Promising high-rise residential outlook

 

 

Upward trend due to the strong cost push elements

Khong: The market is still seeing a significant influx of new high-rise units.

THE high-rise residential property market is showing promising signs of growth, despite the influx of new units and prevailing oversupply situation.

Given the land scarcity in the city and its rising construction costs, Savills Malaysia Sdn Bhd group managing director Datuk Paul Khong says high-rise properties will continue to move upwards due to the strong “cost push” elements.

New builds will be more costly to produce and hence, its higher pricing. Rentals will be affected as it is also a function of the capital values of the new units,” he tells Starbizweek.

However, Khong says demand will continue to increase as more urban migrants seek employment opportunities in urban areas.

“Rentals will continue to see strong demand (as many cannot afford to buy and will continue to rent) as they will still need a place to stay in the Klang Valley.

“We are seeing young professionals, expatriates and small families now favouring high-rise living due to affordability factors plus convenience, security and its amenities.”

Khong adds that retirees are also choosing high-rise properties over landed ones for similar reasons.

“Additionally, there is less physical maintenance required for a smaller place,” he says.

“The market is still seeing a significant influx of new high-rise units, but the challenge lies in balancing new supply against an oversupply situation to avoid negative factors on both capital values and rental yields,” Khong adds.

According to Knight Frank Malaysia in its Real Estate Highlights report for the first half of 2024, the high-end, high-rise residential segment in the Klang Valley is currently experiencing significant growth in market activity.

“This upward trend is highlighted by rising sales volumes and an increase in the number of newly launched projects.

“Over the past six months, there has been a concentration of developments in the KL City Centre, reflecting a shift towards investment portfolios, especially with the introduction of return on investment rental programmes.”

Knight Frank adds that the market’s momentum is further bolstered by government initiatives aligned with the Madani economic framework.

Khong says he expects demand for prime areas to pick up well, such as the KLCC and

Trx-bukit Bintang areas, which caters primarily to high-income earners and foreign expatriates.

“Many properties in the Golden Triangle area have been converted to short-term stay units targeting tourists for lucrative rental returns.”

Khong adds that high-rise projects in well-connected areas are also expected to see stronger value appreciation and higher rental returns, in particular properties near transit-oriented development zones, especially near new MRT and LRT expansion lines.

“Established residential areas like Damansara Heights and Bangsar should also continue to perform into the rest of 2024,” he says.

Meanwhile, down south in Johor, veteran property analyst Samuel Tan says the high-rise residential sector will perform better in the next couple of years, especially those that are easily accessible to the two causeways and near the Johor Baru Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS).

“Reasonably priced highrise apartments away from the centralised location but within established localities, will perform better moving forward.

“This is because landed residential properties are getting very expensive and beyond reach for most first timers.”

Additionally, Tan says many overhang units that accumulated during the Covid-19 period have been cleared.

“The supply-demand dynamic is not skewed towards the buyer’s market anymore. Having said that, we also noticed that developers are “rushing” in to capture the upturn.

“We opine that it is advisable for developers to read the market carefully and buyers also need to do their homework, before plunging in.”

Knight Frank meanwhile says the highrise residential sector in Johor Baru has seen improvements, marked by the launches of new projects that have attracted significant interest.

“Purchase inquiries have been increasing, particularly for high-rise developments near the RTS link project.

“Moving forward, we expect the projects located near the city centre to maintain their upward trajectory, while others are still experiencing positive effects from the ripple.”

Improving rentals

Khong says rentals have been recovering post Covid-19, especially in areas such as in Bangsar, Mont’kiara, Bandar Sunway and Shah Alam (especially the Glenmarie area).

“Notably, Bangsar and Bandar Sunway have surpassed their pre-covid levels, but we see rental tension with the increasing new completions in Petaling Jaya and Subang Jaya.

“It is a tenant’s market and they are spoilt for choices, given the many new offerings with more modern lifestyle concepts, better locations and more attractive amenities moving forward.”

Khong says KLCC still remains on the recovery path.

“We hope the current relaxation of the Malaysia My Second Home programme will enhance the government’s efforts to move Kuala Lumpur city as a world-class business and entertainment hub, attracting more foreign investors and tourists.”

