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.
An underrated progress in Singapore’s property agency industry over the past decade or so is the licensing of property agents.
After the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), the government watchdog for the industry, was established in 2010, it launched a public register of property agencies and property agents in 2011.
Initially, other than a way to check whether a realtor was licensed, there was no way to know if a licensed agent had ever closed a single deal in Marine Parade, even while he was telling you: “East Coast people don’t care about MRT, most of the residents are rich and can drive.”
This changed in 2021, when all residential property transactions by property agents were made available on CEA’s Public Register, which included the transaction completion date, general location of the property, and the party which the agent represented in the deal (such as the buyer, seller, tenant, or landlord).
But there wasn’t a consolidated view of disciplinary records. Consumers had to go into the individual profiles to check out the enforcement record of each agent. For some consumers who did not know this was available, they might never know about the issues behind their still-licensed realtor.
The latest improvement introduced by CEA on June 10 means that consumers can now even compare enforcement statistics across agencies.
From 10 June 2026, the Public Register will include a consolidated record of enforcement actions.
This will show enforcement actions taken against property agencies and individual agents, and they’ll reflect any of these actions taken against them over the last three years.
This means that if you’re a buyer or seller searching for an agent to help you market the sale of your property, or to purchase a new home, you can view letters of censure, disciplinary committee actions, and any relevant court prosecutions before committing to a property agent.
According to CEA, the information will be updated on a rolling three-year basis.
A new ‘Key Enforcement Statistics’ page will show the number and type of enforcement actions taken against agents and agencies, as well as the total number of agents registered under that agency.
Crucially, the register doesn’t track poor customer service or unsuccessful transactions. It only records breaches of professional and regulatory standards, so it’s not a foolproof guide to shortlist so-called ‘good’ agents.
On the surface, this seems like an obvious win for consumers.
The enhanced register provides more context for consumers evaluating the property agent of their choice, and it’s a win in terms of transparency. But as with many forms of public data, there is one hazard: Oversimplification.
We see this happen with many different sources of public data – school rankings, property transaction data, and Google condo reviews*.
*I tried to investigate these once, and the main thing I learned is that most people only bother to Google Review a condo when they hate its security guard. One star.
When data like this becomes public, there’s a high chance that some people will inevitably turn it into a ranking table. For example, I foresee that if one agency has 30 enforcement actions while another has five, a good number of people will make the snap judgment that ‘Fewer enforcement actions = better’.
But that’s not necessarily true.
Larger agencies will have more agents, which means they may also have more disciplinary cases thrown against them due to the large number of active agents out in the market, closing deals and engaging with buyers and sellers.
An agency with 30 disciplinary cases in its record, among several thousand agents, could have a lower real incidence rate than an agency with five cases among a few hundred agents.
And CEA acknowledges this, since it publishes the total number of registered agents alongside the enforcement statistics. But the issue is whether consumers will be minded enough to pick this up.
The process of buying, selling, or renting property is already a large preoccupation in the minds of most consumers. Most will be focused on issues like financing, price comparisons, and renovation costs.
Give them enforcement numbers (yay, more statistics and tables), and I reckon that more than a few might go looking for the quickest conclusion.
The nature of the offences matters too.
A letter of censure and a court prosecution are both enforcement actions, but (colloquially speaking) the difference is between being told to stand in the corner and nearly getting kicked out of school.
Arguably, some lesser offences (depending on what they are) may not warrant as much concern as even a single court prosecution. So it might be good if the record came with a description of the severity of the offence, for consumers who are less familiar with the legal implications.
There’s also the risk that a clean disciplinary record might be associated with a so-called ‘better’ agent.
The register doesn’t track things like poor communication, weak negotiation skills, and a lack of market knowledge. These are often the factors that determine whether consumers have a good experience, but they don’t show up in statistics.
Conversely, when the spotlight is thrown on a single negative, such as a letter of censure from two years ago, it can sometimes overshadow the broader picture. We’re inclined to be wary when buying a property (as is sensible), so one disciplinary action might cause people to overlook an otherwise strong transaction record.
None of this diminishes the value of the enhancements that the CEA register offers.
Making these details about property agents publicly available disincentivises misbehaviour. But the challenge is making clear what it’s meant to do and reminding it to the public.
I think the disciplinary record should be part of the evaluation process that consumers in the market should factor in when they seek out a property agent. But it shouldn’t be a shortcut for the entire evaluation process.
I also hope it doesn’t morph into some kind of agent/agency scorecard, lest we end up with angry Facebook posts like “How can the service be so bad when they’re at the top with zero penalties?”
When CEA was established over 15 years ago, the priority was establishing the licensing framework for the real estate agency industry and upgrading the skills and services that property agents provided.
But the next step in the evolution of this industry is much harder. It’s not just transparency and information; it’s helping consumers make better use of the ever-increasing amounts of information available to them.
Meanwhile, in other property news…
- One Marian Gardens is an unusual project, offering first mover advantage despite being in District 1. Here’s what I saw in our latest visit:
- When it comes to the Tenancy Agreement, details matter. Check out how this tenant lost a chunk of their deposit, and how you can avoid the same.
