Singaporean homebuyers are wired for fairness.
When it comes to some pricey items and experiences, an amount like $2,700 psf might make some of us sigh and shrug. And when it comes to property, we’re okay with squeezing into a two-bedder, even if the kitchen has no yard.
What absolutely will set us off, however, is people who cut the queue.
I reckon that a big part of the Singaporean psyche already hates queue jumpers, but when you add home buying into the mix we seem heavily trained to adhere to what I call “procedural fairness”.
Queue numbers, BTO selection, and launch-day booking slots – Even if it doesn’t work in our favour and we end up with an undesirable unit facing, most of us take silent comfort in the fact that fine, okay, at least everybody has to follow the same stupid rules.
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.
That’s why I think a statement like: “agents bought 20% of the units at a new launch project” produces such an aggressive response.
I’m referring to the recent unhappiness around VIP previews at new condo launches. The article singled out property agents getting the first dibs on the best units, just before the general public got their chance to purchase a unit.
This was the case with Emerald of Katong, a District 15 condo which launched in November 2024. Of the 846 units released for sale, 173 were reportedly bought by property agents, making up the aforementioned 20% sales take up.
Subsequent reporting revealed that between September 2024 and October 2025, property agents bought at least 635 new condo units at other sales launches through priority queues. This was about 4.2% of all new private homes launched during that nearly one year period.
If you’re unfamiliar with the pricing strategy that most developers have for new launch projects, we usually see units sold during the earliest portion of sales fetch lower prices, compared to units sold after the initial sales launch.
As the development is progressively sold, most developers may increase selling prices, especially as the project moves closer to completion. This means that when the project eventually enters the resale market years later, the earliest VIP buyers stand the best chance of turning a large profit. We mark out some of the relevant numbers here.
This contentious topic has caught the attention of the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), the government watchdog for the property agent industry, which has engaged agencies over the issue of VIP priority.
Their concern is whether regular buyers are at a disadvantage, since agents marketing a project have access to units earlier. This allows them to pick the best offerings, at the seemingly the best prices.
Hence the present debate: Should VIP previews continue as they are? Or, at the very least, do we have to introduce rules on how many agents can be sold beforehand?
Anecdotal, we have heard rumblings from groups who question if property agents should even be allowed to participate in these priority sales. For example, one reader I spoke to felt there was something “not right” about buyers’ agents who had already purchased a unit at the same new launch. She said the agent couldn’t be acting in their buyers’ interests, when they have a personal stake in marketing the new condo and seeing it rack up stronger sales.
However, I opine that the underlying problem of “fairness” is a sticky point.
Say that a developer is marketing the sale of a 500 unit development, and wants to sell 30 of them to longstanding customers before the public sales launch. In my view, it’s tough to frame that as being inherently unfair.
This is a private residential development, not a public housing project. From a business perspective, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for giving priority to certain customers – and this doesn’t include just agents but also repeat buyers, business associates, buyers of multiple units, or even employees. This is something that happens in other industries too, not just the property market. No one is particularly shocked if Rolex or Hermes has a priority queue.
Some of the proposed solutions floating around are going to run into these issues. For instance, one suggestion is to cap the number of units that can be sold before public booking begins. Good idea on the surface, but how do we determine what’s a fair cap?
For example, why would a cap of 10% be considered fair, whereas increasing it to 20% becomes unfair?
Another suggestion is to simply exclude property agents from VIP purchases altogether. Off-hand, I think most of us would agree it’s fair to differentiate between agents who have a vested interest in the project, versus agents buying their own home. But this requires a degree of “policing” that’s likely impractical: someone has to investigate every agent-buyer’s intent.
I think the prevailing discussion may be focusing on the wrong issue.
In my view, it’s challenging to argue that property developers – who are private businesses – shouldn’t be allowed to reward customers or try to get early sales. What matters more here is transparency. Perhaps it should simply be made clearer (excluding URA caveats) how many units were bought during the VIP sales phase.
That way when the public booking starts, prospective buyers have a clear sense of the sales progress and the take-up of units at the new development. Likewise, if agents marketing the project have made purchases during the VIP phase, this should also be disclosed.
This is much more achievable than trying to police the process, or impose arbitrary limits.
But is it fair? I think this will always be a subjective question, but I can at least say it would be fairer.
Meanwhile in other property news…
- Should you sell a paid-up flat that generates rental income, even if the lease decay might be setting in? We answer this question from a reader.
- New en-bloc rules changes might renew interest in ageing condos, but with conditions
- Tropicana Cenang Langkawi is a new mixed-use project. For those of you who like Cenang Beach or Pulau Langkawi in general, we took a trip down for a closer look.
- Aspen Heights may not be as familiar as names like Ardmore Park; but it has the best performing two-bedder units in the Orchard and River Valley area. Find out more with our Stacked Homes readers.
