3 Demand and Supply Analysis .......................................................................................... 7

4.1.4 Forecast ............................................................................................................................ 7

4.2 Micro Level ................................................................................................................................... 8

5. Appraisal process ........................................................................................................................... 10

6. Direct Comparison Valuation ....................................................................................................... 11

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 11

6.2 Comparable ................................................................................................................................ 11

6.3 Adjustments Criteria and Justifications ..................................................................................... 12

6.3.1 Date of Sale .................................................................................................................... 12

6.3.2 Demolition Cost ............................................................................................................. 12

6.3.3 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................. 13

6.3.4 Location ......................................................................................................................... 14

6.4 Estimation of Land Value ........................................................................................................... 14

7. Residual Valuation ......................................................................................................................... 15

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 15

7.2 Highest and Best Use Analysis .................................................................................................. 15

7.3 Comparable for Estimation of Gross Development Value (GDV) ............................................ 16

7.4 Adjustments Criteria and Justifications ..................................................................................... 16

7.4.1 Date of Transaction ........................................................................................................ 16

!

!

!

#$%%&'(!

7.4.2 Location .......................................................................................................................... 16

7.5 Estimation of GDV .................................................................................................................... 17

7.6 Estimation of Land Value .......................................................................................................... 17

8. Reconciliation of Value Indications .............................................................................................. 18

9. Conclusion Thesis Statement ..................................................................................................... 18

Addendum I ........................................................................................................................................ 19

Addendum II ...................................................................................................................................... 20

Addendum III ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Addendum IV ..................................................................................................................................... 24

References ........................................................................................................................................... 25

!

"!

!

#$%%&'(!

1. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

1. The final estimate of value developed in this report is as of 11 April 2014. Any change in

the present use of the property or the date of valuation may or may not affect the final

conclusion of value that is stated in this report.

2. It is assumed that the legal description, status of title, and other matters legal in nature are

correct. No responsibility is assumed by the appraiser for such legal matters, and this

appraisal should not be construed as an opinion on such legal matters.

3. The legal use of the site and the type of development on the site are determined by Urban

Redevelopment Authority and they are assumed to be the highest and best use in the

valuation process.

4. In the course of completing this appraisal, information was obtained from public records

and from other individuals. Such information is presumed to be correct and reliable. No

responsibility is assumed for any errors or omissions in such data.

5. The descriptions and analysis in this report are based upon visual inspection of the

property. No liability is assumed for any existence of hazardous material and

contamination on or in the site. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that

there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a diminution in site value.

6. Exhibits are included in this report only to aid in visualizing the property. No survey of

the property was completed, and drawings may not be to the correct scale. No liability is

assumed for any errors or omissions in such exhibits.

7. The appraiser does not agree to any appearance or the giving of testimony in any court,

hearings, or conference unless proper prior arrangements have been made.

!

)!

!

#$%%&'(!

2. Property Analysis

Inspection Date: 21 February 2014.

