Whenever there is "unfair enrichment", there should be regulation...

my real estate agent told me today a lot of pending cases (paid 2% deposit but s and p not sign yet) are stuck bcos of this 70% loan announcement today.

what if I've already signed the letter of offer from the bank but loan agreement not signed yet? s&p all done.

need to find more money?

i think they will honor it...becos the loan is approved before the announcement....

lolllzzz....

you're lucky. as long as loan approved before announcement, then ok.

your third house, is it ?

Why care even it's 50% LTV for 3rd house?? to be effective, impose RPGT 25-30% for first year and slowly reduce it for next 4 year then only u will see the impact. For instance, myself and wife needs only 1 house to stay. with this, we can get 4 houses without triggering this requirement! idiot! totally ineffective in curbing speculation!! learn from singapore, impose 70% on second house and cahrge higher stamp duty and tax.

For 3rd purchasers.. no need to guess here... just called up your own bankers and check it out...

Personally very agreed on with BNM step but not with "immediate effect today" .. should give 1 month or immediate effect from next year , 1 Jan2010..

This post has been edited by cutealex: Nov 4 2010, 01:47 PM

Been busy

Anyhow I applaud BNM for making such bold move even at the expense of the short-medium term economic results. All I can say is that speculators will cry, home owners will cheer, and its BAU for fundamentally driven investors.

Also, if one is creative enough there are couple of ways you can still get 90% MOF...........

I may have been referring to genuine upgraders & not margin punters. Don't u think a valuation approach to the limit of the 1st two purchases would have made more sense than a dismissive LTV cap on the 3rd? On 1st time purchasers the govt has already stepped in with provisions for purchases made under the 220k beltline. Here the measure is to curb speculative activities on the 3rd purchase not, if everyone has read correctly, to aid the 1st time purchaser. It is very common among many young msians to have bought their first starter home, usually an apartment & then later another for investment, who now wants to upgrade to a landed prop. Policy could have less dismissive to address the concerns of this group of genuine upgraders. Otherwise usisng the bank's internal vetting of the individual current debt gearing & limiting it no more than 40% of their income would have been more effective in curbing speculation & keeping household debts in check.

Sun Tzu Art Of War - strike when the enemy least expected it...

great, that's 1 of the way to stop rich gets richer and poor gets poorer.

If you're a "genuine upgrader" want to upgrade but have no money for the 30% d/p, sell your apartment , rent a place and start buying the landed property. Simple.
In that case, everyone can give the same scenario as an excuse for owning three property using bank loans.
To me it's just an excuse.

Why not make it 5 houses then ? I also can create a scenario whereby young msians bought their first starter home, usually an apartment & then later 3 more for investment, who now wants to "upgrade" to a landed prop.

This post has been edited by Drian: Nov 4 2010, 02:17 PM

yes... give opportunity to the poor who are genuinely ready to grab the advantage.

else, if we give it to the poor and they cannot even afford the dp, there is no point also

Check your line of thought. What are you doing with the first two property?

"Upgraders"?

So government must protect this group of "upgraders" coz they so kesian: 1st property only a small apartment , and 2nd is investment, and then when they need to pay 30% deposit coz this LTV 70% is so unfair coz they wanna genuinely "upgrade" to a "proper" house to stay...?

Actually if the property investors are really really rich, this move doesn't affect them as they can afford to pay cash full for the property. It's only those who are not that rich but want to own many property, who can't even pay 30% downpayment that will be affected by this.

can't they just sell off the 1st house and upgrade?

if really for own staying, it is always advice settled the loan ASAP
why not just settled the loan since it small apartment/loan & buy the dream house with 90% loan lor
unless already cannot afford in the first place

Excuse ma, they still want to own three properties.

1st house is the golden goose mah.
without the golden goose eggs, who knows maybe insufficient fund to pay mortgage for the 3rd one leh.