I am looking for house for own stay. It is wise for free hold instead of lease? How much different if I opt for lease hold. Sometimes the location is good but is lease hold and free hold type in good location is way expensive.

i don't see anything wrong with lease hold. I'm staying in a lease old apartment now

it depends .... not much different if u are purchasing condo lar ....
but the difference come when u are investing on landed property ....
condo i don think there are anyone willing to stay there even after 99 years (Lease Hold).
But Landed property ... it is advicable to get free hold. Coz the value will keep increasing ...

Free hold now hard to get. UNless you go for 2nd hand type. Just wonder, is there any different if I stay in MPSJ, MPKlang or Shah Alam. These area offer affortable prices of houses.

got big difference ler...
if your leasehold left 60 years and below, u gotto get CASH buyer for your property because no banks will lend the buyer money. Unless its a very WANTED property loo...

Leasehold properties always look much better because it needs to attract the buyers. And Leasehold are sometimes much cheaper too.

This post has been edited by mIssfROGY: Apr 9 2007, 10:44 PM

ALWAYS GO FOR FREE HOLD. lease hold, once ur lease over, u can renew for 99 years but u have to pay a substantial fee and what if gorv want develop the land there? free hold, no prb

yes..quite true.

and at that time the property will depreciate in value until it's renewed...

also leasehold will involve a more complicated and lengthy process when you sell your property.

The owner of a leasehold property need to firstly get the consent from the developer. (Then the developer will check whether is there any maintainance fee outstanding. Also a fee of RM 500+ will be charged for the developer consent)

Then with the consent letter, your application will pass to land office. The officer will then check whether the developer has any outstanding quit rent or rates with the local authorities. If there is, your application to change the ownership might be discarded unless the developer settle all the outstanding.

Generally leasehold property is more difficult to sell and troblesome also.

Please get your facts right.

The above statement only applies to property WITHOUT an individual/strata title.

Doesn't matter if it's leasehold or freehold.

kena pawned by pro ... haha

oh ya...another thing is...not all leasehold starts with 99years from the time u buy the property....sometimes it starts from the time the developer bought the land. By the time the developer finishes building and all...your property might left only like 97years? or 80 years? maybe 70years.....quite possible also. So do check.

Actually that's more of a myth... freehold also is not safe... if the government wants to they can invoke certain clauses and seize your property. I believe it's similar to the case that involved the owner of the Coliseum Theatre....

I remember the incident when the government tried to use a crooked law to rob the owner of his property and pay peanuts for a building worth millions.

It happened just last year...

you may claim it's a myth but come to resale value - freehold is always better than leasehold.

What are you talking about??

nope! it depends on the area u purchased and which class of citizens in the area also. There are Freehold properties that is located in Bukit Beruntung and still sell at lower price.

It doesnt really matter at all.

Most likely a commitee of the condo will renew their leasehold property 10 years before it expires . Only thing im not sure is " How much"?

Freehold property is safe? If the building is not safe or landslide do happen occasionally, the property will be shut down and residence will be ask to move out also. In malaysia, anything can happen one lah!
I have seen gomen took bribes and convert the public road into housing, now the land was abandoned because contractors found out of the corruption case and the land become a waste area now.

hmm...alot of ex-mining areas are leasehold ...anyone noticed this?

This post has been edited by mIssfROGY: Apr 18 2007, 12:50 AM

yeap, especially in puchong area. Ex mining area but still leasehold. Guys how about looking at klang area? SP setia? or Putra Heights, both are free hold.

and its selling price is more than freehold property esp YTL Lake Edge...

This post has been edited by aaronpang: Apr 18 2007, 11:31 PM

Examples of good leasehold areas are Bandar puteri puchong, sunway mas and Damansara perdana. All prices hiked up like mad.

agree with aaron

based on my experience, in current market situation, you have to look at the location of the property.. There's no point in buying a freehold for its future value, if the location is very far from town or amenities... there's no guarantee in gomen not taking the land or property value may increase...