2.1 Physical Characteristics

2.2 Location

!"#$%&'$()%*+,-.+/0%12

3$'1"44"56$%78&)%9*,+*.%12

:(;"1<1%=<"6>"?@%A$"@B#)%C90%1%&:!D E

FG?$)%H$4">$?#"(6

IGJG@'(JBK)%D$L$66$>

D$(4$%3$'"G>)%--%M$('4%

!NBGG6

&6$;(?>'(%3'"1('K%!NBGG6%O&JJ'G;%P/*P%Q1R

S'$4N$?#%7"'64T%!NBGG6%O&JJ'G;%P/0P%Q1R

I(?@6"?%!NBGG6%O&JJ'G;%P/99%Q1R

A$?>$'4G?%!$NG?>('K%!NBGG6%O&JJ'G;%P/UP%Q1R

7(?%V?@%!$?@%!NBGG6%O&JJ'G;%P/-P%Q1R

SAWX%!("?#%IB$'$4(T4%SG?L$?#%O&JJ'G;%C/-P%Q1R

3<56"N%I'(?4JG'#

H$>B"66%:HI%O&JJ'G;%P/9P%Q1R

I"G?@%=(B'<%:HI%O&JJ'G;%C/9P%Q1R

Y<$$?4#GZ?%:HI%O&JJ'G;%C/UP%Q1R

[JJ%7(?%V?@%!$?@%!$N%!NB%=<4%!#GJ%O&JJ'G;%P/*P%Q1R

&K$'%H(\(B%V;J'$44Z(K O&MVR

S$?#'(6%V;J'$44Z(K%OSIVR

V?#$'#("?1$?#%]%H$N'$(#"G?(6

^(66$K%3G"?#%!BGJJ"?@%S$?#'$%O&JJ'G;%P/.P%Q1R

I"G?@%=(B'<%36(_(%O&JJ'G;%C/P%Q1R

7'$(#%`G'6>%S"#K%O&JJ'G;%C/0P%Q1R

&?NBG'JG"?#%!BGJJ"?@%S$?#'$%O&JJ'G;%C/aP%Q1R

b$6#(%!JG'#%S$?#'$%O&JJ'G;%P/+P%Q1R

I"G?@%=(B'<%3('Q%O&JJ'G;%P/aP%Q1R

&6$;(?>'(%S(?(6%O&JJ'G;%P/*P%Q1R%

W. A

!

*!

!

#$%%&'(!

3. Development Proposal

3.1 Space Allocation

3.2 Rationale for Units Types & Distribution

Table 1: Units Distribution

The unit distribution in Table 1 is based on the following reasons:

According to our research, recent condominium projects receive high demands for

medium-sized units. These units are mostly two and three-bedroom compact units.

Experts conjure that the market responds well to such units due to the relatively

affordable quantum prices (Lee, 2013).

3SS%3('N$6%= c?"#4% !"_$%O12R IG#(6%4"_$%O12R

IG#(6%C5' "+, -+ -)++

IG#(6%*5' )", ., "*/0,

IG#(6%05' *++

*!1223!4235678 "-+ 9+ "")++

*!:223!(86;<6:< ".+ /+ "--++

IG#(6%+5' *,

-=:!($>8'!?>8@!&2A8 *, "*+ -,,+

H$4">$?#"(6%78& .,, -9*),

!

-!

!

#$%%&'(! Experts also believe that for investors, medium-sized units are able to yield the

greatest rental yield and return on investment

(ROI). Therefore, two and three-bedroom units make up approximately 75% of the

total units in our development proposal.

The land site is situated in the Central (District 10) area of Singapore. In Singapore,

District 10 carries the prestigious connotation of being a prestigious residential

district. District 10 comprises of Bukit Timah, Holland and Balmoral; all of which are

famous for its prestigious residential enclaves. To live up to this traditional

association and expectation of prestigious living, we decided to cater the type of units

to meet up to their expectations. These types include the Suites. Suite units are

Prince Charles Crescent is situated in the junction of family-oriented and downtown

areas. Towards the Bukit Merah estate, family-oriented neighborhood is present, and

towards the Tiong Bahru estate, downtown-alike commercial activities can be found.

This implies that the range of each household in the area can be as small as one, and

as large as six. Based on this rationale, the proposed development incorporates one to

four-bedroom units. This ensures that the proposed development caters to a wider

target range.

The development consists of shoebox apartments. Hartung analyses that there is an

upward trend towards the popularity of shoebox apartments (Today, 2013). It is

profitable to incorporate shoebox apartments in the development since they have

higher prices per unit area. Furthermore, properties are expensive in Singapore, hence

shoebox apartments are cheaper alternatives in a private residential market. Although

prospect buyers are paying a larger price per unit area, the overall cost is still cheaper.

Refer to Addendum II for the Development Plan

!

,!

!

#$%%&'(!

4. Market Analysis

4.1 Macro Level

This segment of the report shows s that will

have an impact on local property prices. Furthermore, it comprises the demand and supply

analysis on private residential properties in the country.

