Bank Negara Malaysia new ruling to curb interest capitalisation and developer interest bearing housing loan schemes

Fee ling the heat: Although the guidelines on the prohibition of the DIBS is not surprising, the new rule on using the net selling price to determine the loan- to-value ratio is a negative surprise to some analysts.

PETALING JAYA: A new circular from the central bank that took effect last Friday will pile more pressure on an already hard-hit property sector, even if its merits are likely to be felt in the long-term, analysts and industry executives said.

In a bid to make the property market sustainable, the new rules have put the brakes on interest capitalisation schemes (ICS) and the developer interest-bearing scheme (DIBS).

It also calls for the use of the net selling price of a property as the benchmark for obtaining bank loans, which raises the amount to be paid upfront.

Alliance Research’s banking analyst Cheah King Yoong said the measures were “more onerous” than anticipated and posed downside risks to his 9% loan growth estimate for the banking sector next year.

“Although the guidelines on the prohibition of the DIBS was not a surprise, the new rule on using the net selling price to determine the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio is a negative surprise to us.

“While it is difficult to gauge the impact on banks, the fact that this new rule applies to all property financing, including first-time home buyers, means that property buyers’ affordability will be affected, and this will lead to lower property loan growth,” Cheah said in a report yesterday.

“We believe the latest policies illustrate the sheer determination of the authorities to contain the growth of household debt.

“These measures, together with potential rate hikes in 2014, fiscal tightening by the federal government and subsidy rationalisation next year, could further drag on loan growth in the retail segment, temporarily leading to a rise in credit costs, and dampen investor sentiment on the banking sector,” he added.

The circular prohibits financial institutions from granting end-financing facilities to individuals or non-individuals for the purchase of property offered under an ICS, including the DIBS.

Financial institutions are also barred from granting a bridging facility to finance a property development that offers ICS.

According to Alliance Research’s Cheah, this effectively removes any alternative incentives that developers might concoct to replace the DIBS.

“Nonetheless, our channel checks show that for the banking groups under our coverage, property loans with the DIBS only made up 1% to 3% of their outstanding mortgages,” he said.

Affin Bank is the exception, with some 7% of its mortgage loanbook comprising loans tied to the DIBS.

“Given that property loans with the DIBS are immaterial to overall outstanding mortgage loans as well as new mortgage loans approved, we do not expect the restrictions to have a significant impact on the banking sector,” Cheah said.

Public Bank has the highest exposure to housing loans at 56% of its gross loans, followed by Alliance Bank with 55% and Hong Leong Bank, 46%, company data showed.

Another key item on the circular requires banks to calculate the LTV ratio based on the net price of a property instead of its gross price.

To illustrate, a property with a list price of RM1mil, rebate of 5% and 90% financing would incur a down payment of RM50,000 after discount.

Under the new regime, the down payment increases to RM95,000 because the 90% loan will be computed using the discounted price tag of RM950,000.

While property executives expect a slowdown in sales, they believe that genuine buyers will remain undeterred.

Mah Sing Group Bhd group managing director and CEO Tan Sri Leong Hoy Kum told StarBiz via email that demand for properties would continue to be robust, especially among those buying to own or for long-term rental income.

“There is still a large supply-demand gap as supply growth for properties has been on a decreasing trend since 2003, with Malaysia’s supply growth in the second quarter of this year at only 0.8%.

“The fundamentals driving the property market’s growth in recent years have not changed, for example a younger population leading to new household formation, a rising middle-income group, the supply-demand gap and stable employment.

“Initiatives in Budget 2014 may remove the speculative element, but not the fundamentals,” he said.

Leong noted that the lending environment was still conducive, with low interest rates and banks offering BLR minus 2.4%, from BLR minus 2.1%-2.2% a year ago.

Mah Sing had stopped offering the DIBS for most of its launches since the start of the year. None of its projects in Iskandar Malaysia feature the DIBS.

-  Contributed by John Loh The Star./Asia News Network

Related posts:
1. Increase transparency in property prices
2. Property gain tax won't hurt genuine buyers
3. New tax rate on property to keep away flippers

Increase transparency in property prices

Companies factor in freebies into the cost of the property

 

The marketing tactic of offering lifestyle-oriented freebies is often quite effective when it comes to high-end premium homes

DEVELOPERS often offer sales gimmicks and marketing ploys like free legal fees, rebates, air-conditioners and furniture. Budget 2014, however, seems to make it a requirement that developers be transparent about their property prices.

The adage “There’s no such thing as a free lunch” rings true in this instance. While developers are quick to advertise various blandishments such as “free legal fees/stamp duty, etc”, such freebies are always factored into the property price. These freebies should be translated into cash incentives to be deducted from the purchase price of the property, as otherwise, it becomes meaningless to offer these gimmicks, which are usually recovered in the form of substandard materials. Here, we again thank our Prime Minister for announcing that developers, when offering their products, should disclose the value of the freebies to the buyers. Such transparency is a move in the right direction so that buyers would know what they are letting themselves in for. The enforcers of the law should be able to count on the Urban Wellbeing,

Housing and Local Government ministry to do its job to ensure that there is strict compliance and observance.

