You\u2019d think by now, the idea of using polls to push a point would be obsolete; but it\u2019s still going strong among insurers and property agencies<\/strong>. I\u2019m talking about polls that are thinly veiled sponsored messages, along the lines of \u201cnine out of 10 doctors prefer\u2026etc.\u201d <\/em>style persuasiveness (or lack thereof.)<\/p>\n Take, for instance, this report on a Manulife survey<\/a>: it says that among Singapore respondents (1,021 people, part of around 9,000 surveyed across nine Asian markets), only 35 per cent consider property as a key tool for retirement preparation. 65 per cent previously<\/em> considered property as a key retirement tool, it says. It\u2019s a boomer thing. Dead or dying.\u00a0<\/p>\n But then check out this poll by ERA<\/a>, which says that \u201c\u2026over 64 per cent of respondents indicated a preference for investing in real estate over fixed deposits, bonds, commodities, cryptocurrencies, and stocks<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s this poll by PropNex<\/a> that says the second most popular response, when asked about what the flat is for, is \u201ca retirement nest egg,\u201d alongside a lot more details about how many are planning to upgrade (about half of the respondents). Quite different from this other poll<\/a> from Manulife Asia Care Survey 2025, where only 19 per cent of respondents cite property investment <\/em>as the most important tool for retirement planning.<\/p>\n Who\u2019s right? Well, probably neither.<\/strong><\/p>\n A <\/strong>lot depends on issues like how the questions are phrased, how the survey tallies the results, etc. For example:<\/p>\n It also matters where <\/em>exactly the survey happened. In my experience, online surveys tend to draw younger and more frustrated respondents; singles who are blocked from getting a flat, or graduates struggling to find a job, have opinions formed from being locked out of most property investments. Not only is real estate a less practical (or even possible) investment choice for them, but they may also resent the idea of more people buying homes for investment, thus worsening their situation.\u00a0<\/p>\n Conversely, if you conduct a survey offline, among older folks who have paid up flats and have less awareness of today\u2019s prices, or who personally witnessed the boom in flat prices from the \u201870s or \u201880s to the present, there will be a more favourable response toward real estate as a long-term asset.\u00a0<\/p>\n A bit of an anecdote:\u00a0<\/p>\n Earlier this year, I ran into one such poll where I was asked if I was looking for a property first<\/em>; and then the subsequent questions came: did I think property could still be a viable long-term asset, etc. I noticed that when my associate said he wasn\u2019t <\/em>currently looking for a property, he only got about three or four more abrupt questions.\u00a0<\/p>\n Well, if you\u2019re going to ask people already <\/em>looking for a property whether they think it\u2019s a good investment, retirement asset, etc., then newsflash: a greater proportion of them are going to say yes. That\u2019s like a poll asking people wearing jeans whether they like jeans.\u00a0<\/p>\n Yes, I know, using anecdotal evidence is not very data-driven<\/em> of me. But my point is that a lot of these polls could be using these tactics, hence the huge divergence in what each of them is saying.\u00a0<\/p>\n More from Stacked<\/p>\n Despite property being such a big ticket item\u00a0(especially in Singapore), it is frankly quite astounding when you hear the reasons\u2026<\/p>\n \n Ryan<\/span> \u00b7 Insurers arguably have an incentive to downplay property as a retirement tool. Every dollar a client sinks into real estate is a dollar not going into insurance products like annuities, endowments, and ILPs.<\/p>\n Property also competes with these products because it offers leveraged capital gains and potential rental income. While insurance returns are definitely important and can also be solid, they do result from long-term policy commitments and fees, and without a solid, tangible property <\/em>to look at, they can feel <\/em>less satisfying.\u00a0<\/p>\n The inverse is true on the real estate side, where agencies are trying to persuade buyers despite rising costs, cooling measures, increasing capital commitment (from lowered Loan To Value ratios) and so forth.