For eg, my uncle bought a bungalow in damansara heights (leasehold) in the 70s... during that time there's a lot of FREEHOLD areas other than D'sara height which is a leasehold...but ppl still buy becos...99 years is a very long time...and by that time the value increased tremendously... you can sell and make millions out of it...

Another reason is even if you buy freehold and if gomen want to develop the area .. they will buy that from you ... at their own calculated price of course!
However, if you can afford freehold property in prime areas.. then it would be a good buy... as for me , I'm content with my leasehold house in Kota Damansara.

If you are buying a house to stay, then you should consider location rather than whether it is freehold or lease hold. 99 years is simply a long time and good for two generation.

i also agree. if you are about 30 years old now and you plan to stay in that location till you old.
You buy a 99 years lease hold.

Let say you live up to 90 years old. you already live for 60 years in the lease. by that time, you still have 30 over years and i dont think you will be in trouble because you probably hand it over to somebody in the Will . so y bother about it when somebody younger is inheriting it .

as for investment, hit and run sort of thing, go for freehold or leasehold also the same what.

the problem here is people are not decisive whether its for investment or stay , they want both and the issue of leasehold vs freehold can never end.



This post has been edited by hackwire: Jun 15 2007, 06:38 PM

freehold or lease hold actually does not matter too much....the main concern is location, location, location...... if the property set at leasehold and a hot place, ppl dun worry abt the 'holds' as long as the capital gain is there. just like some of u guys mention here, anything could happen in gov arrangement, so better look for what is suits you..

this topic seems interesting. any site to go to learn more about lease hold and free hold?

great topic..i was about to ask too..considering about pelangi utama now..it's leasehold, after listenin to all ur comments..it really doesn't matter that much.

Leqasehold value will drop in the future unlike freehold. So if your investing properties for the sake of return generally your way better off with freehold unit. But leasehold also can be an exception if the rental rate provides strong return.

Freehold properties price is very good compare to leasehold. It will goes up faster.

BUT no matter freehold or leasehold, Gov have the right to repossess the land if it wants to. They only have to pay nominal compensation to owners.

Leasehold properties subsales is more complicated in the sense that You need state government consent which may take up to 1 yr, in which time you have to pay vendor compensation as the SPA agreement states that 3+1 mth for all prosedure to complete. BUT some of the leasehold properties won't need consent, depending on the area.

so what happens after the leasehold expires?..u have to move out and u loose all the $$?..

Normally about 20-30yrs before expiry, there will be renewal by Gov. Even if it really expires, the compensation paid will probably the same as if its not expired.

This topic really make thing clear about buying a property with leased or freehold title.....

Thinking of buying a house in a year or two.... thanks for clearing things up.

I find it strange that you guys are talking about the government taking over your property. Unless it is located in a strategic area to be developed, the likelihood of this happening is negligible. The government cannot simply take over your property for the sake of doing so. There is such a thing called legal process. There is such a thing called accountability.

This country is still a democracy and the government will be mindful of their actions (esp. in light of the coming elections).

With that cleared up, I'm of the opinion that, all things being equal, investing in a freehold property is still better than lease hold. I have a friend who bought a freehold house in Damansara as an investment for his son's future educational expense because it will be more than likely that the house will appreciate in price, enough to cover his son's college expenses when he is of age. Can you say the same for leasehold properties?

Stop being so myopic and try to look at larger issues please.

Anyone experience taking loan on sub-sale leasehold property?

It make a hell of different between freehold.

after 99 years, you'll be living in heaven...

I did. Just got my key today. Apparently the max. loan given by banks depends on the duration left of the lease & lease hold need Gov/Dev consent before can transfer name. It's pain in the arse procedure especially if your properties not in KL.
Fortunately mine doesn't need consent.

