Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

National University of Singapore

DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE


RE3101 Advanced Real Estate Valuation - Semester 1 AY15/16
GROUP PROJECT
1.0

Introduction

This academic exercise requires students to examine bidding data under the
Government Land Sales Programme (GLS) for the two following categories of
land uses:
(A) Private Condominium (PC) Sites sold by URA/HDB: and
(B) Executive Condominium (EC) Sites sold by HDB.
Students are required to evaluate whether ideas/concepts garnered from game
theory are capable of providing insights/explanatory power to account for the
empirical data as well as developers bidding behaviour.

2.0

Formation of Subgroups

Students are at liberty to form subgroups of varying sizes as per the following
table:
S/No

1
2
3

Name of subgroup
(differentiated by number
of students in a subgroup)
Alpha
Beta
Delta

Number
of students
per subgroup
1 or 2 students
3 or 4 students
5 or 6 students

It is not necessary for students in a subgroup to all come from the same RE3101
tutorial group. For example, a 4-member subgroup could have students all
attending different tutorial groups.

3.0

Websites to obtain Data

The empirical data for the project could be drawn from bids submitted for sites
sold under the GLS from 1 Jan 2010 onwards.

(A) Private Condominium Sites sold by (i) URA and (ii) HDB:

(i) Visit https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/land-sales.aspx?p1=Browse&p2=historical-data to


download the excel file for Commercial, Hotel, White, Industrial,
Residential (excluding Landed Housing) and Others Sites. (See Appendix
I for screenshot.)
For the said file on sites sold by URA, please extract the data pertaining
only to sites designated for Residential (Non-landed) under the column
for Type of Devt Code. Clicking the date in the column Date of Closing
Tender will lead to a webpage that will further provide details of all the
bids submitted for a site. (See Appendix II for screenshot.)

(ii) Visit http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10330p.nsf/w/LandDevMangSitesSold?OpenDocument to


download the file on Condominium (CO) / Landed (LP) / Apartment (AP).
(See Appendix III for screenshot.)
For the said file on sites sold by HDB, please extract the data pertaining to
sites designated for *CO and CO under the column for Proposed Devt
Type. Details of bids submitted for each site are shown in the later part of
the PDF file. Alternatively, you could also click Number of Bidders in
each row to access the page providing details of all the bids of a site. (See
Appendix IV for screenshot.)

(B) Executive Condominium Sites sold by HDB


Visit http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10330p.nsf/w/LandDevMangSitesSold?OpenDocument to
download the file on Executive Condominium (EC) and access the relevant
data accordingly. (See Appendix V for screenshot.)

4.0 Issues to be addressed in Report


Each subgroup should address the 2 issues listed in the following table:

S/No Name of Subgroup


1
Alpha (comprising
1 or 2 students)

Scope of Report
Using data from 1 Jan 2010 onwards,
calculate the Coefficient of Variation
(COV) in respect of the bids submitted
for each site under the Private
Condominium category. Do the same
for the EC sites.

Issue #1

Consider the following hypothesis:


The variability of bids for EC sites is
generally less than that for Private
Condominium sites given that there
should be greater consensus about
the open market value of EC sites. Is
there empirical evidence to accept the
said hypothesis? Give reasons to
support your view.
Issue #2

Choose ONE active developer under


the category of Private Condominium
sites. Based on data from 1 Jan 2010
onwards, consider this hypothesis:
For a site that the developer emerged
as the top bidder, its winning bid
invariably included a sizable privatevalue component. Do you agree with
this hypothesis? Give reasons to
support your stand.
[Note: A major developer may
incorporate a subsidiary firm (with
quite a different name from the parent
company) to bid for a site, and if
awarded the site the subsidiary firm
will then proceed to undertake the
development. The developer may also
be a partner in a joint-venture to bid
for a site. All bidding data related to
the developer (including its
subsidiaries and joint ventures) could
be considered.]
3

Beta (comprising 3
or 4 students)

Issue #1

Using data from 1 Jan 2010 onwards,


calculate the Coefficient of Variation
(COV) in respect of the bids submitted
for each site under the Private
Condominium category. Do the same
for the EC sites.
Consider the following hypothesis:
The variability of bids for EC sites is
generally less than that for Private
Condominium sites given that there
should be greater consensus about
the open market value of EC sites. Is
there empirical evidence to accept the
said hypothesis? Give reasons to
support your view.

