5 Condos You Will Regret Buying | Eric Chiew review

Overview / Business Angle

The speaker reviews five specific Singapore condominium projects and argues that many buyers undermine generational-wealth goals by self-sabotaging—for example, buying “rotten”/high-risk properties or ignoring key filters like demand, transaction activity, and project fundamentals.

A recurring theme is selectivity and timing:

• Buy where demand is active and investor sentiment is healthy.
• Avoid projects that show weak resale performance and other red flags.

---

Core “Playbook” / Decision Framework (Implicitly Repeated)

1) Generational-Wealth Filter

“If it’s the wrong property, even good intentions/leadership can’t fix it.”

2) Demand & Resale Activity Check

• Look for frequent transactions / healthy resale turnover
• Red flag: “no transactions for X months”

3) Owner Profitability Distribution

Classify outcomes by counts of profitable vs. unprofitable owners (examples cited):

• 125 profitable / 182 unprofitable
• 34 profitable / 0 unprofitable
• 1 profitable / 1 unprofitable
• 15 profitable / 2 unprofitable
• 41 profitable / 10 unprofitable

4) Project Fundamentals

The speaker repeatedly criticizes “luxury-only” motives and “no fundamentals” thinking.

• Avoid buying based on views, a luxury feel, or marketing narratives.
• Prefer projects grounded in real long-term tenant/buyer demand.

5) Tenant Risk / Investment Mode Red Flags (Tourist/Short-Stay Style)

He warns against projects that attract tourist rentals, Airbnb, or frequent short tenancies, implying:

• operational instability
• potential neighbor friction

6) Portfolio Management / Exit Timing

If you own a “shitty/rotten” property that can’t sell, he argues you should exit sooner rather than wait for market-driven losses.

• He frames this as cutting loss and reallocating capital
• Includes the idea of paying the agent fee and moving on to a better opportunity

---

Key Metrics & KPIs Mentioned (Property Performance)

The speaker repeatedly uses:

• Holding period (years)
• Net loss or “made” profit based on resale/sale comparisons
• Opportunity cost benchmark
  • “Benchmark of money making … about $100,000 per year”

Example Quantified Outcomes (Losses/Gains)

Note: The “finger/leg/liver/loss limbs” phrasing is used as a metaphor for magnitude; not all amounts are fully numeric in the snippets.

Reflections at Keppel Bay (Leasehold)

• Example loss: 2-bed held 16 years: -$67,400
• Opportunity cost benchmark over 16 years: ~$1.6M (100k/year × 16)

Mori at Geylang Bahru Road

• Freehold, ~1 year old (as described elsewhere in the summary)
• One unit: lost ~“one finger” (small negative)
• Another unit: made ~“six finger” (large positive; exact $ not provided)
• Snapshot: only two sub-sales since launch
• Both around $1.30M–$1.37M
• Dates referenced around Sep–Apr 2025

Antares (Mattar Road)

• “Two-bed 5 years”: +$154,000
• “Two-bed 5 years”: +$265,000
• “Two-bed 4 years”: +$50,000
• Downside distribution claim (for the referenced set): 34 profitable / 0 unprofitable

Resi 24 (Lorong 24 Geylang)

• Distribution: 15 profitable / 2 unprofitable
• Example: “3 years hold” → lost two legs (large negative; $ not provided)
• Example: “COVID timing” → 6 years hold: +$25,000

Final Project Near “Geylang Swiss”

• Distribution: 41 profitable / 10 unprofitable
• Example loss: “hold 8 years lost COE” (negative driver)
• Example upside:
  • “3-bedroom hold 9 years: +$217,000”
  • “Only this fellow is decent”: 9 years ~200k (positioned as relatively better)

---

Concrete Examples / Case Patterns Used for Recommendations

Reflections at Keppel Bay

• Leasehold, 15 years old at time of talk
• 1,129 units
• Presented as a “mega project,” but the speaker claims some sell decisions produced losses vs expectations
• Point: even “locationally atas” projects can perform poorly if buyers ignore demand/profitability realities

Mori (Geylang Bahru Road)

• Freehold, ~1 year old
• 137 units
• Weak market activity claim: “no transactions for the past 6 months”
• Comparison suggests outcomes can diverge based on unit/submarket/buy timing, not only headline attributes like “freehold never loses”

Antares (Mattar Road)

• Uses “no tennis court” as a metaphor for lack of luxury appeal (implied as good when aligned with fundamentals)
• Claims clean profitability distribution: 34 profitable / 0 unprofitable
• Cites multiple profitable holding-period outcomes

Resi 24 (Lorong 24 Geylang)

• Only 2 transactions in last 6 months
• 110 units
• “No tennis court”
• Strong buyer-behavior warning: don’t buy due to naming/theme or misleading narratives

Last Project (“Geylang Swiss” area)

• Freehold, 9 years old
• 146 units
• Mixed distribution: 41 profitable / 10 unprofitable
• Some long holds caused material losses
• One cited case as more acceptable: ~$200k over ~9 years

---

Actionable Recommendations (What to Do)

• Run structured due diligence before buying

  • Verify transaction activity (use resale evidence of demand)
  • Check profitable vs. unprofitable owner distribution for similar unit types

• Avoid “sell-sabo” behavior

  • Don’t buy because friends/marketing insist “it will make money”
  • Don’t rely on aspirational attributes alone (views/luxury/freehold)

• Exit weak positions

  • If your unit is “shitty/rotten” and cannot sell, don’t wait passively for the market to worsen
  • He recommends selling at a “good time,” treating agent fees as part of capital reallocation cost

• Be selective about your “peer environment”

  • He humorously suggests removing friends from contacts if they buy into the listed “bad” projects—framed as protecting decision quality

---

Marketing / Persuasion Tactics Used

• Fear + moral framing (e.g., “why you are poor,” “self-sabotage,” “generational wealth”) to push stricter selection
• Social proof via data counts
  • profitable/unprofitable distributions
• Time-horizon evidence
  • outcomes across holding periods (e.g., 4/5/6/8/9/10/12/14/16 years)

---

Presenters / Sources

• Eric Chiew — podcast host / main speaker (also author of the video review content)
• Marcus Lua — Chief Group Officer, PropNex
• OUE — thanked as an organization (context: “OUE for having me”)