It's stated in the contract that the Government can really take over your property when the land tenure is up.
Sorry; but it's in the LEGAL procedures when you signed it.
However, they might compensate you which I would presume the amount would be "little" and gave you enough time to evacuate.

Anyway a lot had mentioned; it's more lengthy and involves more time and procedures when names are to be transfered. I.e. by the way of selling properties or normal transfer of names or adding of names to the properties.

Other than that, there's no particular difference unless the leased tenure is getting shorter and shorter.

This post has been edited by b00n: Sep 3 2007, 04:45 PM

actually, there is 1 more major difference between freehold and lease hold properties, which is the pricing.

Other things being equal, freehold props often commands a minimum 25% premium in prices as compared to leasehold props. Hence why IMO freehold props rarely generates good returns

Yes, when the tenure is up. Freehold has no tenure.

There is no argument that the government can take over your leasehold property when the tenure is up. They'll just not approve your lease extension, wait till the tenure lapses, and evict the (former) land "owners". I don't think they'll even need to compensate you since the land is no longer legally yours.

My point was made in reference to many forummer's comments that there is little difference between freehold and leasehold in terms of permanence of ownership since the government can easily take your property by paying compensation. This is not true.

that I wouldn't agree with you.
Now it's all about location.
Again, there's hardly any comparison to start with.
Look at Tropicana for instance; doubted that even if it's freehold; the price is already at it's high. Freehold or no freehold doesn't make any difference there.
Look at wangsa maju now. Eventhough the area is mostly leasehold; now it commands quite high demand.

Unless of course the land or property lease left like maybe 30 years to end. If not, new areas are popping up and selling like hotcakes in high prices no matter free or lease hold.

Boss, the location factor is given. What I'm trying to point out here is that given the SAME LOCATION (e.g Kelana Jaya or Sentul), developers will charge you higher premium for freehold properties. Which is why in my post i did mentioned "Other things being equal" clause.

E.g :

1. In sentul, new YTL's Tamarind freehold condo's currently priced at RM280 psf, while the newly completed leashold one's leasehold ones called Melur Apartments selling for RM180psf only.

2. Kelana Jaya's Parkview condo (FH) is selling for RM280psf, while Kelana Puteri condo accross the road selling for RM170 psf.

This is a good article to read.
http://www.hba.org.my/faq/lease_freehold.htm

here is another one that talked about fallacy of leasehold.
http://www.hba.org.my/archive/news/2002/11...old_fallacy.htm
again this is what is quoted:

Which I agree very much.
Regarding developers charging higher premium which I don't agree.
Like my given example; I don't think the price would differ much even when there's a freehold land in tropicana.
Pai,
your example on Tamarind and Melur is not as "everything is constant" as you think.
Tamarind for one is considered quite high end compared to Melur; though they are in Sentul. So, it's no longer constant; thus I said before "there's hardly any comparison to start with".
Kelana Puteri is already old and overcrowded with students. Parkview I'm not sure.

---

Added on September 4, 2007, 5:44 pmSome more information on renewal of lease for leasehold land from SOURCE
I would put 2 quotes that are of informational:





This post has been edited by b00n: Sep 4 2007, 05:44 PM

technically, after 80 years, the apartment is no longer your problem

Location is the ultimate factor to determine whether your property value appreciate or not, not freehold or leased hold.

My relatives, one bought free hold, one bought leased hold one,(same type of house), the free hold one only gain little bit but the leased hold one already 2x, --> reason --> location.

Yes. It is about location. Look at those house in Kepong. Leasehold but very expensive now and they are people paying good $$$ for it.

for me....get a freehold and then have a peace of mind for many many many many years to come...

If you are buying a "home", it does not matter much if it's a lease or free hold. For me, environment is top priority, convenience comes second. By the time you get old, your children also don't want to stay with you already. So what's the point you worry that after 30years, the house value going to drop? That time you should be retired and it is very unlikely you are going to move to a new home.