Whilst such a requirement will not deter speculation, it will hopefully educate house buyers on what makes up their final property price and not to be misled by developers advertising such freebies.

Additional measures

The National House Buyers Association (HBA) reiterates its call on the Government to take additional measures to stem the steep rise in property prices. There are basically two ways to reduce speculation: increasing the entry cost and increasing the exit cost.

Whilst Budget 2014 has increased the exit cost in the form of the higher real property gains tax or RPGT, more measures are needed to increase the entry cost to further reduce speculation.

The current stamp duty payable for the transfer of properties is based on the value of the property. This does not deter speculators, as the stamp duty payable is the same, regardless of the number of properties already held or bought.

The Government’s current low stamp duty regime has been misused by property speculators to accumulate multiple properties, driving up these prices by creating false demand and denying genuine buyers the opportunity to buy such properties.

It is every Malaysian’s wish to buy at least one property in their lifetime for their own dwelling, and perhaps an additional piece of property as a long-term investment or to fund their children’s education.

Hence,HBA has proposed that the current scale stamp duty remains the same for the first two properties bought, but is increased to a flat rate based on the property price for the third and subsequent properties to discourage speculative buying.

(See table for a comparison between the current stamp duty and the stamp duty proposed by HBA.)

With the same scaled stamp duty payable regardless of the previous number of properties held, speculators are not deterred from buying multiple properties.

Even for properties costing RM600,000, the stamp duty payable is only 2% of the value of the property.

The HBA-proposed stamp duty would not cause any disruption to genuine house buyers who can only afford two properties in their lifetime (one for their dwelling and one for long-term investment).

On the other hand, property speculators would be discouraged as the stamp duty greatly increases their entry cost.

RPGT will not lead to higher property prices 

Certain parties with vested interest are claiming that the revised RPGT rate would lead to higher property prices, as speculators would definitely factor in the RPGT into their property prices, only for the subsequent buyer to end up paying the RPGT indirectly.

Such statements only confirm that speculators are indeed responsible for driving up property prices.

If indeed the speculators factor in the additional 20% to 30% RPGT into their property prices, then it would make the property prices unattractive to the next buyer.

Financial Institutions may be unwilling to finance such exorbitantly overpriced properties, as such institutions have their own market intelligence to determine the fair value of such properties.

RPGT will lead to an orderly property sector
 
The aspiration of every rakyat is to own a roof over their heads and shelter their young rather than making money from properties. Hence, having the RPGT in place would deter speculators, and eventually lead to a more orderly property sector driven by market demand and not speculative forces.

Therefore, HBA supports the Government’s RPGT proposal and urges the public to support such a move to curb the current excessive speculation in the property sector.

HBA strongly believes that the cost of a roof over one’s head should not be left to market forces. The repercussions whereby a large section of society is deprived of affordable housing is serious and far-reaching. The present property price increase does not commensurate with the present rise in wages. The affordability of house ownership is becoming an elusive dream to the present generation. Controlling the upward spiral of property costs is not in the interest of housing developers. In fact, they certainly favour it. Therefore, it would be totally unrealistic to expect any developer to be interested in bringing down property prices.

Contributed by Buyers Beware Chang Kim Loong

CHANG KIM LOONG is the honorary secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association (www.hba.org.my), a non-profit, non-governmental organisation (NGO) manned by volunteers. He is also an NGO councillor at the Subang Jaya Municipal Council.

Related posts:

1.  Property gain tax won't hurt genuine buyers
2,  New tax rate on property to keep away flippers

Singapore wooing the best minds back to home

 

Singaporean at heart: Cardiologist Carolyn Lam returned from Mayo Clinic in the United States to practise and do research at the National University Hospital, where she focuses on women’s heart health. — The Straits Times / Asia News Network

Many top Singaporean researchers work abroad. What will bring them home — and at the same time help retain scientists who stayed on in the republic?

FOUR decades ago, armed with a newly minted doctorate from Cambridge University, a young Malaysian neuro-anatomy researcher arrived to work at the then University of Singapore.

Having come back to South-East Asia to be closer to his family, Prof Ling Eng Ang found a research landscape “like a Third World country”. Research funding was scarce; the lab had to buy and breed its own rats for studies, and there was no budget to publish papers in top journals that sought fees from researchers.

When the university began hiring scientists from the rich West who had lengthy publication records, “how could we compete?” he recalled.

Singaporean researchers left for countries with a more developed culture of science and richer funding. Later, others went and stayed, seeking to grow their careers.

Now, Singapore wants to woo this diaspora home, particularly those who have excelled in their fields.

Once they are headhunted by universities and research institutes in the island-state, scientists who are Singapore citizens will get up to five years of research funding.

This comes out of the S$16.5bil (RM41.2bil) pot earmarked for R&D between 2011 and 2015, while their salaries are paid by the institute that employs them.

“By doing so, we hope to anchor the research capabilities and grow the Singapore core,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last month when he announced the scheme.

Lee explained it was “worthwhile to make an extra effort”.

“These are the people who might not be otherwise thinking of coming back,” he said.