Khong says there are still strong fundamentals that are driving positive rental performance in high-rise residential properties.

“This is despite higher cost-of-living due to the increased service tax now, diesel subsidy rationalisation and the expected RON95 subsidy changes, as urbanisation trends, strong demographics, population growth and the constant migration of the younger generation to urban areas will support this rental demand.

“Upcoming infrastructure projects such as the MRT and LRT expansions are set to enhance the connectivity and desirability to many of such locations. This continues the strong and positive trend in the rental market moving strongly forward.”

Similarly, Tan says he has witnessed improving rental trends for high-rise properties in Johor.

“We do not have official data for rental transactions. However, we know that rentals have been increasing since the reopening of borders in the second quarter of 2022.

“The increase over the past two years was easily 20% to 25% per annum for serviced apartments in the Johor Baru city centre and Iskandar Puteri area.”

Tan says the demand was mainly from Malaysians working in Singapore initially.

“Subsequently, more Airbnb operators also leased these high-rise units when tourists started streaming in.

“More Singaporeans are also renting in Johor Baru to stretch their dollars, especially those who can work from home.”

Source link 

Related posts:

Property market and affordability

• 

  Property market and affordability

    Affordability goes hand in hand with income. Affordability goes hand in hand with income. THE older wisdom believes that a market cycle ty...

Property market and affordability

 

Affordability goes hand in hand with income.

Affordability goes hand in hand with income.

THE older wisdom believes that a market cycle typically lasts about 10 years. While this is not set in stone and social media has somewhat disrupted this timeframe, one sector that seems to have moved in tandem with this timeline is the property sector.

The Malaysian property market has been on a downtrend for close to a decade. Take the KL Property Index (KLPRP). It has not revisited its peak in 2024. From a high of 1,524 on Aug 18, 2014, it fell to a low of 495 on March 23, 2020, during the Covid-19 lockdowns.

However, this past year, the KLPRP has performed extraordinarily, rebounding to 1,132 as at July 31, 2024, delivering a yearto-date return of 31%.

Is this the sign that our property market is truly on the path to recovery? It the worst over for the sector which has been in the doldrums for over a decade?

The peak of the property market was marked with the rollout of the popular “Developer Interest Bearing Scheme”.

This scheme essentially allows purchasers of property to pay only the initial deposit, with the developer absorbing the interest throughout the construction period until vacant possession.

This eased the entry for many first-time homebuyers who were previously deterred by deposit and interest repayment obligations.

However, as the market overheated, the government abolished the scheme. Nonetheless, various modified schemes continue to exist in the market.

We started witnessing many businesses diversified into property development.

Firefighting equipment manufacturers, confectionery makers and even textile companies entered the sector and became property developers overnight.

This led to a surge in the supply of properties. We must remember, in the past, properties were built sideways.

With advancements in technology and new regulations such as higher plot ratios, properties started being built upwards, unlocking a significant number of units and pushing up land costs.

There was also the mushrooming of “property gurus” who conducted seminars on property investment, which spurred speculations further.

The worst were those that propagate “compressed loans”, where buyers exploited a loophole in the banking system by submitting multiple loan applications at the same time to various banks for several properties.

This allowed them to borrow loans for several properties as the system then was not able to catch these simultaneous submissions.

All was well and good when the market was hot, as buyers could do a quick flip.

But when the market turned, many of these buyers could neither find buyers nor rent out the properties. Without the financial ability to service multiple loans at the same time, their properties were auctioned by the banks.

This led to a huge number of property units being put on the auction market. The situation was further exacerbated when the pandemic hit, causing many people to lose their income.

At one point, there were more than 200 listed companies on Bursa Malaysia involved in property development. As the supply of unsold units far outpaced demand, there was a compression in margins and write downs for many listed developers.

Sales were affected and many projects which were launched could barely achieve 50% of the sales threshold.

The situation was further complicated by delayed project completions, leading to liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) claims piling up.

The verdict of Ang Ming Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar [2020] 1 MLJ 281 led to many homebuyers filing suits against property developers, with the estimated claims reaching Rm48mil due to the extension of time (EOT) granted between 2016 and 2020.

