Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Investment LOAN approved - 60% from income?, different from one third? anyone?

views
     
ProperTYcoon
post Jul 8 2013, 09:38 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,322 posts

Joined: May 2013
bring back income means after deduction of your commitment.

eg

income 5000 - (500 car loan) = 4500 x 60% =
2700 (Monthly Installment)
ProperTYcoon
post Jul 8 2013, 09:49 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,322 posts

Joined: May 2013
QUOTE(phengeon @ Jul 8 2013, 09:48 AM)
I think bring back income means after deduction of epf, socso,pcb so on.. car loan, house loan, card are all included under debt
*
yes of course exactly, clean commitment they'd say
ProperTYcoon
post Jul 8 2013, 12:58 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,322 posts

Joined: May 2013
hmm I think this shouldn't affect anything or changes everything.

it's standard practice that 60% of clean income is made to be your commitment for your property.

the only thing that affect is 35 years maximum

(I have 2 housing loans 40 years)
ProperTYcoon
post Jul 8 2013, 02:27 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,322 posts

Joined: May 2013
QUOTE(DrPitchard @ Jul 8 2013, 02:08 PM)
DIBS isn't the main that is causing the rise in property take up and thus, the prices. People are buying more than they need, a few properties. While some might argue that they are merely investing for the future, it also means that they are buying additional property which is more of a desire than need.

Thus, I think the government should impose a cap for the margin of financing for the 2nd property onwards, instead of the current 70% for the third property onwards. I am one of those investors who have 2 properties under loans, and have taken advantage of this, with plans to get a 3rd by year end. Maybe a margin of finance structure of:

a) 90% for 1st property
b) 80% for 2nd property
c) 70% for 3rd property
d) 60% for 4th property
ed) 50% for the 5th property onwards

DIBS is necessary especially for consumers buying their 1st home and can't afford the down payment. I think it's important we assume and allocate that each person should be entitled to purchase one property comfortably but anything more than that, should be quite a burden, since the aim is to afterall make profit. The way profit is made in real estate is quite cruel, as it jacks up the price of properties out of the reach of those who need it as their 1st home.

Another direct way to prevent flippers is to jack up the RPGT. I think it should be equivalent to the max cap of 26% for transactions within 5 years from S&P, just like the ceiling rate for personal income tax. While 5 years might be really long, as compared to the current 2 years, bear in mind, for the construction of a high rise residential, 3 years is the norm. Thus, the 2 years will have no effect as people only tend to sell once the property is completed. That's where the bulk of the appreciation kicks in, once the risk of project incompletion has been removed.

Just my 2 cents.

*By the way, I'm happy if government doesn't implement the above. So I can continue abusing the current system.... :-)
*
Hi there, I don't think its about abusing. DIBS is about property developer selling their property at Future Price (Property Value + Total Interest)

People used to call it (Indian feeds the Angmo), so that doesn't make any difference but eventually these property are sometimes overpriced.

No doubt DIBS helped people who couldn't fork out High upfront payment, but they're actually paying for the Future Price.

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0230sec    0.48    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 7th December 2025 - 10:13 PM