4.1.1 Economic Conditions

Gross Development Product (GDP) measures its economic growth. The

GDP growth rate in the last quarter of 2013 reached 5.5% while for the whole of

2013, the economy grew by 4.1% according to the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

The GDP is expected to rise due to the recent increase in exports of petrochemicals

and pharmaceuticals. This expectation of an increase in GDP shows a favorable

condition towards the property market.

In February 2014, inflation rate reached a 4-year low since January 2010, at 0.4% due

to a large drop in car prices.

The unemployment rate has remained fairly stable from January 2010 with current

unemployment rate staying low on its historical ranges at 1.8% (Singapore

Department of Statistics, 2014).

Current lending interest rate has also dropped by a small amount from 5.38% that had

remained constant for 4 years to 5.35% starting from January 2014 (Monetary

Authority of Singapore, 2014).

opulation keeps on climbing, reaching 5.4 million people in June 2013.

The population is expected to increase in years to come, especially with the

The Population

White Paper, 2013).

According to the economic condition analysis, the current situations should suggest

increasing demand and prices on the property market as real estates are derived demand and

will thrive whenever the economy is doing well.

!

.!

!

#$%%&'(!

4.1.2 Property Market Condition

However, in reality, dampening of the property market has slowed down the private

residential property market. The property market had been in a boom since the first

quarter of 2009 and recently, cooled down with a decrease in private residential

properties price index of 0.9% in the fourth quarter of 2013.

Figure 1: Private Residential Property Price

In the fourth quarter of 2013, private condominium prices declined by 0.4% - lowest

decline among the other types of private residential properties such as, detached,

semi-detached, terraces and apartments with a decline of 0.9% to 2.4%.

Rental rate has also decreased by 0.5% in fourth quarter of 2013 first decline since

third quarter of 2009. The vacancy rate has increased to a level of 6.2%, a level last

seen on second quarter of 2013. It is expected that there may still be a fall in rental

rate and raise in vacancy rate, but not significantly.

Figure 2: Rental & Vacancy Rate

The volume of transactions for private residential properties has shown a dramatic

drop with only 14,948 sales in 2013 compared to 22,197 sales in the previous year.

!

0!

!

#$%%&'(!

These facts revealed the cooling of the private residential property market, in terms of

declining property prices as well as quantity sold.

4.1.3 Demand and Supply Analysis

One of the causes of the dampening of private residential property market is due to the lower

demand. Decrease in demand has resulted from the rounds of cooling measures set by the

government to curb high demand due to supportive economic conditions. These include:

The introduction of a new total debt servicing ratio (TDSR) policy which is applied in

June 2013. Home buyers are hit hardly by this new framework as it requires financial

60% of gross monthly income when granting a property loan.

Recent revision of additional buyer stamp duty (ABSD) which has deterred

Permanent Residents (PRs) and Singaporeans to buy residential properties for

investment purposes.

Furthermore, a dip in HDB flat prices may also discourage HDB flat owners from upgrading

to a private condominium as lower HDB prices means lower profit and budget for upgrading.

In addition, an increase in housing supply which includes approximately 95,000 new private

units that will enter the market in the next 5 years as well as approximately 25,000 to 27,000

public housing flats launched in 2014. These have an impact in the dropping of private

residential property prices as they boost the vacancy rate.

4.1.4 Forecast

Overall, it is expected that the private residential market will be experiencing a general

slowdown with a soft landing a modest decline in prices in the near future. This is with the

assumption that the Singapore government does not make any revisions on any policies that

results in an increased demand of private residential property market, in particular private

condominium. A report done by Barclay forecasted a decline of 5% in residential property

prices in 2014 and another 5% to 15% in 2015 (SG Wealth Builder, 2014). This is partly due

!

9!

!

#$%%&'(!

to the expected higher mortgage rates resulting from the US Fed tapering, which would make

financing of a property more expensive.