The property market was indeed plagued with many challenges to a point where a veteran industry leader publicly commented that “the golden age of property sector is gone”.

As with all cycles, there is always a turning point. It seemed from the start of 2024, green shoots appeared for the property sector.

Firstly, the catalyst came when the government unveiled the potential of setting up a special economic zone for Singapore and Johor.

Secondly, the inflow of data centre investments drove up land transactions, with many property developers which had landbanks in Johor starting to cash out at significant premiums to their entry prices.

The average transaction price of agriculture land suited for the data centres was in the range of RM60 per sq ft.

Most of these land were less than RM30 per sq ft a year ago. This led to investors paying attention to the market down south.

Furthermore, banks’ appetite for end-financing picked up in the past two years, with an increase in both loan application submissions and approvals.

The latest Federal Court decision in Obata-ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd and two other appeals, which discussed the Ang Ming Lee case, stated the ruling on the EOT shall only apply prospectively and not retrospectively.

This was the cherry on the icing, allowing many developers faced by mounting LAD claims to breathe a sigh of relief. It is quite clear that 2024 is an important year for property developers, with the sector seemingly to be firing on all cylinders.

Yet, the Khazanah Research Institute director in a webinar last week, highlighted that our housing market is consistently unaffordable and was against offering “affordable financing” with long tenures.

She proposed for the migration from the current sell-then-build model to the buildand-sell model like other developed countries.

In my view, this policy idea is regressive in nature and not suitable to the current economic structure of Malaysia.

It is too shallow as the crux of the problem of property ownership in our country is due to low wage growth rather than high property price.

Affordability goes hand in hand with income. If the people’s incomes do not increase, affordability will always be a problem, regardless of whether there is affordable financing or otherwise.

Similarly, the migration to build-and-sell will not help the property market pricing in any way apart from reducing abandoned housing or “Project Sakit”.

The repercussion of a migration in model is far-reaching.

While I do agree that this would weed out many incompetent property developers and offer better protection to homebuyers, the downside would be the impact on the supply of property to the market and risk of financially strong property developers cornering the market, leading to oligopolistic or cartel behaviour.

This would eventually drive asset prices up further due to supply scarcity.

At the end of the day, I believe the rationale for property ownership differs from one person to another.

Some believe that real estate is among the safest and most reliable asset classes for investment purposes and hedging against inflation.

Others believe that real estate has limited upside, hence renting is more practical without the long-term loan commitments affecting their lifestyle preferences. This is especially prevalent among the youth today.

My personal view is that the property sector, like any other sector, has its own cycles, and depending on which point one enters the market, there will be different outcomes.

This will shape individual perspective when it comes to property ownership.

Whether the sector remains positive in the long term depends heavily on two key factors – population growth and a burgeoning middle-income society.

By Ng zhu hann Ng zhu hann is the chief executive officer of tradeview Capital. he is also a lawyer and the author of Once upon a time in Bursa. the views expressed here are the writer’s own.

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/insight/2024/08/03/property-market-and-affordability

Related posts:

Housing affordability is an income issue, what's with the fuss?

Penang property market on the recovery path 

RCEP to boost our property market

Young adults in developed countries rent, we buy houses for good

Is real estate still a viable investment asset?

Better to buy a car or a house first?

Young buyers flock to property market

Owning a home beyond reach of most millennials (Poll

 Inside)

Do you earn enough to sustain your lifestyle?

U.S. intellectuals speak out against Asia war

 

 

Racism against Chinese in the USA

TOP INTELLECTUALS IN THE U.S. stood up this week to speak out for China—and demand a stop to the powerful militaristic country’s drive to start an unnecessary war in East Asia.

The White House claim this week that they did not want conflict with China is “Denial and information distortion bordering on propaganda,” said Stephen Roach, Yale University professor and former chief economist at Morgan Stanley. The untrue statement was “classic Cold War posturing”, he said in statement on Twitter on Thursday.

Others agreed. Falsely painting the Chinese as trying to take over the world is bad for everyone, writer David Rothkopf argued in a Daily Beast essay printed today. Why paint China as a threat?

