Should individual homeowners be allowed to list their properties on online property portals, instead of it being exclusive to agents?
On July 28, after announcing major upcoming changes to the property agent industry, I heard Senior Minister of State for National Development, Sun Xueling, also share that this is something the authorities are currently studying.
On the surface, allowing homeowners to list their properties for sale on listing portals seems like a fair and straightforward issue, since it would save them some money by cutting out the middlemen (in this case licensed property agents).
But here’s something else that I think we all need to consider.
There’s a reason most property portals limited the ability to list properties for sale on their platforms to licensed property agents. Several major portals (and I’m not going to drop any names here) began by allowing individuals to list their properties for sale. This includes a certain property platform that I worked with over a decade ago.
But back in 2015, they changed their policy too. So before we reopen the doors to allow individual homeowners to post their own property listings, it’s worth remembering why most platforms ended up placing limits in the first place.
News pieces like this explain what's happening in the market. Our consultations are designed to help you understand what it means for your own property decisions.
If you're considering buying, selling or upgrading, we'd be happy to help you work through your options.
Everyone should gear up to become a detective agency again, if individual listings become permissible.
For smaller property portals, this may not be a monumental issue. But for the largest portals on the market – including the market leader we all know – I reckon that the resulting administrative chaos could be spectacular.
I was working for one of them when it happened, so I’m not throwing hypotheticals – I had a front row seat to the chaos back then.
The main issue with allowing individuals to list their properties is simple: they don’t have any accountability.
A property agent has their license on the line to lose if it is uncovered that they’ve posted misleading or fake listings. The vast majority don’t do this, and it is for the most part, not worth losing a career over.
But individual sellers and landlords are different. To be clear, I’m not saying that they’re somehow scammers or intentionally lying, and a majority are sincere. The problem is that most people put up their property for sale perhaps once every decade or so.
Being out of touch like that means that many don’t understand prevailing market terminology, and a good number don’t understand where enthusiasm ends and misrepresentation begins.
In the past, I’ve seen these types of homeowners list a two-bedroom unit as a three-bedder, arguing that because there’s a study nook and: “you can put a bed there, what.”
I’ve also seen descriptions of a seven-minute driving distance becoming: “just a short walk,” and a partial glimpse of water from the service yard becoming a “sea view unit.”
By and large, most of these owners didn’t have any malicious intent. It was simply how the owner saw their own home. But if you multiply this across several thousand listings, every portal suddenly needs a small department of detectives to verify everything.
The quality of listing descriptions also deteriorates unless the portal is willing to devote a lot of resources towards moderating it.
Some owners take the time to write a proper description, but others simply wrote: “CALL ME AT XXXXX” into every field.
Others upload blurry photographs or mixed genuine photographs of their own unit* with images from interior design firms or magazines. One owner appealed after his listing was removed for this reason. His defence was that the various images were from another unit in the same condo anyway, so it should be okay.
*Special thanks to the person who attached a picture of their unflushed toilet. I will remember it forever.
Don’t even get me started on the NSFW images that sometimes turn up. Some people leave questionable items on tables, shelves, etc. that they don’t bother clearing away first.
Actually, come to think of it, that might make property searches more interesting to some people out there. But it still results in a lot of unreliable or useless listing descriptions!
Then there’s the issue of pricing.
Professional agents generally have systems which help them generate a reasonable price for most listings. This varies between different teams and agencies, but they’re generally closer to the valuation compared to an industry outsider. Perhaps more importantly, they want the property sold. To an agent, an overpriced listing simply wastes everyone’s time.
But individual sellers and landlords are far less predictable. Some decide on a price because that’s what their neighbour claims to be getting, while a handful decide on an outrageously high price because: “I want to test the waters”. Others put in a misleading low price to attract enquiries, which is precisely the kind of misrepresentation we want to avoid.
This isn’t harmless to genuine homebuyers and the average consumer. You may spend hours arranging a viewing, only to find out the unit is nothing like what was advertised. Finally, there is the biggest issue of all: outright scams.
Unfortunately, property scams are one of the more lucrative forms of online fraud. The moment anyone can publish a listing with minimal barriers, scammers inevitably follow.
So, a portal that allows direct owner listings needs to verify the property, as well as the people behind it. This type of verification also raises an uncomfortable question:
How much personal information should a property portal be allowed to collect?
If an individual wants to list a property, should the portal ask for proof of ownership? What form does that come in? NRIC numbers? A recent property tax filing? A mortgage statement? Three months of utility bills? Even if all this is submitted, how should all of that sensitive information be stored and who should have access to it?
Modern property portals are inherently technology companies, not law enforcement agencies. Their job is to connect buyers and sellers, and there’s a good argument to be made that they shouldn’t be handling this sort of data.
That said, the advent of AI-powered systems may offer some help
Today artificial intelligence (AI) is much better at detecting duplicate photographs, identifying copied listing descriptions, flagging suspicious pricing patterns, etc. At the very least, AI systems can flag questionable listings for human review, and dramatically reduce the manpower needed to moderate a large portal.
It’s still not a magic bullet. For now, the AI probably still can’t determine whether a photo is genuinely from the unit being sold, or whether a three-bedder is just a two-bedder with a study and a vivid imagination.
But AI will almost certainly make direct owner listings easier, compared to a decade ago. And I do think with time – and perhaps even soon – it will make individual listings more commercially viable in ways that weren’t possible a decade ago.
And when that time comes, and most homeowners are free to list their properties for sale on rent on whichever property platform they choose, we too can join the agents’ outrage at the cost to refresh a listing.