4.2 Micro Level

Considering the sluggish private non-landed market, the future expectation of home prices in

Prince Charles Crescent area is likely to be as status quo. In the vicinity of the site area, there

is a large supply of private residential units, especially along Alexandra Road. However, the

market for private housing along Alexandra Road is a different market than that of the area

around the site area, despite their close distances. This is due to the fact that units along

Prince Charles Crescent belong to District 10, whilst units along Alexandra Road belong to

District 3. Studies have shown that in Singapore, investors are willing to pay a premium for

more prestigious districts (PropertyGuru, October 2010). Therefore, the demand for housing

in the area is higher than the other parts of Singapore. This can be largely attributed to the

fact that Prince Charles Crescent is situated in District 10 a prestigious housing estate in

Singapore. Units in District 10 certainly do not lack any strong demands, even when the

market is rather slow-moving.

!

Table 2: Private Residential Units Sold and Launched (URA, 2014)

!

/!

!

#$%%&'(!

Recent reports by Channel News Asia (Wong Siew Ying, 2014) suggest that the influx of

property investors are growing in Singapore, especially in the more prestigious residential

estates. Such investors include nationals from China, Indonesia and Malaysia. These

investors tend to have large accumulations of wealth that are enough to negate the costs

incurred by recent government measures. Although the recent newspapers reported that the

number of foreign investors is declining in the sluggish market, we believe that this is

attributed to the lack of prestigious condominium launches. This is further supported by

and sold between 2012 and 2013, as shown in Table 2.

!

Private development with potentially large ROI such as J Gateway in Jurong East, had all of

its 738 units sold within its first day of launch. Therefore, since the proposed development

belongs to a prestigious development and has large ROI, there is sufficient ground to believe

that there is still a high level of demand for the proposed development.

According to recent transactions, new condominium launches in the neighbourhood of Prince

Charles Crescent received high demand from the public. This is evident from the sold-out

success by Echelon in the third quarter of 2013 and was subsequently followed by Alex

Residences in late 2013. The latter had more success than the former as it was fully sold only

within a few weeks after its launch. These transactions were those of new private residential

units in District 3. Units in District 10 are generally more prestigious and thus has higher

demand than those in District 3. It could be expected that the proposed development would

have larger magnitude of success than the cases described.

!

"+!

!

#$%%&'(!

5. Appraisal process

An analysis of five appraisal approaches will be considered to evaluate the subject site.

Direct comparison approach is a rationale based on principles of substitution,

contribution and supply and demand, which suggests that similar properties will

realize similar prices. It inherent a premise, that a purchaser would not pay more than

the cost for acquiring a property with similar amenities and utilities.

Cost approach is based on the principles of substitution and contribution. It suggests

that no one would pay a property what it costs to buy the land and construct the

building which would provide the same level of utility.

Income approach is based on the concept that value is estimated according to the

expectations of future benefits and higher earnings should result in higher value.

Profits approach entails the trading profits derived from the business operation of the

subject property. The estimated annual income is then capitalized to the current

capital value of the property.

Residual approach is based on the rationale that site value is the residual value having

deducted all costs of development and profits from the expected capital value of the

property when completed.

!

In this appraisal, two approaches are being used - direct comparison approach and residual

approach. The cost approach is not applicable because the subject site is in vacant state and it

is not possible to estimate the reproduction or replacement cost if there is no existing building

on it. Profit approach and income approach are not applicable as the vacant land does not

involve business operations, hence no income is generated.

!

In the final steps of the appraisal process, estimated values and conclusions are consolidated.

To reach the final conclusion, the entire process of estimating the site value by different

approaches must be reviewed for accuracy, completeness and consistency. The final

conclusionahasatoabearational,adefensiveaandaableatoabeasupportedabyatheaanalysis.

!

""!

!

#$%%&'(!

6. Direct Comparison Valuation

6.1iIntroduction

Direct comparison approach relies upon several principles of valuation: substitution,

contribution and supply and demand. The property is evaluated through direct comparison

with one or more properties that have similar utilities, features and characteristics. Several

adjustments are applied due to the heterogeneity of properties. The steps involved in direct

comparison approach are:

Identification of comparable

Verification of data and inspections

Adjustment to take into account current market conditions as well as physical,

economic and legal variables

Adjustment in percentage terms or lump sum

Subjective opinion based on objective assessment

The site value is estimated by comparisons with sales of similar land parcels with identical

uses and similar location. The common unit of comparison for sites is the sale price per

square meter and will be applied in this analysis.