\u00a0<\/p>\n So these polls aren\u2019t really describing Singaporean attitudes, they\u2019re describing the incentives of whoever is paying for them.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n I do wonder how long it will be, before they catch on that this \u201cpoll\u201d trick is better off just being replaced by ads. The polls are slower and more expensive to do, and aren\u2019t substantially more persuasive. And for the marketers of insurers and property agencies reading this, here\u2019s something often overlooked: you can repeat ads again and again, but publications aren\u2019t going to run your poll editorial more than once<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n So if it\u2019s going to be a sponsored editorial, better make it something besides these \u201cpoll\u201d stories that are really just clunkier ads.\u00a0<\/p>\n Top 5 Most Expensive New Sales (By Project)<\/strong><\/p>\n Top 5 Cheapest New Sales (By Project)<\/strong><\/p>\n Top 5 Most Expensive Resale<\/strong><\/p>\n Top 5 Cheapest Resale<\/strong><\/p>\n Top 5 Biggest Winners<\/strong><\/p>\n Top 5 Biggest Losers<\/strong><\/p>\n Top 5 Biggest Winners (ROI%)<\/strong><\/p>\n Top 5 Biggest Losers (ROI%)<\/strong><\/p>\n Transaction Breakdown<\/strong><\/p>\n Follow us on Stacked for more on the Singapore property market.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
\n 29 Nov 2019<\/span> \u00b7
\n 7 comments<\/span>\n <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nMeanwhile in other property news\u2026<\/h2>\n
\n
Weekly Sales Roundup (10 \u2013 16 November)<\/h2>\n
\n\n
\n PROJECT NAME<\/td>\n PRICE S$<\/td>\n AREA (SQFT)<\/td>\n $PSF<\/td>\n TENURE<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n PARK NOVA<\/td>\n $6,388,000<\/td>\n 1432<\/td>\n $4,462<\/td>\n FH<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n MEYER BLUE<\/td>\n $5,423,000<\/td>\n 1733<\/td>\n $3,129<\/td>\n FH<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n GRAND DUNMAN<\/td>\n $5,237,000<\/td>\n 2131<\/td>\n $2,457<\/td>\n 99 yrs (2022)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n ZYON GRAND<\/td>\n $4,523,000<\/td>\n 1421<\/td>\n $3,183<\/td>\n 99 yrs (2024)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n THE SEN<\/td>\n $3,664,100<\/td>\n 1453<\/td>\n $2,522<\/td>\n 99 years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n \n\n
\n PROJECT NAME<\/td>\n PRICE S$<\/td>\n AREA (SQFT)<\/td>\n $PSF<\/td>\n TENURE<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n THE SEN<\/td>\n $993,900<\/td>\n 452<\/td>\n $2,198<\/td>\n 99 years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n ZYON GRAND<\/td>\n $1,439,000<\/td>\n 474<\/td>\n $3,038<\/td>\n 99 yrs (2024)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n OTTO PLACE<\/td>\n $1,515,000<\/td>\n 872<\/td>\n $1,738<\/td>\n 99 yrs (2024)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n THE LAKEGARDEN RESIDENCES<\/td>\n $1,590,000<\/td>\n 678<\/td>\n $2,345<\/td>\n 99 yrs (2023)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n BLOOMSBURY RESIDENCES<\/td>\n $1,778,000<\/td>\n 689<\/td>\n $2,581<\/td>\n 99 yrs (2024)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n \n\n
\n PROJECT NAME<\/td>\n PRICE S$<\/td>\n AREA (SQFT)<\/td>\n $PSF<\/td>\n TENURE<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n THE BOTANIC ON LLOYD<\/td>\n $6,015,000<\/td>\n 2594<\/td>\n $2,319<\/td>\n FH<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n GRANGE HEIGHTS<\/td>\n $5,338,000<\/td>\n 3025<\/td>\n $1,765<\/td>\n FH<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n PARVIS<\/td>\n $4,430,000<\/td>\n 1701<\/td>\n $2,605<\/td>\n FH<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n MARINA BAY SUITES<\/td>\n $4,255,000<\/td>\n 2056<\/td>\n $2,070<\/td>\n 99 yrs (2007)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n ST THOMAS SUITES<\/td>\n $4,220,000<\/td>\n 1819<\/td>\n $2,320<\/td>\n FH<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n \n\n