- Two prime GLS sites at Newton and River Valley just got released, and one may be the last of its kind. Find out more here.
- Join our Stacked Pro readers in finding out about Bishan, its overall performance, and the outlook on properties in this distinct township.
Weekly Sales Roundup (01 – 07 June)
Top 5 Most Expensive New Sales (By Project)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| THE CONTINUUM | $5,500,000 | 2034 | $2,704 | FH |
| MEYER BLUE | $5,139,000 | 1518 | $3,386 | FH |
| UNION SQUARE RESIDENCES | $4,486,000 | 1518 | $2,956 | 99 yrs (2024) |
| ELTA | $4,387,000 | 1776 | $2,470 | 99 yrs (2024) |
| NAVA GROVE | $3,932,500 | 1464 | $2,686 | 99 yrs (2024) |
Top 5 Cheapest New Sales (By Project)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| THE CONTINUUM | $1,428,000 | 560 | $2,551 | FH |
| NARRA RESIDENCES | $1,437,000 | 646 | $2,225 | 99 yrs (2025) |
| ZYON GRAND | $1,511,000 | 474 | $3,190 | 99 yrs (2024) |
| THE SEN | $1,556,000 | 678 | $2,295 | 99 yrs |
| 8@BT | $1,558,888 | 517 | $3,017 | 99 yrs (2023) |
Top 5 Most Expensive Resale
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| NASSIM PARK RESIDENCES | $22,950,000 | 6954 | $3,300 | FH |
| FOUR SEASONS PARK | $14,000,000 | 3821 | $3,664 | FH |
| DRAYCOTT EIGHT | $6,965,810 | 2906 | $2,397 | 99 yrs (1997) |
| DAKOTA RESIDENCES | $6,388,000 | 3692 | $1,730 | 99 yrs (2007) |
| MARINA BAY RESIDENCES | $6,150,000 | 2379 | $2,585 | 99 yrs (2005) |
Top 5 Cheapest Resale
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | TENURE |
| EUHABITAT | $740,000 | 527 | $1,403 | 99 yrs (2010) |
| SOL ACRES | $792,000 | 495 | $1,600 | 99 yrs (2014) |
| OKIO | $800,000 | 431 | $1,858 | FH |
| THE GREENWICH | $835,000 | 603 | $1,385 | 99 yrs (2009) |
| EIGHT RIVERSUITES | $845,888 | 441 | $1,917 | 99 yrs (2011) |
Top 5 Biggest Winners
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD |
| NASSIM PARK RESIDENCES | $22,950,000 | 6954 | $3,300 | $4,150,000 | 7 Years |
| THE WATERINA | $3,700,000 | 1744 | $2,122 | $2,674,860 | 24 Years |
| KIM SIA COURT | $2,918,000 | 1421 | $2,054 | $2,038,000 | 23 Years |
| THE GARDENS AT BISHAN | $2,950,000 | 1701 | $1,735 | $1,980,000 | 19 Years |
| EASTERN LAGOON | $2,680,000 | 1378 | $1,945 | $1,970,000 | 24 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Losers
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | RETURNS | HOLDING PERIOD |
| ORCHARD SCOTTS | $4,250,000 | 2508 | $1,695 | -$2,396,200 | 16 Years |
| REFLECTIONS AT KEPPEL BAY | $2,780,000 | 1561 | $1,781 | -$925,405 | 14 Years |
| DRAYCOTT EIGHT | $6,965,810 | 2906 | $2,397 | -$589,790 | 19 Years |
| V ON SHENTON | $1,350,000 | 743 | $1,818 | -$345,000 | 13 Years |
| MARINA ONE RESIDENCES | $2,601,688 | 1206 | $2,158 | -$281,133 | 7 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Winners (ROI%)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | ROI (%) | HOLDING PERIOD |
| EASTERN LAGOON | $2,680,000 | 1378 | $1,945 | 278% | 24 Years |
| THE WATERINA | $3,700,000 | 1744 | $2,122 | 261% | 24 Years |
| THE LAKESHORE | $1,670,000 | 1109 | $1,506 | 242% | 23 Years |
| VARSITY PARK CONDOMINIUM | $2,350,000 | 1615 | $1,455 | 238% | 20 Years |
| KIM SIA COURT | $2,918,000 | 1421 | $2,054 | 232% | 23 Years |
Top 5 Biggest Losers (ROI%)
| PROJECT NAME | PRICE S$ | AREA (SQFT) | $PSF | ROI (%) | HOLDING PERIOD |
| ORCHARD SCOTTS | $4,250,000 | 2508 | $1,695 | -36% | 16 Years |
| REFLECTIONS AT KEPPEL BAY | $2,780,000 | 1561 | $1,781 | -25% | 14 Years |
| V ON SHENTON | $1,350,000 | 743 | $1,818 | -20% | 13 Years |
| MARINA ONE RESIDENCES | $2,601,688 | 1206 | $2,158 | -10% | 7 Years |
| ONE-NORTH RESIDENCES | $880,000 | 592 | $1,486 | -8% | 14 Years |
Transaction Breakdown
Follow us on Stacked for news and information 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