“Why? Why is it such a great threat even though the country has no history of conquest beyond its region in 5,000 years of history and is far from being able or inclined to pose a direct threat of attack to the U.S.?” he asked.

Even the relentlessly hostile Financial Times printed a column by Edward Luce admitting that the current geopolitical tension in the world did not come from China, but from the U.S.

“This week, Xi Jinping went further than before in naming America as the force behind the ‘containment’, ‘encirclement’ and ‘suppression’ of China. Though his rhetoric was provocative, it was not technically wrong,” wrote Luce in a column on Wednesday. Luce, like most FT writers, normally takes a very hostile line against China.

INTELLIGENCE CHIEF WARNING

On the other side, America’s Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines tried to justify the U.S. stance. She said the U.S. was working against China because the giant country is “increasingly challenging the United States economically, technologically, politically, and militarily around the world”.

She said the goal of the Chinese was to “continue efforts to achieve [President] Xi’s vision of making China the preeminent power in East Asia and a major power on the world stage.”

But Rothkopf responded to Haines’ statement by stating the obvious: so? What else would anyone expect?

“Is there something inherently wrong or dangerous about China seeking to challenge the United States economically, technologically, or politically? Isn’t that what all nations do? Don’t we believe in the inherent superiority of our system? Don’t we believe in the benefits of competition? (I thought that was fundamental to America’s national identity and values.)”

He further pointed out that “all nations seek to have sufficient power that they cannot be bullied by global hegemons (and let’s be realistic, we’re the only global hegemon in this conversation at the moment)”.

In other words, China is taking a tougher stance because the strutting, might-is-right stance that the U.S. takes, has forced it to do so.

COLD WAR

While a belligerent U.S. tries to recreate the old script of the Cold War against Russia, there’s a marked difference between the Soviets and the Chinese, Edward Luce pointed out: “China is not exporting revolution.”

The U.S. justified its hostility to the Soviet Union by saying it was spreading communism, but the Chinese are not spreading their system anywhere.

PUBLIC AGREEMENT

There was a strong outbreak of voices on social media agreeing with these points.

Nobody can believe the White House claim that they are not trying to create war, numerous voices said. “We just send warships and war planes to China’s territorial waters in the friendliest of ways,” was the sarcastic response of Alfonso Araujo.

Stephen Roach’s claim that the White House position was “bordering on propaganda” was “too kind”, said Brenda Teese.

“Biden talks about competition, but what he does is zero-sum and hostile behavior,” said Spencer Du. “China has not yet intended to take the U.S. as its enemy but has begun to take the actions of the U.S. as hostile.”

“If the U.S. cannot acknowledge the legitimacy of the P.R.C. to rule China, then the U.S. is essentially agitating for a war,” said Professor Gregory Herczeg this morning.

BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW

The U.S. political response was markedly different from the point of view of ordinary people and the business community.

There are more than 70,000 U.S. companies operating in China, David Rothkopf pointed out. The two powerful nations are already strongly intertwined in a positive way – so why ruin this?

The justification for hostility against China is crude allegations that the country “destroyed” Hong Kong and “genocided” the Uyghur population of Xinjiang, but neither narrative remotely reflects the more complex reality. Now the U.S. is making use of Taiwan.

TAIWAN JUST AN EXCUSE

“The problem with the current apparent decision to treat China as an enemy and an existential threat is that it can lead to distorted views on certain issues—such as Taiwan,” Rothkopf says.

“Let’s be real for a moment. What really bothers us about China’s rise is that they are quite open about the fact that they want to challenge our influence in the world. We want to be No. 1. We don’t like being challenged,” he wrote.

Luce agreed that America actively looks for excuses to create negativity. “If Taiwan did not exist, would the U.S. and China still be at loggerheads? My hunch is yes,” he wrote.

The American administration is taking an unnecessarily harsh stance against China’s peaceful rise in its neighborhood, Rothkopf argued. “But isn’t it reasonable for China to want such influence?” he asked.

“After all, throughout world history until the start of the industrial revolution, China had the world’s largest economy and it is now resuming that role.”

Source link 

Related posts:

Philippine Group Protests US-Filipino War Games!