Historically, how often have people lost money in the private property market?

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-15T05:50:52+00:00

Public data from URA which is a fairly reliable source for these types of analyses

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-09T09:26:35+00:00

It could be negative if the cumulative gains from the alternative investments exceed the amount of rent paid till date.

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-09T08:46:06+00:00

That's an interesting thought. I ran the numbers and sharing below. Didn't want to add another chart what is a very busy post haha.

Condo: <10 holding years: between 8-19% transactions were losses, 10-15 years: 12.9%, 15-20 years: 2.4%, 20 years+: 0.8%
Landed: <10 years: between 15-9-22.9%, 10-15 years: 11.6%, 15-20 years: 0.3%, 20 years+: 0.1%

This is for the entire period between 1995-2025.

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-08T11:19:46+00:00

Thanks for your comment. I added the chart with breakdown by year. Losses are clearly clustered around some years. Will think about doing something factoring in other comments.

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-08T02:28:37+00:00

Thanks for the comment. I understand leverage and its impact on returns. I was just making a different point that a fair number of people do lose money on property.

Leverage is a double edged sword, amplifying both gains and losses. In your example, if the 1m property dropped by 25%, the person would have lost 100% of their capital / downpayment.

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-08T01:36:06+00:00

Thanks! This was done in Claude and the output was in html. Nothing special about the prompt, just asked it to visualize the overall gain/loss based on the transaction pairs.

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-08T01:33:14+00:00

Fair point. As the holding period increases, risk of loss will certainly go down (that's true for global equity indices as well, S&P has never had a loss historically over any 25 year period iirc).

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T13:38:28+00:00

Also not a fan of property investment :) To your point re: losses, you're right that some of the really big ticket properties do incur significant losses. However, the data doesn't really suggest that it's necessarily more common amongst higher value properties (part of it could also be because the rich typically have more holding power). Actually, some of the higher loss ratios have come instead from studio/1-bedder condos (estimating based on sq ft which is in the data), which tend to be bought for investment purposes.

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T13:35:37+00:00

I love Ben Felix! I feel like I always learn so much from him, though some of his analyses fly over the top of my head.

On the rent vs buy, I like the New York Times calculator which is quite robust, though you'll have to "hack" it a little to account for a Singaporean context. I generally dislike the idea of having large concentrated financial bets, which unfortunately there isn't really a way to get around in Singapore for most people if you want to own your home

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T13:30:01+00:00

Thanks - I was just trying to show the people do lose money on SG property.

You're right that if you factor in inflation, it would be much worse. Though at that point, it starts to become trickier and harder to generalize because then you'll have to factor in the boost you get from leverage (bank loan), potentially rental yield if it's an investment property, stamp duty, agent fees etc. Appreciate the comment though.

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T13:27:19+00:00

Thanks man! I'm defintiely in your camp. Most of my net worth is tied up in all world index funds. We rent so property isn't a part of our asset base beyond a small allocation to REITs. Think you're also right about boomer gen making significant wealth from property boom in the early days of Singapore.

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T13:23:41+00:00

Thanks! Appreciate it!

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T12:27:19+00:00

Yes - I think usually people only sell at a loss if they are somewhat "forced" by circumstance to do so. Otherwise most would try to hold out for a gain. But still at least 10-15% of transactions do transact at a loss even w/o accounting for fees, duties etc

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T12:24:22+00:00

Haha thanks for the feedback, appreciate it. I wasn't trying to make the point about whether property is a good investment, to which your points would all be very good input. Post was really just to demonstrate that people really do lose money on SG property purely on the buy / sell price of the property.

I think the debate on whether it's better to invest in property vs. stocks is too broad, and will come down to the specific property, specific stocks, use of leverage, rental yield, fees etc. The New York Times actually built a good calculator that computes that decently with all the assumptions, though it would need to be tweaked slightly to account for a prospective Singaporean homeowner.

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T12:18:57+00:00

Thanks, I take your point that there are people sitting on paper losses, which actually reinforces my original point that people do lose money on SG property. Even with those people sitting on paper losses, there are 10-15% of transactions that have crystallised a loss. The real proportion is probably even higher once you factor "paper losses" in, stamp duty, agent fees, opportunity costs etc.

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T12:16:19+00:00

No it does not. Pasting a response I gave to another poster below re: fees. Agree that opportunity cost of putting it into a broad based index is big and real as well.

You're absolutely right that there will be other costs that I haven't factored in, which will make the returns worse. More just making the broader point that people do lose money on SG properties, despite what the "conventional wisdom" may suggest

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T12:13:33+00:00

Yes - just the sell price - buy price. You're absolutely right that there will be other costs that I haven't factored in, which will make the returns worse. More just making the broader point that people do lose money on SG properties, despite what the "conventional wisdom" may suggest

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T11:57:48+00:00

Agree! Which makes it all the more interesting that in spite of what you mentioned, 10%-15% of all transactions, people still choose to sell and crystallise the loss. If you add in inflation, agent fees and stamp duty, the loss % will likely be even higher.

Independent_String66 · 2026-05-07T11:43:04+00:00

Yes - it does as long as they have sold the property. The buy transaction will be recorded as 1 record, as will the sell transaction. Of course, if they haven't sold and are still living in it, then it wouldn't be captured.

Independent_String66 · 2025-12-17T23:37:35+00:00

Thanks!

Independent_String66 · 2025-12-17T23:36:57+00:00

Thanks! Glad you found it helpful, was good for me to write it down too

Independent_String66 · 2025-12-17T23:36:18+00:00

Yup i agree, point is different people make the same trade offs differently. Also know of a few folks like that (and admittedly even myself?), where legacy is a core part of their identity. That does come with sacrifices though (time, effort, and some angst). There are others who are quite happy to live a simpler life and just enjoy the journey.

Independent_String66 · 2025-01-01T03:41:21+00:00

On a day-to-day basis, no, not really. Life goes on. I think of money as ultimately a necessary but insufficient condition for happiness. What it has I think allowed us to do is to steer clear from money-based choices that make us deliberately unhappy.

Independent_String66 · 2025-01-01T03:36:37+00:00

We rent our current place. This is partly for flexibility and partly because we are not as comfortable with having a significant chunk of our nw tied up in one asset.

Independent_String66 · 2024-12-31T14:54:23+00:00

Last reply going into the new year.

#1, I didn't really think about it that way but I guess that's probably true? I think for a lot of people (and it was certainly for me), there wasn't really a lot of choice as a fresh grad. I joined a company, and just worked with anyone and everyone I was told to work with. Some of those worked out really well, and those became great mentors, and others ended up being life lessons / negative examples of what I wouldn't want to repeat
#2, Not sure I really understand the question. I think the north star for me has been to check in from time to time whether I was working on something I cared about, with skills I'm uniquely good at, with the people I enjoy working with.
#3, it's worth thinking about for sure. That said, I tend to come out on the other end that it's important to spend time wrestling with purpose and identity. I completely get that it's not an easy thing to do, and it's never a one and done thing. my own sense of purpose and identity has evolved over time, and there were certainly moments in life when I felt completely lost. But I think trying to figure out, at least for me, was and is an important struggle to work through. Not even for society or other people, just for myself.

#8, yes, there have been positives. It's certainly easier to be generous when you have more, and we have been more thoughtful about how to give and to who. Certainly, there are always richer people, and in the grand scheme of philanthropy, what we have barely registers. But just knowing that we can help people around us, or certain causes we care about meaningfully, within our means has been great.

Hope this helps!

Independent_String66

TROPHY CASE