What, you didn’t think you could just list for free and not watch paid listings climb all over yours did you? 🙂
Meanwhile in other property news…
- The 15-month waiting period for buying a resale flat, after you sell your private property, is finally lifted. This topic is a must-know for buyers and sellers in the market today.
- The property agent’s license has been extended to three-years rather than a one-year validity; but that doesn’t mean it’s easier to be your agent. In fact, the overall change has raised demands on agents’ market expertise.
- Who are the buyers of million-dollar flats, and what does that say about our property market? Check out the insights here.
- Signature Park is a well-regarded name in the Bukit Timah area; but did you know it has the best performing two-bedders in Bukit Timah and Newton? Check out the reasons with Stacked Pro.
Weekly Sales Roundup (13 – 19 July)
Top 5 Most Expensive New Sales (By Project)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| UPPERHOUSE AT ORCHARD BOULEVARD | $7,970,000 | 2056 | $3,877 | 99 yrs (2024) |
| GRAND DUNMAN | $7,800,000 | 3057 | $2,552 | 99 yrs (2022) |
| THE CONTINUUM | $5,463,000 | 1905 | $2,867 | FH |
| DUNEARN HOUSE | $4,603,000 | 1378 | $3,341 | 99 yrs |
| ZYON GRAND | $4,388,000 | 1421 | $3,088 | 99 yrs (2024) |
Top 5 Cheapest New Sales (By Project)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| GRAND DUNMAN | $1,386,000 | 549 | $2,525 | 99 yrs (2022) |
| TEMBUSU GRAND | $1,426,000 | 527 | $2,704 | 99 yrs (2022) |
| NEWPORT RESIDENCES | $1,431,000 | 452 | $3,165 | FH |
| THE CONTINUUM | $1,480,000 | 560 | $2,644 | FH |
| DUNEARN HOUSE | $1,484,000 | 527 | $2,814 | 99 yrs |
Top 5 Most Expensive Resale
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| KLIMT CAIRNHILL | $7,675,000 | 2056 | $3,733 | FH |
| BEAVERTON COURT | $6,300,000 | 3229 | $1,951 | FH |
| THE MORNINGSIDE | $5,288,000 | 2411 | $2,193 | FH |
| THE WATERSIDE | $4,700,000 | 2142 | $2,194 | FH |
| D’GROVE VILLAS | $4,200,000 | 1690 | $2,485 | FH |
Top 5 Cheapest Resale
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| SUITES @ PAYA LEBAR | $660,000 | 377 | $1,752 | FH |
| HERITAGE EAST | $700,000 | 355 | $1,971 | FH |
| LAVERNE’S LOFT | $748,000 | 398 | $1,878 | FH |
| CANBERRA RESIDENCES | $805,000 | 614 | $1,312 | 99 yrs (2010) |
| THE POIZ RESIDENCES | $810,000 | 420 | $1,930 | 99 yrs (2014) |
Top 5 Biggest Winners
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD |
| THE MORNINGSIDE | $5,288,000 | 2411 | $2,193 | $3,538,000 | 27 Years |
| GOLDHILL TOWERS | $3,668,000 | 1550 | $2,366 | $2,118,000 | 17 Years |
| HAZEL PARK CONDOMINIUM | $2,660,000 | 1518 | $1,753 | $1,804,308 | 27 Years |
| GALLOP GABLES | $2,535,000 | 1130 | $2,243 | $1,523,650 | 20 Years |
| THE GARDENS AT BISHAN | $2,100,000 | 1152 | $1,823 | $1,518,000 | 23 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Losers
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD |
| THE SAIL @ MARINA BAY | $1,608,000 | 883 | $1,822 | -$467,050 | 16 Years |
| CITY SUITES | $825,700 | 527 | $1,565 | -$107,870 | 8 Years |
| ESPADA | $1,660,000 | 689 | $2,410 | -$46,402 | 16 Years |
| FLORAVIEW | $1,070,000 | 1055 | $1,014 | -$21,600 | 10 Years |
| HYLL ON HOLLAND | $3,050,000 | 1055 | $2,891 | -$15,931 | 4 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Winners (ROI%)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | ROI (%) | HOLDING PERIOD |
| THE GARDENS AT BISHAN | $2,100,000 | 1152 | $1,823 | 261% | 23 Years |
| GRANDEUR 8 | $1,950,000 | 1259 | $1,548 | 215% | 23 Years |
| HAZEL PARK CONDOMINIUM | $2,660,000 | 1518 | $1,753 | 211% | 27 Years |
| THE MORNINGSIDE | $5,288,000 | 2411 | $2,193 | 202% | 27 Years |
| JC COURT | $1,400,000 | 980 | $1,429 | 192% | 21 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Losers (ROI%)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | ROI (%) | HOLDING PERIOD |
| THE SAIL @ MARINA BAY | $1,608,000 | 883 | $1,822 | -23% | 16 Years |
| CITY SUITES | $825,700 | 527 | $1,565 | -12% | 8 Years |
| ESPADA | $1,660,000 | 689 | $2,410 | -3% | 16 Years |
| FLORAVIEW | $1,070,000 | 1055 | $1,014 | -2% | 10 Years |
| COMMONWEALTH TOWERS | $945,000 | 441 | $2,141 | -1% | 3 Years |
Transaction Breakdown
Follow us on Stacked for news and updates on the property market.
A single headline is rarely enough to change your plans. The value comes from understanding how today’s news fits into the broader direction of the market.
If you’d like to talk through what a shift like this means for your own timing, purchase, or exit, you can reach out for a one-to-one consultation here.
And if you simply have a question or want to share a thought, feel free to write to us at stories@stackedhomes.com. We read every message.
0 Comments