A home is not an investment. Please remember that.

it depends on situation. Either you buying it as a living in purpose or investment purpose? leasehold value usually hard to go up and may drop in value in coming years, but some of the best high rental properties is leasehold status, so you may analyze if its a good deal or not. You better go for freehold. Im in love with Sunway Palmville resort condo and its goin on price around 350k, but its a leasehold property, and that turns me off hugely.

I would agree that location overweights whether it's lease or free hold.
but after that, lease hold's prices will increases slower then free hold. So if you can go for free hold, you should, but make sure the location is excellent first!

would you buy a FH property in a good location if it commands the same rental amount? Example :

a. A 2+1 Parkview condo in KJ that cost approx RM260k

OR

b. A 2+1 10 years LH Kelana Puteri condo(also in KJ) accross the road that cost only RM175k?



Both command the same rental, which is about RM1.2k p/m. So which one would you guys buy for investment?

Guys,

for investment it doesn't really matter FH or LH , so long the rental is good enuf to cover the loan instalment (if any) and gives a positive cash flow and good % of return on invested amount .

in many occasion, LH will offer tht expected return due to lower capital invested in. anyway, with the current bloom of real estate industry , u will oso see some new LH property is priced more expensive than a FH which completed 5-10yrs ago. and i m talking about apartment/condo here since the discussion is about Renting not flipping.

It all boils down to value to it creates. For an example if a freehold house cost 600k and a smilar leasehold one cost 400k, you might as well get the leasehold house , use the extra money to get another apartment to rent it out. You have two properties and one generating cashflow. In the long run, you will make more money that way.

hi .. can someone give a summary ..

1. short term effect of leased and free hold.? let say in between 20-30 years from now..

2. is it true difficult to sell house of leasehold? let say having another 30-50 years lease?

ganz,
after reading the inputs above, i have to agree that we need to decide if it's for investment or if it's for you to stay urself...

if it's a home, personally i also think lease hold or free hold is no difference at all unless u have the mindset of leaving something behind for ur offspring...

if it's solely for your own purpose of staying...LH or FH doesn't matter anymore...unless ur confident u can outlive ur LH of 99yrs... somemore...doesn't mean after 99 yrs expire, you will be chased out of ur house immediately...i still see ppl staying at LH house keep on renewing their lease agreement...hehe....

Actually many lease hold property is not much cheaper.

ok thanks.. for time being .. it just solely for me only.. but maybe after 10-15 years.. got better income or any durian runtuh get a better house..

paying monthly installement for housing loan is a life time and almost 1/4 to 1/3 of my monthly salary...

it true that lease oso not cheap.. but what to do.. still cheap than freehold..

1. The effect come from property market and location, lease or free hold has not much effect on it as it 95% depend on location.

2. No, again it is depended on location. A property that has 30-50 years of lease won't have much problem of selling it (may be price can be bit lower). Only those below 20 years will see significant price differential. I forget how many years, banks don't like to lend money to those leasehold properties which has below 20 or 25 years (forget how many years already roughly like that)

Although there can be leasehold properties with high prices, they MUST be at good locations, and one example or 2 is not good enough for me to justify the equality between these 2 titles. And that's the only reason they can command higher price. Now imagine same location but there is a similar freehold development, which do you think will be better?

When you have a LH property, it's harder to sell or refinance as the tenure becomes less and less. And for me personally the peace of mind won't be there. If I want to have a family home to pass to my next generations (and I do), LH is out of the question. Also, I won't buy a LH property if it's less than 90 yrs left, unless the yield is very very good.

All things being equal, FH is ALWAYS better. Just a feeling that LH gives me the impression I'm living on a BORROWED place.

*So far the only places I've seen that have LH and FH concepts are Malaysia and Singapore (UK maybe?).

ok thanks for all info.. next step.. looking for a new house.. (victim of abandon project.. kekeke)

back to square one..why issit freehold is pricey than leasehold?..if you look the price itself, thats explained why investing in Freehold is better than leasehold, having said this, the comparison must be in the same area, coz buying property is all about location, location & location ...as top criteria to be considered in priority...