Issue #2

Choose TWO active developers under


the category of Private Condominium
sites. Based on data from 1 Jan 2010
onwards, consider this hypothesis for
each of the 2 developers: For a site
that the developer emerged as the top
bidder, its winning bid invariably
included a sizable private-value
component. Do you agree with this
hypothesis? Give reasons to support
your stand.
[Note: A major developer may
incorporate a subsidiary firm (with
quite a different name from the parent
company) to bid for a site, and if
awarded the site the subsidiary firm
will then proceed to undertake the
development. The developer may also
be a partner in a joint-venture to bid
for a site. All bidding data related to
the developer (including its
subsidiaries and joint ventures) could
be considered.]

Delta (comprising 5
or 6 students)

Issue #1

Using data from 1 Jan 2010 onwards,


calculate the Coefficient of Variation
(COV) in respect of the bids submitted
for each site under the Private
Condominium category. Do the same
for the EC sites.
Consider the following hypothesis:
The variability of bids for EC sites is
generally less than that for Private
Condominium sites given that there
should be greater consensus about
the open market value of EC sites. Is
there empirical evidence to accept the
said hypothesis? Give reasons to
support your view.

Issue #2

Choose THREE active developers


under the category of Private
Condominium sites. Based on data
from 1 Jan 2010 onwards, consider
this hypothesis for each of the 3
developers: For a site that the
developer emerged as the top bidder,
its winning bid invariably included a
sizable private-value component. Do
you agree with this hypothesis? Give
reasons to support your stand.
[Note: A major developer may
incorporate a subsidiary firm (with
quite a different name from the parent
company) to bid for a site, and if
awarded the site the subsidiary firm
will then proceed to undertake the
development. The developer may also
be a partner in a joint-venture to bid
for a site. All bidding data related to
the developer (including its
subsidiaries and joint ventures) could
be considered.]

5.0

Written Report

Each subgroup is required to submit a written report. An Executive Summary


(ES) of not more than 1 page should be provided at the beginning of the report.
Appendices comprising charts, tables, and bibliography could take up another 6
pages.
The page-length of the report submitted by each subgroup is shown below:
S/No

Name of Subgroup

Maximum page-length
(excluding 1 page of ES and 6 pages of Appendices)

1
2
3

Alpha (1 or 2 students)
Beta (3 or 4 students)
Delta (5 or 6 students)

15
25
35

Please bear in mind that an ES provides a succinct summary of the key findings
of the project. The ES is not an introduction of the report. The busy executive if
short of time could just read the ES and still has a good idea of the findings of the
report.
Each subgroup will have to decide on how best to structure the format and
presentation of their written report.
6.0

Grading of Project

For the purpose of grading, equal weights will be assigned to each of the 2
issues addressed in the report:

Issue #1
Issue #2
Total

50%
50%
100%

This project as a whole will contribute 20% to the RE3101 module grade.
Upon submission of the final report by a subgroup, it will be assumed that each
member of the subgroup has contributed his/her fair share of effort towards the
final report. Free-ridership problem, if any, should be resolved early and internally
within each subgroup.
Each member of a subgroup will receive the same marks for the project. The
grading of the report will not be biased upward or downward on account of the
subgroups size.

7.0

Submission Date of Written Report

Please submit a soft PDF copy of your report to the IVLE Workbin by 1700 hours
(5:00 pm), 13 November 2015 (Friday). There is no requirement to furnish a hard
copy of the subgroups report to the lecturer.
All information should be consolidated in ONE PDF file for uploading to the IVLE
Workbin.
8.0

Queries about Project Please Use the IVLE Discussion Forum

Please submit all your queries about the project in the IVLE Discussion Forum. I
will answer all queries about the project in the IVLE Discussion Forum.

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX II

Type of Devt Code

Date of Tender Closing

APPENDIX III

10

APPENDIX IV

No of Bidders

Proposed Devt Type

11

APPENDIX V

12

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen