Should I sell my HDB flat to fund my condo purchase?

All of us aspire to a better life, to give our families a better life. 

This is only normal.

In Singapore, part of this aspiration to a better life for many is characterised by a desire to live in a condominium with full facilities and security.

For HDB upgraders, they might wonder if they should sell their HDB flats or hold on to them as income properties. 

The case to keep their HDB flats for rental income has been quite strong in recent years due to the buoyant rental market and the very low interest rate environment. 

It would be prudent to ask if such a scenario is going to last?

I replied to a reader who has the same question:

AK said...

You have rightly identified the two main considerations which will help you in making a decision.

1. Interest rates have been very low for many years. 

They could stay low for a while more but they cannot stay so low forever. 

The very low interest rates of the last few years are abnormal. 

When interest rates normalise in future, the logical direction they will go is up.
...




...
2. How much we get in rental income, if any, like many things is a function of supply and demand. 

The oversupply situation in residential properties is not getting any better in Singapore and it will take years to correct (and we are assuming that they would). 

The slower growth in the foreign working population is not going to drive rental demand for residential properties like it did in recent times.

Would you be able to rent out your 4rm flat in Sengkang for $2.2K a month (if you could find a renter at all) in 2017? 

I do know it has been getting harder to find renters in recent months. 

I don't think anyone knows for sure what it is going to be like in 2017.
...




...

In life, I like to go for low hanging fruits. 

I try not to climb trees and if I do, I try not to climb too high up into the trees. 

I go for the benefits which I know I will be able to secure with greater certainty.
...

 Leverage is able to deliver benefits to investors if used correctly and if the conditions are favourable. 

The last few years saw households in Singapore leveraging more liberally because of the very low interest rates. 

Things still look OK now but a recent study showed that if interest rates were to normalise and rise by only 2%, 15% to 20% of households in Singapore could become over-leveraged.
...




...
An over-leveraged individual uses more than 60% of his income to service his debt burden. 

So, someone could be using just under 60% of his income now to service his debt burden but when interest rates rise, which they will sooner than later, all else remaining equal, he could end up using more than 60% of his income to service his debt burden.

Reading your email, I get the feeling that your preference is to sell your HDB flat when your condo is ready in 2017 so as to avoid paying a 7% ABSD (and also end up servicing a bigger home loan). 

Well, I would say to keep your ear to the ground and see how things develop in the next two years.

If the residential real estate market worsens and if interest rates go up much more, the case for keeping your HDB flat as an income property will weaken. 






We cannot project current day rates into 2017 and think that things will not change.

Leveraging to fund prudent investments is a good idea. 

Leveraging to fund consumption is generally a bad idea. 







Interest rates have been too low for too long and many people have grown a bit too adventurous.

Best wishes,
AK

Related posts:
1. Buy that second property and pay the ABSD?
2. Should we buy a shoebox unit in NE Singapore?

High yields: Successes, failures and the in betweens.

In this post, I shall share some personal experience with high yielding trusts and provide some numbers in the process for the purpose of illustration.

High yielding trusts which have done very well for me are those which meet the selection criteria I have talked about so many times before for REITs.  Investing in such trusts is mainly about generating a steady passive income (cash flow) and to do this well, we have to look for low gearing, high yield and attractive discount to NAVs. These factors will ensure that the trusts' distributions are meaningful and sustainable.  Here are some which have done well for me:

First REIT:  I first bought some in 2007.  It had low gearing, high yield but did not have a great discount to NAV.  My initial purchase price was in the mid 70c.  The dpu was about 6c per annum.  As prices slumped during this last crisis, I bough more at 42c.  The dpu has risen to almost 8c per annum in the meantime.  First REIT didn't have to issue any rights or do any share placements as its gearing was relatively low and still is.  The unit price of the REIT now is 82c thereabouts.