Be mindful that the property you investing in, you may either consider it for living, renting, or selling..area of concerns which hardly to determined coz it depending on the situation which almost beyond your control: marketibility, assessbility, speed of realization, enforcebility, salelability, etc..you understanding on how the property markets moving/trends would help you to determine this to expect what happen in the future, but, its merely projection, or expectation..you never know what happen in the future..

as for me, i want a property that belong to me for my next generation.at least , my future generation would appreciate what i've done for them, for better living..control over my own assets, under my name..which in worst case scenario if the government would like to take from me, they must compensate me with premium price or at least equivalent with the current value of my assets. Hence, i 'll go for freehold..

thank you..

no such thing.

If gov decides to take over the land, FH or LH is irrelevant. En-blok purchase is a diff story altogether

If I remember correctly, pai had mentioned something before regarding property for investment and I do agree with him on that one.
I.e. if you're relying on rental income, why pay a pricier price for a certain property that's FH?
But if one does property flipping, yes do agree that FH is still more appealing.

i always wanted a freehold landed property. maybe influence by my mum. lease hold makes me feel i dun "own" it

got one low cost free hold apartment that i rent it and my own home which is lease hold...reading in this topic makes me feel i dont actually own my own home

everybody knows freehold is better. but looking at the budget ,environment, devloper and location issue, not much selection we have. for me,leasehold ok provided with strategic location and move to bigger house within 20yrs. (so i need to work very hard to earn more $$$$$) *blek*. yes resell value would be lower than freehold but still, landed property u will earn 1.. strategic location mah..

those FH too expensive and location not good,it will be so sad everyday i was like driving out from a outskirt area to town.

leasehold after 99 yrs renewal cost like re-purchase the value of the land? --sad, sorry to grandchild. haha unless i got another FH on hand.

The question is given that freehold cost 40% more in the same area, is buying a freehold better?

In penang a leasehold apartment cost RM230/sf while the freehold cost around RM330/sf which is around 40% more expensive. The extra cost can come up to 200K which means if I were to take a 25 year old loan with a 6-6.75% interest rate, at the end of the 25 years I would have paid an extra 400-500K?

Whether it's worth it or not is up to you, but the calculation behind it is not as simple as " freehold is better because I own it forever". You have to do a calculation on market price differences as well as locatioin.

This post has been edited by Drian: Feb 19 2008, 05:53 PM

Excellent point, Drian

I'd also like to add up that even if the freehold property cost 25%-40% more, both LH and FH properties with similar features within the same vicinity will command similar rental. Therefore, FREEHOLD is NOT always better

This is very true. It's calculated from the day the developer bought the land and not the day the property is completed. I heard you need to pay a couple hundreds of ringgit to renew the lease period. How much it takes to extend 10 years for example?

for me freehold or leasehold doesnt matter. so long as there are more than 85 years left on the lease, i will buy a property for its other qualities.

Just compare Kota Damansara - Tropicana area (leasehold) to say Bkt Jelutung(Freehold) or Damansara Jaya(Freehold). See how much prices have appreciated in commercial and residential in leasehold area cp to freehold. Leased hold shophouses gone up how many folds. Old buildings though freehold in not so strategic location appreciation still slower.

For condos, even freehold so what, aft 50 yrs condition, design all outdated cant expect price to rise. Landed property at least can tear down and rebuild. Main thing is good maintenance and management team important for condos. Not forgeting rental return to give you health cash flow. If buy for own stay you still have an option to rent out. Buying freehold hoping for capital appreciation but if rental incoming cannot cover loan so end up back to square one. As such location is important. Freehold/leasehold secondary.

Does anyone know how much to pay in order to extend the lease period? Is it possible to convert from leasehold to freehold? What are the procedures like?