6.2 Comparable

A search was made of land sales in the vicinity. Addendum III summarizes verifiable sales

from which land value can be estimated. The comparable shown were considered most

suitable in the area of the subject property.

!

")!

!

#$%%&'(!

6.3 Adjustments Criteria and Justifications

6.3.1 Date of Sale

!

Figure 3: Market Trend (Squarefoot, 2014)

As seen from Figure 3, there is an overall upward trend in prices for properties transacted.

The Subject tender date is on April 2014 whereas Comparable 1 and 2 were transacted 2

years before. Thus, Comparable 1 and 2 are subjected to an upward adjustment in price.

6.3.2 Demolition Cost

!

Figure 4: Land Parcel, Comparable 1

!

!

"*!

!

#$%%&'(!!

As shown in figure 4, Comparable 1 is partially developed. This means that developers would

have to incur some form of cost like demolition cost before redevelopment. This may

discourage buyers to purchase this land parcel. Thus, Comparable 1 is inferior compared to

the Subject and Comparable 2. Therefore, Comparable 1 is subjected to an upward price

adjustment.

6.3.3 Physical Characteristics

!

Figure 5: Size and Shape

Adjustments for size differences are often made on the premise that purchasers would pay

less per square meter for a larger site as compared to a smaller site. The term for this is

. Another key factor is due to the fall in demand

since the number of potential bidders drops as the land parcels become more expensive to

purchase. Therefore, there will be less competition. Since the Subject has a bigger plot

compared to Comparable 1 and 2, both Comparable are subjected to downward adjustments.

Irregular shaped parcel reduces the flexibility in construction design, thus price adjustment in

the form of utility is made. Comparable 2 has a regular shape and its utility would be made

better as compared to the less regular shape of the Subject and Comparable 1. Thus,

!

"-!

!

#$%%&'(!

Comparable 2 is subjected to a downward adjustment while Comparable 1 is subjected to an

upward adjustment since it has more irregular shape as compared to the Subject.

6.3.4 Location

The Subject and Comparable 2 are located beside Alexandra Canal, a recreational area as

well as providing the residence a paranormal view of the waterway downstream. This results

in these sites to be superior to Comparable 1. Comparable 1 is thus subjected to an upward

adjustment.

!

Table 3: Price Adjustments

6.4 Estimation of Land Value

Based on table 3, the estimated value of the subject property should range between

$10,026.00 and $10,618.00 per m . Since Comparable 2 is more similar to the Subject than

Comparable 1, we decided to estimate the value of the land at $10,150 per m . Estimated

value of land is as calculated:

52,426 m! " $10,150 /m! = $532,123,900

Estimated Land Value: S$532,120,000

!

!

Comparable 1 Comparable 2Price per mB $ 9,480.15 $ 10,336.31 Date 15% 10%Demolition Cost 5% C63'

Location 2% C63'

Size -30% -3%Shape 20% 10%Adjustment Price per mB $ 10,618.00 $ 10,026.00

!

",!

!

#$%%&'(!!

7. Residual Valuation

7.1iIntroduction

Using residual method as a valuation approach, the site value is estimated by deducting all

the estimated costs of development and expected profit from the capital value of the

development when it is completed. The estimated costs of development and expected capital

value of property are evaluated by comparing with other developments with similar

characteristics and location that have been transacted recently. The steps involved in residual

method include:

Defining highest and best use of vacant land

Estimating Gross Development Value (GDV)

Deducting all costs of development and profits

Residual site value to account for opportunity cost, legal and stamp fees before determining

site value.

7.2 Highest and Best Use Analysis

The site was evaluated for its highest and best use and so its maximum value was recognized.

The reasonably probable use of the vacant land was evaluated through the highest and best

use analysis and this analysis included considerations as below:

Physically possible

Appropriately supported (by market forces)

Legally allowable

Financially feasible

The only allowable use for the subject site in the Government Land Sales (GLS) is

residential, hence, determining its highest and best use. In addition, this use conforms to the

current zoning ordinance. The subject land has been in vacant state for years and its size

(24,964.3 m ) is recognized to be appropriate and applicable for residential development. The

site has a rectangular-based shape and flat conforming topography, resulting in the possibility

!

".!

!

#$%%&'(!

for the maximization of physical utility while waiving additional construction cost.

Moreover, the site is surrounded by mostly residential and institutional development.

Therefore, the environment conditions and urban infrastructure surrounding the subject site

are suitable to support the use of the site.

7.3 Comparable for Estimation of Gross Development Value (GDV)

A search was done in the vicinity. The units that are most similar to the development are from

Echelon. They have incorporated compact and standard 3 bedrooms as well as suites in their

development, which is similar to our development proposal. The comparable are listed

addendum IV.

7.4 Adjustments Criteria and Justifications

7.4.1 Date of Transaction

All the comparable units were transacted between February to April 2013, while the subject

units are going to be transacted in the near future. Based on the market analysis, there has

been an upward trend in property prices by approximately 5% from the first quarter of 2013.

Therefore, the Comparables are subjected to a upward adjustment of 5%.

7.4.2 Location

The development of the comparable units are located nearer to the transport facilities

compared to the subject units. Thus the comparable are superior in terms of location and are

subjected to a downward price adjustment of 3%.

!

!"#$%&'(&)*+,%&-./0123%421

Subject A Comparable A Subject B Comparable B Subject C Comparable C Subject D Comparable D Subject E Comparable E

Price per m 22664 20323 19025 18248 17165Date 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%Location -3% -3% -3% -3% -3%Adjusted Price per m

23117 20729 19406 18613 17508

!

"0!

!

#$%%&'(!

7.5 Estimation of GDV

From the adjusted prices shown in table 4, the estimated GDV of Prince Charles Crescent

(Parcel B) comprises of:

1 Bedroom: $23,117/ m , GDV: $23,117 ! 4,200 = $97,092,576

2 Bedroom: $20,729/ m , GDV: $20,729 ! 13,975 = $289,694,204

3 Bedroom Compact: $19,406/ m , GDV: $19,406 ! 11,200 = $217,341,600

3 Bedroom Standard: $18,613/ m , GDV: $18,613 ! 14,400 = $268,026,624

4 Bedroom: $17,508/ m , GDV: $17,508 ! 4,550 = $79,662,765

Estimated GDV: S$951,820,000.00

7.6 Estimation of Land Value

!

!

Estimated Land Value: S$491,360,000.00

Key Assumption: The value is estimated on the assumption that the cost of canal diversion

is neglected.

!

D(8>368'<!EFG /,"H9)+H+++I++J!!!!!!!

Less: Construction Cost: 52426 m X $2500/ m "*"H+.,H+++I++J!!!!!!!

Professional Fees @ 10% "*H"+.H,++I++J!!!!!!!!!

Interest at 5% of Construction & Professional Fees, 3 years ""H*.)H,".I*-J!!!!!!!!!

Marketing and legal: 3% of GDV )9H,,-H.++I++J!!!!!!!!!

""-H)"9H-++I++J!!!!!!!

.,*H,")H/9*I..J!!!!!!!

Let x be Site ValueSimulating market interest for Bonds ,K

Incorporating Opportunity Cost, 5 years and Acquisition Cost LMN"I+,O,P"QLM+I+,L

"I**L

x -/"H*.*H"-,I."J!!!!!!!

!

"9!

!

#$%%&'(!

8. Reconciliation of Value Indications

Based on our application of valuation approaches, the estimated land value ranges from

S$491,360,000.00 (Residual Valuation) to S$532,120,000.00 (Direct Comparison Valuation).

We skewed the estimated land value towards the Direct Comparison Value because the

valuation is based on past transacted prices which can be used as empirical evidence. In

contrast, Residual Valuation is based on the development proposal which is subjected to

change by the development company, YSM Developers Ltd.

Opinion of Value: S$520,000,000.00

9. Conclusion Thesis Statement

Based on the analysis and assumptions presented in this report, the Tender Bid as on 11 April

2014 of the land parcel (Prince Charles Crescent Parcel B), is:

S$520,000,000.00

FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY MILLION SINGAPORE DOLLARS

!