“They have already set up their careers, settled in and have challenging and exciting jobs. wherever they are in the world. We say: come back, we would like to have this link with you, either come back to visit or come back to relocate.” This seems like a good idea in principle.

As the popular narrative goes, Singapore has very deliberately been bootstrapping itself up to the head of the class in engineering, physical and biomedical sciences over the past two decades, a process jump-started by importing big-name scientists from the West.

Now, it’s time to groom Singaporeans – who presumably will have a vision for science in the republic – to take up leadership positions. That is the core idea. But how effective will it be?


Singaporean stars

The National Research Foundation (NRF) does not keep tabs on how many Singapore scientists are abroad, but it said it was building a database of those overseas.

However, it is known that some are outstanding in their fields. For example, Prof Peh Li-Shiuan of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s electrical engineering and computer science department studies ways to boost the computing power of computer chips.

Assoc Prof Wong Chee Wei at Columbia University manipulates light to study tiny nanostructures. Last month, he was named a Fellow of the Optical Society of America.

Another Singaporean, Dr Desney Tan, is a principal researcher at Microsoft’s research division, where he studies human-computer interaction, mobile computing and healthcare applications.

Even if Singapore could track all its expatriate scientists down, drawing them back is a different matter. Choosing where to live and work are very personal decisions.

Singapore presents itself as a vibrant, well-funded destination for science research. If this is the case, why do Singaporean scientists need an extra carrot to come home?

In some fields, the opportunities elsewhere are richer.

Assoc Prof Leonard Lee of Columbia Business School, whose PhD in marketing was from MIT, said the opportunity to learn from his field’s best minds was “too great to miss”. But he keeps a foot in each country, giving seminars at the National University of Singapore (NUS) and other Singapore universities.

And Microsoft’s Dr Tan said the firm offered him support to build a “dream team”. He was also drawn by the chance to “conduct scientific research with the very best and then to translate that research into commercial products that get used by millions of people”.

Over time, many put down roots overseas. Some have married non-Singaporeans and live in their spouse’s home country. Some like the economies of scale in the research environment at, say, Harvard.

The truth is, people sometimes leave because they are simply dissatisfied with the level of bureaucracy or pressure for quick results. The latter has also been known to turn off some of the big names lured from overseas.

NRF might be more successful if it understood what draws Singaporeans home.

Family is a major reason: Nanyang Technological University (NTU) mathematician Chua Chek Beng gave up a tenure-track post at the University of Waterloo in Canada in 2006 because he and his wife wanted to be closer to their parents in Singapore.

It helped that he was offered the chance to work at NTU’s brand-new school of physical and mathematical sciences, too.

Assoc Prof Too Heng-Phon of NUS’ biochemistry department, who is Malaysian and a permanent resident here but whose wife and son are Singaporean, said he came back to the region to be closer to family as well.

Grants can help. When she received a Clinician Scientist Award grant from the National Medical Research Council, cardiologist Carolyn Lam returned from Mayo Clinic in the United States to practise and do research at the National University Hospital (NUH), where she focuses on women’s heart health.


Equal treatment

Great teachers are another draw. NUS’ Prof Ling said that while the conditions were spartan back in the 1970s, the late Prof Ragunathar Kanagasuntheram was a great mentor. He also stayed in Singapore out of a sense of duty. “We were almost like the ‘pioneers’ and we helped build up this place both in teaching and research. If we don’t, who else?”

As Singapore builds up its research ecosystem and draws other leading minds, those who come home may themselves become a draw for younger academics looking for mentors.

Prof Ling, for instance, has trained generations of medical students. And collaborations like the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology allow those like Prof Peh to guide younger scientists in both Singapore and their home university.

While Singapore draws its own home and attracts foreign researchers, it also ought to recognise those who have long served here. It should treat equally those who have gone abroad and those who have stayed. Researchers like Prof Ling, Prof Lee and NTU dean of science Prof Ling San agreed on this point. The NRF carrot could help to retain outstanding Singaporean scientists, too.

At the same time, the move to woo back Singaporean scientists can also be seen as an exhortation to young scientists to go forth, grow their careers wherever they wish, then come home. They will not be considered quitters, but valuable returnees.

Dr Wilhelm Krull, secretary- general of Germany’s private Volkswagen Foundation and a member of Singapore’s high-level Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council, suggested it was “time to think more in terms of circulation rather than brain drain or brain gain”.

Dr Tan of Microsoft noted that the new scheme signalled a strong commitment to top local talent, a change from previous years.

When he completed his PhD in 2004, he felt Singapore favoured foreign hires with more attention and fat relocation packages. To draw him home, Singapore would have to replicate the “excitement, unfettered support and commitment” of his current conditions.

“There is no cookie cutter formula for this. What will work for one domain and individual, may not work for another ... But if done right, I believe top talent will choose to jump back in from their presumably fulfilling positions outside of Singapore and to embrace the challenge.

“In general, I think many Singaporeans would love to return home and serve the country, and I’m excited to see conditions swinging in favour of this,” he added.

Contributed by  Grace Chua The Straits Times/Asia News Network (ANN)