Can You Buy A Condo At A Low And Sell At A Market High But Still Suffer A Loss?

There’s a general consensus that, if you buy property at the low point of the market and sell when prices rise, you’ll definitely make money. But this tends to ignore how individualistic property assets can be. Unlike, say, dollars or gold, one unit of property is not interchangeable with another. So even in cases where someone bought in a market trough and sold at a market peak, there have been losses.

But just how unlucky do you have to be to lose money when buying at the low and selling at a high? To put things into perspective, here’s a look at the number of winning and losing transactions as well as their proportions:

There were only 2 losing transactions for those who bought in 2003-2005 and sold at a high, making it just 0.04% of all transactions that recorded a purchase in this period.

For those that bought in 2015-2016, the odds of losing goes up to 3.10% (so far) – but this is still paltry compared to the 96.77% that gained so far.

So where exactly are these losses? Here are a few we uncovered:

Projects that saw losses despite “good timing”

Bought 2003-05 and lost money

Buy 15-16 lost in 22-23

1. Prime area properties dominate the list

The entire list reads like a highlight of prime region properties. With some exceptions (Floraview, Skies Miltonia, The Plaza, and Viva Vista), all the other projects are within the CBD or near Orchard. 

(And some might argue that The Plaza on Beach Road is in fact a prime area, whatever district definitions may suggest)

There’s a limit to how far property prices in these areas can appreciate. For example: even during the ebb in 2015 to 2016,  we can see a condo unit Altez fetched $1.74 million; we would consider this quite high for 760+ sq. ft. (around a two-bedder) even by today’s standards; and this is for a leasehold condo too. 

Simply put, even the “low price” for a CBD or Orchard area condo is not very low, and it was impossible to secure first mover advantage (i.e, these areas were not like Jurong or Paya Lebar, where there was an opportunity to buy cheap and ride the wave of future development. That chance had already passed even before the 1980s.)

Besides this, the buyer demographic may also play a role. Properties in these areas cater to the most affluent, and it’s likely that losses of even a quarter-million, or more, will not faze them. Between a quick transaction and a more profitable one, these buyers may prefer the former.

2. Losses primarily came from freehold units

This is somewhat related to the first point, as most condos in the CBD or Orchard area are freehold.

However, being freehold simply means a higher quantum; and given the holding periods and TOP dates seen above, there hasn’t been enough time for freehold status to become significant. Freehold status starts to become more important later in the property’s life. For example: 

A 99-year leasehold property may see depreciation (or at least slower price growth) when there are 60 years left on the lease, some banks become more reluctant to dispense the full Loan-To-Value (LTV) ratio. When there are 30 or fewer years on the lease, a loan may no longer be possible. It’s under circumstances like these that freehold properties show their value, being immune to lease decay.

But except for Emery Point, none of the properties on the list are past 20 years old; many are less than 10 years old. As such, the freehold status – for which the buyers would have paid a premium – makes very little difference. 

3. Larger units appeared less frequently

With some exceptions, many of the loss-makers on the list are one-and two-bedder units. These properties may be tougher in terms of resale: most upgraders, for instance, are looking for larger homes (e.g, if you move from a 1,400 sq. ft. 5-room flat to an 850 sq. ft. condo unit, would you truly consider it a good upgrade? Even with the facilities?)

Family buyers also tend to be cut from the buyer pool, as most families of four or more won’t settle for less than a three-bedder. For the listed properties, this leaves a prospective buyer pool of singles, young couples, and investors. And most singles and young couples lack the purchasing power for a central region condo, whilst investors are hard-nosed and will aggressively bargain down prices.

This may result in some sellers conceding to lower offers, just to push the sale through and be done with it.

The transaction volume also contributes to more volatile pricing

Sellers often face unique situations, such as changes in their financial standing, divorces, death of a co-owner, or transacting with family (if you’re selling to a sibling or your own children, odds are prices will be much lower). 

These may explain situations where units are abnormally cheap. This poses an especial problem for boutique or smaller condos. Consider Starlight Suites, which appears quite often on the list. This project has a very small unit count of 105, almost small enough for some to consider it boutique.

Notice how volatile the prices are, along with the relatively low volume of transactions:

When the unit count is small, a unique seller situation – such as someone selling to family – may set the project’s latest prices lower, as it becomes the latest transaction to go by. 

A number of other condos on the list, such as L’viv, Liv on Wilkie, and Cluny Park Residences (an actual boutique condo with only 52 units) are all in this particular boat. Due to their volatility, these condos are more prone to defying market trends; and that can mean seeing gains during down markets, as well as seeing losses during boom markets. 

Ultimately, most properties bought in downturns and sold at peaks will make money

We are looking at some outliers here. However, it’s a good reminder that property is not a very fungible or generic asset type, so wider market movements can be misleading. A good property investment is determined more by its individual seller’s financial situation, as well as expectations, than it is by general market movements.