"/!

!

#$%%&'(!

Addendum I - Subject Photograph

Site Description

Site Area: 24,964.3 m

GFA: 52,426 m

Number of Units: 655

Maximum Building Height: 153 m AMSL +

Zone: Residential

Topography: levelled

Lease Period: 99 Years

Date of Value: 11 April 2014

Tender Bid: S$520,000,000.00

!

)+!

!

#$%%&'(!

Addendum II Development Plan

Tower Alpha

Tower Beta

!

!

!

!

Tower Charlie, Delta, Echo, Fox and Golf

4br s 3br stand

4br s 3br comp 3br stand 2br 3br comp 3br stand

4br s 3br comp 3br stand 3br comp 3br stand 2br 3br comp 3br stand







7('>$?

4br s 3br stand 3br stand 4br s

4br s 3br stand 3br comp 2br 3br stand 4br s

4br s 3br stand 3br comp 2br 3br stand 4br s

4br s 3br stand 3br comp 1br 2br 3br stand 4br s





garden

3br stand 3br comp

3br stand 3br stand 3br stand 3br comp

3br stand 1br 2br 2br 1br 3br comp




















4br s

4br s

Lobby and Club

Garden + fitness

!

)"!

!

#$%%&'(!

DesignaProposal

!

))!

!

#$%%&'(!

#&6RS:2$;<

C'7$:>8R!1223

E:'';':R

C?>33>;S!#22&

T2>&'8!U!C6$;6

D$@$?>

!

)*!

!

#$%%&'(!

Addendum III Direct Comparison Approach

Comparable

!

Comparable Site Date Tender Price ($) Price per m ($) Site Area (m ) Permissible GFA (m )

49950Comparable 2

Prince Charles Crescent (The Crest)

25/9/2012 516,298,888 10,336.31 23785.4

52426

Comparable 1

Jervois Road (Mon Jervois)

8/2/2012 118,900,000 9,480.15 8958 12542

Subject

Prince Charles Crescent (Parcel B)

24964.3

!

)-!

!

#$%%&'(!

Addendum IV Residual Approach

Comparable

!

),!

!

#$%%&'(!

References

Choong, Elizabeth. 3 January 2014. Outlook for the private residential market in 2014.

Stproperty. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-

property/spw-insights/outlook-for-the-private-residential-market-in-2014/a/148888

Hartung, Richard. May 17, 2013. For many, the shoebox fits. Today. Available from World

Wide Web: http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/many-shoebox-fits

Ho, Paul. 3 February 2014. .

Stproperty. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-

property/singapore-property-news/trends-in-singapores-private-housing-market-for-

4q-2013/a/152287

Lee, Yen Nee. 20 June 2013. Shoebox flat yields under pressure. Available at World Wide

Web:ahttp://www.lushhomemedia.com/manage_posts/2013/06/20/shoebox-flat-

yields-under-pressure/

PropertyGuru, 10 October 2010. Singapore residential regions and districts. Available from

World Wide Web: www.propertyguru.com.sg

Rashiwala, Kalpana. 3 January 2014. Mass-market condo prices begin to turn. Stproperty.

Available from World Wide Web: http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-

property/singapore-property-news/mass-market-condo-prices-begin-to-turn/a/148814

SG Wealth Builder. n.d. Property market outlook for singapore in 2014. Available from

World Wide Web: http://www.sgwealthbuilder.com/2013/11/property-market-

outlook-for-singapore.html

Singapore Property Cycle. 26 January 2014. Property price index by housing type. Available

from World Wide Web: http://www.singaporepropertycycle.com.sg/market-

trends/singapore-property-price-index-by-housing-type/

!

).!

!

#$%%&'(!

Trading Economics. 2014. Singapore gdp annual growth rate. Available from World Wide

Web: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/singapore/gdp-growth-annual

Trading Economics. 2014. Singapore inflation rate. Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/singapore/inflation-cpi

!

!

re1104 valuation report

Real Estate