Weekly Sales Roundup (27 July – 02 August)
Top 5 Most Expensive New Sales (By Project)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| AMBER HOUSE | $5,449,928 | 1744 | $3,125 | FH |
| THE CONTINUUM | $5,105,000 | 1905 | $2,679 | FH |
| UNION SQUARE RESIDENCES | $4,671,000 | 1518 | $3,078 | 99 yrs (2024) |
| DUNEARN HOUSE | $3,898,000 | 1184 | $3,292 | 99 yrs |
| HUDSON PLACE RESIDENCES | $3,807,000 | 1432 | $2,659 | 99 yrs (2025) |
Top 5 Cheapest New Sales (By Project)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| NEWPORT RESIDENCES | $1,439,000.00 | 452 | $3,183.00 | FH |
| DUNEARN HOUSE | $1,494,000.00 | 527 | $2,833.00 | 99 yrs |
| NARRA RESIDENCES | $1,504,000.00 | 721 | $2,085.00 | 99 yrs (2025) |
| CANNINGHILL PIERS | $1,519,000.00 | 538 | $2,822.00 | 99 yrs (2021) |
| PENRITH | $1,600,000.00 | 614 | $2,608.00 | 99 yrs (2024) |
Top 5 Most Expensive Resale
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| LEEDON RESIDENCE | $14,300,000 | 4704 | $3,040 | FH |
| GRANGE RESIDENCES | $10,800,000 | 2852 | $3,786 | FH |
| THE VIEW @ MEYER | $10,000,000 | 4209 | $2,376 | FH |
| THE DRAYCOTT | $7,180,000 | 2637 | $2,723 | FH |
| DUCHESS RESIDENCES | $4,600,000 | 1905 | $2,414 | 999 yrs (1875) |
Top 5 Cheapest Resale
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| IDYLLIC SUITES | $673,000 | 441 | $1,525 | FH |
| CASA CAMBIO | $735,000 | 581 | $1,265 | FH |
| PARC IMPERIAL | $755,000 | 441 | $1,711 | FH |
| ECO | $858,000 | 635 | $1,351 | 99 yrs (2012) |
| CAMBIO SUITES | $860,000 | 506 | $1,700 | FH |
Top 5 Biggest Winners
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD |
| LEEDON RESIDENCE | $14,300,000 | 4704 | $3,040 | $3,750,000 | 10 Years |
| FABER GARDEN CONDOMINIUM | $3,666,000 | 1873 | $1,957 | $2,846,000 | 22 Years |
| THE VIEW @ MEYER | $10,000,000 | 4209 | $2,376 | $2,820,000 | 16 Years |
| GRANGE RESIDENCES | $10,800,000 | 2852 | $3,786 | $2,800,000 | 9 Years |
| THE ESTA | $3,660,000 | 1464 | $2,500 | $2,444,880 | 18 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Losers
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD |
| ORCHARD SCOTTS | $3,775,000 | 2282 | $1,654 | -$884,334 | 16 Years |
| HELIOS RESIDENCES | $3,130,000 | 1281 | $2,444 | -$350,000 | 12 Years |
| THE BERTH BY THE COVE | $1,610,000 | 1012 | $1,591 | -$100,000 | 13 Years |
| ONE BALMORAL | $1,300,000 | 592 | $2,196 | -$97,000 | 9 Years |
| MIDTOWN MODERN | $1,110,000 | 409 | $2,714 | -$93,000 | 5 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Winners (ROI%)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | ROI (%) | HOLDING PERIOD |
| FABER GARDEN CONDOMINIUM | $3,666,000 | 1873 | $1,957 | 347% | 22 Years |
| MALVERN SPRINGS | $2,780,000 | 1324 | $2,100 | 221% | 24 Years |
| THE HILLSIDE | $2,650,000 | 1528 | $1,734 | 202% | 28 Years |
| THE ESTA | $3,660,000 | 1464 | $2,500 | 201% | 18 Years |
| YEW MEI GREEN | $1,598,000 | 1572 | $1,017 | 199% | 20 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Losers (ROI%)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | ROI (%) | HOLDING PERIOD |
| ORCHARD SCOTTS | $3,775,000 | 2282 | $1,654 | -19% | 16 Years |
| HELIOS RESIDENCES | $3,130,000 | 1281 | $2,444 | -10% | 12 Years |
| MIDTOWN MODERN | $1,110,000 | 409 | $2,714 | -8% | 5 Years |
| ONE BALMORAL | $1,300,000 | 592 | $2,196 | -7% | 9 Years |
| CASA CAMBIO | $735,000 | 581 | $1,265 | -6% | 6 Years |
Transaction Breakdown
Follow us on Stacked for news and updates on the Singapore 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