I know recently Land Office approved a lease year extension application, the residential property location is in KL. the developer applied 13 years of extension, the land area is approx. 7500 sq metre, premium need to paid is about RM 25 per sq metre.

Total premium: RM 25 x 7500 = RM 187,500

therefore, it's about RM 14,423 per year, derived from RM 187,500/13 years.


If u r looking for strata title property, FH and LH are not a too critical issue, because when the land tenure is about to end, government will issue a notice to the property management (pm) to pay the premium for the extension of the leasing. So, the pm will utilise the sinking fund to pay for it.

Basically u can't convert a leasehold land to freehold land, except for some special cases.

Putting emotion & feeling aside, freehold or leasehold doesnt matter in certain part of the town. Wouldnt live more than 99 yrs away, so what's the concern? As long as within this period the said property can generate so much projected return to your investment, that's good enough. No emotion attach.

In condo, say 50 yrs down the road unless you are hoping for en-bloc sale like in Spore (many lucky overnight millionaires in old condos last yr), old condo generally wouldnt appreciate too much compare to newer ones. As such leasehold/freehold doesnt make much difference.

I heard the cost to extend the lease period is borne by developers but some borne by say owners (tenants). How can we determine who should pay for the cost of it?

I don't want my son to say my stupid father get a leasehold properties how stupid is him, no i have no house to stay cos is been 99years..

Don't worry. After 99 years:

- You might not live that long to be able to hear your son calling you stupid
- if you still alive by then, its "highly" unlikely to have a son , whom at 60yrs or even older, to UNABLE to secure his own property to live in, and have to blame his 100++ years old dad for that, unless he's senile of course.

This post has been edited by alanyuppie: Apr 29 2009, 05:14 PM

I don'want him to curse me when i am in heaven. Ha ha ha ha

In my opinion, i suggested that if u wont sell the house, u can but a leasehold property.
If u selling a leasehold property, u will lose a lot when ur property just less than 40 years...

i agree with pai.
in malaysian law, the concept is simple.
all land is owned by sultan.
when he or the government want to take it back, they will, no matter freehold or leasehold.
it is just, in the law stating that they will conpensate you with an amount they think sufficient.
according to law, it will be based on the land condition before taken, not according to the condition it will be.
if the land is semenyih.. a rural area, suddenly they want to develop a second putrajaya there, the compensation is based on price as semenyih. not as the second putrajaya.

base on my little research, here's the understanding/finding of LH:
1) review (by authority) happen at year 60, 30 & 0
2) authority have right to take your land without ur consent, they will then compensate according to market value
3) you may start to apply for renewal once it touch 30 years or below, however renewal will definitely incurr land premium


disclaimer:
a) regarding either the market value or land premium, they alwayz have a veto said on the so call "decent value"
b) LOW market value & HIGH land premium is alwayz the case observed

Sorry I wish I can be more helpful but i am also a rookie in property ...anyway i got to know this website and it is pinned as well in LYN...maybe you would like to take a look and see if it can help...


http://www.real-estate-investment-explained.com/

Leasehold may be fine if you're an investor or something, dealing in buying and selling property. But for normal people, for me it doesn't make sense. If you buy a house might as well get someting permanent so at least your kids get to inherit something worthwhile, from what I see, the price for leasehold and freehold not much difference.

refer to the bolded part. Not quite true, our authority is not in fascism state, my dear. If u are not agree to their compensation amount, u can always engage a registered property valuer. U can appeal and challenge them if there are vast amount between your valuer's finding and authority's valuation dept's one.

please take note that whatever there are lands acquired by government, they will pay accordingto the market value. No that kind of "take it or leave it" offer.

Sorry, cant agree with tat statement

@cic.lemur,
Act, in more developed places where freehold land is sparse, developers do put a premium on it.