\n PROJECT NAME<\/td>\n PRICE S$<\/td>\n AREA (SQFT)<\/td>\n $PSF<\/td>\n TENURE<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n KOVAN GRANDEUR<\/td>\n $639,088<\/td>\n 388<\/td>\n $1,649<\/td>\n 99 yrs (2010)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n KENSINGTON SQUARE<\/td>\n $728,888<\/td>\n 431<\/td>\n $1,693<\/td>\n FH<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Q BAY RESIDENCES<\/td>\n $743,000<\/td>\n 527<\/td>\n $1,409<\/td>\n 99 yrs (2012)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n KINDOL GARDENS<\/td>\n $750,000<\/td>\n 1367<\/td>\n $549<\/td>\n 999 yrs (1885)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n HIGH PARK RESIDENCES<\/td>\n $760,000<\/td>\n 441<\/td>\n $1,722<\/td>\n 99 yrs (2014)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n \n\n
\n PROJECT NAME<\/td>\n PRICE S$<\/td>\n AREA (SQFT)<\/td>\n $PSF<\/td>\n RETURNS<\/td>\n HOLDING PERIOD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n SOMMERVILLE PARK<\/td>\n $4,200,000<\/td>\n 1948<\/td>\n $2,156<\/td>\n $2,765,000<\/td>\n 30 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n SANCTUARY GREEN<\/td>\n $2,675,000<\/td>\n 1572<\/td>\n $1,702<\/td>\n $1,907,000<\/td>\n 21 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n THE TRILLIUM<\/td>\n $3,800,000<\/td>\n 1399<\/td>\n $2,716<\/td>\n $1,409,000<\/td>\n 18 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n THE BOTANIC ON LLOYD<\/td>\n $6,015,000<\/td>\n 2594<\/td>\n $2,319<\/td>\n $1,265,000<\/td>\n 10 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n THE VIEW @ MEYER<\/td>\n $4,000,888<\/td>\n 1690<\/td>\n $2,367<\/td>\n $1,250,888<\/td>\n 12 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n \n\n
\n PROJECT NAME<\/td>\n PRICE S$<\/td>\n AREA (SQFT)<\/td>\n $PSF<\/td>\n RETURNS<\/td>\n HOLDING PERIOD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n THE OCEANFRONT @ SENTOSA COVE<\/td>\n $2,050,000<\/td>\n 1216<\/td>\n $1,685<\/td>\n -$442,800<\/td>\n 16 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n MARINA BAY SUITES<\/td>\n $4,255,000<\/td>\n 2056<\/td>\n $2,070<\/td>\n -$425,000<\/td>\n 11 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n SKYSUITES@ANSON<\/td>\n $1,548,000<\/td>\n 700<\/td>\n $2,213<\/td>\n -$132,300<\/td>\n 14 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n EON SHENTON<\/td>\n $1,170,000<\/td>\n 538<\/td>\n $2,174<\/td>\n -$46,000<\/td>\n 14 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 76 SHENTON<\/td>\n $2,100,000<\/td>\n 980<\/td>\n $2,144<\/td>\n -$30,200<\/td>\n 16 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n \n\n
\n PROJECT NAME<\/td>\n PRICE S$<\/td>\n AREA (SQFT)<\/td>\n $PSF<\/td>\n ROI (%)<\/td>\n HOLDING PERIOD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n SANCTUARY GREEN<\/td>\n $2,675,000<\/td>\n 1572<\/td>\n $1,702<\/td>\n 248.31%<\/td>\n 21 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n SOMMERVILLE PARK<\/td>\n $4,200,000<\/td>\n 1948<\/td>\n $2,156<\/td>\n 192.68%<\/td>\n 30 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n YEW MEI GREEN<\/td>\n $1,390,000<\/td>\n 1292<\/td>\n $1,076<\/td>\n 175.25%<\/td>\n 19 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n GRANDE VISTA<\/td>\n $1,818,000<\/td>\n 1238<\/td>\n $1,469<\/td>\n 143.05%<\/td>\n 28 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n KINDOL GARDENS<\/td>\n $750,000<\/td>\n 1367<\/td>\n $549<\/td>\n 135.11%<\/td>\n 20 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n \n\n
\n PROJECT NAME<\/td>\n PRICE S$<\/td>\n AREA (SQFT)<\/td>\n $PSF<\/td>\n ROI (%)<\/td>\n HOLDING PERIOD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n THE OCEANFRONT @ SENTOSA COVE<\/td>\n $2,050,000<\/td>\n 1216<\/td>\n $1,685<\/td>\n -17.76%<\/td>\n 16 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n MARINA BAY SUITES<\/td>\n $4,255,000<\/td>\n 2056<\/td>\n $2,070<\/td>\n -9.08%<\/td>\n 11 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n SKYSUITES@ANSON<\/td>\n $1,548,000<\/td>\n 700<\/td>\n $2,213<\/td>\n -7.87%<\/td>\n 14 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n EON SHENTON<\/td>\n $1,170,000<\/td>\n 538<\/td>\n $2,174<\/td>\n -3.78%<\/td>\n 14 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 76 SHENTON<\/td>\n $2,100,000<\/td>\n 980<\/td>\n $2,144<\/td>\n -1.42%<\/td>\n 16 Years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n ![\"Type](\"https:\/\/stacked-editorial.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com\/editorial\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/21213842\/Type-Of-Sale-Proportion-NEWSLETTER-3.png\")
<\/figure>\n