Hi everyone,
I found a condo from my agent. This condo cost 148k (2nd hand) located at my desire location. and i like the house once i see it.
The problem is, it's a least hold unit and left about 70 years.
I plan to buy it to stay with my family.
So anyone have any suggestion? Should i buy this least hold unit?
I worry about no value in the future.
Please advice, thanks.

buy la if u like it..why think so much...Life is short,just make decide when time come...

u should state your basic income, family income, and the location of the condo...
then we just can help you decide..
buy or not is depend your income and you want it for investment or you stay there for long time..
if your income can afford more than it then it is worth..
and how much is your loan, the interest?
the value for future is depend your location, but majority the value will increase...
buying a house need do a lot calculation, think twice before decide..
jus my personal advice...

apart frm the price and stating the fact that the land is leasehold, probably u could furnish more info on the property (e.g. location, sq ft, facing, unit number, any amneties around it, etc) for the fellow forumners here to justify if ur purchase is worth it. nobody can really give a concrete advice based on the vague descriptions u've given.

if you like it, then buy it. For me, there is not diff between free hold and least hold unit. 70 years is a long times, anything can happen~
but i wonder, how a 30yrs old condo unit can attact your interest?

@agent42,
I don't exactly know where your location is but RM148k for a condo doesn't seem to be v expensive (again, I don't know the size and details of it!). If U really like it by all means go ahead and get it. When the lease is up, all u need to do is to renew the lease; by then U decide if it's worth renewing.

It would be great if it was freehold but well, there aren't many freehold properties around these days (at least not in the areas/location I like) and well, U can't always have things go your way, right?!

PS: The house I purchased last year was also on leasehold land and that didn't stop me from getting it.

You'll face two problems if u decide to proceed :

1. MOF will be significantly lower as its tenure left with only 70 years. Very unlikely to get 90% MOF.

2. Selling it later will be a problem coz many banks wont finance it (this is major bank's policy AS OF TODAY)

I definitely wouldnt go for this

This post has been edited by Pai: Mar 26 2009, 06:55 PM

Pai is right, you may have problem when selling it later. even yes, most probably you cant sell it at your desirable rate.

This post has been edited by hacker6280: Mar 26 2009, 07:40 PM

erm... regarding the MOF, it is more dependent on the valuation, i.e the market value.
90% shouldn't be a problem for 70yrs old tenure.

You r right and Im not wrong
"
The problem here is that the diff between official valuation and the said "market value" could be quite substancial due to lower LH tenure

If you plan to buy and pass it down to your children or holding it for long term for rental income in the future, by all means, go ahead.

But if you decide to buy and stay now and there is a possibility of shifting to else where after 10 years and plan to sell of this condo, do think seriously.. Bank usually reluctant to approve loan to your future potential buyer if the tenure is less than 60 years. Unless the buyer buy it with cash and this kind of buyer pool is very small. Moreover, value will depreciate because not many ppl will buy in cash.

After 70 years expire, owner own nothing not even the structure or land, in other words, buyer is paying RM148k of "rental" in advance for 70 years, and at the end, own nothing..

There are always people say that there is no different between LH and FH, dont take this lightly, talk to bankers and other experts.. It depends on individual whether you can take the consequences or not.. Developer always say LH is common, they dont care much but reapping profit from buyers are their main priority..

A friend of mine who is a bank manager always encourage me to buy freehold ..

For me, FH for own stay, LH or FH for rental income (its is just me la)

Come on, do not frighten people by simply saying owner OWN NOTHING after paying RM148k for a lease hold apartment unit. Do u think the government just simply take back the land (together with the apartments built on it) after tenure expired? what is government going to do next? tear down the whole damn apartment, and built something else, and left the previous apartment owners homeless?

The land owner is the legal proprietor (in this case, it's the Management Corporation), at the end of the tenure, the land owner will need to apply to extend the lease year (max is 99 years), pay a substantial sum of premium to RENEW THE TENURE. The MC will have no problem to pay the amount (taken from sinking fund)if they manage the account sparingly.

That is the uncertainty of LH.. it is up to you..

agent42,

Is the condo managed well?? Do most of the condo owners pay the maintenance fee?? How many of those condo are occupied?? How much is the maintenance fee??

Come on. Unless you are VERY RICH, 148K is a lot of money to you. So, do a lot more research before rushing into buying something.

Dreamer

Buy or not buy the major factor come from TS financial ability.

Whether it is LH and FH is a secondary issue. If same property one is LH with 1xxK while FH at 2xxK or 3xxK, then if one is having problem or full stress to pay the the loan on the FH, LH might be a better choice.

The first criteria of buying a property is always about cashflow and financial ability, not LH or FH.

For sure every one also want FH if both at same price, but we know, it is impossible. FH properties generally come with premiun.

After all, after 70 years, I don't think the apartment/condo will be valuable disregard it is FH or LH, as high rise building after 30 years or longer time or so, generally value is not that good already. Unlike double storey landed houses, the valuable part of the properties come from its land, not is house, as next buyer can always rebuild it, while highrise building cannot.

LH can be no different than rent for xx years or the LH tenure. But rent a house to live is not as bad as we think of. If rent a house can result in better cash management and able to save much more each month than buying a house, then it might be good and suit to a particular person

Also after 70 years, for sure, I no longer around.

thanks everyone, i have a decision not to buy it. Because as dreamer says, 148k is a big amount for me.
And i have a plan that i will move to another house maybe another 6-10 years. So LH cant make a good investment for me now.

I will go for FH house with higher price. LH will make me like paying "rental".

Thanks everyone, appreciate it.

my suggestion is go richdad.com you will see a whole new world...Lots of valuable advice you could get there...don't ruch anything there is always better opportunity

No matter it is freehold or leasehold, nobody will buy your house after 70years. This is the fact. So, the question is, does it matter ?

If your concern is the leasehold because you're worried you may lose your house while you are staying there... then perhaps chances of that happening are rather slim, but not impossible.

If your concern is the value of the house and the ROI, I wouldn't go for it!

Hope you make up a wise decision based on financial ability.

In term of ROI, a lot of time,
FH and LH makes not much different actually, some LH properties may be more valuable or appreciate more than FH because of location.

Unless the LH left short LH tenure, like 30 years or so then may be, but if reaching that stage, LH properties should be quite cheap though.

It is always a trade off between FH and LH. FH may be more valuable but you may pay high premium. While LH is may not that valuable, but you pay cheaper than FH counterpart.
So we can't say which is good or bad just based on LH and FH.

70 or 99 years, we won't be around anymore.