The developer that's developing 14 units of bungalows in my neighbourhood has put a premium price to it since that's the last portion of freehold land. I've come to know the price starts from RM4m+

Well, probably you are right, my investigations were limited to only condo prices, but I realised that for condo it doesn't matter if leasehold or freehold, nobody would want to stay in a 100 year old condo, better to get a new condo and then sell off and get a good house when settled

if i plan to buy a house for future generations to come, then i'll choose freehold but it'll cost alot more than leasehold. but sadly nowadays children don't stay with their parents anymore after marriage.

Yup, paying too much premium to own a freehold condo or aparment compared to a 99 years leasehold seems not worthwhile.

A landed property worth is its land, not its house built either.

Anything about freehold/leasehold is worth or not worth is about the land value, not the house itself.

Freehold generally are marketed or transacted at much high premium than leasehold, so it is very difficult to have a direct comparison which one is worthwhile or not.
As owning a freehold compared to cheaper same alternative leasehold, means you might be more stressful in paying up the monthly housing loan ended less saving, compared to antoher person (leasehold) paying less but ended more saving for other purposes (can be investment, doing business etc), which in the end of the day who is actually gain in this situation, it depends lot of factor and how well the person utilise the cash.
The one ended with leasehold properties but utilise the saving to do business or succeed in investment field can be much richer than the one owning a freehold properties even though the freehold properties price increased.
So there is no direct comparison or definite say which is better. It depends on individual situation, properties situation itself.

freehold is more important to me;

1. It is easier to transact - for my own and future when I sell it (I heard that if it is leasehold, need at least 6 months)
2. The value will not deep as much as leasehold

same as above, i prefer freehold due to one more reaons.

- i'm 30, and it is high possibility for me to change home when my children grown up. Therefore, I will purchase freehold now and perhaps leasehold when i am 40 or 50 years old..

Bandar Puteri Puchong is freehold, not leasehold. Yes, the price of the property there sky rocketed after IOI develop the area into a "wong" area. No body expect a used to be jungle area to be develop so much over a short period of time.

---

Added on November 2, 2009, 2:50 pmleasehold nowadays mostly take 3 months if you hv lazy lawyer, freehold will be much faster.

This post has been edited by Tohsan: Nov 2 2009, 02:50 PM

oh....actually i got this info from the agent....

looks like the agent is bs-ting u, i get my leasehold terrace house done in 1 months only.

yeah ... i 'll do like too if i've a plan to sell the house later.

to me, will buy leasehold if i want to stay until i die ....bcoz price is much cheaper than freehold.

unless i really got plenty of moneyyyy

not all freehold property is expensive, it always depend on location, if u like kampung life,outskirt area freehold house are plenty and affordable.

Kulim area 5000 sf land size bungalow RM350k only...

When i plan to buy a first house , i bought second hand leasehold house with remaining 70 years, i though i will be staying there forever, doesn't matter FH ot LH, just buy it. But after 10 years, i change my mind and wanted to move to another place, then i hv hard time to get more buyers bcos they hard to get 90% loan, some of the banks not even want to consider with the reason of remaining 60 years of lease is the risk to them. Thus, i went to land office to ask for renewing my LH from 60 years to 99years but have to pay premium RM 5 per sq ft which cost me about 10k plus legal fees. The officer also said the premium is depend on area (premier area, rate higher) & the rates decided by their discretion and lucky my area not too expensive. (but still very troublesome to get thru all this). Eventually, i decided not to sell it and then rent it out even not at good rate.

wat i m trying to say here is most of us (in my opinion) cannot forsee what will happen in the future & ur need may change fr time to time. So no matter what for me FH is safer whether for staying or for investment, premium rate for LH for renewing may increased to very high after 20 or 30years later (i just guess only).

tats why i always prefer freehold, never like leasehold especially when u "own" the house yet u hv to ask 3rd party(the gov) for consent,and u hv to pay for this so call "permission", totally ridiculous i felt.

is there any website which u can check on which area is of free or lease hold?