LMIR:  I first bought some in 2007, not during the IPO at 80c, but after the price dropped to 70c days after.  It had low gearing, an attractive yield and trading at a discount to NAV.  During the last crisis, I bought more and the lowest price I bought more at was 18c.  The dpu is now almost 5c per annum.  It didn't have to issue any rights or do any share placements as its gearing was very low and still is.  The current unit price is about 48c or so.

Suntec REIT:  I always wanted some Suntec REIT units but looked on in amazement as the price hit $2.00 at one stage.  I bought some at $1.03 during the downtrend.  It went on in the coming months to make a new low at 50c or so, if I remember correctly.  As the price recovered, I bought more at an average price of $1.00 or so.  NAV per unit was almost $2.00. So, the discount to NAV was very attractive. The dpu is about 10c and provides a handsome 10% yield for me.  Gearing level is not very low though. 

Hyflux Water Trust:  A business trust, not a REIT.  This is an investment which many of my friends remember because I was talking about it a lot early last year.  They listened politely mostly.  I was always interested in this trust as it has regular cash flow through its exposure to the water sector in China.  In January 2009, I looked at it again in greater detail as the price was so low.  I found the yield to be almost 20% then.  Gearing was non-existent and it was trading at a very nice discount to NAV.  The unit price was 30c or so at that time.  I went on a buying spree.

I did not keep all of these investments bought at low prices. I sold most of them for very nice capital gains, cycling the funds into laggard counters like Healthway Medical to make more money.  I kept, on average, 10% of my original positions in each of these investments to collect passive income in perpetuity.  It would have been nice if I had been able to keep my investments in these trusts in full and yet have more money to invest in laggard counters but, unfortunately, my resources are limited.

As you could probably tell, I was not always rigorous in making sure that all three criteria I talked about were met in choosing a trust.  In part, such trusts did not present themselves all the time and I had to make do with the best choices available.  This last crisis, however, was an opportunity of a lifetime.

It was also because I was not rigorous that in my early years with trusts, I made many mistakes in my choices. What we must always remember is not to focus solely on yields.  Also, do not invest in anything without doing our own FA. Here were some of my mistakes:

MPSF: It just got suspended today. This must have been my worst mistake. I listened to a very young "analyst" who said it gave upwards of 10% in yield and that the yield was sustainable. I invested a five figure sum without doing any analysis of my own. I later found out that MPSF invests in other REITs in Australia and as some of these REITs are private in nature, they could gear up to 80%! MSPF froze all distributions with the credit crisis but what is worse is the complicated situation it is in with so many cans of worms. There is no passive income for unitholders and, as far as I can see, there is no clarity as to its future. Must remember not to be swayed by sweet talking analysts. Always do our own homework.

FSL Trust: A friend introduced me to shipping trusts saying that I should diversify my passive income stream. He also introduced me to Rickmers and PST but I only have a position in FSL Trust. I still get passive income from the cash flow generated by its business and I receive  >8% yield per year based on my average price. High gearing in excess of 100% and the fact that its assets depreciate whether or not the economy does well make this a mistake for me.

CitySpring: This is a business trust. I was emboldened by the fact that this has the backing of Temasek Holdings. It had very high gearing but the management (headed by Sunny Verghese) said that they did not have to issue rights and people who thought they had to didn't understand their business. A few months later, they issued rights. The yield plunged and unitholders became poorer as they subscribed to the rights. It yields an average of 6.5% per annum for me.

There are a few others but the essence of the negative experience is more or less the same. For examples, with FCOT (previously Allco REIT) and MI-REIT (now AMPS AMP Capital Industrial REIT), I overlooked their high gearing levels at the time of purchase.  This is also a reason why I tell people to be cautious with Cambridge Industrial Trust (CIT) which I am vested in as well as its gearing is still in excess of 40%.

As creating a significant stream of passive income is still a very important objective for me, trusts with high yields must still play a part in the grand scheme of things. Rather than remember the pain and avoid these trusts altogether, I choose to remember the pain and find a way to achieve mastery over them. I hope that by freely sharing what I have realised to be the right way to approach REITs (and other forms of trusts) here in my blog, other investors who might not be in the know would not have to suffer like I did.